[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 19, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-1247]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: January 19, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MA-24-1-6028; A-1-FRL-4821-3]

 

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Massachusetts; Amendment to Massachusetts' SIP (for Ozone and for 
Carbon Monoxide) for Transit Systems Improvements and High Occupancy 
Vehicle Facilities in the Metropolitan Boston Air Pollution Control 
District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This revision 
provides for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Executive Office of 
Transportation and Construction to construct and operate specified 
transit facilities and high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes established 
therein. Implementation of the defined transportation projects will 
help reduce the use of automobiles, provide for additional transit 
facilities in the Metropolitan Boston Region, and improve traffic 
operations on the region's roadways, resulting in improved air quality. 
This action should have a beneficial effect on air quality because it 
is intended to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the Boston 
Metropolitan Area. The emissions to be reduced include hydrocarbons 
(ground-level ozone precursors) and carbon monoxide (CO).
    This action is being taken under section 110(a) and (l) of the 
Clean Air Act.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 18, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Linda M. Murphy, Director, Air, 
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environ- mental 
Protection Agency, Region I, JFK Federal Bldg., Boston, MA 02203. 
Copies of the Commonwealth's submittal and EPA's technical support 
document are available for public inspection during normal business 
hours by appointment at the Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, One Congress 
Street, 10th floor, Boston, MA; and the Division of Air Quality 
Control, Department of Environmental Protection, One Winter Street, 7th 
Floor, Boston, MA 02108.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald O. Cooke, (617) 565-3227.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 9, 1991, the Massachusetts 
Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP) submitted a revision to 
its SIP for Transit Systems Improvements and HOV Facilities in the 
Metropolitan Boston Air Pollution Control District. This new regulation 
commits the Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation and 
Construction (MA EOTC) to pursue implementation, monitoring, and 
enforcement of transit system improvements and HOV facilities that were 
identified as transportation and air quality mitigation measures in a 
1990 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the CA/THT 
project. EPA determined five of the proposed TCMs were necessary to 
help achieve an air quality benefit from the CA/THT. This SIP amendment 
amends 310 CMR 7.00 by adding two new sections; 310 CMR 7.36-''Transit 
System Improvements,'' and 310 CMR 7.37-''High Occupancy Vehicle 
Lanes.''

Background

    The intent of the proposed regulation is to reduce concentrations 
of ground-level ozone by codifying commitments from the MA EOTC to 
implement HOV and transit system improvements. These commitments were 
originally included as part of a Metropolitan Planning Organization-
approved Memorandum of Understanding (MOU): Traffic and Air Quality 
Mitigation For the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel Project (CA/T) 
and were incorporated into Massachusetts Air Pollution Control 
Regulations 310 CMR 7.00 through adding Section 7.36: Transit System 
Improvements; and Section 7.37: High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes. The 
regulations are designed to help reduce the use of automobiles, to 
provide for additional transit facilities in the Metropolitan Boston 
region, and to improve traffic operations on the region's roadways, 
resulting in improved air quality.Reducing VMT eases traffic congestion 
and can lead to improved air quality. To the extent that reductions in 
regional VMT improve traffic flow, a subsequent reduction in the 
sources of CO and volatile organic compounds (VOC) may be achieved.
    Reducing VMT will also contribute to a direct and indirect 
reduction in air toxics. Emissions from gasoline-driven engines contain 
air toxics, such as benzene, a known carcinogen. Many products of 
incomplete combustion, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons such 
as benzo-a-pyrene, are emitted by gasoline and diesel engines and are 
associated with chronic and acute health effects. Gasoline vapors 
released during transfer or pumping of fuel also contain benzene and 
other air toxics. The health effects of air toxics are wide-ranging and 
can vary from long-term carcinogenic effects, to short-term adverse 
health effects.
    The Massachusetts regulations are designed to support the 
Commonwealth's transportation control strategies and future attempts to 
control VMT and ease traffic congestion in the metropolitan Boston 
Area. For example, the facilities provided for in these regulations 
could support the development of employee trip-reduction programs by 
creating alternatives to single-occupant vehicles.

Summary of Proposed Transit System Improvements

    The Transit System Improvements regulation consists of seven 
subsections summarized as follows:

    (1) Applicability: The transit system improvements regulation 
applies to MA EOTC.
    (2) Transit System Improvement Projects: The following transit 
projects must be completed and available for public use by these dates:

 By December 31, 1992-Lynn Central Square Station and Parking 
Garage, North Station high platforms and high tracks, Lynn Transit 
Station Bus Terminal.
 By December 31, 1994-South Station Bus Terminal, South Station 
Track Number 12, Ipswich Commuter Rail Line extension to Newburyport.
 By December 31, 1996-Old Colony Commuter Rail Line Extension, 
Framingham Commuter Rail Line Extension to Worcester, 10,000 Park and 
Ride and Commuter Rail parking spaces outside of the Boston core.
 By December 31, 1997-Green Line Arborway Restoration.
 By December 31, 1998-Blue Line platform lengthening and 
modernization.
 By December 31, 1999-10,000 Park and Ride and Commuter Rail 
Station Parking spaces outside of the Boston core in addition to those 
completed by December 31, 1996.
 By December 31, 2001-South Boston Piers Electric Bus Service.
 By December 31, 2011-Green Line extension to Ball Square/Tufts 
University, Blue Line Connection from Bowdoin Station to the Red Line 
at Charles Station.

    (3) Project Delays, Project Deadline Extensions; and
    (4) Substitute Transit System Improvement Projects: As described 
above, section 7.36(2) of the regulation identifies specific transit 
projects which must be completed by specific dates. In section 7.36(3) 
of the regulation, however, it appears MA EOTC is authorized to send MA 
DEP a notice delaying the completion date for any project. If the date 
is delayed for more than three years, the rule requires MA EOTC to 
propose a substitute transit improvement project under the process 
contained in section 7.36(4). EPA is taking comments on the way the 
transit project regulation addresses project delays and substitute 
projects.
    Under 7.36(4), MA EOTC may at any time, and pursuant to 7.36(3) 
must in the event of a delay of over 3 years, propose a substitute 
transit project to MA DEP. MA EOTC may substitute a project if EOTC 
demonstrates to MA DEP that the project:

    * * * achieves equal or greater emission reductions of 
nonmethane hydocarbons [sic] (NMHC), carbon monoxide (C0) and 
nitrogen oxides (NOx) and would provide a greater improvement in air 
quality for CO and NOx in the area where the required project was to 
have been implemented, in both the short and long term.

310 CMR 7.36(4)(a)(1). MA DEP must supply EPA with a copy of MA EOTC's 
petition for the substitute, any demonstration, and MA DEP's action on 
the petition. However, EPA has no role in approving the project or 
reviewing it prior to MA DEP's acceptance of the substitute. In 
addition, there is also no public notice provided for any decision to 
substitute a project.

    EPA has two concerns with these provisions. First, EPA and the 
public cannot rely on the completion dates listed in 7.36(2) as the 
final enforceable compliance dates for the transit projects. The rule 
allows MA EOTC and MA DEP to extend those dates by at least 3 years.
    Second, and more importantly, at the end of any 3 year delay or any 
time before that, MA DEP is authorized, without any EPA concurrence or 
public comment, to substitute another transit project for those listed 
in the rule. MA DEP has imposed on itself and MA EOTC a standard for 
reviewing substitute projects, quoted above, that essentially requires 
the new project to provide air quality benefits equivalent to or better 
than the original project specified in the regulation. But other than 
to limit substitute projects to ``transit improvement projects,'' the 
type of substitute project is otherwise unconstrained by the 
regulation.
    There are many types of transportation control measures that might 
reasonably be treated as substitute transit projects under this rule, 
ranging from concrete capital investments such as different rail lines 
or special bus lanes to market-based incentives such as mass transit 
fare subsidies or highway tolls.1 It is impossible for EPA to know 
what sort of substitute projects MA DEP might be evaluating in the 
future. Consequently, it is also impossible for EPA to judge 
objectively the equivalency of any new project, since the MA DEP has 
not committed to using EPA-approved methodology for determining air 
quality benefits. The regulation does not provide for any specific 
quantification methodology that might allow EPA to assess the 
replicability of any air quality benefits analysis MA DEP will conduct 
in evaluating a substitute project. Therefore, EPA cannot now calculate 
with acceptable reliability the emissions reductions MA DEP, EPA, and 
the public will be able to enforce under this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\For example, the regulation elsewhere requires EOTC to study 
the feasibility of implementing toll pricing, operating water 
shuttle services, improving rail service among major cities in the 
region, and indexing transit fares to encourage use of transit 
facilities. 310 CMR 7.36(6). (See also the types of TCM's enumerated 
in section 108(f) of the Act.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the other hand, EPA believes that the kind of transit measures 
identified in this rule are directionally sound and that any substitute 
project meeting the standard contained in the rule should contribute to 
achieving the air quality standards for ozone and CO. Since under the 
current ozone and CO SIPs for this area, there are no specific measures 
to promote transit projects, section 7.36 must necessarily contribute 
more emissions reductions toward attainment than the existing SIP. So 
although EPA has concerns about the quantification of air quality 
benefits these rules will achieve, EPA is prepared to approve them into 
the SIP.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\Although the transit system improvement regulations and, as 
discussed below, the HOV regulations are not strictly speaking 
economic incentive program (EIP) rules under either sections 182 or 
187 of the Act, the analogy to so-called ``directionally sound'' 
EIPs is useful. In its recent proposal to guide implementation of 
EIPs, EPA defines directionally sound strategies as ``strategies for 
which adequate procedures to quantify emission reductions . . . are 
not defined as part of the EIP.'' 58 FR 11126, Sec. 51.491 (Feb. 23, 
1993). The proposal provides that directionally sound strategies 
that ``do not yield quantifiable emissions reductions creditable 
towards RFP or attainment demonstrations . . . may be included in an 
area's attainment plan, without credit . . . if the strategy 
contributes to the area coming into . . . attainment.'' 58 FR 11113. 
Similarly, the transit project and HOV regulations do not provide 
for adequate procedures to quantify emission reductions from 
substitute projects, but should generally contribute toward 
attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address EPA's concerns, however, the Agency proposes not to 
grant Massachusetts any credit for emissions reductions from these 
measures in any reasonable further progress (RFP), attainment, or 
maintenance demonstration, unless DEP submits a SIP revision making the 
requirement for the transit measure, or any substitute for that 
measure, federally enforceable. Upon approval of the SIP revision 
including the transit measure, Massachusetts could take credit for the 
measure, and the requirement to implement that measure would become an 
enforceable part of the SIP. EPA is proposing this approach because 
without a SIP revision, DEP could substitute the specific transit 
enhancements in these rules for another at any time. Given the inherent 
uncertainty in quantifying the emission impacts of potential 
substitution measures, as described above, EPA and the public may be 
left without an adequate remedy under the DEP rule to assure that the 
substitute project is in fact yielding equivalent emissions reductions. 
The SIP revision process gives EPA and the public an opportunity to 
examine Massachusetts' proposed emissions reduction credits. If DEP 
asks for credit for the measures specified in this proposed rule, 
approving an enforceable commitment of the Commonwealth into the SIP 
should be a relatively simple matter. Where the SIP revision proposes a 
substitute project, EPA and the public may need to examine whether the 
substitute in fact achieves equivalent reductions.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\EPA invites comment on which projects are sufficiently 
complete to be credited upon approval of this rule, and invites any 
documentation DEP can provide that any projects should receive 
credit upon approval of this rule. Additionally, EPA invites comment 
on how to determine whether a transit project that does not require 
any construction is ``substantially complete.'' Market-based 
programs such as congestion tolls may require no construction. EPA 
proposes to credit such projects when they are ready to implement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (5) Project Review and Consultation: MA EOTC must consult with the 
MA Highway (formerly MA Department of Public Works), the Massachusetts 
Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), the Metropolitan Area Planning 
Council (MAPC), EPA, and MA DEP on a quarterly basis when planning, 
directing, constructing, or making transit system improvements.
    (6) Transit System Improvement Studies: By December 31, 1991, MA 
EOTC must draft and issue for comment an initial study of transit 
improvement strategies (in addition to those listed above), which will 
ultimately be incorporated into a Program for Mass Transit (PMT). By 
December 31, 1991, MA EOTC must draft and issue for comment the 
following transit system improvement studies: a toll pricing 
feasibility study to regulate single occupant vehicle trips to Logan 
Airport; a study of the feasibility of relocating some of the existing 
Sumner Tunnel Toll booths to Route 1A; a water shuttle service (for 
service between Boston and the North Shore) feasibility study; a study 
of transit system improvements which could be made in addition to those 
specific improvements listed above also in 310 CMR 7.36(2); a study of 
the feasibility of constructing a rail connection between South Station 
and Logan Airport; a study to expand the size and number of suburban 
locations of Logan airport express service parking and transit 
facilities; a study to expand the HOV lanes and services within the 
boundaries of Logan Airport. By December 31, 1994, MA EOTC must draft 
and issue for comment a study of transit system improvements including: 
connecting circumferential transit facilities and radial transit 
services; improving travel times and upgrading rail service to New York 
City NY, Worcester MA, Springfield MA, Hartford CT and Portland ME; and 
indexing transit fares to maximize the use of transit. Each study 
identified above would include a technical feasibility analysis, 
estimates of time and costs associated with implementing the measures, 
and the air quality impacts of the measure. Final reports for studies 
in this subsection, containing recommendations and schedule for further 
action, must be released by March 30 of the year following the deadline 
of the study.
    (7) Record Keeping and Reporting: By March 1st of each year, MA 
EOTC must submit a progress report to the MA DEP on the status of each 
transit project/study in the regulation. The report must contain 
expected impacts on transit ridership system-wide. The report will be 
distributed to members of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 
and other interested parties. EPA wishes to identify itself as an 
interested party at this time and requests that copies of the reports 
be forwarded to the EPA Regional Office.

Summary of Proposed High Occupancy Vehicle Facilities

    The High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes regulation consists of eleven 
subsections summarized as follows:

    (1) Applicability: The regulation applies to MA EOTC and the 
Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (MTA).
    (2) HOV Lanes: By December 31, 1991, MA EOTC shall extend the I-93 
Southbound HOV lane (north of the southern bank of the Charles River) 
toward Route 128 to the northernmost point appropriate. Additionally, 
the final design of the Charles River crossing on the southbound side 
of I-93 extending down to the exit ramp to Nashua Street shall include 
an HOV lane on the southbound side of I-93. Furthermore, by May 31, 
1993, MA EOTC shall construct and make available HOV lanes northbound 
and southbound on I-93 beginning at the intersection of I-93 with I-90 
and extending to a point immediately north of the intersection of I-93 
and Route 3 if the threshold standards described below are violated for 
three consecutive months.
    (3) Establishment of Roadway Threshold Standards: By October 1, 
1991, MA EOTC shall develop roadway threshold standards that represent 
a significant increase in traffic volume above baseline roadway 
conditions and that can trigger construction of an HOV lane. Roadway 
threshold standards shall be calculated to represent an average weekday 
peak-hour trip time increase of 35 percent from baseline roadway 
conditions. By December 31, 1991, MA EOTC must document, maintain, and 
submit such conditions to the MA DEP for I-93 north- and south-bound 
between I-90 and Rte. 3 in Braintree; and I-93 north-bound between the 
Charles River crossing and I-95 (Route 128). By December 31, 1991, MTA 
must establish roadway threshold standards for I-90 east- and west-
bound between I-93 and I-95 (Route 128). By December 31, 1993, MA EOTC 
and the MTA shall each collect such information as is necessary to 
identify and document baseline roadway conditions for all these roadway 
segments.
    (4) Feasibility Studies: Before December 31, 1992, MA EOTC shall 
study the feasibility of HOV lanes for the road segments for which 
threshold standards are set under subsection (3) above. The study shall 
assess the impact of HOV lanes on emissions, general purpose traffic, 
and engineering issues.
    (5) Additional HOV Facilities: Roadway Threshold Standards: 
Beginning on January 1, 1992, MA EOTC and the MTA must monitor roadway 
segments listed in (3) above on a monthly basis to ensure that average 
trip times do not exceed roadway threshold standards. If the roadway 
threshold standards are exceeded for any three-month consecutive 
period, MA EOTC is required to notify MA DEP and to implement certain 
HOV measures.
    MA EOTC's notice to MA DEP will include a schedule for implementing 
an HOV lane on the road segment violating the roadway threshold 
standards.4 There is no requirement limiting the time by which an 
HOV lane must be implemented. However, the addition of HOV lanes on I-
93 in either direction between I-90 and Route 3 and on I-90 in either 
direction between I-93 and I-95 must be found to be feasible in the 
study to be conducted under subsection 4, above. As discussed below, if 
an HOV lane is determined to be infeasible on a roadway where threshold 
standards are exceeded, MA EOTC can propose a substitute project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\The requirement for submitting a notice of violation of the 
roadway threshold standards in section 7.37(5)(b) only refers to 
EOTC and not the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority as well, whereas 
several surrounding provisions refer to both (see sections 
7.37(5)(a) and (d)). EPA notes that section 7.37(c)(2) creates an 
obligation to add an HOV lane to the Massachusetts Turnpike if 
threshold standards are violated. EPA assumes EOTC is fully 
authorized to submit a notice of violation triggering such an 
obligation on the Turnpike and the Turnpike Authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (6) HOV Performance Standards: Performance standards are defined as 
the range of roadway performance between Level of Service B and a 
condition of under-utilization. Within 30 days of implementation of an 
HOV facility, MA EOTC and MTA must submit performance standards for 
each HOV facility or HOV lane under their respective jurisdiction.
    (7) Continuous Attainment of Performance Standards: Beginning on 
January 1, 1991, MA EOTC and MTA must monitor HOV performance- 
measuring trip times quarterly. Measurements must be taken on 5-7 
weekdays over two consecutive weeks within each quarter. A minimum of 
three time runs must be made in each direction for each HOV roadway 
segment on each sample day. MA EOTC and MTA must take all appropriate 
measures to maintain compliance with the performance standards, 
including increasing the number of occupants required to be eligible 
for the HOV lane. If the performance standards are exceeded for each 
time run, MA EOTC must report the exceedance to the MA DEP within 10 
days of the end of the month in which the exceedance took place, 
including measures necessary to return the roadway or facility to 
compliance.
    (8) Substitute High Occupancy Vehicle Projects: If the feasibility 
studies provided for in subsection (4) demonstrate that an HOV lane is 
infeasible, MA EOTC can substitute an alternative project by 
petitioning MA DEP. The petition must:

    * * * include a demonstration that the alternative project 
achieves equal or greater emission reductions of NMHC, CO, and NOx 
and would provide a greater improvement in air quality for CO and 
Nox [sic] in the areas where the required high occupancy vehicle 
lane was targeted, both short- and long-term.

310 CMR 7.37(8)(a)(1). The MA DEP is then authorized to substitute an 
alternative project. Similar to the substitution process for transit 
projects outlined above, EPA must receive a copy of MA EOTC's petition 
and demonstrations, and MA DEP's petition, determination, and 
supporting documentation; but EPA has no role in reviewing or approving 
the substitute before approval by MA DEP.
    For the same reasons described above, EPA is prepared to approve 
310 CMR 7.37 into the SIP as a directionally sound measure, but not to 
grant any credit in RFP, attainment, or maintenance demonstrations 
until the Commonwealth irrevocably commits to specific HOV facilities 
or substitute measures in a SIP revision. It appears that the first HOV 
segment, on I-93 southbound, is largely completed. Beyond that segment, 
however, the rule allows MA DEP to substitute alternative projects for 
future HOV lanes without any EPA or public scrutiny of the substitute 
project.
    (9) HOV Studies and Further Actions: MA EOTC must take steps to 
enhance and expand Massachusetts Turnpike Authority HOV facilities 
including the following: a study to improve air quality and HOV flow 
between Rte. 128 and Boston and to examine full-scale HOV lanes and 
mechanisms; and a program of HOV toll booths with demarcated lanes, 
privileges, and provisions of electronic ID systems to facilitate HOV 
flow through toll booths.
    By December 31, 1992 MA EOTC shall in consultation with MA Highway 
and MTA submit a study to the MA DEP that defines the feasibility of 
establishing HOV lanes and HOV incentives for these highways: I-93 
northbound and southbound between I-90 and Route 3 in Braintree; I-93 
northbound between the Charles River Crossing and I-95; and I-90 
eastbound and westbound between I-93 and I-95.
    (10) HOV Promotion and Enforcement: By December 31, 1991, MA EOTC 
and MTA must submit an enforcement program and plan to the MA DEP. By 
April 1, 1992 MA EOTC and MTA shall submit a program to promote HOV 
use.
    (11) HOV Expansion to the Local Roadway Network: MA EOTC shall 
encourage the City of Boston to incorporate HOV facilities into the 
construction and reconstruction of city streets, and shall work with 
the Massachusetts Port Authority to study HOV needs at Logan Airport.

Air Quality Impacts

    As discussed above, EPA believes that the mass transit and HOV 
facilities promoted by these regulations support air quality goals and 
assist in the maintenance of projected air quality emissions. EPA's 
review of this material indicates that the implementation and operation 
of the mass transit and HOV facilities will result in improved air 
quality, by reducing vehicle trips, providing increased public transit 
services, and reducing the number of single occupant motor vehicles. 
Reducing VMT will also ease traffic congestion. EPA is therefore 
proposing to approve the Massachusetts SIP revision for Ozone and for 
Carbon Monoxide, for Transit Systems Improvements and High Occupancy 
Vehicle Facilities in the Metropolitan Boston Air Pollution Control 
District, which was submitted on December 10, 1991.
    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 
regional office listed in the Addresses section of this document.

Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the SIP amendment for Ozone and for 
Carbon Monoxide, for Transit Systems Improvements and High Occupancy 
Vehicle Facilities in the Metropolitan Boston Air Pollution Control 
District.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I certify that this SIP revision will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. (See 46 FR 8709.) SIP approvals (or redesignations) do not 
create any new requirements but simply approve requirements that are 
already State law. SIP approvals (or redesignations), therefore, do not 
add any additional requirements for small entities. Moreover, due to 
the nature of the Federal-state relationship under the Clean Air Act, 
preparation of a flexibility analysis for a SIP approval would 
constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of the 
state actions. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions 
concerning SIPs on such grounds.
    This action has been classified as a Table 2 action by the Regional 
Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on 
January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225). On January 6, 1989, the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) waived Table 2 and Table 3 SIP revisions 
from the requirement of section 3 of Executive Order 12291 for a period 
of two years. The USEPA has submitted a request for a permanent waiver 
for Table 2 and Table 3 SIP revisions. The OMB has agreed to continue 
the this waiver until such time as it rules on USEPA's request. This 
request continues in effect under Executive Order 12866 which 
superseded Executive Order 12291 on September 30, 1993.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP will be 
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and 
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and 
regulatory requirements.
    The Administrator's decision to approve or disapprove the SIP 
revision will be based on whether it meets the requirements ofsections 
110(a)(2)(A)-(K) and 110(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, and 
EPA regulations in 40 CFR part 51.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, 
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: December 20, 1993.
Paul G. Keough,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region I.
[FR Doc. 94-1247 Filed 1-18-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F