Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 185 / Friday, September 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 48863 

■ 3. Section 52.36 is amended in 

paragraph (c) by removing ‘‘[STATE 

NAME]’’ and by adding, ‘‘Ohio’’, in its 

place. 

■ 4. Section 52.1870 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c)(140) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1870 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(140) On July 15, 2009, and August 

13, 2009, Ohio submitted rules 

addressing the requirements of the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Ohio Administrative Code Rule 

3745–109–01 ‘‘CAIR NOX annual, CAIR 

SO2 and CAIR NOX ozone season 

trading programs definitions and 

general provisions.’’, Rule 3745–109–04 

‘‘CAIR NOX allowance allocations.’’, 

Rule 3745–109–07 ‘‘Monitoring and 

Reporting.’’, Rule 3745–109–08 ‘‘CAIR 

NOX opt-in units.’’, Rule 3745–109–11 

‘‘CAIR SO2 allowance tracking system.’’, 

Rule 3745–109–12 ‘‘CAIR SO2

allowance transfers.’’, Rule 3745–109– 

13 ‘‘Monitoring and reporting.’’, Rule 

3745–109–14 ‘‘CAIR SO2 opt-in units.’’, 

Rule 3745–109–17 ‘‘CAIR NOX ozone 

season allowance allocations.’’, Rule 

3745–109–18 ‘‘CAIR NOX ozone season 

allowance tracking system.’’, Rule 3745– 

109–19 ‘‘CAIR NOX ozone season 

allowance transfers.’’, Rule 3745–109– 

20 ‘‘Monitoring and reporting.’’, and 

Rule 3745–109–21 ‘‘CAIR NOX ozone 

season opt-in units.’’, adopted on July 6, 

2009, effective on July 16, 2009. 

(B) July 6, 2009, ‘‘Director’s Final 

Findings and Orders’’, signed by Chris 

Korleski, Director, Ohio Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

(C) Ohio Administrative Code Rule 

3745–109–02 ‘‘CAIR designated 

representative for CAIR NOX sources.’’, 

Rule 3745–109–03 ‘‘Permits.’’, Rule 

3745–109–05 ‘‘CAIR NOX allowance 

tracking system.’’, Rule 3745–109–06 

‘‘CAIR NOX allowance transfers.’’, Rule 

3745–109–09 ‘‘CAIR designated 

representative for CAIR SO2 sources.’’, 

Rule 3745–109–10 ‘‘Permits.’’, Rule 

3745–109–15 ‘‘CAIR designated 

representative for CAIR NOX ozone 

season sources.’’, and Rule 3745–109–16 

‘‘Permits.’’, adopted on September 17, 

2007, effective on September 27, 2007. 

(D) September 17, 2007, ‘‘Director’s 

Final Findings and Orders’’, signed by 

Chris Korleski, Director, Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

■ 5. Section 52.1891 is removed. 

■ 6. Section 52.1892 is removed. 

[FR Doc. E9–23254 Filed 9–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2009–0506; FRL–8962–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; 

Determination of Clean Data for the 

1997 Fine Particulate Matter Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is determining that the 

Johnstown (Cambria and Indiana 

Counties), Lancaster (Lancaster County), 

Reading (Berks County), and York (York 

County), Pennsylvania nonattainment 

areas for the 1997 fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS) have clean data for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective on September 25, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2009–0506. 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose 

Quinto, (215) 814–2182, or by e-mail at 

quinto.rose@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. 

Organization of this document. The 

following outline is provided to aid in 

locating information in this preamble. 

I. What Action Is EPA Taking? 

II. What Is the Effect of This Action? 

III. When Is This Action Effective? 

IV. What Is EPA’s Final Action? 

V. What Are the Statutory and Executive 

Order Reviews? 

I. What Action Is EPA Taking? 

EPA is determining that the 

Johnstown, Lancaster, Reading, and 

York nonattainment areas have clean 

data for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. This 

determination is based upon quality 

assured, quality controlled and certified 

ambient air monitoring data that show 

the area has monitored attainment of the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS based on the 2006– 

2008 data. In addition, quality 

controlled and quality assured 

monitoring data submitted during the 

calendar year 2009, which are available 

in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) 

database, but not yet certified, show that 

these areas continue to meet the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Other specific requirements of the 

determination and the rationale for 

EPA’s proposed action are explained in 

the notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPR) published on July 31, 2009 (74 FR 

38158) and will not be restated here. No 

public comments were received in 

response to the NPR. 

II. What Is the Effect of This Action? 

This final action, in accordance with 

40 CFR 51.1004(c), suspends the 

requirements for these areas to submit 

attainment demonstrations, associated 

reasonably available control measures, 

reasonable further progress plans, 

contingency measures, and other 

planning state implementation plans 

(SIPs) related to attainment of the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS for so long as these areas 

continue to meet the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

III. When Is the Action Effective? 

EPA finds that there is good cause for 

this approval to become effective on the 

date of publication of this action in the 

Federal Register, because a delayed 

effective date is unnecessary due to the 

nature of the approval. The expedited 

effective date for this action is 

authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(1), which provides that rule 

actions may become effective less than 

30 days after publication if the rule 

‘‘grants or recognizes an exemption or 

relieves a restriction’’ and 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(3), which allows an effective date 

less than 30 days after publication ‘‘as 

otherwise provided by the agency for 

good cause found and published with 

the rule.’’ As noted above, this 

determination of attainment suspends 

the requirements for the Johnstown, 

Lancaster, Reading, and York, 

Pennsylvania PM2.5 nonattainment areas 

to submit an attainment demonstration, 

associated reasonably available 

measures, a reasonable further progress 

plan, contingency measures, and any 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
48864 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 185 / Friday, September 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

other planning SIPs related to 

attainment of the standard for so long as 

these areas continue to meet the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS. The suspension of these 

requirements is sufficient reason to 

allow an expedited effective date of this 

rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). In 

addition, these nonattainment areas’ 

suspension from these requirements 

provide good cause to make this rule 

effective on the date of publication of 

this action in the Federal Register, 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The 

purpose of the 30-day waiting period 

prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 553(d) is to give 

affected parties a reasonable time to 

adjust their behavior and prepare before 

the final rule takes effect. Where, as 

here, the final rule suspends 

requirements rather than imposing 

obligations, affected parties, such as the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, do not 

need time to adjust and prepare before 

the rule takes effect. 

IV. What Is EPA’s Final Action? 

EPA is determining that the 

Johnstown, Lancaster, Reading, and 

York, Pennsylvania nonattainment areas 

have clean data for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. This determination is based 

upon quality assured, quality 

controlled, and certified ambient air 

monitoring data showing that these 

areas have monitored attainment of the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS based on the 2006– 

2008 data. This final action, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.1004(c), will 

suspend the requirements for these 

areas to submit attainment 

demonstrations, associated reasonably 

available control measures, reasonable 

further progress plans, contingency 

measures, and other planning SIPs 

related to attainment of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS for so long as each of these 

areas continue to meet the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

V. What Are Statutory and Executive 

Order Reviews? 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA 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 CAA. 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 CAA; 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). 

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. 

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 November 24, 2009. 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, 

pertaining to the determination of clean 

data for the 1997 fine particulate matter 

standard for the Johnstown, Lancaster, 

Reading, and York, Pennsylvania PM2.5

nonattainment areas, 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, Particulate matter. 

Dated: September 15, 2009. 

William C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

■ 40 CFR part 52 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 NN—Pennsylvania 

■ 2. Section 52.2059 is amended by 

adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 52.2059 Control strategy: Particulate 

matter. 

* * * * * 

(d) Determination of Clean Data. EPA 

has determined, as of September 25, 

2009, the Johnstown (Cambria and 

Indiana Counties), Lancaster (Lancaster 

County), Reading (Berks County) and 

York (York County), Pennsylvania 

nonattainment areas have clean data for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. This 

determination, in accordance with 40 

CFR 52.1004(c), suspends the 

requirements for these areas to submit 

an attainment demonstration, associated 

reasonably available measures, a 

reasonable further progress plan, 

contingency measures, and other 

planning SIPs related to attainment of 

the standard for as long as these areas 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 185 / Friday, September 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 48865 

continue to meet the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

[FR Doc. E9–23057 Filed 9–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

[CMS–1410–CN] 

42 CFR Part 483 

RIN 0938–AP46 

Medicare Program; Prospective 

Payment System and Consolidated 

Billing for Skilled Nursing Facilities; 

Correction 

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 in the Federal 

Register (74 FR 40288) on August 11, 

2009 entitled, ’’Medicare Program; 

Prospective Payment System and 

Consolidated Billing for Skilled Nursing 

Facilities for FY 2010; Minimum Data 

Set, Version 3.0 for Skilled Nursing 

Facilities and Medicaid Nursing 

Facilities.’’ 

DATES: Effective Date: This correction is 

effective October 1, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill 

Ullman, (410) 786–5667. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

In FR Doc. E9–18662 of August 11, 

2009 (74 FR 40288), there were three 

errors (two typographical errors and a 

technical error in the wage index 

values) that we are identifying and 

correcting in section III—‘‘Correction of 

Errors’’. The corrections in this notice 

are effective as if they were included in 

the final rule published on August 11, 

2009. Accordingly, the corrections are 

effective October 1, 2009. 

II. Summary of Errors 

In the August 11, 2009 final rule, we 

made two typographical errors in the 

preamble that resulted in an incorrect 

date being cited. First, on page 40293, 

we stated that the ‘‘* * * final rule sets 

forth a schedule of Federal prospective 

payment rates applicable to Medicare 

Part A SNF services beginning October 

1, 2010.’’ We are correcting the date that 

appears in this sentence so that it 

correctly reads ‘‘October 1, 2009’’ 

consistent with Tables 2 and 3 (‘‘FY 

2010 Unadjusted Federal Rate Per Diem 

Urban’’ and ‘‘FY 2010 Unadjusted 

Federal Rate Per Diem Rural’’), and with 

the fiscal year (FY) 2010 effective date 

for the Federal rates specified 

throughout the preamble. In addition, 

on page 40297, we made a typographical 

error resulting in an incorrect date being 

cited in describing the prospective 

nature of the recalibration of the casemix weights. The purpose of the 

paragraph where the date appears is to 

explain that in order to avoid possible 

negative consequences, the recalibration 

of the case-mix weights is being 

implemented on a prospective basis 

only, and does not include a retroactive 

recoupment of any overpayments 

already made. We are correcting the 

date that appears in the preamble, so 

that it correctly reads ‘‘October 1, 2009’’ 

rather than ‘‘October 1, 2010’’, 

consistent with the FY 2010 effective 

date specified for the recalibration 

throughout the final rule. 

In addition, in the addendum to the 

August 11, 2009 final rule, we are 

revising an entry in Table B: ‘‘FY 2010 

Wage Index Based on CBSA Labor 

Market Areas for Rural Areas’’ in order 

to correct a technical error arising from 

the revision of wage data for two 

inpatient prospective payment system 

(IPPS) providers. We inadvertently 

excluded the wage data for a hospital 

that should have been included in the 

wage index calculation, and included 

the wage data for a hospital that should 

have been excluded from the wage 

index. Accordingly, we are revising the 

wage index value displayed in Table B 

for rural California from ‘‘1.2001’’ to the 

corrected value of ‘‘1.2051’’. As this 

revision involves only a single entry in 

Table B, we are not republishing the 

table in its entirety in this notice; 

however, we note that the corrected 

version of this table is available on the 

SNF PPS Web site, which can be 

accessed online at http:// 

www.cms.hhs.gov/SNFPPS/. 

III. Correction of Errors 

In FR Doc. E9–18662 (74 FR 40288), 

make the following corrections: 

1. On page 40293, in column 2, in the 

first paragraph under Section III.B.1 

(Federal Prospective Payment System), 

in the first sentence, the date ‘‘October 

1, 2010’’ is corrected to read ‘‘October 

1, 2009’’. 

2. On page 40297, in column 2, in the 

last paragraph, in the first line from the 

bottom, the date ‘‘October 1, 2010’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘October 1, 2009’’. 

3. On page 40385, in Table B, in 

column 3 of the table, in line 5, the 

wage index ‘‘1.2001’’ is corrected to 

read ‘‘1.2051’’. 

IV. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking 

and Delayed Effective Date 

We ordinarily publish a proposed rule 

in the Federal Register to provide a 

period for public comment before the 

provisions of a rule such as this take 

effect in accordance with section 553(b) 

of the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). We also 

ordinarily provide a 30-day delay in the 

effective date of the provisions of a 

notice in accordance with section 553(d) 

of the APA (5 U.S.C. 553(d)). However, 

we can waive both the notice and 

comment procedure and the 30-day 

delay in effective date if the Secretary 

finds, for good cause, that a notice and 

comment process is impracticable, 

unnecessary, or contrary to the public 

interest, and incorporates a statement of 

the finding and the reasons for it in the 

notice. 

We find for good cause that it is 

unnecessary to undertake notice and 

comment rulemaking because this 

notice merely provides technical 

corrections to the regulations. We are 

not making substantive changes to our 

payment methodologies or policies, but 

rather, are simply implementing 

correctly the payment methodologies 

and policies that we previously 

proposed, received comment on, and 

subsequently finalized. The public has 

already had the opportunity to comment 

on these payment methodologies and 

policies, and this correction notice is 

intended solely to ensure that the FY 

2010 skilled nursing facility (SNF) 

prospective system (PPS) final rule 

accurately reflects them. Therefore, we 

believe that undertaking further notice 

and comment procedures to incorporate 

these corrections into the final rule is 

unnecessary and contrary to the public 

interest. 

Further, we believe a delayed 

effective date is unnecessary because 

this correction notice merely corrects 

inadvertent technical errors. The 

changes noted above do not make any 

substantive changes to the SNF PPS 

payment methodologies or policies. 

Moreover, we regard imposing a delay 

in the effective date as being contrary to 

the public interest. We believe that it is 

in the public interest for providers to 

receive appropriate SNF PPS payments 

in as timely a manner as possible and 

to ensure that the FY 2010 SNF PPS 

final rule accurately reflects our 

payment methodologies, payment rates, 

and policies. Therefore, we find good 

cause to waive notice and comment 

procedures, as well as the 30-day delay 

in effective date. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES