[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 148 (Thursday, July 31, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44654-44663]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17595]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2006-1018; A-1-FRL-8691-5]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Massachusetts; Amendment to Massachusetts' State Implementation Plan 
for Transit System Improvements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This revision 
changes completion dates of delayed transit projects, provides interim 
deadlines for projects, maintains requirements for interim emission 
reduction offsets in the event a project becomes delayed, modifies the 
project substitution process, revises the list of required transit 
projects, and expands public participation in and oversight of the 
projects. The intended effect of this action is to substitute specific 
transit projects and 1,000 park and ride spaces to replace certain 
transit projects currently approved into the SIP, and approve 
modifications to the delay and substitution procedures for transit 
projects. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on July 31, 2008.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket 
Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2006-1018. All documents in the 
docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although 
listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., 
CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on 
the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Office of 
Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New 
England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA. 
EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your 
inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday 
through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.
    Copies of the documents relevant to this action are also available 
for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at 
the Bureau of Waste Prevention, Department of Environmental Protection, 
One Winter Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02108.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald O. Cooke, Air Quality Planning 
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional 
Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023, 
telephone number (617) 918-1668, fax number (617) 918-0668, e-mail 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ''we,'' 
''us,'' or ''our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    Organization of this document: We are providing the following 
outline to aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. Background and Purpose
II. Response to Comments
III. Compliance With Clean Air Act TCM Substitution Requirements
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On November 5, 2007 (72 FR 62422-62427), EPA published a Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The 
NPR proposed approval of Massachusetts' amendments to its Transit 
System Improvements Regulation, 310 CMR 7.36, and Definition 
Regulation, 310 CMR 7.00 (which were filed with the Massachusetts 
Secretary of State on November 16, 2006 and were effective on December 
1, 2006), as a revision to the Massachusetts SIP. EPA proposed to find 
that the transit measures in the revised transit system improvements 
regulation remain directionally sound and that all proposed 
substitution projects identified in the Regulation will collectively 
contribute to achieving the national ambient air quality standard for 
ozone and maintaining the carbon monoxide standard, thereby satisfying 
requirements set forth in section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or 
Act).
    On December 13, 2006, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental 
Protection (MA DEP) submitted its formal SIP revision amending its 
Transit System Improvements Regulation. The revision consists of MA 
DEP's final amendments to 310 CMR 7.36, ``Transit System 
Improvements,'' effective December 1, 2006. MA DEP held a hearing on 
the amendments to the Regulation on

[[Page 44655]]

December 21, 2005. On June 1, 2007, MA DEP supplemented its SIP 
revision with a letter determining that the Massachusetts Executive 
Office of Transportation (EOT) had met the requirements of 310 CMR 7.36 
(8), Demonstration of Air Quality Emissions Reductions, along with 
EOT's air quality modeling analysis (``Description of Modeling 
Assumptions and Analysis Methodology for the State Implementation Plan 
Transit Commitment Projects Current and Proposed Substitutions,'' dated 
March 15, 2007). EOT held a public comment period on this supplemental 
material for a 45-day period commencing on January 2, 2007. The 
document was amended based on comments received and an additional two-
week public comment period began on March 21, 2007, following posting 
in the ``Environmental Monitor.'' DEP submitted EOT's responses to 
public comments received as part of the supplemental materials.
    On August 22, 2007, we issued our determination that the 
Massachusetts SIP package is administratively and technically complete. 
In our completeness determination, we also highlighted EPA's interest 
in seeing that the transit projects are implemented in a timely manner 
and requested that MA DEP keep us apprised of the status of the 
replacement projects as they move forward. In addition, we specifically 
mentioned hearing recent reports of potential delays in the Green Line 
extension project and encouraged EOT to address this issue on the 
record at its upcoming September 6, 2007 public status report meeting.
    On September 6, 2007, the MA DEP held a public meeting to address 
EOT's annual status report on transit commitments. EOT presented the 
status of the uncompleted transit projects and took public comment. 
David Mohler, Acting Deputy Secretary for Planning, EOT, explained the 
Commonwealth's efforts in seeking Federal funds for the Green Line, 
which could delay the completion of the Green Line for up to two years. 
Mohler emphasized EOT's plan to make up any time delay, and if a delay 
occurred, to propose mitigation projects and adequate emission offsets 
as required by the regulation. EOT also made available at the public 
meeting a September 4, 2007 letter from David Mohler to MA DEP's Acting 
Commissioner, Arlene O'Donnell, committing to accelerate the planning, 
design and environmental review and permitting of the project in order 
to meet the 2014 completion date.
    On January 4, 2008, EOT submitted copies of its ``State 
Implementation Plan--Transit Commitments, 2007 Annual Status Report, 
Agency Responses to Public Comments'' to MA DEP and EPA. EOT's 
submittal provided a summary of and responses to public comments, a 
written certification that the public process requirements were met, 
and a written certification that complete information was provided on 
any actual or known project delays, project substitutions, and interim 
offsets. MA DEP determined that EOT met the public process and other 
requirements of 310 CMR 7.36(7)(d) by letter on March 4, 2008.
    The Arborway Restoration, the Blue Line/Red Line connection, and 
the Green Line extension to Ball Square/Tufts University which were 
approved into the Massachusetts SIP on October 4, 1994 (59 FR 50495-
50498), will be substituted with the Fairmount Line commuter rail 
improvements, 1,000 new park and ride parking spaces (serving MBTA 
transit and commuter rail in the Metropolitan Boston Area), and the 
Green Line transit line extension to Medford Hillside with a spur to 
Union Square. Air quality modeling demonstrates that the substitution 
projects will achieve a minimum of 110% of the emissions reductions 
that would have been achieved if the original projects had been built. 
In addition to the substitution of transit projects, EPA is today 
approving the other specific requirements of Massachusetts' amendments 
to the Transit System Improvements Regulation. The rationale for EPA's 
proposed action to approve those amendments is explained in the NPR and 
will not be restated here.

II. Response to Comments

    EPA received twenty-three public comments on our proposal to amend 
Massachusetts' Transit System Improvements Regulation (Transit 
Regulation). Copies of the public comments have been placed in the 
public docket without change and are available online at 
www.regulations.gov, docket number EPA-R01-OAR-2006-1018, document 
number EPA-R01-OAR-2006-1018-0022 through EPA-R01-OAR-2006-1018-0044. 
EPA's full Technical Support Document--Response to Comments is also 
available in the public docket, as well as at the Regional Office.
    Comment: A number of commenters supported the transit system 
improvement projects. Six commenters supported all of the transit 
system improvement projects, three commenters expressed strong support 
for the Fairmount Line; two commenters supported the Green Line 
Extension; and one commenter supported the Design of Red Line/Blue Line 
Connector.
    EPA Response: EPA acknowledges the commenters' support for the 
transit system improvement projects.
    Comment: Three commenters wanted the transit system improvement 
projects originally approved into the SIP in 1994 to be implemented 
without any substitutions or changes.
    EPA Response: As a threshold matter, EPA notes that nothing in our 
approval of these revisions to the Transit Regulation into the SIP in 
any way prevents the Commonwealth from completing the projects 
originally included in the regulation as EPA approved it in 1994. 
Although the projects are being dropped from the SIP-approved Transit 
Regulation, if any of the projects have merit, the Commonwealth's 
transportation planning process may include them in the statewide 
transportation improvement program. The only question before EPA is 
whether Massachusetts has the option of revising the set of projects to 
which it will attach the specific requirements under the CAA that come 
when transit measures are specifically required in a SIP.
    EPA does not underestimate the importance of a state's decision to 
drop transit projects from a SIP. EPA's approval of this SIP revision 
will have the effect of eliminating the requirement under the CAA to 
complete the projects dropped from the regulation. That requirement 
allowed direct enforcement of the project deadlines pursuant to state 
law and sections 113 or 304 of the Act. The SIP mandate for these 
projects also required the Commonwealth to demonstrate in the 
conformity process under section 176(c) of the Act that Massachusetts' 
transportation plan and transportation improvement program supported 
and would not interfere with completion of those projects. EPA agrees 
that these compliance mechanisms provide an incentive to complete SIP-
approved transit projects.
    But precisely because the decision to incorporate transit projects 
into a SIP is a significant commitment, subject to compliance 
mechanisms under the Act, a state should only include in its SIP those 
transit projects to which it is clearly committed. And the state is in 
the best position to determine the mix of transit measures that best 
meets the state's transit and air quality goals and that merits this 
high level of commitment. Accordingly, the Act assigns to EPA a limited 
role in reviewing a state's choice of transit measures. Essentially, 
EPA is required to approve a SIP revision if it meets the basic 
requirements of the Act, most

[[Page 44656]]

importantly in this case that the substitute transit projects will 
achieve equivalent or greater emissions reductions than the projects to 
be replaced. See CAA section 176(c)(8)(A)(i).
    Below in Table 1 is a summary of EOT's March 2007 Modeling Analysis 
for daily air quality emission benefits from the original 1994 SIP-
approved transit system improvement projects, as well as the new 
transit system improvement projects. EPA has reviewed the modeling 
analysis report and concurs in the air quality benefits attributed to 
the transit system improvement projects. EPA addresses EOT's modeling 
analysis and air quality benefits in several of EPA's responses to 
comments below.

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

    The action before EPA is to approve or reject the Commonwealth's 
transit project substitution as part of the Commonwealth's revision to 
its Transit System Improvements regulations 310 CMR 7.36. Approval of 
the changes to the Transit System Improvements regulation including the 
substitute transit projects into the SIP extends federal-enforcement to 
the design, construction and in most cases operation of the transit 
projects. The fact that a project is not specifically approved into a 
SIP does not affect the Commonwealth's ability to include a transit 
project in its transportation plan process, seek future federal-funding 
or undertake a specific transit as a state initiative funded by State, 
City, public or private funding.
    Indeed, outside the context of the Act's SIP process, there are 
several signs of activity in connection with the projects or project 
areas that will no longer be subject to a SIP mandate. On November 15, 
2007, Ian A. Bowles, Secretary of Massachusetts Executive Office of 
Energy and Environmental Affairs, determined that the Red Line/Blue 
Line Connector (EEA Number 14101) requires the preparation of a 
mandatory Environmental Impact Report (EIR) initiating the 
Commonwealth's Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act for the proposed 
project. And in the Transit Settlement Agreement that resolved the case 
Conservation Law Foundation v. Romney et al., Civil Action No. 05-
10487-NG, is the following statement: ``The parties agree that they 
will work in good faith with the City of Boston and other relevant 
parties to develop and agree upon recommended public transportation 
improvements to the Arborway corridor over the course of the next year. 
All Parties agree to commit to and participate in a public process to 
identify and recommend any agreed upon improvements for the Arborway 
Corridor.'' (The settlement agreement dated November 28, 2006 is 
available at http://www.clf.org/uploadedFiles/Transit_settlement_signed_Jan2007.pdf.) EPA encourages all parties involved to fully 
implement this agreement.
    Comment: Two commenters requested EPA reject EOT's request to 
remove the Arborway project from the SIP.
    EPA Response: The Commonwealth has flexibility to revise SIP-
approved transportation control measures (TCMs), provided the revisions 
are consistent with attaining and maintaining compliance with the 
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQSs). This flexibility to 
substitute projects follows the intent of the Safe, Accountable, 
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For Users 
(SAFETEA-LU). Section 6011(d) of SAFETEA-LU amended the Clean Air Act 
by adding a new section 176(c)(8) that establishes specific criteria 
and procedures for replacing TCMs in an existing approved SIP with new 
TCMs and adding TCMs to an approved SIP.
    The action before EPA is to approve or reject the Commonwealth's 
transit project substitution as part of the Commonwealth's revision to 
its Transit System Improvements regulation 310 CMR 7.36. Under the 
Clean Air Act, the EPA Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(3); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Here, DEP's 
SIP submission meets all the requirements of the Act, specifically the 
elements in section 176(c)(8) for substituting TCMs, including a 
demonstration that the new TCMs achieve emissions reductions equivalent 
to the projects being substituted.
    Comment: Three commenters objected to the substitution of the Red 
Line/Blue Line Connector with a commitment only to design the connector 
but dropping the SIP commitment to construct the project. Four 
commenters supported the construction of the Red Line/Blue Line 
Connector and outlined benefits of constructing and operating the Red 
Line/Blue Line Connector.
    EPA Response: EPA is aware of the merits and benefits of the 
operation of the Red Line/Blue Line Connector. EPA acknowledges the 
commenters' support for construction of the Red Line Blue Line 
Connector by 2014. However, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has taken 
advantage of the flexibility provided under the Clean Air Act to revise 
SIP-approved TCMs, provided the revisions are consistent with attaining 
and maintaining compliance with the NAAQSs. Here, the Commonwealth has 
decided to drop the commitment to construct the Connector as part of a 
larger package of substitute projects designed to achieve an equivalent 
emission reduction. Again, this flexibility to substitute projects 
follows the requirements of the new Clean Air Act section 176(c)(8) 
that establishes specific criteria and procedures for replacing TCMs in 
an existing approved

[[Page 44657]]

SIP with new TCMs and adding TCMs to an approved SIP.
    Comment: Eight commenters wanted EPA to enforce the transit system 
improvement project deadlines. One commenter supported a two year delay 
of the Medford Green Line Extension, asserting that completion of the 
transit project by 2014 was optimistic.
    EPA Response: EPA concurs in the need for an enforceable deadline 
for the transit system improvement projects. EPA's approval of 
Massachusetts' Transit System Improvements regulation into the SIP will 
make the design, construction and operation deadlines in the 
Commonwealth's regulation federally-enforceable. In addition, 
transportation air quality conformity determinations required by 
section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act will require the Boston 
Metropolitan Planning Organization as well as the U.S. Department of 
Transportation to make a positive finding that all SIP-approved 
transportation control measures are being implemented in a timely 
manner and in accordance with established SIP deadlines (40 CFR 93.113) 
prior to approving the long range transportation plans and 
transportation improvement programs for Eastern Massachusetts.
    EPA notes that in at least one respect, the compliance deadlines 
provided for in this new version of 310 CMR 7.36 are more firm than the 
deadlines in the version EPA approved in 1994. The original ``Project 
Delays and Project Deadline Extensions,'' (310 CMR 7.36 (3)) previously 
approved into the SIP allowing up to three years delay in project 
completion has been removed.
    In further support of the 2014 completion date for the Green Line 
Extension, the Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation and 
Public Works (EOTPW) has committed to make up delays in the Green Line 
Extension Project, associated with seeking federal funding and 
addressing federal requirements, to the maximum extent possible.
    Comment: Four commenters requested enhancements to the transit 
system improvement projects. One Commenter raised concerns with a 
transit system improvement project's impact on transportation, 
environment, social and economic impacts and lack of community 
involvement. Two commenters wanted alternatives to the Green Line 
extension to be evaluated, while another commenter wanted more 
specificity in the broad terms of the regulation providing for the 
Green Line extension terminus station.
    EPA Response: EPA acknowledges the commenters' support for the 
transit system improvement projects. EPA must accept the transit system 
improvement projects as presented, or reject the Transit Project 
substitutions, based on the Act's criteria established for approving 
SIPs (i.e., substitution projects must provide for equivalent emissions 
reductions in the same time frame). EPA has no authority to dictate 
specific enhancements to any of the proposed transit project 
substitutions. However, EPA believes the submitted projects could be 
enhanced during the public participation process associated with the 
Commonwealth's state environmental process and design of the transit 
measure.
    The action before EPA is to approve or reject the Commonwealth's 
transit project substitution as part of the Commonwealth's revision to 
its Transit System Improvements regulation 310 CMR 7.36. The concerns 
raised by the commenters regarding transportation, environmental, 
social and economic impacts of the Green Line Extension project should 
be addressed and mitigated during the Commonwealth's state 
environmental process. See MGL c. 30 Sec.  61-62 and regulations, 301 
CMR 11.00. And should the Green Line Expansion Project receive federal 
funding, these concerns may also be addressed under any future federal 
environmental review and public participation process conducted in 
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. 42 U.S.C. 4321-
4370f.
    Comment: Two commenters wanted Massachusetts EOT to specify the 
location of the 1,000 park and ride locations, and identify an 
implementation schedule.
    EPA Response: The Park and Ride provisions in section 7.36 provide 
that before December 31, 2011, construction shall be completed and 
1,000 new park and ride parking spaces opened to full public use 
serving commuter transit facilities within the 101 cities and towns 
constituting the Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization. These park 
and ride facilities are subject to ``Project Interim Deadlines,'' 
established under 310 CMR 7.36(3), which identifies timeframes for 
hiring a design consultant, completing a conceptual design, filing an 
Environmental Notification Form (ENF) with MEPA, completing the 
Environmental Impact Report, completing final design, applying for 
necessary permits and funding, and proceeding to construction. 
Therefore, there is still considerable work to be done before the 
specific location of these lots can be determined.
    EPA agrees with the commenters that it is impossible to fully 
assess the emissions reductions that these 1,000 spaces will accomplish 
without knowing where they will be located. And EPA recognizes that the 
individual transit substitution projects will undergo project 
refinement as these projects proceed through environmental evaluation, 
public participation and project design. Nevertheless, EPA has 
concluded that the uncertainty about the location of these parking 
spaces does not prevent EPA from approving the entire package of 
transit project substitutions. First, the package of new transit 
projects demonstrates equivalent emissions reductions to the 
substituted projects even if one were to eliminate entirely any credit 
for the lots. Therefore, EPA does not believe that EOT's inability to 
specify the location of these lots provides EPA a basis to disapprove 
this SIP revision. Second, EPA has reviewed the assumptions EOT made 
about the park and ride lots in modeling their emissions impact. EPA 
agrees that EOT made reasonably conservative assumptions in assigning 
any emissions reductions value to the lots.
    Comment: Four commenters repeated modeling questions and concerns 
previously addressed through the Commonwealth's public participation 
process.
    EPA Response: These questions and concerns were raised during the 
Commonwealth's approval of the revised Transit System Improvements 
regulations. Based on EPA's review of the Commonwealth's Response to 
Comments as well as EOT's Response to Public Comments identified during 
the public participation process on the Transit Commitments 2007 Annual 
Status Report, EPA believes the commenters' concerns have been 
adequately addressed.
    The March 15, 2007, ``Description of Modeling Assumptions and 
Analysis Methodology for the State Implementation Plan Transit 
Commitment Projects Current and Proposed Substitutions,'' prepared by 
the Central Transportation Planning Staff is consistent with 
methodology and assumptions used in developing the SIP and developing 
the long range transportation plans and transportation improvement 
program. It is also consistent with the methodology and assumptions 
used in the transportation conformity process to determine that 
transportation planning is consistent with the air quality plan for the 
SIP. EPA recognizes that the transit substitution projects will 
continuously undergo refinement as they proceed

[[Page 44658]]

through the environmental development phase and project design phase; 
however, EPA has determined the current project delineation to be 
sufficient in defining the project and for air quality evaluation.
    Comment: One of the commenters submitted a number of modeling 
issues regarding the Green Line Arborway Restoration Project that were 
previously submitted during the Commonwealth's public participation 
process.
    EPA Response: These Arborway modeling concerns were addressed in a 
June 27, 2005 Central Transportation Planning Staff memorandum from 
Karl Quackenbush and Scott Peterson to Dennis DiZoglio and Joe Cosgrove 
of the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority, as well as addressed in 
EOT's ``Summary of Comments Received on Modeling Analysis for Proposed 
Substitute State Implementation Plan Transit Projects and Agency 
Responses'' dated May 3, 2007.
    EPA concurs with the Commonwealth's modeling to evaluate air 
quality impacts associated with the original 1994 SIP-approved transit 
improvement projects and the proposed transit system improvement 
substitution projects. EPA did not assign or grant specific emission 
reduction credit to the 1994 SIP-approved projects, so to model the 
original projects and new substitution projects on an equal basis is 
the only fair way to evaluate potential air quality emission benefits 
from the transit improvement projects.
    After review of the transportation and air quality modeling 
submitted as part of the SIP revision package, EPA has determined that 
the modeling is consistent with methodology and assumptions used in 
developing the SIP, consistent with developing the long range 
transportation plans and transportation improvement programs, as well 
as consistent with the methodology and assumptions used in the 
transportation conformity process to determine that transportation 
planning is consistent with the air quality planning for the SIP. See 
March 2007 re-evaluation submitted to EPA June 1, 2007, conducted to 
satisfy subsection (8) ``Determination of Air Quality Emission 
Reductions'' of the Transit System Improvements regulation, 310 CMR 
7.36; CTPS's March 15, 2007 ``Description of Modeling Assumptions and 
Analysis Methodology for the State Implementation Plan Transit 
Commitment Projects Current and Proposed Substitutions''; CTPS's June 
16, 2005 Memorandum on ``SIP Transit Modeling Assumptions''; and CTPS 
Memorandum dated June 27, 2005 on ``Responses to Arborway Comments.''
    EPA has evaluated the submitted SIP revision package, including 
Central Transportation Planning Staff's March 15, 2007 ``Description of 
Modeling Assumptions and Analysis Methodology for the State 
Implementation Plan Transit Commitment Projects Current and Proposed 
Substitutions.'' EPA independently concurs with the Massachusetts 
Department of Environmental Protection's June 1, 2007, determination 
that the emission reductions associated with the transit improvement 
projects in the revised State Regulation 310 CMR 7.36 ``Transit System 
Improvements'' will achieve in excess of the requirement in the state 
regulations that the substitute projects must achieve an emissions 
reduction of at least 110 percent of the reductions that would be 
expected from eliminated projects. As presented in Table 1, above, the 
reductions expected from the new projects when compared to the original 
SIP-approved projects as a percentage are for volatile organic 
compounds 154%, nitrogen oxides 137.5%, and carbon monoxide 149%.
    Comment: Five commenters expressed their belief that there were no 
real substitutions for the Green Line Extension project. The commenters 
did not want further substitutions, and wanted air quality benefits to 
remain in the proposed Green Line Extension project area which they 
assert is an environmental justice area.
    EPA Response: The Transit System Improvements Regulation provides 
for substitution of this project at 310 CMR 7.36(5) should the 
Commonwealth wish to take advantage of this flexibility in its 
regulation in the future. This substitution procedure for the Green 
Line Extension requires Massachusetts EOT to:
    1. Identify the reasons for seeking a project substitution;
    2. Conduct a public participation process for the substitution 
process;
    3. Achieve interim emission reduction offsets of non-methane 
hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides;
    4. Comply with original project interim deadlines;
    5. Prioritize funding in the long range transportation plan and 
transportation improvement program of the Boston Metropolitan Planning 
Organization (MPO);
    6. Require substitute project(s) that enhance or improve existing 
public transit service, or provide new transit service within the 
municipalities of Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, and Medford;
    7. Demonstrate that the proposed substitute project will achieve 
110% of the emission reductions of that would have been achieved had 
all components of the original project been completed; and to require 
that the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection determine 
in writing whether the substitution requirements of 310 CMR 7.36(5) 
have been met and whether the administrative record reasonably supports 
EOT's substitution determination.

Finally, any future substitution would have to meet the requirements of 
CAA section 176(c)(8), which governs substitution of transportation 
control measures in a SIP. In addition to concurrence from the state 
air pollution control agency as provided by the substitution provision 
of the state regulation, CAA section 176(c)(8) also requires formal 
concurrence by the metropolitan planning organization and the EPA New 
England Regional Administrator to adopt substitute or additional 
control measures into the SIP. The requirements in the CAA overlap 
substantially with the requirements in the new section 7.36. Indeed, 
section 7.36 sets a higher hurdle for emissions reductions than the 
Act, requiring not just mere equivalency, but reductions of at least 
110% compared with the substituted projects.
    With respect to a Green Line Extension substitution transit project 
trading off air quality benefits with other neighborhoods, the 
regulations define the geographic area of Boston, Cambridge, 
Somerville, and Medford for Green Line Extension substitution transit 
projects. This delineation is more restrictive than how the CAA 
requires EPA to evaluate emissions reductions in an ozone nonattainment 
area. As long as the emissions reductions come from within the 
applicable nonattainment area, in this case Eastern Massachusetts, they 
would qualify under the federal CAA. Here again, the state requirement 
in section 7.36 sets a higher bar by restricting the geographic area 
for an allowed substitution to only four municipalities within the 
Eastern Massachusetts nonattainment area.
    Comment: One commenter raised the issue of timely implementation of 
TCMs adopted into the SIP.
    EPA Response: EPA believes the Transit System Improvements 
regulation, with its defined project deadlines, interim project 
deadlines, and annual public reporting of update and status of SIP-
approved TCMs, (which is open to public participation and requires a 
written determination by Massachusetts Department of Environmental 
Protection whether the public process and other requirements of 310 CMR 
7.36(7) ``Public Process

[[Page 44659]]

Requirements,'' were met) will assist in completing the SIP-approved 
TCMs on time.
    Transportation conformity is required under Clean Air Act section 
176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)) to ensure that federally supported highway 
and transit project activities are consistent with (``conform to'') the 
purpose of the SIP. EPA's transportation conformity rule establishes 
the criteria and procedures for determining whether transportation 
activities conform to the SIP. One criterion established at 40 CFR 
93.113 is that all SIP-approved transportation control measures are 
being implemented in a timely manner and in accordance with established 
SIP deadlines. EPA believes the conformity process will ensure the 
timely implementation of these TCMs.
    If a SIP-approved TCM identified in the transportation improvement 
program does fall behind schedule, a positive conformity determination 
can still be made in accordance with 40 CFR 93.113 if:

    (1) * * * The MPO and DOT have determined that past obstacles to 
implementation of the TCMs have been identified and have been or are 
being overcome, and that all State and local agencies with influence 
over approvals or funding for TCMs are giving maximum priority to 
approval or funding of TCMs over other projects within their 
control, including projects in locations outside the nonattainment 
or maintenance area.
    (2) If TCMs in the applicable implementation plan have 
previously been programmed for Federal funding but the funds have 
not been obligated and the TCMs are behind the schedule in the 
implementation plan, then the transportation improvement program 
(TIP) cannot be found to conform if the funds intended for those 
TCMs are reallocated to projects in the TIP other than TCMs, or if 
there are no other TCMs in the TIP, if the funds are reallocated to 
projects in the TIP other than projects which are eligible for 
Federal funding intended for air quality improvement projects, e.g., 
the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program.
    (3) Nothing in the TIP may interfere with the implementation of 
any TCM in the applicable implementation plan.

See 40 CFR 93.113(c).
    Comment: Two commenters expressed concern that past transportation 
air quality conformity evaluations did not adequately address timely 
implementation of TCMs.
    EPA Response: EPA is finalizing an action to approve a TCM 
substitution and revisions to the Massachusetts Transit System 
Improvements regulation. EPA is not re-evaluating past transportation 
conformity determinations. The timely implementation of the substitute 
TCMs will be evaluated in future transportation conformity 
determinations to ensure that the requirements of Clean Air Act section 
176(c)(2)(B) and 176(c)(3)(A)(ii) and the transportation conformity 
rule (49 CFR 93.113) are satisfied.
    Comment: A commenter claimed that the air quality benefit 
associated with the substituted transit projects ignores the fact that 
the 1990 Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) Agreement and EPA 
intervention were intended to complement the parking restrictions in 
and near downtown Boston.
    EPA Response: While the metropolitan Boston parking freezes 
complement traffic reduction strategies, the approval of the proposed 
transit improvement substitution projects is independent of the parking 
freezes, in the sense that nothing in the Act, including section 
176(c)(8), requires EPA to link one set of TCMs with another. 
Admittedly, if the success of the state's proffered TCM substitutions 
relied heavily on the enforcement of TCMs that the state was not 
prepared to make part of the SIP, EPA would need to consider whether it 
could credit the substitute TCMs with the level of reduction the state 
was assuming from their combined effect with the TCMs outside the SIP. 
Here, however, the relevant parking freezes are part of the SIP, and 
DEP has not abandoned the use of parking freeze requirements as part of 
the strategy included in its SIP. Therefore that question is not before 
EPA.
    EPA has approved Parking Freezes for Cambridge, Downtown Boston, 
South Boston, East Boston and Logan Airport. Since the 1994 adoption of 
the transit system improvement projects into the SIP, EPA has approved 
the South Boston Parking Freeze and amended the East Boston/Logan 
Parking Freeze.
    On October 15, 1996, EPA approved the South Boston Parking Freeze 
SIP Amendment as a revision to the Massachusetts SIP (61 FR 53628). 
Massachusetts Air Pollution Control Regulation 310 CMR 7.33 entitled 
``City of Boston/South Boston Parking Freeze,'' established and 
requires the Boston Air Pollution Control Commission (BAPCC) and the 
Massachusetts Port Authority (MassPort) to control the growth of 
parking spaces in the South Boston neighborhood of Boston. The effect 
of controlling parking growth is anticipated to be a decrease in 
vehicle miles traveled (VMT), thereby holding automobile usage to 
levels within the practical capacity of the local street network.
    On March 12, 2001, EPA approved revisions to the Massachusetts Port 
Authority/Logan Airport Parking Freeze, 310 CMR 7.30, and City of 
Boston/East Boston Parking Freeze, 310 CMR 7.31, into the Massachusetts 
SIP (66 FR 14318). The revisions allow the Commonwealth to 
automatically approve the transfer of parking spaces from the East 
Boston Parking Freeze to the Logan Parking Freeze provided the total 
parking space inventory number for the Logan Parking Freeze remains at 
or below 21,790 parking spaces. Future modifications in the parking 
freeze inventories for the Logan Airport and East Boston Parking 
Freezes will be regulated by the Commonwealth's revisions to 
Massachusetts State Regulations 310 CMR 7.30 and 310 CMR 7.31.
    Comment: A commenter stated that the SIP substitution proposal 
shifts the responsibility to enforce the Environmental Justice 
Executive Order from EPA, the Federal agency required to comply with 
the Executive Order, to the state. Another commenter identified Jamaica 
Plain, served by the Green Line Arborway Restoration Project, as an 
environmental justice neighborhood with a high asthma hospitalization 
rate among children under age 5 (11.1 per 1,000).
    EPA Response: It is not this SIP revision, but rather the structure 
of the CAA as Congress designed it, that rests consideration of 
environmental justice issues here primarily with the state. Under the 
Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(3); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, 
this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements 
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by 
state law. For that reason, this action does not provide EPA with the 
discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate 
human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally 
permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 ``Federal Actions to 
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations,'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The Federal executive policy on environmental justice is 
established by Executive Order 12898. Its main provision directs 
federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and

[[Page 44660]]

permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States. Here the Clean Air Act directs EPA to 
approve a SIP revision unless it does not meet the Act's requirements. 
Although the Act does not provide EPA the authority to modify the 
Commonwealth's regulatory decision solely on the basis of environmental 
justice considerations, EPA continues to encourage EOT to consider 
environmental justice concerns when deciding the location of the 
additional Park and Ride spaces and the new stations along the 
Fairmount commuter rail line and the Green Line extension project and 
when implementing public transportation improvements to the Arborway 
corridor promised in the Transit Settlement Agreement that resolved the 
case Conservation Law Foundation v. Romney et al., Civil Action No. 05-
10487-NG. EPA believes the transit improvement substitution projects 
can be enhanced and additional consideration be given to minority 
populations and low-income populations during the public participation 
process associated with the environmental evaluation phase and 
engineering design phase of the transit measures. EPA also urges EOT 
and DEP to consider environmental justice concerns when deciding 
whether to meet project deadlines, to approve proposals for project 
delays, and to approve offset or substitute projects.
    Comment: One commenter identified the Commonwealth's transit 
substitutions as contrary to the Commonwealth's financial interests and 
claimed that restoring the Arborway Green Line would result in 
significant operating cost savings. Another commenter questioned 
whether the Commonwealth had accurately compared the relative costs of 
constructing and operating the Red-Blue Line connector with the 
proposed substitute projects.
    EPA Response: The CAA assigns to the state the responsibility for 
assessing the cost implications of SIP measures. Indeed, EPA has no 
authority to disapprove a SIP revision solely because the Agency might 
disagree with the cost-effectiveness of a state's chosen control 
strategy. See Union Electric Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246 (1976), rehearing 
denied 429 U.S. 873 (1976). Massachusetts EOT's position in responding 
to this issue during the state public participation process is that the 
restoration of Green Line Arborway service is not a cost-effective way 
to achieve the desired transportation and air quality benefits. 
Correspondingly, the CAA provides EPA no basis for disapproving this 
SIP revision even if EPA did not agree with the Commonwealth's weighing 
of the costs of the Red-Blue Line connector with the substitute 
projects.
    Comment: Two commenters stated that particulate matter impacts are 
particularly harmful and expressed concern about the particulate matter 
and other emissions from diesel trains used on the Fairmount/Indigo 
Line.
    EPA Response: The Massachusetts transit system improvement projects 
were originally approved into the SIP in 1994 as control strategies for 
carbon monoxide and ozone (control of precursors volatile organic 
compounds and nitrogen oxides), but no emission credits were assigned 
to these projects. EPA has also established National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards for Particulate Matter (PM10--Particles 
less than 10 micrometers in diameter, and PM2.5--Particles 
less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter and referred to as ``fine'' 
particles). Currently air quality monitoring within the Boston 
Metropolitan area indicates attainment of the PM10 annual 
standard, as well as the PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards. 
As such, the area is not subject to the CAA conformity requirements for 
particulate matter.
    EPA supports the Commonwealth's on-going efforts to reduce 
particulate matter from mobile sources through the use of lower sulfur 
fuel, alternative fuels, and retrofits for diesel equipment and 
vehicles including construction equipment and school buses.
    Comment: One commenter looking at an earlier version of the air 
quality modeling analysis stated that ``Attempts to deduce the benefits 
of the incremental extension of the Green Line, by subtracting the 
benefits claimed for the new Green Line extension from the benefits 
attributable to the Existing SIP Commitments, yield an incredible 
result: by increasing the number of stations by three, nitrogen oxides 
(NOX) benefits increase nearly 300 percent and hydrocarbon 
(HC) benefits increase by nearly 400 percent. This result strains 
credulity and requires far more detailed background to justify such an 
anomalous result.''
    EPA Response: The air quality modeling submitted with the SIP 
revision showed that extending the Green Line from Tufts University/
Ball Square to Medford Hillside and adding the Green Line spur to Union 
Square Somerville would add the following daily emission benefits to 
the original Green Line Extension: 7 kilograms of nitrogen oxides; 12 
kilograms of volatile organic compounds; and 212 kilograms of carbon 
monoxide. As a result, the demonstration submitted to EPA shows that 
the extension of the Green Line project to Medford Hillside and Union 
Square accounted for only a 0.025% increase in emission reduction 
benefits for NOX and 0.041% for VOC when compared to the no-
build emissions for the modeled area. It is more realistic to compare 
the marginal emission benefits for the expanded Green Line extension 
alternative with the overall emission benefits of the entire original 
Green Line to Tufts University/Ball Square. EPA finds these incremental 
benefits to be reasonable.
    Comment: One commenter raised a number of concerns about how the 
modeling analysis handled assumptions for the proposed ``West Medford 
Green Line extension with a Union Square spur'' and the ``Fairmount 
Commuter Rail project'' such as headways, fares, number of transit 
stations and transfers. The commenter asserted that modeling 
assumptions would have a significant impact on the forecast of 
ridership and corresponding emissions.
    EPA Response: The Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS) 
maintains a regional travel demand model set that is used to measure a 
variety of impacts associated with changes to existing transportation 
infrastructure, one of which is air quality emissions. CTPS's model set 
is continuously improved as newer information is made available. This 
process of updating inputs and methods has led to several intermediate 
sets of results during the process of evaluating the SIP transit 
commitments. The commenter based his concerns on a review of an early 
state air quality modeling analysis and not the final analysis 
submitted June 1, 2007 with a supplement to the December 13, 2006 SIP 
revision. The March 2007 re-evaluation submitted to EPA June 1, 2007, 
was conducted to satisfy subsection (8) ``Determination of Air Quality 
Emission Reductions'' of the Transit System Improvements regulation, 
310 CMR 7.36. Technical documentation identifying and explaining the 
model and modeling assumptions is addressed in the CTPS's March 15, 
2007 ``Description of Modeling Assumptions and Analysis Methodology for 
the State Implementation Plan Transit Commitment Projects Current and 
Proposed Substitutions.'' Additional modeling support documents 
provided

[[Page 44661]]

to EPA as part of the SIP revision include CTPS's June 16, 2005 
Memorandum on ``SIP Transit Modeling Assumptions,'' and a second CTPS 
Memorandum dated June 27, 2005 on ``Responses to Arborway Comments.'' 
These updates and refinements to the modeling appear to address the 
concerns about fares, number of transit stations and transfers and 
represent the most recent information about and analysis of the 
emissions effect of the project substitutions.
    Even with the refinement of the model and the supporting 
documentation, it remained unclear to EPA how the state's submittal 
responded to a comment concerning headways, specifically the potential 
for three minute headways on the Green Line Extension when the service 
from the two new branches is combined and travels through the Lechmere 
Station. One commenter indicated that the model's assumption of three 
minute headways was unrealistic. EPA contacted CTPS and the 
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) and learned that the 
Green Line has operated in the past on three minute headways outbound 
from Government Center Subway Station as well as inbound from Lechmere 
Station. The MBTA has made structural improvements to the Lechmere 
viaduct to allow 3 (2-car) trains per direction operating at 25 miles 
per hour. Finally, a 1999 operational analysis of the Green Line showed 
that within the Lechmere to Government Center area, the segment of the 
Green Line between the North Station and Haymarket stations serves as 
the capacity ``pinch point,'' with a maximum number of trains per hour 
on this segment of 34. Under the proposed Green Line Extension 
operating plan, the C, D and E Lines on the Green Line would operate 
through this pinch point with 34 trains per hour during the peak 
period. Therefore, it does not appear to be unrealistic that the new 
service could operate at three minute headways.
    As explained in the response above, EPA has determined that the 
modeling is consistent with methodology and assumptions used in 
developing the State Implementation Plan, consistent with developing 
the long range transportation plans and transportation improvement 
programs, as well as consistent with the methodology and assumptions 
used in the transportation conformity process to determine that 
transportation planning is consistent with the air quality planning for 
the SIP.

III. Compliance With Clean Air Act TCM Substitution Requirements

    Clean Air Act section 176(c)(8), added by SAFETEA-LU, establishes 
the procedures for ensuring that substitute TCMs provide equal or 
greater emissions reductions than the TCMs that are being replaced. It 
also establishes the process for MPO, EPA and state air agency 
concurrence on the substitution or addition of TCM projects. Finally, 
it ensures that the state and EPA maintain up-to-date information on 
the TCMs in approved SIPs so that the public is aware of the TCMs that 
are to be implemented. EPA and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) 
issued joint guidance on February 14, 2006, on the implementation of 
all of the Clean Air Act amendments made by SAFETEA-LU, a copy of which 
has been placed in the electronic docket. This guidance clarified EPA 
and DOT expectations for how TCM substitutions and additions are to be 
carried out by state and local agencies. The guidance is available at 
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/420b06901.pdf.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA issued regulations to implement SAFETEA-LU, and 
concluded that no regulations were needed to implement section 
176(c)(8), because the statute is already sufficiently detailed. 
Additionally, EPA/DOT have issued guidance that addresses questions 
that might arise about TCM substitutions. (73 FR 4420-4441; January 
24, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 1, 2007, MA DEP concurred in EOT's determination that the 
substitute projects achieved at least equivalent emissions reductions. 
In addition to the state air pollution control agency, section 
176(c)(8)(A)(v) specifically requires both the MPO and EPA to concur 
with the equivalency of the substitute TCMs before the substitution can 
take effect. On May 3, 2007, Massachusetts Secretary of Transportation, 
Bernard Cohen, submitted EOT's air quality modeling analysis for the 
substitution projects to MA DEP. This analysis demonstrates that the 
required emission reductions set forth in section 7.36(8) of the 
Regulation will be achieved by the new projects. In a May 1, 2008 
letter to EPA, the Boston MPO concurred in the finding that the transit 
system improvements projects will achieve emission benefits equivalent 
to or greater than the benefits from the original transit system 
improvements projects being replaced. For EPA's concurrence on the 
substitutions included in this SIP revision, the Agency sent a letter 
to the Boston MPO, contemporaneous with our final action on this SIP 
revision, to document EPA's concurrence on the substitutions being 
approved with the revisions to MA DEP's regulation.\2\ For any future 
substitutions, EPA will work with MA DEP to coordinate EPA's review 
with DEP's review of the proposed substitution so that the substitution 
can take effect as a matter of federal law if both DEP and EPA approve 
it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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, section 
176(c)(8)(A)(v) does not require a rulemaking to accomplish EPA's 
concurrence. See EPA/DOT Guidance at page 27, section 5.17. Indeed, 
section 176(c)(8) was added to the Act precisely to avoid the need 
for a full SIP revision to implement TCM substitutions in the 
routine case. In this instance, where the TCM substitution is 
occurring as part of a proposed SIP revision, EPA is simply acting 
on the SIP in a rulemaking under section 110 of the Act 
contemporaneous with its concurrence on the substitution in a letter 
to the Boston MPO under section 176(c)(8) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 176(c)(8) now also requires all substitutions of TCM's to 
be submitted to EPA for incorporation into the codification of the SIP. 
For the purposes of the substitutions provided for in the revisions of 
the Regulation, the codification that results from the final action on 
this SIP revision will address this requirement. For future 
substitutions, although the state regulation does not specifically 
require MA DEP to forward to EPA the results of MA DEP's substitution 
determinations, it should be a routine matter for MA DEP to submit any 
substitution it approves under section 7.36(5)(h) so that the federally 
approved SIP can accurately reflect the current requirements under the 
Regulation.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving Massachusetts' amendments to Transit System 
Improvements Regulation, 310 CMR 7.36, and Definition Regulation, 310 
CMR 7.00 (which were filed with the Massachusetts Secretary of State on 
November 16, 2006 and were effective on December 1, 2006), as a 
revision to the Massachusetts SIP. EPA finds that the transit measures 
in the revised transit system improvements regulation remain 
directionally sound and that all proposed substitution projects 
identified in the Regulation will collectively contribute to achieving 
the national ambient air quality standard for ozone and maintaining the 
carbon monoxide standard, thereby satisfying requirements set forth in 
section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act.
    EPA has determined that today's rule falls under the ``good cause'' 
exemption

[[Page 44662]]

in section 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) which, 
upon finding ``good cause,'' allows an agency to make a rule effective 
immediately (thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date 
otherwise provided for in the APA). EPA has concluded that it is not 
necessary to delay the effectiveness of this rule for 30 days because 
the entities that will be directly affected by the transit system 
improvements regulation have had ample notice of the requirements in 
the regulation, and they wish to use the substitute transit projects as 
soon as possible in the conformity process under the Clean Air Act. 
First, the requirements of the transit system improvements regulation 
have been effective as a matter of state law since December 1, 2006. 
Therefore, it is unnecessary to wait an additional thirty days to make 
the regulation federally enforceable, because the entities subject to 
the regulation have already had ample time to anticipate the compliance 
requirements of this regulation under state law. Second, the state and 
U.S. Departments of Transportation (DOTs) and the Boston Metropolitan 
Planning Organization (Boston MPO) must use timely implementation of 
these SIP-approved transportation control measures to determine whether 
their long range transportation plans and transportation improvement 
programs conform with the state's implementation plan. The DOTs and 
Boston MPO will be most immediately affected by EPA's approval of these 
transit system improvements and their transportation planning 
obligations are directly impacted by changes in the SIP-approved list 
of transportation control projects. EPA and the Massachusetts DEP have 
been consulting extensively with the DOTs and the Boston MPO about the 
transit system improvements. The DOTs and Boston MPO are not only ready 
to use the new list of transit system improvement projects without 
waiting 30 days, they are eager to use them as soon as possible to 
avoid delays in the transportation planning process. Therefore, since 
the entities that are most directly impacted by this approval are ready 
to use the transit system improvements and prefer to use them 
immediately, EPA is making this rule effective immediately. This rule 
will be effective July 31, 2008.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified 
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the 
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, 
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on 
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 29, 2008. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of 
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for 
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness 
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in 
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: July 5, 2008.
Robert W. Varney,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

0
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)(136) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.1120  Identification of plan

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (136) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the 
Massachusetts Department of

[[Page 44663]]

Environmental Protection on December 13, 2006 and June 1, 2007.

    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Massachusetts Regulation 310 CMR 7.00 entitled 
``Definitions,'' adding the definition for the term ``Boston 
Metropolitan Planning Organization,'' effective in the Commonwealth 
of Massachusetts on December 1, 2006.
    (B) Massachusetts Regulation 310 CMR 7.36 entitled ``Transit 
System Improvements,'' effective in the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts on December 1, 2006.
    (C) Massachusetts Regulation Filing, dated November 16, 2006, 
substantiating December 1, 2006, State effective date for amended 
310 CMR 7.00 entitled ``Definition,'' (addition of term ``Boston 
Metropolitan Planning Organization,'' which appears on the replaced 
page 173 of the State's Code of Massachusetts Regulations,) and 310 
CMR 7.36 entitled ``Transit System Improvements.''

    (ii) Additional Materials.

    (A) Letter from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental 
Protection dated December 13, 2006 submitting a revision to the 
Massachusetts State Implementation Plan.
    (B) Letter from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental 
Protection dated June 1, 2007 submitting a revision to the 
Massachusetts State Implementation Plan.
    (C) Letter from the Massachusetts Executive Office of 
Transportation dated September 4, 2007 identifying its commitment to 
the Green Line extension and to make every effort to accelerate the 
planning, design and environmental review and permitting of the 
project in order to work towards the 2014 completion date.
    (D) Letter from the Chair of the Boston Region Metropolitan 
Planning Organization dated May 1, 2008 concurring in the finding 
that the transit system improvements projects will achieve emission 
benefits equivalent to or greater than the benefits from the 
original transit system improvements projects being replaced.
    (E) Letter from EPA New England Regional Administrator dated 
July 5, 2008 concurring in the finding that the transit system 
improvements projects will achieve emission benefits equivalent to 
or greater than the benefits from the original transit system 
improvements projects being replaced.


0
3. In Sec.  52.1167, Table 52.1167 is amended by adding two new 
citations to the existing entry for 310 CMR 7.00 and two new citations 
to the existing entry for 310 CMR 7.36 to read as follows:


Sec.  52.1167  EPA-approved Massachusetts State regulations

* * * * *

                                                    Table 52.1167--EPA-Approved Rules and Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Date submitted   Date approved                                                     Comments/unapproved
     State citation           Title/subject         by State         by EPA          Federal Register citation       52.1120(c)           sections
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
310 CMR 7.00...........  Definitions...........        12/13/06        07/31/08  [Insert Federal Register page                136  Addition of the term,
                                                                                  number where the document                         ``Boston
                                                                                  begins].                                          Metropolitan
                                                                                                                                    Planning
                                                                                                                                    Organization.''
                         ......................        12/13/06        07/31/08  [Insert Federal Register page                136  Massachusetts
                                                                                  number where the document                         Regulation Filing,
                                                                                  begins].                                          dated November 16,
                                                                                                                                    2006, substantiating
                                                                                                                                    December 1, 2006,
                                                                                                                                    State effective date
                                                                                                                                    for amended 310 CMR
                                                                                                                                    7.00 entitled
                                                                                                                                    ``Definition,''
                                                                                                                                    (addition of term
                                                                                                                                    ``Boston
                                                                                                                                    Metropolitan
                                                                                                                                    Planning
                                                                                                                                    Organization,''
                                                                                                                                    which appears on the
                                                                                                                                    replaced page 173 of
                                                                                                                                    the State's Code of
                                                                                                                                    Massachusetts
                                                                                                                                    Regulations.).
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
310 CMR 7.36...........  Transit system                12/13/06        07/31/08  [Insert Federal Register page                136  Amendments to Transit
                          improvements                                            number where the document                         System Improvements
                          regulation.                                             begins].                                          Regulation.
                         ......................        12/13/06        07/31/08  [Insert Federal Register page                136  Massachusetts
                                                                                  number where the document                         Regulation Filing,
                                                                                  begins].                                          dated November 16,
                                                                                                                                    2006, substantiating
                                                                                                                                    December 1, 2006,
                                                                                                                                    State effective date
                                                                                                                                    for amended 310 CMR
                                                                                                                                    7.36 entitled
                                                                                                                                    ``Transit System
                                                                                                                                    Improvements.''
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Notes: 1. This table lists regulations adopted as of 1972. It 
does not depict regulatory requirements which may have been part of 
the Federal SIP before this date. 2. The regulations are effective 
statewide unless otherwise stated in comments or title section.

[FR Doc. E8-17595 Filed 7-30-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P