        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 120924488-3473-01]
        RIN 0648-BC60
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery Off the Southern Atlantic States; Regulatory Amendment 15

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes regulations to implement Regulatory Amendment 15 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP), as prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council). Regulatory Amendment 15 would revise the optimum yield (OY) and the annual catch limit (ACL) for yellowtail snapper. If implemented, this rule would increase the commercial and recreational ACLs and recreational annual catch target (ACT) for yellowtail snapper harvested in or from the South Atlantic exclusive economic zone (EEZ). This rule would also modify the commercial ACL and the accountability measure (AM) for gag that requires a closure of all other South Atlantic shallow-water grouper (SASWG) when the gag commercial ACL is met or projected to be met. This rule also proposes several administrative changes to regulatory text, which are unrelated to the measures contained in Regulatory Amendment 15. The intent of this rule is to provide socio-economic benefits to snapper-grouper fishermen and communities that utilize the snapper-grouper resource, while maintaining fishing mortality at sustainable levels according to the best scientific information available.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before June 24, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the amendment identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2013-0088” by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic submissions: Submit electronic comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013-0088, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Rick DeVictor, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Electronic copies of Regulatory Amendment 15, which includes an environmental assessment, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sf/pdfs/SGRegAmend15.pdf.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Rick DeVictor, Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email: rick.devictor@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic, which includes yellowtail snapper and SASWG species (i.e., gag, black grouper, red grouper, scamp, red hind, rock hind, yellowmouth grouper, yellowfin grouper, graysby, and coney), is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
        Background
        Yellowtail Snapper
        The state of Florida completed a stock assessment for yellowtail snapper in May 2012. The yellowtail snapper stock is neither overfished nor currently undergoing overfishing. The assessment results suggest the yellowtail snapper catch levels could be increased without jeopardizing the health of the population. Both the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils' Scientific and Statistical Committees (SSCs) reviewed the assessment in October 2012 and determined the assessment to be based upon the best scientific information available and provided a new acceptable biological catch (ABC) recommendation that is greater than the previous recommendation.
        While the Council and NMFS were developing Regulatory Amendment 15, the Council requested an emergency rule under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to temporarily increase the yellowtail snapper commercial ACL. On November 7, 2012, NMFS implemented a temporary rule to increase the commercial ACL in the South Atlantic to prevent unnecessary adverse socioeconomic impacts on snapper-grouper fishermen (77 FR 66744). The temporary rule was effective through May 6, 2013, and was extended through November 28, 2013 (78 FR 25213, April 30, 2013), unless superseded by other rulemaking.
        Gag and Other South Atlantic Shallow-Water Grouper

        The final rule to implement Amendment 16 to the FMP established a suite of management measures to end the overfishing of gag (74 FR 30964, June 29, 2009). These measures included reducing the aggregate bag limit for groupers and tilefishes, reducing the bag limit for gag and black grouper combined, establishing a commercial quota for gag, and establishing a 4-month seasonal closure for SASWG species. The final rule also implemented a management measure that closes the commercial sector for gag and all other SASWG for the remainder of the fishing year when the gag quota (now called an ACL) is met. This measure was implemented to reduce bycatch of gag. However, new information suggests the closure of gag and all other SASWG is not as effective as previously thought at reducing bycatch of gag. Recent studies suggest that, with the exception of red grouper and scamp, gag are not as closely associated in landings with the other SASWG species.

        In addition, the closure of gag and all other SASWG species was implemented at a time when the SASWG complex did not have ACLs and AMs to prevent overfishing from occurring. The final rule to implement Amendment 17B to the FMP established ACLs and AMs for gag, and the closure of gag and all other SASWG species when the gag ACL is met became a commercial AM for gag (75 FR 82280, December 30, 2010). The red grouper ACLs and AMs were established through the final rule to implement Amendment 24 to the FMP (77 FR 34254, June 11, 2012), and ACLs and AMs were established for the other SASWG species in the final rule to implement the Comprehensive ACL Amendment (77 FR 15916, March 16, 2012).
        Because of the new information that SASWG species, except for red grouper and scamp, do not co-occur with gag, NMFS has determined that the closure of all other SASWG species when the gag ACL is met is no longer necessary to help reduce any overfishing of gag. Also, because of the implementation of ACLs and AMs for the other SASWG species, the closure of gag and all other SASWG species when the gag ACL is met is no longer necessary to protect the other SASWG species because they now have their own catch limits.
        Management Measures Contained in This Proposed Rule
        This rule would implement management measures affecting yellowtail snapper, gag and other SASWG harvested in or from the South Atlantic EEZ.
        Yellowtail Snapper
        This rule would increase the commercial ACL, recreational ACL, and recreational ACT for yellowtail snapper. The commercial ACL would increase from 1,142,589 lb (518,270 kg), round weight, to 1,596,510 lb (725,686 kg), round weight. The recreational ACL would increase from 1,031,286 lb (467,783 kg), round weight, to 1,440,990 lb (653,622 kg), round weight. And the recreational ACT would increase from 897,160 lb (406,945 kg), round weight, to 1,253,661 lb (568,651 kg), round weight.
        Gag and Other South Atlantic Shallow-Water Grouper

        This rule would modify the commercial AM for gag so that only the commercial sector for gag would close when the gag commercial ACL is met or projected to be met. The ACLs and AMs for all other SASWG species would remain unchanged. This proposed rule would also reduce the gag commercial ACL from 353,940 lb (160,544 kg), gutted weight, to 326,722 lb (148,199 kg), gutted weight, to account for projected gag discard mortality from commercial trips that target co-occurring species (i.e., red grouper and scamp) during a gag closure.
        Other Changes to Codified Text
        This rule would make several changes to the regulatory text in 50 CFR part 622 that are administrative in nature and unrelated to Regulatory Amendment 15. In two paragraphs within § 622.183, “fishery” would be changed to “sector” to clarify that it is a commercial sector or recreational sector within a specific fishery and to be consistent with other regulations in part 622.
        Black grouper and red grouper would be removed from the heading of § 622.190(c)(1), restrictions applicable after a commercial quota closure, because black grouper and red grouper no longer have quotas, only ACLs and AMs.
        In several paragraphs within § 622.193, “fishery” would be changed to “sector”, for clarification and consistency purposes. Also in § 622.193, the specific years for evaluating the recreational landings relative to the ACL would be removed from the regulatory text because these years will keep changing. Instead, more general language would be included in the regulatory text, specifically “recreational landings would be evaluated relative to the ACL based on a moving multi-year average of landings, as described in the FMP.” In addition, closure provisions are included in the regulatory text for snowy grouper when the recreational post-season AM is implemented, because these closure provisions were inadvertently not included in the final rule to implement the Comprehensive ACL Amendment.
        In Table 4 of Appendix A to Part 622, “Grass porgy, Calamus arctifrons” would be removed from the table because this species was removed from the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery management unit in the Comprehensive ACL Amendment, however, it was inadvertently not removed from the regulations during implementation of that amendment.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this rule is consistent with Regulatory Amendment 15, the FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination is as follows.
        The purposes of the rule and Regulatory Amendment 15 are to modify the existing specification of OY and the ACL for yellowtail snapper in the South Atlantic and modify the existing gag commercial ACL and the AM for gag that requires a closure of all other SASWG in the South Atlantic when the gag commercial ACL is met or projected to be met. The Magnuson-Stevens Act serves as the legal basis for the rule.
        This rule is expected to directly affect commercial fishing vessels that possess commercial snapper-grouper permits and for-hire vessels that possess for-hire snapper-grouper permits for the South Atlantic. The Small Business Administration has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the U.S. including fish harvesters. A business involved in fish harvesting is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $4.0 million (NAICS code 114111, finfish fishing) for all its affiliated operations worldwide. For for-hire vessels, the other qualifiers apply and the receipts threshold is $7.0 million (NAICS code 713990, recreational industries).

        A commercial snapper-grouper permit is required to commercially harvest yellowtail snapper or SASWG, including gag, in the South Atlantic EEZ. As of October 30, 2012, 690 vessels had a commercial snapper-grouper permit. As a result, this rule would be estimated to directly affect 690 commercial fishing businesses. The average annual gross revenue per commercial vessel in the snapper-grouper fishery for 2008 through 2011 was approximately $28,000 (2011 dollars). The maximum annual gross revenue for these vessels was approximately $618,000. On July 9, 2012, 1,524 vessels had a South Atlantic for-hire snapper-grouper permit. For-hire permits do not distinguish charter vessels from headboats but an estimated 75 headboats are believed to possess a for-hire snapper-grouper permit. In 2009, South Atlantic charter vessels received an average of approximately $109,000 (2011 dollars) in revenue and headboats received an average of $195,000 (2011 dollars).
        Based on the information above, all commercial and for-hire fishing vessels expected to be directly affected by this rule are determined for the purpose of this analysis to be small business entities.
        The proposed revision to the yellowtail snapper ACL and OY would increase the commercial yellowtail snapper ACL by 453,921 lb (206,328 kg) and the recreational yellowtail snapper ACL by 409,704 lb (186,229 kg), round weight. The increase in the commercial ACL is expected to result in an increase in total gross revenue of approximately $1.3 million per year for the commercial sector, or approximately $2,790 per vessel per year for the estimated 465 vessels expected to commercially harvest yellowtail snapper. This change represents an increase of approximately 8.5 percent in annual gross revenue per vessel, on average. The proportional effect on average annual profit for these vessels cannot be determined with available data.
        With respect to the proposed increase in the recreational yellowtail snapper ACL, the current recreational yellowtail snapper ACL is not harvested. As a result, an increase in the ACL would not be expected to result in an increase in angler demand, and associated for-hire revenue or profit in the short term. However, increased demand, and associated revenue and profit, may occur in the future.
        The proposed changes in the commercial AM and ACL for gag are expected to result in a gain in annual gross revenue of $263,843 from other SASWG and a reduction in annual gross revenue of $142,102 from gag, respectively. Combined, these proposed actions would be expected to result in a net gain in total annual gross revenue of $121,741. This increase would represent approximately $320 per affected vessel, or approximately 1 percent in annual gross revenue.
        In addition to the actions considered in Regulatory Amendment 15 and included in this proposed rule, this proposed rule would make several changes to the regulatory text in 50 CFR part 622. These proposed changes are described in the preamble. These changes clarify language associated with prior regulatory action or are revised for consistency purposes and are therefore administrative in nature. These administrative changes would not generate any direct economic effects.
        As a result of the information above, a reduction in profits for a substantial number of small entities is not expected. Because this rule, if implemented, is not expected to have a significant adverse economic effect on a substantial number of small entities, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
        No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. This rule would not establish any new reporting or record-keeping requirements.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622
          Fisheries, Fishing, Gag, Shallow-Water Grouper, South Atlantic, Yellowtail snapper.

          Dated: May 21, 2013.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, performing the functions and duties of the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC

        1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

        2. In § 622.183, the introductory heading in paragraph (b)(1) is revised and the introductory heading and first sentence in paragraph (b)(4) are revised to read as follows:

          § 622.183
          Area and seasonal closures.

          (b) * * *
          (1) Seasonal closure of the commercial and recreational sectors for gag and associated grouper species. * * *

          (4) Seasonal closure of the recreational sector for vermilion snapper. The recreational sector for vermilion snapper in or from the South Atlantic EEZ is closed from November 1 through March 31, each year. * * *

        3. In § 622.190, paragraph (a)(7) and the heading of paragraph (c)(1) are revised to read as follows:

          § 622.190
          Quotas.

          (a) * * *
          (7) Gag—326,722 lb (148,199 kg).

          (c) * * *
          (1) South Atlantic gag, greater amberjack, snowy grouper, golden tilefish, vermilion snapper, black sea bass, red porgy, and wreckfish. * * *

        4. In § 622.193, paragraphs (b), (c), and the first sentence in paragraphs (n)(1)(i) and (n)(2) are revised to read as follows:

          § 622.193
          Annual catch limits (ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs), and accountability measures (AMs).

          (b) Snowy grouper—(1) Commercial sector. If commercial landings, as estimated by the SRD, reach or are projected to reach the quota specified in § 622.190(a)(1), the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to close the commercial sector for snowy grouper for the remainder of the fishing year.
          (2) Recreational sector. If recreational landings, as estimated by the SRD, exceed the recreational ACL of 523 fish, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, at or near the beginning of the following fishing year, to reduce the length of the following recreational fishing season by the amount necessary to ensure recreational landings do not exceed the recreational ACL in the following fishing year. When NMFS reduces the length of the following recreational fishing season, the following closure provisions apply: the bag and possession limit for snowy grouper in or from the South Atlantic EEZ is zero. This bag and possession limit also applies in the South Atlantic on board a vessel for which a valid Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper has been issued, without regard to where such species were harvested, i.e., in state or Federal waters. Recreational landings will be evaluated relative to the ACL based on a moving multi-year average of landings, as described in the FMP.
          (c) Gag—(1) Commercial sector. If commercial landings, as estimated by the SRD, reach or are projected to reach the quota specified in § 622.190(a)(7), the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to close the commercial sector for gag for the remainder of the fishing year.
          (2) Recreational sector. (i) If recreational landings, as estimated by the SRD, reach or are projected to reach the recreational ACL of 340,060 lb (154,249 kg), gutted weight, and gag are overfished, based on the most recent Status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to close the gag recreational sector for the remainder of the fishing year. On and after the effective date of such notification, the bag and possession limit for gag in or from the South Atlantic EEZ is zero. This bag and possession limit also applies in the South Atlantic on board a vessel for which a valid Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper has been issued, without regard to where such species were harvested, i.e., in state or Federal waters.
          (ii) Without regard to overfished status, if gag recreational landings exceed the ACL, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, at or near the beginning of the following fishing year, to reduce the ACL for that fishing year by the amount of the overage.
          (iii) Recreational landings will be evaluated relative to the ACL based on a moving multi-year average of landings, as described in the FMP.

          (n) * * *
          (1) * * *

          (i) If commercial landings for yellowtail snapper, as estimated by the SRD, reach or are projected to reach the commercial ACL of 1,596,510 lb (724,165 kg), round weight, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to close the commercial sector for the remainder of the fishing year. On and after the effective date of such a notification, all sale or purchase of yellowtail snapper is prohibited and harvest or possession of this species in or from the South Atlantic EEZ is limited to the bag and possession limit. This bag and possession limit applies in the South Atlantic on board a vessel for which a valid Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper has been issued, without regard to where such species were harvested, i.e., in state or Federal waters.

          (2) * * * If recreational landings for yellowtail snapper, as estimated by the SRD, exceed the recreational ACL of 1,440,990 lb (653,622 kg), round weight, then during the following fishing year, recreational landings will be monitored for a persistence in increased landings and, if necessary, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, to reduce the length of the following recreational fishing season by the amount necessary to ensure recreational landings do not exceed the recreational ACL in the following fishing year. * * *

        5. In Appendix A to part 622, Table 4 is revised to read as follows:

          Appendix A to Part 622—Species Tables

            Table 4 of Appendix A to Part 622—South Atlantic Snapper-Grouper

              Balistidae—Triggerfishes

              Gray triggerfish, Balistes capriscus

              Carangidae—Jacks

              Blue runner, Caranx bartholomaei

              Bar jack, Caranx ruber

              Greater amberjack, Seriola dumerili

              Lesser amberjack, Seriola fasciata

              Almaco jack, Seriola rivoliana

              Banded rudderfish, Seriola zonata

              Ephippidae—Spadefishes

              Spadefish, Chaetodipterus faber

              Haemulidae—Grunts

              Margate, Haemulon album

              Tomtate, Haemulon aurolineatum

              Sailor's choice, Haemulon parrai

              White grunt, Haemulon plumieri

              Labridae—Wrasses

              Hogfish, Lachnolaimus maximus

              Lutjanidae—Snappers

              Black snapper, Apsilus dentatus

              Queen snapper, Etelis oculatus

              Mutton snapper, Lutjanus analis

              Blackfin snapper, Lutjanus buccanella

              Red snapper, Lutjanus campechanus

              Cubera snapper, Lutjanus cyanopterus

              Gray snapper, Lutjanus griseus

              Mahogany snapper, Lutjanus mahogoni

              Dog snapper, Lutjanus jocu

              Lane snapper, Lutjanus synagris

              Silk snapper, Lutjanus vivanus

              Yellowtail snapper, Ocyurus chrysurus

              Vermilion snapper, Rhomboplites aurorubens

              Malacanthidae—Tilefishes

              Blueline tilefish, Caulolatilus microps

              Golden tilefish, Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps

              Sand tilefish, Malacanthus plumieri

              Percichthyidae—Temperate basses

              Wreckfish, Polyprion americanus

              Serranidae—Groupers

              Rock hind, Epinephelus adscensionis

              Graysby, Epinephelus cruentatus

              Speckled hind, Epinephelus drummondhayi

              Yellowedge grouper, Epinephelus flavolimbatus

              Coney, Epinephelus fulvus

              Red hind, Epinephelus guttatus

              Goliath grouper, Epinephelus itajara

              Red grouper, Epinephelus morio

              Misty grouper, Epinephelus mystacinus

              Warsaw grouper, Epinephelus nigritus

              Snowy grouper, Epinephelus niveatus

              Nassau grouper, Epinephelus striatus

              Black grouper, Mycteroperca bonaci

              Yellowmouth grouper, Mycteroperca interstitialis

              Gag, Mycteroperca microlepis

              Scamp, Mycteroperca phenax

              Yellowfin grouper, Mycteroperca venenosa

              Serranidae—Sea Basses

              Black sea bass, Centropristis striata

              Sparidae—Porgies

              Jolthead porgy, Calamus bajonado

              Saucereye porgy, Calamus calamus

              Whitebone porgy, Calamus leucosteus

              Knobbed porgy, Calamus nodosus

              Red porgy, Pagrus pagrus

              Scup, Stenotomus chrysops

          The following species are designated as ecosystem component species:

          Cottonwick, Haemulon melanurum

          Bank sea bass, Centropristis ocyurus

          Rock sea bass, Centropristis philadelphica

          Longspine porgy, Stenotomus caprinus

          Ocean triggerfish, Canthidermis sufflamen

          Schoolmaster, Lutjanus apodus

      [FR Doc. 2013-12447 Filed 5-23-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [Docket No. 071029545-7545-01]
        RIN 0648-AU85
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Individual Fishing Quota Program; Community Development Quota Program

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes regulations to modify the Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program for the fixed-gear commercial Pacific halibut fishery and sablefish fishery by revising regulations governing use of commercial halibut quota share (QS) and processing of non-IFQ species when processed halibut is onboard a vessel. This action would amend current regulations to allow persons holding category A halibut QS to process IFQ regardless of whether a QS holder with unused category B, C, or D halibut QS is onboard the vessel. This action also would allow catcher/processor vessels to process non-IFQ species regardless of whether any processed IFQ species is onboard the vessel. This action is necessary to improve the efficiency of fishermen fishing on catcher/processor vessels. The intended effect of this action is to allow halibut QS holders greater flexibility in using their QS, allow use of crew who hold unused category B, C, or D halibut QS while onboard a category A halibut QS vessel, and increase the product quality of non-IFQ species harvested incidentally to IFQ halibut.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received no later than December 14, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:
          Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Comments may be submitted by:
          • Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802;
          • Hand Delivery to the Federal Building: 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK;
          • Fax: 907-586-7557;
          • E-mail: OMNIV-PR-0648-AU85@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line of the e-mail the following document identifier: IFQ Halibut Sablefish 0648-AU85. E-mail comments, with or without attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes; or
          • Webform at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions at that site for submitting comments.

          Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
          NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Copies of the Categorical Exclusion (CE), Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) prepared for this action may be obtained from the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) at 605 West 4th, Suite 306, Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2252, 907-271-2809, or the NMFS Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, Alaska 99802, Attn: Ellen Sebastian, and on the NMFS Alaska Region website at http://www.noaa.fakr.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jay Ginter, 907-586-7228 or jay.ginter@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) and NMFS manage fishing for Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) through regulations established under the authority of the Convention between the United States and Canada for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea (Convention) and the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act). The IPHC promulgates regulations pursuant to the Convention. The IPHC's regulations are subject to approval by the Secretary of State with concurrence from the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary). After approval by the Secretary of State and the Secretary, the IPHC regulations are published in the Federal Register as annual management measures pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62 (72 FR 11792; March 14, 2007).
        The Halibut Act also authorizes the Council to develop and submit regulations to the Secretary to allocate harvesting privileges among U.S. fishermen. Regulations developed by the Council are implemented only with the approval of the Secretary. Like the original IFQ Program regulations and subsequent amendments to them, this action was developed by the Council under authority of the Halibut Act.
        The Council, under the authority of the Halibut Act (with respect to Pacific halibut) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (with respect to sablefish), adopted the IFQ Program in 1991. The Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program established a limited access system for managing the fixed gear Pacific halibut fishery in Convention waters in and off Alaska and sablefish fisheries in waters of the Exclusive Economic Zone, located between 3 and 200 miles off Alaska. The IFQ Program was approved by NMFS in January 1993, and promulgated in Federal regulation on November 9, 1993 (58 FR 59375). Fishing under the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program began on March 15, 1995, ending the open access fishery which preceded its implementation. Regulations implementing the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program are at 50 CFR part 679. In addition, Federal regulations at 50 CFR part 300, subpart E, also govern the halibut IFQ fishery.

        The Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program was developed to reduce fishing capacity that had increased during years of management as an open access fishery, while maintaining the social and economic character of the fixed gear fishery that is relied on as a source of revenue for coastal communities in Alaska. The Council and the Secretary concluded that the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program would provide economic stability for the commercial hook-and-line fishery while reducing many of the conservation and management problems commonly associated with open access fisheries. The proposed rule for the IFQ Program (57 FR 57130; December 3, 1992) describes, in detail, the background leading to the Council's adoption of the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program.
        Under the IFQ Program, QS represents a harvesting privilege for a person. On an annual basis, QS holders are authorized to harvest a specified poundage which is issued by NMFS as IFQ. The specific amount of IFQ held by a person is determined by the number of QS units held, the total number of QS units issued in a specific regulatory area, and the total pounds of sablefish or halibut allocated for the IFQ fisheries in a particular year. Fishermen may harvest the IFQ over the entire fishing season, which in 2007 is March 10 through November 15 for halibut (72 FR 11792; March 14, 2007) and during the same period for the sablefish (72 FR 9676; March 5, 2007). Generally, an IFQ holder must be onboard at the time his or her IFQ is fished. This requirement was designed to maintain a predominantly owner-operated fishery that was a characteristic of the fishery prior to the implementation of the IFQ Program.
        Federal regulations at 50 CFR 679.40(a)(5) divide QS into vessel categories (A, B, C, and D for halibut and A, B, and C for sablefish) with unique restrictions designed to prevent excessive consolidation and regulate total harvest. Category A QS holders are authorized to harvest and process either IFQ species on a vessel of any length. Category B QS holders may harvest either IFQ species from any size vessel, but may not process halibut or sablefish onboard. Category C QS holders may harvest, but may not process, either IFQ species on a vessel that is less than or equal to 60 ft (18.3 m) length overall (LOA). Finally, category D QS holders may harvest, but not process, halibut on vessels less than or equal to 35 ft (10.7 m) LOA. Vessels that harvest fish only and do not process those fish commonly are referred to as “catcher vessels” while vessels capable of harvesting and processing are referred to as “catcher/processors.” Hence, vessels in category A are catcher/processor vessels and those in categories B, C, and D are catcher vessels.
        With few exceptions, halibut QS or IFQ assigned to a vessel category may not be used to harvest IFQ species on a vessel of a different category. Again, this vessel category system was intended by the Council and the Secretary to maintain a predominantly owner-operated fishery by protecting the QS and IFQ held by small vessel owners from being purchased and used on large vessels.
        The IFQ Program initially included other provisions designed to protect small catcher vessels from potential economic competition with larger catcher/processors. Among these economic protection measures was a prohibition against processing non-IFQ species (e.g., Pacific cod) onboard a vessel on which a person held catcher vessel IFQ for either IFQ species. This prohibition responded to a concern that owners of large catcher/processor vessels could harvest a large portion of halibut or sablefish that would ordinarily be harvested by smaller catcher vessels. The result could be an increase in harvesting of IFQ species on catcher/processor vessels and a decrease in harvesting of IFQ species on smaller catcher vessels that historically landed their catch at shoreside processors located in small coastal communities. This could have a detrimental socioeconomic effect on these small communities that rely on revenue generated from catcher vessel deliveries to shoreside processors located in these small coastal communities.
        Although concern for the economic vitality of coastal communities remained strong, the Council recommended relaxing part of this prohibition with regard to sablefish soon after the initial implementation of the IFQ Program. The Council proposed and the Secretary approved Amendment 33 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area and Amendment 37 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska. A proposed rule for Amendments 33 and 37 was published April 2, 1996 (61 FR 14547) and a final rule was published June 27, 1996 (61 FR 33382). These amendments and their implementing regulations allowed persons with category A QS to process non-IFQ species when a person with unused sablefish IFQ derived from QS categories B, C or D is onboard the catcher/processor vessel. The amendments also allowed holders of category A QS to harvest IFQ sablefish when persons holding unused catcher vessel sablefish IFQ were onboard the vessel.
        The prohibition on processing non-IFQ species resulted in the unanticipated waste of species caught incidentally to halibut and sablefish, especially rockfish and Pacific cod. With some exceptions, Federal regulations require fishermen to retain all Pacific cod and rockfish caught incidentally in IFQ halibut and sablefish fisheries. The retention requirement forces fishermen to consider the impact that their time at-sea will have on product quality if at-sea processing is not an option. This is especially problematic in the IFQ fisheries because non-IFQ species such as Pacific cod and rockfish are reported to degrade at a quicker rate than IFQ species. Thus, fishermen focus effort on valuable IFQ species and choose to not offload species of lesser value in a condition that would allow the product to be graded as high quality. In severe situations, non-IFQ species may be offloaded in such poor condition that they must be discarded or can only be processed into low value products.
        Amendments 33 and 37 and their implementing regulations relieved the prohibition on processing of non-IFQ species only with regard to sablefish IFQ, but not halibut IFQ. The Council did not extend the regulations to the halibut fishery because (a) participation in the halibut fishery includes many small local vessels that do not have processing capabilities, and (b) the Council wanted to maintain a diverse fishing fleet where all segments continue to exist along with the social structures associated with those segments.
        However, the same issues that led the Council to relieve the processing prohibition with regard to sablefish IFQ occurred with regard to halibut IFQ. In addition to the unanticipated waste of non-IFQ species, persons fishing halibut IFQ derived from category A QS could not process any species if a person onboard the vessel held unused halibut IFQ derived from category B, C, or D QS. Also, operators of catcher/processor vessels fishing for Pacific cod, for example, would have to employ crew members who did not have unused catcher vessel IFQ (i.e., IFQ derived from category B, C, or D halibut QS) for halibut, or catcher/process operators would have to delay fishing for non-IFQ species until all crew members onboard had fully used their catcher vessel IFQ for halibut. Hence, the processing restriction limited the crew that could be onboard catcher/processor vessels and the timing of fishing by catcher/processor vessels.

        In October 2004, the Council reviewed two proposals requesting that regulations similar to the non-IFQ species processing exception provided for the sablefish IFQ fishery in Amendments 33 and 37 be applied also to the halibut IFQ fishery. One proposal recommended relieving restrictions that prohibit a catcher/processor vessel with category A QS from harvesting and processing halibut if a person with unused category B, C, or D QS is onboard the vessel. A second proposal recommended allowing processed non-IFQ species to be onboard a vessel that is otherwise authorized to process IFQ species and non-IFQ species. Both proposals would require the same regulatory change, although each proposal was different.
        This proposed action would satisfy both proposals and is intended to increase the revenue generated from harvested species by (1) allowing non-IFQ fish species to be processed on a vessel otherwise authorized to process fish, rather than allowing non-IFQ species to degrade into low value products or be wasted while IFQ species are sought; and (2) allowing processed and unprocessed IFQ species to be onboard the same vessel during the same fishing trip. For example, this proposed regulation would allow a person holding category A halibut IFQ to harvest halibut and process all incidentally caught fish species if a person onboard the vessel held unused category B, C, or D QS. Additionally, catcher/processor vessel operators could employ crew members who hold unused halibut IFQ derived from QS categories B, C, or D.
        In December 2004, the Council initiated an analysis of the proposals presented at its October 2004 meeting. In February 2005, the Council combined the regulatory proposals into a single alternative for analysis. The Council released the analysis for public review in December 2005 and adopted a recommendation to the Secretary for this proposed regulatory amendment in June 2006.
        This proposed action would allow the processing of non-IFQ and IFQ species on a vessel that is otherwise authorized to process non-IFQ species when any amount of halibut IFQ resulting from QS in categories B, C, or D are held by persons onboard the vessel. This action would not allow the processing of category B, C, or D halibut IFQ onboard a catcher/processor vessel. Instead, this action would allow persons possessing unused catcher vessel category B, C, or D halibut QS to be onboard a catcher/processor vessel when that vessel is harvesting and processing category A halibut or sablefish IFQ or is harvesting and processing non-IFQ species. This action is proposed to relieve a restriction on catcher/processor vessels which would increase their efficiency. The proposed regulatory change would remove regulatory text currently at §§ 679.7(f)(13) and (14) and § 679.42(k). No new regulatory text is proposed.
        Classification
        The proposed rule does not modify recordkeeping or reporting requirements, or duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any Federal rules. This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. This proposed rule also complies with the Halibut Act and the Secretary's authority to implement allocation measures for the management of the halibut fishery.

        An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The IRFA describes the economic impact that this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on directly regulated small entities. A business is considered a small entity if annual gross revenues are less than $4.0 million. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A description of this action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are presented above in the preamble to this rule. A summary of the IRFA follows.
        Summary of IRFA
        The Council reviewed two alternatives: the “no action” alternative; and the “preferred alternative.” The preferred alternative would directly regulate approximately 3,233 persons holding category B, C, or D halibut QS, 33 catcher/processor vessels, and 1,312 vessels that hold catcher vessel endorsements for vessels less than 60 ft (18.6 m) length overall on their license limitation permits. NMFS does not possess sufficient ownership and affiliation information to determine the precise number of quota share holders considered small entities in the IFQ Program or the number of small entities that would be adversely impacted by this action. NMFS assumes that all directly regulated entities have gross revenues less than $4 million, and that they are thus small entities for the purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. In 2004, 1,335 unique IFQ vessels made IFQ landings.
        Compared with status quo, the preferred alternative may increase the revenue generated from non-IFQ species harvested by increasing the quality of offloaded product. The preferred alternative would allow QS holders already authorized to process fish at-sea to optimize the revenue generated from harvested non-IFQ groundfish. Processing capacity is not expected to increase because the number of vessels currently authorized to process groundfish catch onboard while harvesting IFQ derived from category A quota share would not change. The preferred alternative also may increase benefits to persons holding QS because it allows IFQ to be processed regardless of whether another quota share holder is onboard, including crew holding catcher vessel category B, C, or D QS who are working onboard vessels with category A QS.
        NMFS is not aware of any additional alternatives to those considered that would accomplish the objectives of the action and that would minimize the economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. The Council received two proposals on this issue, incorporated them both into the preferred alternative, and evaluated them jointly after a preliminary review found that they were functionally the same. The Council's action alternative would completely repeal the subject requirements. Repeal would remove a restriction from directly regulated entities and potentially lead to increased profits. Other alternatives might have been designed to limit the ability of this action to accomplish the objectives, by limiting the scope of the repeal to particular species or halibut QS classes, or by providing for a delayed effective date. However, these alternatives would not have been significantly different from the action alternative. They would not have involved substantively different approaches to addressing the problem that had been identified. Moreover, since this is an action to relax a restriction on directly regulated small entities, these alternatives would only have reduced the potential benefits of this action for these small entities or the classes of entities that might benefit from them.

        According to NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6, including the criteria used to determine significance, this rule would not have a significant effect, individually or cumulatively, on the human environment beyond those effects identified in the previous National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis. An environmental impact statement (EIS; dated December 1992) was prepared for the final rule implementing the original halibut and sablefish IFQ and CDQ programs (58 FR 59375; November 9, 1993). The scope of the EIS includes the potential environmental impacts of this proposed rule because the EIS analyzed the original IFQ Program, which included analyses of biological and socioeconomic impacts on the environment, affected fishermen, and affected communities. Based on the nature of the proposed rule and the previous environmental analysis, this proposed rule is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare either an EIS or an environmental assessment, in accordance with Section 5.05b of NAO 216-6. Copies of the EIS for the original halibut and sablefish IFQ and CDQ programs and the categorical exclusion for this action are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
          Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

          Dated: November 6, 2007.
          John Oliver
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA

        1. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 773 et seq. , 1801 et seq. , 3631 et seq. ; and Pub. L. 108 199, 118 Stat. 110.

          § 679.7
          [Amended]

        2. In § 679.7, paragraph (f)(13) is removed and reserved, paragraph (f)(15) is removed, and paragraphs (f)(16) and (f)(17) are redesignated as paragraphs (f)(15) and (f)(16), respectively.

          § 679.42
          [Amended]

        3. In § 679.42, paragraph (k) is removed and paragraph (l) is redesignated as paragraph (k).

      [FR Doc. E7-22237 Filed 11-13-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
        Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
        42 CFR Part 495
        [CMS-0052-P]
        RIN 0938-AS30
        Office of the Secretary
        45 CFR Part 170
        RIN 0991-AB97
        Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Modifications to the Medicare and Medicaid Electronic Health Record Incentive Programs for 2014; and Health Information Technology: Revisions to the Certified EHR Technology Definition

          AGENCY:
          Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), HHS.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          This proposed rule would change the meaningful use stage timeline and the definition of certified electronic health record technology (CEHRT). It would also change the requirements for the reporting of clinical quality measures for 2014.

          DATES:
          To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on July 21, 2014.

          ADDRESSES:
          In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-0052-P. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission.
          You may submit comments in one of four ways (please choose only one of the ways listed):
          1. Electronically. You may submit electronic comments on this regulation to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the “Submit a comment” instructions.
          2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following address ONLY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-0052-P, P.O. Box 8013, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.
          Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.
          3. By express or overnight mail. You may send written comments to the following address ONLY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-0052-P, Mail Stop C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.
          4. By hand or courier. Alternatively, you may deliver (by hand or courier) your written comments ONLY to the following addresses prior to the close of the comment period:
          a. For delivery in Washington, DC—Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Room 445-G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201.
          (Because access to the interior of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not readily available to persons without Federal government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being filed.)

          b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD—Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.
          If you intend to deliver your comments to the Baltimore address, call telephone number (410) 786-7195 in advance to schedule your arrival with one of our staff members.
          Comments erroneously mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment period.

          For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Elizabeth Holland, (410) 786-1309.
          Elisabeth Myers, (410) 786-4751.
          Steven Posnack, (202) 690-7151.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

          Inspection of Public Comments: All comments received before the close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public, including any personally identifiable or confidential business information that is included in a comment. We post all comments received before the close of the comment period on the following Web site as soon as possible after they have been received: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the search instructions on that Web site to view public comments.
        Comments received timely will also be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, phone 1-800-743-3951.
        I. Background
        A. Statutory Basis for the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs
        The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) (Pub. L. 111-5) amended Titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act (the Act) to authorize incentive payments to eligible professionals (EPs), eligible hospitals, critical access hospitals (CAHs), and Medicare Advantage (MA) organizations to promote the adoption and meaningful use of certified electronic health record (EHR) technology. Sections 1848(o), 1853(l) and (m), 1886(n), and 1814(l) of the Act provide the statutory basis for the Medicare incentive payments made to meaningful EHR users. These statutory provisions govern EPs, MA organizations (for certain qualifying EPs and hospitals that meaningfully use certified EHR technology (CEHRT), subsection (d) hospitals, and CAHs, respectively. Sections 1848(a)(7), 1853(l) and (m), 1886(b)(3)(B), and 1814(l) of the Act also establish downward payment adjustments, beginning with calendar or fiscal year 2015, for EPs, MA organizations, subsection (d) hospitals, and CAHs that are not meaningful users of CEHRT for certain associated reporting periods. Sections 1903(a)(3)(F) and 1903(t) of the Act provide the statutory basis for Medicaid incentive payments.
        B. Considerations in Defining Meaningful Use and CEHRT
        In sections 1848(o)(2)(A) and 1886(n)(3)(A) of the Act, the Congress identified the broad goal of expanding the use of EHRs through the concept of meaningful use. Section 1903(t)(6)(C) of the Act also requires that Medicaid providers adopt, implement, upgrade, or meaningfully use CEHRT if they are to receive incentives under Title XIX of the Act. CEHRT used in a meaningful way is one piece of the broader health information technology (HIT) infrastructure needed to reform the health care system and improve health care quality, efficiency, and patient safety. This vision of reforming the health care system and improving health care quality, efficiency, and patient safety should inform the definition of meaningful use.
        Certified EHR technology is defined for the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs at 42 CFR 495.4, which references the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology's (ONC) definition of CEHRT under 45 CFR 170.102. For Stages 1 and 2 of meaningful use, CMS and ONC worked closely to ensure that the definition of meaningful use of CEHRT and the standards and certification criteria for CEHRT were coordinated. The definition of CEHRT under 45 CFR 170.102 requires, beginning with Federal fiscal year (FY) and calendar year (CY) 2014, EHR technology certified to the 2014 Edition EHR certification criteria. Therefore, all EPs, eligible hospitals, and CAHs must use 2014 Edition CEHRT to meet meaningful use under the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs beginning with FY 2014 and CY 2014.
        On September 4, 2012, we published in the Federal Register (77 FR 53968 through 54162) a final rule titled “Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Electronic Health Record Incentive Program—Stage 2,” that established, among other final policies, the timeline for the stages of meaningful use through 2021 and the EHR reporting periods in 2014, as shown in Table 1 (77 FR 53973 through 53975).

          Table 1—Stage of Meaningful Use Criteria by First Payment Year

            First payment year
            Stage of meaningful use
            2011
            2012
            2013
            2014
            2015
            2016
            2017
            2018
            2019
            2020
            2021

            2011
            1
            1
            1
            * 2
            2
            3
            3
            TBD
            TBD
            TBD
            TBD

            2012

            1
            1
            * 2
            2
            3
            3
            TBD
            TBD
            TBD
            TBD

            2013

            1
            * 1
            2
            2
            3
            3
            TBD
            TBD
            TBD

            2014

            * 1
            1
            2
            2
            3
            3
            TBD
            TBD

            2015

            1
            1
            2
            2
            3
            3
            TBD

            2016

            1
            1
            2
            2
            3
            3

            2017

            1
            1
            2
            2
            3

          * 3-month quarter EHR reporting period for Medicare and continuous 90-day EHR reporting period (or 3 months at state option) for Medicaid EPs. All providers in their first year in 2014 use any continuous 90-day EHR reporting period.

        EPs, eligible hospitals, and CAHs that attest to meaningful use for 2014 for their first year of Stage 2 or their second year of Stage 1 have a 3-month quarter EHR reporting period in CY 2014 (EPs) or FY 2014 (eligible hospitals and CAHs). For the Medicaid incentive payments for meaningful use, EPs have an EHR reporting period of any continuous 90-day period in CY 2014 as defined by the State Medicaid program, or, if the State so chooses, any 3-month CY quarter in 2014. EPs, eligible hospitals, and CAHs that demonstrate meaningful use for the first time in 2014 have an EHR reporting period of any continuous 90-day period in CY 2014 or FY 2014, respectively.
        II. Provisions of the Proposed Regulations
        A. Proposed Changes to Meaningful Use Stage Timeline and the Use of CEHRT
        1. Reporting in 2014
        We are revisiting some of the requirements for the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs for 2014. Many EHR vendors have indicated, through letters to CMS, public forums and listening sessions, survey data, and information related to the certification and testing process, that the amount of time available after the publication of the Stage 2 final rule in which to make the required coding changes to enable their EHR products to be certified to the 2014 Edition of EHR certification criteria was much too short. We understand, based on information gained from EHR technology developers and ONC-Authorized Certification Bodies on timing, backlogs, and the certification case load, many EHR products were certified later than anticipated, which has impacted the corresponding time available to providers—especially hospitals—to effectively deploy 2014 Edition CEHRT and to make the necessary patient safety, staff training, and workflow investments in order to be prepared to demonstrate meaningful use in 2014. The availability of 2014 Edition CEHRT is further limited by the large number of providers needing to upgrade to 2014 Edition CEHRT. By the end of February 2014, over 350,000 providers had received an EHR incentive payment for adopting, implementing, or upgrading, or for successfully demonstrating meaningful use using 2011 Edition CEHRT. All providers need 2014 Edition CEHRT to adopt, implement, or upgrade, or to successfully demonstrate meaningful use for Stage 1 or Stage 2 in 2014. Through letters to CMS, public forums, listening sessions, and public comment at CMS meetings, many provider associations have expressed concern that, although 2014 Edition CEHRT may be available for adoption, there is a backlog of many months for the updated version to be installed and implemented so that providers can successfully attest for 2014. We also understand that the delay in availability may limit a provider's ability to fully implement 2014 Edition CEHRT across the facility. For example, (1) a hospital may have different systems in multiple settings, which all require an update and integration or (2) a provider may have certain 2014 Edition CEHRT functionality that, once implemented in a live setting, requires software patches or workflow changes.
        In an effort to grant more flexibility to providers who have experienced 2014 Edition CEHRT product availability issues that impact the ability to fully implement 2014 Edition CEHRT to attest to meaningful use using 2014 Edition CEHRT, we are proposing the following changes for the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs for 2014 for providers that are not able to fully implement 2014 Edition CEHRT for a full EHR reporting period in 2014. We are proposing to allow these EPs, eligible hospitals, and CAHs that could not fully implement 2014 Edition CEHRT for the 2014 reporting year due to delays in 2014 Edition CEHRT availability to continue to use 2011 Edition CEHRT or a combination of 2011 Edition and 2014 Edition CEHRT for the EHR reporting periods in CY 2014 and FY 2014, respectively. These proposed alternatives are for providers that could not fully implement 2014 Edition CEHRT to meet meaningful use for the duration of an EHR reporting period in 2014 due to delays in 2014 Edition CEHRT availability.
        We are proposing this change for 2014 only. We will maintain the existing policy that all providers must use 2014 Edition CEHRT for the EHR reporting periods in CY 2015, FY 2015, and in subsequent years or until new certification requirements are adopted in subsequent rulemaking.
        We strongly recommend eligible professionals, eligible hospitals, and CAHs that have not yet purchased EHR technology to obtain 2014 Edition CEHRT as these providers will still need to use 2014 Edition CEHRT for their EHR reporting period in 2015 as stated earlier.
        In order to avoid inadvertently incentivizing the purchase of an outdated product that cannot be used to demonstrate meaningful use in a subsequent year, we are proposing that to qualify for an incentive payment under Medicaid for 2014 for adopting, implementing, or upgrading CEHRT, a provider must adopt, implement, or upgrade to 2014 Edition CEHRT only. A provider would not be able to qualify for a Medicaid incentive payment for 2014 for adopting, implementing, or upgrading to 2011 Edition CEHRT or a combination of 2011 and 2014 Edition CEHRT. We are proposing to revise the definition of “Adopt, Implement or Upgrade” under 42 CFR 495.302 to reflect this proposal.
        The edition of certified EHR technology which is available to a provider dictates the stage and version of the meaningful use objectives and measures to which the provider will be able to attest. For example, 2011 Edition CEHRT alone does not have the necessary functionality required to meet the Stage 2 objectives and measures. In addition, the edition of CEHRT determines which clinical quality measures a provider can calculate and report because the calculations are part of the software programming within the CEHRT system.
        The three options for the use of CEHRT editions and the available Stage of meaningful use objectives and measures associated with each option are as follows:
        a. Using 2011 Edition CEHRT Only
        We are proposing that all EPs, eligible hospitals, and CAHs that use only 2011 Edition CEHRT for their EHR reporting period in 2014 must meet the meaningful use objectives and associated measures for Stage 1 under 42 CFR 495.6 that were applicable for the 2013 payment year, regardless of their current stage of meaningful use. We note that in the Stage 2 final rule (77 FR 53975 through 53979), we finalized certain changes to the Stage 1 objectives and associated measures, and some of those changes were applicable beginning with 2013 while other changes were applicable beginning with 2014. For ease of reference, we will refer to the Stage 1 objectives and associated measures under 42 CFR 495.6 that were applicable for 2013 as the “2013 Stage 1 objectives and measures,” and we will refer to the Stage 1 objectives and associated measures under 42 CFR 495.6 that are applicable for 2014 as the “2014 Stage 1 objectives and measures.” Providers who choose this option must attest that they are unable to fully implement 2014 Edition CEHRT because of issues related to 2014 Edition CEHRT availability delays when they attest to the meaningful use objectives and measures.
        b. Using a Combination of 2011 and 2014 Edition CEHRT

        We are proposing that all EPs, eligible hospitals, and CAHs using a combination of 2011 Edition CEHRT and 2014 Edition CEHRT for their EHR reporting period in 2014 may choose to meet the 2013 Stage 1 objectives and measures or the 2014 Stage 1 objectives and measures, or if they are scheduled to begin Stage 2 in 2014 under the timeline shown in Table 1, they may choose to meet the Stage 2 objectives and associated measures under 42 CFR 495.6. Providers who choose this option must attest that they are unable to fully implement 2014 Edition CEHRT because of issues related to 2014 Edition CEHRT availability delays when they attest to the meaningful use objectives and measures.
        c. Using 2014 Edition CEHRT for 2014 Stage 1 Objectives and Measures in 2014 for Providers Scheduled To Begin Stage 2
        A provider's ability to fully implement all of the functionality of 2014 Edition CEHRT may be limited by the availability and timing of product installation, deployment of new processes and workflows, and employee training. This effect is compounded for providers in Stage 2 as some providers may not be able to fully implement all of the functions included in 2014 Edition CEHRT that are necessary to meet the Stage 2 objectives and measures in time to complete their EHR reporting period in 2014. Therefore, under our proposal, providers who are scheduled to begin Stage 2 for the 2014 EHR reporting period but are unable to fully implement all the functions of their 2014 Edition CEHRT required for Stage 2 objectives and measures due to delays in 2014 Edition CEHRT availability would have the option of using 2014 Edition CEHRT to attest to the 2014 Stage 1 objectives and measures for the 2014 EHR reporting period. Providers who are scheduled to begin Stage 2 in 2014 who choose this option must attest that they are unable to fully implement 2014 Edition CEHRT because of issues related to 2014 Edition CEHRT availability delays when they attest to the meaningful use objectives and measures.
        The EHR reporting periods in 2014 already have been established, and we are not proposing any changes. Under the current timeline shown in Table 1, providers that first demonstrated meaningful use Stage 1 in 2011 or 2012 are required to begin Stage 2 in 2014. We are proposing that the flexibility regarding use of the various editions of CEHRT as outlined earlier would apply only to the EHR reporting periods in 2014 for the EHR Incentive Program. Providers that were scheduled to begin Stage 2 in 2014 that instead meet the Stage 1 criteria in 2014 will be required to begin Stage 2 in 2015 as noted in Table 3. In 2015, all providers, except those in their first year of demonstrating meaningful use, are required to have a full year EHR reporting period. In addition, in 2015, all providers are required to have 2014 Edition CEHRT in order to successfully demonstrate meaningful use.

          Table 2—Proposed CEHRT Systems Available for Use in 2014

            If you were scheduled to demonstrate:
            You would be able to attest for Meaningful Use:
            Using 2011 Edition CEHRT to do:
            Using 2011 & 2014 Edition CEHRT to do:
            Using 2014 Edition CEHRT to do:

            Stage 1 in 2014
            2013 Stage 1 objectives and measures *
            2013 Stage 1 objectives and measures *
            2014 Stage 1 objectives and measures

            -OR-

            2014 Stage 1 objectives and measures *

            Stage 2 in 2014
            2013 Stage 1 objectives and measures *
            2013 Stage 1 objectives and measures *
            2014 Stage 1 objectives and measures *

            -OR-
            -OR-

            2014 Stage 1 objectives and measures *
            Stage 2 objectives and measures *

            -OR-

            Stage 2 objectives and measures *

          * Only providers that could not fully implement 2014 Edition CEHRT for the reporting period in 2014 due to delays in 2014 Edition CEHRT availability.

        The following are example scenarios under our proposal.

          Example A: An EP initiated participation in the Medicare EHR Incentive Program in 2011. The EP successfully demonstrated meaningful use and received incentive payments for 2011, 2012, and 2013. Based on the timeline in the Stage 2 final rule, the EP is required to use 2014 Edition CEHRT and demonstrate Stage 2 of meaningful use in 2014. Under our proposal, this EP who is scheduled to begin Stage 2 in 2014 would have the following options:
        • Attest to the Stage 2 objectives and measures of meaningful use using 2014 Edition CEHRT in 2014 as scheduled.
        • Attest to the Stage 2 objectives and measures of meaningful use using a combination of 2011 and 2014 Edition CEHRT in 2014 if they are unable to fully implement 2014 Edition CEHRT due to delays in 2014 Edition CEHRT availability.
        • Attest to the 2014 Stage 1 objectives and measures using 2014 Edition CEHRT or a combination of 2011 and 2014 Edition CEHRT in 2014 if they are unable to fully implement 2014 Edition CEHRT due to delays in 2014 Edition CEHRT availability.
        • Attest to the 2013 Stage 1 objectives and measures using 2011 Edition CEHRT or a combination of 2011 and 2014 Edition CEHRT in 2014 if they are unable to fully implement 2014 Edition CEHRT due to delays in 2014 Edition CEHRT availability. Clinical quality measures must be submitted through attestation if attesting to the 2013 Stage 1 objectives and measures as discussed below in section B of this proposal.

          Example B: An EP initiated participation in the Medicare EHR Incentive Program in 2013. The EP successfully demonstrated meaningful use and received an incentive payment for 2013. Based on the timeline in the Stage 2 final rule, the EP is required to use 2014 Edition CEHRT and demonstrate Stage 1 of meaningful use in 2014. Under our proposal, this EP would have one of the following options:
        • Attest using 2014 Edition CEHRT to the 2014 Stage 1 objectives and measures of meaningful use in 2014 as scheduled.
        • Attest using a combination of 2011 and 2014 Edition CEHRT and meet the 2014 Stage 1 objectives and measures of meaningful use in 2014 if they are unable to fully implement 2014 Edition CEHRT due to delays in 2014 Edition CEHRT availability.

        • Attest using 2011 Edition CEHRT or a combination of 2011 and 2014 Edition CEHRT and meet the 2013 Stage 1 objectives and measures of meaningful use in 2014 if they are unable to fully implement 2014 Edition CEHRT due to delays in 2014 Edition CEHRT availability. Clinical quality measures must be submitted through attestation if attesting to the 2013 Stage 1 objectives and measures as discussed in section II.B. of this proposed rule.
        2. Extension of Stage 2
        Under the current timeline shown in Table 1, an EP, eligible hospital or CAH that first became a meaningful user in 2011 or 2012 would be required to begin Stage 3 on January 1, 2016 (the first day of CY 2016 for EPs) or October 1, 2015 (the first day of FY 2016 for eligible hospitals or CAHs), respectively. However, because we intend to analyze the meaningful use Stage 2 data to inform our development of the criteria for Stage 3 of meaningful use, we are proposing a 1-year extension of Stage 2 for those providers as is reflected in Table 3. We are proposing that Stage 3 would begin in CY 2017 for EPs and FY 2017 for eligible hospitals and CAHs that first became meaningful users in 2011 or 2012. The goal of this proposed change is two-fold: First, to allow CMS and ONC to focus efforts on the successful implementation of the enhanced patient engagement, interoperability, and health information exchange requirements in Stage 2; and second, to utilize data from Stage 2 participation to inform policy decisions for Stage 3.
        This proposed change would allow EPs, eligible hospitals, and CAHs that first became meaningful users in 2011 or 2012 to begin Stage 3 on January 1, 2017 (EPs) and October 1, 2016 (eligible hospitals and CAHs). We will maintain the existing timeline for providers that first became meaningful users in 2013 and for those that begin in 2014 and subsequent years or until new certification requirements are adopted in subsequent rulemaking, as shown in Table 3.

          Table 3—Proposed Stage of Meaningful Use Criteria by First Payment Year

            First payment year
            Stage of meaningful use
            2011
            2012
            2013
            2014
            2015
            2016
            2017
            2018
            2019
            2020
            2021

            2011
            1
            1
            1
            * 1 or 2
            2
            2
            3
            3
            TBD
            TBD
            TBD

            2012

            1
            1
            * 1 or 2
            2
            2
            3
            3
            TBD
            TBD
            TBD

            2013

            1
            * 1
            2
            2
            3
            3
            TBD
            TBD
            TBD

            2014

            * 1
            1
            2
            2
            3
            3
            TBD
            TBD

            2015

            1
            1
            2
            2
            3
            3
            TBD

            2016

            1
            1
            2
            2
            3
            3

            2017

            1
            1
            2
            2
            3

          * 3-month quarter EHR reporting period for Medicare and continuous 90-day EHR reporting period (or 3 months at State option) for Medicaid EPs. All providers in their first year in 2014 use any continuous 90-day EHR reporting period.

        We invite public comment on our proposals.
        B. Clinical Quality Measure Submission in 2014

        In 2014, as part of the definition of “meaningful EHR user” under 42 CFR 495.4, all providers are required to select and report on clinical quality measures (CQMs) from the relevant sets adopted in the Stage 2 final rule (77 FR 54069 through 54075, and 77 FR 54081 through 54089 and further specified as noted in the December 7, 2012 interim final rule with comment period (77 FR 72985) and published on the CMS eCQM Library [http://cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EHRIncentivePrograms/eCQM_Library.html], regardless of their stage of meaningful use or year of participation in the EHR Incentive Program. We are proposing the following changes for reporting on clinical quality measures in 2014 for EPs, eligible hospitals, and CAHs for the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs. The method of CQM submission under this proposal would depend on the edition of CEHRT a provider uses to record, calculate, and report its clinical quality measures for the selected EHR reporting period in 2014.
        Due to limitations in the Registration and Attestation System for the EHR Incentive Program and other CMS data systems, the reporting options and methods for CQMs for 2014 would depend upon the edition of CEHRT that a provider uses for its EHR reporting period in 2014. If a provider elects to use only 2011 Edition CEHRT for its EHR reporting period in 2014, the provider would be required to report CQMs by attestation as follows:
        • EPs would report from the set of 44 measures and according to the reporting criteria finalized in the Stage 1 final rule (75 FR 44386 through 44411)—

        ++ Three core/alternate core;
        ++ Three additional measures; and
        ++ The reporting period would be any continuous 90 days within CY 2014 for EPs that are demonstrating meaningful use for the first time or a 3-month CY quarter for EPs that have previously demonstrated meaningful use.

        • Eligible hospitals and CAHs would report all 15 measures finalized in the Stage 1 final rule (75 FR 44411 through 44422).
        • The reporting period would be any continuous 90 days within FY 2014 for hospitals that are demonstrating meaningful use for the first time or a 3-month FY quarter for hospitals that have previously demonstrated meaningful use.
        If a provider elects to use a combination of 2011 Edition and 2014 Edition CEHRT and chooses to attest to the 2013 Stage 1 objectives and measures for its EHR reporting period in 2014, the provider would be required to report CQMs by attestation using the same measure sets and reporting criteria outlined earlier for providers who elect to use only 2011 Edition CEHRT for their EHR reporting periods in 2014. Because of the differences in how CQMs are calculated and tested between the 2011 and the 2014 Editions of CEHRT, we are further proposing that a provider may attest to data for the CQMs derived exclusively from the 2011 Edition CEHRT for the portion of the reporting period in which 2011 Edition CEHRT was in place.

        If a provider elects to use a combination of 2011 Edition and 2014 Edition CEHRT and chooses to attest to the 2014 Stage 1 objectives and measures or the Stage 2 objectives and measures, the provider would be required to submit CQMs in accordance with the requirements and policies established for clinical quality measure reporting for 2014 in the Stage 2 final rule and subsequent rulemakings. For further explanation, we refer readers to the following: For EPs—77 FR 54049 through 54089, 77 FR 72985 through 72991, 78 FR 74753 through 74757; and for eligible hospitals and CAHs—77 FR 54049 through 54089, 77 FR 72985 through 72991, 78 FR 50903 through 50906. We are also proposing that a provider must submit CQMs in accordance with the requirements and policies established for 2014 in those rulemakings if the provider elects to use only 2014 Edition CEHRT for the entire duration of its EHR reporting period in 2014, regardless of the stage of meaningful use that the provider chooses to meet.
        For the Medicaid EHR Incentive Program, the method of reporting CQMs for EPs and eligible hospitals will continue to be at the state's discretion subject to our prior approval, as established in the Stage 2 final rule (77 FR 54075 through 54078, and 54087 through 54089).
        We invite public comment on our proposal.
        C. Revision to the CEHRT Definition for Additional Flexibility in 2014
        To support the CMS proposals to provide additional flexibility in the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs during 2014, ONC is proposing to make a minor, but necessary, corresponding revision to the CEHRT definition at 45 CFR 170.102.
        ONC is proposing to revise the CEHRT definition to change certain Federal fiscal year (FY)/calendar year (CY) cutoffs in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the CEHRT definition under 45 CFR 170.102. These FY/CY cutoffs were finalized in ONC's 2014 Edition final rule (77 FR 54257 through 54260). The policy in paragraph (1) of the definition applies to any fiscal year/calendar year up to and including 2013. The policy in paragraph (2) of the definition applies to FY 2014/CY 2014 and all subsequent years.
        Paragraph (1) sets forth policy that permitted the use of 2011 Edition certified Complete EHRs and EHR Modules, a combination of 2011 and 2014 Edition certified Complete EHRs and EHR Modules, and 2014 Edition certified Complete EHRs and EHR Modules to be used to meet the CEHRT definition through the end of FY 2013/CY 2013. However, paragraph (2) establishes policy that, starting with FY 2014/CY 2014, only the use of 2014 Edition certified Complete EHRs and EHR Modules could be used to meet the CEHRT definition.
        The following specific proposed revisions to the CEHRT definition are necessary to support the added flexibility we proposed for 2014. The effect of these proposed revisions would be to allow EPs, eligible hospitals, and CAHs to use either 2011 Edition or a combination of 2011 and 2014 Edition certified Complete EHRs and EHR Modules to meet the CEHRT definition and to demonstrate meaningful use Stage 1 for 2014.
        Specifically, ONC is proposing to modify the CEHRT definition at 45 CFR 170.102 to replace the following
        • “2013” with “2014” in the first sentence of paragraph (1).
        • “FY and CY 2014” with “FY and CY 2015” in paragraph (1)(i) and (1)(iii).
        • “2014” with “2015” in the first sentence of paragraph (2).
        Overall, this proposed revision would make the first day of FY 2015 (for eligible hospitals and CAHs) and CY 2015 (for eligible professionals) the new required start date for exclusive use of 2014 Edition certified Complete EHRs and EHR Modules to meet the CEHRT definition.
        We invite public comment on our proposals.
        III. Collection of Information Requirements
        This document does not impose any new information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements, as defined under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (5 CFR 1320). However, it does make reference to the currently approved information collection request associated with the Electronic Health Record Incentive Program. The information collection requirements for the program are currently approved under OMB control number 0938-1158 with an expiration date of April 30, 2015.
        IV. Response to Comments

        Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on Federal Register documents, we are not able to acknowledge or respond to them individually. We will consider all comments we receive by the date and time specified in the DATES section of this preamble, and, when we proceed with a subsequent document, we will respond to the comments in the preamble to that document.
        V. Regulatory Impact Statement
        We have examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30, 1993), Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (January 18, 2011), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act, section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (March 22, 1995; Pub. L. 104-4), Executive Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4, 1999) and the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)).
        Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year). This rule does not reach the economic threshold and thus is not considered a major rule.
        The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small entities. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Most hospitals and most other providers and suppliers are small entities, either by nonprofit status or by having revenues of less than $7.0 million to $35.5 million in any 1 year. Individuals and States are not included in the definition of a small entity. We are not preparing an analysis for the RFA because we have determined, and the Secretary certifies, that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a regulatory impact analysis if a rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 603 of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a Metropolitan Statistical Area for Medicare payment regulations and has fewer than 100 beds. We are not preparing an analysis for section 1102(b) of the Act because we have determined, and the Secretary certifies, that this proposed rule would not have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals.

        Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2014, that threshold is approximately $141 million. This rule will have no consequential effect on State, local, or tribal governments or on the private sector.
        Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. Since this rule does not impose any costs on State or local governments, the requirements of Executive Order 13132 are not applicable.
        CMS is proposing, for 2014 only, that EPs, eligible hospitals, and CAHs would be able to use either 2011 Edition, 2014 Edition or a combination of 2011 and 2014 Edition certified Complete EHRs and EHR Modules to meet the CEHRT definition and to demonstrate meaningful use during 2014.
        To support the CMS proposals to provide added flexibility in the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs during 2014, ONC is proposing to make a minor, but necessary, corresponding revision to the CEHRT definition specified at 45 CFR 170.102, to change certain FY/CY cutoffs in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the CEHRT definition. These FY/CY cutoffs were finalized in ONC's 2014 Edition final rule (77 FR 54257 through 54260).
        With respect to our proposal to allow the flexibility to use 2011 Edition Certified EHR Technology, a combination of 2011 Edition and 2014 Edition Certified EHR Technology, or solely 2014 Edition Certified EHR Technology in 2014, we do not believe that this proposal will have a significant impact as it merely gives providers the flexibility to choose to retain and use their 2011 Edition CEHRT, a combination of 2011 and 2014 Edition CEHRT, or 2014 Edition CEHRT in 2014. We are making this proposal in response to concerns that the availability of 2014 Edition CEHRT is quite limited. We refer readers to the impact analyses included in the final rule titled “Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Electronic Health Record Incentive Program—Stage 2” (77 FR 53698 through 54162). Similarly, the ONC proposal to revise the CEHRT definition merely provides additional flexibility in support of the CMS proposals and ONC does not believe that it will have a significant impact (see “Health Information Technology: Standards, Implementation Specifications, and Certification Criteria for Electronic Health Record Technology, 2014 Edition; Revisions to the Permanent Certification Program for Health Information Technology” (77 FR 54163 through 54292)).
        In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this rule was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

          List of Subjects
          42 CFR Part 495
          Administrative practice and procedure, Health facilities, Health maintenance, organizations (HMO), Medicare, Penalties, Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
          45 CFR Part 170
          Computer technology, Electronic health record, Electronic information system, Electronic transactions, Health, Health care, Health information technology, Health insurance, Health records, Hospitals, Incorporation by reference, Laboratories, Medicaid, Medicare, Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Public health, Security.

        For the reasons stated in the preamble of this proposed rule, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is proposing to amend 42 CFR Part 495 and the Department is proposing to amend 45 CFR Part 170 as set forth below:
        Title 42—Public Health

          PART 495—STANDARDS FOR THE ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD TECHNOLOGY INCENTIVE PROGRAM

        1. The authority citation for part 495 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302 and 1395hh).

        2. Section 495.302 is amended by adding paragraph (4) to the definition of “Adopt, implement or upgrade” to read as follows:

          § 495.302
          Definitions.

            Adopt, implement or upgrade means—

          (4) For payment year 2014, the references to “certified EHR technology” in paragraphs (1) through (3) of this definition are deemed to be references to paragraph (2) of the definition of “Certified EHR Technology” under 45 CFR 170.102 (that is, the definition of “Certified EHR Technology” for FY and CY 2015 and subsequent years).

          Title 45—Public Health

          PART 170—HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS, IMPLEMENTATION SPECIFICATIONS, AND CERTIFICATION CRITERIA AND CERTIFICATION PROGRAMS FOR HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

        3. The authority citation for part 170 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           42 U.S.C. 300jj-11; 42 U.S.C. 300jj-14; 5 U.S.C. 552.

          § 170.102
          [Amended]

        4. In § 170.102, the definition of “Certified EHR Technology” is amended as follows:
        A. In paragraph (1) introductory text, by removing the year “2013” and adding in its place the year “2014”.
        B. In paragraph (1)(i), by removing“; or ” and adding in its place “;”.
        C. In paragraph (1)(iii), by removing the phrase “FY and CY 2014” and adding in its place the phrase “FY and CY 2015” and by removing the cross-reference “paragraph (2);” and adding in its place the cross-reference “paragraph (2) of this definition”.
        D. In paragraph (2), by removing the phrase “FY and CY 2014” and adding in its place the phrase “FY and CY 2015”.

          Dated: May 12, 2014.
          Marilyn Tavenner,
          Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
          Approved: May 13, 2014.
          Kathleen Sebelius,
          Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.

      [FR Doc. 2014-11944 Filed 5-20-14; 4:15 pm]
      BILLING CODE 4120-01-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [DA 06-1309; MB Docket No. 05-150; RM-11214]
        Radio Broadcasting Services; Norfolk and Windsor, VA

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; denial.

          SUMMARY:
          This document denies a petition for rulemaking filed by Clear Channel Broadcasting, Licenses, Inc., licensee of Stations WKUS(FM), Norfolk, Virginia and WJCD, Windsor, Virginia, proposing the reallotment of Channel 299A from Windsor to Norfolk, Virginia and the reallotment of Channel 287B from Norfolk to Windsor, Virginia, and the modification of the license for Station WKUS(FM) to reflect Windsor as its community of license and the modification of the license of Station WJCD(FM) to reflect Norfolk as its community of license.

          ADDRESSES:
          Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Victoria M. McCauley, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MB Docket No. 05-150, adopted June 21, 2006, and released June 23, 2006. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractors, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20054, telephone 800-378-3160 or http://www.BCPIWEB.com.
          This document is not subject to the Congressional Review Act. (The Commission, is, therefore, not required to submit a copy of this Report and Order to the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) because this proposed rule is denied, herein.)

          Federal Communications Commission.
          John A. Karousos,
          Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.

      [FR Doc. E6-11051 Filed 7-18-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P