Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Revision to the New York State Implementation Plan for Carbon Monoxide, 33418-33425 [2015-14439]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
33418
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS FOR SOUTH CAROLINA
State citation
*
*
Section III ..............................................
*
*
*
*
Emission Inventory
Statement.
*
*
*
State effective
date
Title/Subject
and
*
6/27/2014
*
6/12/2015
*
Emissions
*
*
EPA Approval
date
*
*
*
Federal Register notice
*
[Insert Federal Register
citation]
*
(e) * * *
EPA-APPROVED SOUTH CAROLINA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS
State effective
date
Provision
*
*
*
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]
DATES:
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
This rule is effective on July 13,
2015.
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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
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.
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Jun 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
Explanation
*
I. What action is the EPA taking?
The New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation submitted
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA–R02–OAR–2013–0192. All revision request to remove a reference
from the carbon monoxide (CO) SIP to
documents in the docket are listed in
a limited off-street parking program that
the https://www.regulations.gov Web
only applied in the Manhattan Central
site. Although listed in the electronic
Business District of New York City
docket, some information is not publicly (CBD). The program limits the number
available, i.e., confidential business
of parking spaces permitted in newly
information (CBI) or other information
constructed buildings. The EPA is
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. approving New York’s request to
Certain other material, such as
remove a reference to this limited offcopyrighted material, is not placed on
street parking program in New York
the Internet and will be publicly
County because this SIP revision will
available only in hard copy form.
not interfere with any applicable
Publicly available docket materials are
requirement concerning attainment and
available either electronically through
reasonable further progress (RFP)
toward attainment and maintenance of
https://www.regulations.gov or in hard
any NAAQS or with any other
copy for public inspection during
applicable requirement of the CAA. The
normal business hours at the Air
EPA has reviewed all the public
Programs Branch, Environmental
comments and agrees with the State and
Protection Agency, Region 2, 290
Broadway, New York, New York 10007– City of New York that there is no
evidence that removal from the SIP will
1866. This Docket Facility is open from
interfere with attainment or
8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through
maintenance of the NAAQS in the area
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
or with any other CAA applicable
Docket telephone number is 212–637–
requirement. In addition, New York, in
4249.
its SIP modeling to support the
previously EPA-approved
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions concerning this final demonstrations of attainment of the
various NAAQS, did not take credit for
action, please contact Henry Feingersh,
any emission reductions that may be
Air Programs Branch, Environmental
attributed to the limited off-street
Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th
parking program measures. After
Floor, New York, New York 10007–
removal from the federal SIP, the
1866, telephone number (212) 637–
3382, fax number (212) 637–3901, email limited off-street parking program,
which is implemented by the New York
feingersh.henry@epa.gov.
City Department of City Planning and
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
subject to New York City administrative
[FR Doc. 2015–14338 Filed 6–11–15; 8:45 am]
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
*
EPA Approval date
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12JNR1.SGM
12JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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).
1 ‘‘Cruising for parking,’’ Donald C. Shoup,
(Transport Policy 13 (2006), pages 479–486).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Jun 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33419
E:\FR\FM\12JNR1.SGM
12JNR1
33420
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
These are annual factors combining all
vehicle types and road types.
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
2 New York Metropolitan Area Carbon Monoxide
Limited Maintenance Plan For 2012–2022, dated
York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island,
NY-NJ-CT CO attainment area, which
includes the Manhattan CBD, is meeting
the NAAQS.
December 2012, Appendix C, Attachment 4 Speed
Tables.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Jun 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12JNR1.SGM
12JNR1
ER12JN15.102</GPH>
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
Manhattan or monitored CO
concentrations which have decreased
over the current period.
ER12JN15.104</GPH>
1985 to 2006 and declined slightly from
2006 to 2011 (see Figure 3), but this has
not affected average vehicle speeds in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Jun 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\12JNR1.SGM
12JNR1
ER12JN15.103</GPH>
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Based on traffic data from the New
York State Department of
Transportation, VMT increased from
33421
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
33422
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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
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).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Jun 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
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
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.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
E:\FR\FM\12JNR1.SGM
12JNR1
33423
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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]
3-Year design values
County
AQS Monitor ID
2007–2009
NEW YORK:
Bronx ............................
Kings ............................
Nassau .........................
New York .....................
Orange .........................
Queens ........................
Richmond .....................
Rockland ......................
Suffolk ..........................
Westchester .................
NEW JERSEY:
Bergen .........................
Essex ...........................
Hudson .........................
Mercer ..........................
Middlesex .....................
Monmouth ....................
Morris ...........................
Passaic ........................
Somerset ......................
Union ............................
CONNECTICUT:
Fairfield ........................
New Haven ..................
2008–2010
2009–2011
2010–2012
2011–2013
36–005–0080/0110/0133 ...
36–047–0122 .....................
36–059–0008 .....................
36–061–0128/0134 ............
36–071–0002 .....................
36–081–0124 .....................
36–085–0055 .....................
NM ......................................
36–103–0002 .....................
36–119–1002 .....................
13.9
12.2
10.3
12.1
9.3
10.6
11.6
NM
9.7
10.6
12.5
10.8
9.5
12.1
8.5
10.0
10.5
NM
8.9
9.6
11.9
10.3
8.9
11.7
8.2
9.4
9.8
NM
8.4
9.1
9.8
9.9
INC
11.8
8.1
9.1
9.7
NM
8.4
INC
9.6
9.7
INC
11.7
7.8
8.7
9.0
NM
8.1
INC
34–003–0003 .....................
34–0013–003 .....................
34–017–2002 .....................
34–021–0008 .....................
34–023–0006 .....................
NM ......................................
34–027–0004 .....................
34–031–0005 .....................
NM ......................................
34–039–0006/2003 ............
11.3
INC
13.1
10.8
10.4
NM
9.6
11.3
NM
11.6
9.8
INC
11.6
10.0
8.8
NM
8.7
9.8
NM
10.3
9.2
INC
11.1
9.7
7.9
NM
8.5
9.3
NM
9.6
9.2
9.5
11.1
9.5
8.0
NM
8.4
9.3
NM
9.7
9.1
9.4
11.1
9.4
8.2
NM
8.4
9.3
NM
9.7
09–001–0010 .....................
09–009–1123 .....................
11.3
11.4
10.0
10.3
9.4
9.6
9.4
9.4
9.3
9.3
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Jun 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
E:\FR\FM\12JNR1.SGM
12JNR1
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Jun 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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.
E:\FR\FM\12JNR1.SGM
12JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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
33425
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
Applicable geographic or
nonattainment area
New York
submittal
date
EPA Approval date
*
*
*
Limited off-street parking proNew York County—Central
gram.
Business District.
*
10/05/12
*
6/12/15 [insert Federal Register citation].
Action/SIP element
[FR Doc. 2015–14439 Filed 6–11–15; 8:45 am]
§ 98.153
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
*
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 98
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting
CFR Correction
[FR Doc. 2015–14399 Filed 6–11–15; 8:45 am]
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:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Jun 11, 2015
Calculating GHG emissions.
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
*
*
*
*
*
ED = Mass of HFC–23 emitted annually
from destruction device (metric
tons), calculated using Equation
O–8 of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
Jkt 235001
BILLING CODE 1505–01–D
PO 00000
Explanation
*
*
Removing reference to program from SIP
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 0, 1, 2, 15 and 68
[ET Docket No. 13–44; FCC 14–208]
Authorization of Radiofrequency
Equipment
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
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
SUMMARY:
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12JNR1.SGM
12JNR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 113 (Friday, June 12, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33418-33425]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14439]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R02-OAR-2013-0192; FRL-9929-11-Region 2]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Revision to
the New York State Implementation Plan for Carbon Monoxide
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
State Implementation Plan revision (SIP) submitted by the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation. This revision consists
of a change to New York's November 15, 1992 Carbon Monoxide Attainment
Demonstration that would remove a reference to a limited off-street
parking program as it relates to the New York County portion of the New
York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT Carbon Monoxide
attainment area. The EPA is approving this SIP revision because it will
not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS) in the affected area or with any other
applicable requirement of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and is consistent
with EPA rules and guidance.
DATES: This rule is effective on July 13, 2015.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2013-0192. All documents in the docket are
listed in the https://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 https://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 off-
street parking program in New York County because this SIP revision
will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) toward attainment and
maintenance of any NAAQS or with any other applicable requirement of
the CAA. The EPA has reviewed all the public comments and agrees with
the State and City of New York that there is no evidence that removal
from the SIP will interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS
in the area or with any other CAA applicable requirement. In addition,
New York, in its SIP modeling to support the previously EPA-approved
demonstrations of attainment of the various NAAQS, did not take credit
for any emission reductions that may be attributed to the limited off-
street parking program measures. After removal from the federal SIP,
the limited off-street parking program, which is implemented by the New
York City Department of City Planning and subject to New York City
administrative
[[Page 33419]]
procedures will no longer be federally enforceable. Removal of the
limited off-street parking program from the SIP will not change the
program's status under local law.
II. What comments did the EPA receive on the proposal and what are the
EPA's responses?
Our April 12, 2013 proposed approval of the SIP provided for a
public comment period that ran from April 12 through May 13, 2013. We
received comments from the City of New York Law Department and from Mr.
Daniel Gutman, some of which were timely. The City of New York Law
Department submitted a letter dated May 13, 2013. Mr. Gutman provided
several comments to the EPA: A May 13, 2013 letter, a June 7, 2013
electronic mail message, a June 11, 2013 electronic mail message and a
July 26, 2013 letter. All comments, even those from Mr. Gutman that
were received after the close of the public comment period, are
included in the docket for this action. Although we are not required to
respond to Mr. Gutman's late-submitted comments, we are electing to do
so in this final action.
In general, the City of New York supports the EPA's proposed rule
to approve New York's SIP request to remove a reference to a limited
off-street parking program as it relates to the New York County portion
of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT CO attainment
area. Mr. Gutman commented that the EPA should deny New York State's
request to revise the SIP and not approve removal of the limited off-
street parking program reference in the SIP.
A summary of the comments and the EPA's responses are provided
below. Comments from the City of New York Law Department are referred
to as ``the City of New York'' and comments from Mr. Daniel Gutman are
referred to as ``Mr. Gutman.''
Comment: Mr. Gutman stated that the limited off-street parking
program, with a decline of 20,000 public parking spaces, has been
effective in reducing automobile vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and
improving auto and truck vehicle speeds in the Manhattan CBD,
contributing to the ability of New York to meet ozone and fine particle
(PM2.5) NAAQS.
Response: The EPA disagrees that Mr. Gutman has presented a clear
relationship between the limited off-street parking restrictions and
the ability of New York City to meet the ozone and PM2.5
NAAQS. While Mr. Gutman cited documents asserting the limited off-
street parking has been reduced, and vehicle speeds have improved, he
has not cited evidence that either, or both, of those events correlate
with the downward trend of CO concentrations. Mr. Gutman has not
provided any information that quantifies the emission reductions he
asserts have been produced or the emission increases that he asserts
would be produced by removal of the program, or that indicates that the
removal of the program will interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS.
The EPA's overall conclusion, as explained by Figures 1-3 and the
narrative addressing emission factors, average speeds and VMT, is that
motor vehicle emissions are going down; any increase in VMT is
outweighed by the decrease in motor vehicle emission rates.
Based on the EPA's review of the ``1981 Parking Study,'' submitted
by Mr. Gutman along with his comments, the Study found that the number
of parking spaces was not a limiting factor for drivers deciding to
drive into the CBD. The 1981 Parking Study found ``[p]olicies based on
changing auto trip cost and travel time may be ineffective in reducing
auto trips since most of the variations in trip decisions are due to
factors other than trip time and cost.'' (1981 Parking Study p. i). It
also found that ``the air quality impact of economically based parking
management strategies is minimal.'' (1981 Parking Study p. i).
Furthermore, ``during the peak commuter entry hours there is no area of
the CBD where lack of available off-street parking serves to limit auto
entries.'' (1981 Parking Study p. ii). EPA is aware of another study
\1\ which concludes that Boston's cap on off-street parking has
contributed to the excess VMT from people ``cruising'' for on-street
parking spaces. Therefore, the amount of VMT generated due to travel
into cities is a complex function of many variables that includes the
relationship between off-street and on-street parking. In this
situation, the impact of removing the reference to the limited off-
street parking program on the precursors to ozone and PM2.5
resulting from motor vehicles is so small as to not be meaningful and,
most important, New York in its SIP modeling to support the previously
EPA-approved demonstrations of attainment of the various NAAQS, did not
take credit for any emission reductions that may be attributed to the
limited off-street parking program measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Cruising for parking,'' Donald C. Shoup, (Transport Policy
13 (2006), pages 479-486).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No evidence was provided that a growth in the number of parking
spaces in the CBD of New York City will lead to renewed growth of
traffic, lower traffic speeds and/or higher emissions than assumed in
New York's ozone and PM2.5 attainment demonstrations. The
EPA therefore disagrees that it should be assumed there is a direct
correlation between growth in the number of parking spaces in the City
of New York and its impact on any baseline assumptions associated with
New York's attainment demonstrations to date.
In evaluating removal of the reference to the parking restrictions,
the EPA considered New York's SIP revision request to address all
criteria air pollutants whose emissions and/or ambient concentrations
may change as a result of the SIP revision. Regarding the air quality
aspects of motor vehicle emissions and parking restrictions, increased
emissions, if any, from additional motor vehicles in an area would be
primarily CO compared to other criteria pollutants in the Manhattan
CBD. Therefore, of all the criteria pollutants, CO concentrations would
be the pollutant most sensitive to factors associated with the impact
from changes to the existing limited off-street parking program that
limits the number of parking spaces in permitted new construction.
As presented in our April 12, 2013 proposed rule, CO concentrations
in the New York Metropolitan Area have not violated the NAAQS or come
close to exceeding the NAAQS since 1992 and have trended downward since
that year. Currently, measured CO concentrations show values of
approximately 20 percent of the NAAQS. Also, as stated in the April 12,
2013, proposed rule, ``This dramatic improvement can be attributed to
the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program along with advanced anti-
pollution controls on motor vehicles.'' 78 FR 21867, 21869.
A comparison of vehicle emission factors between 1990 and 2014
calculated using EPA's mobile source model, MOVES, shows how the rate
of mobile emissions have been reduced. In addition, it also shows how
the other pollutants of interest, including ozone and PM2.5,
referenced by Mr. Gutman are emitted at levels significantly lower than
CO (See Figure 1). The emission factors for 1990 and 2014 were
calculated using default values for New York County (including default
VMT).
[[Page 33420]]
These are annual factors combining all vehicle types and road types.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JN15.102
Reviewing the data submitted as part of the CO maintenance plan for
the New York Metropolitan Area \2\ figure 2, below, shows the average
daily speeds used in modeling. Vehicle speeds have decreased slightly
on highways and increased slightly or remained constant, from 1990 to
the present, on local, major collector, minor arterial and principle
arterial roadways while monitored CO values have decreased
significantly to the levels observed in 2013. The New York-Northern New
Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT CO attainment area, which includes the
Manhattan CBD, is meeting the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ New York Metropolitan Area Carbon Monoxide Limited
Maintenance Plan For 2012-2022, dated December 2012, Appendix C,
Attachment 4 Speed Tables.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 33421]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JN15.103
Based on traffic data from the New York State Department of
Transportation, VMT increased from 1985 to 2006 and declined slightly
from 2006 to 2011 (see Figure 3), but this has not affected average
vehicle speeds in Manhattan or monitored CO concentrations which have
decreased over the current period.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JN15.104
[[Page 33422]]
When the EPA proposed to approve New York's 2nd CO maintenance plan
on March 25, 2014 (79 FR 16265), the EPA only received comments
supporting the proposal. A final rulemaking approving the CO
maintenance plan was published on May 30, 2014 (79 FR 31045). Based on
the CO maintenance plan, vehicle speeds and VMT in the Manhattan CBD
have not shown much change, while vehicle emissions have decreased
dramatically.
Therefore, no emission reductions were attributed to this program
in the SIP. The reader is reminded that the limited off-street parking
program is a limited program implemented by New York City Department of
City Planning that applies only in the CBD of Manhattan and applies to
new building construction. While this program applies to a portion of
only one county, the PM2.5 and ozone SIPs cover multiple
counties.
Comment: Mr. Gutman commented that the EPA approved the 1979 SIP,
which included a ``permanent project'' of regulating and restricting
parking in the CBD of Manhattan. Mr. Gutman further commented that, as
a permanent project, continuation of the CBD limited off-street parking
program is a key assumption underlying projected traffic estimates
incorporated into subsequent ozone and particulate matter SIP
revisions. Mr. Gutman stated the EPA should deny New York State's
request to revise the SIP and not approve removal of the limited off-
street parking program reference in the SIP.
Response: Mr. Gutman maintains that the limited off-street parking
program appears to be discussed as a permanent measure in the SIP.
While a number of SIP actions \3\ have discussed limited off-street
parking programs, the EPA disagrees with Mr. Gutman's interpretation
regarding the permanency of such measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See, e.g., 44 FR 70754 (Dec. 10, 1979); 45 FR 33981 (May 21,
1980); 45 FR 56369 (Aug. 25, 1980); 46 FR 8477 (Jan. 27, 1981); 67
FR 19337 (April 19, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gutman's comments place emphasis on the ``permanency'' of
measures in the SIP, suggesting that once a measure is approved into
the SIP, it perpetually remains in the SIP. However, this is not the
case. Section 110 of the CAA generally and section 110(l) specifically
allow for the State to revise its SIP over time to add or remove
control measures, subject to the condition that doing so does not
result in interference with attainment and maintenance of any NAAQS or
with any other CAA applicable requirement.\4\ In this action, the EPA
is approving New York's request to remove a reference in the SIP to a
limited off-street parking program which the State has not relied on
for any associated emissions reductions in any EPA-approved SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In addition, section 193 restricts modification of SIP
requirements that were in effect before November 15, 1990, by
prohibiting such modification in any area which is a nonattainment
area for any air pollutant unless the modification insures
equivalent or greater emission reduction of such air pollutant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York indicated that it has not relied on any emission
reductions that may be attributed to the limited off-street parking
program measures in any SIP actions.\5\ As discussed in the EPA's April
12, 2013 proposal to approve New York's removal of a reference in the
SIP to a limited off-street parking program, CAA section 110(l) states:
``The Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the
revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 7501
[171]), or any other applicable requirement of this Chapter.'' Section
110(l) allows New York to request that any measure be removed from the
SIP as long as the state can demonstrate that removal of the measure
complies with this restriction. In fact, section 110(l) would allow a
State to remove a program that it clearly identified as a ``permanent''
control measure, even if the program included associated emission
reductions that were credited to the SIP, so long as the State can
demonstrate continued attainment and maintenance of any NAAQS and so
long as the measure is not required by other provisions of the CAA. For
example, New York's portable fuel container program is a SIP-approved,
enforceable control measure program with associated emission reductions
relied on in the SIP. As important as this program is for New York's
continued attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, New York has the
ability to request removal of this program if New York can demonstrate
such removal would not interfere under section 110(l). In this example,
New York would need to replace the emission reductions associated with
the portable fuel container program with other control measures since
New York relied on the resulting emission reductions. In contrast, New
York cannot replace emission reductions associated with the limited
off-street parking program with another control measure, because there
is no information demonstrating that the measures ever achieved a
reduction in emissions or that the removal of the restrictions would
lead to an increase in emissions, and no emission reductions from the
limited off-street parking program were ever credited towards
attainment of the CO standards. There is no quantifiable emission
increase as a result of removing the limited off-street parking
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Letter dated Oct. 5, 2012 from J. Martens, DEC, to J. Enck,
EPA Region 2, including attachment dated August 2012 ``Assessment of
Public Comments on the Proposed Amendment to the New York State
Implementation Plan: Carbon Monoxide Attainment Demonstration: New
York Metropolitan Area, August 2012.'' See, e.g., Response to
Comment 2, 5 and 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the limited off-street parking program's goal was to
reduce vehicle entries to the CBD and thereby improve vehicle speeds
and lower VMT with the idea that this would ultimately reduce CO
emissions from automobiles on the road in the late 1970's and early
1980's. Over the years, VMT has increased and vehicle speeds have been
little changed and emission control technology on vehicles has been
greatly improved and CO concentrations have decreased dramatically to
approximately 20 percent of the NAAQS. This suggests that VMT and
vehicle speeds have a negligible effect in the Manhattan CBD but
emission control efficiency has a large impact on CO emissions in
Manhattan. The other pollutants emitted from automobiles, both in 1990
and 2014, are emitted at rates significantly less than CO and, since
vehicle speeds and VMT in the Manhattan CBD have a negligible effect,
it is expected that there would be no impact on the other automotive
related pollutants. The limited off-street parking program was never
included in any other NAAQS SIP. In this action the EPA is approving
New York's request to remove a reference in the SIP to a limited off-
street parking program that the State has not relied on for any
associated emissions reductions.
Comment: Mr. Gutman commented that the New York City Planning
Commission has proposed new rules that have a target to increase the
number of parking spaces in the City of New York, which he asserts
violates the SIP and he asserts, will lead to renewed growth of
traffic, lower traffic speeds and higher emissions than assumed in New
York's ozone and PM2.5 attainment demonstrations.
Response: The issue of whether New York City or New York State is
proposing regulations or statutes that may violate the SIP is separate
from the EPA's April 12, 2013, proposal to approve a SIP revision
submitted by the State to remove references to the limited off-street
parking program in the SIP
[[Page 33423]]
that apply solely to the Manhattan CBD. If the City of New York or
State adopts regulations or statutes that are different than or
conflict with requirements currently included in the SIP, the EPA will
address those differences when such new rules are submitted by New York
State for EPA review and approval into the SIP. In addition, should
such rules not be submitted as a SIP revision to the EPA for
consideration but get promulgated in conflict with the applicable SIP,
the EPA also has the authority to issue a finding of failure to
implement the SIP, which would require submittal of a SIP revision.
Mr. Gutman claims that the City of New York's proposed changes to
the parking restrictions will violate the SIP because the changes are
different than the parking restrictions currently contained in the SIP.
However, Mr. Gutman failed to provide any specific references to the
traffic levels or emission levels assumed in New York's SIPs. The state
can always revise its SIP, consistent with the requirements of the CAA.
When submitted as a SIP revision, EPA would be under an obligation to
review the SIP revision on its merits and assess how it would affect
the applicable SIP and attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
Comment: Mr. Gutman commented that since the EPA promulgated a new,
more stringent annual NAAQS for PM2.5 that also requires
that additional monitors be located near roadways, vehicle emissions
are likely to be more important in order for areas to meet the new
PM2.5 annual standard.
Response: EPA agrees that emissions from vehicle-related activities
could be important considerations as states develop plans for meeting
and maintaining the new PM2.5 annual standard. EPA has
established procedures, separate from this SIP revision action, which
will address attainment of the new PM2.5 annual standard and
the establishment of near roadway monitors. On December 17, 2014 (80 FR
2206), EPA designated areas of the country as meeting or not meeting
the new PM2.5 annual standard, with moderate area attainment
plans for any nonattainment areas to be submitted by the states to EPA
no later than October 15, 2016. New York City was designated
attainment/unclassifiable since air quality data from the existing
ambient air monitoring network shows the New York Metropolitan Area is
currently below the new PM2.5 annual standard. As for the
new near roadway monitors, states are required to phase-in these
monitoring sites beginning in 2015. NYSDEC submitted its 2014 annual
network plan, which provides for near roadway PM2.5
monitors, and EPA approved the plan in a letter dated November 3, 2014.
See Table 1 for the 3-Year design values.
Table 1--Annual Design Value Concentrations for the NY-NJ-CT Nonattainment Area ([micro]g/m\3\)
[The 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS is 12.0 [micro]g/m\3\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3-Year design values
County AQS Monitor ID -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007-2009 2008-2010 2009-2011 2010-2012 2011-2013
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW YORK:
Bronx................................. 36-005-0080/0110/0133....... 13.9 12.5 11.9 9.8 9.6
Kings................................. 36-047-0122................. 12.2 10.8 10.3 9.9 9.7
Nassau................................ 36-059-0008................. 10.3 9.5 8.9 INC INC
New York.............................. 36-061-0128/0134............ 12.1 12.1 11.7 11.8 11.7
Orange................................ 36-071-0002................. 9.3 8.5 8.2 8.1 7.8
Queens................................ 36-081-0124................. 10.6 10.0 9.4 9.1 8.7
Richmond.............................. 36-085-0055................. 11.6 10.5 9.8 9.7 9.0
Rockland.............................. NM.......................... NM NM NM NM NM
Suffolk............................... 36-103-0002................. 9.7 8.9 8.4 8.4 8.1
Westchester........................... 36-119-1002................. 10.6 9.6 9.1 INC INC
NEW JERSEY:
Bergen................................ 34-003-0003................. 11.3 9.8 9.2 9.2 9.1
Essex................................. 34-0013-003................. INC INC INC 9.5 9.4
Hudson................................ 34-017-2002................. 13.1 11.6 11.1 11.1 11.1
Mercer................................ 34-021-0008................. 10.8 10.0 9.7 9.5 9.4
Middlesex............................. 34-023-0006................. 10.4 8.8 7.9 8.0 8.2
Monmouth.............................. NM.......................... NM NM NM NM NM
Morris................................ 34-027-0004................. 9.6 8.7 8.5 8.4 8.4
Passaic............................... 34-031-0005................. 11.3 9.8 9.3 9.3 9.3
Somerset.............................. NM.......................... NM NM NM NM NM
Union................................. 34-039-0006/2003............ 11.6 10.3 9.6 9.7 9.7
CONNECTICUT:
Fairfield............................. 09-001-0010................. 11.3 10.0 9.4 9.4 9.3
New Haven............................. 09-009-1123................. 11.4 10.3 9.6 9.4 9.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INC--Counties listed as INC did not meet 75 percent data completeness requirement for the relevant time period.
NM--No monitor located in county.
If new monitoring data demonstrates exceedances of the NAAQS, EPA
would work with the State to bring any exceeding areas back into
attainment.
Comment: Mr. Gutman commented that the limited off-street parking
program is a useful reasonably available control measure or RACM and
was so designated in the 1979 [proposed] SIP.
Response: The EPA agrees that the limited off-street parking
program may be a RACM to make progress towards attainment of the NAAQS
for a specific pollutant(s) depending on location specific factors that
can change with time. The State, however, has the flexibility to decide
which measures to include in RACM as a requirement of the SIP based on
the ability of the measure to improve air quality in the given area and
advance the attainment date. The EPA's April 12, 2013, proposed action
explained in detail the connection between the limited off-street
parking program and RACM. (See 78 FR 21869). As discussed in the EPA's
April 12, 2013, proposal, New York
[[Page 33424]]
could have included the restrictions as a RACM in the subsequent CO SIP
actions, but did not (1992, 2002). New York also never included the
restrictions as part of any other NAAQS attainment demonstrations.
These restrictions were not included because they were not needed to
demonstrate RFP or to meet the attainment date. New York's SIP does not
rely on any emission reductions associated with the parking
restrictions, and all credited emissions reductions are attributed to
other control measures in the SIP. New York is thus able to and has
demonstrated attainment of the NAAQS without relying on the limited
off-street parking program. Therefore the limited off-street parking
program is not necessary to meet or accelerate attainment by the
attainment date.
Comment: Mr. Gutman commented that the New York City Department of
City Planning ``has been seeking to jettison'' rules, which they had
supported in 1982, by proposing in 2004, to rewrite the restrictions
for a large development area within the CBD that they called the Hudson
Yards.
Response: This comment is not relevant to this SIP action. The EPA
is approving New York's request to remove a reference in the SIP to a
limited off-street parking program which the State has not relied on
for any associated emissions reductions.
Comment: Mr. Gutman's comments state that the parking program was
part of the SIP and reference a May 5, 2009, Court Order, which was
submitted along with his comments to support his position.
Response: EPA agrees that the limited off-street parking program is
referenced in the SIP, but also acknowledges that there was some
confusion concerning its scope. New York State decided to address the
issue by formally proposing revisions to the SIP, holding public
hearings and requesting public comments. This action is the result of
the State formally submitting a SIP revision.
Comment: Mr. Gutman commented that while the CBD parking
regulations may need to be updated and modernized, there is no reason
to gut their essence in the process, or to remove the program from the
SIP, and the EPA should not allow it.
Response: As stated previously, the subject of the EPA's April 12,
2013, proposal is to act on a SIP revision submitted by the State to
remove references to the limited off-street parking program in the SIP,
based on the EPA's determination that such removal will not interfere
with attainment and maintenance of all NAAQS. Once the limited off-
street parking program is removed from the SIP, it will no longer be
federally enforceable. Removal of the limited off-street parking
program from the SIP will not change the program's status under local
law. Any future changes to the program would be subject to local
administrative procedures and public involvement.
Comment: Mr. Gutman commented that the EPA should clarify whether
or not removing the limited off-street parking program from the 1992 CO
SIP leaves the program in place as part of the SIP for other
pollutants.
Response: The EPA is removing the reference to the limited off-
street parking program from the SIP. The EPA's April 12, 2013, proposal
focused on CO because when compared to other pollutants emitted from
motor vehicles, CO emissions far exceed the others (see figure 1).
However, as discussed in previous responses to comments and in the
EPA's April 12, 2013 proposal, the EPA considered and evaluated New
York's SIP revision request to address all criteria air pollutants
whose emissions and/or ambient concentrations may change as a result of
the SIP revision. Regarding the relationship between motor vehicle
emissions, pollutant concentrations and activities that would
theoretically increase motor vehicle activity, on a grams per mile
basis, the mass of increased emissions from additional motor vehicles
in an area would be dominated by CO. Therefore, of all the criteria
pollutants, CO would be the pollutant most affected by hypothetical
activity that results in overall emissions increases and, as discussed
in previous responses to comments, the impact on the area's CO
concentrations would be insignificant. Concentrations of all the other
criteria pollutants, including ozone and particulate matter, would be
affected much less than CO concentrations. By removing the limited off-
street parking program references from the CO SIP, the EPA is removing
the reference from all of the SIP, and instead relying on New York's
more recent SIP revision approvals relating to emission inventories,
RACM, attainment demonstrations and maintenance plans for all
pollutants.
Comment: The City of New York commented that the EPA's proposed
rule will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS in
the City of New York.
Response: The EPA agrees. As stated in previous responses, the EPA
considered and evaluated New York's SIP revision request to address all
criteria air pollutants whose emissions and/or ambient concentrations
may change as a result of the SIP revision. While CO concentrations are
the pollutant of most concern in this action, as stated in the April
12, 2013 proposed rule, the EPA considered the impacts of all the
criteria pollutants.
Comment: New York City commented that the EPA's proposed rule
allows the City of New York to be responsible for its own limited off-
street parking program and that it believes that it is free to amend
the parking regulations under the current SIP.
Response: The EPA agrees that the finalization of this rule will
allow the City of New York to be responsible for the limited off-street
parking restriction program in appropriate cases. However, until the
references to the limited off-street parking program are removed from
the SIP, the City of New York should continue to coordinate with the
State to determine whether any such amendments are consistent with the
SIP.
Comment: The City of New York supports the removal of the
``outdated'' parking controls in the SIP and to remove any confusion or
misunderstanding regarding the City of New York's ability to regulate
off-street parking.
Response: The EPA agrees with the suggestion that the parking
controls discussed in the SIP in the early 1980s could be considered
``outdated'' in lay terms given the subsequent and more recent SIP
revisions submitted by New York and approved by the EPA over the last
three decades and the substantial progress which has been achieved in
reducing air pollutants. New York has revised various emission
inventories, RACMs, attainment demonstrations and maintenance plans at
various times since the earlier references to the limited off-street
parking program. The New York SIP has not and continues to not rely on
the limited off-street parking program as a control measure. However,
the rule is not actually ``outdated'' in a legal sense unless removed
from the SIP, as is being done by this action.
III. What is the EPA's final action?
The EPA is approving New York's request to remove a reference to a
limited off-street parking program in New York County from the SIP
because this SIP revision will not interfere with attainment or
maintenance of any NAAQS and will not interfere with any other CAA
applicable requirements. In addition, New York did not rely on any
emission reductions from this program in its SIP modeling to support
the demonstration of attainment of the various NAAQS.
[[Page 33425]]
The EPA's review of the materials submitted indicates that New York
has revised its SIP in accordance with the requirements of the CAA, 40
CFR part 51 and all of the EPA's technical requirements for a SIP
revision. Therefore, the EPA is approving the removal of a reference to
a limited off-street parking program in New York County from the SIP.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: June 2, 2015.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart HH--New York
0
2. In Sec. 52.1670, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding
the entry ``Limited off-street parking program'' at the end of the
table to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1670 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
EPA-Approved New York Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable
Action/SIP element geographic or New York EPA Approval date Explanation
nonattainment area submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Limited off-street parking New York County-- 10/05/12 6/12/15 [insert Removing reference
program. Central Business Federal Register to program from
District. citation]. SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2015-14439 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
