Appendix — Environmental Protection Agency v. Brown

Tre D

2 p 20 1976

APPENDIX =

Volume I—pp. 1-548 | MICHAEL RODAK, JA..CLERK

In the Supreme Court of the United States

OcTOBER TERM, 1976

Nos. 75-909, 75-960, 75-1050 and 75-1055

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Petitioner

EDMUND G, BROWN, GOVERNOR OF THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.,

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF

APPEALS FOR THE NINTH, FOURTH AND DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA CIRCUITS

PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI FILED DECEMBER 24, 1975,

JANUARY 7, 1976 AND JANUARY 26, 1976

CERTIORARI GRANTED JUNE 1, 1976

i

Iu the Suprenw Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1976

Nos. 75-909, 75-960, 75-1050 and 75-1055

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Petitioner

—

EDMUND G. BROWN, GOVERNOR OF THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.,

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF

APPEALS FOR THE NINTH, FOURTH AND DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA CIRCUITS

INDEX

Volume I

Page

Relevant Docket Entries of the Ninth Circuit , 1

No. 73-3233 1

No, 73-8268 6

No, 73-3577 . x

Relevant Docket Entries of the Fourth Circuit 11

Relevant Docket Entries of the District of Columbia Circuit 14

No, 74-1015 14

No, 74-1582 | 17

Proposed plan for Los Angeles AQCR, 38 Fed, Reg, 2194 19

Approval of various state plans, 38 Fed, Reg, 16550 48

Revised proposed plan for L.A, AQCR, 38 Fed, Reg, 17683 135

Proposed plan for Arizona, 38 Fed, Reg, 18942 158

Proposed plan for California other than Los Angeles, %8 Fed,

Reg, 18948 ; 183

ii INDEX

Proposed plan for District of Columbia portion of National

Capital Interstate Region, 38 Fed, Reg, 20758 ...........

Proposed plan for Baltimore, Maryland, 38 Fed, Reg, 20769..

Proposed plan for Maryland portion of National Capital

Interstate Region, 38 Fed, Reg, 20779 |

Proposed plan for Virginia portion of National ¢ sesnnel bee

state Region, 38 Fed, Reg, 20780

General Preamble to saudittesiin Control Shen, 38 Fed,

Reg. 30626 ........... seeticnsidiiaabatniedidcudant tat

California Transportation Control Plan, 38 Fed, Reg. 91292

Volume II

Arizona Transportation Control Plan, 38 Fed, Reg, 33568.

National Capital Region Transportation Control Plan, %8

a

Baltimore, Maryland, iesestineene Control Plan, 58 Fed,

Reg, 34240 | |

Correction to California TC V, 38 Fed. pie 94464 .. ssieaustiles

District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental

Reorganization Act, P.L, 93-198, 87 Stat. 774.

Additions and revisions to plan submitted by Virginia for

Virginia portion of National Capital Interstate Region,

July 9, 1978 (excerpts), Record in Nos, 75-1050, 75-1055

at pp, 4887-5306

Testimony of Cleatus Barnett, Public Hearings on Transpor-

tation Control Plans for the National Capital Area, Sep-

tomber 6, 1973 Cexcerpis), Reeord Doe, No, 20 in Nos,

75-1050, 75-1055 at pp, 826-842

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Compact,

P.L, 89-774, 80 Stat, 1524

Amendments to W.M.A.T.A.C,, P.L, 92-349, 86 Stat. 464 .

Orders granting certiorari filed June 1, 1976

Page

241

27)

1

365

106

440

549

580

715

790

703

01

912

19

971

078

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH DISTRICT

ADMIN PETN TO REVIEW

City or SAN FRANCISCO UPTOWN PARKING CORPORATION

A CORPORATION; CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO PORTSMOUTH

PLAZA PARKING CORPORATION, A CORPORATION; CITY

OF SAN FRANCISCO CIVIC PLAZA PARKING CORPORA-

TION; AND City OF SAN FRANCISCO SOCIAL SERVICES

CORPORATION, PETITIONERS

vs.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, RESPONDENT

DATE FILINGS-PROCEEDINGS

1973

Nov. 27 FILED ORIG. & 7 COPIES OF A PETITION TO

REVIEW AN ORDER OF THE EPA. $50

1974

Mar. 11 FILED ORIG. & 3 COPIES OF RESPONDENTS

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE APPEAL WITH 73-3250-

59, 73-3261-3307, 73-3309, 73-3315, 73-3317-19, 73-3522,

73-3339-44, 73-3352, 73-3355-57, 75-3359, 73-3566, 72-

3368-77, 73-3379, 73-338 1-3391, 73-3396-3425, 73-3430-32,

73-3445-52, 73-3479, 73-3428, 73-3453-65, 73-3467-3478,

73-3480-98, 73-3501-08, 73-3510-15, 73-3517-18, 73-3520,

73-3522, 73-3524-28, 73-3530 to “C” (Z)

Apr. 12. Filed order (C & M) consolidating appeal +’s 73-

3233; 73-3250-59; 61-99; 72-3300-09; 15; 17-19; 22; 39-

44; 52; 55-57; 59; 66; 68-77; 79, 81-91; 96-73-3425;

28; 30-32; 45-65; 67-98; 73-3501-08; 10-15; 17-18; 20;

22; 24-28; 30. Further ordered the certified index to the

record previously filed in No. 73-3238 shall be treated as

the index to the record in these cases. Respondent will

serve each petitioner with a copy of the certified index.

(1)

2

DATE FILINGS-PROCEEDINGS _

1974

Concurrent with filing the record with the clerk of this

Court, Respondent will serve on each Petitioner and file

with the court a proposed schedule for briefing. Peti-

tioners may file objections to the proposed briefing sched-

ule within 10 days of the date it is filed, but unless the

court order otherwise, the schedule filed by Respondent

will be effective. Petitioners may file joint briefs without

further order of the court. cl (C and M)

Aug. 14 Filed original supplemental certified index to the

record in the Calif Transportation Control Plan which

was inadvertently omitted from the July 11, 1974 letter.

-ra-

Aug. 19 Filed, in 73-3420, order (C & M) the briefing

schedule in the above-entitled matter is established as

follows: petitioners’ brief due September 16, 1974, re-

spondent’s brief due October 16, 1974, petitioners’ reply

brief due October 31, 1974; further ordered, the appeal

in 73-3420 is dismissed and leave to permit mailing of

service copies with certification of mailing in lieu of a

list of addresses is granted. The motion for a 60 day stay

by Texaco, Inc. is denied. jr

Sept. 16 Filed 25 copies petitioner’s briefs. (Calif. Business

Properties Assn, Los Angeles County Federation of

Labor, et al.) (Sept. 13, 1974) tj

Sept. 16 Filed 25 copies petitioner’s briefs. (County of San

Bernardino) (Sept. 13, 1974) tj

Sept. 20 Filed, as of Sept. 18, in 73-3343, 25 copies Aplt’s

briefs. (Pacific Legal Foundation) (Sept. 16, 1974) tj

Oct.7 Filed order (Hufstedler & Wallace) the filing of open-

ing briefs by petitioners is stayed until December 1. 1974;

further ordered, the effective date for enforcement of the

Parking Management Control Regulations is stayed to

and including March 15, 1975, all other opening briefs

of petitioners dealing with remaining portions of the

DATE FILINGS-PROCEEDINGS ©

1974

California Transportation Control Plan shall be filed on or

before October 4, 1974. jr

Oct. 21 Filed, as of Oct. 3, 1974, in 73-3263 25 Aplt’s briefs

(City of San Jose) (Oct. 3, 1974) tj

Oct. 21 Filed as of Oct. 7, 1974, in 73-3259, 25 Aplt’s briefs

(City of Los Angeles) (Oct. 4, 1974) tj

Oct. 21 Filed, as of 10/16/74, order (Br & W) directing the

clerk to file the statements in lieu of briefs of the peti-

tioners in 73-3513, 73-3370, 73-3422, 73-3382, 73-3372 &

7303282. jr

Dec. 23 Filed order (Browning & Choy) upon due consid-

eration of the motions of the parties, petitioners’ opening

briefs dealing with the Parking Management Control

Regulations shall be due 30 days after respondent files

the Supplemental Certified Record with the Court; the

Clerk will so notify the parties when that record is filed;

as to the remaining portions of the California Transpor-

tation Control Plan, respondent is hereby granted an ext

to and including January 6, 1975 to file its brief; peti-

tioners’ reply briefs shall be filed on or before January 27,

1975; p** *

1975

Jan. 16 Filed order (C, S) upon due consideration, the mo-

tion for stay of the effective dates of the California

Transportation Control Plan is hereby denied. The re-

spondent is granted leave to file an oversized brief of

88 pages, plus appendix, in typewritten form. However,

respondent shall forthwith properly serve a copy of such

brief on all petitioners. Petitioners are hereby granted an

extension to and including Feb. 3, 1975 to file their reply

briefs. sj

Jan. 20 FILED 25 RESPONDENTS BRIEFS (1/17/75). cl

Feb. 3 FILED 25 PETITIONERS (CITY OF LOS ANGE-

LES, ET AL) BRIEFS (IN 73-3259) (1/31/75). cl

‘

4

Feb. 19 FILED 25 REPLY BRIEFS FOR STATE OF

CALIFORNIA (2/18/75) ec

Feb. 21 FILED 25 PETITIONER’S REPLY BRIEFS (Pa-

cific Legal Foundation) 1/31/75 ec

Feb. 27 Filed 25 Petitioner’s Reply Briefs (County of 5S.

Bernardino) 2/25/75) ec

Feb. 27 Filed, in 73-3406, order (K & E) the filing of opening

briefs as to the issue of gasoline vapor recovery systems

only is deferred until 40 days after the respondent files a

supplemental record on appeal which includes its fur-

ther and final publications as to the above described issue.

jr

Mar. 6 FILED 25 REPLY BRIEFS OF CALIFORNIA

BUSINESS PROPERTIES. (2/14/75) es

Mar. 19 Filed order (K UD) re: petitions which deal solely

with review of the Parking Management Regulations of

Calif Transportation Control Plan should be dismissed

due to indefinite suspension of these regulations by respdt.

Such dismissal would be without prejudice to filing of

new pet if & when amended regulations are filed. All peti-

tions in which brief, joint brief or statement in lieu of

brief has not been filed in behalf of petr are dismissed

subject to reconsideration in each individual case if ob-

jection is filed within 14 days from filing date of order.

Further ordered that this order does not affect order of

Feb. 27th granting stay of briefing schedule as to issue

of gasoline vapor recovery systems. rh

May 9 Filed order (Koelsch & Duniway) upon due consider-

ation of the objections, petitions for rehearings and re-

quests for clarification rec’d in response to this Court's

order of March 19, 1975, the Court enters the following

order: 1) the order of March 19, 1975 is hereby vacated

and annulled: 2) all further action in these cases dealing

solely with the review of Parking Management Regula-

5

DATE

1975

tions of the California Transportation Control Plan are

stayed until August 1, 1975 or until further order of this

Court, which ever occurs first; 3) should Respondent EPA

lift the indefinite suspension of the Parking Management

Regulations or promulgate proposed final regulations

designed to supersede said regulations, it is directed to

inform this Court of such lifting of the suspension or

promulgation within 10 days thereafter; 4) in the event

neither the lifting of the suspension nor the promulga-

tion of superseding regulations has occurred prior to

July 15, 1975, the EPA is directed to inform this Court

not later than July 25, 1975 of the then prevailing policy

of the Agency with respect to such lifting of the suspen-

sion of promulgation and with respect to all other matters

germane to the issues to which the Parking Management

Regulations pertain. All cases consolidated by this Court’s

order of April 7, 1974 shall hereafter use case number

73-3268 as the consolidated case number. jr

-FILINGS-PROCEEDINGS _

if

6

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH DISTRICT

Consolidated w/ 73-3233 ect.

ADMIN PETITION TO REVIEW

FROM EPA REGION 9

CALIFORNIA BUSINESS PROPERTIES ASSOCIATION, BROAD-

WAY-HALE STORES, INC., BUFFUMS, FEDERATED DE-

PARTMENT STORES, INc., J. C. PENNEY Co. INC.,

MONTGOMERY WARD & Co., INC., MAY DEPARTMENT,

R. H. Macy & Co., SEARS, RoEBUCK & Co., THE WESsT-

CHESTER ASSOCIATION, ANITA Assoc., BOISE CASCADE

Home & LAND Corp., COLDWELL, BANKER & Co.,

ERNEST W. HAHN, INC., HARRY NEWMAN PROPERTIES,

Los ANGELES TURF CLUB, OCCDENTAL LIFE INSURANCE

Co. OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA ANITA CONSOLIDATED, INC.

AND THE Los ANGELES ATHLETIC CLUB, PETITIONERS

vs.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, RESPONDENT

DATE FILINGS-PROCEEDINGS _

1975

Jun. 1 Filed Order (Chambers) “a hearing on the Constitu-

tiona! issues presented in the briefs will be heard on

July 10, 1975 at 1:30 p.m. in the U.S. Courthouse in

San Francisco; further Ordered the parties are requested

to confer forthwith with the object of submitting to the

Court of proposed expedited schedule for the briefing re-

maining to be done.” (Cases to be heard: 73-3262-63;

65; 69-70; 82; 84; 97; 3302; 09; 15; 17; 42; 52; 55-56;

85; 3400; 13-14; 25; 45; 63; 3515; 17-18; 3296; 68; 3462;

83-84; 3278-74; 3505; 3305-06 & 3343.) cs

7

DATE --——« BILINGS-PROCEEDINGS

Jun. 19 Filed, in 73-3262, Order (Sneed) at the hearing set

for 1:30 p.m. on July 10, 1975 argument on behalf of the

parties shall be limited as follows: State of Calif. 30

minutes; Penney, So. Calif Gas, Sepulveda Properties &

Security Pacific Nat’! Bank—15 minutes; Pacific Legal

Foundation 10 minutes & U.S. EPA 30 further Ordered

add’! briefs pertaining to the matters to be heard 7/10/75

not in excess of 25 pages desired to be filed, must be filed

no later than July 1, 1975. cs.

Jun.27 Filed 25 Appellants Briefs (6/25/75) -dmf- To panel

July 1 Filed 25 Petitioner’s Supp. Briefs on Constitutional

Issues. (Pac. Legal Four (panel) ec

July 3 Filed 25 Supplemental Briefs (7/1/75) -dmf- To

panel

July 7 Recvd 25 briefs of the EPA in response to brief of

J.C. Penney Co. (7/2) (panel) cs

July 10 CAUSE ARGUED & SUBMITTED ON CONSTITU-

TIONAL QUESTIONS ONLY TO WRIGHT, KIL-

KENNY, SNEED. fm

July 21 Rec’d respondent’s letter of July 18, 1975 re: re-

sponse to Judge Sneed’s request at oral argument, etc.

(panel) ec

July 30 Rec’d from David J. Toomey letter of July 28, 1975

re response to respondent’s letter of July 18. (panel) ec

Aug. 15 FILED ORDER (WRIGHT, KILKENNY &

SNEED) DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Aug. 15 Filed & Entered Judgment. jr

Sep. 9 Issued judgment.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH DISTRICT

Consolidated With:

78-3588, 74-1001, 74-1002, 74-1013, 74-1009

PETITION TO REVIEW

EPA REGION 9

STATE OF ARIZONA, PETITIONER

v,

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, RESPONDENT

DATE -_- BILINGS-PROCEEDINGS

1973

Dec. 20 FILED ORIG. & 7 COPIES OF A PETITION TO

REVIEW AN ORDER OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY, $50

1974

Feb. 15 Filed 4 certified copies of index of the record in lieu

of record. cs

Feb. 25 Filed orig & 8 respondent's motion to consolidate

appeal with appeals nos, 73-3588, 74-1001, 74-1002, 74-

1009 & 74-1013. (to O'Fallon) cs

Mar. 22 Filed order (E, G) consolidating 78-3577 with 73-

8588, 74-1001, 74-1002, 74-1009, 74-1013, ty

Apr. 8 FILED CERTIFIED EPA HEARING TRAN-

SCRIPTS AND EXHIBIT VOLUMES IN THIRTEEN

VOLUMES, ORIG. ONLY: VOL. I, Il, & III, RECORD

OF EPA HEARNG ON PROPOSED TRANSPORTA-

TION CONTROL PLAN FOR THE PHOENIX-TUCSON

INTRASTATE AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION,

SEPTEMBER 10-11, 1973, TUCSON, ARIZONA; VOL.

IV, V, & VI, EXHIBITS OF LETTERS AND STATE-

DATE - FILINGS-PROCEEDINGS _

1974

MENTS; VOL. VII, VIII, & IX, RECORD OF EPA

HEARINGS ON PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION

CONTROL PLAN FOR THE PHOENIX-TUCSON IN.

TRASTATE AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION, SEP-

TEMBER 12-138, 1978, PHOENIX, ARIZONA; VOL, X,

XI, XII, & XIII, EXHIBIT OF LETTERS AND STATE-

MENTS. One Box of Exhibits filed in Room 219.

Apr. 9 Appellant's brief due May 19, 1974, -jeh-

June 7 Filed, 26 appellant's briefs (for J.C, Penney Co., Inc.

#78-3588) 6/5/75 gb

June 11 FILED 26 APPELLANTS BRIEFS (6/10/74)

June 17 FILED 25 APPELLANTS BRIEFS (6/14/74)

Aug. 20 Filed, as of Aug. 16, 1974, 25 copies Aple’s briefs,

(EPA), (Aug. 18, 1974) tj

Aug. 23 Filed order (C) granting respondents leave to file

supp’! certified index to record effective 7 days after date

(8/22/74) if no objection filed meanwhile. jr

Sep. 16 Filed 25 copies petitioner's (Broadway-Hale Stores,

Safeway Stores, Sears, Roebuck, Homart Development,

Proper Environment Planning) reply briefs. (Sep. 13,

1974) tj

Sep. 20 Filed Order (Merrill & Wright) granting respondent

leave to file the supplemental certified index with the

exception of document #62 “Evaluation Report for the

State of Arizona” which shall be stricken; * * *

Oct. 1 FILED SEPT 20, 1974 CERT SUPPLEMENTAL

RECORD ON APPEAL: (CERTIFIED INDEX AND

EXHIBITS DOCUMENTS #53, 54, 55, & 56) FILED IN

LPS -ra-

Oct. 3 Ree'd. 25 copies of Petitioner's Reply Brief (State Of

Arizona) -mid-

10

———

— -:

Ee SS —)

DATE. FILINGS-PROCEEDINGS

1974

Dec. 16 FILED AS OF OCT 15, 1974, 26 PETITIONERS

REPLY BRIEFS (10/1/74). cl

1975

Jan. 9 Filed order (C&S) petitioners’ motion for expedited

hearing, the Clerk is directed to calendar the case for oral

argument to be held during the week of March 8, 1975

to March 7, 1975 in Los Angeles. jr

Mar.4 ARGUED BEFO”E (E, T, 8, CJJ); SUBMISSION

DEFERRED UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF COURT.

ty

Sept. 8 ORDERED OPINION (SNEED) FILED & JUDG

TO BE FILED & ENTD

Sept. 8 Filed opinion—granted in part and dismissed with-

out prejudice in part.

Sept.8 Filed & Entered Judgment. jr

11

GENERAL DOCKET

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Case No, 74-1007

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF

THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

(See Nos, 74-1011, 74-1026, 74-1087, 74-1052, 74-1062,

74-1068 and 74-1064)

STATE OF MARYLAND, PETITIONER

v,

RUSSELL E. TRAIN, ADMINISTRATOR, AND

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, RESPONDENTS

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, a municipal corp., INTERVENOR

WASHINGTON AREA BICYCLIST Assoc. INC., ET AL.,

INTERVENOR

For Review of an Order of the

Administrator of the EPA

December 6, 1973

DATE 7 NGS-PROC nw etn

a a ee = = oe es = ee

1/3/74 Petition for review of an order of the Administrator

of the Environmental Protection Agency filed and cause

docketed.

1/21/74 Motion of the District of Columbia, a municipal

corporation, for leave to intervene as a petitioner under

Rule 15(d) F.R.A.P. filed.

2/19/74 Order granting Washington Area Bicyclist Associ-

ation Inc., et al leave to intervene and the District of Co-

lumbia, etc., leave to intervene filed.

12

—— —— = = ai ee

DATE "FILINGS: PROCEEDINGS

ee eee eee ee

2/25/74 Respondent's motion to consolidate appeals for brief-

ing and for filing of certified record filed; motion granted.

2/25/74 Certified list filed; brief dates set.

6/4/74 Order transferring Washington portion of this case

to the D.C, Court of Appeals filed. (vsl)

8/19/74 Five (5) copies of the petitioner's brief filed. tf

8/19/74 Four (4) copies of petitioner's brief (Adcor, Assoc

Dry Goods, J.C, Penney) Filed, j/w 74-1011, 1026, 1037,

1052, 1062-63. -tf

8/22/74 Twenty-five (25) copies of the petitioner's brief

for (Adcor Realty, Assoc, Dry Goods and J. C, Penney)

Jt. w/ 74-1011, 26, 87, 62, 62, 68, and 74-1064 filed. (wtc)

11/4/74 Order denying motion to delay consideration of re-

view cases; motion of certain petitioners to expedite re-

view of cases is granted; the alternative motion of cer-

tain of the petitioners to stay the Parking Management

Regulations is not passed upon; and the order is without

prejudice for the parties to renew the motions before a

panel of this court filed. (foc)

11/20/74 Four (4) copies of the supplemental Narrative of

petitioner's filed Jt. w/74-1011, 1026, 1087, 1052, 1062,

1063, & 74-1064. (whf)

11/20/74 Four (4) copies of the supplemental brief for

petitioner May Co. filed Jt. w/74-1011, 1026, 1037, 1052,

1062, 1063, & 74-1064. (whf)

11/21/74 Twenty-five (25) copies of the supplemental brief

of petitioners J. C. Penney & M. Ward filed Jt. w/74-1011,

1026, 1052, 1062, 1063, & 1064. (whf)

11/29/74 Four (4) copies of the respondent's brief received.

(wtc)

12/12/74 Ten (10) copies of the respondent (St. of Md.)

brief filed. (whf)

13

- -———- a le —_ 9 —

——= -

DATE. " FILINGS—PROCEEDINGS

12/18/74 Ten (10) copies of the joint eupendix filed Jt.

w/74-1011, 1026, 1087, 1062, 1062, 1063, 1064. (whf)

12/16/74 Twenty-five (26) copies of the petitioner's (May

Co.) brief filed Jt. w/74-1007, 1011, 1026, 1087, 1052,

1062, 1063, & 74-1064. (whf)

12/16/74 Twenty-five (25) copies of the petitioner's (may

Co.) supplemental brief filed. Jt. w/74-1011, ete. (whf)

12/17/74 Cause argued before Widener, Circuit Judge, Mac-

Kenzie and Warriner, District Judges, and submitted.

(wu)

12/18/74 Record of EPA for the Baltimore Transportation

Control Plan, in ten volumes (contained in two boxes)

joint with 74-1011, 26, 37, 52, 62, 63 and 64, trans-

mitted to Judge Widener along with tape. (wu)

9/19/75 Opinion (HEW) filed; copy sent to counsel of record

and to EPA in Washington. (val)

9/19/75 Decree filed; order of EPA enforced in part and

reversed in part. (vsl)

1/15/76 Notice evidencing the filing petition for writ of

certiorari in the Supreme Court January 7, 1976 filed.

(No. 75-960) (jhi)

14

GENERAL DOCKET

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

74-1013

PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ETC,, PETITIONER

Vv,

Russe.__ E. TRAIN, Administrator,

Environmental Protection Agency

and

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ETC., RESPONDENTS

WASHINGTON AREA BicycList Assoc., INC., METROPOLI-

TAN WASHINGTON COALITION FOR CLEAN AIR, INC.,

BREATHERS FOR THE REDUCTION OF ATMOSPHERIC HAz-

ARDS TO THE ENVIRONMENT, INTERVENORS

——— a — eee oe eee ee

DATE FILINGS—PROCEEDINGS

(G)1-8-74 4-Petitioner’s petition for review of an order of

the Environmental Protection Agency (m-3)

(L)2-1-74 4-Motion of Washington Area Bicyclist Associa-

tion, Inc. et al for leave to intervene (m-31)

(B) 2-13-74 Clerk's order granting motion by Washington

Area Bicyclist Assoc., Inc., and the Metropolitan Wash-

ington Coalition for Clean Air, Inc., and Breathers for the

Reduction of Atmospheric Hazards to the Environment

for leave to intervene; * * *

a ie ae -

15

DATE FILINGS—PROCEEDINGS

(L)2-13-74 4-Respondent’s motion to consolidate with Nos.

73-2234, 73-2238, 74-1015, 74-1016, 74-1018 and 74-1030

and to file a single record (m-13)

(B)3-4-74 Clerk’s order that nos. 73-2234, 73-2238, 74-1013,

74-1015, 74-1018 and 74-1016 and 74-1030 are consoli-

dated for all purposes; further ordered that Clerk is

directed to file certified index to record and it shall be

deemed filed in all of the above cases

(B) 12-30-74 Per Curiam order sua sponte, that nos. 74-1013,

74-1575, 74-1577, 74-1579, 74-1580, 74-1581 and 74-1582

are consolidated for consideration on the merits the time

filing petitioner’s brief is extended to February 11th;

Respondent’s brief shall be filed 30 days from the date

of filing petitioner’s brief and petitioner’s reply brief and

the joint appendix shall be filed 15 days thereafter; the

date of oral argument of these cases shall be established

by a future order of the Court; MacKinnon and Robb,

CJ (PERTAINS ONLY TO NOS. 74-1013, 74-1575, 74-

1577, 74-1579, 74-1580, 74-1581 and 74-1582)

(G)2-7-75 15-Petitioner’s brief (m-7)

(B)3-10-75 7-Brief for Intervenors Washington Area Bi-

cyclist Assoc., Inc., et al., (m-10)

(K)3-24-75 7-Respondent’s Brief (m-24)

(R)4-8-75 Per Curiam order that the motion to extend time

to file petitioner’s reply brief granted and the time for

filing petitioners’ reply briefs and the joint appendix in

these consolidated cases is extended to April 25th; sua

sponte, that oral argument in the consolidated cases will

be heard on May 12, 1975 at 10:00 A.M. the Courtroom

of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

Circuit Fifth U.S. Courthouse; MacKinnon and Robb,

CJ; and Christensen, U.S. Sr. District Judge for the

District of Utah, sitting by designation

(G) 4-25-75 7-Petitioner’s reply brief (m-25)

16

DATE | FILINGS—PROCEEDINGS

(K)5-2-75 15-Petitioner’s Reply Brief (m-2)

(K)5-2-75 15-Intervenors’ Brief (m-2)

(K)5-2-75 15-Respondents’ Brief (m-2)

(K)5-2-75 7-Joint Appendix (m-2)

(R)5-12-75 Argued before MacKinnon and Robb, CJ and A.

Sherman Christensen, Sr. U.S. District Judge for the

District of Utah, sitting by designation

(G)9-8-75 4-Respondents’ motion for leave to file a supple-

mental brief (m-8)

(R)9-25-75 Per Curiam order that respondent’s motion for

leave to file supplemental brief is denied; MacKinnon and

Robb, CJ; and Christensen, U.S. Sr. District Judge for

the District of Utah, sitting by designation.

10-28-75 Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Mac-

Kinnon.

10-28-75 Judgment affirming in part and remanding case

for further proceedings. (n)

11-19-75 Certified copy of opinion and judgment issued to

the EPA.

(G)2-3-76 Notice of filing petition for certiorari in S.C. No.

75-1055 on January 26, 1976.

17

GENERAL DOCKET

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

‘TRANSFERRED FROM 4TH CIRCUIT]

74-1582

PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, EX REL. THE STATE AIR

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PETITIONER

Vv.

RUSSELL E. TRAIN, ADMINISTRATOR AND

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, RESPONDENT

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (n-3)

(B) 12-30-74 Per Curiam order, sua sponte, that nos. 74-

1013, 74-1575, 74-1577, 74-1579, 74-1580, 74-1581 and

74-1582 are consolidated for consideration on the merits:

time for filing petitioner’s brief is extended to February

llth, Respondent’s brief shall be filed 30 days from the

date of filing petitioner’s brief and petitioner’s reply brief

and joint appendix shall be filed 15 days t) ereafter: date

of oral argument shall be established by a future order

of the Court: MacKinnon and Robb, CJ

(G)2-6-75 15-Petitioner’s brief (m-6)

(G)2-6-75 10-Appendix (m-6)

(K) 3-24-75 7-Respondent’s Brief (m-24)

(G) 4-25-75 15-Petitioner’s reply brief (m-25)

18

FILINGS—PROCEEDINGS

DATE

(K)5-2-75 15-Petitioner’s Brief (m-2)

(K)5-2-75 15-Petitioner’s Reply Brief (m-2)

(K)5-2-75 15-Respondents’ Brief (m-2)

(K)5-2-75 7-Joint Appendix (m-2)

(R)5-12-75 Argued before MacKinnon and Robb, CJ and

A. Sherman Christensen, Sr. U.S. District Judge for

the District of Utah, sitting by designation

10-28-75 Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge

MacKinnon.

10-28-75 Judgment affirming in part and remanding for

further proceedings. (n)

(G)2-3-76 Notice of filing petition for certiorari in S.C. No.

75-1055 on January 26, 1976

(G)2-3-76 Notice of filing petition for certiorari in S.C. No.

75-1050 on January 26, 1976.

19

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

(40 CFR Part 52]

CALIFORNIA AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans

This notice of proposed rule making sets forth a trans-

portation control plan for the Metropolitan Los Angeles

Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (hereinafter, Los

Angeles AQCR or South Coast Air Basin), as required

by order of the U.S. District Court for the Central Dis-

trict of California, November 16, 1972. This proposal

results from the failure of the State of California to sub-

mit an acceptable implementation plan for the attain-

ment and maintenance of the National Primary Ambient

Air Quality Standard for photochemical oxidants.

BACKGROUND

Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 (here-

inafter referred to as the Act), enacted December 31,

1970 (Public Law No. 91-604, 42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.),

Congress required the States to prepare plans to imple-

ment the National Ambient Air Quality Standards promul-

gated on the basis of health and public welfare effects

by EPA.

EPA promulgated the ambient standards on April 30,

1971. Pursuant to the statutory timetable, each State

had 9 months in which to develop, adopt, and submit de-

tailed plans for implementation of the ambient stand-

ards. The State plans submitted on January 31, 1972,

were to contain emission limitations and such other

measures as necessary to insure attainment and main-

tenance of the ambient standards, including transporta-

tion controls if necessary. (Clean Air Act, section 110

(a) (2) (B).)

In most areas of the country the ambient standards

could be met by the imposition of emission controls on

stationary sources of pollution. EPA and the States had

20

adequate knowledge of and experience with these types

of controls. Their feasibility, effectiveness, and impact

upon the sources as well as the community could be

evaluated with reasonable accuracy. In other areas of

the country, mobile sources were a predominant source

of pollution, but the ambient standards would be met

as a result of the decrease in pollution due to increas-

ingly stringent Federal emission standards for new cars

required by other sections of the Clean Air Act.

However, in certain areas the combination of con-

trols on stationary sources and the Federal emission

standards for new cars would not be sufficient. There-

fore “transportation controls,” i.e., measures which would

reduce individual vehicle emissions and/or vehicle miles

traveled, became necessary. Unlike the situation with

respect to stationary sources, however, neither EPA nor

the States had any real experience with these types of

controls. The nature of the controls required, their ef-

fectiveness, their effect on air quality, and tleir social

and economic impacts were essentially unknown. Accord-

ingly, the Administrator determined that it was unrea-

sonable to require that States include transportation con-

trols in the plans submitted on January 31, 1972. He

determined that States could instead submit a descrip-

tion of the transportation control measures which they

were considering on that date. The submission of the

actual transportation control strategies, when required,

was deferred until February 15, 1973. It was anticipated

that the additional year would give both EPA and the

States more time to study this new problem, so that

intelligent choices could be made by the States and so

that EPA, in accordance with its responsibilities under

the law, could make a meaningful review of the strategy

selected by the State.

On May 31, 1972, in accordance with the Act, the

Administrator disapproved California’s plan for the Los

Angeles AQCR (South Coast Air Basin) because the

plan on its face did not provide for the achievement

of the ambient standard for photochemical oxidants, 37

FR 10842, May 31, 1972 (40 CFR 52.238).

21

On September 6, 1972, in “City of Riversid

v. Ruckelshaus,” Civil No. 72-2199-H, the city of River.

side, the city of San Bernardino, and various other or-

ganizations and individuals brought suit against EPA in

the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Cali-

fornia. The complaint stated that the Administrator

had failed to promulgate transportation controls for the

South Coast Air Basin although such controls were needed

and the portions of California’s plan which lacked such

controls had been disapproved. Pursuant to that com-

plaint, the U.S. District Court determined en Novem-

ber 16, 1972, that the Act did not permit the time for

further study of the impact and effectiveness of trans-

portation controls. Accordingly, the Court ordered the

Administrator to “* * * prepare and publish in the FEp-

ERAL REGISTER by no later than January 15, 1973, (pro-

posed ) regulations setting forth an implementation plan”

for attainment of the primary ambient air quality stand-

ard for photochemical oxidants. This notice of proposed

rule making is in compliance with the Court’s order

The Governor of California requested an extension to

pot = — - = yg standard for photochemical

> erefore, this pro is dir

meeting Pg ae -ind proposal is directed toward

t should be noted that the State of Cali ia i

continuing to develop a transportation pr yon

for the South Coast Basin. Since ‘he State may proceed

in accordance with the original schedule allowed by EPA

the State strategy is expected to be submitted to EPA

in mid-February. It has been the Administrator’s policy

to be guided in his final promulgation b

ments of the State plan. & y approvable seg-

POLLI'TION IN THE LOS ANGELES AQCR

The South Coast Air Basin covers a j ti

of Southern California, encompassing all a p oth on and

Ventura Counties, the western portion of Riverside

County, the southwest portion of San Bernardino Count

the southern coastal portion of Santa Barbara eg

and all but the extreme northeastern corner of Los rd

22

geles County. (The air quality problems of the region.

are, in many ways, unique). The region is geographi-

cally and meteorologically closed. The encircling moun-

tains and frequent inversions hold in pollutants, and the

Southern California climate provides ample sunshine to

aid the formation of photochemical smog. The auto-

mobile is by fair [sie] the dominant mode of transporta-

tion, For example, in 1972 the South Coast Air Basin con-

tained over 10 million persons and nearly 6 million motor

vehicles.

This extremely high automobile population, combined

with a low-density, sprawling pattern of development

which distributes the population over the entire area

of the basin, together make the application of trans-

portation controls as well as the necessary alternatives,

eg., mass transit, extremely difficult in the Los Angeles

region. Moreover, the area is still growing. The cur-

rent rate of population growth is now a 1.7-percent in-

crease per year. However, the automobile population

grows more rapidly, at 3 percent to 4 percent per year,

and gasoline consumption grows even more quickly, at

4.5 percent per year.

The Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard

for photochemical oxidants is 160,g/m38 0,08 parts per

million (p.p.m.) average for a l-hour period not to

be exceeded more than once per year. The standard,

promulgated on April 30, 1971 (386 FR 8186), is based

on evidence of increased frequency of asthma attacks in

some asthmatic subjects on days when estimated hourly

average concentrations of photochemical oxidants reached

0.10 p.p.m. A level of 0.08 p.p.m. was therefore judged

necessary by the Administrator to protect public health

with an adequate margin of safety, as required by the

Act.

In 1970, this standard was exceeded at some location

in the Los Angeles AQCR on at least 250 days. The

maximum 1l-hour reading for oxidants in the region in

1970 was 0.62 p.p.m. in Riverside. This reading ex-

ceeded the national standard nearly eight-fold. The sec-

ond highest reading was 0.58 p.p.m. During 1970 a full

10 percent of the oxidant readings taken in the basin

were 0.40 p.p.m. (five ti th

Dialer. p mes the national standard) or

SUMMARY

Studies presently available to the Administrato -

dicate that a reduction of approximately 87 mre in

projected emissions of reactive hydrocarbons is neces-

ig Foon sod — Primary Ambient Air

y Standard for photochemi

in the Los Angeles AQCR. a,

As most of the reactive hydrocarbon emissions in the

South Coast Basin are attributable to motor vehicle

emissions, the analysis available to EPA indicates that

in addition to stringent controls for stationary sources

and requirements for limiting emission of individual mo-

tor vehicles a reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT)

by gasoline-powered motor vehicles of over 80 percent

will have to be effected to achieve the ambient air quality

standard for photochemical oxidants in 1977 as required

» hyd — a on mechanism to accomp-

reduction in vehicle mil

gasoline beer es traveled (VMT) is

a on the extent of analysis which it h

possible to complete so far, the Administrator en i

cluded that the approach proposed today, including the

VMT reduction, is the only one which could be proposed

at this time with any confidence that it can achieve

the ambient air quality standards. Other approaches

some of which may be less extreme, appear to present

problems regarding feasibility and «ffectiveness. The

Administrator emphasizes that further analysis may dem-

onstrate that other options are available.

Although the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

has serious reservations as to the feasibility and desir-

ability of the course of action proposed here, legal re-

quirements placed on the Agency by the Act leave the

Administrator with no presently available legal alter-

native but to propose this plan. It is clear that extreme

measures will be necessary to comply with statutory

requirements. Indeed, it appears that any plan that will

24

attain the primary standard by 1977, whether it in-

cludes gasoline rationing or some other strategy to re-

duce VMT, will lead to significant economic disruptions

and will certainly result in a major transformation in the

life style of residents of the South Coast Air Basin.

No air pollution control plan for the South Coast Air

Basin will be promulgated in final form until full public

participation and debate, including public hearings, has

taken place. The participation of State and local officials

in both the development and the implementation of the

plan is also of vital importance, Extensive public hear-

ings will be held upon this and alternative proposals no

sooner than 80 days from the date of this notice of

proposed rule making. Dates, times, and places, will be

announced in a forthcoming issue of the FEDERAL

REGISTER.

It is hoped that the public debate will focus on the

proposed plan, on possible alternative control plans and

also on measures (such as the development of a mass

transit system) which could reduce the adverse conse-

quences of any plan. The Administrator is concerned

that all positive and adverse aspects of the issue be pub-

licly aired and weighed so that resultant decisions will

be in the total public interest.

CURRENT STUDIES

The Environmental Protection Agency has published

the results of an investigation of certain transportation

control measures in “Prediction of the Effects of Trans-

portation Controls on Air Quality in Major Metropolitan

Areas,” (The Six Cities Study), November 1972. Addi-

tional information is contained in “Evaluating Controls

to Reduce Motor Vehicle Emissions in Major Metropoli-

tan Areas, Final Report,” November 1972. Both re-

ports are available from EPA, Office of Technical In-

formation and Publications, Research Tringle Park, N.C.

27711. Additional information is contained in the EPA

document, “Control Strategies for In-use Vehicles,” No-

vember 1972. This report is available from EPA, Mobile

25

Source Pollution Control Program, 401 M Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20460, Specific studies to limit auto-

mobile emissions and usage in the Metropolitan Los

Angeles Intrastate Air Quality Control Region are cur-

rently being done under EPA contract. The results of

these studies will be available in February 1973, and

preliminary results were used in the development of the

proposed regulations.

TRANSPORTATION CONTROL ALTERNATIVES

The Administrator’s analysis of the air quality prob-

lems of the South Coast Air Basin indicates that if all

available measures are taken to reduce reactive hydro-

carbon emissions from individual motor vehicles and

stationary sources, the ambient air quality standard for

photochemical oxidants will still be exceeded in the basin

approximately 90 days per year in 1977. These 90 days

will occur between the months of May and October.

The analysis further indicates that motor vehicles, no-

tably automobiles, will be the predominant source of

reactive hydrocarbons after all available measures to

reduce the emissions of individual vehicles and stationary

sources have been taken. Further control measures to

meet the ambient air quality standards must therefore

consist of reductions in motor vehicle use, or vehicle miles

traveled (VMT). A VMT reduction of over 80 percent

is required to achieve compliance with the ambient air

quality standards in 1977, Lesser reductions are needed

in subsequent years as a result of the Federal motor

vehicle emissions control program, However, the analy-

sis indicated that VMT reductions of up to 50 percent

may be needed as late as 1935 [sic].

The required VMT reductions can be obtained by sev-

eral alternative means:

(1) Reduce VMT by the required amount during the

entire period, May to October, through increased use of

mass transit, increased car pooling, vehicle free zones,

gasoline rationing, increasing the cost of motor vehicle

26

use, limiting the number of automobiles and motorcycles

registered, land use controls, or a combination of these.

(2) Forecast up to 24 hours in advance the days on

which the ambient air quality standard for oxidants will

be exceeded, and use emergency regulatory means to

prohibit the use of motor vehicles (or all but certain

classes of motor vehicles) on those days. (Intermittent

control)

(3) Through application of one or more of the mea-

sures listed in (1), reduce VMT enough (perhaps 40 per-

cent) to bring the number of days the ambient air qual-

ity standard is violated to a level substantially below

90 days (perhaps to 20 to 25 days). Apply the emer-

gency measures described in (2) on those days for which

the air quality standard is forecast to be violated (par-

tial intermittent control). The number of days per year

on which these emergency measures must be taken can

be expected to decline as the prevalence in the vehicle

population of vehicles with 1975 Federal emission con-

trols increases. )

While intermittent or partial intermittent controls may

provide potentially attractive alternatives, the effective-

ness of such controls, including the technical feasibility

of adequately forecasting the need for emergency mea-

sures, is uncertain at this time. Various measures to re-

duce VMT on a continuing basis may be available but

present substantial questions as to effectiveness and fea-

sibility. Only gasoline rationing is presently considered

to be demonstrably effective to achieve compliance with

the ambient air quality standards by 1977. It is ex-

pected that the magnitude of needed VMT reductions will

decrease beyond 1977 as the prevalence in vehicle popu-

lation of automobiles with Federal 1975 emissions con-

trols increases, but it does not appear that at any time

would Federal 1975 emissions controls alone result in

achievement of the ambient standards.

27

PROPOSED CONTROL STRATEGY

The Administrator proposes to require controls on sta-

tionary sources and retrofit devices and inspections on

automobiles as described below, and to reduce VMT

by a system of gasoline rationing, the system to be ef-

fective during the smog season, May through October.

The amount of rationing may be different for different

months, up to an expected maximum of 82 percent. The

rationing system may be enforced at the individual ve-

hicle operator’s level, with gas coupons required to pur-

chase gasoline. Or it may be enforced at the manufac-

turer’s level only, with price controls at the retail level

(to pr°vent windfall profits) and all gasoline sold on the

basis of first-come-first-served. Public comment is in-

vited on these options, and on questions of implementa-

tion, including eligibility for coupons, and transfera-

bility of coupons. Comment is is also invited on the pos-

sibility of rationing gaseous fuels.

PROPOSED CONTROLS ON STATIONARY SOURCES

Controls to prevent hydrocarbon emissions will be im-

posed on a variety of stationary sources. The Los Ange-

les County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) has

made changes in its restrictions (Rule 66) on solvent

use. We propose that the control in the amended regu-

lation apply to the entire South Coast Basin. Vapor re-

covery systems that prevent evaporation of gasoline into

the air will be required for service stations. In addition,

a change in the substance used in industrial “degreasing”

operations will be required. Finally, a vapor recovery

system that prevents evaporation of solvents into the air

will be required of dry cleaners. Should additional sta-

tionary source controls prove feasible and desirable, they

may be proposed at a later date.

The EPA is currently carrying on an investigation of

the adequacy of the local air pollution control district

regulations exempting certain organic componds from

control. It is anticipated that these regulations (such as

Rule 66, Los Angeles County) will be reevaluated prior

to 1975 after extensive additional experimental studies.

PROPOSED CONTROLS ON MOBILE SOURCES

Due to their substantial contribution to hydrocarbon

emissions in the South Coast Basin (1.056 tons/day in

1970 vs. 195 tons/day from stationary sources), trans-

portation sources, principally automobiles, also must be

controlled. Calculations by EPA indicate that the 1970

mobile emissions are significantly different from those

contained in the Implementation Plan submitted by Cali-

fornia in February 1972. The difference is attributable

to more accurate emission factors that have recently be-

come available (see “An Interim Report on Motor Ve-

hicle Emission Estimation,” Kircher and Armstrong,

EPA, October 1972, and available from the Office of

Land Use Planning, EPA, Research Triangle Park, N.C.

27711). As a result of these calculations, the hydrocar-

bon emissions from all sources in 1970 are significantly

less than in the plan (1,250 tons/day vs 1,590 tons day

reactive HC). The revised emissions values are being

incorporated by the State into its present calculations.

Although the Federal emission standards for new cars

will impose very stringent emission limitations on new

autos beginning in 1975 and 1976, the limitations will

not be adequate to meet the national ambient standard

in the South Coast Air Basin by the deadline of July

1977, since by that time on [sic] more than 20 to 30 per-

cent of the vehicle population will be 1975 or later cars.

Additional controls will include retrofit devices, in-

stalled on pre-1975 automobiles, inspection programs, and

gaseous fuel conversion of fleet vehicles. The State of

California will require vacuum spark advance discon-

nection (VSAD) on most 1955 to 1970 cars, and posi-

tive crankease ventilation (PCV) on most 1955 to 1970

cars.

The following controls are proposed by EPA. All

light- and heavy-duty gasoline-powered vehicles will be

required to be inspected annually using a loaded emis-

POE emcee

29

sions test (i.e., dynamometer loading test), a test that

simulates actual driving conditions. Vehicle owners will

be required to have any maintenance performed which

is needed to insure that all pollution control devices

on the vehicle work properly and the vehicle operates

at low pollution levels.

Evaporative controls to prevent evaporation of gaso-

line from the gas tank and carburetor will be required

as retrofit on all 1966 to 1969 model year light-duty

gasoline-powered vehicles and on 1966 to 1972 model

year heavy-duty gasoline-powered vehicles. A further

requirement will be the installation of an oxidizing cata-

lyst on all 1966 to 1974 model year light- and heavy-

duty gasoline vehicles.

Finally, all 1971 to 1974 model year light and heavy

duty vehicles in all fleets of over 10 vehicles will be

required to convert to run on gaseous fuels.

| ROPOSED REDUCTION IN VMT

Reducing the emissions of each car is not enough to

meet and maintain the national standards. The vast

number of cars in the basin offsets much of the emis-

sions reduction gained by control devices on individual

cars. The combined effect of all the controls to be placed

on stationary sources and automobiles mentioned above

will reduce the number of days on which the oxidant

standard is exceeded to about 90 days per year. In

order to meet the more stringent requirement of the

law, limitations must be placed upon the amount of

driving done in the South Coast Basin.

The highest oxidant reading in 1970 in the South

Coast Basin was 0.62 p.p.m., at Riverside, and the plan

proposed by the Administrator must be capable of re-

ducing hydrocarbon emissions sufficiently that the read-

ing would not exceed 0.08 p.p.m. To do this, in addi-

tion to imposing the controls over stationary and auto-

motive sources described above, VMT must be reduced

by approximately 82 percent for the peak period. Re-

ductions will be effected by a system of gasoline ra-

30

tioning effective during the months of May through

October. (Public comment is invited on the possibility

of also rationing gaseous fuels.)

The following table is a summary of the effect of

each element of the proposed strategy on the overall

reduction necessary. The uncontrolled emissions in 1977

are projected to be 691 tons per day of reactive hydro-

carbons. The total allowable emissions to meet the 0.08

Nestional Standard are 161 tons per day. All calculations

are based on 1970 air quality data as 1970 is the year

for which the emissions inventory is available. There is

no reason to believe that 1970 was a year of unusually

high oxidant concentrations. The 0.62 p.p.m., maximum

oxidant value used here is the same as that used by the

State to evaluate emission reductions measures after ex-

cluding a higher reading whose validity was challenged.

COMPILATION OF CONTROL STRATEGY EFFECTS ON

JUNE 30, 1977

Percent

of total

Tons reduction

per due to each

day control

Stationary source emissions without

S.C E 140

Expected reductions:

a. Dry cleaning vapor recovery: —6 1

b. Degreaser substitute —........... —25 5

ec. Other statutory rule

strengthening .......................... —45 9

Stationary emissions

NEE cciinciniuniquieetneninnian 64

Motorcycle emissions without con-

ee 30

Expected reductions ....................--------- 0

Motorcycle emissions =

TS cnccccunnsttnmntares 30

at. tna

$1

Aircraft emissions without control

strategy -...... 35

Expected reductions -....... an . =) 2

Aircraft emissions

remaining 24

Mobile emissions from on-highway

light and heavy duty vehicles and

from gasoline marketing operations

without control strategy —.............. 486

Expected reduction:

a. Gasoline marketing vapor

control .... —37 7

b. VSAD and PCV retrofit _.__. —13 2

c. "nspection and maintenance ... —28 5

d. Vehicle evaporative control

Rp SE NR —19 4

e. Gaseous fuel conversion —8 2

f. Oxidizing catalyst retrofit _...... —70 13

eee —269 51

Mobile emissions remaining .. 42

Total emissions without con- ean

Oe GD ociiccsneninstinenisenis 691

Total reductions —.................... —531 100

Total emissions remaining ... 160

The regulations proposed herein implement the basic

control strategy. Supplemental regulations will be pro-

posed at a later time. ‘

_Additional technical information is contained in: Tech-

nical Support Document for the Proposed Transportation

Control Strategy for the Metropolitan Los Angeles Intra-

state Air Quality Control Region, available from the

Region IX Office, Environmental Protection Agency, 100

California Street, San Francisco, CA 94111.

32

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL IMPACT OF THE LOS ANGELES

TRANSPORTATION CONTROL PLAN

Congress recognized that achievement of the goals of

the Clean Air Act would have a significant impact on

many urban areas. A quantitative assessment of the

impact of the plan on the economic and social fabric of

the community has not been possible due to the lack of

time and the innate complexity of the issue. However,

we have tried to describe the type of impacts which

would occur. First, vehicle owners may have to assume

the direct costs of emission abatement equipment to bring

their vehicles into compliance. Second, reduction in the

mobility of workers and consumers could have a major

impact on the economic fabric of the community. Third,

interference with the ability of citizens to move as freely

will alter the lifestyle of the region. Obviously, the

severity of the impact depends on the degree of vehicle

usage restrictions, on the manner that direct costs of

abatement equipment are financed, and the degree to

which the effects can be ameliorated particularly through

the development of a mass transit system.

DIRECT COSTS TO AUTOMOBILE OWNERS

Elements common to all of the transportation control

strategies considered are retrofitting of light-duty ve-

hicles, an inspection and maintenance program to insure

proper functioning of abatement equipment and emis-

sion control devices on gasoline marketing equipment.

The cost of contro! devices could range from $200 to

$400. The annual cost of inspection ‘maintenance and the

increased cost of gasoline caused by marketing controls

is estimated to be $5 to $15. =

If a sizable share of these costs falls on individual

automobile drivers, the burden will weigh more heavily

on low-income families. This effect is. exacerbated by

the fact that older cars, subject to higher abatement

equipment costs, tend to be owned by low-income families.

33

EFFECT ON THE ECONOMIC FABRIC OF THE COMMUNITY

The direct and indirect effects of the plan on the

economy of the basin are obviously dependent on the ex-

tent of the reduction in VMT.

Wage and salary earners. If VMT reductions resulted

in workers missing work, loss of income could result.

Such a loss of income would have a corresponding im-

pact on purchasing power affecting business sales. If

a mass transit system could be developed to replace

the use of autos in work-related trips (1; of VMT), then

the income loss could be minimized.

The monetary cost to the worker of shifting from the

auto to mass transit would depend on the degree of

transit fare subsidization.

Service and retail industry. The impact on service

and retail establishments will depend on the ability of

a mass transit system to service nonwork trips. Fur-

ther study is clearly needed to assess how well and

at what cost a transit system could fulfill this task.

We would expect, however, that it is easier to design

a transit system to carry work-related trips.

The use of autos for nonwork-related trips depends

on the control strategy. Gas rationing places a limit

on the number of miles traveled. Intermittent con-

trols limit travel during crisis periods but allow travel

at other times. Intermittent controls would have less

of an impact on buying activities by consumers if people

can tailor their nonwork trips to correspond with non-

crisis periods. People may be able to delay shopping

and recreation trips for days, thus alleviating the im-

pact of decreased mobility on sales. Alternatively, serv-

ice and retail establishments may be able to tailor sales

hours to nonpeak, noncrisis periods.

The adverse effect on service and retail sales also

depends critical'y on the ability of individuals to econo-

mize on nonwork trips and still shop and engage in

recreation activities. We simply do not know the ex-

tent to which nonwork trips can be combined or elimin-

ated resulting in a significant decrease in the number of

miles traveled without a deterioration in the standard

of living.

34

Manufacturing, wholesale trade and the distribution

system. Maintenance of the system to distribute goods

is critical to the viability of the economy, especially for

life-sustaining necessities.

Large trucks are already largely diesel powered and

would be allowed to operate under the proposed plan.

Fleet vehicles could convert to gaseous fuel at a cost

of $500 to $800 per vehicle. Smaller gasoline powered

trucks and vehicles would have to be retrofitted with

control devices. Their operation would, however, be re-

stricted under gas rationing or under intermittent con-

trols during crisis periods.

Cost of doing business may rise to an unknown extent.

Business may also be faced with increased pressure

for higher wages and salaries as workers try to offset

increased costs to the individual resulting from the

transportation control plan. It is not known whether

such cost increases will be significant enough to affect

the competitive position of firms in the South Coast Air

Basin, causing them to lose sales both within the South

Coast Air Basin and on goods now produced within

the basin and sold to other markets.

Time limitations have made it impossible to investigate

effects on specific industries. Some industries will be

adversely affected, while other will experience an in-

crease in sales. For instance, the burden would fall very

hard on service stations and automobile supply outlets.

On the other hand, the demand for mass transit and com-

munications facilities will increase. Even with more

time, it is not clear that a reasonable estimate of the

impact on specific industries could be made.

TAX REVENUE IMPLICATIONS

The transportation control plan will have direct and

indirect effects on local, State, and Federal tax revenues.

Some illustrative impacts are cited below.

It is not clear whether property taxes collected in the

South Coast Air Basin will rise or fall. It seems cer-

tain that property values will change depending on lo-

ee

35

cation. For example, property near shipping and work

zones will increase in value while that in suburban

vicinities will decrease.

Excise, sales, profit, and income taxes would probably

decline if purchasing power in the South Coast Air

Basin diminishes. Excise taxes from gasoline would

certainly fall. However, declines in revenues related

to some forms of spending (gasoline) will be offset to

some degree by increased expenditures for other goods.

The effect on State and local budgets will also depend

- gen be ogg and/or new taxes (parking, gas-

oline) rela to the tra i 1 wi

ey oe nsportation control plan will

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

Maintenance of the economic fabric of the South Coast

Air Basin requires:

(1) Workers being able to get to and from thei

; eir

jobs so that production and labor income can be main-

tained. :

(2) Sufficient commercial vehicular mobility to all

the distribution system to function effectively. . mid

(3) Sufficient mobility to roughly maintain the present

pattern and level of spending (shopping, recreation, etc.).

The inability to perform any of these basic economic

functions would cause serious dislocations to the South

ar Air — = leading to the loss of jobs

ich in turn leads to lower purchasi

drops in sales. ’ a

The viability of the economy ma

the y be adversely af-

fected under any significant reduction of VMT.. The

monetary cost of improved air quality will be significant

although how seriously this might affect industry is

undetermined. How serious the impact will be depends

critically on supplementary policy actions desi

maintain the standard of living especially: signed to

(1) The development of a mass transit

stitute for automobiles. system to sub-

36

(2) The extent of subsidization of abatement equip-

ment and a mass transit system.

(3) The degree to which people are able to economize

on their use of the automobile and still perform the

functions which support their standard of living.

EPA EFForTS To MITIGATE THE EFFECTS OF

PROPOSED REGULATIONS

The combined effect of these proposed regulations,

together with the California Implementation Plan; will

eliminate the danger to human health and welfare that

exists in the South Coast Air Basin from air pollution.

They will, however, have a great economic and social

impact. The Administrator will make every effort pos-

sible to mitigate the effects of his final promulgation. He

will be in contact with the Department of Transportation

and other departments as necessary. The Administrator

of EPA will request that the departments and agencies

give special attention to the needs of the South Coast

Air Basin for strategies to reduce VMT and for mass

transit to replace the automobile travel eliminated by

the proposed controls, aid to those whose businesses are

damaged by restricted automobile travel, and aid to

those whose jobs are affected by the proposals (particu-

larly those in the automobile service industries, such as

service stations and mechanics).

THE NEED FOR MASS TRANSIT

The development of large-scale mass transit facilities

in the Los Angeles area is essential to any effort to

mitigate the disruptions that can be caused by signifi-

cant reductions in automobile use. A public mass trans-

portation system that can absorb the travelers dis-

placed by sizable reductions in gasoline consumption or

vehicle miles traveled will have to be considerably more

extensive than the system now existing in Los Angeles.

The existing Los Angeles Rapid Transit District sys-

tem consists of about 1,500 buses. The maintenance of

reasonable mobility of the commuter will require many

37

times this number of buses together with many service

improvements to provide viable alternative transportation

modes. Although the Administrator may not have au-

thority to direct Los Angeles to provide expanded mass

transit facilities, he is firmly of the belief that such

expanded facilities are essential to the success of any

air pollution control strategy for the South Coast Air

Basin. The Administrator therefore is conducting an in-

vestigation of the needs and possibilities for transit

expansion in the basin and he encourages and will pro-

vide 11 possible support to efforts by Federal, State,

local governmental, and private groups to expand the

mass transit facilities in the basin.

The Administrator recognizes that the present low

density, sprawling land use pattern in the Los Angeles

area is not conducive to the efficient use of mass transit.

The long-term problems of attaining and maintaining

high levels of transit service and usage would be con-

siderably eased through the application of public policy

measures to promote the centralization and corridoriza-

tion of activities that generate large demands for trans-

portation. The time period required for such policy

measures to take effect prohibits their use by the Ad-

ministrator to achieve the ambient air quality standards

by 1977. In addition, such measures would not eliminate

the need for many of the emissions control measures

proposed here. However, proper land use policies would

greatly assist the long-term implementation of such emis-

sions control measures as VMT reductions.

PUBLIC COMMENTS SOLICITED

Although the Administrator has concluded that the

proposed plan is the only approach available to him

at the present time that is demonstrably capable of

achieving compliance with the requirements of the Act,

further analysis may demonstrate that more appropriate

options are available. He therefore desires to obtain the

comments and suggestions of the public on the prob-

lems of achieveing the ambient air quality standards in

38

the South Coast Air Basin. Comments are particularly

invited pertaining to measures that may be taken by

Federal, State, or local authorities to support or supple-

ment the proposed air pollution contro] strategy for the

basis [sic] (e.g., expanded mass transit), means of imple-

menting these measures, and the comparative social and

economic effects of alternative pollution control measures.

Questions also exist as the EPA’s authority and cap-

ability for actual implementation of this proposal and of

alternatives. These questions include the extent to which

State or local governments should be required to perform

functions contemplated by the proposal and the difficulties

involved in Federal or State enforcement of the plan.

Extensive public hearings will be held on this and

alternative proposals no sooner than 30 days from the

date of this notice of proposed rule m:king. Dates, times,

and places will be announced in a forthcoming issue of

the FEDERAL REGISTER.

The Administrator’s final promulgation of transporta-

tion controls for the South Coast Basin will be profoundly

influenced by the comments and testimony he receives,

as well as by the approvable strategies submitted by the

State in mid-Februray as part of the State plan. These

influences, and the additional analysis of alternative stra-

tegies that can be made in the time between this pro-

posal and final promulgation, may lead the Administrator

to adopt final regulations that differ in important ways

from this proposal.

SUBMITTAL OF WRITTEN COMMENTS

Interested persons may participate in this rule making

by submitting written comments, preferably in triplicate

to the Regional Administrator, EPA, Region IX, 100

California Street, San Francisco, CA 94111. All rele-

vant comments received not later than March 23, 1973,

will be considered. Receipt of comments will be acknow-

ledged, but substantive responses to individual comments

will not be provided. Comments received will be avail-

able for public inspection during normal business hours

39

at the EPA Region IX Office, and at locations to be

announced in the Los Angeles area. The changes pro-

posed by this notice with appropriate modification will

be effective on January 22, 1973. This notice of pro-

posed rule making is issued under the authority of section

110(c) and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.

1857 et seq.).

Dated: January 15, 1973.

WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS,

Administrator,

Environmental Protection Agency.

It is proposed to amend Part 52 of the Chapter I, Title

40, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

Subpart F—California

1. Section 52.229 is amended by adding paragraphs

(b) through (j), as follows:

$ 52.229 Control strategy and regulations: Photochemical

oxidants (hyrdocarbons), Metropolitan Los Angeles

Intrastate Region.

(b) Regulation for control of evaporative emissions.

(1) For purposes of this paragraph:

(i) “Evaporative control device” means a device in-

stalled on a motor vehicle to prevent the escape of gaso-

line vapor from the gasoline tank and carburetor.

(ii) “Registered” as applied to a motor vehicle, means

that such motor vehicle is duly licensed for general oper-

ation on public roads or highways by the appropriate

agency of the Federal Government or by the State.

(2) This regulation is applicable in those portions of

Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura,

40

and Santa Barbara Counties contained within the Metro-

politan Los Angeles Intrastate Air Quality Control Re-

gion (AQCR) in the State of California. The require-

ments of this regulation shall be effective commencing on

January 1, 1976.

(3) Prior to January 1, 1976, an evaporative control

device of at least 85 percent efficiency which is approved

by the Administrator shall be properly installed, in good

working order, and in operation on all registered light-

duty gasoline-powered vehicles of model years 1966

through 1969 and all registered heavy-duty gasoline

vehicles of model years 1966 through 1972. Approved

evaporative control devices shall be installed on a sched-

ule determined by the Administrator.

(4) After January 1, 1976, the following shall apply

in the areas specified in paragraph (b) (2) of this sec-

tion:

(i) The State of California shall not register light-

duty vehicles which do not comply with the provisicns of

paragraph (b) (3) of this section.

(ii) No owner of light-duty vehicles shall operate or

allow the operation of such vehicles which do not comply

with the provisions of paragraph (b) (3) of this section.

(c) Regulation for gaseous fuel conversion. (1) For

purposes of this paragraph:

(i) “Fleet vehicle means any one of ten (10) or more

light- and heavy-duty vehicles operated by the same per-

sonis) or business and used principally in connection

with the same occupation or related occupations.

(ii) “Gaseous fuel’ means liquified or pressurized

petroleum or natural gases which are used as fuel for

light-duty vehicles.

(2) This regulation is applicable in those portions of

Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ven-

tura, and Santa Barbara Counties contained within the

Metropolitan Los Angeles Intrastate Air Quality Con-

trol Region (AQCR) in the State of California. The

requirements of this reglation shall be effective com-

mencing on January 1, 1976.

41

(3) All registered gasoline-powered fleet vehicles of

model years prior to 1975 shall be equipped for and

operated on gaseous fuel by the effective date of this

regulation. Conversion of such fleet vehicles for use of

gaseous fuel shall be on a schedule determined by the Ad-

ministrator.

(4) After January 1, 1975, the following shall apply

in the areas specified in paragraph (c) (2) of this sec-

tion:

(i) The State of California shall not register vehicles

which do not comply with the provisions of paragraph

(b) (3) of this section.

(ii) No owner of fleet vehicles shall operate or allow

the operation of such vehicles which do not comply with

the provisions of paragraph (c) (3) of this section.

(d) Regulation for yearly inspection and maintenance.

(1) For purposes of this paragraph: “Inspection and

maintenance” means a program to reduce emissions from

in-use vehicles through identifying vehicles that need

emissions control related maintenance and requiring that

maintenance be performed.

(2) This regulation is applicable in those sections

of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ven-

tura, and Santa Barbara Counties contained within the

Metropolitan Los Angeles Intrastate Air Quality Con-

trol Region (AQCR) in the State of California. The

requirements of this regulation shall be effective com-

mencing on January 1, 1975.

(3) All registered gasoline-powered light- and heavy-

duty motor vehicles shall be inspected annually for emis-

sions and, as necessary, maintained by the owner in order

to pass the inspection. This shall be done by personnel,

facilities and procedures which shall be proposed and

promulgated by the Administrator.

(4) After January 1, 1975, the following shall apply

in the areas specified in paragraph (d) (2) of this sec-

tion:

(i) The State of California shall not register light-

duty vehicles which do not comply with the provisions of

42

paragraph (d) (3) of this section and procedures promul-

gated pursuant thereto.

(ii) No owner of light-duty vehicles shall operate or

allow the operation of such vehicles which do not comply

with the provisions of paragraph (d) (3) of this section.

(e) Regulation for oxidizing catalyst. (1) For the

purposes of this paragraph: “Oxidizing catalyst” means

a device installed in the exhaust system of the vehicle

that utilizes a catalyst and, if necessary, an air pump

to reduce emissions of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide

from that vehicle.

(2) This regulation is applicable in those sections of

Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ven-

tura, and Santa Barbara Counties contained within the

Metropolitan Los Angeles Intrastate Air Quality Con-

trol Region (AQCR) in the State of California. The

requirements of this regulation shall be effective com-

mencing on January 1, 1975.

(3) All registered gasoline-powered light- and heavy-

duty motor vehicles of model years 1966 through 1974,

shall be equipped with an appropriate oxidizing cata-

lyst exhaust retrofit in accordance with paragraph (e)

(2) of this section, approved by the Administrator.

(4) After January 1, 1975, the following shall apply

in the areas specified in paragraph (e) (2) of this sec-

tion:

(i) The State of California shall not register light-

duty vehicles which do not comply with the provisions

of paragraph (e! (3) of this section.

(ii) No owner of light-duty vehicles shall operate or

allow the operation of such vehicles which do not comply

with the provisions of paragraph (e)(3) of this sec-

tion.

(f) Regulation for purchase of gasoline. (1) For pur-

poses of this paragraph:

(i) “Control period’ means a portion of a calender

year in which gasoline sales are regulated.

(ii) “Retail outlet” means any service station, filling

station, garage, store or other place of business at which

gasoline is transferred directly to consumers in the

regular course of business.

43

(2) This regulation is applicable in those portions of

Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ven-

tura, and Santa Barbara Counties contained within the

Metropolitan Los Angeles intrastate Air Quality Con-

trol Region (AQCR) in the State of California. The re-

quirements of this regulation shall be in effect commenc-

ing May 1, 1975, and shail remain in effect through

October 31, 1975. The regulation shall be effective in

the same control periods during each calendar year there-

after, until such time as the Administrator determines

the regulation to be no longer necessary for the attain-

ment and maintenance of the national standard for photo-

chemical oxidants (hydrocarbons).

(3) During the control periods, as specified in para-

graph (f)(2) of this section, the sale of gasoline to re-

tail outlets and to the owners and operators of motor

vehicles shall be controlled by directions of the Admin-

istrator, EPA.

(4) The amount of gasoline to be controlled shail be

determinee by the Administrator no later than 30 days

prior to the effective date of a control period. This de-

terminaton shall be based on the hydrocarbon emission

reduction required for the attainment and maintenance

of the national standard for photochemical oxidants in

Metropolitan Los Angeles Intrastate AQCR.

(g) Volatile organic compound loading facilities. (1)

This regulation is applicable in those portions of Los

Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura,

and Santa Barbara Counties contained within the Metro-

politan Los Angeles Intrastate Air Quality Control Re-

gion (AQCR) in the State of California. The require-

ment of paragraph (g) (2) of this section shall be effective

commencing July 1, 1973.

(2) No person shall load or allow the loading of

volatile organic compounds having a vapor pressure of

1.5 pounds per square inch absolute or greater, under

actual storage conditions, into any tank truck or trailer,

railroad tank car, locomotive, aircraft, stationary stor-

age tank with a capacity greater than 5 gallons from

any loading facility unless such tank or loading facility

44

is equipped with a vapor collection and disposal system,

or its equivalent, properly installed, in good working

order, and in operation. Loading shall be accomplished

in such a manner that all displaced vapor and air will

be vented only to the vapor disposal system. A means

shall be provided to prevent liquid organic compound

drainage from the loading device when it is removed

from the hatch, or to accomplish complete drainage be-

fore such removal. The vapor disposal portion of the

system shall consist of one of the following:

(i) An absorber system or condensation system with

a minimum recovery efficiency of 90 percent by weight

of all the volatile organic compound vapors and gases

entering such disposal system.

(ii) A vapor handling system which directs all vapors

to a fuel gas system.

_ (ili) Other equipment of at least 90 percent effi-

ciency, provided plans for such equipment are submitted

to and approved by the Air Pollution Control Officer.

Intermediate storage vessels may be used prior to dis-

posal of vapors under paragraph (g)(2) (i), (ii), or

(iii), provided they are so designed as to prevent release

of vapors at any time during use.

_‘3) Notwithstanding paragraph (g)(2) of this sec-

tion, no person loading or allowing the loading of the

above specified compounds in the above specified stor-

age vessels from the above specified loading facilities, any

of which were in existence on the effective date of this

regulation, or in the process of being installed for use

on said effective date, shall be subject to the provisions

of paragraph (g)(2) of this section until January 1,

1974: Provided, however, That such person is hereby

required to file on or before July 1, 1973, a compliance

schedule with the Administrator showing how the person

will bring his operation into compliance with paragraph

(g) (2) of this section on or before January 1, 1974.

Failure to file such compliance schedule or abide by its

terms shall render the prohibition contained in para-

graph (gi (2) of this section immediately applicable to

such person on July 1, 1973, or on the date of said per-

ere

oo ae a

re ne

45

son’s failure to abide by said compliance schedule, which-

ever is later.

(h) Control of drycleaning solvent evaporation. (1)

For the purposes of this paragraph: “Drycleaning opera-

tion” means that process by which an organic solvent is

used in the commercial cleaning of garments and other

fabric materials.

(2) This regulation is applicable in those portions of

Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ven-

tura. and Santa Barbara counties contained within the

Metropolitan Los Angeles Intrastate Air Quality Con-

trol Region (AQCR) in the State of California. The re-

quirements of this regulation shall be effective commenc-

ing on January 1, 1974.

(3) No person shall operate a drycleaning operation

unless the uncontrolled organic emissions from such oper-

ation have been reduced at least 85 percent.

(4) Drycleaning operation emitting less than three (3)

pounds per hour and less than 15 pounds per day are

exempt from this regulation.

(5) If incineration is used as a control technique, 90

percent or more of the carbon in the organic compounds

being incinerated must be oxidized to carbon dioxide.

(6) Drycleaning operations using solvents considered

nonreactive by Rule 66 part (k) of the Los Angeles

APCD current regulations are exempt from this regula-

tion.

(i) Degreasing operation. (1) For the purposes of this

paragraph: “Degreasing” means the operation of using

an organic solvent as a surface cleaning agent prior to

fabricating, surface coating, electroplating or any other

process.

(2) This regulation is applicable in those portions of

Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ven-

tura, and Santa Barbara Counties contained within the

Metropolitan Los Angeles Intrastate Air Quality Con-

tro! Region (AQCR) in the State of California. The re-

quirements of this regulation shall be effective com-

mencing on January 1, 1974.

46

(3) No person shall use trichloroethylene (TEC) de-

greaser as a degreasing solvent.

(j) Organic solvent usege: Federal regulation replac-

ing parts of Rule 66 of Los Angeles, Orange, and San

Bernardino Counties, Rule 36 of Santa Barbara County,

Rule 69 of Riverside County, and Rule 66 of Ventura

County. (1) This regulation is applicable in those portions

of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ven-

tura, and Santa Barbara Counties contained within the

Metropolitan Los Angeles Intrastate Air Quality Con-

trol Region (AQCR) in the State of California. This

regulation is effective immediately upon promulgation.

(2) Subparagraph i of Rule 66 of Los Angeles, Orange,

and San Bernardino Counties, Rule 36 of Santa Bar-

bara County, Rule 69 of Riverside County, and subpara-

graph § of Rule 66 of Ventura County as contained in

the Local Air Pollution Control District Regulations for

the South Coast Air Basin, Implementation Plan for the

State of Caliofrnia, is amended by replacing subsuhpara-

graph 5 (subsubparagraph e in the case of Ventura

County), and adding in place thereof the following sub-

subparagraphs 5, 6, and 7 (e, f, and g in the case of

Ventura County): [i The provisions of this rule shall

not apply to:]

5. The use of any material, in any article, machine,

equipment or other contrivance described in sections (a),

(b), (ce) or (d), if:

(i) The volatile content of such material consists only

of water and organic solvents, and

(ii) The organic solvents comprise not more than 20

percent by volume of said volatile content, and

(iii) The volatile content is not photochemically re-

active as defined in section (k), and

(iv) The organic solvent or any material containing

organic solvent does not come into contact with flame.

6. The use of any material, in any article, machine,

equipment or other contrivance described in sections

(a), (b), (ec), or (d), if:

47

(i) The organic solvent content of such material does

not exceed 20 percent by volume of said material, and

(ii) The volatile content is not photochemically reac-

tive as defined in section(k), and

(iii) More than 50 percent by volume of such vola-

tile material is evaporated before entering a chamber

heated above ambient application temperature, and

(iv) The organic solvent or any material containing

organic solvent does not come into contact with flame.

7. The use of any material, in any article, machine,

equipment or other contrivance described in sections (a),

(b), (ce), or (d), if:

(i) The organic solvent content of such material does

not exceed 5 percent by volume of said material, and

(ii) The volatile content is not photochemically reac-

tive as defined in section (k), and

(iii) The organic solvent or any material containing

organic solvent does not come into contact with flame.

[FR Doc. 73-1144 Filed 1-15-73; 5:00 p.m.]

48

Title 40—Protection of Environment

CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

SUBCHAPTER C——AIR PROGRAMS

PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION

OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

Approval of Transportation and/or Land Use

Controls

On April 30, 1971, pursuant to section 109 of the Clean

Air Act, as amended, the Administrator promulgated

national primary and secondary ambient air quality

standards for six pollutants. The act requires that the

primary standards protect the public health with an ade-

quate margin of safety, and that the secondary stand-

ards protect the public welfare from any known or

anticipated adverse effects. Under section 110 of the

act, States were required to prepare and submit to the

Administrator plans for implementing the national am-

bient air standards in each air quality control region in

the State. The Administrator published on May 31, 1972,

his initial approvals and disapprovals of State implemen-

tation plans developed and submitted under these pro-

visions of Federal law.

The presence in the ambient air of three of the pol-

lutants for which control strategies were required to be

submitted by States—carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and

photochemical oxidants—is largely attributable to motor

vehicles: consequently many States were unable to formu-

late, and submit, adequate control strategies that utilized

only limitations on emissions from stationary sources.

However, as the Administrator noted in his May 31 ap-

proval ‘disapprova! of implementation plans, neither the

States nor the Environmental Prvtection Agency had any

practical experience that would permit the development

of meaningful transportation control schemes or the pre-

diction of their impact on air quality. States were ad-

|

<a WE ee le, renee

49

vised that adoption of transportation control schemes

could be deferred beyond the statutory deadline for sub-

mittal of implementation plans but those plans would

have to define the degree of emission reduction to be

achieved through transportation control measures and

identify the measures being considered. States were re-

quired to submit adopted transportation control strategies

no later than February 15, 1973.

Many States requested 2-year extensions pursuant to

section 110(e) of the act for the attainment of the pri-

mary standards for these pollutants based on the un-

availability of transportation control measures. The Ad-

ministrator determined that, in fact, transportation con-

trol measures would not be available soon enough to per-

mit attainment of the primary standards within the 3-

year time period prescribed by the act; therefore, 2-year

extensions were granted at the request of those States

that had determined that transportation control meas-

ures would be necessary. In some cases, this meant that

States were required to submit on February 15, 1973,

transportation and/or land-use control measures that

would achieve the standards by 1977. In other cases, the

2-year extension meant that certain States would not

have to submit transportation control measures because

the Federal motor vehicle control program (FMVCP)

and/or stationary source control would be adequate to

achieve the standards by 1977 without the application

of any other transportation and/or land-use measures.

In order to assist the States in the development of trans-

portation control strategies, the Environmental Protec-

tion Agency conducted numerous studies and made their

results available to the States. In addition, contract as-

sistance was provided in developing the strategies for

14 of the affected regions, and the reports of these

studies have been made available to all the States.

On January 31, 1973, the U.S. Court of Appeals for

the District of Columbia Circuit decided the case of Na-

tural Resources Defense Council Inc., et al. v. Environ-

mental Protection Agency (civil action No. 72-1522) and

seven related cases, hereafter referred to as NRDC v.

50

EPA. It issued an order which held that the Clean Air

Act does not permit the delay in submission of transpor-

tation control portions of State implementation plans until

February 15, 1973, or permit the granting of extensions

to mid-1977 for attainment of the national primary

air standards where plans had not been submitted. The

order required the Administrator to formally rescind

through notice to the States and publication in the FED-

ERAL REGISTER the extension of time granted for sub-

mission of transportation and/or land-use control portions

of implementation plans. It also required the Adminis-

trator to formally rescind in the same manner the ex- |

tention granted to several States to delay implementation

of their plans or portions thereof until May 31, 1977.

The court ordered the Administ: utor to inform the States

concerned that “all States that have not yet submitted

an implemenation plan fully complying with the require-

ments of the Clean Air Act of 1970 must submit such a

plan by April 15, 1973. That plan must satisfy each and

every requirement of section 110(a)(2) (A)-(H) if it

is to be approved by the Administrator. In particular, it

must provide for the attainment of the primary stand-

ards as expeditiously as practicable but in no case later

than May 31, 1975, * * *.”

In accordance with this order, 22 States including the

District of Columbia were notified by telegram on Febru-

ary 5, 1973, that any extensions granted because of the

unavailability of transportation and/or land-use controls

were canceled and that plans for the attainment and

maintenance of the standards for these three pollutants

would be required by April 15, 1973. A FEDERAL REGIs-

TER notice was issued on March 20, 1973 (38 FR 7323),

to complete the requirements of that court order by spe-

cifically amending the provisions of this part with re-

gard to each of the States concerned. These amend-

ments provided that every State which was granted an

extension to achieve those primary standards and/or

permitted to defer submittal of the transportation and/

or land-use control strategies until February 15, 1973,

would be required to submit no later than April 15,

1973, transportation and/or land-use controls which will

show achievement of the standards by 1975. In addi-

ee a ee ee a

51

tion to those States which were required to submit trans-

portation and/or land-use control strategies on Febru-

ary 15, a number of other States which had regions that

would not achieve the standard by 1975 but which had

not been required to submit transportation control strat-

egies because the FMVCP was thought capable of achiev-

ing the standards by 1977 were required to submit

transportation control strategies on April 15. States

that were not granted an extension but that had defi-

cient plans were also required to submit transportation

control strategies on April 15, 1973. Strategies adopted

by the States must provide for attainment and mainte-

nance of these standards by May 31, :1975. At the time

of submission of these plans on April 15, the Governors

of the States could request an extension up to 2 years

for compliance with the provisions of these plans if the

specific requirements of section 110(e) are satisfied by

the State plan.

To date, 16 States including the District of Columbia

have submitted plans. These plans have been reviewed

by the Department of Transportation, as well as by the

Environmental Protection Agency, and have also been

made available for public review and comment. Based

upon the comments received and the Agency’s evaluation

of the plans in light of pertinent legal requirements, the

Administrator is taking action to approve or disapprove

inadequate portions of these plans.

The approval/disapproval decisions are based on a de-

tailed evaluation of plans submitted by the States. Cri-

teria for this evaluation include adequacy of control

strategies, control plan adaption [sic] and submission pro-

cedures, accuracy of air quality data and emissions in-

ventories, extension request considerations, provisions

for air quality and source surveillance, review of legal

authority, adequacy of resources, and provisions for

intergovernmental cooperation.

Where the Administrator disapproves a State plan or

portion thereof, or where a State fails to submit an im-

plementation plan or portions thereof, the Administrator

is required, under section 110(¢) of the act, to propose

and subsequently promulgate regulations setting forth a

52

substitute implementation plan or portions thereof.

Where regulatory portions of a State plan, including

control strategies and related rules and regulations, are

disapproved or were not submitted, regulations setting

forth substitute portions will be proposed and promul-

gated. When disapproved portions are of a non-regula-

tory nature, e.g., air quality surveillance, resources, and

intergovernmental cooperation, and therefore are not

susceptible to correction through promulgation of regula-

tions by the Administrator, detailed comments will be

included in the evaluation report; in such cases, the

Environmental Protection Agency will work with the

States to correct the deficiencies.

To the extent possible, the Administrator’s evaluation

of State plans reflects the latest information submitted

by the States. In the interest of giving States every op-

portunity to bring their implementation plans into full

compliance with the act and 40 CFR, part 51, the En-

vironmental Protection Agency has notified States that

modifications submitted after the deadline for submittal

of State plans would be accepted and considered provided

that such modifications were made and submitted in ac-

cordance with the requirements of 40 CFR, part 51. Ac-

cordingly, many States have been, and still are, making

and submitting modifications of their implementation

plans. Where such modifications were not received in

time to affect the Administrator’s approval or disap-

proval today of a State plan or portion thereof, appropri-

ate changes to this part will be published as soon as the

Administrator’s evaluation of such modifications has

been completed.

The act directs the Administrator to require a State

to revise its implementation plan whenever he finds that

it is substantially inadequate for attainment and main-

tenance of a national standard. In accordance with the

statutory mandate, the Environmental Protection Agen-

cy will make a continuing evaluation of the State plans

and will, as necessary, call upon the States to make re-

visions.

be ay poe ls eek 2 lt na tn Rte at

owe’ ode

ee ee ee ee oe er oy es

53

A discussion of the available transportation control

alternatives, and the Administrator’s approvals and dis-

approvals, is set forth below. A mor detailed descrip-

tion of disapproved portions, together with an explana-

tion of the basis for disapproval, will be provided to the

States. Copies of these evaluation reports are available

for public inspection at the Freedom of Information

Center, Office of Public Affairs, Environmental Protec-

tion Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20460,

and in the Agency’s regional offices.

TRANSPORTATION CONTROL ALTERNATIVES

Transportation control plans provide for reductions in

carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon levels required be-

yond the reductions provided by the Federal motor ve-

hicle emissions control program and stationary source

regulations set forth in the previously approved State

implementation plans. These reductions are to be ac-

complished through the implementation of the transpor-

tation control alternatives discussed below. The appro-

priateness of a particular alternative is determined by

the pollutant controlled (carbon monoxide or oxidant) as

well as by the characteristics of the specific air quality

control region such as topography, demography, climat-

ology and institutional arrangements.

The control of carbon monoxide is influenced by its

lack of reactivity and its localized dispersion character-

istics. High ambient carbon monoxide concentrations

can be decreased by reducing the density of emissions in

a specific area of interest. In addition to control meas-

ures that would reduce the emission potential of the in-

dividual vehicle, a variety of traffic control measures can

be utilized to reduce ambient carbon monoxide levels in

high concentration areas. Three general types of traffic

controls have been considered—measures to improve

traffic flow, programs to reduce total vehicle miles of

travel (VMT), and programs to shift traffic away from

high concentration areas. Depending upon the local sit-

uation, all three can be effective in reducing carbon

54

monoxide levels. However, traffic flow improvements

must often be accompanied by restrictions that will pre-

vent the latent travel demand from recongesting traffic

arteries. Traffic flow can be improved through various

traffic engineering programs as well as through stag-

gered work hours. Strategies to reduce total vehicle

miles of travel include auto-free zones, increased park-

ing fees, 4-day workweeks, and improved public transit.

Carbon monoxide levels can in many cases be reduced by

the temporal or spatial redistribution of the emissions,

which is especially applicable to localized high ambient

concentrations such as occur in many central business

districts (CBD). Reduction of air quality in the sur-

rounding area must be considered when spatial redistri-

bution is utilized as a control measure.

Photochemical oxidant, primarily ozone, is a secondary

pollutant; it results from the reaction of two primary

pollutants (hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides) in the

presence of sunlight. As such, it differs from carbon

monoxide in that there exists a lag time between the

emissions of the primary pollutants and the formation

of the secondary pollutant; therefore, the reduction of

oxidant concentrations depends upon reduction in pre-

cursor (primary pollutant) emissions over a much wider

area than required for the reduction of primary pol-

lutant concentrations. The extent of the reduction in

hydrocarbon emissions required to meet the air quality

standards for oxidants, as determined by statistical eval-

uation of observed data, is specified in 40 CFR, part 51,

appendix J. Control measures such as inspection/main-

tenance, retrofit, increased parking fees and road tolls,

4-day workweeks, car pooling, improved mass transit,

“smog taxes” on automobiles and gasoline, gasoline ra-

tioning, ete. can be used to reduce hydrocarbon emis-

sions over a wide area. Traffic flow measures or con-

trols that redistribute the emissions over time or space

are not considered effective in reducing photochemical

oxidants.

Measures which reduce both carbon monoxide and

hydrocarbon emissions from vehicles include inspection /

maintenance programs and vehicle retrofit devices. Esti-

Oe

55

mates of the effectiveress of these measures were pro-

vided in a notice of proposed rulemaking published Janu-

ary 12, 1973 (38 FR 1467) and promulgated in final

form on June 8, 1973 (88 FR 15193). Alternative

transportation control measures contained in State plans

such as improvements in mass transportation, car pool-

ing, methods of gaining a general reduction in vehicle

miles traveled, traffic flow improvements, inspection and

maintenance measures as well as retrofit programs, are

discussed in subsequent sections.

MASS TRANSIT

Since automobiles are the major source of carbon mon-

oxide and hydrocarbon emissions in most cities, it would

be desirable from an air quality standpoint if many trips

presently made by auto could be diverted to other modes

of travel.

It should be pointed out that any mass transit im-

provements requiring major construction, such as the

extension of existing fixed-route systems or the building

of new systems, cannot be completed by 1975 or 1977 un-

less such construction is already underway. Accordingly,

for purposes of achieving the carbon monoxide and oxi-

dant air quality standards by the statutory deadlines,

mass transit strategies must focus on alternative systems,

primarily bus transit, and on immediate improvements in

existing systems. Much can be done to improve exist-

ing fixed-route and bus systems in order to increase their

attractiveness to the traveling public. Such improve-

ments could include modifications in schedules, routes,

and fare structures; preferential treatment facilities for

bus transit, such as exclusive bus lanes; park-and-ride

facilities; measures to increase the comfort and security

of passengers; and improved public information and

marketing programs.

Where mass transit improvements are not sufficient to

significantly reduce auto travel, as is generally the case,

disincentives to, and restraints on, auto travel may be

needed. Economic disincentives such as higher parking

charges and tolls, higher gasoline taxes, and higher fees

56

for auto registration might be used for this purpose.

Alternate modes of transportation must be available

concurrent with the imposition of vehicle restraints in

order to retain mobility for the public.

Techniques that improve mass transit service and si-

multaneously restrain the automobile may be effective

in diverting auto riders to mass transit. Provision for

exclusive lanes for buses and carpools which simultane-

ously reduce road capacity available to the auto is an

example. Other techniques would include priority meter-

ing for buses on expressway ramps, bus-priority signali-

zation, and auto-free zones.

Many States have proposed mass transit improvements

as part of their programs to meet ambient air quality

standards. In some cases, States have made excessive or

unsubstantiated claims of emission reductions resulting

from mass transit improvements. In these cases, the Ad-

ministrator has exercised his judgment in assigning dif-

ferent emission reductions. As in the case of traffic

flow improvements, such an estimate has not in itself

resulted in disapproval of a control strategy where the

control strategy provided sufficient margin or included

adequate contingency measures.

CAR-POOLING

Increasing the average occupancy rate of automobiles

is a conceivable method of reducing vehicles miles trav-

eled (and thus automotive air pollutant emission) with-

out unduly restricting personal mobility. Experimental

programs have shown that incentive measures such as

express lanes, reduced tolls, and preferential parking

ean lead to the formation of car pools. Innovative car-

poo! locator and information systems can also be used

to assist in the formation of groups of individuals who

live and work near each other and who have compatible

work schedules. These programs will allow trip making

while reducing air pollution emissions and the drain on

natural resources.

~~ ARR 0 ele al Ob.

57

REDUCTION IN VMT

Measures such as mass transit, car pools, bus lanes,

parking restrictions, increased bridge tools, gas ration-

ing, and others are designed to reduce the vehicle miles

traveled (VMT). The Administrator believes that some

reduction in VMT can be reasonably achieved by 1975

by employing available transportation control strategies.

Application for time extensions to meet standards

therefore cannot be granted until some reduction in

VMT can be shown by control strategies submitted in

state plans.

Information available on possible VMT reductions is

incomplete. It is as true today as it was a year ago that

states have had practically no experience with transpor-

tation control measures as a means of dealing with air

quality problems. Aside from the Nation’s experience

during World War II (gasoline rationing), no one knows

what the public response to significant measures for re-

ducing VMT will be. The studies that have been made

on this point are inadequate and are necessarily hypo-

thetical until the measures have actually been put into

effect. Public attitudes in major urban areas do appear

to be changing, however, and are becoming less favor-

= to the continued use of automobiles on the present

scale.

Finally, even the ability of different modes of trans-

portation to absorb the demand for trips that would be

created by a significant VMI [sic] reduction will vary

greatly with the individual characteristics of the city in-

volved. No firm projection of what alternative transpor-

tation is available can be made without a detailed traffic

study of the individual region, and, for the most part

such studies have not been made.

It is clear, however, that the authors of the clean air

amendments of 1970 anticipated that substantial VMT

reductions might be necessary to achieve the standards.

The Senate report on the act states that “until the ve-

hicle population is largely made up of cars that meet

the 1975-76 standards, as much as 75 percent of the

58

traffic may have to be restricted in certain large metro-

politan areas if health standards are to be achieved with-

in the time required by this bill.”

It is also clear from the January 31, 1973, court of

appeals decision that if VMT reduction measures are

reasonably available by 1975, and if the standards can-

not be achieved without them, they must be put into ef-

fect. This is true even though the restrictions may be

necessary only for a few years until cleaner cars come

into more widespread use. Against this background, the

Administrator has reexamined the question of VMT re-

duction and has concluded that a reduction in VMT in

1975 is a feasible and necessary measure for many re-

gions.

Though some reduction in the use of private automo-

biles may be expected simply from the use of measures

designed to increase the attractiveness of other means of

transportation, VMT reductions can only be assured

through the use of some form of restraint or disincen-

tives to vehicle usage.

A measure cannot be considered “reasonably avail-

able,” if putting it into effect would cause severe eco-

nomic and social disruption. Although some reduction in

personal travel could certainly be absorbed without such

disruption, achievement of a significant VMT reduction

will require that the majority of the travel displaced

from single-passenger automobiles be absorbed by other

modes of transportation such as car pools and public

transit, or by walking or bicycling.

The only significant expansion of public transit facili-

ties that can be accomplished by 1975 except where con-

struction is already underway is the upgrading and

physical expansion of bus services. Much however, can

be done in this regard. Scheduling and service can be

improved and optimized. Individual lanes of freeways

and other major roads can be set-aside for the exclusive

use of buses. Significant numbers of new buses can be

purchased and put into service by then. According to

Department of Transportation figures, 2,500 transit

buses were sold in this country in 1972, but the transit

se

a a ee

ah” it whe re a

am tt ee «

59

industry’s production capacity is projected to be more

than 6,000 buses a year by 1975.

Sufficient alternative transportation capacity appears

to be available now, or will be available by 1975, to al-

low significant VMT reductions (perhaps 10 to 15 per-

cent) by 1975 in most of the Nation’s cities. Further

significant reductions should be possible by 1977. Alter-

native transportation capacity exists partly in present

mass transit facilities, or can be created through the

expansion of bus service. In part it exists in the possi-

bility that many short trips now made by car could be

made by bicycle or on foot.

A major part of the transportation demand created

by VMT reductions can be absorbed by car pools. Pri-

vate automobiles, which are designed to carry four to

six persons, carry an average of one and one-half per-

sons per trip in major urban areas, and thus represent

the largest unused pool of transportation capacity cur-

rently available. The Administrator cannot directly re-

quire the use of car pools. It can be expected, however,

that as measures to make the use of private automobiles

less convenient are imposed, increased reliance on car

pools wiil develop naturally as a matter of private initia-

tive.

VMT reduction measures which the Administrator

may propose will vary according to the pollution prob-

lem of the individual region. Three major control meas-

ures appear to be particularly effective for VMT reduc-

tion. The first is the use of parking restrictions in cen-

tral business districts (CBD). In addition to helping solve

the problem of localized carbon monoxide pollution in

these areas, as noted above, such measures can be ex-

pected to discourage auto trips to CBD’s by making it

more difficult to park the car at the end of the trip, and

thus encouraging a shift to alternate modes of trans-

portation. The second is the conversion of one or more

lanes of freeways and major streets to the exclusive

use of buses or car pools or both. This can be expected

to encourage the use of the favored modes of transpor-

tation by reducing traveltime and to discourage the use

60

of private automobiles by reducing the amount of road

space available to them. The third is the imposition of

gasoline supply limitation which might be no more than

a limit on the growth in gasoline consumption. This can

be expected to further reduce VMT. In some regions,

this will be made necessary by the legal requirement to

propose a plan theoretically capable of meeting the stan-

dards by 1975, or by 1977 at the latest.

TRAFFIC FLOW IMPROVEMENTS

In central business districts, traffic speeds are low dur-

ing most of the day. Various traffic flow improvement

measures, including operational improvements of exist-

ing roads, have been proposed by many States on the

basis that the resulting higher traffic speeds will sub-

stantially reduce pollutant emissions.

There are indications that the resulting improvement

in air quality will be short-lived, since street improve-

ments tend to induce additional traffic. With higher

traffic volumes, total emissions would increase. Within a

year or two the emissions may in fact be at higher levels

than if the traffic flow improvement measures had not

been implemented at all.

It may be possible in some areas to counteract the

induced traffic by appropriate measures; but, in general,

the States have not addressed themselves directly to this

problem. Where the States have considered and pro-

posed such countermeasures, they have been proposed as

separate control measures for which additional emission

reductions have been claimed. The Administrator recog-

nizes that it is not easy to solve the problem of induced

traffic; however, failure to recognize the problem gives

a false picture of the results of the traffic flow improve-

ments, and failure to identify the major elements of the

problem could result in inadequate monitoring and in

inadequate planning of counter and contingency meas-

ures.

dit lah Rhlncada tei il a See ah GAM ee NaF POO A ST AM Pte

61

INSPECTION / MAINTENANCE

Pollutant emissions from in-use vehicles can be re-

duced by ensuring that engines and emission control de-

vices are maintained in good operating condition. Such

reductions can be achieved through periodic inspections

of in-use vehicles and the repair of vehicles that fail to

meet inspection standards. The degree of emission re-

duction obtained will depend on the frequency of inspec-

tion and the particular inspection standards used. The

total emission reduction achievable through a particular

inspection measure will be accomplished only after the

vehicles in a particular area have completed the inspec-

tion/maintenance cycle.

States have proposed three principal types of annual

inspection programs: Idle emission tests, loaded emission

tests, and inspection and maintenance. The Adminis-

trator has evaluated the feasibility of these systems and

the time generally required to implement the measures

and complete one inspection cycle. An idle-test program

(i.e., tests with transmissions in neutral) can be fully

implemented by May 31, 1975. A loaded-test program

(i.e., tests with the vehicle placed on a dynamometer

which is programmed to simulate the actual driving

conditions) leads to somewhat greater emission reduc-

tions, but, due to the equipment needed, may require up

to 6 additional months for implementation (December

1, 1975). The implementation completion dates for these

tests are subject to adjustment based on an evaluation

of results from current programs, and availability of

facilities for safety inspection, and licensed garages.

The Administrator does not currently believe that im-

plementation of heavy-duty vehicle maintenance /inspec-

tion programs can be assured, even by 1977. Currently

a successful inspection/maintenance approach for heavy-

duty vehicles has not been identified. Accordingly, pro-

visions for heavy-duty vehicle inspection/maintenance

have only been considered acceptable in the New York

City transportation control plan in view of the city’s

62

continuing program to develop and test heavy-duty retro-

fits.

Most States have not yet developed detailed plans for

implementation of inspection/maintenance programs.

Implementation will require obtaining the necessary

legal authority; promulgating the required regulations

specifying appropriate emission or other performance

standards and testing procedures; training garage me-

chanics; licensing garages where necessary or appropri-

ate; and training the State’s supervisory manpower.

RETROFIT CONTROL SYSTEMS

Some States have proposed thai retrofit emission con-

trol systems be required for light- and/or heavy-duty ve-

hicles registered in those areas of the State having pol-

lution that significantly affects a particular air quality

control region. The retrofit devices which have been pro-

posed include vacuum spark advance disconnect (VSAD),

air bleed, catalysts, and heavy duty retrofit catalysts.

These devices are currently in various stages of de-

velopment and use. For any retrofit strategy to be ef-

fectively implemented, the affected State must insure

that the devices are in fact capable of achieving the

claimed emission reductions; that the devices do not ad-

versely affect the safety of the automobile; that the de-

vices will be available in sufficient quantity at convenient

places; that there are sufficient trained mechanics; that

the devices are being properly installed; and, in the case

of catalytic devices, that leaded gasoline will not be used

and that sufficient quantities of unleaded gasoline of ap-

propriate octane number will be available. These are not

easy tasks, and the States that have proposed retrofit

strategies may have difficulty implementing their pro-

grams.

In light of these difficulties, the Administrator has ex-

tensively evaluated the minimum time frame which

would be generally required to complete the implementa-

tion of the particular retrofit strategies. As a result of

this evaluation, the Administrator determined that vacu-

um spark disconnect strategies could be implemented by

wcities

var

ate «ol aut ete 2b) Cae pai

aired oad A AD APR

63

May 31, 1975, but that implementation of an air bleed

control strategy could not be accomplished before May

31, 1976, or light-duty catalytic retrofit strategies be-

fore May 31, 1977. It was further determined that im-

plementation of the heavy-duty catalytic retrofit pro-

gram cannot be assured, even by May 31, 1977. The

general implementation time frame determinations noted

above are reflected in the agency’s approval/disapproval

decisions.

The Administrator, however, also considered the re-

gions’ particular ability to implement a designated strat-

egy. For example, the heavy-duty catalytic retrofit

strategy was approved for the plan submitted by the

State of New York for New York City. The approval

was based upon the existence of the city’s ongoing pro-

gram to develop heavy-duty catalytic retrofit devices.

In general, retrofit systems that are capable of high

reductions in emissions also involve higher costs, includ-

ing both installed cost and operating cost. Since a retro-

fit program would involve large numbers of vehicles, the

total cost of such a program can be expected to be large.

Accordingly, the Administrator, in his regulation per-

taining to the preparation, adoption, and submittal of

implementation plans (40 CFR 51.2), has encouraged

the States to consider the socio-economic effects which

may accompany retrofit control strategies.

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL IMPACT

The regulations promulgated by the Administrator in

August 1971, setting forth the requirements for prepa-

ration, adoption, and submittal of State implementa-

tion plans included a stipulation that the requirements

should not be construed “to encourage a State to pre-

pare, adopt, or submit a plan without taking into con-

sideration the social and economic impact of the control

strategy set forth in such plan * * *”. In this context,

an assessment of the economic and social impacts of the

transportation control strategies proposed by the States

is being completed.

64

Each element of a transportation control strategy in-

volves commitments of manpower, facilities, equipment,

and material which involve direct costs that can be

quantified and budgeted. It should be noted that private

citizens, especially the car-owning population, will prob-

ably be more directly affected (in terms of cost) by

these control measures than by typical stationary source

control measures.

There are also social impacts which occur as a result

of the implementation of transportation control meas-

ures. These impacts take the form of non-monetary

costs attributed to control measures, such as inconveni-

ence and loss of time and opportunity. Control measures

which affect personal mobility, choice of travel mode, and

regional accessibility also induce monetary social costs,

although quantification of these costs is difficult.

Society will be affected by the implementation of

transportation control measures in several specific ways.

An individual will incur direct personal costs when

bringing his vehicle into compliance with specific strate-

gies. A decrease in or inhibition of the mobility of the

individual may affect employment and retail business

operations and sales, as well as recreational activities

and facilities. Public service and enforcement activities

will require expanded capabilities and resources as a re-

sult of implementation of the transportation control

strategies. In addition, there will be measurable im-

pacts on raw materials and natural resources, such as

the energy supply.

The most significant impact, however, will result from

measures which directly affect the individual’s mobility

and life style and necessitate changes in the economic

structure of the community. The severity of this impact

in each urban area depends on the degree and magni-

tude of the control measures proposed; the extent to

which vehicle usage is restricted; the manner in which

direct costs of abatement are financed; and the degree

to which incentives are provided to ameliorate the ef-

fects of the control measures.

65

EXTENSION REQUESTS

Section 110(e) of the Clean Air Act provides that an

extension of up to 2 years in the time allotted a State

for achieving any given primary standard in any air

quality control region may be granted only if the Gov-

ernor of a State requests it and establishes the following

to the satisfaction of EPA: (1) He must have presented

a plan which is theoretically able to achieve the stan-

dards by the 1975 deadline; (2) he must show that cer-

tain elements of the control strategies necessary to con-

trol certain sources will not be available by 1975; (3) he

must show that there are no alternatives to those essen-

tial elements in (2) above that will not be available by

1975; (4) he must demonstrate that the plan provides

for the application, as soon as is practicable, of all rea-

sonably available measures for reducing emissions from

these sources; and (5) he must show that all strategies

in the plan for the control of other sources will be ap-

plied by May 31, 1975. The January 31, 1973, Court of

Appeals decision placed particular stress on the require-

ment for a careful examination of extension requests.

An extension, if granted, applies only to those specific

measures for which more time is required. Ali other

measures in the plan must be fully implemented by May

31, 1975, or sooner as provided in the plan.

If the State has not met the conditions of section

110(e), the Administrator must disapprove the exten-

sion request and propose a substitute plan. If it be-

comes apparent either that the original denial was in

error or that the best achievable plan still will not meet

the standards in 1975, the Environmental Protection

Agency may grant itself an extension of time, if justi-

fied by the facts, up to a 2-year maximum. In granting

itself the extension, the Environmental Protection Agen-

cy is bound by the same legal standards as those that

apply to State requests. In particular, no such exten-

sion will be legally valid unless the requirements of’ sec-

tion 110(e) have been met.

66

PuBLIC HEARINGS AND COMMENTS

All States were required, prior to the adoption of any

plan or revision thereof, to conduct one or more public

hearings on such plan, compliance schedule, or revision.

Notice of a public hearing was to be given at least 30

days prior to the date of such hearing. Notice was to

be given by prominent advertisement, in the region af-

fected, of the date, time, and place of such hearing. The

proposed plan or revision was to be available for public

inspection at the time of announcement of the notice. —

Comments were received from the general public, pri-

vate industry and such organizations as Natural Re-

sources Defense Council. Typical comments were as fol-

lows: (1) Plans did not provide necessary assurance

that the State will furnish the required resources to

implement the control strategies; (2) plans did not

provide an adequate description of the enforcement meth-

ods, administrative procedures, monitoring systems, and

surveillance programs necessary for plan implementa-

tion; (3) plans made unjustified and legally insufficient

request for extensions of the deadline for attainment

of the primary standards; and (4) plans did not make

provision for intergovernmental cooperation in the im-

plementation of a strategy. ;

These and other comments are addressed in the pre-

amble to the specific State plans and in the evaluation

reports written for each State plan.

FUTURE STATE ACTION REQUIRED

As indicated in the March 20, 1973, notice, the com-

plete formulation of transportation control strategies re-

quires three steps. The first step was completed with

submittal on April 15, 1973, the State control strategies,

as defined in 40 CFR 51.1(n), which are proposed to be

put into effect on a specified timetable. A listing of

possible transportation control strategies does not meet

this requirement, even if it is coupled with general as-

surances that one ur more of the measures described will

be put into effect if necessary. To be acceptable, a plan

must make choices and indicate specifically what will be

> " ‘4 ‘ ?, x

eh Alli a at * tc nacelle RR aes te PU Ae Ee, tas A nl lae td Tas able Cilia tenes. ~abhtins ci all I te il a sail hw Pa. neta istic cient

ellie ce Cartan te at Cont

)

}

67

done. In addition, a plan must contain the specified air

quality data and projections of strategy impact, and must

meet other requirements of part 51.

Second, States must submit evidence that they will

possess the legal authority by July 30, 1973, required

to carry out the plan. In those instances where the legis-

lature is still in session, or where the Governor has indi-

cated he will call a special session of the legislature to

consider transportation controls, transportation strate-

gies may be approved this date regarding the require-

ments of § 51.11 (a), (ce), (d), (e), and (f) calling

for legal authority, since the Agency has previously

stated that necessary legislative authority may be sub-

mitted by July 30, 1973. To the extent that legal au-

thority is not shown to be available at that time, the

affected elements of the plans will be disapproved, and

the Administrator will promulgate substitute provisions

unless the State can show that the authority is not cur-

rently needed, that it will be obtained before it is needed,

and that no loss of time in meeting the standards will

result from waiting to obtain it.

Detailed regulations for implementing the control

strategy must be adopted by December 30, 1973. This

does not defer the necessity for the States to choose their

strategies and make firm commitments to put them into

effect. It merely means that the detailed procedures in-

volved can be approved later. If the plan did not pro-

vide adequate assurance that this later stage would be

essentially procedural, so that substantial difficulties

would not be likely to arise then, the plan was not ap-

proved.

FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE EMMISSION PROGRAM

The April 11, 1973, decision of the Administrator (38

FR 10317) granting certain suspensions of the 1975

auto emission standards to the domestic auto manufac-

turers will, to some degree, affect the transportation

control plans. It is estimated that the interim motor

vehicle standards specified by the Administrator will in-

crease the vehicle pollutant emissions in 1975 by 2 to 4

68

percent of that anticipated before the 1-year extension

was granted to the automobile manufacturers. Because

of the closeness of the date of the Administrator’s deci-

sion and the April 15, 1973, deadline for plan submittal,

only a few of the plans accounted for the effect of the

interim standards. For those plans that are found to be

inadequate, additional measures will be proposed by the

State or the Environmental Protection Agency to com-

pensate for the 1-year extension.

The effects of these and other factors will be kept

under continual review and the States will be required,

at appropriate times, to suitably revise their plans in

accordance with the revision procedures prescribed by

the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 51.6.

SUMMARY OF APPROVAL/DISAPPROVAL ACTIONS

The Court of Appeals order required that transpor-

tation control plans be submitted by 21 States and the

District of Columbia. Though not included in the court

order, the Commonwealth of Virginia has also voluntari-

ly submitted a transportation control strategy. Ap-

proval/disapproval actions today cover 43 separate air

quality control regions or portions of regions found in

these 23 jurisdictions. The actions taken in these 43

separate cases have been categorized as shown in the

following table. This table identifies Air Quality Con-

trol regions ‘AQCR) or subregions with the name of a

key metropolitan area associated with the region. For

example, the Northern Alaska intrastate is designated

Fairbanks and the Texas portion of the El Paso-Las

Cruces-Alamogordo interstate region is designated El

Paso.

ate Bla UNG ale pc Aeron dan @ Rares (ave ae Rane ba sarees Bhs . +) dt EE

:

t

4

4

}

69

APPROVAL/DISAPPROVAL SUMMARY

Regions?

Plans fully approved now:

Alabama, Birmingham, Mobile _....... 2

New York, NYC, Rochester, Syracuse _................. 3

5

Plans fully approvable after expiration of

comment period:

aT 1

Louisiana, Baton Rouge... 1

II, TROP TI ieciictdlcevaindihinecesnncecicnenmsadiniectondsn 1

3

8

Plans with generally approvable control

strategy but procedurally deficient:

Bs TI i ciechicciticitites eccrtienencdinicstatatisy te patie

D.C., National Capital

Illinois, Chicago

I ke et

Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh

Mn UE I

Virginia, National Capital ..............0000

Washington, Seattle, Spokane

ee ee

ett

Plans submitted too late to evaluate:

2 FEE SAE ET De eR te Lt, 1

Inadequate plan submitted—significant EPA

promulgation anticipated:

Maryland, National Capital, Baltimore...

Texas, El] Paso, Austin/Waco, Corpus Christi,

Houston/Galveston, San Antonio, Beaumont,

Dallas/Fort Worth

* Air Quality Control Region or portion of Region.

70

APPROVAL / DISAPPROVAL SuMMARY—Continued

Regions *

No plan submitted—Expected in July; signifi-

cant EPA proposals needed:

California, San Francisco, San Diego, Sacramento,

San Joaquin, Indio ..................--.-------------+-----eeeenee*

Indiana, Indianapolis -....................---------------------------+"

Massachusetts, Boston, Springfield -..............-..--..-.-.

Minnesota, Minneapolis/St. Paul -................---.---------

New Jersey, Newark, Camden/Trenton -...............

Ohio, Cincinnati, Dayton, Toledo -...................--.-.-.--

Alaska, Fairbanks ........................--....---..---00s---csseseeee

1 Air Quality Control Region or portion of Region.

A limited number of State plans are being completely

approved today. However, the Administrator has ap-

proved portions of most plans submitted and recognizes

the commitment and extensive effort put forth by many

States in the development of these plans. He is confi-

dent that many States will correct the deficiencies and

have fully approvable plans in the near future. Trans-

portation control plans for Alabama and New York are

completely approved. Based on evaluation of recent air

quality measurements and updated emission inventories,

the plan submissions indicate that control measures cur-

rently contained in three of the five regions in these

States will achieve the standards by May 31, 1975. These

regions are the Metropolitan Birmingham intrastate re-

gion in Alabama, the Alabama portion of the Mobile (Ala-

bama)-Pensacola-Panama City (Florida)-Southern Mis-

sissippi intrastate region, and the central New York re-

gion. The two remaining regions in New York State

require transportation controls and have submitted ap-

provable plans. The Genesee-Finger Lakes intrastate re-

gion requires transportation controls to achieve the stan-

71

dards for photochemical oxidants (hydrocarbons) by Ma

31, 1975. The New York portion ‘a the New j mn 4

New York-Connecticut interstate region, which requires

extensive transportation controls, has been granted an

extension until December 31, 1976, to achieve the stan-

dards for photochemical oxidants and carbon monoxide.

The Administrator is required to disapprove three

plans today that have not been available for public com-

ment a full 21 days. It should be noted, however, that

the Agency currently expects to approve these plans

provided changes are not required in response to public

comments. The portions of regions covered by these

three plans are the Louisiana portion of the southern

Louisiana-Southeast Texas interstate region, the Kansas

portion of the Metropolitan Kansas City interstate re-

gion, and the Missouri portion of the Metropolitan Kan-

sas City interstate region.

Ten plans submitted by eight States and the District

of Columbia cannot be fully approvable [sic] today but

contain strategies which either will achieve ambient air

quality standards or require the addition or modification

of several control measures to achieve standards. In

some cases, disapproval today results from deficiencies

in meeting requirements such as adequate legal and en-

forcement authority, monitoring and surveillance pro-

cedures, and timetables for implementation and enforce-

ment. These plans are the result of extensive efforts by

States. The Environmental Protection Agency is con-

tinuing to work with each State to revise State plans as

necessary for them to be fully approvable.

Colorado recently submitted a detailed plan for Den-

ver. This plan was submitted too late for the Adminis-

trator to complete his evaluation. In addition, the plan

has not been available for public comment for the re-

quired time period. Maryland and Texas submitted plans

which are considered to have serious deficiencies in con-

trol strategies proposed to meet standards. It is expected

that significant control measures will be proposed by the

Administrator to make these plans acceptable.

72

Transportation control plans for 15 regions or por-

tions of regions have been disapproved because no trans-

portation control measures have been submitted by the

appropriate States to the Administrator.

A discussion of specific actions relevant to each State

is given below.

ALABAMA

The State of Alabama was granted, pursuant to sec-

tion 110(e) of the act, an extension of 2 years for the

attainment of the standards for carbon monoxide and

photochemical oxidants (hydrocarbons) in the Metropoli-

tan Birmingham intrastate region, and for photochemi-

cal oxidants (hydrocarbons) in Alabama’s portion of the

Mobile (Alabama)-Pensacola-Panama City (Florida) -

Southern Mississippi interstate region.

In accordance with NRDC v. EPA, this extension was

rescinded, and Alabama was directed to submit a trans-

portation strategy by April 15, 1973, that would provide

for the attainment and maintenance of the standards as

noted above by May 31, 1975. On April 24, 1973, the

State of Alabama submitted a nonregulatory plan revi-

sion. This revision was reviewed and evaluated by the

Administrator pursuant to 40 CFR part 51. It has been

determined after review that the revision submitted ade-

quate'y insures that the Alabama plan meets the require-

ments of section 110. A summary of this review is con-

tained in “Evaluation Report on the Transportation Con-

trol Study for the State of Alabama,” which is available

both at the Freedom of Information Center, EPA, room

329 401 M Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20460, and at

the Office of Public Affairs, EPA Region IV, 1421 Peach-

tree Street NE., Atlanta, Ga. 30309.

The approved implementation plan provisions were

adopted in accordance with procedural requirements of

State and Federal law. No public hearings on this re-

vision were held by the State of Alabama. However,

since the revision submitted was ‘a nonregulatory revi-

sion, no hearing was required under 46 CFR 51.6. There

were two respondents to the FEDERAL REGISTER of May

pen ee

|

73

4, 1973 (39 FR 11113), “Notice of Opportunity for P

lic Comment on Proposed Seanmestalion cali/er Land

Use Control Strategies.” A major petroleum company

commented on gasoline-loading requirements already

adopted by the State of Alabama. The Natural Re-

sources Defense Council challenged as inflated the Ala-

bama figures indicating that the standards would be

achieved on schedule without transportation controls

through the increasing stringency of controls on new

cars. Although, as noted in the evaluation report, EPA

has not accepted the State figures in full, the figures

even as adjusted indicate in our best jud

standards will be met on schedule. a ee

ALASKA

In accordance with NRDC v. EPA, Alaska was di-

rected to submit a transportation strategy by April 15

1973, that would provide for the attainment and mainte.

nance of the carbon monoxide standards in the Northern

Alaska intrastate region by May 31, 1975.

The State of Alaska has neither held public hearings

to consider alternate transportation and land use control

strategies as part of their implementation plan for the

region, nor has the State indicated that it will submit

a plan in compliance with the March 20 FEDERAL REG-

ISTER requirements.

As a result of Alaska’s unresponsiveness to the Ad-

ministrator’s order of March 20, 1973, the Administra-

tor must at this time indicate that deficiency and list

the resultant exemptions [sic] to the approvability of the

Alaska plan for the Northern Alaska intrastate region

Should the State of Alaska submit its required plan

the Environmental Protection Agency will acknowledge

formal receipt of the plan through the FEDERAL REGISTER

and will provide an opportunity for the public to com-

ment on the plan. All comments submitted will be con-

sidered in the plan review. The Environmental Protec-

tion Agency will then revise this disapproval noti

is deemed appropriate. a Se oe

74

ARIZONA

The State of Arizona was granted, pursuant to section

110(e) of the act, an extension of 2 years for the at-

tainment and maintenance of the carbon monoxide stan-

dards in the Phoenix-Tucson intrastate region.

In accordance with NRDC v. Environmental Protec-

tion Agency, this extension was rescinded, and Arizona

was directed to submit a transportation strategy by

April 15, 1973, that would provide for the attainment

and maintenance of the standards as noted above by

May 31, 1975. In addition, Arizona was directed to sub-

mit a transportation strategy for photochemical oxidants

(hydrocarbons) for the Phoenix-Tucson intrastate re-

gion.

The State of Arizona held a public hearing on the

proposed plan on January 25, 1973. At this hearing 27

persons testified, including representatives of 9 conserva-

tion groups and 8 industries. General support and en-

dorsement were voiced for inspection/maintenance and

retrofit as immediate solutions, but most testimony indi-

cated that these strategies would be inadequate as per-

manent solutions. There was general support for long-

term strategies such as mass transit, controlled growth,

and land-use planning.

EPA received the plan on April 11, 1973, and pub-

lished notice of its arrival in the FEDERAL REGISTER, 38

FR 10119 (Apr. 24, 1973), and invited comments.

One comment submitted criticized the use of a limited

data base and lack of contingency measures in the plan

and objected to the high cost of retrofits. Comments re-

ceived from three oil companies also objected to catalytic

retrofits. In addition, the Natural Resources Defense

Council submitted comments that challenged as too high

the estimates of emission reductions to be achieved from

retrofit and the establishment of an inspection and main-

tenance system; the general lack of regulatory language

and choice of strategies; and the absence of VMT reduc-

tion measures. The feasibility of the proposed retrofit

program was also questioned.

75

After reviewing the plan, the Administrator concluded

that, if only the emission control on bulk tank farms

and service station underground storage tanks were im-

plemented as proposed, the national standards for photo-

chemical oxidants could be attained by May 31, 1975, but

that a 39-percent VMT reduction in addition to all the

proposed strategies would be required in order to attain

the standards for carbon monoxide by the 1975 dead-

line. However, the State’s implementation dates for sev-

eral of the proposed strategies are not acceptable.

The Administrator has determined that catalytic retro-

fits cannot be fully implemented before mid-1977, and

that air-bleed retrofits cannot be fully implemented be-

fore mid-1976. In the State plan it was indicated that

the proposed loaded inspection system cannot be fully

implemented before mid-1976, even though the State al-

ready has an ongoing program established. EPA agrees

with this assessment. Therefore, although these strate-

gies are technically feasible, the Administrator cannot

approve them for the Arizona plan because they will not

be available to the State for use in attaining the na-

tional standards by May 31, 1975. In addition, the pro-

posed retrofit and inspection strategies for heavy duty

vehicles cannot be approved because these strategies are

not considered implementable even by mid-1977.

A request by the Governor for an 18-month extension

for both pollutants was included with Arizona’s plan.

However, the State failed to satisfy the justification cri-

teria published in the FEDERAL REGISTER (36 FR 15493)

for extension requests, namely, the plan contains no

VMT reduction measures to be implemented during the

extension period. In the judgment of the Administrator,

sufficient alternative transportation capacity is presently

or potentially available to achieve a 10- to 15-percent

VMT reduction by 1975. Therefore, the Administrator

cannot grant the extension. Nevertheless, it should be

noted that, based on the above determinations, an 18-

month extension would not be sufficient for implementing

all the strategies needed for attainment of the standards.

76

The Administrator recognizes the sincere efforts of

Arizona to develop technically sound and workable trans-

portation control strategies. In order to realize its objec-

tive, the Administrator encourages the State to investi-

gate the availability of strategies other than those in-

volving heavy duty vehicles, and to submit an adequately

documented justification for an extension of the attain-

ment dates for the carbon monoxide standards.

CALIFORNIA

The State of California was granted, pursuant to sec-

tion 110/e) of the act, an extension of 2 years for the

attainment of the standards for oxidants (hydrocarbons)

in the San Francisco Bay Area, Sacramento Valley, and

Southeast Desert intrastrte region, and for carbon mon-

oxide in the Sacramento Valley intrastate region.

In accordance with NRDC v. EPA, this extension was

rescinded and California was directed to submit a trans-

portation strategy by April 15, 1978, that would provide

for the attainment and maintenance of the standards

as noted above by May 31, 1975.

In addition, California was directed to submit a trans-

portation strategy for photochemical oxidants (hydro-

carbons) in the San Diego and San Joaquin Valley intra-

state region and for carbon monoxide in the San Fran-

cisco Bay Area, San Diego, and San Joaquin Valley

intrastate region. This directive did not include the

Metropolitan Los Angeles intrastate region, which was

already the subject of separate EPA rulemaking at that

time.

Because the court order handed down in NRDC v. EPA

required the Administrator to approve or disapprove

State plans within 2 months after the date required for

the submission of the plan, the Administrator is dis-

approving those portions of the California plan that were

required to be submitted pursuant to paragraph 3 of

the court order. This disapproval is based solely upon

the lack of timely submittal of California’s plan. The

Environmental Protection Agency will, when the plan is

'

{

:

j

F|

TOT eee AE ee ee ree ry ee ed

2

17

received, acknowledge its receipt in the FEDERAL REG-

ISTER, and will provide an opportunity for the public

to comment on the plan. After evaluation of the plan

that is to be submitted by California, and consideration

of all comments, this notice will be revised accordingly.

COLORADO

The State of Colorado was granted, pursuant to section

110(e) of the act, an extension of 2 years for the attain-

ment of the standards for photochemical oxidants and

carbon monoxide in the Metropolitan Denver Intrastate

Region. In accordance with NRDC v. EPA, this exten-

sion was rescinded, and Coloradu was directed to submit

a transportation strategy by April 15, 1973, that would

provide for the attainment and maintenance of the

standards as noted above by May 31, 1975. The State of

Colorado held public hearings on its plan on January 19,

1973, and ultimately submitted the plan on May 31, 1973.

The court order required the Administrator to approve

or disapprove State plans within 2 months after the date

required for submission of a plan. Further, the Admin-

istrator must provide a period for public comment after

receiving the plan and prior to publication of approval/

disapproval notice in the FEDERAL REGISTER. Accordingly,

the Administrator must disapprove those portions of the

Colorado plan that were required to be submitted pur-

suant to paragraph 3 of the court order. This disapproval

is based solely upon lack of timely submittal of the re-

quired plan and is not meant to reflect on the content of

the submitted plan.

The Environmental Protection Agency has acknowl-

edged in the FEDERAL REGISTER receipt of the plan and

is now providing an opportunity for the public to com-

ment on this plan. All comments submitted by the public

on the Colorado State plan will be considered. After

considering the plan submitted by the State and all

public comments, including the hearing transcript, the

Environmental Protection Agency will take such final

action as appropriate to approve all portions of the plan

78

submitted by Colorado that are approvable and promul-

gate Federal regulations for the remainder.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

In accordance with NRDC v. EPA, the District of

Columbia was directed to submit a transportation strat-

egy by April 15, 1973, that would provide for the at-

tainment and maintenance of the photochemical oxidants

and carbon monoxide standards in the District of Colum-

bia portion of the National Capital interstate region by

May 31, 1975. .

In order to develop a comprehensive plan for the Na-

tional Capital interstate region, the District of Columbia

revised and updated its original implementation plan to

. reflect the recommendations of the National Capital In-

terstate Air Quality Planning Committee. This com-

mittee is composed of representatives from the District

of Columbia, the State of Maryland, and the Common-

wealth of Virginia, including local jurisdictions. The

committee was formed by an administrative agreement

among Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia,

and the Metropolitan Washington Council of Govern-

ments, and received a funding grant under section 106

of the Clean Air Act for the prime purpose of develop-

ing a region-wide transportation plan.

The District of Columbia held public hearings on

February 12 and 13, 1973. Statements were presented by

representatives of commerce, industry, and citizen en-

vironmental groups. Substantial support was evidenced

for land use controls, staggered work hours, carpool in-

centives, “bike-ways,” restrictions on free employee park-

ing facilities, and an expanded commuter rail system.

Business representatives objected to parking surcharges

and the proposed ban on day-time deliveries by heavy-

duty gasoline-powered trucks.

Upon receipt of the District of Columbia plan, EPA

published notice of its arrival in the FEDERAL REGISTER,

38 FR 11114 (May 4, 1973), and invited comments.

Comments were received from industry, public environ-

mental organizations, chambers of commerce, govern-

A POR Tee ME Pe wes ee

79

mental organizations, and private individuals. The writ-

ten comments reflected strong objections to peak-hour

delivery bans, the parking surcharge, and the retrofit

of gasoline service stations; evidenced substantiai con-

cern regarding the technical feasibility and safety impli-

cations of the proposed curtailment of aircraft taxing

[sic]; and urged region-wide implementation of the plan.

Receipt of the written comments was acknowledged by

letters from the Regional Administrators to the com-

menting sources. .

The comments submitted by the Natural Resources

Defense Council deserve special mention. These com-

ments challenged as too low the air quality baseline data

used by EPA. They urged that the air quality monitor-

ing system proposed by the District of Columbia be in-

creased, and called for a commitment to implementation

of a VMT surveillance system. They also urged that a

more comprehensive system of vehicle restraints and

VMT reduction measures be established. In addition,

NRDC stated that a uniform plan for the entire air

quality control region must be adopted, and expressed

doubts as to the feasibility of the proposed retrofit pro-

gram. Finally, NRDC stated that legal authority, regula-

tions, timetables for implementation, adequate resources,

and enforcement responsibilities and procedures were

lacking in the case of certain strategies.

The plan proposed by the District of Columbia in-

cludes a broad spectrum of control measures for both

mobile and stationary sources, which, if they can be

fully implemented, could achieve the primary air quality

standards for photochemical oxidants and carbon mon-

oxide by May 31, 1975. Moreover, interim measures are

proposed that could be implemented in the event that

some of the primary measures are not available by May

31, 1975. However, the absence of proposed regulations

and specific procedures for enforcement and administra-

tion of portions of the plan, plus the improbable avail-

ability or full implementation of several proposed control

measures by May 31, 1975, preclude full approval of the

plan. ~

80

Although no extension was requested, the Administra-

tor is currently of the opinion that the long lead-time

required for the principal control measure (catalytic

converters} may well make it impossible to achieve

national ambient air quality standards by May 31, 1975.

Therefore, the Environmental Protection Agency pro-

poses to promulgate a uniform plan that will reflect both

the comprehensiveness of the control measures proposed

by the District of Columbia and realistic lead-time con-

straints.

ILLINOIS

In accordance with NRDC v. EPA, Illinois was directed

to submit a transportation strategy by April 15, 1973,

that would provide for the attainment and maintenance

of the carbon monoxide standards in the Illinois portion

= the Metropolitan Chicago interstate region by May 31,

75.

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency held

public hearings on April 5 and 6, 1973, on its proposal

for a transportation plan. This plan was subsequently

submitted to the Administrator on April 17, 1973. Re-

cepit was acknowledged in the April 27, 1973, FEDERAL

REGISTER, along with a statement that EPA would con-

sider additional comments submitted by the public. A

comment from the Clean Air Coordinating Committee of

Chicago, Ill., objected to this plan for the following rea-

sons, among others:

(A) Failure to utilize current State procedures in

adopting this plan, and

(B) Lack of requisite legal authority for implementa-

tion.

Based on an examination of applicable State and Fed-

eral law, procedures, and precedents (including the orig-

inal State implementation plan adoption and submittal),

the Administrator has determined that the State of

Illinois has not adopted a transportation plan for sub-

mission to the Administrator, as required. It was found

under sections 4 and 5 of the Illinois Environmental Pro-

tection Act that the authority to propose and determine

81

the necessary transportation strategies does not reside

unilaterally with the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency.

The Administrator, however, has examined this pro-

posed plan, together with the entire hearing record of

the State, and has determined that the proposed plan,

had it met the requirements for adoption, would not

have provided strategies that have the total capacity for

attaining and maintaining the national standards for

carbon monoxide. These proposed strategies were the

Federal motor vehicle control program, which affects all

gasoline-powered vehicles in .the region; the Chicago

motor vehicle emission inspection program, which af-

fects vehicles in the city of Chicago; and the enforce-

ment of parking restrictions on one side of one-way

streets, which will only affect the Chicago central busi-

ness district. Environmental Protection Agency calcula-

tions show that the strategies presented in this proposed

plan would result in a total of 44-percent reduction in

carbon monoxide emissions in the Chicago central busi-

ness district instead of the necessary 50-percent reduc-

tion, based on measured air quality data reflected in the

State’s submission. A more detailed review by EPA of

this proposed plan will be provided to the State. Copies

of this evaluation report will be available for public in-

spection at the Environmental Protection Agency, region

V, 1 North Wacker Drive, Chicago, Ill. 60606, and at

the Office of Public Affairs, Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.

A proposed EPA regulation setting forth a plan to

attain and maintain the CO standards in the Illinois

portion of the Metropolitan Chicago interstate region

will be published shortly in the FEDERAL REGISTER and

will provide an opportunity for the public to comment on

the proposed plan.

INDIANA

The State of Indiana was granted, pursuant to section

110(e) of the act, an extension of 2 years from the at-

tainment of the photochemical oxidant (hydrocarbon)

82

and carbon monoxide standards in the Metropolitan In-

dianapolis intrastate region.

In accordance with NRDC vy. EPA, this extension was

rescinded, and Indiana was directed to submit a trans-

portation strategy by April 15, 1973, that would provide

for the attainment and maintenance of the standards as

noted above by May 31, 1975.

The State of Indiana held public hearings on proposed

revisions to its plan for the Metropolitan Indianapolis

intrastate region on April 9, 1973. On this date, the

State indicated that the proposed plan was adequate to

attain and maintain the air quality standards by May

31, 1975, with no application of additional controls for

mobile or stationary sources. The Indiana SIP as orig-

inally submitted based its need for an extension for at-

tainment of the CO standards upon the fact that a 28-

percent reduction in CO emission would be achieved while

a 45-percent reduction was needed. The 45-percent emis-

sion reduction was ealculated using 16.3 parts per mil-

lion 8-hour concentration as the second highest concentra-

tion. A reanalysis indicates that this was not the true

second highest concentration because the 8 hours in

which it was measured overlapped by 7 hours the period

in which the highest concentration was measured. The

second highest 8-hour concentration, which did not in-

clude any of the time period in which the highest con-

centration was measured, was 12.1 parts per million and

occurred twice, September 7 and July 6, 1971. It has

not been equaled since that time. This concentration of

12.1 parts per million would indicate that 25.6 percent

reduction in CO emissions would be sufficient to attain

the standards.

It was pvinted out at the hearing that the air quality

standard for photochemical oxidants was not exceeded

once during the calendar year of 1972. The original In-

diana plan with its need for an extension was based upon

the second highest 1-hour average photochemical oxidant

measurement of 0.13 parts per million recorded in 1971.

There was no apparent opposition to the State’s implied

intent to neither propose any additional strategies nor

83

request an extension for attaining the photochemical oxi-

dant ambient air quality standard by 1975. However, at

that time, the EPA region V office requested that the

proposed plan provide an explanation regarding the re-

duction of measured photochemical oxidant concentra-

tions between the years 1971 and 1972.

The State has not formally submitted its plan to date.

Because the court order requires the Administrator to

approve or disapprove State plans within 2 months after

the date required for submission of a plan, the Admin-

istrator is disapproving those portions of the Indiana

plan that were required to be submitted pursuant to

paragraph 3 of the court order. This disapproval is solely

based upon the lack of timely submittal of the required

plan and is not meant to reflect on the content of an

expected late submittal. A proposed EPA plan will be

published soon for comment.

The Governor of Indiana is expected to submit the plan

in the near future. When the plan is received, the En-

vironmental Protection Agency wil! acknowledge, in the

FEDERAL REGISTER, receipt of the plan and will provide

an opportunity for the public to comment on this plan.

All comments submitted by the public on both the EPA

proposal and the anticipated Indiana State plan will be

considered. After considering the plan submitted by the

State of Indiana and ail comments, the Environmental

Protection Agency will take such final action as appro-

priate to approve all portions of any plan submitted by

Indiana that are approvable and promulgate Federal

regulations for the balance.

KANSAS

The State of Kansas was granted, pursuant to section

110(e) of the act, an extension of 2 years for the attain-

ment of the carbon monoxide standards in the Kansas

portion of the Metropolitan Kansas City interstate re-

gion.

In accordance with NRDC v. EPA, this extension was

rescinded and Kansas was directed to submit a trans-

84

portation strategy by April 15, 1973, that would provide

for the attainment and maintenance of the standards as

noted above by May 31, 1975.

The Kansas Board of Health in conjunction with the

State of Missouri held a public hearing on April 12, 1973,

during which alternative transportation control strategies

were ‘dered. Subsequent to that hearing, Kansas sub-

mitted a non-regulatory plan revision that utilized a

lower air quality base value for computing the required

degree of control to meet the air quality standards by

May 31, 1975. The State indicated that the Federal

motor vehicle control program plus stationary source

control of carbon monoxide would be sufficient to pro-

vide the required emission reductions and would thus

obviate the need for a transportation and/or land use

control strategy. Because of the late submission of the

plan revision, the Administrator has not had adequate

time to evaluate public comments on the approvability

of such revisions. Hence, as required by the January 31,

1973, court order, the Administrator is today disapprov-

ing those portions of the Kansas implementation plan

that were to be addressed.

After the period for opportunity for public comment

on the plan closes, all comments submitted by the public

will be considered in the plan review. The Environmental

Protection Agency will then revise this disapproval notice

as is deemed appropriate.

LOUISIANA

The State of Louisiana was granted, pursuant to sec-

tion 110(e) of the act, an extension of 2 years for the

attainment of the photochemical oxidant (hydrocarbon)

standards in the Louisiana portion of the southern Loui-

siana-southeast Texas interstate region.

In accordance with NRDC v. EPA, this extension was

rescinded, and Louisiana was directed to submit a trans-

portation strategy by April 15, 1973, that would provide

for the attainment and maintenance of the standards

as noted above by May 31, 1975.

85

On March 30, 1973, Louisiana submitted implementa-

tion plan revisions that consisted of controls for hydro-

carbon emissions from stationary sources (regulations

22.8 and A 22.8), emission inventory changes, and an

updated control strategy. These revisions indicated that

the national standards for photochemical oxidants (hy-

drocarbons) would be attained in Louisiana’s portion of

the southern Louisiana-southeast Texas interstate region

by May 31, 1975. A review of these revisions was con-

ducted by the Administrator, pursuant to 40 CFR, part

51. Submittals by the State must be reported in the FEp-

ERAL REGISTER, and a 21-day period set for receipt and

analysis of public comment prior to approval /disapproval.

Because Louisiana’s submittal was not promptly reported,

there is insufficient time to analyze and/or include public

comment into the approval/disapproval decision by June

15, 1973. When analysis of public comments is com-

pleted, this notice will be revised accordingly.

A summary of the Administrater’s review based on

currently available information is contained in the eval-

uation repert which is available at both the Freedom of

Information Center, EPA, room 329, 401 M Street SW.,

Washington, D.C. 20460, and the Office of Public Af-

fairs, EPA, Region VI, 1600 Patterson Street, suite

1100, Dallas, Tex. 75201.

Public hearings were held by the State of Louisiana

on December 28, 1972, to consider the revisions to the

State's stationary source controls, and on March 1, 1973,

to consider the revised control strategy. The revisions

were adopted in accordance with procedural requirements

of State and Federal law, which provided for adequate

public participation through notice, public hearings, and

time for comment. The general consensus of those present

at the hearings was that the proposals were satisfactory.

MARYLAND

The State of Maryland was granted, pursuant to sec-

tion 110/e) of the act, an extension of 2 years for the

attainment of the standards for carbon monoxide in the

86

Metropolitan Baltimore intrastate region and for photo-

chemical oxidants and carbon monoxide in the Maryland

portion of the National Capital interstate region.

In accordance with NRDC v. EPA, this extension was

rescinded, and Maryland was directed to submit a trans-

portation strategy by April 15, 1973, that would provide

for the attainment and maintenance of the standards as

noted above by May 31, 1975.

Although neither the May 31, 1972, nor the March 20,

1973, amendments to 40 CFR, part 52 require the sub-

mission of a strategy for the attainment and maintenance

of national standards for photochemical oxidants (hydro-

carbons) in the Metropolitan Baltimore intrastate re-

gion, more recent data indicate a serious hydrocarbon

problem there. Because more recent data from fully

calibrated instrumentation indicated excessive concentra-

tions of photochemical oxidants in the Metropolitan Bal-

timore intrastate region, the State of Maryland prepared

and submitted proposed strategies for both pollutants in

both the Metropolitan Baltimore intrastate region and

the National Capital interstate region.

The State of Maryland held public he

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.