[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 3, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26546-26569]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-12911]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
42 CFR Part 412
[CMS-1337-IFC]
RIN 0938-AP76
Medicare Program; Revisions to FY 2009 Medicare Severity-Long-
Term Care Diagnosis-Related Group (MS-LTC-DRG) Weights
AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION: Interim final rule with comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This interim final rule with comment period implements revised
Medicare severity long-term care diagnosis-related group (MS-LTC-DRG)
relative weights for payment under the long-term care hospital (LTCH)
prospective payment system (PPS) for federal fiscal year (FY) 2009. We
are revising the MS-LTC-DRG relative weights for FY 2009 due to the
misapplication of our established methodology in the calculation of the
budget neutrality factor. The revised FY 2009 MS-LTC-DRG relative
weights are effective for the remainder of FY 2009 (that is, from June
3, 2009 through September 30, 2009).
DATES: Effective date: These regulations are effective on June 3, 2009.
Comment date: To be assured consideration, comments must be
received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m.,
June 29, 2009.
ADDRESSES: In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-1337-IFC.
Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by
facsimile (FAX) transmission.
You may submit comments in one of four ways (please choose only one
of the ways listed):
1. Electronically. You may submit electronic comments on this
regulation to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions under
the ``More Search Options'' tab.
2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following
address ONLY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of
Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-1337-IFC, P.O. Box 8011,
Baltimore, MD 21244-8011.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received
before the close of the comment period.
3. By express or overnight mail. You may send written comments to
the following address only: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services,
Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-1337-IFC, Mail
Stop C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.
4. By hand or courier. If you prefer, you may deliver (by hand or
courier) your written comments before the close of the comment period
to either of the following addresses:
a. For delivery in Washington, DC--Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Room 445-G, Hubert
H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20201.
(Because access to the interior of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building
is not readily available to persons without Federal government
identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in
the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-
in clock is available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing
by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being
filed.)
b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD--Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, Department of Health and Human Services, 7500 Security
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.
If you intend to deliver your comments to the Baltimore address,
please call telephone number (410) 786-9994 in advance to schedule your
arrival with one of our staff members.
Comments mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand
or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment
period has ended.
For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tzvi Hefter, (410) 786-4487.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Inspection of Public Comments: All comments received before the
close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public,
including any personally identifiable or confidential business
information that is included in a comment. We post all comments
received before the close of the
[[Page 26547]]
comment period on the following Web site as soon as possible after they
have been received: http://regulations.gov. Follow the search
instructions on that Web site to view public comments.
Comments received timely will be also available for public
inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3
weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard,
Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments,
phone 1-800-743-3951.
I. Background of the LTCH PPS
A. Legislative and Regulatory Authority
Section 123 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP (State Children's
Health Insurance Program) Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999 (BBRA)
(Pub. L. 106-113) as amended by section 307(b) of the Medicare,
Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000
(BIPA) (Pub. L. 106-554) provides for payment for both the operating
and capital-related costs of hospital inpatient stays in long-term care
hospitals (LTCHs) under Medicare Part A based on prospectively set
rates. The Medicare prospective payment system (PPS) for LTCHs applies
to hospitals that are described in section 1886(d)(1)(B)(iv) of the
Social Security Act (the Act), effective for cost reporting periods
beginning on or after October 1, 2002.
In the August 30, 2002 (67 FR 55954) Federal Register, we issued a
final rule that implemented the LTCH PPS authorized under the BBRA and
BIPA. The same final rule established regulations for the LTCH PPS
under 42 CFR Part 412, Subpart O. This system currently uses
information from LTCH patient records to classify patients into
distinct Medicare Severity-long-term care diagnosis-related groups (MS-
LTC-DRGs) based on clinical characteristics and expected resource
needs. Payments are calculated for each MS-LTC-DRG and provisions are
made for appropriate payment adjustments. Payment rates under the LTCH
PPS are updated annually and published in the Federal Register. We
refer readers to the August 30, 2002 (67 FR 55954) final rule for a
comprehensive discussion of the research and data that supported the
establishment of the LTCH PPS.
B. Annual Updates to the LTCH PPS
For rate years (RYs) 2004 through 2009, annual payment rate update
and policy changes under the LTCH PPS were effective beginning on July
1 of each year (RY 2009 is the 15-month rate period July 1, 2008
through September 30, 2009 (see Sec. 412.503)). However, the annual
updates of the LTC-DRG (and, beginning in FY 2008, the MS-LTC-DRG)
classifications and relative weights for LTCHs are linked to the annual
update of the acute care hospital inpatient prospective payment system
(IPPS) DRGs and are effective each October 1.
The most recent annual update to the payment rates and policy
changes under the LTCH PPS was established in the RY 2009 LTCH PPS
final rule (73 FR 26788 through 26874), and is currently effective for
the 15-month rate year of July 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009. The
most recent annual update to the MS-LTC-DRGs was established in the FY
2009 IPPS final rule (73 FR 48528 through 48551), and is currently
effective October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009.
Beginning with October 1, 2009, the annual updates to the LTCH PPS
rates and factors, including the relative weights, and other payment
policy changes are effective on October 1.
II. Provisions of This Interim Final Rule With Comment Period
A. FY 2009 MS-LTC-DRG Relative Weights
Beginning with the FY 2008 update, we established a budget
neutrality requirement for the annual update to the MS-LTC-DRG
classifications and relative weights at Sec. 412.517(b) (in
conjunction with Sec. 412.503), such that estimated aggregate LTCH PPS
payments would be unaffected, that is, would be neither greater than
nor less than the estimated aggregate LTCH PPS payments that would have
been made without the classification and relative weight changes. (See
the May 11, 2007 LTCH PPS final rule (72 FR 26882 through 26884).)
Consistent with Sec. 412.517(b), in the FY 2009 IPPS final rule
(August 19, 2008, (73 FR 48550 through 48551)), using the most recent
data available at that time (FY 2007 LTCH claims data from the March
2008 update of the MedPAR files), we established the MS-LTC-DRG
classifications and relative weights for FY 2009 based on the
application of budget neutrality adjustment factors determined using
the two-step methodology of calculating and applying a normalization
factor and a budget neutrality factor, as initially established in the
FY 2008 IPPS final rule (August 22, 2007, (72 FR 47295 through 47296)).
Specifically, for FY 2009, under the first step of the established two-
step budget neutrality methodology, after recalibrating the MS-LTC-DRG
relative weights, we calculated and applied a normalization factor of
1.03887 to those relative weights to ensure that the average case-mix
index (CMI) is not influenced by changes in the composition of case
types or the changes to the classification system, such that the
recalibration process itself neither increases nor decreases the
average CMI. In doing so, each (recalibrated) MS-LTC-DRG relative
weight was multiplied by 1.03887 to produce ``normalized relative
weights''.
Under the second step of the established two-step budget neutrality
methodology, we calculated and applied a ``budget neutrality adjustment
factor'' to ensure that estimated aggregate LTCH PPS payments after
reclassification and recalibration would be equal to estimated
aggregate LTCH PPS payments before reclassification and recalibration.
Specifically, as described in the FY 2009 IPPS final rule (73 FR
48551), we calculated a budget neutrality factor of 1.04186 by
comparing estimated total payments using the normalized FY 2009
relative weights under GROUPER Version 26.0 to estimated total payments
using the FY 2008 GROUPER (Version 25.0) and FY 2008 MS-LTC-DRG
relative weights. Then, each of the normalized relative weights was
multiplied by that budget neutrality factor to determine the budget
neutral relative weight for each MS-LTC-DRG for FY 2009. Thus, the FY
2009 MS-LTC-DRG relative weights established in Table 11 of the
Addendum of the FY 2009 IPPS final rule reflect the application of both
the normalization factor of 1.03887 and the budget neutrality factor of
1.04186.
We have discovered that, in determining the published FY 2009 MS-
LTC-DRG relative weights, we did not properly apply the established
methodology for calculating the budget neutrality factor (the second
step of the budget neutrality methodology, as set forth in the FY 2009
IPPS final rule (73 FR 48550 through 48551). Specifically, upon recent
review of the calculation of the budget neutrality factor of 1.04186,
we found that it was determined using the unadjusted recalibrated
relative weights rather than using the normalized relative weights.
This is inconsistent with our stated methodology for the calculation of
the FY 2009 budget neutrality factor (that is, the second step of the
budget neutrality methodology). As described above and as we stated in
the FY 2009 IPPS final rule (73 FR 48551), the FY 2009 budget
[[Page 26548]]
neutrality factor is to be determined based on estimated total payments
using the normalized (recalibrated) relative weights under GROUPER
Version 26.0 (not the unadjusted recalibrated relative weights as were
used in calculating the budget neutrality factor of 1.04186 published
in the FY 2009 IPPS final rule). This misapplication of the rule's
established methodology for calculating the budget neutrality factors
resulted in relative weights that are higher, by approximately 3.9
percent. We estimate aggregate annualized LTCH PPS payments in FY 2009
(that is, for discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2008 through
September 30, 2009) based on the MS-LTC-DRG relative weights published
in the FY 2009 IPPS final rule to be approximately $130 million greater
than what the increase would have been had the FY 2009 budget
neutrality factor been calculated consistent with the established
methodology described in that final rule. Thus, the FY 2009 MS-LTC-DRG
relative weights shown in Table 11 of the FY 2009 IPPS final rule (73
FR 49041 through 49062) are inconsistent with the established budget
neutrality methodology used for the annual update to the MS-LTC-DRG
classifications and relative weights.
Consistent with our general and longstanding policy in PPS
contexts, we do not make retroactive changes to correct past errors in
PPS rate-setting, regardless of whether an error resulted in higher
payments to providers (as in this situation) or lower payments to
providers; we also do not make prospective adjustments to PPS rates to
account for errors that occurred in prior periods, regardless of
whether an error resulted in higher payments or lower payments to
providers. In this instance, we are, revising the FY 2009 MS-LTC-DRG
relative weights to ensure proper application of the established budget
neutrality methodology in updating the FY 2008 MS-LTC-DRG relative
weights to FY 2009 during the fiscal year that will be effective for
the remainder of the fiscal year. We note that this prospective
revision to the FY 2009 MS-LTC-DRG relative weights does not reflect a
change in the established budget neutrality methodology itself, but
rather, reflects the proper calculation of the relative weights under
the rule's stated methodology.
In this interim final rule with comment period, we have calculated
revised FY 2009 MS-LTC-DRG relative weights (effective prospectively
for the remainder of FY 2009) based on the proper application of the
established budget neutrality methodology. Specifically, using the same
data (FY 2007 LTCH claims data from the March 2008 update of the MedPAR
files) and methodology presented in the FY 2009 IPPS final rule (73 FR
48551) described above, we have determined a budget neutrality factor
of 1.0030401, which was applied to the normalized relative weights
(that is, the recalibrated relative weights adjusted by the
normalization factor of 1.03887, as described above). As a result, we
are establishing revised FY 2009 MS-LTC-DRG relative weights (shown in
Table 11 of this interim final rule with comment period) that are
effective for LTCH PPS discharges occurring on or after June 3, 2009
through September 30, 2009. The revised FY 2009 MS-LTC-DRG relative
weights in Table 11 of this interim final rule with comment period
reflect the application of the revised FY 2009 budget neutrality factor
1.0030401 and the FY 2009 normalization factor of 1.03887 (established
in the FY 2009 IPPS final rule (73 FR 48551)). (For the convenience of
the reader, in addition to the revised budget neutral FY 2009 MS-LTC-
DRG relative weights effective June 3, 2009 through September 30, 2009,
Table 11 also includes the geometric mean length of stay and five-
sixths of the geometric mean length of stay (Short-Stay Outlier (SSO)
Threshold for payments under Sec. 412.529) for each MS-LTC-DRG for FY
2009. The revision to the FY 2009 budget neutrality factor did not
affect the calculation of the geometric mean length of stay and the SSO
threshold for FY 2009 that were presented in Table 11 of the FY 2009
IPPS final rule.)
B. Effect on the Proposed RY 2010 MS-LTC-DRG Relative Weights and
Fixed-Loss Amount
As discussed above in section II.A. of this interim final rule with
comment period, we are revising the published FY 2009 MS-LTC-DRG
relative weights (73 FR 49041 through 49062), based on the appropriate
application of the FY 2009 budget neutrality factor, consistent with
the description of our established methodology. Because the proposed RY
2010 MS-LTC-DRG relative weights published in the FY 2010 IPPS and RY
2010 LTCH PPS proposed rule on May 22, 2009 (74 FR 24589 through 24608)
were determined based on the published FY 2009 MS-LTC-DRG relative
weights, the revisions to the published FY 2009 MS-LTC-DRG relative
weights discussed in section II.A. of this interim final rule with
comment period affect the determination of the proposed RY 2010 MS-LTC-
DRG relative weights. Therefore, we are also presenting proposed RY
2010 MS-LTC-DRG relative weights in a supplemental proposed rule
published elsewhere in this Federal Register. The proposed RY 2010 MS-
LTC-DRG relative weights were determined consistent with the proposed
two-step budget neutrality methodology discussed in the FY 2010 IPPS
and RY 2010 LTCH PPS proposed rule (74 FR 24226 through 24227).
We also note that the proposed RY 2010 HCO fixed-loss amount
presented in the FY 2010 IPPS and RY 2010 LTCH PPS proposed rule (74 FR
24268) was determined based on the proposed RY 2010 MS-LTC-DRG relative
weights presented in Table 11 of that proposed rule. Thus, the
supplemental proposed rule published elsewhere in this Federal Register
also determines a proposed RY 2010 HCO fixed-loss amount based on the
proposed RY 2010 MS-LTC-DRG relative weights presented in that same
supplemental proposed rule.
III. Response to Comments
Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive
on Federal Register documents, we are not able to acknowledge or
respond to them individually. We will consider all comments we receive
by the date and time specified in the DATES section of this preamble,
and, when we proceed with a subsequent document, we will respond to the
comments in the preamble to that document.
IV. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking, Delay of Effective Date, and 60-Day
Comment Period
We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Federal Register to provide a period for public comment before
provisions of a rule such as this take effect. We also ordinarily
provide a 30-day delay in effective date of a rule in accordance with
section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C.
553(d)), and section 1871 of the Act. However, we can waive both the
prior notice-and-comment procedure or the delay in effective date, if
the Secretary for good cause finds that it is impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest and incorporates a
statement of the finding and its reasons in the notice issued.
We believe it is unnecessary to undertake prior notice and comment
rulemaking or provide a delay in effective date because this interim
final rule with comment period simply reflects the appropriate
application of the established methodology set forth in the FY 2009
IPPS final rule (73 FR 48550 through 48551). The LTCH statute provides
for annual updates to the LTCH PPS MS-LTC-DRG relative
[[Page 26549]]
weights, and the methodologies used to update the MS-LTC-DRG relative
weights have been previously subject to public comment, and therefore,
additional comment would be unnecessary.
Moreover, we believe that it is impracticable to undertake prior
notice and comment rulemaking or provide a delay in effective date
because this interim final rule with comment period is making a
prospective revision to the FY 2009 MS-LTC-DRG relative weights to
reflect proper application of the applicable established methodology,
and therefore should be applied in as timely a manner as possible. For
the reasons set forth above, we find good cause to waive notice-and-
comment procedures, as well as the 30-day delay in effective date.
In addition, we ordinarily publish an interim final rule with
comment period in the Federal Register and permit a 60-day comment
period, as provided in section 1871(b)(1) of the Act. This period,
however, may be shortened, as provided under section 1871(b)(2)(C),
when the agency finds good cause that a 60-day comment period would be
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest and
incorporates a statement of the finding and its reasons in the rule
issued. For the reasons set forth above, and because we plan to
finalize the provisions of this interim final rule with comment period
at the same time that the FY 2010 IPPS and RY 2010 LTCH PPS proposed
rule is finalized, we are waiving the 60-day comment period for good
cause and allowing a 30-day comment period instead.
V. Collection of Information Requirements
This document does not impose information collection and
recordkeeping requirements. Consequently, it need not be reviewed by
the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
VI. Regulatory Impact Analysis
We have examined the impacts of this rule as required by Executive
Order 12866 (September 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review), the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354),
section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act, the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), Executive Order 13132 on
Federalism, and the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)).
Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and
benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety
effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact
analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically
significant effects ($100 million or more in any one year).
The revision to the FY 2009 MS-LTC-DRG relative weights presented
in section II.A. of this interim final rule with comment period will
affect LTCH PPS payments for discharges occurring for approximately the
last 4 months of FY 2009. Specifically, we estimate that the impact of
the revision to the FY 2009 MS-LTC-DRG relative weights effective from
June 3, 2009 through September 30, 2009 would result in an aggregate
decrease in FY 2009 LTCH PPS payments of approximately $43 million (or
approximately 0.9 percent of estimated FY 2009 LTCH PPS payments).
Because the distributional effects and estimated changes to the
Medicare program payments would not be greater than $100 million, this
interim final rule with comment period would not be considered a major
economic rule, as defined in this section.
The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief
of small businesses. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include
small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small government
jurisdictions. Most hospitals and most other providers and suppliers
are considered to be small entities, either by being nonprofit
organizations or by meeting the Small Business Administration
definition of a small business (having revenues of $34.5 million or
less in any 1 year). (For details on the latest standards for heath
care providers, we refer readers to the Table of Small Business Size
Standards for NAIC 622 found on the Small Business Administration
Office of Size Standards Web site at: http://www.sba.gov/contractingopportunities/officials/size/GC-SMALL-BUS-SIZE-STANDARDS.html.) For purposes of the RFA, all hospitals and other
providers and suppliers are considered to be small entities.
Individuals and States are not included in the definition of a small
entity. Because we lack data on individual hospital receipts, we cannot
determine the number of small proprietary LTCHs. Therefore, we are
assuming that all LTCHs are considered small entities for the purpose
of the analysis in this section. Because we acknowledge that many of
the affected entities are small entities, the analysis discussed in
this section constitutes our regulatory flexibility analysis.
Therefore, we are soliciting public comments on our estimates and
analysis of the impact of the provisions of this interim final rule
with comment period on those small entities.
In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a
regulatory impact analysis if a rule may have a significant impact on
the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This
analysis must conform to the provisions of section 603 of the RFA. For
purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a small rural
hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a Metropolitan
Statistical Area for Medicare payment regulations and has fewer than
100 beds. In our database of 399 LTCHs, we have identified 26 small
rural hospitals that account for less than 5 percent of all LTCH cases.
As stated above, the provisions of this interim final rule with comment
period will result in a decrease in estimated aggregate LTCH PPS
payments in FY 2009 of approximately $43 million (or approximately 0.9
percent) for all LTCHs. Similarly, for the 26 rural LTCHs for which
data is available, we estimate that the provisions of this interim
final rule with comment period will result in a decrease in estimated
aggregate LTCH PPS payments to rural LTCHs in FY 2009 of approximately
0.9 percent (or about $1.6 million). Therefore, we believe this rule
will not have a significant impact on small rural hospitals.
Accordingly, the Secretary certifies that this interim final rule with
comment period would not have a significant economic impact on the
operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also
requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before
issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100
million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2009, that
threshold level is currently approximately $133 million. This interim
final rule with comment period would not mandate any requirements for
State, local, or tribal governments, nor would it result in
expenditures by the private sector of $133 million or more in any one
year.
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an
agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent
final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State
and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism
implications. Since this regulation does not impose
[[Page 26550]]
any costs on State or local governments, the requirements of Executive
Order 13132 are not applicable.
In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this
regulation was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.773,
Medicare--Hospital Insurance; and Program No. 93.774, Medicare--
Supplementary Medical Insurance Program)
Dated: May 21, 2009.
Charlene Frizzera,
Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Approved: May 27, 2009.
Kathleen Sebelius,
Secretary.
[Editorial Note: The following table will not appear in the Code
of Federal Regulations.]
BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JN09.000
[[Page 26551]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JN09.001
[[Page 26552]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JN09.002
[[Page 26553]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JN09.003
[[Page 26554]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JN09.004
[[Page 26555]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JN09.005
[[Page 26556]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JN09.006
[[Page 26557]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JN09.007
[[Page 26558]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JN09.008
[[Page 26559]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JN09.009
[[Page 26560]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JN09.010
[[Page 26561]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JN09.011
[[Page 26562]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JN09.012
[[Page 26563]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JN09.013
[[Page 26564]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JN09.014
[[Page 26565]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JN09.015
[[Page 26566]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JN09.016
[[Page 26567]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JN09.017
[[Page 26568]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JN09.018
[[Page 26569]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JN09.019
[FR Doc. E9-12911 Filed 5-29-09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4120-01-C