Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71061 

12EPA’s transportation conformity requirements 

and policy on MVEBs are found in the preamble to 

the November 24, 1993, transportation conformity 

rule (see 58 FR 62193–62196) and in the sections 

of 40 CFR part 93 referenced above. 

13Limited Maintenance Plan Guidance at 4. 

October 6, 1995. 

in the nonattainment or maintenance 

area.12

Under the LMP policy, emissions 

budgets are treated as essentially not 

constraining for the length of the 

maintenance period. While EPA’s LMP 

policy does not exempt an area from the 

need to affirm conformity, it explains 

that the area may demonstrate 

conformity without submitting a MVEB. 

This is because it is unreasonable to 

expect that an LMP area will experience 

so much growth in that period that a 

violation of the CO NAAQS would 

result.13 Therefore, for the Great Falls 

CO maintenance area, all actions that 

require conformity determinations for 

CO under our conformity rule 

provisions are considered to have 

already satisfied the regional emissions 

analysis and ‘‘budget test’’ requirements 

in 40 CFR 93.118. 

Since LMP areas are still maintenance 

areas, certain aspects of transportation 

conformity determinations are still 

required for transportation plans, 

programs and projects. Specifically, for 

such determinations, RTPs, TIPs and 

projects must still demonstrate that they 

are fiscally constrained (40 CFR 93.108) 

and must meet the criteria for 

consultation and Transportation Control 

Measure implementation in the 

conformity rule provisions (40 CFR 

93.112 and 40 CFR 93.113, 

respectively). In addition, projects in 

LMP areas will still be required to meet 

the applicable criteria for CO hot spot 

analyses to satisfy ‘‘project level’’ 

conformity determinations (40 CFR 

93.116 and 40 CFR 93.123) which must 

also incorporate the latest planning 

assumptions and models available (40 

CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111 

respectively). 

In view of the CO LMP policy, the 

effect of this proposed approval will be 

to affirm our adequacy finding such that 

no regional emissions analyses for 

future transportation CO conformity 

determinations are required for the CO 

LMP period and beyond (as per EPA’s 

CO LMP policy and 40 CFR 93.109(e)). 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

revised Great Falls Maintenance Plan 

submitted on July 13, 2011. This 

maintenance plan meets the applicable 

CAA requirements and EPA has 

determined it is sufficient to provide for 

maintenance of the CO NAAQS over the 

course of the second 10-year 

maintenance period out to 2022. 

EPA is also proposing to approve the 

State’s Alternative Monitoring Strategy 

for the Great Falls CO maintenance area. 

We do not propose to approve 

application of the Alternative 

Monitoring Strategy in other areas of 

Montana with this action, as the 

Alternative Monitoring Strategy must be 

considered on a case-by-case basis 

specific to the circumstances of each 

particular CO maintenance area rather 

than broadly. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Orders 

Review 

Under the CAA, 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 CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve 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 (Public Law 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: November 10, 2014. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28293 Filed 11–28–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2013–0786; A–1–FRL– 

9918–26–Region–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Massachusetts; Transit System 

Improvements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

Massachusetts on November 6, 2013. 

This proposal, if finalized, would 

remove the design of the Red Line/Blue 

Line Connector as a requirement in the 

Massachusetts SIP, without substitution 

or replacement, and would implement 

administrative changes that lengthen the 

existing public process by fifteen days 

and replace references to the Executive 

Office of Transportation (EOT) with 

references to the Massachusetts 

Department of Transportation 

(MassDOT). This action is being taken 

under the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before December 31, 

2014. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
71062 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R01–OAR–2013–0786 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: arnold.anne@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (617) 918–0047. 

4. Mail: ‘‘Docket Identification 

Number EPA–R01–OAR–2013–0786,’’ 

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 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

legal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R01–OAR–2013– 

0786. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

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 

www.regulations.gov, or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

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 email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov your email 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 

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 www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at 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 a.m. to 

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

In addition, copies of the state 

submittal are also available for public 

inspection during normal business 

hours, by appointment at the State Air 

Agency; Air and Climate Division, 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, One Winter Street, 8th Floor, 

Boston, MA 02108. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Donald O. Cooke, 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, telephone 

number (617) 918–1668, fax number 

(617) 918–0668, email cooke.donald@

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. Background 

II. Massachusetts’ 2013 SIP Revision 

Submittal 

A. Deletion of the Design of the Red Line/ 

Blue Line Connector 

B. Administrative Changes 

III. Proposed Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On December 9, 1991, the 

Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection (MassDEP) 

submitted a revision to its SIP for 

Transit System Improvements and HOV 

(High Occupancy Vehicle) Lanes in the 

Metropolitan Boston Air Pollution 

Control District. This SIP revision 

committed the Massachusetts Executive 

Office of Transportation and 

Construction (MA EOTC) to pursue 

implementation, monitoring, and 

enforcement of transit system 

improvements and HOV lanes that were 

identified as transportation and air 

quality mitigation measures in a 1990 

Final Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Central Artery/ 

Third Harbor Tunnel (CA/THT) project. 

EPA determined five of the proposed 

transportation control measures (TCMs) 

were necessary to help achieve an air 

quality benefit from the CA/THT. This 

1991 SIP revision included the 

following two new regulations: 310 

Code of Massachusetts Regulations 

(CMR) 7.36, ‘‘Transit System 

Improvements;’’ and 310 CMR 7.37, 

‘‘High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes.’’ 

This initial transit system 

improvement and high occupancy 

vehicle lanes SIP revision was approved 

by EPA on October 4, 1994 (59 FR 

50495) and required the Transit System 

Improvement Projects in Table 1 to be 

completed and available for public use 

by the dates specified below: 

TABLE 1—COMMITMENT TO TRANSIT SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS IN 310 CMR 7.36 

[State effective date December 6, 1991] 

Projects must be completed and 

available for public use by: Transit system improvement projects 

December 31, 1992 ....................... —Lynn Central Square Station and Parking Garage, 

—North Station high platforms and high tracks, 

—Lynn Transit Station Bus Terminal. 

December 31, 1994 ....................... —South Station Bus Terminal, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71063 

TABLE 1—COMMITMENT TO TRANSIT SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS IN 310 CMR 7.36—Continued 

[State effective date December 6, 1991] 

Projects must be completed and 

available for public use by: Transit system improvement projects 

—South Station Track Number 12, 

—Ipswich Commuter Rail Line extension to Newburyport. 

December 31, 1996 ....................... —Old Colony Commuter Rail Line Extension, 

—Framingham Commuter Rail Line Extension to Worcester, 

—10,000 Park and Ride and Commuter Rail parking spaces outside of the Boston core. 

December 31, 1997 ....................... —Green Line Arborway Restoration. 

December 31, 1998 ....................... —Blue Line platform lengthening and modernization. 

December 31, 1999 ....................... —10,000 Park and Ride and Commuter Rail Station Parking spaces outside of the Boston core in addition 

to those completed by December 31, 1996. 

December 31, 2001 ....................... —South Boston Piers Electric Bus Service. 

December 31, 2011 ....................... —Green Line extension to Ball Square/Tufts University, 

—Blue Line Connection from Bowdoin Station to the Red Line at Charles Station. 

On December 13, 2006, the MassDEP 

submitted a revision to its SIP amending 

its Transit System Improvements 

Regulation. The revision consisted of 

MassDEP’s final amendments to 310 

CMR 7.36, ‘‘Transit System 

Improvements,’’ with a state effective 

date of December 1, 2006. In the revised 

rule, three of the SIP-required projects, 

the Green Line Arborway Restoration, 

the Blue Line Connection from Bowdoin 

Station to the Red Line at Charles 

Station, and the Green Line extension to 

Ball Square/Tufts University, were 

replaced by the Fairmount Line 

commuter rail improvements project 

(construction to be completed and 

opened to full public use by December 

31, 2011), 1,000 new park and ride 

parking spaces serving Massachusetts 

Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 

transit and commuter rail in the 

Metropolitan Boston Area (construction 

to be completed and opened to full 

public use by December 31, 2011), final 

design of the connection from the Blue 

Line at Government Center to the Red 

Line at Charles Station (final design 

before December 31, 2011, but no 

commitment to its construction), and an 

enhanced Green Line transit extension 

to Medford Hillside with a spur to 

Union Square (construction to be 

completed and opened to full public use 

by December 31, 2014). 

On June 1, 2007, MassDEP 

supplemented its December 13, 2006 

SIP revision with Massachusetts 

Executive Office of Transportation’s 

(EOT’s) amended air quality modeling 

analysis report (‘‘Description of 

Modeling Assumptions and Analysis 

Methodology for the State 

Implementation Plan Transit 

Commitment Projects Current and 

Proposed Substitutions,’’ dated March 

15, 2007) and a letter determining that 

EOT had met the requirements of 310 

CMR 7.36(8), Determination of Air 

Quality Emissions Reductions, 

including a determination that the 

Fairmount Line improvements, 1,000 

new park-and-ride parking spaces, and 

the Green Line extension to Medford 

Hillside with a spur to Union Square 

would achieve at least 110% of the 

emissions reductions that would have 

been achieved had the Arborway 

Restoration, Red Line/Blue Line 

Connector, and Green Line extension to 

Ball Square been constructed. EOT held 

a public comment period on the 

modeling analysis report for a 45-day 

period commencing on January 2, 2007. 

EOT then amended the report based on 

comments received and commenced an 

additional two-week public comment 

period on March 21, 2007, following 

posting in the Massachusetts’ 

‘‘Environmental Monitor.’’ MassDEP 

also submitted EOT’s responses to 

public comments received as part of the 

supplemental materials. 

On November 5, 2007 (72 FR 62422), 

EPA published a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking for the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts’ December 13, 2006 SIP 

revision as amended by the June 1, 2007 

supplement. [See EPA Docket number 

EPA–R01–OAR–2006–1018 at 

www.regulations.gov]. In evaluating the 

proposed replacement/substitution 

transit projects for the Green Line 

Arborway Restoration, the Red Line/

Blue Line Connector, and the Green 

Line extension to Ball Square/Tufts 

University (see Table 2), EPA ensured 

that the substitution provisions in 310 

CMR 7.36(5), Substitute Transit System 

Improvement Projects, which were 

adopted into the Massachusetts SIP, 

were satisfied and followed the ‘‘Interim 

Guidance for Implementing the 

Transportation Conformity Provisions in 

the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU),’’ 

(EPA420–B–06–901, February 2006). As 

Massachusetts’ TCM substitution 

mechanisms were approved into the SIP 

prior to SAFETEA–LU’s enactment, 

Massachusetts must continue to use its 

SIP-approved TCM substitution 

mechanisms in addition to the new 

SAFETEA–LU statutory provision, as 

applicable, to make substitutions. 

TABLE 2—REPLACEMENT TRANSIT SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS IN 310 CMR 7.36 

[State effective date December 1, 2006] 

Projects must be 

completed and available for public 

use by: 

Transit system improvement projects to replace the Green Line Arborway Restoration, the Blue Line 

Connection from Bowdoin Station to the Red Line at Charles Station, and the Green Line extension to Ball 

Square/Tufts University: 

December 31, 2011 ....................... —Fairmont Line commuter rail improvements project. 

December 31, 2011 ....................... —1000 new park and ride parking spaces serving MBTA transit and commuter rail in the Metropolitan Boston Area. 

December 31, 2011 ....................... —Final design of the connection from the Blue Line at Government Center to the Red Line at Charles Station. [Final design but no commitment to its construction]. 

December 31, 2014 ....................... —Enhanced Green Line transit extension to Medford Hillside with a spur to Union Square.


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
71064 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1The guidance is available at http://www.epa.gov

/otaq/stateresources/transconf/policy/

420b09002.pdf. 

On July 31, 2008 (73 FR 44654), EPA 

approved Massachusetts’ amendments 

to Transit System Improvements 

Regulation, 310 CMR 7.36, and 

Definitions Regulation, 310 CMR 7.00 

(with a state effective date of December 

1, 2006), as a revision to the 

Massachusetts SIP. This revision 

changed completion dates of delayed 

transit projects, provided interim 

deadlines for projects, maintained 

requirements for interim emission 

reduction offsets in the event a project 

becomes delayed, modified the project 

substitution process, revised the list of 

required transit projects, and expanded 

public participation in, and oversight of, 

the projects. The intended effect of this 

action was to substitute specific transit 

projects and 1,000 park and ride spaces 

to replace certain transit projects 

previously approved into the SIP and to 

approve modifications to the delay and 

substitution procedures for transit 

projects. 

EPA found that the transit measures 

in the December 1, 2006 Revised Transit 

System Improvements Regulation 

remained directionally sound and that 

all substitution projects identified in the 

Regulation would collectively 

contribute to achieving the national 

ambient air quality standard for ozone 

and maintaining the carbon monoxide 

standard, thereby satisfying 

requirements set forth in section 110(l) 

of the Clean Air Act. 

II. Massachusetts’ 2013 SIP Revision 

Submittal 

Massachusetts Air Pollution Control 

regulation 310 CMR 7.36, ‘‘Transit 

System Improvements’’ (effective 

December 1, 2006), is currently 

incorporated-by-reference into the SIP. 

The Commonwealth’s November 6, 2013 

SIP submittal requests that EPA approve 

the replacement of this regulation in the 

SIP by an amended 310 CMR 7.36, 

‘‘Transit System Improvements’’ 

(effective October 25, 2013). The 

amended regulation: (1) Deletes the SIP 

requirement to design the Red Line/Blue 

Line Connector from the Blue Line at 

Government Center to the Red Line at 

Charles Station; (2) lengthens by fifteen 

days the time within which MassDEP 

must hold a public meeting to take 

public comment on MassDOT’s annual 

update and status report; and (3) 

replaces references to Executive Office 

of Transportation and EOT with 

Massachusetts Department of 

Transportation and MassDOT, 

respectively. These three amendments 

are addressed in more detail below. 

EPA’s role in this proposed action is 

to approve state choices, provided they 

meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

An adequate SIP revision is one that 

meets the Clean Air Act requirement 

under section 110(l) that a SIP revision 

must not interfere with attainment and 

maintenance of national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) or any other 

applicable requirement of the Act. The 

Commonwealth has flexibility to revise 

SIP-approved TCMs, provided the 

revisions are consistent with attaining 

and maintaining compliance with the 

NAAQS. 

A. Deletion of the Design of the Red 

Line/Blue Line Connector 

The first amendment deletes the 

requirement that MassDOT complete the 

final design of the Red Line/Blue Line 

Connector from the Blue Line at 

Government Center to the Red Line at 

Charles Station by December 31, 2011. 

Although 310 CMR 7.36(2)(i), as 

adopted in 2006, required MassDOT to 

complete the final design of the Red 

Line/Blue Line Connector, the 

regulation did not require that the 

project be constructed. MassDOT took a 

number of steps to advance the Red 

Line/Blue Line Connector design, 

including, but not limited to, allocating 

resources to advance the conceptual 

design, completing a Draft 

Environmental Impact Report, and 

forming and meeting with a working 

group. MassDOT has estimated that $50 

million would be needed to complete 

the final design, far exceeding the $29 

million last identified in the Boston 

Metropolitan Planning Organization 

(MPO) 2009 Regional Transportation 

Plan (RTP). MassDOT has determined 

that allocating additional and scarce 

transportation funding to the final 

design of the project is not justified. 

Therefore, in July 2011, MassDOT 

requested that MassDEP remove the Red 

Line/Blue Line Connector design from 

the regulation and the SIP. 

SAFETEA–LU, which was signed into 

law on August 10, 2005, revised a 

number of aspects of the Clean Air Act’s 

section 176(c) transportation conformity 

provisions. In addition to amendments 

to the transportation conformity 

provisions, SAFETEA–LU also added a 

provision to section 176(c) to allow 

states to substitute or add TCMs into 

approved SIPs without the standard SIP 

revision process. This allowed a 

streamlined process for substituting and 

adding TCMs to an approved SIP. 

Where a substitution is not proposed, 

however, a TCM may only be removed 

from an applicable SIP through a 

standard SIP revision. Such a SIP 

revision must be shown to meet Clean 

Air Act section 110(l) requirements (e.g., 

the area would have to show that 

removal of the TCM would not interfere 

with any applicable requirement 

concerning attainment and reasonable 

further progress, or any other applicable 

Clean Air Act requirement). 

Since the Massachusetts SIP revision 

is for the removal of a SIP requirement 

without replacement or substitution, 

EPA believes the provisions of 310 CMR 

7.36(5), Substitute Transit System 

Improvement Projects, and EPA’s 

Guidance for Implementing the Clean 

Air Act Section 176(c)(8) Transportation 

Control Measure Substitution and 

Addition Provision do not apply.1 Most 

importantly, as the previously approved 

SIP requirement is for design only, 

removing this requirement from the SIP 

will not affect the total emission 

reductions achieved from the projects 

included in the Massachusetts Transit 

System Improvements Regulation and 

would not interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress, or any other 

applicable Clean Air Act requirement, 

thereby satisfying the requirements set 

forth in section 110(l) of the Clean Air 

Act. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 

approve this amendment. 

B. Administrative Changes 

EOT/MassDOT, in consultation with 

the MBTA, is required to develop and 

submit to MassDEP by July 1st of each 

year a report for each project required 

by the Transit System Improvements 

Regulation [310 CMR 7.36(2)(f) through 

(j) and any project implemented 

pursuant to 310 CMR 7.36(4) and (5)] in 

accordance with the provisions 

established at 310 CMR 7.36(7)(a) of the 

Transit System Improvements 

Regulation’s Public Process 

Requirements. Following receipt of the 

report, MassDEP is required to conduct 

a public meeting to take public 

comment on EOT/MassDOT’s update 

and status report. Because MassDEP is 

required to conduct the public meeting 

within 60 days of its receipt of the 

report, there have been conflicts with 

the Labor Day Holiday and the end of 

summer season. Therefore, in the 

revised regulation submitted on 

November 6, 2013, MassDEP lengthened 

the public meeting deadline to within 

75 days of the receipt of the report to 

avoid these conflicts. The additional 

fifteen days will still result in a timely 

hearing on MassDOT’s updates and 

reports, and should enable more 

stakeholders and members of the public 

to participate. 

MassDEP shall continue to provide 

public notice at least 30 days prior to 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71065 

the public meeting and shall also make 

copies of MassDOT’s annual update and 

status report available to the public at 

least 30 days prior to the public 

meeting. EPA finds the fifteen day 

extension acceptable since it will 

benefit the public review and comment 

opportunities and will not affect 

emissions or interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress or any other applicable Clean 

Air Act requirement. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to approve this amendment. 

If our proposal is finalized, MassDEP 

will hold future public meeting on the 

annual update and status report within 

seventy-five days of MassDEP’s receipt 

of the report. See 310 CMR 7.36(7)(b). 

In addition, in the revised regulation 

submitted on November 6, 2013, the 

terms ‘‘Executive Office of 

Transportation’’ and ‘‘EOT’’ have been 

replaced with ‘‘Massachusetts 

Department of Transportation’’ and 

‘‘MassDOT,’’ respectively, to reflect 

Chapter 25 of the Acts of 2009. In June 

2009, Governor Deval Patrick signed 

Chapter 25 of the Acts of 2009, ‘‘An Act 

Modernizing the Transportation 

Systems of the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts,’’ (as amended by 

Chapter 26 of the ‘‘Act’’). This 

transportation reform legislation 

integrated transportation agencies and 

authorities into a new, streamlined 

MassDOT, which is a merger of the 

Executive Office of Transportation and 

Public Works (EOT) and its divisions 

with the Massachusetts Turnpike 

Authority (MTA), the Massachusetts 

Highway Department (MHD), the 

Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV), the 

Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission 

(MAC), and the Tobin Bridge, currently 

owned and operated by the 

Massachusetts Port Authority (MPA). In 

addition, the MBTA and Regional 

Transit Authorities (RTA) are subject to 

oversight by the new organization. The 

organization also assumed 

responsibility for many of the bridges 

and parkways currently operated by the 

Department of Conservation and 

Recreation (DCR). 

EPA is proposing to approve these 

administrative changes, which do not 

interfere with attainment and reasonable 

further progress or any other applicable 

Clean Air Act requirement, and which 

will, if finalized, make the SIP 

consistent with State agency 

organization. 

III. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Massachusetts’ revised 310 CMR 7.36, 

‘‘Transit System Improvements,’’ 

submitted on November 6, 2013, as a 

revision to the Massachusetts SIP. This 

revised rule: (1) Deletes the existing SIP 

requirement to design the Red Line/Blue 

Line Connector from the Blue Line at 

Government Center to the Red Line at 

Charles Station (310 CMR 7.36(2)(i)); (2) 

lengthens by fifteen days the time 

within which MassDEP must hold a 

public meeting to take public comment 

on MassDOT’s annual update and status 

report (310 CMR 7.36(7)(b)); and (3) 

replaces references to Executive Office 

of Transportation and EOT with 

references to Massachusetts Department 

of Transportation and MassDOT, 

respectively. 

EPA’s review of the material 

submitted on November 6, 2013 to 

remove the ‘‘design only’’ of the Red 

Line/Blue Line Connector from the 

Massachusetts SIP; add administrative 

changes to lengthen portions of the 

public process under 310 CMR 

7.36(2)(i); and update references to the 

appropriate State transportation agency, 

indicates that the proposed 

modifications would not interfere with 

any applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress, or any other applicable Clean 

Air Act requirement. 

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. 

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 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 (Public Law 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, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: November 6, 2014. 

Deborah A. Szaro, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New 

England. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28299 Filed 11–28–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS