Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 33 / Thursday, February 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 9281 

Guard coxswains, petty officers, and 

other officers operating Coast Guard 

vessels, and Federal, State, and local 

officers designated by or assisting the 

Captain of the Port Miami in the 

enforcement of the regulated area. 

(c) Regulations. (1) All persons and 

vessels are prohibited from entering, 

transiting through, anchoring in, or 

remaining within the regulated area 

unless authorized by the Captain of the 

Port Miami or a designated 

representative. 

(2) Persons and vessels desiring to 

enter, transit through, anchor in, or 

remain within the regulated area may 

contact the Captain of the Port Miami 

via telephone at 305–535–4472, or a 

designated representative via VHF radio 

on channel 16, to seek permission. If 

permission to enter, transit through, 

anchor in, or remain within the 

regulated area is granted by the Captain 

of the Port Miami or a designated 

representative, all persons and vessels 

receiving such permission must comply 

with the instructions of the Captain of 

the Port Miami or a designated 

representative. 

(3) The Coast Guard will provide 

notice of the regulated area via local 

notice to mariners, marine safety 

information bulletins, broadcast notice 

to mariners, and by on-scene designated 

representatives. 

(d) Effective Date and Enforcement 

Periods. The rule is effective from 8 a.m. 

on June 17, 2011 through 5 p.m. on June 

19, 2011. The rule will be enforced daily 

from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. on June 17, 

2011 through June 19, 2011. 

Dated: January 28, 2011. 

G.J. Depinet, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain 

of the Port Miami. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3564 Filed 2–16–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2010–0445; A–1–FRL– 

9267–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Massachusetts; Revised Carbon 

Monoxide Maintenance Plan for Lowell 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

Massachusetts. This SIP submittal 

contains revisions to the carbon 

monoxide (CO) maintenance plan for 

Lowell, Massachusetts. Specifically, 

Massachusetts has revised the 

contingency plan portion of the original 

maintenance plan. The intended effect 

of this action is to propose approval of 

this revision to the Lowell CO 

maintenance plan. This action is being 

taken in accordance with the Clean Air 

Act. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 21, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R01–OAR–2010–0445 by one of the 

following methods: 

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

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: arnold.anne@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (617) 918–0047. 

4. Mail: ‘‘Docket Identification 

Number EPA–R01–OAR–2010–0445’’, 

Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 

5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail 

code OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109– 

3912. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver 

your comments to: Anne Arnold, 

Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA New England Regional Office, 

Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air 

Quality Planning 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 to 4:30, excluding legal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R01–OAR–2010– 

0445. 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. 

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 

Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, Office of 

Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality 

Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square— 

Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests 

that if at all possible, you contact the 

contact 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 to 4:30, 

excluding legal holidays. 

In addition, copies of the State 

submittal and EPA’s technical support 

document are also available for public 

inspection during normal business 

hours, by appointment at the State Air 

Agency; Division of Air Quality Control, 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, One Winter Street, 8th Floor, 

Boston, MA 02108. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anne K. McWilliams, Air Quality 

Planning Unit, 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, telephone number (617) 

918–1697, fax number (617) 918–0697, 

e-mail mcwilliams.anne@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
9282 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 33 / Thursday, February 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1On January 28, 2011, EPA proposed to retain the 

existing CO standard. In this action, EPA also 

proposed an increase in near-road CO monitoring. 

Due to the low CO concentrations recorded at the 

Lowell monitor and the applicable monitor siting 

criteria, this monitor would not meet the 

requirements for a near-road monitor. 2U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 Population Estimates. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background and Purpose 

II. What action is EPA taking? 

III. Summary of SIP Revision 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of the SIP Revision 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background and Purpose 

On April 14, 2010, the Massachusetts 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(DEP) submitted a revision to its State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for 

Massachusetts. The SIP revision 

consists of a minor modification to the 

carbon monoxide (CO) maintenance 

plan for Lowell, Massachusetts. (A 

redesignation request and a 

maintenance plan for the Lowell CO 

nonattainment area were approved by 

EPA on February 19, 2002 (67 FR 

7272).) The modification changes the 

triggering mechanism which will be 

used by the State to determine if 

contingency measures need to be 

implemented in Lowell. 

II. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to approve revisions 

to the Lowell carbon monoxide 

maintenance plan submitted by the 

State of Massachusetts on April 14, 

2010. Specifically, EPA is proposing 

approval of the State’s modification of 

the portion of the maintenance plan 

used to determine when contingency 

measures need to be triggered to reduce 

CO concentrations in Lowell. This 

proposed action, if finalized, would 

allow the discontinuation of CO 

monitoring in the Lowell maintenance 

area. 

Massachusetts’s SIP revision and 

EPA’s evaluation of this SIP revision are 

discussed below. Additional details are 

also provided in a memorandum dated 

January 24, 2011, entitled ‘‘Technical 

Support Document for Revision to the 

Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for 

Lowell, Massachusetts’’ (TSD). The TSD 

and Massachusetts’s submittal are 

available in the docket supporting this 

action. 

III. Summary of SIP Revision 

On April 14, 2010, the Massachusetts 

Department of Environmental Protection 

submitted a SIP revision to EPA that 

contains a modification to its CO 

maintenance plan for the Lowell CO 

maintenance area. The modifications to 

the maintenance plan change the 

triggering mechanism by which 

contingency measures would be 

implemented and will allow the State to 

discontinue CO monitoring in the 

Lowell maintenance area. CO 

concentrations measured in Lowell have 

been below the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) for nearly 25 

years, and in recent years, maximum 

measured concentrations have been less 

than 30% of the 9 parts per million 

(ppm) 8-hour CO standard.1 In this SIP 

revision, the State of Massachusetts is 

establishing an alternative triggering 

mechanism, which will rely on CO data 

from a nearby CO monitor in Worcester, 

Massachusetts. 

Under the current maintenance plan, 

contingency measures in Lowell are 

triggered when a violation of the CO 

NAAQS is measured in Lowell. Under 

the revised maintenance plan, 

Massachusetts will rely on data from the 

Worcester CO monitor to determine 

when and if monitoring will be 

reestablished in the Lowell maintenance 

area, and, in some circumstances, when 

contingency measures will be triggered 

in the Lowell maintenance area. 

If this proposal is finalized, 

Massachusetts will discontinue CO 

monitoring in Lowell. Massachusetts 

DEP will continue to collect and review 

CO monitoring data from nearby 

Worcester, MA on an on-going basis. In 

the event the second highest CO 

concentration in any calendar year 

monitored in Worcester reaches 75 

percent of the Federal 1-hour or 8-hour 

NAAQS for CO (35 and 9 ppm, 

respectively), Massachusetts will, 

within 9 months of recording such 

concentrations, re-establish a CO 

monitoring site in Lowell consistent 

with EPA siting criteria, and resume 

analyzing and reporting those data. 

Massachusetts will continue to commit 

to implement its contingency program 

in Lowell in the event that a CO 

violation (the ‘‘contingency trigger’’) is 

monitored at the re-established Lowell 

monitoring site at any time during the 

maintenance period and to consider one 

or more of the other EPA-approved 

measures listed in the 2001 

Maintenance Plan if necessary to reduce 

CO levels. 

If the Worcester CO monitor measures 

a violation of either the Federal 

1-hour or 8-hour NAAQS for CO, the 

contingency measures in 2001 

Maintenance Plan for Lowell will be 

implemented in Lowell, as well as 

triggering contingency measures in 

Worcester under the terms of the 

existing Maintenance Plan for 

Worcester, until a re-established Lowell 

CO monitor shows that the area is 

attainment of the CO standard. 

When implementing contingency 

measures, Massachusetts will review 

and implement the measures necessary 

to remedy the violation, including 

transportation control measures (TCM) 

or other additional vehicle or fuel 

controls. 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of the SIP 

Revision 

EPA agrees that the mechanism 

described above represents an 

acceptable contingency triggering 

mechanism for the Lowell CO 

maintenance plan. If the proposed 

approval of this revised triggering 

mechanism is finalized, Massachusetts 

DEP will be allowed to discontinue 

monitoring in the Lowell area, which 

we believe is appropriate for this area 

which is currently measuring 

concentrations well below the 1-hour 

and 8-hour CO NAAQS. Under this 

plan, we believe air quality goals can be 

maintained, and State monitoring 

resources conserved. 

On October 17, 2006, EPA published 

a final monitoring rule revising 

minimum monitoring requirements, 

which was codified in 40 CFR part 58. 

(See 71 FR 61236.) That rule explicitly 

recognized that, in some cases where 

measured levels of pollutants are low, 

shutting down certain CO monitors may 

be allowed without revising the SIP. 

(See 40 CFR 58.14(c)(1)–(6).) The rule, 

however, also explicitly provides that if 

a monitor is the only monitor in the 

area, and it serves as a trigger to 

implement a contingency measure in an 

EPA-approved maintenance plan, then 

the monitor may not be discontinued. 

(See 40 CFR 58.14(c)(1).) Rather, in this 

case the maintenance plan would need 

to be revised, and the trigger replaced. 

(See 71 FR 61250 and 71 FR 61301.) 

As described above, this action is 

proposing to approve a change to the 

mechanism that Massachusetts will use 

to determine when contingency 

measures need to be triggered to reduce 

CO concentrations in Lowell. 

Previously, the State would implement 

a contingency measure based on 

concentrations of CO monitored in 

Lowell. In light of the fact that Lowell 

CO concentrations have been well 

below the standard for some time, the 

State is looking to conserve resources. 

Massachusetts DEP wants to use its CO 

monitor in Worcester, a nearby city, to 

aid in determining if Lowell has a CO 

problem. Lowell and Worcester are 

located 42 miles apart. Worcester 

(population 175,011) 2 is somewhat 

larger than Lowell (population 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 33 / Thursday, February 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 9283 

3 Ibid. 

103,615) 3, so its CO concentrations can 

be expected to be slightly higher due to 

greater motor vehicle emissions. CO 

concentrations in Lowell and Worcester 

have tracked very closely for many 

years. (The TSD provides a comparison 

of the data collected at the Lowell and 

Worcester CO monitors over the last 

twenty-five years.) Both cities were 

designated nonattainment in 1990 for 

CO ‘‘by operation of law,’’ though both 

had design values below the standard at 

that time. In both cases, only the city 

itself was designated nonattainment 

since data did not support an expansion 

of the nonattainment area. Both cities 

were redesignated to attainment in 

2000, and both have measured CO 

concentrations well below the standard 

since that time. 

In order to conserve resources, the 

State is seeking to discontinue 

monitoring in Lowell since current air 

quality levels do not warrant the 

additional expense of running a CO 

monitor in this area. The State has 

committed to continue CO monitoring 

in Worcester, and will reestablish CO 

monitoring in Lowell if air quality in 

Worcester degrades significantly. In 

Massachusetts (as in many other places), 

CO is primarily emitted by on and offroad mobile sources. Starting in the 

early 1970s, EPA has set national 

standards that have considerably 

reduced emissions of CO and other 

pollutants from motor vehicles, 

including tailpipe emissions, new 

vehicle technologies, and clean fuels 

programs. Moreover, the Massachusetts 

SIP requires that new or modified large 

stationary sources demonstrate that 

their emissions will not cause an 

exceedance of any NAAQS. Finally, 

growth is not likely to result in 

increased CO levels because the CO 

reductions described above have 

occurred even as vehicle miles traveled 

(VMT) have increased. (See VMT data in 

TSD.) For this reason, EPA believes that 

it is unlikely that the Lowell or 

Worcester maintenance area will exceed 

the CO NAAQS again. Thus, we believe 

that the revisions that Massachusetts 

has made to the Lowell maintenance 

plan will continue to protect the 

citizens of Massachusetts from high CO 

concentrations, and also conserve 

resources. 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

Massachusetts SIP revision for the 

Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for 

Lowell, which was submitted on April 

14, 2010. EPA is soliciting public 

comments on the issues discussed in 

this notice or on other relevant matters. 

These comments will be considered 

before taking final action. Interested 

parties may participate in the Federal 

rulemaking procedure by submitting 

written comments to the EPA New 

England Regional Office listed in the 

ADDRESSES section of this Federal 

Register. 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

revisions to the Lowell CO maintenance 

plan submitted by the State of 

Massachusetts on April 14, 2010. 

Specifically, EPA is proposing approval 

of the State’s request to modify the 

portion of the maintenance plan used to 

determine when contingency measures 

need to be implemented in Lowell. As 

described in more detail above, if this 

proposal is finalized, the State will shut 

down the Lowell CO monitor and rely 

on data from the CO monitor in 

Worcester to determine when and if 

monitoring will be reestablished in the 

Lowell maintenance area, and, in some 

circumstances, when contingency 

measures will be triggered in the Lowell 

maintenance area. 

VI. 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 proposed 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 proposed 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). 

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, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: February 8, 2011. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3613 Filed 2–16–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

42 CFR Parts 434, 438, and 447 

[CMS–2400–P] 

RIN 0938–AQ34 

Medicaid Program; Payment 

Adjustment for Provider-Preventable 

Conditions Including Health CareAcquired Conditions 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would 

implement section 2702 of the Patient 

Protection and Affordable Care Act of 

2010 which directs the Secretary of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS