GUIDELINE SERIES
OAQPS NO. 1.2-001
January 30, 1973
CRITERIA FOR REVIEW OF TRANSPORTATION
CONTROL MEASURES
nn rm
fin
US. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
-------
450R7311O
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Water Programs
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
'OD/OAQPS •
: Criteria for Review of Transportation Control Measures
To.
All Regional Air & Water Program Directors
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide criteria to assist
the Regions in the review and approval of State Transportation Control
Measures. The overall philosophy for development of an "approvable"
plan is presented and important elements that should be included
in a good plan are discussed. It is intended that these criteria serve
both as an overall guide and a check list of the content required in
an "approvable" plan. The limits of "reasonableness" that can be
accepted are reviewed, particularly with respect to reductions claimed
for various transportation control strategies.
General
The transportation control measures must meet the requirements of
the Clean Air Act and existing EPA regulations. The Transportation
Control Measures "Guidelines" now published as notice of proposed rule
making (FR 1464, January 12, 1973) specifically apply to this portion
of the State Implementation Plan. The Act and EPA policy make it very
clear that these are, above all, to be State plans and States are to
be given maximum flexibility to meet the standards in whatever way is
optimum for them. Our role is to see that State plans have a reasonable
chance of meeting the standard and that they are generally enforceable.
In an area as new and qualitative as transportation controls this
gives us significant freedom in plan approval. It should be remembered
that where we disapprove a plan, we must propose an EPA plan.
Copies of the recently proposed transportation control plan prepared
by Region IX for the Los Angeles Metropolitan Intrastate Region, pre-
sented by the administrator January 15, 1973, have been distributed to
all Regions. It provides an example of an extremely severe plan, necessary
under the circumstances to comply with the Court Order, the Clean Air Act
and meet the Natipnal ambient air quality standards. It is not expected
any other region will require such extensive control measures. However,
there "are several considerations in the Los Angeles plan that are equally
relevant to less severe control measures. They are discussed below.
Control Strategies' Emission Reductions
It can be expected that States will have various percentage reductions
claimed for Inspection, Maintenance and Retrofit of motor vehicles.
Appendix N to the Transportation Control Measures "Guidelines" contains
-------
rather specific values for these; strategies, although they were hased
on rather limited tests. They should be regarded primarily as useful
for current planning purpose and are not intended to limit the flexibility
of any states strategies. Many other possible strategies such as improved
transit systems, improved traffic flow, car pools, auto free zones, etc.,
have not been assigned specific expected reduction po reentries. Hrwvrr,
some guidance as to percentages which might be claimed is provided in
the "Six Cities" report and the BOA contractors recent "Fourteen Cities"
report. There should be a willingness in the review to accept the
assessment of the States' claimed emissions reduction if the values
are credible, i.e. they could be achieved. However, state representa-
tives should be cautioned that approval of an optimistic plan now may pose
a future problem if air quality measurements are still above the standards.
Severe strategies such as gasoline rationing, extreme motor vehicle
restrictions, massive retrofit, and/or advanced state-of-the-art measures
should be examined carefully for credibility and absolute need. We will
especially appreciate your keeping us closely informed on the status of
transportation plans which may include any of those more radical measures.
Although it might be easier to propose a single radical strategy such as
gasoline rationing, plans should make full use of the entire range of
more easily implemented measures which can work and, in the aggregate,
may solve the problem without recourse to more radical solutions. Strategies
that provide for better land use and expanded mass transit can eventually
achieve up to 20% reductions in emissions where positive disincentives
are applied to the use of motor vehicles.
Emissions Inventory
The preparation of the stationary source inventory is generally
standard. However, it has been noted that with respect to hydrocarbons,
some states are using "reactive hydrocarbons" and "highly reactive
hydrocarbons" as well as non-methane hydrocarbons. Also, in at least one
preliminary draft reviewed, the HC inventory was based on "peak-hour"
emissions. Various assumptions have then been made for the reactivity
of automobile exhaust emissions. These are acceptable if there is a
measure of credibility and definition to these approaches and if they are
adequately explained in the plan. Also, the automobile emission factors
in some instances have been compiled from "obsolete" issues of AP-42
rather than the "Interim Report" of October 1972. The potential variation
in the values Ihould be assessed and states advised of the probable re-
quirement' for future update of the inventory. Also, where inventories
are otder than the air quality measurement used for roll-back, there should
be a proper consideration for growth.
Air Quality Measurements & Surveillance
The basis for the air quality values should be explained - particularly
if very recent data is used that is substantially lower than presented
in the SIP's submitted on January 30, 1972.
-------
The approach for maintaining surveillance of the air quality onci
transportation data together with procedures.for alternative action, if
needed, should be included as required 1n the regulations.
Intermittent Control Measures , ,
The Initial drafts of the transportation "Guidelines" included as
a control measure motor vehicle operation restrictions such as those
contained in the abatement strategies emission reduction plans. However,
it was considered that problems in enforcement and adequate forecasting
would mitigate against the feasibility of such strategies. Nevertheless,
as noted in the Proposed Metropolitan Los Angeles Intrastate plan, inter-
mi ttant controls were discussed which prohibit the use of all but certain
classes of vehicles on days when the ambient air quality was expected to
be violated. Although the technical and legal feasibility of such measures
is still uncertain, they may be the most "reasonable" alternative to more
severe strategies applied year around or continously on a seasonal basis.
It is expected, according to some meteorologists, that weather forecasts
based on improved .satellite coverage will improve their accuracy, but any
accurate air quality predictions further in advance than 24 hours seem
years, away. This is particularly true of oxidant concentrations.
Data Requirements
The data that substantiates the assumptions, calculations, and con-
clusions regarding control measure strategies should be consistent with
the intent of Appendix M to the transportation control "Guidelines".
Since these data are retained on an on call basis, there is some measure
of judgment involved as to whether they are convincing evidence of the
validity of the control measures. A good index of validity would be
their potential suitability as a form for evidence in the event of a
possible lawsuit. Adherence to Appendix M will preclude "holes" in the
data. However, to be acceptable, the data does not need to be in the
exact format called for in the guidelines.
Resources & Schedules
Resources to be made available to monitor, enforce and accomplish
the mechanical aspects of the strategies should be well defined.
Strategies that require massive equipment purchases such as busses or
people movers^Should be capable of achievement in the context that
other areas of the country also will be expanding mass transit and re-
quiring additional equipment. Since EPA cannot promulgate substitute
federal regulations if State resources are not adequate, this portion of
a plan may require negotiation with the State. Generally we must accept
promises that the State intends to try for such resources. Schedules
for accomplishing the strategies should be presented and be reasonably
possible of achievement.
-------
Enforcement
Strategies should be enforceable at the state or local level. Many
options will not be in the form of regulations that arc directly enforce-
able such as car pools, 'and mass transit. Much judgment will be needed
and it should be remembered that each plan is unique and there may be a
valid basis in many plans for giving credit for these controls.
If strategies are in AQCR's that involve more than one state, it
should be explained how the reductions are apportioned and how the
strategies can be enforced. This is particularly important where large
commuter traffic originates in one state and travels to the business
district of another.
Strategies that involve federal jurisdictions, such as interstate
airlines, should have an explanation as to how the restrictions or pre-
dicted emission reduction will be enforced and what other agencies must
approve the proposals (i.e. FAA).
The Office of Enforcement and General Counsel (OEGC) will review all
plans for legality and enforceability and provide you with their comments.
They will also be available for guidance on legal and enforcement questions
on an individual item basis.
Technical Assistance
In addition to the BOA Contract data previously noted (six cities,
fourteen cities and Washington, D.C.), an additional technical assistance
task order is being prepared to provide EPA with an evaluation of the
aggregate impact of the State plans. Two reports will be prepared:
one dealing with the social and economic impact of the transportation
control strategies, due in March 1973, and the other describing the
general and specific features of the various plans. The later report,
due in April 1973, will be useful in the preparation of the preamble to
the Federal Register Publication of approval/disapproval notices con-
cerning the states' Transportation Control Measures.
It can be expected that questions will arise which are not addressed
in these "Guidelines". We plan to call a meeting of Regional Transporta-
tion Control representatives in late February to exchange information
and answer quest'ipns you may have. In the interim, please call Dr.
Ron Venezfa, Fred'Vinkler, or Don Armstrong, Land Use Planning Branch,
(919) 388-8291, for clarification of any questions or discussion of
specific local problems.
Evaluation Report
Based on past experience we can expect many lawsuits on our decision
on these transportation control plans. Therefore, it becomes important
that a comprehensive evaluation report be prepared on each plan showing
clearly the basis for my significant decision made.
-------
Summary
In general, EPA does not wish to promulgate regulations unless it
is absolutely necessary. However, overly optimistic plans that would be
approved now could lead to obvious problems in a few years. Thus the
Regions should maintain close liaison with the states to assure that the
transportation control plans, even with some sections requiring more
definitive data later, are "approvable" in the period between now and
June 15, 1973.
Where it is obvious that EPA must promulgate regulations,
cognizant Regions should make early preparations for the draft of
the preamble, regulations and briefing memorandum similar to that
prepared by Region IX for the Metropolitan Los Angeles Intrastate Region,
According to the Clean Air Act, such regulations must be promulgated
by August 15, 1973. However, the approval cycle is such that drafts of
these plans must be submitted by about April 27, 1973 to allow for the
proposal, hearings, interagency review and incorporation of comments.
We will be sending you soon a more detailed schedule and flow chart for
plan review and approval.
'B. J. Steigerwald
Director
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
cc: Transportation representatives
Reviewers
------- |