# Appendix — Environmental Protection Agency v. Brown > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_2162%3A03 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1977 - **Citation:** 431 U.S. 99 ## Text 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 [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_2162%3A03. Public record. Not legal advice.