### 11445 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 3, 2016. 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, Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: February 23, 2016. Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, Region 4.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

**PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF**  **IMPLEMENTATION PLANS**

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: **AUTHORITY :**  42.U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
**Subpart L—Georgia**

■ 2. Amend § 52.572 by designating the existing undesignated paragraph as paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:

**§ 52.572 Approval status.**
* * * * *

(b) Disapproval. Submittal from the State of Georgia, through the Georgia’s Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division (EPD) on January 13, 2011, that would allow for the automatic rescission of federal permitting-related requirements in certain circumstances. EPA is disapproving a portion of the SIP submittal related to a provision (at 391– 3–1–.02(7)(a)(2)(iv)) that would automatically rescind portions of Georgia’s State Implementation Plan in the wake of certain court decisions or other triggering events (the automatic rescission clause).

[FR Doc. 2016–04746 Filed 3–3–16; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R05–OAR–2014–0362; FRL–9943–29– Region 5]** 

**Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Regional Haze Glatfelter BART SIP Revision** 

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to extend the compliance date for the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) emission limits for sulfur dioxide (SO 2) at the P.H. Glatfelter Company (Glatfelter) facility submitted as part of its State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision on April 14, 2014. Specifically, EPA is extending the compliance date for the SO 2 emission limits applicable to Boilers No. 7 and No. 8 at Glatfelter by 25 months, from December 31, 2014, to January 31, 2017. We have reviewed this SIP revision and concluded that it meets the requirements of the Clean Air Act and the regional haze rule and because BART requirements continue to be met.

**DATES :**  This final rule is effective on April 4, 2016.

**ADDRESSES :**  EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2014–0362. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, 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 www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Gilberto Alvarez, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 886–6143 before visiting the Region 5 office.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Gilberto Alvarez, Environmental Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6143, alvarez.gilberto@epa.gov

. **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Throughout this document whenever ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
I. What is the background for this action? II. What action is EPA taking? III. Final Action IV. Incorporation by Reference V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What is the background for this action?

On July 2, 2012, EPA approved Ohio’s Regional Haze SIP (77 FR 39177). Ohio’s Regional Haze SIP included the applicability of BART to the State’s only non-utility BART source, Glatfelter, in Chillicothe, Ohio. The BART requirement specified that two of the coal-fired boilers at this facility, No. 7 and No. 8, install control technology to limit the amount of SO 2 emissions from the boilers. The compliance date for BART emission reductions was scheduled to be December 31, 2014. The compliance date was aligned with Glatfelter’s expected compliance date for the Industrial Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) requirements finalized by EPA in May, 2011 (76 FR 28862).

On February 6, 2014, Ohio EPA received a request from Glatfelter to extend the original compliance date to January 31, 2017. The extension request


### 11446 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

is based on the litigation, revision and new compliance date associated with the Industrial Boiler MACT. Under EPA regulations (40 CFR 51.308(3)(1)(iv)), BART is to be implemented ‘‘as expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later than 5 years after approval of the implementation plan revision.’’ The required compliance date is July 2,
2017.

This rulemaking addresses an April 14, 2014, submission supplemented on July 27, 2015, from the Ohio EPA to extend the compliance date from December 31, 2014, to January 31, 2017. One of the requests within the April 14, 2014, SIP revision includes ‘‘the requirement that P.H. Glatfelter submit an application for modification of the federally enforceable permit (that will include a compliance date outlining, at a minimum, the specific, selected control technologies and methods of compliance) from December 31, 2013, to requiring the submittal provide for sufficient time for Ohio EPA to include these requirements, along with any appropriate monitoring, record keeping and reporting requirements, in the federally enforceable permit by no later than January 31, 2017.’’

Ohio EPA supplemented its original submittal on July 27, 2015, with a revised federally enforceable permit for Glatfelter that included the new compliance date. Ohio EPA made the federally enforceable permit available for public comment on June 6, 2015, and comments were accepted through July 7, 2015. The Ohio EPA consulted the Federal Land Managers and included them in the public comment process. Two comments were received and those comments, along with Ohio EPA’s responses were included in the July 27, 2015, submittal. II. What action is EPA taking?

The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule require BART controls to be installed as expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later than five years after approval of the Regional Haze implementation plan revision. The proposed rulemaking associated with this final action was published on December 9, 2015 (236 FR 76403), and EPA received no comments during the comment period, which ended on January 8, 2016. EPA is therefore taking final action to approve, as proposed, Ohio’s submission.

III. Final Action

EPA is approving a revision to the Ohio SIP submitted by the State of Ohio on April 14, 2014, supplemented on July 27, 2015, related to BART requirements for Glatfelter. Specifically, EPA is extending the compliance date for the SO 2 emission limits applicable to Boilers No. 7 and No. 8 at Glatfelter by 25 months from December 31, 2014, to January 31, 2017. IV. Incorporation by Reference

In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Ohio permit described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the **ADDRESSES** section of this preamble for more information). 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 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

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 CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 3, 2016. 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, Sulfur oxides.

Dated: February 22, 2016. Robert A. Kaplan, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:


### 11447 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

**PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF**  **IMPLEMENTATION PLANS**

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

■ 2. In § 52.1870, the table in paragraph (d) is amended by revising the entry for ‘‘P.H. Glatfelter Co.—Chillicothe’’ to read as follows: **§ 52.1870 Identification of plan.**

* * * * *

(d) * * *



### EPA-A PPROVED 

### O HIO 

### S OURCE

### -S PECIFIC 

### P ROVISIONS

Name of source Number Ohio effective date EPA approval date Comments

******* P.H. Glatfelter Co.—Chillicothe ... P0118907 .................................... 07/20/15 03/04/16, [Insert **Federal Register**  citation]. Regional haze BART emissions limits.

* * * * * * *

* * * * * [FR Doc. 2016–04730 Filed 3–3–16; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES** 

**Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services** 

**42 CFR Part 435**

**Eligibility in the States, District of Columbia, the Northern Mariana**  **Islands, and American Samoa**

CFR Correction

In Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 430 to 481, revised as of October 1, 2015, on page 161, in § 435.301, in paragraph (b)(2)(iii), remove the term ‘‘425.330.320’’ and add the term ‘‘425.320’’ in its place.

[FR Doc. 2016–04872 Filed 3–3–16; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 1505–01–D**

**DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES** 

**Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services** 

**42 CFR Part 495**

**[CMS–3310 & 3311–F2]**

**RINs 0938–AS26 and AS58**

**Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Electronic Health Record Initiative**  **Program—Stage 3 and Modifications to Meaningful Use in 2015 Through 2017;**  **Corrections and Correcting Amendment** 

**AGENCY :**  Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

**ACTION :**  Final rule; corrections and correcting amendment. **SUMMARY :**  This document corrects certain technical and typographical errors that appeared in the October 16, 2015 final rule with comment period titled ‘‘Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Electronic Health Record Incentive Program—Stage 3 and Modifications to Meaningful Use in 2015 through 2017.’’

**DATES :**  This document is effective on March 4, 2016.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Kateisha Martin, (410) 786–4651.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  I. Background

In FR Doc. 2015–25595 of October 16, 2015 (80 FR 62762), in the final rule with comment period titled ‘‘Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Electronic Health Record Incentive Program—Stage 3 and Modifications to Meaningful Use in 2015 through 2017’’ (hereafter referred to as the ‘‘2015 EHR Incentive Programs final rule with comment period’’), there were a number of technical errors that are identified and corrected in this correcting amendment. The provisions in this document are treated as if they had been included in the 2015 EHR Incentive Programs final rule with comment period.

In the 2015 EHR Incentive Programs final rule with comment period, we specified the requirements that eligible professionals (EPs), eligible hospitals, and critical access hospitals (CAHs) must meet in order to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs and successfully demonstrate meaningful use of certified EHR technology. In addition, it changed the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs reporting period in 2015 to a 90-day period aligned with the calendar year. It also removed reporting requirements on measures that have become redundant, duplicative, or topped out from the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs. In addition, it established the requirements for Stage 3 of the program as optional in 2017 and required for all participants beginning in 2018. The final rule with comment period continues to encourage the electronic submission of clinical quality measure (CQM) data, establishes requirements to transition the program to a single stage, and aligns reporting for providers in the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs. II. Summary of Errors A. Summary of Errors in the Preamble

On page 62767, in our discussion of certified EHR technology requirements for the EHR Incentive Program, we made a typographical error in the word ‘‘use’’ in the sentence specifying that providers may continue to use technology certified to the 2014 Edition until EHR technology certified to the 2015 Edition is required with an EHR reporting period beginning in 2018.

On page 62801, in our response to the public comment regarding ‘‘Objective 4: Electronic Prescribing’’ we made a typographical error in the word ‘‘distinguish’’ in the sentence specifying that we will no longer distinguish between prescriptions for controlled substances.

On page 62806, in our response to a public comment regarding ‘‘Objective 4: Electronic Prescribing’’ and the pathways acceptable for transmitting Summary of Care records, we inadvertently omitted the word ‘‘have’’ in the sentence specifying that to count in the numerator the sending provider must have reasonable certainty of receipt of the summary of care document. In addition, there is typographical error and the word ‘‘obtain’’ was omitted causing an incomplete sentence which reads ‘‘Instead, r the referring provider must confirmation’’. This sentence is