and the Judicial Conference of the United States, may adjust the calculation to account for changes in each district’s caseload in the most recent completed year as compared to the district’s adult supervision population during the years 2012 through 2014. (c) Categorization of judicial districts Annually, at the conclusion of each calendar year, the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, in consultation with the Director of the Bureau of Prisons and the United States Sentencing Commission, shall assign the appropriate supervision revocation tier to each judicial district for which it was estimated that the judicial district successfully reduced its revocation rate, as provided by subsection (b)(4). The tiers are defined for the purposes of this subtitle as follows: (1) Tier 1 A tier 1 district is one which has a district revocation rate, as defined in subsection (b)(3), that is no more than 25 percent higher than the nationwide revocation rate, as defined in subsection (b)(2). (2) Tier 2 A tier 2 district is one which has a district revocation rate, as defined in subsection (b)(3), that is more than 25 percent above the nationwide revocation rate, as defined in subsection (b)(2). 202. Distribution of performance incentive funding (a) Distribution of revocation reduction incentive payments Annually, the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, in consultation with the Director of the Bureau of Prisons and the United States Sentencing Commission, shall calculate a revocation reduction incentive payment for each eligible judicial district, pursuant to section 201, for the most recently completed calendar year, as follows: (1) Revocation reduction incentive payments for tier 1 districts For a tier 1 district, the district’s revocation reduction incentive payment is equal to the estimated number of supervisees successfully prevented from being sent to prison, as defined by section 201(b)(4) multiplied by 45 percent of the costs to the Director of the Bureau of