{"description":"Documents matching 'compliance further irrefutable evidence such claim compliance'","count":40,"total_pages":2,"next_page_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/api/v1/documents?conditions%5Bterm%5D=compliance+further+irrefutable+evidence+such+claim+compliance&format=json&page=2","results":[{"title":"Alabama: Denial of State Coal Combustion Residuals Permit Program","type":"Rule","abstract":"Pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is denying the Alabama Department of Environmental Management's (ADEM) Application for approval of the Alabama coal combustion residuals (CCR) permit program (Application). After reviewing the State CCR permit program Application submitted by ADEM on December 29, 2021, additional relevant materials, including permits issued by ADEM, and comments submitted on the Proposed Denial, EPA has determined that Alabama's CCR permit program does not meet the standard for approval under RCRA.","document_number":"2024-11692","html_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/06/07/2024-11692/alabama-denial-of-state-coal-combustion-residuals-permit-program","pdf_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-06-07/pdf/2024-11692.pdf","public_inspection_pdf_url":"https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2024-11692.pdf?1717677928","publication_date":"2024-06-07","agencies":[{"raw_name":"ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY","name":"Environmental Protection Agency","id":145,"url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/environmental-protection-agency","json_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/api/v1/agencies/145","parent_id":null,"slug":"environmental-protection-agency"}],"excerpts":"review because the purpose of the evaluations of the permits was not to evaluate compliance by the regulated facilities, but instead to determine whether the facilities' permits require facilities to comply, regardless of actual compliance by the facilities (stated differently, it is theoretically possible that the facilities reviewed in the Proposed Denial are in compliance with the Federal CCR regulations even though their permits by the terms do not require compliance). \n The remainder of the comment address issues outside the scope of this action"},{"title":"Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 3, To Adopt Rules To Govern the Trading of Options on the Exchange for a New Facility Called IEX Options","type":"Notice","abstract":null,"document_number":"2025-18380","html_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/09/23/2025-18380/self-regulatory-organizations-investors-exchange-llc-order-approving-a-proposed-rule-change-as","pdf_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-09-23/pdf/2025-18380.pdf","public_inspection_pdf_url":"https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2025-18380.pdf?1758545112","publication_date":"2025-09-23","agencies":[{"raw_name":"SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION","name":"Securities and Exchange Commission","id":466,"url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/securities-and-exchange-commission","json_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/api/v1/agencies/466","parent_id":null,"slug":"securities-and-exchange-commission"}],"excerpts":"maker quotes repriced or cancelled would be misleading to evaluate the impact of a risk protection mechanism that targets latency arbitrage because higher impacted volume and lower fill rates would be evidence that a tool designed to protect liquidity providers against latency arbitrage is working exactly as intended. It would not provide evidence that firms not engaged in latency arbitrage are impacted and unable to access quotes on IEX during regular trading hours. The tool is reasonably designed to target firms engaged in latency arbitrage. IEX's"},{"title":"Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance","type":"Rule","abstract":"The U.S. Department of Education (Department) amends the regulations implementing Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX). The purpose of these amendments is to better align the Title IX regulatory requirements with Title IX's nondiscrimination mandate. These amendments clarify the scope and application of Title IX and the obligations of recipients of Federal financial assistance from the Department, including elementary schools, secondary schools, postsecondary institutions, and other recipients (referred to below as \"recipients\" or \"schools\") to provide an educational environment free from discrimination on the basis of sex, including through responding to incidents of sex discrimination. These final regulations will enable all recipients to meet their obligations to comply with Title IX while providing them with appropriate discretion and flexibility to account for variations in school size, student populations, and administrative structures.","document_number":"2024-07915","html_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/29/2024-07915/nondiscrimination-on-the-basis-of-sex-in-education-programs-or-activities-receiving-federal","pdf_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-04-29/pdf/2024-07915.pdf","public_inspection_pdf_url":"https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2024-07915.pdf?1713530716","publication_date":"2024-04-29","agencies":[{"raw_name":"DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION","name":"Education Department","id":126,"url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/education-department","json_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/api/v1/agencies/126","parent_id":null,"slug":"education-department"}],"excerpts":"that if the Department's final regulations retain proposed § 106.46(e)(6)(i), which requires access to relevant evidence or a written investigative report that summarizes relevant evidence, the Department should keep the distinction between evidence “related to” the allegations and evidence “relevant” to the allegations and not define “relevant” as including all evidence “related to” allegations of sex discrimination. The commenters stated the proposed definition of “relevant” would be too broad and would result in unwieldy hearings and investigative"},{"title":"Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals","type":"Rule","abstract":"On September 28, 2021, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM or proposed rule) that proposed to establish regulations to preserve and fortify the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy to defer removal of certain noncitizens who years earlier came to the United States as children, meet other criteria, and do not present other circumstances that would warrant removal. After a careful review of the public comments received, DHS is now issuing a final rule that implements the proposed rule, with some amendments.","document_number":"2022-18401","html_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/08/30/2022-18401/deferred-action-for-childhood-arrivals","pdf_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-08-30/pdf/2022-18401.pdf","public_inspection_pdf_url":"https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2022-18401.pdf?1661372117","publication_date":"2022-08-30","agencies":[{"raw_name":"DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY","name":"Homeland Security Department","id":227,"url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/homeland-security-department","json_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/api/v1/agencies/227","parent_id":null,"slug":"homeland-security-department"}],"excerpts":"preponderance of the evidence.\n 235 \n \n Under the preponderance of the evidence standard, the sufficiency of each piece of evidence is examined for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true.\n 236 \n \n DHS believes this standard provides an appropriate balance between ensuring that deferred action under the DACA policy is extended to the intended population and retaining a threshold that the evidence show that the facts"},{"title":"Bradley H. Chesler, M.D.; Decision and Order","type":"Notice","abstract":null,"document_number":"2022-01838","html_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/01/31/2022-01838/bradley-h-chesler-md-decision-and-order","pdf_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-01-31/pdf/2022-01838.pdf","public_inspection_pdf_url":"https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2022-01838.pdf?1643377525","publication_date":"2022-01-31","agencies":[{"raw_name":"DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE","name":"Justice Department","id":268,"url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/justice-department","json_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/api/v1/agencies/268","parent_id":null,"slug":"justice-department"},{"raw_name":"Drug Enforcement Administration","name":"Drug Enforcement Administration","id":116,"url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/drug-enforcement-administration","json_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/api/v1/agencies/116","parent_id":268,"slug":"drug-enforcement-administration"}],"excerpts":"case, there is evidence that Respondent's prescribing put his patients at risk and that he did not document informed consent surrounding that risk. Further, there is evidence on the record that a patient died of an overdose, and regardless of whether the controlled substances Respondent prescribed contributed to that death, the overdose itself indicates abuse. Additionally, there is evidence that another one of Respondent's patients had opiate use disorder by Respondent's admission. \n Supra \n n.*J. And finally, there is evidence that AA was possibly"},{"title":"Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards for Model Years 2024-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks","type":"Rule","abstract":"NHTSA, on behalf of the Department of Transportation, is finalizing revised fuel economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks for model years (MYs) 2024-2025 that increase at a rate of 8 percent per year, and increase at a rate of 10 percent per year for MY 2026 vehicles. NHTSA currently projects that the revised standards would require an industry fleet-wide average of roughly 49 mpg in MY 2026, and would reduce average fuel outlays over the lifetimes of affected vehicles that provide consumers hundreds of dollars in net savings. These standards are directly responsive to the agency's statutory mandate to improve energy conservation and reduce the Nation's energy dependence on foreign sources. This final rule fulfills NHTSA's obligation to revisit the standards set forth in \"The Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021- 2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks,\" as directed by President Biden's January 20, 2021, Executive order \"Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science To Tackle the Climate Crisis.\" The revised standards set forth in this final rule are consistent with the policy direction in the order, to among other things, listen to the science, improve public health and protect our environment, and to prioritize both environmental justice and the creation of the well paying union jobs necessary to deliver on these goals. This final rule addresses public comments to the notice of proposed rulemaking and also makes certain minor changes to fuel economy reporting requirements.","document_number":"2022-07200","html_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/05/02/2022-07200/corporate-average-fuel-economy-standards-for-model-years-2024-2026-passenger-cars-and-light-trucks","pdf_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-05-02/pdf/2022-07200.pdf","public_inspection_pdf_url":"https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2022-07200.pdf?1650381317","publication_date":"2022-05-02","agencies":[{"raw_name":"DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION","name":"Transportation Department","id":492,"url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/transportation-department","json_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/api/v1/agencies/492","parent_id":null,"slug":"transportation-department"},{"raw_name":"National Highway Traffic Safety Administration","name":"National Highway Traffic Safety Administration","id":345,"url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/national-highway-traffic-safety-administration","json_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/api/v1/agencies/345","parent_id":492,"slug":"national-highway-traffic-safety-administration"}],"excerpts":"a given percent per year for a given number of consecutive years.\n \n \n Manufacturer compliance simulation and the ensuing effects estimation, collectively referred to as compliance modeling, encompass numerous subsidiary elements. Compliance simulation begins with a detailed user-provided initial forecast of the vehicle models offered for sale during the simulation period.\n 45 \n \n The compliance simulation then attempts to bring each manufacturer into compliance with the standards defined by the regulatory \n \n scenario contained within an input"},{"title":"Seven County Infrastructure Coalition-Rail Construction & Operation Exemption-In Utah, Carbon, Duchesne, and Uintah Counties, Utah","type":"Notice","abstract":null,"document_number":"2021-27560","html_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/12/21/2021-27560/seven-county-infrastructure-coalition-rail-construction-and-operation-exemption-in-utah-carbon","pdf_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-12-21/pdf/2021-27560.pdf","public_inspection_pdf_url":"https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2021-27560.pdf?1640007932","publication_date":"2021-12-21","agencies":[{"raw_name":"SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD","name":"Surface Transportation Board","id":481,"url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/surface-transportation-board","json_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/api/v1/agencies/481","parent_id":null,"slug":"surface-transportation-board"}],"excerpts":"appropriateness of an exemption, one would further the RTP goals at section 10101 (2), (4), (5), and (7). As noted above, however, Argyle claims that the RTP goals at section 10101(8), concerning public safety, and section 10101(11), concerning safe working conditions, would be undermined by the project. (Argyle Reply 9, July 7, 2020.) Argyle asserts that there will be a substantial increase in local truck traffic if oil production were to increase to the extent claimed by the Coalition. (\n Id. \n at 10.) Argyle also claims, among other things, that rail activities"},{"title":"Jeanne E. Germeil, M.D. Decision and Order","type":"Notice","abstract":null,"document_number":"2020-25528","html_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/11/19/2020-25528/jeanne-e-germeil-md-decision-and-order","pdf_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-11-19/pdf/2020-25528.pdf","public_inspection_pdf_url":"https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2020-25528.pdf?1605707139","publication_date":"2020-11-19","agencies":[{"raw_name":"DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE","name":"Justice Department","id":268,"url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/justice-department","json_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/api/v1/agencies/268","parent_id":null,"slug":"justice-department"},{"raw_name":"Drug Enforcement Administration","name":"Drug Enforcement Administration","id":116,"url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/drug-enforcement-administration","json_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/api/v1/agencies/116","parent_id":268,"slug":"drug-enforcement-administration"}],"excerpts":"Experience in Dispensing Controlled Substances and Compliance With Applicable Laws Related to Controlled Substances \n \n Respondent asks that I consider evidence of her positive dispensing experience. ALJX 28, at 12. In evaluating Respondent's dispensing experience, I note that Respondent has significant experience as a licensed physician in Florida since October 2007, and running her own medical practice since 2011. RX 5, at 1. Respondent claimed, without providing any evidence to support the claim, that she has treated “thousands of patients for"},{"title":"Frank Joseph Stirlacci, M.D.; Decision and Order","type":"Notice","abstract":null,"document_number":"2020-16193","html_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/07/27/2020-16193/frank-joseph-stirlacci-md-decision-and-order","pdf_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-07-27/pdf/2020-16193.pdf","public_inspection_pdf_url":"https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2020-16193.pdf?1595594739","publication_date":"2020-07-27","agencies":[{"raw_name":"DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE","name":"Justice Department","id":268,"url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/justice-department","json_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/api/v1/agencies/268","parent_id":null,"slug":"justice-department"},{"raw_name":"Drug Enforcement Administration","name":"Drug Enforcement Administration","id":116,"url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/drug-enforcement-administration","json_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/api/v1/agencies/116","parent_id":268,"slug":"drug-enforcement-administration"}],"excerpts":"decision's treatment of “materiality” in a False Claims Act case is “particularly unfavorable to the Government's attempt to prove materiality in light of DEA's informed inaction.” ALJX 30, at 16 (citing \n Escobar \n ). According to Respondent, “[i]n terms of . . . [False Claims Act] liability, the [Supreme] Court held that evidence that the government knew about an alleged regulatory violation that caused a claim submitted to the government to be false yet continued to pay those claims was `very strong evidence' that the underlying conduct was not material"},{"title":"Connect America Fund","type":"Rule","abstract":"In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau (the Bureau) establishes procedures to ensure swift and efficient administration of the voluntary process for the long-form applicants in the Connect America Phase II Auction (Phase II Auction) to facilitate post-auction review of the defined deployment obligations (and associated support) on a state-by-state basis when the total number of actual locations in eligible areas is less than the number of funded locations.","document_number":"2019-28501","html_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/01/13/2019-28501/connect-america-fund","pdf_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-01-13/pdf/2019-28501.pdf","public_inspection_pdf_url":"https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2019-28501.pdf?1578663914","publication_date":"2020-01-13","agencies":[{"raw_name":"FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION","name":"Federal Communications Commission","id":161,"url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/federal-communications-commission","json_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/api/v1/agencies/161","parent_id":null,"slug":"federal-communications-commission"}],"excerpts":"However, the Bureau expects stakeholders to provide irrefutable evidence of any omitted qualified locations overlooked by the participant, making responses largely unnecessary. The Bureau does not adopt specific evidentiary requirements for this reply process, preferring instead to defer to participants' judgment regarding the most probative evidence to rebut the stakeholders' information. The reply should not be used to introduce new evidence not responsive to the challenge or update preexisting evidence that is non-responsive to one or more stakeholder"},{"title":"Student Assistance General Provisions, Federal Family Education Loan Program, and William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program","type":"Rule","abstract":"The Department of Education (Department or We) establishes new Institutional Accountability regulations governing the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program to revise a Federal standard and a process for adjudicating borrower defenses to repayment claims for Federal student loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 2020, and provide for actions the Secretary may take to collect from schools the amount of financial loss due to successful borrower defense to repayment loan discharges. The Department also amends regulations regarding pre-dispute arbitration agreements or class action waivers as a condition of enrollment, and requires institutions to include information regarding the school's internal dispute resolution and arbitration processes as part of in the borrower's entrance counseling. We amend the Student Assistance General Provisions regulations to establish the conditions or events that have or may have an adverse, material effect on an institution's financial condition and which warrant financial protection for the Department, update the definitions of terms used to calculate an institution's composite score to conform with changes in certain accounting standards, and account for leases and long-term debt. Finally, we amend the loan discharge provisions in the Direct Loan Program.","document_number":"2019-19309","html_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/09/23/2019-19309/student-assistance-general-provisions-federal-family-education-loan-program-and-william-d-ford","pdf_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-09-23/pdf/2019-19309.pdf","public_inspection_pdf_url":"https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2019-19309.pdf?1568983519","publication_date":"2019-09-23","agencies":[{"raw_name":"DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION","name":"Education Department","id":126,"url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/education-department","json_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/api/v1/agencies/126","parent_id":null,"slug":"education-department"}],"excerpts":"military and veteran families. \n \n Some commenters, who supported the inclusion of both affirmative and defensive claims, did so with a caveat that these claims should be combined with a requirement that the claim be supported by clear and convincing evidence, rather than a preponderance of the evidence. One commenter, who supported the inclusion of affirmative claims, did so with a caveat that these \n \n claims should be supported by evidence that is beyond a reasonable doubt.\n \n One commenter suggested that borrowers whose loan payments are current"},{"title":"Brian Thomas Nichol, M.D., Decision and Order","type":"Notice","abstract":null,"document_number":"2018-20383","html_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/09/19/2018-20383/brian-thomas-nichol-md-decision-and-order","pdf_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-09-19/pdf/2018-20383.pdf","public_inspection_pdf_url":"https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2018-20383.pdf?1537274730","publication_date":"2018-09-19","agencies":[{"raw_name":"DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE","name":"Justice Department","id":268,"url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/justice-department","json_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/api/v1/agencies/268","parent_id":null,"slug":"justice-department"},{"raw_name":"Drug Enforcement Administration","name":"Drug Enforcement Administration","id":116,"url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/drug-enforcement-administration","json_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/api/v1/agencies/116","parent_id":268,"slug":"drug-enforcement-administration"}],"excerpts":"Cause Order. Thus, I find that the fact that DEA renewed Respondent's registration in 2010 and 2013 does not constitute evidence mitigating Respondent's unlawful pre-signing of prescriptions. \n \n However, I do agree with the ALJ that the final factor he identified constitutes mitigating evidence. Specifically, I find that the amount of time that has passed since Respondent unlawfully pre-signed prescriptions is mitigating evidence because he has not repeated this particular misconduct since 2006. \n Koch, \n 79 FR at 18736 (“time is certainly an appropriate"},{"title":"Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; V2V Communications","type":"Proposed Rule","abstract":"This document proposes to establish a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS), No. 150, to mandate vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications for new light vehicles and to standardize the message and format of V2V transmissions. This will create an information environment in which vehicle and device manufacturers can create and implement applications to improve safety, mobility, and the environment. Without a mandate to require and standardize V2V communications, the agency believes that manufacturers will not be able to move forward in an efficient way and that a critical mass of equipped vehicles would take many years to develop, if ever. Implementation of the new standard will enable vehicle manufacturers to develop safety applications that employ V2V communications as an input, two of which are estimated to prevent hundreds of thousands of crashes and prevent over one thousand fatalities annually.","document_number":"2016-31059","html_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/12/2016-31059/federal-motor-vehicle-safety-standards-v2v-communications","pdf_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2017-01-12/pdf/2016-31059.pdf","public_inspection_pdf_url":"https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2016-31059.pdf?1483478125","publication_date":"2017-01-12","agencies":[{"raw_name":"DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION","name":"Transportation Department","id":492,"url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/transportation-department","json_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/api/v1/agencies/492","parent_id":null,"slug":"transportation-department"},{"raw_name":"National Highway Traffic Safety Administration","name":"National Highway Traffic Safety Administration","id":345,"url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/national-highway-traffic-safety-administration","json_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/api/v1/agencies/345","parent_id":492,"slug":"national-highway-traffic-safety-administration"}],"excerpts":"relevant new evidence and may propose revisions to a subsequent proposed or final rule as necessary and appropriate to reflect the current state of the evidence to provide an effective regulatory program. In obtaining that new evidence, NHTSA may consider collections of information that may trigger the Paperwork Reduction Act, and would notify the public of these collections through the separate \n Federal Register \n Notices required under that Act. NHTSA may also identify and pursue additional issues for new research or conduct further research with"},{"title":"International Entrepreneur Rule","type":"Proposed Rule","abstract":"The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to amend its regulations implementing the Secretary of Homeland Security's discretionary parole authority to increase and enhance entrepreneurship, innovation, and job creation in the United States. The proposed rule would add new regulatory provisions guiding the use of parole on a case-by-case basis with respect to entrepreneurs of start-up entities whose entry into the United States would provide a significant public benefit through the substantial and demonstrated potential for rapid business growth and job creation. Such potential would be indicated by, among other things, the receipt of significant capital investment from U.S. investors with established records of successful investments, or obtaining significant awards or grants from certain Federal, State or local government entities. If granted, parole would provide a temporary initial stay of up to 2 years (which may be extended by up to an additional 3 years) to facilitate the applicant's ability to oversee and grow his or her start-up entity in the United States. A subsequent request for re-parole would be considered only when the entrepreneur and his or her start-up entity continues to provide a significant public benefit as evidenced by substantial increases in capital investment, revenue, or job creation. DHS believes that a regulatory process for seeking and granting parole in this business-creation context--including by establishing criteria for evaluating individual parole applications on a case-by-case basis--is important given the complexities involved in such adjudications and the need for guidance regarding the general criteria for eligibility by the start-up entrepreneurs, entities, and investors involved.","document_number":"2016-20663","html_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/08/31/2016-20663/international-entrepreneur-rule","pdf_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-08-31/pdf/2016-20663.pdf","public_inspection_pdf_url":"https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2016-20663.pdf?1472230943","publication_date":"2016-08-31","agencies":[{"raw_name":"DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY","name":"Homeland Security Department","id":227,"url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/homeland-security-department","json_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/api/v1/agencies/227","parent_id":null,"slug":"homeland-security-department"}],"excerpts":"or other similar evidence that the applicant or entity has received significant attention or recognition; \n • evidence that the applicant or entity has been recently invited to participate in, is currently participating in, or has graduated from one or more established and reputable start-up accelerators; \n • evidence of significant revenue generation and growth in revenue; \n • patent awards or other documents indicating that the entity or applicant is focused on developing new technologies or cutting-edge research; \n • evidence that the applicant"},{"title":"Medicaid Program; Face-to-Face Requirements for Home Health Services; Policy Changes and Clarifications Related to Home Health","type":"Rule","abstract":"This final rule revises the Medicaid home health service definition consistent with section 6407 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (the Affordable Care Act) and section 504 of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) to add requirements that, for home health services, physicians document, and, for certain medical equipment, physicians or certain authorized non-physician practitioners (NPP) document the occurrence of a face-to- face encounter (including through the use of telehealth) with the Medicaid eligible beneficiary within reasonable timeframes. This rule also aligns the timeframes for the face-to-face encounter with similar regulatory requirements for Medicare home health services. In addition, this rule amends the definitions of medical supplies, equipment, and appliances. We expect minimal impact with the implementation of section 6407 of the Affordable Care Act and section 504 of MACRA. We recognize that states may have budgetary implications as a result of the amended definitions of medical supplies, equipment and appliances. Specifically, this rule may expand coverage of medical supplies, equipment and appliances under the home health benefit. There will be items that had previously only been offered under certain sections of the Act that will now be covered under the home health benefit.","document_number":"2016-01585","html_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/02/02/2016-01585/medicaid-program-face-to-face-requirements-for-home-health-services-policy-changes-and","pdf_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-02-02/pdf/2016-01585.pdf","public_inspection_pdf_url":"https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2016-01585.pdf?1453929316","publication_date":"2016-02-02","agencies":[{"raw_name":"DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES","name":"Health and Human Services Department","id":221,"url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/health-and-human-services-department","json_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/api/v1/agencies/221","parent_id":null,"slug":"health-and-human-services-department"},{"raw_name":"Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services","name":"Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services","id":45,"url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/centers-for-medicare-medicaid-services","json_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/api/v1/agencies/45","parent_id":221,"slug":"centers-for-medicare-medicaid-services"}],"excerpts":"guidance on the responsibility of the Medicaid Agency as it relates to oversight and monitoring of home health agencies to ensure compliance with the regulations.\n \n \n Response: \n Overall compliance with home health agency certification requirements is conducted by the state's survey agency, in partnership with us. It is expected that State Medicaid Agencies collaborate with State Survey Agencies to ensure compliance of all home health providers with appropriate requirements, including all aspects of this regulation.\n \n \n Comment: \n Some commenters"},{"title":"4 OTC, Inc.; Decision and Order","type":"Notice","abstract":null,"document_number":"2012-14307","html_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2012/06/12/2012-14307/4-otc-inc-decision-and-order","pdf_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2012-06-12/pdf/2012-14307.pdf","public_inspection_pdf_url":"https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2012-14307.pdf?1339418927","publication_date":"2012-06-12","agencies":[{"raw_name":"DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE","name":"Justice Department","id":268,"url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/justice-department","json_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/api/v1/agencies/268","parent_id":null,"slug":"justice-department"},{"raw_name":"Drug Enforcement Administration","name":"Drug Enforcement Administration","id":116,"url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/drug-enforcement-administration","json_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/api/v1/agencies/116","parent_id":268,"slug":"drug-enforcement-administration"}],"excerpts":"would Kevin McIsaac be entrusted. Accordingly, Kevin McIsaac's history of non-compliance with Canadian law, and the significance of that non-compliance given his decision to then relinquish his Class A license, negatively impacts a finding that he could ensure the Respondent's compliance with DEA law.\n \n \n \n 25 \n The actual percentage ownership interest that Mr. McIsaac has in 4OTC, however, is unclear. [\n See \n FOF 98].\n \n \n \n Next, the Government introduced evidence that GFR violated Canada's precursor regulations. [\n See \n FOF 55]. Specifically"},{"title":"Required Warnings for Cigarette Packages and Advertisements","type":"Rule","abstract":"The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending its regulations to add a new requirement for the display of health warnings on cigarette packages and in cigarette advertisements. This rule implements a provision of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act) that requires FDA to issue regulations requiring color graphics, depicting the negative health consequences of smoking, to accompany the nine new textual warning statements required under the Tobacco Control Act. The Tobacco Control Act amends the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA) to require each cigarette package and advertisement to bear one of nine new textual warning statements. This final rule specifies the color graphic images that must accompany each of the nine new textual warning statements.","document_number":"2011-15337","html_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2011/06/22/2011-15337/required-warnings-for-cigarette-packages-and-advertisements","pdf_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2011-06-22/pdf/2011-15337.pdf","public_inspection_pdf_url":null,"publication_date":"2011-06-22","agencies":[{"raw_name":"DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES","name":"Health and Human Services Department","id":221,"url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/health-and-human-services-department","json_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/api/v1/agencies/221","parent_id":null,"slug":"health-and-human-services-department"},{"raw_name":"Food and Drug Administration","name":"Food and Drug Administration","id":199,"url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/food-and-drug-administration","json_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/api/v1/agencies/199","parent_id":221,"slug":"food-and-drug-administration"}],"excerpts":"rush charges for compliance periods shorter than 2 years. The new labeling cost model assumes constant rush charges equal to 40 percent for compliance periods of 3 to 15 months. In reality, rush charges are likely to decline continuously as the compliance period increases. The rush charges under a 3-month compliance period could exceed 40 percent, and the rush charges for a 15-month compliance period are likely to be far less. FDA has therefore retained the original assumption of 10 percent rush charges for a 15-month compliance period. \n (Comment"},{"title":"Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health Insurance Programs; Additional Screening Requirements, Application Fees, Temporary Enrollment Moratoria, Payment Suspensions and Compliance Plans for Providers and Suppliers","type":"Rule","abstract":"This final rule with comment period will implement provisions of the ACA that establish: Procedures under which screening is conducted for providers of medical or other services and suppliers in the Medicare program, providers in the Medicaid program, and providers in the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP); an application fee imposed on institutional providers and suppliers; temporary moratoria that may be imposed if necessary to prevent or combat fraud, waste, and abuse under the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and CHIP; guidance for States regarding termination of providers from Medicaid and CHIP if terminated by Medicare or another Medicaid State plan or CHIP; guidance regarding the termination of providers and suppliers from Medicare if terminated by a Medicaid State agency; and requirements for suspension of payments pending credible allegations of fraud in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. This final rule with comment period also discusses our earlier solicitation of comments regarding provisions of the ACA that require providers of medical or other items or services or suppliers within a particular industry sector or category to establish compliance programs. We have identified specific provisions surrounding our implementation of fingerprinting for certain providers and suppliers for which we may make changes if warranted by the public comments received. We expect to publish our response to those comments, including any possible changes to the rule made as a result of them, as soon as possible following the end of the comment period. Furthermore, we clarify that we are finalizing the adoption of fingerprinting pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth herein.","document_number":"2011-1686","html_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2011/02/02/2011-1686/medicare-medicaid-and-childrens-health-insurance-programs-additional-screening-requirements","pdf_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2011-02-02/pdf/2011-1686.pdf","public_inspection_pdf_url":null,"publication_date":"2011-02-02","agencies":[{"raw_name":"DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES","name":"Health and Human Services Department","id":221,"url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/health-and-human-services-department","json_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/api/v1/agencies/221","parent_id":null,"slug":"health-and-human-services-department"},{"raw_name":"Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services","name":"Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services","id":45,"url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/centers-for-medicare-medicaid-services","json_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/api/v1/agencies/45","parent_id":221,"slug":"centers-for-medicare-medicaid-services"},{"raw_name":"Office of Inspector General"}],"excerpts":"filled or the referral fulfilled and the claim for the order or referral will be paid.\n \n \n Comment: \n A commenter asked whether the ordering and referring rule applied to Medicare crossover claims.\n \n \n Response: \n Yes, the beneficiary's claims would be Medicaid claims, therefore the provider who ordered or referred the Medicaid beneficiary's services would be required to be enrolled as a Medicaid participating provider.\n \n \n Comment: \n One commenter requested clarification on whether CMS will be changing claims forms to accommodate the collection of"},{"title":"Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Sulfur Dioxide","type":"Rule","abstract":"Based on its review of the air quality criteria for oxides of sulfur and the primary national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for oxides of sulfur as measured by sulfur dioxide (SO2), EPA is revising the primary SO2 NAAQS to provide requisite protection of public health with an adequate margin of safety. Specifically, EPA is establishing a new 1-hour SO2 standard at a level of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. The EPA is also revoking both the existing 24-hour and annual primary SO2 standards.","document_number":"2010-13947","html_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2010/06/22/2010-13947/primary-national-ambient-air-quality-standard-for-sulfur-dioxide","pdf_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2010-06-22/pdf/2010-13947.pdf","public_inspection_pdf_url":null,"publication_date":"2010-06-22","agencies":[{"raw_name":"ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY","name":"Environmental Protection Agency","id":145,"url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/environmental-protection-agency","json_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/api/v1/agencies/145","parent_id":null,"slug":"environmental-protection-agency"}],"excerpts":"integrative synthesis of the entire body of evidence on human health effects associated with the presence of SO\n 2 \n in the ambient air, and upon the results of the quantitative exposure and risk assessments reflecting this evidence. As discussed below, this body of evidence addresses a broad range of health endpoints associated with exposure to SO\n 2 \n in the ambient air. In considering this entire body of evidence, EPA chose to focus most on those health endpoints for which the ISA found the strongest evidence of an association with SO\n 2 \n (\n see "},{"title":"Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Nitrogen Dioxide","type":"Rule","abstract":"Based on its review of the air quality criteria for oxides of nitrogen and the primary national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for oxides of nitrogen as measured by nitrogen dioxide (NO2), EPA is making revisions to the primary NO2 NAAQS in order to provide requisite protection of public health. Specifically, EPA is establishing a new 1-hour standard at a level of 100 ppb, based on the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations, to supplement the existing annual standard. EPA is also establishing requirements for an NO2 monitoring network that will include monitors at locations where maximum NO2 concentrations are expected to occur, including within 50 meters of major roadways, as well as monitors sited to measure the area-wide NO2 concentrations that occur more broadly across communities.","document_number":"2010-1990","html_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2010/02/09/2010-1990/primary-national-ambient-air-quality-standards-for-nitrogen-dioxide","pdf_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2010-02-09/pdf/2010-1990.pdf","public_inspection_pdf_url":null,"publication_date":"2010-02-09","agencies":[{"raw_name":"ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY","name":"Environmental Protection Agency","id":145,"url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/environmental-protection-agency","json_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/api/v1/agencies/145","parent_id":null,"slug":"environmental-protection-agency"}],"excerpts":"framed this approach to considering the scientific evidence and exposure-/risk-based information. First, EPA's consideration of the scientific evidence and exposure/risk information with regard to the adequacy of the current standard has been framed by the following questions: \n \n \n • To what extent does evidence that has become available since the last review reinforce or call into question evidence for NO\n 2 \n -associated effects that were identified in the last review?\n \n • To what extent has evidence for different health effects and/or sensitive"}]}