Document ID: EPA-R01-OAR-2006-1018-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Massachusetts; Amendment to Massachusetts State Implementation Plan for Transit System Improvements
Posted Date: 2007-11-05T05:00Z

[Federal Register: November 5, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 213)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 62422-62427]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr05no07-13]                         

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2006-1018; A-1-FRL-8491-1]

 
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: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve 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 interim emission reduction 
offsets for delays in projects, modifies the project substitution 
process, revises the list of required transit projects, and expands 
public participation and oversight of the transit transportation 
control measure projects. The intended effect of this action is to 
propose approval of specific named substitution projects to the State 
Implementation Plan's transportation control measure projects, and 
approve modifications to the delay and substitution procedures for 
transit projects. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before December 5, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R01-OAR-2006--1018 by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail: arnold.anne@epa.gov.
    3. Fax: (617) 918-0047.
    4. Mail: ``Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2006-1018'', 
Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England 
Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (mail code CAQ), 
Boston, MA 02114-2023.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold, 
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 
One Congress Street, 11th floor, (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023. Such 
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours 
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are 
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-
2006-1018. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov
, or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be 

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov
 or in hard copy at 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 to 
4:30, excluding legal holidays.
    In addition, copies of the state submittal are also available for 
public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the 
Bureau of Waste Prevention, Massachusetts 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'' and ``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. Summary of Changes to 310 CMR 7.00 and 7.36
III. Results of EOT's Demonstration of Air Quality Emission 
Reductions

[[Page 62423]]

IV. Criteria for Approving Amendments to the Transit System 
Improvements Regulation into the SIP
V. Transportation Control Measure (TCM) Substitution and SAFETEA-LU
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    EPA approved the Massachusetts Transit System Improvements 
Regulation (the Regulation), 310 CMR 7.36 (effective December 6, 1991), 
into the Massachusetts State Implementation Plan (SIP) on October 4, 
1994 (59 FR 50495--50498). The transit system improvement projects 
contained in the Regulation include transportation control measures 
deemed necessary to mitigate the air quality impacts of the Central 
Artery and Third Harbor Tunnel Project in Metropolitan Boston.
    On December 13, 2006, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental 
Protection (MA DEP) submitted a revision to its SIP 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 December 21, 2005. On June 1, 2007, 
MA DEP supplemented its SIP revision with a letter determining that 
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 Massachusetts Executive Office of 
Transportation (EOT) to address this issue on the record at the 
upcoming September 6, 2007 public 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 position 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.

II. Summary of Changes to 310 CMR 7.00 and 7.36

    Listed below are the changes in Massachusetts Department of 
Environmental Protection's Air Pollution Control Regulations 310 CMR 
7.00, ``Statutory Authority; Legend; Preamble; Definitions,'' and 310 
CMR 7.36, ``U Transit System Improvements'' which went into effect on 
December 1, 2006 at the state level. EPA is proposing approval of these 
changes as a SIP revision.

Definitions

    The following definition of ``Boston Metropolitan Planning 
Organization'' (MPO) is added and included in 310 CMR 7.00: ``BOSTON 
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION means the organization designated 
for maintaining a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive (3C) 
transportation planning process under Section 134 of the Federal Aid 
Highway Act and Section 5303 of the Federal Transit Act, as amended, in 
the Boston metropolitan region.''

Revisions to the List of Required Projects

    The Green Line Arborway Restoration, the Blue Line Connection from 
Bowdoin Station to the Red Line at Charles Station, and the Green Line 
extension to Ball Square/Tufts University, will be replaced by the 
Fairmont Line Project (construction to be completed and opened to full 
public use by December 31, 2011), 1000 new park and ride parking spaces 
(construction to be completed and opened to full public use by December 
31, 2011) and an enhanced Green Line Extension Project (construction to 
be completed and opened to full public use by December 31, 2014). The 
Green Line Arborway Restoration was originally assigned a completion 
date of December 31, 1997, with an extension to December 31, 2000 
previously granted pursuant to the Regulation, and project emission 
offsets required to mitigate the delay after December 31, 2000 until 
project completion. The Blue Line connection and the Green Line 
extension to Ball Square/Tufts University were originally assigned a 
completion date of December 31, 2011.

The New Replacement/Substitution Projects

    ``The Fairmount Line Project.'' The Fairmount commuter rail line is 
approximately 9.2 miles long, running from South Station to Readville, 
passing through the communities of Dorchester, Roxbury and Mattapan. 
Fairmount Line improvements will consist of: Enhancements of existing 
stations including, without limitation, platform extensions, improved 
lighting and improved access; a new Four Corners Station plus a new 
station in each of the neighborhoods of Dorchester, Mattapan and 
Roxbury; and bridge upgrades and other measures to improve service and 
increase ridership.
    ``1000 new park and ride parking spaces.'' These 1000 new park and 
ride parking spaces are in addition to those required by 310 CMR 
7.36(2)(c)3 and 310 CMR 7.36(2)(d), and will serve commuter transit 
facilities, within the 101 cities and towns constituting the Boston 
Metropolitan Planning Organization.
    ``The Green Line Extension Project.'' The Green Line extension 
consists of extending the Green Line from Lechmere Station to Medford 
Hillside and construction of a spur to Union Square.
    ``The Red Line/Blue Line Connector.'' The revision requires final 
design of the connection from the Blue Line at Government Center to the 
Red Line at Charles Station before December 31, 2011, but no longer 
commits to its construction.

Revised Deadlines

    Old Colony Commuter Rail Extension Greenbush Line, originally 
assigned a completion date of December 31, 1996, must now be completed 
and open to full public use before December 31, 2007. Project emission 
offsets were required to

[[Page 62424]]

mitigate the delay of the Greenbush spur after December 31, 1999 until 
project completion.
    Blue Line Platform Lengthening and Modernization, originally 
assigned a completion date of December 31, 1998, with an extension to 
December 31, 2008 previously granted pursuant to the Regulation, must 
now be completed and open to full public use before December 31, 2008. 
Project emission offsets were required to mitigate the delay after 
December 31, 2001 until project completion.

Project Interim Deadlines

    MA DEP has added interim project deadlines for the Fairmount Line 
improvements, the Green Line extension to Medford Hillside, the Green 
Line Union Square spur, and the 1000 Park and Ride parking spaces. EPA 
believes these interim milestones, in combination with the EOT's annual 
reporting on the status of the transit commitments, will help keep the 
transit system improvements projects construction on schedule.

New Requirements Added To Address Potential Project Delays of the New 
Projects

    If the Fairmount Line improvements, the Green Line extension to 
Medford Hillside, the Green Line Union Square spur, or 1000 Park and 
Ride spaces are delayed, interim air quality offset projects are 
required to be implemented. The revised regulation does not place a 
limit on the amount of time EOT may delay a project, as long as it 
obtains offsets for the delay.
    EOT is required to petition MA DEP to delay a project, and the 
petition will undergo ``public review'' before MA DEP acts on the 
petition.

Substitution Criteria

    Projects may be substituted after completion of specified interim 
project deadlines. The revised Regulation no longer requires a finding 
that the project to be replaced is ``infeasible.''
    Substitution determinations require an EOT public meeting and a 
public comment period.
    The proposed substitute project must achieve 110% of the emission 
reductions that would have been achieved by the original project to be 
replaced.
    EOT must implement interim emission reduction offsets to address 
any delay in achieving the emission reductions that would have been 
achieved had all components of the original project been completed on 
time.
    Project substitutions may proceed after MA DEP determines in 
writing that EOT has met the substitution provisions of the Regulation.

Potential Future Project Substitutions

    The Green Line Extension may be substituted with transit projects 
in Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, or Medford.
    The Fairmount Line project may be substituted with transit projects 
in Dorchester, Hyde Park, Mattapan, or Roxbury.

Public Process Requirements

    EOT is required to conduct an annual public meeting to provide a 
thorough update and status report on each project and to disclose any 
need for potential or actual project delays and/or substitutions.
    EOT is required to submit an annual certification to MA DEP with a 
commitment to complete and fund projects and disclose project delays/
substitutions/interim offset measures to be implemented.

Development of Emission Reduction Baseline

    MA DEP added a new Subsection 8 to provide substantive public 
comment on the air quality modeling for the Regulation and EOT's 
remodeling of the revised transit projects.
    EOT must calculate baseline emission reductions by modeling the 
original three projects, the Green Line Arborway Restoration, the Blue 
Line-Red Line Connection, and the Green Line extension to Ball Square, 
and adding 10% to the total.
    EOT is required to demonstrate that new projects will deliver the 
required baseline emission reductions. If the new projects do not 
deliver the baseline emission reductions, EOT is required to implement 
additional projects in the same geographic areas.
    EOT is required to take public comment on the results of the 
emission analysis and respond to those comments.

Demonstration of Emission Reductions

    When all projects required by 310 CMR 7.36 are substantially 
complete, EOT shall complete an analysis of the total air quality 
benefits of such projects. EOT shall perform such analysis in 
accordance with EPA requirements in effect at the time of the analysis.

III. Results of EOT's Demonstration of Air Quality Emission Reductions

    MA DEP's supplemental SIP revision submitted to EPA on June 1, 
2007, contained MA DEP's determination that EOT had met the 
requirements of 310 CMR 7.36(8)(d) and (e) and that the 
``administrative record reasonably supports the results and conclusions 
of the report required pursuant to 310 CMR 7.36(8)(c).'' Thus, MA DEP 
agreed that EOT has demonstrated that the new projects achieve at least 
110% of the emissions reductions that would have been achieved by the 
projects being replaced.
    In addition, the supplement included EOT's air quality modeling 
demonstration mandated by 310 CMR 7.36(8)(a) through (8)(e) entitled, 
``Description of Modeling Assumptions and Analysis Methodology for the 
State Implementation Plan Transit Commitment Projects Current and 
Proposed Substitutions March 15, 2007,'' prepared by the Boston MPO's 
Central Transportation Planning Staff for the Executive Office of 
Transportation Office of Transportation. These documents are part of 
the publicly available docket materials accessible for inspection 
electronically in the Federal Docket Management System at http://www.regulations.gov
, Docket Number EPA-R01-OAR-2006-1018.

    EOT's air quality analysis modeled the emissions reductions of: (1) 
The original SIP-approved package of projects; (2) the replacement/
substitution package of projects; and (3) the no-build or baseline 
scenario. This analysis concluded that the substitution projects (Green 
Line to Union Square and Medford Hillside, Fairmont Line Improvements, 
and Additional Parking) results in reductions of 435 kilograms per day 
of Carbon Monoxide (CO), 11 kilograms per day of Nitrogen Oxides 
(NOX), and 17 kilograms of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 
over the no-build baseline. The package of transit projects are 
estimated to result in emission reductions in 2025 of 149% CO, 137.5% 
NOX and 154% VOC of the original SIP-approved projects, 
which are in excess of the 110% emission reduction required by 
subsection (5)(f) of the amended transit system improvements 
regulation. For all three pollutants, CO, NOX and VOC [MA 
DEP's regulations refers to hydrocarbon emissions (VOC) as non-methane 
hydrocarbons--NMHC], MA DEP's requirement of 110% threshold is met. 
Please see Table 1 ``EOT Air Quality Analysis Comparison of Project 
Packages Benefits in the Year 2025,'' below.

[[Page 62425]]

           Table 1.--EOT Air Quality Analysis Comparison of Project Packages Benefits in the Year 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Daily emission benefits in kilograms (kg.)
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Volatile
                                                                         Carbon        Nitrogen       organic
                                                                        monoxide    oxides  (NOX)    compounds
                                                                          (CO)                         (VOC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIP Approved Projects (Package):
    Arborway Restoration, Green Line Extension to Ball Square/Tufts          292              8             11
     University, and Blue Line/Red Line Connection (Bowdoin Station
     to Charles Station)...........................................
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           435             11             17
     Improvements, and Additional Parking..........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Criteria for Approving Amendments to the Transit System 
Improvements Regulation Into the SIP

    EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the 
criteria of the Clean Air Act. An adequate SIP revision is one that 
meets the Clean Air Act's requirement under section 110(l) that a SIP 
revision must not interfere with attainment and maintenance of national 
ambient air quality standards (NAAQSs). The Commonwealth has 
flexibility to revise SIP-approved transportation control measures 
(TCMs), provided the revisions are consistent with attaining and 
maintaining compliance with the NAAQSs. In addition, the Safe, 
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy 
For Users (SAFETEA-LU) section 6011(d) 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. As discussed below, MA DEP's 
Regulation does not need to comply with all elements of section 
176(c)(8) to be approvable as a SIP revision, but it must not conflict 
with any of those elements.
    The Federal executive policy on environmental justice is 
established by Executive Order (EO) 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations,'' (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)). Its main provision directs 
federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 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 Commonwealths' 
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. 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.

V. Transportation Control Measure (TCM) Substitution and SAFETEA-LU

    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 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. 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\

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

    \1\ EPA has proposed regulations to implement SAFETEA-LU, but 
specifically declined to propose regulations addressing section 
176(c)(8), finding that the statute is already sufficiently detailed 
and that the EPA/DOT guidance would address questions that might 
arise about TCM substitutions. (72 FR 24472, 24485-24486; May 2, 
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in the guidance, section 176(c)(8) applies directly to 
any TCM substitution made in a SIP, whether or not the SIP already 
includes a substitution mechanism designed by a state and approved by 
EPA. The section does not eliminate the requirement to comply with any 
such substitution procedures in a SIP, even if the state includes 
requirements that go beyond the minimum elements required under section 
176(c)(8). Correspondingly, complying with the substitution process in 
the SIP does not eliminate the requirement to meet all the elements of 
the process laid out in section 176(c)(8). In the unlikely event there 
is a conflict between section 176(c)(8) and the SIP substitution 
process, the substitution must comply with section 176(c)(8). See EPA/
DOT Guidance at pages 20-21, section 5.2.
    Therefore, for the purposes of this SIP approval, EPA must 
determine whether any element of the MA DEP Transit System Improvements 
Regulation conflicts with section 176(c)(8). EPA sees no conflict 
between the requirements of the MA DEP Regulation and section 
176(c)(8). There are provisions in the MA DEP Regulation that go beyond 
the requirements of section 176(c)(8), such as the requirement to 
demonstrate that the substitution achieves an extra 10% emissions 
reduction beyond that achieved by the projects being replaced or the 
specific geographic limits on substitute projects. But EPA has found no 
instance in which complying with the MA DEP regulation would result in 
a conflict with or violate any corresponding requirement of section 
176(c)(8).
    In addition, EPA must work with MA DEP to ensure that any 
requirements in section 176(c)(8) that are not addressed in its 
Regulation will be met. There appear to be two requirements in

[[Page 62426]]

section 176(c)(8) that are not provided for in the MA DEP Regulation.
    First, 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 TCM 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. All 
that remains is for the MPO to submit evidence to EPA that the MPO 
concurs in that analysis. For EPA's concurrence on the substitutions 
included in this SIP revision, the Agency will send a letter, 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Both 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, we are not 
interpreting section 176(c)(8)(A)(v) to 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 any concurrence on the substitution in a 
letter to MA DEP under section 176(c)(8) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, section 176(c)(8) now 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, EPA is proposing that any codification 
that results from our final action on this SIP revision will address 
this requirement. For future substitutions, although the 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.
    EPA's review of Massachusetts' SIP Revision indicates the 
amendments to the SIP-approved Massachusetts Transit System 
Improvements, with substitution projects and changes to projects 
timelines, adequately demonstrate continued emission reductions and do 
not relax current provisions in the SIP. EPA is proposing to approve 
the Massachusetts SIP revision for Transit System Improvements, which 
was submitted on December 13, 2006, and supplemented on June 1, 
2007.\3\ EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in 
this notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be 
considered before taking final action. Interested parties may 
participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written 
comments to the EPA New England Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES 
section of this Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In addition, EPA is planning to concur pursuant to section 
176(c)(8) that the substitute TCM's achieve equivalent or greater 
emission reductions than the measures being replaced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve 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.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it 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).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism 
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 
FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule 
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or 
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean 
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), or Executive Order 12898 
``Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 
Populations and Low-Income Populations,'' because it approves a state 
rule implementing a Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not 
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the

[[Page 62427]]

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic 
compounds.

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

    Dated: October 25, 2007.
Robert W. Varney,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. E7-21691 Filed 11-2-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P