56278 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 181 / Monday, September 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 210–0247b; FRL–6850–2]

Revisions to the California State

Implementation Plan, San Diego

County Air Pollution Control District

and Bay Area Air Quality Management

District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

revisions to the San Diego County Air

Pollution Control District (SDCAPCD)

and Bay Area Air Quality Management

District (BAAQMD) portions of the

California State Implementation Plan

(SIP). These revisions concern volatile

organic compound (VOC) emissions

from the wood products coating and the

metal container, closure, and coil

coating source categories. We are

proposing to approve local rules to

regulate these emission sources under

the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990

(CAA or the Act).

DATES: Any comments on this proposal

must arrive by October 18, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Andy

Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR–

4), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

You can inspect copies of the

submitted SIP revisions and EPA’s

technical support documents (TSDs) at

our Region IX office during normal

business hours. You may also see copies

of the submitted SIP revisions at the

following locations:

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95812;

San Diego County Air Pollution Control

District, 9150 Chesapeake Drive, San

Diego, CA 92123; and,

Bay Area Air Quality Management

District, 939 Ellis Street, San

Francisco, CA 94109.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jerald S. Wamsley, Rulemaking Office

(Air–4), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, (415) 744–1226.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

proposal addresses the following local

rules: SDCAPCD 67.11 and BAAQMD

8–11. In the Rules and Regulations

section of this Federal Register, we are

approving these local rules in a direct

final action without prior proposal

because we believe these SIP revisions

are not controversial. If we receive

adverse comments, however, we will

publish a timely withdrawal of the

direct final rule and address the

comments in subsequent action based

on this proposed rule. We do not plan

to open a second comment period, so

anyone interested in commenting

should do so at this time. If we do not

receive adverse comments, no further

activity is planned. For further

information, please see the direct final

action.

Dated: August 1, 2000.

Laura Yoshii,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 00–23646 Filed 9–15–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MA–24–01–7201b; A–1–FRL–6870–9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Massachusetts; (Amendment to

Massachusetts’ SIP [For Ozone and for

Carbon Monoxide] for City of

Cambridge Vehicle Trip Reduction

Program—in the Metropolitan Boston

Air Pollution Control District)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

a State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision submitted by the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This

revision establishes, and requires the

City of Cambridge to implement and

operate, the City of Cambridge Vehicle

Trip Reduction Program as a substitute

for the commercial parking control

measures currently in the SIP. EPA

takes this action under the Clean Air

Act to help minimize ozone and carbon

monoxide air pollution in the Boston

area.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before October 18, 2000. Public

comments on this document are

requested and will be considered before

taking final action on this SIP revision.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

David Conroy, Unit Manager, Air

Quality Planning , Office of Ecosystem

Protection (mail code CAQ), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, EPANew England, One Congress Street,

Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114–2023.

Copies of the State submittal and EPA’s

technical support document are

available for public inspection during

normal business hours, by appointment

at the Office of Ecosystem Protection,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

EPA-New England, One Congress Street,

11th floor, Boston, MA and the Bureau

of Waste Prevention, Department of

Environmental Protection, One Winter

Street, 8th floor, Boston, MA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donald O. Cooke, (617) 918–1668 or email COOKE.DONALD@EPA.GOV.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

January 28, 1998, the Massachusetts

Department of Environmental Protection

(MA DEP) submitted a revision to its

State Implementation Plan (SIP) for

Massachusetts’ Ozone and Carbon

Monoxide, for a City of Cambridge

Vehicle Trip Reduction Program

(CVTRP) in the Metropolitan Boston Air

Pollution Control District. The revision

consists of Massachusetts’s new state

regulation 310 CMR 60.04—‘‘City of

Cambridge Vehicle Trip Reduction

Program.’’

I. Table of Contents

1. Background on parking management in the

City of Cambridge, and the CVTRP.

A. What is the CVTRP?

B. What would the CVTRP replace?

2. Issues of concern.

A. What types of parking spaces are

covered by the CVTRP?

B. What is the baseline for measuring

success of the CVTRP performance

standard?

C. Is a lower baseline required by EPA’s

Freeze regulations?

D. How will MA DEP verify that the

CVTRP is working?

E. What are EPA’s concerns about the

procedures for verifying that the CVTRP

is working?

F. How will the CVTRP accomplish the

same emission savings as generated by

the existing commercial Parking Freeze?

G. How will the CVTRP be enforced?

H. What are the penalties if the City fails

to completely offset emissions associated

with parking above the baseline?

I. How can the public comment?

3. Overview of the CVTRP.

1. Background on parking management

in the City of Cambridge, and the

CVTRP.

A. What is the CVTRP?

The CVTRP requires Cambridge to

control air emissions from cars by

regulating the availability of off-street

commercial parking and by encouraging

the use of alternatives to single

passenger cars. Under the CVTRP,

Cambridge may exceed a maximum

‘‘baseline’’ number of commercial

parking spaces only if it adopts vehicle

trip reduction measures that offset the

vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and

emissions associated with the additional

spaces. This ‘‘performance standard’’

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 181 / Monday, September 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules 56279

gives Cambridge the flexibility to

develop and impose different measures,

which may include but are not limited

to municipal employee trip reduction

measures, municipal parking rate

increases, bicycles and pedestrian

mobility measures, and transportation

demand management for expansions

and new developments. By December

26, 2000, Cambridge must complete

feasibility studies on promotion of clean

fuels and low/zero emission vehicles, as

well as taxi cab improvements and

zoning. Cambridge must monitor its

measures and periodically evaluate

whether the CVTRP is meeting the

performance standard.

B. What Would the CVTRP Replace?

Since 1973, a series of Federal and

Massachusetts regulations have limited

commercial parking in the City of

Cambridge (Cambridge) as a way of

minimizing ozone and carbon monoxide

air pollution. This program, known as

the Cambridge Parking Freeze or the

Freeze, is a Federal and state

requirement established in

Massachusetts’ SIP prior to the 1990

Clean Air Act Amendments, and is

identified at Title 40 CFR 52.1128,

52.1134, and 52.1135, and subsequent

SIP submittals from the Commonwealth.

The CVTRP replaces or substitutes for

portions of the Freeze in the SIP. Only

the commercial parking control

measures identified in 40 CFR 52.1128

and 52.1135 that affect Cambridge are

being considered for substitution at this

time. Section 52.1134, which regulates

on-street and residential parking in

Cambridge, and other portions of these

rules affecting parts of Boston and

Logan Airport, will not be affected by

the proposed CVTRP.

2. Issues of concern

A. What types of parking spaces are

covered by the CVTRP?

The CVTRP defines ‘‘commercial

parking space’’ as a parking space

available to the general public for a fee,

with specific exceptions. These

exceptions are for on-street parking,

spaces at a ‘‘park-and-ride’’ facility

operated in conjunction with the

regional transit authority (the ‘‘MBTA’’),

spaces for residents of specific buildings

or groups of buildings, and spaces

‘‘owned or operated by a commercial

entity whose primary purpose is other

than the operation of parking facilities,

for the exclusive use of lessees,

employees, patrons, customers, clients,

patients, guests, or residents and not

available for use by the general public.’’

310 CMR 60.04(2). This definition is

consistent with the definition in the

Freeze, as it has been implemented and

interpreted by EPA, MA DEP, and

Cambridge, in light of the intent of the

Freeze and the Court of Appeals opinion

in South Terminal Corp. versus EPA,

504 F.2d 646, 671–72 (1st Cir. 1974).

EPA’s intent when it enacted the

Freeze in 1973 was to limit commuter

parking by capping off-street

commercial parking, with exceptions for

residential, free customer, and employee

parking facilities. 38 FR 30964—30965

(Nov. 8, 1973). When various parties

challenged the Freeze and other aspects

of EPA’s ‘‘Transportation Control Plan’’

for metropolitan Boston, EPA

committed to ‘‘‘clarify that residential

parking spaces, free customer spaces

and employee parking spaces are

exempt’’’ from the Freeze; the South

Terminal Court approved the Freeze ‘‘as

so interpreted but not otherwise.’’ 504

F.2d at 671–72.

Following the South Terminal

decision, EPA revised the Freeze to

limit the ‘‘availability of commercial

parking facilities.’’ 40 CFR 52.1135(c).

The new regulation defined such

facilities as ‘‘any lot, garage, ... on or in

which motor vehicles are temporarily

parked for a fee,’’ with exceptions for

on-street and residential parking. Id. at

§ 52.1135(a)(5). The revised rule

delegated to the Governor the authority

to approve city programs implementing

freeze. Id. at § 52.1135(e) & (f).

Massachusetts included the Freeze as

a part of its state-adopted, Federallyapproved SIP twice in the late 1970s

and early 1980s. See 40 CFR

52.1120(c)(30) & (53). The Governor

delegated the implementation of the

parking freeze to Cambridge, based on

procedures and criteria adopted by the

City. The Cambridge procedures and

criteria are consistent with the terms of

South Terminal and the definition of

commercial parking facility proposed in

today’s rule. Like today’s proposal, they

define ‘‘Commercial Parking Facility’’ to

cover off-street parking available to the

general public for a fee, with exceptions

for spaces at MBTA park-and-ride

facilities and residential, customer, and

employee parking.

During the state rulemaking on the

CVTRP, various parties argued that the

exemption of employee and customer

parking for a fee is inconsistent with 40

CFR 52.1135 and thus the CVTRP

should also cover such parking. In light

of the Governor’s discretion to authorize

Cambridge to write implementing

procedures, the deviations from the

definition as promulgated by EPA were

not significant enough for EPA to

require the Freeze portion of the SIP to

be revised. Moreover, as described

above, the implementing procedures are

consistent with both South Terminal

and EPA’s intent as expressed in its

rulemakings. Therefore, the definition of

‘‘commercial parking space’’ proposed

for approval by this notice is consistent

with MA DEP’s and EPA’s interpretation

of the Freeze and appropriate for the

CVTRP.

B. What is the baseline for measuring

success of the CVTRP performance

standard?

The CVTRP requires the City of

Cambridge to offset VMT associated

with the issuance of new commercial

parking space permits in Cambridge in

excess of the 13,452 spaces allowed by

the existing Cambridge Parking Freeze.

This total of commercial parking spaces,

the ‘‘13,452 baseline,’’ is the sum of

commercial parking spaces in

Cambridge as of October 15, 1973, plus

10,000 spaces the City has available due

to its removal of 20,000 on-street spaces

from regular and legal use by

commuters. See 40 CFR 52.1135(a)(6) &

(n). The 13,452 baseline reflects MA

DEP’s estimate of the number of spaces

removed from commuter use (removed

spaces) and its understanding of the

Freeze expressed in the 1978 and 1983

transportation elements of the SIP

(TESIPs). EPA previously has approved

the removed space estimate and MA

DEP’s interpretation of the Freeze into

the SIP. See 40 CFR 52.120(c)(30) & (53).

These actions establish the numerical

limit on spaces under the Freeze that is

the baseline under the CVTRP.

Management of the commercial

parking supply in Cambridge remains

an integral component of the CVTRP.

Cambridge currently has less than

13,452 commercial parking spaces.

Cambridge must continue monitoring

the number of commercial parking

spaces so that trips, VMT, and motor

vehicle emissions (generated by these

additional spaces) are completely offset

once the City exceeds the 13,452

baseline. Offsetting VMT and its

associated air pollutants will maintain a

level of air emissions less than or equal

to those estimated to occur absent

replacement and substitution of the

Cambridge Parking Freeze.

MA DEP and EPA hope that the City

of Cambridge will be able to analyze and

implement pricing mechanisms (i.e.,

parking pricing and transit subsidies)

and ways to reallocate permitted

parking in Cambridge in order to

encourage alternatives to single

occupant vehicles. The regulations

provide a framework for the City of

Cambridge to accomplish this through

the requirement to study zoning and

require further work on travel demand

management.

56280 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 181 / Monday, September 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

C. Is a Lower Baseline Required by

EPA’s Freeze Regulations?

EPA’s approvals of the 1978 and 1983

TESIPs as part of the SIP supersedes any

previous SIP provisions that may

suggest that the Freeze baseline does not

include the 10,000 spaces added to the

October 15, 1973 total by the removal of

20,000 spaces from regular and legal use

by commuters. Moreover, the history of

the adoption of the Freeze and

additional language in the EPA’s Freeze

rule support the conclusion that

removed spaces are part of the Freeze

baseline.

The definition of the Freeze

promulgated by EPA in 1975 after the

South Terminal decision require

Cambridge ‘‘to maintain at all times

after October 15, 1973, the total quantity

of commercial parking spaces available

for use [on] said date; Provided, That

such quantity may be increased by

spaces [under] construction . . . prior to

October 15, 1973, or as specifically

permitted by paragraphs (n), (p) and (q)

of this section; provided further that

such additional spaces do not result in

an increase of more than 10 percent in

the total commercial parking spaces

available for use on October 15, 1973.’’

Paragraphs (n), (p), and (q) respectively

authorize increases for removed spaces,

spaces at an MBTA park-and-ride

facility, and on-street spaces physically

eliminated from all use.

Read in isolation, the definition of the

Freeze might suggest that the 10% limit

should apply to increases in the Freeze

limit authorized by these paragraphs.

However, the history, language, and

intent of the Freeze rule suggests that

the 10 percent limitation on ‘‘additional

spaces’’ only applies to spaces under

construction in 1973 and does not apply

to spaces ‘‘specifically permitted by

paragraphs (n), (p), and (q).’’

Historically, when EPA initially

promulgated the Freeze in 1973, the rule

only contained the grandfathering

exception for spaces under construction

and the 10% limitation. Thus, as

initially promulgated, the 10%

limitation on ‘‘additional spaces’’

applied to spaces under construction as

of October 15, 1973.

Paragraphs (n), (p), and (q) contain

specific language that facially conflicts

with the 10 percent limitation. Under

paragraph (n), ‘‘the total quantity of

commercial parking spaces allowable in

Cambridge under this section shall be

raised accordingly’’; paragraph (q) has

similar language. Paragraph (p) said that

MBTA park-and-ride facilities could be

constructed ‘‘without regard to the

limitations on number of spaces

imposed by this section.’’ This facial

conflict cannot be resolved to say that

the three paragraphs are subject to the

10 percent limit without ignoring the

clear allowance for unlimited additional

spaces at MBTA park-and-ride facilities

and reading out the other provisions for

increasing the ‘‘total quantity . . .

allowable . . . under this section.’’

Furthermore, the facial conflict cannot

be resolved to say that 10 percent limit

in the Freeze applies to removed spaces

and eliminated spaces but not park-andride facilities because the Freeze

definition refers to all three paragraphs

in the same clause.

To resolve this facial conflict, it is

reasonable to read the 10% limit to

apply only to ‘‘additional spaces,’’ as

that term was originally used, and not

to spaces ‘‘specifically permitted’’ under

paragraphs (n), (p), and (q). This reading

is more consistent with EPA’s 1975

explanatory preamble. The preamble

explained that EPA added these three

paragraphs to provide Cambridge with

additional flexibility for local planning

and did not say that this flexibility rule

was subject to the 10 percent limit.

Therefore, the 13,452 baseline is

authorized not only by the TESIP

rulemakings cited above, but also is

consistent with a permissible

interpretation of the 1975 regulatory

text, which some commenters have

cited in challenging EPA and MA DEP’s

acceptance of the 13,452 baseline.

The interpretation of EPA, shared by

MA DEP and Cambridge, is due

deference if the text of the Freeze is

ambiguous. Furthermore, EPA’s

approval of the 1978 and 1983 TESIPs

into the SIP makes this issue moot. By

explicitly including the 13,452 baseline

in the CVTRP, MA DEP has removed

any ambiguity about what is the total

number of commercial spaces in

Cambridge.

D. How Will MA DEP Verify That the

CVTRP is Working?

The CVTRP’s monitoring and

enforcement provisions must be

adequate to determine whether

Cambridge is meeting the offset

requirement of the program. Under the

CVTRP, Cambridge must monitor

continuously both the number of

commercial spaces within the City and

the effectiveness of the program. In

addition, Cambridge must periodically

prepare a ‘‘Monitoring and

Demonstration Report’’ that describes

CVTRP implementation and results and

submit copies to MA DEP, EPA, and the

Boston Metropolitan Planning

Organization. Each Report would

include a count of total commercial

parking spaces, contain estimates of

VMT and emissions associated with

parking in excess of the Freeze limit,

describe offsetting vehicle trip reduction

measures and resources devoted to

program implementation, and present

the results of particular measures.

Because of the uncertainty about how

Cambridge will monitor trip reduction

measures, EPA commented to the state

that the public should have an

opportunity to comment on the

monitoring plan and Reports.

In response to comments from EPA

and others during the rulemaking

adopting the CVTRP, the MA DEP and

Cambridge agreed that the City’s Reports

should go through a specific review

process that MA DEP added to the rule.

As part of this new process, MA DEP

may directly make a finding on whether

a Report demonstrates that Cambridge is

meeting its obligations; alternatively,

MA DEP may refer a Report to an

advisory ‘‘Oversight Committee.’’ By

agreement between MA DEP and

Cambridge, the Oversight Committee

will be composed of three City

appointees, three MA DEP appointees,

and one joint appointee. When

Cambridge is within 75 spaces of the

Freeze limit, the City will submit at

least one Report directly to the

Oversight Committee. If the Oversight

Committee advises MA DEP that a

Report does not show that Cambridge

has met its obligations, then MA DEP

must hold a public hearing before

making a finding on the Report. If MA

DEP either directly finds a Report

inadequate or makes such a finding

upon advice of the Oversight Committee

and after a public hearing, then

Cambridge must work with MA DEP to

resolve any inadequacy before issuing

any additional parking permits. If MA

DEP and Cambridge do not resolve their

differences, then the City may seek an

adjudicatory hearing under

Massachusetts administrative law.

E. What are EPA’s concerns about the

procedures for verifying that the CVTRP

is working?

EPA continues to have concerns about

whether the new review process

provides adequate opportunities for

public input. The rule’s review process

gives Cambridge an opportunity to

challenge a MA DEP determination that

the City’s CVTRP measures are

inadequate, but the review process does

not allow the public to challenge a MA

DEP finding that the CVTRP measures

are adequate. Furthermore, the rule

lacks a provision requiring MA DEP to

take public comment before directly

acting on a Report. Similarly, the rule

does not require the Oversight

Committee to take public comment

before reviewing or approving a Report,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 181 / Monday, September 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules 56281

1EPA has assumed that ther CVTRP must meet

section 193 of the Act, which applies to

nonattainment areas. However, EPA notes that it

revoked the one-hour ozone standard for Eastern

Massachusetts on June 9, 1999, please see 64 FR

30911–30917. Therefore, the Cambridge Parking

Freeze Area is not currently a nonattainment area

for any National Ambient Air Quality Standard.

Nevertheless, the reasonably foreseeable

designation of Eastern Massachusetts as

nonattainment for the newly-adopted eight-hour

ozone standard would make it reasonable for the

EPA to see that the rule meets this standard. Also,

EPA signed the final rule to rescind the revocation

of the one-hour ozone standard on July 5, 2000,

please see 65 FR 45184–45274. The one-hour ozone

standard will become applicable in Eastern

Massachusetts on January 16, 2001. Even if the

requirements of section 193 will apply to this

proposed revision to the SIP, EPA does not expect

the substitution of the CVTRP for the Freeze will

interfere with any applicable requirement

concerning attainment, which is the alternate

standard under section 110(1).

nor must MA DEP take comment if the

Oversight Committee advises that

Cambridge has met its obligations.

The new review process also leads to

questions regarding whether the rule

establishes an adequate enforcement

mechanism for making sure that the

CVTRP does not result in greater VMT

and emissions than the Freeze. New

spaces in excess of the 13,452 limit are

permitted and built before MA DEP or

the Oversight Committee evaluates the

effectiveness of the offsetting VMT

reduction measure(s). Under the review

process, the major consequence of

Cambridge failing to offset VMT from

permitting more than 13,452 spaces is to

prohibit issuance of any new

commercial parking space permits until

the City resolves the inadequacy.

Cambridge has no time limit on when it

must resolve the inadequacy. While

Cambridge resolves the inadequacy, the

prohibition on new permits becomes a

new ‘‘freeze,’’ but the rule imposes this

new freeze at a ‘‘freeze plus’’ level of

spaces and emissions.

Under section 110(a)(2) of the Act,

EPA may not approve a SIP submittal

that lacks adequate monitoring and

enforcement provisions. The concerns

discussed above would lead EPA not to

approve the CVTRP into the SIP were

the state seeking significant credit

against obligations under the Act.

However, the CVTRP is similar to the

type of programs EPA has approved as

consistent with EPA’s ‘‘Guidance on

Incorporating Voluntary Mobile Source

Emission Reduction Programs into State

Implementation Plans (SIPs),’’ dated

October 24, 1997. This Guidance

explains the utility of such programs

(VMEPs) and the difficulty in estimating

and monitoring the emission reductions

derived from them. The Guidance

provides that EPA may give a small

amount of SIP credit for a VMEP when

a state describes the VMEP, projects the

VMEP’s emission reductions, commits

to monitor, evaluate and report on the

VMEP’s performance, and commits to

make up any shortfall in a timely

manner if the VMEP does not result in

projected emission reductions. The

CVTRP, like the Freeze it would replace,

is a directionally sound VMEP-type

program for which no specific SIP credit

is sought or given. See 40 FR 25152 and

25155 (June 12, 1975) (contributions of

Freeze not quantified when adopted).

EPA’s concerns about the monitoring,

evaluation, and reporting provisions

under the CVTRP rule are less than

what EPA would have if MA DEP had

sought measurable credit against SIP

requirements.

While the CVTRP has no specific

requirement for public input into the

evaluation of any Report, statements

during the state rulemaking and

incentives in the rule for Cambridge,

MA DEP, and the Oversight Committee

to seek public input decrease EPA’s

concern over this issue. For example, in

MA DEP’s response to comments

document developed during the state

rulemaking, MA DEP committed to

having the Oversight Committee

consider and resolve specific issues and

problems raised on the Report that

accompanied the rule proposal.

Similarly, the Report approval process

gives the Oversight Committee an

incentive to conduct public outreach

even when the rule does not mandate

public comment. If the Oversight

Committee recommends approval of a

Report, then the rule requires MA DEP

to approve the Report unless its

disapproval is ‘‘based on additional

information.’’ The Oversight Committee

would have an incentive to take public

input to assemble as complete a factual

record as possible to leave no basis for

MA DEP to overturn its approval

decision.

EPA also believes that Cambridge will

remedy in a timely manner any

inadequacy in its VMT offset measures

rather than choose to continue

indefinitely at a ‘‘freeze plus’’ level of

VMT and emissions. The impetus for

Cambridge seeking to substitute the

CVTRP for the Freeze is the City’s belief

that the Freeze creates a cloud on future

potential development. A new,

automatic prohibition on additional

commercial parking reimposed at a

‘‘freeze plus’’ level of VMT and

emissions would similarly cloud

development. Thus, should Cambridge

fail to adequately demonstrate

compliance, the automatic reimposition

of a freeze would be a strong incentive

for the City to impose new CVTRP

measures quickly and remedy any

shortfall.

EPA believes that Cambridge and MA

DEP will seek public input in the review

and approval of Reports under section

12 on the CVTRP, and that the City will

remedy expeditiously any MA DEP

finding that the City has not met its

VMT offset requirements. EPA expects

that, during the comment period on this

rule, the City and MA DEP will confirm

these beliefs in comments on the

proposal. In the absence of such

confirming comments from both MA

DEP and Cambridge, EPA would treat

the lack of confirmation as significant

new information. In that event, EPA

would reopen the comment period and

would reconsider whether a disapproval

or conditional approval of this rule is

appropriate.

Cambridge must maintain records

documenting assumptions used in

preparing the Report and demonstrating

compliance. After considering the

commitments of MA DEP and the

incentives for MA DEP and Cambridge

under the CVTRP, EPA believes that the

monitoring and enforcement provisions

are adequate to ensure that the CVTRP

will meet its performance standard. EPA

will use its oversight authority to verify

that the CVTRP is meeting or exceeding

its implementation goals.

F. How will the CVTRP accomplish the

same emission savings as generated by

the existing commercial Parking Freeze?

EPA has determined that the

proposed rulemaking will achieve

equivalent emissions reductions to

those achieved under the Freeze. The

rationale for this equivalency

determination is that the vehicle trips,

VMT or air emissions of any commercial

parking spaces added beyond what the

freeze allows will be offset through the

implementation of the CVTRP.

This action will have a beneficial

effect on air quality by continuing

emission reductions currently achieved

by the Freeze. EPA has assumed that, as

a substitution for the Freeze, the CVTRP

must meet the requirements of section

193 of the Clean Air Act, known as the

savings clause.1 The savings clause is

satisfied because, for every new

permitted commercial parking space

added to the Cambridge’s inventory

beyond the 13,452 space baseline, the

City will implement vehicle trip

reduction measures to offset all air

pollutant emissions (volatile organic

compounds, nitrogen oxides and carbon

monoxide) associated with that new

parking space. This is consistent with

the intent of the SIP’s commercial

parking control plan to avoid new VMT

and their associated motor vehicle

56282 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 181 / Monday, September 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

emissions. This action is being taken

under section 110 of the Clean Air Act.

The CVTRP would reduce vehicle

trips and vehicle miles traveled which

result in eliminating motor vehicle

emissions of volatile organic

compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides

(NOx), and carbon monoxide (CO),

thereby allowing for the addition of

commercial parking spaces and the

added vehicle trips they generate with

no net environmental impact. No new

emission reduction credit is being

added to the SIP at this time as the

CVTRP is not required to achieve

additional emission reductions, only

equivalent reductions which would

have been achieved under the Freeze

proposed to be replaced. This is

consistent with the savings clause of the

Clean Air Act, section 193.

G. How Will the CVTRP be Enforced?

Cambridge must inspect nonresidential parking facilities to ensure

they are in compliance with appropriate

permits and ensure non-commercial

spaces are not available for commercial

parking. Cambridge must take

enforcement action against violators and

forward a copy of all inspections reports

to MA DEP. MA DEP may enforce the

CVTRP under applicable state law, and

EPA may initiate enforcement once it

approves the CVTRP into the

Massachusetts SIP. As an approved SIP

element, the requirements of this

regulation are also directly enforceable

as an emission standard or limit

pursuant to sections 113 and 304(a) of

the Federal Clean Air Act. The public

could commence a civil action for

failure to implement or achieve, in

accordance with the provisions of

section 304 of the Clean Air Act.

H. What are the penalties if the City fails

to completely offset emissions

associated with parking above the

baseline?

Among the penalties allowed under

the CAA, the failure of the City of

Cambridge to achieve the performance

standard and other requirements of the

CVTRP Regulation could result in a

finding of non-conformity under section

176(c) of the Clean Air Act, the

Commonwealth’s Transportation

Conformity Regulations (310 CMR

60.03), and EPA’s Transportation

Conformity Rule 40 CFR part 93,

subpart A.

EPA will have the ability to evaluate

Reports and CVTRP implementation.

Cambridge cannot claim credit for a

program already in the Massachusetts

SIP unless Cambridge’s implementation

of or contribution to such a program

achieves results in excess of the goals

for the program in the SIP. Failure of

Cambridge’s monitoring plan and

Report to adequately demonstrate

maintenance of a level of motor vehicle

air emissions less than or equal to those

estimated to occur absent replacement

and substitution of the Cambridge

Commercial Parking Freeze will require

the City to resolve such inadequacies

and to halt issuance of any new

commercial parking spaces in excess of

the baseline.

I. How Can the Public Comment?

EPA is proposing to approve the

Massachusetts SIP revision for the

Cambridge Vehicle Trip Reduction

Program, which was submitted on

January 28, 1998. EPA is soliciting

public comments on the issues

discussed in this document or on other

relevant matters. These comments will

be considered before taking final action.

Interested parties may participate in the

Federal rulemaking procedure by

submitting written comments to the

EPA Regional office listed in the

Addresses section of this document.

3. Overview of the CVTRP

The City of Cambridge Vehicle Trip

Reduction Program regulation consist of

fourteen subsections summarized as

follows:

(1) Purpose: Authorizes the City of

Cambridge to implement the CVTRP as

a replacement and substitution to the

Cambridge commercial parking freeze.

(2) Definitions: Includes the definition

of (a) Oversight Committee—a panel

jointly appointed by the MA DEP and

City of Cambridge; (b) Vehicle trip

reduction programs—are programs

designed to reduce vehicle miles of

travel or vehicle trips by influencing

travel behavior and demand or by

reducing air emissions from mobile

sources by utilizing clean fuels; and, (c)

Commercial parking space—means a

parking space available for use by the

general public at any time for a fee and

shall not include: (i) parking spaces

which are owned or operated by a

commercial entity whose primary

business is other than the operation of

parking facilities, for the exclusive use

of its lessees, employees, patrons,

customers, clients, patients, guests or

residents and not available for use by

the general public; (ii) parking spaces

restricted for the use of the residents of

a specific residential building or group

of buildings; (iii) spaces located on

public streets; or (iv) spaces located at

a park-and-ride facility operated in

conjunction with the Massachusetts Bay

Transportation Authority (MBTA).

(3) Applicability: Within the

geographic boundaries of the City of

Cambridge.

(4) Terms of Vehicle Trip Reduction

Program: The City of Cambridge shall

implement a CVTRP that offsets VMT

associated with the issuance of new

commercial parking space permits in

Cambridge in excess of the 13,452

spaces allowed by the Cambridge

Parking Freeze, to maintain a level of air

emissions less than or equal to those

estimated to occur absent replacement

and substitution of the Cambridge

Parking Freeze.

(5) Vehicle Trip Reduction Program:

may include, but not limited to; (a)

municipal employee trip reduction

measures; (b) increase of municipal

parking rates; (c) bicycle and pedestrian

mobility measures; and (d)

transportation demand management for

expansions and new development.

(6) Feasibility Studies: By December

26, 2000, the City of Cambridge shall

complete the following studies; (a)

promotion of clean fuels and low/zero

emission vehicles; (b) taxi cab

improvements; (c) zoning (revisions of

zoning ordinance to promote reduction

of VMT and traffic congestion and to

increase commuting alternatives to the

single-occupant vehicle.

(7) Travel Demand Management: The

City of Cambridge shall work and

coordinate with the Commonwealth and

the MA DEP to explore additional ways

to manage travel demand and demand

for parking in Cambridge, and ways in

which Cambridge can facilitate the

transfer of parking space permits and/or

parking spaces.

(8) City Enforcement Programs: The

CVTRP regulation contains an

enforcement section which requires

Cambridge to inspect non-residential

parking facilities to ensure that they are

in compliance with appropriate permits.

Cambridge must take enforcement

action against violators. In addition, the

regulation identifies the prohibition

against idling by buses, trucks, taxis,

and automobiles which Cambridge may

take enforcement action in accordance

with MA DEP’s idling regulation, (310

CMR 7.11(1)(b) Air Pollution control

regulations, U Transportation Media). A

copy of all inspections reports shall be

forwarded to MA DEP.

(9) Coordination Activities:

Cambridge may pursue improved

coordination with the MBTA regarding

improvements to public transit and

local para-transit.

(10) Monitoring and Demonstration

Plan: The City shall continuously

monitor the number of commercial

parking spaces within the City and

monitor the effectiveness of the CVTRP

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 181 / Monday, September 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules 56283

in achieving a combination of

reductions in VMT, vehicle trips and

vehicle air emission to satisfy the

performance standard that a level of air

emissions less than or equal to those

estimated to occur absent replacement

and substitution of the Cambridge

commercial parking freeze.

(11) Recordkeeping and Reporting:

The CVTRP regulation requires the City

of Cambridge to submit status reports to

MA DEP, EPA Region 1 Office and the

chairman of the Boston Metropolitan

Planning Organization, on its progress

in implementing the regulation. The

status reports are required to be

submitted every year for three years

beginning one year after the regulation

is approved by EPA as a SIP revision,

and then every other year. The City of

Cambridge shall maintain records that

document the assumptions used in the

Report to determine emission

reductions from the CVTRP and to

demonstrate compliance with in

meeting the performance standard and

other requirements of 310 CMR 60.04.

(12) Monitoring and Demonstration

Report Review: The Report serves as the

City of Cambridge’s demonstration that

the vehicle trip reduction programs are

achieving the required reductions in

vehicle trips, VMT and air emissions to

maintain a level of air emissions less

than or equal to those estimated to occur

absent replacement and substitution of

the Cambridge Commercial Parking

Freeze. The MA DEP shall

independently or in combination with

the Oversight Committee determine the

Monitoring and Demonstration Report

to be adequate or inadequate. Should

the Oversight Committee determine that

the City has failed to meet its obligation,

a public hearing shall be held and MA

DEP shall consider the public comments

in MA DEP’s determination. Cambridge

must resolve any failure to achieve and

maintain a level of air emissions less

than or equal to those estimated to occur

absent replacement and substitution of

the Cambridge Commercial Parking

Freeze prior to issuing any additional

commercial parking space permits over

and above the baseline.

(13) Enforcement Program: MA DEP

may enforce 310 CMR under applicable

state law, and EPA may initiate

enforcement action once the CVTRP is

approved into the Massachusetts SIP. As

an approved SIP element the

requirements of this regulation are also

directly enforceable as an emission

standard or limit pursuant to sections

113 and 304(a) of the Federal Clean Air

Act. The public could commence a civil

action for failure to implement or

achieve, in accordance with the

provisions of section 304 of the Clean

Air Act.

(14) Responsibilities Under the Clean

Air Act: Programs already included in

Massachusetts SIP may not be included

in the CVTRP except to the extent

Cambridge’s implementation of or

contribution to such program achieves

results in excess of the goals established

in the SIP for such program.

Cambridge’s failure to comply with the

performance standard established in the

CVTRP regulation may result in a

finding of non-conformity under section

176(c) of the Clean Air Act.

II. Proposed Action

EPA is proposing to approve the SIP

amendment for Ozone and Carbon

Monoxide for the Cambridge Vehicle

Trip Reduction Program in the

Metropolitan Boston Air Pollution

Control District. This proposed revision

would replace the City of Cambridge’s

commercial parking freeze ( 40 CFR

52.1128 and 52.1135) with a city-wide

Cambridge Vehicle Trip Reduction

Program (CVTRP).

III. Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and

therefore is not subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget. This

action merely approves state law as

meeting Federal requirements and

imposes no additional requirements

beyond those imposed by state law.

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies

that this rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.). Because this rule approves preexisting requirements under state law

and does not impose any additional

enforceable duty beyond that required

by state law, it does not contain any

unfunded mandate or significantly or

uniquely affect small governments, as

described in the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4).

For the same reason, this rule also does

not significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of tribal governments, as

specified by Executive Order 13084 (63

FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This rule will

not have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999), because it merely

approves a state rule implementing a

Federal standard, and does not alter the

relationship or the distribution of power

and responsibilities established in the

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s

role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the

absence of a prior existing requirement

for the State to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority

to disapprove a SIP submission for

failure to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the

requirements of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.

272 note) do not apply. As required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing

this rule, EPA has taken the necessary

steps to eliminate drafting errors and

ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,

and provide a clear legal standard for

affected conduct. EPA has complied

with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR

8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the

takings implications of the rule in

accordance with the ‘‘Attorney

General’s Supplemental Guidelines for

the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of

Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under

the executive order. This rule does not

impose an information collection

burden under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides.

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

Dated: September 7, 2000.

Mindy S. Lubber,

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA—New

England.

[FR Doc. 00–23946 Filed 9–15–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P