[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 15, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53628-53633]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-26201]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MA-29-01-6537; A-1-FRL-5613-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Massachusetts; Amendment to Massachusetts' SIP (for Ozone and for
Carbon Monoxide) for Establishment of a South Boston Parking Freeze
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This revision
establishes 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 travelled (VMT), thereby holding automobile
usage to levels within the practical capacity of the local street
network. Vehicular emissions of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and
nitrogen oxides will be reduced compared with their expected levels if
parking is not constrained. These pollutants contribute to the carbon
monoxide and ozone air pollution problems in the Boston urbanized area.
This SIP revision adds the South Boston Parking Freeze Area to ongoing
parking management plans in the Metropolitan Boston Area. The intended
effect of this action is to approve the changes to Massachusetts' SIP.
This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA).
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on November 14, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are
available for public inspection during normal business hours, by
appointment at the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region I, One Congress Street, 11th floor, Boston,
MA; Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., (LE-131), Washington, D.C.
20460; and Division of Air Quality Control, Department of Environmental
Protection, One Winter Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02108.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald O. Cooke, (617) 565-3508.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 3, 1994 (59 FR 50211-50214), EPA
published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. The NPR proposed approval of a revision to Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) State Implementation Plan
(SIP) by adding or amending four definitions in 310 CMR 7.00, and
inserting provisions for a City of Boston/South Boston Parking Freeze
at 310 CMR 7.33. The formal SIP revision was submitted by Massachusetts
on July 30, 1993.
Air Quality Impacts
The South Boston Parking Freeze is designed to reduce the growth of
VMT and travel-related air emissions by controlling the growth of
parking spaces serving South Boston. The freeze will result in air
quality improvements beyond those which would occur in the future
without this measure.
For the three South Boston zones, DEP expects the proposed freeze
to reduce total future trips by 15,220 per day or 19 percent of the
approximately 80,105 trips forecast with unconstrained parking. This is
a 5.3 percent reduction in the future year trips without the freeze in
the Central Artery Study area, and a 0.3 percent reduction overall in
Eastern Massachusetts.
Without the South Boston freeze, the amount of VMT increases in the
South Boston zones are large. On average in the three South Boston
zones, DEP expects trips to rise by about 35 percent between now and
the year 2010. Based on vehicle trip reductions and the related VMT
change, a reduction of 8.06 percent in VMT is obtained below the level
which would otherwise occur with unconstrained parking within the
Central Artery Study area, and 0.3 percent over the entire region.
Using EPA's Mobile Emission Factor Model (MOBILE4.1, the current
version at the time of the DEP's analysis) and the Central Artery
Traffic Model, the South Boston Parking Freeze would reduce emissions
of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by approximately 74.86 kilograms
per day by the year 2010 within the Central Artery Study area. Carbon
Monoxide emissions would be reduced by 558.50 kilograms per day within
the Central Artery Study area.
Using the EPA MOBILE4.1 emission Model and the Central
Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS) regional transportation model, the
South Boston Parking Freeze will reduce emissions of VOCs by 269.79
kilograms per day, and of carbon monoxide (CO) by approximately
1,663.91 kilograms per day within Eastern Massachusetts. The regional
model also accounts for the secondary effects of reducing traffic,
which will in turn reduce congestion and emissions elsewhere in the
region.
EPA supports the South Boston Parking Freeze Plan as a means to
reduce VMT and ultimately eliminate motor vehicle emissions associated
with reduced VMT. The VMT reduction anticipated with implementing the
South Boston Parking Freeze Plan will be accounted for through Highway
Performance Monitoring System's (HPMS) statistical sampling of VMT
within the Boston Metropolitan area. VMT reductions resulting from the
South Boston freeze will be documented by Massachusetts in their
emission inventories and regional emission analysis (prepared for
transportation conformity) and result in improved ambient air quality.
Specific emission credit associated with the South Boston Parking
Freeze Plan is not being assigned in the SIP. In addition, because
Massachusetts will account for VMT and emission benefits in the base
scenario for their ozone SIP, Massachusetts' Reasonable Further
Progress Plan does not identify the South Boston Parking Freeze as an
[[Page 53629]]
emission reduction element or as a contingency measure.
Specific requirements of the South Boston Parking Freeze and the
rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and will
not be restated here. Public comments received on the NPR are addressed
below:
Public Comment
Four public comments were received on the NPR. On November 2, 1994,
the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) submitted comments generally
supporting approval of the South Boston Parking Freeze rule into the
SIP. On November 3, 1994 the City of Boston Environmental Department
(BED) and the Boston Air Pollution Control Commission (BAPCC) submitted
comments questioning the potential air quality benefits associated with
a South Boston Parking Freeze. However, the City of Boston's comments
declared that the City is ready to administer the South Boston Freeze
and that the City's comments were an effort to improve this Freeze. On
November 14, 1994, the Dorchester Avenue Taxpayers Association (DATA)
submitted comments asserting that the South Boston Parking Freeze will
be a detriment to businesses and the economic viability of South
Boston. Finally, on November 16, 1994 the Boston Redevelopment
Authority (BRA) submitted comments concurring on the BED and BAPCC
comment letter of November 2, 1994.
The specific comments and EPA's responses are presented below. A
memorandum summarizing these comments and EPA's response is also
available at the address listed above.
1. CLF had recommended at the SIP development phase that the BAPCC
be designated as the ``sole governing authority'' of the freeze program
rather than divide implementation between BAPCC and Massport.
Response: 1. DEP has found that BAPCC possess adequate
administrative and enforcement authority to administer the South Boston
Parking freeze on private, public, and city property. Similarly DEP has
determined that under state law the Massport Authority has the power of
enforcement for the parking freeze on property owned or leased by
Massport. Indeed each of these entities is currently administering the
freezes in the Boston area. See e.g. 310 CMR 7.30 and 7.31. While it
might be simpler to have the South Boston Parking Freeze administered
by one entity, the CAA does not authorize EPA to second-guess DEP's
choice for structuring the freeze, absent a finding that the local or
regional entities lack the authority to implement the freeze. See CAA
Section 110(a)(2)(E). EPA believes that the proposed South Boston
Parking Freeze SIP can be implemented and is legally enforceable, even
though the administration is divided as proposed between BAPCC and
Massport. Consistent with CAA Section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) DEP retains
authority to implement the freeze if BAPCC or Massport fail to do so.
2. CLF raised their concern that approval of the South Boston
Parking Freeze as a Transportation Control Measure (TCM) in the SIP,
would add additional conformity criteria that must be satisfied before
a conformity determination could be made. Specifically, once the
parking freeze is approved in the SIP, the Boston Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) or Boston Transportation Plan would not be
able to conform to the SIP unless the parking freeze is being
implemented in a timely manner, with a commitment of adequate funds for
implementing the freeze. CLF then expanded on the requirements of
conformity to ensure timely implementation of TCMs found at 40 CFR
Section 51.418.
Response: 2. In order to make a positive transportation conformity
determination, in accordance with requirements set forth by section
51.418(c)(1), The Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization must affirm
whether past obstacles to implementation of TCMs in the SIP (including
the Boston, the East Boston/Logan, the Cambridge and the new South
Boston Parking Freezes) which are behind the schedule established in
the applicable implementation plan have been identified and are being
overcome, and whether State and local agencies with influence over
approvals or funding for TCMs are giving maximum priority to approval
or funding for TCMs.
3. The City of Boston believes that the addition of a parking
freeze covering South Boston is not a viable air quality measure as
proposed and may actually be counterproductive. The City raises its
concern that reductions in vehicle trips to and from South Boston may
be more than outweighed by VMT growth that would result if development
is displaced to the suburbs. Suburban vehicle trips tend to be longer
with lower vehicle occupancy rates and there are negligible mass
transit shares in the typical development in ``suburban sprawl''
locations. In order to determine the full environmental impact of the
South Boston Freeze, the applicability of MEPA/NEPA notwithstanding, a
detailed environmental impact report with wide circulation and an
opportunity for comment may be the best method for testing assumptions
about freezes and would provide a chance for review of the methodology.
Response: 3. EPA believes that there is a substantial history of
parking freeze management regulations in the Boston area to support
beneficial mobile source emission reductions. DEP submitted a careful
modeling analysis of VMT reductions that result from the freeze.
Although the City of Boston's assertions about possible development
impacts may be valid concerns, they are not substantiated well enough
for EPA to overrule DEP's determination that the Freeze will yield VMT
reductions and air quality benefits. Pursuant to CAA requirements for a
state public hearing on all SIP actions, there have been significant
opportunities for the public to review and comment on the South Boston
Parking Freeze Regulation.
4. The city of Boston questions the efficacy of such a labor
intensive and complex bureaucracy for the sake of a .03%, at best, VMT
reduction region wide. For what it will cost to implement this plan,
the Boston Environmental Department believes compliance with existing
ride sharing regulations, development of Transportation Management
Associations (TMAs), and revision of cities and towns zoning
requirements would result in more significant VMT reductions.
Response: 4. EPA endorses cost efficiency and the greatest possible
emission reductions of nonattainment pollutants. The SIP process under
the CAA leaves it to the States, however, to choose from a wide variety
of programs to develop a strategy to attain clean air and achieve the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards, as well as achieving all state
air quality standards and state air quality guidelines. The state has
the flexibility to include a South Boston Parking Freeze and Management
Program as part of their overall strategy to attain clean air goals.
Indeed EPA has no authority to disapprove a state's choice of control
measure solely because EPA disagrees with the state's assessment of its
cost-effectiveness. Union Electric Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246 (1976).
Furthermore, this parking freeze will complement existing Parking
Freeze Programs in the Metropolitan Boston Area.
5. The City of Boston believes where the air quality problem is
regional in nature, such as ground-level ozone, a regional solution is
the only reasonable approach. The City of Boston Environmental
Department and Air Pollution Control Commission oppose to the South
Boston Parking Freeze
[[Page 53630]]
because it is a local approach better suited to localized pollution
problems, such as carbon monoxide.
Response: 5. The Boston Environmental Department letter agrees with
EPA that VMT reduction strategies such as parking freezes may be useful
as one component of an overall traffic control program to reduce
localized air quality problems, such as high carbon monoxide levels at
intersections. EPA further believes that the parking freeze program
would influence current single occupant vehicle commuters. Such trips
originate from within Boston's large interstate commuting area (from
the States of Rhode Island, Maine, and New Hampshire, as well as from
central and western Massachusetts) and commuters now park in South
Boston. The freeze will eventually create incentives for commuters to
form carpools and utilize existing bus and mass transit options. Such a
change in commuting habits would result in reduced regional VMT and
would contribute to attainment of the ozone standard in the region.
6. The South Boston Parking Freeze Regulation was changed from the
version DEP first proposed, to give Massport administrative control
over the freeze as it applies to Massport property. Since that change,
the City of Boston has opposed the South Boston Parking Freeze in the
belief that the freeze merely duplicates existing land use controls
such as the Restricted Parking District zoning and other regulatory
controls. The City of Boston believes the freeze should apply to
Massport.
Response: 6. The existing state regulation now being approved will
place a cap on parking spaces under the jurisdiction of both the City
of Boston and Massport. The overall number of spaces allowed under the
freeze has not changed as a result of giving Massport control over
spaces it operates. There has been no relaxation of the parking freeze
regulation as it applies to Massport property. EPA cannot require DEP
to adopt a specific structure for implementing the freeze, as long as
the freeze is structured so that DEP may implement it if the City of
Boston or Massport fail to do so, consistent with CAA section
110(a)(2)(E)(iii). Furthermore, it is EPA's opinion that the parking
freeze regulation will compliment existing land use controls such as
the Restricted Parking District Zoning and other regulatory controls by
adding federal and state enforcement provisions to controls that have
been effective at limiting parking growth in South Boston.
7. Several commenters believed that the definition of ``motor
vehicle'' in the state regulation is ambiguous especially as to trucks,
buses, construction equipment and other vehicles.
Response: 7. The definition for motor vehicle and parking space
clearly covers passenger vehicles using parking spaces within the South
Boston Parking Freeze area, which is the overwhelming bulk of the
parking supply that Massachusetts seeks to regulate. However, the
definition of motor vehicles is not clear when one thinks about trucks,
busses and commercial vehicles that park on streets or odd corners of
lots. Massachusetts agrees with EPA that the application of the South
Boston Parking Freeze Regulation to commercial vehicles (trucks, busses
and the like) is unclear in the existing regulation. EPA understands
that DEP will address this implementation question in the near future
through operational guidance. In any case, the rule is clear as to
passenger vehicles, and will address the vast majority of vehicles
using South Boston for parking.
8. The Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) identified two economic
initiatives that in their opinion required a delay in the SIP amendment
until the impact of the parking freeze could be determined. The first
initiative is a City report calling for a major exposition center to be
developed in the South Boston Industrial Zone or in the Piers Zone. The
second initiative is a June 29, 1994 Boston Empowerment Zone
application, which calls for much of the area under the South Boston
Parking Freeze to be the location for major public and private
investment in economic development and job opportunities for poor
residents of the City.
Response 8: EPA does not envision the endorsement of the existing
State regulation to impose any new developmental constraints or to have
any derogatory effect on BRA's proposed development plans. In fact,
many of the Federal government's recent actions in South Boston to fund
public transit projects and mass transit improvements, modify the
approaches and connecting roads to the Third Harbor Tunnel (Ted
Williams Tunnel), and undertake the construction of a new Federal
Courthouse in South Boston have all been consistent with BRA's
development plans for South Boston. Furthermore, EPA has no authority
to disapprove the proposed SIP amendment because of possible
development plans that may be implemented in the future.
9. Several commenters raised concern that the South Boston Parking
Freeze might place South Boston businesses and industries at a
competitive disadvantage to suburban locations, in part, because of the
perception of yet another regulatory hurdle placed in the way of new
investment. At a time when Boston Harbor and the Port of Boston is
being revitalized, an additional regulatory initiative targeting this
neighborhood threatens to drive out existing business and frighten off
the financial community, stifling the rebirth of this industrial,
commercial and residential community.
Response: 9. The state regulation for South Boston Parking Freeze
has been in place since April 9, 1993, with no reports of adverse
economic impact. Since that time considerable federal, state, city and
local funds have supported projects in South Boston including: Boston
Harbor clean-up and improvement; the Port of Boston; the new Federal
Courthouse; planning and future implementation of the South Boston
Piers Transitway Project; rail and road enhancement projects associated
with the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel construction in South
Boston; and new business start ups in South Boston. Moreover, the CAA
SIP process leaves decisions about the economic impact of SIP control
measures to the State. As discussed above, EPA has no authority to
disapprove a state's SIP proposal for reasons of economic hardship.
Union Electric, supra.
10. Several commenters raised a concern regarding funds and funding
source(s) necessary for the City of Boston to implement the Freeze.
Response: 10. At the request of the City of Boston, the
Massachusetts' State Auditor has determined that the South Boston
Parking Freeze need not be carried out by the City until funding is
provided by the State. This ruling is based on the Local Mandate Law
[General Laws Chapter 29, Section 27c, so-called ``Proposition 2\1/
2\''], which allows for the City of Boston to request a compliance
exemption from a State imposed unfunded mandate. Here the City argues
and the Massachusetts Auditor agrees that the State's South Boston
Parking Regulation imposes an unfunded state mandate on Boston. Such an
action could: one, force the State to provide funds that the City may
determine necessary to implement the freeze; or two, force the State to
implement the freeze itself. However, neither action would change the
requirement to implement and enforce the South Boston Parking Freeze as
a federally approved SIP control measure. Note that while approving the
freeze into the SIP does make it federally enforceable, the freeze is
not a federally required control program under the
[[Page 53631]]
Clean Air Act and EPA's SIP approval does not impose any new
requirements beyond those already included in the state regulations.
11. DATA commented that the public notification process by DEP was
flawed.
Response: 11. EPA regrets that DATA did not learn about the
Commonwealth's November 30, 1992 public meeting/hearing on the South
Boston Parking Freeze. However, DEP followed state regulations and
policy regarding public participation and outreach throughout the
development of 310 CMR 7.33, and has submitted ample documentation that
it met the procedural requirements of CAA section 110(l) and 40 CFR
sections 51.102 and 51.104(f). DATA submitted a comment letter dated
November 10, 1994 (received November 16) to EPA which EPA is now
addressing. EPA notes that DATA has since participated in the
implementation of the South Boston Parking Freeze when several of its
members testified during a July 8, 1994 public hearing held by DEP on
the parking freeze plan and inventory.
12. DATA commented that the South Boston Parking Freeze is
arbitrary and that the regulations will not resolve the regional air
quality problem.
Response: 12. The South Boston Parking Freeze is a transportation
control measure chosen by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as one of
its strategies to attain clean air. The South Boston area was part of
the Boston moderate carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment area, which was
redesignated by EPA to attainment for CO on April 1, 1996. Since CO is
a pollutant of local concern the reduction of motor vehicle emissions
will assist the state in attaining and maintaining the CO ambient air
quality standard. In fact, the Boston CO redesignation effort and the
Boston CO maintenance plan both assume the implementation of the
current South Boston parking freeze regulation. The South Boston area
is also part of the eastern Massachusetts serious ozone (O3)
nonattainment area, where a reduction in vehicle miles traveled will
reduce mobile source emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
oxides of nitrogen (NOX), both precursors for the formation of
ozone. Much of the VMT reduction may well be outside of the parking
freeze limits, but ozone is a regional pollutant which forms over time
and often at significant distances from the original source of the
ozone precursors. VMT reductions will support other efforts within the
Northeast Ozone Transport Region to reduce ozone concentrations and
episodes. Projected emissions reductions calculated by DEP are detailed
in the Technical Support Document which is contained in the docket
supporting this action.
13. DATA commented that the parking freeze will impact South
Boston's business community negatively, in light of the fact that the
Pier and Industrial Zones of South Boston are not presently served by
adequate public transportation.
Response: 13. The South Boston Piers/Fort Point Channel Transit
Project will soon be built in South Boston through participation of the
Federal Transit Administration, supplementing existing MBTA Bus
service. See 310 CMR 7.36(2)(g). Indeed, this freeze works in
conjunction with transit and high occupancy vehicle lane measures
provided for in 310 CMR sections 7.36 and 7.37 as an integrated plan to
encourage commuters to avoid single occupancy car trips.
14. DATA asserted that the parking freeze is unnecessary because
existing zoning regulation will provide effective parking control.
Response: 14. The South Boston Parking Freeze will work in tandem
with existing land use and zoning regulations. There may be future
changes to the zoning regulations and individual waivers from zoning
regulations, undertaken without carefully accounting for potential
impacts on VMT or air quality. The SIP-approved parking freeze will
provide additional assurance that efforts to restrict motor vehicle
miles traveled and motor vehicle emissions in South Boston will not be
relaxed without an analysis of the impacts on air quality.
15. DATA believes that the parking freeze is the wrong approach for
improving air quality. A better way to improve the air quality is by
increasing the levels of public transit and accessibility, by improving
vehicle design to reduce emissions, and by using alternative fuels.
Response: 15. The Commonwealth is actively exploring other measures
to attain and maintain air quality standards. Their current approach
includes implementing the South Boston Parking Freeze, maintaining and
enhancing existing mass transit services, including the South Boston
Piers Transit project, conducting a statewide vehicle inspection and
maintenance program, encouraging introduction of electric vehicles into
the motor vehicle fleet, and encouraging the use of alternative fuels
including reformulated fuels, methanol, compressed natural gas, and
propane.
16. The BRA concurred in many of objections to the freeze described
above, and added the point that Boston has submitted an empowerment
zone application for the area covered by the freeze. The BRA maintains
that the freeze imposes constraints on development inconsistent with
the goals of an empowerment zone. The BRA cited to federal regulations
(24 CFR Part 597) establishing the empowerment zone program which BRA
asserts require that the federal government will work with communities
that complete the nomination process for an empowerment zone ``to
overcome programmatic regulations and statutory impediments to
encourage more effective economic, physical, environmental and
community development activities.''
Response: 16. EPA does not necessarily agree with BRA's assertion
that the freeze is inconsistent with the development of an economically
vibrant urban empowerment zone. The freeze is broadly consistent with
the goals of fostering dense development, served by mass transit, with
responsible measures designed to avoid automobile urban gridlock. More
importantly, however, once the Commonwealth has decided that the freeze
is its choice for a SIP control measure, the CAA does not give EPA
authority to contradict a state's choice even if EPA believed the
measure was not the most economically efficient way to control air
emissions. Union Electric, supra.
Final Action
EPA is approving the South Boston Parking Freeze SIP Amendment as a
revision to the Massachusetts SIP. Today's action makes final the
action proposed on October 3, 1994 (59 FR 50211).
Under Sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22,
1995, EPA must undertake various actions in association with proposed
or final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in
estimated costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to
State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.
Through submission of this state implementation plan revision, the
State and any affected local or tribal governments have elected to
adopt the program provided for under Section 110 of the Clean Air Act.
These rules may bind State, local and tribal governments to perform
certain actions and also require the private sector to perform certain
duties. The rules being approved by this action will impose no new
requirements because such sources are already subject to these
regulations
[[Page 53632]]
under State law. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
EPA has also determined that this final action does not include a
mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to
State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate or to the private
sector.
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the
General Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in today's
Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, Part D of the
Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements, but simply approve
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the
federal SIP-approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify
that it does not have a significant impact on any small entities
affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the federal-state relationship
under the Clean Air Act, preparation of a regulatory flexibility
analysis would constitute federal inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base
its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S.
E.P.A., supra; 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted this regulatory action from review under Executive Order
12866.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any State implementation plan. Each request for revision to
the State implementation plan shall be considered separately in light
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
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 December 16, 1996. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule 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,
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation
Plan for the State of Commonwealth of Massachusetts was approved by
the Director of the Federal Register on July 1, 1982.
Dated: September 10, 1996.
John P. DeVillars,
Regional Administrator, Region I.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart W--Massachusetts
2. Section 52.1120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(111) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.1120 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(111) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection on July 30, 1993.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Letter from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection dated July 30, 1993 submitting a revision to the
Massachusetts State Implementation Plan.
(B) Massachusetts Air Pollution Control Regulation 310 CMR 7.33,
entitled ``City of Boston/South Boston Parking Freeze,'' and the
following amendments to 310 CMR 7.00, entitled ``Definitions,'' which
consist of adding or amending four definitions; motor vehicle parking
space; off-peak parking spaces; remote parking spaces; and restricted
use parking, effective in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on April 9,
1993.
For the State of Massachusetts:
3. In Sec. 52.1167 Table 52.1167 is amended by adding new entries
to existing state citations for 310 CMR 7.00 Definitions; and by adding
new state citations for 310 CMR 7.33 City of Boston/South Boston
Parking Freeze to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1167 EPA-approved Massachusetts State regulations.
* * * * *
Table 52.1167.--EPA-Approved Rules and Regulations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date
State citation Title/subject submitted by Date approved by EPA Federal Register 52.1120(c) Comments/unapproved
State citation sections
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
310 CMR 7.00..................... Definitions......... 7/30/93 October 15, 1996.... [Insert FR citation 111 Adding or amending the
from published following definitions:
date]. motor vehicle parking
space; off-peak parking
spaces; remote parking
spaces; and restricted
use parking.
[[Page 53633]]
* * * * * * *
310 CMR 7.33..................... City of Boston/South 7/30/93 October 15, 1996.... [Insert FR citation 111 Applies to the parking
Boston Parking from published of motor vehicles
Freeze. date]. within the area of
South Boston, including
Massport property in
South Boston.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-26201 Filed 10-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
