        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Parts 174 and 180
        [EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0041; FRL-9992-36]
        Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Notice of filing of petitions and request for comment.

          SUMMARY:
          This document announces the Agency's receipt of several initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before June 10, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by the docket identification (ID) number and the pesticide petition number (PP) of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
          • Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001.
          • Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

          Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Michael Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090, email address: RDFRNotices@epa.gov; or Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090, email address: BPPDFRNotices@epa.gov. The mailing address for each contact person is: Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. As part of the mailing address, include the contact person's name, division, and mail code. The division to contact is listed at the end of each pesticide petition summary.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. General Information
        A. Does this action apply to me?
        You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
        • Crop production (NAICS code 111).
        • Animal production (NAICS code 112).
        • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
        • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

        If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for the division listed at the end of the pesticide petition summary of interest.
        B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
        1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
        2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
        3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides discussed in this document, compared to the general population.
        II. What action is the Agency taking?
        EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of regulations in 40 CFR part 174 or part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on the requests before responding to the petitioners. EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the pesticide petitions described in this document contain the data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the pesticide petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on these pesticide petitions.

        Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket for each of the petitions is available at http://www.regulations.gov.
        As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA is publishing notice of the petitions so that the public has an opportunity to comment on these requests for the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food commodities. Further information on the petitions may be obtained through the petition summaries referenced in this unit.
        A. Notice of Filing—Amended Tolerances for Non-Inerts
        1. PP 8E8718. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0832). The Field Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, New Jersey 08540, proposes upon establishment of tolerances referenced in this document under “New Tolerances” for PP 8E8718, to remove existing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.601 for residues of the fungicide, cyazofamid, 4-chloro-2-cyano-N,N-dimethyl-5-(4-methylphenyl)-1H-imidazole-1-sulfonamide (CA) and its metabolite CCIM, 4-chloro-5-(4-methylphenyl)-1H-imidazole-2-carbonitrile (CA), calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of cyazofamid in or on brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A at 1.2 ppm, brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B at 12.0 ppm, leafy greens subgroup 4A at 10 ppm, and turnip, greens at 12.0 ppm. Contact: RD.
        2. PP 8E8732. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0101). IR-4, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540, proposes upon establishment of tolerances referenced in this document under “New Tolerances” for PP 8E8732, to remove existing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.700 for residues of the insecticide afidopyropen, [(3S,4R,4aR,6S,6aS,12R,12aS,12bS)-3-[(cyclopropylcarbonyl)oxy]-1,3,4,4a,5,6,6a,12,12a,12b-decahydro-6,12-dihydroxy-4,6a,12b-trimethyl-11-oxo-9-(3-pyridinyl)-2H,11H-naphtho[2,1-b]pyrano[3,4-e]pyran-4-yl]methyl cyclopropanecarboxylate in or on vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 at 0.20 parts per million (ppm). Contact: RD.
        3. PP 8F8721. EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0135. Gowan Company, P.O. Box 5569, Yuma, AZ 85366, requests to amend the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.416 for residues of the herbicide ethalfluralin in or on potato at 0.01 ppm. The capillary gas chromatography with mass selective detection (GC/MSD) is used to measure and evaluate the chemical ethalfluralin. Contact: RD.
        B. New Tolerances for Non-Inerts
        1. PP 8E8718. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0832). The Field IR-4, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180.601 for residues of the fungicide, cyazofamid, 4-chloro-2-cyano-N,N-dimethyl-5-(4-methylphenyl)-1H-imidazole-1-sulfonamide (CA) and its metabolite CCIM, 4-chloro-5-(4-methylphenyl)-1H-imidazole-2-carbonitrile (CA), calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of cyazofamid in or on brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B at 15.0 ppm; ginseng at 0.2 ppm; kohlrabi at 1.5 ppm; leafy greens subgroup 4-16A at 10.0 ppm; and vegetable, brassica, head and stem, group 5-16 at 1.5 ppm. The analytical method, Liquid Chromatography with tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) is used to measure and evaluate cyazofamid. Contact: RD.
        2. PP 8E8727. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0061). The IR-4, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180.605 for residues of the herbicide penoxsulam, including its metabolites and degradates. Compliance with the tolerance level specified is to be determined by measuring only penoxsulam 2-(2,2-difluoroethoxy)-N-(5,8-dimethoxy[1,2,4]triazolo[1,5-c] pyrimidin-2-yl)-6-(trifluoromethyl) benzenesulfonamide, in or on Artichoke, globe at 0.01 ppm. Analytical method, LC/MS/MS, is used to measure and evaluate penoxsulam residues. The lowest level of method validation (LLMV) for artichoke, globe is 0.01 ppm for penoxsulam. Contact: RD
        3. PP 8E8728. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0076). Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide, difenoconazole, in or on tea at 30 ppm. The Gas chromatography equipped with a nitrogen-phosphorous detector or liquid chromatography (LC)/mass spectrometry (MS)/(MS) is used to measure and evaluate the chemical difenoconazole. Contact: RD.
        4. PP 8E8732. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0101). The IR-4, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180.700 for residues of the insecticide afidopyropen, [(3S,4R,4aR,6S,6aS,12R,12aS,12bS)-3-[(cyclopropylcarbonyl)oxy]-1,3,4,4a,5,6,6a,12,12a,12b-decahydro-6,12-dihydroxy-4,6a,12b-trimethyl-11-oxo-9-(3-pyridinyl)-2H,11H-naphtho[2,1-b]pyrano[3,4-e]pyran-4-yl]methyl cyclopropanecarboxylate in or on strawberry at 0.15 ppm and vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 at 0.30 ppm. The BASF Method Number D1103/01 “Technical Procedure: Determination of Residues of BAS 440I (Reg. No. 5599022) and its Metabolite M440I007 (Reg. No. 5824749) in Plant Matrices using LC/MS/MS to measure and evaluate afidopyropen. Contact: RD.
        5. PP 8F8685. EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0551. FMC Corporation, 2929 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide fluindapyr in or on almond, hulls at 15 ppm; aspirated grain fractions at 60 ppm; cattle, fat at 0.15 ppm; cattle, meat byproducts at 0.6 ppm; field corn, grain at 0.01 ppm; field corn, oil at 0.03 ppm; fruit, small vine-climbing except fuzzy kiwifruit, crop subgroup 13-07f at 3 ppm; grain, cereal, crop group 15, except rice and corn at 0.9 ppm; grain, cereal, forage, crop group 16, except rice, forage at 15 ppm; grain, cereal, hay, crop group 16, except rice, hay at 8 ppm; grain, cereal, stover, crop group 16, except rice, stover, and sweet corn, stover at 4 ppm grain, cereal, straw, crop group 16, except rice, straw at 20 ppm; poultry, meat byproducts at 0.03 ppm; soybean, forage at 15 ppm; soybean, hay at 30 ppm; soybean, hulls at 0.6 ppm; soybean, seed at 0.2 ppm; sweet corn, K+CWHR at 0.01 ppm; sweet corn, stover at 20 ppm; swine, meat byproducts at 0.02 ppm; and tree nuts, crop group 14-12 at 0.04 ppm. The liquid chromatography with mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) is used to measure and evaluate the chemical fluindapyr. Contact: RD.
        6. PP 8F8740. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0092). Taminco US LLC, a subsidiary of Eastman Chemical Company, Two Windsor Plaza, Suite 400, 7540 Windsor Drive, Allentown, PA 18195, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the plant growth regulatory, chlormequat chloride, in or on barley grain at 5.0 ppm; oat grain at 30 ppm, wheat and triticale grain at 3 ppm, meat of cattle, goats, hogs and sheep at 0.2 ppm, meat byproducts of cattle, goats, hogs and sheep at 0.5 ppm, poultry meat at 0.04 ppm, poultry byproducts at 0.1 ppm, eggs at 0.1 ppm and milk at 0.5 ppm. Validated LC-MS/MS methods are available for enforcement purposes for determination of residues of chlormequat chloride in plants and animal products. Contact: RD.

          Authority:
          21 U.S.C. 346a.

          Dated: April 23, 2019.
          Delores Barber,
          Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

      [FR Doc. 2019-09491 Filed 5-8-19; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 100217094-0115-01]
        RIN 0648-AY57
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Red Snapper Management Measures

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS issues this proposed rule that would implement a regulatory amendment to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP) prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council). This proposed rule would increase the commercial and recreational quotas for red snapper and provide an estimated closure date for the 2010 recreational red snapper component of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) reef fish fishery. The intended effect of the proposed rule is to help achieve optimum yield (OY) by relaxing red snapper harvest limitations consistent with the findings of the recent stock assessment for this species.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before April 14, 2010.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the proposed rule identified by 0648-AY57 by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic submissions: Submit electronic comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Peter Hood, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.
          • Fax: 727-824-5308; Attention: Peter Hood.

            Instructions: No comments will be posted for public viewing until after the comment period has closed. 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 (enter N/A in the required field if you wish to remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Copies of the regulatory amendment, which includes an environmental assessment and a regulatory impact review may be obtained from the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607; telephone 813-348-1630; fax 813-348-1711; e-mail gulfcouncil@gulfcouncil.org; or may be downloaded from the Council's Web site at http://www.gulfcouncil.org/.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Peter Hood, 727-824-5308.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The reef fish fishery of the Gulf of Mexico 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
        According to the updated stock assessment for Gulf red snapper, conducted in 2009, the stock is still overfished and rebuilding, but overfishing is projected to have ended in 2009. The rebuilding plan for Gulf red snapper was outlined in Amendment 22 to the FMP, and implemented through regulations in 2005. Actions taken in 2008 through Joint Amendment 27 to the FMP and Amendment 14 to the FMP for the Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico revised the red snapper rebuilding strategy with the intent to end overfishing by 2009 or 2010 and rebuild red snapper by 2032 to the biomass levels that can support harvest of the maximum sustainable yield (MSY). The revised rebuilding plan outlined that after 2010, total allowable catch (TAC) would be increased consistent with a fishing mortality rate that produces MSY.

        The Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) update assessment for Gulf red snapper was conducted in August 2009, with the objective of updating the 2005 SEDAR 7 red snapper benchmark assessment. The 2009 assessment updated, reviewed, and incorporated all data included in the SEDAR 7 assessment, as well as new information that became available after the 2005 assessment. The results of the assessment update, as reviewed and approved by the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), projected overfishing to have ended in 2009. Therefore, NMFS may increase red snapper TAC to help achieve OY for the fishery. The SSC recommended an allowable biological catch (ABC) of 6.945 million lb (3.150 million kg) in 2010, which is greater than the current rebuilding plan's 2010 TAC of 5.00 million lb (2.27 million kg). The ABC recommended by the SSC also follows the guidance established in the National Standard 1 Guidelines (74 FR 3178, January 16, 2009). The SSC's recommended ABC is set 25 percent below the overfishing limit, to account for scientific uncertainty. Additionally, this harvest level is consistent with the Council's OY level.
        The recreational and commercial allocations would remain consistent with those established in Amendment 1 to the FMP. Therefore, 51 percent of the TAC would be allocated for the commercial quota and 49 percent of the TAC would be allocated for the recreational quota.
        Management Measures Contained in this Proposed Rule
        The Gulf red snapper regulatory amendment would set the TAC for 2010 and subsequent fishing years at 6.945 million lb (3.150 million kg). Based on the current commercial and recreational allocations, the TAC would be implemented through this proposed rule by setting the commercial quota for Gulf red snapper at 3.542 million lb (1.607 million kg) and the recreational quota at 3.403 million lb (1.544 million kg). NMFS has made a preliminary projection that this increased TAC would result in an estimated 54-day fishing season for the recreational sector, which corresponds to a preliminary closure date of July 24, 2010. Preliminary estimates indicate the recreational fishery exceeded its quota in 2009 by more than 1.7 million lb (0.77 million kg), and therefore, under the existing 2.45 million lb (1.11 million kg) recreational quota and assuming similar effort and catch rates for 2010, the recreational fishing season would have been 34 to 40 days. However, under the proposed 3.403 million lb (1.544 million kg) quota, the recreational fishing season is preliminarily projected to remain open for 54 days. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS to close the recreational red snapper fishery in Federal waters when the quota is met or projected to be met. NMFS will provide a final projection of the 2010 recreational season closure date after finalized 2009 recreational landings data are available. The final closure date of the 2010 Gulf red snapper recreational season based on final data will be announced in the final rule for this action. These management measures would achieve the goal of National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which states that conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield for the fishery.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the regulatory amendment, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed 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 proposed 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 purpose of this proposed rule is to set the red snapper total allowable catch and resulting recreational and commercial quotas consistent with the goals and objectives of the Council's red snapper rebuilding plan. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this proposed rule.
          This proposed rule, if implemented, would be expected to directly affect commercial and for-hire fishing vessels that harvest red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico. Based on logbook records, for the period 2007-2008, an average of 312 commercial vessels per year recorded red snapper landings in the Gulf. The total average annual ex-vessel revenues from all logbook-recorded harvests from all species for these vessels during this period was approximately $28.943 million (2008 dollars), of which approximately $9.435 million came from red snapper. The average annual total revenue per vessel for these vessels during this period was approximately $93,000 (2008 dollars).
          Some fleet activity occurs in the Gulf commercial reef fish fishery. Based on permit data, the maximum number of permits reported to be owned by the same entity is six, though additional permits may be linked through other affiliations which cannot be identified with current data. Using the average revenue per vessel provided above, the average annual estimated maximum combined revenues for this entity would be approximately $558,000 (2008 dollars).
          The for-hire fleet is comprised of charterboats, which charge a fee on a vessel basis, and headboats, which charge a fee on an individual angler (head) basis. A Gulf reef fish for-hire permit is required to harvest red snapper in the Gulf. On December 23, 2009, there were 1,266 active Gulf reef fish for-hire permits. An active permit is a non-expired permit. Expired reef fish for-hire permits may not be actively fished, but are renewable for up to one year after expiration. Because of the extended renewal period, numerous permits may be expired but renewable at any given time of the year. It is estimated that the total number of permits (and associated vessels) active for some portion of the entire calendar year is a few hundred more than the number of permits active on any given date. Although the permit does not distinguish between headboats and charter boats, an estimated 79 headboats and 1187 charter boats operate in the Gulf. It cannot be determined with available data how many of the for-hire vessels permitted to operate in the Gulf reef fish fishery harvest red snapper, so all permitted vessels are assumed to comprise the universe of potentially affected vessels. The average charterboat is estimated to earn approximately $88,000 (2008 dollars) in annual revenues, while the average headboat is estimated to earn approximately $461,000 (2008 dollars).
          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 revenues threshold is $7.0 million (NAICS code 713990, recreational industries). Based on the average revenue estimates provided above, all commercial and for-hire vessels expected to be directly affected by this proposed rule are determined for the purpose of this analysis to be small business entities.
          This proposed rule would not establish any new reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. This proposed rule, if implemented, would be expected to result in an increase in commercial red snapper harvests and a closure date of the recreational red snapper fishing season later in the season than the status quo. The increase in commercial red snapper harvests would be expected to increase commercial annual ex-vessel revenues by as much as $3 million, while a later closure date of the recreational red snapper fishing season would be expected to increase annual net operating revenues to for-hire businesses by as much as $3.8 million. Therefore, all of the expected direct economic impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, if implemented, are positive. No reduction in the revenues or profits of affected entities would be expected.

        Because this proposed rule, if implemented, is not expected to have any direct economic impact on any small entities, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622
          Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Virgin Islands.

          Dated: March 25, 2010.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries.

        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 § 622.42, paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(2)(i) are revised to read as follows:

            § 622.42
            Quotas.

            (a) * * *
            (1) * * *
            (i) Red snapper—3.542 million lb (1.607 million kg), round weight.

            (2) * * *
            (i) Recreational quota for red snapper. The recreational quota for red snapper is 3.403 million lb (1.544 million kg), round weight.

      [FR Doc. 2010-7064 Filed 3-29-10; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0769, FRL-9989-50-Region 10]
        Air Plan Approval; ID, Kraft Pulp Mill Rule Revisions

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) on November 2, 2018. The submitted revisions update Idaho's rules by removing obsolete and duplicative requirements as well as requirements less stringent than applicable Federal regulations.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before March 15, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0769, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not electronically submit any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Randall Ruddick at (206) 553-1999, or ruddick.randall@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Throughout this document, wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to EPA.
        Table of Contents

          I. Background
          II. EPA Evaluation of Idaho's SIP Revisions
          III. Proposed Action
          IV. Incorporation by Reference
          V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

        I. Background
        Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) specifies the general requirements for states to submit State Implementation Plans (SIPs) and the EPA's actions regarding approval of those SIPs. SIPs are states' plans to implement, maintain, and enforce National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) set by EPA. Idaho regularly submits parts of IDAPA 58.01.01 to the EPA for approval into the Federally approved Idaho SIP (generally those provisions that relate to the criteria pollutants regulated under section 110 of the CAA for which the EPA has promulgated NAAQS or other specific requirements of section 110).

        Idaho's SIP includes Idaho's Rules for Control of Kraft Pulping Mills air emissions, IDAPA 58.01.01.815 through 817 and 58.01.01.821 through 826, effective as a matter of state law in 1994. Since 1994, there have been numerous revisions to Federal regulations related to air emissions from kraft pulping mills, specifically, EPA's promulgation of NSPS (40 CFR 60, subparts BB and BBa) and NESHAP (40 CFR 63, subparts S and MM) specific to kraft pulping mill air emissions. Idaho underwent state rulemaking to streamline their state kraft pulping mill rules by removing requirements that were obsolete, less stringent than, or otherwise covered by existing Federal rules, and by clarifying reporting requirements. Those changes became effective as a matter of state law in 2012. On November 2, 2018, Idaho submitted a SIP revision to EPA requesting the Federally approved SIP be changed to reflect Idaho's current (2012) kraft pulping mill rules.
        II. EPA Evaluation of Idaho's SIP Revisions
        Idaho's November 2, 2018, SIP submittal requests that EPA remove Idaho's 1994 version of IDAPA 58.01.01.815 through 816 and 819 through 826 from the SIP and approve the State's current (2012) version of IDAPA 58.01.01.815 and 818 into the SIP.
        Idaho's 1994 regulations included emission limits at kraft pulping mills for total reduced sulfur (TRS) and particulate matter. The current SIP does not include kraft pulping mill requirements for TRS because TRS is not a criteria pollutant or precursor. Although Idaho's November 2, 2018 SIP submittal included IDAPA 58.01.01.816 and .817, which contain revised requirements for TRS, Idaho specifically requested that EPA not approve the TRS requirements into the SIP.1
           The TRS requirements were submitted for informational purposes only, to provide a complete record of the rulemaking.

            1 The table in the cover letter to Idaho's submittal identifies the citations of the rules currently approved in the SIP, which they are requesting be updated to reflect the 2012 revisions, not the citations of the 2012 revisions.

        With respect to particulate matter standards for kraft pulping mills, Idaho's 2012 regulations repealed these standards and the related monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. Idaho explained in its November 2018 submittal that the particulate matter requirements in the SIP are now duplicative of and less stringent than Federal NSPS and NESHAP standards applicable to kraft pulping mills. Idaho's SIP submittal includes a comparison, in the same units of measurement, of the particulate matter standards approved in the current SIP with the Federal standards that apply to kraft pulping mills. In each case, the more recent Federal standards are more stringent than the particulate matter standards currently in the Idaho SIP and that Idaho requests be removed from the SIP. We note that Idaho has incorporated by reference the Federal NSPS and NESHAP applicable to kraft pulping mills into its regulations as of July 1, 2017 and has received delegation to implement and enforce these Federal standards.
        Idaho's current SIP also required special studies to be completed of kraft pulping mills by December 1972. This requirement is obsolete, and its removal will therefore have no effect on NAAQS compliance.
        The only two remaining requirements in Idaho's rules for kraft pulping mills that do not relate solely to TRS are revised IDAPA 58.01.01.815 and 818. IDAPA 58.01.01.815 which contain the revised “Statement of Purpose” for Idaho's rules for kraft pulping mills and reflects the changes made in IDAPA 58.01.01.816 through 826 and the much narrower scope of Idaho's current regulations for kraft pulping mills. IDAPA 58.01.01.818 is a new requirement for notification and reporting of emissions from gas venting regulated under 40 CFR part 63, subpart S. IDAPA 58.01.01.818 implements a reporting requirement in the SIP and does not in any way affect implementation of the NESHAP. Both IDAPA 58.01.01.815 and .818 are consistent with requirements for SIPs under CAA Section 110 and we therefore propose approval.
        III. Proposed Action
        EPA is proposing to approve, and incorporate by reference, in Idaho's SIP IDAPA 58.01.01.815 and .818 (state effective March 29, 2012) as requested by Idaho on November 2, 2018, and as described in Section II above.
        EPA is also proposing, as requested by Idaho on November 2, 2018, to remove IDAPA 58.01.01.816, .817, and .821 through .826 from the Idaho SIP because they are outdated and, in many cases, less stringent than existing Federal CAA emissions limits, performance testing, monitoring, and reporting requirements, and Idaho has repealed them as a matter of state law (state effective March 29, 2012). See Section II above.
        IV. Incorporation by Reference

        In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final rule, regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the provisions described above in Section III. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).
        V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review
        Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
        • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
        • is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;

        • does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

        • is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
        • does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
        • does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
        • is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
        • is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
        • is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because it does not involve technical standards; and
        • does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

        The proposed SIP would not be approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

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

          Dated: January 30, 2019.
          Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

      [FR Doc. 2019-02217 Filed 2-12-19; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
        Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
        42 CFR Parts 412, 482, 485, and 489
        [CMS-1599-CN]
        RIN 0938-AR53
        Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for Acute Care Hospitals and the Long Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System and Proposed Fiscal Year 2014 Rates; Quality Reporting Requirements for Specific Providers; Hospital Conditions of Participation; Corrections

          AGENCY:
          Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; correction.

          SUMMARY:

          This document corrects technical and typographical errors in the proposed rule that appeared in the May 10, 2013 Federal Register titled “Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for Acute Care Hospitals and the Long Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System and Proposed Fiscal Year 2014 Rates; Quality Reporting Requirements for Specific Providers; Hospital Conditions of Participation.”

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Tzvi Hefter (410) 786-4487, for corrections regarding MS-DRG classifications and new technology add-on payments.
          Eva Fung (410) 786-7539, for corrections regarding the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program Hospital and Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting Program.
          William Lehrman (410) 786-1037, for corrections regarding the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) requirements.
          Charles Padgett (410) 786-2811 for corrections regarding the Long-Term Care Quality Reporting Program.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Background
        In FR Doc. 2013-10234 of May 10, 2013 (78 FR 27486), there were a number of technical errors that are identified and corrected in the Correction of Errors section of this correcting document.
        II. Summary of Errors
        A. Errors in the Preamble
        On page 27514, in our discussion of the proposed changes to specific Medicare severity diagnosis-related group (MS-DRG) classifications, we made a typographical error in a section heading.
        On page 27545, in our discussion of the fiscal year (FY) 2014 applications for new technology add-on payments, we made inadvertent technical and formatting errors in the table regarding differences between the Responsive Neurostimulator (RNS®) System and Deep Brain Stimulator (DBS) and Vagus Nerve Stimulator (VNS) Systems (the table is titled “KEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE RNS SYSTEM AND DBS AND VNS SYSTEMS.”)
        On pages 27595 and 27596, in our discussion of the FY 2014 proposals regarding the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program, we inadvertently provided the incorrect hyperlink to a readmissions report.
        On page 27622, in our discussion of the Hospital-Acquired Condition (HAC) Reduction Program for FY 2015, we made a typographical error in the text of a footnote.
        On pages 27625 and 27630, in our discussion of standardized infection ratio (SIR) and healthcare-association infections (HAI), we made several typographical and technical errors in describing the predicted number and how the predicted number of events is calculated.
        On page 27634, in our discussion of Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting Program, we made errors regarding the clinical measures set and stratum.
        On page 27699, in our discussion of the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) requirements, we made an error in the timeframe specified for obtaining and submitting completed surveys.
        On page 27700, in our discussion of the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) requirements, we made a typographical error in referencing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN).
        On page 27704, in our discussion of the HAI measures included in the current Hospital IQR validation process, we made errors in referencing the timeframe for updating the list of the common commensals and in the hyperlink for the CLABSI Validation Template.
        On page 27710, in our discussion of the PPS-Exempt Cancer Hospital Quality Reporting Program (PCHQR), we made a typographical error in referencing CDC's NHSN.
        On page 27714, we inadvertently made technical errors in describing where the HCHAPS survey, methodology, and results can be found.
        On pages 27721, 27722, 27723, 27725, 27726, 27729, 27730, 27731, 27752, and 27755, in our discussion regarding the LTCHQR Program, we made typographical and technical errors in a hyperlink and several measure names and NQF measure identification numbers. We also made errors outlining the proposed timeline for submission of the LTCHQR quality data for the application of NQF #0674 and referencing CDC's NHSN.
        B. Errors in the Addendum
        On page 27810, in our discussion of the effects of the proposed implementation of the HAC Reduction Program, we made inadvertent errors in the total number of hospitals that had submitted complete data.

        On page 27819, in our discussion of the effects of the FY 2014 LTCHQR Program, we made several typographical errors.

        III. Correction of Errors
        In FR Doc. 2013-10234 of May 10, 2013 (78 FR 27486), make the following corrections:
        A. Corrections of Errors in the Preamble
        1. On page 27514, first column, paragraph 3, heading “a. Endoscopic Placement of a Bronchial Value” is corrected to read “a. Endoscopic Placement of a Bronchial Valve”.
        2. On page 27545, the top of the page, the table titled “KEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE RNS SYSTEM AND DBS AND VNS SYSTEMS” is corrected as follows:

          Key Differences Between the RNS® System and DBS and VNS Systems

            RNS® system
            Deep brain stimulator (DBS)
            Vagus nerve stimulator (VNS)

            Type of stimulation
            Closed loop: responsive
            Open loop: scheduled.

            Stimulation time/day
            About 5 minutes
            Hours—Continuous.

            Stimulation target
            Cortical; varies according to seizure focus
            Deep brain nuclei
            Ascending vagus nerve.

            Neurostimulator
            Cranially implanted
            Subcutaneously (pectorally) implanted.

            Programming changes
            According to clinical and electrographic response
            According to clinical response.

            Information from device
            Device data, detections, stimulations and electrocorticograms
            Device data.

            Physician data review
            At time of programming as well as online access to stored data
            At time of programming.

        3. On page 27595,

        a. Second column, first partial paragraph, lines 4 through 8, the hyperlink, “http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/Hospital_QualityInits/Measure-Methodology.html.” is corrected to read “http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/HospitalQualityInits/Measure-Methodology.html.”.

        b. Third column, third full paragraph, lines 10 through 13, the hyperlink, “http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/Hospital_QualityInits/Measure-Methodology.html.” is corrected to read “http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/HospitalQualityInits/Measure-Methodology.html.”.

        4. On page 27596, first column, first partial paragraph, lines 10 through 14, the parenthetical hyperlink, “(http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/Hospital_QualityInits/Measure-Methodology.html).” is corrected to read “(http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/HospitalQualityInits/Measure-Methodology.html).”
        5. On page 27622, second column, last paragraph (footnote 53), line 8, the parenthetical figure, “(140.9).” is corrected to read “(140.6).”.
        6. On page 27625,
        a. Second column, first full paragraph,
        (1) Line 22, the phrase, “based on quarterly reporting.” is corrected to read “based on quarterly and annual reporting.”
        (2) Line 45, the figure, “1.000” is corrected to read “1,000”.
        b. Third column, first partial paragraph, line 1, the phrase “predicted HAI events to reduce” is corrected to read “predicted HAI events to produce”.
        7. On page 27630, first column, first full paragraph,
        a. Lines 2 and 3, the phrase ” the facility have >1 predicted HAI event” is corrected to read “the facility to have a ≥ 1 predicted HAI event”.
        b. Lines 5 and 6, the phrase, “national HAI rate and the observed number of the specific HAIs.” is corrected to read “national HAI rates and denominator counts (that is, number of device days, procedure days, or patient days depending on the HAI).”.
        8. On page 27634, first column, first partial paragraph,
        a. Lines 15 through 17, the phrase “chart-abstracted information for the full 41/2 months following the last discharge date in a calendar quarter.” is corrected to read, “the chart-abstracted information for the full 41/2 months following the end of a calendar quarter.”.
        b. Lines 18 and 19, the phrase “the first discharge day of any reporting quarter.” is corrected to read “the first day of any reporting quarter.”
        c. Lines 32 and 33, the phrase “denominator, and percentage of total for each Clinical Measure Set and Stratum.” is corrected to read “denominator, and calculated SIR for each HAI stratum.”.
        d. Lines 35 and 36, the phrase, “performance on each measure set/stratum ” is corrected to read “performance on each HAI stratum”.
        e. Lines 41 through 45, the phrase, “view their percentage of total, or measure rate, on each Clinical Measure Set/Strata for use in both the Hospital IQR Program and the HAC Reduction Program.” is corrected to read “view their calculated SIR on each HAI stratum for use in both the Hospital IQR Program and the HAC Reduction Program.”.
        f. Lines 55 through 59, the phrase, “measure rates for chart-abstracted measures as specified, they would have no further opportunity to correct such data or measure rates.” is corrected to read “measure SIRs for chart-abstracted measures as specified, they would have no further opportunity to correct such data or measure SIRs.”.
        9. On page 27699, third column, last paragraph, lines 5 and 6, the phrase, “rolling quarter period.” is corrected to read “rolling four quarter period.”.
        10. On page 27700, in the table, the phrase, “CDC/NHSN” is corrected to read “CDC's NHSN”.
        11. On page 27704, second column, first partial paragraph,
        a. Lines 1 through 3, the phrase “list is frequently updated, but the link containing updates is currently out of date.” is corrected to read “list is updated annually.”.

        b. Lines 8 through 10, the sentence “At present that list may be found at: http://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/acute-care-hospital/clabsi/index.html.” is corrected to read “The current list may be found at: http://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/XLS/master-organism-Com-Commensals-Lists.xlsx.”.
        12. On 27710, second column, second full paragraph, lines 5 and 6, the phrase, “two CDC/NHSN-based” is corrected to read “two of the CDC's NHSN-based”.

        13. On 27714, third column, second full paragraph, lines 10 through 12, the sentence, “The survey, its methodology and the results it produces are available on Hospital Compare.” is corrected to read “The survey and its methodology are available on the HCAHPS On-Line Web site located at: http://www.hcahpsonline.org and the survey results are available on the Hospital Compare Web site at http://www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov.”.

        14. On page 27721, lower third of the page, third column, partial paragraph, lines 5 and 6, the hyperlink “http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/season/flu-season-2012-2013.htm” is corrected to read “http://www.cdc.gov/flu/pastseasons/1213season.htm.”
        15. On page 27723, top of the page, lines 2 and 3, in the table heading that begins “PROPOSED TIMELINE FOR SUBMISSION OF LTCHQR,” the phrase “ASSESSED AND APPROPRIATELY GIVE” is corrected to read “ASSESSED AND APPROPRIATELY GIVEN”.
        16. On page 27725, first column, first full paragraph,
        a. Lines 1 and 2 the phrase “CDC/NHSN” is corrected to read “CDC's NHSN.”.
        b. Lines 5 and 6, the phrase “CDC/NHSN” is corrected to read “CDC's NHSN.”
        c. Line 27 the phrase “CDC/NHSN” is corrected to read “CDC's NHSN.”
        17. On page 27726, first column,
        a. First partial paragraph, lines 3 and 4, the phrase “CDC/NHSN” is corrected to read “CDC's NHSN.”
        b. First full paragraph,
        (1) Lines 1and 2 the phrase, “CDC/NHSN” is corrected to read “CDC's NHSN”.
        (2) Lines 6 and 7, the phrase, “CDC/NHSN” is corrected to read “CDC's NHSN”.
        (3) Line 30, the phrase, “CDC/NHSN” is corrected to read “CDC's NHSN”.
        18. On page 27729, second column, fourth paragraph, lines 3 and 4, the phrase “Percent of Nursing Home Residents Experiencing” is corrected to read “Percent of Residents Experiencing”.
        19. On page 27730, lower third of the page, third column, partial paragraph (between the tables), line 3, the phrase “CDC/NHSN” is corrected to read “CDC's NHSN.”
        20. On page 27731,
        a. First column, first paragraph,
        (1) Line 28, the term “subseqeuent” is corrected to read “subsequent.”
        (2) Line 32, the phrase “CDC/NHSN” is corrected to read “CDC's NHSN.”
        b. Third column,
        (1) In the first table titled “TIMELINE FOR DATA COLLECTION OF LTCHQR PROGRAM QUALITY DATA FOR THE FY 2016 PAYMENT DETERMINATION,” the listed entries for Column 1 (NQF measure ID) are corrected to read as follows:

            NQF measure ID

            NQF #0680**

            NQF #0431**

        (2) In the last table titled “PROPOSED TIMELINE FOR SUBMISSION OF LTCHQR PROGRAM QUALITY DATA FOR THE FY 2016 PAYMENT DETERMINATION AND SUBSEQUENT PAYMENT DETERMINATIONS: NQF #0680 PERCENTAGE OF RESIDENTS OR PATIENTS WHO WERE ASSESSED AND APPROPRIATELY GIVEN THE SEASONAL INFLUENZA VACCINE (SHORT STAY), the table is corrected to read as follows:

          Proposed Timeline for Submission of LTCHQR Program Quality Data for the FY 2016 Payment Determination and Subsequent Payment Determinations: NQF #0680 Percentage of Residents or Patients Who Were Assessed and Appropriately Given the Seasonal Influenza Vaccine (Short Stay)

            Data collectiontimeframe

            Submission deadline

            Q2 (April-June 2014)
            August 15, 2014.

            Q3 (July-September 2014)
            November 15, 2014.

            Q4 (October-December 2014)
            February 15, 2015.

        21. On page 27733, first column, first table, in the table titled “PROPOSED TIMELINE FOR SUBMISSION OF LTCHQR PROGRAM QUALITY DATA FOR THE FY 2018 PAYMENT DETERMINATION—Continued,” first column of the table (NQF measure ID), last line, the entry “NQF #0674” is corrected to read “Application of NQF #0674”.
        22. On page 27752, first column,
        a. First partial paragraph, line 15, the term “subseqeuent” is corrected to read “subsequent”.
        b. First full paragraph, line 6 and 7, the phrase “CDC/NHSN” is corrected to read “CDC's NHSN”.
        23. On page 27755, first column,
        a. Second full paragraph, line 2, the phrase “NQF #0674 Percent of” is corrected to read “Application of NQF #0674 Percent of”.
        b. Third full paragraph,
        (1) Line 6, the parenthetical phrase “(NQF #0674)” is corrected to read “(Application of NQF #0674)”.
        (2) Lines 11 and 12, the phrase “the inclusion of the Percent of Residents” is corrected to read “the inclusion of the Application of the Percent of Residents”.
        B. Corrections of Errors in the Addendum
        1. On page 27810, first column, second full paragraph,
        a. Line 1, the figure “3,435” is corrected to read “3,445”.
        b. Line 3, the figure “3,435” is corrected to read “3,445”.
        2. On page 27819,
        a. Second column, third full paragraph, line 27, the term “sunsequent” is corrected to read “subsequent”.

        b. Third column, first paragraph, lines 3 and 4, the hyperlink “(http://www.qualityforum.org/projects/patient safety measures.aspx)” is corrected to read “(http://www.qualityforum.org/projects/patient_safety_measures.aspx)”.

          (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.773, Medicare—Hospital Insurance; and Program No. 93.774, Medicare—Supplementary Medical Insurance Program)

          Dated: June 21, 2013.
          Jennifer M. Cannistra,
          Executive Secretary to the Department, Department of Health and Human Services.

      [FR Doc. 2013-15321 Filed 6-21-13; 4:15 pm]
      BILLING CODE 4120-01-P