33418 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS FOR SOUTH CAROLINA

State citation Title/Subject State effective 

date 

EPA Approval 

date Federal Register notice 

*******

Section III .............................................. Emission Inventory and Emissions 

Statement.

6/27/2014 6/12/2015 [Insert Federal Register 

citation] 

*******

* * * * * (e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED SOUTH CAROLINA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Provision State effective 

date EPA Approval date Explanation 

*******

2011 Base Year Emissions Inventory for the South Carolina portion 

of the bi-state Charlotte 2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area.

8/22/2014 6/12/2015 

, [Insert Federal Register 

citation] 

[FR Doc. 2015–14338 Filed 6–11–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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 YorkNorthern New Jersey-Long Island, NYNJ-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 

feingersh.henry@epa.gov. 

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 offstreet 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 33419 

1 ‘‘Cruising for parking,’’ Donald C. Shoup, 

(Transport Policy 13 (2006), pages 479–486). 

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 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 YorkNorthern New Jersey-Long Island, NYNJ-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 offstreet 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 offstreet 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 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 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 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). 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
33420 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

2New York Metropolitan Area Carbon Monoxide 

Limited Maintenance Plan For 2012–2022, dated 

December 2012, Appendix C, Attachment 4 Speed 

Tables. 

These are annual factors combining all 

vehicle types and road types. 

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. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULESER12JN15.102</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 33421 

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. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULESER12JN15.103</GPH> ER12JN15.104</GPH>
33422 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

3See, 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. 

5Letter 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. 

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 offstreet 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. 

New York indicated that it has not 

relied on any emission reductions that 

may be attributed to the limited offstreet 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 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 offstreet 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 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 (μg/m3) 

[The 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS is 12.0 μg/m3] 

County AQS Monitor ID 

3-Year design values 

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 offstreet parking program and RACM. (See 

78 FR 21869). As discussed in the EPA’s 

April 12, 2013, proposal, New York 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
33424 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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 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 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 offstreet 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. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 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 offstreet 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 

■ 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. In § 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: 

§ 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 County—Central 

Business District.

10/05/12 6/12/15 [insert Federal Register citation].Removing reference to program from SIP 

[FR Doc. 2015–14439 Filed 6–11–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 98 

Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

CFR Correction 

In Title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, Parts 96 to 99, revised as of 

July 1, 2014, on page 764, in § 98.153, 

at the end of paragraph (d) introductory 

text, the parameter ED of Equation O–5 

is revised and reinstated to read as 

follows: 

§ 98.153 Calculating GHG emissions. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

* * * * * 

ED = Mass of HFC–23 emitted annually 

from destruction device (metric 

tons), calculated using Equation 

O–8 of this section. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–14399 Filed 6–11–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 0, 1, 2, 15 and 68 

[ET Docket No. 13–44; FCC 14–208] 

Authorization of Radiofrequency 

Equipment 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document updates the 

Federal Communications Commission’s 

(the Commission) radiofrequency (RF) 

equipment authorization program. The 

rules adopted by the Commission build 

on the success realized by our use of 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES