34630 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0346, FRL–9318–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New 

Hampshire: Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration; Greenhouse Gas 

Permitting Authority and Tailoring Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a requested revision to New 

Hampshire’s State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) under the Clean Air Act (CAA or 

Act). The proposed SIP revision was 

submitted by New Hampshire, through 

the New Hampshire Department of 

Environmental Services (NH DES), Air 

Resources Division, to EPA on February 

7, 2011. The proposed SIP revision 

modifies New Hampshire’s Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

program to establish appropriate 

emission thresholds for determining 

which new stationary sources and 

modification projects become subject to 

New Hampshire’s PSD permitting 

requirements for their greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions. This rule clarifies the 

applicable thresholds in the New 

Hampshire SIP, addresses the flaw 

discussed in the SIP Narrowing Rule, 

and incorporates state rule changes 

adopted at the state level into the 

Federally-approved SIP. EPA is 

proposing approval of New Hampshire’s 

February 7, 2011, SIP revision because 

the Agency has made the preliminary 

determination that this SIP revision is in 

accordance with the CAA and EPA 

regulations regarding PSD permitting for 

GHGs. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 14, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01– 

OAR–2011–0346, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: dahl.donald@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (617) 918–0657. 

4. Mail: ‘‘Docket Identification 

Number EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0346,’’ 

Donald Dahl, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 

100, (mail code OEP05–2), Boston, MA 

02109–3912. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to: Donald Dahl, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, Office of 

Ecosystem Protection, Air Permits, 

Toxics, and Indoor Programs Unit, 5 

Post Office Square—Suite 100, (mail 

code OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109– 

3912. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office’s normal 

hours of operation. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R01–OAR–2011– 

0346.’’ EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided, 

unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

through http://www.regulations.gov or 

e-mail, information that you consider to 

be CBI or otherwise protected. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., 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 in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, Office of 

Ecosystem Protection, Air Permits, 

Toxics, and Indoor Programs Unit, 5 

Post Office Square—Suite 100, Boston, 

Massachusetts. EPA requests that if at 

all possible, you contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to schedule your 

inspection. The Regional Office’s 

official hours of business are Monday 

through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information regarding the New 

Hampshire SIP, contact Donald Dahl, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA New England Regional Office, 

Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air 

Permits, Toxics, and Indoor Programs 

Unit, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, 

(mail code OEP05–2), Boston, MA 

02109—3912. Mr. Dahl’s telephone 

number is (617) 918–1657; e-mail 

address: dahl.donald@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is EPA proposing in this 

document? 

II. What is the background for the action 

proposed by EPA in this document? 

A. GHG-Related Actions 

B. New Hampshire’s Actions 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of New 

Hampshire’s SIP revision? 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing in this 

document? 

On February 7, 2011, NH DES 

submitted a revision to EPA for 

approval into the New Hampshire SIP to 

establish appropriate emission 

thresholds for determining which new 

or modified stationary sources become 

subject to New Hampshire’s PSD 

permitting requirements for GHG 

emissions. Due to a previous EPA action 

known as the SIP Narrowing Rule, 

starting on January 2, 2011, the 

approved New Hampshire SIP’s PSD 

requirements for GHG now apply at the 

thresholds specified in the Tailoring 

Rule, not at the 100 or 250 tons per year 

(tpy) levels otherwise provided under 

the CAA, which would overwhelm New 

Hampshire’s permitting resources. Final 

approval of this SIP revision request 

will put in place the GHG emission 

thresholds for PSD applicability set 

forth in EPA’s Tailoring Rule, ensuring 

that smaller GHG sources emitting less 

than these thresholds will not be subject 

to permitting requirements. Pursuant to 

section 110 of the CAA, EPA is 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 34631 

1 ‘‘Limitation of Approval of Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning 

Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State 

Implementation Plans; Final Rule.’’ 75 FR 82536 

(Dec. 30, 2010). 

2 ‘‘Endangerment and Cause or Contribute 

Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 

202(a) of the Clean Air Act.’’ 74 FR 66496 (Dec. 15, 

2009). 

3 ‘‘Interpretation of Regulations that Determine 

Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting 

Programs.’’ 75 FR 17004 (Apr. 2, 2010). 

4 ‘‘Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission 

Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

Standards; Final Rule.’’ 75 FR 25324 (May 7, 2010). 

5 ‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration and 

Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule.’’ 

75 FR 31514 (June 3, 2010). 

6Specifically, by action dated December 13, 2010, 

EPA finalized a ‘‘SIP Call’’ that would require those 

states with SIPs that have approved PSD programs 

but do not authorize PSD permitting for GHGs to 

submit a SIP revision providing such authority. 

‘‘Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits 

Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 

Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call,’’ 75 

FR 77698 (Dec. 13, 2010). EPA has begun making 

findings of failure to submit that would apply in 

any state unable to submit the required SIP revision 

by its deadline, and finalizing FIPs for such states. 

See, e.g. ‘‘Action To Ensure Authority To Issue 

Permits Under the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions: Finding of Failure To Submit State 

Implementation Plan Revisions Required for 

Greenhouse Gases,’’ 75 FR 81874 (Dec. 29, 2010); 

‘‘Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits 

Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 

Federal Implementation Plan,’’ 75 FR 82246 (Dec. 

30, 2010). Because New Hampshire’s SIP already 

authorizes New Hampshire to regulate GHGs once 

GHGs became subject to PSD requirements on 

January 2, 2011, New Hampshire is not subject to 

the proposed SIP Call or FIP. 

7 ‘‘Limitation of Approval of Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning 

Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State 

Implementation Plans; Final Rule.’’ 75 FR 82536 

(Dec. 30, 2010). 

8Tailoring Rule, 75 FR 31517. 

9SIP Narrowing Rule, 75 FR 82540. 

10 Id. at 82542. 

11 Id. at 82544. 

12 Id. at 82540. 

proposing to approve this revision into 

the New Hampshire SIP. 

II. What is the background for the 

action proposed by EPA in this 

document? 

This section briefly summarizes EPA’s 

recent GHG-related actions that provide 

the background for today’s proposed 

action. More detailed discussion of the 

background is found in the preambles 

for those actions. In particular, the 

background is contained in what we call 

the GHG PSD SIP Narrowing Rule,1 and 

in the preambles to the actions cited 

therein. 

A. GHG-Related Actions 

EPA has recently undertaken a series 

of actions pertaining to the regulation of 

GHGs that, although for the most part 

distinct from one another, establish the 

overall framework for today’s final 

action on the New Hampshire SIP. Four 

of these actions include, as they are 

commonly called, the ‘‘Endangerment 

Finding’’ and ‘‘Cause or Contribute 

Finding,’’ which EPA issued in a single 

final action,2 the ‘‘Johnson Memo 

Reconsideration,’’ 3 the ‘‘Light-Duty 

Vehicle Rule,’’ 4 and the ‘‘Tailoring 

Rule.’’ 5 Taken together and in 

conjunction with the CAA, these actions 

established regulatory requirements for 

GHGs emitted from new motor vehicles 

and new motor vehicle engines; 

determined that such regulations, when 

they took effect on January 2, 2011, 

subjected GHGs emitted from stationary 

sources to PSD requirements; and 

limited the applicability of PSD 

requirements to GHG sources on a 

phased-in basis. EPA took this last 

action in the Tailoring Rule, which, 

more specifically, established 

appropriate GHG emission thresholds 

for determining the applicability of PSD 

requirements to GHG-emitting sources. 

PSD is implemented through the SIP 

system, and so in December 2010, EPA 

promulgated several rules to implement 

the new GHG PSD SIP program. 

Recognizing that some states had 

approved SIP PSD programs that did not 

apply PSD to GHGs, EPA issued a SIP 

call and, for some of these states, a FIP.6

Recognizing that other states had 

approved SIP PSD programs that do 

apply PSD to GHGs, but that do so for 

sources that emit as little as 100 or 250 

tpy of GHG, and that do not limit PSD 

applicability to GHGs to the higher 

thresholds in the Tailoring Rule, EPA 

issued the GHG PSD SIP Narrowing 

Rule. Under that rule, EPA withdrew its 

approval of the affected SIPs to the 

extent those SIPs covered GHG-emitting 

sources below the Tailoring Rule 

thresholds. EPA based its action 

primarily on the ‘‘error correction’’ 

provisions of CAA section 110(k)(6). 

B. New Hampshire’s Actions 

On July 30, 2010, New Hampshire 

provided a letter to EPA, in accordance 

with a request to all States from EPA in 

the Tailoring Rule, with confirmation 

that the State has the authority to 

regulate GHG in its PSD program. The 

letter also confirmed that current New 

Hampshire rules require regulating 

GHGs at the existing 100/250 tpy 

threshold, rather than at the higher 

thresholds set in the Tailoring Rule. See 

the docket for this proposed rulemaking 

for a copy of New Hampshire’s letter. 

In the SIP Narrowing Rule, published 

on December 30, 2010, EPA withdrew 

its approval of New Hampshire’s SIP 

(among other SIPs) to the extent that the 

SIP applies PSD permitting 

requirements to GHG emissions from 

sources emitting at levels below those 

set in the Tailoring Rule.7 As a result, 

New Hampshire’s current approved SIP 

provides the state with authority to 

regulate GHGs, but only at and above 

the Tailoring Rule thresholds; and 

requires new and modified sources to 

receive a Federal PSD permit based on 

GHG emissions only if they emit at or 

above the Tailoring Rule thresholds. 

The basis for this proposed SIP 

revision is that limiting PSD 

applicability to GHG sources to the 

higher thresholds in the Tailoring Rule 

is consistent with the SIP provisions 

that provide required assurances of 

adequate resources, and thereby 

addresses the flaw in the SIP that led to 

the SIP Narrowing Rule. Specifically, 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) includes as a 

requirement for SIP approval that States 

provide ‘‘necessary assurances that the 

State * * * will have adequate 

personnel [and] funding * * * to carry 

out such [SIP].’’ In the Tailoring Rule, 

EPA established higher thresholds for 

PSD applicability to GHG-emitting 

sources on grounds that the states 

generally did not have adequate 

resources to apply PSD to GHG-emitting 

sources below the Tailoring Rule 

thresholds,8 and no State, including 

New Hampshire, asserted that it did 

have adequate resources to do so.9 In 

the SIP Narrowing Rule, EPA found that 

the affected states, including New 

Hampshire, had a flaw in their SIP at 

the time they submitted their PSD 

programs, which was that the 

applicability of the PSD programs was 

potentially broader than the resources 

available to them under their SIP.10

Accordingly, for each affected state, 

including New Hampshire, EPA 

concluded that EPA’s action in 

approving the SIP was in error, under 

CAA section 110(k)(6), and EPA 

rescinded its approval to the extent the 

PSD program applies to GHG-emitting 

sources below the Tailoring Rule 

thresholds.11 EPA recommended that 

States adopt a SIP revision to 

incorporate the Tailoring Rule 

thresholds, thereby (i) assuring that 

under State law, only sources at or 

above the Tailoring Rule thresholds 

would be subject to PSD; and (ii) 

avoiding confusion under the Federally 

approved SIP by clarifying that the SIP 

applies to only sources at or above the 

Tailoring Rule thresholds.12


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
34632 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

13Env–A 623 was renumbered to Env–A 619 for 

reasons unrelated to the Tailoring Rule or this 

proposed revision. 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of New 

Hampshire’s SIP revision? 

The regulatory revisions that NH DES 

submitted on February 7, 2011, establish 

thresholds for determining which 

stationary sources and modification 

projects become subject to permitting 

requirements for GHG emissions under 

New Hampshire’s PSD program. 

Specifically, the submittal includes 

changes to New Hampshire’s regulations 

at Air Resources Division Env–A 101 

(Definitions) and Env–A 619 (PSD 

Permit Requirements) that New 

Hampshire finalized in December 2010. 

New Hampshire is currently a SIPapproved state for the PSD program. In 

a letter provided to EPA on July 30, 

2010, New Hampshire notified EPA of 

its interpretation that the State currently 

has the authority to regulate GHGs 

under its PSD regulations. The 

currently-approved New Hampshire 

PSD SIP (adopted prior to the 

promulgation of EPA’s Tailoring Rule) 

applies to major stationary sources 

(having the potential to emit at least 100 

tpy or 250 tpy or more of a regulated 

NSR pollutant, depending on the type of 

source) or modifications constructing in 

areas designated attainment or 

unclassifiable with respect to the 

NAAQS. 

The amendments to Env–A 101 that 

EPA is proposing to approve into the 

New Hampshire SIP include: New Env– 

A 101.35, definition of ‘‘Carbon dioxide 

equivalent emissions’’; new Env–A 

101.96, definition of ‘‘Greenhouse 

gases’’; an amendment to the definition 

of ‘‘Major source’’ in Env–A 101.115; 

and certain amendments to Env–A 

619.03, ‘‘PSD Permit Requirements.’’ 

New Hampshire’s original SIP 

revision request to EPA, dated February 

7, 2011, proposed to incorporate all of 

the amendments to Env–A 619.03 as 

part of its SIP revision request. After an 

exchange of correspondence, on May 16, 

2011, New Hampshire withdrew from 

consideration its recent revisions to 

Env–A 619.03(a). Thus, EPA is 

proposing to approve into the SIP Env– 

A 619.03(b)–(e) as revised, but, in place 

of the revised Env–A 619.03(a), to retain 

its previously-approved predecessor, 

which was then numbered as Env–A 

623.03(a).13 New Hampshire’s 

previously-approved PSD regulations 

became effective under state law on July 

23, 2001 and were approved by EPA on 

October 28, 2002 (67 FR 65710). EPA 

and New Hampshire agree that relying 

on the previously-approved version of 

Env–A 619.03(a) does not affect the 

manner in which Env–A 619.03(b)–(e) 

function. New Hampshire and EPA may 

take action on the revision to Env–A 

619.03(a) in the future. 

The changes to New Hampshire’s PSD 

program regulations that EPA is 

proposing to approve are substantively 

the same as the amendments to the 

Federal PSD regulatory provisions in 

EPA’s Tailoring Rule regarding 

greenhouse gases. As part of its review 

of this submittal, EPA performed a lineby-line review of New Hampshire’s 

proposed revision and has preliminarily 

determined that they are consistent with 

the Tailoring Rule. 

EPA has, however, identified several 

minor differences between the proposed 

SIP revision and EPA’s PSD regulations. 

These differences arise from the fact that 

New Hampshire’s PSD SIP consists, in 

the main, of an incorporation by 

reference of 40 CFR 52.21 as it stood 

when the PSD SIP was approved. For 

purposes of regulating greenhouse gases, 

however, New Hampshire has 

incorporated by reference the 

definitions of ‘‘major stationary source’’ 

and ‘‘significant’’ contained in 40 CFR 

52.21(b), July 1, 2009 edition, and the 

definitions of ‘‘subject to regulation’’ 

and ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ 

promulgated by EPA in the Tailoring 

Rule and codified at 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(49)–(50). These differences and 

EPA’s analysis of why they do not affect 

approvability are explained in a 

memorandum ‘‘Explanation of Two 

Definitions in New Hampshire’s PSD 

Regulations.’’ See the docket for this 

proposed rulemaking for a copy of the 

memorandum. 

IV. Proposed Action 

Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, 

EPA is proposing to approve New 

Hampshire’s February 7, 2011 SIP 

revision relating to PSD requirements 

for GHG-emitting sources. Specifically, 

New Hampshire’s February 7, 2011 SIP 

revision establishes appropriate 

emissions thresholds for determining 

PSD applicability to new and modified 

GHG-emitting sources in accordance 

with EPA’s Tailoring Rule. EPA has 

made the preliminary determination 

that this SIP revision is approvable 

because it is in accordance with the 

CAA and EPA regulations regarding 

PSD permitting for GHGs. 

If EPA does approve New 

Hampshire’s changes to its air quality 

regulations to incorporate the 

appropriate thresholds for GHG 

permitting applicability into New 

Hampshire’s SIP, then § 52.1522(c) of 40 

CFR part 52, as included in EPA’s SIP 

Narrowing Rule—which codifies EPA’s 

limiting its approval of New 

Hampshire’s PSD SIP to not cover the 

applicability of PSD to GHG-emitting 

sources below the Tailoring Rule 

thresholds—is no longer necessary. In 

today’s proposed action, EPA is also 

proposing to amend § 52.1522(c) of 40 

CFR part 52 to remove this unnecessary 

regulatory language. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Clean Air Act and applicable Federal 

regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 

52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• 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); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 34633 

In addition, this rule does not have 

Tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on Tribal governments or preempt 

Tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: June 1, 2011. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

[FR Doc. 2011–14684 Filed 6–13–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

42 CFR Parts 412, 413, and 476 

[CMS–1518–CN] 

RIN 0938–AQ24 

Medicare Program; Proposed Changes 

to the Hospital Inpatient Prospective 

Payment Systems for Acute Care 

Hospitals and the Long-Term Care 

Hospital Prospective Payment System 

and Fiscal Year 2012 Rates; 

Corrections 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. 

ACTION: Correction of proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This document corrects 

technical and typographical errors in 

the proposed rule entitled ‘‘Medicare 

Program; Proposed Changes to the 

Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment 

Systems for Acute Care Hospitals and 

the Long-Term Care Hospital 

Prospective Payment System and Fiscal 

Year 2012 Rates’’ which appeared in the 

May 5, 2011, Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tzvi 

Hefter, (410) 786–4487. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

In FR Doc. 2011–9644 of May 5, 2011 

(76 FR 25788), there were a number of 

technical and typographical errors that 

are identified and corrected in the 

Correction of Errors section. 

II. Summary of Errors 

A. Errors in the Preamble 

On page 25796, in summarizing our 

proposed changes to the policies and 

payment rates for the long-term care 

hospital (LTCH) prospective payment 

system (PPS), we erroneously stated that 

we were proposing a FY 2012 LTCH 

PPS documentation and coding 

adjustment. Therefore, in section III. of 

this correction notice, we correct this. 

On page 25843, in our discussion of 

processing of 25 diagnosis codes and 25 

procedures codes, we erroneously 

included the term ‘‘not’’ in our 

statement regarding the completion of 

the expansion and our ability to process 

up to 25 diagnosis codes and 25 

procedures codes. Therefore, in section 

III. of this correction notice, we correct 

this error. 

On page 25898, we erroneously stated 

that collection for the structural 

measure we proposed for the FY 2014 

payment determination would begin in 

July 2012 with respect to the time 

period January 1, 2012 through June 30, 

2012, instead of collection to begin in 

April 2013 with respect to the time 

period January 1, 2012 through 

December 31, 2012. Therefore, in 

section III. of this correction notice, we 

correct these errors. 

On page 25919, in our discussion of 

the proposed data submission 

requirements for structural measures, 

we included a sentence that contains 

the proposed additional structural 

measure for FY 2014 as well as 

information regarding the proposed 

alignment of the submission deadline 

for all structural measures without clear 

delineation of when the proposed 

alignment begins. Therefore, we correct 

this error in section III. of this correction 

notice. 

On page 25923, we made several 

typographical errors regarding the fiscal 

year for which we are proposing to 

change the submission deadline to be 

used for the Data Accuracy and 

Completeness Acknowledgement. 

Therefore, in section III. of this 

correction notice, we correct these 

errors. 

On page 25985 and 25989, in our 

discussion of the LTCH quality 

measures, we noted that the National 

Quality Forum (NQF) endorsement 

number for the CMS quality measure, 

Percent of Residents With Pressure 

Ulcers That Are New or Worsened 

[Short Stay], was NH–012–10. We note 

that the NQF number NH–012–10 has 

been replaced by the current 

endorsement number, which is NQF– 

0678. Therefore, in section III. of this 

correction notice, we correct these 

errors. 

B. Errors in the Addendum 

On page 26043, we list Table 2— 

Acute Care Hospitals Case-Mix Indexes 

for Discharges Occurring in Federal 

Fiscal Year 2010; Proposed Hospital 

Wage Indexes for Federal Fiscal Year 

2012; Hospital Average Hourly Wages 

for Federal Fiscal Year 2010 (2006 Wage 

Data), 2011 (2007 Wage Data), and 2012 

(2008 Wage Data); and 3-Year Average 

of Hospital Average Hourly Wages as 

one of the tables that will be available 

only through the Internet. The version 

of Table 2 that was posted via the 

Internet on the CMS Web site at the time 

the proposed rule was filed for public 

inspection at the Office of the Federal 

Register inadvertently omitted the wage 

indices for multicampus providers. 

Therefore, we have corrected these 

errors and have posted a document with 

corrections to Table 2 on the CMS Web 

site at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ 

AcuteInpatientPPS/01_overview.asp). 

III. Correction of Errors 

In FR Doc. 2011–9644 of May 5, 2011 

(76 FR 25788), make the following 

corrections: 

1. On page 25796, second column, 

sixth full paragraph, lines 8 through 11, 

the phrase ‘‘use under the LTCH PPS for 

FY 2012, the proposed documentation 

and coding adjustment under the LTCH 

PPS for FY 2012, and the proposed 

rebasing and’’ is corrected to read ‘‘use 

under the LTCH PPS for FY 2012 and 

the proposed rebasing and’’. 

2. On page 25843, third column, first 

full paragraph, line 33 the phrase ‘‘We 

have not completed’’ is corrected to read 

‘‘We have completed’’. 

3. On page 25898, first column, first 

paragraph, 

a. Line 2, the date ‘‘July 2012’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘April 2013’’. 

b. Line 4, the date ‘‘June 30, 2012’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘December 31, 2012’’. 

4. On page 25919, second column, 

first full paragraph, lines 4 through 12, 

the sentence ‘‘We are proposing to add 

one additional structural measure for 

the FY 2014 payment determination, 

Participation in a Systematic Clinical 

Database Registry for General Surgery, 

and to align the submission deadline for 

all structural measures with the 

submission deadline for the fourth 

quarter of the chart abstracted 

measures.’’ is corrected to read as 

follows ‘‘We are proposing to add one 

additional structural measure for the FY 

2014 payment determination, 

Participation in a Systematic Clinical 

Database Registry for General Surgery. 

Beginning with FY 2013, we propose to 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1