Document ID: EPA-R01-OAR-2013-0786-0081
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Massachusetts; Transit System Improvements
Posted Date: 2015-12-08T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 235 (Tuesday, December 8, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76225-76230]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30819]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 seventy-five 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

[[Page 76226]]

period closed, all comments have been fully considered and responded to 
in this final action.
    Copies of the public comments have been placed in the public docket 
without change and are available online at http://www.regulations.gov, 
docket number EPA-R01-OAR-2013-0786, document numbers EPA-R01-OAR-2013-
0786-0040 through EPA-R01-OAR-2013-0786-0080.
    Comment #1: Commenters urged the EPA to deny MassDEP's request to 
amend the SIP and to continue to include the design aspect of the Red 
Line/Blue Line Connector in the Commonwealth's program. Some of these 
comments related to a desire to decrease traffic congestion and to 
improve commuting convenience for riders of the mass transit system. 
Other comments identified a concern about adverse impacts of the SIP 
revision to lower income communities, sometimes raising the concept of 
environmental justice in that context.
    Response #1: EPA acknowledges the commenters' support for the 
design of the Red Line/Blue Line Connector, and the variety of reasons 
for their support. However, the relevant question before EPA in 
deciding whether or not to approve the proposed Massachusetts SIP 
revision before us is whether Massachusetts' deletion of the design of 
the Red Line/Blue Line Connector from the SIP would interfere with any 
applicable requirement concerning attainment or reasonable further 
progress, or any other applicable Clean Air Act requirement. See CAA 
section 110(l). As noted in EPA's December 1, 2014 NPR, the previously 
approved SIP requirement at issue is for the design aspect of a project 
only; consequently, removing this particular requirement from the SIP 
will not affect the total emission reductions achieved from the 
projects included in the Massachusetts Transit System Improvements 
Regulation and also would not interfere with any applicable requirement 
concerning attainment, reasonable further progress, or any other 
applicable Clean Air Act requirements, thereby satisfying the 
requirements set forth in section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act. 
Therefore, EPA is approving the revised regulation.
    Comment #2: Commenters expressed concern that removing the design 
of the Red Line/Blue Line Connector from the SIP would free the MassDOT 
(Massachusetts Department of Transportation) from its commitment to 
move forward on the project, thus jeopardizing the prospects of the Red 
Line/Blue Line Connector ever becoming a reality.
    Response #2: As noted above in our response to Comment #1, EPA's 
role is to determine whether or not removing the commitment to design 
the Red Line/Blue Line Connector from the SIP is consistent with the 
requirements of the Clean Air Act. We note that the Massachusetts SIP 
does not contain any provision requiring Massachusetts to implement and 
operate the Red Line/Blue Line Connector. In fact, that requirement was 
previously removed from the SIP after notice and comment, as discussed 
in the notice of proposed rulemaking. We also, note, that approving the 
removal of the requirement to design the Red Line/Blue Line Connector 
from the SIP, does not preclude this project from moving forward at a 
later date. Whether or not the project and/or its design is in the 
Massachusetts SIP, the Commonwealth is free to implement the project in 
the future if it so chooses.
    Comment #3: Commenters stated that full design of the Red Line/Blue 
Line Connector is a commitment MassDOT made in 2006, and if MassDOT had 
no intention of building the Red Line/Blue Line Connector, that would 
have been the time to decline to take on the design as a legal 
commitment.
    Response #3: Again, we note that EPA's role in reviewing SIP 
revisions is to approve state choices, provided they meet the relevant 
requirements of the Clean Air Act. However, for completeness, we also 
note the following regarding MassDOT's stated rationale regarding this 
project. MassDOT took a number of steps since 2006 to advance the Red 
Line/Blue Line Connector design, including, but not limited to, 
allocating resources to advance the conceptual design, completing a 
Draft Environmental Impact Report, and forming and meeting with a 
working group. MassDOT has estimated that $50 million would be needed 
to complete the final design, far exceeding the $29 million last 
identified in the Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 2009 
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). MassDOT determined as part of this 
effort and as a result of its findings, that allocating additional and 
scarce transportation funding to the final design of this particular 
project is not justified at this time, and that emissions reductions 
that will occur pursuant to other approved transportation control 
measures are adequate.
    Comment #4: Commenters noted that they want all ``Big Dig'' 
mitigation requirements enforced by EPA and requested that EPA insist 
that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts finish the final design plans 
for the Red Line/Blue Line Connector project. Similarly, other 
commenters stated that they wish to protest the possible negation of 
the commitment, made during the Big Dig, to finally connect the Blue 
Line to the Red Line at Charles Street in Boston, Massachusetts.
    Response #4: Again, EPA acknowledges the commenters' support for 
the Red Line/Blue Line Connector project, but we reiterate that EPA's 
role in reviewing SIP revisions is to approve state choices, provided 
they meet the relevant requirements of the Clean Air Act. As explained 
earlier, Massachusetts' proposed SIP revision and EPA's approval of it, 
meet all relevant CAA requirements, including those contained within 
CAA section 110(l). In addition, we note that not all of the mitigation 
projects associated with the ``Depression of the Central Artery and 
Third Harbor Tunnel Project'' (known as CA/THT or the Big Dig) were 
submitted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to be part of its SIP, 
and were not required to be under the CAA. Those mitigation measures 
adopted into the Massachusetts SIP in 1991 (see October 4, 1994; 59 FR 
2795) and modified in 2006 (see July 31, 2008; 73 FR 44654) are clearly 
identified in the December 1, 2014 NPR (79 FR 71061).
    Comment #5: One commenter stated that MassDEP's proposed SIP 
revision should be disapproved or denied by EPA as inconsistent with 
the requirements of the CAA because Massachusetts has not offered a 
substitution project or measure in place of, or in substitution for, 
the design for the Red Line/Blue Line Connector project. Similarly, 
another commenter noted that the air quality benefits from the Red 
Line/Blue Line Connector project are implicit in the initial inclusion 
of the design requirement into the SIP, and therefore cannot be removed 
without substitution. Another commenter further commented that if the 
original inclusion of the Red Line/Blue Line Connector project design 
in the revised SIP helped the state achieve compliance with the NAAQS, 
it would be inconsistent to remove it now without substitution.
    Response #5: As stated in EPA's December 1, 2014 NPR, because the 
previously approved SIP requirement is for design of the project only, 
removing this requirement from the SIP will not affect the total 
emission reductions achieved from the totality of the projects included 
in the Massachusetts Transit System Improvements Regulation and would 
not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment, 
reasonable further progress, or any other

[[Page 76227]]

applicable Clean Air Act requirement, thereby satisfying the 
requirements set forth in section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act. 
Moreover, MassDEP has demonstrated that the requirements of SIP-
approved regulation 310 CMR 7.36, ``Transit System Improvements'' have 
been met. That regulation contains specific provisions under 310 CMR 
7.36 (5), ``Substitute Transit System Improvement Projects,'' and 310 
CMR 7.36 (8), ``Determination of Air Quality Emission Reductions'' that 
govern the requirements that MassDOT must meet when substituting for 
certain projects required by 310 CMR 7.36. Those projects include the 
Fairmount Line improvements outlined in 310 CMR 7.36(2)(h)1. and Green 
Line Extension projects outlined in 310 CMR 7.36(2)(i). For those 
projects, the substitution provisions are very specific and must 
include a demonstration that the proposed substitute project will 
achieve 110% of the emission reductions of NMHC, CO and NOX 
that would have been achieved had all components of the project 
required by 310 CMR 7.36 been completed. These substitution provisions 
do not include the design of the Red Line/Blue Line Connector project 
which MassDEP has concluded will achieve no air quality benefits. As 
such, as discussed above in an earlier response to comment, no 
substitution for this SIP revision is required under the SIP.
    Comment #6: A commenter noted that there will be a time in the not 
too distant future when it will be apparent that the Red Line/Blue Line 
Connector project must be built, either for Clean Air Act attainment 
purposes, or for economic development and/or environmental justice 
reasons. According to the commenter, since MassDOT clearly has no 
intention of preparing for that moment, it must be forced to do so.
    Response #6: The transportation measure in the Massachusetts' SIP 
is a requirement to design the Red Line/Blue Line Connector project. 
EPA has no authority under the CAA or any other statute or regulation 
to require the Commonwealth to build a particular transportation 
measure which is not part of the approved SIP. Moreover, not including 
a transportation project in the SIP does not in any way prevent the 
Commonwealth from constructing the project. The legal analysis as to 
whether or not EPA must, under the CAA, approve Massachusetts' SIP 
revision in this instance, particularly because it is only a design 
requirement with no air quality or emissions implications, does not 
change in light of potential economic development or environmental 
justice concerns.
    Comment #7: One commenter stated that the EPA should consider 
requiring the Commonwealth to remain committed to complete the design 
of the project while investigating innovative finance options for its 
implementation.
    Response #7: The Commonwealth has flexibility to revise its SIP-
approved transportation control measures (TCMs), provided the revisions 
are consistent with attaining and maintaining compliance with the 
NAAQSs, reasonable further progress, and any other applicable 
requirements of the CAA. EPA has no authority to require the 
Commonwealth to investigate innovative finance options for the Red 
Line/Blue Line Connector project's implementation.
    Comment #8: One commenter expressed that there was a very serious 
harm caused by the MBTA's failure to complete in a timely manner the 
final design for the Red Line/Blue Line Connector project, because the 
Commonwealth's project to relocate Storrow Drive at Charles Street into 
a straighter alignment is located in the same area identified in the 
Blue-Red DEIS (Draft Environmental Impact Statement) as needed for an 
underground rail track.
    Response #8: This comment is not germane to the requirements of the 
CAA pursuant to which EPA must evaluate the Commonwealth's SIP 
revision. As noted earlier, the SIP revision only relates to a 
provision that requires design, not implementation, of a project. 
However, for completeness, we note that completion of the design of the 
Red Line/Blue Line Connector would not preserve the right of way for 
the Red Line/Blue Line Connector, nor prevent any state, county or city 
transportation project from incursion into the area defined as project 
limits or right of way in the Red Line/Blue Line Connector design. The 
Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization which includes the Mass DOT, 
and the City of Boston must establish priority of transportation 
projects and in their transportation planning avoid or mitigate 
conflicts with future transportation projects.
    Comment #9: A commenter presented the idea of a pedestrian 
connection between State Street and Downtown Crossing as an alternative 
to the Red Line/Blue Line Connector project. As described by the 
commenter, this alternative project would extend the existing Orange 
Line Southbound platform at State Street to connect with the existing 
Orange Line Northbound platform at Downtown Crossing. The commenter 
notes that this connection would allow fare-paying riders to walk under 
Washington Street between State Street and Downtown Crossing, thus 
providing an alternative Red Line/Blue Line connection. The commenter 
noted that the Jeffries Point Neighborhood Association (JPNA) strongly 
supports the engineering and construction of the Red Line/Blue Line 
Connector project. However, the commenter also noted that should the 
EPA allow the Commonwealth to abandon the Red Line/Blue Line Connector, 
it must mandate the Commonwealth to pursue alternatives, such as the 
pedestrian tunnel outlined above.
    Response #9: As noted earlier, EPA's role in this rulemaking action 
is to approve state choices, provided they meet the requirements of the 
Clean Air Act. As we've explained, the CAA does not provide EPA with 
the authority in the context of this particular SIP revision to require 
the Commonwealth to implement any alternative project(s), including 
those identified by a number of commenters. Thus, the issue of 
alternatives to the Red Line/Blue Line Connector is not germane to 
EPA's approval or disapproval of the Commonwealth's request to remove 
the design of the Red Line/Blue Line Connector project from the 
Massachusetts SIP without substitution or replacement.
    Comment #10: One commenter noted that with the announcement that 
Boston was chosen as the U.S. delegate to host the 2024 Summer 
Olympics, now is as good a time as any to revisit the Commonwealth's 
transportation issues.
    Response #10: The Commonwealth's transportation planning efforts 
will continue over time to evaluate and prioritize transportation 
projects in the Boston area and across the Commonwealth. The removal of 
the design of the Red Line/Blue Line Connector project is consistent 
with Massachusetts Department of Transportation's planning process. The 
CAA does not provide EPA with the authority to disapprove the 
Commonwealth's SIP revision as a result of the possibility that Boston 
may host the 2024 Olympic Games.
    Comment #11: One commenter asserted that there are clearly air 
quality benefits associated with designing a transit project. 
Specifically, the commenter stated:

    For a transit project to be constructed, it has to be designed 
first. Frequently, funding becomes available for a transit project 
only after it has been designed. Increasingly, only projects that 
are shovel-ready are eligible to apply when Federal funding 
opportunities arise. Thus, designing a transit project, more than 
anything else, raises its chances of being

[[Page 76228]]

built. As a result, air quality benefits can be calculated by 
applying a discounted percentage of those the constructed project 
would produce . . . Even if discounted by ninety percent, the design 
of the Connector would still provide emission reductions of 15.6 
kilograms for carbon monoxide, 0.4 kilograms for nitrogen oxides, 
and 0.9 kilograms for volatile organic compounds per day.

    Response #11: EPA agrees that designing a project and having the 
project ``shovel-ready'' increases a project's chance of being 
implemented, but disagrees that any air quality benefits necessarily 
would be obtained or derived from a project which only involves the 
requirement to design the project on paper. A project must be completed 
and operational to derive any air quality benefits and the SIP revision 
does not include removal of any provisions that require completion of 
the project or its operation. EPA does not believe that estimating air 
quality benefits or emissions reductions using discount factors 
reflecting probabilities that a project will or will not occur is 
appropriate in this context, and nothing in the CAA suggests that EPA 
is obligated, or even has the authority, to do so.
    Comment #12: A commenter noted that, ultimately, the SIP has to 
allow the Commonwealth to attain and/or maintain compliance with the 
NAAQS and that MassDEP has not provided any modeling as part of this 
proposal to amend the SIP to demonstrate that the remaining projects 
are sufficient. The commenter further stated that to even be able to 
evaluate this request to amend the SIP properly, EPA should require 
MassDEP to remodel the air quality benefits expected from the projects 
remaining in the revised SIP and then compare those benefits to those 
of the remaining transit system improvement projects without the Red 
Line/Blue Line Connector project.
    Response #12: The three changes being considered by EPA in this SIP 
revision, (removal of the design of the Red Line/Blue Line Connector 
from the Massachusetts SIP, without substitution or replacement; 
implementation of administrative changes that lengthen the existing 
public process by fifteen days; and replacement of references to the 
Executive Office of Transportation (EOT) with references to the 
Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT)), would not affect 
the assumptions used in, or the results of, the air quality modeling 
conducted when the transportation control measures currently in the 
SIP, and which will remain in the SIP, were previously approved by EPA; 
nor would any of the revisions EPA is approving in this final action 
alter the air quality results.
    Comment #13: A number of commenters presented the merits of a 
completed Red Line/Blue Line Connector project.
    Response #13: EPA acknowledges the potential benefits associated 
with a completed Red Line/Blue Line Connector Project. However, the 
project as defined in the Massachusetts SIP is only for design of the 
Red Line/Blue Line Connector. EPA and the Massachusetts Department of 
Environmental Protection have concluded that there are no air quality 
benefits achieved by the inclusion in the Commonwealth's SIP of the 
requirement to only design the Red Line/Blue Line Connector.
    Comment #14: One commenter expressed concern that, if EPA does not 
enforce regulations which it encouraged the state to adopt in 
conjunction with the largest highway construction project in recent 
history, what reason is there to take EPA seriously when it talks about 
new regulations about climate change? Additionally, the commenter 
noted:

    It may be difficult to get Massachusetts to behave responsibly, 
but the least the public should be able to expect out of EPA is that 
it clearly find fault with the ridiculously delayed non-performance 
of Massachusetts, and not endorse the cynical effort to drop a 
commitment that has been included in Big Dig regulations since the 
1990 final EIR (Environmental Impact Report) and 1991 DEP vent shaft 
regulations, and the 1993 SIP, and part of the basis of the 2006 
court settlement.

    Response #14: As noted in the December 1, 2014 NPR, the original 
commitment to construct the Red Line/Blue Line Connector project was 
changed to a design only commitment in a 2006 SIP revision, which was 
approved by EPA on July 31, 2008 (73 FR 44654). Under consideration in 
today's action is EPA's approval of the removal of the commitment to 
design the Red Line/Blue Line Connector project. Climate change-related 
regulations, and whether persons believe there are reasons to take 
EPA's efforts to address climate change seriously, are not relevant to 
today's action. Moreover, the commenter's reference to Massachusetts' 
alleged ``ridiculously delayed non-performance,'' is misplaced because 
it makes reference to projects that are either (1) no longer part of 
the Massachusetts SIP and which have been replaced by other projects or 
(2) addressed by provisions in the Massachusetts regulation at 310 CMR 
7.36(4) ``Project Delays and Implementation of Interim Emission 
Reduction Offset Projects and Measures.'' In the case of delayed 
projects, MA DOT has submitted the appropriate ``petition to delay the 
project,'' which identifies the necessary interim offset project(s); 
has undergone the required public review, and has received approval by 
the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. And nothing 
contained in the commenter's comment leads EPA to conclude that any 
relevant requirement of the CAA is not being complied with or is being 
violated. Finally, EPA believes that Massachusetts' administrative 
record, which included a public hearing, a comment period and responses 
to public comments, indicates that Massachusetts had rational reasons 
for concluding that finishing the design for the Red Line/Blue Line 
Connector would not be prudent.
    Comment #15: One commenter stated that inaction by Massachusetts on 
the transit and other SIP commitments has caused substantially more 
damage to air quality than the standard traffic and air quality 
prediction methods predict. In particular, the commenter stated that 
the delay in implementation of the original commitments has resulted in 
land use adjustments that are less transit oriented than would have 
been the case, and auto ownership patterns higher than would have been 
the case, with lasting negative impacts that are not factored into the 
standard models used by Massachusetts. Another commenter also stated, 
``The situation cries out for at least a transparent re-evaluation of 
the original 1990 commitments, and begs the question of the need for 
much more aggressive implementation of transit improvements to get the 
horse back into the barn, now that it has been allowed to run amuck in 
the garden.''
    Response #15: As noted above, not all of the mitigation projects 
associated with the ``Depression of the Central Artery and Third Harbor 
Tunnel Project'' (known as CA/THT or the Big Dig) were submitted by the 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts to be part of its SIP; nor were they 
required to be by the CAA. Those mitigation measures adopted into the 
Massachusetts SIP in 1991 (see October 4, 1994; 59 FR 2795) and 
modified in 2006 (see July 31, 2008; 73 FR 44654) are clearly 
identified in the December 1, 2014 NPR (79 FR 71061). EPA concluded in 
the 1994 and 2008 approval actions, that the Massachusetts 
transportation control measures incorporated into the SIP were 
consistent with the requirements of the CAA, including CAA section 
110(l) for the 2008 approval action. As noted earlier on several 
occasions, today's

[[Page 76229]]

action is limited to EPA's approval of the removal of the commitment to 
design the Red Line/Blue Line Connector project. EPA finds no basis or 
authority under the CAA that would require the Agency to undertake the 
steps and analysis suggested by the commenter as a result of the SIP 
revision at issue today.
    Comment #16: One commenter recommended that the Commonwealth be 
required to perform a comprehensive re-analysis of emerging congestion 
on the center of the interstate network, including analysis of the 
capacity of the system to handle the Everett Casino, The Seaport 
Innovation District projected build-out, the Kendall square expected 
build-out, additional parking under consideration at Logan Airport, and 
identification of further needed transit investment to support these 
added traffic generators.
    Response #16: Overall transportation planning considerations are 
not germane to this SIP revision and EPA has no authority under the CAA 
to require the Commonwealth to undertake such analyses in the context 
of EPA's action on the Commonwealth's submitted SIP revision. Requiring 
the Commonwealth, the Metropolitan Planning Organization, or the Cities 
of Boston, Cambridge and Everett to conduct additional transportation 
planning is outside EPA's authority to evaluate and approve the 
Massachusetts SIP revision before EPA.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving Massachusetts' revised 310 CMR 7.36, ``Transit 
System Improvements,'' submitted on November 6, 2013, as a revision to 
the Massachusetts SIP. This revised rule: (1) Deletes the existing SIP 
requirement to design the Red Line/Blue Line Connector project from the 
Blue Line at Government Center to the Red Line at Charles Station; (2) 
lengthens by fifteen days the time period during which MassDEP must 
hold a public meeting and take public comment on MassDOT's annual 
update and status report; and (3) replaces references to Executive 
Office of Transportation and EOT with references to Massachusetts 
Department of Transportation and MassDOT, respectively.
    EPA's review of the material submitted on November 6, 2013 to 
remove the ``design only'' of the Red Line/Blue Line Connector project 
from the Massachusetts SIP; add administrative changes to lengthen 
portions of the public process under 310 CMR 7.36(2)(i); and update 
references to the appropriate State transportation agency, indicates 
that these modifications would not interfere with any applicable 
requirement concerning attainment, reasonable further progress, or any 
other applicable Clean Air Act requirement.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes 
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the 
Massachusetts' regulation described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 
set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these 
documents generally available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office 
(see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose 
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 8, 2016. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of 
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for 
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness 
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in 
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference,

[[Page 76230]]

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, 
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 29, 2015.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart W--Massachusetts

0
2. Section 52.1120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(143) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  52.1120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (143) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the 
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection on November 6, 
2013.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Massachusetts Regulation 310 CMR 7.36 entitled ``U Transit 
System Improvements,'' effective in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 
on October 25, 2013.
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) Letter from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental 
Protection dated November 6, 2013 submitting a revision to the 
Massachusetts State Implementation Plan.

0
3. In Sec.  52.1167, Table 52.1167 is amended by adding a new entry to 
the existing state citation for 310 CMR 7.36 to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1167  EPA-approved Massachusetts State regulations.

* * * * *

                                                    Table 52.1167--EPA-Approved Rules and Regulations
                                                               [See notes at end of table]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Date  submitted   Date approved     Federal Register                           Comments/
          State citation                Title/subject          by state          by EPA            citation           52.1120(c)    unapproved  sections
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
310 CMR 7.36......................  Transit System                11/6/13          12/8/15   [Insert Federal                  143   Removes from the SIP
                                     Improvements.                                            Register citation].                    the commitment to
                                                                                                                                     design the Red Line/
                                                                                                                                     Blue Line Connector
                                                                                                                                     project.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: 1. This table lists regulations adopted as of 1972. It does not depict regulatory requirements which may have been part of the Federal SIP before
  this date.
2. The regulations are effective statewide unless otherwise stated in comments or title section.

[FR Doc. 2015-30819 Filed 12-7-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P