76222 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 235 / Tuesday, December 8, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

(C) South Coast Air Quality 

Management District. 

(1) Rule 1151, ‘‘Motor Vehicle and 

Mobile Equipment Non-Assembly Line 

Coating Operations,’’ amended on 

September 5, 2014. 

* * * * * 

(463) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(B) Yolo-Solano Air Quality 

Management District. 

(1) Rule 2.26, ‘‘Motor Vehicle and 

Mobile Equipment Coating Operations,’’ 

revised on December 10, 2008. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–30828 Filed 12–7–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0619; FRL–9936–67– 

Region 9] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Antelope Valley 

Air Quality Management District, 

Feather River Air Quality Management 

District and Santa Barbara 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 revisions to the 

Antelope Valley Air Quality 

Management District (AVAQMD), 

Feather River Air Quality Management 

District (FRAQMD), and Santa Barbara 

County Air Pollution Control District 

(SBCAPCD) portions of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern emissions of volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) from 

architectural coatings. We are approving 

local rules that regulate these emission 

sources 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–2015–0619, 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withdrawn.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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Arnold Lazarus, EPA Region IX, (415) 

972 3024, lazarus.arnold@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of these rules? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rules and rule revisions? 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules? 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. EPA Recommendations to Further 

Improve the Rules 

D. Public Comment and Final Action 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rules we are 

approving with the dates that they were 

adopted by the local air agencies and 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB). 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted/ 

amended Submitted 

AVAQMD ......................................................... 1113 Architectural Coatings .................................... 3/18/2003 5/13/2014 

FRAQMD ......................................................... 3.15 Architectural Coatings .................................... 8/4/2014 11/6/2014 

SBCAPCD ....................................................... 323.1 Architectural Coatings .................................... 6/19/2014 11/6/2014 

On May 13, 2014 the EPA determined 

that the submittal for AVAQMD Rule 

1113 met the completeness criteria in 40 

CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be 

met before formal EPA review. 

On December 18, 2014, the submittal 

for FRAQMD Rule 3.15 and SBCAPCD 

Rule 323.1 was deemed by operation of 

law to meet the completeness criteria in 

40 CFR part 51 Appendix V. 

B. Are there other versions of these 

rules? 

There is a previous version of 

AVAQMD 1113 adopted by the district 

on March 18, 2003. The EPA finalized 

a simultaneous limited approval and 

limited disapproval of this version on 

August 26, 2004 (69 FR 52432). 

We approved Sutter County Air 

Pollution Control District (SCAPCD) 

Rule 3.15, ‘‘Architectural Coatings,’’ and 

Yuba County Air Pollution Control 

District (YCAPCD) Rule 3.15, 

‘‘Architectural Coatings,’’ into the 

California SIP on May 3, 1982. SCAPCD 

and YCAPCD joined together to form the 

FRAQMD on September 3, 1991; 

however, SCAPCD Rule 3.15 and 

YCAPCD Rule 3.15 have remained in 

the SIP. The EPA is approving removal 


Lhorne on DSK9F6TC42PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 235 / Tuesday, December 8, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 76223 

of these rules because the SCAPCD and 

the YCAPCD no longer exist and the 

requirements are superseded by 

FRAQMD Rule 3.15. Table 2 lists the 

two superseded rules. 

TABLE 2—RULES TO BE SUPERSEDED

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Submitted 

SCAPCD .......................................... 3.15 Architectural Coatings ............................................................................... 1/28/1981 

YCAPCD .......................................... 3.15 Architectural Coatings ............................................................................... 3/30/1981 

There are no previous versions of 

SBCAPCD Rule 323.1 in the SIP. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rules and rule revisions? 

VOCs help produce ground-level 

ozone and smog, which harm human 

health and the environment. Section 

110(a) of the CAA requires States to 

submit regulations that control VOC 

emissions. Architectural coatings are 

coatings that are applied to stationary 

structures and their accessories. They 

include house paints, stains, industrial 

maintenance coatings, traffic coatings, 

and many other products. VOCs are 

emitted from the coatings during 

application and curing, and from the 

associated solvents used for thinning 

and clean-up. 

AVAQMD Rule 1113 controls VOC 

emissions from architectural coatings by 

establishing VOC limits on any 

architectural coating supplied, sold, 

offered for sale or manufactured for use 

within the AVAQMD. The major 

revision to Rule 1113 is elimination of 

the averaging provision which was the 

primary basis for the EPA’s 2004 limited 

disapproval of a prior version of this 

rule. 

Rule 3.15 and SBCAPCD Rule 323.1 

similarly control VOC emissions by 

establishing VOC limits on architectural 

coatings supplied, sold, offered for sale 

or manufactured for use within the 

FRAQMD and SBCAPCD. 

The EPA’s technical support 

documents (TSDs) have more 

information about these rules. 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules? 

SIP rules must be enforceable (see 

CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not 

interfere with applicable requirements 

concerning attainment and reasonable 

further progress or other CAA 

requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), 

and must not modify certain SIP control 

requirements in nonattainment areas 

without ensuring equivalent or greater 

emissions reductions (see CAA section 

193). 

Generally, SIP rules must require 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) for each category of 

sources covered by a Control 

Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document 

as well as each major source of VOCs in 

ozone nonattainment areas classified as 

moderate or above (see CAA sections 

182(b)(2)). The EPA has designated a 

portion of the FRAQMD (specifically, 

southern Sutter County) as a severe 

nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS or standards) and the 1997 and 

2008 8-hour ozone standards. Similarly, 

the EPA has designated the AVAQMD 

as severe nonattainment for the 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS, and the SBCAPCD 

as unclassifiable/attainment for the 2008 

8-Hour Ozone NAAQS. See 40 CFR 

81.305. Because there are no relevant 

EPA CTG documents and because there 

are no major architectural coating 

sources, architectural coatings are 

considered area sources of VOC and are 

not subject to RACT requirements. 

However, architectural coatings are 

subject to other VOC content limits and 

control measures described in the TSDs. 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we used to evaluate the enforceability, 

revision/relaxation and stringency 

requirements of this rule include the 

following: 

1. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; General 

Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of 

the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ (57 

FR 13498, April 16, 1992 and 57 FR 18070, 

April 28, 1992). 

2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations’’ 

(‘‘the Bluebook,’’ U.S. EPA, May 25, 1988; 

revised January 11, 1990). 

3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies’’ 

(‘‘the Little Bluebook,’’ EPA Region 9, August 

21, 2001). 

4. National Volatile Organic Compound 

Emission Standards for Architectural 

Coatings, 40 CFR 59.400, Subpart D, Table 1, 

VOC Content Limits for Architectural 

Coatings. 

5. California Air Resources Board (CARB) 

‘‘Suggested Control Measure for Architectural 

Coatings,’’ Approved 2007, February 1, 2008. 

6. AVAQMD Rule 1113,’’Architectural 

Coatings,’’ EPA Limited Approval and 

Disapproval on August 26, 2004 (69 FR 

52432). 

7. South Coast Air Quality Management 

District Rule 1113, ’’Architectural Coatings,’’ 

amended June 3, 2011, and approved into the 

SIP on March 26, 2013 (78 FR 18244). 

8. SCAPCD Rule 3.15, Architectural 

Coatings, submitted January 28, 1981, and 

approved by the EPA May 3, 1982 (47 FR 

18856). 

9. YCAPCD Rule 3.15, Architectural 

Coatings, submitted March 30, 1981, and 

approved by the EPA November 10, 1982 (47 

FR 50865). 

10. FRAQMD Rule 3.15, Architectural 

Coatings, adopted June 19, 2014, and 

submitted November 6, 2014. 

11. SBCAPCD Rule 323.1 Architectural 

Coatings, adopted June 19, 2014, and 

submitted November 6, 2014. 

12. Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour 

Ozone NAAQS—Phase 2, 70 FR 71612 (Nov. 

25, 2005). 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

We believe these rules are consistent 

with the relevant policy and guidance 

regarding enforceability, SIP relaxations 

and stringency. The TSDs have more 

information on our evaluation. 

C. EPA Recommendations to Further 

Improve the Rules 

The TSDs describe additional rule 

revisions that we recommend for the 

next time the local agencies modify the 

rules, but are not currently the basis for 

rule disapproval. 

D. Public Comment and Final Action 

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of 

the Act, the EPA is fully approving the 

submitted rules because we believe they 

fulfill all relevant requirements. We do 

not think anyone will object to this 

approval, so we are finalizing it without 

proposing it in advance. However, in 

the Proposed Rules section of this 

Federal Register, we are simultaneously 

proposing approval of the same 

submitted rules. If we receive adverse 

comments by January 7, 2016, we will 

publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register to notify the public 

that the direct final approval will not 

take effect and we will address the 

comments in a subsequent final action 

based on the proposal. If we do not 

receive timely adverse comments, the 

direct final approval will be effective 

without further notice on February 8, 

2016. This will incorporate these rules 

into the federally enforceable SIP. 


Lhorne on DSK9F6TC42PROD with RULES
76224 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 235 / Tuesday, December 8, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Please note that if the EPA receives 

adverse comment on an amendment, 

paragraph, or section of this rule and if 

that provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, the EPA may 

adopt as final those provisions of the 

rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

III. 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 

AVAQMD, FRAQMD, SBCAPCD, 

SCAPCD and YCAPCD rules described 

in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set 

forth below. The EPA has made, and 

will continue to make, these documents 

available electronically through 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at the appropriate EPA office (see the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble for 

more information). 

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, the 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 the 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 the 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. The 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. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the Proposed Rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

the EPA can withdraw this direct final 

rule and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: October 19, 2015. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c)(89)(iii)(E), 

(c)(98)(i)(G), (c)(441)(i)(E)(3), 

(c)(457)(i)(A)(5), and (c)(457)(i)(G) to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(89) * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(E) Previously approved on May 3, 

1982, in paragraph (c)(89)(iii)(A) of this 

section and now deleted with 

replacement in paragraph 

(c)(457)(i)(A)(5) by Feather River Air 

Quality Management District Rule 3.15, 

‘‘Architectural Coatings.’’ 

* * * * * 

(98) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(G) Previously approved on May 3, 

1982, in paragraph (c)(98)(i)(A) of this 

section and now deleted with 

replacement in paragraph 

(c)(457)(i)(A)(5) by Feather River Air 

Quality Management District Rule 3.15, 

‘‘Architectural Coatings.’’ 

* * * * * 

(441) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(E) * * * 


Lhorne on DSK9F6TC42PROD with RULES
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