The Determination establishes a tightly confined sampling regime for Committees acting under the Health Insurance Act 1973. The principal concepts are defined or framed in the Determination and rely on definitions in the Act.

• Scope and purpose. Part 2 sets out the content and required form of a sampling methodology that may be used by a Committee when investigating services in a particular class where only a sample will be considered (s 6). The methodology applies when the services under scrutiny are "individual items" or "multiple items for the same patient on 1 occasion" as those terms are used in the Act (s 7).

• Sample size and composition. The core operational rule is a minimum sample size of 25 provided services randomly drawn from the class being investigated (s 8(1)). The Committee has explicit power to omit items from that sample and to include other randomly drawn items in their place (s 8(2)). Any such omission and substitution must be explained in the Committee’s draft and final reports in respect of the person under review (s 8(3)).

• Measurement and calculation. Section 9 requires the Committee to compute the proportion of sampled services in respect of which it finds the person under review engaged in inappropriate practice "in accordance with subsection (2)". The Determination displays the calculation as an embedded formula (the instrument shows this formula as an image) and then sets out the three variables used: "d", "s" and "N". The Determination instructs that any resulting percentage that is not a whole number is to be rounded down to the nearest whole percentage (s 9(3)).

  • Variable definitions given in the instrument are:
    • d: the number of services in the sample that the Committee has determined are services in relation to the provision of which the person under review engaged in inappropriate practice, divided by s (text as given in the Determination);
    • s: the number of services in the sample;
    • N: the number of services in the class. The formula in the instrument combines those variables to produce the percentage used to determine whether the methodology may be applied under s 106K of the Act.

• Threshold for application. Section 10 sets a statutory gate. The methodology in this Determination may be used for the purposes of subsection 106K(1) of the Act only if the percentage worked out under s 9 is equal to, or greater than, 10 per cent of the sample (s 10). The Determination annotates that less than 10 per cent is considered not to permit a conclusion because of statistical validity concerns, and notes that information about a service may still be considered under section 106H of the Act even if the sampling methodology cannot be used (s 10, Notes 1 and 2).

• Transitional effect and repeal. The Determination repeals the earlier 2006 Determination (Schedule 1) but preserves the previous methodology for investigations referred to a Committee under s 93 of the Act before commencement and for which no final report has been made at commencement (s 12, Part 3).

• Cross‑references to the Act. The Determination depends on Act definitions (s 5 notes that various terms are defined in ss 3(1) and 81(1) of the Act) and cross‑references the Act’s reporting provisions (draft report under s 106KD, final report under s 106L, and s 106KE concerning when a draft report also constitutes a final report) and the information provision power in s 106H (s 8 note and s 10 note).

Taken together, these concepts produce a procedural rule set: random sample, minimum 25, computation by the instrument’s formula with rounding down, use of the methodology only if the final whole percentage is at least 10 per cent, and documentation obligations in Committee reports when sample items are replaced.

The Determination affects the parties and actors who participate in Professional Services Review processes under the Health Insurance Act 1973. The relevant actors and the ways they are affected, as set out in the Determination, are:

• The Committee (Professional Services Review Committee). The Determination prescribes how a Committee must select and treat a sample, how it must compute a sample proportion and when it may rely on that computation for the purposes of subsection 106K(1) of the Act (s 6, s 8, s 9, s 10). These are compulsory procedural constraints on a Committee’s investigative conduct when it intends to limit consideration to a sample.

• The person under review. The Determination governs the evidential and procedural framework that applies when a person under review is the subject of a Committee investigation that will look only at a sample of services. The person under review is affected because the Committee’s findings about inappropriate practice will be based on the sample methodology prescribed here, and any sample omissions or replacements must be recorded in the draft and final reports prepared in respect of that person (s 8(3), s 9, s 10). The Determination itself does not create new substantive rights or penalties for the person under review; it modifies the procedural mechanics by which findings are reached and reported.

• Providers within a class of referred services. The Determination applies to investigations of a "particular class of referred services" as defined in the Act and applies when the services are individual items or multiple items for the same patient on one occasion (s 6-7). Any provider whose services fall within such a class and who is the subject of a referral will be affected by the sampling rule.

• Departmental and administrative staff who support Committees. Although the Determination does not address administrative resourcing directly, it requires that Committees obtain a random sample of at least 25 provided services and document any sample substitutions and the calculation of percentages (s 8-9). That creates operational tasks for staff who compile and randomise sample lists, maintain records and ensure the required explanations appear in draft and final reports.

• Parties seeking to rely on information outside a sample. The Determination leaves open other routes to consider service information. Note 2 to s 10 explicitly states that information about a service may be considered under section 106H of the Act even if the sampling methodology cannot be used under s 10; this affects litigants and investigators who may need to choose whether to proceed under the sampling methodology or to rely on section 106H powers instead.

• Investigations initiated before commencement. The transitional provision in s 12 preserves the 2006 Determination for investigations referred before this Determination commenced and for which no final report existed at commencement. That means persons under review in historical referrals may, depending on timing, be subject to the 2006 rules rather than the 2017 rules.

Who does not gain new statutory powers from this Determination is also important: the Determination does not itself confer new investigative powers distinct from those in the Act, nor does it create new penalties; it operates as a procedural specification for Committees acting under the Act (s 3; s 5 definitions referencing the Act).

This Determination imposes procedural duties on Committees and sets out consequential reporting obligations; it does not create new substantive rights or penalties in its own terms. The primary duties and the related rights or references to Act rights are as follows.

Duties on the Committee

• Select a random sample of no fewer than 25 provided services from the class under investigation and have regard to that sample (s 8(1)). This is a mandatory minimum rather than a target to be adjusted downward.

• The Committee may omit a service from the sample and replace it with another randomly drawn provided service from the same class (s 8(2)). If the Committee exercises this power, it must record and state the reasons for the omission and replacement in both the draft report and the final report prepared in respect of the person under review (s 8(3)).

• Compute the proportion of services in the sample for which the person under review engaged in inappropriate practice in accordance with the formula provided in s 9(2). The Determination provides a displayed formula (embedded as an image in the instrument), and then defines the variables (d, s and N) used in that formula (s 9(1)-(2)).

• Apply the rounding rule in s 9(3): if the calculated percentage is not a whole number, round it down to the nearest whole percentage.

• Apply the methodology only where the percentage calculated under s 9 is equal to, or greater than, 10 per cent (s 10). The methodology may not be relied on for the purposes of s 106K(1) of the Act if the rounded percentage is less than 10 per cent.

Reporting obligations and interconnected rights under the Act

• If the Committee omits and replaces sample items it must state its reasons in the draft and final reports (s 8(3)). The Determination notes the statutory reporting regime: the Committee must prepare a draft report under s 106KD of the Act and a final report under s 106L; the draft report may also constitute a final report where s 106KE applies (note to s 8).

• The Determination prescribes the methodology to be used in respect of subsection 106K(1) of the Act and thus operates only within the Act’s investigative and report framework. Any rights of the person under review to receive draft reports, make submissions, or to the consequences of a Committee’s findings are rights and processes established by the Act itself. The Determination does not alter those Act provisions; it only prescribes the sampling rules a Committee must follow where it intends to rely on a sample (s 3, s 5 notes).

Limits on duties in this Determination

• The Determination does not impose duties on members of the public, patients, or other third parties to participate in sampling. It prescribes the Committee’s selection, calculation and reporting procedures when the Committee elects to have regard to a sample.

• It does not set standards for what constitutes inappropriate practice; those substantive definitions are the province of the Act and are referenced via s 5 (definitions sourced in the Act, including inappropriate practice, person under review, service and class of services).

Summary of rights and protections referenced

• The Determination explicitly ties into the Act’s report structure: the Committee’s sample treatment must be disclosed in the draft and final reports, signalling transparency obligations in reporting (s 8(3)). Any procedural protections for the person under review that arise from receiving a draft report, making submissions or from the operation of s 106KE or s 106L remain those granted by the Act rather than by the Determination itself (s 8 note).

In short, the Determination imposes precise investigatory duties on Committees about sample size, replacement and formulaic calculation, and obliges Committees to record reasons for sample substitutions in statutory reports. It does not create fresh substantive rights or penalties independent of the Health Insurance Act.

The Determination does not itself create offences, monetary penalties or enforcement mechanisms. It is a procedural instrument made under section 106K of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (s 3), and it prescribes how a Committee may conduct a sampling‑based investigation and how to calculate and apply the sample proportion. Consequences that flow from a Committee’s findings, including any sanctions or referrals, are the product of the Health Insurance Act’s operative provisions rather than of the Determination.

How enforcement and consequences interface with the Determination

• The Determination controls whether and how subsection 106K(1) of the Act may be relied on by a Committee when it is having regard only to a sample (s 6, s 9-10). That is a procedural gate: if the sample calculation produces a percentage below the 10 per cent threshold set out in s 10, the Committee cannot use this sampling methodology for the purposes of subsection 106K(1). The Act’s substantive enforcement channels invoked via s 106K therefore become unavailable via the sampling route unless the Determination’s calculation and threshold are met.

• The Determination cross‑references the Act’s information powers in section 106H. Note 2 to s 10 clarifies that even where the sampling methodology cannot be used because the calculated percentage is below 10 per cent, information about a service may nonetheless be considered under s 106H of the Act. That maintains an alternative path for consideration of service information outside the sampling methodology, but any penalties or enforcement action that may follow from consideration under s 106H would depend on the Act’s substantive provisions.

• Reporting obligations required by the Act remain operative. The Committee must prepare draft reports under s 106KD and final reports under s 106L of the Act. The Determination requires the Committee to state reasons for sample omissions and replacements in those reports (s 8(3)). Any procedural failures to comply with Act reporting obligations could, in principle, affect the legal effect of Committee findings, but such consequences are governed by the Act and any applicable judicial review or administrative law remedies, none of which are created or described by this Determination.

What the Determination does not do

• It does not specify or modify sanctions, de‑registration procedures, recovery of moneys or criminal offences. Those regimes remain within the Health Insurance Act and subordinate instruments or other laws.

• It does not create a private right of action for affected providers based on the Determination alone; remedies would derive from the Act or ordinary administrative law.

Practitioner note

• Because the Determination constrains when a Committee may invoke subsection 106K(1) by reference to a calculated percentage and a 10 per cent threshold, its practical effect may be to alter whether a Committee proceeds to certain Act‑based consequences via the sampling route. Legal outcomes and enforcement depend on the Act’s substance and how Committees exercise their discretion within both the Act and this Determination.

The Determination operates exclusively within the procedural framework created by the Health Insurance Act 1973. It is made under s 106K of that Act (s 3) and repeatedly cross‑references other provisions of the Act that govern reports and information. The interactions the Determination creates or preserves are set out below, using the Determination’s own cross‑references.

Direct cross‑references to the Health Insurance Act

• Subsection 106K of the Act. The Determination is made under s 106K and prescribes a methodology a Committee may use when having regard only to a sample for the purposes of subsection 106K(1) (s 3 and s 6). The Determination therefore modifies how a Committee may exercise powers conferred by s 106K, in the narrow sense that it prescribes when the sampling route is available and the calculation required.

• Reporting provisions. The Determination explicitly references the Act’s report provisions. It requires explanations for any sample substitutions to appear in the draft report required by s 106KD and the final report required by s 106L of the Act (s 8, note and s 8(3)). It also notes that a draft report may be a final report pursuant to s 106KE in certain circumstances (s 8 note). Those cross‑references place the Determination inside the Act’s reporting and procedural safeguards.

• Information powers. Section 10 note 2 of the Determination refers to section 106H of the Act, noting that information about a service may still be considered under s 106H even where the sampling methodology cannot be used under s 10. That preserves an alternative statutory route for Committees to consider service information outside the sampling methodology.

• Definitions and substantive terms. Section 5 of the Determination draws definitions from the Act: it notes that the words "initiate" and "item" are defined in s 3(1) of the Act and that "class of services", "Committee", "inappropriate practice", "person under review", "referred services" and "service" are defined in s 81(1) of the Act. Those definitions control the scope of the Determination’s application.

Transitional and repeal interaction

• Repeal of the 2006 Determination. Schedule 1 repeals the Health Insurance (Professional Services Review , Sampling Methodology) Determination 2006 (Schedule 1 item). That means the procedural rules in the 2006 instrument are displaced by this 2017 Determination for investigations commenced after the commencement date.

• Preservation for ongoing investigations. Section 12 provides that where a referral was made to a Committee under s 93 of the Act before the Determination’s commencement and a final report had not been made at commencement, the previous determination continues to apply to that investigation as if it had not been repealed. That transitional rule ensures that the repeal does not change the procedural rules applicable to investigations already underway at commencement.

No direct interaction with other statutes in the instrument

• The Determination contains no express interaction with laws outside the Health Insurance Act framework. It neither amends nor cites other Commonwealth Acts or state laws. All interactions are framed by the Act’s definitions and reporting and information provisions.

Operational consequences for Act‑based proceedings

• By prescribing the sample size, substitution and calculation rules, the Determination dictates the procedure by which Committees may translate sampled findings into the percentage metric that determines whether the Committee may rely on the sampling methodology for s 106K(1) purposes. That in turn affects the procedural posture of Act‑based investigations and the path to any Act‑based consequences. The Determination’s threshold and rounding rules therefore act as a filter between evidence gathered by sampling and the Act’s substantive decision points.

Practitioner implication

• Any practitioner working with or representing a person under review or a Committee must read the Determination together with the referenced sections of the Health Insurance Act. Definitions and procedural protections remain in the Act; the Determination prescribes only the specific sampling mechanics and related report disclosures.

The Determination as provided in the text contains a minimal legislative history, which can be read directly from its provisions.

• Instrument and date. The Determination is the Health Insurance (Professional Services Review , Sampling Methodology) Determination 2017. It is dated 15 March 2017 (cover page) and commences on the day after it is registered (s 2). The instrument is made under subsection 106K(3) of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (s 3).

• Repeal of the 2006 Determination. Schedule 1 of the 2017 Determination expressly repeals the Health Insurance (Professional Services Review , Sampling Methodology) Determination 2006, with the Schedule stating "Repeal the Determination" and itemising "The whole of the Determination" of the 2006 instrument.

• Transitional saving for ongoing investigations. Part 3, s 12 provides that the previous determination (the 2006 Determination) continues to apply to any investigation referred to a Committee under s 93 of the Act before the commencement of the 2017 Determination where no final report had been made at commencement. Thus the repeal is not retroactive to investigations underway at the time of commencement.

• No recorded amending instruments in this text. The supplied text does not show any subsequent amendments or repeal of the 2017 Determination itself. The text as supplied is self‑contained and does not list any later amending instruments, saving clauses or expiry.

• No staged commencement beyond "day after it is registered". The only commencement provision is s 2, which sets commencement as the day after registration. There are no multiple commencement dates or staged rollouts in the instrument provided.

• No express savings or transitional detail beyond s 12. The only transitional rule contained in the Determination is the preservation of the 2006 Determination for investigations referred before commencement and lacking a final report at commencement. There are no other transitional provisions or grandfathering clauses in the text supplied.

Practitioner note

• For a complete administrative history, including registration date, gazettal or any later amendments, practitioners should consult the Federal Register of Legislation or the instrument’s published form; the Determination as supplied gives the date of the instrument and the commencement rule but does not show any post‑2017 amending instruments.

There is no litigation history recorded in the text of the Determination supplied. The instrument contains no mention of judicial decisions, tests applied by courts, or any reference to case law. The Determination does reference provisions of the Health Insurance Act (for example ss 106KD, 106KE and 106L in the notes), but it does not record any judicial interpretation of those provisions or of the sampling methodology itself.

What the text evidences

• The instrument as supplied is purely regulatory and procedural. It sets out mandatory rules for Committee conduct and the calculation of sample proportions but does not record any challenges to those rules, judicial consideration or appeals arising from the Determination.

• Because the Determination interacts with the Act’s reporting and enforcement regimes, potential litigation relating to its application would arise under the Health Insurance Act’s administrative decision‑making or from judicial review challenges against Committee procedures or findings, but there is nothing in the Determination that records whether such litigation has occurred.

Practical consequence

• Absent any litigation history in the instrument, practitioners who anticipate contesting a Committee’s use of the sampling methodology should plan for ordinary administrative law avenues such as seeking review of decisions or challenging procedural irregularities in how the Determination was applied. Any substantive litigation history must be sourced from court records or secondary reporting, which are not included in this instrument.

This Determination contains several practical and drafting features that demand attention from Committees, practitioners and persons under review. The following items are points where the instrument’s mechanics or cross‑references can produce unexpected consequences if not handled carefully.

Minimum sample size is fixed and non‑trivial (s 8(1))

• The Committee must have regard to a randomly drawn sample of no fewer than 25 provided services. That is an absolute floor. If the population of services in a class is small, the Committee needs to consider whether a 25‑service sample is possible or whether a full review is required. The Determination does not provide for a smaller sample where the class contains fewer than 25 services; practitioners should audit the size of the service class before relying on this methodology.

Random draw and documentation requirements (s 8(1)-(3))

• The Determination requires random drawing but does not prescribe a particular randomisation method. Committees should document the randomisation process and retain records, because the Determination requires transparency: if the Committee omits and replaces any service, it must state reasons for doing so in both draft and final reports (s 8(2)-(3)). Failure to record reasons could leave a report procedurally vulnerable to attack for lack of transparency within Act obligations.

Replacement of sample items creates a reporting obligation (s 8(2)-(3))

• Replacement of sample items is permitted but requires contemporaneous explanation in the draft and final reports. Practitioners should ensure the rationale for omission and replacement is legally defensible and recorded, since the Determination makes this a formal reporting duty.

The calculation formula is embedded as an image and the variable wording is terse (s 9)

• Section 9 displays the formula as an image and supplies short definitions for d, s and N. The text, as printed in the instrument, describes d as "the number of services in the sample that the Committee has determined are services in relation to the provision of which the person under review engaged in inappropriate practice, divided by s." The inclusion of the phrase "divided by s" in the narrative definition is notable and may create confusion when aligning the narrative with the displayed formula. Practitioners should consult the authoritative version of the instrument (the Gazette or the Federal Register of Legislation) to ensure an accurate reading of the formula and its variable definitions when computing percentages.

Rounding down can have material effect on threshold (s 9(3) and s 10)

• Any computed percentage that is not a whole number must be rounded down to the nearest whole percentage (s 9(3)). Because the sampling methodology may be used only where the rounded percentage is equal to, or greater than, 10 per cent (s 10), rounding down can change whether the methodology is available. For example, a calculated 10.9 per cent would be rounded down to 10 per cent and still meet the threshold, whereas 10.0 per cent remains 10 per cent; by contrast 9.9 per cent would be rounded down to 9 per cent and fall below the gate. Practitioners should be careful in both calculation and record‑keeping to ensure accurate application of the rounding rule.

Threshold excludes low positive results (s 10)

• The Determination expressly excludes the sampling methodology for percentages less than 10 per cent, with a note that results below 10 per cent are considered potentially not statistically valid (s 10, Note 1). Committees thus cannot rely on this sampling route to make findings where the sampled proportion of inappropriate practice is low, even if there are individual instances of concern.

Alternative routes remain available (s 10, Note 2)

• The Determination preserves the ability to consider service information under section 106H of the Act even where the sampling methodology cannot be used because of the 10 per cent rule (s 10, Note 2). Practitioners should consider whether s 106H provides a more appropriate route to address particular services or conduct.

Scope is limited to certain item types (s 7)

• The Determination applies to services that are, within the meaning of s 81(2) of the Act, "individual items" or "multiple items for the same patient on 1 occasion" (s 7). If the class of referred services does not fall within those categories, the Committee must not apply this Determination.

Transitional protection for earlier referrals (Part 3)

• The 2006 Determination survives for investigations referred before commencement and which had not reached a final report at commencement (s 12). Practitioners must check whether the 2006 or the 2017 rules apply in any given matter depending on timing.

No new sanctions or rights in the Determination

• The instrument is procedural; it does not create penalties, new substantive rights or remediation powers. Any remedy, sanction or enforcement step continues to be governed by the Act. Practitioners should avoid assuming the Determination changes the substantive consequences available under the Act.

Practical compliance burden

• The procedural rules impose operational tasks: random sampling, recording and explaining substitutions, performing the specified calculation and applying the rounding and threshold rules. Committees and supporting staff should allocate resources to generate auditable evidence of adherence to these rules.

In short, the main "gotchas" derive from the absolute minimum sample, the replacement documentation duty, the embedded formula and variable definitions (including a potentially confusing textual phrase), the rounding rule interacting with the 10 per cent gate, and the necessity to check whether the 2017 or 2006 Determination applies in transitional cases.

This section sets out practical steps for Committees, administrative staff and for representatives of persons under review to ensure the Determination’s procedural requirements are met. All steps reference the specific provisions of the Determination.

1. Confirm the applicability of the Determination

   • Check that the investigation concerns a "particular class of referred services" and that the services under consideration fall within the categories in s 7: either individual items or multiple items for the same patient on one occasion (s 6-7).
   • If the referral was made before this Determination’s commencement and no final report has been made, apply the 2006 Determination in accordance with s 12. If the referral was made after commencement, apply the 2017 Determination.

2. Determine the population size N

   • Identify and record the total number of provided services in the class under investigation (N, as defined in s 9). Accurate identification of the population N is necessary to apply the formula that is embedded in s 9(2).

3. Draw a random sample of at least 25 provided services

   • Randomly draw a sample of no fewer than 25 provided services from the class under investigation (s 8(1)). Document the randomisation method used (for example, random number generator seed, software or procedure), the date and the person(s) responsible for the draw, to create an auditable trail.

4. Maintain auditable records for any omissions or replacements

   • If the Committee omits a service from the sample for any reason and includes another randomly drawn service in its place, the Committee must state its reasons for the omission and replacement in both the draft report and the final report in respect of the person under review (s 8(2)-(3)). Prepare explicit, contemporaneous explanations suitable for inclusion in draft and final reports.

5. Assess each sampled service for inappropriate practice

   • For each service in the sample, the Committee needs to determine whether the person under review engaged in inappropriate practice in relation to the provision of that service. Record each determination at the item level to populate the "d" element identified in s 9.

6. Compute the percentage in accordance with s 9

   • Apply the formula displayed in s 9(2) of the Determination to compute the proportion to be expressed as a percentage. The instrument provides the formula in an image; ensure you consult the authoritative published version to confirm the formula textually and to align the variables correctly.
   • Use the variable definitions provided in the Determination: s is the number of services in the sample, d is described in the Determination as the number of services in the sample that the Committee has determined are services in relation to the provision of which the person under review engaged in inappropriate practice (the instrument’s text also contains the phrase "divided by s" in the definition of d; consult the authoritative instrument to interpret this consistently with the displayed formula), and N is the number of services in the class (s 9(2)).

7. Apply the rounding rule

   • If the calculated percentage is not a whole number, round it down to the nearest whole percentage as required by s 9(3). Document the pre‑rounded figure and the rounded figure in the Committee’s records and in any report where the percentage is relied upon.

8. Check the 10 per cent gate before relying on the sampling methodology under s 106K(1)

   • The sampling methodology as prescribed may be used by the Committee for the purposes of subsection 106K(1) of the Act only if the percentage worked out under s 9, after rounding down under s 9(3), is equal to, or greater than, 10 per cent (s 10). If the rounded percentage is below 10 per cent, the Committee must not use this sampling methodology for subsection 106K(1) purposes.

9. If the method cannot be used, consider section 106H of the Act

   • Note 2 to s 10 states that information about a service may be considered under s 106H of the Act even if, because of s 10, a sample including that service cannot be considered under s 106K. If the sampling methodology fails the 10 per cent gate, the Committee should consider whether s 106H provides a lawful alternative route to consider particular services or evidence.

10. Prepare draft and final reports with required disclosures

• Include the sample selection methodology, a description of the randomisation process, item‑level determinations of inappropriate practice, the calculation method used (including the pre‑rounded and rounded percentage), and, where applicable, the reasons for any omissions and replacements of sample items in both the draft report and final report prepared in respect of the person under review (s 8(3), s 9, s 10; notes referencing ss 106KD, 106L and 106KE of the Act).

11. Retain audit evidence for potential review

• Preserve all records relating to the sampling, the random draw, the item‑level determinations, the calculations and the report wording. Because this Determination prescribes procedures that are part of the statutory investigatory regime under the Act, those records will be relevant to any procedural challenges or administrative review applications.

12. For practitioners representing persons under review

• Inspect the Committee’s sample‑draw records and the calculations used to derive the percentage under s 9. Verify that the sample contained at least 25 services, that randomisation was properly documented, that any replacements were justified in the draft and final reports, that the calculation followed the formula in the authoritative instrument, and that rounding and the 10 per cent threshold were applied correctly.

13. For matters spanning the commencement date

• If a referral was made before the Determination’s commencement and a final report had not yet been made at commencement, the previous 2006 Determination applies to that investigation (s 12). Check which Determination governs the investigation before applying the sampling rules.

By following these steps and recording decisions at each stage, Committees and representatives can ensure the Determination’s procedural requirements are discharged and that the Committee’s reports reflect the mandated sample selection, calculation and reporting obligations.