[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 181 (Monday, September 18, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56278-56283]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-23946]


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

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, EPA-New 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 e-
mail [email protected].

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''

[[Page 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 
Sec. 52.1135(a)(5). The revised rule delegated to the Governor the 
authority to approve city programs implementing freeze. Id. at 
Sec. 52.1135(e) & (f).
    Massachusetts included the Freeze as a part of its state-adopted, 
Federally-approved 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.

[[Page 56280]]

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-and-ride 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,

[[Page 56281]]

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

[[Page 56282]]

emissions. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean 
Air Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 non-residential 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

[[Page 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 pre-existing 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