Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 235 / Tuesday, December 8, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 76225 

(3) Rule 1113, ‘‘Architectural 

Coatings,’’ amended on March 18, 2003. 

* * * * * 

(457) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(5) Rule 3.15, ‘‘Architectural 

Coatings,’’ amended on August 4, 2014. 

* * * * * 

(G) Santa Barbara County Air 

Pollution Control District. 

(1) Rule 323.1, ‘‘Architectural 

Coatings,’’ adopted on June 19, 2014. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–30809 Filed 12–7–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2013–0786; A–1–FRL– 

9936–08–Region 1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Massachusetts; Transit System 

Improvements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts. This revision removes 

from the SIP the design aspect of the 

Red Line/Blue Line Connector 

transportation control measure as a 

requirement in the Massachusetts SIP, 

without substitution or replacement, 

and in addition implements 

administrative changes that lengthen the 

existing public process requirement so 

that a public meeting on the annual 

update and status report be held within 

seventy-five days of its July 1st 

submittal date and replaces references 

to the Executive Office of 

Transportation (EOT) with references to 

the Massachusetts Department of 

Transportation (MassDOT). This action 

is being taken in accordance with the 

Clean Air Act. 

DATES: This rule is effective on January 

7, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R01–OAR– 

2013–0786. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the http://

www.regulations.gov Web site. 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 through 

http://www.regulations.gov or at the 

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. 

Copies of the documents relevant to 

this action are also available for public 

inspection during normal business 

hours, by appointment at the 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, 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 and Purpose 

II. Response to Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background and Purpose 

On December 1, 2014 (79 FR 71061), 

EPA published a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPR) for the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The 

NPR proposed approval of a revised 

version of 310 Code of Massachusetts 

Regulations (CMR) 7.36, ‘‘Transit 

System Improvements,’’ effective under 

Massachusetts law on October 25, 2013. 

An earlier version of this rule had 

previously been approved by EPA into 

the Massachusetts SIP. See 73 FR 44654. 

The revised 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 (from sixty days to within seventyfive days of the July 1 submittal date) 

the time period within which MassDEP 

must hold a public meeting to take 

public comment on MassDOT’s annual 

update and status report for each project 

required by 310 CMR 7.36(2)(f) through 

(j) and any project implemented 

pursuant to 310 CMR 7.36(4) and (5); 

and (3) replaces references to the 

Commonwealth’s Executive Office of 

Transportation and EOT with 

Massachusetts Department of 

Transportation and MassDOT, 

respectively. The formal SIP revision 

was submitted to EPA by Massachusetts 

on November 6, 2013. 

EPA’s role in reviewing SIP revisions 

is to approve state choices, provided 

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 

Act. An adequate SIP revision is one 

that, among other things, meets the 

Clean Air Act requirement under CAA 

section 110(l) that a SIP revision must 

not interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress (as defined 

in CAA section 171) in relation to the 

national air quality standards (NAAQS) 

or any other applicable requirement of 

the Act. The Commonwealth has 

flexibility to revise SIP-approved 

transportation control measures (TCMs), 

provided the revisions are consistent 

with attaining and maintaining 

compliance with the NAAQS. EPA has 

determined that the removal of the 

design aspect of the Red Line/Blue Line 

Connector from the SIP, as well as the 

administrative revisions included in 

Massachusetts’ November 6, 2013 SIP 

submittal, do not interfere with 

attainment or with reasonable further 

progress or any other applicable Clean 

Air Act requirement. Therefore, we are 

approving Massachusetts’ revised 310 

CMR 7.36, ‘‘Transit System 

Improvements.’’ 

II. Response to Comments 

EPA received forty-one comments on 

our December 1, 2014 NPR. Comments 

were received from: U.S. Senators 

Elizabeth Warren and Edward J. Markey; 

U.S. Representatives Michael Capuano 

and Katherine Clark; Edward W. 

Deveau, Candidate for State 

Representative, 1st Suffolk District; 

Boston Councilor Salvatore LaMattina; 

Massachusetts Port Authority 

(Massport); Conservation Law 

Foundation (CLF); A Better City (ABC); 

and Frederick Salvucci (former 

Secretary of Massachusetts Department 

of Transportation). In addition, 

comments were received from East 

Boston, Dorchester, and Medford, 

Massachusetts residents. Although six 

of the forty-one comments were 

received after the public comment 


Lhorne on DSK9F6TC42PROD with RULES
76226 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 235 / Tuesday, December 8, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

period closed, all comments have been 

fully considered and responded to in 

this final action. 

Copies of the public comments have 

been placed in the public docket 

without change and are available online 

at http://www.regulations.gov, docket 

number EPA–R01–OAR–2013–0786, 

document numbers EPA–R01–OAR– 

2013–0786–0040 through EPA–R01– 

OAR–2013–0786–0080. 

Comment #1: Commenters urged the 

EPA to deny MassDEP’s request to 

amend the SIP and to continue to 

include the design aspect of the Red 

Line/Blue Line Connector in the 

Commonwealth’s program. Some of 

these comments related to a desire to 

decrease traffic congestion and to 

improve commuting convenience for 

riders of the mass transit system. Other 

comments identified a concern about 

adverse impacts of the SIP revision to 

lower income communities, sometimes 

raising the concept of environmental 

justice in that context. 

Response #1: EPA acknowledges the 

commenters’ support for the design of 

the Red Line/Blue Line Connector, and 

the variety of reasons for their support. 

However, the relevant question before 

EPA in deciding whether or not to 

approve the proposed Massachusetts 

SIP revision before us is whether 

Massachusetts’ deletion of the design of 

the Red Line/Blue Line Connector from 

the SIP would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment or reasonable further 

progress, or any other applicable Clean 

Air Act requirement. See CAA section 

110(l). As noted in EPA’s December 1, 

2014 NPR, the previously approved SIP 

requirement at issue is for the design 

aspect of a project only; consequently, 

removing this particular requirement 

from the SIP will not affect the total 

emission reductions achieved from the 

projects included in the Massachusetts 

Transit System Improvements 

Regulation and also would not interfere 

with any applicable requirement 

concerning attainment, reasonable 

further progress, or any other applicable 

Clean Air Act requirements, thereby 

satisfying the requirements set forth in 

section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act. 

Therefore, EPA is approving the revised 

regulation. 

Comment #2: Commenters expressed 

concern that removing the design of the 

Red Line/Blue Line Connector from the 

SIP would free the MassDOT 

(Massachusetts Department of 

Transportation) from its commitment to 

move forward on the project, thus 

jeopardizing the prospects of the Red 

Line/Blue Line Connector ever 

becoming a reality. 

Response #2: As noted above in our 

response to Comment #1, EPA’s role is 

to determine whether or not removing 

the commitment to design the Red Line/ 

Blue Line Connector from the SIP is 

consistent with the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act. We note that the 

Massachusetts SIP does not contain any 

provision requiring Massachusetts to 

implement and operate the Red Line/

Blue Line Connector. In fact, that 

requirement was previously removed 

from the SIP after notice and comment, 

as discussed in the notice of proposed 

rulemaking. We also, note, that 

approving the removal of the 

requirement to design the Red Line/Blue 

Line Connector from the SIP, does not 

preclude this project from moving 

forward at a later date. Whether or not 

the project and/or its design is in the 

Massachusetts SIP, the Commonwealth 

is free to implement the project in the 

future if it so chooses. 

Comment #3: Commenters stated that 

full design of the Red Line/Blue Line 

Connector is a commitment MassDOT 

made in 2006, and if MassDOT had no 

intention of building the Red Line/Blue 

Line Connector, that would have been 

the time to decline to take on the design 

as a legal commitment. 

Response #3: Again, we note that 

EPA’s role in reviewing SIP revisions is 

to approve state choices, provided they 

meet the relevant requirements of the 

Clean Air Act. However, for 

completeness, we also note the 

following regarding MassDOT’s stated 

rationale regarding this project. 

MassDOT took a number of steps since 

2006 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 

determined as part of this effort and as 

a result of its findings, that allocating 

additional and scarce transportation 

funding to the final design of this 

particular project is not justified at this 

time, and that emissions reductions that 

will occur pursuant to other approved 

transportation control measures are 

adequate. 

Comment #4: Commenters noted that 

they want all ‘‘Big Dig’’ mitigation 

requirements enforced by EPA and 

requested that EPA insist that the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts finish 

the final design plans for the Red Line/ 

Blue Line Connector project. Similarly, 

other commenters stated that they wish 

to protest the possible negation of the 

commitment, made during the Big Dig, 

to finally connect the Blue Line to the 

Red Line at Charles Street in Boston, 

Massachusetts. 

Response #4: Again, EPA 

acknowledges the commenters’ support 

for the Red Line/Blue Line Connector 

project, but we reiterate that EPA’s role 

in reviewing SIP revisions is to approve 

state choices, provided they meet the 

relevant requirements of the Clean Air 

Act. As explained earlier, 

Massachusetts’ proposed SIP revision 

and EPA’s approval of it, meet all 

relevant CAA requirements, including 

those contained within CAA section 

110(l). In addition, we note that not all 

of the mitigation projects associated 

with the ‘‘Depression of the Central 

Artery and Third Harbor Tunnel 

Project’’ (known as CA/THT or the Big 

Dig) were submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts to be 

part of its SIP, and were not required to 

be under the CAA. Those mitigation 

measures adopted into the 

Massachusetts SIP in 1991 (see October 

4, 1994; 59 FR 2795) and modified in 

2006 (see July 31, 2008; 73 FR 44654) 

are clearly identified in the December 1, 

2014 NPR (79 FR 71061). 

Comment #5: One commenter stated 

that MassDEP’s proposed SIP revision 

should be disapproved or denied by 

EPA as inconsistent with the 

requirements of the CAA because 

Massachusetts has not offered a 

substitution project or measure in place 

of, or in substitution for, the design for 

the Red Line/Blue Line Connector 

project. Similarly, another commenter 

noted that the air quality benefits from 

the Red Line/Blue Line Connector 

project are implicit in the initial 

inclusion of the design requirement into 

the SIP, and therefore cannot be 

removed without substitution. Another 

commenter further commented that if 

the original inclusion of the Red Line/ 

Blue Line Connector project design in 

the revised SIP helped the state achieve 

compliance with the NAAQS, it would 

be inconsistent to remove it now 

without substitution. 

Response #5: As stated in EPA’s 

December 1, 2014 NPR, because the 

previously approved SIP requirement is 

for design of the project only, removing 

this requirement from the SIP will not 

affect the total emission reductions 

achieved from the totality of the projects 

included in the Massachusetts Transit 

System Improvements Regulation and 

would not interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment, 

reasonable further progress, or any other 


Lhorne on DSK9F6TC42PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 235 / Tuesday, December 8, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 76227 

applicable Clean Air Act requirement, 

thereby satisfying the requirements set 

forth in section 110(l) of the Clean Air 

Act. Moreover, MassDEP has 

demonstrated that the requirements of 

SIP-approved regulation 310 CMR 7.36, 

‘‘Transit System Improvements’’ have 

been met. That regulation contains 

specific provisions under 310 CMR 7.36 

(5), ‘‘Substitute Transit System 

Improvement Projects,’’ and 310 CMR 

7.36 (8), ‘‘Determination of Air Quality 

Emission Reductions’’ that govern the 

requirements that MassDOT must meet 

when substituting for certain projects 

required by 310 CMR 7.36. Those 

projects include the Fairmount Line 

improvements outlined in 310 CMR 

7.36(2)(h)1. and Green Line Extension 

projects outlined in 310 CMR 7.36(2)(i). 

For those projects, the substitution 

provisions are very specific and must 

include a demonstration that the 

proposed substitute project will achieve 

110% of the emission reductions of 

NMHC, CO and NOX that would have 

been achieved had all components of 

the project required by 310 CMR 7.36 

been completed. These substitution 

provisions do not include the design of 

the Red Line/Blue Line Connector 

project which MassDEP has concluded 

will achieve no air quality benefits. As 

such, as discussed above in an earlier 

response to comment, no substitution 

for this SIP revision is required under 

the SIP. 

Comment #6: A commenter noted that 

there will be a time in the not too 

distant future when it will be apparent 

that the Red Line/Blue Line Connector 

project must be built, either for Clean 

Air Act attainment purposes, or for 

economic development and/or 

environmental justice reasons. 

According to the commenter, since 

MassDOT clearly has no intention of 

preparing for that moment, it must be 

forced to do so. 

Response #6: The transportation 

measure in the Massachusetts’ SIP is a 

requirement to design the Red Line/Blue 

Line Connector project. EPA has no 

authority under the CAA or any other 

statute or regulation to require the 

Commonwealth to build a particular 

transportation measure which is not 

part of the approved SIP. Moreover, not 

including a transportation project in the 

SIP does not in any way prevent the 

Commonwealth from constructing the 

project. The legal analysis as to whether 

or not EPA must, under the CAA, 

approve Massachusetts’ SIP revision in 

this instance, particularly because it is 

only a design requirement with no air 

quality or emissions implications, does 

not change in light of potential 

economic development or 

environmental justice concerns. 

Comment #7: One commenter stated 

that the EPA should consider requiring 

the Commonwealth to remain 

committed to complete the design of the 

project while investigating innovative 

finance options for its implementation. 

Response #7: The Commonwealth has 

flexibility to revise its SIP-approved 

transportation control measures (TCMs), 

provided the revisions are consistent 

with attaining and maintaining 

compliance with the NAAQSs, 

reasonable further progress, and any 

other applicable requirements of the 

CAA. EPA has no authority to require 

the Commonwealth to investigate 

innovative finance options for the Red 

Line/Blue Line Connector project’s 

implementation. 

Comment #8: One commenter 

expressed that there was a very serious 

harm caused by the MBTA’s failure to 

complete in a timely manner the final 

design for the Red Line/Blue Line 

Connector project, because the 

Commonwealth’s project to relocate 

Storrow Drive at Charles Street into a 

straighter alignment is located in the 

same area identified in the Blue-Red 

DEIS (Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement) as needed for an 

underground rail track. 

Response #8: This comment is not 

germane to the requirements of the CAA 

pursuant to which EPA must evaluate 

the Commonwealth’s SIP revision. As 

noted earlier, the SIP revision only 

relates to a provision that requires 

design, not implementation, of a project. 

However, for completeness, we note that 

completion of the design of the Red 

Line/Blue Line Connector would not 

preserve the right of way for the Red 

Line/Blue Line Connector, nor prevent 

any state, county or city transportation 

project from incursion into the area 

defined as project limits or right of way 

in the Red Line/Blue Line Connector 

design. The Boston Metropolitan 

Planning Organization which includes 

the Mass DOT, and the City of Boston 

must establish priority of transportation 

projects and in their transportation 

planning avoid or mitigate conflicts 

with future transportation projects. 

Comment #9: A commenter presented 

the idea of a pedestrian connection 

between State Street and Downtown 

Crossing as an alternative to the Red 

Line/Blue Line Connector project. As 

described by the commenter, this 

alternative project would extend the 

existing Orange Line Southbound 

platform at State Street to connect with 

the existing Orange Line Northbound 

platform at Downtown Crossing. The 

commenter notes that this connection 

would allow fare-paying riders to walk 

under Washington Street between State 

Street and Downtown Crossing, thus 

providing an alternative Red Line/Blue 

Line connection. The commenter noted 

that the Jeffries Point Neighborhood 

Association (JPNA) strongly supports 

the engineering and construction of the 

Red Line/Blue Line Connector project. 

However, the commenter also noted that 

should the EPA allow the 

Commonwealth to abandon the Red 

Line/Blue Line Connector, it must 

mandate the Commonwealth to pursue 

alternatives, such as the pedestrian 

tunnel outlined above. 

Response #9: As noted earlier, EPA’s 

role in this rulemaking action is to 

approve state choices, provided they 

meet the requirements of the Clean Air 

Act. As we’ve explained, the CAA does 

not provide EPA with the authority in 

the context of this particular SIP 

revision to require the Commonwealth 

to implement any alternative project(s), 

including those identified by a number 

of commenters. Thus, the issue of 

alternatives to the Red Line/Blue Line 

Connector is not germane to EPA’s 

approval or disapproval of the 

Commonwealth’s request to remove the 

design of the Red Line/Blue Line 

Connector project from the 

Massachusetts SIP without substitution 

or replacement. 

Comment #10: One commenter noted 

that with the announcement that Boston 

was chosen as the U.S. delegate to host 

the 2024 Summer Olympics, now is as 

good a time as any to revisit the 

Commonwealth’s transportation issues. 

Response #10: The Commonwealth’s 

transportation planning efforts will 

continue over time to evaluate and 

prioritize transportation projects in the 

Boston area and across the 

Commonwealth. The removal of the 

design of the Red Line/Blue Line 

Connector project is consistent with 

Massachusetts Department of 

Transportation’s planning process. The 

CAA does not provide EPA with the 

authority to disapprove the 

Commonwealth’s SIP revision as a 

result of the possibility that Boston may 

host the 2024 Olympic Games. 

Comment #11: One commenter 

asserted that there are clearly air quality 

benefits associated with designing a 

transit project. Specifically, the 

commenter stated: 

For a transit project to be constructed, it 

has to be designed first. Frequently, funding 

becomes available for a transit project only 

after it has been designed. Increasingly, only 

projects that are shovel-ready are eligible to 

apply when Federal funding opportunities 

arise. Thus, designing a transit project, more 

than anything else, raises its chances of being 


Lhorne on DSK9F6TC42PROD with RULES
76228 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 235 / Tuesday, December 8, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

built. As a result, air quality benefits can be 

calculated by applying a discounted 

percentage of those the constructed project 

would produce . . . Even if discounted by 

ninety percent, the design of the Connector 

would still provide emission reductions of 

15.6 kilograms for carbon monoxide, 0.4 

kilograms for nitrogen oxides, and 0.9 

kilograms for volatile organic compounds per 

day. 

Response #11: EPA agrees that 

designing a project and having the 

project ‘‘shovel-ready’’ increases a 

project’s chance of being implemented, 

but disagrees that any air quality 

benefits necessarily would be obtained 

or derived from a project which only 

involves the requirement to design the 

project on paper. A project must be 

completed and operational to derive any 

air quality benefits and the SIP revision 

does not include removal of any 

provisions that require completion of 

the project or its operation. EPA does 

not believe that estimating air quality 

benefits or emissions reductions using 

discount factors reflecting probabilities 

that a project will or will not occur is 

appropriate in this context, and nothing 

in the CAA suggests that EPA is 

obligated, or even has the authority, to 

do so. 

Comment #12: A commenter noted 

that, ultimately, the SIP has to allow the 

Commonwealth to attain and/or 

maintain compliance with the NAAQS 

and that MassDEP has not provided any 

modeling as part of this proposal to 

amend the SIP to demonstrate that the 

remaining projects are sufficient. The 

commenter further stated that to even be 

able to evaluate this request to amend 

the SIP properly, EPA should require 

MassDEP to remodel the air quality 

benefits expected from the projects 

remaining in the revised SIP and then 

compare those benefits to those of the 

remaining transit system improvement 

projects without the Red Line/Blue Line 

Connector project. 

Response #12: The three changes 

being considered by EPA in this SIP 

revision, (removal of the design of the 

Red Line/Blue Line Connector from the 

Massachusetts SIP, without substitution 

or replacement; implementation of 

administrative changes that lengthen the 

existing public process by fifteen days; 

and replacement of references to the 

Executive Office of Transportation 

(EOT) with references to the 

Massachusetts Department of 

Transportation (MassDOT)), would not 

affect the assumptions used in, or the 

results of, the air quality modeling 

conducted when the transportation 

control measures currently in the SIP, 

and which will remain in the SIP, were 

previously approved by EPA; nor would 

any of the revisions EPA is approving in 

this final action alter the air quality 

results. 

Comment #13: A number of 

commenters presented the merits of a 

completed Red Line/Blue Line 

Connector project. 

Response #13: EPA acknowledges the 

potential benefits associated with a 

completed Red Line/Blue Line 

Connector Project. However, the project 

as defined in the Massachusetts SIP is 

only for design of the Red Line/Blue 

Line Connector. EPA and the 

Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection have 

concluded that there are no air quality 

benefits achieved by the inclusion in the 

Commonwealth’s SIP of the requirement 

to only design the Red Line/Blue Line 

Connector. 

Comment #14: One commenter 

expressed concern that, if EPA does not 

enforce regulations which it encouraged 

the state to adopt in conjunction with 

the largest highway construction project 

in recent history, what reason is there to 

take EPA seriously when it talks about 

new regulations about climate change? 

Additionally, the commenter noted: 

It may be difficult to get Massachusetts to 

behave responsibly, but the least the public 

should be able to expect out of EPA is that 

it clearly find fault with the ridiculously 

delayed non-performance of Massachusetts, 

and not endorse the cynical effort to drop a 

commitment that has been included in Big 

Dig regulations since the 1990 final EIR 

(Environmental Impact Report) and 1991 DEP 

vent shaft regulations, and the 1993 SIP, and 

part of the basis of the 2006 court settlement. 

Response #14: As noted in the 

December 1, 2014 NPR, the original 

commitment to construct the Red Line/ 

Blue Line Connector project was 

changed to a design only commitment 

in a 2006 SIP revision, which was 

approved by EPA on July 31, 2008 (73 

FR 44654). Under consideration in 

today’s action is EPA’s approval of the 

removal of the commitment to design 

the Red Line/Blue Line Connector 

project. Climate change-related 

regulations, and whether persons 

believe there are reasons to take EPA’s 

efforts to address climate change 

seriously, are not relevant to today’s 

action. Moreover, the commenter’s 

reference to Massachusetts’ alleged 

‘‘ridiculously delayed nonperformance,’’ is misplaced because it 

makes reference to projects that are 

either (1) no longer part of the 

Massachusetts SIP and which have been 

replaced by other projects or (2) 

addressed by provisions in the 

Massachusetts regulation at 310 CMR 

7.36(4) ‘‘Project Delays and 

Implementation of Interim Emission 

Reduction Offset Projects and 

Measures.’’ In the case of delayed 

projects, MA DOT has submitted the 

appropriate ‘‘petition to delay the 

project,’’ which identifies the necessary 

interim offset project(s); has undergone 

the required public review, and has 

received approval by the Massachusetts 

Department of Environmental 

Protection. And nothing contained in 

the commenter’s comment leads EPA to 

conclude that any relevant requirement 

of the CAA is not being complied with 

or is being violated. Finally, EPA 

believes that Massachusetts’ 

administrative record, which included a 

public hearing, a comment period and 

responses to public comments, indicates 

that Massachusetts had rational reasons 

for concluding that finishing the design 

for the Red Line/Blue Line Connector 

would not be prudent. 

Comment #15: One commenter stated 

that inaction by Massachusetts on the 

transit and other SIP commitments has 

caused substantially more damage to air 

quality than the standard traffic and air 

quality prediction methods predict. In 

particular, the commenter stated that 

the delay in implementation of the 

original commitments has resulted in 

land use adjustments that are less transit 

oriented than would have been the case, 

and auto ownership patterns higher 

than would have been the case, with 

lasting negative impacts that are not 

factored into the standard models used 

by Massachusetts. Another commenter 

also stated, ‘‘The situation cries out for 

at least a transparent re-evaluation of 

the original 1990 commitments, and 

begs the question of the need for much 

more aggressive implementation of 

transit improvements to get the horse 

back into the barn, now that it has been 

allowed to run amuck in the garden.’’ 

Response #15: As noted above, not all 

of the mitigation projects associated 

with the ‘‘Depression of the Central 

Artery and Third Harbor Tunnel 

Project’’ (known as CA/THT or the Big 

Dig) were submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts to be 

part of its SIP; nor were they required 

to be by the CAA. Those mitigation 

measures adopted into the 

Massachusetts SIP in 1991 (see October 

4, 1994; 59 FR 2795) and modified in 

2006 (see July 31, 2008; 73 FR 44654) 

are clearly identified in the December 1, 

2014 NPR (79 FR 71061). EPA 

concluded in the 1994 and 2008 

approval actions, that the Massachusetts 

transportation control measures 

incorporated into the SIP were 

consistent with the requirements of the 

CAA, including CAA section 110(l) for 

the 2008 approval action. As noted 

earlier on several occasions, today’s 


Lhorne on DSK9F6TC42PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 235 / Tuesday, December 8, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 76229 

action is limited to EPA’s approval of 

the removal of the commitment to 

design the Red Line/Blue Line 

Connector project. EPA finds no basis or 

authority under the CAA that would 

require the Agency to undertake the 

steps and analysis suggested by the 

commenter as a result of the SIP 

revision at issue today. 

Comment #16: One commenter 

recommended that the Commonwealth 

be required to perform a comprehensive 

re-analysis of emerging congestion on 

the center of the interstate network, 

including analysis of the capacity of the 

system to handle the Everett Casino, 

The Seaport Innovation District 

projected build-out, the Kendall square 

expected build-out, additional parking 

under consideration at Logan Airport, 

and identification of further needed 

transit investment to support these 

added traffic generators. 

Response #16: Overall transportation 

planning considerations are not 

germane to this SIP revision and EPA 

has no authority under the CAA to 

require the Commonwealth to undertake 

such analyses in the context of EPA’s 

action on the Commonwealth’s 

submitted SIP revision. Requiring the 

Commonwealth, the Metropolitan 

Planning Organization, or the Cities of 

Boston, Cambridge and Everett to 

conduct additional transportation 

planning is outside EPA’s authority to 

evaluate and approve the Massachusetts 

SIP revision before EPA. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving 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 project from the Blue Line at 

Government Center to the Red Line at 

Charles Station; (2) lengthens by fifteen 

days the time period during which 

MassDEP must hold a public meeting 

and take public comment on MassDOT’s 

annual update and status report; 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 project 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 these 

modifications would not interfere with 

any applicable requirement concerning 

attainment, reasonable further progress, 

or any other applicable Clean Air Act 

requirement. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is finalizing the 

incorporation by reference of the 

Massachusetts’ regulation described in 

the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set 

forth below. The EPA has made, and 

will continue to make, these documents 

generally available electronically 

through http://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 Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive 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 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, 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 Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by February 8, 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, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 


Lhorne on DSK9F6TC42PROD with RULES
76230 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 235 / Tuesday, December 8, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: September 29, 2015. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is amended 

as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart W—Massachusetts 

■ 2. Section 52.1120 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(143) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1120 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(143) Revisions to the State 

Implementation Plan submitted by the 

Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection on November 

6, 2013. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Massachusetts Regulation 310 

CMR 7.36 entitled ‘‘U Transit System 

Improvements,’’ effective in the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts on 

October 25, 2013. 

(ii) Additional materials. 

(A) Letter from the Massachusetts 

Department of Environmental Protection 

dated November 6, 2013 submitting a 

revision to the Massachusetts State 

Implementation Plan. 

■ 3. In § 52.1167, Table 52.1167 is 

amended by adding a new entry to the 

existing state citation for 310 CMR 7.36 

to read as follows: 

§ 52.1167 EPA-approved Massachusetts 

State regulations. 

* * * * * 

TABLE 52.1167—EPA-APPROVED RULES AND REGULATIONS

[See notes at end of table] 

State citation Title/subject 

Date 

submitted by 

state 

Date approved 

by EPA 

Federal Register 

citation 52.1120(c) 

Comments/ 

unapproved 

sections 

*******

310 CMR 7.36 ........... Transit System Improvements.11/6/13 12/8/15 [Insert Federal Register citation].143 Removes from the 

SIP the commitment to design the 

Red Line/Blue Line 

Connector project. 

* * * * * * * 

Notes: 1. This table lists regulations adopted as of 1972. It does not depict regulatory requirements which may have been part of the Federal 

SIP before this date. 

2. The regulations are effective statewide unless otherwise stated in comments or title section. 

[FR Doc. 2015–30819 Filed 12–7–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0689; FRL–9936–83– 

Region 9] 

Approval of California Air Plan 

Revisions, Placer County Air Pollution 

Control District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve a revision to the 

Placer County Air Pollution Control 

District (PCAPCD) portion of the 

California SIP. We are approving a local 

emergency episode plan that describes 

actions that PCAPCD will take to 

prevent dangerously high ambient 

emission levels under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or the Act). 

DATES: This rule is effective on February 

8, 2016 without further notice, unless 

the EPA receives adverse comments by 

January 7, 2016. If we receive such 

comments, we will publish a timely 

withdrawal in the Federal Register to 

notify the public that this direct final 

rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2015–0689, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: Once submitted, 

comments cannot be edited or 

withdrawn. The EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. If you need to 

include CBI as part of your comment, 

please visit http://www.epa.gov/

dockets/comments.html for further 

instructions. Multimedia submissions 

(audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. For the full EPA public comment 

policy and general guidance on making 

effective comments, please visit http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California 94105–3901. While all 

documents in the docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), and some may not 

be publicly available in either location 

(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 


Lhorne on DSK9F6TC42PROD with RULES