ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 6560-50-P

40 CFR Part 52

[Docket No. EPA-R02-OAR-2013-0192; FRL- ]

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 YorkNorthern 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 [Insert date 30 days from date of publication in the Federal

Register].

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPAR02-OAR-2013-0192. All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov 
2

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 today’s 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 

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 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 
3

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 procedures will no longer be federally enforceable. Removal of the limited offstreet 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 
4

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, 
5

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 study1 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 onstreet 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 

 

1 “Cruising for parking,” Donald C. Shoup, (Transport Policy 13 (2006), pages 479-486).
6

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.

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 
7

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). These are annual factors combining all vehicle types and road types.
8

Figure 1. New York County Emission Factors

Source: USEPA Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) Model.

Reviewing the data submitted as part of the CO maintenance plan for the New York Metropolitan 

Area2figure 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.
9

Figure 2. Average Speeds used in Manhattan Modeling

Source: New York Metropolitan Area Carbon Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan For 

2012 – 2022, Appendix C, Attachment 4, dated December 2012.

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.
10

Figure 3. New York County Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled

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.

Miles

Year
11

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 actions3have discussed 

limited off-street parking programs, the EPA 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 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.

 

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 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.
12

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 SIPapproved, 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 

 

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.
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 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. 

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 
14

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 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.
15

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 phasein 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 (μg/m3) 

(The 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS is 12.0 μg/m3)

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

3-Year design values

County AQS Monitor ID ------------------------------------

2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011-

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
16

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

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. 
17

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 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.
18

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.
19

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 offstreet 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 
20

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.
21

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 
22

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.

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 (Public Law 104-4);
23

• 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.
24

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
25

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

PART 52 - [AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart HH - New York

2. Section 52.1670 is amended by adding new entry to table (e) to read as follows:

§52.1670 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED NEW YORK NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Action/SIP element Applicable 

geographic or 

nonattainment area

New York 

submittal 

date

EPA approval date Explanation

* * * * * * *

Limited off-street 

parking program

New York CountyCentral 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