Appendix — Environmental Protection Agency v. Brown

Supreme Cont, 6. &

FILED

APPENDIX SEP 29 1976

Vol II . 549-981 |

ume II—pp

‘

ae

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

Oe tee

2 Oe NE on

=

Iu the Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1976

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Petitioner

omni) axe

EDMUND G. BROWN, GOVERNOR OF THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FT 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 000...

leads

| SEES SEE TOR TE CRE: SE Leen re i iansdshbiindedan

I i icine cial bbls ianaaticidicoesiitainds x

Relevant Docket Entries of the Fourth Circuit ‘sane - 11

Relevant Docket Entries of the District of Columbia Circuit.. 14

SI IS talented sib dada ia alee siliadel iidehiiaaaaiialiibitde hihaiiadeges 14

No. 74-1582 .............. scheint Seinhinen 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, 38 Fed.

SIE: CITI - ceciabicis isto naeiadiinieienelc tad cedusepteinenbatdanimiabiaamddiel daabainiaidh due 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 Capital Inter-

state Region, 38 Fed. Reg. 20789 ........ eessspestonmmauaadiasdanal

General Preamble to Transportation Control Plans, 38 Fed.

SS _

California Transportation Control Plan, 38 Fed. Reg. 31232..

Volume II

Arizona Transportation Control Plan, 38 Fed. Reg. 33368__..

National Capital Region madness Control Plan, 38

Fed. Reg. 33702 ....................

Baltimore, Maryland, Transportation Control ee, 38 Fed.

Reg. 34240 . " ititiateimemaa

Correction to California TCP, 38 Fed. ‘ 34464 .

District of Columbia Self-Government and Geanneneiiil

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, 1973 (excerpts), Record in Nos. 75-1050. 75-1055

GR . GE. ocectecccccccsccsscsersssencnsestictsaniaamn

Testimony of Cleatus Barnett, Public enone on 5 ee

tation Control Plans for the National Capital Area, Sep-

tember 6, 1973 (excerpts), Record Doc. No. 20 in Nos.

75-1050, 75-1055 at pp. 8326-842

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority aman

P.L. 89-774, 80 Stat. 1324 .......... snnstalbianiduandimamaniaaaaal

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

Orders granting certiorari filed June 1, 1976 0

901

549

Title 40—Protection of Environment

CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

SUBCHAPTER C——-AIR PROGRAMS

PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION

OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

Arizona Transportation Control Plan

This rulemaking sets forth a transportation control

plan for the Phoenix-Tucson Intrastate Air Quality Con-

trol Region (the “Region”). A General Preamble was

published on November 6, 1973, in the FEDERAL REGISTER

(38 FR 30626) and is incorporated herein by reference.

On March 20, 1973, the Administrator, acting in re-

sponse to a court order, notified the Governor of Arizona

that a transportation control plan for the Region should

be submitted by April 15, 1973. On April 11, 1973, the

State of Arizona submitted a proposed implementation

plan control strategy to the Administrator. This plan

demonstrated attainment of the oxidant standard by May

31, 1975. However, although several of the strategies

included to control carbon monoxide were approvable in

concept, they were not set forth in the required regula-

tory detail. Accordingly, on June 15, 1973, the Adminis-

trator disapproved the plan (38 FR 16555, June 22,

1973).

Because the Administrator disapproved the Arizona

control strategies for carbon monoxide, the Administra-

tor was required, under section 1l(c) of the Clean Air

Act, to propose and subsequently promulgate regulations

setting forth substitute measures. Regulations for the

attainment and maintenance of the national standards

for carbon monoxide were proposed by the Administrator

in the FEDERAL REGISTER of July 16, 1973 (38 FR

18942). Public hearings were held on the proposed regu-

lations in Tucson on September 10 and 11, 1973, and in

Phoenix on September 12 and 13, 1973.

550

The Governor of Arizona submitted a revised imple-

mentation plan control strategy on September 11, 1973.

Notice of receipt of the revised Arizona plan was pub-

lished in the FEDERAL REGISTER on October 26, 1973 (38

FR 29607). This notice was issued to solicit public com-

ment on the plan prior to the Administrator’s approval /

disapproval decision. The closing date for public com-

ment is November 16, 1973, which is also the deadline

established by the Court of Appeals for promulgation of

EPA’s Arizona transportation control plan. Consequently,

today’s promulgation cannot be delayed to review public

comment received on or near the closing date for com-

ment.

The Administrator has reviewed the revised Arizona

plan, supplemental information, and public comment re-

ceived to date and finds that the inspection /maintenance

and retrofit contro! measures are, for the most part. ap-

provable as specified herein. Therefore, the Administra-

tor has approved these measures with exceptions and

conditions. Upon receipt of the remaining public com-

ment, if any, the Administrator will issue an evaluation

report of the Arizona plan and, if necessary, amend this

approval and promulgation.

AIR POLLUTION IN THE PHOENIX-TUCSON REGION

Natural features. The Phoenix-Tucson Region is com-

posed of the five Arizona counties of Maricopa, Gila,

Pinal, Pima, and Santa Cruz. A total of 1,431,954 peo-

ple reside in this region, 80.8 percent of the total state

population. The region encompasses 29,753 square miles.

26.2 percent of the total state area. There are two major

urban areas within the region: Metropolitan Phoenix in

Maricopa County and metropolitan Tucson in Pima

County. These areas contain 87.5 percent of the region’s

population. Both metropolitan areas are located at the

northeast edge of the southwestern desert, which com-

prises about a third of the state and is typified by low

mountain ranges and desert valleys.. Phoenix and Tucson

551

are located about 120 miles apart with the elevation of

Phoenix being 1117 feet and of Tucson, 2410 feet.

The climate of the two major metropolitan areas is

quite similar, although Tucson temperatures are nor-

mally somewhat cooler because of its elevation. Tucson

also has more rainfall. Both areas have a large number

of days with clear skies and an abundance of sunshine.

Average wind speeds in Tucson tend to be slightly higher

than in Phoenix.

In the southwest desert areas where clear skies pre-

dominate, rapid heating of the surface occurs during the

daytime. This rapid heating, in turn, produces an un-

stable atmospheric condition with good dispersion. Clear

skies at night allow rapid cooling and lead to the forma-

tion of surface-based inversions.

Because of the longer nights and increased cooling,

these inversions are stronger and more persistent in the

winter than in the summer. National Weather Service

records indicate that radiation inversions can be expected

on about two-thirds of the winter nights. Low wind

speeds appear to occur more frequently during the night,

and the combination of surface inversions and light winds

produces the stable atmospheric conditions that are con-

ducive to the accumu!ation of pollutants near the ground.

Maricopa County records indicate that the highest car-

bon monoxide concentrations occur during the night in

the winter months. This coincides with the period of

highest frequency of stable radiation inversion conditions.

Both the maximum 1-hour concentration and the maxi-

mum 8-hour concentration usually occur between 6:00

p.m. and midnight. In addition to the stable atmospheric

conditions during these hours, traffic counts, using Octo-

ber as an example, indicate that there is more traffic in

the 5-hour period centered around the evening peak hour

(4:00 to 5:00 p.m.) than in the similar 5-hour period

centered around the morning peak (7:00 to 8:00 a.m.).

High carbon monoxide concentrations do occur during the

morning traffic peak period; these concentrations, how-

ever, are generally short-lived because the atmosphere is

rapidly becoming unstable because of daytime heating.

552

Thus, it would appear that high concentrations of carbon

monoxide in these area are a function not only of total

emissions, but also of the meteorological conditions that

exist during the periods of highest emissions.

It should be noted that the dispersive characteristics of

unstable midday atmospheric conditions could be used to

reduce high evening carbon monoxide concentrations if

measures were adopted that caused the evening peak traf-

fic to occur earlier. The shifted emissions would then

occur during a period of good dispersion. To help achieve

this shift, employers could reschedule the work shift so

that quitting time occurs at 3 p.m. Also, work hours

staggered toward an earlier quitting time by a signifi-

cant number of employers would shift the emissions and,

in addition, lessen traffic congestion, which is a source

of increased emissions due to stop and go operation. Use

of daylight savings time during the winter months would

effectively shift peak evening traffic 1 hour earlier with

respect to the time of the nondispersive nighttime condi-

tions. Such a measure would also result in significant

energy savings.

Air quality monitoring in the region by the Maricopa

County Health Department has consisted of one station

located in Phoenix. At various times the Arizona Divi-

sion of Air Pollution Control (DAPC) has in addition

monitored air quality at different locations throughout

the State using mobile equipment. The data from the

mobile monitoring equipment cover short periods (24-

hour periods to 4-month periods) ; the station located in

ntral Phoenix has recorded data continuously since

1967. There has been no continuous air quality monitor-

ing in the metropolitan Tucson area until recently when

two monitoring sites were activated in a cooperative pro-

gram between Arizona DAPC and Pima County Health

Department. The State is in the process of procuring

five additional carbon monoxide monitors for Phoenix.

These monitors were funded by EPA and will be operated

by the Maricopa County Health Department. Air quality

data for 1 year, or at least for the seasonal period when

high concentrations would normally be expected to oc-

553

cur, is required for analysis and selection of carbon mon-

oxide control strategies. The only data available of suf-

ficient duration to permit strategy calculations are those

from the central Phoenix monitoring station.

The second highest 1-hour and 8-hour carbon monoxide

concentration recorded in 1971 in the Phoenix-Tucson

AQCR were 43.5 mg/m* and 29.36 mg/m*. Use of a pro-

portional rollback technique indicates that control meas-

ures adequate to ensure attainment of the 8-hour na-

tional carbon monoxide standard (10 mg/m‘) will also

ensure meting the l-hour standard (40 mg/m‘). Roll-

back calculations show that a 66 percent reduction from

1971 carbon monoxide emissions is required to meet the

national 8-hour standard.

The second highest l-hour average concentration of

photochemical oxidants recorded in the Phoenix-Tucson

AQCR for the base year 1971 was 236 ,»g/m*. Using

the relationship between hydrocarbon emissions and am-

bient photochemical oxidant concentrations as defined in

Appendix J, 40 CFR Part 51, a 31 percent reduction

from 1971 hydrocarbon emissions is required to meet the

national standard of 160 »g/m’.

Information presented in the State Plan and in the

EPA Technical Support Document (which is available at

the Office of Public Affairs, EPA Region IX, 100 Cali-

fornia Street, San Francisco, California 94111, and at

the Freedom of Information Center, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, D.C.

20460) shows that the anticipated decrease in motor

vehicle hydrocarbon emissions as a result of the Federal

Motor Vehicle Control Program and the decrease due to

approved controls on stationary sources of hydrocarbons

will be sufficient to meet the national standard by May

31, 1975, and to maintain the standard through 1980.

Attainment of the carbon monoxide standards will not be

achieved by these controls. Consequently, supplementary

controls are required, and, since mobile sources will ac-

count for approximately 93 percent of the carbon mon-

oxide emissions, additional controls on mobile sources

are required.

554

STATE TRANSPORTATION CONTROL PLAN

As noted previously, the State of Arizona submitted a

transportation control plan on April 11, 1973.

Arizona’s control strategy included provisions for man-

datory annual inspection and maintenance on all light,

medium, and heavy duty vehicles, the use of retrofit de-

vices on pre-1976 vehicles, and the conversion of 10,000

vehicles to liquid petroleum gasoline.

The State plan concluded that these measures would

achieve emission reductions sufficient to attain the stand-

ard. However, EPA analysis, presented in the EPA

Evaluation Report, indicated that excessive emission re-

ductions were claimed, and that, in fact, these measures

were not sufficient to show attainment of the standard.

Consequently, additional measures, which control vehicle

usage and consequently total emissions from the vehicle

population at large, were considered necessary. EPA cal-

culated that the additional emissions reduction necessary

to show attainment of the standard could be achieved

with a 32 percent veduction in total vehicle miles traveled

(VMT). ;

The difference between EPA estimates and those of

the State centered primarily around the applicability and

effectiveness of the catalyst retrofit. EPA’s analysis did

not support the State’s claim that 100 percent of the

1968-1974 autos could be readily retrofitted with the

catalyst. Not all vehicles in this age class can operate

on the unleaded fuel necessary for catalyst function.

Considering this limiting factor, EPA estimated that only

20 percent of 1968-1970 vehicles and 75 percent of the

1971-1974 vehicles could be retrofitted with catalyst con-

verters (See An EPA White Paper: The Clean Air Act

and Transportation Controls).

For the most part, reductions attainable by the re-

maining control measures of the State plan were con-

sidered realistic and generally approvable.

The transportation control plan, however, lacked the

necessary procedures for enforcement and administra-

tion. Specifically, the State does not have legal authority

for its inspection/maintenance program; there are no

555

regulations and administrative procedures for either in-

spection/maintenance or the retrofit program; and there

is no monitoring and surveillance program. Similarly, the

transportation control plar «oes not indicate that ade-

quate resources have beer «\located by the State for im-

plementation of these mea. ures.

On September 11, 1973, the Governor of the State of

Arizona submitted a revised transportation control plan

that included significant modifications to the earlier

State plan.

The inspection maintenance program was essentially

reproposed: however, the revised plan contained a claim

that the post-maintenance deterioration curve is more

realistic than EPA’s, and that, as a result, the program

could achieve a 22 percent reduction in carbon monoxide

emissions rather than the 12 percent allowed by EPA.

EPA had assumed the deterioration to be linear as a

function of time, while the State indicated that the emis-

sion-reducing effectiveness of maintenance would not be

gin to deteriorate until much later in the post-mainte-

nance year, thus yielding higher overall emission reduc-

tions than would be assumed in a linear deterioration.

Based on the analysis of data contained in the EPA

Technical Support Document and data referenced by the

Arizona Plan, EPA does not believe that the 22 percent

reduction claimed by Arizona can be supported at this

time.

The State’s retrofit program was substantially modi-

fied. The use of oxidizing catalyst converters was re-

stricted to 1973-1975 vehicles in accordance with EPA’s

information on the poor applicability of such devices to

older vehicles. Application of the air bleed to the intake

manifold device was reproposed for pre-1968 model years.

Finally, the State proposed the application of a new air

bleed/exhaust gas recirculation device on all 1968-1972

vehicles. The data do not support the applicability of this

device on 1972 vehicles, and EPA cannot accept emission

reductions attributed to that model year. The State is

encouraged to evaluate possible retrofit alternatives.

556

In short, the revised State plan demonstrate [sic] better

compatibility between retrofit devices and vehicles of each

model year. Consequently, EPA can accept greater emis-

sion reductions for the State plan. However, as with the

initial State plan, these measures are not sufficient to

show attainment of the standard; the necessity for VMT

reduction remains. Although the revised plan originally

did not include any control measures for VMT reduction,

the Governor acknowledged in his letter accompanying

the plan that reasonable interim measures to reduce

VMT must be adopted. Subsequent submittals on Septem-

ber 21 and October 2, 1973, indicated that the Gov-

ernor’s special task force is vigorously encouraging busi-

ness and local government to develop carpool incentives;

also being developed are parking restrictions, improve-

ments in the public transit system, and traffic flow im-

provements.

EPA acknowledges that such measures are promising,

and that the potential for substantial progress exists.

Further, EPA recognizes the firm commitment on the

part of State and local government to fully develop and

implement such control strategies. At this point, how-

ever, some of Arizona’s interim strategies have not been

formulated to the point at which EPA can evaluate their

effectiveness in reducing VMT, and, ultimately, carbon

monoxide emissions.

Finally, the revised State plan, like the earlier version,

lacks the necessary procedures for enforcement and ad-

ministration, and adequate resources for effective im-

plementation. Until this is done, EPA is promulgating the

regulations, necessary to make the program submitted by

the State effective. However, EPA is confident that the

State will adopt whatever measures are necessary to

carry out its program to a successful conclusion.

PROPOSED EPA TRANSPORTATION CONTROL PLAN

In the FEDERAL REGISTER of July 16, 1973, the EPA

proposed substitute regulations to show attainment of

the carbon monoxide standard. Recognizing the effort and

eet tiens dite ee

we

_ =. pie :

oe ee

we na.

557

progress made by Arizona in its inspection/main

retrofits program, the Administrator mata ‘these

individual control measures into EPA’s proposal as viable

measures to reduce vehicle emissions, and proposed them

in accordance with the schedule set forth in the State

plan. However, as these control measures were not suffi-

cient to show attainment of the standard, EPA proposed

additional measures designed to achieve the 32 percent

reduction in VMT, which EPA considered necessary to

attain the standard. EPA’s proposal measures included

bus/carpool lanes on freeways and major streets, 20

percent reduction in off-street public parking, and limi-

tations on the construction of additional parking facil-

ities—all supplemented by the required availability of a

computer-aided carpool- and buspool-matching system.

The intent of these measures was to discourage individ-

ual use of private vehicles. EPA calculated that these

ree tle neg age go the occupancy factor for work-

rips by to 75 percent,

ba by 10 ! 15 percent by 1975. ee

© assure that this VMT reduction i i

achieve an additional 10 to 15 percent ety agen

EPA proposed to limit gasoline consumption (at the dis-

tributor level) to 1972-1973 levels, and to limit the motor-

cycle population to projected 1975 levels. The gasoline

limitation was designed to retard the very rapid VMT

growth expected after 1975; the restriction on motor-

cycle population was designed to prevent counter-produc-

ee shifts from automobiles to highly polluting motor-

-_ “" as a result of gasoline limitations and parking

The measures proposed by EPA

sufficient to demonstrate Po stb ‘= ie aun

However, the inspection/maintenance and retrofit pro-

grams could not be implemented in time to meet the

standards by 1975 ; therefore, a 2-year extension was

necessary. To satisfy the remaining legal requirements

for such an extension, the control strategy must con-

sider reasonably available control measures for imple-

mentation as expeditiously as practicable. At the time the

558

EPA plan was proposed, the VMT reduction measures

mene Ba discussed were considered to be reasonably

available control measures and sufficient to satisfy the

requirements for a 2-year extension.

PuBLIC COMMENT

The EPA hearings in Phoenix and Tucson elicited sub-

stantial public comment regarding the control measures

proposed by EPA; also, the State of Arizona used the

hearings as an opportunity to present its revised trans-

portation control plan. The State also affirmed its com-

mitment to develop and implement effective VMT reduc-

tion measures.

- Comments were received from a _ wide range of

sources—regional and municipal governments, industry,

civic organizations, environmental groups, and individ-

ual citizens. Generally, EPA’s proposal for the State s

inspection/maintenance and retrofit programs received

solid support. However, EPA’s VMT control measures

received generally adverse comment. Many stated that

such proposals were unrealistic in view of the area’s

high degree of dependence on automobiles and lack of

alternative modes of transportation. é

The workability of the measure for exclusive bus/

carpool lanes was doubted. The point was made that

without an expanded bus system, exclusive bus lanes

would serve no beneficial purpose and that almost no

streets could support viable bus lanes. Additional com-

ments were received criticizing the inadequacy and in-

convenience of the existing transit systems in both

Phoenix and Tucson. Although representatives of these

cities spoke of improvements in scheduling and expansion

of the service area, commitments for purchase of buses

for increasing the existing transit capacity system dur-

ing the commuting period have not been made. Testimony

indicated that the Phoenix bus system is presently at

capacity during the commuting period. Substantial com-

ment was received encouraging and supporting carpool-

ing for commuters as the best solution to reduce VMT

and congestion, particularly in the absence of a viable

transit system.

559

The required availability of a voluntary computer-

aided bus/carpool matching system, which was included

in the revised State plan, was generally accepted. Sev-

eral on-going programs for assisting employees to locate

and form carpools were noted.

The parking reduction measure was criticized as hav-

ing potentially adverse effects on downtown business.

Similarly, the parking review proposal was thought to

have adverse economic effects. In particular, it was said

that such a regulation might threaten the growth of the

central business district and the proposed Sky Harbor

Airport expansion. Comments received on parking review

proposals in other regions stated that EPA should allow

state and local organizations the option of developing a

parking management supply plan capable of achieving

results that were equivalent to the proposed source-by-

source review.

Restrictions on the ownership of motorcycles were op-

posed. Spokesmen for the motorcycle industry requested

that EPA establish emission standards for motorcycles.

Comment was added that if EPA should set such stand-

ards, any problem of motorcycles emissions would be sub-

stantially diminished.

Any limitations on the amount of gasoline sold were

exposed. The possible adverse impact on agricultural op-

erations was cited. Further, the reduction or control

would drastically affect the growth economy, and would

not accommodate a continuation of the unprecedented

growth that occurred over the last several years.

Environmental groups in both cities generally sup-

ported EPA’s proposals, and often suggested additional

measures such as bicycle paths, mass transit improve-

ments, and land-use controls. One spokesman concluded

his statement with words that generally reflect the tenor

of the testimony: “Any regulation adopted must have

the support of the public.”

Considerable comments was received on the applicabil-

ity of the EPA proposal to the entire Region. The point

was made that it can not be shown that there are viola-

tions of the national standard in the many communities

560

spread across the five-county region and that auto usage

in these communities also could not be shown to contribute

to the air pollution problems of Phoenix and Tucson.

Therefore, transportation control measures should only

apply to the Phoenix and Tucson Metropolitan Areas not

the five-county region.

The fact that the amount of reduction for Tucson was

based on Phoenix data because of the lack of air quality

data for Tucson was of concern to a significant numver

of those testifying at the hearing in Tucson. Data de-

rived from monitoring during the summer months of

1973 in Tucson and from use of atmospheric diffusion

models was presented by the Pima County Air Pollution

Control District. These data show that in 1977 the 8-

hour carbon monoxide standard would be substantially

exceeded. The value derived for the maximum 8-hour

concentration in 1977 was 21 mg/m’. ,

A transportation control plan also designed to attain

the standard by 1977 was submitted by the Pima County

Air Pollution Control District at EPA’s hearing in Tuc-

son.

This plan relied on the measures in the State plan

(namely inspection/maintenance and retrofit) and in-

cluded increasing the use of carpools, increasing bus

service, implementing a computerized traffic control sys-

tem, instigating a public education effort, and implement-

ing a continuous air quality monitoring program.

TRANSPORTATION CONTROL PLAN

The EPA promulgation is a combination of approval

of the Arizona Plan, and promulgation of portions of the

EPA proposal as modified by the revised State plan and

by testimony received at the hearings. EPA is taking ac-

tion to approve the plan proposed by the State, specific-

ally, the inspection/maintenance, retrofit, employer incen-

tive, and carpool matching programs; simultaneously,

EPA is promulgating certain requirements to assure the

effectiveness and implementation of the approved State

plan. This combination of approval and promulgation

561

constitutes a complete and viable transportation control

plan that satisfies the requirements of the Clean Air Act.

Each specific control measure of both the State plan

and the EPA promulgation are described in the following

paragraphs.

State plan: Inspection/maintenance program. An in-

spection/maintenance program has been initiated by the

State of Arizona and is being approved by EPA in this

plan. This program will require owners of light-duty and

medium-duty vehicles to have their vehicles inspected

and any needed maintenance performed every year. Ac-

cording to the State plan, the program will commence on

July 1, 1975. EPA is requiring several submissions dur-

ing the development of the inspection program as follows:

draft legislation to be submitted by February 1, 1974;

legislative authority to be established by May 1, 1974;

and regulations to be adopted by September 1, 1974.

These dates are necessary to effect the commitment to

obtain legislation during the 1974 session of the Arizona

legislature.

State plan: Retrofit program. As with the inspection/

maintenance program, this control measure has been ini-

tiated by the State of Arizona and is being approved by

EPA. The State will require that all pre-1976 light-duty

vehicles be retrofitted with an appropriate emission-

reducing device (1) On pre-1968 vehicles, an air bleed

to the intake manifold will be installed, beginning on

July 1, 1975. This device increases the air/fuel mixture

by metering additional amounts of air to the manifold;

the result is a leaner fuel mixture and more complete

combustion resulting in fewer emissions. (2) Commencing

on July 1, 1975, vehicles in the 1968-71 model years will

be controlled using an air/bleed exhaust gas recirculation

device. The operation is similar to the air bleed device

mentioned previously. (3) Finally, oxidizing catalyst con-

verters are to be installed on 1973-1975 vehicles able to

operate on 91 octane unleaded gasoline. Implementation

of the oxidizing catalyst aspect of the retrofit strategy

will begin June 1, 1976. As with the inspection program,

EPA is requiring several submissions concurrent with

562

the development of the retrofit program. In particular,

EPA is requiring draft regulations for the retrofit de-

vices by February 1, 1974, and adopted regulations by

September 1, 1974.

State plan: Employer carpool incentive program. As

part of the Arizona Plan, Arizona submitted details of a

program to develop and implement an employer incentive

program. EPA is approving this program and is setting

certain program requirements. The employer carpool

incentive program is a new reg ‘ion designed to en-

courage the use of carpools and mass transit and dis-

courage employees from riding to work alone in their

automobiles. The program requires an employer who

maintains more than 200 employee parking spaces to pro-

vide an incentive program. Each employee carpool incen-

tive program is to be submitted to the State by February

1, 1974. Approval or disapproval will be announced by

EPA by June 1, 1974. On August 1, 1974, EPA will

prescribe a plan for each employer in the above cate-

gories who does not submit an approvable plan. All plans

will become effective on September 1, 1974. EPA envi-

sions employer incentive plans to contain incentives such

as preferential or covered parking for carpools, charges

for use of parking spaces by single passenger auto-

mobiles, reductions in the number of parking spaces, sub-

sidies to employees who use mass transit, and/or provi-

sion of special charter buses. EPA will evaluate each

plan in terms of the effectiveness of the incentives in

achieving an increase in the occupancy factor. EPA be-

lieves an occupancy factor of two is a reasonable goal.

The incentive program requirements will apply to

employers in the highly traveled portions of Phoenix

and Tucson.

State Plan: Bus/carpool matching program. EPA is

also approving the implementation of a bus/carpool

matching program. The purpose of the bus/carpool match-

ing program is to assist commuters who desire to form

carpools, or where there are sufficient commuters, to

form buspools. Participation in the program would be

voluntary. Each participant in the program would be

provided with a listing of names and work phone num-

bers of all other participants who have similar origins

and destinations and whose work hours most nearly match

their own. The availability of the matching program is

phased to include: a demonstration program to make the

carpool matching service available to 10,000 employees

in the State Capital area of Phoenix and to 2,000 em-

ployees in the central business district of Tucson. This

phase is to be in operation by March 1, 1974; the pro-

gram will be extended to include all employees in busi-

nesses having more than 200 employees in metropolitan

Phoenix and Tucson by September 1, 1974; and, finally,

et —— = be made a to employees of

r firms or more employees) in bo

— 1, 1975. earns tyonatind

promulgation: Management of Parking Supply.

This regulation will require approval before om ens

begins for any new or modified parking facility with new

capacity or an increase in capacity of 50 or more ve-

hicles. An application requiring information pertinent to

assessing the effect on local air quality and VMT in the

Metropolitan Phoenix Area and the City of Tucson must

be approved by EPA or by an EPA-approved agency.

sion is made for public comment prior to a final

decision. As an alternative to instituting reviow of each

parking facility, any local jurisdiction may submit a

5-year comprehensive parking management plan. To be

approved, this plan will have to demonstrate that when

carried out it will have an effect comparable to a review

of each parking facility.

EPA Promuigation : Monitoring transportation trends.

In addition to monitoring air quality, EPA will require

transportation trend monitoring. This will be accomplished

to assure the effectiveness of the inspection and main-

tenance program and the retrofit program. This regula-

tion requires that the State monitor the actua) per-vehicle

emissions reduction achieved as a result of the plan.

Monitoring of VMT, average vehicle speeds, and occu-

pancy factor in the Metropolitan Phoenix Area and the

City of Tucson is also required to evaluate the effective-

564

ness of the employer carpool incentive program and

traffic flow improvements. Reports are required quar-

terly starting with the period from July 1 to September

30, 1974.

FINDINGS

The Clean Air Act requires that national ambient air

quality standards be achieved as expeditiously as prac-

ticable. The EPA approved and promulgated measures

are sufficient to attain the standards. However, attain-

ment is not possible by 1975. The catalyst retrofit pro-

gram cannot be implemented until 1976, with full emis-

sion reductions unattainable until 1977. Although both

the remainder of the retrofit program and the inspection/

maintenance program will be implemented in mid-1975,

the full annual cycle necessary to achieve the projected

emission reduction will not be completed by the end of

1975. Therefore, the standard cannot be achieved until

1977. Because all reasonable and available interim meas-

ures will be implemented, a 2-year extension is justified

and necessary.

Measures not promulgated. There are four measures

which EPA has previously proposed, but which are not

included in this promulgation. First, the proposed restric-

tions on motorcycle registration met considerable opposi-

tion at the public hearings. Also motorcycle industry

spokesmen presented testimony to the effect that emis-

sion standards are necessary and that EPA should set

them. EPA currently anticipates that such standards will

be established in time for the 1976 model year. In view

of this, EPA has reevaluated this measure and has de-

termined that it is not reasonable at this time.

Secondly, EPA’s proposed measure requiring a reduc-

tion in the number of public parking spaces was not

supported at the hearings. Testimony presented by city

officials indicated that most public parking is associated

with downtown areas. Because of this, the measure would

affect those who work and shop in the downtown area

and park in public parking. Since the air quality prob-

lem is associated with the urbanized portions of both

cities and not just the downtown areas, this measure has

been replaced by measures that affect parking in larger

areas. These replacement measures bon the pte

incentive program, which affects the availability or at-

tractiveness of employee parking, and the management

of parking supply, which reviews the construction or

modification of all parking.

Thirdly, EPA’s proposal to establish exclusive bus/

carpool lanes is not being promulgated because no seg-

ment of the street network could be identified as capable

of supporting a viable bus or carpool lane.

Finally, the proposed limitations on gasoline consump-

tion was opposed by many hearing witnesses. EPA in-

tended that this admittedly harsh measure be imple-

mented only after all other control measures proved in-

effective. Its purpose was to compensate for shortcomings

in the emission-reducing effectiveness of the other control

measures. Because EPA is now approving Arizona’s retro-

fit program, which achieves much higher emission reduc-

> a = = bg mapa measure is not needed to

inment of the car i .

mil no Sollemecinans bon monoxide standard and

itional VMT reduction proposals that

those of EPA were suggested in = heashens Py

bicycle paths, mass transit improvements, and land-use

— a on that all such measures are con-

lve and capable of ievi igni i

ments i - a . achieving significant improve-

ough, EPA selected those strategies tha

capable of achieving large-scale Bh oe wane ema in ‘*

relatively short time, the Agency strongly encourages local

government and interest groups to develop strategies to

supplement the promulgated control programs.

COMPILATION OF CONTROL STRATEGY EFFECTS

Table 1 shows a compilation of control s

tra -

fects. As can be seen, the national standards gy et

a are attained by 1977 and maintained through

566

TABLE 1

CONTROL STRATEGY EFFECTS IN PHOENIX-TUCSON AQCR

Emissions and re-

duction tons/day

1975 1977 1980

Source and control measures

Mobile source emissions without

proposed control measures 656.5 522.2 3383

Expected reductions:

Inspection /maintenance —62.7 —40.6

Retrofit devices:

ic converter (1973-

oy : —58.1 —43.2

Exhaust gas recirculation

(1968-1971) —69.2 —28.7

Air bleed (pre-1968) —70.8 —42.5

VMT reduction measures —63.0 —25.2

Motorcycles 14.0 16.8 18.6

Heavy-duty vehicles 69.6 82.3 98.6

Inspection /maintenance —9.3 —114

Other (stationary, aircraft, etc) 25.7 28.7 31.5

Total emissions remaining 7028 351.7 320.6

Allowable emissions for attain-

ment of CO standards 351.7 351.7 351.7

Estimated second-high 8-hour

CO concentration 120.0 *'10.0 19.1

National 8-hour CO standard 110 110 110

Bi Milligrams per cubic meters.

BASIS FOR REDUCTIONS CLAIMED

As has been previously discussed, the transportation

control plan submitted by the State of Arizona shows sig-

567

nificantly more reduction for inspection/maintenance and

retrofit than has been claimed in this promulgation. The

difference is primarily due to the amount of reduction

that can be achieved by a loaded inspection program. The

average reduction percentage for this program is calcu-

lated by the Arizona DAPC to be 22.2 percent of the

carbon monoxide emissions from light-duty vehicles. EPA

has calculated the reduction to be 12 percent. The dif-

ference in the two values results from different estima-

tions of the rate of deterioration between maintenance

events. EPA evaluation of the data presented by Ari-

zona to support its claim is that the data do not speci-

fically relate to deterioration when mandatory inspection

is required. Although the arguments of Arizona’s auto-

motive experts may have merit, EPA policy requires use

of the estimated emission reductions contained in Ap-

pendix N of 40 CFR, Part 51, except when emissions re-

ductions can be supported by adequate analysis and data.

Therefore, reduction values for Appendix N have been

used for estimating the effect of an inspection program.

The percentage reductions (50 percent) attributed to

use of the catalytic and air bleed retrofit devices are

based on information contained in Appendix N. The ef-

fectiveness of the exhaust gas recirculation retrofit (40

percent) for 1968-1971 light-duty vehicles was established

from limited technical data computed both by EPA and

by the manufacturer of one of the devices. Although the

data base is small, it is supported by technical judgment.

It has been noted that implementation of the State-

selected strategies of inspection/maintenance and retrofit

devices by 1977 results in emissions in excess of the al-

lowable emissions. The excess emissions can be negated

by a reduction in VMT by light-duty vehicles of approxi-

mately 9.6 percent. The VMT reduction measures must

therefore achieve this reduction. It is highly desirable

to select VMT reduction measures that will be least dis-

ruptive to individual mobility and habits and most ef-

fective in reducing VMT.

The employee incentive regulations conform to this de-

scription for several reasons. First, work trips constitute

the largest single class of trips within the Metropolitan

568

Phoenix Area by a factor of more than two: approxi-

mately 40 percent of urban travel is work-oriented, 10-

20 percent is shopping-oriented, and 11-22 percent is

social-recreational. (See Transit and the Phoenix Metro-

politan Area, Maricopa County Association of Govern-

ments, which is available at EPA Region IX, 100 Cali-

fornia Street, San Francisco, California 94111.) There-

fore, any strategy affecting work-related VMT would po-

tentially have the greatest reduction. Second, work trips

have a definite pattern defined by a specific origin and

destination and occur at a specific time each weekday.

Carpooling by work commuters with identical origins,

destinations, and times is therefore possible without

disrupting mobility patterns of individuals as severely as

would disrupting shopping, social-recreational, or- busi-

ness trips. Another important aspect is the effectiveness

of reducing the work trip VMT because of the signifi-

cance of the timing of the work trip. This is due to the

fact that the highest concentrations of carbon monoxide

occur in the evening hours during the winter months

when a surface inversion occurs just prior to the evening

peak traffic (caused primarily by work VMT) and pro-

duces stable atmospheric conditions that promote accumu-

lation of the resultant automobile pollutants.

Specific reduction values for control measures that

have the effect of reducing VMT for the Phoenix or

Tucson metropolitan areas are not known. It is possible,

however, to estimate the percentage reduction in VMT

of all urban trips resulting from an increase in work

trip occupancy factor (number of persons per vehicle).

Once the decrease in total VMT is known for various

increases in work trip occupancy factors, the occupancy

factor corresponding to the required VMT reduction can

be evaluated for realistic attainment in terms of each

selected control measure.

Using an estimated occupancy factor of 1.2 persons per

vehicle and an estimate that 40 percent of urban travel

is work-oriented (see above), the areawide VMT reduc-

tions can be achieved for increases in the work trip oc-

cupancy factor as noted in Table 2.

569

TABLE 2

Increase in Reduction in

work trip VMT of all

New work trip occupancy urban trips,

occupancy factor factor, percent percent

1.4 16.7 5.

1.5 25 8 ‘

1.6 ; 33.3 10

_ As noted previously, a VMT reduction of 9.6 percent

is required. This percentage reduction corresponds to a

new work-trip-occupancy-factor of approximately 1.6,

which is a 33.3 percent increase. In other words, about

one out of every four cars would be removed from the

work trip and consequently the occupants of one out of

every four cars would be carpooling with the remaining

three during the work-related trips.

The first phase of the employer carpool incentive pro-

gram will affect approximately 30 percent of all em-

ployed persons (those in businesses with 200 employee

parking spaces). Attainment of an occupancy factor of

2 for those employees will achieve an overall work trip

occupancy factor of about 1.4, or, as shown above, a 5

percent reduction in VMT for all urban trips. The sec-

ond phase of the employer carpool incentive program will

extend to all employed persons in businesses with 70 em-

ployee parking spaces. The expected effect of the second

phase is to raise the work trip occupancy factor to about

1.6 for 10 percent reduction in VMT for all urban trips.

The 10 percent VMT reduction can be achieved by at-

taining an occupancy factor of 2 for 60 percent of all

employed persons.

VMT reductions in a future year are calculated from

a growth curve, rather than from current levels. The

regulation for the review of new parking lots should

contribute to VMT reduction by preventing the construc-

tion of the new parking lots that cause violations of air

quality standards. These parking lots would have been a

570

part of the VMT growth curve. This measure should pro-

vide a vehicle for maintaining the air quality standards

once they have been achieved.

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL IMPACTS OF

PROMULGATED CONTROL STRATEGY

In discussing the impacts of the transportation control

plan, it is helpful to understand that the control meas-

ures fit into two categories: measures that place con-

trol at the source, such as inspection/maintenance and

retrofits; and measures that control the total mileage

traveled by the vehicle population at-large, such as car-

pooling and management of parking supply.

Impacts associated with the first class of control meas-

ures are primarily economic, The automobile owner will

incur directly the cost of annual inspection (approxi-

mately $5) and post-inspection maintenance (between

$1 and $31), which may be necessary on an annual

basis. Such maintenance may result in greater fuel

economy and savings. It should also be noted that the

program is self-supporting: the $5 inspection fee will

cover the operating costs outlay for inspection equipment,

The automobile owner will also incur direct out-of-

pocket expenses when he retrofits his vehicle. For the

oxidizing catalyst (vehicle model years 1973-1975), this

cost will be approximately $90 to $140; for air bleed/

exhaust gas recirculation (1968-1971), approximately

$35 to $45. In addition, there will likely be costs in-

curred for replacement, although the frequency of re-

placement cannot yet be determined.

The impacts associated with carpooling and manage-

ment of parking supply are much more difficult to quanti-

fy. However, the following assumptions regarding car-

pooling are reasonable: commuters can realize substantial

savings by sharing fuel and parking costs; and, for many

families, carpooling may eliminate the need for a second

automobile. Both the carpooling program and the parking

management supply plan may stimulate more effective

land use planning efforts.

tl Reet seat

571

On the larger scale, the primary impacts will be cleaner

air, diminished health problems, and improvements in

the quality of life. In a more immediate sense, these

measures are significant in terms of the nation’s present

energy crisis, The automobile is extraordinarily waste-

ful of energy and resources, particularly if that automo-

bile transports only one person. Four to five empty seats

in each automobile that transports only one person repre-

sent an enormous amount of available transportation ca-

pacity, and more importantly, a vast unused national re-

source as well. The carpooling strategies in Arizona and

around she country will utilize this available transporta-

tion capacity and tap this national resource.

Over 25 percent of the nations energy consumption is

used for transportation, with 75 percent of this, or 20

percent of the total, used by automobiles and other

motor vehicles, Seventy-five percent of the energy used

by automobiles is wasted due to the inefficiency of the

automobile engine, In addition, the remaining quar-

ter of the energy is largely wasted in any functional

sense, since most American cars are far too big and

— for their usual job of moving one or two people

ul.

EFFECTIVE DATE

These regulations promulgated today become

on December 31, 1973, except in the a of ve Ree

tions that impose requirements for specific action at earli-

er dates. In such cases, the Administrator has found

that good cause exists for accelerating the effective date

because of the need to take action as expeditiously as

practicable in order to attain and maintain the national

ambient air quality standards. The regulation for man-

agement of parking supply is effective immediately upon

publication and, pursuant to court order and previously

572

published notice, applies to actions taken after August

15, 1973.

(42 U.S.C, 1857¢e-5(c) and 1857g

Dated: November 21, 1973,

RUSSELL E. TRAIN,

Administrator.

Subpart D of Chapter 1, 40 CFR Part 52 is amended

as follows:

Subpart D—Arizona

1. Section 52.120 is amended by revising paragraph

(c) to read as follows:

§ 52.120 Identification of plan.

(c) Supplemental information was submitted on:

(1) March 1, March 2, and May 380, 1972, by the

Arizona State Board of Health.

(2) April 11, 1978, and May 10, 1973.

(3) September 11, 1973, by the Governor, and;

(4) September 21, 1973, and October 2, 1973,

2. Section 52.122 is amended by adding paragraph (d)

to read as follows:

§ 52.122 Extensions.

(d) The Administrator hereby extends for 2 years the

attainment date for the national standards for carbon

monoxide in the Phoenix-Tucson Intrastate Air Quality

Control Region.

"3. sain 52.128 is revised to read as follows:

§ 52.123 Approval status.

(a) With the exceptions set forth in this subpart, the

Administrator approved Arizona’s plan for the attain-

ment of the national standards.

578

(b) With regard to the 7 omy control strate-

gies submitted by the State of Arizona, the Administrator

approves the inspection program for light-duty and medi-

um-duty vehicles; the program for retrofit of air bleed

devices on pre-1968 light-duty vehicles, the retrofit of

air bleed/exhaust gas recirculation devices on 1968

through 1971 light-duty vehicles, the retrofit of oxidizing

catalytic converters on 1973 through 1975 light-duty ve-

hicles, the gaseous fuel conversion program; the carpool

matching program; and the employer carpool incentive

programs with the exceptions set forth in § 52.130,

§ 52.182, § 52.135, and § 52.136,

§ 52.181 [Amended]

4. In § 52.131, the attainment date table is revised by

replacing the date “May 381, 1975, d” for attainment of

the standards for carbon monoxide in the Phoenix-Tucson

Intrastate Air Quality Control Region with the Date

“May 31, 1977”; and by revoking and reserving foot-

note “d’”,

§ 52.182 [Reserved]

5. Section 52.182 is revoked and reserved.

6. Subpart D is amended by adding § 52.182 to read

as follows:

§ 52.132 Transportation control compliance schedule.

The requirements of 51.14 are not fully met with re-

spect to transportation control measures,

(a) Definitions:

(1) “Inspection and maintenance program” means a

program to reduce emissions from in-use vehicles through

identifying vehicles that need emission control related

maintenance and requiring that such maintenance be

performed.

(2) “Light-duty vehicle’ means a gasoline-powered

motor vehicle rated at 6,000 lb GVW or less.

(3) “Medium-duty vehicle” means a gasoline-powered

vehicle rated at more than 6,000 lb GVW and less than

10,000 lb GVW,

574

(4) “Air bleed control device” means a system or de-

vice (such as a modification to the engine’s carburetor)

that results in engine operation at an increased air-fuel

ratio so as to achieve reduction in exhaust emissions of

hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide from 1967 and earlier

light-duty vehicles of at least 21 and 58 percent respec.

tively.

(5) “Air bleed/exhaust gas recirculation device”

means a system or device (such as modification of the

engine’s carburetor or positive crankcase ventilation sys-

tem) that results in engine operation at an increased air-

fuel ratio so as to achieve reductions of hydrocarbons

and carbon monoxide of 25 percent and 40 percent, re-

spectively, from light-duty vehicles of model years 1968

through 1971.

(6) “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 emission of

hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide by 50 percent from

that vehicle.

(7) All other terms used in this paragraph that are

defined in Appendix N to Part 51 of this chapter, are

used herein with the meaning therein defined.

(b) This section is applicable in Maricop [sic] and

Pima Counties in the Phoenix-Tucson Intrastate Region.

(c) To implement the approved control measures speci-

fied in Sections 5 and 7 of the plan submitted September

11, 1978, and to complete the requirements of §§ 51.11

(b), 51.14 and 51.15 of this chapter, the State of Ari-

zona must submit to the Administrator:

(1) No later than February 1, 1974, detailed compli-

ance schedules showing the steps the State of Arizona

will take to establish and enforce the inspection and

maintenance program for light-duty and medium-duty

vehicles; the program for retrofit of air bleed devices on

pre-1968 light-duty vehicles, of air bleed/exhaust gas re-

circulation devices on 1968 through 1971 light-duty ve-

hicles, and of oxidizing catalytic convertors on 1973

through 1975 light-duty vehicles; and the gaseous fuel

conversion program, These schedules shall include:

575

(i) The text of proposed legislation and regulations

for the inspection and maintenance p m, the gaseous

fuel conversion program, and the light-duty vehicle retro-

fit programs.

(ii) A signed statement from the governor or his des-

ignee identifying the sources and amounts of funds for

the programs. If funds can not legally be obligated

under existing statutory authority, a text of needed

legislation shall be submitted.

(iii) The date by which the State will recommend all

needed legislation to the State legislature.

(iv) The date by which necessary equipment for the

inspection and maintenance and carpool matching pro-

gram will be ordered, '

(2) No later than May 1, 1974, the legislative authori-

ty for implementing the inspection and maintenance pro-

gram and the gaseous fuel conversion program.

(3) No later than September 1, 1974, the adopted

regulations and administrative policies necessary for im-

plementation of the control measures cited in paragraph

(ce) (1) of this section.

(4) No later than January 1, 1974, a compliance sched-

ule for the employee carpool incentive program outlined

in section 8 of the State of Arizona Air Pollution Control

Implementation Plan, Transportation Control Strategies.

This compliance schedule shall conform to the require-

ments of § 52.1387.

(5) No later than January 1, 1974, a compliance

schedule for the carpool matching program. This compli-

-. mes shall conform to the requirements of

(d) The regulations adopted to implement the ap-

proved inspection and maintenance program referred to

in paragraph (¢)(1) of this section shall include as a

minimum {sic}:

(1) Provisions for inspection of all such motor vehicles

at periodic intervals at least once each year by means

of an emission test having a loaded mode test cycle.

576

(2) Provisions for inspection failure criteria consistent

with the failure of 50 percent of the vehicles tested dur-

ing the first inspection cycle.

(3) Provisions to require that failed vehicles receive,

within 30 days, the maintenance necessary to achieve

compliance with the inspection standards, This shall in-

clude sanctions against noncomplying individual owners

and repair facilities, retest of failed vehicles following

maintenance, a certification program to ensure that re-

pair facilities performing the required maintenance have

the necessary equipment, parts, and knowledgeable opera-

tors to perform the tasks satisfactorily, and such other

measures as may be necessary or appropriate.

(4) A program of enforcement, such as a spot check

of idle adjustment, to ensure that, following maintenance,

vehicles are not subsequently readjusted or modified in

such a way as would cause them to no longer comply

with the inspection standards. This program shall in-

clude appropriate penalties for violation.

(5) Designation of an agency or agencies responsible

for conducting, overseeing, and enforcing the inspection

and maintenance program.

(6) Requirements that the State, after July 1, 1975,

shall not register or allow to operate on its highways

any light-duty or medium-duty vehicle that does not com-

ply with the applicable standards and procedures adopted

pursuant to the approved inspection end maintenance

program and to paragraph (d) of thw section, This

= not apply to the initial registration of a new motor

vehicle.

(7) Requirements thai after July 1, 1976, no owner of

a light-duty vehicle shail « erate or allow the operation

of any such vehicle that ws not comply with the ap-

plicable standards and procedures adopted pursuant to

the approved inspection and maintenance program and to

paragraph (d) of this section. This shall not apply to

the initial registration of a new motor vehicle.

(8) The State may exempt any class or category of

vehicles that the State finds are rarely used on public

streets and highways (such as classic or antique ve-

hicles).

577

(e) The regulations adopted to implement the ap-

proved retrofit programs referred to in paragraph (c) (1)

of this section shall include as a minimum:

(1) Requirements that on or before May 3, 1977, all

gasoline-powered fleet vehicles, and all private light-duty

vehicles of 1973 through 1975 model years subject to

registration in Maricopa and Pima Counties, shall be

equipped with an appropriate oxidizing catalyst control

device.

(2) Requirements that on or before August 1, 1976,

all gasoline-powered, light-duty vehicles of model year

1968 to 1971 subject under presently existing legal re-

quirements to registration in Maricopa and Pima Coun-

ties, shall be equipped with an air bleed/exhaust gas re-

circulation control device.

(3) Requirements that on or before August 1, 1976,

all gasoline-powered, light-duty vehicles of model years

prior to 1968 subject to registration in Maricopa and

Pima Counties, shall be equipped with an appropriate air

bleed device. The State may exempt any clars or cate-

gory of vehicles that the State finds are rarely used on

public streets and highways (such as classic or antique

vehicles) or for which the State demonstrates to the Ad-

ministrator that air bleed retrofit devices are not com-

mercially available.

7. Subpart D is amended by revising § 52.136 to read

as follows:

§ 52.136 Control strategy: Carbon monoxide.

(a) The requirements of § 51.14 of this chapter are

not met because the plan does not contain sufficient

measures to provide for attainment and maintenance of

the national standards for carbon monoxide in the Phoen-

— Intrastate Region as expeditiously as practica-

e.

(b) The requirements of § 51.14(a) and (b) of this

chapter are not met because the plan does not provide a

description of enforcement methods, administrative poli-

cies, and proposed rules and regulations pertaining to the

selected transportation control measures.

578

{c)(1) The State-submitted inspection and mainte-

nance program is disapproved to the extent it provides

for inspection and maintenance of vehicles of over 10,000

lb GVW.

(2) The State-submitted air bleed/EGR retrofit pro-

gram is disapproved to the extent it provides for the

retrofitting of such devices on 1977 model vehicles.

8. Subpart D is amended by adding §§ 52.137, 52.138,

52.139, and 52.140 as follows:

§ 52.137 Employer carpool incentive program.

(a) Definitions:

(1) “Metropolitan Phoenix Area” means the area

bounded on the south by I-17 and Buckeye Road to the

intersection with I-17, on the east by 48th Street, on

the north by the Arizona Canal and Glendale Avenue, and

on the west by 43rd Avenue.

(2) “Greater Tucson Area” means an area bounded

by a line starting at the intersection of Sweetwater Drive

and Silverbell Road, thence 6 miles east, thence 1.5 miles

south, thence 5.5 miles east, thence 7.5 miles south, thence

4.5 miles west, thence 3 miles south, thence 5 miles west,

thence 5 miles north, thence 2 miles west, thence 7 miles

north to the point of origin.

(b) This section is applicable within the Metropolitan

Phoenix and Greater Tucson areas in the Phoenix-Tucson

Intrastate Air Quality Control Region.

(c) On or before January 1, 1974, the State of Ari-

zona shall submit to the Administrator a compliance

schedule implementing the approved employer carpool

incentive program. This compliance schedule shall at a

minimum, provide that each employer in areas specified

in paragraph (b) of this section who maintains more

than 200 employee parking spaces shall, on or before

February 1, 1974, submit to the State of Arizona an ade-

quate incentive program designed to encourage the use

of carpools and mass transit and discourage employees

from using single-passenger automobiles to commute to

work. Each program shall contain provisions for prefer-

ential parking, covered parking, and other benefits to

employees who travel to work by carpool; subsidies to

employees who use mass transit; reductions in the num-

ber of employee parking spaces or surcharges on the use

of such spaces by employees; provision of special charter

buses or other modes of mass transit for the use of em-

ployes; and/or any other measures acceptable to the

Administrator. By April 1, 1974, the State of Arizona

shall submit each program so received, together with the

State’s evaluation of the program and the State’s rec-

ommendation as to whether that program should be ap-

proved or disapproved, to the Administrator.

(d) On or before June 1, 1974, the Administrator shall

approve or disapprove each program so submitted. No-

tice of such approval or disapproval shall be published

in this Part 52.

(e) In order to be approvable by the Administrator,

each program shall contain procedures whereby the em-

ployer will supply the State of Arizona and the Adminis-

trator with semiannual certified reports that shall show,

at a minimum the following information:

(1) The number of employees at each of the employ-

er’s facilities within the areas specified in paragraph

(b) of this section on October 15, 1975, and as of the

date of the report.

(2) The number of (i) free and (ii) non-free em-

ployee parking spaces provided by the employer at each

such employment facility on October 15, 1973, and as of

the date of the report.

(3) The number of employees regularly commuting to

and from work by (i) private automobile, (ii) carpool,

and (iii) mass transit at each such employment facility

on January 1, 1974, and as of the date of the report.

(4) Such other information as the Administrator may

prescribe.

(f) If, after the Administrator has approved a car-

pool incentive program, the employer fails to submit

any reports in full compliance with paragraph (e) of

this section, or if the Administrator finds that any such

report has been intentionally falsified, or if the Admin-

istrator determines that the program is not in operation

580

or is not providing adequate incentives for employee use

of carpools and mass transit, the Administrator may

revoke the approval of such plan. Such revocation shall

constitute a disapproval. as

(g) By July 1, 1974, the Administrator shall prescribe

a carpool incentive program for each employer to whom

paragraph (b) of this section is applicable if such em-

ployer has not submitted a program. By August 1, 1974,

the Administrator shall prescribe a carpool incentive pro-

gram for each employer to whom paragraph (b) of this

section is applicable if the program submitted is not ade-

quate. Within 2 months after any revocation pursuant to

paragraph (f) of this section, the Administrator shall

prescribe a carpool incentive program for the affected

employer, Any program prescribed by the Administrator

shall be published in this Part 52.

(h) All programs approved under paragraph (d) or

promulgated under paragraph (g) on account of an in-

itial failure to submit a plan shall be fully implemented

on or before September 1, 1974. ae

(i) Each employer in the Region who maintains more

than 70 employee parking spaces shall, on or before April

1, 1975, submit to the Administrator an adequate annual

incentive program conforming to the requirements of

paragraphs (b) and (e) of this section, except that in

paragraph (e) of this section the reference date for

reports shall be October 15, 1974, rather than January

1, 1974. Each such program shall be subject to approval

or disapproval by the Administrator by June 1, 1975.

Each such program, when approved, shall be subject to

revocation as provided in paragraph (f) of this section.

(j) By June 1, 1975, the Administrator shall prescribe

a carpool incentive program for each employer to which

paragraph (i) of this section is applicable if such em-

ployer has not submitted a program. By August 1, 1975,

the Administrator shall prescribe a carpool incentive pro-

gram for each employer to which paragraph (i) of this

section is applicable if the program submitted is not

adequate. Within 2 months after any revocation of any

program of any employer pursuant to paragraph (f) of

581

this section, the Administrator shall prescribe a carpool

incentive program for the affected employer. Any pro-

gram prescribed by the Administrator shall be published

in this Part 52. All such programs shall be fully im-

plemented on or before September 1, 1975.

§ 52.138 Bus/carpool matching program.

(a) Definitions:

(1) “Metropolitan Phoenix Area” means the area

bounded on the south by I-17 and Buckeye Road to the

intersection with I-17 on the east by 48th Street, on the

north by the Arizona Canal and Glendale Avenue, and on

the west by 43rd Avenue.

(2) “Greater Tucson Area” means an area bounded

by a line starting at the intersection of Sweetwater Drive

and Silverbell Road, thence 6 miles east, thence 1.5 miles

south, thence 5.5 miles east, thence 7.5 miles south, thence

4.5 miles west, thence 3 miles south, thence 5 miles west,

thence 5 miles north, thence 2 miles west, thence 7 miles

north to the point or origin.

(b) This section is applicable within the Metropolitan

Phoenix Area and Greater Tucson Area in Phoenix-

Tucson Intrastate Air Quality Control Region.

(c) On or before January 1, 1974, the State of Ari-

zona shall submit to the Administrator a compliance

schedule for implementing the approved bus/carpool

matching program. This compliance schedule shall, at a

minimum, provide for implementation of the program in

the following phases:

(1) On or before March 1, 1974, bus/carpool match-

ing shall be made available to the following employees:

(i) Phoenix state capital area. At least 10,000 em-

ployees whose work location is within the area bounded

by VanBuren Street on the north, Jefferson Street on

the south, Central Avenue on the east, and 19th Avenue

on the west.

(ii) Tucson central business district. At least 2,000

employees whose work location is within an area bounded

582

by a circle of 2-mile radius centered at the intersection

of Congress Street and Stone Avenue.

(2) On or before September 1, 1974, bus/carpool

matching shall be made available to the following em-

ployees:

(i) Metropolitan Phoenix Area. All employees in busi-

nesses having more than 250 employees.

(ii) Greater Tucson Area. All employees in businesses

having more than 100 employees.

(3) On or before September 1, 1975, bus/carpool

matching shall be made available to the following em-

ployees.

(\) Metropolitan Phoenix Area. All employees in busi-

nesses having more than 50 employees.

(ii) Greater Tucson Area. All employees in businesses

having more than 50 employees.

(d) The compliance schedule shall also include the

following:

(1) A method of collecting information that shall in-

clude the following as a minimum:

(i) Provisions that each affected employee receive an

application form with a cover letter describing the match-

ing program.

(ii) Provisions on each application form for applicant

identification of time, origin, and destination.

(iii) Provisions for each applicant to receive a list of

names and work phone numbers of all other applicants

who have similar origins and destinations and whose

work hours most nearly match theirs.

(2) A manual or computer method of matching infor-

mation that will have provisions for locating each appli-

cant’s origin and destination within a grid system in the

urban area and the semirural region surrounding the

Metropolitan Phoenix Area and the Greater Tucson Area

and matching applicants with identical origin and desti-

nation grids and compatible work schedules.

(3) A method for providing continuing service such

that the master list of all applicants is retained and

available for use by new applicants, applications are cur-

rently available, and the master list is periodically u

dated to remove applicants who have moved reed the

area.

(4) An agency or agencies responsible for operating,

overseeing, and maintaining the bus/carpool matching

program.

§ 52.139 Management of parking supply.

(a) Definitions:

(1) “Parking facility” (also called “facility”) means

a lot, garage, building, or structure, or combination or

portion thereof, in or on which motor vehicles are tempo-

rarily parked.

(2) “Vehicle trip” means a single movement b

a

motor vehicle that originates or termi i

facility gi rminates at a parking

(3) “Construction” means fabrication, erection, or in-

stallation of a parking facility, or any conversion of land,

buildings, or structures, or portions thereof, for use as a

facility.

(4) “Modification” means any change to a parkin

ae - 4 eee or may increase the mates cubis

pacity of, or the motor vehicle activity associ i

such parking facility. dar any cag

) “Commence” means to undertake a continuo

gram of on-site construction or modification. pd

(b) This regulation is applicable to the following cities

—s the rs ee Intrastate Air Quality Con-

rol Region: Phoenix, Tucson, Scottsd

and Glendale. albanien came

(c) The requirements of this section are applicabl

. . “ge, to

the following parking facilities in the areas er in

paragraph (b) of this section, the construction or modifi-

cation of which began after August 15, 1973:

(1) Any new parking facility wi i i

of 50 or more motor “> Be a oo

(2) Any parking facility that will be modified i

to in-

crease parking capacity by 50 or more motor vehicles; and

(3) Any parking facility constructed or modified in

584

increments which individually are not subject to review

under this section, but which, when all such increments

occurring since August 15, 1978, are added together,

would as a total subject the facility to review under this

section.

(d) No person shall commence construction or modifi-

cation of any facility subject to this section without first

obtaining written approval from the Administrator or an

agency designated by him; provided, that this paragraph

shall not apply to any construction or modification for

which a general construction contract was finally executed

by ail appropriate parties on or before August 15, 1973.

(e) No approval to construct or modify a facility shall

be granted unless the applicant shows to the satisfaction

of the Administrator or agency approved by him that:

(1) The design or operation of the facility will not

cause a violation of the control strategy that is part of

the applicable implementation plan, and will be consistent

with the plan’s VMT reduction goals,

(2) The emissions resulting from the design or opera-

tion of the facility will not prevent or interfere with the

attainment or maintenance of any national ambient air

quality standard at any time within 10 years from the

date of application.

(f) All applications for approval under this section

shall include the following information:

(1) Name and address of the applicant.

(2) Location and description of the parking facility.

(3) A proposed construction schedule.

(4) The normal hours of operation of the facility and

the enterprises and activities that it serves.

(5) The total motor vehicle capacity before and after

the construction or modification of the facility.

(g) The Administrator may require an application for

the construction or modification of between 50 and 249

spaces to include the information required by paragraphs

(h) (1) through (7) of this section.

(h) All applications under this section for new park-

ing facilities with parking capacity for 250 or more vehi-

——-

cles, or for any modification which, either individually

or together with other modifications since August 15, 1973,

will increase capacity by that amount, shall, in addition

to that information required by paragraph (f) of this

section, include the following information unless the appli-

cant has received a waiver from the provisions of this para-

graph from the Administrator or agency approved by the

Administrator:

(1) The number of people using or engaging in any

enterprises or activities that the facility will serve on a

daily basis and a peak hour basis.

(2) A projection of the geographic areas in the com-

munity from which people and motor vehicles will be

drawn to the facility. Such projection shall include data

concerning the availability of mass transit from such

areas.

(3) An estimate of the average and peak hour vehicle

trip generation rates, before and after construction or

modification of the facility.

(4) An estimate of the effect of the facility on traffic

pattern and flow.

(5) An estimate of the eifect of the facility on total

VMT for the air quality control region.

(6) An analysis of the effect of the facility on site and

regional air quality, including a showing that the facility

will be compatible with the applicable implementation

plan, and that the facility will not cause any national air

quality standard to be exceeded within 10 years from date

of application. The Administrator may prescribe a stand-

ardized screening technique to be used in analyzing the

effect of the facility on ambient air quality.

(7) Additional information, plans, specifications, or

documents required by the Administrator.

(i) Each application shall be signed by the owner or

operator of the facility, whose signature shall constitute

an agreement that the facility shall be operated in ac-

cordance with the design submitted in the application and

with applicable rules, regulations, and permit conditions.

(j) Within 80 days after receipt of an application, the

Administrator or agency approved by him shall notify the

586

public, by prominent advertisement in the Region affected,

of the receipt of the application and the proposed action on

it (whether approval, conditional approval, or denial),

and shall invite public comment.

(1) The application, all submitted information, and the

terms of the proposed action shall be made available to

the public in a readily accessible place within the affected

air quality region.

(2) Public comment submitted within 80 days of the

date such information is made available shall be considered

in making the final decision on the application.

(3) The Administrator or agency approved by him shall

take final action (approval, conditional approval, or de-

nial) on an application within 80 days after close of the

public comment period.

(k) As an alternative to satisfying the requirements

of paragraphs (d) through (j) of this section, any loca!

jurisdiction or authority may submit to the Administra-

tor a comprehensive parking management plan covering,

at a minimum, the next 5 years. The plan must be sub-

mitted on or before April 1, 1974. By June 1, 1974, the

Administrator shall approve such plans if he finds that:

(1) The agency submitting the plan has full and ade-

quate legal authority to enforce complionce with its re-

quirements.

(2) The area over which the agency exercises the au-

thority described in paragraph (k) (1) of this section is

a logical unit for air pollution control planning purposes.

(3) The plan sets forth a complete description of where

additional construction of parking facilities will be allowed

under the plan, and where parking spaces will be elimi-

nated. The plan shall include any procedures for adjust-

ments or variances to existing zoning or building codes

that require parking spaces for new facilities that are in-

consistent with the plan. The plan must state in detail

the reasons for expecting any anticipated reduction in

parking spaces, and must provide that no parking facility

may legally be constructed in the area subject to the plan

— such construction is specifically authorized by the

plan.

ST

587

(4) The plan demonstrates that if its terms are carried

out, air quality will improve at least as much as if all new

parking facilities were subject to the requirements of

paragraph (d) through (j) of this section. If any in-

crease in VMT would result under the proposed plan over

and above the VMT figure that would result if the review

system outlined in paragraphs (d) through (j) of this

section were followed, the plan shall show by clear and

convincing evidence that any resulting impact on air qual-

ity will be insubstantial.

(5) The plan has been adopted after a public hearing

held in [sic] conformity with the requirements of § 51.4

of this chapter.

(1) In any area covered by a parking management plan

approved under paragraph (k) of this section, no action

to expand the number of spaces at parking facilities may

be taken that is not explicitly provided for in the plan

without a permit issued in accordance with the require-

ments of paragraphs (d) through (j) of this section.

§ 52.140 Monitoring transportation trends.

(a) This section is applicable to the State of Arizona.

(b) In order to assure the effectiveness of the inspection

and maintenance program and the retrofit devices required

under the Arizona implementation plan, the State shall

monitor the actual per-vehicle emissions reductions occur-

ring as a result of such measures. Al] data obtained from

such monitoring shall be included in the quarterly report

submitted to the Administrator by the State in accordance

with § 51.7 of this chapter. The first quarterly report shall

cover the period January 1 to March 31, 1976.

(c) In order to assure the effective implementation of

§§ 52.137, 52.188, and 52.189, the State shall monitor ve-

hicle miles traveled and average vehicle speeds for each

area in which such sections are in effect and during such

time periods as may be appropriate to evaluate the effec-

tiveness of such a program. All data obtained from such

monitoring shall be included in the quarterly report sub-

mitted to the Administrator by the State of Arizona in

accordance with § 51.7 of this chapter. The first quar-

588

terly report shall cover the period from July 1 to Septem-

ber 30, 1974. The vehicle miles traveled and vehicle speed

data shall be collected on a monthly basis and submitted

in a format similar to Table 1.

TABLE 1

Time period

Affected area

VMT or Average Vehicle

Speed et,

Vehicle Vehicle

type (1) type (2)'

Roadway type

Freeway

Arterial

Collector

Local

’ Continue with other vehicle types as appropriate. |

(d) No later than March 1, 1974, the State shall submit

to the Administrator a compliance schedule to implement

this section. The program description shall include the

following:

(1) The agency or agencies responsible for conducting,

overseeing, and maintaining the monitoring program.

(2) The administrative procedures to be used.

(3) A description of the methods to be used to collect

the emission data, VMT data, and vehicle speed data; a

description of the geographical area to which the data

apply; identification of the location at which the data will

be collected; and the time periods during which the data

will be collected.

[FR Doe, 73-25118 Filed 11-30-73; 8:45 am]

589

Title 40—Protection of Environment

CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

SUBCHAPTER C——AIR PROGRAMS

PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION

OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

National Capital Region Transportation Control Plans

This notice of final rulemaking amends the implemen-

tation plans of the District of Columbia, Maryland, and

Virginia, so as to provide a single unified transportation

control plan for the National Capital Interstate Air Qual-

ity Control Region (the “Region’’). A General Preamble

was published on November 6, 1973 (88 FR 30626), and

is incorporated by reference.

BACKGROUND

On March 20, 1978, by publication in the FEDERAL

REGISTER (88 FR 7325, and 7827), the Administrator, act-

ing in response to a court order, notified the District of

Columbia and the Governor of Maryland that transporta-

tion control plans should be submitted by April 15, 1973,

for the portions of the Region under their respective ju-

risdictions. In response, plans were submitted on April

20, 1978, by the District and on April 16 and May 5, 1973,

by Maryland. Although Virginia was not notified at that

time, it too submitted transportation control plans to the

Administrator on April 11 and May 30, 1973. These three

plans had been worked out in coordination with each other

under the auspices of the National Capital Interstate Air

Quality Planning Committee, a council of local and State

governments.

The strategies proposed, such as improved mass transit,

parking disincentives, emission inspection programs, and

additional stationary source controls represented the com-

bined efforts of the three jurisdictions to develop a unified

590

plan which would apply area-wide. They comprised a wide

range of concepts which, if implemented properly, should

effectively control the automobile-related emission prob-

lems in the area, The strategies as proposed by each of

the jurisdictions were for the most part acceptable. How-

ever, since none of the plans could be completely approved.

[sic} On June 15, 1978, the Administrator issued

approval ‘disapproval notices containing his evaluation of

each of the plans on June 22, 1973 (38 FR 16550).

The jurisdictions responded in a timely fashion to cure

some of the deficiencies in the original submissions. Thus,

material to supplement the plans was provided by the Dis-

trict of Columbia on July 9 and July 16; by Maryland on

June 15, June 22, June 28, and July 10; and by Virginia

on July 9, 1978. Public comment on each of these addi-

tional submissions was invited by FEDERAL REGISTER no-

tice published July 18, 1973 (88 FR 19182).

On August 2, 1973, the Administrator published a pro-

posed transportation contro! plan for each of the three

portions of the Region (88 FR 20758, 20779, 20789). The

proposals were very largely based on the material sub-

mitted by the three loca] jurisdictions. Public hearings on

these EPA proposals were held in Virginia on September

4, in the District of Columbia on September 5, and in

Maryland on September 6, 1973. The submissions by Vir-

ginia, Maryland, and the District were also extensively

discussed at the public hearings.

Large portions of the submissions made in June and

July by the three local jurisdictions are being approved

today. In addition, the measures which EPA is promul-

gating have, to the maximum extent possible, been drafted

to reflect the expressed preferences of the District of Co-

lumbia Government and the State of Maryland and the

Commonwealth of Virginia.

AIR POLLUTION IN THE NATIONAL CAPITAL

INTERSTATE AQCR

The Region is made up of Montgomery and Prince

Georges Counties in Maryland; Arlington, Fairfax, Lou-

591

doun, and Prince William Counties in Virginia; and the

District of Columbia. It extends past Dulles Airport in

the west, to Gaithersburg and the National Bureau of

Standards in the North along Route 70-S, past Quantico,

Virginia, south along the Potomac River, and to Beltsville,

Maryland, in the east.

1. Natural Features. The National Capital Interstate

Region is situated almost entirely in the gentle rolling

Piedmont Plateau and the nearly flat Atlantic Coastal

Plain. The terrain to the east is generally flat, with ele-

vations less than 1,000 feet above sea level. Gentle rolling

hilis with elevations of 200 to 500 feet extend to the Blue

Ridge Mountains at the western edge of the Region. In

general, the topography permits free air movement with

few channeling effects.

Surface winds as reported by the National Airport occur

most frequently from the northwest during the colder

months and from the south and south-southeast during the

warmer months. Weather changes occur frequently, but

periods of stagnating anticyclones, which contribute to the

development of high pollutant concentrations, are not un-

common. During the 30-year period from 1936 to 1965,

the area was affected by 48 stagnating anticyclones for

a total of 231 days. Average duration of each anticyclone

was 4.8 days; and in three of the cases, stagnation condi-

tions persisted for seven days or more. Of the 48 cases,

84 occurred during the months of August, September, and

October. Frequency of inversions was greatest at 7 a.m.,

varying from 48 percent in the winter to 59 percent in

the fall. Mean maximum mixing heights varied from 480

meters in December to 1,310 meters in June.

2. Air Quality and Reductions. Continuous monitoring

of carbon monoxide (CO) levels is provided by 11 stations

in the Region, with 8 stations providing continuous moni-

toring of photochemical oxidants. The highest 1972 CO

reading of 20 parts per million (ppm) (compared to the

national standard of 9 ppm) was recorded at the CAMP

station in the District of Columbia. Oxidant readings of

0.20 ppm, compared to the national standard of 0.08 ppm,

were recorded at the Argyle Sligo Airmon 5 station in

592

Silver Spring, Maryland, and at the Airmon 4 station in

Hyattsville, Maryland. The Air Quality Planning Com-

mittee, after review of air quality data throughout the

Region, recommended these values be uniformly used as

a basis for development of the Region’s strategies by the

District of Columbia, Virginia, and Maryland.

Emission reductions of 55.5 percent for CO using the

rollback technique and 67 percent for hydrocarbons (based

on the conversion curve in Appendix J of 40 CFR 51) were

determined by the jurisdictions as necessary to meet the

national ambient air quality standards. Since significantly

greater emission reductions are required for HC, the con-

trol measures proposed to attain the oxidant standard will

be more than sufficient to attain the CO standard. For a

further discussion, see the Technical Support Document

for the National Capital Transportation Control Plan,

October 1973 (hereafter referred to as the Technical Sup-

port Document), which is available for public inspection

at the EPA Region III Air Programs Branch, Curtis Build-

ing, 6th and Walnut Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19106, and at the Freedom of Information Center, EPA,

Room W232, 401 M Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.

Oxidant readings for this past summer, not yet officially

reported to or verified by EPA, will very possibly be equal

to or higher than the maximum readings obtained to date.

If this proves to be the case, a plan revision calling for

additional reduction measures will be required.

Since 1972 was the year in which the high readings for

HC and CO were taken, emissions for that year have been

calculated in order to determine the total degree of control

required.

Emissions of hydrocarbons vary considerably during the

day, and the rush hours account for a major amount of

emissions due to the contribution of motor vehicles. Hence,

the HC emission inventories and strategy effects were de-

termined for this peak period, 6-9 a.m., although most of

the strategies approved or promulgated today will reduce

emissions throughout the day.

The local Air Quality Planning Committee’s conclusion

is that emissions of hydrocarbons in the Region between

593

6 a.m. and 9 a.m. during 1972 amounted to 63.3 tons.

Emissions of carbon monoxide in the eight-hour period

from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. during that same year amounted to

1133 tons.

THE NATIONAL CAPITAL TRANSPORTATION CONTROL PLAN

1. Background and origin. The transportation control

measures contained in this plan are based as much as

possible on measures suggested by the three affected local

jurisdictions. In particular, no measures to reduce vehicle

miles traveled (VMT) are included which did not originate

from suggestions made by the States or by the District of

Columbia, except for the requirement to review the con-

struction of certain parking facilities.

The submissions from each of the three local jurisdic-

tions (including the supplemental submissions) call for

annual emission testing of all light duty vehicles, estab-

lishment of a computer car pool matching system, and the

substantial expansion of bus service. The latter will occur

through the expansion of the existing fleet size, establish-

ment of an extensive network of exclusive bus lanes, and

the addition of new routes, together with such amenities

as shelters and more fringe parking lots. In addition, all

employers and all commercial lots in areas served by mass

transit will be required to charge commuters by automo-

bile the prevailing commercial rate plus a two dollar per

day Mass Transit Incentive, and on-street parking by com-

muters in these same areas will be restricted. Increased

controls on stationary sources of hydrocarbon emissions

were also called for. In addition, the District originally

proposed and Virginia took credit for a ban on deliveries

by gasoline-powered trucks during about half the daylight

hours. Finally, the plans assumed that EPA-imposed re-

strictions on ground operations of aircraft at Dulles and

National airporis would lead to a further emission reduc-

tion. For a further discussion of the three state submis-

sions, see the Evaluation Reports prepared by EPA for

each of them. These are available for inspection at the

e adresses listed above for the Technica] Support Document.

594

The EPA proposals published in the FEDERAL REGISTER

on August 2, 1973, discussed these state measures, and

in certain instances language was proposed to give the

state strategies the necessary regulatory form. The Clean

Air Act, however, requires that before an extension may

be granted to a Region its plans must apply all meas-

ures to reduce emissions which are “reasonably avail-

able.” These included the retrofit of 1971-74 fleet vehicles

with oxidizing catalysts, and the retrofit of older vehicles

with a relatively inexpensive emission control device

known as VSAD (Vacuum Spark Advance Disconnect).

As contingency measures, the preconstruction review of

all new parking lots to determine their impact on air

quality and a reduction in off-street parking spaces were

proposed for implementation only if the Mass Transit

Incentive was not enacted. Where necessary, additional

measures for the control of emissions from stationary

sources were also proposed to cure minor technical de-

ficiencies in the local plans.

2. Summary of public comments. Three days of public

hearings were held on the proposed plans for the Na-

tional Capital Interstate Region. In all seventy-nine per-

sons and organizations gave testimony. In addition, nu-

merous written comments were received from private citi-

zens, citizen groups, environmental organizations, trade

associations, private industry, and governmental entities.

HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE RESTRAINTS

Criticism of the proposed ban on heavy duty gasoline

powered trucks during the morning rush hours was es-

pecially pointed. It was argued that the emission re-

duction that would be achieved by imposition of the ban

did not justify the extensive social and economic dis-

ruption that would result and that disruption to the

construction schedule of the METRO system might re-

sult if the ban were imposed. Numerous practical diffi-

culties were raised by the affected industries which would

require an unwieldy exemption list and render enforce-

ment very difficult. The testimony favored the substitu-

595

tion of heavy duty retrofit in place of an outright ban

on heavy > fe vehicle during rush hour periods. EPA

agrees that in the D.C. area, which is heavily serviced

oriented, a ban on heavy duty vehicles would, of necessity

lead to many legitimate exemptions. Therefore, EPA has

decided that a retrofit strategy would be more appropriate

and would assure that emission reductions needed for this

category of vehicles would be attained.

MASS TRANSIT INCENTIVE SURCHARGE

Comments concerning approval of the proposed two-

dollar Mass Transit Incentive Surcharge on all day park-

ing were mixed, but the majority were in opposition.

Opposition from downtown businessmen was vigorous.

Concern was expressed that the incentive would penalize

central business district (CBD) businesses, would fur-

ther hamper an already struggling downtown area, and

would contribute heavily to relocation of businesses to

suburban areas. However. much of the criticism appears

to be based on the misimpression that the Mass Transit

Incentive Surcharge would be levied only in the District

of Columbia, that it would be imposed on shoppers, and

that it would be imposed before adequate mass transit

was available. In fact, the incentive will be applied only

to long-term commuter parking (not shoppers), will be

applied uniformly among the jurisdictions and will not be

applied until adequate mass transit is available.

Also there were claims that the surcharge was a “com-

muter-tax.” However, it is not the purpose or effect of

this measure to raise revenue for one jurisdiction at the

expense of others. The surcharge will apply to all com-

muters to areas adequately served by mass transit, wher-

ever they come from, and will be applied not only in

certain areas of the District, but in a significant num-

ber of employment centers outside it. All revenues from

the surcharge will be used to expand mass transit, which

will be to the benefit of the Region as a whole.

Comments in the Maryland hearing asserted that the

outer suburbs would be unfairly burdened by the Mass

Transit Incentive Surcharge because there are few, if

596

any, mass transit lines in existence or proposed that run

to these areas. However, only those areas adequately

served by mass transit will be affected, and in addition

those in outer suburbs can greately mitigate any adverse

impact either by car pooling or park and ride facilities.

Despite the objections raised, EPA agrees with the

three lead jurisdictions that strong negative disincentives

as well as positive incentives are necessary to divert au-

tomobile drivers to mass transit. In fact, this is the

premise on which the entire transportation portion of the

plans submitted by the jurisdictions is based upon.

Several comments were received suggesting that the

revenues obtained from the incentive should be spent on

improvements of mass transit. This is consistent with the

plans for use of the revenues.

It was also suggested that mass transit improvements

could be facilitated by an immediate phase-in of the Mass

Transit Incentive Surcharge applied throughout the en-

tire AQCR. This alternate proposal would impose an

immediate phase-in of a smaller charge which would be

applied to all parking facilities area-wide without regard

to mass transit service. The proceeds from the charge

would be used to purchase and subsidize mass transit.

The charge would increase in amount as mass transit

becomes more readily available. EPA feels the phased-in

approach has merit.

Finally, most of the written comments submitted by

the local business community included pleas that the

community should be free to propose and enact an alter-

native program. However, none of the comments offered

suggestions other than to increase use of carpools, a

program which was part of the proposed plan. EPA en-

courages the communities affected to establish programs

which would achieve similar or greater emission reduc-

tions than the programs being approved today. If such

programs in proper regulatory form and of adequate

stringency are submitted to EPA, they will be approved

and the corresponding portions of EPA’s plan will be

descinded.

The Environmental Protection Agency also found merit

in the suggestions that handicapped persons should be

Pees Ca as

ee ee ee

597

exempt from the incentive, and EPA has incorporated

these suggestions in this promulgation.

PARKING RESTRICTIONS

Three types of parking restrictions were discussed in

the comments received by EPA: the on-street parking

restrictions, the off-street space reduction contingency

regulation proposed by EPA, and parking in Federai

facilities. ,

As to on-street parking, several citizen groups in the

District of Columbia emphasized that parking restriction

provision proposed by the local jurisdictions are essential

to the effectiveness of the Plan, but that the proposed pro-

visions lacked sufficient detail. There were comments that

on-street parking should be prohibited from heavily

traveled arterials, and that a permit system for residents

should be included. In fact, the plan proposed by the Dis-

trict of Columbia which is being approved in this action

includes provisions similar to those advocated in the public

comments.

With respect to the EPA proposal to reduce available

off-street parking spaces as an alternative strategy busi-

nesses were opposed to any restrictions of available park-

ing on company property. The State of Maryland com-

mented that they had no authority to require local juris-

dictions to reduce the number of parking spaces. The

parking management groups questioned EPA’s authority

to impose parking restrictions. In both cases, EPA be-

lieves its legal authority adequately supports the pro-

posed contingency measure. However, other groups feared

that commuters would utilize all available spaces, leaving

few spaces for shoppers, if the proposal were implemented.

Partly due to this last point, and since subsequent studies

have shown that a much greater space reduction than

proposed in the areas affected would be necessary .0

achieve results similar to the surcharge, EPA has dropped

the contingency proposal for parking space reduction.

Several comments suggested that increasing the fine

for parking violations and enforcing the existing restric-

598

tions on on-street parking more strictly would also aid

any on-street parking reduction plan. EPA encourages

the local jurisdictions to continue to study these recom-

mendations.

Much public testimony was received concerning the

issue of Federal parking. The comments were nearly

unanimous that in order for any parking strategy to be

effective, the full cooperation of the D.C. area’s largest

single employer, the Federal Government, would be neces-

sary. Many persons suggested that if controls were not

placed on Federal employee parking, private sector per-

sonnel could not be expected to submit to regulation. The

Federal Government agrees, and recognizes its responsi-

bilities to the National Capital area. Such controls were

contained in the EPA proposal, and are now being

promulgated.

Several comments suggested that night employees be

exempted from parking restrictions for safety and other

reasons. Since the plan is designed to control emissions

during daylight hours because of the nature of smog

formation, control over these personnel is not necessary

for air quality purposes, and EPA has made provisions

in this promulgation for such an exemption,

MASS TRANSIT

Numerous comments were received on how mass transit

could be improved. Comments suggested fringe parking

systems, improved routing, bus lanes, dial-a-ride buses,

limited stop buses, reduction in fares, and staggered

working hours. The Washington Metropolitan Area

Transit Authority (WMATA) has expressed willingness

to work closely with EPA in considering each of these

measures. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble,

WMATA is committed to expanding its bus fleet as

quickly as possible and to initiating new service lines.

Exclusive bus lanes were proposed by the local jurisdic-

tions, and are being approved in this promulgation,

WMATA has singled out staggered working hours as

being an effective aid to more efficient use of mass transit.

EPA and GSA are currently studying the feasibility of

working hours and four day work weeks for

Federal employees.

There was universal support for the proposed com-

puterized car pool matching system. The Metropolitan

Washington Board of Trade, with the assistance of the

Council of Government, has independently initiated a pro-

gram to promote car pools among private industry. The

Board is currently holding a series of workshops with

employers explaining car pool techniques, has made avail-

able information, experts, and computer time to assist

in establishing car pool programs.

COMMUTER RAIL

Numerous citizen groups pointed to the desirability of

a commuter rail system for the D.C. area. EPA

nizes that commuter rail systems are quite functional

in other metropolitan areas and that a rail system could

be an attractive transportation alternative. However,

implementation of such a system area wide is fraught

with practical difficulties, not the least of which is the

fact that the area is fully committed to heavily sub-

sidizing the METRO rapid rail system. None of the

three jurisdictions considered commuter rail in their

plans, and EPA has not had sufficient time before this

promulgation to adequately study the feasibility for com-

muter rail for the D.C. area. Thus, no provision is made

for commuter rail in this promulgation. Nevertheless,

EPA will continue to support all feasible transportation

alternatives and encourages the three jurisdictions to

study and promote the development of a commuter rail

system in addition to METRO.

RETROFIT PROPOSALS

Comments received on the VSAD retrofit for pre-1968

light duty vehicles and the catalytic retrofit for 1971-74

fleet vehicles centered around the availability of tech-

nology and the economic justification of the retrofits in

600

light of the relatively small reduction in emissions that

would be achieved area wide. However, the reductions

for each vehicle retrofitted are substantial. EPA has

discussed these comments in the General Preamble to the

Transportation Control Plans in the November 6, 1973,

FEDERAL REGISTER (38 FR 30631).

The State of Maryland objected to imposition of retro-

fits on used fleet vehicles because EPA has granted new

vehicles a one year delay of the effective date of the

emission standards. Since the regulation would not be-

come effective until May 31, 1977, EPA does not believe

imposition of the regulation will be in fact inequitable.

Testimony from classic and antique car collectors in-

dicated that such cars are well maintained and rarely

used, and that imposition of retrofit devices would re-

duce their historic value. These regulations now provide

for exemption from retrofit and inspection requirements

for classic and antique vehicles.

Maryland also stated that VSAD retrofit does not re-

duce emissions as claimed and that the retrofit could

cause engine damage. Based on the results of tests and

on the California experience it is the EPA’s position that

this is not the case for the model years covered in these

regulations, and therefore, EPA is promulgating a retro-

fit strategy. However, the regulation allows the jurisdic-

tions to require installation of any alternative device

which achieves reductions equivalent to VSAD.

Dry CLEANING VAPOR CONTROLS

Considerable confusion was evidenced by the public

comments concerning control of hydrocarbon vapors from

dry cleaning processes. It was EPA’s intention to pro-

pose the equivalent of Los Angeles’ Rule 66, a well-es-

tablished procedure. Comments from the industry in-

dicated preference for the Ruie 66 approach rather than

the proposed regulation. The proposed regulation has been

modified to conform to these suggestions.

601

BICYCLE ROUTES

Comments from area bicyclists emphasized three ma-

jor topics. First, a strategy encouraging the use of bi-

cycles as a mode of commuter travel should be adopted.

Second, any system to encourage bicycle usage must pro-

tect bicyclists from automobiles. Third, bicycles should

be safe from theft while parked. The local jurisdictions

appeared willing to implement a network of bicycle routes.

Based on the comments received, EPA is promulgating

a regulation which will institute a network of commuter

bikeways, thereby offering commuters another alternative

mode of transit. The regulation will also assure safe

parking for bicycles.

LAND USE MEASURES

Written and oral comments urged EPA to become

more involved in land use in the D.C. area. EPA be-

lieves that changes in land use patterns are the most

effective ways of controlling air pollution, and that no

lasting solution of the pollution problem is possible with-

out them. In the short run, such measures can contribute

to VMT reduction by making growth of automobile traf-

fic more difficult. For this reason, and as a start toward

the long-term changes in land use that will be necessary,

a measure providing for the pre-construction review of

parking lots has been included in this plan. Further

review of major new construction projects will be pro-

vided by “indirect source” regulations which EPA is

under a court order to promulgate by December 15, 1973.

These regulations were proposed October 30, 1973 (38

FR 29893).

INSPECTION /MAINTENANCE

Unanimous support for inspection/maintenance pro-

grams confirmed the feasibilty and acceptability of these

proposed measures.

602

THE CONTENT OF THE PLAN

1. General. The measures approved and promulgated

today may be divided into six categories, corresponding to

the order in which the jurisdictions and in some cases,

EPA decided to apply them.

(1) The Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program for

new vehicles, which accounts for much of the emission

reduction achieve. | sic}

(2) Additional controls on statutory source emissions.

Both the State and EPA have extensive experience with

such measures, and it can be predicted with confidence

that none of them will cause significant economic or social

disruption, even though some burdens on individual busi-

nesses may result.

(3) The establishment of a system for the annual

emissions testing of automobiles and medium-duty ve-

hicles, with provisions for the necessary corrective main-

tenance to be performed on those which fail. This is a

measure that can easily be incorporated into a present

annual safety inspection. Inspection/Maintenance pro-

grams are being adopted in virtually all transportation

control plans.

(4) Moderate VMT reduction measures, resulting

from such steps as the establishment of bus and bicycle

lanes on existing road space, the review of new parking

lots, and measures to encourage car pooling and to dis-

courage commuter travel by automobile. These measures

not only contribute directly to cleaning the air, but they

also encourage more effective land use, the revival of

urban centers, and reduced energy consumption. They

are essential to the long-term maintenance of air quality

standards.

(5) The reductions achievable from control of aircraft

operations at Dulles and National Airports.

(6) EPA looked to the reductions that could be achieved

by installing (or “retrofitting”’) emission control devices

on existing vehicles. The more expensive of these devices

—catalytic converters—are being reserved for fleet ve-

hicles and trucks, which are generally owned by those

who can better afford the expense. The one retrofit of

pre-1968 vehicles that is being promulgated ie relatively

inexpensive and achieves large emission reductions when

compared to its cost. In addition, to ensure that emis-

sion reductions from heavy-duty gasoline powered vehicles

are achieved, a regulation is being promulgated which

established [sic] a heavy-duty retrofit program.

2. The specific measures. The specific measures con-

tained in this plan, listed in the order indicated by the

preceding discussion, are as follows:

Vapor Recovery from Gasoline Loading and Sales. At

the present the system by which gasoline is first loaded

into the storage tanks at the filling stations and then

loaded into individual vehicles gives rise to very significant

evaporative emissions of hydrocarbons at the points of

transfer. The regulations being promulgated call for at

least 90 percent recovery of vapors displaced under [sic]

underground storage tanks are refilled and 90 percent re-

covery of vapors displaced when vehicular tanks are re-

filled. All three jurisdictions proposed to control such

emissions as part of their transportation control plans.

However, the necessary regulations have not yet been

adopted. Accordingly, the Administrator is promulgating

regulations for all three portions of the Region to give

effect to the local strategies. When equivalent local reg-

ulations are adopted and submitted, EPA will rescind

the regulations promulgated today. The adopted local

regulations submitted may be in a form different from

the regulations promulgated today, so long as equivalent

emission reductions are achieved.

Use of Solvents in Dry Cleaning. Several of the sol-

vents used at present in dry cleaning of clothes con-

tribute to the formation of photochemical oxidants when

they evaporate. These emissions can be controlled either

by the use of nonreactive solvents or by appropriate meas-

ures to control evaporative emissions. The regulations

being promulgated is in a form which corresponds to the

controls imposed by Los Angeles County Rule 66. It pro-

vides for at least 85 percent control of emissions from

these facilities. All three jurisdictions included a meas-

604

ure to control such emissions in their plans, and the EPA

regulation promulgated today will give this strategy the

required regulatory form. When equivalent local regula-

tions are adopted and submitted, EPA will rescind the

regulations promulgated today. It should be noted that

the adopted regulations submitted may be in a form

different from the regulations promulgated today, so long

as equivalent emission reductions are achieved.

Inspection and Maintenance of Light and Medium Duty

Vehicles. All three jurisdictions proposed the annual emis-

sion testing of light duty vehicles (those weighing under

6,000 pounds). The District of Columbia and Maryland

systems will require all vehicles to be tested annually by

“loaded” (dynamometer) test—the most effective form of

inspection—and would require annual inspectiou for com-

mercial vehicles. The Maryland plan did not set forth

the program in much detail. The Virginia plan contains

an “idle” test program.

The Administrator is approving in full the District of

Columbia and Virginia programs for inspection and main-

tenance, and is promulgating a regulation designed to es-

tablish a similar program in the Maryland portion of the

Region.

In addition, the Administrator has determined that

medium duty vehicles (6,000-10,000 pounds gross weight)

use engines similar to those used in light duty vehicles

and can accordingly be inspected under the same pro-

gram. Regulations are, therefore, being promulgated to

subject such vehicles to inspection in all three parts of

the Region.

Aircraft Ground Operations Control. Each of the three

local plans claimed hydrocarbon emission reductions of

50 percent resulting from modifications of aircraft

ground operating procedures. EPA is granting partial

credit for this strategy based upon the assumption that

operating standards will be effective by 1977. EPA cal-

culations indicate that hydrocarbon reductions of 36 and

31 percent are achievable at National Airport and Dulles

Airport respectively, using presently feasible ground con-

trol measures. The period during which ground operat-

605

ing procedures to reduce emissions can be employed is a

function of aircraft taxi time and the length of delays

prior to departure. These times are less at Dulles and

National airports than at most other major airports.

Thus, a 50 percent reduction, while perhaps achievable

at airports which have iong delays and long taxi times,

is not possible for the two local airports. In addition,

since four engine commercial aircraft do not operate out

of National Airport, credit cannot be taken at that air-

port for the large emission reductions which would re-

sult from a shutdown of two of the engines during delays

and taxi-in periods. The EPA study from which the 50

percent emission reduction figure was derived assumed

the use of some operating procedures that are uo longer

considered feasible because of either safety or practical

reasons.

The present projected emission reductions for Dulles

and National Airports result from procedures which do

not involve any sacrifice in safety. Comments received at

public hearings indicate that these procedures are feasible

and, in fact, are already in use by some airlines on a

pilot-option basis. Presently, an EPA/FAA demonstra-

tion project is being conducted to determine the validity

of calculated emission reductions. If the results show

that reasonable and safe ground operating procedures do

reduce emission levels, the Administrator will propose

regulations for the implementation of each procedure.

Expansion of Bus Lanes. The conversion of road space

to the exclusive use of buses or car pools is an essential

VMT reduction measure. By reducing the amount of road

space available to automobiles, driving tends to be dis-

couraged, while such lanes will make more efficient mass

transit possible to satisfy the displaced travel demand.

Each of the three jurisdictions in the Region submitted a

list of corridors it proposed to convert to the exclusive

use of buses. The Administrator is approving these loca-

tions and is promulgating supplementary requirements to

ensure that such lanes are set aside on schedule.

Under the local strategies approved today, two ex-

clusive bus lanes—one inbound lane during the morning

696

peak period, and one outbound lane during the evening

peak period—would be established along the following

corridors:

a. U.S. Route 50 from New Carrollton, Maryland to

the Washington CBD.

b. Pennsylvania Avenue and Maryland Route 4 from

Andrews Air Force Base to the CBD.

ce. South Capital Street from Bolling Air Force Base

to Independence Avenue.

d. George Washington Parkway—Washington Street

—Jefferson Davis Highway from Fort Hunt to National

Airport.

e. U.S. Route 50 from Seven Corners to the CBD.

f. Dulles Access Road—Virginia 123—George Wash-

ington Memorial Parkway from the Reston Interchange

to the CBD.

g. Georgia Avenue—13th Street from the Maryland

boundary to the CBD.

h. U.S. Route 240 from Old Georgetown Road to Sheri-

dan Circle.

i. New Hampshire Avenue from U.S. Route 29 to

Grant Circle.

The addition of bus lanes in these corridors will com-

plement the existing system of bus lanes and will help

assure that an extensive network will be implemented.

Expansion of Bus Transit System. An essential ele-

ment of any transportation control plan for the National

Capital Area is improved mass transit. Accordingly, each

of the three plans proposed the area wide addition of

750 buses to the existing fleet. It will be necessary to ex-

pand the existing bus fleet to transport those commuters

who no longer intend to use the automobile to drive to

work. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Au-

thority (WMATA) has already instituted a five-year pro-

gram that was to effect a modest increase in fleet size

and a retirement of the oldest buses in the current fleet.

WMATA now plans to modify their original program to

allow a more rapid increase in fleet size to meet this

need. The increase will be gained by retaining some of

the older, but serviceable buses (e.g., air-conditioned,

good working order) that had been programed for retire-

ment. When the Metro Rapid Rai! System comes into

607

operation, the new buses will also be used to provide the

cross-town or suburb-to-suburb service that Metro will

not provide, and to provide feeder routes to Metro sta-

tions.

The following chart shows WMATA’s current antici-

pated timetable for increasing the fleet size through

1977, and a modified timetable which could be imple-

mented to increase fleet size to meet the needs of the

transportation plans. In addition, the 369 buses currently

planned for retirement by June, 1974, could be retained

to augment further the fleet size should it become neces-

sary.

New buses 5-year plan Modified plan Annual net

Date delivered retirement retirement increase Fleet size

1973 1,779

June, 1974 620 508 369 251 2,030

December, 1974 176 150 0 175 2,205

December, 1975 175 150 0 175 2,380

1977 150 150 0 150 2,630

751

Of the 251 net increase in buses for 1974, approxi-

mately 100 buses will be used to augment existing service

lines, and the remaining (approximately 150) buses will

be deployed on new lines, including cross-city and cross-

county routes.

In addition to an increase in the size of bus fleets,

WMATA is also committed to encouraging bus ridership.

Additional phone lines have been installed, and a com-

puterized phone route service is scheduled for completion

by June, 1974. New maps are in final printing. EPA en-

courages WMATA to make schedules and maps as widely

available as possible, for example in shopping areas, gov-

ernment buildings, and major employment centers.

This promulgation contains a compliance schedule which

is primarily intended to insure that the necessary com-

mitments for funding will be forthcoming from the af-

fected jurisdictions in a timely manner.

Elimination of Free Commuter Parking and Mass

Transit Incentive. Commuter travel, since it repeats it-

608

self predictably from day to day, is the segment of daily

travel most easily shifted to car pools or other forms of

mass transit.

One way to provide an adequate incentive for em-

ployees to switch to mass transit commuting is by an

increase in the parking charge over and above the cur-

rent rate to encourage use of mass transit by commuters.

This incentive could promote use of mass transit still

more if the revenues from it were channelled back to

the mass transit system. The National Capital plan in-

cludes such a provision.

The plans submitted by the three jurisdictions and

supporting documents suggested that employers in areas

adequately served by mass transit should eliminate free

parking for their employees, and also impose an additional

two dollar per day surcharge that would be used to sub-

sidize mass transit. The plans suggested that EPA should

take action to impose such a rate on the Federal Gov-

ernment, and that the three jurisdictions would then

impose it on private employers and on commercial lots.

Accordingly, EPA is today promulgating regulations

that would impose on the Federal establishments com-

mercial-type charges plus the Mass Transit Incentive

Surcharge that the local jurisdictions have requested

thereby eliminating free parking for Federal employees

as suggested in the local plans. The surcharge and the

commercial rate requirements are part of the same pack-

age; neither will be imposed apart from the other. These

strategies will take effect in 1975 and have been worked

out with the cooperation of the General Services Admin-

istration. They will apply to all agencies of the executive,

legislative, and judicial branches of government. The Ad-

ministrator is also approving the commitments of the

three local jurisdictions to impose the same obligations

on private employers and on commercial parking lots,

and is promulgating enforceable compliance schedules to

make sure that this is done.

Defining the areas where the commercial rates and

surcharges will apply has been a difficult task. The gen-

eral approach taken by EPA is consistent with the re-

609

gional strategy of applying the parking measures only in

employment areas which are adequately served by mass

transit at present, or which are capable of being ade-

quately served by mass transit by mid-1975. The areas

listed below are those which, in the best judgment of

EPA, meet this test.

District of Columbia Central Business District

Federal Triangle Area

Capitol Hill Area

Southwest Mall—Waterside Mall Area

Frienc ip Heights Area

Prince Georges Plaza Area

Downtown Silver Spring Area

National Institute of Health Corridor Area

Rosslyn Area

Crystal City Area

Pentagon

Tyson’s Corner Area

Downtown Alexandria.

The concept of areas adequately served by mass transit

can be approached in several ways. In order to permit

the local jurisdictions as much latitude as possible in the

plan, the Administrator will allow each jurisdiction to

delete or add areas, provided that an affirmative show-

ing is made to the Administrator that such changes are

appropriate and that no other areas are capable of being

considered adequately served. Any such substitution or

affirmative showing shall be submitted no later than

June 30, 1974. By June 30, 1974, each jurisdiction will

be required to submit exact definitions or boundaries of

the areas included on the above list or the alternate areas

selected. The three jurisdictions must conduct a coordi-

nated study of the entire Region defining precisely the

areas covered. The list of areas must be updated at least

once per year beginning June 30, 1975. Additional areas

must be included as mass transit service is increased,

unless the jurisdiction can affirmatively demonstrate that

it is impossible for any additional areas to be included.

610

It must be emphasized that the commercial rates and

Mass Transit Incentive will not go into effect until mass

transit has been significantly expanded by the transit im-

provement measures outlined above. Therefore, it is ex-

pected that these measures will become effective on or

about June 30, 1975. However, if the bus system expan-

sion does not proceed substantially as planned, the Ad-

ministrator may adjust the effective date of the measures

to coincide with mass transit development. In fact, the

Mass Transit Incentive Surcharge approved in this final

promulgation embodies this concept by proceeding on a

phased implementation schedule. The original proposals

by the jurisdictions included a strategy for the imposi-

tion of a $2.00 per day surcharge on commuter parking

beginning in 1975. In order to be assured that mass

transit will be available to provide the alternate mode of

travel for commuters displaced by the surcharge and to

allow commuters time to adopt other transit modes,

EPA has modified the schedule for imposition of the

Mass Transit Incentive Surcharge to proceed on a phased

implementation schedule.

The new schedule has been based on WMATA’s most

recent anticipated timetable for growth of its fleet. The

Mass Transit Incentive Surcharge would initially be set

at $0.50 per day and would increase up to $2.00 per day

on the following schedule:

Mass transit

incentive surcharge

Effective date: (per day per space)

June 30, 1975 $0.50

Jan. 1, 1976 1.00

June 30, 1976 1.50

Jan. 1, 1977 2.00

Any net revenues collected from the Mass Transit In-

centive Surcharge on commercial, governmental and pri-

vate parking facilities will be used for the further ex-

pansion or operation of the mass transit system.

611

The commercial rates and surcharge will be imposed

only on those who park for six (6) or more hours at a

time. It should accordingly have little or no adverse effect

on short term parking by shoppers and on the economic

health of existing business districts such as downtown

Washington, but should instead operate almost exclu-

sively to change commuting habits.

One other topic deserves discussion under this section.

This is the off-street parking space reduction which was

proposed as a contingency to the surcharge. Testimony

received asserted that if spaces were reduced commuters

would take up all available spaces leaving few, if any,

for shoppers. Therefore, this strategy would have little

effect on commuter trips while shoppers would be ad-

versely affected. Also studies conducted by Pratt and

Associates for COG and EPA have indicated that, in or-

der to achieve VMT reduction similar to that expected

by the imposition of the surcharge, a parking space re-

duction much larger than the 10-15 percent proposed

would be necessary.

Finally, these strategies provide exemption for handi-

capped persons.

On-Street Parking Restrictions. To make the parking

regulation strategies described above complete, each of

the three local jurisdictions submitted measures to EPA

that would bar on-street parking by commuters in the

areas where the surcharge is in effect. In addition, the

District of Columbia propesed to restrict on-street park-

ing on major arterial streets and proposed to institute a

permit system so that available on-street spaces would

be used by residents of the neighborhood rather than by

commuters. These measures are being approved by the

Administrator subject, in the cases of Virginia and the

District of Columbia, to compliance schedules to correct

technical deficiencies in the strategy.

Computerized Car Pooling. The strategies described

above can be expected to cause a considerable shift to

car pool commuting among employees. Individual auto-

mobiles, which are designed to carry four to six persons

and which currently carry an average of approximately

612

1.4 persons per trip in the Region, represent the largest

pool of unused transit capacity available. Car pooling,

properly administered, could result in a great VMT reduc-

tion.

Each of the three local jurisdictions suggested the es-

tablishment of a computer-aided car pool matching sys-

tem to assist and encourage the shift to car pools. This

portion of the District of Columbia, Maryland and Vir-

ginia plans is being approved in full.

Bicycle Lanes. As a result of comments received at the

public hearings, the Administrator is including regula-

tions establishing a bicycle lane-bicycle rack strategy. A

safe and widespread system to encourage bicycle usage

by present users of motor vehicles has the potential of

decreasing area wide VMT by about one percent. Reduc-

tion in this range can be achieved by diverting 12-25

.percent of urban work trips of less than 4 miles to bicycle

commuting from auto commuting. This estimate takes no

account of the potential for also shifting other categories

of trips under four miles (such as recreational or shop-

ping trips) to bicycles. To accomplish this result the regu-

lation requires the jurisdictions to establish a bicycle

lane network of no less than 180 miles area wide by July

1, 1976. Such a network should provide feeder routes to

Metro and railroad stations, and should link all major

residential sections of the city with centers of employ-

ment, as well as major educational institutions and com-

mercial centers.

The bicycle lane network will be implemented follow-

ing a comprehensive study of all aspects of present and

potential bicycle usage. The study will determine the best

locations for bicycle routes, both on-street and off-street,

and will examine the costs of the bicycle land and rack

network.

A pilot bicycle route from Key Bridge past the White

House and the U.S. Capitol to Pennsylvania Avenue and

Alabama Avenue, §.E. will be established prior to April

1, 1974. An evaluation of this route shall be included in

the comprehensive study. This route was chosen because

it provides direct access to the Central Business District

613

from areas of the city where present bicycle use is high,

and because it will enable connection with Virginia

routes.

A system of bicycle racks will be required by June 1,

1975. Bicycle racks or other safe storage facilities are an

essential part of a bicycle plan. Without them, the threat

of theft may deter potential riders from using even the

most extensive bicycle lane network. The regulations re-

quire that any employer, building, or facility providing

motor vehicle parking space must also provide bicycle

parking in an equitable ratio: 1 bicycle parking space

capable of storing 12 bicycles in a rack for every 75 motor

vehicle parking spaces. Racks should be located to be safe

from both motor vehicle traffic and theft. It would be

desirable that outdoor racks be sheltered by a roof and

enclosed for adequate security.

The inspection and maintenance program, which will

be run as part of the prese annual safety inspection

program, is expected to cost an average of $2 per vehicle

inspected. Maintenance on vehicles that fail a first test

so that they can pass a retest will cost an average of

$3 above normal maintenance costs. The additional main-

tenance which should result from this program will also

improve the fuel economy of the inspected vehicles.

The controls on gasoline transfer will save energy as

well as reduce emissions, since the gasoline that would

otherwise have evaporated will be collected by the control

mechanism and be put back into the distribution system.

These controls are expected to conserve approximately

four million gallons of gasoline per year. Controls on air-

craft ground operations can also be expected to save

energy.

The various retrofit measures vary in expense, from

$20 for a VSAD system to an estimated $130 for a cata-

lytic converter. Although such devices are effective in re-

ducing emissions, there are no significant secondary bene-

fits from their installation except to avoid the need for

less desirable alternatives. The most costly of these de-

vices—the catalytic converter—will be reserved for use

on fleet vehicles and taxicabs.

614

In some instances, as noted above, measures have been

promulgated that were not formally proposed as regula-

tions.

Parking Review. In all three jurisdictions, EPA pro-

posed, as a contingency measure, a regulation for the

review of new parking facilities to determine whether

they would be consistent with the plan’s VMT reduction

goals. The public comments received stated that this

measure was a “reasonably available alternative” meas-

ure and therefore should be promulgated not as a con-

tingency but for general applicability. EPA agreed with

the comments received, and intended to include this regu-

lation as part of this action. However, in response to a

court order this regulation was promulgated on Novem-

ber 12, 1973 (38 FR 31536, November 15, 1973). The

regulation as promulgated requires review of all parking

facilities over 250 spaces capacity prior to construction

or modification.

Since VMT reductions are calculated from a predicted

growth curve, and not simply from current levels, this

regulation will help reduce VMT levels by reducing the

future supply of parking on which future VMT growth

would depend.

Although review of new highways was not proposed by

any of the jurisdictions, there was substantial public

comment on the issue of highway construction. It should

be noted that Section 109(j) of the Federal Aid High-

way Act, as amended, 23 U.S.C. 109(j), requires any

Federal aid highway to be consistent with applicable im-

plementation plans under the Clean Air Act. The plan

for the Region is designed to provide a substantial VMT

reduction. Accordingly, if any new Federal aid highway

in the Region could be expected to lead to a VMT increase

or to interfere with the attainment or maintenance of air

— standards, it would not be consistent with this

plan.

Heavy Duty Vehicle Exclusion/Heavy Duty Vehicle

Retrofit. The District of Columbia proposed to effect a

50 percent reduction in heavy duty vehicle emissions by

banning all but specifically exempted deliveries from

615

6 a.m. to 9 a.m. This measure is disapproved because of

the practical enforcement problems presented in public

hearing testimony, because of the uncertain emissions

reduction credit that can be assumed in the absence of

precise definition of proposed exemptions (e.g., milk

trucks, postal service trucks, sanitation trucks), and be-

cause of lack of detail in the local proposal. As an al-

ternative measure, the possibility of installing appro-

priate retrofit devices on medium (6,000-10,000 pound,

GVW) and heavy duty vehicles, as proposed by the State

of Maryland and the Commonwealth of Virginia, has

been investigated. Preliminary results of a vehicle test

program, sponsored jointly by the EPA and the City of

New York, indicate that catalytic retrofit of medium

duty vehicles is indeed feasible, although application of

the same devices to heavy duty vehicles indicated prob-

lems of deterioration of the retrofit device and the ve-

hicle’s exhaust system. Since the jurisdictions have agreed

to participate in the ongoing test program, the Admin-

istrator has determined that catalytic retrofit will pro-

vide substantial reductions in both carbon monoxide and

hydrocarbon emissions for all medium duty vehicles which

are able to operate properly on unleaded 91 RON gaso-

line, and is promulgating such a regulation. In addition,

for those medium duty vehicles which are unable to

operate on 91 RON gasoline, an EGR-Airbleed system

will be required.

Air/Fuel Retrofit of Heavy Duty Gasoline Powered

Vehicles (greater than 10,000 pound GVW). Since the

test program sponsored jointly by the EPA and New

York City has suggested serious deterioration effects re-

sulting from the use of catalytic retrofit devices on heavy

duty gasoline powered vehicles, it is apparent that the

state-of-the-art is insufficiently advanced to permit appli-

cation of this control measure. However, the same test

program has demonstrated the significant emission re-

ductions which result from installation of air/fuel de-

vices, exhaust gas recirculation, or carburetor modifica-

tions on heavy duty vehicles. Accordingly, the Administra-

tor is promulgating a regulation which will require in-

616

stallation of appropriate noncatalytic retrofit devices on

all heavy duty gasoline powered vehicles. In the event

that the medium duty and heavy duty gasoline powered

vehicle retrofit programs do not achieve the reductions

anticipated, or the jurisdictions do not vigorously imple-

ment either programs, other control measures would

become necessary.

Catalytic Retrofit of Fleet Vehicles. Since the emission

reductions claimed by the jurisdictions for aircraft emis-

sions could not be allowed in full, other measures which

are “reasonably available” must be applied to meet the

standards by the statutory deadline of 1977. For this

reason, the Administrator is promulgating in essentially

the form proposed a regulation requiring the retrofit of

all light duty vehicles that are part of business or govern-

ment vehicle fleets. The use of such a catalyst will reduce

emissions by approximately 50 percent on each vehicle

retrofitted. Installation of these catalysts will begin in

mid-1976.

VSAD Retrofit of Pre-1968 Automobiles. Since the

emission reductions claimed by the jurisdictions for air-

craft emissions could not be allowed in full, it is necessary

for the Administrator to promulgate “reasonably avail-

able” measures to meet the standards by the 1977 dead-

line. For this reason, the Administrator is promulgating,

in essentially the form proposed, a regulation requiring

the installation of VSAD devices on pre-1968 vehicles.

The regulation has been modified to allow a jurisdiction

to use any other device which can be demonstrated to

achieve equivalent emission reductions on this class of

vehicles (namely 9 percent reduction in CO and 25 per-

cent reduction in HC). In addition, an exemption from

the requirements of this regulation is allowed for antique

or classic vehicles.

Monitoring and Reporting Regulation. This measure is

included in the final rulemaking for all three jurisdictions

to provide for monitoring the reductions that will result

from, the application of these regulations to mobile

sources. This reporting will allow EPA sufficient time to

evaluate the effectiveness of the measures included in this

617

plan. It will further provide the data upon which EPA

will determine if any modification of the measures is nec-

essary.

SUMMARY OF EXPECTED EMISSIONS REDUCTION FROM PLAN MEASURES

Hydrocarbons Carbon Monoxide

Tons Percent Tons Percent

eak Reduction eak Reduction

Base year emissions 63.3 1133

Total reductions required 42.4 632

Reductions from FMVCP 29.7 70 557 88

Stationary source emissions without control

strategy 14.3

Expected reductions from:

a. Dry cleaning vapor recovery 1.1 2.6

b. Gasoline handling vapor strategy 5.0 11.7

Mobile source emissions without control

strategy 19.3 576

Expected reductions from:

a. Transportation package 2.9 6.9 26 4.1

b. Inspection/maintenance 1.6 3.8 34 5.4

ce. VSAD retrofit 4 9 3 6

d. Catalytic retrofit of fleet automobiles 2 5 5 8

e. Truck retrofit program 5 1.2 20 3.1

f. Aircraft program 1.0 2.4

Total reductions 42.4 100.0 645 101.9

Emissions remaining 20.9 488

FINDINGS

The plan approved today applies a full range of the

emission controls that have been used in transportation

control plans for other areas of the country. The provi-

sions for stationary source control, inspection and main-

tenance, bus lanes, computer car pool matching, parking

lot review, and certain retrofits are common to many

plans. The provisions for special charges on commuter

parking is also being used in other heavily polluted areas

of the country such as Boston and in California.

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS

EPA, while recognizing that inconvenience to some in-

dividuals will necessarily result from the National Cap-

ital Area plan, believes that there will not be significant

618

economic or social disruption. In general, commuter travel

by single-passenger automobile will become much less

attractive as that mode of transportation loses many of

its present advantages. This, however, should not be seen

as a deliberate attempt by EPA to hinder and frustrate

the many individuals who presently rely upon the auto-

mobile to commute to and from work. The transportation

plan provides for alternative transit choices which, when

fully operational, will make commuting far easier than

it is today. In the long run, then, persons in the metro-

politan area should benefit from cleaner air, less vehicle

congestion and a more balanced system of transportation.

To achieve this result, the Region’s bus fleet will be

greatly expanded within the next few years and many

additional routes and service areas will be established.

The efficiency of the entire bus system will be further

improved by the new busline network. The 180 miles of

bicycle lanes will increase the attractiveness of travel

by bicycle. Car pooling will become significantly easier

as the computer-aided car pool matching system goes

into operation. And, in the near future, the new subway

system will have a very positive effect.

There will be other significant advantages to the plan

announced today. Recent events have made clear how

essential it is to economize on energy use. Transportation

at present accounts for over a quarter of the energy con-

sumed in this country. Automobiles consume three-

quarters of the energy used for transportation, or about

twenty percent of the total. Only about a quarter of the

energy consumed by an automobile engine does useful

work. ‘. ne rest is wasted. Indeed, even the energy used

to drive the vehicle is largely wasted in any functional

sense, since most American cars are far larger and

heavier than they need to be for their normal job of

moving one or two people around. Our present auto-based

transportation system using standard-sized cars moves

human beings about by moving two tons of metal along

with each of them. There can be no better place to begin

to end our exclusive reliance on the automobile than in

the cities, where this step will not only save energy, but

will also protect human health by cleaning up the air.

619

These measures are not expected to affect the shopping

centers of downtown Washington, since the most signif-

icant of them—the parking surcharge a ‘ the bus lanes

—will only affect those traveling during the commuting

hours and parking most of the day in one location.

The inspection and maintenance program, which will

be run as part of the present annual safety inspection

program, is expected to cost an average of $2 per vehicle

inspected. Maintenance on vehicles that fail a first test

so that they can pass a retest will cost an average of

$3 above normal maintenance costs. The additional main-

tenance which should result from this program will also

improve the fuel economy of the inspected vehicles.

The controls on gasoline transfer will save energy as

well as reduce emissions, since the gasoline that would

otherwise have evaporated will be collected by the control

mechanism and be put back into the distribution system.

These controls are expected to conserve approximately

11 thousand gallons of gasoline per day. Controls on air-

craft ground operations can also be expected to save en-

ergy.

The various retrofit measures vary in expense, from

$20 for a VSAD system to an estimated $130 for a

catalytic converter. Although such devices are effective

in reducing emissions, there are no significant secondary

benefits from their installation except to avoid the need

for less desirable alternatives. The most costly of these

devices—the catalytic converter—will be reserved for

use on fleet vehicles and taxicabs.

In some instances, as noted above, measures have been

promulgated that were not formally proposed as regula-

tions. This was done because of the requirement of the

court order that a plan applying al! “reasonably avail-

able” measures be promulgated for the Region without

further delay. EPA, however, invites public comment on

these and other aspects of today’s promulgation, and will

revise the plan if revision seems appropriate in the light

of the comments received. Comments should be submitted

no later than December 31, 1973, to the Transportation

Control Staff, Office of Air Programs, Room 937-W, En-

620

vironmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20460.

It is the desire of the Environmental Protection Agency

that the plan to attain and maintain the carbon monoxide

and photochemical oxidant standards in the National

Capital Interstate Air Quality Control Region be a Re-

gional plan devised and carried out by the affected local

jurisdictions or their representatives. The combination

of strategies approved and promulgated today to a great

extent form such plans. Furthermore, if the three local

jurisdictions submit additional transportation control

measures and these measures are approvable, portions of

this plan can be rescinded. It should be noted, however,

that this plan constitutes a final rulemaking and its pro-

visions are enforceable under the Clean Air Act.

(See. 110(c) and 301(a), Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.

1857c-5(c) and 1857(g).)

Dated: November 20, 1973.

RUSSELL E. TRAIN,

Administrator.

Subpart J of Part 52 of 40 CFR Chapter I is amended

as follows:

Subpart J—District of Columbia

1. In § 52.470 paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) are

revised to read as follows:

§ 54.470 Identification of plan.

@ * e _ ®

(c) Supplemental information was submitted on:

* * & @ *

(2) April 28, 1972, by the District of Columbia.

(3) April 19, July 9 and 16, 1973, by the District of

Columbia.

2. Section 52.472 is amended to read as follows:

621

§ 52.472 Approval status.

(a) With the exceptions set forth in this subpart, the

Administrator approves the District of Columbia’s plan

for the attainment and maintenance of the national

standards.

(b) With respect to the transportation control strate-

gies submitted on April 19, July 9, and July 16, 1973,

the Administrator approves the measures for parking

surcharge, car pool locator, vehicle inspection, express

bus lanes, increased bus fleet and service, elimination of

free parking by private employers, with exceptions set

forth in §§ 52.476, 52.483, 52.486, and 52.479.

(c) With respect to the transportation control strate-

gies submitted on April 19, July 9, and July 16, 1973,

the Administrator disapproves the strategies for heavy

duty vehicle exclusion, as set forth in §§ 52.474 and

52.483.

3. Section 52.474 is revised to read as follows:

§ 52.474 Legal authority.

(a) The requirements of § 51.11(c) are not met with

respect to the heavy duty vehicle restriction strategy be-

cause of lack of legal authority for the purposes claimed.

4. In Section 52.476 paragraphs (c) through (h) are

added to read as follows:

§ 52.476 Compliance schedules.

(c) With respect to transportation control strategies

submitted by the District of Columbia, the requirements

of § 51.15 are not fully met for the measures for parking

surcharge, elimination of free on-street commuter park-

ing, elimination of free employee parking, increased bus

fleet and service, and exclusive bus lanes. Provisions to

implement the requirements of § 51.15 are promulgated

in this section.

(d) With respect to the parking surcharge measure

approved in § 52.472:

(1) The District of Columbia shall no later than June

30, 1974, submit to the Administrator for his approval a

622

precise description of areas within the District of Colum-

bia which are at that time adequately served by mass

transit, and those areas which in the judgment of the Dis-

trict of Columbia will be adequately served by mass

transit by June 30, 1975. The documentation and policy

assumptions used to select these areas shall be included

with this submission.

(2) The District of Columbia shall by June 30, 1975,

and each succeeding year submit to the Administrator

for his approval a revised list of those areas which are

adequately served by mass transit. Additional areas must

be included as mass transit service is increased, unless

the District of Columbia can affirmatively demonstrate

that no additional areas can be included.

(3) The District of Columbia shall, no later than

October 1, 1974, submit to the Administrator legally

adopted regulations instituting the parking surcharge

on all long-term (6 hours) parking in all commercial

parking facilities (except to the extent they are used for

residential parking) and all facilities subject to §§ 52.476

(f) and 52.486 in those areas adequately served by mass

transit within the District of Columbia portion of the

National Capital Interstate AQCR. The parking sur-

charge shall be complemented and collected according to

the following schedule:

June 30, 1975-Dec. 31, 1975 $0.50

January 1, 1976-June 30, 1976 1.00

July 1, 1976-Dec. 31, 1976 1.50

January 1, 1977 2.00

All monies collected under this program shall be turned

over to the District of Columbia. All proceeds from this

program shall be used for the expansion and operation

of mass transit except for a reasonable amount for the

costs of administration and collection of the surcharge.

Any handicapped person who is unable to use mass transit

shall not be subject to the surcharge. The parking sur-

charge shall not apply to any parking begun between

the hours of 6 p.m. and 2 a.m.

623

(e) With respect to the measure for elimination of

free on-street commuter parking approved in § 52.427:

(1) The District of Columbia shall, no later than June

30, 1974, submit to the Administrator for his approval a

compliance schedule, including legally adopted regula-

tions, enforcement procedures, and a description of re-

sources available. The compliance schedule shall provide:

(i) For implementing the on-street commuter parking

ban program in all areas within which a surcharge will

be required by paragraph (d) of this section. The pro-

gram shall prohibit all parking for more than two hours

by non-residents of the area subject to the ban during

the hours from 7 p.m., Monday through Friday (except-

ing holidays) on any street within such areas. The pro-

gram shall also provide for a sticker system, under which

residents of such an area may be exempted from the ban,

and for a system (whether by notification to the enforce-

ment authorities, or otherwise) for also exempting bona

fide visitors to residents of such areas from the ban.

(ii) The precise resources that will be devoted to en-

forcing this measure, the method of enforcement to be

used (for example, chalking tires), and the penalties for

violation. The compliance schedule shal] at a minimum

provide that violators shall be subject to a $10.00 fine.

(f) With respect to the measure for elimination of

free employee parking approved in § 52.472:

(1) For purposes of this paragraph “Commercial Park-

ing Rate” shall mean the average daily rate charged by

the three operators of parking facilities containing 25 or

more commercial parking spaces that are closest in loca-

tion - any employee parking space affected by this para-

graph.

(2) The District of Columbia shali, no later than June

30, 1974, submit to the Administrator for his approval a

precise description of areas within the District of Colum-

bia which are at that time adequately served by mass

transit, and those areas which in the judgment of the Dis-

trict of Columbia will be adequately served by mass transit

by June 30, 1975. The documentation and policy assump-

624

tions used to select these areas shall be included with this

submission.

(3) The District of Columbia shall by June 30, 1975,

and each succeeding year, submit to the Administrator for

his approval a revised list of those areas which are ade-

quately served by mass transit. Additional areas must be

included as mass transit service is increased, unless the

District of Columbia affirmatively demonstrate that no

additional areas can be included.

(4) The District of Columbia shall no later than Octo-

ber 1, 1974, submit to the Administrator legally adopted

regulations instituting commercial parking rates by June

30, 1975, on all employers, public (excluding Federal Gov-

ernment) or private, with 25 or more employee spaces

located in those areas adequately served by mass transit

within the District of Columbia portion of the National

Capital Interstate AQCR. Any handicapped person who

is unable to use mass transit shall not be subject to the

commercial parking rate. The commercial parking rate

shall not apply to employee parking begun between the

hours of 6 p.m. and 2 a.m.

g) With respect to the measure for increased bus fleet

and service approval in § 52.472: The District of Colum-

bia shall no later than January 31, 1974, submit a compli-

ance schedule to put the program into effect. The compli-

ance schedule shall, at a minimum, provide that the District

of Columbia shall, on or before March 1, 1974, submit to

the Administrator a statement, signed both by a repre-

sentative of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit

Authority (WMATA) indicating that, in the judgment

of both of them, financial commitments have been made

by the District of Columbia for the purchase of buses.

This statement, taken in conjunction with the commit-

ments made by the Commonwealth of Virginia and the

State of Maryland, must be sufficient to enable WMATA

to purchase in the fiscal year beginning the next July 1,

the number of buses below:

Fiscal Year 1975—175 buses

Fiscal Year 1976—150 buses

Fiscal Year 1977—150 buses

625

The statement shall also indicate that WMATA has in fact

committed to purchase that number of buses.

(h) With respect to the express bus lane measure ap-

proved in § 52.472:

(1) The District of Columbia shall no later than Janu-

ary 1, 1975, establish exclusive bus lanes in the following

corridors °

(i) U.S. Route 50 from District of Columbia-Maryland

boundary to Washington Central Business District (here-

after CBD). sees

(ii) Pennsylvania Avenue from the District of Colum-

bia-Maryland boundary to the Washington CBD.

(iii) South Capitol Street from Bolling Air Force Base

ndence Avenue. cece:

7 wy US. Route 50 from the District of Columbia-Vir-

ginia boundary to the Washington CBD.

(v) In the District of Columbia portion of a route con-

necting the Dulles —_ oo from the Reston Inter-

nge to the Washington ' cams

oh Georgia yea Street from the District of

Columbia-Maryland boundary to the Washington CBD.

(vii) U.S. Route 240 —_ = _— of Columbia-

land boundary to Sheridan Circle. ae

ei) New Rouediee Avenue from the District of

Columbia-Maryland boundary to Grant Circle.

Such lanes shall be inbound during the morning peak

and outbound during the evening peak period.

(2) The District of Columbia shall submit to the Ad-

ministrator, no later than March 1, 1974, a schedule show-

ing the steps which it will take to establish exclusive bus

lanes in those corridors enumerated in paragraph (h) (1)

of this section. Each schedule shall be subject to the ap-

proval by the Administrator and shall include as a mini-

mum the following:

(i) Identification of streets - ee that shall have

rtions designated for exclusive bus lanes.

I (ii) The date by which each street or highway shall be

designated.

626

(3) Exclusive bus lanes must be prominently indicated

by distinctively painted lines, pylons, overhead signs, or

physical barriers.

(4) Application for substitution of a corridor for any

of those listed in paragraph (h) (1) of this section shall be

made by the District of Columbia for the Administrator’s

approval no later than March 1, 1974.

5. Section 52.479 is amended by adding paragraphs (b)

and (c) to read as follows:

§ 52.479 Source surveillance.

* * * * e

(b) The requirements of § 51.19(d) are not met with

respect to the strategies for parking surcharge, car pool

locator, vehicle inspection, express bus lanes, increased bus

fleet and service, elimination of free on-street parking, and

elimination of free parking by employers.

(c) Monitoring transportation trends. (1) This section

is applicable in the District of Columbia portion of the

National Capital Interstate Air Quality Control Region.

(2) In order to assure the effectiveness of the inspec-

tion and maintenance program approved in § 52.472 and

the retrofit devices required pursuant to §§ 52.490, 52.492,

52.494, 52.495, and 52.496, the State shall monitor the

actual per vehicle emissions reductions occurring as a re-

sult of such measures. All data obtained from such moni-

toring shall be included in the quarterly report submitted

to the Administrator by the State in accordance with § 51.7

of this chapter. The first quarterly report shall cover the

period January 1 to March 31, 1976.

(3) In order to assure the effective implementation of

the parking surcharge, car pool locator, express bus lanes,

increased bus fleet and service, elimination of free on-street

community parking and elimination of free parking by

employers, the District of Columbia shall monitor vehicle

miles traveled and average vehicle speeds for each area in

which such measures are in effect and during such time

periods as may be appropriate to evaluate the effective-

ness of such a program. All data obtained from such moni-

toring shall be included in the quarterly report submitted

627

to the Administrator by the District of Columbia in ac-

cordance with § 51.7 of this chapter. The first quarterly

report shall cover the period from July 1 to September 30,

1974. The vehicle miles traveled and vehicle speed data

shall be collected on a monthly basis and submitted in a

format similar to Table 1.

TABLE 1

Time period

Affected area

VMT or average vehicle speed

Roadway type .

Vehicle type (1) Vehicle type (2)*

Freeway

Arterial

Collector

Local

1 Continue with other vehicle types as appropriate.

(4) No later than March 1, 1974, the District of Co-

lumbia shall submit to the Administrator a compliance

schedule to implement this section. The program descrip-

tion shall include the following:

(i) The agency or agencies responsible for conducting,

overseeing, and maintaining the monitoring program.

(ii) The administrative procedures to be used.

(iii) A description of the methods to be used to collect

the emission data, VMT data, and vehicle speed data; a

description of the geographical area to which the data

applies; identification of the location at which the data

will be collected; and the time periods during which the

data will be collected.

§ 52.481 [Amended]

6. In § 52.481 the attainment date table is revised by

replacing the date “May 31, 1975”, for attainment of the

national standards for carbon monoxide and photochemical

628

oxidants (hydrocarbons) in the National Capita] Inter-

state Region with the date “May 31, 1977.”

§ 52.482 Transportation and land use controls.

(a) To ensure implementation of the vehicle emission

inspection program approved in § 52.472, th

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