214 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 363.52 What is the principal amount of 

book-entry Series EE and Series I savings 

bonds that I may acquire in one year? 

(a) The principal amount of bookentry savings bonds that you may 

acquire in any calendar year is limited 

to $10,000 for Series EE savings bonds 

and $10,000 for Series I savings bonds. 

(b) Bonds purchased or transferred as 

gifts will be included in the 

computation of this limit for the account 

of the recipient for the year in which the 

bonds are delivered to the recipient. 

(c) Bonds purchased as gifts or in a 

fiduciary capacity are not included in 

the computation for the purchaser. 

Bonds received due to the death of the 

registered owner are not included in the 

computation for the recipient. 

(d) We reserve the right to take any 

action we deem necessary to adjust the 

excess, including the right to remove the 

excess bonds from your TreasuryDirect 

account and refund the payment price 

to your bank account of record using the 

ACH method of payment. 

Mark Reger, 

Acting Fiscal Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–33762 Filed 1–3–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–39–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0547; FRL–9480–1] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District (SJVUAPCD) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of 

revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Air 

Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) 

portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions were proposed in the Federal 

Register on July 11, 2011 and concern 

volatile organic compound (VOC), 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and 

particulate matter (PM) emissions from 

open burning. We are approving a local 

rule that regulates these emission 

sources under the Clean Air Act as 

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on February 3, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0547 for 

this action. Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed at 

http://www.regulations.gov, some 

information may be publicly available 

only at the hard copy location (e.g., 

copyrighted material, large maps, multivolume reports), and some may not be 

available in either location (e.g., 

confidential business information 

(CBI)). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rynda Kay, EPA Region IX, (415) 947– 

4118, kay.rynda@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On July 11, 2011 (76 FR 132), EPA 

proposed to approve the following rules 

into the California SIP. 

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

SJVUAPCD ................................. 4103 Open Burning ................................................................................. 04/15/10 04/05/11 

SJVUAPCD ................................. .................... Table 9–1, Final Staff Report and Recommendations on Agricultural Burning.05/20/10 04/05/11 

We proposed to approve these rules 

because we determined that they 

complied with the relevant CAA 

requirements. Our proposed action 

contains more information on the rules 

and our evaluation. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA’s proposed action provided a 30- 

day public comment period. During this 

period, we received comments from the 

following party. 

1. Sarah Jackson, Earthjustice; letter 

and email dated and received August 

10, 2011. 

The comments and our responses are 

summarized below. 

Comment #1: Earthjustice commented 

on the meaning of reasonably available 

control measures (RACM) under section 

172(c)(1) of the CAA, noting that ‘‘EPA 

has interpreted ‘reasonably available’ to 

be a measure that is ‘technologically and 

economically feasible and can be readily 

implemented.’ ’’ Earthjustice further 

asserted that ‘‘economic feasibility 

considers more than simply 

affordability and the cost-benefit ratio’’ 

and that ‘‘Congress intended RACM to 

be applied as those measures became 

available.’’ 

Response #1: We agree that RACM 

under section 172(c)(1) incorporates 

considerations of technical and 

economic feasibility. We note, however, 

that, ‘‘Congress provided EPA and 

States a great deal of deference for 

determining what measures to include 

in an attainment plan’’ under CAA 

section 172(c)(1) and that ‘‘[b]y 

including language in Section 172(c)(1) 

that only ‘reasonably available’ 

measures be considered for RACT/ 

RACM, and that implementation of 

these measures need be applied only ‘as 

expeditiously as practicable,’ Congress 

clearly intended that the RACT/RACM 

requirement be driven by an overall 

requirement that the measure be 

‘reasonable.’ ’’ 72 FR 20610 (April 25, 

2007). 

Comment #2: Earthjustice asserted 

that, ‘‘[t]he District’s RACM 

determination is flawed because it 

applies a feasibility test that is 

inconsistent with EPA guidance and 

CAA standards.’’ In particular, 

Earthjustice argued that the ‘‘10 percent 

of the crop category’s net profits’’ test 

used by District ‘‘fails to analyze 

whether an alternative is 

technologically or economically 

feasible.’’ Earthjustice suggested that the 

District should conduct a more 

comprehensive economic analysis 

taking into consideration how the costs 

of alternatives to open burning will 

impact production, employment, 

competition, and prices. 

Reponse #2: As an initial matter, we 

disagree with the commenter that the 

District has made a ‘‘RACM 

determination’’ with respect to Rule 

4103. The District has provided an 

assessment of the economic and 

technical feasibility of potential control 

measures for this source category, which 


wreier-aviles on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 215 

1Email from Koshoua Thao, SJVUAPCD, to 

Rynda Kay, EPA, September 22, 2011. 

2 Id. 

EPA has evaluated to determine 

whether additional controls for this 

source category might be reasonably 

available for implementation in the area. 

As stated in the TSD for our proposal, 

EPA will take action in separate 

rulemakings on the State’s RACM 

demonstration for the relevant NAAQS 

based on an evaluation of the control 

measures submitted as a whole and 

their overall potential to advance the 

applicable attainment dates in the SJV. 

We disagree that the District’s 

feasibility test is inconsistent with the 

CAA or EPA guidance. Neither the CAA 

nor EPA’s implementing regulations 

define ‘‘technical and economic 

feasibility’’ for purposes of determining 

what control measures are ‘‘reasonably 

available,’’ and, as noted above, section 

172(c)(1) provides considerable 

deference to States’ determinations of 

what control measures are reasonably 

available. 

In this case, the District assessed the 

availability of alternatives to open 

burning by evaluating both 

technological and economic feasibility. 

See, e.g., Staff Report § 1.2. For those 

crop categories for which it found a 

technically feasible alternative to 

burning, the District assessed economic 

feasibility by comparing the per-acre 

costs for the alternative to the per-acre 

net profit for that category. Id. § 1.2.2. 

Where an alternative’s cost exceeded ten 

percent of profits, the District found the 

alternative to be economically 

infeasible. Id. Table 9–1. As explained 

by the District ‘‘[t]he 10 percent 

threshold utilized in this analysis 

represents the economic significance 

level generally utilized by the District in 

the development of District rules, and 

represents the level that a regulatory 

action would pose a significant 

economic impact to affected sources.’’ 

Id. § 1.2.2. 

As we have previously noted, looking 

at the percent of profits can provide 

useful information concerning the 

economic feasibility of particular 

control measures. See, e.g., 75 FR 2082. 

Although we encourage the District to 

conduct further economic analysis of 

the feasibility of alternatives to open 

burning, we also recognize that resource 

constraints limit the amount of analysis 

that the District can perform. 

We also note that our evaluation of 

the stringency of the rule does not rest 

solely upon the District’s assessment of 

economic and technical feasibility, but 

also takes into consideration other 

indicators of technical and economic 

feasibility. See 72 FR 20614 (‘‘in 

reviewing the State’s selection of 

measures for RACM * * * EPA may 

independently supplement the rationale 

of the State * * *’’). For example, as 

noted in the TSD, we compared the 

control requirements in Rule 4103 with 

analogous rules in other local districts 

and states and concluded that Rule 4103 

was as stringent as or more stringent 

than those other rules. We have not 

received any information to undermine 

this conclusion. As such, we continue to 

believe that Rule 4103 requires all 

control measures that have been 

demonstrated to be ‘‘reasonably 

available’’ for open burning activities in 

the San Joaquin Valley. 

Comment #3: Earthjustice referred to 

a letter indicating that the District will 

no longer permit open burning of citrus 

orchard removals ‘‘when case-by-case 

analysis indicates sufficient biomass 

plant capacity and the availability of 

economically feasible chipping 

services.’’ Earthjustice argued that 

‘‘[s]uch Director’s discretion is not 

approvable into the SIP.’’ 

Response #3: The District has not 

submitted these additional restrictions 

on open burning for approval into the 

SIP, and we therefore do not need to 

evaluate their approvability, and do not 

rely on them for our approval of Rule 

4103. 

Comment #4: Earthjustice argued that, 

‘‘Even if EPA finds the District’s percent 

of profits test is a sufficient means of 

demonstrating economic infeasibility to 

reject potential RACM controls, EPA 

should reject the proposed rule because 

the District’s application of this test is 

flawed.’’ 

Response #4: As noted above, we have 

considered other factors in addition to 

the District’s ‘‘percent of profits’’ test in 

assessing the technical and economic 

feasibility of potential RACM controls. 

Nonetheless, Earthjustice’s specific 

points regarding the District’s 

application of the percent of profits are 

addressed below. 

Comment #4.a: Earthjustice noted that 

‘‘the District calculated the cost of 

compliance ‘after tax’ without 

accounting for tax implications of 

increased control costs’’ and asserted 

that ‘‘[t]his failure to adjust the cost 

estimates precludes any meaningful 

analysis of costs.’’ 

Response #4.a: District staff explained 

that their calculations followed ‘‘EPA 

and ARB established methodologies.’’ 

Additionally, District staff clarified that, 

‘‘the primary costs associated with 

potential alternatives to open burning 

result from service costs, such as 

through the hiring of chipping and 

hauling services. The District does not 

expect tax implications associated with 

these non-capital expenditures, if any, 

to impact the cost analyses associated 

with this project.’’ 1 We are not aware of 

any information that contradicts the 

District’s assessment in this regard. 

Comment #4.b: Earthjustice 

commented that, ‘‘the District uses a 10- 

year cost amortization schedule without 

providing a rational basis for this term 

of years.’’ Earthjustice argued that this 

assumption underestimates the lifespan 

of the vineyards and orchards and 

therefore produces artificially high 

annual cost figures. 

Response #4.b: In response to this 

comment, District staff noted that 

Appendix H to the Staff Report 

provided information on the 

productivity over time of specific crops. 

District staff also listed numerous 

reasons for assuming a 10-year 

amortization schedule that were 

provided when this issue was raised at 

a California Senate Hearing including, 

for example: 

1. 10-year analysis is used to 

standardize comparisons across various 

source categories (Example: 10-year 

analysis is also used for boilers, engines, 

and other source categories with real life 

spans in excess of 20–30 years). 

2. Standard 10-year analysis is used 

by the California Air Resources Board 

and air districts for evaluating air 

pollution control economics. 

3. Farms can change owners and 

change crops fairly frequently: For 

farms, periods longer than 10 years are 

speculative since farm viability is 

subject to global market forces, weather, 

water availability, etc.2

Comment #4.c: Earthjustice 

contended that the District ‘‘inserted 

baseless assumptions to inflate the 

claimed costs. For example, the District 

assumes citrus root removal material 

must be separated from the tree material 

and transported to a composting facility 

at an additional cost of $244 per acre.’’ 

Earthjustice claimed that, contrary to 

this assumption, biomass facility 

operators have indicated that roots can 

be chipped and transported to biomass 

facilities along with the rest of the 

chipped material. Similarly, Earthjustice 

asserted that the evidence in the record 

undermines the District’s suggestion 

that grinding and hauling material to a 

biomass plant may not be technically 

feasible. 

Response #4.c: We acknowledge some 

uncertainty about the cost of citrus root 

removal and disposal. According to 

District staff, ‘‘the root removal process 

is independent from the chipping and 

biomass operations.’’ Staff Report 

Appendix D at D–34. The District 


wreier-aviles on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with RULES
216 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

3 Id. 

4 Id. 

5See letter dated June 27, 2011, from Seyed 

Sadredin to Deborah Jordan. 

explains, ‘‘Citrus is often grown in claylike soil that adheres to its roots’’ and 

‘‘biomass power plant operators will not 

accept any organic material with dirt or 

other unburnable contaminants’’.3 We 

do not dispute that biomass facilities 

have indicated that roots can be chipped 

and transported to biomass facilities, 

but we are not aware of any other 

evidence to support this claim and 

demonstrate that root chipping and 

biomass burning is reasonably available. 

This appears to be an evolving area and 

we encourage the District to reexamine 

whether it may be possible to send some 

or all citrus roots to biomass rather than 

landfill or compost. Nonetheless, at this 

time, we do not have sufficient specific 

evidence to challenge the District’s 

assumption in this regard. 

Comment #4.d: Earthjustice argued 

that ‘‘[t]he District’s allowance for 

walnut, almond, and pecan growers 

whose total nut acreage is less than 

3,500 acres to burn 20 acres of prunings, 

plus an additional unrestricted amount 

if certain conditions are met, blatantly 

disregards any economic feasibility 

analysis.’’ 

Response #4.d: We disagree that this 

allowance disregards any economic 

feasibility analysis. The District found 

that the cost of shredding up to 20 acres 

at once was not economically feasible 

and that shredding 20-plus acres was 

feasible only when a custom shredder 

was available. See Staff Report § 3.7.3. 

As a result, the District adopted an 

automatic 20 acre allowance plus a 

discretionary allowance depending on 

contractor availability. 

Comment #5: Earthjustice contended 

that additional reductions are 

reasonably available under the 

appropriate feasibility analysis. The 

specific arguments raised by 

Earthjustice in support of its contention 

are addressed below. 

Comment #5.a: Earthjustice argued 

that the proposed alternative to open 

burning of citrus orchard removal 

materials (grinding and hauling orchard 

removal materials to a biomass plant) is 

technically feasible because the biomass 

power plants that use San Joaquin 

Valley agricultural waste are physically 

capable of handling the 54,035-ton 

increase in material that would be 

caused by a total prohibition on burning 

citrus orchard removals. 

Response #5.a: We agree that it is 

technically feasible to grind and haul 

orchard removal materials to a biomass 

plant. It is less clear, however, whether 

it is economically feasible. Even 

assuming that there is currently 

sufficient capacity for citrus removal 

materials at biomass facilities, the 

District has concluded that ‘‘reliance on 

biomass facilities as a primary, longterm alternative method to open burning 

is not possible since there are no longterm federal or state funding 

commitments for the biomass facilities 

* * *’’ Staff Report at 7–50. In addition, 

the Staff Report notes that, since urban 

waste is typically less expensive than 

agricultural waste, urban waste 

(particularly construction debris) may 

displace some of the current capacity for 

agricultural waste, as the economy 

improves and construction activity 

increases. Id. at 7–49. Additionally, the 

District explains that ‘‘citrus material is 

typically less desirable’’ than other 

biomass materials 4 and must be 

blended with other biomass fuels. Staff 

Report at 7–37. 

In light of this economic uncertainty, 

EPA has recommended that the District 

continue closely monitoring the 

economic feasibility of sending citrus 

orchard removal material to biomass. In 

response, the District has agreed to ban 

the burning of citrus orchards ‘‘on a 

case-by-case basis when analysis 

indicates sufficient biomass capacity 

and the availability of economically 

feasible chipping services.’’ 5 We believe 

that this interim step will have 

significant air quality benefits and we 

encourage the District to consider 

whether a complete or partial ban on 

citrus orchard burning is economically 

feasible. Nonetheless, we continue to 

believe that such a ban has not been 

demonstrated to be economically 

feasible at this time. 

Comment #5.b: Earthjustice claimed 

that the proposed alternative to open 

burning of almond, walnut and pecan 

prunings (shredding the prunings and 

leaving the materials on the orchard 

floor) is technically feasible. 

Response #5.b: As with the previous 

comment, we agree that this is 

technically feasible, but not that it has 

been shown to be economically feasible 

at all times. The District concluded that, 

although shredding is a technically 

feasible alternative to open burning, 

there is an insufficient supply of custom 

shredding services available to smaller 

farms. Staff Report Appendix D at D–36. 

EPA believes this is a reasonable 

conclusion based on historical data. 

However, as noted in the TSD, we 

recommend that the District reevaluate 

the availability of contractors to shred 

nut prunings based on updated data. 

Comment #5.c: Earthjustice claimed 

that these proposed alternatives to open 

burning of citrus orchard removal 

materials and almond, walnut and 

pecan prunings are also economically 

feasible. 

Response #5.c: The District’s 

economic analysis indicated that 

sending citrus removal materials to 

biomass was not economically feasible. 

Staff Report Table 3–4. Similarly, the 

District’s economic analysis indicated 

that the cost of shredding prunings from 

less than 25 acres at once was not 

economically feasible. For the reasons 

noted above (see responses 4c, 4d, and 

5a) and given that no other agency has 

adopted more stringent restrictions on 

open burning than those currently in 

place in the District, we believe these 

conclusions are reasonable at this time. 

However, we encourage the District to 

reevaluate these postponements to 

ensure that the State adopts all RACM 

for open burning activities as 

expeditiously as practicable. 

III. EPA Action 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment that the 

submitted rules comply with the 

relevant CAA requirements. Therefore, 

as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the 

Act, EPA is fully approving these rules 

into the California SIP. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 217 

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 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

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. 

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). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by March 7, 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 action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: September 30, 2011. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c)(388)(i)(B)(2), (3), 

(4) and (5) to read as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(388) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(B) * * * 

(2) Rule 4103, ‘‘Open Burning,’’ 

amended on April 15, 2010, not 

effective until June 1, 2010. 

(3) Table 9–1, Revised Proposed Staff 

Report and Recommendations on 

Agricultural Burning, approved on May 

20, 2010. 

(4) San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District, Resolution No. 10–05– 

22, adopted on May 20, 2010. 

(5) California Air Resources Board, 

Resolution 10–24, adopted on May 27, 

2010. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–33660 Filed 1–3–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

42 CFR Parts 410, 411, 416, 419, 489, 

and 495 

[CMS–1525–CN] 

RIN 0938–AQ26 

Medicare and Medicaid Programs: 

Hospital Outpatient Prospective 

Payment; Ambulatory Surgical Center 

Payment; Hospital Value-Based 

Purchasing Program; Physician SelfReferral; and Patient Notification 

Requirements in Provider Agreements; 

Corrections 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. 

ACTION: Correction of final rule with 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: This document corrects 

technical errors that appeared in the 

final rule with comment period 

published in the Federal Register on 

November 30, 2011, entitled ‘‘Medicare 

and Medicaid Programs: Hospital 

Outpatient Prospective Payment; 

Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment; 

Hospital Value-Based Purchasing 

Program; Physician Self-Referral; and 

Patient Notification Requirements in 

Provider Agreements.’’ 

DATES: Effective Date: This correction is 

effective January 1, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marjorie Baldo, (410) 786–0378, 

Hospital outpatient prospective 

payment issues. James Poyer, (410) 786– 

2261, and Donald Howard, (410) 786– 

6764, Hospital Value-Based Purchasing 

(VBP) Program Issues. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

In FR Doc. 2011–28612 of November 

30, 2011 (76 FR 74122), (hereinafter 

referred to as the CY 2012 OPPS/ASC 

final rule with comment period), there 

were a number of technical errors that 

are identified and corrected in the 

Correction of Errors section below. The 

provisions in this correction document 

are effective as if they had been 

included in the CY 2012 OPPS/ASC 

final rule with comment period (76 FR 

74122) appearing in the November 30, 

2011 Federal Register. Accordingly, the 

corrections are effective January 1, 2012. 


wreier-aviles on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with RULES