[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