Agency procedures. Before denying payments for new admissions, the Med- icaid agency must comply with the fol- lowing requirements:
Agency procedures. Before denying payments for new admissions, the Medicaid agency must comply with the following requirements: (1) Provide the facility up to 60 days to correct the cited deficiencies and comply with conditions of participation for ICFs/IID. (2) If at the end of the specified period the facility has not achieved compliance, give the facility notice of intent to deny payment for new admissions, and opportunity for an informal hearing. (3) If the facility requests a hearing, provide an informal hearing that includes— (i) The opportunity for the facility to present, before a State Medicaid official who was not involved in making the initial determination, evidence or documentation, in writing or in person, to refute the decision that the facility is out of compliance with the conditions of participation for ICFs/IID. (ii) A written decision setting forth the factual and legal bases pertinent to a resolution of the dispute. (4) If the decision of the informal hearing is to deny payments for new admissions, provide the facility and the public, at least 15 days before the effective date of the sanction, with a notice that includes the effective date and the reasons for the denial of payments. [51 FR 24491, July 3, 1986, as amended at 59 FR 56236, Nov. 10, 1994] § 442.119 Duration of denial of payments and subsequent termination of an ICF/IID. (a)
Agency procedures. The Agencies received an anonymous comment suggesting that because the FHWA and FTA have their own missions, programs, and unique experiences, each agency should have its own separate NEPA procedures, not limited to just the CEs. The Agencies are more similar than they are dissimilar with respect to the environmental review process and are therefore not pursuing separate procedures at this time. The Agencies have, however, separated their procedures where appropriate due to their individual programs. For example, each Agency has separate public involvement procedures identified in § 771.111 based on each Agency’s experience. Section 771.117(c) Six State DOTs and one professional association asked FHWA to add or adopt the FTA CEs for bridge removal and for preventative maintenance because those CEs would be beneficial to provide coverage for bridge removal projects in situations where the bridge replacement CE does not apply. Four of the State DOTs and the professional association suggested that bridge removal activities do not depend on whether they are being carried out as part of a highway project or a transit project. Four State DOTs and one professional association said that it would be beneficial to provide a CE specifically for preventative maintenance activities in culverts and channels because it would eliminate uncertainty about whether these types of activities are covered by other CEs. One State DOT expressed concern with a FHWA bridge removal CE due to the amount of impacts that could occur in a typically sensitive habitat area. This same commenter asked whether a road realignment would be covered under the bridge removal CE if the removal requires a road realignment to the new bridge or whether the bridge construction CE would cover this action. One State DOT indicated that it has a PCE agreement that identifies bridge removal as a CE action. The FHWA carefully considered whether to propose new CEs for bridge removal and for preventative maintenance activities and decided against it at this time. The FHWA was not able to identify projects that were limited to the act of removing the bridge with no additional action being taken (e.g., construction of a new water crossing). One possible scenario could be the removal of a bridge for safety purposes, but this action would qualify for the new CE in paragraph (c)(27) (highway safety or traffic operation improvements) if the constraints can be met, or the CE under paragraph (d)(13) if the constraints...
