44654 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Federal Register.’’ Through this Notice, 

the Coast Guard informs the owners and 

operators of facilities subject to 33 CFR 

105.115(e) located within COTP Zones 

Charleston, Long Island Sound, 

Jacksonville, and Savannah that the 

deadline for their compliance with 

Coast Guard and TSA TWIC 

requirements is December 1, 2008. 

The TSA and Coast Guard have 

determined that this date provides 

sufficient time for the estimated 

population required to obtain TWICs for 

these COTP Zones to enroll and for TSA 

to complete the necessary security 

threat assessments for those enrollment 

applications. We strongly encourage 

persons requiring unescorted access to 

facilities regulated by 33 CFR part 105 

and located in one of these COTP Zones 

to enroll for their TWIC as soon as 

possible, if they haven’t already. 

Additionally, we note that the TWIC 

Final Rule advises owners and operators 

of MTSA regulated facilities of their 

responsibility to notify employees of the 

TWIC requirements. Specifically, 33 

CFR 105.200(b)(14) requires owners or 

operators of MTSA regulated facilities to 

‘‘[i]nform facility personnel of their 

responsibility to apply for and maintain 

a TWIC, including the deadlines and 

methods for such applications.’’

Information on enrollment procedures, 

as well as a link to the pre-enrollment 

Web site (which will also enable an 

applicant to make an appointment for 

enrollment), may be found at https:// 

twicprogram.tsa.dhs.gov/ 

TWICWebApp/. 

You may also visit our Web site at 

homeport.uscg.mil/twic for a framework 

showing expected future compliance 

dates by COTP Zone. This list is subject 

to change; changes in expected future 

compliance dates will appear on that 

Web site. The exact compliance date for 

COTP Zones will also be announced in 

the Federal Register at least 90 days in 

advance. 

Dated: July 25, 2008. 

Mark P. O’Malley, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Ports and 

Facilities Activities. 

[FR Doc. E8–17557 Filed 7–30–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2006–1018; A–1–FRL–

8691–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Massachusetts; Amendment to 

Massachusetts’ State Implementation 

Plan for Transit System Improvements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts. This revision changes 

completion dates of delayed transit 

projects, provides interim deadlines for 

projects, maintains requirements for 

interim emission reduction offsets in the 

event a project becomes delayed, 

modifies the project substitution 

process, revises the list of required 

transit projects, and expands public 

participation in and oversight of the 

projects. The intended effect of this 

action is to substitute specific transit 

projects and 1,000 park and ride spaces 

to replace certain transit projects 

currently approved into the SIP, and 

approve modifications to the delay and 

substitution procedures for transit 

projects. This action is being taken 

under the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on July 31, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification Number EPA–R01–OAR–

2006–1018. 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 

electronically through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, One 

Congress Street, Suite 1100, 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 Bureau of 

Waste Prevention, 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, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 

(CAQ), Boston, MA 02114–2023, 

telephone number (617) 918–1668, fax 

number (617) 918–0668, e-mail 

cooke.donald@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

’’we,’’ ’’us,’’ or ’’our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. 

Organization of this document: We 

are providing the following outline to 

aid in locating information in this 

preamble. 

I. Background and Purpose 

II. Response to Comments 

III. Compliance With Clean Air Act TCM 

Substitution Requirements 

IV. Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background and Purpose 

On November 5, 2007 (72 FR 62422–

62427), EPA published a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) for the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The 

NPR proposed approval of 

Massachusetts’ amendments to its 

Transit System Improvements 

Regulation, 310 CMR 7.36, and 

Definition Regulation, 310 CMR 7.00 

(which were filed with the 

Massachusetts Secretary of State on 

November 16, 2006 and were effective 

on December 1, 2006), as a revision to 

the Massachusetts SIP. EPA proposed to 

find that the transit measures in the 

revised transit system improvements 

regulation remain directionally sound 

and that all proposed substitution 

projects identified in the Regulation will 

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 (CAA or Act). 

On December 13, 2006, the 

Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection (MA DEP) 

submitted its formal SIP revision 

amending its Transit System 

Improvements Regulation. The revision 

consists of MA DEP’s final amendments 

to 310 CMR 7.36, ‘‘Transit System 

Improvements,’’ effective December 1, 

2006. MA DEP held a hearing on the 

amendments to the Regulation on 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 44655 

December 21, 2005. On June 1, 2007, 

MA DEP supplemented its SIP revision 

with a letter determining that the 

Massachusetts Executive Office of 

Transportation (EOT) had met the 

requirements of 310 CMR 7.36 (8), 

Demonstration of Air Quality Emissions 

Reductions, along with EOT’s air quality 

modeling analysis (‘‘Description of 

Modeling Assumptions and Analysis 

Methodology for the State 

Implementation Plan Transit 

Commitment Projects Current and 

Proposed Substitutions,’’ dated March 

15, 2007). EOT held a public comment 

period on this supplemental material for 

a 45-day period commencing on January 

2, 2007. The document was amended 

based on comments received and an 

additional two-week public comment 

period began on March 21, 2007, 

following posting in the ‘‘Environmental 

Monitor.’’ DEP submitted EOT’s 

responses to public comments received 

as part of the supplemental materials. 

On August 22, 2007, we issued our 

determination that the Massachusetts 

SIP package is administratively and 

technically complete. In our 

completeness determination, we also 

highlighted EPA’s interest in seeing that 

the transit projects are implemented in 

a timely manner and requested that MA 

DEP keep us apprised of the status of 

the replacement projects as they move 

forward. In addition, we specifically 

mentioned hearing recent reports of 

potential delays in the Green Line 

extension project and encouraged EOT 

to address this issue on the record at its 

upcoming September 6, 2007 public 

status report meeting. 

On September 6, 2007, the MA DEP 

held a public meeting to address EOT’s 

annual status report on transit 

commitments. EOT presented the status 

of the uncompleted transit projects and 

took public comment. David Mohler, 

Acting Deputy Secretary for Planning, 

EOT, explained the Commonwealth’s 

efforts in seeking Federal funds for the 

Green Line, which could delay the 

completion of the Green Line for up to 

two years. Mohler emphasized EOT’s 

plan to make up any time delay, and if 

a delay occurred, to propose mitigation 

projects and adequate emission offsets 

as required by the regulation. EOT also 

made available at the public meeting a 

September 4, 2007 letter from David 

Mohler to MA DEP’s Acting 

Commissioner, Arlene O’Donnell, 

committing to accelerate the planning, 

design and environmental review and 

permitting of the project in order to 

meet the 2014 completion date. 

On January 4, 2008, EOT submitted 

copies of its ‘‘State Implementation 

Plan—Transit Commitments, 2007 

Annual Status Report, Agency 

Responses to Public Comments’’ to MA 

DEP and EPA. EOT’s submittal provided 

a summary of and responses to public 

comments, a written certification that 

the public process requirements were 

met, and a written certification that 

complete information was provided on 

any actual or known project delays, 

project substitutions, and interim 

offsets. MA DEP determined that EOT 

met the public process and other 

requirements of 310 CMR 7.36(7)(d) by 

letter on March 4, 2008. 

The Arborway Restoration, the Blue 

Line/Red Line connection, and the 

Green Line extension to Ball Square/ 

Tufts University which were approved 

into the Massachusetts SIP on October 

4, 1994 (59 FR 50495–50498), will be 

substituted with the Fairmount Line 

commuter rail improvements, 1,000 new 

park and ride parking spaces (serving 

MBTA transit and commuter rail in the 

Metropolitan Boston Area), and the 

Green Line transit line extension to 

Medford Hillside with a spur to Union 

Square. Air quality modeling 

demonstrates that the substitution 

projects will achieve a minimum of 

110% of the emissions reductions that 

would have been achieved if the 

original projects had been built. In 

addition to the substitution of transit 

projects, EPA is today approving the 

other specific requirements of 

Massachusetts’ amendments to the 

Transit System Improvements 

Regulation. The rationale for EPA’s 

proposed action to approve those 

amendments is explained in the NPR 

and will not be restated here. 

II. Response to Comments 

EPA received twenty-three public 

comments on our proposal to amend 

Massachusetts’ Transit System 

Improvements Regulation (Transit 

Regulation). Copies of the public 

comments have been placed in the 

public docket without change and are 

available online at www.regulations.gov, 

docket number EPA–R01–OAR–2006–

1018, document number EPA–R01–

OAR–2006–1018–0022 through EPA–

R01–OAR–2006–1018–0044. EPA’s full 

Technical Support Document—

Response to Comments is also available 

in the public docket, as well as at the 

Regional Office. 

Comment: A number of commenters 

supported the transit system 

improvement projects. Six commenters 

supported all of the transit system 

improvement projects, three 

commenters expressed strong support 

for the Fairmount Line; two commenters 

supported the Green Line Extension; 

and one commenter supported the 

Design of Red Line/Blue Line 

Connector. 

EPA Response: EPA acknowledges the 

commenters’ support for the transit 

system improvement projects. 

Comment: Three commenters wanted 

the transit system improvement projects 

originally approved into the SIP in 1994 

to be implemented without any 

substitutions or changes. 

EPA Response: As a threshold matter, 

EPA notes that nothing in our approval 

of these revisions to the Transit 

Regulation into the SIP in any way 

prevents the Commonwealth from 

completing the projects originally 

included in the regulation as EPA 

approved it in 1994. Although the 

projects are being dropped from the SIPapproved Transit Regulation, if any of 

the projects have merit, the 

Commonwealth’s transportation 

planning process may include them in 

the statewide transportation 

improvement program. The only 

question before EPA is whether 

Massachusetts has the option of revising 

the set of projects to which it will attach 

the specific requirements under the 

CAA that come when transit measures 

are specifically required in a SIP. 

EPA does not underestimate the 

importance of a state’s decision to drop 

transit projects from a SIP. EPA’s 

approval of this SIP revision will have 

the effect of eliminating the requirement 

under the CAA to complete the projects 

dropped from the regulation. That 

requirement allowed direct enforcement 

of the project deadlines pursuant to 

state law and sections 113 or 304 of the 

Act. The SIP mandate for these projects 

also required the Commonwealth to 

demonstrate in the conformity process 

under section 176(c) of the Act that 

Massachusetts’ transportation plan and 

transportation improvement program 

supported and would not interfere with 

completion of those projects. EPA agrees 

that these compliance mechanisms 

provide an incentive to complete SIPapproved transit projects. 

But precisely because the decision to 

incorporate transit projects into a SIP is 

a significant commitment, subject to 

compliance mechanisms under the Act, 

a state should only include in its SIP 

those transit projects to which it is 

clearly committed. And the state is in 

the best position to determine the mix 

of transit measures that best meets the 

state’s transit and air quality goals and 

that merits this high level of 

commitment. Accordingly, the Act 

assigns to EPA a limited role in 

reviewing a state’s choice of transit 

measures. Essentially, EPA is required 

to approve a SIP revision if it meets the 

basic requirements of the Act, most 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
44656 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

importantly in this case that the 

substitute transit projects will achieve 

equivalent or greater emissions 

reductions than the projects to be 

replaced. See CAA section 

176(c)(8)(A)(i). 

Below in Table 1 is a summary of 

EOT’s March 2007 Modeling Analysis 

for daily air quality emission benefits 

from the original 1994 SIP-approved 

transit system improvement projects, as 

well as the new transit system 

improvement projects. EPA has 

reviewed the modeling analysis report 

and concurs in the air quality benefits 

attributed to the transit system 

improvement projects. EPA addresses 

EOT’s modeling analysis and air quality 

benefits in several of EPA’s responses to 

comments below. 

TABLE 1—EOT AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS COMPARISON OF PROJECT PACKAGES BENEFITS IN THE YEAR 2025 

Daily emission benefits in kilograms (kg.) 

Carbon 

monoxide 

(CO) 

Nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) 

Volatile organic 

compounds 

(VOC) 

SIP Approved Projects (Package): 

Arborway Restoration, Green Line Extension to Ball Square/Tufts University, and 

Blue Line/Red Line Connection (Bowdoin Station to Charles Station) ...................... 292 8 11 

SIP Approved Projects (Package) Plus Ten Percent ............................................................ 321 .2 8 .8 12 .1 

Replacement/Substitution Projects (Package): 

Green Line to Union Square and Medford Hillside, Fairmont Line Improvements, and 

Additional Parking ....................................................................................................... 435 11 17 

The action before EPA is to approve 

or reject the Commonwealth’s transit 

project substitution as part of the 

Commonwealth’s revision to its Transit 

System Improvements regulations 310 

CMR 7.36. Approval of the changes to 

the Transit System Improvements 

regulation including the substitute 

transit projects into the SIP extends 

federal-enforcement to the design, 

construction and in most cases 

operation of the transit projects. The fact 

that a project is not specifically 

approved into a SIP does not affect the 

Commonwealth’s ability to include a 

transit project in its transportation plan 

process, seek future federal-funding or 

undertake a specific transit as a state 

initiative funded by State, City, public 

or private funding. 

Indeed, outside the context of the 

Act’s SIP process, there are several signs 

of activity in connection with the 

projects or project areas that will no 

longer be subject to a SIP mandate. On 

November 15, 2007, Ian A. Bowles, 

Secretary of Massachusetts Executive 

Office of Energy and Environmental 

Affairs, determined that the Red Line/ 

Blue Line Connector (EEA Number 

14101) requires the preparation of a 

mandatory Environmental Impact 

Report (EIR) initiating the 

Commonwealth’s Massachusetts 

Environmental Policy Act for the 

proposed project. And in the Transit 

Settlement Agreement that resolved the 

case Conservation Law Foundation v. 

Romney et al., Civil Action No. 05–

10487–NG, is the following statement: 

‘‘The parties agree that they will work 

in good faith with the City of Boston 

and other relevant parties to develop 

and agree upon recommended public 

transportation improvements to the 

Arborway corridor over the course of 

the next year. All Parties agree to 

commit to and participate in a public 

process to identify and recommend any 

agreed upon improvements for the 

Arborway Corridor.’’ (The settlement 

agreement dated November 28, 2006 is 

available at 

http://www.clf.org/uploadedFiles/ 

Transit_settlement_signed

_Jan2007.pdf.) EPA encourages all 

parties involved to fully implement this 

agreement. 

Comment: Two commenters requested 

EPA reject EOT’s request to remove the 

Arborway project from the SIP. 

EPA Response: The Commonwealth 

has flexibility to revise SIP-approved 

transportation control measures (TCMs), 

provided the revisions are consistent 

with attaining and maintaining 

compliance with the national ambient 

air quality standards (NAAQSs). This 

flexibility to substitute projects follows 

the intent of the Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act: A Legacy For Users (SAFETEA–

LU). Section 6011(d) of SAFETEA–LU 

amended the Clean Air Act by adding a 

new section 176(c)(8) that establishes 

specific criteria and procedures for 

replacing TCMs in an existing approved 

SIP with new TCMs and adding TCMs 

to an approved SIP. 

The action before EPA is to approve 

or reject the Commonwealth’s transit 

project substitution as part of the 

Commonwealth’s revision to its Transit 

System Improvements regulation 310 

CMR 7.36. Under the Clean Air Act, the 

EPA 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)(3); 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. Here, DEP’s SIP 

submission meets all the requirements 

of the Act, specifically the elements in 

section 176(c)(8) for substituting TCMs, 

including a demonstration that the new 

TCMs achieve emissions reductions 

equivalent to the projects being 

substituted. 

Comment: Three commenters objected 

to the substitution of the Red Line/Blue 

Line Connector with a commitment only 

to design the connector but dropping 

the SIP commitment to construct the 

project. Four commenters supported the 

construction of the Red Line/Blue Line 

Connector and outlined benefits of 

constructing and operating the Red 

Line/Blue Line Connector. 

EPA Response: EPA is aware of the 

merits and benefits of the operation of 

the Red Line/Blue Line Connector. EPA 

acknowledges the commenters’ support 

for construction of the Red Line Blue 

Line Connector by 2014. However, the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts has 

taken advantage of the flexibility 

provided under the Clean Air Act to 

revise SIP-approved TCMs, provided the 

revisions are consistent with attaining 

and maintaining compliance with the 

NAAQSs. Here, the Commonwealth has 

decided to drop the commitment to 

construct the Connector as part of a 

larger package of substitute projects 

designed to achieve an equivalent 

emission reduction. Again, this 

flexibility to substitute projects follows 

the requirements of the new Clean Air 

Act section 176(c)(8) that establishes 

specific criteria and procedures for 

replacing TCMs in an existing approved 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 44657 

SIP with new TCMs and adding TCMs 

to an approved SIP. 

Comment: Eight commenters wanted 

EPA to enforce the transit system 

improvement project deadlines. One 

commenter supported a two year delay 

of the Medford Green Line Extension, 

asserting that completion of the transit 

project by 2014 was optimistic. 

EPA Response: EPA concurs in the 

need for an enforceable deadline for the 

transit system improvement projects. 

EPA’s approval of Massachusetts’

Transit System Improvements 

regulation into the SIP will make the 

design, construction and operation 

deadlines in the Commonwealth’s 

regulation federally-enforceable. In 

addition, transportation air quality 

conformity determinations required by 

section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act will 

require the Boston Metropolitan 

Planning Organization as well as the 

U.S. Department of Transportation to 

make a positive finding that all SIPapproved transportation control 

measures are being implemented in a 

timely manner and in accordance with 

established SIP deadlines (40 CFR 

93.113) prior to approving the long 

range transportation plans and 

transportation improvement programs 

for Eastern Massachusetts. 

EPA notes that in at least one respect, 

the compliance deadlines provided for 

in this new version of 310 CMR 7.36 are 

more firm than the deadlines in the 

version EPA approved in 1994. The 

original ‘‘Project Delays and Project 

Deadline Extensions,’’ (310 CMR 7.36 

(3)) previously approved into the SIP 

allowing up to three years delay in 

project completion has been removed. 

In further support of the 2014 

completion date for the Green Line 

Extension, the Massachusetts Executive 

Office of Transportation and Public 

Works (EOTPW) has committed to make 

up delays in the Green Line Extension 

Project, associated with seeking federal 

funding and addressing federal 

requirements, to the maximum extent 

possible. 

Comment: Four commenters 

requested enhancements to the transit 

system improvement projects. One 

Commenter raised concerns with a 

transit system improvement project’s 

impact on transportation, environment, 

social and economic impacts and lack of 

community involvement. Two 

commenters wanted alternatives to the 

Green Line extension to be evaluated, 

while another commenter wanted more 

specificity in the broad terms of the 

regulation providing for the Green Line 

extension terminus station. 

EPA Response: EPA acknowledges the 

commenters’ support for the transit 

system improvement projects. EPA must 

accept the transit system improvement 

projects as presented, or reject the 

Transit Project substitutions, based on 

the Act’s criteria established for 

approving SIPs (i.e., substitution 

projects must provide for equivalent 

emissions reductions in the same time 

frame). EPA has no authority to dictate 

specific enhancements to any of the 

proposed transit project substitutions. 

However, EPA believes the submitted 

projects could be enhanced during the 

public participation process associated 

with the Commonwealth’s state 

environmental process and design of the 

transit measure. 

The action before EPA is to approve 

or reject the Commonwealth’s transit 

project substitution as part of the 

Commonwealth’s revision to its Transit 

System Improvements regulation 310 

CMR 7.36. The concerns raised by the 

commenters regarding transportation, 

environmental, social and economic 

impacts of the Green Line Extension 

project should be addressed and 

mitigated during the Commonwealth’s 

state environmental process. See MGL c. 

30 § 61–62 and regulations, 301 CMR 

11.00. And should the Green Line 

Expansion Project receive federal 

funding, these concerns may also be 

addressed under any future federal 

environmental review and public 

participation process conducted in 

accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act. 42 U.S.C. 

4321–4370f. 

Comment: Two commenters wanted 

Massachusetts EOT to specify the 

location of the 1,000 park and ride 

locations, and identify an 

implementation schedule. 

EPA Response: The Park and Ride 

provisions in section 7.36 provide that 

before December 31, 2011, construction 

shall be completed and 1,000 new park 

and ride parking spaces opened to full 

public use serving commuter transit 

facilities within the 101 cities and 

towns constituting the Boston 

Metropolitan Planning Organization. 

These park and ride facilities are subject 

to ‘‘Project Interim Deadlines,’’

established under 310 CMR 7.36(3), 

which identifies timeframes for hiring a 

design consultant, completing a 

conceptual design, filing an 

Environmental Notification Form (ENF) 

with MEPA, completing the 

Environmental Impact Report, 

completing final design, applying for 

necessary permits and funding, and 

proceeding to construction. Therefore, 

there is still considerable work to be 

done before the specific location of 

these lots can be determined. 

EPA agrees with the commenters that 

it is impossible to fully assess the 

emissions reductions that these 1,000 

spaces will accomplish without 

knowing where they will be located. 

And EPA recognizes that the individual 

transit substitution projects will 

undergo project refinement as these 

projects proceed through environmental 

evaluation, public participation and 

project design. Nevertheless, EPA has 

concluded that the uncertainty about 

the location of these parking spaces 

does not prevent EPA from approving 

the entire package of transit project 

substitutions. First, the package of new 

transit projects demonstrates equivalent 

emissions reductions to the substituted 

projects even if one were to eliminate 

entirely any credit for the lots. 

Therefore, EPA does not believe that 

EOT’s inability to specify the location of 

these lots provides EPA a basis to 

disapprove this SIP revision. Second, 

EPA has reviewed the assumptions EOT 

made about the park and ride lots in 

modeling their emissions impact. EPA 

agrees that EOT made reasonably 

conservative assumptions in assigning 

any emissions reductions value to the 

lots. 

Comment: Four commenters repeated 

modeling questions and concerns 

previously addressed through the 

Commonwealth’s public participation 

process. 

EPA Response: These questions and 

concerns were raised during the 

Commonwealth’s approval of the 

revised Transit System Improvements 

regulations. Based on EPA’s review of 

the Commonwealth’s Response to 

Comments as well as EOT’s Response to 

Public Comments identified during the 

public participation process on the 

Transit Commitments 2007 Annual 

Status Report, EPA believes the 

commenters’ concerns have been 

adequately addressed. 

The March 15, 2007, ‘‘Description of 

Modeling Assumptions and Analysis 

Methodology for the State 

Implementation Plan Transit 

Commitment Projects Current and 

Proposed Substitutions,’’ prepared by 

the Central Transportation Planning 

Staff is consistent with methodology 

and assumptions used in developing the 

SIP and developing the long range 

transportation plans and transportation 

improvement program. It is also 

consistent with the methodology and 

assumptions used in the transportation 

conformity process to determine that 

transportation planning is consistent 

with the air quality plan for the SIP. 

EPA recognizes that the transit 

substitution projects will continuously 

undergo refinement as they proceed 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
44658 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

through the environmental development 

phase and project design phase; 

however, EPA has determined the 

current project delineation to be 

sufficient in defining the project and for 

air quality evaluation. 

Comment: One of the commenters 

submitted a number of modeling issues 

regarding the Green Line Arborway 

Restoration Project that were previously 

submitted during the Commonwealth’s 

public participation process. 

EPA Response: These Arborway 

modeling concerns were addressed in a 

June 27, 2005 Central Transportation 

Planning Staff memorandum from Karl 

Quackenbush and Scott Peterson to 

Dennis DiZoglio and Joe Cosgrove of the 

Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority, as 

well as addressed in EOT’s ‘‘Summary 

of Comments Received on Modeling 

Analysis for Proposed Substitute State 

Implementation Plan Transit Projects 

and Agency Responses’’ dated May 3, 

2007. 

EPA concurs with the 

Commonwealth’s modeling to evaluate 

air quality impacts associated with the 

original 1994 SIP-approved transit 

improvement projects and the proposed 

transit system improvement substitution 

projects. EPA did not assign or grant 

specific emission reduction credit to the 

1994 SIP-approved projects, so to model 

the original projects and new 

substitution projects on an equal basis is 

the only fair way to evaluate potential 

air quality emission benefits from the 

transit improvement projects. 

After review of the transportation and 

air quality modeling submitted as part 

of the SIP revision package, EPA has 

determined that the modeling is 

consistent with methodology and 

assumptions used in developing the SIP, 

consistent with developing the long 

range transportation plans and 

transportation improvement programs, 

as well as consistent with the 

methodology and assumptions used in 

the transportation conformity process to 

determine that transportation planning 

is consistent with the air quality 

planning for the SIP. See March 2007 reevaluation submitted to EPA June 1, 

2007, conducted to satisfy subsection (8) 

‘‘Determination of Air Quality Emission 

Reductions’’ of the Transit System 

Improvements regulation, 310 CMR 

7.36; CTPS’s March 15, 2007 

‘‘Description of Modeling Assumptions 

and Analysis Methodology for the State 

Implementation Plan Transit 

Commitment Projects Current and 

Proposed Substitutions’’; CTPS’s June 

16, 2005 Memorandum on ‘‘SIP Transit 

Modeling Assumptions’’; and CTPS 

Memorandum dated June 27, 2005 on 

‘‘Responses to Arborway Comments.’’

EPA has evaluated the submitted SIP 

revision package, including Central 

Transportation Planning Staff’s March 

15, 2007 ‘‘Description of Modeling 

Assumptions and Analysis Methodology 

for the State Implementation Plan 

Transit Commitment Projects Current 

and Proposed Substitutions.’’ EPA 

independently concurs with the 

Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection’s June 1, 

2007, determination that the emission 

reductions associated with the transit 

improvement projects in the revised 

State Regulation 310 CMR 7.36 ‘‘Transit 

System Improvements’’ will achieve in 

excess of the requirement in the state 

regulations that the substitute projects 

must achieve an emissions reduction of 

at least 110 percent of the reductions 

that would be expected from eliminated 

projects. As presented in Table 1, above, 

the reductions expected from the new 

projects when compared to the original 

SIP-approved projects as a percentage 

are for volatile organic compounds 

154%, nitrogen oxides 137.5%, and 

carbon monoxide 149%. 

Comment: Five commenters 

expressed their belief that there were no 

real substitutions for the Green Line 

Extension project. The commenters did 

not want further substitutions, and 

wanted air quality benefits to remain in 

the proposed Green Line Extension 

project area which they assert is an 

environmental justice area. 

EPA Response: The Transit System 

Improvements Regulation provides for 

substitution of this project at 310 CMR 

7.36(5) should the Commonwealth wish 

to take advantage of this flexibility in its 

regulation in the future. This 

substitution procedure for the Green 

Line Extension requires Massachusetts 

EOT to: 

1. Identify the reasons for seeking a 

project substitution; 

2. Conduct a public participation 

process for the substitution process; 

3. Achieve interim emission reduction 

offsets of non-methane hydrocarbons, 

carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides; 

4. Comply with original project 

interim deadlines; 

5. Prioritize funding in the long range 

transportation plan and transportation 

improvement program of the Boston 

Metropolitan Planning Organization 

(MPO); 

6. Require substitute project(s) that 

enhance or improve existing public 

transit service, or provide new transit 

service within the municipalities of 

Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, and 

Medford; 

7. Demonstrate that the proposed 

substitute project will achieve 110% of 

the emission reductions of that would 

have been achieved had all components 

of the original project been completed; 

and to require that the Massachusetts 

Department of Environmental Protection 

determine in writing whether the 

substitution requirements of 310 CMR 

7.36(5) have been met and whether the 

administrative record reasonably 

supports EOT’s substitution 

determination. 

Finally, any future substitution would 

have to meet the requirements of CAA 

section 176(c)(8), which governs 

substitution of transportation control 

measures in a SIP. In addition to 

concurrence from the state air pollution 

control agency as provided by the 

substitution provision of the state 

regulation, CAA section 176(c)(8) also 

requires formal concurrence by the 

metropolitan planning organization and 

the EPA New England Regional 

Administrator to adopt substitute or 

additional control measures into the 

SIP. The requirements in the CAA 

overlap substantially with the 

requirements in the new section 7.36. 

Indeed, section 7.36 sets a higher hurdle 

for emissions reductions than the Act, 

requiring not just mere equivalency, but 

reductions of at least 110% compared 

with the substituted projects. 

With respect to a Green Line 

Extension substitution transit project 

trading off air quality benefits with 

other neighborhoods, the regulations 

define the geographic area of Boston, 

Cambridge, Somerville, and Medford for 

Green Line Extension substitution 

transit projects. This delineation is more 

restrictive than how the CAA requires 

EPA to evaluate emissions reductions in 

an ozone nonattainment area. As long as 

the emissions reductions come from 

within the applicable nonattainment 

area, in this case Eastern Massachusetts, 

they would qualify under the federal 

CAA. Here again, the state requirement 

in section 7.36 sets a higher bar by 

restricting the geographic area for an 

allowed substitution to only four 

municipalities within the Eastern 

Massachusetts nonattainment area. 

Comment: One commenter raised the 

issue of timely implementation of TCMs 

adopted into the SIP. 

EPA Response: EPA believes the 

Transit System Improvements 

regulation, with its defined project 

deadlines, interim project deadlines, 

and annual public reporting of update 

and status of SIP-approved TCMs, 

(which is open to public participation 

and requires a written determination by 

Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection whether the 

public process and other requirements 

of 310 CMR 7.36(7) ‘‘Public Process 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 44659 

Requirements,’’ were met) will assist in 

completing the SIP-approved TCMs on 

time. 

Transportation conformity is required 

under Clean Air Act section 176(c) (42 

U.S.C. 7506(c)) to ensure that federally 

supported highway and transit project 

activities are consistent with (‘‘conform 

to’’) the purpose of the SIP. EPA’s 

transportation conformity rule 

establishes the criteria and procedures 

for determining whether transportation 

activities conform to the SIP. One 

criterion established at 40 CFR 93.113 is 

that all SIP-approved transportation 

control measures are being implemented 

in a timely manner and in accordance 

with established SIP deadlines. EPA 

believes the conformity process will 

ensure the timely implementation of 

these TCMs. 

If a SIP-approved TCM identified in 

the transportation improvement 

program does fall behind schedule, a 

positive conformity determination can 

still be made in accordance with 40 CFR 

93.113 if: 

(1) * * * The MPO and DOT have 

determined that past obstacles to 

implementation of the TCMs have been 

identified and have been or are being 

overcome, and that all State and local 

agencies with influence over approvals or 

funding for TCMs are giving maximum 

priority to approval or funding of TCMs over 

other projects within their control, including 

projects in locations outside the 

nonattainment or maintenance area. 

(2) If TCMs in the applicable 

implementation plan have previously been 

programmed for Federal funding but the 

funds have not been obligated and the TCMs 

are behind the schedule in the 

implementation plan, then the transportation 

improvement program (TIP) cannot be found 

to conform if the funds intended for those 

TCMs are reallocated to projects in the TIP 

other than TCMs, or if there are no other 

TCMs in the TIP, if the funds are reallocated 

to projects in the TIP other than projects 

which are eligible for Federal funding 

intended for air quality improvement 

projects, e.g., the Congestion Mitigation and 

Air Quality Improvement Program. 

(3) Nothing in the TIP may interfere with 

the implementation of any TCM in the 

applicable implementation plan. 

See 40 CFR 93.113(c). 

Comment: Two commenters 

expressed concern that past 

transportation air quality conformity 

evaluations did not adequately address 

timely implementation of TCMs. 

EPA Response: EPA is finalizing an 

action to approve a TCM substitution 

and revisions to the Massachusetts 

Transit System Improvements 

regulation. EPA is not re-evaluating past 

transportation conformity 

determinations. The timely 

implementation of the substitute TCMs 

will be evaluated in future 

transportation conformity 

determinations to ensure that the 

requirements of Clean Air Act section 

176(c)(2)(B) and 176(c)(3)(A)(ii) and the 

transportation conformity rule (49 CFR 

93.113) are satisfied. 

Comment: A commenter claimed that 

the air quality benefit associated with 

the substituted transit projects ignores 

the fact that the 1990 Conservation Law 

Foundation (CLF) Agreement and EPA 

intervention were intended to 

complement the parking restrictions in 

and near downtown Boston. 

EPA Response: While the 

metropolitan Boston parking freezes 

complement traffic reduction strategies, 

the approval of the proposed transit 

improvement substitution projects is 

independent of the parking freezes, in 

the sense that nothing in the Act, 

including section 176(c)(8), requires 

EPA to link one set of TCMs with 

another. Admittedly, if the success of 

the state’s proffered TCM substitutions 

relied heavily on the enforcement of 

TCMs that the state was not prepared to 

make part of the SIP, EPA would need 

to consider whether it could credit the 

substitute TCMs with the level of 

reduction the state was assuming from 

their combined effect with the TCMs 

outside the SIP. Here, however, the 

relevant parking freezes are part of the 

SIP, and DEP has not abandoned the use 

of parking freeze requirements as part of 

the strategy included in its SIP. 

Therefore that question is not before 

EPA. 

EPA has approved Parking Freezes for 

Cambridge, Downtown Boston, South 

Boston, East Boston and Logan Airport. 

Since the 1994 adoption of the transit 

system improvement projects into the 

SIP, EPA has approved the South 

Boston Parking Freeze and amended the 

East Boston/Logan Parking Freeze. 

On October 15, 1996, EPA approved 

the South Boston Parking Freeze SIP 

Amendment as a revision to the 

Massachusetts SIP (61 FR 53628). 

Massachusetts Air Pollution Control 

Regulation 310 CMR 7.33 entitled ‘‘City 

of Boston/South Boston Parking 

Freeze,’’ established and requires the 

Boston Air Pollution Control 

Commission (BAPCC) and the 

Massachusetts Port Authority 

(MassPort) to control the growth of 

parking spaces in the South Boston 

neighborhood of Boston. The effect of 

controlling parking growth is 

anticipated to be a decrease in vehicle 

miles traveled (VMT), thereby holding 

automobile usage to levels within the 

practical capacity of the local street 

network. 

On March 12, 2001, EPA approved 

revisions to the Massachusetts Port 

Authority/Logan Airport Parking Freeze, 

310 CMR 7.30, and City of Boston/East 

Boston Parking Freeze, 310 CMR 7.31, 

into the Massachusetts SIP (66 FR 

14318). The revisions allow the 

Commonwealth to automatically 

approve the transfer of parking spaces 

from the East Boston Parking Freeze to 

the Logan Parking Freeze provided the 

total parking space inventory number 

for the Logan Parking Freeze remains at 

or below 21,790 parking spaces. Future 

modifications in the parking freeze 

inventories for the Logan Airport and 

East Boston Parking Freezes will be 

regulated by the Commonwealth’s 

revisions to Massachusetts State 

Regulations 310 CMR 7.30 and 310 CMR 

7.31. 

Comment: A commenter stated that 

the SIP substitution proposal shifts the 

responsibility to enforce the 

Environmental Justice Executive Order 

from EPA, the Federal agency required 

to comply with the Executive Order, to 

the state. Another commenter identified 

Jamaica Plain, served by the Green Line 

Arborway Restoration Project, as an 

environmental justice neighborhood 

with a high asthma hospitalization rate 

among children under age 5 (11.1 per 

1,000). 

EPA Response: It is not this SIP 

revision, but rather the structure of the 

CAA as Congress designed it, that rests 

consideration of environmental justice 

issues here primarily with the state. 

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)(3); 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 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 

‘‘Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations,’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994). 

The Federal executive policy on 

environmental justice is established by 

Executive Order 12898. Its main 

provision directs federal agencies, to the 

greatest extent practicable and 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
44660 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

permitted by law, to make 

environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. Here 

the Clean Air Act directs EPA to 

approve a SIP revision unless it does not 

meet the Act’s requirements. Although 

the Act does not provide EPA the 

authority to modify the 

Commonwealth’s regulatory decision 

solely on the basis of environmental 

justice considerations, EPA continues to 

encourage EOT to consider 

environmental justice concerns when 

deciding the location of the additional 

Park and Ride spaces and the new 

stations along the Fairmount commuter 

rail line and the Green Line extension 

project and when implementing public 

transportation improvements to the 

Arborway corridor promised in the 

Transit Settlement Agreement that 

resolved the case Conservation Law 

Foundation v. Romney et al., Civil 

Action No. 05–10487–NG. EPA believes 

the transit improvement substitution 

projects can be enhanced and additional 

consideration be given to minority 

populations and low-income 

populations during the public 

participation process associated with 

the environmental evaluation phase and 

engineering design phase of the transit 

measures. EPA also urges EOT and DEP 

to consider environmental justice 

concerns when deciding whether to 

meet project deadlines, to approve 

proposals for project delays, and to 

approve offset or substitute projects. 

Comment: One commenter identified 

the Commonwealth’s transit 

substitutions as contrary to the 

Commonwealth’s financial interests and 

claimed that restoring the Arborway 

Green Line would result in significant 

operating cost savings. Another 

commenter questioned whether the 

Commonwealth had accurately 

compared the relative costs of 

constructing and operating the Red-Blue 

Line connector with the proposed 

substitute projects. 

EPA Response: The CAA assigns to 

the state the responsibility for assessing 

the cost implications of SIP measures. 

Indeed, EPA has no authority to 

disapprove a SIP revision solely because 

the Agency might disagree with the 

cost-effectiveness of a state’s chosen 

control strategy. See Union Electric Co. 

v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246 (1976), rehearing 

denied 429 U.S. 873 (1976). 

Massachusetts EOT’s position in 

responding to this issue during the state 

public participation process is that the 

restoration of Green Line Arborway 

service is not a cost-effective way to 

achieve the desired transportation and 

air quality benefits. Correspondingly, 

the CAA provides EPA no basis for 

disapproving this SIP revision even if 

EPA did not agree with the 

Commonwealth’s weighing of the costs 

of the Red-Blue Line connector with the 

substitute projects. 

Comment: Two commenters stated 

that particulate matter impacts are 

particularly harmful and expressed 

concern about the particulate matter and 

other emissions from diesel trains used 

on the Fairmount/Indigo Line. 

EPA Response: The Massachusetts 

transit system improvement projects 

were originally approved into the SIP in 

1994 as control strategies for carbon 

monoxide and ozone (control of 

precursors volatile organic compounds 

and nitrogen oxides), but no emission 

credits were assigned to these projects. 

EPA has also established National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

Particulate Matter (PM10—Particles less 

than 10 micrometers in diameter, and 

PM2.5—Particles less than 2.5 

micrometers in diameter and referred to 

as ‘‘fine’’ particles). Currently air quality 

monitoring within the Boston 

Metropolitan area indicates attainment 

of the PM10 annual standard, as well as 

the PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards. 

As such, the area is not subject to the 

CAA conformity requirements for 

particulate matter. 

EPA supports the Commonwealth’s 

on-going efforts to reduce particulate 

matter from mobile sources through the 

use of lower sulfur fuel, alternative 

fuels, and retrofits for diesel equipment 

and vehicles including construction 

equipment and school buses. 

Comment: One commenter looking at 

an earlier version of the air quality 

modeling analysis stated that ‘‘Attempts 

to deduce the benefits of the 

incremental extension of the Green 

Line, by subtracting the benefits claimed 

for the new Green Line extension from 

the benefits attributable to the Existing 

SIP Commitments, yield an incredible 

result: by increasing the number of 

stations by three, nitrogen oxides (NOX) 

benefits increase nearly 300 percent and 

hydrocarbon (HC) benefits increase by 

nearly 400 percent. This result strains 

credulity and requires far more detailed 

background to justify such an 

anomalous result.’’

EPA Response: The air quality 

modeling submitted with the SIP 

revision showed that extending the 

Green Line from Tufts University/Ball 

Square to Medford Hillside and adding 

the Green Line spur to Union Square 

Somerville would add the following 

daily emission benefits to the original 

Green Line Extension: 7 kilograms of 

nitrogen oxides; 12 kilograms of volatile 

organic compounds; and 212 kilograms 

of carbon monoxide. As a result, the 

demonstration submitted to EPA shows 

that the extension of the Green Line 

project to Medford Hillside and Union 

Square accounted for only a 0.025% 

increase in emission reduction benefits 

for NOX and 0.041% for VOC when 

compared to the no-build emissions for 

the modeled area. It is more realistic to 

compare the marginal emission benefits 

for the expanded Green Line extension 

alternative with the overall emission 

benefits of the entire original Green Line 

to Tufts University/Ball Square. EPA 

finds these incremental benefits to be 

reasonable. 

Comment: One commenter raised a 

number of concerns about how the 

modeling analysis handled assumptions 

for the proposed ‘‘West Medford Green 

Line extension with a Union Square 

spur’’ and the ‘‘Fairmount Commuter 

Rail project’’ such as headways, fares, 

number of transit stations and transfers. 

The commenter asserted that modeling 

assumptions would have a significant 

impact on the forecast of ridership and 

corresponding emissions. 

EPA Response: The Central 

Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS) 

maintains a regional travel demand 

model set that is used to measure a 

variety of impacts associated with 

changes to existing transportation 

infrastructure, one of which is air 

quality emissions. CTPS’s model set is 

continuously improved as newer 

information is made available. This 

process of updating inputs and methods 

has led to several intermediate sets of 

results during the process of evaluating 

the SIP transit commitments. The 

commenter based his concerns on a 

review of an early state air quality 

modeling analysis and not the final 

analysis submitted June 1, 2007 with a 

supplement to the December 13, 2006 

SIP revision. The March 2007 reevaluation submitted to EPA June 1, 

2007, was conducted to satisfy 

subsection (8) ‘‘Determination of Air 

Quality Emission Reductions’’ of the 

Transit System Improvements 

regulation, 310 CMR 7.36. Technical 

documentation identifying and 

explaining the model and modeling 

assumptions is addressed in the CTPS’s 

March 15, 2007 ‘‘Description of 

Modeling Assumptions and Analysis 

Methodology for the State 

Implementation Plan Transit 

Commitment Projects Current and 

Proposed Substitutions.’’ Additional 

modeling support documents provided 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 44661 

1EPA issued regulations to implement 

SAFETEA–LU, and concluded that no regulations 

were needed to implement section 176(c)(8), 

because the statute is already sufficiently detailed. 

Additionally, EPA/DOT have issued guidance that 

addresses questions that might arise about TCM 

substitutions. (73 FR 4420–4441; January 24, 2008). 

2Both the authority to approve this SIP revision 

and the authority to concur on TCM substitutions 

under section 176(c)(8) have been delegated to the 

Regional Administrator. See EPA Delegations of 

Authority Nos. 7–10 (Approval/Disapproval of State 

Implementation Plans) and 7–158 (Transportation 

Control Measure Substitutions and Additions). Note 

that while EPA is using an informal rulemaking to 

act on this proposed SIP revision, section 

176(c)(8)(A)(v) does not require a rulemaking to 

accomplish EPA’s concurrence. See EPA/DOT 

Guidance at page 27, section 5.17. Indeed, section 

176(c)(8) was added to the Act precisely to avoid 

the need for a full SIP revision to implement TCM 

substitutions in the routine case. In this instance, 

where the TCM substitution is occurring as part of 

a proposed SIP revision, EPA is simply acting on 

the SIP in a rulemaking under section 110 of the 

Act contemporaneous with its concurrence on the 

substitution in a letter to the Boston MPO under 

section 176(c)(8) of the Act. 

to EPA as part of the SIP revision 

include CTPS’s June 16, 2005 

Memorandum on ‘‘SIP Transit Modeling 

Assumptions,’’ and a second CTPS 

Memorandum dated June 27, 2005 on 

‘‘Responses to Arborway Comments.’’

These updates and refinements to the 

modeling appear to address the 

concerns about fares, number of transit 

stations and transfers and represent the 

most recent information about and 

analysis of the emissions effect of the 

project substitutions. 

Even with the refinement of the 

model and the supporting 

documentation, it remained unclear to 

EPA how the state’s submittal 

responded to a comment concerning 

headways, specifically the potential for 

three minute headways on the Green 

Line Extension when the service from 

the two new branches is combined and 

travels through the Lechmere Station. 

One commenter indicated that the 

model’s assumption of three minute 

headways was unrealistic. EPA 

contacted CTPS and the Massachusetts 

Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 

and learned that the Green Line has 

operated in the past on three minute 

headways outbound from Government 

Center Subway Station as well as 

inbound from Lechmere Station. The 

MBTA has made structural 

improvements to the Lechmere viaduct 

to allow 3 (2-car) trains per direction 

operating at 25 miles per hour. Finally, 

a 1999 operational analysis of the Green 

Line showed that within the Lechmere 

to Government Center area, the segment 

of the Green Line between the North 

Station and Haymarket stations serves 

as the capacity ‘‘pinch point,’’ with a 

maximum number of trains per hour on 

this segment of 34. Under the proposed 

Green Line Extension operating plan, 

the C, D and E Lines on the Green Line 

would operate through this pinch point 

with 34 trains per hour during the peak 

period. Therefore, it does not appear to 

be unrealistic that the new service could 

operate at three minute headways. 

As explained in the response above, 

EPA has determined that the modeling 

is consistent with methodology and 

assumptions used in developing the 

State Implementation Plan, consistent 

with developing the long range 

transportation plans and transportation 

improvement programs, as well as 

consistent with the methodology and 

assumptions used in the transportation 

conformity process to determine that 

transportation planning is consistent 

with the air quality planning for the SIP. 

III. Compliance With Clean Air Act 

TCM Substitution Requirements 

Clean Air Act section 176(c)(8), added 

by SAFETEA–LU, establishes the 

procedures for ensuring that substitute 

TCMs provide equal or greater 

emissions reductions than the TCMs 

that are being replaced. It also 

establishes the process for MPO, EPA 

and state air agency concurrence on the 

substitution or addition of TCM 

projects. Finally, it ensures that the state 

and EPA maintain up-to-date 

information on the TCMs in approved 

SIPs so that the public is aware of the 

TCMs that are to be implemented. EPA 

and U.S. Department of Transportation 

(DOT) issued joint guidance on 

February 14, 2006, on the 

implementation of all of the Clean Air 

Act amendments made by SAFETEA–

LU, a copy of which has been placed in 

the electronic docket. This guidance 

clarified EPA and DOT expectations for 

how TCM substitutions and additions 

are to be carried out by state and local 

agencies. The guidance is available at 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ 

stateresources/transconf/ 

420b06901.pdf.1

On June 1, 2007, MA DEP concurred 

in EOT’s determination that the 

substitute projects achieved at least 

equivalent emissions reductions. In 

addition to the state air pollution 

control agency, section 176(c)(8)(A)(v) 

specifically requires both the MPO and 

EPA to concur with the equivalency of 

the substitute TCMs before the 

substitution can take effect. On May 3, 

2007, Massachusetts Secretary of 

Transportation, Bernard Cohen, 

submitted EOT’s air quality modeling 

analysis for the substitution projects to 

MA DEP. This analysis demonstrates 

that the required emission reductions 

set forth in section 7.36(8) of the 

Regulation will be achieved by the new 

projects. In a May 1, 2008 letter to EPA, 

the Boston MPO concurred in the 

finding that the transit system 

improvements projects will achieve 

emission benefits equivalent to or 

greater than the benefits from the 

original transit system improvements 

projects being replaced. For EPA’s 

concurrence on the substitutions 

included in this SIP revision, the 

Agency sent a letter to the Boston MPO, 

contemporaneous with our final action 

on this SIP revision, to document EPA’s 

concurrence on the substitutions being 

approved with the revisions to MA 

DEP’s regulation.2 For any future 

substitutions, EPA will work with MA 

DEP to coordinate EPA’s review with 

DEP’s review of the proposed 

substitution so that the substitution can 

take effect as a matter of federal law if 

both DEP and EPA approve it. 

Section 176(c)(8) now also requires all 

substitutions of TCM’s to be submitted 

to EPA for incorporation into the 

codification of the SIP. For the purposes 

of the substitutions provided for in the 

revisions of the Regulation, the 

codification that results from the final 

action on this SIP revision will address 

this requirement. For future 

substitutions, although the state 

regulation does not specifically require 

MA DEP to forward to EPA the results 

of MA DEP’s substitution 

determinations, it should be a routine 

matter for MA DEP to submit any 

substitution it approves under section 

7.36(5)(h) so that the federally approved 

SIP can accurately reflect the current 

requirements under the Regulation. 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is approving Massachusetts’

amendments to Transit System 

Improvements Regulation, 310 CMR 

7.36, and Definition Regulation, 310 

CMR 7.00 (which were filed with the 

Massachusetts Secretary of State on 

November 16, 2006 and were effective 

on December 1, 2006), as a revision to 

the Massachusetts SIP. EPA finds that 

the transit measures in the revised 

transit system improvements regulation 

remain directionally sound and that all 

proposed substitution projects 

identified in the Regulation will 

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. 

EPA has determined that today’s rule 

falls under the ‘‘good cause’’ exemption 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
44662 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

in section 553(d)(3) of the 

Administrative Procedures Act (APA) 

which, upon finding ‘‘good cause,’’

allows an agency to make a rule 

effective immediately (thereby avoiding 

the 30-day delayed effective date 

otherwise provided for in the APA). 

EPA has concluded that it is not 

necessary to delay the effectiveness of 

this rule for 30 days because the entities 

that will be directly affected by the 

transit system improvements regulation 

have had ample notice of the 

requirements in the regulation, and they 

wish to use the substitute transit 

projects as soon as possible in the 

conformity process under the Clean Air 

Act. First, the requirements of the 

transit system improvements regulation 

have been effective as a matter of state 

law since December 1, 2006. Therefore, 

it is unnecessary to wait an additional 

thirty days to make the regulation 

federally enforceable, because the 

entities subject to the regulation have 

already had ample time to anticipate the 

compliance requirements of this 

regulation under state law. Second, the 

state and U.S. Departments of 

Transportation (DOTs) and the Boston 

Metropolitan Planning Organization 

(Boston MPO) must use timely 

implementation of these SIP-approved 

transportation control measures to 

determine whether their long range 

transportation plans and transportation 

improvement programs conform with 

the state’s implementation plan. The 

DOTs and Boston MPO will be most 

immediately affected by EPA’s approval 

of these transit system improvements 

and their transportation planning 

obligations are directly impacted by 

changes in the SIP-approved list of 

transportation control projects. EPA and 

the Massachusetts DEP have been 

consulting extensively with the DOTs 

and the Boston MPO about the transit 

system improvements. The DOTs and 

Boston MPO are not only ready to use 

the new list of transit system 

improvement projects without waiting 

30 days, they are eager to use them as 

soon as possible to avoid delays in the 

transportation planning process. 

Therefore, since the entities that are 

most directly impacted by this approval 

are ready to use the transit system 

improvements and prefer to use them 

immediately, EPA is making this rule 

effective immediately. This rule will be 

effective July 31, 2008. 

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 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. 

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 September 29, 

2008. 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, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: July 5, 2008. 

Robert W. Varney, 

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)(136) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1120 Identification of plan 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(136) Revisions to the State 

Implementation Plan submitted by the 

Massachusetts Department of 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 44663 

Environmental Protection on December 

13, 2006 and June 1, 2007. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Massachusetts Regulation 310 CMR 

7.00 entitled ‘‘Definitions,’’ adding the 

definition for the term ‘‘Boston Metropolitan 

Planning Organization,’’ effective in the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts on 

December 1, 2006. 

(B) Massachusetts Regulation 310 CMR 

7.36 entitled ‘‘Transit System 

Improvements,’’ effective in the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts on 

December 1, 2006. 

(C) Massachusetts Regulation Filing, dated 

November 16, 2006, substantiating December 

1, 2006, State effective date for amended 310 

CMR 7.00 entitled ‘‘Definition,’’ (addition of 

term ‘‘Boston Metropolitan Planning 

Organization,’’ which appears on the 

replaced page 173 of the State’s Code of 

Massachusetts Regulations,) and 310 CMR 

7.36 entitled ‘‘Transit System 

Improvements.’’

(ii) Additional Materials. 

(A) Letter from the Massachusetts 

Department of Environmental Protection 

dated December 13, 2006 submitting a 

revision to the Massachusetts State 

Implementation Plan. 

(B) Letter from the Massachusetts 

Department of Environmental Protection 

dated June 1, 2007 submitting a revision to 

the Massachusetts State Implementation 

Plan. 

(C) Letter from the Massachusetts 

Executive Office of Transportation dated 

September 4, 2007 identifying its 

commitment to the Green Line extension and 

to make every effort to accelerate the 

planning, design and environmental review 

and permitting of the project in order to work 

towards the 2014 completion date. 

(D) Letter from the Chair of the Boston 

Region Metropolitan Planning Organization 

dated May 1, 2008 concurring in the finding 

that the transit system improvements projects 

will achieve emission benefits equivalent to 

or greater than the benefits from the original 

transit system improvements projects being 

replaced. 

(E) Letter from EPA New England Regional 

Administrator dated July 5, 2008 concurring 

in the finding that the transit system 

improvements projects will achieve emission 

benefits equivalent to or greater than the 

benefits from the original transit system 

improvements projects being replaced. 

■ 3. In § 52.1167, Table 52.1167 is 

amended by adding two new citations to 

the existing entry for 310 CMR 7.00 and 

two new citations to the existing entry 

for 310 CMR 7.36 to read as follows: 

§ 52.1167 EPA-approved Massachusetts 

State regulations 

* * * * * 

TABLE 52.1167—EPA-APPROVED RULES AND REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject 

Date 

submitted by 

State 

Date approved 

by EPA 

Federal Register 

citation 52.1120(c) Comments/unapproved sections 

* * * * * * * 

310 CMR 

7.00.

Definitions .... 12/13/06 07/31/08 [Insert Federal Register page number 

where the document begins].

136 Addition of the term, ‘‘Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization.’’

...................... 12/13/06 07/31/08 [Insert Federal Register page number 

where the document begins].

136 Massachusetts Regulation Filing, 

dated November 16, 2006, substantiating December 1, 2006, 

State effective date for amended 

310 CMR 7.00 entitled ‘‘Definition,’’ (addition of term ‘‘Boston 

Metropolitan Planning Organization,’’ which appears on the replaced page 173 of the State’s 

Code of Massachusetts Regulations.). 

* * * * * * * 

310 CMR 

7.36.

Transit system improvements 

regulation.

12/13/06 07/31/08 [Insert Federal Register page number 

where the document begins].

136 Amendments to Transit System Improvements Regulation. 

...................... 12/13/06 07/31/08 [Insert Federal Register page number 

where the document begins].

136 Massachusetts Regulation Filing, 

dated November 16, 2006, substantiating December 1, 2006, 

State effective date for amended 

310 CMR 7.36 entitled ‘‘Transit 

System Improvements.’’

* * * * * * * 

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. E8–17595 Filed 7–30–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 1 

[FCC 08–154] 

Inflation Adjustment of Maximum 

Forfeiture Penalties 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document increases the 

maximum monetary forfeiture penalties 

available to the Commission under its 

rules governing monetary forfeiture 

proceedings to account for inflation. 

The inflationary adjustment is necessary 

to implement the Debt Collection 

Improvement Act of 1996, which 

requires federal agencies to adjust ‘‘civil 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES