[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 113 (Friday, June 12, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33418-33425]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14439]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2013-0192; FRL-9929-11-Region 2]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Revision to 
the New York State Implementation Plan for Carbon Monoxide

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the 
State Implementation Plan revision (SIP) submitted by the New York 
State Department of Environmental Conservation. This revision consists 
of a change to New York's November 15, 1992 Carbon Monoxide Attainment 
Demonstration that would remove a reference to a limited off-street 
parking program as it relates to the New York County portion of the New 
York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT Carbon Monoxide 
attainment area. The EPA is approving this SIP revision because it will 
not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the national ambient 
air quality standards (NAAQS) in the affected area or with any other 
applicable requirement of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and is consistent 
with EPA rules and guidance.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 13, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2013-0192. All documents in the docket are 
listed in the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in 
the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, 
i.e., confidential business information (CBI) or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection during normal 
business hours at the Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866. This 
Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is 212-
637-4249.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions concerning this 
final action, please contact Henry Feingersh, Air Programs Branch, 
Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, 
New York 10007-1866, telephone number (212) 637-3382, fax number (212) 
637-3901, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. What action is the EPA taking?

    The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 
submitted a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision request to remove 
a reference from the carbon monoxide (CO) SIP to a limited off-street 
parking program that only applied in the Manhattan Central Business 
District of New York City (CBD). The program limits the number of 
parking spaces permitted in newly constructed buildings. The EPA is 
approving New York's request to remove a reference to this limited off-
street parking program in New York County because this SIP revision 
will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning 
attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) toward attainment and 
maintenance of any NAAQS or with any other applicable requirement of 
the CAA. The EPA has reviewed all the public comments and agrees with 
the State and City of New York that there is no evidence that removal 
from the SIP will interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS 
in the area or with any other CAA applicable requirement. In addition, 
New York, in its SIP modeling to support the previously EPA-approved 
demonstrations of attainment of the various NAAQS, did not take credit 
for any emission reductions that may be attributed to the limited off-
street parking program measures. After removal from the federal SIP, 
the limited off-street parking program, which is implemented by the New 
York City Department of City Planning and subject to New York City 
administrative

[[Page 33419]]

procedures will no longer be federally enforceable. Removal of the 
limited off-street parking program from the SIP will not change the 
program's status under local law.

II. What comments did the EPA receive on the proposal and what are the 
EPA's responses?

    Our April 12, 2013 proposed approval of the SIP provided for a 
public comment period that ran from April 12 through May 13, 2013. We 
received comments from the City of New York Law Department and from Mr. 
Daniel Gutman, some of which were timely. The City of New York Law 
Department submitted a letter dated May 13, 2013. Mr. Gutman provided 
several comments to the EPA: A May 13, 2013 letter, a June 7, 2013 
electronic mail message, a June 11, 2013 electronic mail message and a 
July 26, 2013 letter. All comments, even those from Mr. Gutman that 
were received after the close of the public comment period, are 
included in the docket for this action. Although we are not required to 
respond to Mr. Gutman's late-submitted comments, we are electing to do 
so in this final action.
    In general, the City of New York supports the EPA's proposed rule 
to approve New York's SIP request to remove a reference to a limited 
off-street parking program as it relates to the New York County portion 
of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT CO attainment 
area. Mr. Gutman commented that the EPA should deny New York State's 
request to revise the SIP and not approve removal of the limited off-
street parking program reference in the SIP.
    A summary of the comments and the EPA's responses are provided 
below. Comments from the City of New York Law Department are referred 
to as ``the City of New York'' and comments from Mr. Daniel Gutman are 
referred to as ``Mr. Gutman.''
    Comment: Mr. Gutman stated that the limited off-street parking 
program, with a decline of 20,000 public parking spaces, has been 
effective in reducing automobile vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and 
improving auto and truck vehicle speeds in the Manhattan CBD, 
contributing to the ability of New York to meet ozone and fine particle 
(PM2.5) NAAQS.
    Response: The EPA disagrees that Mr. Gutman has presented a clear 
relationship between the limited off-street parking restrictions and 
the ability of New York City to meet the ozone and PM2.5 
NAAQS. While Mr. Gutman cited documents asserting the limited off-
street parking has been reduced, and vehicle speeds have improved, he 
has not cited evidence that either, or both, of those events correlate 
with the downward trend of CO concentrations. Mr. Gutman has not 
provided any information that quantifies the emission reductions he 
asserts have been produced or the emission increases that he asserts 
would be produced by removal of the program, or that indicates that the 
removal of the program will interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS. 
The EPA's overall conclusion, as explained by Figures 1-3 and the 
narrative addressing emission factors, average speeds and VMT, is that 
motor vehicle emissions are going down; any increase in VMT is 
outweighed by the decrease in motor vehicle emission rates.
    Based on the EPA's review of the ``1981 Parking Study,'' submitted 
by Mr. Gutman along with his comments, the Study found that the number 
of parking spaces was not a limiting factor for drivers deciding to 
drive into the CBD. The 1981 Parking Study found ``[p]olicies based on 
changing auto trip cost and travel time may be ineffective in reducing 
auto trips since most of the variations in trip decisions are due to 
factors other than trip time and cost.'' (1981 Parking Study p. i). It 
also found that ``the air quality impact of economically based parking 
management strategies is minimal.'' (1981 Parking Study p. i). 
Furthermore, ``during the peak commuter entry hours there is no area of 
the CBD where lack of available off-street parking serves to limit auto 
entries.'' (1981 Parking Study p. ii). EPA is aware of another study 
\1\ which concludes that Boston's cap on off-street parking has 
contributed to the excess VMT from people ``cruising'' for on-street 
parking spaces. Therefore, the amount of VMT generated due to travel 
into cities is a complex function of many variables that includes the 
relationship between off-street and on-street parking. In this 
situation, the impact of removing the reference to the limited off-
street parking program on the precursors to ozone and PM2.5 
resulting from motor vehicles is so small as to not be meaningful and, 
most important, New York in its SIP modeling to support the previously 
EPA-approved demonstrations of attainment of the various NAAQS, did not 
take credit for any emission reductions that may be attributed to the 
limited off-street parking program measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Cruising for parking,'' Donald C. Shoup, (Transport Policy 
13 (2006), pages 479-486).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No evidence was provided that a growth in the number of parking 
spaces in the CBD of New York City will lead to renewed growth of 
traffic, lower traffic speeds and/or higher emissions than assumed in 
New York's ozone and PM2.5 attainment demonstrations. The 
EPA therefore disagrees that it should be assumed there is a direct 
correlation between growth in the number of parking spaces in the City 
of New York and its impact on any baseline assumptions associated with 
New York's attainment demonstrations to date.
    In evaluating removal of the reference to the parking restrictions, 
the EPA considered New York's SIP revision request to address all 
criteria air pollutants whose emissions and/or ambient concentrations 
may change as a result of the SIP revision. Regarding the air quality 
aspects of motor vehicle emissions and parking restrictions, increased 
emissions, if any, from additional motor vehicles in an area would be 
primarily CO compared to other criteria pollutants in the Manhattan 
CBD. Therefore, of all the criteria pollutants, CO concentrations would 
be the pollutant most sensitive to factors associated with the impact 
from changes to the existing limited off-street parking program that 
limits the number of parking spaces in permitted new construction.
    As presented in our April 12, 2013 proposed rule, CO concentrations 
in the New York Metropolitan Area have not violated the NAAQS or come 
close to exceeding the NAAQS since 1992 and have trended downward since 
that year. Currently, measured CO concentrations show values of 
approximately 20 percent of the NAAQS. Also, as stated in the April 12, 
2013, proposed rule, ``This dramatic improvement can be attributed to 
the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program along with advanced anti-
pollution controls on motor vehicles.'' 78 FR 21867, 21869.
    A comparison of vehicle emission factors between 1990 and 2014 
calculated using EPA's mobile source model, MOVES, shows how the rate 
of mobile emissions have been reduced. In addition, it also shows how 
the other pollutants of interest, including ozone and PM2.5, 
referenced by Mr. Gutman are emitted at levels significantly lower than 
CO (See Figure 1). The emission factors for 1990 and 2014 were 
calculated using default values for New York County (including default 
VMT).

[[Page 33420]]

These are annual factors combining all vehicle types and road types.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JN15.102

    Reviewing the data submitted as part of the CO maintenance plan for 
the New York Metropolitan Area \2\ figure 2, below, shows the average 
daily speeds used in modeling. Vehicle speeds have decreased slightly 
on highways and increased slightly or remained constant, from 1990 to 
the present, on local, major collector, minor arterial and principle 
arterial roadways while monitored CO values have decreased 
significantly to the levels observed in 2013. The New York-Northern New 
Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT CO attainment area, which includes the 
Manhattan CBD, is meeting the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ New York Metropolitan Area Carbon Monoxide Limited 
Maintenance Plan For 2012-2022, dated December 2012, Appendix C, 
Attachment 4 Speed Tables.

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

[[Page 33421]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JN15.103

    Based on traffic data from the New York State Department of 
Transportation, VMT increased from 1985 to 2006 and declined slightly 
from 2006 to 2011 (see Figure 3), but this has not affected average 
vehicle speeds in Manhattan or monitored CO concentrations which have 
decreased over the current period.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JN15.104


[[Page 33422]]


    When the EPA proposed to approve New York's 2nd CO maintenance plan 
on March 25, 2014 (79 FR 16265), the EPA only received comments 
supporting the proposal. A final rulemaking approving the CO 
maintenance plan was published on May 30, 2014 (79 FR 31045). Based on 
the CO maintenance plan, vehicle speeds and VMT in the Manhattan CBD 
have not shown much change, while vehicle emissions have decreased 
dramatically.
    Therefore, no emission reductions were attributed to this program 
in the SIP. The reader is reminded that the limited off-street parking 
program is a limited program implemented by New York City Department of 
City Planning that applies only in the CBD of Manhattan and applies to 
new building construction. While this program applies to a portion of 
only one county, the PM2.5 and ozone SIPs cover multiple 
counties.
    Comment: Mr. Gutman commented that the EPA approved the 1979 SIP, 
which included a ``permanent project'' of regulating and restricting 
parking in the CBD of Manhattan. Mr. Gutman further commented that, as 
a permanent project, continuation of the CBD limited off-street parking 
program is a key assumption underlying projected traffic estimates 
incorporated into subsequent ozone and particulate matter SIP 
revisions. Mr. Gutman stated the EPA should deny New York State's 
request to revise the SIP and not approve removal of the limited off-
street parking program reference in the SIP.
    Response: Mr. Gutman maintains that the limited off-street parking 
program appears to be discussed as a permanent measure in the SIP. 
While a number of SIP actions \3\ have discussed limited off-street 
parking programs, the EPA disagrees with Mr. Gutman's interpretation 
regarding the permanency of such measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See, e.g., 44 FR 70754 (Dec. 10, 1979); 45 FR 33981 (May 21, 
1980); 45 FR 56369 (Aug. 25, 1980); 46 FR 8477 (Jan. 27, 1981); 67 
FR 19337 (April 19, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Gutman's comments place emphasis on the ``permanency'' of 
measures in the SIP, suggesting that once a measure is approved into 
the SIP, it perpetually remains in the SIP. However, this is not the 
case. Section 110 of the CAA generally and section 110(l) specifically 
allow for the State to revise its SIP over time to add or remove 
control measures, subject to the condition that doing so does not 
result in interference with attainment and maintenance of any NAAQS or 
with any other CAA applicable requirement.\4\ In this action, the EPA 
is approving New York's request to remove a reference in the SIP to a 
limited off-street parking program which the State has not relied on 
for any associated emissions reductions in any EPA-approved SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In addition, section 193 restricts modification of SIP 
requirements that were in effect before November 15, 1990, by 
prohibiting such modification in any area which is a nonattainment 
area for any air pollutant unless the modification insures 
equivalent or greater emission reduction of such air pollutant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New York indicated that it has not relied on any emission 
reductions that may be attributed to the limited off-street parking 
program measures in any SIP actions.\5\ As discussed in the EPA's April 
12, 2013 proposal to approve New York's removal of a reference in the 
SIP to a limited off-street parking program, CAA section 110(l) states: 
``The Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the 
revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning 
attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 7501 
[171]), or any other applicable requirement of this Chapter.'' Section 
110(l) allows New York to request that any measure be removed from the 
SIP as long as the state can demonstrate that removal of the measure 
complies with this restriction. In fact, section 110(l) would allow a 
State to remove a program that it clearly identified as a ``permanent'' 
control measure, even if the program included associated emission 
reductions that were credited to the SIP, so long as the State can 
demonstrate continued attainment and maintenance of any NAAQS and so 
long as the measure is not required by other provisions of the CAA. For 
example, New York's portable fuel container program is a SIP-approved, 
enforceable control measure program with associated emission reductions 
relied on in the SIP. As important as this program is for New York's 
continued attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, New York has the 
ability to request removal of this program if New York can demonstrate 
such removal would not interfere under section 110(l). In this example, 
New York would need to replace the emission reductions associated with 
the portable fuel container program with other control measures since 
New York relied on the resulting emission reductions. In contrast, New 
York cannot replace emission reductions associated with the limited 
off-street parking program with another control measure, because there 
is no information demonstrating that the measures ever achieved a 
reduction in emissions or that the removal of the restrictions would 
lead to an increase in emissions, and no emission reductions from the 
limited off-street parking program were ever credited towards 
attainment of the CO standards. There is no quantifiable emission 
increase as a result of removing the limited off-street parking 
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Letter dated Oct. 5, 2012 from J. Martens, DEC, to J. Enck, 
EPA Region 2, including attachment dated August 2012 ``Assessment of 
Public Comments on the Proposed Amendment to the New York State 
Implementation Plan: Carbon Monoxide Attainment Demonstration: New 
York Metropolitan Area, August 2012.'' See, e.g., Response to 
Comment 2, 5 and 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the limited off-street parking program's goal was to 
reduce vehicle entries to the CBD and thereby improve vehicle speeds 
and lower VMT with the idea that this would ultimately reduce CO 
emissions from automobiles on the road in the late 1970's and early 
1980's. Over the years, VMT has increased and vehicle speeds have been 
little changed and emission control technology on vehicles has been 
greatly improved and CO concentrations have decreased dramatically to 
approximately 20 percent of the NAAQS. This suggests that VMT and 
vehicle speeds have a negligible effect in the Manhattan CBD but 
emission control efficiency has a large impact on CO emissions in 
Manhattan. The other pollutants emitted from automobiles, both in 1990 
and 2014, are emitted at rates significantly less than CO and, since 
vehicle speeds and VMT in the Manhattan CBD have a negligible effect, 
it is expected that there would be no impact on the other automotive 
related pollutants. The limited off-street parking program was never 
included in any other NAAQS SIP. In this action the EPA is approving 
New York's request to remove a reference in the SIP to a limited off-
street parking program that the State has not relied on for any 
associated emissions reductions.
    Comment: Mr. Gutman commented that the New York City Planning 
Commission has proposed new rules that have a target to increase the 
number of parking spaces in the City of New York, which he asserts 
violates the SIP and he asserts, will lead to renewed growth of 
traffic, lower traffic speeds and higher emissions than assumed in New 
York's ozone and PM2.5 attainment demonstrations.
    Response: The issue of whether New York City or New York State is 
proposing regulations or statutes that may violate the SIP is separate 
from the EPA's April 12, 2013, proposal to approve a SIP revision 
submitted by the State to remove references to the limited off-street 
parking program in the SIP

[[Page 33423]]

that apply solely to the Manhattan CBD. If the City of New York or 
State adopts regulations or statutes that are different than or 
conflict with requirements currently included in the SIP, the EPA will 
address those differences when such new rules are submitted by New York 
State for EPA review and approval into the SIP. In addition, should 
such rules not be submitted as a SIP revision to the EPA for 
consideration but get promulgated in conflict with the applicable SIP, 
the EPA also has the authority to issue a finding of failure to 
implement the SIP, which would require submittal of a SIP revision.
    Mr. Gutman claims that the City of New York's proposed changes to 
the parking restrictions will violate the SIP because the changes are 
different than the parking restrictions currently contained in the SIP. 
However, Mr. Gutman failed to provide any specific references to the 
traffic levels or emission levels assumed in New York's SIPs. The state 
can always revise its SIP, consistent with the requirements of the CAA. 
When submitted as a SIP revision, EPA would be under an obligation to 
review the SIP revision on its merits and assess how it would affect 
the applicable SIP and attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
    Comment: Mr. Gutman commented that since the EPA promulgated a new, 
more stringent annual NAAQS for PM2.5 that also requires 
that additional monitors be located near roadways, vehicle emissions 
are likely to be more important in order for areas to meet the new 
PM2.5 annual standard.
    Response: EPA agrees that emissions from vehicle-related activities 
could be important considerations as states develop plans for meeting 
and maintaining the new PM2.5 annual standard. EPA has 
established procedures, separate from this SIP revision action, which 
will address attainment of the new PM2.5 annual standard and 
the establishment of near roadway monitors. On December 17, 2014 (80 FR 
2206), EPA designated areas of the country as meeting or not meeting 
the new PM2.5 annual standard, with moderate area attainment 
plans for any nonattainment areas to be submitted by the states to EPA 
no later than October 15, 2016. New York City was designated 
attainment/unclassifiable since air quality data from the existing 
ambient air monitoring network shows the New York Metropolitan Area is 
currently below the new PM2.5 annual standard. As for the 
new near roadway monitors, states are required to phase-in these 
monitoring sites beginning in 2015. NYSDEC submitted its 2014 annual 
network plan, which provides for near roadway PM2.5 
monitors, and EPA approved the plan in a letter dated November 3, 2014. 
See Table 1 for the 3-Year design values.

                             Table 1--Annual Design Value Concentrations for the NY-NJ-CT Nonattainment Area ([micro]g/m\3\)
                                                   [The 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS is 12.0 [micro]g/m\3\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       3-Year design values
                  County                           AQS Monitor ID        -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             2007-2009       2008-2010       2009-2011       2010-2012       2011-2013
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW YORK:
    Bronx.................................  36-005-0080/0110/0133.......            13.9            12.5            11.9             9.8             9.6
    Kings.................................  36-047-0122.................            12.2            10.8            10.3             9.9             9.7
    Nassau................................  36-059-0008.................            10.3             9.5             8.9             INC             INC
    New York..............................  36-061-0128/0134............            12.1            12.1            11.7            11.8            11.7
    Orange................................  36-071-0002.................             9.3             8.5             8.2             8.1             7.8
    Queens................................  36-081-0124.................            10.6            10.0             9.4             9.1             8.7
    Richmond..............................  36-085-0055.................            11.6            10.5             9.8             9.7             9.0
    Rockland..............................  NM..........................              NM              NM              NM              NM              NM
    Suffolk...............................  36-103-0002.................             9.7             8.9             8.4             8.4             8.1
    Westchester...........................  36-119-1002.................            10.6             9.6             9.1             INC             INC
NEW JERSEY:
    Bergen................................  34-003-0003.................            11.3             9.8             9.2             9.2             9.1
    Essex.................................  34-0013-003.................             INC             INC             INC             9.5             9.4
    Hudson................................  34-017-2002.................            13.1            11.6            11.1            11.1            11.1
    Mercer................................  34-021-0008.................            10.8            10.0             9.7             9.5             9.4
    Middlesex.............................  34-023-0006.................            10.4             8.8             7.9             8.0             8.2
    Monmouth..............................  NM..........................              NM              NM              NM              NM              NM
    Morris................................  34-027-0004.................             9.6             8.7             8.5             8.4             8.4
    Passaic...............................  34-031-0005.................            11.3             9.8             9.3             9.3             9.3
    Somerset..............................  NM..........................              NM              NM              NM              NM              NM
    Union.................................  34-039-0006/2003............            11.6            10.3             9.6             9.7             9.7
CONNECTICUT:
    Fairfield.............................  09-001-0010.................            11.3            10.0             9.4             9.4             9.3
    New Haven.............................  09-009-1123.................            11.4            10.3             9.6             9.4             9.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INC--Counties listed as INC did not meet 75 percent data completeness requirement for the relevant time period.
NM--No monitor located in county.

    If new monitoring data demonstrates exceedances of the NAAQS, EPA 
would work with the State to bring any exceeding areas back into 
attainment.
    Comment: Mr. Gutman commented that the limited off-street parking 
program is a useful reasonably available control measure or RACM and 
was so designated in the 1979 [proposed] SIP.
    Response: The EPA agrees that the limited off-street parking 
program may be a RACM to make progress towards attainment of the NAAQS 
for a specific pollutant(s) depending on location specific factors that 
can change with time. The State, however, has the flexibility to decide 
which measures to include in RACM as a requirement of the SIP based on 
the ability of the measure to improve air quality in the given area and 
advance the attainment date. The EPA's April 12, 2013, proposed action 
explained in detail the connection between the limited off-street 
parking program and RACM. (See 78 FR 21869). As discussed in the EPA's 
April 12, 2013, proposal, New York

[[Page 33424]]

could have included the restrictions as a RACM in the subsequent CO SIP 
actions, but did not (1992, 2002). New York also never included the 
restrictions as part of any other NAAQS attainment demonstrations. 
These restrictions were not included because they were not needed to 
demonstrate RFP or to meet the attainment date. New York's SIP does not 
rely on any emission reductions associated with the parking 
restrictions, and all credited emissions reductions are attributed to 
other control measures in the SIP. New York is thus able to and has 
demonstrated attainment of the NAAQS without relying on the limited 
off-street parking program. Therefore the limited off-street parking 
program is not necessary to meet or accelerate attainment by the 
attainment date.
    Comment: Mr. Gutman commented that the New York City Department of 
City Planning ``has been seeking to jettison'' rules, which they had 
supported in 1982, by proposing in 2004, to rewrite the restrictions 
for a large development area within the CBD that they called the Hudson 
Yards.
    Response: This comment is not relevant to this SIP action. The EPA 
is approving New York's request to remove a reference in the SIP to a 
limited off-street parking program which the State has not relied on 
for any associated emissions reductions.
    Comment: Mr. Gutman's comments state that the parking program was 
part of the SIP and reference a May 5, 2009, Court Order, which was 
submitted along with his comments to support his position.
    Response: EPA agrees that the limited off-street parking program is 
referenced in the SIP, but also acknowledges that there was some 
confusion concerning its scope. New York State decided to address the 
issue by formally proposing revisions to the SIP, holding public 
hearings and requesting public comments. This action is the result of 
the State formally submitting a SIP revision.
    Comment: Mr. Gutman commented that while the CBD parking 
regulations may need to be updated and modernized, there is no reason 
to gut their essence in the process, or to remove the program from the 
SIP, and the EPA should not allow it.
    Response: As stated previously, the subject of the EPA's April 12, 
2013, proposal is to act on a SIP revision submitted by the State to 
remove references to the limited off-street parking program in the SIP, 
based on the EPA's determination that such removal will not interfere 
with attainment and maintenance of all NAAQS. Once the limited off-
street parking program is removed from the SIP, it will no longer be 
federally enforceable. Removal of the limited off-street parking 
program from the SIP will not change the program's status under local 
law. Any future changes to the program would be subject to local 
administrative procedures and public involvement.
    Comment: Mr. Gutman commented that the EPA should clarify whether 
or not removing the limited off-street parking program from the 1992 CO 
SIP leaves the program in place as part of the SIP for other 
pollutants.
    Response: The EPA is removing the reference to the limited off-
street parking program from the SIP. The EPA's April 12, 2013, proposal 
focused on CO because when compared to other pollutants emitted from 
motor vehicles, CO emissions far exceed the others (see figure 1). 
However, as discussed in previous responses to comments and in the 
EPA's April 12, 2013 proposal, the EPA considered and evaluated New 
York's SIP revision request to address all criteria air pollutants 
whose emissions and/or ambient concentrations may change as a result of 
the SIP revision. Regarding the relationship between motor vehicle 
emissions, pollutant concentrations and activities that would 
theoretically increase motor vehicle activity, on a grams per mile 
basis, the mass of increased emissions from additional motor vehicles 
in an area would be dominated by CO. Therefore, of all the criteria 
pollutants, CO would be the pollutant most affected by hypothetical 
activity that results in overall emissions increases and, as discussed 
in previous responses to comments, the impact on the area's CO 
concentrations would be insignificant. Concentrations of all the other 
criteria pollutants, including ozone and particulate matter, would be 
affected much less than CO concentrations. By removing the limited off-
street parking program references from the CO SIP, the EPA is removing 
the reference from all of the SIP, and instead relying on New York's 
more recent SIP revision approvals relating to emission inventories, 
RACM, attainment demonstrations and maintenance plans for all 
pollutants.
    Comment: The City of New York commented that the EPA's proposed 
rule will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS in 
the City of New York.
    Response: The EPA agrees. As stated in previous responses, the EPA 
considered and evaluated New York's SIP revision request to address all 
criteria air pollutants whose emissions and/or ambient concentrations 
may change as a result of the SIP revision. While CO concentrations are 
the pollutant of most concern in this action, as stated in the April 
12, 2013 proposed rule, the EPA considered the impacts of all the 
criteria pollutants.
    Comment: New York City commented that the EPA's proposed rule 
allows the City of New York to be responsible for its own limited off-
street parking program and that it believes that it is free to amend 
the parking regulations under the current SIP.
    Response: The EPA agrees that the finalization of this rule will 
allow the City of New York to be responsible for the limited off-street 
parking restriction program in appropriate cases. However, until the 
references to the limited off-street parking program are removed from 
the SIP, the City of New York should continue to coordinate with the 
State to determine whether any such amendments are consistent with the 
SIP.
    Comment: The City of New York supports the removal of the 
``outdated'' parking controls in the SIP and to remove any confusion or 
misunderstanding regarding the City of New York's ability to regulate 
off-street parking.
    Response: The EPA agrees with the suggestion that the parking 
controls discussed in the SIP in the early 1980s could be considered 
``outdated'' in lay terms given the subsequent and more recent SIP 
revisions submitted by New York and approved by the EPA over the last 
three decades and the substantial progress which has been achieved in 
reducing air pollutants. New York has revised various emission 
inventories, RACMs, attainment demonstrations and maintenance plans at 
various times since the earlier references to the limited off-street 
parking program. The New York SIP has not and continues to not rely on 
the limited off-street parking program as a control measure. However, 
the rule is not actually ``outdated'' in a legal sense unless removed 
from the SIP, as is being done by this action.

III. What is the EPA's final action?

    The EPA is approving New York's request to remove a reference to a 
limited off-street parking program in New York County from the SIP 
because this SIP revision will not interfere with attainment or 
maintenance of any NAAQS and will not interfere with any other CAA 
applicable requirements. In addition, New York did not rely on any 
emission reductions from this program in its SIP modeling to support 
the demonstration of attainment of the various NAAQS.

[[Page 33425]]

    The EPA's review of the materials submitted indicates that New York 
has revised its SIP in accordance with the requirements of the CAA, 40 
CFR part 51 and all of the EPA's technical requirements for a SIP 
revision. Therefore, the EPA is approving the removal of a reference to 
a limited off-street parking program in New York County from the SIP.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority 
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or 
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible 
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the state, and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 
matter, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 2, 2015.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart HH--New York

0
2. In Sec.  52.1670, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding 
the entry ``Limited off-street parking program'' at the end of the 
table to read as follows:


Sec.  52.1670  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                       EPA-Approved New York Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Applicable
       Action/SIP element            geographic or         New York      EPA Approval date       Explanation
                                   nonattainment area   submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Limited off-street parking        New York County--          10/05/12   6/12/15 [insert      Removing reference
 program.                          Central Business                      Federal Register     to program from
                                   District.                             citation].           SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-14439 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P