Federal Register Vol. 82, No.191,

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44715 Controlling aircraft noise and sonic boom. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to measure and abate aircraft noise. This regulation is within the scope of that authority since it would establish stricter noise limits for certain newly certificated airplanes. Applicants for type certificates and changes in type design made after the dates in this rulemaking will be required to comply with the new regulation.

This rulemaking adopts a new noise standard for newly certificated subsonic jet airplanes and subsonic transport category large airplanes. By lowering the noise limit, this standard requires quieter designs and encourages manufacturers to adopt the latest available noise reduction technology into their aircraft designs. This rulemaking adopts new noise certification standards for airplanes certificated in the United States (known as Stage 5) that are equivalent to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 16, Volume I standard known as Chapter 14.

In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) titled Stage 5 Airplane Noise Standards, the FAA proposed a new noise standard for certain aircraft to (81 FR 1923, January 14, 2016). A brief history of the FAA's regulation of aircraft noise since 1969 was presented in the preamble to that NPRM.

The new Stage 5 noise standard applies to any person submitting an application for a new airplane type design that has a maximum certificated takeoff weight (MTOW) of 121,254 pounds (maximum certificated takeoff mass (MTOM) 55,000 kg) or more on or after December 31, 2017; or that has a MTOW of less than 121,254 pounds (MTOM less than 55,000 kg) on or after December 31, 2020. This change reduces the noise that may be produced by newly certificated airplanes and harmonizes the noise certification standards for airplanes certificated in the United States with the standard adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organization in Annex 16, Volume 1 Chapter 14, effective July 14, 2014.

Much of the development of a Stage 5 noise standard took place in the international arena through ICAO. The Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) is a technical committee of the ICAO Council. The CAEP assists the Council specifically in formulating new policies and adopting new standards for aircraft noise and emissions, and more generally on matters of the environmental impacts of aviation. The development of ICAO standards follows a structured, transparent and multi-staged process involving a number of technical and non-technical working groups. These working groups are either part of the ICAO or closely associated with it. The activities of the CAEP working groups are guided by the CAEP Steering Group as their oversight committee.

The United States is an active member in CAEP, and has at least one member on each of the five working groups of CAEP. These working groups are named for their focus areas: WG1 for Noise, WG2 for Airports and Operations, WG3 for Emissions, MDG for Modeling and Databases, and FESG for Forecast Economic Analysis Support.

In 2010, the CAEP Working Group for Noise (WG1) was tasked to develop options that would further reduce permissible airplane noise levels. The group met several times over the following two years. Representatives from WG3, the MDG, and the FESG participated in the WG1 meetings to become familiar with the noise stringency options that would be considered when future noise standards were set, and to assist WG1 in setting up databases for comparing the options for costs and benefits.

In coordination with the other participating working groups, WG1 chose five options for reduced noise limits that were more stringent than Chapter 4. The group noted that the stringencies of earlier Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 standards could be described as based on the “traditional” concept of specified reductions at each noise certification measurement point (flyover, lateral, and approach). Chapter 4, however, had adopted a “cumulative margin” concept under which reduction was expressed as a total and could be spread across the three measurement points as chosen by an applicant. The stringency options presented to CAEP for analysis continued to be based on the “cumulative margin” concept of Chapter 4. The options analyzed were cumulatively 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 decibels lower than Chapter 4 levels. As the lead technical working group, WG1 prepared the results for the 2014 CAEP meeting. In reaching a recommendation for a new noise standard for subsonic jet and large transport airplanes, the CAEP considered estimates of comprehensive costs and benefits associated with the five options.

The activities of the working groups were overseen by the CAEP Steering Group. The Steering Group met in July 2012 to review the results of the analyses prepared by the working groups in order to formulate specific recommendations on the new standard, and on applicability options that were forwarded to the full CAEP.

In February 2013, the comprehensive costs and benefits analyses for the five stringency options that were prepared by the working groups, as well as a parallel analysis of the same five options prepared by the United States, were presented at the ninth meeting of CAEP (CAEP9). After lengthy discussion, the CAEP9 agreed to an increase in stringency of 7 EPNdB 1 (cumulative) relative to Chapter 4 levels. The new standard, known as Chapter 14,2 introduced a condition in addition to the cumulative stringency requirement, one that requires a margin of not less than 1.0 dB below Chapter 3 3 limits at each certification point.

Similar to Chapter 4 requirements, the noise margins for Chapter 14 are calculated by subtracting the measured noise levels at the three microphone locations from the three corresponding noise limits in Chapter 3. However, Chapter 14 includes a mandatory minimum reduction in the noise limits applicable to subsonic jet airplanes with MTOM less than 8,618 kg (MTOW 19,000 pounds). Figure 1 is a graphical representation of the reduction of noise limits at MTOM lower than 8,618 kg for each of the three measurement points. The figure includes the modified Chapter 3 noise limits that use the same gradient of the limit line at lower masses as the higher masses, and transitions to a flat limit line for airplanes with MTOM less than 2,000kg (MTOW 4,409 pounds). This figure is not included in the regulation since the actual limits are calculated based on the MTOM of the aircraft at certification. This figure is an illustration of how the noise limits compare for airplanes of different weights under Chapter 14.

In March 2014, the 201st Session of the ICAO Council adopted the Chapter 14 noise standards for new airplane type designs. Chapter 14 will apply to new type certificates for airplanes with an MTOM of 55,000 kg (MTOW of 121,254 pounds) or more for which applications are submitted on and after December 31, 2017. For airplanes with an MTOM of less than 55,000 kg (MTOW less than 121,254 pounds) the limits apply to certification applications submitted on and after December 31, 2020.

It was noted in the NPRM, and restated for emphasis here, that the adoption of the Stage 5 noise standard for new airplane type designs does not signal the start of any action by the FAA to change the current operational noise limits for any aircraft in the United States. The current U.S. operating rules require that jet aircraft meet at least Stage 3 noise limits (see 14 CFR 91.853 and 91.881). The current noise limit applicable to new type designs is Stage 4 (see § 36.103(c)). The adoption of the Stage 5 noise standard for new airplane type designs does not affect either of these requirements. Changes to the noise operating rules in the United States would be subject to full notice and comment rulemaking procedures, and have not been proposed. The adoption of Stage 5 does not affect either the operation of the current U.S. fleet or new type designs submitted before the applicable compliance date for Stage 5.

On January 14, 2016, the FAA proposed a new noise standard for certain subsonic jet airplanes and subsonic transport category large airplanes, to be known as Stage 5. As proposed, the new certification standard would apply to any person submitting an application for a new airplane type design that has an MTOW of 121,254 pounds (MTOM 55,000 kg) or more on and after December 31, 2017; or with an MTOW of less than 121,254 pounds (MTOM 55,000 kg) on and after December 31, 2020. The change is intended to reduce the noise produced by new airplanes and harmonize the noise certification standards for those airplanes certificated in the United States with the new Chapter 14 ICAO noise standard that was effective July 14, 2014. Failure to harmonize the standards could result in a certification applicant having to show compliance with two different standards, unnecessarily adding to the cost of noise certification without any benefit.

The proposed rule also included a change to appendix B to part 36, section B36.1(b), which allows the use of Annex 16 standards as an alternative for noise testing. The FAA found that the regulation adopted in 2005 inadvertently omitted the phrase “to paragraph (a) of this section” to designate what the Annex was an alternative to. This phrase is added into section B36.1(b) in this rule so that paragraph (b) and the new paragraph (c) (the alternative for Stage 5) will read the same.

The NPRM invited interested persons to participate in the rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. It also invited comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in the NPRM.

The FAA received seven comments in response to the NPRM. Two commenters supported the rule as proposed, four suggested changes to the rule, and one identified a typographical error in the NPRM.

The Boeing Company and Airlines for America (A4A), an association of U.S. air carriers, supported all aspects of the proposal, with A4A including extensive comments supporting the process of working with ICAO in setting noise standards.

Two organizations, the Los Angeles International Airport/Community Roundtable (Roundtable) and the City of Culver City, California requested that the FAA include a phaseout of existing Stage 3 airplanes as part of the adoption of the new Stage 5 noise standards. The Roundtable is a voluntary organization with members from civil associations and government that work to identify and mitigate noise issues that affect the residential communities surrounding Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). Culver City is a municipality in close proximity to LAX.

Culver City considered the lack of a phaseout for Stage 3 airplanes a notable omission from the NPRM, stating that the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA) mandated the implementation of Stage 3 technology by the end of 1999 along with the phase-out of all Stage 2 aircraft over 75,000 pounds. Culver City requested that the FAA promulgate a staged phaseout of Stage 3 aircraft beginning contemporaneously with the implementation of Stage 5 regulations.

The Roundtable requested the same action as Culver City, stating that a phaseout would reduce aircraft noise in a shorter time frame.

The FAA considers the requests to initiate a phaseout of Stage 3 jet aircraft to be beyond the scope of the proposed rule. The NPRM indicated that the proposed certification action was not to be considered a harbinger of a new operational standard. The previous eliminations of Stage 2 jet operations in the contiguous United States were required under two separate statutory provisions by Congress. For larger jets, the phaseout and ultimate prohibition on operation were mandated in ANCA. For jets under 75,000 pounds, Congress mandated a cessation of operations as of January 1, 2015; that statutory ban did not include a phaseout nor did it require any action by the FAA other than to enforce the operational prohibition. The NPRM noted for this rule that the proposal was limited to the adoption of a Stage 5 certification standard, in part to harmonize domestic U.S. certification standards with those of ICAO. These certification actions are sequential, reflect advances in technology, and serve to prevent backsliding by manufacturers. An operational phaseout, such as the one that took place in the 1990's following Congressional direction, is a significant undertaking affecting a different segment of the aviation industry. The ANCA phaseout had no effect on the noise certification basis of airplanes—Stage 3 had been adopted as the noise certification standard effective in 1975 (see § 36.106(b)) and was the standard included by Congress in the 1990 statute. The comments suggesting a new phaseout of Stage 3 jets did not address the significant differences between certification changes and operational restrictions, the length of time any suggested phaseout should take, nor did they present any indication of the significant costs and benefits that would necessarily form the basis of such an action. The proposed Stage 5 rule does not provide any basis to attach an operational restriction, and none is included in the final rule.

An individual commenter suggested five changes to the proposed rule. First, the commenter suggested that section B36.6 of appendix B to part 36 specify that noise tradeoffs are available only for Stage 1, 2 and 3 airplanes. The FAA disagrees in part. For a Stage 1 airplane, tradeoffs would be available only after recertification to Stage 2 (or higher) noise levels; there were no noise levels established for Stage 1 airplanes from which there could be tradeoffs. While the FAA agrees that the notation might be a helpful clarification for Stage 2 and 3 airplanes, the suggestion is outside the scope of the changes proposed in the NPRM. The FAA will keep note of the comment as a suggested change for any future cleanup rule for part 36.

The second suggestion, which was also made by an anonymous commenter, stated that regardless of the applicable noise stringency level, part 36 should specify the latest versions of referenced documents instead of one or more earlier versions.

The FAA disagrees. There are legal requirements attached to the use of non-FAA standards such as ICAO Annex 16. These requirements for Incorporation by Reference (IBR) allow for a specific document to be incorporated, and it must be submitted at the time IBR is requested. It must be identifiable, dated, and meet a certain level of availability. This ensures that a standard can be referenced as complete at the time a regulation is adopted. The IBR rules of the Office of the Federal Register do not allow for a nebulous “current version” to be referenced, since it would then depend on the time a person read a regulation and would present a shifting requirement. Changes to standards based on incorporated documents, such as a later version, can only be made by rulemaking. While this final rule makes changes to the IBR section of part 36 as discussed in the following section, no changes have been made to the final rule based on this comment. Persons interested in how IBR works can learn more by consulting the Office of the Federal Register's handbook that explains the process at https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/write/handbook.

The third suggestion by the individual commenter is to remove the proposed requirement in § 36.106 to include a Chapter 14 equivalency statement in an Airplane Flight Manual (AFM). The comment did not include any justification for this suggested change, nor state any reason it is inappropriate or ineffective in U.S. regulations. Starting with Stage 4, the equivalency statement became standard in the AFM pages. Over the years, noise-related information in the AFM (including the equivalency statements and other supporting documents) developed into an effective resource in demonstrating certificated noise levels of a U.S. registered aircraft operating outside the United States. The FAA plans to keep the equivalency statements for both Stage 4 and 5. No change was made based on this comment.

For reasons unrelated to this comment, we are amending § 36.105 to remove the reference to an IBR at the end of the paragraph. The required language for the flight manual, indicated by quotes in the rule, is not itself an IBR.

The fourth and fifth comments by the individual commenter requested changes to § 36.6, the IBR section for part 36 for matters of “presentation” and identification of ICAO Annex 16. The FAA is adopting a change to the format of § 36.6 as required by the Office of the Federal Register to update its use as a centralized IBR section. As adopted, the content of the IBR paragraph, including the order of the material as stated, complies with the publication requirements of the Office of the Federal Register. The FAA anticipates that the required update of the section will address the commenters concerns.

An anonymous commenter noted that the Web site address given for the availability of ICAO documents no longer works. The FAA will replace the Web site address in the final rule. The updated address for the ICAO Web site is: http://www.icao.int/publications/Pages/default.aspx.

The same anonymous commenter asked why Chapter 4 and Stage 4 (or Chapter 14 and Stage 5) do not have the same definitions in part 91, suggesting that they should all be referenced “as described in part 36 of this chapter.”

The U.S. regulations cannot be used to determine what Chapter 4 or Chapter 14 contains or requires. Since the standards are incorporated by reference, their definitions necessarily cite back to the official source in ICAO Annex 16. Further, the FAA is not authorized to make findings of legal compliance to Chapter 4 or Chapter 14; it only certificates aircraft to Stage 4 or 5 (for example). This has led to the IBR references and eventually to the equivalency statements in AFMs since the U.S. does not make findings under ICAO standards. These equivalency statements are meant to assist operators of U.S.-certificated aircraft when they operate in ICAO countries and need to show the noise compliance of their aircraft.

However, we did find that the addition of the definition of Chapter 14 to part 91 is not necessary since part 91 is limited to domestic operating rules and references aircraft by stage. Accordingly, we are adding that definition only to part 36.

Other than the corrections noted, no changes are being made in this final rule based on the comments received. The rule is adopted as proposed.

The FAA was notified by the Office of the Federal Register that the centralized IBR section for part 36 (§ 36.6) needed to be updated to the new format published in 2016. Accordingly, this final rule includes format changes to § 36.6 and to various sections of part 36 and its appendices that reference incorporated documents. In no case is the content or intent of any regulation to be considered changed by this reformatting. Any changes to the substantive effect of any rule would be preceded by full notice and comment rulemaking.

In revising § 36.6 we discovered materials that are no longer referenced in the regulations and have removed them from that section. Within the text of regulations, we have reformatted the identified documents, removed two IBR references that were incorrect, updated Web site references where available and corrected other minor formatting errors discovered on review.

Also, as part of this review, the FAA discovered that § 36.5 contained an outdated reference to statutory authority. That section is amended to replace the old citation to the authority with the current one.

This final rule incorporates by reference the aircraft noise standards for Chapter 14 of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 16, Volume 1, Aircraft Noise, Seventh Edition, July 2014, Amendment 11-B, applicable January 1, 2015. These standards are incorporated into § 36.6, and are referenced in various sections as noted in the amendments. As explained in this document, these standards were developed by the ICAO with the participation of the United States. Airplanes that meet Stage 5 noise standards in the United States are considered equivalent of airplanes that meet the Chapter 14 standards.

The incorporated document is available for purchase through the ICAO Web site: http://www.icao.int/publications/Pages/default.aspx. Contact information for ICAO is also available on that Web site. The document may be inspected at FAA Headquarters, Office of Environment and Energy. Please contact the person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in this document.

Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) (Trade Act) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with the base year of 1995).

Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If the expected impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement to that effect and the basis for it being included in the preamble if a full regulatory evaluation of the costs and benefits is not prepared. Such a determination has been made for this final rule. The reasoning for that that determination follows.

Based on the requirements in Executive Order (EO) 13771, the FAA has completed a further analysis of this rule and determined that this action is expected to be an EO 13771 deregulatory action as it will result in cost-savings. Without this rule, the industry will have to show compliance with two different noise standards—one in the United States and the other in EASA. This double noise certification standard will require revising type certification records, aircraft flight manuals, airline operational specifications that will generate unnecessary costs for both industry and the FAA.

This final rule will establish a new Stage 5 noise standard for subsonic jet airplanes and subsonic transport category large airplanes. The final noise standard will apply to new type designs for applications made on or after December 31, 2017, for airplanes with an MTOW of 121,254 pounds (MTOM of 55,000 kilograms) or more; and after December 31, 2020, for airplanes with an MTOW of less than 121,254 pounds (MTOM 55,000 kilograms).

The final noise standard will provide more stringent noise certification standards for Stage 5 airplanes certificated in the United States and will be consistent with those for airplanes certificated under the new ICAO Annex 16 Chapter 14 noise standards. Documents describing the development of the new ICAO rule in more detail, including cost analyses used by ICAO, are available in the docket. These documents include:

Several airplanes currently in production that have an MTOW of more than 121,254 pounds already meet the final Stage 5 noise limits. These airplanes include the Airbus models A-380 and A-350, and Boeing models 747-8 and 787. The FAA received a comment from Boeing supporting the proposed rule.

The applicability date of December 31, 2020, for airplanes with an MTOW of less than 121,254 pounds (MTOM 55,000 kg) was adopted by the ICAO to accommodate the requests of the manufacturers of lighter jet and propeller-driven airplanes for more time to meet the new requirements. For many of the proposed airplane programs announced prior to CAEP9 (2013), analysis shows that such airplanes will be able to meet the proposed Stage 5 standard without any additional cost.

Technological advances that decrease noise are already being adopted on airplanes in the lower weight class, including the geared turbofan engine and quieter control surfaces. These technological advances support the FAA expectation that all manufacturers will be able to meet the new standards after the December 31, 2020, date. This expectation was crucial to the minimal cost determination in the proposed rule, and the FAA specifically requested comments regarding whether existing and expected technological advancements would be sufficient to achieve compliance with the provisions after December 31, 2020. The FAA received no comments on these regulatory estimates for any size airplanes. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that the final rule will have minimal cost and due to the reduced requirements from a single accepted noise certification standard, rather than two standards, this rule will lower industry and government costs. As these cost savings are clearly evident, the cost estimate of these future actions is too uncertain to provide quantified estimate.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.” To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration. The RFA covers a wide range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations and small governmental jurisdictions.

Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.

In either 2017 or 2020, depending on the maximum certificated takeoff weight of the airplane, when the more stringent noise certification requirements in this final rule become effective, all new type design subsonic transport category jet airplanes and transport category large airplanes will be required to meet the Stage 5 noise limits. In the proposed rule, the FAA stated that all manufacturers of subsonic transport category jet airplanes and transport category large airplanes would be able to meet the new noise standards at minimal cost. The FAA invited industry comments on this determination and requested that all comments be accompanied with clear and detailed supporting data. The FAA received no responses to this request for comments on this determination. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that this rule will result in minimal cost.

If an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the head of the agency may so certify under section 605(b) of the RFA. Therefore, as provided in section 605 (b), the head of the FAA certifies that this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.

The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that it will reduce impediments to international trade by aligning United States standards with ICAO standards.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155 million in lieu of $100 million.

For the reasons stated above regarding the expected minimal cost of complying with these standards, this final rule does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The more stringent noise requirements adopted in this final rule will not require any new collection of information and none is associated with this final rule. The FAA has determined that there will be no new requirement for information collection associated with this final rule.

In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and has identified no differences with these regulations.

FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6d of the Order and involves no extraordinary circumstances.

The agency did not receive any comments, and has determined, based on the administrative record of this rulemaking, that there is no need to make any regulatory distinctions applicable to intrastate aviation in Alaska.

Executive Order (EO) 13771 titled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” directs that, unless prohibited by law, whenever an executive department or agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it shall identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed. In addition, any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs. Only those rules deemed significant under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” are subject to these requirements.

This rule is expected to be an EO 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated costs savings of this rule can be found in the rule's economic analysis.

The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, does not have Federalism implications.

The FAA analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under the executive order and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained by using the Internet—

1. Search the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);

2. Visit the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or

3. Access the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/.

Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by notice, amendment, or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677.

Comments received may be viewed by going to http://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions to search the docket number for this action. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of the FAA's dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document, may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble. To find out more about SBREFA on the Internet, visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking §  Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

The Coast Guard preceded this final rule with a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on August 9, 2017, (82 FR 37182). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to work on power lines extending over the Upper Mississippi River in Crystal City, MO. The NPRM listed dates and times of enforcement of the safety zone. During the comment period that ended September 8, 2017, we received no comments.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying this rule would be contrary to public interest in ensuring the safety of spectators and vessels during the power line work because immediate action is necessary to prevent possible loss of life and property.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with power line work over the Upper Mississippi River will cause safety concerns. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of life, vessels and the navigable waters in the safety zones, before, during, and after the scheduled work.

As noted above, during the comment period for our NPRM that published August 9, 2017, no comments were received. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

This rule establishes a safety zone from 7:30 a.m. on October 17, 2017 through 6:30 p.m. on November 1, 2017. The safety zone will be enforced from 7:30 a.m. through 6:30 p.m. each day. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters between mile marker (MM) 147.5 and MM 148.5 on the Upper Mississippi River in Crystal City, MO. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and participants on the navigable waters before, during, and after the power line construction work. Entry of vessels or persons into this safety zone is prohibited without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. This final rule establishes a safety zone will only be enforced for a period of eleven hours on each of sixteen days on one mile of navigable waters. Entry into the safety zone established through this rulemaking may be requested from the COTP or a designated representative and will be considered on a case-by-case. During the enforcement period, vessels are prohibited from entering into or remaining within the safety zone unless specifically authorized by the COTP or other designated representative. Additionally, notice of the safety zone or any changes in the planned schedule will be made via Broadcast and Local Notice to Mariners.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A. above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting for eleven hours on each of sixteen days during daylight hours and restricts transit on a section of the Upper Mississippi River extending one mile. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

On March 27, 2008, EPA promulgated an ozone NAAQS that revised the levels of the primary and secondary 8-hour ozone standards from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm. See 73 FR 16436. Pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(1), within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS (or shorter, if EPA prescribes), states must submit SIPs that meet the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2). EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. One of the structural requirements of section 110(a)(2) is section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which generally requires SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit in-state emissions activities from having certain adverse air quality effects on neighboring states due to interstate transport of air pollution. There are four sub-elements, or “prongs,” within section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also known as the “good neighbor” provision, requires SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state. The two provisions of this section are referred to as prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other state under part C to prevent significant deterioration of air quality (prong 3) or to protect visibility (prong 4).

On December 9, 2015, North Carolina submitted a SIP submittal containing a certification that North Carolina is meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS because, based on available emissions and air quality modeling data, emissions activities within North Carolina will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state. In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on August 10, 2017 (82 FR 37371), EPA proposed to approve North Carolina's SIP as meeting the requirements of prongs 1 and 2 for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.1 The NPRM provides additional detail regarding the background and rationale for EPA's action. Comments on the NPRM were due on or before September 11, 2017. EPA received no adverse comments on the proposed action.

EPA is taking final action to approve North Carolina's December 9, 2015, SIP submission addressing the good neighbor infrastructure SIP requirements, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2), for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is taking final action to approve the SIP submission because it is consistent with section 110 of the CAA. EPA notes that the Agency is not approving any specific rule, but rather concluding that North Carolina's already approved SIP meets certain CAA requirements.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

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

• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 4, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

I. Background

States are required to submit a progress report in the form of a SIP revision that evaluates progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I federal area 1 (Class I area) within the state and for each Class I area outside the state which may be affected by emissions from within the state. 40 CFR 51.308(g). In addition, the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(h) require states to submit, at the same time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g) progress report, a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing regional haze plan. On January 8, 2014, Georgia submitted its Progress Report which, among other things, details the progress made in the first period toward implementation of the long term strategy outlined in the State's regional haze plan; the visibility improvement measured at the three Class I areas within its borders (Cohutta Wilderness Area, Okefenokee Wilderness Area, and Wolf Island Wilderness Area) and at Class I areas outside of the State potentially impacted by emissions from Georgia; and a determination of the adequacy of the State's existing regional haze plan.

In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on August 15, 2017 (82 FR 38654), EPA proposed to approve Georgia's January 8, 2014, Progress Report. The details of Georgia's submission and the rationale for EPA's actions are explained in the NPRM. Comments on the proposed rulemaking were due on or before September 14, 2017. EPA received no adverse comments on the proposed action.

EPA is finalizing approval of Georgia's January 8, 2014, Progress Report as meeting the applicable regional haze requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 51.308(h).

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

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

• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 4, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

I. Background

In FR Doc. 2017-16434 of August 14, 2017 (82 FR 37990) there were a number of technical and typographical errors that are identified and corrected by the Correction of Errors section of this correcting document. The provisions in this correcting document are effective as if they had been included in the document that appeared in the August 14, 2017 Federal Register. Accordingly, the corrections are effective October 1, 2017.

On page 37990, we are making a conforming correction, removal of the reference to part 488, based on the removal of the regulations text for § 488.5 described in section II.B. of this correcting document.

On pages 38067 and 38068, we are correcting technical errors in our discussion and summary of and response to public comment regarding ICD-10-PCS procedure codes describing procedures involving percutaneous insertion of intraluminal or monitoring device. Specifically, we erroneously referred to a count of 28 procedure codes describing procedures involving the percutaneous insertion of intraluminal and monitoring devices into central nervous system and other cardiovascular body parts rather than 18 procedure codes. Of the 28 codes listed in Table 6P.4b associated with the proposed rule, 10 procedure codes were duplicative, and erroneously included in the table and in the total number of codes referenced in the preamble. As indicated in the final rule, after consideration of the public comments we received, we maintained the designation of 15 procedure codes identified by the commenters. For this reason, we are also correcting Table 6P.4b associated with the final rule (as discussed in section II.E. of this correcting document) to reflect the 3 distinct procedure codes for which we finalized a change in designation, including to remove the listings of ICD-10-PCS procedure codes 00H032Z (Insertion of Monitoring Device into Brain, Percutaneous Approach) and 00H632Z (Insertion of Monitoring Device into Cerebral Ventricle, Percutaneous Approach), which we finalized to maintain as O.R. procedures for FY 2018, and are making conforming changes to the corresponding count of codes listed in that table as indicated on page 38068. Consistent with these corrections, we are also correcting the description of the proposal on page 38067 of the final rule. As a result of the corrections to Table 6P.4b associated with the final rule and the conforming corrections on pages 38067 and 38068, we have made conforming changes to the ICD-10 MS-DRG Definitions Manual Version 35 and ICD-10 MS-DRG Grouper Software Version 35 for FY 2018 to reflect the O.R. designation of ICD-10-PCS procedure codes 00H032Z (Insertion of Monitoring Device into Brain, Percutaneous Approach) and 00H632Z (Insertion of Monitoring Device into Cerebral Ventricle, Percutaneous Approach), as finalized on page 38068 of the final rule for FY 2018.

In addition, after publication of the FY 2018 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule, we became aware that the logic for the ICD-10 MS-DRG Definitions Manual Version 35 and the ICD-10 MS-DRG Grouper and Medicare Code Editor (MCE) Version 35 Software erroneously designated the following ICD-10-PCS procedure code as a non-O.R. procedure rather than as an O.R. procedure as finalized on page 38072 of the final rule for FY 2018: 0BCC8ZZ (Extirpation of matter from right upper lung lobe, via natural or artificial opening endoscopic). Therefore, we also made changes to the ICD-10 MS-DRG Definitions Manual Version 35 and the ICD-10 MS-DRG Grouper and MCE Version 35 Software to correctly reflect the O.R. designation for this procedure code for FY 2018.

We recalculated the FY 2018 MS-DRG relative weights (and associated statistics, such as average length of stay (ALOS)) as a result of the corrections to the logic for the ICD-10 MS-DRG Grouper Version 35 Software discussed above. In addition, since the MS-LTC-DRGs used under the LTCH PPS for FY 2018 are the same as the MS DRGs used under the IPPS for FY 2018 (and as such use the same ICD-10 MS-DRG Grouper Version 35 Software), we also recalculated the FY 2018 MS-LTC-DRG relative weights (and associated statistics, such as geometric ALOS) for the same reasons.

On page 38119, we made a technical error in describing which ICD-10-PCS procedure codes will be used to identify cases involving ZINPLAVATM that are eligible for new technology add-on payments in FY 2018. Specifically, cases involving ZINPLAVATM that are eligible for new technology add-on payments will be identified by either of the ICD-10-PCS procedure codes listed in the final rule (XW033A3 or XW043A3) (rather than requiring the combination of both ICD-10-PCS procedure codes).

On pages 38132 and 38137, in our discussion of the wage indexes, we provided incorrect values for the FY 2018 national average hourly wage (unadjusted for occupational mix) and the FY 2018 occupational mix adjusted national average hourly wage due to inadvertent errors related to the wage data collected from the Medicare cost reports of six hospitals (CMS Certification Numbers (CCNs) 240010, 420033, 420037, 420038, 420078, and 420102).

On page 38144, we made an inadvertent error in the mailing address for the Medicare Geographic Review Board (MGCRB).

On page 38195, in our discussion regarding disproportionate share hospitals (DSHs), we made errors in the June 2017 Office of the Actuary's estimate for FY 2018 Medicare DSH payments.

On page 38225, we made typographical errors in our description of several Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) measures.

On page 38249, in our response to a comment, we advertently referenced the MORT-30-PN measure, instead of the PN Payment measure.

On page 38257 through 38259, in our discussion of the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) Program, we made several typographical and technical errors to references and dates.

On pages 38309 and 38310, we are correcting the MS-LTC-DRG normalization factor and the MS-LTC DRG budget neutrality factor based on the recalculation of the MS-LTC-DRG relative weights due to the corrections to the MS-DRG Grouper Software Version 35 described previously. (Because the MS-LTC-DRGs used under the LTCH PPS are the same as the MS-DRGs used under the IPPS, the corrections to the MS-DRG Grouper Software Version 35 described previously affect the MS-LTC-DRGs groupings by extension.)

On pages 38426, 38434, 38440, and 38458, in our discussion of the LTCH Quality Reporting Program (QRP), we made technical and typographical errors including an error in our description of a quality measure.

On page 38516, we inadvertently retained regulations language from the proposed rule at § 488.5(a)(21), regarding accrediting organizations, after stating in the preamble of the final rule that we had decided not to adopt such language. In addition, on page 38509, we inadvertently retained a description of subjects set out in 42 CFR part 488 in the “List of Subjects.” We are correcting these errors by removing the description of subjects, amendatory instructions, and regulations text for part 488.

On page 38516, in the regulations text provisions for § 495.4 (definitions for the Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Program), we inadvertently omitted the definition of certified electronic health record technology (CEHRT) for 2018.

On page 38517, in the regulations text provisions for § 495.24, we inadvertently omitted an EHR measure change for eligible professionals (EPs) in § 495.24(d)(6)(i)(B)(1)(iv).

As discussed in section II.A. of this correcting document, we are making corrections to the logic for the ICD-10 MS-DRG Grouper Version 35 Software for three ICD-10-PCS procedure codes (0BCC8ZZ, 00H032Z and 00H632Z) that had been erroneously designated as non-O.R. procedures rather than as O.R. procedures as finalized for FY 2018. As a result, we have recalculated the FY 2018 MS-DRG relative weights after applying the changes in the Version 35 MS-DRG groupings to the FY 2016 MedPAR data used for the final rule.

The FY 2018 MS-DRG relative weights are used to calculate the MS-DRG reclassification and recalibration budget neutrality factor when comparing total payments using FY 2017 MS-DRG relative weights to total payments using the FY 2018 MS-DRG relative weights. Additionally, the FY 2018 MS-DRG relative weights are used when determining total payments for purposes of all other budget neutrality factors and the final outlier threshold, which are discussed in this section II.C. of this correcting document.

As discussed in section II.E. of this correcting document, we made several technical errors with regard to the calculation of Factor 3 of the uncompensated care payment methodology. Factor 3 is used to determine the total amount of the uncompensated care payment a hospital is eligible to receive for a fiscal year. This amount is then used to calculate the amount of the interim uncompensated care payments a hospital receives per discharge. Per discharge uncompensated care payments are included when determining total payments for purposes of all of the budget neutrality factors and the final outlier threshold.

As a result, the revisions made to address these technical errors regarding the calculation of Factor 3 directly affected the calculation of total payments and required the recalculation of all the budget neutrality factors and the final outlier threshold.

Because of the errors in the wage data for the six hospitals (CCNs 240010, 420033, 420037, 420038, 420078, and 420102), as discussed in section II.A. of this correcting document, we recalculated the FY 2018 national average hourly wages unadjusted for occupational mix and adjusted for occupational mix which resulted in the recalculation of the final FY 2018 IPPS wage indexes and the geographic adjustment factors (GAFs) (which are computed from the wage index). The final FY 2018 IPPS wage data are used in the calculation of the wage index budget neutrality adjustment when comparing total payments using the final FY 2017 IPPS wage index data to total payments using the final FY 2018 IPPS wage index data. Additionally, the final FY 2018 IPPS wage index data are used when determining total payments for purposes of the rest of the budget neutrality factors (except for the MS-DRG reclassification and recalibration budget neutrality factor) and the final outlier threshold. In addition, the final FY 2018 IPPS wage index data are used to calculate the FY 2018 LTCH PPS wage index values, certain budget neutrality factors, and the LTCH PPS standard Federal payment rate in the FY 2018 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule.

Due to the correction of the combination of errors listed previously (recalculation of the MS-DRG relative weights, revisions to Factor 3 of the uncompensated care methodology and correction to the final FY 2018 IPPS wage index data), we recalculated all IPPS budget neutrality adjustment factors, the fixed-loss cost threshold, the final wage indexes (and GAFs), and the national operating standardized amounts and capital Federal rate. Therefore, we made conforming changes to the following:

• On page 38522 and 38532, the MS-DRG reclassification and recalibration budget neutrality factor.

• On page 38522, the wage index budget neutrality adjustment.

• On page 38522, the reclassification hospital budget neutrality adjustment.

• On page 38523, the rural and imputed floor budget neutrality adjustment.

• On page 38527, the calculation of the outlier fixed-loss cost threshold, the national outlier adjustment factors, total operating Federal payments, total operating outlier payments, and percentage of capital outlier payments.

• On page 38529, the table titled “Changes From FY 2017 Standardized Amounts to the FY 2018 Standardized Amounts”.

On pages 38532 and 38534 through 38535, in our discussion of the determination of the Federal hospital inpatient capital related prospective payment rate update, due to the recalculation of the MS-DRG relative weights and GAFs we have made conforming corrections to the increase in the capital Federal rate, the capital outlier payment adjustment (budget neutrality) factor, the GAF/DRG budget neutrality adjustment factors, the capital Federal rate, and the outlier threshold (as discussed previously), along with certain statistical figures (for example, percent change) in the accompanying discussions.

Also, as a result of these errors, on page 38535, we have made conforming corrections in the tables showing the comparison of factors and adjustments for the FY 2017 capital Federal rate and FY 2018 capital Federal rate and the proposed FY 2018 capital Federal rate and final FY 2018 capital Federal rate.

On pages 38537 and 38539, we are correcting the area wage level budget neutrality factor and making a conforming change to the FY 2018 LTCH PPS standard Federal payment rate due to corrections to the wage data discussed previously.

On page 38544, we are making conforming corrections to the fixed-loss amount for FY 2018 LTCH PPS standard Federal payment rate discharges and the high-cost outlier (HCO) threshold determined in absence of the required changes under the 21st Century Cures Act due to corrections in the MS-LTC-DRG data discussed previously.

On page 38545, we are making conforming corrections to the fixed-loss amount for site neutral discharges due to corrections in the IPPS rates and factors discussed previously.

On pages 38546 and 38547, we are making conforming corrections to the figures used in the example of computing the adjusted LTCH PPS Federal prospective payment for FY 2018.

On page 38548, we have made conforming corrections to the following:

• National adjusted operating standardized amounts and capital standard Federal payment rate (which also include the rates payable to hospitals located in Puerto Rico) in Tables 1A, 1B, 1C, and 1D as a result of the conforming corrections to certain budget neutrality factors and the outlier threshold (as described previously).

• LTCH PPS standard Federal payment rate in Table 1E as a result of the correction to area wage level budget neutrality factor (as discussed previously).

Also, on page 38548, in Table 1E, we are correcting a technical error in our terminology by replacing “Standard Federal Rate” with `Standard Federal Payment Rate”.

On pages 38552 through 38560 and 38572 through 38574 in our regulatory impact analyses, we made conforming corrections to the factors, values, and tables and accompanying discussion of the changes in operating and capital IPPS payments for FY 2018 and the effects of certain budget neutrality factors as a result of the technical errors that lead to conforming changes in our calculation of the operating and capital IPPS budget neutrality factors, outlier threshold, final wage indexes, operating standardized amounts, and capital Federal rate (as described in sections II.A. and II.C. of this correcting document).

In particular, we made changes to the following tables.

• On pages 38552 through 38554, the table titled “Table I.—Impact Analysis of Changes to the IPPS for Operating Costs for FY 2018”.

• On pages 38557 through 38558, the table titled “FY 2018 IPPS Estimated Payments Due To Rural and Imputed Floor With National Budget Neutrality”.

• On pages 38559 and 38560, the table titled “Table II—Impact Analysis of Changes for FY 2018 Acute Care Hospital Operating Prospective Payment System [Payments per Discharge]”.

• On pages 38572 through 38574, the table titled “Table III—Comparison of Total Payments Per Case [FY 2017 Payments Compared to FY 2018 Payments]”.

On pages 38561 through 38564, we are correcting the discussion of the “Effects of the Changes to Medicare DSH and Uncompensated Care Payments for FY 2018” for purposes of the Regulatory Impact Analysis in Appendix A of the FY 2018 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule in light of the corrections discussed in sections II.D. and II.E. of this correcting document.

On pages 38576 and 38578 through 38579, we made conforming corrections to the area wage level budget neutrality factor and the LTCH PPS standard Federal payment rate as described in section II.C. of this correcting document.

On page 38579, we are making conforming corrections to “Table IV.—Impact of Payment Rate and Policy Changes to LTCH PPS Payments for Standard Payment Rate Cases for FY 2018.” We are also correcting technical errors in the terminology used in the title and column headings of Table IV by ensuring the use of “Standard Federal Payment Rate”.

On page 38585, we made conforming corrections to the estimated increase in capital payments in FY 2018 compared to FY 2017.

We are correcting the errors in the following IPPS tables that are listed on pages 38547 and 38548 of the FY 2018 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule and are available on the Internet on the CMS Web site at https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/FY2018-IPPS-Final-Rule-Home-Page.html. The tables that are available on the Internet have been updated to reflect the revisions discussed in this correcting document.

Table 2—Case-Mix Index and Wage Index Table- FY 2018. The wage data errors related to the six hospitals required the recalculation of the FY 2018 national average hourly wages unadjusted for occupational mix and adjusted for occupational mix which resulted in recalculating the FY 2018 wage indexes. Also, the recalculation of the MS-DRG relative weights, the revisions to Factor 3 of the uncompensated care payment methodology and recalculation of the FY 2018 wage index necessitated the recalculation of the rural and imputed floor budget neutrality factor (as discussed in section II.C. of this correcting document). Therefore, we are correcting the values in the column titled “FY 2018 Wage Index” for all hospitals. Additionally, for the six hospitals for which we inadvertently used the incorrect wage data (as discussed in section II.A. of this correcting document), we are correcting the average hourly wages in the columns titled “Average Hourly Wage FY 2018” and “3-Year Average Hourly Wage (2016, 2017, 2018)”.

Table 3.—Wage Index Table by CBSA-FY 2018. The wage data errors related to the six hospitals required the recalculation of the FY 2018 national average hourly wage adjusted for occupational mix which resulted in recalculating the FY 2018 wage indexes. Also, the recalculation of the MS-DRG relative weights, the revisions to Factor 3 of the uncompensated care payment methodology, and recalculation of the FY 2018 wage index necessitated the recalculation of the rural and imputed floor budget neutrality factor (as discussed in section II.C. of this correcting document). Therefore, we are making corresponding changes to the wage indexes and GAFs of all CBSAs listed in Table 3. Specifically, we are correcting the values and flags in the columns titled “Wage Index”, “Reclassified Wage Index”, “GAF”, “Reclassified GAF”, “Pre-Frontier and/or Pre-Rural or Imputed Floor Wage Index” and “Eligible for Rural or Imputed Floor Wage Index”. Additionally, for the two CBSAs (24860 and 40340) where the six hospitals for which we inadvertently used the incorrect wage data are located (as discussed in section II.A. of this correcting document), we are correcting the average hourly wages in the columns titled “FY 2018 Average Hourly Wage” and “3-Year Average Hourly Wage (2016, 2017, 2018)”. As we described previously, we inadvertently used the incorrect wage data for the following hospitals: CCNs 240010, 420033, 420037, 420038, 420078 and 420102.

Table 5.—List of Medicare Severity Diagnosis-Related Groups (MS-DRGs), Relative Weighting Factors, and Geometric and Arithmetic Mean Length of Stay—FY 2018. We are correcting this table to reflect the recalculation of the FY 2018 MS-DRG relative weights and associated statistics as a result of the corrections to the logic for the ICD-10 MS-DRG Grouper Version 35 Software discussed in section II.A. of this correcting document. Specifically, we are correcting the values in the columns titled “Weights”, “Geometric mean LOS”, and “Arithmetic mean LOS”.

Table 6P.—ICD-10-CM and ICD-10-PCS Code Designations, MCE and MS-DRG Changes—FY 2018. As discussed in section II.A of this correcting document, we are correcting the list of the ICD-10-PCS procedure codes in Table 6P.4b to reflect the three ICD-10-PCS procedure codes relating to the percutaneous insertion of intraluminal or monitoring devices that are finalized as non-O.R. procedures for FY 2018.

Table 7B.—Medicare Prospective Payment System Selected Percentile Lengths of Stay: FY 2016 MedPAR Update—March 2017 GROUPER V35.0 MS-DRGs. We are correcting this table to reflect the recalculation of the FY 2018 MS-DRG relative weights and associated statistics as a result of the corrections to the logic for the ICD-10 MS-DRG Grouper Version 35 Software discussed in section II.A. of this correcting document.

Table 10—New Technology Add-On Payment Thresholds for Applications for FY 2019. We are correcting the thresholds in this table as a result of the corrections to the operating standardized amounts discussed in section II.C. of this correcting document.

Table 18.—Final FY 2018 Medicare DSH Uncompensated Care Payment Factor 3. We are correcting this table to reflect revisions to the Factor 3 calculations for purposes of determining uncompensated care payments for the FY 2018 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule for the following reasons:

• To apply our finalized policy of double weighting the 2013 Factor 3 instead of developing a 2014 Factor 3 using uncompensated care cost data from Worksheet S-10 for several all-inclusive rate providers.

• To reflect mergers where data for the merged hospital were not combined with the data for the surviving hospital for purposes of calculating Factor 3 for the FY 2018 IPPS/LTCH PPS Final Rule.

• To correct the Factor 3 that was computed for a hospital whose FY 2014 cost report in the March 2017 extract of Healthcare Cost Report Information System (HCRIS) inadvertently omitted amended uncompensated care cost data reported on an amended Worksheet S-10 that had been received timely per CR 9648 issued on July, 15, 2016, and that was inadvertently omitted from the hospital's 2014 cost report when it was uploaded into HCRIS.

• To correct the Factor 3 that was computed for a hospital that only had Factor 3 values for two cost reporting periods, but whose Factor 3 was inadvertently calculated by dividing by three cost reporting periods when averaging the Factor 3 values.

• To correct the misapplication of our new hospital policy, where hospitals with a CMS Certification Number (CCN) established after October 1, 2013, but before October 1, 2014, were inadvertently considered subject to that policy when calculating Factor 3. As stated in the FY 2018 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (82 FR 38212), only those hospitals with a CCN established after October 1, 2014, are considered new and subject to the new hospital policy when calculating Factor 3 for FY 2018.

We are revising Factor 3 for all hospitals to correct these errors. We are also revising the amount of the total uncompensated care payment calculated for each DSH-eligible hospital. The total uncompensated care payment that a hospital receives is used to calculate the amount of the interim uncompensated care payments the hospital receives per discharge. Per discharge uncompensated care payments are included when determining total payments for purposes of all of the budget neutrality factors and the final outlier threshold. As a result, these corrections to the uncompensated care payments impacted the calculation of all the budget neutrality factors as well as the outlier fixed-loss cost threshold for outlier payments. These corrections will be reflected in Table 18 and the Medicare DSH Supplemental Data File. In section II.D. of this correcting document, we have made corresponding revisions to the discussion of the “Effects of the Changes to Medicare DSH and Uncompensated Care Payments for FY 2018” for purposes of the Regulatory Impact Analysis in Appendix A of the FY 2018 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule to reflect the corrections discussed previously.

We are also correcting the errors in the following LTCH PPS tables that are listed on page 38548 of the FY 2018 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule and are available on the Internet on the CMS Web site at https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-ServicePayment/LongTermCareHospitalPPS/index.html under the list item for regulation number CMS-1677-F. The tables that are available on the Internet have been updated to reflect the revisions discussed in this correcting document.

Table 11.—MS-LTC-DRGs, Relative Weights, Geometric Average Length of Stay, and Short-Stay Outlier (SSO) Threshold for LTCH PPS Discharges Occurring from October 1, 2017 through September 30, 2018. We are correcting this table to reflect the recalculation of the FY 2018 MS-LTC-DRG relative weights and associated statistics as a result of the corrections to the logic for the Version 35 Grouper Software discussed in section II.A. of this correcting document.

Table 12A.—LTCH PPS Wage Index for Urban Areas for Discharges Occurring from October 1, 2017 through September 30, 2018. We are correcting this table to reflect the revisions to the LTCH PPS wage index values discussed in section II.C. of this correcting document.

Table 12B.—LTCH PPS Wage Index for Rural Areas for Discharges Occurring from October 1, 2017 through September 30, 2018. We are correcting this table to reflect the revisions to the LTCH PPS wage index values discussed in section II.C. of this correcting document.

We also note that we have made conforming changes to the ICD-10 MS-DRG Definitions Manual Version 35 for consistency with the ICD-10 MS-DRG Grouper and Medicare Code Editor (MCE) Version 35 Software. First, the ICD-10-CM diagnosis code P05.18 (Newborn small for gestational age, 2000-2499 grams) was displayed in the ICD-10 MS-DRG Definitions Manual Version 35 as grouping to both MS-DRGs 793 (Full Term Neonate with Major Problems) and 795 (Normal Newborn). The correct MS-DRG assignment for diagnosis code P05.18 is only MS-DRG 795; therefore, corrections were made to the ICD-10 MS-DRG Definitions Manual Version 35 to reflect the correct MS-DRG assignment. Second, the following 9 diagnosis codes were not included in the major problem list in the MS-DRG Definitions Manual: K56.600 (Partial intestinal obstruction, unspecified as to cause); K56.601 (Complete intestinal obstruction, unspecified as to cause); K56.609 (Unspecified intestinal obstruction, unspecified as to partial versus complete obstruction); K56.690 (Other partial intestinal obstruction); K56.691(Other complete intestinal obstruction); K56.699 (Other intestinal obstruction unspecified as to partial versus complete obstruction); K91.30 (Postprocedural intestinal obstruction, unspecified as to partial versus complete); K91.31 (Postprocedural partial intestinal obstruction); and K91.32 (Postprocedural complete intestinal obstruction). We made corrections to add these 9 diagnosis codes to the major problems list for MS-DRG 793 under Major Diagnostic Category (MDC) 15 (Newborns & Other Neonates with Conditions Originating in Perinatal Period) in the ICD-10 MS-DRG Definitions Manual Version 35.

We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register to provide a period for public comment before the provisions of a rule take effect in accordance with section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). However, we can waive this notice and comment procedure if the Secretary finds, for good cause, that the notice and comment process is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and incorporates a statement of the finding and the reasons therefore in the notice.

Section 553(d) of the APA ordinarily requires a 30-day delay in the effective date of final rules after the date of their publication in the Federal Register. This 30-day delay in effective date can be waived, however, if an agency finds for good cause that the delay is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and the agency incorporates a statement of the findings and its reasons in the rule issued.

We believe that this correcting document does not constitute a rule that would be subject to the APA notice and comment or delayed effective date requirements. This correcting document corrects technical and typographic errors in the preamble, regulations text, addendum, payment rates, tables, and appendices included or referenced in the FY 2018 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule but does not make substantive changes to the policies or payment methodologies that were adopted in the final rule. As a result, this correcting document is intended to ensure that the information in the FY 2018 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule accurately reflects the policies adopted in that final rule.

In addition, even if this were a rule to which the notice and comment procedures and delayed effective date requirements applied, we find that there is good cause to waive such requirements. Undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate the corrections in this document into the final rule or delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest because it is in the public's interest for providers to receive appropriate payments in as timely a manner as possible, and to ensure that the FY 2018 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule accurately reflects our policies. Furthermore, such procedures would be unnecessary, as we are not altering our payment methodologies or policies, but rather, we are simply implementing correctly the policies that we previously proposed, received comment on, and subsequently finalized. This correcting document is intended solely to ensure that the FY 2018 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule accurately reflects these payment methodologies and policies. Therefore, we believe we have good cause to waive the notice and comment and effective date requirements.

In FR Doc. 2017-16434 of August 14, 2017 (82 FR 37990), we are making the following corrections:

1. On page 37990, first column, line 8 (Part headings), the figures “486, 488, 489, and 495” are corrected to read “486, 489, and 495”.

2. On page 38067—

a. Second column, last partial paragraph, line 1, the figure “28” is corrected to read “18”.

b. Third column—

(1) First partial paragraph—

(a) Line 7, the phrase “28 ICD-10-PCS” is corrected to read “28 (18 discrete) ICD-10-PCS”.

(b) Line 15, the phrase “O.R. procedures. We invite public” is corrected to read “O.R. procedures. (We note that Table 6P.4b. associated with the proposed rule listed 28 rather than 18 ICD-10-PCS codes because we inadvertently included 10 duplicate codes. However only 18 discrete ICD-10-PCS codes were listed in that table.) We invite public”.

(2) First full paragraph—

(a) Line 3, the figure “28” is corrected to read “18”.

(b) Line 9, the figure “28” is corrected to read “18”.

3. On page 38068, top half of the page (between the untitled tables) first column—

a. First paragraph, line 5, the figure “28” is corrected to read “18”.

b. Second paragraph, line 4, the figure “13” is corrected to read “3”.

4. On page 38119, third column, first partial paragraph, lines 25 and 26, the phrase “XW033A3 and XW043A3.” is corrected to read “XW033A3 or XW043A3.”

5. On page 38132—

a. Second column, first paragraph, last line, the figure “$42.1027” is corrected to read “$42.0795”.

b. Third column, first partial paragraph, line 4, the figure $42.1027” is corrected to read “$42.0795”.

6. On page 38137, third column—

a. First full paragraph, last line, the figure $42.0564” is corrected to read “$42.0332”.

b. Last full paragraph, last line, the figure $42.0564” is corrected to read “$42.0332”.

7. On page 38144, first column, first partial paragraph, lines 8 through 10, the phrase “2520 Lord Baltimore Drive, Suite L, Baltimore, MD 21244- 2670.” is corrected to read “1508 Woodlawn Drive, Suite 100, Baltimore, MD 21207.”.

8. On page 38195—

a. Top of the page, third column, first full paragraph, line 19, the figure “$15.533” is corrected to read “$15.553”.

b. Bottom of the page in the table titled “FACTORS APPLIED FOR FY 2015 THROUGH FY 2018 TO ESTIMATE MEDICARE DSH EXPENDITURES USING 2014 BASELINE” last row (FY 2018), last column (Estimated DSH payment), the entry “15.533” is corrected to read “15.553”.

9. On page 38225—

a. First column, last bulleted paragraph, lines 3 through 5, the phrase “(AMI-Version 8.0, HF-Version 8.0, Pneumonia-Version 8.0, COPD-Version 4.0, and Stroke-Version 4.0: 2016” is corrected to read “(AMI-Version 9.0, HF-Version 9.0, Pneumonia-Version 9.0, COPD-Version 5.0, and Stroke-Version 5.0: 2016”.

b. Second column; first bulleted paragraph, lines 2 through 4, the phrase “(THA and/or TKA-Version 4.0, CABG-Version 2.0: 2016” is corrected to read “(THA and/or TKA-Version 5.0, CABG-Version 3.0: 2016)”.

10. On page 38249, second column, last paragraph, lines 23 and 24, the parenthetical phrase “(for example, the MORT-30-PN measure)” is corrected to read “(for example, PN Payment measure)”.

11. On page 38257, third column, footnote paragraph (footnote 69), last line, the date “Mar 1997” is corrected to read “Mar 1977”.

12. On page 38258, first column, third paragraph—

a. Lines 8 and 9, the reference “(78 FR 50074;” is corrected to read “(79 FR 50074;”.

b. Line 9, the reference “80 FR 49588).” is corrected to read “80 FR 49558).”.

13. On page 38259, first column, first partial paragraph, line 14, the date “June 0” is corrected to read “June 30”.

14. On page 38309, third column, first full paragraph, line 29 the figure “1.28590” is corrected to read “1.28593”.

15. On page 38310, first column—

a. First full paragraph, line 29, the figure “0.9907845” is corrected to read “0.9907437”.

b. Second full paragraph—

(1) Line 5, the figure “1.28590” is corrected to read “1.28593”.

(2) Line 6, the figure “0.9907845” is corrected to read “0.9907437”.

16. On page 38426—

a. First column, second full paragraph, line 21, the phrase “an Application of Percent” is corrected to read “Application of Percent”.

b. Third column, third full paragraph, line 10, the phrase “criteria; however should” is corrected to read “criteria. However, the measure should”.

17. On page 38434, in the first column, second paragraph—

a. Line 29, the phrase “Stage 3 or 4 ulcers.” is corrected to read “Stage 3 or 4 pressure ulcers.”.

b. Line 31, the phrase “Stage 1 and 2 ulcers decreased” is corrected to read “Stage 1 and 2 pressure ulcers decreased”.

c. Line 32, the phrase ” of Stage 3 and 4 ulcers” is corrected to read “of Stage 3 and 4 pressure ulcers”.

18. On page 38440, third column, last paragraph—

a. Lines 10 and 11, the phrase “That nearly one third” is corrected to read “The fact that nearly one third”.

b. Lines 16 and 17, the phrase “LTCH, and also indicates” is corrected to read “LTCH. It also indicates”.

19. On page 38458, third column, second full paragraph—

a. Lines 21 through 23, the phrase (measure name) “Functional Outcome Measure: Change in Mobility Among Patients Requiring Ventilator Support (NQF #2632).” is corrected to read “Functional Outcome Measure: Change in Mobility Among Long-Term Care Hospital (LTCH) Patients Requiring Ventilator Support (NQF #2632).”.

b. Lines 31 through 34, the phrase (measure name) “Functional Outcome Measure: Change in Mobility Among Patients Requiring Ventilator Support (NQF #2632)” is corrected to read “Functional Outcome Measure: Change in Mobility Among Long-Term Care Hospital (LTCH) Patients Requiring Ventilator Support (NQF #2632).”

20. On page 38509, second column, eighth full paragraph (List of subjects 42 CFR 488), the paragraph is corrected by removing the paragraph.

1. On page 38516, in the first column, remove the part heading for part 488 and remove amendatory instructions 34 and 35 in their entirety.

I. Background

In FR Doc. 2017-16256 (82 FR 36530), the final rule entitled “Medicare Program; Prospective Payment System and Consolidated Billing for Skilled Nursing Facilities for FY 2018, SNF Value-Based Purchasing Program, SNF Quality Reporting Program, Survey Team Composition, and Correction of the Performance Period for the NHSN HCP Influenza Vaccination Immunization Reporting Measure in the ESRD QIP for PY 2020”, there were a number of technical errors that are identified and corrected in section IV., Correction of Errors. The provisions in this correcting document are effective as if they had been included in the document that appeared in the August 4, 2017, Federal Register (hereinafter referred to as the FY 2018 SNF PPS final rule). Accordingly, the corrections are effective October 1, 2017.

As discussed in the FY 2018 SNF PPS final rule (82 FR 36539), in developing the wage index to be applied to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) under the SNF prospective payment system (PPS), we use the updated, pre-reclassified hospital inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS) wage data, exclusive of the occupational mix adjustment. For FY 2018, the updated, unadjusted, pre-reclassified IPPS wage data used under the SNF PPS are for hospital cost reporting periods beginning on or after October 1, 2013, and before October 1, 2014 (FY 2014 cost report data), as discussed in the FY 2018 IPPS final rule (82 FR 38130). In calculating the wage index under the FY 2018 IPPS final rule, we made inadvertent errors related to the wage data collected from the Medicare cost reports of six hospitals which are located in CBSAs 24860 and 40340. Specifically, we used incorrect wage data for these six hospitals to calculate the final FY 2018 IPPS wage indexes, the geographic adjustment factor (GAF) (which is computed from the wage index), as well as certain other IPPS factors and adjustments.

These errors are identified, discussed and corrected in the Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for Acute Care Hospitals and the Long Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System and Policy Changes and Fiscal Year 2018 Rates; Quality Reporting Requirements for Specific Providers; Medicare and Medicaid Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Program Requirements for Eligible Hospitals, Critical Access Hospitals, and Eligible Professionals; Provider-Based Status of Indian Health Services and Tribal Facilities and Organizations; Cost Reporting and Provider Requirements; Agreement Termination Notices; Correction (CMS-1677-CN) that appears elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.

As discussed above, we use the updated, pre-reclassified, unadjusted IPPS wage data in developing the wage index used under the SNF PPS. Due to the technical errors described above, the published FY 2018 SNF PPS wage indexes were incorrect. Thus, the use of the corrected wage data for the six hospitals required the recalculation of the final FY 2018 SNF PPS wage indexes. Additionally, as discussed on page 36543 of the FY 2018 SNF PPS final rule, section 1888(e)(4)(G)(ii) of the Act requires that we apply the wage index in a manner that does not result in aggregate payments under the SNF PPS that are greater or less than would otherwise be made if the wage index adjustment had not been made. To achieve this, we apply a budget neutrality factor to the unadjusted SNF PPS federal per diem base rates. Due to the recalculation and subsequent revision of the final FY 2018 SNF PPS wage indexes, it was necessary to recalculate the FY 2018 SNF PPS wage index budget neutrality factor as well. Revising the wage index budget neutrality factor causes a change in the unadjusted SNF PPS federal per diem rates (provided in Tables 2 and 3 of the FY 2018 SNF PPS final rule (82 FR 36535)), which then causes changes in the case-mix adjusted SNF PPS rates (provided in Tables 4 and 5 in the FY 2018 SNF PPS final rule (82 FR 36537 through 36538), as well as the labor adjusted SNF PPS rates (provided in Tables 6 and 7 of the FY 2018 SNF PPS final rule (82 FR 36541 through 36543). Finally, due to the recalculated wage indexes, we recalculated the impact analysis provided in Table 26 of the FY 2018 SNF PPS final rule (82 FR 36629). The corrections to these errors are found in section IV. of this document.

We are correcting the wage indexes in Tables A and B setting forth the wage indexes for urban (Table A) and non-urban (Table B) areas based on CBSA labor market areas, which are available exclusively on the CMS Web site at http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/SNFPPS/WageIndex.html. These tables have been updated to reflect the revisions discussed in this correcting document.

We are republishing the wage indexes in Tables A and B accordingly on the CMS Web site at http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/SNFPPS/WageIndex.html.

We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register to provide a period for public comment before the provisions of a rule take effect in accordance with section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). However, we can waive this notice and comment procedure if the Secretary finds, for good cause, that the notice and comment process is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and incorporates a statement of the finding and the reasons therefor in the notice.

Section 553(d) of the APA ordinarily requires a 30-day delay in effective date of final rules after the date of their publication in the Federal Register. This 30-day delay in effective date can be waived, however, if an agency finds for good cause that the delay is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and the agency incorporates a statement of the findings and its reasons in the rule issued.

We believe that this correcting document does not constitute a rule that would be subject to the APA notice and comment or delayed effective date requirements. The document corrects technical errors in the FY 2018 SNF PPS final rule and in the tables referenced in the final rule, but does not make substantive changes to the policies or payment methodologies that were adopted in the final rule. As a result, this correcting document is intended to ensure that the information in the FY 2018 SNF PPS final rule accurately reflects the policies adopted in that final rule.

In addition, even if this were a rule to which the notice and comment procedures and delayed effective date requirements applied, we find that there is good cause to waive such requirements. Undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate the corrections in this document into the final rule or delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest because it is in the public's interest for providers to receive appropriate payments in as timely a manner as possible, and to ensure that the FY 2018 SNF PPS final rule and the tables referenced in the final rule accurately reflect our methodologies, payment rates, and policies. Furthermore, such procedures would be unnecessary, as we are not making substantive changes to our payment methodologies or policies, but rather, we are simply implementing correctly the methodologies and policies that we previously proposed, requested comment on, and subsequently finalized. This correcting document is intended solely to ensure that the FY 2018 SNF PPS final rule and the tables referenced in the final rule accurately reflect these methodologies and policies. Therefore, we believe we have good cause to waive the notice and comment and effective date requirements.

In FR Doc. 2017-16256 of August 4, 2017 (82 FR 36530), make the following corrections:

1. On page 36535, TABLE 2—FY 2018 UNADJUSTED FEDERAL RATE PER DIEM URBAN is corrected to read as follows:

2. On page 36535, TABLE 3—FY 2018 UNADJUSTED FEDERAL RATE PER DIEM RURAL is corrected to read as follows:

3. On page 36536, third column, first full paragraph,

a. Line 21, the figure “$443.08” is corrected to read “$442.95”.

b. Line 26, the figure “$1,010.22.” is corrected to read “$1,009.93.”.

4. On page 36537, TABLE 4—RUG-IV CASE-MIX ADJUSTED FEDERAL RATES AND ASSOCIATED INDEXES—URBAN is corrected to read as follows:

5. On page 36538, TABLE 5—RUG-IV CASE-MIX ADJUSTED FEDERAL RATES AND ASSOCIATED INDEXES—RURAL is corrected to read as follows:

6. On pages 36541 through 36542, TABLE 6—RUG-IV CASE-MIX ADJUSTED FEDERAL RATES FOR URBAN SNFS BY LABOR AND NON-LABOR COMPONENT is corrected to read as follows:

7. On pages 36542 through 36543, TABLE 7-RUG-IV CASE-MIX ADJUSTED FEDERAL RATES FOR RURAL SNFS BY LABOR AND NON-LABOR COMPONENT is corrected to read as follows:

The reef fish fishery of the Gulf is managed under the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico, prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic is managed under the Snapper-Grouper FMP of the South Atlantic, prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. The dolphin-wahoo fishery of the South Atlantic is managed under the Dolphin-Wahoo FMP of the South Atlantic, prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. The fishery for CMP fish (king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and cobia) is managed under the FMP for the CMP Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic, prepared by both Councils. The fishery for spiny lobster is managed under the FMP for Spiny Lobster of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic, prepared by both Councils. All FMPs are implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

The Generic Dealer Amendment established Federal dealer reporting requirements for federally permitted dealers in the Gulf and South Atlantic (79 FR 19490, April 9, 2014). Amendment 26 to the FMP established an IFQ program for the commercial red snapper component of the Gulf reef fish fishery (71 FR 67447, November 22, 2006). Amendment 29 to the FMP established an IFQ program for the commercial grouper and tilefish components of the Gulf reef fish fishery (74 FR 44732, August 31, 2009). Regulations implementing these IFQ programs (50 CFR 622.21 and 622.22) and the dealer reporting requirements (50 CFR 622.5(c)) require that Federal dealers and IFQ participants have access to a computer and Internet and that they conduct administrative functions associated with dealer reporting and the IFQ program, e.g., landing transactions, online. However, these regulations also specify that during catastrophic conditions, as determined by the RA, the RA may waive or modify the reporting time requirements for dealers and authorize IFQ participants to use paper-based forms to complete administrative functions for the duration of the catastrophic conditions. The RA must determine that catastrophic conditions exist, specify the duration of the catastrophic conditions, and specify which participants or geographic areas are deemed affected.

Hurricane Irma made landfall in the U.S. near Cudjoe Key, Florida, as a Category 4 hurricane then made a subsequent landfall near Marco Island, Florida, as a Category 3 hurricane on September 10, 2017. Strong winds and flooding from this hurricane impacted communities throughout Florida, resulting in power outages and damage to homes, businesses, and infrastructure. As a result, the RA has determined that catastrophic conditions exist in the following Florida counties: Manatee, Sarasota, DeSoto, Charlotte, Lee, Collier, Monroe, Miami-Dade, and Broward. Through this temporary rule, the RA is authorizing Federal dealers to delay reporting of trip tickets to NOAA Fisheries and IFQ participants within this affected area to use paper-based forms, from September 29, 2017, through October 31, 2017. NMFS will provide additional notification to affected participants via NOAA Weather Radio, Fishery Bulletins, and other appropriate means. NOAA Fisheries will continue to monitor and re-evaluate the areas and duration of the catastrophic conditions.

Dealers may delay electronic reporting of trip tickets to NMFS during catastrophic conditions. Dealers are to report all landings to NMFS as soon as possible. Assistance for Federal dealers in effected areas is available from the Fisheries Monitoring Branch at 1-305-361-4581. NMFS previously provided IFQ dealers with the necessary paper forms (sequentially coded) and instructions for submission in the event of catastrophic conditions. Paper forms are also available from the RA upon request. The electronic systems for submitting information to NMFS will continue to be available to all participants, and participants in the affected area are encouraged to continue using these systems, if accessible.

The administrative program functions available to IFQ participants in the area affected by catastrophic conditions will be limited under the paper-based system. There will be no mechanism for transfers of IFQ shares or allocation under the paper-based system in effect during catastrophic conditions. Assistance in complying with the requirements of the paper-based system will be available via the Catch Share Support line, 1-866-425-7627 Monday through Friday, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. eastern time.

The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of reef fish, CMP species, spiny lobster, dolphin-wahoo, and snapper-grouper, managed under the Gulf IFQ Programs and the Federal dealer reporting programs, as applicable, and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.5(c), 622.21(a)(3)(iii), and 622.22(a)(3)(iii), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because this temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this temporary rule. Such procedures are unnecessary because the final rules implementing the Gulf IFQ programs and the Gulf and Atlantic Federal dealer reporting have already been subject to notice and public comment. These rules authorize the RA to determine when catastrophic conditions exist, and which participants or geographic areas are deemed affected by catastrophic conditions. The final rules also authorize the RA to provide timely notice to affected participants via publication of notification in the Federal Register, NOAA Weather Radio, Fishery Bulletins, and other appropriate means. All that remains is to notify the public that catastrophic conditions exist and that paper forms may be utilized by IFQ dealers in the affected area and that Federal dealers may submit delayed reports. Additionally, delaying this temporary rule to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment would be contrary to the public interest because affected participants are still fishing for and receiving these species in the affected area and need a means of completing their landing transactions. With the power outages and damages to infrastructure that have occurred in the affected area due to Hurricane Irma, numerous businesses are unable to complete landings transactions and dealer reports electronically. In order to continue with their businesses, IFQ participants need to be aware they can still complete landing transactions and dealer reports using the paper forms.

For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI) exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

NMFS closed directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch (POP) in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI under § 679.20(d)(1)(iii) (82 FR 11826, February 27, 2017).

NMFS has determined that approximately 3,800 metric tons of POP remain in the directed fishing allowance. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.25(a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i)(C), and (a)(2)(iii)(D), and to fully utilize the 2017 total allowable catch of POP in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI, NMFS is terminating the previous closure and is opening directed fishing for POP in Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI, effective 1200 hrs, A.l.t., October 1, 2017, through 1200 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2017. This will enhance the socioeconomic well-being of harvesters dependent on POP in this area.

The Administrator, Alaska Region considered the following factors in reaching this decision: (1) The current catch of POP in the BSAI and, (2) the harvest capacity and stated intent on future harvesting patterns of vessels participating in this fishery.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the opening of POP directed fishing in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of September 20, 2017.

The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

Without this inseason adjustment, NMFS could not allow the fishery for POP in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI to be harvested in an expedient manner and in accordance with the regulatory schedule. Under § 679.25(c)(2), interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this action to the above address until October 19, 2017.

This action is required by § 679.20 and § 679.25 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.