Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 13289 

closed position from 4 a.m. on March 

10, 2011 through 11 p.m. on March 11, 

2011. Vessels that can pass under the 

bridge without a bridge opening may do 

so at all times. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 

the bridge must return to its regular 

operating schedule immediately at the 

end of the designated time period. This 

deviation from the operating regulations 

is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. 

Dated: February 28, 2011. 

Gary Kassof, 

Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard 

District. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5671 Filed 3–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[USCG–2011–0099] 

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; 

Long Island, New York Inland 

Waterway From East Rockaway Inlet to 

Shinnecock Canal, Hempstead, NY 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation 

from regulations. 

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast 

Guard District, has issued a temporary 

deviation from the regulation governing 

the operation of the Meadowbrook State 

Parkway Bridge across the Sloop 

Channel, mile 12.8, at Hempstead, New 

York. The deviation is necessary to 

install new link arms at the bridge. This 

deviation allows the bridge to remain in 

the closed position. 

DATES: This deviation is effective from 

7 a.m. on March 14, 2011 through 3 p.m. 

on March 25, 2011. 

DATES: Documents mentioned in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket USCG–2011– 

0099 and are available online at 

http://www.regulations.gov, inserting 

USCG–2011–0099 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ and 

then clicking ‘‘Search’’. They are also 

available for inspection or copying at 

the Docket Management Facility (M–30), 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

e-mail Ms. Judy Leung-Yee, Project 

Officer, First Coast Guard District, 

judy.k.leung-yee@uscg.mil, telephone 

(212) 668–7165. If you have questions 

on viewing the docket, call Renee V. 

Wright, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Meadowbrook State Parkway 

Bridge has a vertical clearance in the 

closed position of 22 feet at mean high 

water and 25 feet at mean low water. 

The existing drawbridge operation 

regulations are listed at 33 CFR 

117.799(h). 

The waterway has seasonal 

recreational vessels and fishing vessels 

of various sizes. We contacted the 

commercial fishermen and no objections 

were received. 

The New York Department of 

Transportation, requested a temporary 

deviation to facilitate installation of new 

link arms. 

Under this temporary deviation the 

Meadowbrook State Parkway Bridge at 

mile 12.8, across Sloop Channel, may 

remain in the closed position between 

7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, from March 14, 2011 through 

March 25, 2011. Vessels that can pass 

under the bridge during the closed 

periods without a bridge opening may 

do so at all times. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 

the bridge must return to its regular 

operating schedule immediately at the 

end of the designated time period. This 

deviation from the operating regulations 

is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. 

Dated: February 28, 2011. 

Gary Kassof, 

Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard 

District. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5666 Filed 3–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 81 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0431; FRL–9278–8] 

Approval of One-Year Extension for 

Attaining the 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

Standard in the Baltimore Moderate 

Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the 

extension of the attainment date from 

June 15, 2010 to June 15, 2011 for the 

Baltimore nonattainment area, which is 

classified as moderate for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS). This 

extension is based on the air quality 

data for the 4th highest daily 8-hour 

monitored value during the 2009 ozone 

season. Accordingly, EPA is revising the 

table concerning the 8-hour ozone 

attainment dates in the State of 

Maryland. EPA is approving the 

extension of the attainment date for the 

Baltimore moderate ozone 

nonattainment area in accordance with 

the requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective on April 11, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0431. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the electronic 

docket, some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy for public inspection during 

normal business hours at the Air 

Protection Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. Copies of the State submittal are 

available at Maryland Department of the 

Environment, 1800 Washington 

Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gregory Becoat, (215) 814–2036, or by 

e-mail at becoat.gregory@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On July 23, 2010 (75 FR 43114), EPA 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for the State of 

Maryland. The NPR proposed approval 

of the attainment date extension from 

June 15, 2010 to June 15, 2011 for the 

Baltimore nonattainment area. The 

Maryland Department of the 

Environment (MDE) formally requested 

the extension on March 12, 2010. 

II. Summary 

Section 172(a)(2)(C) of subpart 1 of 

the CAA provides for EPA to extend the 

attainment date for an area by one year 

if the State has complied with all the 

requirements and commitments 

pertaining to the area in the applicable 

implementation plan and no more than 

a minimal number of exceedances of the 

NAAQS has occurred in the attainment 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
13290 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

year. Section 181(a)(5) of subpart 2 

contains a similar provision for the 

ozone NAAQS. It also requires that an 

area seeking an extension must have 

met all applicable requirements and 

commitments pertaining to the area in 

the applicable State Implementation 

Plan. However, instead of providing for 

an extension where there has been a 

‘‘minimal’’ number of exceedances, it 

allows an extension only if there is no 

more than one exceedance of the 

NAAQS in the year proceeding the 

extension year. The language in Section 

181(a)(5) reflects the form of the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS and not the 1997 form of 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. To address 

this, EPA interpreted this provision for 

purposes of implementing the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard, as set forth at 40 

CFR 51.907. Under 40 CFR 51.907, an 

area will meet the requirement 

addressing ‘‘exceedances’’ of the 

standard if: 

(a) For the first one-year extension, 

the area’s 4th highest daily 8-hour 

average in the attainment year is 0.084 

parts per million (ppm) or less. 

(b) For the second one-year extension, 

the area’s 4th highest daily 8-hour 

value, averaged over both the original 

attainment year and the first extension 

year, is 0.084 ppm or less. 

(c) For purposes of paragraphs (a) and 

(b) of this section, the area’s 4th highest 

daily 8-hour average shall be from the 

monitor with the 4th highest daily 8- 

hour average of all the monitors that 

represent that area. 

The State of Maryland submitted the 

monitoring data for the Baltimore 

moderate 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

area. EPA’s review of the actual ozone 

air quality data in the Air Quality 

System shows that the 4th highest daily 

average 8-hour ozone concentration for 

the 2009 attainment year ozone season, 

for all monitors in the Baltimore 

moderate ozone nonattainment area 

measured at 0.084 ppm or less, as 

required by 40 CFR 51.907(a). EPA has 

determined that the requirements for a 

one-year extension of the attainment 

date have been fulfilled as follows: 

(1) The State of Maryland has 

complied with all requirements and 

commitments pertaining to the area in 

the applicable ozone implementation 

plan; and 

(2) The Baltimore nonattainment 

area’s 4th highest daily 8-hour 

monitored value during the 2009 ozone 

season is 0.084 ppm or less. 

On July 23, 2010, EPA received 

adverse comments from the Gwynns 

Falls Watershed Association and on 

August 23, 2010, EPA received adverse 

comments from the Environmental 

Integrity Project and the Baltimore 

Harbor Waterkeep on the NPR. A 

summary of the comments submitted 

and EPA’s response is provided in 

Section III of this document. 

III. Summary of Public Comments and 

EPA Responses 

Comment: The two adverse comments 

received were substantially similar in 

regards to the proposed one-year 

extension for attaining the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard in the Baltimore 

nonattainment area. The commenters 

are concerned that the extension of the 

attainment date extension from June 15, 

2010 to June 15, 2011 for the Baltimore 

nonattainment area will only lead to 

further health issues. The commenters 

also are concerned about the precision 

of the instrumentation used to collect 

the fourth highest daily 8-hour average 

of 0.083 parts per million (ppm) and the 

standard error of the measurement for 

the Harford County site in 2009. 

Response: In response to the 

commenters first concern, the CAA and 

our regulations address the health issues 

by ensuring that ambient levels for the 

attainment year are at or below the level 

of the NAAQS. The requirement that 

primary standards include an adequate 

margin of safety is a requisite to protect 

the public health and intended to 

provide a reasonable degree of 

protection against hazards that research 

has not yet identified. In response to the 

commenters second concern about the 

precision of the instrumentation and the 

standard error of the measurement, 

Appendix A to part 58 of Title 40 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (Appendix 

A) provides the quality assurance 

requirements for air monitoring. The 

appendix specifies the minimum quality 

system requirements applicable to air 

monitoring data for ozone submitted to 

EPA. Additional guidance for the 

requirements in Appendix A can be 

found in the ‘‘Quality Assurance 

Handbook for Air Pollution 

Measurement Systems,’’ volume II, part 

I. Appendix A requires States to perform 

precision checks on all monitors to 

assess data quality and consistency with 

the established acceptance criteria. 

Section 3.2.1 of Appendix A requires 

States to perform a one-point quality 

control (QC) check at least once every 2 

weeks to measure ozone. Section 4.1.2 

of Appendix A provides the method for 

calculating the precision of the data 

measurements. The precision estimate is 

used to assess the one-point QC checks 

for all monitors. The ozone precision 

acceptance criterion is met for the 90 

percent Confidence Level of coefficient 

of variation when the calculated value 

is less than or equal to 7 percent. The 

commenters correctly note that the 

Harford County site measured at 0.083 

ppm in 2009. EPA’s review of the data 

showed that MDE performed the 

required amount of one-point QC checks 

in 2009 for the Harford County ozone 

monitor. Results of these one-point QC 

checks were all less than 7 percent, 

consistent with the established 

acceptance criteria. The 2009 one-point 

QC check results for the Harford County 

ozone monitor were used to calculate 

the 90 percent Confidence Level of 

coefficient of variation. Using the 

precision calculation detailed in Section 

4.1.2, the results showed that the 

Harford County ozone monitor was 

below the less than or equal to 7 percent 

precision ozone acceptance criteria for a 

90 percent Confidence Limit of 

coefficient of variation. Therefore, the 

area satisfied the measurement quality 

requirements according to Appendix A 

for data compliance. 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is approving the attainment date 

extension from June 15, 2010 to June 15, 

2011 for the Baltimore nonattainment 

area, which is classified as moderate for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely approves 

State law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

State law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this 

rule approves pre-existing requirements 

under State law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by State law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). This rule also does not 

have a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian Tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 13291 

Federal Government and Indian Tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor 

will it have substantial direct effects on 

the States, on the relationship between 

the national government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999), because it merely 

determines that each of two areas has 

attained a Federal standard, and does 

not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

This rule also is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 

1997), because it is not economically 

significant. 

This rule does not involve 

establishment of technical standards, 

and thus, the requirements of section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As 

required by section 3 of Executive Order 

12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), 

in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the 

necessary steps to eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity, minimize 

potential litigation, and provide a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct. 

EPA has complied with Executive 

Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 

1988) by examining the takings 

implications of the rule in accordance 

with the ‘‘Attorney General’s 

Supplemental Guidelines for the 

Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of 

Unanticipated Takings issued under the 

executive order. 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this final 

rule will not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it does 

not affect the level of protection 

provided to human health or the 

environment. The rulemaking does not 

affect the level of protection provided to 

human health or the environment 

because extending the attainment date 

does not alter the emission reduction 

measures that are required to be 

implemented in the Baltimore Area, 

which is classified as moderate 

nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. See, 69 FR at 23909 

(April 30, 2004). Additionally, if the 

Baltimore Area were not granted an 

extension of its attainment date, EPA’s 

recourse would be to initiate a 

reclassification of the Baltimore Area 

from its current classification of 

moderate nonattainment to serious 

nonattainment, pursuant to section 

181(b)(2) of the CAA. Because the 

Baltimore area was formerly a severe 

nonattainment area under the revoked 

1-hour ozone standard (see, 56 FR at 

56773, November 6, 1991), it is required 

to continue to implement severe area 

requirements pursuant to EPA’s 

interpretation of ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ 

provision of section 172(e) of the CAA. 

See 69 FR at 23973, April 30, 2004, 

South Coast Air Quality Management 

District v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 

2006), modified and rehearing den., 489 

F.3d 1245 (DC Cir. 2007). The severe 

area requirements are more stringent 

than both the moderate and serious area 

requirements set forth in Title I, part D, 

subpart 2 of the CAA. Therefore, even 

if EPA were to not grant the attainment 

date extension and instead move to 

reclassify the area to serious 

nonattainment, no additional emission 

reduction measures would be required 

to be implemented in the Baltimore area 

through a 181(b)(2) reclassification. The 

extension of the attainment deadline for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS does not 

impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by May 10, 2011. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This 1-year 

attainment date extension for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Baltimore 

Area may not be challenged later in 

proceedings to enforce its requirements. 

(See section 307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

Dated: March 1, 2011. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III. 

40 CFR part 81 is amended as follows: 

PART 81—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

■ 2. In § 81.321, the table entitled 

‘‘Maryland—Ozone (8-Hour Standard)’’ 

is amended by revising the entry for 

Baltimore, MD (Anne Arundel County, 

City of Baltimore, Baltimore County, 

Carroll County, Harford County, and 

Howard County) and adding footnote 4 

to read as follows: 

§ 81.321 Maryland. 

* * * * * 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
13292 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

MARYLAND—OZONE

[8-Hour standard] 

Designated area Designation a Category/classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

Baltimore, MD: 

Anne Arundel County ................................ .................................... Nonattainment ........... .................................... Subpart 2/Moderate. 4

City of Baltimore ........................................ .................................... Nonattainment ........... .................................... Subpart 2/Moderate. 4

Baltimore County ....................................... .................................... Nonattainment ........... .................................... Subpart 2/Moderate. 4

Carroll County ........................................... .................................... Nonattainment ........... .................................... Subpart 2/Moderate. 4

Harford County .......................................... .................................... Nonattainment ........... .................................... Subpart 2/Moderate. 4

Howard County .......................................... .................................... Nonattainment ........... .................................... Subpart 2/Moderate. 4

* * * * * * * 

a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 

1This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted. 

* * * * 

4Attainment date extended to June 15, 2011. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–5631 Filed 3–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

42 CFR Parts 410, 416, and 419 

[CMS–1504–CN] 

RIN 0938–AP41 

Medicare Program: Changes to the 

Hospital Outpatient Prospective 

Payment System and CY 2011 Payment 

Rates; Changes to the Ambulatory 

Surgical Center Payment System and 

CY 2011 Payment Rates; Changes to 

Payments to Hospitals for Graduate 

Medical Education Costs; Corrections 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: This document corrects 

technical errors that appeared in the 

final rule published on November 24, 

2010, entitled ‘‘Medicare Program: 

Hospital Outpatient Prospective 

Payment System and CY 2011 Payment 

Rates; Ambulatory Surgical Center 

Payment System and CY 2011 Payment 

Rates; Payments to Hospitals for 

Graduate Medical Education Costs; 

Physician Self-Referral Rules and 

Related Changes to Provider Agreement 

Regulations; Payment for Certified 

Registered Nurse Anesthetist Services 

Furnished in Rural Hospitals and 

Critical Access Hospitals.’’ 

DATES: Effective Date: This document is 

effective on January 1, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Division of Outpatient Care, (410) 786– 

0378. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

In FR Doc. 2010–27926 of November 

24, 2010 (75 FR 71800) (hereinafter 

referred to as the CY 2011 OPPS/ASC 

final rule), there were several technical 

and typographic errors that we describe 

in the ‘‘Summary of Errors’’ section and 

correct in the ‘‘Correction of Errors’’ 

section below. In addition to correcting 

errors in the preamble and Addendum 

B, this correction notice corrects errors 

in Addenda AA and BB to the CY 2011 

OPPS/ASC final rule. Most of the 

changes to these Addenda are based on 

changes to the practice expense (PE) 

relative value units (RVUs) and the 

conversion factor (CF) for the Medicare 

Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS) for CY 

2011. In the January 11, 2011 CY 2011 

MPFS correction notice (76 FR 1670), 

we corrected errors in the November 29, 

2010 Medicare Program; Payment 

Policies Under the Physician Fee 

Schedule and Other Revisions to Part B 

for CY 2011 final rule with comment 

period (hereinafter referred to as the CY 

2011 MPFS final rule) to the PE RVUs 

and the CF for the CY 2011 MPFS (75 

FR 73170). The revised ASC payment 

system uses the PE RVUs and the CF for 

the MPFS as part of the office-based and 

ancillary radiology payment 

methodology. This correction notice 

updates the CY 2011 OPPS/ASC final 

rule to include these corrections. 

The provisions in this correction 

document are effective as if they had 

been included in the CY 2011 OPPS/ 

ASC final rule appearing in the CY 2011 

OPPS/ASC final rule. Accordingly, the 

corrections are effective January 1, 2011. 

II. Summary of Errors 

A. Errors in the November 24, 2010 

Final Rule 

In the CY 2011 OPPS/ASC final rule, 

we have identified a number of 

technical and typographic errors. 

Specifically, on page 71913, we are 

correcting the inadvertent inclusion of 

the word ‘‘stated’’ and deleting this word 

from the description of the public 

comment in the preamble section 

entitled ‘‘Revision/Removal of 

Neurostimulator Electrodes (APC 

0687).’’ On pages 71915 and 71916, we 

incorrectly stated the number of single 

and total claims used in the ratesetting 

process for APCs 0664 and 0667, in the 

‘‘Proton Beam Therapy (APCs 0664 and 

0667)’’ section of the preamble. 

Specifically, on page 71915 we 

incorrectly stated that 11,963 single 

claims out of 12,995 total claims were 

used in the ratesetting process for APC 

0664. On page 71916, we also 

incorrectly stated that 2,799 single 

claims out of 3,081 total claims were 

used in the ratesetting process for APC 

0667. We are changing this section to 

correctly state that we used 10,943 

single claims out of 11,895 total claims 

in the ratesetting process for APC 0664 

and that we used 2,569 single claims out 

of 2,831 total claims in the ratesetting 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1