• V
1C
EP 450/2
76-501-2
4502765012
GUIDELINE SERIES
OAQPS NO. 3.0-002
POLICIES FOR THE INCLUSION OF
CARBON MONOXIDE AND OXIDANT
CONTROLS IN STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
(TCP POLICY PAPER)
US. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
-------
UNITED STAH-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JAM!) Wo
OFFICE OF
AIR AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
SUBJECT: TCP Policy Paper
MEMO TO: Regional Administrators, Regions I-X
I'm transmitting to you a guidance document entitled "Policies
for the Inclusion of Carbon Monoxide and Oxidant Controls in State
Implementation Plans (TCP Policy Paper)" prepared by my Office of
Transportation and Land Use Policy. This paper was prepared at the
request of the members of the Air Program Review Group. A draft
of the paper was presented to this Group at their Chicago meeting.
Comments were also solicited from Air Programs personnel in every
Regional Office. This final paper attempts to accommodate many of
the Regional comments.
Additional issue papers and guidance documents are also being
prepared in response to the activities of the Air Program Review
Group. These include the New Source Review Guidelines, Non-attain-
ment Issue Paper, NOx Cookbook, Ox Cookbook, Suggested Priorities:
Decisions On Need for SIP Revisions, and EPA Policy on Oxidant'Re-
duction.
I'm also sending a copy of the enclosed paper to e^ch Regional
Division Director for Air and Hazardous Materials.
Roger/Strelow
Assistant Administrator
for Air and Waste Management
cc: John Quarles
Peter Cashman
Stanley iegro
Al Aim
Robert Zener
Hugh Miller
Doyle Borchers
-------
POLICIES FOR THE INCLUSION OF
CARBON MONOXIDE AND OX1DANT
CONTROLS IN STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
(TCP POLICY PAPER)
BY
Office of Transportation and Land Use Policy
Office of Air and Waste Management
Environmental Protection Agency
January 9, 1976
-------
Policies for the Inclusion of Carbon Monoxide and Oxidunt Controls
In SIP'S
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to provide general policy guidance
on developing and implementing oxidant and carbon monoxide control
strategies in state implementation plans once the need for a plan
revision has been made.I/ Guidance is provided" for selecting "reason-
ably available" measures in categories of areas differentiated by both
the current stage of SIP development and the severity of pollution
problem.2J
Due to the controversy and uncertainties associated with "VMT
measures" in the past and in response to inquiries from several
Regional Offices, OTLUP has emphasized reasonably available trans-
portation measures in this policy paper. The discussion below is not
intended to state the latest policy on stationary source control
measures. OAOPS is currently developing and updating such guidance.3/-9/
However, transportation measures are discussed along with other source
controls in this paper because local agencies will necessarily be
considering the total mix of reasonably available measures in determining
SIP revisions. Therefore, both OAQPS and OTLUP guidance should be
used in developing the most effective overall plan.
OTLUP will periodically revise this guidance. The first major
revision will occur upon completion of the Clean Air Act amendments.
Because the amended Act should resolve the problem of non-attainment
by May 31, 1977, this paper does not address the deadline issue.
It is expected, however, that the new Act will contain provisions
for extending the attainment deadlines in certain specified situations
-------
2.
Rein I. ion ship to Other Agency Guidance
This memorandum is consistent with the latest Regional Guidance
on SIP revisions:
Between now and July 1976, we are committed
to reviewing all SIP's and determining the need
for revisions either to attain the air quality
standards or for maintenance.8/
By July 1976 Governors should be notified of the need for SIP
oxidant and CO revisions, the schedule for submitfral of revisions should
be specified, and reasonably available measures should be identified.
The process for identifying needed SIP revisions in non-attainment
areas is the same for areas with an existing CO/Ox SIP as with areas
without such a plan. The actual promulgation of additional measures
by either the State or EPA will not occur until after July 1976. •
Generally, the schedule will require States to submit by July 1977
reasonably available measures needed to meet the NAAQS. If necessary,
States will be allowed until July 1978 to submit certain specific measures
that characteristically require longer development and implementation
times. This special category of reasonably available-measures generally
includes land use and transportation controls that often require
longer lead times to obtain enabling legislation and funding.
-------
3.
Therefore, during the next seven months Regions should concentrate
first on validating and documenting the data base which demonstrates the
need for CO/Ox SIP revisions. The emission inventory should be
consistent with the latest reactivity classification.9/ Where pervasive
oxidant problems exist, States may elect to work jointly in developing
uniform control strategies over a broad multi-station region. Where
resources permit the Regions are also encouraged to develop draft
strategies jointly with the local transportation agencies responsible
for planning and implementation.
Recent Circuit Court Decisions and the Clean Air Act Amendments
Three recent Circuit Court decisions have caused uncertainities
about. EPA's legal authority to require states to administer and enforce
transportation measures to reduce pollution.ljV EPA has formally
requested the Justice Department to appeal the 4th, 9th and D.C.
Circuit decisions to the Supreme Court. Assuming that the Justice
Department does appeal the decisions and the Supreme Court agrees to
hear the case, it is possible that a decision could be made during
-------
4.
this term (ending early summer). However, it could easily be the next
term (beginning October 1976) before a decision is reached.
The Committees of the Congress are currently considering several
amendments to the Clean Air Act and are proceeding with an awareness
of the recent Circuit Court decisions. Partly as a result of the
decisions, the present Senate staff version contains funding provisions
and utilizes funding sanctions to insure implementation of transportation
measures. The current Act's method of requiring the EPA to promulgate
transportation measures for local communities..where the State has failed
to do so is not likely to be retained in the Clean Air Act Amendments.
Rather, decisions will be left to the local communities with, hopefully,
financial incentives/disincentives to spur action.
The amendment process has been going slower than originally
anticipated. The Subcommittees on both the House and Senate side
have finished their deliberations and the amendments are now before
the full committees. But, completed Congressional action will not
take place this year and it may well be Spring 1976 before any law is
enacted. The possible amendments,-however, should not alter the data
gathering activities or analyses that are required between now and
July 1976.
-------
Rear.o11ob\y_J\yjnJaMt! Measuri^>
Table 1 presents the lisL of reasonably available categories of
measures. The measures are loosely ranked in descending order according
to their emission reduction potential and relative feasibility. The
emission reduction potential varies among areas dependent on available
technology and the relative contribution of stationary and mobile sources.
Feasibility is generally defined in terms of cost-effectiveness and ease
of implementation (i.e., political, administrative, and technological
viability). The feasibility will also vary among areas -- particularly
regarding the Transportation Measures. It is important to note that
DOT is now requiring Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO's) to
develop and implement an annual Transportation Systems Management (TSM)
Plan which should contain the Transportation Measures listed in Table 1.
Every strategy in Table 1 is considered reasonably available and should be
included in SIP revisions where necessary for attainment. However, the
most cost-effective mix of measures must be locally determined.
Table 1
Reasonably Available Measures
Source Control Measures Transportation Measures
1. Inspection/Maintenance 1. Transit Improvements
2. Vapor Controls for Organic 2. Employer Incentives
Solvents
3. Petroleum Refinery, Chemical 3. Parking Management/Restrictions
Plant and Other Industry Controls
4. Vapor Controls for Gasoline 4. Traffic Management/Restraint
Marketing
5. HDV Retrofits?/
-------
6.
Re_sj3cc_tjV" Roles of i^v./J^iitLtflCl and the Regions in CO/Ox SIP Revisions
SIP revisions that depart from guidance presented below will be
considered "Special Action" revisions, thus requiring headquarters review.
In the future as experience is gained, the guidance will become more
specific as to the scale and rate of implementation. Headquarters will
attempt to work closely with the RO's in the process of monitoring
progress in non-attainment areas and reviewing the mix of strategies
being implemented.
The Importance of Coordinated Transportation Strategies
The maximum emission reductions from transportation measures will
result from coordinated measures designed to discourage low occupancy
auto use and to encourage transit and carpool use. However, transit
and carpool incentives by themselves are insufficient for achieving
significant emission reductions:
"... programs that do not incorporate parking restrictions
surcharges, or other disincentives . . . are unlikely to
achieve emission reductions greater than 5 to 10 percent . . .
[However] evidence derived from empirically-based studies of
traveller response to changes in transportation options
indicates that programs that combine transit improvements,
carpool incentives, and parking restrictions or charges
can reduce automobile emissions by as much as 30 percent. "1_2/
The Agency should not only emphasize bus lanes but should also encourage
and give emission reduction credit to all transit improvements (e.g.,
-------
7.
fleet expansions, frequency of service increases and new routes) v;hen
revisions are formally made after July 1976. EPA can most effectively
press for transit improvements through the Federal Regional Councils,
the Federal Intermodal Planning Groups, Regional UMTA and FHWA Offices,
and the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO's). Headquarters will
continue to strive for an expanded EPA role in 109(j) highway consistency
reviews, and consistency reviews for transit plans and programs through
interagency agreements and new legislation.
The need to coordinate these related measures necessarily complicates:
implementation and requires careful staging of strategies over a long
time frame. Recently promulgated joint FHUA/UMTA program requirements
call for TSM Plans which approximate EPA's needs and insure that MPO's
will be considering similar measures.l_3/ The expected role of the EPA
RO will be to influence the on-going DOT planning process.
The following section summarizes EPA's current policies for
inclusion of transportation control measures in SIP's. The policies
are grouped according to the stage of plan development. A second
section describes policies and priorities for individual measures
included in the transportation control portions of SIP's.
-------
8.
I. POLICIES FOR INCLUSION OF TRANSPORTATION MEASURES IN SIP'S .
BASED ON STAGE OF PLAN DEVELOP:iLUT
A. PolJ_c ic s__f or_ cha IK] i_ncj_ exist ii i_q_ transpor tat ion and s tationary
source measures included in SIP Oxidant arid Carbon Monoxide
Corvtrpj Strategies
-- There should be no revisions to the existing transportation
and stationary source measures in SIP's with two exceptions:
1. Where one or more specific measures are found on the
basis of valid technical analysis not to reduce pollutant
emissions. An example of such a situation might be a
measure which was designed to improve traffic flow but
which was found upon further analysis to increase traffic
volumes, cause congestion and increase emissions.
In these cases the EPA first encourages states to develop
substitute measures. If the states do not, the EPA
then promulgates reasonably available substitute measures.
2. Where states develop measures that are equal or better in
effectiveness, in terms of reducing emissions, than are
the reasonably available measures EPA promulgated.
Substitute measures proposed by states should not delay
standards attainment. If standards cannot be attained
by using the reasonably available source control measures
(e.g., inspection/maintenance or vapor recovery)
promulgated by the EPA, new state measures may supplement,
but not replace, the promulgated measures.
-------
9.
-- Gasoline rationing and catalytic retrofits for light-duty
vehicles are not considered reasonably available measures
and are to be implemented only if the Clean Air Act is not
amended.
B. Poli cies for transportation measure^ being rev ised pursuant
to cour'tTorders or_fpr new trjnspo_rt_aticj_n measures now being
developed_for addition to SIP's
-- The process used in the revision of the Boston CO/Ox SIP
should serve as a prototype.
-- First, EPA urges states to adopt all reasonably available
transportation control measures and works with state and
local governments in the development of measures.
-- Then, if the states do not adopt the transportation measures,
EPA promulgates.
-- If standards cannot be attained with reasonably available
measures, gasoline rationing or LDV catalytic retrofits
should not be promulgated. Non-catalytic LDV retrofits can
be adopted by a state.
C• Policies for adding additional transportation measures to SIP's
that have such measures but are inadequate to attain standards
by Clean Air Act deadlines
-- Prior to July 1976 the need for SIP revisions should be
determined, the schedule for submittal of revisions should
be specified, and reasonably available measures should be
identified.
-- The State must submit the required measures by either July
19/7 or July 1978 as described above.
-- The process for identifying needed SIP revisions in non-
attainment areas is the same for areas with an existing CO/Ox
SIP as with areas without such a plan.
-------
in.
-- The EPA and the States should continue to develop and
implement reasonably available transportation measures
contained in the existing CO/Ox SIP in these areas.
-- Measures for reducing vehicle miles, of travel should bo
developed, where possible, through metropolitan trans-
portation planning processes established by State and
local governments.
-- Regulations to control hydrocarbon emissions from solvent
usage, gasoline marketing, ship and barge loading (where
appropriate), petroleum refineries, chemical plants, etc. ~
should be added to SIP's for attainment of oxidant
standards.
D. Policjes for areas where transportation measures are included
in SIP"'_s and where standards will be attained by Clean Air
Act dead!inos
-•- Some areas to which transportation measures apply are not
designated air quality maintenance areas. SIP revisions may
be needed for standards maintenance. Needed SIP revisions
should be determined through analyses by the EPA and States
and through other air quality assessments such as the annual
review of consistency determinations done pursuant to
section 109(j), Title 23, U.S.C.; environmental impact
statements done pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act, etc.
-------
11.
Policies for areas with standards violations but no transportation
measures in SIP's
-- The priorities of SIP revisions should be determined.8/
-- Areas where transportation measures are needed in SIP's
should be determined and reasonably available measures
should be identified. Steps for determination of areas
include:
1. Identification of potential areas based on air
quality measurements.
2. Validation of air quality data.
3. Validation of the adequacy of emissions inventories.
4. Preliminary estimations of the extent of emissions
reductions needed from transportation measures.
5. Public information programs describing air quality
problems and the sources of the problems.
-- Prior to July 1976 the EPA regional administrators should
send letters to governors indicating any necessary SIP
revisions.
-------
12.
II. POLICIES AND PRIORITIES FOR REASONABLY AVAILABLE CARBON MONOXIDE
AND OXIDANT CONTROL MEASURES
A. Inspection and maintenance programs (CO and Ox Plans)
-- Where this measure is in SIP's, it is implemented as
expeditiously as practicable.
-- Where new transportation measures are added to SIP's or
where existing transportation portions of a SIP are revised
pursuant to a court order, inspection and maintenance
programs should be included in EPA promulgations if the
standards cannot be attained by the deadline or maintained
thereafter without the u.se of I/M.
-- EPA encourages States to include inspection and maintenance
programs in state-adopted revisions to SIP's when
transportation measures are necessary. If States cannot
demonstrate standards attainment, EPA should promulgate
inspection and maintenance as a supplement to State measures.
-- The area to which inspection and maintenance requirements are
applicable should be commensurate with the air quality problem
area. As a practical matter, however, implementation of
1/M in the most severely polluted urban areas should receive
top priority. Eventually, statewide or regionwide I/M may
be necessary to alleviate either extensive Ox problems or a
multitude of CO hotspots.
-------
13.
E- Vapor recovery from gasol ino marketitig (Ox plans)
-- Existing Stage I vapor recovery requirements in SIP's arc
implemented as expeditiously as practicable.
-- Existing Stage II vapor recovery requirements in SIP's are
implemented when pending regulation is promulgated.
-- Where new transportation measures are added to SIP's or
where existing transportation protions of an SIP are revised
pursuant to a court order, Stage I vapor recovery should be
included in the EPA promulgation. Where necessary, Stage II
is also promulgated.
-- EPA encourages States to include vapor recovery regulations
in State-adopted revisions to SIP's when transportation
measures are necessary. If States cannot demonstrate
standards attainment, EPA should promulgate vapor recovery
requirements.
C. Organic solvent control (Ox plans)
EPA policy must continue to be the reduction of non-methane
organic emissions to the extent required to achieve the NAAOS for
oxidant. In the future the highest priority should be placed on
implementing model regulations for hydrocarbon sources which are currently
being developed by OAQPS. Solvent substitution, reformulation, and
process changes are to be applied only as interim measures.9/
-------
14.
D. Medium and hcovy duty vehicle roti-ofj_t_s _(_CU__and Ox plans)
-- Where emission reductions from a fnedium and heavy duty
retrofit program are comparable to emission reductions
from other reasonable measures, retrofit requirements
should be included in any SIP where standards are not
attained by Clean Air Act deadlines.
£• Ship and.b_arge control s (Ox plans)
••- Where emission reductions from ship and barge vapor controls
are comparable to emission reductions from other reasonably
available measures, ship and barge control requirements
should be included in any SIP whore standards are not-
attained by Clean Air Act deadlines.
F • I !j?n sit imp movements (e x elusive bus lanes, park -and-ride facilities ,
CBD'shoppers serviceO/CO and Ox plans)
-- Existing SIP requirements for bus lanes that are determined
infeasible on the basis of a valid transportation engineering
analysis should be replaced, preferably by a lane or lanes
developed through established State and local transportation
planning processes or on other transit improvements. If
States do not adopt substitute regulations, EPA should
promulgate a requirement for a study to identify feasible
bus lanes. Based on study results, EPA should promulgate
bus lanes requirements.
-------
15.
.. J n-c_c M tive regu 1_ n t i ons (incl ] iding carpools and
vanpools) "( CO and" Ox pfai i_sj"
-- Employer incentive regulations developed for Boston may
serve as a prototype. These regulations include mandatory
measures based on locally determined goals for reducing vehicle
miles of travel. An alternative approach is to require each
employer to reduce vehicle miles of travel by a specified
percent, or to achieve a specified average occupancy rate for
commuter vehicles arriving at the facility.
-- Employer incentive regulations now in SIP's should be revised
if the regulations are not working, i.e., employers are not
submitting acceptable plans or regional office resources are
not sufficient to review plans. In the latter case, regional
offices should consider the mandatory measures approach which
is less labor-intensive.
H . Parking man a gement rest.rir tions (CO and 0 x plans)
-- The EPA still believes that parking restrictions when coupled
with transit and carpool incentives are an effective and
necessary means for standards attainment and maintenance.
However, regulations are suspended pending further Congressional
guidance. Draft amendments to the Clean Air Act contain
explicit requirements relating to parking restrictions.
-------
16.
•-- Regional offices may accept or reject Stale or locally
submitted parking management plans. The development of a
State, region, or city run parking management process
should be encouraged.
•-- Regional offices cannot administer on-street parking limitations,
but can approve State or local requirements as SIP revisions.
•-- Two SIP's (Washington and Massachusetts) contain requirements
limiting growth in the supply of parking. Regional offices
should encourage this approach where local areas are willing
to undertake administration and implementation of the program.
Traffic m an a qement/rest r_a [nJi§_LPJ:L § nd Ox pi ans)
-- The EPA encourages traffic flow improvement measures only
when combined with assurances that such measures will not
ultimately increase emissions. Generally, this means that
the flow improvements must be coupled with some restraint
«
on traffic growth.
-- Conversely, the EPA encourages the creation of vehicle free
zones or the use of restraints such as tolls or road user
charges'when accompanied by assurances that the measures
will not create localized areas of vehicle congestion and
standards violations.
-------
17.
J• Light-duty vehicle-relrofrts (CO and Ox piajisj_
-- Catalytic retrofits are not a reasonably available strategy.
-- EPA accepts State or locally exonerated LDV non-catalytic
retrofit regulations.
K. Gasoline rationing
-- Gasoline rationing is not a reasonably available measure.
-------
18.
REFERENCES (Final completion dates of draft guidelines and policy
statements are subject t.o change)
V In the past Transportation Control Plan (TCP) was a generic term
that was loosely defined to include all measures for controlling
the auto-related pollutants -- even HC stationary source measures.
Because "TCP" was inaccurate, confusing and misleading* the term
is being replaced by Carbon Monoxide and Oxicjant SIP (CO/Ox SIP).
2/ Section 110(e)(l)(B) of the Clean Air Act requires the use of all
"reasonably available" measures in an SIP.
3_/ OAQPS 1.2-011, "Guidelines For Determining The Need For Plan
Revisions To The Control Strategy Of The Approved SIP,"
November 12, 1975.
4/ NOx Cookbook (Draft scheduled to be sent to Regional Offices by
January 31, 1976).
5/ Ox Cookbook (Draft Scheduled to be sent to Regional Offices by
February 1976)
6_/ Model Regulations For Select Hydrocarbon Sources (Draft due early 1976)
7/ EPA Policy On Oxidarit Reduction (Draft November 19, 1975)
8/ OAWM "Suggested Priorities: Decisions On Need For SIP Revisions"
(Draft, November 10, 1975).
9_/ OAQPS Guidelines On Organic Reactivity (Draft) October 15, 1975.
TO/ The 9th (August 1975), 4th (September 1975) and D.C. (October 1975)
1J_/ LDV catalytic retrofits are not reasonably available. LDV non-
catalytic retrofits may be adopted by the State.
12/ Transportation Controls to Reduce Automobile Use and Improve Air
Qua!ity in Cities, Joel Horowitz and Steven Kuhrtz, Environmental
Protection Agency, November 1974.
1_3/ September 17, 1975 Federal Register: DOT Transportation Improvement
Program Regulation.
------- |