# Appendix — Environmental Protection Agency v. Brown > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_2162%3A02 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1977 - **Citation:** 431 U.S. 99 ## Text 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- | " ‘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 hearings on the pro- posed plans on March 5, 1973, for the National Capital interstate region, and on February 28, 1973, and April 4, 1973, for the Metropolitan Baltimore intrastate re- gion. Al! sessions were attended by representatives of industry, government, and environmental citizens’ gr [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_2162%3A02. Public record. Not legal advice.