ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTI ON AGENCY 6560 - 50 - P 40 CFR Part 52 [Docket No. EPA - R02 - OAR - 201 3 - 0 192 ; FRL - ] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Revision to the New Yo rk State

Implementation Plan for Carbon Monoxide AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) is approving the State Implementation Plan revision (SI P) submitted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Th i s revision consist s 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 - Lo ng Island, NY - NJ - CT Carbon Monoxide attainment area. The EPA is approv ing th i s SIP revision because it w ill 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 . DATE S : This rule is effective on [Insert date 30 day s from date of publication in the Federal Register] . ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA R02 - OAR - 201 3 - 0 192 . All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov2

w eb 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 copy righted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly

available only

in hard copy

form. Publicly

available docket materials are available either ele ctronically 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 f rom 8:30 a.m. to 4:0 0 p.m., Monday through Friday , excluding legal holiday s. The Docket telephone number is 212 - 637 - 4249. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions concerning today’ s final action, please contact Henry Feingersh, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency , 290 Broadway

, 25th Floor, New Yo rk, New Yo rk 10007 - 1866, telephone number (212) 637 - 3382, fax number (212) 637 - 3901, email feingersh.henry @epa.gov . 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 limit ed 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 re quest to remove a reference to this limited off - street parking program in New York County because this SIP3

revision will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) toward attainment and maintenance of any NAA QS 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 SI P 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 SI P modeling to support the previously EPA - approved demonstrations of attainment of the various NAAQS, did not take credit for an y 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 Cit y administrative pr ocedures will no longer be federally enforceable. Removal of the limited offstreet parking program from the SI P will not change the program’s status under local law . II. What Comments D id The EPA R eceive O n T he Proposal And W hat Are The EPA’s Response s ? 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 Yo rk Law Department and from Mr. Daniel Gutman , some of which were timely . The City

of New Yo rk Law Department submitted a letter dated May 13, 2013. Mr. Gutman provided several comments to the EP

A: a May 13, 2013 letter, a June 7, 2013 electronic mail message, a June 1 1, 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 the4

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 Yo rk supports the EP A’ s proposed rule to approve New Yo rk’ s SIP request to remove a reference to a limited of f - street parking program as it relates to the New Yo rk County

portion of the New Yo rk - Northern New Jersey - Long Island, NY - NJ - CTCO attainment area. Mr. Gutman commented that the EP A should deny

New Yo rk State’ s re quest to revise the SIP

and not approve removal of the limited of f - street parking program reference in the SIP. A summary

of the comments and the EP A’ s responses are provided below. Comments from the City of New Yo rk Law Department are referred to as “th e City of New Yo rk” and comments from Mr. Daniel Gutman are referred to as “Mr. Gutman.” Comment: Mr. Gutman stated that the limited of f - street parking program, with a decline of 20,000 public parking spaces, has been ef fective in reducing automobile vehi cle miles traveled (VMT) and improving auto and truck vehicle speeds in the Manhattan CBD , contributing to the ability of New Yo rk to meet ozone and fine particle ( PM 2.5 ) NAAQS. Response: The EP

A disagrees that Mr. Gutman has presented a clear relationship between the limited of f - street parking restrictions and the ability of New Yo rk City to meet the ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS. While Mr. Gutman cited documents asserting the limited off - street parking has been reduced, and vehi cle speeds have improved, he has not cited evidence that either, or both,5

of those events correlate with the downward trend of CO concentrations. Mr. Gutman has not provided an y information that quantifies the emission reductions he asserts have been prod uced or the emission increases that he asserts would be produced b y removal of the program, or that indicates that the removal of the program will interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS. The EP A’ 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 EP

A’ 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 Stud y found “[p]olicies based on changing auto trip cost and travel ti me may be inef fective 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 qualit y impact of economically based parking management s trategies is minimal.” (1981 Parking Stud y p. i). Furthermore, “during the peak commuter entry hours there is no area of the CBD where lack of available of f - street parking serves to limit auto entries.” (1981 Parking Study p. ii). EP A is aware of anothe r study 1 which concludes that Boston’ s cap on off

- street parking has contributed to the excess VMTfrom people “cruising” for on - street parking spaces . Therefore, the amount of VMTgenerated due to travel into cities is a complex function of many variable s that includes the relationship between of f - street and on street parking. In this situation, the impact of removing the reference to the limited of f - street parking program on the precursors to ozone and PM 2.5 resulting from motor vehicles is so small as to not be meaningful and, most important, N ew Y ork in its SIP modeling to support the 1 “Cruising for parking,” Donald C. Shoup, (Transport Policy 13 (2006), pages 479 - 486).6

previously

EP A - approved demonstrations of attainment of the various NAAQS, did not take credit for an y emission reductions that may be attributed to the limited of f - stree t parking program measures . 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 PM 2.5 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 an y baseline assumptions associated with New York’s attainment demonstrations to date . In evaluating removal of the reference to the parking restrictions, the EP A considered New Yo rk’ 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 primaril y 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 of f - 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 Yo rk Metropolitan Area have not violated the NAAQS or come close to exceeding the NAAQS since7

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 Ve hicle 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 EP A’ 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 PM 2.5 , referenced b y M r. Gutman are emitted at levels significantl y lower than CO (See Figure 1). The e mission factors for 1990 and 2014 were calculated using default values for New Yo r k County (including default VMT). These are annual factors combining all vehicle types and road types.8 Figure 1 . N ew Y ork C ounty Emission Factors

Source: US EPA Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) Model. Reviewing the data submitted as part of the CO maintenance plan for the New Yo rk Metropolitan Area 2 figure 2 , below , shows the average daily speeds used in modeling . V ehicle speeds have decreased slightly

on highway s and increased slightly or remained constant , from 1990 to the present, on local, major collector, minor arterial and principle arterial roadway s while monitored CO values have decrease d significantl y to the levels observed in 2013. The New Yo rk - Northern New Jersey - Long Island, NY - NJ - CT CO attainment area, which includes the Ma nhattan CBD, is meeting the NAAQS.

2 New York Metropolitan Area Carbon Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan For 2012

– 2022 , dated Dec e mb er 2012, Appendix C, Attachment 4 Speed Tables.9 F igure 2 . Average Speeds used in Manhattan Modeling

Source: New York Metropolitan Area Carbon Monoxide Li mited Maintenance Plan For 2012

– 2022 , Appendix C, Attachment 4, dated December 2012. Based on traffic data from the New Yo rk State Department of T ransportation , VMT increased from 1985 to 2006 and declined slightl y from 2006 to 201 1 (see Figure 3), but this has not aff ected average vehicle speeds in Manhattan or monitored CO concentrations which have decreased over the current period.10

Figure 3. New York County Dail y Vehicle Miles Traveled

When the EP

A proposed to approve New Yo rk’ s 2 nd CO maintenance plan on March 25, 2014 (79 FR 16265) , the EP

A only received comments supporting the proposal. A final rulemaking approving the CO maintenance plan wa s published on May 30, 2014 ( 79 FR 31045 ) . Based on the CO maintenance plan, vehicle speeds and VMTin 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 of f - street parking program is a limited program implemented by New Yo rk 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 PM 2.5 and ozone SIPs cover multiple counties.**M i** **l e** **s**

**Year**11

Comment: Mr. Gutman commented that the EP A approved the 1979 SIP, which included a “permanent project” of regulating and restricting parking in the C BD of Manhattan. Mr. Gutman further commented that, as a permanent project, continuation of the C BD limited of f - str eet parking program is a key assumption underlying projected traf fic e stimates incorporated into subsequent ozone and particulate matter SIP revisions. Mr. Gutman stated the EP A should den y New Yo rk State’ s request to revise the SIP and not approve remova l of the limited of f - street parking program reference in the SI P. Response: Mr. Gutman maintains that the limited of f - street parking program appear s to be discussed a s a permanent measure in the SIP . While a number of SIP

actions 3 have discussed limited of f - street parking programs , the EP A disagrees with Mr. Gutman’ s interpretation regarding the permanency of such measures. 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 1 10 of the CAA generally and Section 1 10(l) specifically allow for the State to revise its SI P 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 Inthis action, the EP A is approving New Yo rk’ s request to remove a reference in the SIP to a limited of f - street parking p rogram which the State has not relied on for an y associated emissions reductions in any EP A - approved SI P. 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). 4 In addition, Section 193 restricts modification of SIP requirements that were in effect before Nov em ber 15, 1990, by prohibiting such modification in any area which is a nonattainment area for any air pollutant unless the mo dification insures equivalent or greater emission reduction of such air pollutant.12

New Yo rk indicated that it has not relied on an y emission reductions that may be attributed to the limited of f - street parking program measures in any SI P actions . 5 As discussed in the EP A’ s April 12, 2013 proposal to approve New Yo rk’ s removal of a reference in the SIPto a limited of f - street parking program, CAA

Section 1 10(l) states: “The Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the re vision would interfere with an y applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 7501 [171]), or any other applicable requirement of this Chapter .” Section 1 10(l) allows New Yo rk to request that an y 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 1 10(l) would allow a State to remove a program that it clearl y 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 an y NAAQS and so long as the measure is not required b y other provisions of the CAA . For examp le, New Yo rk’ s portable fuel container program is a SIP approved, enforceable control measure program with associated emission reductions relied on in the SIP. A s important as this program is for New Yo rk’ s continued attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS , New Yo rk has the ability to request removal of this program if New Yo rk can demonstrate such removal would not interfere under Section 1 10(l). In this example, New Yo rk would need to replace the emission reductions associated with the portable fuel conta iner program with other control measures since New Yo rk relied on the resulting emission reductions . In contrast , New Yo rk cannot replace emission reduction s associated with the limited of f - street parking program with another control measure, because there is no information demonstrating

5 L etter dated Oct. 5, 2012 from J. Martens, DE C , 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 28.13

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 of f - 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 of f - street parking program. Further, the limited of

f - street parking program’ s goal was to reduce vehicle entries to the CBD and thereb y 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 ye ars, VMThas increased and vehicle speeds have been little changed and emission control technology

on vehicles has been greatl y improved and CO concentrations have decreased dramaticall y to approximately 20 percent of the NAAQS. This suggests that VMT and vehicle speeds have a neg l i g ible e ff ect in the Manhattan CBD but emission control ef ficiency has a large impact on CO emissions in Manhattan. T he 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 negl ig ible e ff ect, it is expected that there would be no impact on the other automotive related pollutants. The limited of f - street parking program was never included in an y other NAAQS SIP . In this action the EP A is approving New Yo rk's request to remo ve a reference in the SIP to a limited of

f - street parking program that the State has not relied on for an y associated emissions reductions. Comment: Mr. Gutman commented that the New Yo rk City Planning Commission has proposed new rules that have a target to increase the number of parking spaces in the City of New Yo rk , which he asserts violates the SIP and he asserts, will lead to renewed growth of14

traf fic, lower traf

fic speeds and higher emissions than assumed in New Yo rk’ s ozone and PM 2.5 attainment demo nstrations . Response: The issue of whether New Yo rk City or New Yo rk State is proposing regulations or statutes that may

violate the SIP is separate from the EP A’ s April 12, 2013 , proposal to approve a SIP

revision submitted by

the State to remove refer ences to the limited of f - street parking program in the SIP that apply solel y to the Manhattan CBD . I f the City of New Yo rk or State adopts regulations or statutes that are dif ferent than or conflict with requirements currently included in the SIP, the EP A will address those dif

ferences when such new rules are submitted by New Yo rk State for EP

A review and approval into the SIP. In addition, should such rules not be submitted as a SIP revision to the EP A for consideration but get promulgated in conflict with the applicable SIP , the EP

A also has the authority

to issue a finding of failure to implement the SIP, which would requir e submittal of a SIP revision . Mr. Gutman claims that the City of New Yo rk's proposed changes to the parking restrictions will violate the SIP because the changes are dif ferent than the parking restrictions c urrentl y contained in the SIP. However, Mr. Gutman failed to provide any specific references to the traf fic levels or emissi on levels assumed in N ew Y ork ' s SIPs. The state can alway s revise its SI P, consistent with the requirements of the CAA . When submitted as a SIP revision, EP A would be under an obligation to review the SIP revision on its merits and assess how it would af f ect the applicable SIP and attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.15

Comment: Mr. Gutman commented that since the EP A promulgated a new

, more stringent annual NAAQS for PM 2.5 that also requires that additional monitors be located near roadway s, vehicle emissions are likely to be more important in order for areas to meet the new PM 2.5 annual standard. Response: EP

A agrees that emissions from vehicle - related activities could be important considerations as states develop plans for meeting and maintaining the new PM 2.5 annual standard. EP

A has established procedures, separate from this SI P revision action, which will address attainment of the new PM 2.5 annual standard and the esta blishment of near roadway monitors. On December 1 7 , 2014 ( 80 FR 2206 ) , EP A designate d areas of the country as meeting or not meeting the new PM 2.5 annual standard, with moderate area attainment plans for an y nonattainment areas to be submitted by the states to EP

A no later than October 15, 2016 . New Yo rk City was designated attainment/unclassifiable since air quality data from the existing ambient air monitoring network shows the New Yo rk Metropolitan Area is currentl y below the new PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 monitors , and EP

A approved the plan in a letter dated November 3, 2014 . See T able 1 for the 3 - Ye ar design values.

Table 1 . Annual Design Value Concentrations for the NY - NJ - CT Nonattainment Area (μg/m 3 ) ( The 2012 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS is 12.0 μg/m 3 )

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 - Year design values County AQS Monitor ID ------------------------------------ 2007 - 2008 - 2009 - 2010 - 2011 - 2009 2010 2011 2012 201316 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Suffol k........ 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 r equirement for the relevant time period.

NM -- No monitor located in county. If new monitor ing data demonstrate s exceedances of the NAAQS, EP A would work with the State t o bring an y exceeding areas back into attainment.17

Comment: Mr. Gutman commented that the limited of f - street parking program is a useful reasonabl y available control measure or RACM and was so designated in the 1979 [proposed] SIP. Response: The EP

A agrees that the limited of f - 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 deci de which measures to include in RACM as a requirement of the SI P based on the ability of the measure to improve air quality in the given area and advance the attainment date. The EP A’ s April 12, 2013 , proposed action explained in detail the connection bet ween the limited of

f - street parking program and RACM. (See 78 FR 21869). As discussed in the EP A’ s April 12, 2013 , proposal, New Yo rk could have included the restrictions as a RACM in the subsequent CO SIP actions , but did not (1992, 2002) . New Yo rk also never included the restrictions as part of an y other NAAQS attainment demonstrations. These restrictions were not included because they were not needed to demonstrate RFP or to meet the attainment date. New Yo rk ’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 Yo rk is thus able to and has demonstrate d attainment of the NAAQS without relying on the limited of f - street parking program . Therefore the limited of f - street parking program is not necessary to meet or accelerate attainment by

the attainment date.18

Comment: Mr. Gutman commented that the New Yo rk 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 C BD that they called the Hudson Yards. Response: This comment is not relevant to this SIP action. The EP A is approving New Yo rk's request to remove a reference in the SIP to a limited of

f - street parking program which the State has not relied on for an y associated emissions reductions. Comment: Mr. Gutman’s comments state that the parking program was part of the SI P and reference a May

5, 2009, Court Order , which was submitted along with his comments to support his position. Response: EP

A agrees that the limited of f - street parking program is referenced in the SIP, but also acknowledges that there was some confusi on concerning its scope. New Yo rk State decided to address the issue b y 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 C BD 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 EP

A should not allow it.19

Response: As stated previously , the subject of the EP

A’ 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 EP A’ s determination that such removal will no t interfere with attainment and maintenance of all NAAQS. Once the limited of f - street parking program is removed from the SIP

, it will no longer be federally enforceable. Removal of the limited of fstreet parking program from the SI P 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 EP A should clarify

whether or not removing the limited of f - street parking program from the 1992 CO SIP leaves the program in place as part of the SIP for other pollutants. Response: The EP

A is removing the reference to the limited of f - street parking program from th e SIP. The EP

A’ 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 EP A’ s Apri l 12, 2013 proposal, the EP

A considered and evaluated New Yo rk’ 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 b y CO . Therefore, of all the criteria pollutants, CO would be the pollutant most20

aff ected b y h ypothetical 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 insignifi cant. Concentrations of all the other criteria pollutants, including ozone and particulate matter, would be af

fected much less than CO concentrations. By removing the limited of

f - street parking program references from the CO SI P, the EP A is removing the reference from all of the SIP, and instead rel yi ng on New Yo rk’ s more recent SI P revision approvals relating to emission inventories, RACM, attainment demonstrations and maintenance plans for all pollutants. Comment: The City

of New Yo rk commented that the EP A’ s proposed rule will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS in the City of New Yo rk . Response: The EP

A agrees. As stated in previous responses, the EP A considered and evaluated New Yo rk’ 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 Ap ril 12, 2013 proposed rule, the EP

A considered the impacts of all the criteria pollutants . Comment: New Yo rk City commented that the EP

A’ s proposed rule allows the City of New Yo rk to be responsible for its own limited of f - street parking program and that it believes that it is free to amend the parking regulations under the current SIP. Response: The EP

A agrees that the finalization of this rule will allow the City of New Yo rk to be responsible for the limited of f - street parking restriction program in appropriate cases.21

However, until the references to the limited of f - street parking program are removed from the SIP , the City of New Yo rk should continue to coordinate with the State to determine whether any such amendments are consistent with the SIP. Comment: The City

of New Yo rk supports the removal of the “outdated” parking controls in the SIP and to remove any confusion or misunderstanding regarding the City of New Yo rk's ability to regulate of

f - street parking. Response: The EP

A agrees with the suggestion that the parking controls discussed in the SIP in the earl y 1980s could be considered “outdated” in lay terms given the subsequent and more recent SIP

revisions submitted by

New Yo rk and approved by the EP A over the last three decades and the substantial progress which has been achieved in reducing air pollutants . New Yo rk has revised various emission inventories, RACMs, attainment demonstrations and maintenance plans at various times since the earlier references to the limited of f - str eet parking program . The N ew Y ork SIP has not and continues to not rely on the limited of

f - 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 b y this act ion.

I II . 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 SI P revision will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of an y NAAQS and will not interfere with an y other CAA applicable22

requirements . In addition, New York did not rely on any emission reductions from this program in its SI P modeling t o support the demonstration of attainment of the various NAAQS . 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 SI P revision . Therefore, the EPA is a pprov ing 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 SI P submissions, the EPA’s role is to approve s tate choices, provided that they

meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingl y, this action merel y approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements bey ond 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 Reduct ion 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 an y unfunded mandate or significantly o r uniquel y affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public L aw 104 - 4);23

• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• is not an economicall y signifi cant 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 legall y 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 appl y 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.24

Lis t 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 225

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PA RT52 - [AMENDED] 1. The authorit y citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: AUTHORITY: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq . Subpart HH - New Yo rk 2. Section 52.1670 is amended b y adding new entry to table (e) to read as follows: §52.1670 I dentification of plan. * * * * * ( e ) * * *

EP A - APPROVED NEW YORK NONREGULA TOR Y A ND QUASI - REGULA

TOR Y PROVISIONS **Action/SIP element Applicable** 

**geographic or nonattainm**  **ent area New York** 

**sub mittal**  **date EPA approval date**  **Explanation**

* * * * * * * Limited off

- street parking program New York County Central Business District 10/05/12 [Insert date of publication in the Federal Register] [Insert page number where the document begins] Removing reference to

program from SIP