A
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
FOR
PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANTS
September 1978
PREPARED BY THE
OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS
STRATEGIES AND AIR STANDARDS DIVISION
-------
|>
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Mr. Harry H. Hovey
Chairman, STAPPA
Director, Air Pollution Control Board
New York State Dept. of Environmental
Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12223
Dear Mr. Hovey:
During recent months, we have received requests from State and
Local Air Pollution Control Agencies, and from our Regional Offices
concerning the need to develop information documents on photochemical
oxidant. In responding to this need, two projects have been undertaken
after discussions with Tony Cortese of STAPPA. These documents represent
compromises between what was desired by STAPPA and the time and resources
available to me. I hope that they will be helpful.
The first one, accomplished under contract to the Stanford Research
Institute, was the preparation of a short document written in non-
technical language directed to mayors, councilmen, informed laymen, and
others in the local public decision making process. The main theme of
the document is to advise this target group that ozone is a significant
air pollution problem in nearly all U.S. cities and that SIPs having a
sound technical basis are needed to resolve the problem. A draft of this
public information document has been provided as reference VIII-3. The
final copy will be distributed soon.
The output of the second project is included with this letter. It
is a SIP technical support document intended to assist State and local
agencies in responding to a variety of issues related to oxidants. It
is also intended to assist agencies in developing SIP revisions. The
document is a compilation of policy papers, technical studies, procedural
guidelines, and other materials related to photochemical oxidant.
Pertinent documents have been organized into eight major areas as
follows:
1. SIP Requirements
2. Transportation Controls
3. Inspection/Maintenance
4. Emission Inventories
5. Modeling
6. Control Technique Guidelines
7. Costs
8. Health Effects and Public Information
-------
The document contains three parts. Part I is a listing of the most
relevant policy statements, technical studies, and other support documents;
Part II is a brief description of the information listed in Part I; and
Part III contains copies of selected references.
The references cited are generally available from the National
Technical Information Service, Government Printing Office, EPA Regional
Offices or from theTHeadquarters program offices responsible for the
specific work cited? In cases where a reference is not available from
the normal sources, you are invited to contact Joseph Sableski, Control
Programs Development Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, FTS 629-5437 or commercial (919) 541-5437 for assistance.
Sincerely yours,
Walter C. BaYber
Director
Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards
Enclosure
cc: Directors, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region I, III-X
Director, Environmental Programs Division, Region II
All State Air Pollution Control Agencies
All Local Air Pollution Control Agencies
Identical Letter sent to: Mr. Kenneth MacKenzie
Chairman, ALAPCO
Houston Dept. of Pollution
1115 N. MacGregor
Houston, TX 77025
-------
PART I
LISTING OF
POLICY STATEMENTS
TECHNICAL STUDIES
&
OTHER SUPPORT
DOCUMENTS
-------
Section I - SIP Requirements
1. Criteria for Proposing Approval of Revision to Plans for
Non-Attainment Areas; Federal Register Vol. 43, No. 98,
May 19, 1978.
2. Workshop on Requirements for Non-Attainment Area Plans
(Revised Edition), April 1978.
3. Attainment Designation List Required by the 1977 Clean Air Act
Amendments, September 28, 1977.
4. Questions and Answers on 1979 SIP Revisions. Memo from
G. T. Helms to the Regional Air Branch Chiefs, July 28, 1978.
5. Final Guidelines for Section 174: Guidance on Designation of
Lead Planning Organizations for Non-Attainment Areas and on
Determination of Agency Responsibilities, Hawkins, December 14,
1977.
6. Questions and Answers in 1979 SIP Revisions from G.T. Helms to the
Regional Office Air Branch Chiefs, September 8, 1978.
7. Continuity of SIP Regulations. Memorandum from David Hawkins to
the Regional Administrator, September 11, 1978
Section II - Transportation Controls
1. Transportation Air Quality Planning Guidelines, June 1978.
2. Memorandum of Understanding Between the Department of Transporta-
tion and the Environmental Protection Agency regarding the
Integrating of Transportation Air Quality Planning, June 14, 1978.
3. Air Quality Impacts of Transit Improvements, Preferential Lane,
and Carpool/Vanpool Programs - Contract Report, EPA 400/2-78-002a,
March 1978.
4. Transit Improvement, Preferential Lane, and Carpool Programs (An
annotated Bibliography of Demonstration and Analytical Experi-
ence). - Contract Report EPA 400/2-78-002b, March 1978.
Section III - Inspection Maintenance
1. Inspection/Maintenance Policy - Memorandum from David Hawkins
to the EPA Regional Administrators, July 17, 1978.
2. Information Document on Automobile Emissions Inspection and
Maintenance Programs. GCA Corporation, EPA 400/2-78-001,
February 1978.
-------
Section IV - Emission Inventories
1. Procedures for the Preparation of Emission Inventories for
Volatile Organic Compounds, Volutre I, EPA-450/2-77-028,
December 1977-
2. Mobile Source Emission Factors, EPA 400/9-78-005, March 1978.
Section V - Modeling
1. Procedures for Quantifying Relationships Between Photochemical
Oxidants and Precursors: Supporting Documentation, EPA-450/
2-77-021b, February 1978.
2. Uses, Limitations, and Technical Basis of Procedures for
Quantifying Relationships Between Photochemical Oxidants and
Precursors, EPA-450/2-77-021a, November 1977.
3. Question and Answers on Relationship Between Hydrocarbons and
Photochemical Oxidants, OAQPS, MDAD, September 1978
Section VI - Control Technique Guidelines
1. Development of Regulations for HC RACT from CTG's, Memorandum
from Walter Barber, April 28, 1978.
2. Regulatory Guidance for Control of Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions from 15 Categories of Stationary Sources, GCA Corpora-
tion, Contract No. 68-02-2887, April 1978.
3. Control Techniques for Volatile Organic Emission from Stationary
Sources. EPA Final Report, Radian Contract 68-02-2608, Tasks
12 and 23, February 1978.
4. Stationary Sources of Volatile Organic Compounds and Schedule
for Applicable Control Technique Guidelines, OAQPS, ESED,
July 10, 1978.
5. Control Techniques Document from Hydrocarbon Sources, see listing
dated 7-14-78 in Part III.
6. Recommended Policy on Control of Volatile Organic Compounds,
Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 131, July 8, 1977.
7. Seasonal Operation of Natural Gas-Fired Afterburners, Memo from
Roger Strelow to the Regional Administrators, July 28, 1976.
8. Vapor Recovery Regulations Required to Meet RACT Requirement
for the 1979 SIP, June 30, 1978.
-------
Section VI (Con't)
9. Hydrocarbon Control Strategies for Gasoline Marketing Operations,
EPA 450/3-78-017, April 1978.
10. Clarification of EPA Policy on Emissions of Methyl Chloroform.
Memorandum from Walter Barber to the Regional Administrator,
August 17, 1978.
Section VII - Costs
1. Cost and Economic Impact Assessment for Alternative Levels of
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, OAQPS,
June 1978.
Section VIII - Health Effects and Public Information
1. The Health Implications of Photochemical Oxidant Air Pollution
to Your Community, EPA-450/2-76-016-1, August 1976.
2. Summary Statements from EPA Advisory Panel on Health Effects of
Photochemical Oxidants. University of North Carolina, June 1978.
3. Ozone and Other Photochemical Oxidants, SRI International,
Contract Report EPA 68-02-2835, August 1978 (Draft Final Report.)
Section IX - Proposed Oxidant Standards
1. Photochemical Oxidants-Proposed Revisions to the National Ambient
Air Quality Standard, Federal Register, Vol. 32, No. 121,
June 22, 1978.
2. Guideline for Interpretating Ozone Air Quality Standards (DRAFT),
OAQPS 1.2-108 Guideline Series (Issued June 1978).
3. Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Other Photochemical Oxidants,
Vols. 1 & 2, EPA 600/8-78-004, April 1978.
4. The Use of Judgmental Probability Distribution in Setting NAAQS
for Ozone—Final Report, SRI International (Project 6780),
May 1978.
5. Alternative Forms of the Ambient Air Quality Standard for
Photochemical Oxidants, OAQPS, SASD, May 1978.
6. Assessment of Welfare Effects and the Secondary Standard for
Ozone, OAQPS, SASD, June 1978.
7. Environmental Impact Assessment of Control Measure Required
for Attainment of the NAAQS for Ozone, OAQPS, SASD, June 1978.
-------
8. Energy Impact Assessment for Alternative Levels of the NAAQS
for Ozone, OAQPS, SASD, June 1978.
9. A Method for Assessing the Health Risks Associated with Alter-
native Air Quality Standards for Ozone, OAQPS, SASD, July 19/8.
-------
PART II
BRIEF DESCRIPTION
OF
POLICY STATEMENTS
TECHNICAL STUDIES
&
OTHER SUPPORT
DOCUMENTS
-------
SECTION I
I. SIP REQUIREMENTS
1. Criteria for Proposing Approval of Revision to Plans for
Non-Attainment Areas, Federal Register, Vol 43, No. 98, May 19,
1978. (Copy enclosed—Part III, Section X).
This directive from the EPA Administrator summarizes the elements
that must be included in State Implementation Plan revisions for
areas that do not meet national ambient air quality standards.
It established elements which a State Plan submittal must contain
in order to be approved by EPA and was published as information
for the public.
2. Workshop on Requirements for Non-Attainment Area Plans (Revised
and Edited), April 1978.
EPA held a series of three two-day workshops to discuss require-
ments of the Clear* Air Act Amendments of 1977 and specifically
discuss the provisions of the Act Amendments pertaining to non-
attainment areas. The objective of the workshops was to outline
the criteria for an acceptable 1979 plan. The workshops focused
on the major protions of an implementation plan revision and
provided guidance on specific items that must be part of the plan.
The workshops were not designed to cover all the details of
preparation of a SIP revision such as how to estimate future
emissions and how to model air pollution concentrations.
The workshop held in Kansas City was videotaped. Edited tapes
of this workshop are available through the EPA Regional Offices
to further disseminate information concerning the requirements
for the 1979 SIP revisions.
The workshop report was designed to accompany the workshops and
be used as an aid by both the participants and those interested
in the subject matter. The compilation contains visual aids
and textual material supporting the presentations. The material
is restricted to the requirements for the non-attainment area
SIPs.
The following subjects are addressed:
Overview of Clean Air Act Requirements and Organization of
Workshop
Control Strategy and General Plan Requirements
Transportation-Related Issues
Emission Inventory
Emissions - Air Quality Relationships
-------
Definition of RACT
Public Participation and Intergovernmental Consultation
Reasonable Further Progress
Procedural Requirements
New Source Review
Summary of Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977
Memorandum, "Criteria for Approval of 1979 SIP Revisions"
3. Attainment Designation List Required by the 1977 Clean Air Act
Amendments, September 28, 1977 (Copy enclosed, Part III).
The requirements for designating areas as attainment, non-attainment,
or unclassified is contained in a memorandum from David Hawkins.
4. Questions and Answers in 1979 SIP Revisions, Memo from G.T. Helms,
to the Regional Office Air Branch Chiefs, July 28, 1978 (Copy
enclosed, Part III).
A number of questions concerning specific SIP requirements and
policy implications on SIP decisions are covered in this memo-
randum. (Copy enclosed, Part III).
5. Final Guidelines for Section 174: Guidance on Designation of
Lead Planning Organizations for Non-Attainment Areas and on
Determination of Agency Responsibilities, Hawkins, December 14, 1977.
(Copy enclosed, Part III)
6. Questions and Answers on 1979 SIP Revisions from G.T. Helms to
the Regional Office Branch Chiefs, September 8, 1978. A number
of questions Guidance on requirement for VOC RACT Regulations
in all Oxidant Non-Attainment Areas is continued in the memo
from David Hawkins to the Regional Administrators August 4, 1978,
(Copy enclosed, Part III)
7. Continuity of SIP Regulations. Memorandum from David Hawkins to
the Regional Administrator, September 11, 1978. Guidance is
provided on retaining existing regulations and minimize deterioration
of air quality in non-attainment areas, (copy enclosed, part III)
-------
II. TRANSPORTATION CONTROLS.
1. Transportation Air Quality Planning Guideline, June 1978,
(Copy enclosed, Part III).
The guideline developed jointly by EPA and DOT addresses the
following subject areas:
The introduction (Chapter I) covers the following aspects of the
guidelines: (1) Purpose, including the basic policy goal;
(2) Applicability, including the primary roles of the lead
agency as well as DOT and EPA Regional Offices; (3) Funding --
authorized (but not yet appropriated) and available funds; and
(4) Background, including the relationship of the guidelines
to the original transportation control planning process and
the existing process administered by DOT.
Chapter II, SIP POLICY, summarizes and elaborates upon the
transportation portions of a major EPA policy memorandum,
"Criteria for Approval of 1979 SIP Revisions." This memoran-
dum signed by the EPA Administrator on February 24, 1978, is
wholly contained in Appendix B. Chapter II also provides an
abbreviated checklist of the major transportation-related
requirements of an acceptable 1979 SIP.
Chapter III, PROCESS, presents the procedural part of the
guidelines by describing the elements of the integrated
transportation-air quality planning process designed to
accomplish the policy goal and SIP requirements of
Chapters I and II. Chapter III defines procedures for: (1)
Interagency Coordination, (2) Elected Official Involvement,
(3) Public Information and Consultation, and (4) Evaluation
of Alternative Strategies.
Chapter IV describes: (1) modifications to ongoing transporta-
tion planning activities required by the Clean Air Act and (2)
documentation of those modifications. Chapter IV discusses
the Planning Work Programs, Transportation Plan, Transportation
Improvement Program, Alternatives Analysis, Consistency Determi-
nation and the SIP-
Chapter V concludes the Guidelines with a discussion of the
purpose, frequency, and content of progress reports.
The Appendix contains a general summary and description of the
provisions of the Clean Air Act that primarily concern or most
directly affect the transporation-air quality planning process.
-------
8
These sections include:
-- I 108: AIR QUALITY CRITERIA AND CONTROL TECHNIQUES
(1 108(e): Planning Process Guidelines, s 108(f):
Information Documents)
— § 110: IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
— 1 121: CONSULTATION
— 1 172: NONATTAINMENT PLAN PROVISIONS
— I 174: PLANNING PROCEDURES
— I 175: EPA GRANTS
2. Memorandum of Understanding Between the Department of Transporta-
tation and the Environmental Protection Agency regarding the
Integrating of Transportation Air Quality Planning, June 1978
(Copy enclosed, Part III).
This Memorandum of Understanding, developed pursuant to the
President's request, is designed (1) to establish certain
principles which DOT and EPA agree to follow in the preparation
of more detailed regulations and administrative procedures
required to achieve the objective of integrating the air quality
and transportation planning processes; (2) to identify specific
areas of agreement with regard to the joint administration of
the air quality aspects of the planning process.
3. Air Quality Impacts of Transit Improvements, Preferential Lane,
and Carpool/Vanpool Programs - Contract Report - EPA 400/2-
78-002, March 1978.
This report was prepared in accordance with Section 108(f) of
the Clean Air Act, as amended, August 1977. It is intended to
assist urban areas in developing transportation measures for
the State Implementation Plan and integrating their transportation
system management and air quality planning programs as required by
the Federal Highway Administration, the Urban Mass Transportation
Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency.
The specific types of short-range transportation programs
examined this report include:
-- priority treatment for high occupancy vehicles on freeways
and arterials;
-- areawide carpool and vanpool programs; and
-- transit fare reductions and service improvements.
-------
Other transportation measures such as parking controls, traffic
operations, and pricing are not covered in this project, but
will be the subject of future EPA information reports.
The report is intended to provide information to help urban
areas covered by EPA's Transportation Planning Guidelines to:
— assess the applicability and potential of the three classes
of TSM programs described above for improving localised and
regional air quality;
-- estimate and evaluate the cost effectiveness of such programs
and their related travel, energy consumption, cost, and
economic impacts; and
-- identify key factors, (e.g., meteorological conditions,
vehicle type distributions and vehicle operating speeds)
likely to affect air quality and air pollution emissions.
4. Transit Improvements, Preferential Lane, and Carpool Programs
(An annotated Bibliography of Demonstrations and Analytical
Experience) Contract Report - EPA 400/2-78/002b, March 1978).
The Environmental Protection Agency is evaluating the use and
cost effectiveness of alternative short-range transit fare and
service improvement strategies, carpool and vanpool strategies,
and strategies involving the preferential treatment of high
occupancy vehicles to improve air quality in urban areas. The
evaluation of individual strategies and combinations of the
above strategies includes their emission and air quality impacts
and their related energy, noise, and economic impacts. A compre-
hensive literature review was also conducted, as part of this
evaluation, to identify both observed and projected travel,
emission, air quality, energy, noise, and economic impacts of
the short-range, low-cost strategies of interest.
This document presents an annotated bibliography of useful
reports, papers, and other references describing the above
impacts for the transit, carpool, vanpool, and preferential
treatment strategies of interest. The bibliography should
be useful to elected officials, government administrators
and their technical staffs, and citizens involved in the
development of Transportation Control Plans, Transportation
System Management Elements and related short-range planning
activities.
Abstracts within this bibliography are organized under five
subject areas. Each area is described briefly below:
-------
10
General_. Reports broadly addressing transportation
system management, short-term transportation planning
techniques, conference proceedings, and sources which
treat several of the strategies addressed in the project.
Preferential Treatment of High Occupancy Vehicles iHOV).
Descriptive, simulation, and case study material on
reserved lanes, priority ramp facilities, and traffic
signal preemption for buses, carpools, and vanpools on
urban freeways and arterial facilities.
Carpool and Vanpool Programs. Descriptive, case study,
and simulation analyses on area-wide and employer-based
carpool and/or vanpool programs.
Transit Fare and Service Strategies. Studies addressing
the impacts of transit fare reductions or restructuring,
and of transit service improvements on transit ridership
and system performance.
Energy, Air Quality, Emissions, and Economic Impacts.
Studies addressing the potential positive and negative
impacts of various transportation-related actions on energy
consumption, air quality, emissions, and the economy
of urban areas.
-------
n
III. INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE
1. Inspection/Maintenance Policy - Memorandum from Dave Hawkins
to the EPA Regional Administrator, July 17, 1978.
This memorandum establishes what EPA will consider a minimally
acceptable program whenever I/M is required. It is designed
to aid states in developing adequate I/M submissions for the
SIP revisions due in January 1979, (copy enclosed).
2. Information Document on Automobile Emission Inspection and
Maintenance Programs. GCA Corporation, EPA 400/2-78^001
February 1978.
This document presents information on inspection/maintenance
programs, a means of reducing vehicular emissions which has
been successfully adopted by several states. The increased
interest in this strategy has led to a need for an inspection/
maintenance primer. It is this need to which this report is
addressed.
The objectives or purposes of tnis compendium are twofold. First,
it is to provide basic information on a number of both the
technical and nontechnical aspects of I/M and, second, to do
so in a manner which is virtually free of esoteric terms. Such
information was developed to be of use to both policy makers
and interested citizens.
The report is organized in to seven sections: Section 1 is
an introduction to this report; Section. 2 discusses the purpose
of inspection/maintenance programs and Section 3 presents the
benefits which result from their implementation. The various
approaches to I/M programs are discussed in Section 4. The
implementation of I/M programs is presented in Section 5.
Section 7 provides fact sheets on existing I/M programs. A
bibliography glossary are included as appendices to the report.
-------
12
IV. EMISSION INVENTORIES
.1. Procedures for the Preparation of Emission Inventories for
Volatile Organic Compounds, Volume I, EPA-450/2-77-028,
December 1977.
This guide is intended for general use by the air pollution
community in planning and compiling inventories for use in oxidant
control strategy development. Emphasis is placed on compiling
organic emission inventories; however, to some extent, planning
considerations and procedures described are applicable to
inventories in general.
This guide is published in two volumes. Volume I provides
technical guidance on compiling organic emission inventories
on an annual or seasonal basis at the county (or county
equivalent) level. Such inventories are considered adequate
for use in less data-intensive source/receptor relationships
that are based on rollback or chemical kinetics considerations.
Volume II provides technical guidance on compiling organic
emission inventories at a more detailed level of temporal and
spatial resolution than results from the techniques prescribed
in Volume I. Methodologies are discussed for compiling daily
and hourly inventories, with emissions being allocated to
suhcounty grids. Volume II should be available in early 1979.
2. Mobile Source Emission Factors, EPA 400/9-78-005, March 1978.
This document revises previous mobile source emission factors
contained in supplement No. 5 to AP-42, Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors (December 1975). This document does
not revise all information in Supplement No. 5. Updated factors
are not included for light-duty diesel automobiles, light-duty
diesel tracks, off-road source, or aircraft. No information is
included in participates. The major areas addressed include:
Part I - For all Regions except California and High Altitude
1. Light-duty, Gasoline-powered vehicles (LDV)(Automobiles)
2. Gasoline-powered, light-duty trucks (LOT)
3. Heavy-duty, gasoline-powered vehicles (HDG)
4. Heavy-duty, Diesel-powered vehicles (HDD)
5. Motorcycles (MC)
Part II - Mobile Source Emission Factors for California
Part III - High-Altitude Regions
-------
13
V. MODELING
1. Procedures for Quantifying Relationships Between Photochemical
Oxidants and Precursors: Supporting Documentation, EPA-450/
2-77-021b, February 1978.
The purpose of this report is to amplify the information in
Uses, LJimitations and Technical Basis of Procedures for
Quantifying Relationships Between Photochemical Oxidants and
Precursors, EPA 450/2-77-021 a. Several of the assertions
are applicable only to the Empirical Kinetic Modeling Approach
(EKMA) described at length in that document. Others, such as
the prevailing background concentration of ozone and the greater
importance of transported ozone as opposed to transported
precursors, have general significance in a number of different
procedures for quantifying ozone-precursor relationships.
Specifically, eight issues are addressed:
1. What levels of ambient ozone and precursors are
attributable to natural sources?
2. How significant are natural sources of ozone and
precursors likely to be in contributing to maximum
ozone concentrations observed within and downwind
or urban areas?
3. What are typical ratios of non-methane hydrocarbon
(NMHC) to oxices of nitrogen (NO ) in urban and
suburban areas?
4. How do ambient precursor concentrations vary, both
spatially and diurnally, in and near urban areas?
5. Is there any apparent difference in precursor levels
and NMHC/NO ratios on days experiencing high ozone
concentrations as opposed to other days?
6. Can existing ambient data be used to draw inferences
about ozone gradients upwind and downwind of major cities?
7. What is the relative importance of transported ozone,
NMHC, NO , N02/N0 ratio and aldehydes in contributing
to a maximum ozone concentrations observed in the vicinity
of urban areas?
8. How is the impact of transported ozone likely to be
affected by such factors as changes in locally generated
precursor levels, prevailing NMHC/NO ratios, varying
diurnal emission patterns, level of transported ozone
aloft, prevailing atmospheric dilution rates, and
sunlight intensity?
-------
14
2. Uses, Limitations and Technical Basis of Procedures for
Quantifying Relationships Between Photochemical Oxidants and
Precursors, EPA-450/2-77-021a, November 1977.
This document describes the technical basis, uses and limitations
of several approaches for relating photochemical oxidant
(expressed as ozone) to organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen.
It is not intended as a statement of EPA policy concerning which
method to use in relating ozone to precursors. By reporting the
nature and present status of various analytical techniques,
it is intended that the document will prove useful to (1) estimate
the amount of precursor controls needed to attain the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for photochemical oxidants
(160yg/m3 hourly average concentration not to be exceeded more
than once per year), and (2) estimate the reduction in ozone
concentrations accompanying specified reductions in precursors.
Some of the methods described also provide additional measures of
improvement in ambient air quality which may accompany precursor
controls. These additional capabilities are identified where
applicable. (Note April 12, 1978 errata sheet).
3. Questions and Answers in Relationships between Hydrocarbons and
Photochemical Oxidants, OAQPS, MDAD, September 1978
(Copy enclosed - Part III, Section IX)
This series of questions and answers supports the position that
reducing hydrocarbon emissions reduces ambient ozone levels.
This position is based on experimental and theoretical studies
that establishes a physical cause/effects relationship between
organic pollutants and ozone in the precursors of oxides of
nitrogen. The questions and answers focus on the control
strategies of contracting organic emissions to reduce ambient
levels of ozone.
-------
15
VI. CONTROL TECHNIQUE GUIDELINE
1. Development of Regulations for HC RACT from CTGs. Memorandum
from Walter Barber, April 28, 1978 (copy enclosed). This
memorandum stresses the need for flexibility and case-by-case
determination in developing RACT regulations.
2. Regulatory Guidance for Control of Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions from 15 Categories of Stationary Sources - GCA
Corporation, Contract No. 68-02-2887, April 1978. (DRAFT)
This report provides guidance for regulation development in
the form of sample regulations based heavily on guidelines for
15 categories of stationary sources as well as existing Federal
and State laws. In addition, the report contains a compendium
of existing regulations and test procedures. The sample regu-
lations set forth in regulatory format definitions, emission
limitations, equipment standards, exemptions, compliance
schedules and testing methods and procedures. Note: States
are advised to consider economic impact in determining RACT
requirements.
The 15 stationary volatile organic compound source categories
for which guidelines were available in January 1978 include:
o Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks
o Surface Coating of Cans
o Surface Coating of Metal Coils
o Surface Coating of Paper
o Surface Coating of Fabric Products
o Surface Coating of Metal Furniture
o Surface Coating of Large Appliances
o Surface Coating for Insulation of Magnet Wire
o Petroleum Liquids in Fixed-Roof Tanks
o Bulk Gasoline Plants
o Gasoline Loading Terminals
o Service Stations Stage I.
o Miscellaneous Refinery Sources
o Solvent Metal Cleaning
o Cutback Asphalt
3. Control Techniques for Volatile Organic Emissions from Stationary
Sources. EPA-Final Report, Radian Contract 68-02-2608,
Task 12 & 23.
-------
16
This is a revised and updated version of a March, 1970, EPA
publication entitled, Control Techniques for Hydrocarbon and.
Organic Solvent Emissions from Stationary Sources (AP-68).
It is intended primarily as a general reference for State and
local air pollution control engineers. It provides:
1. Basic information on sources of photochemical oxidant
precursors and control of these sources,
2. Estimates of control costs,
3. Estimates of control technique energy requirements,
and
4. Estimates of emission reductions achievable through
control application,
The cost curves presented in the text are the result of
averaging costs for differing industrial applications. The
costs derived from these curves are rough estimates. Actual
costs for a particular installation may vary.
The control techniques described in this document present a
spectrum of information from many technical fields. The
devices, methods, and prinicples have been developed and used
over many years and are constantly being revised and improved.
They are recommended as the techniques generally available, control
hydrocarbon and organic solvent emissions. Because of the
general nature of the document, it is not intended to be used
as the basis for developing or enforcing regulations.
4. Stationary Sources of Volatile Organic Compounds and Schedule
for Applicable Control Technique Guidelines, OAQPS, ESED,
July 10, 1978. (Copy enclosed.)
A schedule of the issuance of the control technique guidelines
for volatile organic compounds has been established by OAQPS.
5. RACT Documents - A number of control technique documents have
been published and are listed in the reference section.(Part III)
6. Recommended Policy on Control of Volatile Organic Compounds,
Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 131, July 8, 1977. (copy enclosed).
The purpose of this notice is to recommend a policy for States
to follow on the control of volatile organic compounds (VOC),
which are a constituent in the formation of photochemical
oxidants (smog). This notice does not place any requirements
on States; State Implementation Plan (SIP) provisions which
offer reasonable alternatives to this policy will be approvable.
However, this policy will be followed by EPA whenever it is
required to draft State Implementation Plans for the control
of photochemical oxidants.
-------
17
7. Seasonal Operations of Natural Gas Fired Afterburners, Memo
from Roger Strelow to the Regional Administrators, July 28, 1976.
(copy enclosed)
8. Vapor Recovery Regulations Required to meet RACT Requirement
for the 1979 SIP, June 30, 1978 (copy enclosed). This memorandum
provided guidance on how much regulations can vary from RACT
requirements and still be acceptable to EPA.
9. Hydrocarbon Control Strategies for Gasoline Marketing Operations,
EPA 450/3-78-017, April 1978.
This document provides basic and current descriptions of
gasoline marketing operations and methods that are available
to control hydrocarbon emissions from these operations. The three
types of facilities that are described are terminals, bulk plants,
and service stations. Operational and business trends are also
discussed. Emissions from typical facilities, including transport
trucks, are estimated.
The operations which lead to emissions from these facilities
include (1) gasoline storage, (2) gasoline loading at terminal
and bulk plants, (3) gasoline delivery to bulk plants and ser-
vice stations, and (4) the refueling of vehicles at service
stations.
Available and possible methods for controlling emissions are
described with their estimated control efficiencies and costs.
The costs for control of a unit weight of hydrocarbon are
calculated from these estimates.
10. Clarification of EPA Policy on Emissions of Methyl Chloroform.
Memorandum from Walter Barber to the Regional Administrator,
August 17, 1978. Guidance is provided on the preparation of
SIP regulatory packages regarding the exemption of methyl
chloroform for control and wide scale substitution.
-------
18
VII. COST
Cost and Economic Impact Assessment for Alternative Levels
of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone -
OAQPS, June 1978.
This report includes an analysis of 90 Air Quality Control
Regions (AQCRs) which currently exhibit ambient ozone
concentrations in excess of the current photochemical oxidant
standard (.08 ppm hourly average not to be exceeded more than
once per year). For each AQCR this analysis estimates potential
emissions in 1987 and potential emission reductions achievable
with the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP), new
and modified source control, application of reasonably available
control technology (RACT) on existing stationary sources and
further motor vehicle controls through transportation control
plans. Based on the projected emission reductions, control
costs are estimated for applying technology in an attempt to
attain alternative standard levels. While the analysis considers
each AQCR separately, the results are presented in aggregate
form for all 90 AQCRs instead of each individual AQCR.
-------
19
VIII. HEALTH EFFECTS
1. The Health Implications of Photochemical Oxidant Air Pollution
to Your Community - EPA-450/2-76-016-1, August 1976.
This document explains in laymans1 language the basic health
effect of photochemical oxidants. Its purpose is to convey
this information to local public decision makers and to
others with non-technical backgrounds.
2. Summary Statements from the EPA Advisory Panel on Health
Effects of Photochemical Oxidants. University of North
Carolina, June 1978.
The Advisory Panel on Health Effects of Photochemical Oxidants
N.C. on June 7th and 8th, 1977.
The purpose of the panel discussions was to interpret the
current state of knowledge on health effects of ozone and
other photochemical substances, with the objective of develop-
ing a guideline to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
for the protection of public health. These discussions were
prompted by EPA's current program for review and re-assessment
of the existing air quality standard for photochemical oxidants.
The panel reviewed studies relating to the following categories
of health effects:
A. Human studies
1. Mechanical function of the lung (controlled human
exposures)
2. Asthma and lung function in children
3. Athletic performance
4. Other effects: mortality, occupational hazards
B. Toxicological studies
1. Experimental infection of animals
- 2. Morphological abnormalities of the respiratory system
3. Biochemical effects
4. Mutagenic and teratogenic potential
5. Performance and behavioral effects
In its discussions, the Panel considered several issues bearing
on the overall interpretation of reported studies. Among the
major issues were: relative weights to be given to published
and unpublished reports, concept of threshold concentrations
for effects, human health significance of toxicological data,
chemical specificity of the air quality standard ("ozone,"
"bxidants," "photo-chemical substances") margins of safety, and
the health significance of exceeding a stated concentration one
-------
20
or more times. Conclusions and recommended guidelines for
the protecting public health are contained in this report.
3. Ozone and other Photochemical Oxidants, SRI Contract Report,
EPA 68-02-2835, (Draft) August 1978, (copy enclosed).
This report is addressed to the local decision makers and other
interested persons with an understanding for informal decisions
real ted to oxidant pollution and its control. The report covers
the following aspects of oxidants;
1. Definition, Effects, and Standards
2. The Ozone Problem
3. Ozone and the Law
4. Approaches to Control
-------
21
IX. PROPOSED OZONE STANDARD
1. Photochemical Oxidants - Proposed revisions to the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard - Federal Register, Vol. 32, No. 121,
June 22, 1978.
In accordance with the provisions of Sections 108 and 109 of the
Clean Air Act as amended, EPA conducted a review of the criteria
upon which the existing primary and secondary photochemical
oxjdant standards was based. The revised criteria was published
simultaneously with the issuance of this proposed rulemaking.
The existing primary and secondary standards for photochemical
oxidants is currently set at 0.08 ppm, 1-hour average not to be
exceeded more than once per year. As a result of the review and
revision of health and welfare criteria, EPA proposes to raise
the primary standard level to 0.10 ppm, 1-hour average. EPA
also proposes that the secondary welfare-based standard remain
at 0.08 ppm, 1-hour average. Other changes proposed in the rule-
making included: 0) changing the chemical designation of the
standard from photochemical oxidants to ozone, and (2) changing
to a standard with a statistical rather than deterministic form,
i.e., allowable exceedances will be stated as an expected value,
not an explicit value.
2. Guideline for Interpretating Ozone Air Quality Standards (DRAFT),
OAQPS 1.2-108 Guidelines Series.
The purpose of this document is to amplify discussions dealing
with compliance assessment and to indicate the data analysis
procedures necessary to determine appropriate design values for
use in developing control strategies. Where possible, the
approaches discussed are conceptually similar to the procedures
presented in the earlier "Guideline for Interpreting Air Quality
Data with Respect to the Standards" (OAQPS l.a-008, revised
February 1977). However, the form of the proposed standards
necessitates certain modifications in two general areas:
(1) accounting for less than complete sampling and (2) incor-
porating data from more than one year.
The following subjects are addressed:
ASSESSING COMPLIANCE
Interpretation of "Expected Number"
Estimating Exceedances for a Year
Extension to Multiple Years
Examples Calculation
-------
22
3. Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Other Photochemical Oxidants,
Vols. 1 & 2, EPA 600/8-78-004, April 1978.
This two-volume report summarizes current data on effects on man,
vegetation, and ecosystems of oxidant/ozone in the ambient air.
The effects that have been observed will form the scientific
basis for supporting the present National Ambient Air Quality
Standard of 160 yg/m3 (0.08 ppm) or a revised standard.
VOLUME I
Nature and Atmospheric Concentration of Photochemical Oxidants
Sources and Sinks of Oxidants
Oxidant Precursors
Relationships between Ambient Oxidant and Precursor Emissions
Measurement Methods for Oxidant and Oxidant Precursors
Health Effects of Ozone and Other Photochemical Oxidants
Effects of Photochemical Oxidants on Vegetation and Certain
Microorganisms
Effects of Photochemical Oxidants on Ecosystems
Effects of Photochemical Oxidants on Materials
Volume II
Clinical Appraisal of the Effects of Oxidants
• Occupational and Accidental Exposure to Ozone
• Controlled Studies of Human Health Effects
Epidemiological Appraisal of Photochemical Oxidants
Effects of Photochemical Oxidants on Vegetation and Certain
Microorganisms
Ecosystems
Effects of Ozone on Materials
4. The Use of Judgmental Probability Distribution in Setting NAAQS
for Ozone—Final Report, SRI International (Project 6780),
May 1978.
This report presents a discussion of the concept of judgmental
probability, its past use (especially by government agencies),
its proper role in decision-making, and a brief description of
an accepted method of encoding a probability distribution.
This paper is being prepared in support of the document A Method^
for Assessing the Health Risks Associated with Alternative
Air Quality Standards for Photochemical Oxidants. EPA (19/8).
The assessment of probabilities from health experts is one part
of the method.
-------
23
The report is divided into three sections. The first section
defines judgmental probability and shows how it has been used
in both the public and private sectors. The relationship of
probability encoding to the other aspects of the discipline of
decision analysis is also covered.
The second section describes a procedure that has been developed
for the assessment of probability, and shows how this procedure
counteracts the effects of possible biases that may influence
the result of some assessment techniques.
The third section discusses the question of validation of
assessments.
5. Alternative Forms of the Ambient Air Quality Standard for
Photochemical Oxidants, OAQPS, SASD, May 1978.
The current standard can lead to inconsistent treatment from
one AQCR to the next in deciding both compliance and degree of
emission control required. While health and welfare effects
are the primary considerations in choosing the most appropriate
form of the standard it is also important that the form provide
an adequate and clear basis for defining the overall quality
of ambient air it is desired to achieve.
In the report it is suggested that the form should be designed
to; (1) adequately define what must be measured to determine
compliance and measurements which can be made with the needed
accuracy; (2) provide clear, unambiguous criteria for determining
whether an area is or is not in compliance; and (3) provide a
clear, unambiguous definition of the air quality it is desired
to achieve to serve as a target for the development and verifi-
cation of control strategies.
In this report the form of the standard is examined from this
point of view and provides a basis for examining the impact of
health and welfare effects on the form.
6. Assessment of Welfare Effects and the Secondary Standard for
Ozone, OAQPS, SASD, June 1978.
The Clean Air Act mandates the setting of a national secondary
ambient air quality standard to protect the public welfare from
any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with the
presence of an air pollutant in the ambient air. Ozone and
other photochemical oxidants constitute a form of air pollution
that affects vegetation and materials. The resultant economic
loss has been estimated to be in the range of several hundred
million dollars per year nationwide. Non-quantifiable losses
to the natural environment occur as well. Major areas covered
by the report include:
-------
24
Effects of Ozone and Other Photochemical Oxidants
Vegetation Damage
Monitoring Methods and Data Reliability
Foliar Injury
Growth and Yield Effects
Pollutant Interactions and Ambient Exposures
Economic Assessment
Effects on the Natural Environment
Materials Damage
Air Quality Issues
Sources and Concentrations of Oxidants in Ambient Air
Sources
Urban Oxidant/Ozone Levels
Rural Ozone Levels
Natural Background Levels
Levels of Non-Ozone Oxidants
7. Environmental Impact Assessment of Control Measure Required
for Attainment of the NAAQS for Ozone, OAQPS, SASD, June 1978.
A review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
for photochemical oxidants has recently been concluded and the
Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Other Photochemical Oxidants
and Control Technqiues for Hydrocarbons and Volatile Organic
Compounds have been reissued.The criteria document has been
revised to incorporate new information about the health and
welfare effects on oxidants. The control techniques documents
presents available control technology based on experience and
new developments since the previous publications.
The purpose of this assessment is to review the information
presented in the control techniques document and to present an
analysis of the environmental impact of control measures required
for attainment of the air quality standard for ozone.
8, Energy Impact Assessment for Alternative Levels of the NAAQS
for Ozone, OAQPS, SASD, June 1978.
Energy requirements for the selected control strategy depend
upon the rate of emissions, the concentration of the effluent
stream, and the specific arrangement of equipment and process.
For some industries, substitution of water-based materials
for photochemically reactive materials or process changes that
reduce or eliminate vapor emissions prove to be the least
cost strategy. Process changes may also include measures such
as good housekeeping practices and electrostatic sprays to
-------
25
reduce or eliminate solvent emissions. Recently completed studies
on energy impacts associated with asphalt paving, gasoline
markering, automobile and light duty truck body painting
operations, and petroleum refining formed the principal data
base on energy impacts used in this study.
9. A Method for Assessing the Health Risks Associated with Alter-
native Air Quality Standards for Ozone, OAQPS, SASD, July 1978.
The National Academy of Sciences recommended that EPA make use
of some of the principles and techniques developed in the
discipline of decision analysis which are helpful to rational
decision-making under uncertainty, The method discussed in
this report incorporates some of these principles and techniques.
For example, the technique of "probability encoding", which enables
optimal use of the quantitative judgments of health experts,
plays an important role. The decision analysis principle of
reducing complex judgments to smaller, more manageable sub-
judgments whose logical implications can be determined
mathematically is employed. Subjects addressed in this report
include the following:
Underlying Principles of the Metohd
Risk and Margins of Safety
Legislative Guidance
Health Effect Threshold
Idealized Risk Surfaces
"Risk" Nomenclature
Basic Model
Undertainty Concerning Health Effect Threshold Concentrations
Subjective Probability
Independence of Health Effects
Responses of Concern
Sensitive Population
Seriousness of Effect
Uncertainty about Causality
Defining the Encoding Variable
Uncertainty in Peak Air Quality Levels
Secondary Uncertainties and Public Probability
General Description of the Method
Mathematical Description of the Method
Obtaining the PC(C) Distributions
-------
26
Application of the Risk Assessment to Ozone
The Judgments of Health Experts
Determination of Pc Functions for Ozone
Risk Tables and Risk Ribbons
-------
PART III
COPIES OF
SELECTED REFERENCES
-------
REF 1-1
[6560-01]
Title 40—Protection of Environment
CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
tFRL 897-1]
PART 51—STATE IMPLEMENTATION
PLANS UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT
Criteria for Proposing Approval of
Revision to Plans for Nonattain-
ment Areas
AGENCY: Evironmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice of policy memoran-
dum.
SUMMARY: Reproduced below is a
copy of a Memorandum in which the
EPA Administrator summarized the
elements that must be included in
State Implementation Plan Revisions
for areas that do not meet national
ambient air quality standards under
the Clean Air Act. The Memorandum
establishes elements which a State
Plan submittal must contain in order
to be approved by EPA. EPA is pub-
lishing this Memorandum for the in-
formation of the public.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 24,
1978.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Darryl D. Tyler. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards
(MD-15). Research Triangle Park,
N.C. 27711, 919-541-5425.
RULES AND REGULATIONS
SUMMARY INFORMATION: New
provisions of the Clean Air Act en-
acted in 1977 require stairs to revise
their State Implementation Plans for
all areas that do not attain National
Ambient Air Quality Standards. States
must submit the necessary Plan revi-
sions to EPA by January 1, 1979.l
The Memorandum reproduced
below, which the EPA Administrator
issued to the ten Regional Administra-
tors on February 24, 1978. summarizes
the elements which a Plan submittal
must contain in order to be approved
by EPA as meeting the requirements
of Part D of the Act. Copies of this
Memorandum have already been sup-.
plied to the state air pollution control
agencies, to provide guidance in their
preparation of Plan revisions. It is
being published now for the informa-
tion of the public.
EPA considers this Memorandum to
state "nationally applicable" Agency
policy, but not "regulations promul-
gated, or final action taken, by the Ad-
ministrator" that is ripe for Judicial
review under the first sentence of sec-
tion 307(b)(l) of the Act (42, U.S.C.
7607(b)(D). Only after EPA has re-
ceived actual Plan submittals, and has
invited and considered public com-
ment on whether the submittals satis-
fy the requirements for approval
under the Act, will the Administrator
take final actions with respect to the
individual submittals. The opportunity
for judicial review of those final
Agency actions under the second and
third sentences of section 307(b)(l) of
the Act, will provide an opportunity
for judicial consideration of the policy
issues addressed in this Memorandum.
Dated: May 9,1978.
DAVID O. HAWKINS,
Assistant Administrator for
Air and Waste Management.
On February 24, 1978, the Adminis-
trator of the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency issued the following
Memorandum:
SUBJECT: Criteria for Approval of
1979 SIP Revisions.
FROM: The Administrator (A-100).
TO: Regional Administrators, I-X.
FEBRUARY 24,1978.
The attachment to this memo sum-
'The new requirements for nonattainment
areas are contained in Part D to Title I of
the Act (42 U.S.C. 7501-7508). The general
requirements for Plans are set forth in sec-
tion 110 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 7410). Several
consequences that may result if a state falls
to adopt and carry out the necessary Plan
provisions for a nonattainment area are
found in sections 110(a)(2)(I). 173(4). and
176(a)-(b) of the Act. (42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(2XI). 7503(4), and 7506(a)-(b)). The
January 1, 1979, deadline is stated in section
129(c) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1977, Pub. L. 95-95 (note under 40 U.S.C.
7502).
21673
marizes the elements which a 1979
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revi-
sion for a non-attainment area must
contain in order to be approved by
EPA as meeting the requirements of
Part D of the Clean Air Act.
In summary, the Act requires the
demonstration of attainment of the
air quality standards (primary and sec-
ondary) as expcclltlouHly as practice
ble, but in the case of. national prima-
ry standards not later than December
31, 1982. However, for carbon monox-
ide (CO) and oxidants (Ox), if. the
State can demonstrate attainment is
not possible by 1982 despite the imple-
mentation of all reasonable stationary
source and transportation control
measures, the Act provides for up to a
five-year extension. In those cases the
plan revisions must demonstrate at-
tainment as expeditiously as practica-
ble but no later than December 31,
1987. The extension is not automatic;
a demonstration of need must be made
and the State must fulfill the other
statutory requirements.
It is the intent of the Agency to es-
tablish reasonable and achievable
goals for SIP submissions and to take,.
a firm posture on the imposition of
sanctions where the reasonable goals
are not achieved. Accordingly, while
the policy requires a commitment to
many specific strategies in the 1979
submissions (e.g., RACT on stationary
sources, inspection/maintenance pro-
grams where attainment for carbon
monoxide or oxidants extends beyond
1982, other reasonable transportation
control measures, etc.) the memo also
requires (for carbon monoxide and ox-
idants) a commitment to a continuing
process. This process must be one
which extensively involves the public
as well as State and local elected offi-
cials and which ambitiously pursues a
wide range of alternatives. '
-------
REF 1-1
21674
ity planning and implementation re-
quired by the Clean Air Act into exist-
ing planning and programing proce-
dures. The air planning activities
should be included in the Unified
Work Program required by DOT and
the adopted transportation measures
should be included in the Transporta-
tion Improvement Program required
by DOT. In complying with the Clean
Air Act requirements, the Regions
should also keep in mind the require-
ments of the HUD-EPA Agreement
which provides for coordination of air
quality planning and planning assisted
under the HUD Comprehensive Plan-
ning Assistance (701) Program. Inte-
gration of air and transportation plan-
ning with comprehensive planning
which incorporates growth—manage-
ment concerns should improve the ef-
fectiveness of air quality planning and
could reduce the need for enforcement
measures in the future.
States will be provided some discre-
tion regarding the amount of emis-
sions growth to be accommodated
•within the SIP. EPA generally will not
question the growth rates desired by
the State so long as reasonable further
progress is demonstrated and there is
a demonstration of attainment by the
statutory deadline (1982 or 1987).
However, the growth rate identified in
the SIP must be consistent with
growth rates used (or Implied by)
other planning programs in the area
(e.g., FWPCA §§208, 201, HUD §701,
FHWA§134).
You should note that there are
other SIP revisions which are not dis-
cussed in the attachment but which
are required by the 1977 Amendments.
These include:
1. Section 128 (relating to State
boards).
2. Section 126 (relating to Interstate
pollution).
3. Section 127 (relating to public no-
tification).
4. Part C (relating to prevention of
significant deterioration).
5. Section 110(a)(2XK) (relating to
permit fees).
6. Section 123 (relating to stack
heights for existing source in other
than non-attainment areas).
7. Section 121 (relating to consulta-
tion).
Although incorporation of these pro-
visions is required by the law, failure
to achieve final approval by July 1,
1979 does not trigger the new source
prohibition of Section 110(a)(2)(I).
It is important to emphasize to the
States that all current SIP require-
ments remain in effect despite the de-
velopment of the 1979 revisions. Any
suspension or discontinuance of an ex-
isting SIP provision must be submitted
for EPA approval. This should be done
as part of the revision submitted in
January 1979. Exceptions to this pro-
cedure may. be found in certain new
RULES AND REGULATIONS
provisions of § 110 relating to reduc-
tion of on-street parking, bridge tolls,
and other measures.
The development of the January
-1979 SIPs to meet the minimum re-
quirements of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1977 is a complex and
demanding program. It will require
the commitment of significant re-
sources on the part of the air pro-
grams staff of the Regional Office to
ensure that the States develop and
submit .a comprehensive and approv-
able plan. We are working with your
staff to develop the necessary guid-
ance and follow-up programs which
will assist your office and the State to
carry out this very difficult but impor-
tant part of the overall air program.
Attachment *' *
cc: Alr~3r-Ha7,ardfms Division Direc-
tors, Air Branch Chiefs.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 STATE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISIONS FOR
NON-ATTAINMENT AREAS
PURPOSE
The purpose of this document is to
define the criteria by which State Im-
plementation Plan (SIP) revisions for
non-attainment areas'required by the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977
(the Act) will be approved. These revi-
sions are to be submitted to EPA by
January 1,1979.
CATEGORIES OF SIP REVISIONS
SIP revisions submitted by January
1, 1979 can be divided into two catego-
ries:
1. Those which provide for attain-
ment of the Primary Ambient Air
Quality Standards (primary stand-
ards) for all criteria pollutants on or
before December 31, 1982.
2. Those which provide for attain-
ment of the primary standards for
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and
particulate matter on or before De-
cember 31, 1982 but show that despite
the implementation of all reasonable
transportation and stationary source
emission control measures attainment
of the primary standards for carbon
monoxide and/or oxidants cannot be
achieved until after this date. In these
cases, the revisions must demonstrate
attainment as expeditiously as practi-
cable but no later than December 31,
1987.
In order for an adequate SIP revi-
sion to fall Into the second category,
the State has an affirmative responsi-
bility to demonstrate to the satisfac-
tion of EPA that attainment of the
primary carbon monoxide and/or oxi-
dants standards is not possible in an
area prior to December 31, 1982.
It should be noted that SIP revisions
of either category should also provide
for attainment of Secondary Ambient
Air Quality Standards (secondary
standards) as expeditiously as practi-
cable although there Is no specific
deadline contained In the'Act.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS OF ALL 1979 SIP
REVISIONS
Each 1979 SIP revision must contain
the following:
1. A definition of the geographic
areas for which control strategies have
been or will be developed. Considera-
tion should be given to the practical
benefits of deflnlnu areas which corre-
spond whenever possible to those sub-
state districts established pursuant to
Part IV, Attachment A of OMB Circu-
lar No. A-95.
: 2. An accurate, comprehensive, and
current (1977 calendar year) inventory
of existing emissions.
3. A determination of the level of
control needed lo demoiustratc Attain-
ment by 1982 (Including growth). This
demonstration should be made by the
application of modeling techniques as
set forth in EPA's Guideline on Air
Quality Models. For oxidants, any le-
gitimate modeling technique (e.g.,
those referenced in "Use, Limitation
and Technical Basis of Procedures for
Quantifying Relationships Between
Photochemical Oxidants and Precur-
sors." EPA 450/2-77-021a. November
1977) can be used. Consideration of
background and transport for oxidants
should generally be in accordance with
the procedures documented in "Proce-
dures for Quantifying Relationships
Between Photochemical Oxidants and
Precursors." In developing photo-
chem- leal oxidant control strategies
for a particular area, states may
assume at a minimum that the stand-
ard will be attained In adjacent, nUtCR.
If a state can demonstrate that the
level of control necessary for attain-
ment of the primary standards for
carbon monoxide and/or oxidant Is
not possible by 1982 despite the appli-
cation of all reasonable measures, an
extension past 1982 (but not beyond
1987) is authorized.
4. Adoption in legally enforceable
form1 of all measures necessary to
'Written evidence that the State, the gen-
eral purpose local government or govern-
ments, or a regional agency designated by
general purpose local governments for such
purpose, have adopted by statute, regula-
tion, ordinance or other legally enforceable
document, the necessary requirements and
schedules and timetables for compliance,
and are committed to Implement and en-
force the appropriate elements of the plan.
The relevant organizations shall provide evi-
dence that the legally enforceable attain-
ment measures and the "criteria, standards
and Implementing procedures necessary for
effectively guldlnn and controlling major
derision* on to where growth shall and uliall
not take place," prepared by Slate and local
govornmonU In compliance wlih Section 701
of the Housing Act of 1954. as amended, an;
fully coordinated In the attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 98-FRIDAY, MAY 19, 1978
-------
REF 1-1
provide for attainment by the pre-
scribed date or, where adoption of all
such measures by 1979 is not possible,
(e.g., certain transportation control
measures, and certain measures to
control the oxides of nitrogen and
total suspended particulate) a sched-
ule for expeditious development, adop-
tion, submittal, and implementation of
these measures. The situations in
which adoption of measures may be
scheduled after 1979 are discussed in
the pollutant specific sections of this
document. Each schedule must pro-
vide for implementation of all reason-
ably available control measures as ex-
peditiously as practicable. During the '
period prior to attainment, these
measures must be implemented rapid-
ly enough to provide at a minimum for
reasonable further progress (see dis-
cussion below). "Each schedule will be
considered part of the applicable im-
plementation plan and thus will repre-
sent a commitment on the part of the
State to meet the key mile- stones set
forth in the submitted schedule.
5. Emission reduction estimates for
each adopted or scheduled control
measure or for related groups of con-
trol measures where estimates for in-
dividual measures are impractical. It is
recognized that reduction estimates
may change as measures are more
.fully analyzed and implemented. As
such estimates change, appropriate re-
sponses will be required to insure that
the plan remains adequate to provide
for attainment and for reasonable fur-
ther progress.
6. Provision for reasonable further
progress toward attainment of the pri-
mary and secondary standards In the
period prior to the prescribed date for
attainment. Reasonable further pro-
gress is defined as annual incremental
reductions in total emissions (emis-
sions from new as well as existing
sources) to provide for attainment by
the prescribed date. The plan shall
provide for substantial reductions in
the early years with regular reduc-
tions thereafter.
Reasonable further progress will be
determined for each area by dividing
the total emission reductions required
to attain the applicable standard by
the number of years between 1979 and
the date projected for attainment (not
later than 1987). This is represented
graphically by a straight line drawn
from the emissions inventory submit-
ted in 1979 to the allowable emissions
on the attainment date. However, EPA
recognizes that some measures cannot
result in immediate emission reduc-
tion. Therefore, If a State can show
that some lag in emissions reduction is
necessary, a SIP will be acceptable
even though reductions sufficient to
produce decreases at the "straight-line
rate" are not achieved for a year or
two after 1979. This lag in achieving
the "straight-line rate" for emissions
RULES AND REGULATIONS
reduction is to be accepted only to ac-
commodate the time reouired for com-
pliance with the first set of regula-
tions adopted on or before January 1.
1979, if immediate compliance is not
possible. It does not authorize delays
in adoption of control requirements.
The requirement to demonstrate
reasonable further progress will, in
most areas designated non-attainment
for oxidant or carbon monoxide, ne-
cessitate7 a continuous, phased imple-
mentation of transportation control
measures. In areas where attainment
of all primary ambient standards by
1982 is not possible EPA will not
accept mere reliance on the Federal
Motor Vehicle Control Program by
itself as a demonstration of reasonable
further progress.
In determining "reasonable further
progress", 4,hose emission reductions
obtained from compliance between
August 7. 1977, and December 31,
1979, with (1) SIP revisions that have
been submitted after August 7, 1977,
and (2) regulations which were ap-
proved by the Agency prior to the en-
actment of the 1977 Clean Air Amend-
ments, can be treated as having been
achieved during 1979. There should be
an assurance, however, that these are
real emission reductions and not just
"paper" ones.
7.- An identification and quantifica-
tion of an emissions growth increment
which will be allowed to result from
the construction and operation of
major new or modified stationary
sources within the area for which the
plan has been developed. Alternative-
ly, an emissions offset regulation can
be adopted to provide for major new
source growth.
The growth rates established by
states for mobile sources and new
minor stationary sources should also
be specified, and in combination with
the growth associated with major new
or modified stationary sources will be
accepted so long as they do not jeopar-
dize the reasonable further progress
test and attainment by the prescribed
date. However, the growth rate identi-
fied in the SIP must be consistent
with the growth rates used (or implied
by) the other planning programs in
the area (e.g.( FWPCA Section 208
[201], HUD Section 701, FHWA Sec-
tion 134). A system for monitoring the
emission growth rates from major and
minor new stationary sources and
from transportation sources and assur-
ing that they do not exceed the speci-
fied amounts must also be provided for
in the revision.
8. Provision for annual reporting on
the progress toward meeting the
schedules summarized in (4) above as
well as growth of mobile sources,
minor new stationary sources, major
new or modified stationary sources,
and reduction in emissions from exist-
ing sources to provide for reasonable
21675
further progress as in (6) above. This
should include an updated emission in-
ventory.
9. A requirement that permits be
issued for the construction and oper-
ation of new or modified major
sources in accordance with Section 173
and 110(a)(2)(D).
10. An Identification of and commit-
ment to the financial and manpower
resources necessary to carry out the
plan. The commitment should be
made at the highest executive level
having responsiblity for SIP or that
portion of it and having authority to
hire new employees. This commitment
should include written evidence that
the State, the general purpose local
government or governments, and all
state, local or regional agencies have
included appropriate provision in their
respective budgets and intend to con-
tinue to do so in future years for
which budgets have not yet been final-
ized, to the extent necessary.
11. Evidence of public, local govern-
ment, and state legislative involve-
ment and consultation. It shall also in-
clude an identification and brief analy-
sis of the air quality, health, welfare,
economic, energy, and social effects of
the plan revisions and of the alterna-
tives considered by the State, and a
summary of the public comment on
such analysis.
12. Evidence that the SIP was adopt-
ed by the state after reasonable notice
and public hearing.
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CARBON
MONXIDE AND OXIDANT SIP REVISIONS
WHICH PROVIDE FOR ATTAINMENT OF
THE PRIMARY STANDARDS LATER THAN
1983
For those SIP revisions which dem-
onstrate that attainment of the prima-
ry standards for carbon monoxide
and/or oxidants is not possible in an
area prior to December 31, 1982 de-
spite the implementation of all reason-
able omission control measures tho fol-
lowing Items must be Included In the
January 1. 1979 submission in addition
to all the general requirements listed
above:
1. A program which requires prior to
issuance of any permit for construc-
tion or modification of a major emit-
ting facility an analysis of alternative
sites, sizes, production processes, and
environmental control techniques for
such proposed source which demon-
strates that benefits of the proposed
source significantly outweigh the envi-
ronmental and social cost Imposed as a
result of its location, construction, or
modification.
2. An inspection/maintenance pro-
gram or a schedule endorsed by and
committed to by the Governor for the
development, adoption, and implemen-
tation of such a program as expedl-
tiously as practicable. Where the nec-
essary legal authority does not CUT-
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 98—FRIDAY, MAY 19, 1978
-------
REF 1-1
21676
rently exist, it must be obtained by
June 30, 1979. Limited exceptions to
the requirement to obtain legal au-
thority by June 30, 1979 may be possi-
ble if the state can demonstrate that
(a) there was insufficient opportunity
to conduct necessary technical analy-
ses and/or (b) the legislature has had
no opportunity to consider any neces-
sary enabling legislation for inspec-
tion/maintenance between enactment
of the 1977 Amendments to the Act
and June 30, 1979. In addition, where
a legislature has adequate opportunity
to adopt enabling legislation before
January 1, 1979, the Regional Admin-
istrator should require submission of
such legal authority by January 1,
1979. In no case can the schedule sub-
mitted provide for obtaining legal-au-
thority later than July 1, 1980.
Actual implementation of the in-
spection/maintenance program must
proceed as expeditiously as practica-
ble. EPA considers two and one half
years from the time of legislative
adoption to be the maximum time re-
quired to implement a centralized in-
spection/maintenance program and
one and one half years to implement a
decentralized program. In no case may
implementation of the program, i.e.,
mandatory inspection and mandatory
repair of failed vehicles be delayed
beyond 1982 in the case of a central-
ized program (either state lanes or
contractor lanes) or beyond 1981 in
the case of a decentralized (private
garage) system.
3. A commitment by the responsible
government official or officials to es-
tablish, expand, or improve public
transportation measures to meet basic
transportation needs as expeditiously
as is practicable.
4. A commitment to use insofar as is
necessary Federal grants, state or local
funds, or any combination of such
grants and funds as may be consistent
with the terms of the legislation pro-
viding such grants and funds, for the
purpose of establishing, expanding or
improving public transportation meas-
ures to meet basic transportation
needs.
Note that HUD has prepared guide-
lines for local development codes and
ordinances to provide special require-
ments for areas which for significant
periods of time may exceed the prima-
ry standards. These guidelines specify
criteria for new construction operation
of buildings which minimize pollutant
concentrations to ensure a health
indoor and outdoor environment.
States are encouraged to adopt such
measures as part of the SIP.
POLLUTANT SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
Sulfur Dioxide
Specifically, with regard to item (4)
of the General Requirements, the Jan-
uary 1979 plan revisions dealing with
sulfur dioxide must contain all the
RULES AND REGULATIONS
necessary emission limitations and le-
gally enforceable procedures to pro-
vide for attainment by no later than
December 31, 1982 (i.e., schedules for
the development, adoption, and sub-
mittal of regulations will' not be ac-
ceptable).
Nitrogen Oxides
For NOx, the January 1979 plan
must contain all the necessary emis-
sion limitations and the legally en-
forceable procedures, or as a mini-
mum, the appropriate schedules to
adopt and submit the emission limita-
tions and legally enforceable proce-
dures which provide for implementa-
tion so that standards will be attained
by no later than December' 31, 1982.
EPA is currently evaluating the need
for a short term NO, standard and ex-
pects to promulgate such a standard
during 1978. If such a standard for air
quality is promulgated, a new and sep-
arate SIP revision will be required for
this pollutant.
Particulate Matter
The -January 1979 plan revisions
dealing with particulate matter must
contain all the necessary emission
limitations and legally enforceable
procedures for traditional sources.
These emission limitations and en-
forceable procedures must provide for
the control of fugitive emissions,
where necessary, as well as stack emis-"
sions from these stationary sources.
Where control of non-traditional
sources (e.g., urban fugitive dust, resu-
spension, construction, etc.) is neces-
sary for attainment, the plan shall
contain an assessment of the impact of
these sources and a commitment on
the part of the state to adopt appro-
priate control measures, this commit-
ment shall take the form of a schedule
to develop, submit, and implement the
legally enforceable procedures, and
programs for controlling non-tradi-
tional particulate matter sources.
These schedules must include miles-
tones for evaluating progress and pro-
vide for attainment of the primary
standards by no later than December
31, 1982, and attainment of the sec-
ondary standards as expeditiously as
practicable. States should initiate the
necessary studies and demonstration
projects for controlling the non-tradi-
tional sources as soon as possible.
Carbon Monoxide and Oxidant
An adequate SIP for oxldant Is one
which provides for sufficient control
of volatile organic compounds (VOC)
from stationary and mobile sources to
provide for attainment of the oxidant
standard. Accordingly, the 1979 plan
revision must set forth the necessary
emission limitations and schedules to
obtain sufficient control of VOC emis-
sions in all non-attainment areas.
They must be directed toward reduc-
ing the peak concentrations within the
major urbanized areas to demonstrate
attainment as expeditiously as practi-
cable but in no case later than Decem-
ber 31, 1987. This should also solve the
rural oxidant problem by minimizing
VOC emissions and more Importantly
oxidants that may be transported
from urban to rural areas. The 1979
submission must represent a compre-
hensive strategy or plan for each non-
attainment area; plan submissions
that address only selected portions of
non-attainment are not adequate.
For the purpose of oxidant plan de-
velopment, major urban areas are
those with an urbanized population of
200,000 or greater (U.S. Bureau of
Census, 1970). A certain degree of
flexibility will be allowed In defining
the specific boundaries of the urban
area. However, the areas must be large
enough to cover the entire urbanized9
area and adjacent fringe areas of de-
velopment. For non-attainment urban
areas, the highest pollutant concentra-
tion for the entire area must be used
in determining the necessary level of
control. Additionally, uniform model-
Ing techniques must be used through-
out the nonattainment urban area.
These requirements apply to inter-
state as well as intrastate areas.
Adequate plans must provide for the
adoption of reasonably available con-
trol measures for stationary and
mobile sources.
For stationary sources, the 1979 oxi-
dant plan submissions for major urban
areas must Include, as a minimum, le-
gally enforceable regulations to reflect
the application of reasonably available
control technology (RACT)4 to those
stationary sources for which EPA has
published a Control Techniques
Guideline (CTG) by January 1978, and
provide for the adoption and submittal
of additional legally enforceable
RACT regulations on an annual bOHln
beginning In January 1980, for those
CTG's that have been published by
January of the preceeding year.
For rural non-attainment areas, the
Ox plan must provde the necessary le-
gally enforceable procedures for the
control of large HC sources (more
than 100 ton/year potential emissions)
for which EPA has issued a CTG by
January 1978, and to adopt and submit
additional legally enforceable proce-
dures on an annual basis beginning in
January 1980, after publication of sub-'
sequent CTGs as set forth above.
For mobile sources In urbanized area
(population 200,000) siPs must pro-
'As defined by the U.S. Bureau of Census,
urbanized area generally include core cities
plus any closely settled suburban areas
'While It Is recognized that RACT will be
determined on a case-by-case basis the cri-
teria for SIP approval rely heavily upon the
Information contained In the CTG
ations /rpm the ^ of
adequately documented.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43. NO. 98-FRIDAY, MAY 19, 1978
-------
vide for expeditious implementation of
reasonably available control measures.
Each of the measures for which EPA
will publish information documents
during 1978 is a reasonably available
control measure. These measures are
listed on the following page:
1. To be published by February 1978:
a. Inspection/maintenance;
b. Vapor recovery;
c. Improved public transit;
d. Exclusive bus and carpool lanes;
e. Area wide carpool programs.
2. To be published by August 1978:
a. Private car restrictions;
b. Long range transit Improvements;
c. On street parking controls;
d. Park and ride and fringe parking
lots;,
e.'Pedestrian malls;
f. Employer programs to encourage
car and van pooling, mass transit, bicy-
cling and walking;
g. Bicycle lanes and storage facili-
ties;
h. Staggered work hours;
1. Road pricing to discourage single
occupancy auto trips;
j. Controls on extended vehicle
idling;
k. Traffic flow improvements;
1. Alternative fuels or engines and
other fleet vehicle controls;
m. Other than light duty vehicle re-
trofit;
n. Extreme cold start emission re-
duction programs.
The above measures (either individ-
ually or combined into packages of
measures) should be analyzed prompt-
ly and thoroughly and scheduled for
expeditious implementation. EPA rec-
ognizes that not all analyses of every
measure can be completed by January
1979 and, where necessary, schedules
may provide for the completion of
analyses after January 1, 1979 as dis-
cussed below. (If analysis after Janu-
ary 1979 demonstrates that certain
measures would be unnecessary or in-
effective, a decision not to implement
such measures may be justifiable.
However, decisions not to implement
measures will have to be carefully re-
viewed to avoid broad rejections of
measures based on conclusory asser-
tions of infeasibility.)
As described previously, annual in-
cremental reductions in total emis-
sions must occur in order to achieve
reasonable further progress during the
period prior to attainment of the
standards. Therefore, not all transpor-
tation measure implementation activi-
ties should wait until the comprehen-
sive analyses of control measures are
completed. Demonstration studies are
important and should accompany or
precede full scale implementation of
the comprehensive strategy. It is
EPA's policy that each area will be re-
quired to schedule a representative se-
lection of reasonable transportation
measures (as listed above) for imple-
REF 1-1
RULES AND REGULATIONS
mentation at least on a pilot or dem-
onstration basis prior to the end of
1980.
Every effort must be made to inte-
grate the air quality related transpor-
tation plan and implementation re-
quired by the Clean Air Act into plan-
ning and programming procedures ad-
ministered by DOT. EPA will publish
"Transportation Planning Guidelines"
which will, if followed carefully, insure
that an adequate transportation plan-
ning process exists.
EPA recognizes that the planning
and Implementation of very extensive
air quality related transportation
measures can be a complicated and
lengthy process, and in areas with
severe carbon monoxide or oxldant
problems, completion of some of the
adopted measures may extend beyond ,
1982. Implementation of even these
very extensive transportation meas-
ures, however, must be initiated before
December 31.1982.
In the case of plan revisions that
make the requisite showing to justify
an extension of the date for attain-
ment, the portion of the 1979 plan
submitta! for transportation measures
must:
1. Contain procedures and criteria
adopted into the SIP by which it can
be determined whether the outputs of
the DOT Transportation planning
process conform to the SIP.
2. Provide for the expeditious Imple-
mentation of currently planned rea-
sonable transportation control meas-
ures. This includes reasonable but un-
implemented transportation measures
in existing SIPs and transportation
controls with demonstrable air quality
benefits developed as part of the
transportation process funded, by
DOT.
3. Present a program for evaluating
a range of alternative packages of
transportation options that includes,
as a minimum, those measures listed
above for which EPA will develop im-
formation documents. The analyses
must identify a package of transporta-
tion control measures to attain the
emission reduction target ascribed to
it in the SIP.
4. Provide for the evaluation of long
range (post-1982) transportation and
growth policies. Alternative growth
policies and/or development patterns
must be examined to determine the
potential for modifying total travel
demand. One of the growth alterna-
tives evaluated should be that pre-
pared in response to Section 701 of the
Housing Act of 1954, as amended.
5. Include a schedule for analysis
and adoption of transportation control
measures as expeditiously as practica-
ble. The comprehensive analysis of al-
ternatives (item 2 above) must be com-
pleted by July 1980 unless the desig-
nated planning agency can demon-
strate that analysis of individual com-
21677
ponents (e.g., long range transit Im-
provements) may require additional
time. Adopted measures must be im-
plemented as expeditiously as practi-
cable and on a continuous schedule
that demonstrates reasonable further
progress from 1979 to the attainment
date. Determinations of the reason-
ableness of a schedule will be based on
the nnt.uo of the existing or planned
transportation system and the com-
plexity of implementation of an indi-
vidual measure.
ADDITIONAL CARBON MONOXIDE AND
OXIDANT MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
It is EPA's policy to require that all
SIPs which provide for attainment of
the oxldnnt standard after December
31,1982, must contain commitments to
implement a complete oxidant moni-
toring program in major urbanized
areas in order to adequately character-
ize the nature and extent of the prob-
lem and to measure the effectiveness
of the control strategy for oxidants.
The 1979 plan submittal must provide
for a schedule to conduct such CO
monitoring as necessary to correct any
deficiencies as identified by the Re-
gional Office.
SIPs FOR UNCLASSIFIED AREAS
REDESIGNATED NON-ATTAINMENT
With respect to unclassified areas
which are later found to be non-at-
tainment areas the state will bo re-
quired to submit a plan within nine
months of the non-attainment deter-
mination. During plan development,
the state will be required to imple-
ment the offset policy for that area.
However, it should be noted that in
many cases, because of previous plan
revisions or adoption of previous con-
trol regulations, the baseline for off-
sets will be more restrictive and thus
offsets may be more difficult to
obtain. For oxidants, state-wide regu-
latory development (for at least all
sources greater than 100 tons/year),
however, would permit the state to
utilize the regulations developed for
the entire state as the applicable plan
for the newly designated non-attain-
ment area. This would normally con-
stitute an approvable SIP per the
above criteria and could essentially ac-
commodate the proposed growth
within the previously submitted state'
plan and not require offsets once the
area is designated as non-attainment.
[FR Doc. 78-13634 Filed 5-18-78; 8:45 am]
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 98—FRIDAY, MAY 19, 1978
-------
REF 1-3
UNITED STATES ENVIRONM'.-N PAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
crp 9 n 1{V7, OFFICE OF
«3I-« 6 D la// AIR AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
SUBJECT: Attainment Designation List Required QCf 12 197?
by the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments
FROM: David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator ~(\}V
for Air and Waste Management '
-*r»-,-v
MEMO TO: Regional Administrators, Regions I-X
Vlith the passage of the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments, many new
tasks have been placed upon this Agency. One of the most pressing,
of these is the requirement by Section 107(d) of the revised Act to
publish a list by February 3, 1978, of air quality control regions
(AQCRs) or portions thereof reflecting their attainment/nonattain-
ment status for all criteria pollutants.
You are requested to notify your States of this requirement and
convey the importance of these designations for future air quality
control strategy planning. I have enclosed a model letter to use as
a guide in preparing a letter from your office to the head of each
State's air pollution control agency detailing the requirements of
the Act in regards to this task and giving the necessary guidance
for developing these attainment designation lists.
The State submittals should be reviewed by the Regional Offices
for consistency in applying the criteria set forth for determining
attainment status. The validation of the air quality monitoring data
used by the State in making such determinations is most important.
In light of the tight schedule, copies of the State submittals
should be forwarded to the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS) for concurrent review as they are received by the Regional
Offices. Where modifications are made by the Regional Office to the
status of any designated area, these revisions should be submitted
to OAQPS no later than January 19, 1978. States will be given
notification by the Regional Offices when modifications are made and
allowed to rebut any such .changes. OAQPS will then prepare a
Federal Register notice compiling the attainment designations for
all areas and publish the notice by February 3, 1978.
Given the time schedule and the resulting impact of such
designations on future air quality planning, your immediate atten-
tion is requested.
Enclosure
cc: Air & Hazardous Materials Division Directors, Regions I, III-X
Environmental Programs Division Director, Region II
Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
-------
REF 1- 3
p//'?:f, UNITED STATES LNViROM! .;-'NVAL PHOTLCTION AGENCY'
' WASHIN(,rOU. D.C.
OFFICE OF
AIFT AND WASTE
OCT 7197?
SUBJECT: Model Letter Regarding State Designation '
of Attainment Status ' . .•,.'*
MEMO TO: Regional'Administrators, Region I-X
? ' i
FROM : David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Waste Management
On October 6, 1977, members of your staff Were notified,
via telephone, of the pending revision to. the model letter
prepared as guidance for notification to the State agencies
concerning designation of attainment/non-attainment status
as' required by the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments. The
language of the September 28, 1977, model letter to you has
been revised regarding designation for photochemical oxidants.
The attached model letter requests States to presume that
all urban areas greater than 200,000 population are non-
attainment areas for photochemical oxidants and encourages
States to consider oxidant.non-attainment designation on a
State-wide basis in States east of the Mississippi River.
Please consider this model letter as representing Agency
policy and proceed to notify each State.
Attachment
cc: Air 5 Hazardous Materials Division Directors,. Regions I,
III-X
Environmental Programs Division Director, Region II
Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
-------
Modiil Letter From ltegion.il Atoiinistrators Revised on
REF 1-3 -to State Agencies '.• 10/7/77
On August 7, 1977, President Cart.-r signed the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1977- As a result, several new tasks are being required
of tha States &nd of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
One of the most pressing tasks prescribed by the Clean Air Act
Amendments is the submission by each State, by December 5 of a list •
of air quality control regions (AQCRs) or portions thereof which
denotes the attalnment/nonattalmnent status of the areas in regards
to the National P^blent Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)' for all criteria.
pollutants. Section 107 of the amended Act requires attainment
designations as .is shown by tha attached fomat which we. request vou
follow when compiling. State designations. • . ' .
•'• Generally, the area designations should be on a basis not'
larger than an AQCR. However* the Act does allow that,, when adequate
information is available. States may divide AQCRs Into various non-
attainment, attainment or unclasslfiable portions. The designated
area should be as preci.se-as feasible, i.e., county, sub-county or
other geographic area that can be clearly defined in v/rltten terms.
A different geographical nrea can be used in designating each pollutant.
The_attached listing format is designed to accommodate such sub-AQCR •
designations.without modification to the form.
OAQPS Guideline Ho. 1.2-015, Guide!ings for the Evaluation of
Ajr Quality Data published in February, 1974, should be'used to"-"
evaluate air quality data in making the required determinations.
That is, each monitoring site within the designated area must meet
the standards or the area is considered nonattalnment for the specific.
pollutant. The ciost recent consecutive four quarters of data available "
^are to be used. If the most recent four quarters of data show attainment.
the previous four quarters of data should also be examined.- This
minimizes the chances of relying on a single year's data which might
reflect abnormally favorable meteorological conditions. In using
older data, States may wish to account for control that has taken '
place since those data were recorded. Modeling data can be' used to
supplement or be used In lieu of ambient data. Future growth should
not be considered in determining attainment status for purposes of
You should bs aware of the implications of designating an area
as attainment, nonattalnment, or unclassifiable. Tor any pollutant,
the designation of "nonattainment area" will require that a SIP be
developed for that area by January 1, lg7g. During this interim
period, offsets will be required in the nonattalnmant areas. However
the baseline for determining offset'credit will ba the applicable
SIP regulations at the time a permit is considered.
*v. ^designating the attainment status for ths criteria pollutants
the Tollowing guidelines apply:
-------
REF 1-3
Total Suspended Particulatcs
The area should be designated attainment when a TSP violation can
bo clearly attributed to rural fugitive dust (as defined-1n the EPA
fugitive dust policy paper). *
Total Suspended Particulars and Sulfur Dioxide
In cases where an area 1s unclasslfiable or 1s designated as
attainment, major new or modified sources roust be reviewed to ensure
consistency with PSD requirements.
Carbon Honoj
-------
REF 1-3
Given the tfme required to tlesionnic attainment status and resolve
any differences which may arise, we vould appreciate It if you would give
this your Immediate attention. If you have any questions, please
contact (designated Regional Office contact).
-------
List of Noncoii rl> ing Regions
Section 103 of the 1977 (.loan Air Act Amendments
FORMAT A for Designating TSP and S02
Designated
Area
Area designated
can be an AQCR,
county or other
defined geo-
graphic area
Primary Standard
Exceeded
Section (d)(l)(B)
Secondary Standard
Exceeded
Section (d)(l)(C)
Unclassifiable
Section (d)(l)(D)
Attainment
FORMAT B for Designating CO/0 /NO
X
Designated
Area
Primary Standard
Exceeded
Section (d)(l)(A)
Unclassifiable
Section (d)(l)(E)
Attainment
Section (d)(l)(E)
Area designated can
be an AQCR, county or
other defined geographic
area
INSTRUCTIONS:
Format A is to be used for designating the attainment status for TSP and S0
required by Section 103 (d)(l)(B); Section 103 (d)(l)(C) and Section 103
Format B is to be used for designating the attainment status for CO, oxidants
and N02 required by Section 103 (d)(l)(A) and Section 103 (d)(l)(E).
A separate table is to be used for designating the status of each pollutant.
An "x" is to be used to indicate the appropriate status of each pollutant using
at least the most recent four consecutive quarters of air quality data or
modeling data where applicable.
-------
REF 1-4
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE-. 23 JUL 1978
SUBJECT: Questions and Answers on 1979 SIP Revisions
FROM: G. T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch
TO.- See Addressees Below
This is a compilation of the five monthly questions and answers
memos. Also included are questions and answers (dated January 12)
from the January Air Branch Chiefs' meeting in Denver. The questions
and answers are grouped by subject in the hopes it will enhance the use
of the memos in clarifying the 1979 SIP revision requirements. The
date of the original memo follows each question.
Enclosure
Addressees:
Thomas Devine, Region I
William Baker, Region II
Howard Heim, Region III
Greg Glahn, Region IV
Wayne Pearson, Region V
Jack Divita, Region VI
Art Sprat! in, Region VII
Robert DeSpain, Region VIII
Wayne Blackard, Region IX
Clark Gaul ding, Region X
EPA Form 1320 ft (Rev. 3-76)
-------
SECTION 107 DESIGNATIONS
Q: What are the general criteria for EPA promulgation where a State
defaults and a violating monitoring site is present? And for EPA
acceptance of State designations for Section 107? (1/12)
A: Given below on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis are the two cases—first,
where EPA must promulgate the area to be generally designated as non-
attainment is given; and second, the criteria to be used by the Regional
Offices in evaluating State submitted designations.
TSP
EPA promulgation ~ political boundaries such as county, city.
State designation — if monitoring sites are unrepresentative according
to SAMWG ~ call area unclassified.
0X1dants
EPA promulgation — county as a minimum.
State designation — accept all reasonable designations.
Sjfe-
EPA promulgation — county as a minimum.
State designation — accept all reasonable designations.
•* »
C0_
EPA promulgation — urban core area.
State designation — accept reasonable designations. Regional Office
would redesignate as "unclassified" if State submitted attainment designa-
tion for large urban area > 200,000 population with no monitoring or
modeling data.
Designation of all areas as nonattainment, attainment, .or unclassified
relative to air quality standards must be made by EPA in early February, 1978,
based on State reconmendations due December 5, 1977.
*r ..
Q: Which should be given preference in designating areas, monitored data
or modeling results? (VI2)
A: In urban areas monitoring results should be used. For areas around
isolated point sources, especially for S02, it is difficult for a few
monitors to catch the hotspot. If there is a conflict between adequate
monitoring data and modeling results, monitored values should be used.
However, if the monitoring data are inadequate, then available modeling
results should be used. It is not necessary to model specifically for
the §107 designations.
-------
Q: Is there any flexibility allowed in determining nonattainment areas? (1/12)
A: Areas clearly showing attainment or nonattainment must be classified -
as such. Areas with only sketchy data may be defined as unclassifiable.
We recognize the subtle complexity of this issue and the inherent
difficulties created by the above guidance. However, two factors must
be recognized: (1) sites with clearly defined nonattainment problems
cannot be arbitrarily reclassified except as provided in the fugitive
•dust" policy paper; and (2) a SIP cannot be totally approved by EPA
unless it demonstrates attainment of the NAAQS in all areas.
Q: Are all sampling sites to be included in determining nonattainment
areas? (1/12)
A: Yes, unless it can be clearly shown that such data points do not
represent the true ambient air quality occurring at the site in question.
Q: If the last four quarters of sampling were shown to be abnormal in
terms of frequency and magnitude of violations, would previous data be
accepted as the basis for not declaring nonattainment status at this
time? (1/12)
A: Both the long term trend and specific data point given by the four
quarter analysis should be examined. ...If there is a discrepancy between
the two, the State should make a judgment as to which is the most valid
indicator. Rationale utilized in making this judgment should be provided
to EPA. As a practical guide, data significantly impacted by rare
meteorological conditions (for example, the recent Northwest drought)
may be considered abnormal and thus be discounted for these determinations.
Q: Will EPA accept a designation of attainment for,an area with a monitor
snowing recent violations- due to a temporary situation such" as construction? (1/1
A: Yes, if a history of attainment can be shown and if the temporary
activity is demonstrated to be responsible for the violation.
Q: Is it necessary to designate an area-.as nonattainment if the source
of the violation is known and regulatory measures are underway? (1/12)
A: Yes, if the data are available and valid. The area'of nonattainment
can be made small in these situations.
Q: Is the boundary of a..nonattainment area best determined by the
"contour" around areas experiencing ambient violations or by the
location of sources that contribute to these violations? (1/12)
A: Nonattainment areas are in general defined by ambient violations.
It appears that sufficient flexibility exists to allow States to include
an additional area around the actual nonattainment area to make new
sources located immediately adjacent to the problem areas subject to
offset requirements.
-------
Q: What are EPA's intentions on Ox designations? (1/12)
A: It is our intention to designate all urbanized areas with populations,
greater than 200,000 (1970 census) as nonattainment for Ox even in the
absence of air quality data. Valid rural data on Ox cannot be ignored
and at a minimum the county in which the sampler is located must be
declared nonattainment if a violation has been recorded.
Q: Does EPA intend to hold public hearings on the State designations
of attainment status? (1/12)
A: EPA does not intend to conduct public hearings on the State designa-
tions. Instead, EPA will publish anlist of attainment, nonattainment
and unknown designations on_February 3, 1978, followed by a 30-day
comment period!.' Any changes^to the designation status will b¥ promulgated
"at least 30~days later. ^ "" /
Q: Should illegal stack heights be considered in Section 107 designations? (1/liI
fl: Yes, to the extent that they are known.
Q: Can attainment/nonattainment status be changed? (1/12)
A: Yes. An area designated nonattainment on the basis of this year's
data could be redesignated whenever the data show that the area has
achieved attainment. "i.
Q: What form will the February 3, 1978, Federal Register notice take
which will give the State designations for attainment/nonattainment areas
as required by Section 107 of the Clean Air Act? (1/12)
A: The designations will appear in the notice section of the Federal
Register with a general national perspective preamble accompanying the
actual list of designations as approved by EPA. Where necessary, a
portion of the preamble will be devoted to a discussion for any signifi-
cant actions taken by the Regional Offices.
Q. Is it true that if a monitor is properly sited, i.e., influenced
by a significant stationary source, then the area of the nonattainment
designation should be as small as possible, so as to reflect only the-
impact of a nearby source? (6/2)
A. Yes. The nonattainment area may be as small as possible as long
as it covers the whole area of the source's impact.
, / Q. Should monitors that are improperly sited, according to EPA
criteria, and hence could be unduly influenced by resuspended street
dust, be ignored in establishing the attainment status of an area? (6/2)
-------
A. No. It is not current Agency policy that only those monitoring
sites which meet SAMWG guidelines be used for both SIP development and -
Section 107 designation purposes. EPA's proposed guidance states that
there are situations in which data from existing monitors located in the
"unacceptable" zone may still be useful. For sites not located within.
the proposed guidelines, an evaluation is needed to determine the roadway
influence. This evaluation is then used to decide if the roadway influence
is significant enough to warrant relocation of the monitor. If relocation
is necessary, the monitor must be within the immediate vicinity of the
original location such that the new site meets the proposed guidelines.
The area is presumed to be nonattainment until such time as data from
the relocated station indicate otherwise.
Q. Are States required to monitor air quality in areas desig-
nated as unclassified in order to establish a base for determining the
attainment/nonattainment status? (7/11)
A. No specific monitoring requirements apply. However, the require-
ment for sources subject to PSD regulations to obtain one year of air
quality data prior to construction does apply and that data could be
used for purposes of designating the area.
•i Q. What is the future of the Section 107 designation process? Will
designations be modified, changed, and updated on any kind of annual
basis? (7/28)
A. There is no specific schedule for revising the Section 107 desig-
nations. The designations are dynamic and designation changes are to be
made whenever new and relevant information is brought to the attention
of the State (or EPA if the State does not act.) The designation changes
are to be accomplished by the Regional Office as an informal rulemaking
action revising Part 81.
-------
EMISSION INVENTORIES
. Q. Must the emission inventory forms recommended in the workshops
on requirements for nonattainment area plans be used for submitting
inventories with the 1979 SIP submissions? (6/2)
A. No. The formats in the nonattainment workshop summaries are
merely suggestions. Due to the vast number of computerized systems
using varied storage formats, it is nearly impossible for all submissions
to fit the particular suggested formats, Whatever particular summary
format a State chooses, must be approved by their Regional Office and
should reflect that the emission inventory is accurate, current, and
comprehensive.
..'.' Q. Must chemical species information be included in the emission
inventory? (6/2)
A. Total nonexempt volatile organic compound emissions are the only
emissions that need to be identified in the emission inventory submitted
in the January, 1979, plan. Chemical species information may be useful
in the determination of the most appropriate method of control for a
particular industry, but this information need not be submitted in the
emission inventory.
••" Q, Emission inventories are to Be on an annual basis, yet some
problems and standard violations occur on a short-term, basis (daily
or seasonal). Is there a way these sources can be reported so their
emission inventories will reflect this? (3/31)
A. If the nonattairment area has short-term problems, the State can
attempt to develop a selective short-term emission inventory for those
sources which have an impact on the air quality problem.
Q* Are sources located outside a nonattainment area which significantly
impact on that area required to be inventoried? (3/31)
A. Sources outside the nonattainment area which, due' to meteorological
conditions, impact on the nonattainment area are required to be included
in the emissions inventory. It is unlikely that standards will be
attained if these outside sources are not part of the inventory and con-
trol strategy.
. Q. What date is acceptable as a "current" emission inventory?
A. A "current" emission inventory is generally considered to be
1977. However, the emission inventory should be comparable with the
air quality data used to develop the control strategy and if pre-1977
air quality data were used, a "current" emission inventory can be
anywhere from 1975-1977.
-------
: Q. What information is available to do a mobile source emission
inventory? (6/2)
A. Mobile Source Emission Factors (EPA 400/9-78-005) is now available.
The computer program Mobile 1 tape along with a short user's guide, is
available from Len Fleckenstein in OTLUP (755-0603).
-------
FUGITIVE DUST
As previously stated in the Hawkingsto the Regional Administrators,
memo dated October 7, 1977, for rural areas, the contribution of fugitive
dust to monitored air quality levels can be neglected before determining
the attainment/nonattainment status for Section 107 designations.
Q: For purposes of defining nonattainment areas for TSP, what is rural
fugitive dust? 0/12}
A: The State may subtract both the impact of industrial sources located
within an area and the normal ambient background level. The remainder
may be considered "rural fugitive dust" in non-urban areas.
Q: Windblown particulate need not be counted against nonattainment in
rural areas but all particulate must be counted in urban areas. What
is a rural area? 0/12)
A: Significant flexibility is allowed in this determination. Generally,
Regional Offices have been using 25,000 population as the cut point between
an urban setting and a rural situation. However, for the purposes of
implementing the fugitive dust policy, rural areas are determined by
the following criteria: (1) the lack of major industrial development
or absence of significant industrial particulate emissions; and (2) low
urbanized populations. 7-
Q. If an area influenced by fugitive dust is designated as a non-
attainment area due to point source emissions, does the control strategy
analysis have to include- fugitive dust controls? (5/4)
A. Yes, fugitive dust may only be discounted in accordance with
the fugitive dust policy paper. An area which cannot be classified as
attainment through the discounting of fugitive dust cannot subsequently
discount fugitive dust sources in developing control strategies, assuming,
of course, that point source control alone will not be sufficient to
attain the ambient standards.
-------
OFFSETS
Q: If a source locates or expands in an attainment area and is therefore
not subject to offset, can it be allowed to significantly contributes
to violations of standards in an adjacent nonattainment area? (1/12)
A: No, the requirement that each NAAQS shall act as an overriding ceiling
to any otherwise allowable increment assures that a source constructed
in an attainment area will not significantly contribute to violations of
standards in an adjacent area.
Q: Can sources be allowed to construct under the State emission offset
rulinc after July 1979? (1/12)
A: Yes, in the following situations:
(1) The requirements of Part D are otherwise met, but the allowance
for growth has been used up (or none was provided initially).
(2) If an area is determined to be nonattainment subsequent to the
Initial February 1978 designations, a State will have 9 months in which
to develop an acceptable SIP, and EPA will have six months to approve
during which time new sources may be permitted in accordance with the
offset ruling. .-r_.
Q. How is a nonattainment area treated before promulgation in the
Federal Register, specifically with respect to offsets? (5/2} '
A. Section 107 designations in no way affect offset requirements.
Once data show an area to be nonattainment, the area is required to get
offsets immediately, irrespective of the Federal promulgation date. This
works both ways. .If data show an area to be attaining the standards and
that a new source will not cause or contribute to a violation, offsets
are not required.
Q. .Are hydrocarbon (HC) offsets required of major new sources
locating in rural Q,, nonattainment areas? (5/4)
A. Yes, offsets are required in rural 0 nonattaimtient areas until
the State develops a SIP which demonstrates attainment in the urban non-
attainment areas and requires RACT on all existing 100 ton HC sources
located in rural nonattainment areas: The required offsets, however, do
not have to be obtained in the vicinity of the proposed new source.
Q. Does a source wishing to construct in a nonattainment area need
to Obtain offsets if the new source permit is approved after the SIP is
submitted? (7/11)
A. Offsets are required up until the time a SIP is approved by EPA
even if the SIP submittal has a margin for growth provision rather than
an offset requirement. However, rather than go through the offset ruling,
the State could process a new source application under the new source
review procedure in the revised SIP. As soon as EPA approves the SIP,
the State can issue the oermit.
-------
PSD
Q: Do the PSD increments become applicable when an area moves from
nonattainment to attainment? 0/12)
A: No. Since the baseline for determining air quality deterioration
for PSD purposes is air quality as of January 6, 1975 (which exceeded
the NAAQS), the NAAQS would always be more restrictive than any PSD
increment.
Q: Can Indian reservations unilaterally redesignate to Class I? (1/12)
A: Yes, Indian reservations can reclassify their lands from Class II
to Class I by following the proper procedures outlined in the Clean Air
Act Amendments and PSD Federal Register.
Q: Can a new source be allowed in a rural attainment area that is just
barely achieving the NAAQS if the source's emissions, even though within
the allowable PSD increment, would cause violations of the NAAQS? (1/12)
A: No. If the source would cause violations of NAAQS,'it would not be
allowed to build. PSD increments are not allowed to cause an area to
exceed the NAAQS. Yes, if offsets are practiced.
Q: If a source is constructed in a nonattainment area and meets the
required offset, would it be allowed to violate PSD increments in an
adjacent Class I area even though it is not subject to the PSD regulations?(l/12)
A: PSD reviews are required in all areas. The source would not be
allowed to violate PSD increments in any area.
Q: Will sulfur dioxide from ships be included in the PSD requirements
if the potential cumulative emissions exceed 250 tons per year? (1/12)
A: Yes, it is recommended that the S02 emissions from ships be included
in the PSD analysis for the duration of time that they are docked or
attached to the facility.
Q: Do hydrocarbons and oxidants have to be included in PSD reviews at
this time? If not, when do you anticipate that they will be included?.
If these pollutants are to be included at some future dajte", will
facilities previously planned or under construction be exempt? (1/12)
A: If a source can get a final permit by March 1, 1978, the PSD
applications will only need to assess the impacts for S02 and partic-
ulates. After March 1, 1978, the new definitions and regulations under
Section 165 will go into effect. (Even a source which could obtain a
final permit by March 1, 1978, must be reviewed in accordance with the
new rules to be issued in March if it will commence construction on or
after December 1, 1978.) BACT would be required for all sources which
require PSD review. Increments for hydrocarbons and oxidants may go
into effect within the next few years.
-------
Q. Will EPA require PSD permit applicants to monitor for hydro-
carbons in addition to oxidant? (7/11)
A. Since the .24 ppm hydrocarbon standard is only a guide for
developing SIPs to attain the oxidant standard, no monitoring for hydro-
carbons will be required.
Q. What is the effect of reducing baseline emissions? (7/11}
A. Reductions in baseline emissions (such as the application of
RACT as a result of 1979 SIP revisions) will serve to expand the avail-
able increment for an area-.
"'- Q. Does a SIP relaxation count against a PSD increment? (7/11)
A. SIP relaxations that were pending as of August 7, 1977, are part
of the baseline. The contribution to the baseline from existing sources
affected by the relaxation that was pending as of August 7 would be
based on the allowable emissions under the SIP as revised.
SI? relaxations received by EPA after August 7, 1977, but before
promulgation of the PSD regulations do consume increment. However,
these revisions require special consideration due to the uncertainty of
how the new Act would apply to such SIP relaxations. These SIP relaxa-
tions need not be individually assessed to determine the.precise amount"
of consumed increment before such relaxations may be approved. The
periodic assessment requirement to verify that the applicable increments
have not been exceeded is thought to be sufficient protection. This
assessment would result in revisions to the SIP if an increment were
found to have been violated. All SIP relaxations received after the
date of promulgation of the PSD regulations will be individually reviewed
against the available PSD increments. If deterioration beyond that
allowed under the.available increments would occur under a SIP relaxa-
tion, then such a SIP revision would be disapproved to the extent that
it would cause significant deterioration. Whether a plan relaxation
would consume the available increment would be typically determined
through nnsdeling the difference between the allowable emissions resulting
from the new relaxed SIP limit and the emissions of the applicable
source(s) which were included in the baseline.
Q. Can EPA delegate PSD as an interim measure? (7/11)
A. The PSD program can be delegated to the States as has been done
in the past. States should, however, be encouraged to develop their own
PSD program.
Q. Does an applicant located in a nonattainment area have to obtain
one year of air quality data if the control agency has sufficient data
reflecting the predicted ambient impact of the new source? (7/11)
A. No. If the Regional Office feels that existing air quality data
are representative, then no additional monitoring would be required.
-------
Q. SIP relaxations which would exceed the a1rr2v^1tt^1iJJ^f^n?
approved SIP relaxations? (7/11)
A There is no need to immediately disapprove previously approved
SIP relaxations which would have caused the increment to be violated.
However the State should be notified of the need to assess the possible
violation of the increment. If the review indicates a violation of an
increment, then the plan should be revised within 60 days or such t me
as determined by the Administrator. The SIP revision should^ designed
to obS™ such reduction in emissions so that the increment is no longer
exceeded.
Q. Is it appropriate to disapprove implementation plan relaxations
if such relaxations would exceed the air quality increment established
under Part C of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to prevent significant deteriora-
tion (PSD) of air quality? (3/31)
A. Yes, Section 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA requires, prior to |
approval, that each plan contains measures to prohibit a stationary
source from emitting pollutants which ^would interfere with any PSD
increment. Any SIP relaxations which exceed the increment would be in
violation of this provision. It should be noted that this policy
applies in all instances, even if the^relaxation would not jeopardize
attainment or maintenance of jthe ambieVt standards.
Q. If a State is conducting some of the PSD review but not issuing
permits, should it obtain a formal delegation of authority from EPA to
conduct that review? (7/28)
A. Yes. In order to clarify the relationship between EPA and the
State, the Governor (or his designated agent) should request a partial
delegation. -
'*• Q. Will post-construction monitoring play any role in determining
whether a source has used up the increment? (7/28)
A. Section 5Z.Zl(n)(l) of the PSD regulations provides that the
owner or operator shall conduct such post-construction monitoring as the
Administrator determines may be necessary to establish the effect which
emissions of a criteria pollutant from a source are having or would have
on air quality. In the preamble to the regulations, EPA indicates it
would, in any event, only require monitoring data for the purpose of
determining whether a NAAQS has been or would be violated. At the
present time, however, EPA is generally not requiring post-construction
monitoring for this purpose.
-------
TRANSPORTATION-AIR QUALITY PLANNING GUIDELINES
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose
These guidelines implement Section 108(e) of the Clean Air Act as amended,
August 1977.'* Section 108(e) directs EPA to provide guidelines on the
basic elements of the planning process for nonattainment areas.2 This
procedural guidance addresses the transportation-related sections of the
Clean Air Act. These guidelines describe an integrated transportation-
air quality planning process (hereafter called the integrated planning
process) for developing the transportation system component of State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) for areas that are designated nonattainment
with respect to photochemical oxidants (Ox) and/or carbon monoxide
(CO).-3»4 EPA will subsequently provide more technical information on
costs, effects and analytical techniques for selecting measures and
developing strategies as required by Section 108(f).
The basic policy goal of the integrated planning process described herein
is to reduce transportation system emissions and resulting adverse air
quality impacts while maintaining compatibility with other community
goals. The guidelines build upon the existing planning process by
providing specific procedures designed to result in a program of trans-
portation strategies that provide for incremental reductions in 5
transportation system emissions as expeditiously as practicable. The
guidelines stress continuing development and expeditious implementation
of all reasonably available measures, but particularly those that can be
planned and implemented by 1982 or during the following five years to
1987 as provided for in the Clean Air Act. Major long-term trans-
portation improvements necessary for maintenance of the air quality
health standards beyond 1987 also should be considered within the inte-
grated planning process.
B. Applicability
These guidelines apply to all public agencies with responsibilities in
planning or.implementing the transportation portions of SIPs in nonattain-
ment areas. (Section 174 of the Act requires: (1) designation of a
lead planning organization and, (2) state and local elected officials to
determine jointly the coordinated and combined responsibilities of the
state, local governments and regional agencies in the SIP revision
process.)
*Footnotes are at the end of the guidelines beginning on page 25.
-------
The guidelines describe an acceptable approach for accomplishing the
continuing tasks of transportation-air quality planning and programming
required by the Clean Air Act. These procedures are a realistic starting
point. They should be improved upon by experience gained through actual
applications. The guidelines build upon and should be implemented^
through the ongoing comprehensive planning processes. They recognize
that institutional arrangements and planning procedures vary by area
and, therefore, can be flexibly applied. But, while individual guideline
elements need not be viewed as mandatory, the objective of each element
is a necessary part of an effective process — a process required by
the Act. Therefore, modification of guideline elements will require
substitution of a comparably effective approach.
The lead planning agency has the primary responsibility for implementing
these guidelines. EPA and DOT Regional Offices are primarily responsible
for monitoring the guideline implementation process. The Intermodal
Planning Group (IPG) should be the federal coordinating mechanism.
Modifications to these procedures fay a state, regional or local agency
should be closely coordinated with the appropriate EPA and DOT Regional
Offices.
C. Funding
This section describes both authorized (but not yet appropriated) and
currently available funds for conducting the transportation-air quality
planning activities required by the Act. Appendix F describes funding
for plan implementation and related planning.
1. Authorized Funds
Section 325 of the Act authorizes the appropriation of $75,000,000
(available until expended) to carry out Section 175 beginning in fiscal
year (FY) 1978. Section 175 directs EPA to make grants to meet the
reasonable costs of plan development to any organization of local elected
officials with transportation or air quality maintenance planning
responsibilities recognized by the state under Section 174(a). Grants
would cover 100 percent of any additional costs of developing a SIP
revision for a nonattainment area for the first two fiscal years following
grant receipt. Grants would supplement any other federal funds available
to such organization for transportation or air quality maintenance
planning. Grants could not be used for construction.
2. Available Funds
a. Section 175: Prior to the announcement of the President's
urban policy, no Section 175 grant funds were included in the FY 1979
federal budget submitted to Congress. Funds to implement an EPA-DOT
joint transportation-air quality planning process were, however,
included as a contingency item in that budget. These funds were to be
-------
;; Q. What is EPA's role in approval/disapproval of PSD classification
redesignations? (7/28)
A. EPA can disapprove a redesignation only if the procedural require-
ments of Section 164 of the Clean Air Act and Sections 52.21(g) are
not met (which includes, e.g., failure to give public notice or failure
to hold public hearings) or if the redesignation is inconsistent with
Section 16Z(a) or Section 164(a)(l)(2). If the above requirements are
satisfied, EPA cannot overturn a redesignation and will approve the
redesignation.
-------
CO AND Ox ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSIONS
Q. What is the effective date of Section 172(b)(ll)? (5/4)
A. Section 172(b)(TI) states that when a plan due on or before
January 1, 1979, demonstrates that attainment is not possible for either
0 or CO (or both) before December 31, 1982, that plan must establish a
permit system, a schedule for implementation of inspection/maintenance
(I/M), and identify other measures necessary to provide attainment by
December 31, 1987.
-•- Q. Can an extension to 1987 be requested after 1979 if the original
1982 attainment for CO or 0 (or both) does not materialize? (5/4)
^%
A. Yes. If a State has their SIP approved in 1979 which provides
for attainment of CO or 0 (or both) by 1982, but that plan later proves
inadequate for achieving attainment by 1982 and the State demonstrates
that it cannot attain the standards by 1982 despite the implementation
of all reasonably available control measures, a plan revision may be
submitted providing attainment by 1987.
Q. If a State concludes it is impossible to demonstrate attainment
of the CO or 0 standards or both by 1987 using all reasonable measures,
will there be I no growth sanction as_pf July, 1979? (7/11)
A. A State should not draw that conclusion. The Clean Air Act requires
commitment to the implementation of all RACT in the January, 1979, SIP.
If these reasonable measures are not adequate to show attainment, the
Stats must- identify the-additional control measures which could theoretically
produce the additional required emission reductions and coirmit to further
investigation of the measures. However, the Clean Air Act does not require
that a State commit in 1979 to implement these specific additional measures.
Such a conrri taient is not required until 1982.
Q. For CO nonattafnment areas which cannot attain by 1982, is
inspection/maintenance required? (6/2)
A. Yes. Section 17Z(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act says' that in the
case of the national primary ambient air quality standard for photochemical
oxidants or CO (or both) "if the State demonstrates...that such attainment
is not possible in an area with respect to either or both of such pollu-
tants within the period prior to December 31, 1982,...such provisions
shall provide for the attainment of the national primary standard for
the pollutant (or pollutants) with respect to which such demonstration
is made, as expeditiously as possible but not later than December 31, 1987."
Section 172(b)(ll) says that in the case of plans which make a demonstra-
tion pursuant to Section 172(a)(2), the plan provisions shall establish
a specific schedule for implementation of a vehicle emission control
inspection and maintenance program. However, as a matter of policy, EPA
is not requiring I/M in cities with populations of less than 200,000.
-------
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
Q: What are the criteria that must be met for EPA to approve a State
submitted SIP revision due in January, 1979? (1/12)
A. The criteria for approval are contained in the Hawkins1 memo of
February 24, 1978, entitled "The Criteria for Approval of 1979 SIP
Revisions."
Q. If attainment is reached before the projected date (1982 or 1987),
do control strategy measures not yet effective have to be implemented? (3/31)
A. Yes, unless the State wants to reevaluate the control strategy
and demonstrate that some of the controls are no longer needed in view
of changed conditions. Unless there is some reason to doubt the control
strategy, it should be assumed that all the measures must be implemented
to assure attainment at all times, not just during years with good
dispersion conditions.
Q. Do the 1979 SIPs have to demonstrate maintenance and if so, for
how long? (3/31)
A. The 1979 SIPs must demonstrate both attainment and maintenance.
For most areas the maintenance.requirements are satisfied by first
demonstrating attainment and then having, adequate new source review
(NSR) procedures. For air quality maintenance areas (AQMAs) for which
the Region has determined the need for an AQMA plan, such a plan is
still required and maintenance for a period established by the Region
must still be demonstrated. Otherwise, unless a nonattainment area is
within an AQMA or there is a severe problem with minor source growth, a
NSR program is adequate for satisfying the maintenance requirement.
-------
SECONDARY STANDARDS
Q. Can an 18-month extension be granted for submission of a secondary
standard control strategy? (6/2)
A. Yes. A state may request from the Administrator an extension
under-40 CFR 51.31. Such a request shall show that attainment of the
secondary standard will require emission reductions exceeding those
achieved through application of RACT. A request for an extension must
be submitted early enough to permit development of a plan prior to the
deadline in the event that such request is denied.
•';• Q. What criteria must a State meet prior to changing the date
specified for attainment of a secondary standard? (5/4)
A. Section 172(a)(l) of the CAA requires that secondary standards
be attained as expeditiously as practicable, while Section 110(a)(2)(A)
requires that secondary standards be attained by a reasonable time.
Reasonable time for attainment of TSP and sulfur dioxide ($02) secondary
standards is 1982 if only reasonable available control technology (RACT)
is needed to attain and maintain the secondary standard. Section 51.13
of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations states that in any
Region where application of RACT will not be sufficient for attainment
and maintenance of the secondary standard, or where the State shows that
good cause exists for postponing the application of such control technology,
reasonable time shall depend on the degree of emission reduction needed
for attainment of such secondary standard and on the social, economic,
and technological problems involved in carrying out a control strategy
adequate for attainment-and maintenance of such secondary standard. A
date specified for attainment of a secondary standard which satisfies
these requirements will also satisfy the provision of Section 172 which
requires that the secondary standard be attained as expeditiously as
practicable.
-------
NONATTAINMENT AREA PLANS
Q. Does the January 1, 1979, submission date hold for areas redesig-
nated nonattainment for minor boundary adjustments as a result of the
sixty-day comment period on the March 3, 1978, Section 107 designations?(6/2)
A. Yes. Any nonattainment area revised for minor boundary adjustments
as a result of the 60-day comment period on the original designations promul-
gated March 3, 1978, is required to submit a SIP before January 1, 1979.
; ':• Q. When are SIPs due for nonattainment designations made after the
revised March 3, 1978, final promulgations? (6/2)
A. SIPs are due nine months from the date of any new promulgations.
Q: Will all nonattainment areas of primary and secondary standards
require SIP revisions? (1/12)
A: Nominally, yes, but the exact nature of the SIP revision could vary
considerably. For instance, a number of TSP nonattainment areas will be
washed out in advance by current EPA policy that authorizes a designation
of "attainment" where present nonattainment is demonstrated to be cause
by rural fugitive dust sources. It also appears possible in a number of
cases that attainment might be possible by December.31, 1982, without
adding any significant new regulatory requirements to the SIP; in such
cases, tha SIP "revision" might consist of an official notification that
the time extensions for the primary and the secondary-NAAQS contained
in the Clean Air Act Amendments (accompanied by the underlying analysis).
Q: Is there any difference between violations of primary and secondary
standards in terms of actions that must occur, especially with regards
to offset? (1/12)
A: SIP revisions are required for both violations of primary and
secondary standards. Offsets apply in both cases until July 1979 unless
the State submits a revised attainment date for the secondary standard
for either TSP or sulfur dioxide.
Q: Where a nonattainment plan is required by Section 178, should EPA-
require the States to implement the provisions of Section-124 (i.e., "
consider whether low polluting fuels that are presently being used will
continue to be available) in their January 1979 SIP submissions? (1/12)
A: Yes. It makes little sense for a State to revise their SIP without
dealing with these issues, and then have EPA call for a SIP revision
several months later. Where a SIP is not required to be revised as
a result of a nonattainment designation, the analysis and submission
of a revised SIP (if necessary) may be done on the more extended
schedule outlined in Section 124.
-------
RURAL Ov NONATTAINMENT AREAS
Q. Are control strategies needed (and if so, what should they look
like) for States whose only 0 nonattainment areas have a population of
less than 200,000 persons? (7711)
A. Control strategies are needed for all areas designated nonattain-
ment, but their form and substance will vary depending on the nature
and complexity of the problem. To have an approvable 1979 SIP, areas
less than 200,000 persons need only to adopt VOC RACT regulations for
100 tons/yr point sources. As a minimum, these regulations should be
accompanied with an emissions inventory quantifying emissions from the
affected sources. For the 1982 0 SIP, the State should adopt a more
detailed plan which can rely upon any mix of measures it desires-
Federal Motor Vehicle Control_Proqram, additional stationary source
controls, I/M, and any other measures. A control strategy demonstra-
tion showing attainment must also be contained in the 1982 SIP.
... Q. Must the attainment plan for areas designated nonattainment for
photochemical oxidant with a population less than 200,000 contain an
organic compound inventory? (7/11)
A. If an area has been designated nonattainment in accordance with
Section 107 of the Clean Air Act, then the attainment plan must contain
an inventory of organic compound emissions regardless of population.
However, where a plan specifies Statewide RACT controller major sources,
detailed emission inventories are required only for those areas specif-
ically designated as npnattainment.
!. Q. If an 0 nonattainment area with a population less than 200,000
(i.e., rural areas) develops a control strategy, can Federal monies be
used? (5/4)
A. The classification of areas by population is primarily for the
purpose of rural and non-rural consideration as well as for setting of
priority for resources. In some areas it may be necessary to develop
strategies in these rural areas. If available, Federal monies can be
used in these areas and the use and amounts of monies should be nego-
tiated with the State and/or local agencies involved with the strategies.
Q. Are rural areas nonattainment for photochemical oxidants required
to iraplejuefrt reasonably available control technology (RACT)? C3/31)
A. RACT must be applied to rural major stationary sources with the
potential for emitting more than 100 tons per year, but a demonstration
of attainment does not have to be made for such areas.
-------
Q. Even though it is not required for rural areas to demonstrate
attainment for oxidants, how are areas with urbanized populations of
40,000 - 200,000 classified? C3/31)
A. There may be some adjustment later, but for now areas with
populations greater than 200,000 are considered urban areas and any
areas less than 200,000 are considered as being rural areas for purposes
of deraonstratina attainment.
-------
RACT REGULATIONS
Q: RACT on selected source categories is a requirement for SIP approval
for Ox SIPs. RACT is defined by the CTG documents. Many States have
existing regulations for VOC that are already being implemented. Can
RACT determinations be softened to account for existing regulations and
control control efforts? (1/12)
A: While it is recognized that RACT will be determined on a case-by-case
basis, the criteria for SIP approval should rely heavily upon the informa-
tion contained in the CTGs. Any deviations from the use of the CTGs
should be- adequately documented to be approvable. ..,.,..
^. Q. Is it possible to approve hydrocarbon control regulations which
are less stringent than the emission limitations provided in the CTGs?(5/4)
A. Yes, in some cases if adequate justification is provided. Where
economics or other circumstances justify regulatory requirements less
stringent than those contained within CTGs, such justification is to be
clearly documented in the SIP submittal.
x) Q. What will be accepted as adequate justification to explain
deviations from the CTGs for hydrocarbon regulations? (7/28)
A. Where deviations from the CTG results in a more stringent control
requirement, no justification is necessary. However, a deviation resulting
in a less stringent control requirement is acceptable only if one of two
conditions is met. One condition is that the 1979 SIP: submittal contains
adequate justification that economics or other circumstances warrant
requirements less stringent than those contained within the CTG. The
other condition is that the impact on emissions differs imperceptively
(less than 5 percent in cases where it is possible to quantify the
difference) from that of the CTG and there is no significant threat of
undermining EPA activities elsewhere in the nation. This concept is
only applicable on a source category basis. In other words, it would
be unacceptable to approve a source category specific regulation requiring
significantly less control than the corresponding CTG on the basis that
other source categories are regulated to a degree significantly more
stringent than the comparable CTGs.
Q. Can States apply VOC RACT regulations .to sources in attainment
areas surrounding a nonattainment area? (7/28)
A. Yes, States can obviously apply RACT regulations wherever they
wish. The application of RACT regulations to expanded areas, perhaps
even Statewide, is probably a wise action since it will greatly simplify
the SIP revision process for future 0 nonattainment "discoveries" made
through the PSD program. However, EPft presently does not require VOC
RACT regulations for attainment areas.
-------
MISCELLANEOUS
Q: Section 126 "Interstate Pollution Abatement" allows any State or
political subdivision to petition EPA for finding that a source in a
neighboring State "prevents attainment or maintenance...of any...national
primary or secondary ambient air quality standard." The Administrator
must make a decision within 60 days of the receipt of a petition and
follow up.with appropriate new abatement actions. What will be the
basis for EPA decision on whether a source prevents attainment? (1/12)
A: EPA generally will make a positive finding only if the source is
causing the violation of the standard and control of the out-of-state
source will result in attainment. That.j.s, the petitioning State
must have its'own house in order and must fail to attain only because )
of the interstate source before"EPA w~ill invoke the special powers
of Section 126. Where the interstate source or sources are only contri-
buting to violations that would exist anyway, the situation should be
regulated through a comprehensive SIP revision for the area.
Q. What is the legal status of a source which is not meeting an
approved SIP limit and to which the State has granted a variance but EPA
has not yet approved the variance as part of the SIP? (3/31)
A. The source will be out of compliance and subject to Section 113
enforcerrrerrt and noncompliance penalties under Section 120.
Q. What effect will non-ferrous smelter orders have on mandatory
S02 attainment by 1982? (3/31)
A. The issuance of a nonferrous smelter order (NSO) will not inter-
fere with the attainment of the ambient sulfur dioxide standards since
any smelter subject to a NSO will be required to employ dispersion
techniques to ensure attainment of the ambient standards until expiration
of the NSO. Upon expiration, the smelter will be required to attain
the ambient standards through constant control technology alone.
; Q. Csn monitors be relocated as part of a SIP revision? (6/2)
A. Yes.
1 Q. Are BACT and LAER nationwide or Statewide determinations? (3/31)
A. Neither, BACT and LAER are case-by-case determinations.
Q. Are Federal facilities subject to SIP limits and procedures? (3/31)
A. Yes, Federal facilities should be treated as any other source.
-------
". Q. Does the existence of Federal regulations alleviate sanctions?
A. Only in limited circumstances. For example, to the extent
resources permit, EPA will promulgate RACT for stationary sources. If
this fills the only deficiency in the SIP, approval will then be possible
and any sanctions will be lifted. However, in this case sanctions would
apply if the State failed to implement the Federally promulgated regulations
wnere States fail to adopt emission control regulations needed to provide '
for attainment and maintenance of the national air quality standards
EPA may not have sufficient resources to correct all deficiencies and it
will be necessary to impose sanctions.
(L Q. Are Federal facilities required to pay permit fees to the State
in which they are located? (5/4)
A. Yes, the Federal government is not exempt from thes.ejees.
~r Q. Can Section" 175 funds apply to TSP related projects or grants? (6/2)
A Yes Section 175 applies to TSP related projects or grants to
solve'reentrained dust and other TSP problems.
1. Q. What model should States use to determine percent reduction
leeded to attain the QX standards? £6/2)
A. The Regional Office need not dictate model consistency but can
leave it to the option of the States.
"'• Q. Is a delayed compliance order (DCO) a SIP revision? (5/4)
A. A DCQ is not a SIP revision under Section 110(a)(3) of the CAA.
A DCO is, however,-an addition to the SIP and modifies the terms of an
approved SIP under Section.110(1) and Section 113(d)(ll). Consequently,
a source subject to a DCO is potentially subject to non-compliance
penalties. DCQ's will be published in 40 CFR 65.
Q. Who is required to submit a DCO to the Administrator? (5/4)
A. A State issued DCO is required to be submitted by. the State to
the Regional Office which in turn submits it to headquarters for review.
A DCO is not required to be submitted by the State Governor but can be
submitted by a local agency.
Q. When and to whom will the Section 108 transportation control
measures (TCH) guideline documents be distributed? (.6/2)
A. Inspection/maintenance and bus/carpool guidelines are now being
distributed to the Regional Offices. The vapor recovery guideline is
expected from the contractor on June 1. Limited copies of this will be
distributed in early June with more copies available in early July.
Other guidelines are due at the end of this year. Transportation planning
guidelines have been completed in-house and are awaiting DOT consensus.
This review should be completed in early June and the guidelines avail-
able then.
-------
- Q. When will the "Microinventory Technique for TSP Assessment" be
available? (7/11) '
A. This technique, which has recently been applied to several
areas, emphasizes a more definitive area source inventory in the
immediate vicinity of hi vols. It will be discussed, along with other
analysis techniques, at the Workshop on Particulate Analysis and
Assessment Methods, July 19 and 20, in Raleigh, North Carolina. A paper
describing the technique in more detail will be available at that time
and afterwards by requesting a copy from Tom Pace, MD-14, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, or at 629-5486 (FTS).
> Q. How is an "urbanized area" of greater than 200,000 people defined? (7/2:
A. As defined in the U.S. Department of Commerce publication,
1970 Census Users' Guide Part 1, p. 82, urbanized area includes a core
city plus any closely settled suburban area. For the purpose of oxidant
plan development, major urbanized areas are urbanized areas with a popula-
tion of 200,000 or greater. (See attachments to this enclosure for the
Bureau of Census1 definition and a list of urbanized areas.)
t Q. Is the reference (in the February 24, 1978, memo on criteria for
approval of 1979 SIP revisions) to use of the highest pollutant concentra-
tion for determining the necessary level of control for photochemical
oxidants in nonattainment urban areas an attempt to modify current
Agency policy regarding the use of the second highest value? (7/28)
A. No, the use of the highest pollutant concentration is intended
by definition to mean the second highest value since the ambient standard
dictates: that the oxidant standard can be exceeded once per year.
Q. If an area contains several CO monitors all showing nonattainment,
must the control strategy demonstrate attainment for all monitors or
only the one with the highest reading? (7/28)
A. The control strategy must demonstrate attainment at all locations.
Site specific controls alone are sufficient if they take care of the
problem and do not serve simply to relocate it. However, measures that
provide comprehensive control (such as I/M) and area-wide VMT reduction
(such as mass transit, car pooling, etc.) may provide the best solution
to the problem.
-------
Definition of "Urbanized Are,a,
1970 Census Users' Guide" Part 1
17. Urbanized areas (UA)-- An urbanized area
contains a city for twin cities) of 50,000or more
population (central city) plus the surrounding
closely settled incorporated and unincorporated
areas which meet certain criteria of population
size ordensity. Beginning with the 1950 Censuses
of Population and Housing, statistics have been
presented for urbanized areas, which were
established primarily to distinguish the urban
from the rural population in the vicinity of large
cities. They differed from SMSA's chiefly in
excluding the rural portions of counties com-
posing the SMSA's and excluding those places
which were separated by rural territory from
densely populated fringe around the central-city.
Also, urbanized areas are defined on the basis
of the population distribution at the time of the
census, and therefore the boundaries are not
permanent. . -;
Contiguous urbanized areas with central cities in
the same SMSA are combined. Urbanized areas
with central cities in different SMSA's are not
combined, except that a single urbanized area
was established in each of the two Standard
Consolidated Areas.
Essentially the same definition criteria are
being, followed in 1970 as in 1960 with two
exceptions:
A. The decision not to recognize selected
towns in New England and townships in
Pennsylvania and New Jersey as urban places
under special, rules will affect the definition
of some areas in these States. Included in
urbanized areas will be only the portions of
towns and townships in these States that meet
the rules followed in defining urbanized areas
elsewhere in the United States. This also
affects Arlington County, Virginia, which will
be considered an urban unincorporated place
rather than an urban by special rule county.
B. A change has been introduced with regard
:*lo the treatment of extended cities (previously
called "overbounded") that contain large areas
of very low density settlement. The decision
to distinguish between urban and rural parts
of extended cities in urbanized areas and to
exclude the rural parts from the urbanized
areas will help to present a more accurate
representation of the population that is truly
urban. Approximately sixty incorporated
places are involved of which about twenty
are central cities. An alphabetic code "A"
appearing on the census summary tapes will
identify these particular areas.
Pre-census planning indicated approximately
fifty potential new urbanized areas. Thosewhich
prove to have a qualified .central city or twin
central cities in 1970 will[appear in the published
reports. -^ .
Maps in the Metropolitan Map Series essentially
cover the urbanized areas of SMSA's and contain
all recognized census boundaries down to the
block level.
Two sets of four digit numeric codes forurban-
ized areas are contained in the 1970 census
tabulations. The potential urbanized area code
will identify each record (collection of related
data items) in each urban fringe zone. This
zone includes all of the area which has the
potential of being part of an urbanized area
after the 1970 census. The actual urbanized
area code uniquely identifies all recordsirieach
urbanized area. The final extent of the
-------
83
area and, therefore, each of the specifier'-cords or their parts, will qualify as part ofthe urban-
that will contain this code is not determined until izcd area only if they meet rule C above.
after the 1970 census.
The components of UA's and their cpecific
•definitional criteria are as follows:
17.1 Central city of an urbanized area—An
urbanized area contains at least one city which
had 50,000 inhabitants in the census as well as
the surrounding closely settled incorporated
and unincorporated areas that meet the
criteria for urban fringe areas. (There are a
few urbanized areas where there are "twin
central cities" that have combined population
of at least 50.000.) All persons residing in an
urbanized area are included in the urban
population.
17.2 Urban fringe--In addition to its central
city or cities, an urbanized area also contains
the following types of contiguous areas, which
together constitute its urban fringe:
A. Incorporated places with 2,500 inhabi-
tants or more.
B. Incorporated places with less than
2,500 inhabitants, provided each has a
closely settled area of 100 dwelling units
or more.
C. Enumeration districts in unincor-
porated areas with a population density of
1,000 inhabitants or more per square mile.
(The area of large nonresidential tracts
devoted to such urban land uses as rail-
road yards, .factories, and cemeteries is
excluded in computing the population
density.)
D Other enumeration districts in unin-
^orporatcd territory with lower popu-
lation density provided that it serves one
of the following purposes:
1. To eliminate enclaves.
2. To ciose indentations in the urban-
ized area of one mile or less across
the open end.
3. To link outlying enumeration dis-
tricts of qualifying density that were no
more than 1-1/2 mileH from the main
body of the urbanized area.
A change in the definition since 1°60 involves
dropping the use of towns in ,the New F.ngland
States, townships in New Jersey and Pennsyl-
vania, and counties elsewhere which were classi-
fied as "urban by special rule." These areas
-------
able 21. Rank of Urbanized Areas in the United States by Population: 1970
[For meaning of symbols, see lent}
ank Urbanized Areas
1 »«w York, N.Y.-Kortheastern He*
2 Lo* Angal*«-Long Beach. C»llf.»--
3 Qilc«co, lll.-Korthw«atara
6 Sma FrancUco-Oakltni), C.llf
30 PpTwld«oe»-Pa«tucket-W»rwicy,
39 Tort Lauderdale-Holljvood, Tla..
41 Su E.m«rdliK)-Slv.r.ld», Calif.
•J2 0-'»iio»a Cit7, Oltla...
4B Sprlngfl»ld-Chlcop»»-Xol»olte,
SO Albanj>-8eb«neeta.»3ton, H.Y ...*.".'...
Pensacola, Fl»
Savannah, Ga...~.
Fayetteville, N.C '.......
Stockton, Calif
Xixington, Ky.....
Charleston, V. Va .
Greenville, S.C
Vrateroury, Conn..
Soanoka, Va...................
Jolist, 111...
Lincoln, Nebr
2ai»lgh, N.C
Greensboro, H.C •
Kiliaazoo, Mich
Uibbock, Tex
Osden, Utah
Augusta, Ca.-S.C
Brockton, Uase.
Exglr-M, Mich
Huntsvllle, Ala
Klnston-Salem, N.C
Zvsnavllle, Ind....«
r»U Rive-, Mass.-R.I
Eufene, Oreg
Montgomery, Ala.....
Duluth-Snperlor, Minn.-Vis,...
Atlantic City, N.J
New Bedford, Mass ....^........
Topeka, Kans
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
New Britain, Conn
Santa Barbara, Calif
Appleton, Vis.........
Green Bay, Via '.
Macon, Ca
Aaarillo, Tex
York, Pa
Blloxl-Culfport, Mils
Springfield, Mo
Sprlnclleld, 111
Waco, Tox
Racine, His
Lancaster, Pa
Port Arthur, Tex
Be aumon t, Tex
Waterloo, Iowa.
Norwalk, Conn...............
Population
255,824
249,463
247,416
247,121
244,653
244,279
241,781
240,751
236,681
234,564
232,917
229,620
229,518
228,399
225,184
. 223,580
222,830
222,616
212,820
203,616
206,084
205,457
204,766
204,205
200,280
.192,265
190,502
190,060
184,898
182,731
180,355
178,605
176,155
175,263
167,932
1 167,583
1 167,224
166,619
163,753
1 161,370
1 160,373
159,538
157,662
157,073
I 156,936
156,621
155,500
153,443
152,289
152,252
I 152,083
1 150,135
149.727
143,953
148,844
147,552
1 146,565
142,584
142,476
I 139,392
1 139,255
1 138,933
1 138,352
I 134,016
1 133,657
1 .13Z,108
1 132,008
1 131,349
129,774
129,532
129,105
1 128,065
127,010
123,106
151,601
121,340
120,794
I 118,843
1 117,408
I 117,097
116,474
1 116,350
I 112,881
I 106,707
Rank Urbanized Ar«as
167 Muskegon-Muskegoa Heights, Wi<=h*
171 Petersburg-Colonial Heights, Va.
172 cn -p 9
178 Sioux City, Iowa-Kebr.-S. DaJc,..
185 W-.ealiBg, *. Vs.-ttile
193 Steubenville-Weirton, Ctiio—
194 Targo-«oorh«»d, K. Dak.-Mina.. ..
202 Lafayette-West Lafayette, led...
20S Fltchburg-Leoolnater, Mass......
•214 Vinelind-Mlllvllla, r.J
215 Ashevllle, H.C....
217 Billings, Mont. t.
218 Great Falls, Mont
220 LlDa, Ohio;
222 Bloonlngton-Nornal, 111
225 .Cadsden, Ala
227 Dubuque, Iowa-Ill
228 Lewlston-Auburn, «al:.e.. . ,
231 Pittsfleld, Mass...
232 Salinas, Calif
233 Calveston, Tox....
235 Pine Bluff, Ark
236 Midland, Tex
238 Columbia, Mo.... .
239 Texirkana, Tex. -Ark .
24O Wlljalngton, N.C... •
241 Stml Valley, Calif
242 Rochester, Minn
243 Oshkosh, Wi»...
1 244 Sneman-Denlson, Tex .
1 245 Owensboro, Ky...
246 Brownsville Tox
247 Dryan-Colleee Station, Tex
248 Harllngcn-San Bonlto, TI.-X "
-------
REF 1-5
•.-• ^
SBW
-UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
1 4 DEC 1977
OFFICE OF
AIR AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
Subject: Final Guidelines for Section 174: Guidance on Designation
of Lead Planning Organizations for Nonattainment Areas and
on Determination of Agency Responsibilities ,
FROM: David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Waste Management
TO: Regional Administrators
Regions I-X
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 include important changes
which provide local governments with the opportunity to assume addi-
tional responsibilities for state implementation plan (.SIP) revisions.
Specifically, section 174 requires that for carbon monoxide and
photochemical oxidant nonattainment areas, state and local elected
officials must jointly determine their respective responsibilities for
plan revisions by February 7, 1978. In addition, section 174 encourages
that the revisions be prepared by an "organization of elected officials
of local governments."
Attached are the final guidelines, for implementing, section 174.
Note that they are issued jointly by EPA and the Department of
Transportation. Due to the immediacy of the February 7 deadline, these
guidelines were not proposed as regulations.. However, they have gone
through an extensive process of review and comment by many of the state
and local public interest groups, including meetings with the National
Association of Counties,. National League.of Cities,. National Governors'
Association, and the National Association of Regional Councils. In
addition, the guidelines were reviewed by the Departments of Trans-
portation, Housing and Urban Development, and .Interior. A draft version
was also circulated to the regions for review through the Air and Hazar-
dous Materials Division Directors.
The guidelines consist of three parts,. Section 1 explains the
applicability,, purpose,, and background. Section 2. contains the criteria
and describes the process, for selection of a lead planning organization
for an urbanized nonattainment area. Local governments can themselves
agree to designate a planning organization to prepare the nonattainment
plan, if they do so by February 7, 1978. Such a local designation must be
-------
certified by the governor. After February 7, the governor is
responsible for designating, in consultation with local governments,
the planning organization. The designation of organizations of local
officials, particularly those responsible for transportation or air
quality maintenance planning, is encouraged by the amendments.
In accordance with the EPA policy to consolidate and simplify en-
vironmental planning requirements, the guidelines also encourage
the designation of agencies responsible for preparing other
relevant areawide environmental plans.
Section 3 describes how state and local officials should
jointly determine the division of responsibilities for development,
implementation, and enforcement of the SIP. The initial determina-
tion of responsibilities must also be completed by February 7, 1978.
The initial determination is expected to be general and identify
primarily planning responsibilities, including the development of
an emissions inventory, the completion of an air quality analysis,
and the evaluation of control strategies. The final determination
must be included in the plan revision submitted by January 1, 1979,
and must address in detail implementation and enforcement..responsibilities
Copies of these guidelines should be sent to the states in your
region and to appropriate local governments. The guidelines call for
states to submit two items to the. Administrator through.EPA regional
offices: (1) a list of all organizations or agencies designated and
certified within the state including a description of their geographic
jurisdictions, a general description of their responsibilities, and a
brief discussion of the reason for the.ir designation; (2) the initial
joint determination of responsibilities, for the SIP revisions. These
two items should be transmitted to EPA no later than April 1, 1978.
Copies .of the submittals should be sent by regional offices to the
offices listed below:
Office of Transportation and Land Use Policy (AW-445)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington,. D.C. 20460
Attn: John 0. Hidinger
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Attn: Walter Barber
cc: Walter Barber
Air and Hazardous Materials Division.Directors,. Regions I, III-X;
Environmental Programs Division.Director, Region II
-------
CLEAN AIR ACT
SECTION 174 GUIDELINES
Guidance on designation of
lead planning organizations
for nonattainment areas and
on determination of inter-
agency responsibilities
December 1977
Issued Jointly by
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and
The U.S. Department of Transportation
Washington, D.C.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section j'age Number
1. Introduction
1.1 Applicability 1
1.2 Purposes 1
1.3 Background 1
2. Selection of a Lead Planning Organization
2.1 Criteria for Selecting an Organization ... .3
2.2 The Selection Process . 4
3. Joint Determination of Responsibilities 5
3.1 Joint Determination Process 6
3.2 Notification of Affected Governmental
Organizations 6
3.3 Establishment of a Determination
Process 7
3.4 Formal Identification of Responsibilities . . 7
Appendix A. List of Key Dates
Appendix B. Section 174
General questions on any of the material covered by this guideline
should be sent to the Office of Transportation and Land Use Policy (AW-
445), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington,
D.C. 20460, Attention: Ms. Martha Burke. Ms. Burke's telephone number
is (202) 755-0570. Questions concerning specific state or local areas
should be directed to the appropriate EPA regional office.
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Applicability
These guidelines are applicable to all metropolitan area regions or
portions of regions where the national ambient air quality stan-
dards for photochemical oxidants or carbon monoxide will not be
attained by July 1, 1979.
1.2 Purposes
The purposes of these guidelines include:
1. To recommend procedures and criteria for determining a
lead agency to be responsible for coordinating the prep-
eration of the implementation plan revisions called for by
the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act (P.L. 95-95)
in metropolitan area regions where carbon monoxide or
photochemical oxidant standards will not be attained
by July 1979.
2. To assist state and local governments in identifying the
initial planning, implementation, and enforcement responsi-
bilities for the plan revisions and in establishing a process
for further definition of responsibilities as development of
the revisions progresses.
3. To encourage further coordination and consolidation of
federally sponsored planning programs. This includes the
integration of the new transportation related air quality
requirements under P.L. 95-95 into the transportation
planning process required by federal transportation grant
statutes.
1.3 Background
On August 7, 1977, President Carter signed into law the first compre-
hensive amendments to the Clean Air Act since 1970. Among
the more important changes in the Clean Air Act are provisions en-
couraging local governments and organizations of local elected
officials to assume additional responsibilities in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of plans to attain national ambient
air quality standards. Such plans were first required under the
1970 amendments to the Clean Air Act- The 1977 amendments require
plan revisions for areas where standards have not been attained.
The assumption of additional responsibilities by local governments
and local officials is specifically encouraged in those areas where
photochemical oxidant and carbon monoxide standards will not be
attained by July 1, 1979 (section 174(a)). The first identification
of nonattainment areas for these and other pollutants under the
requirements of the 1977 amendments must have been made by states by
December 5, 1977. The Administrator of the Environmental Protection
-------
Agency (EPA) must publish a list of these areas, with any modifica-
tions he deems necessary, by February 3, 1978.
For areas where standards for photochemical oxidants and carbon
monoxide will not be attained by July 1, 1979, state and local
elected officials must jointly determine by February 7, 1978, their
respective responsibilities for the plan revisions necessary to
attain standards by the new deadlines in the 1977 amendments. The
plan elements for which responsibilities are to be jointly determined
encompass control measures for all pollutants for which standards
have not been attained, not just photochemical oxidants and carbon
monoxide.
The amendments require that, where possible, the implementation
plan revisions be prepared by an organization of local elected
officials designated by agreement of local governments. The amendments
strongly encourage preparation by the organization now responsible
for transportation planning under section 134 of title 23, tLS.C.,
or for air quality maintenance planning (or for both). The desig-
nated organization and its responsibilities must be certified
by the state (or states if an interstate area is involved). Where
local governments have not reached agreement by February 7, 1978,
the governor must, in consultation with the elected officials
of local governments in the affected area, designate an organization
of local elected officials or a state agency to prepare the plan
revisions. The designation by the governor must be in accordance with
the joint determination of responsibilities made by state and local
elected officials.
The governor must, under regulations which the EPA. will propose dur-
ing December 1977, submit a notice to the EPA certifying the designated
agency for each nonattainment area or identifying the organization
that he or she has designated. The notice must include a brief
summary of the process involved in selecting the designated agency. A
more detailed documentation of the selection process shall be included
as part of the plan revisions to be submitted to the EPA by January 1,
1979. Evidence of the involvement of state legislatures and local
governments is required as part of the plan revision submittal (section
172(b)(9)).
Only organizations of local elected officials of general purpose
governments certified by the governor will be eligible for the
grants authorized under section 175 of the amendments. In each urban
area which is wholly or partially classified as a nonattainment area,
only one organization will be eligible to receive a grant. The org-
anization receiving the grant may use the grant funds to support
plan revision activities carried out by other governmental organiza-
tions, public interest groups, or private consultants.
In addition to further defining the process for implementation of
the Clean Air Act amendments, the EPA and the Department of Trans-
portation also encourage in these guidelines further coordination and
consolidation of federally sponsored planning programs. Such encourage-
-2-
-------
merit is consistent with President Carter's Environmental Message of May
1977 and with subsequent actions taken by the President to eliminate,
consolidate, or simplify federal planning requirements. The Environ-
mental Message in part stressed the need for improved implementation of
environmental laws through more efficient delivery of federally funded
programs. The encouragement for coordination and consolidation
does not imply the advocacy of any particular institutional mechanism.
A wide variety of mechanisms ranging from concentration of authority or
responsibility in a single organization to development of memoranda
of understanding among several organizations are available to achieve
the same objectives.
-3-
-------
2. SELECTION OF A LEAD PLANNING ORGANIZATION
2.1 Criteria for Selecting an Organization
These guidelines are intended to assist state and local officials
in reaching agreement on the lead planning organization to be res-
ponsible for plan revisions called for by the 1977 Clean Air Act
amendments. The role of the lead planning organization may vary
from developing almost all elements of the plan revision to acting
as a forum for decisionmaking by elected officials on elements
developed almost entirely by other organizations. In most instances
the lead organization will probably develop some elements, coordi-
nate the development of other elements, and serve as a forum for'
deciding the ultimate nature of the plan revisions.
The amendments require that, where feasible, the organization des-
ignated and certified to prepare the plan revisions shall be (1) the
metropolitan planning organization (MPO) responsible for the con-
tinuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning
process for the affected area; (2) the organization responsible for
the air quality maintenance planning process; or (3) an organization
responsible for both planning processes. Coordination of the devel-
opment of a plan revision with the MPO transportation planning process
is particularly important in those nonattainment areas where transpor-
tation control measures appear necessary to attain standards. Only
through the MPO process can the federal funds available under Federal
Highway Administration and Urban Mass Transportation Administration
programs be used to implement necessary transportation management
measures and capital projects.
The Administrator of the EPA also strongly encourages that, in
addition to meeting the requirements described above, the designa-
tions made pursuant to section 174 contribute to a consolidation
within a single organization of responsibilities for air quality
planning and for other environmental planning carried out under
federal laws administered by the EPA. These laws include the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act,
and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The EPA believes
that, where properly applied, consolidation of environmental planning
efforts is an essential step in the development of comprehensive
environmental strategies that are able to take into account the
interrelated nature of environmental problems. Comprehensive strategies
can also result in a more efficient and effective use of resources in
achieving environmental benefits.
The following criteria should be considered by local elected offi-
cials and by the governor when determining the lead planning organi-
zation for urban nonattainment regions:
1. The organization should be the forum for cooperative deci-
sionmaking by principal elected officials, of general purpose
-4-
-------
local governments. The principle elected officials of gen-
eral purpose local governments should have adequate (prefer-
ably majority or larger) representation in the organization
but membership need not be limited to them or their designees.
There should be participation by agencies that may be respon-
sible for implementation of portions of the plan.
2. The organization should have a planning jurisdiction that includes
the current urbanized area and the area likely to be urbanized
at least over the period to be covered by the revised plan.
3. The organization should have the ability to produce the necessary
plan revision for the planning jurisdiction described above
by the January 1, 1979, submittal deadline. The organization
should have the capability to perform the necessary analysis
and planning tasks itself or be able to enter into binding
agreements with other organizations to perform such tasks.
4. The organization should have the capability to coordinate
the development of the plan revision with other relevant
planning processes, if it does not have responsibility for
those processes, and with agencies that may have responsibil-
ity for implementation or enforcement. Relevant planning
processes include the continuing, cooperative, and compre-
hensive planning process; other environmental planning pro-
cesses assisted through EPA-administered programs; and com-
prehensive planning processes established in accordance with
Part IV of the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-95
(41 FR 2052).
2.2 The Selection Process
Local governments within a nonattainment area for photochemical
oxidants or carbon monoxide may, by agreement, designate an organ-
ization of elected officials of local government to prepare the
plan revision for the pollutants for which standards in that area have
not been attained. A resolution by the governing body of an organi-
zation meeting the criteria in section 2.1 of these guidelines is suffi-
cient to demonstrate agreement of local governments. Such a designation
must be submitted to the governor by February 7, 1978. Local govern-
ments intending to designate an organization should consult with the
state during the designation process.
If local governments agree on an organization by February 7, 1978, the
governor shall certify that organization by April 1, 1978, unless he or
she finds that the designated organization does not meet the criteria in
section 2.1. If local governments have initiated, but have not com-
pleted, designation of an organization by February 7, 1978, they should
inform the governor that an on-going process exists.
If local governments are unable to agree by February 7 on a single lead
organization of local elected officials to be responsible for the
-5-
-------
coordination of the plan revision, the governor shall, in consultation
with local elected officials of general purpose local governments, desig-
nate an organization or a state agency by April 1, 1978. If more
than one organization meeting the criteria in section 2.1 is self-
designated in an area and proposed to the governor for certification,
the governor shall certify the organization which, in his or her
opinion, is most capable of completing the required plan revisions.
The governor may designate a state, local, or regional agency, but that
designation shall be in accordance with the joint determination of
responsibilities required by section 174 of the Clean Air Act amend-
ments and discussed in the following section of these guidelines.
In making a designation, the governor shall take into considera-
tion any on-going process of local designation in existence on
February 7, 1978, even though no formal agreement among local gov-
ernments has been reached.
The governor shall submit to the Adminstrator of the EPA by April 1,
1978, through the appropriate EPA regional office, a list of all
organizations or agencies certified or designated within the state,
a description of the geographic jurisdictions of these organizations
and agencies, and a general description of their responsibilities.
Regardless of the agency finally designated or certified, the deci-
sions should reflect an examination of all reasonable alternatives
for consolidation of environmental and other planning functions. The
submission should include a brief discussion of the alternatives
investigated and the basis for the ultimate choice. If the organi-
zation designated or certified by the governor is not o'ne of the
organizations encouraged by the amendments and by the Administrator
in these guidelines, the reasons that such an organization should
not have the lead responsibility for planning should be specifically
addressed. More detailed descriptions, including documentation of
the consultation that occurred, shall be submitted by January 1, 1979,
with the implementation plan revision.
-6-
-------
3. JOINT DETERMINATION OF RESPONSIBILITIES
3.1 Joint Determination Process
The determination of responsibilities made jointly by state and
local elected officials will necessarily have to be rel-atively
general for many areas. The nature and extent of the air quality
problem may not be adequately defined by the February 7, 1978, deadline
specified in the amendments. In addition, the planning process guide-
lines for photochemical oxidant and carbon monoxide nonattainment areas,
required to be prepared by the EPA also by February 7, will not be
available for consideration in the joint determinations. The nature of
the process recommended in the EPA guidelines should influence the
ultimate determination of responsibilities.
Because agency responsibilities, especially for plan implementation
and enforcement, will undoubtedly change or become more specific
by the time a plan revision is actually submitted to the EPA for
approval, the determination of responsibilities should be viewed as
a process, the first phase of which is to be completed by February 7,
1978. The final product of the joint determination process should
be included as part of the plan revision submitted by January 1, 1979.
Possible steps in this phased process are set forth below. Because
institutional arrangements differ from region to region and from
state to state, specification of a generally applicable process for
joint state-local determination of agency responsibilities is not
possible.
Many state and local governments already have initiated such a
process. As long as the approach taken provides for substantial
involvement of all parties - local governments, regional agencies,
and states - and results in the identification of agencies and res-
ponsibilities as described in these guidelines, such an existing
process is sufficient to meet the requirements of section 174(a).
The activities described in the following section should be com-
pleted by February 7, 1978, to comply with the requirements of sec-
tion 174.
3.2 Notification of Affected Governmental Organizations
The state should, by correspondence or other established notifica-
tion procedures, ensure that all affected governmental organizations
within the nonattainment region are informed of the purpose and
schedule of the joint determination process. In many instances, an
entire state may be designated as a nonattainment area for photo-
chemical oxidants. However, many control strategies will still generally
focus on urban regions. As a minimum, the following organizations
should be notified in each region:
a. General purpose local governments.
-7-
-------
b. Organizations of local elected officials (including all
metropolitan planning organizations).
c. Air pollution control agencies (including the agency or
agencies responsible for air quality maintenance planning
d. Areawide A-95 clearinghouses.
e. Areawide and statewide water quality planning agencies
designated under section 208 of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act.
f. AreaV/ide solid waste management agencies.
g. Areawide comprehensive planning agencies.
h. Coastal management agencies.
i. Interested citizen groups.
3.3 Establishment of a Determination Process.
The state should ensure the establishment of a process for determination
of agency responsibilities that will provide state and local elected
officials of all major political subdivisions within a region with an
opportunity for substantial involvement and that will enable the con-
cerns of these officials to be adequately-addressed. This may be done
through a variety of mechanisms including the establishment of task
forces with state and local government representatives and the use of
public meetings or hearings with elected officials of all major general
purpose local governments within the affected regions invited. Where
appropriate, existing forums such as meetings of organizations of local
elected officials or meetings of air quality maintenance policy advisory
groups should be used in the determination process.
All state and local officials participating in the determination of
agency responsibilities should have the opportunity to propose agencies
and their respective functions. All proposals should be made available
to affected agencies and the general public for comment.
3.4 Formal Identification of Responsibilities.
The initial joint determination of responsibilities shall at a mini-
mum establish which level of government (although notrnecessarily the
specific agency) - the state, local governments, regional agencies or
any combination of these - shall be responsible for: (1) the development
of an accurate, comprehensive, and current emission inventory; (2) the
completion of an air quality analysis, using modeling techniques, to
-8-
-------
determine the level of control needed to attain standards; and
(3) the evaluation and selection of control strategies for
mobile sources, point sources, and area sources. An initial
assignment of responsibilities for implementation and enforcement
must be considered. However, it is expected that the final
determination of such responsibilities will.occur after the
measures to be included in the plan revision have been relatively
well defined.
When agreement is reached among the state and the participating
local elected officials, memoranda of understanding or other
comparable joint acknowledgements of responsibilities should be
signed. Because duties and responsibilities for implementation
and enforcement of plan revisions may change as development of the
plan revisions proceeds, the determination of agency responsibilities
need not be incorporated in the state implementation plan until
the revisions are submitted for federal approval. The initial
determination of responsibilities made by February 7, 1978, to meet
the requirements of section 174, should be submitted by April 1, 1978,
to the EPA with the certifications of lead planning organizations
discussed in section 2 of these guidelines.
-9-
-------
APPENDIX A
LIST OF KEY DATES
Date Action
August 7, 1977 Clean Air Act amendments are
signed into law.
Decembers, 1977 States identify nonattainment
areas.
February 3, 1978 EPA publishes list of nonattain-
ment areas.
February 7, 1978 Local governments designate org-
anizations of local officials.
State and local elected officials
complete joint determinations of
responsibilities.
April 1, 1978 Governors transmit to EPA certifi-
cation of lead planning organizations
and joint determinations of responsi-
bilities.
January 1, 1979 Governors transmit to EPA plan revi-
sion for nonattainment areas.
-------
APPENDIX B
SECTION 174
42.USC7SOC "Sic. Ui. (a). "Withia-aiz -months after the «m»^Tn<»nt Of the
Clean. Air Act Amendments of 1377, for each region in which the
national primary ambient air" qualitv standard, for carbon monoxide
or photochemical «yryj«n*a will not "be attained, by July lr 1S79, the
State and elected officials, of affected local governments shall jointly
which elements of a revised implementation. plan will be
.
.planned for and implamented or enforced by the State and which.
such. efomwits wiH. be planned for and implemented or enforced by
local ffunnrnm*nti* prTegional agencies, or any combination of local
governments, regional agencies, or the State. Where possible within.
the rim* nqnired under* *-i»« subsection^ the .implementation plan,
required by this part shall be prepared by an/organization'of elected*'
omosls of local governments designated by agreement of the- local
governments, in an; affected: area? and certinedoy ths State for tb«
purpose. Whi»Tt»- sr»»h.. atf- nrgnTi-vgaijop. •>!««-. nofc-'VigftT). fJtmjgpatiH^ by Comultitinn.
Agreem*nt within. *"•*• months after--ther enactment of the^Qaan. Aix
Act-Amendments or 197T, the- Governor (or, iirtiie- case- of an inter-
state area, Governors) , after consultation witk elected officiab of local
and in • accordance with the detarmination: under t-^n first
sentence- of" thfa subparagrapK, 9^Hll designd-ca an orzaniz&tion of
elected officials of local governments in the afecced area or a State
agency to prepare such. plan. Where feasible, such organization shall
be the metropolitan planning orgaixization designatea to. conduct the?"
corttinumg, cooperative and comprehensive transportation planning^.
process for the area, under section 134 of title 23, United States Code,
responsible for *^>q air quality maintenance, plan**
"'
ning-process under regulations implementing <"'rn nWif>-**vr ixitriattMg tv ^ OTl^nwfc-
-------
REF 1-6
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE » SFP 1978
SUBJECT: Questions and Answers on 1979 SIP Revisions
FROM: G- T- Helms Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch
T0: See Addressees Below
Enclosed is the sixth issue of monthly questions and answers on
the 1979 SIP revisions. In an effort to keep the questions and answers
current, question number 11 in the May 4 issue has been modified by
recent policy guidance (copy enclosed). Questions number 1 through 3
of this issue deal with the clarification of the VOC RACT requirement in
oxidant nonattainment areas.
Enclosures
Addressees:
Thomas Devine, Region I
William Baker, Region II
Howard Heim, Region III
Winston*"Sniith, Region IV
Steve Rothblatt, Region V
Jack Divita, Region VI
Art Spratlin, Region VII
Robert DeSpain, Region VIII
Wayne Blackard, Region IX
Clark Gaulding, Region X
cc: R. Campbell
R. Rhoads
D. Tyler
tPA FORM 1320-6 (REV. 3-76)
-------
1. Q. Does Hawkins1 August 4 memo on requirement for VOC RACT regulations'
mean that linear rollback and EKMA should no longer be used for the 1979
oxidant SIPs? Must detailed photochemical dispersion modeling now be done?
A. Mr. Hawkins1 memo was not intended to discredit the use of less
rigorous oxidant control strategy techniques such as rollback and EKMA.
Further, it does not require detailed photochemical dispersion modeling
in the 1979 SIPs for all large urbanized nonattainment areas. Instead,
the memo was intended to provide consistency between the control require-
ments for urbanized and rural nonattainment areas. We believe that where-
conditions of uncertainty and/or lack of'precision exist, it is the prudent
course of action to regulate large VOC emitters in major urbanized areas
to at least the same degree as similar sources in rural nonattainment areas.
2. Q. How should cutoff sizes be established in VOC regulations for
large urbanized areas that get extensions beyond 1982 to attain the oxidant
standard?
A. The 100-ton per year limit does not apply here. If a State chooses.
to include a cutoff size other than one explicitly in the CTG documents,
it should reflect a consideration of the nature of sources in an individual
nonattainment area. It should not be arbitrarily derived. Factors such
as the magnitude of emissions and the economics of control must be con-
sidered. You are encouraged to consult with OAQPS (John Calcagni) as
individual cutoff limits are established.
3. Q. For purposes of the 1979 SIP submittal, do all 11 RACT categories
contained in the first round of CTGs have to be adopted for rural nonattainment
oxidant*SIPs?
A. Yes. RACT regulations for all 11 CTG categories must be included
in the 1979 SIP for large VOC emitters (100 tons/yr potential emissions).
However, practically speaking, there may not be any large point sources
in certain CTG categories in some areas. A positive showing in the SIP
submittal that no such size sources exist in the affected nonattainment
area would obviously negate the need to require adopting of regulations
for this or any other source category. Service stations can be assumed
to be less than 100 tons without a detailed showing for the purposes of
exempting rural areas from Stage I requirements.
4. Q. Is Appendix J an acceptable procedure for calculating percent
reduction required to achieve the oxidant NAAQS?
A. Present guidance permits the use of Appendix J. However, there
has been much adverse comment in the technical community regarding its
adequacy; and its limitations are well known. Therefore, States should
be discouraged from using Appendix J because it is not the best technique
-------
- 2 -
available. States should also be advised that EPA has proposed to rescind
Appendix J in its proposed revision to the NAAQS for ozone. Regional
Offices should not use Appendix J in any calculations made for any urban-
ized area since it will not be considered'appropriate after the standard
is revised.
5. Q. The rollback equation accounting for transport is different in
the workbook used in the "Workshop on Requirements for Nonattainment
Area Plans" from the equation presented in the "Users" document. Which is
correct?
A. Both are correct. The equations are algebraically the same.
6. Q. For CO SIPs, what is needed to demonstrate reasonable further
progress (RFP) by 1982?
A. The requirement to demonstrate RFP will, in most areas, reflect
a continuous phased implementation of transportation control measures
(TCMs). These TCMs will most likely stress overall vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) reductions. Also included in the RFP line would be
reasonable controls for point sources (in areas which have them), reduc-
tions from the Federal motor vehicle control plan (FMVCP) and where
required, I/M emission reductions for a decentralized program (1981) and
for a centralized program (1982). Most CO violations are "hot spot"
type problems and some evaluation of progress toward attainment should
be made in these smaller areas as well as in the larger regional CO
nonattainment areas.
7. 0. "tlust a SIP contain provisions complying with Section 172(b)(ll)(A)
if the State indicates that no major stationary sources will be constructed
in the nonattainment areas?
A. At a minimum, the plan must contain legally enforceable procedures
which require an analysis of alternative sites, sizes, production processes,
and recommended control techniques prior to issuance of any permit.
8. Q. What is EPA's policy on approving SIP relaxations which impact
interstate areas?
A. EPA's interim policy on approving SIP relaxations which impact
interstate areas is stated in the July 26, 1978, memo from Dave Hawkins
to Kathleen Camin, Regional Administrator, Region VII, regarding the
Union Electric variance. EPA's policy is as follows. The relaxation
cannot be approved if the NAAQS or PSD increments would be violated.
Additionally, where the affected States have a specific growth/maintenan'ce
plan for the area, the SIP relaxation must not violate that plan. If
neither State has a specific maintenance plan and the States involved
cannot agree to the level of consumption of the growth allowance, EPA
-------
- 3
becomes involved. In this case, it is current EPA interim policy to
approve the relaxation based on dividing equally between the two States,
the consumption of growth potential. That is, each State will have use
of one-half the air quality difference between the NAAQS and the ambient
concentration now allowed at the border. This concentration represents
the air quality level which would exist if sources in the area were to
emit at the level allowed by the applicable SIP. The "one-half growth
allowance" concept should also apply to areas internal to the other
State. That is, where an applicable source would have significant
impacts well within the geographic boundaries of the other State, then
that impact should also be evaluated using the "one-half growth allowance"
criteria. If the relaxation would consume more than one-half of any
applicable growth increment, then it will be disapproved.
9. Q. Can a Regional Office have a more stringent PSD monitoring program
or ask for additional monitoring in support of a permit application than
is recommended in the OAQPS guideline?
A. Yes, a Regional Office may exceed the minimum sampling requirements
specified in air guidance. However, to assure some degree of regional
consistency, they should have sufficient justification when additional
monitoring or more frequent quality assurance tests are required from a
particular source.
10. Q. When are the State reviews for plan adequacy, as required by
Section 124, due for submission to the Regional Offices?
A. The results of the State reviews were due August 7t 1978.
K.
11. Q. Has guidance been developed for implementing Section 124?
A. A draft guidance memorandum was distributed for Regional Office
review on January 23, 1978. That memo reflected a very detailed review
process. On July 31, 1978, a final guidance memorandum was sent to the
Regional Offices; however, it did not mandate the detailed review as
described in the earlier draft memo. The final memo pointed out that the
earlier draft could be followed if a detailed review was necessary, but in
some cases, depending on conditions within a State, a shorter, qualitative
approach would suffice. For further information on what constitutes a
qualitative approach, contact Roger Powell (FTS: 629-5437).
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.p. '20460
OFFICE OF
AIR AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
SUBJECT: Requirement for VOC RACT Regulations in all
Oxidant Honattainment Areas.
rr
FROM: David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator V
for Air, Noise and Radiation (AW-443) '
TO: Regional Administrators , \
Regions I-X
This is a follow-up to Mr. Costle's February 24, 1978, memorandum
entitled "Criteria for Approval of 1979 SIP Revisions", and to my recent
discussions with the Regional Air and Hazardous Materials Division
Directors in Houston. It is intended to clarify the 1979 SIP require-
ments for volatile organic compound (VOC) RACT regulations for all
oxidant nonattainment areas.
The issues of long range oxidant transport and background make it
difficult to develop oxidant control strategies with the degree of
precision normally associated with more stable air pollutants. Further,
certain of the available analytical techniques will tend to under-
estimate the degree of control required'for attainment. The use of
less rigorous analytical techniques such as rollback support 1979 SIP
revisions is acceptable in areas where reasonably available control
measures are scheduled for implementation. However, for the reasons
stated above this technique is not acceptable as a demonstration that
RACT regulations on VOC sources are not needed to attain and maintain
the oxidant standard. Accordingly, for every cxidant plan which
relies on the rollback technique for its control strategy demonstration,
the plan must, as a mi mi mum, include legally enforceable provisions
for the control of large VOC sources (more than 100 tons/year potential
emissions) for which .EPA has issued a Control Technology Guideline (CTG).
Plans which rely on the rollback technique and do not contain these
provisions will not be approvable. The only exception to this policy
is the situation in which the control agency certifies that there are no
affected sources for a particular source category in the nonattainment
area.
-------
States which wish to attempt to demonstrate that the oxidant standard
can be attained and maintained without adopting one or more of such RACT
regulations for large VOC sources may do so but must employ more
rigorous analytical techniques than the rollback method.; i.e., photo-
chemical dispersion modeling.
I ask that you proceed immediately to advise your States and to
integrate this policy clarification into'.the ongoing SIP development
process.
cc: M. Durning
J. Bernstein
Director, Air and Hazardous Materials
Division, Regions I, III-X
Director, Environmental Programs Division,
Region II
-------
REF 1-7
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
1 SEP .1978
OFFICE OF
AIR AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
SUBJECT: Continuity of SIP Regulations
FROM: David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise, and Radiation
MEMO TO: Regional Administrator, Regions I - K
Pursuant to Sections. 107: and 172 of the Clean Air Act, many States
have had areas designated as nonattainment and will be required to
submit revisions to their State Implementation Plans to provide for
attainment. While many of these regulations will bring previously
uncontrolled sources under the purview of control regulations-, there
will also be a significant degree of regulation tightening. This sub-
mittal of more stringent regulations probably will result in judicial
challenges to the new regulations and requests for temporary relief, in
the form of variances or delayed compliance orders, from the more onerous
regulatory provisions. In these situations, it is imperative that.
the plan retain an enforceable regulation in order to minimize any
further deterioration of air quality in nonattainment areas. In order
to ensure that this deterioration does not occur, it is essential to
inform affected States of the procedures to be followed in submitting
and approving plan revisions.
In approving a SIP revision, EPA will provide that the emission •
limitation'contained in the existing regulations remain in effect.
New requirements imposed by the plan revision will normally be treated
as being in addition to, rather than in lieu of, those imposed by
existing regulations. For example, if the new regulations are judi-
cially challenged, or if the source is granted a delayed compliance
order or variance which exempts it temporarily from the provisions of
the new regulations, it must comply with the pre-existing regulations.
Failure to meet these pre-existing standards will subject the source
to appropriate enforcement actions, including the imposition of non-
compliance penalties under Section 120 of the Act.
EPA's policy should be set forth in the FEDERAL REGISTER notices
proposing to approve, and approving, SIP revisions. Also, the States
should be informed of this policy immediately. EPA will disapprove
any SIP revision to the extent it is inconsistent with this approach.
-------
The one major exception to this rule would be when the new regulations
are "inconsistent" with those currently in effect. In this situation,
the State may exempt the source from the requirements of the pre-existing
regulations, provided the source demonstrates that it cannot physically
meet the new regulations and continue to comply with the existing require-
ments. If the State expects to grant such exemptions, it must establish
an appropriate exemption review mechanism in its nonattainment plan.
Exemptions approved by the State must be submitted to EPA as SIP revisions
to ensure that every exemption will be drawn as narrowly as possible.
EPA will review these exemption requests strictly. An^exemption request
may be granted only when the construction or installation of the new
equipment can no longer proceed while existing controls remain in operation.
No request may be granted, however, if to do so would interfere with the
demonstration of reasonable further progress required by the Act.
Enclosed is suggested wording for EPA's FEDERAL REGISTER notices
proposing to approve, and approving, State Implementation Plan revisions.
cc: M. Burning
J. Bernstein
Enclosure
-------
ENCLOSURE
This proposal/final action would/will replace measures in the
current SIP with the new measures submitted by the State to EPA for
approval. Under this proposal/action, the current emission control
regulations applicable to any source would/will remain in effect
until such time as the newly revised regulation becomes effective and
the source achieves full compliance with its provisions. This provision
applies to all revised SIP regulationsj not merely those that are
subjected to judicial challenge. Failure of the source to satisfy
the requirements of the former regulation would/will result in appro-
priate enforcement actions.
-------
REF II-l
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AND
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSPORTATION-AIR QUALITY PLANNING GUIDELINES
June 1978
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of
Transportation are jointly issuing these transportation-air quality
planning guidelines in response to Section 108(e) of the Clean Air Act,
as amended August 1977. Section 108(e) requires EPA to consult with DOT
in preparing guidelines for the development of transportation system
components of State Implementation Plans for areas that are designated
air quality nonattainment areas with respect to photochemical oxidants
and/or carbon monoxide. EPA and DOT view these guidelines as a signifi-
cant step forward in our mutual efforts to integrate our related planning
processes and better meet the objectives of both agencies.
as M. Cost!
Administrator
\
v,..^t*,,r-
Brock Adams
Secretary
-------
PREFACE
Section 108(e) of the Clean Air Act as amended, August 1977, directs
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in consultation with the U.S.
Department of Transportation and other agencies to supplement these
guidelines "from time to time." This guidance issued jointly by EPA and
DOT may well be supplemented in the future as experience is gained
through actual applications. These guidelines in their current form do,
however, describe an acceptable process for accomplishing the continuing
tasks of transportation-air quality planning and programming required by
the Clean Air Act.
The Transportation-Air Quality Planning Guidelines must be adapted
to the specific circumstances of each nonattainment area. Lead planning
agencies along with other participating agencies and groups are encouraged
to meet quickly with EPA and DOT Regional Offices to discuss detailed
questions on guideline interpretation and implementation. For example,
two areas that particularly require further discussion and guidance are
the: (1) exact form of transportation provisions in the 1979 SIP
submittal and (2) the precise scope of the alternatives analyses.
Additional guidance that will supplement these guidelines is currently
being prepared to implement Section 110(a)(3)(D) of the Act. This section
requires nonattainment areas demonstrating the need for a standard attain-
ment deadline extension to 1987 to submit a public transportation
improvement program. This SIP revision must establish, expand or improve
public transportation to meet basic transportation needs as expeditiously
as practicable. A commitment to prepare and carry out such a program
must be included in the January 1, 1979 SIP submission. The additional
procedural and substantive guidance will explain the analysis of
transportation needs and the development of a public transportation
improvement program as part of the alternatives analyses discussed in
Section III. E. of these guidelines.
-------
111
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TRANSPORTATION-AIR QUALITY PLANNING GUIDELINES
Page
FOREWORD 1
PREFACE 11
Table of Contents for Guidelines iii
Table of Contents for Appendices iv
Organization of Guidelines v
Guideline Development Schedule vi
Major Dates of SIP Revision Process vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY viii
I. INTRODUCTION 1
A. Purpose 1
B. Applicability 1
C. Funding 2
D. Background 4
II. SIP POLICY 6
A. Overall Summary 6
B. Selected SIP Requirements 7
III. PROCESS 14
A. Introduction 14
B. Interagency Coordination 14
C. Involvement of Elected Officials 15
D. Public Information and Consultation 15
E. Evaluation of Alternative Strategies 17
IV. MODIFICATION AND DOCUMENTATION OF EXISTING 21
PLANNING ACTIVITIES
A. Introduction . 21
B. Planning Work Programs 21
C. Transportation Plan 21
D. Transportation Improvement Program 22
E. Documentation of Alternatives Analysis 22
F. Consistency Determination Documentation 23
G. SIP 23
V. PROGRESS REPORTS 23
A. Introduction 23
B. Content 24
C. Annual Report 24
FOOTNOTES 25
-------
IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR APPENDICES
APPENDIX Page
A TRANSPORTATION-RELATED PROVISIONS OF 1
THE CLEAN AIR ACT
B CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP 9
REVISIONS
C SIP REVISION PROCESS 23
D DEFINITIONS 27
E BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON TCP PROGRAM 31
F FUNDING 35
G EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES 42
H FHWA/UMTA ACTION MEMO 45
I HUD-EPA AGREEMENT 47
J SUMMARY OF RELATED EPA GUIDELINES AND 50
REGULATIONS
K DOT PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING REGULATIONS 52
(23 CFR 450)
-------
ORGANIZATION OF THE GUIDELINES
Following the PREFACE which contains five subsections and the EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY begining on page vii, the Guidelines are organized into five major
chapters and a separate accompanying document with 11 Appendices (A-K).
The APPENDICES contain extensive supporting and reference material that
while relevant is not an integral part of the guidelines.
The INTRODUCTION covers the following aspects of the guidelines:
(1) Purpose, including the basic policy goal; (2) Applicability, including
the primary roles of the lead agency as well as DOT and EPA Regional
Offices; (3) Funding — authorized (but not yet appropriated) and available
funds; and (4) Background, including the relationship of the guidelines
to the original transportation control planning process and the existing
process administered fay DOT.
Chapter II, SIP POLICY, summarizes and elaborates upon the trans-
portation portions of a major EPA policy memorandum, "Criteria for
Approval of 1979 SIP Revisions." This memorandum signed by the EPA
Administrator on February 24, 1978 is wholly contained in Appendix B.
Chapter II also provides an abbreviated checklist of the major trans-
portation-related requirements of an acceptable 1979 SIP.
Chapter III, PROCESS, presents the procedural part of the guidelines
by describing the elements of the integrated transportation-air quality
planning process designed to accomplish the policy goal and SIP require-
ments of Chapters I and II. Chapter. Ill defines procedures for:
(1) Interagency Coordination, (2) Elected Official Involvement, (3) Public
Information and Consultation, and (4) Evaluation of Alternative Strategies.
Chapter IV describes: (1) modifications to ongoing transportation
planning activities required by the Clean Air Act and (2) documentation
of those modifications. Chapter IV discusses the Planning Work Programs,
Transportation Plan, Transportation Improvement Program, Alternatives
Analysis, Consistency Determination and the SIP.
Chapter V concludes the Guidelines with a discussion of the purpose,
frequency and content of progress reports.
-------
DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
EPA TRANSPORTATION-AIR QUALITY PLANNING PROCESS GUIDELINES
November 28, 1977 ° First Draft Circulated
November 28-29, 1977 ° Review by MPO Steering Group
(NARC Grant)
February 1, 1978 ° End of Comment Period on First
Draft
February 9, 1978 ° Review by Panel of Transportation
Experts
February 27, 1978 ° Second Draft Circulated
March 13, 1978 ° Briefing for EPA Regional Offices
on Second Draft
March 14-15, 1978 ° Major EPA-DOT Workshop on Second
Draft (NARC Grant)
June 1978 ° EPA and DOT Jointly Issue Planning
Process Guidelines
Post June 1978 ° Joint EPA-DOT Regional Meetings
0 Modifications of FHWA-UMTA Regulations
to Reflect Guidelines
-------
vii
MAJOR DATES OF SIP REVISION PROCESS
February 7, 1978 ° Jointly Determined Division of
Responsibilities
0 Lead Planning Organization Designated
by Local Officials
April 1, 1978 ° Governor Certifies or Designates Lead
Planning Organization*
January 1, 1979 ° State Submits Revised Plan
July 30, 1980 ° Suggested Date for Completion of
Comprehensive Alternatives Analysis
July 1, 1982 ° Second State Submittal of Revised Plan
if Extension Granted
December 31, 1982 ° Standards Attainment Deadline Where No
Extension Granted
0 Initiation of Extensive Transportation
Measures
1983 - December 31, 1987 ° Standards Attainment Deadline Where
Extension Granted
*If for example the MPO prepares the transportation portion of the
SIP, then one key decision at the local level would be the interim
date by which the MPO submits the transportation portion to the
state so that adequate time remains to integrate this portion with
the stationary source part of the SIP and meet the statutory submittal
deadline of January 1, 1979.
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Selected Requirements of the Clean Air Act
The Clean Air Act as amended, August 1977, establishes various federal,
state and local requirements aimed at the expeditious attainment of the
air quality health standards. The Act requires achievement of these
standards by December 31, 1982. However, for carbon monoxide (CO) and
photochemical oxidants (Ox) a five-year extension to 1987 can be granted.
This extension is contingent on a state demonstrating in its 1979 State
Implementation Plan (SIP) that attainment is not possible by 1982 despite
the implementation of all reasonable stationary and transportation
control measures.
Most major urban areas with CO and Ox problems will be unable to meet
the air quality health standards by 1982 through reliance on stationary
source controls and federal new car standards alone. These areas there-
fore will be required to develop and implement such transportation
strategies as mass transit improvements, preferential bus and carpool
treatment, areawide carpool programs, parking management, pricing, auto-
restricted zones, etc. — which are all designed to reduce auto emissions.
Revised SIPs that include programs to reduce both stationary and trans-
portation system emissions must be submitted to EPA by January 1, 1979.
(Table 1 on page 8 provides an abbreviated checklist of the major
transportation-related requirements of an acceptable 1979 SIP.)
The Act emphasizes — especially for the transportation portion of
SIPs — locally developed plans that result from: (1) extensive consulta-
tion among federal, state, regional and local agencies; (2) public
education and participation; (3) elected official involvement; and
(4) the documented analysis of a wide range of alternative strategies.
The Act specifies that the transportation-air quality planning process
be coordinated with the continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive
C"3C") transportation planning process administered by the Department
of Transportation.
Local governments and organizations of local elected officials are
explicitly encouraged.to assume greater responsibilities in the develop-
ment and implementation of SIPs. The Clean Air Act indicates a preference
for the certification by Governors of metropolitan planning organizations
(i.e., the DOT "3C" agencies) as the lead agencies for preparing control
plans in urban areas that are nonattainment with respect to CO and Ox.
The Amendments of 1977 authorize new planning funds ($75 million) to
organizations of local elected officials for a two-year period and also
provide for new funding sanctions for failure to develop and implement
-------
adequate plans. It appears that approximately $25 million may be
appropriated in fiscal year 1979 to support the first year of the
planning process.
The Act calls for EPA to cooperate with DOT in preparing information
documents on the costs, effects and analytical techniques for selecting
transportation measures and developing strategies. (Information is
being prepared on an extensive array of transportation improvements,
covering: public transit, traffic operations, parking management, pricing,
and auto-restricted zones among others.) EPA must also consult with
DOT and other officials in the development of guidelines on the basic
elements of the planning process for nonattainment areas. These jointly
issued transportation-air quality planning guidelines are the result of
that consultation.
SIP Policy
EPA has established reasonable and achievable SIP requirements and will
take a firm posture on the imposition of sanctions where the requirements
are not achieved. An extension of the deadline to 1987 for standard
attainment is not automatic; a demonstration of need must be made and
the state must fulfill the other statutory requirements in the Act. The
transportation requirements of the 1979 SIP place primary emphasis on
a commitment to a continuing process.
Since reliance on stationary controls and federal new car standards
alone will not enable most areas with Ox and CO problems to meet
standards by 1982, additional specific measures must be included
in the 1979 SIP to reduce transportation system emissions. The 1979
SIP requirements include a commitment to: (1) accelerated implementation
of specific strategies (e.g., transportation improvements contained in
the current or recent annual element (AE)); (2) the incremental phase-
in of additional strategies (e.g., other measures contained in the
transportation improvement program (TIP) that appear reasonable and
effective on the basis of preliminary analysis); and (3) a schedule of
activities leading to implementation of an inspection/maintenance
(I/M) program by 1981 (decentralized system) or 1982 (centralized
system).
However, in addition to this commitment to specific measures, the 1979
SIP submittal places, as noted above, primary emphasis on a commitment
to a continuing process for the transportation planning and programming
requirements. This commitment to a process should lead to the expeditious
development, evaluation, selection and implementation of comprehensive
transportation control strategies. The process should extensively
involve the public as well as state and local elected officials. An
acceptable 1979 SIP should contain these process elements: (1) identifi-
-------
cation of tasks and responsibilities of all participating agencies;
(2) a schedule for developing and analyzing ambitious, alternative
packages of transportation measures; (3) verification that such an
analysis is underway; (4) a schedule for adoption of package(s) of
measures determined to be reasonably available; and (5) a commitment to
justify any decision not to -adopt difficult measures.
Transportation-Air Quality Planning Guidelines
These guidelines address the transportation-related sections of the
Clean Air Act and describe an integrated transportation-air quality
planning process for developing the transportation system component of
SIPs for areas that are nonattainment with respect to Ox and/or CO. The
basic policy goal of this process is to reduce transportation system
emissions and adverse air quality impacts while maintaining compati-
bility with other community goals. The guidelines build upon the
existing planning process by providing specific procedures designed to
result in a program of transportation strategies that provide for
incremental reductions in transportation system emissions as expeditiously
as practicable.
These guidelines describe an acceptable planning process intended
to satisfy Clean Air Act requirements for the transportation portions
of an approvable SIP. That process as outlined in these guidelines must
result in the expeditious development and implementation of all reason-
ably available measures. Reasonably available measures are determined
through an analytical, participatory and negotiatory process. Early and
frequent involvement of EPA and DOT in the process will best insure the
development of a SIP that meets the requirements of the Act.
These guidelines apply to all public agencies with responsibilities in
planning or implementing the transportation portions of SIPs in
nonattainment areas. The lead planning agency has the primary respon-
sibility for implementing these guidelines. EPA and DOT Regional
Offices are primarily responsible for monitoring the guideline imple-
mentation process. The Intermodal Planning Group (IPG) should be the
federal coordinating mechanism. Modifications to these procedures by a
state, regional or local agency should be closely coordinated with the
Regional Offices.
The procedures outlined below are a realistic starting point and
undoubtedly will be improved upon by experience gained through actual
applications. The guidelines should be implemented through ongoing
planning processes and flexibly applied. However, modification of
guideline elements will require substitution by a comparably effective
approach.
-------
Chapter III of the Guidelines describes in detail the elements of
the planning process needed to accomplish SIP requirements. The scope
and intensity of planning activities undertaken should be commensurate
with the size of the metropolitan area and the complexity of its
transportation and air quality problems. These elements include:
0 Interagency Coordination: The lead agency in
cooperation with other participating agencies should
establish a program for developing the joint responsi-
bilities and working relationships (e.g., through
interagency agreements) of all agencies and organi-
zations involved in the process. The objective is
to determine who should do what when.
0 Involvement of Elected Officials: The lead agency
should coordinate the joint development of procedures
to increase the involvement of elected officials.
The objective is to increase the probability of
obtaining the commitment of officials to support
and fund needed transportation improvements.
"Public Information and Consultation: The lead agency
should also make a parallel effort to insure adequate
public information and consultation. The public and
interest groups should specifically participate in the
development and analysis of alternative transportation
strategies.. The minimum basic elements of a public infor-
mation and consultation process should include: (1) an
inventory and assessment of agency programs and
interest groups; (2) the joint development by agencies
and groups of a program for information and partici-
pation based on the assessment.
0 Evaluation of Alternatives: The analysis of alternatives
develops information essential to local decisionmaking
and federal review on the costs and effects of various
actions. Alternatives should be developed and analyzed
in most cases under the auspices of the metropolitan
planning organizations in cooperation with federal,
state and local planning, transportation, and
environmental agencies, interest groups, elected
officials, the public and others. For the purpose of
alternatives analysis each of the transportation measures
listed in the Act for which EPA will publish information
documents is considered reasonably available. In
evaluating the costs and effectiveness of alternatives,
-------
xii
the full range of potential impacts should be taken
into account including not only air quality but also the
locality's transportation and urban development needs,
economic, social and other environmental impacts as well
as feasibility of implementation.
Chapter IV deals with both modifications to ongoing planning activities
required by the Clean Air Act and documentation of those modifications.
Those activities include: planning work programs, the transportation
plan including the transportation systems management and long range
'elements, TIP/AE, alternatives analysis, consistency determinations, and
SIP. Chapter V discusses the content and frequency of progress reports
stressing that such reports should be brief and should not substitute
for the more effective mechanism of direct staff contact for demonstrating
and determining progress.
-------
TRANSPORTATION-AIR QUALITY PLANNING GUIDELINES
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose
These guidelines implement Section 108(e) of the Clean Air Act as amended,
August 1977.' Section 108(e) directs EPA to provide guidelines on the
basic elements of the planning process for nonattainment areas.2 This
procedural guidance addresses the transportation-related sections of the
Clean Air Act. These guidelines describe an integrated transportation-
air quality planning process (hereafter called the integrated planning
process) for developing the transportation system component of State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) for areas that are designated nonattainment
with respect to photochemical oxidants (Ox) and/or carbon monoxide
(C0).3»4 EPA will subsequently provide more technical information on
costs, effects and analytical techniques for selecting measures and
developing strategies as required by Section 108(f).
The basic policy goal of the integrated planning process described herein
is to reduce transportation system emissions and resulting adverse air
quality impacts while maintaining compatibility with other community
goals. The guidelines build upon the existing planning process by
providing specific procedures designed to result in a program of trans-
portation strategies that provide for incremental reductions in 5
transportation system emissions as expeditiously as practicable. The
guidelines stress continuing development and expeditious implementation
of all reasonably available measures, but particularly those that can be
planned and implemented by 1982 or during the following five years to
1987 as provided for in the Clean Air Act. Major long-term trans-
portation improvements necessary for maintenance of the air quality
health standards beyond 1987 also should be considered within the inte-
grated planning process.
B. Applicability
These guidelines apply to all public agencies with responsibilities in
planning or implementing the transportation portions of SIPs in nonattain-
ment areas.6 (Section 174 of the Act requires: (1) designation of a
lead planning organization and, (2) state and local elected officials to
determine jointly the coordinated and combined responsibilities of the
state, local governments and regional agencies in the SIP revision
process.)
*Footnotes are at the end of the guidelines beginning on page 25.
-------
The guidelines describe an acceptable approach for accomplishing the
continuing tasks of transportation-air quality planning and programming
required by the Clean Air Act. These procedures are a realistic starting
point. They should be improved upon by experience gained through actual
applications. The guidelines build upon and should be implemented^
through the ongoing comprehensive planning processes. They recognize
that institutional arrangements and planning procedures vary by area
and, therefore, can be flexibly applied. But, while individual guideline
elements need not be viewed as mandatory, the objective of each element
is a necessary part of an effective process — a process required by
the Act. Therefore, modification of guideline elements will require
substitution of a comparably effective approach.
The lead planning agency has the primary responsibility for implementing
these guidelines. EPA and DOT Regional Offices are primarily responsible
for monitoring the guideline implementation process. The Intermodal
Planning Group (IPG) should be the federal coordinating mechanism.
Modifications to these procedures by a state, regional or local agency
should be closely coordinated with the appropriate EPA and DOT Regional
Offices.
C. Funding
This section describes both authorized (but not yet appropriated) and
currently available funds for conducting the transportation-air quality
planning activities required by the Act. Appendix F describes funding
for plan implementation and related planning.
1. Authorized Funds
Section 325 of the Act authorizes the appropriation of $75,000,000
(available until expended) to carry out Section 175 beginning in fiscal
year (FY) 1978. Section 175 directs EPA to make grants to meet the
reasonable costs of plan development to any organization of local elected
officials with transportation or air quality maintenance planning
responsibilities recognized by the state under Section 174(a). Grants
would cover 100 percent of any additional costs of developing a SIP
revision for a nonattainment area for the first two fiscal years following
grant receipt. Grants would supplement any other federal funds available
to such organization for transportation or air quality maintenance
planning. Grants could not be used for construction.
2. Available Funds
a. Section 175: Prior to the announcement of the President's
urban policy, no Section 175 grant funds were included in the FY 1979
federal budget submitted to Congress. Funds to implement an EPA-DOT
joint transportation-air quality planning process were, however,
included as a contingency item in that budget. These funds were to be
-------
made available when a DOT-EPA memorandum of understanding was signed.
Release of these funds would require Congressional approval. However, the
urban policy announced on March 27, 1978 included $25 million in
grant funds to be requested from Congress for FY 1979 for planning in
nonattainment areas. As of late April the following summarizes the
status of the $25 million:
The funds will be requested for inclusion in EPA's budget under Section
175. No decision has been reached on distribution procedures ~ i.e.,
whether EPA or DOT grant procedures will be used. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has not announced whether the $25 million
replaces or adds to the contingency fund for FY 1979. Congress may,
of course, appropriate an amount different from that requested by the
Administration. Allocation formulas and procedures are being developed.
b. Section 105: EPA has earmarked $2 million, available under
Section 105 (Control Agency Grants), for FY 1978 to assist Section 174
agencies in completing the requirements for an approvable 1979 SIP
submittal. Small amounts of funds under current Section 105 grants
might also be available for FY 1979.
c. DOT Funds: At the direction of the President, OMB requested
integration of EPA's transportation-related air quality planning require-
ments into the transportation planning process administered by DOT.
This integration should produce: (1) joint planning regulations to meet
DOT and EPA objectives, (2) joint DOT-EPA administration of the air
quality aspects of the planning process, and (3) a common, jointly
administered federal funding mechanism for transportation and air
quality planning.
As a follow-up to the OMB request, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) and Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) Administrators
sent the following memorandum to their Regional Administrators (Appendix
H contains the entire memorandum):
"Because of the imminence of the January 1, 1979, deadline, we
are directing that the following actions be initiated promptly by
the regional staffs of UMTA and FHWA:
1. The EPA should be invited to participate in the Intermodal
Planning Group (IPS) so as to insure coordination of all activities
pertaining to the urban transportation planning process;
2. The EPA should be consulted to determine which areas are
likely to require [transportation control plans] TCPs and what the
estimated magnitude of TCP effort will be in those areas;
-------
3. For areas requiring TCPs, funds within already approved
Unified Planning Work Programs (UPWPs) may be reprogramed as
appropriate to support the identification and analysis of
transportation control measures in coordination with the SIP
revision process;
4. Air quality planning tasks in support of the SIP revision
process should be given a high priority in UPWPs now being
developed. Air quality planning is a national priority and
must be given appropriate emphasis in the conduct of the
transportation planning process;
5. The transportation improvement program (TIP)/annual element
(AE) review process should be conducted with a renewed emphasis
on the inclusion of projects benefiting air quality in the TIP/AE;
and
6. The certification review process should be conducted with a
renewed emphasis on the coordination of air quality planning and
transportation planning as required by the joint regulations."
D. Background
Appendix E traces the history of EPA's transportation control program
previous to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977. The amended Act
addresses problems of the original transportation control planning
process by requiring locally developed plans based on these major
elements: extensive agency interaction among all governmental levels;
significant involvement of local elected officials; effective public
education and participation; and integration with ongoing planning
processes, particularly emphasizing the DOT continuing, cooperative and
comprehensive (3C) process (23 CFR 450). The amended Act also provides
sanctions to insure both an effective planning process and the imple-
mentation of an approved or promulgated SIP (Sections 176 and 316).
These guidelines describe the elements of an acceptable planning process
intended to correct many of the earlier problems and to result in
approvable SIPs for nonattainment areas.
The following sections provide additional background on the objectives
and implementation of these guidelines:
1. Integration With Ongoing Planning Processes. Planning conducted
under these guidelines should be integrated to the fullest extent possible
with existing comprehensive transportation and air quality planning
processes (including AQMP where applicable), and should include the use
of common data bases, modeling applications, and coordinated planning
activities among staffs of the participating agencies. This guidance
builds upon and selectively expands the DOT joint planning regulations
(23 CFR 450), a knowledge of which is essential to users of the guide-
lines (Appendix K).
-------
Integrated DOT and EPA planning should result in a more efficient process
and in products that better meet the objectives of both agencies. Related
activities required by both agencies should be merged and duplication
eliminated. Establishing separate and costly planning processes should
be avoided.
2. A Continuing Process. Preparing the transportation portion of
the SIP is not merely the one time development of short range tactics
to improve air quality, but rather the entire process of regularly
taking air quality needs into account in all transportation decisions.
Urban areas with actual or potential violations of the national air
quality standards for transportation-related pollutants should re-
evaluate their transportation plans and programs on a continuing basis.
If necessary, these areas should revise the transportation plan, including
the transportation systems management (TSM) element, and the Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) to achieve continual incremental air quality
improvements and prevent future air quality problems. Areas which violate
the health standards should demonstrate continuing, expeditious progress
in planning, programming and implementing measures that improve air
quality. These areas may have to forego or postpone projects that would
cause adverse air quality impacts and reprioritize other projects to
achieve expeditious improvements in air quality.
3. Designation and Role of the Lead Agency or MPO. Where feasible
the lead organization designated to conduct and/or coordinate the planning
and implementation process in nonattainment areas (and thus primarily
responsible for applying these guidelines) should be either the metro-
politan planning organization (MPO) designated to conduct transportation
planning under Section 134 of title 23, DSC, or the organization responsi-
ble for the air quality maintenance planning process. Where such agencies
are not so designated, their relationship with the designated lead
agency and their role in such planning should be clearly identified. Also,
the relationships among the lead organization, comprehensive planning
agency and the A-95 clearinghouse should be identified where those
agencies are not the same.
Both EPA and DOT view the role of the MPO as providing a forum for coopera-
tive decisionmaking by principal elected officials of general purpose
local government. The designation of the MPO as lead agency or the
process established by these guidelines should not preclude other state,
regional or local agencies from acting through this forum. In fact,
Section 174 of the Clean Air Act envisions a SIP revision process
involving a combination of state, regional and local agencies. Manage-
ment of an efficient, effective process may require the MPO or lead
agency to allocate responsibilities to other agencies with better expertise
for specific tasks. The lead agency should regard the integration of
the mobile and stationary components of the SIP as a joint task of great
significance demanding the close cooperation of all participating agencies.
Clearly, development of an approvable 1979 SIP requires a commitment on
the part of all appropriate agencies with planning and/or implementation
authority.
-------
II. SIP POLICY
These transportation-air quality planning guidelines are designed
to describe an acceptable planning process intended to satisfy Clean
Air Act requirements for the transportation portions of an approvable
SIP. Specifically, in regard to the transportation-related requirements
of the 1979 SIP revision, primary emphasis is placed on a commitment to
a continuing process. That process as outlined in these guidelines must
result in the continuing development and expeditious implementation of
all reasonably available measures necessary, together with stationary
source controls, to attain the standards. Reasonably available measures
are determined through an analytical, participatory and negotiatory
process. Early and frequent involvement of EPA and DOT in the process
will best insure the development of a SIP that meets the requirements of
the Act.
Appendix B contains for reference purposes a major policy memorandum,
signed by the EPA Administrator and dated February 24, 1978, "Criteria
for Approval of 1979 SIP revisions." Chapter II draws upon key sections
of this policy memorandum applicable to the transportation portion of
SIPs.
A. Overall Summary of SIP Policy
The Clean Air Act requires the demonstration of attainment of the primary
air quality standards as expeditiously as practicable, but not later than
December 31, 1982. However, for CO and Ox, the Act allows up to a five-
year extension if a state can demonstrate that attainment is not possible
by 1982 despite the implementation of all reasonable stationary source
and transportation control measures. In such cases the plan revisions
must still demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable but
not later than December 31, 1987. An extension is not automatic; a
demonstration of need must be made and the states must fulfill the other
statutory requirements. EPA has established reasonable and achievable
SIP requirements and will take a firm posture on the imposition of
sanctions where these requirements are not achieved.
Since reliance on stationary controls and federal new car standards alone
will not enable most areas with Ox and CO problems to meet standards by
1982, additional specific measures must be included in the 1979 SIP to
reduce transportation system emissions. The 1979 SIP requirements
include a commitment to: (1) accelerate implementation of specific
strategies (e.g., transportation improvements contained in the current
or recent annual element (AE)}; (2) the incremental phase-in of additional
strategies (e.g., other measures contained in the transportation improve-
ment program (TIPl that appear reasonable and effective on the basis of
preliminary, analysis}; and (.3) a schedule of activities leading to
implementation of an inspection/maintenance (I/M) program by 1981
(decentralized system) or 1982 (centralized system).
-------
However, as noted above primary emphasis is placed on a commitment to a
continuing process for the transportation planning and programming
requirements in the 1979 SIP submittal. This commitment to a process
should lead to the expeditious development, evaluation, selection and
implementation of comprehensive transportation control strategies. The
process should extensively involve the public as well as state and local
elected officials. In addition to the commitment to specific measures
previously outlined, an acceptable 1979 SIP must contain these process
elements: (1) identification of tasks and responsibilities of all
participating agencies; (2) a schedule for developing and analyzing
ambitious, alternative packages of transportation measures; (3) verifi-
cation that such an analysis is underway; (4) a schedule for adoption
of package(s) of measures determined to be reasonably available; and (5)
a commitment to justify any decision not to adopt difficult measures.
DOT, Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and EPA are seeking to integrate
the transportation-air quality planning and implementation required by
the Clean Air Act into existing planning and programming procedures.
Air quality-related transportation planning activities should be included
in the UPWP required by DOT. Adopted air quality-related transportation
measures should be included in the TIP/AE required fay DOT. The HUD-EPA
Agreement on coordinating air quality planning and HUD's Comprehensive
Planning Assistance (701) Program (Appendix I) is also important. Inte-
gration of air, transportation, and comprehensive planning which incorporates
growth management concerns should improve the effectiveness of air
quality planning and reduce the need for future enforcement measures.
B. Specific Selected SIP Requirements
The following selected requirements draw upon the "Criteria for Approval
of the 1979 SIP Revision" memorandum, apply primarily to the trans-
portation portion of the SIP and expand summary information presented in
Section A. (Again, Appendix B contains the entire memorandum.) Table T
provides an abbreviated checklist of the major transportation-related
requirements of an acceptable 1979 SIP.
1. Transportation-Related Requirements of all 1979 SIP Revisions
a. Adoption in legally enforceable form** of all measures
necessary to attain standards by the prescribed date. Where adoption
of all such measures by 1979 is not possible (e.g., certain trans-
portation control measures) a staged schedule for the expeditious
development, adoption, submittal, and implementation of these measures
should be included. Each schedule should provide for implementation of
all reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable.
Prior to attainment, these measures must be implemented on a schedule
that demonstrates annual incremental emission reductions. (See below in
subsection Ic on reasonable further progress.) As part of the SIP each
-------
8
Table 1
Checklist of Transportation-Related Provisions of the 1979 SIP
A. Problem Definition
1. Definition of nonattainment area and geographic area covered
by transportation control measures;
2. Accurate, comprehensive and current emissions inventory;
3. Estimation of emission reductions needed to demonstrate
standard attainment by 1982 and 1987 (including emission growth
projections); and
4. Determination of whether federal new car standards and proposed
transportation and stationary source controls demonstrate
attainment by 1982. Demonstration of need for attainment dead-
line extension to 1987;
B. Process
1. Designation and certification of a lead agency for nonattainment
areas;
2. Identification of agency tasks and responsibilities;
3. Schedule for comprehensive alternatives analysis and demonstration
that analysis is underway;
4. Schedule for adoption of reasonably available measures;
'5. Commitment to justify decision not to adopt difficult, but
reasonably available measures (see page 7 in the guidelines
for additional information on B. 2-5);
6. Process for public, interest group, and elected official
consultation and involvement in: defining transportation-
air quality issues, establishing the planning process,
development and analysis of alternatives (see pages 14-15);
7. Identification of estimated financial and manpower resources
necessary to carry out the process described by these guide-
lines. A commitment to the first year of this process
should be demonstrated in the UPWP;
-------
8. Evidence that the SIP was adopted by the state after reasonable
notice and public hearing;
9. Provisions for progress reporting throughout the planning and
implementation period (pages 22-23);
Additional Transportation-Related Provisions for Areas
Unable to Attain by 1982"
10. Schedule of activities leading to implementation of I/M
(see pages 6, 10); and
11. A commitment to use (insofar as is necessary) available grants
and funds to establish, expand or improve public transportation
measures to meet basic transportation needs as expeditiously
as practicable (page 10). (As indicated in the Preface, further
guidance will be provided.)
C. Strategy Development/Imp!ementation
1. UPWP air quality-related transportation planning tasks being
performed by each agency during FY 792 (pages 19-20);
2. Emission reduction estimates for adopted measures and/or packages
of measures. Rough estimates of annual emission reductions
through 1987 for packages of measures currently being
developed and analyzed;
3. Preliminary identification of analytical methodologies for
determining air quality, travel, economic, energy, social
etc. effects of plan provisions. Summary of any public comment
on such methodologies (pages 18-19); and
4. Commitment to: (1) accelerate implementation of transportation
improvements in current or recent AE, (2) incremental phase-in
of additional reasonable measures (page 6).
1 The required provisions can be loosely placed in three categories:
Problem Definition, Process, Strategy Development/Imp!ementation.
2 The SIP should summarize planning activities by major categories
(e.g., long term public transit improvements, TSM elements). However,
as noted in the Preface, the exact form of SIP provisions should be
worked out by the lead agency and DOT and EPA Regional Offices.
-------
10
schedule will represent a commitment by the state to provide for attain-
ment by the prescribed date. The schedule of key milestones should be
viewed as a series of sequential, step by step commitments. For example,
the initial commitment to be made in the January 1979 SIP is to the
thorough analysis of alternatives. Subsequent commitments should advance
measures found to be reasonable and effective through programming and
implementation steps. Adequate substitutions must be made for measures
determined to be ineffective or impracticable.
b. Emission reduction estimates for adopted or scheduled
measures or for packages of measures where estimates for individual
measures are impractical.
c. Provision for reasonable further progress toward attainment
of the primary and secondary standards prior to the prescribed attain-
ment date. "Reasonable further progress" means annual incremental
reductions in total emissions (from new as well as existing sources) to
provide for attainment by the prescribed date. The SIP should be
designed to provide for substantial reductions in the early years with
regular reduction thereafter, although the most substantial reductions
from transportation sources may occur in later years due to longer
planning and implementation lead times.
Demonstration of reasonable further progress requires in most areas
designated nonattainment for Ox or CO, a continuing phased implementation
of transportation control measures. Reliance only on the Federal Motor
Vehicle Control Program as a demonstration of reasonable further progress
is not acceptable in areas unable to attain the standards by 1982.
d. Identification and quantification of: (1) growth rates for
stationary and mobile sources and (2) a procedure to monitor emission
growth from stationary and transportation sources to assure compliance
with the amounts specified in the SIP. The growth rate identified in
the SIP must be consistent with the growth rates used (or implied by)
the other planning activities in the area (e.g., FWPCA Section 208 [201],
HUD Section 701, FHWA Section 134).
e. Provision for annual reporting on: (1) progress toward meeting
the schedules noted in (a), and (2) growth in emissions from mobile
sources, minor new stationary sources, major new or modified stationary
sources, and reduction in emissions from existing sources to provide for
reasonable further progress as noted in (c) above. This should include
an updated emission inventory.
f. Identification of estimated financial and manpower resources
necessary to carry out the process described by these guidelines. A
commitment to the first year of this process should be demonstrated in
the UPWP.
-------
n
g. Evidence of public, local government and state legislative
involvement and consultation. The SIP should also identify and analyze
the air quality, health, welfare, economic, energy, and social effects
of the plan revisions considered and provide a summary of public comment
on such analyses. The 1979 SIP may contain a preliminary evaluation
with a commitment and schedule for further, more intensive and compre-
hensive analysis.
h. Evidence that the SIP was adopted by the state after reasonable
notice and public hearing.
2. Additional Transportation-Related Requirements for CO and Ox
Revisions Which Provide for Attainment of the Primary Standa'rds
Later ThanT982"
For those SIP revisions which demonstrate that attainment of the primary
standards for CO and/or Ox is not possible prior to December 31, 1982
despite the implementation of all reasonable emission control measures, the
following must be included in the January 1, 1979 submission in addition
to the general requirements listed above in subsection 1:
a. An inspection/maintenance program or a schedule endorsed and
committed to by the Governor for the expeditious development, adoption,
and implementation of such a program.
b. A commitment by responsible government officials to:
(1) establish, expand, or improve public transportation measures to
meet basic transportation needs as expeditiously as practicable and
(2) use (insofar as necessary) available grants and funds, consistent
with the terms of the legislation providing such grants and funds, to
establish, expand, or improve public transportation measures to meet
basic transportation needs. (As noted in the Preface, additional
substantive and procedural guidance on this requirement will soon be
issued.)
3. Pollutant Specific Requirements (CO and Ox)
The 1979 Ox SIP submissions must represent a comprehensive strategy
for each nonattainment area providing for sufficient control of volatile
organic compounds from stationary and mobile sources necessary to attain
the oxidant standard. SIP submissions that address only selected portions
of nonattainment areas are not adequate. For oxidant plan development,
major urban areas are those with an urbanized population of 200,000 or
greater (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1970). Although specific boundaries may
be defined somewhat flexibly, the boundaries must be large enough to
cover the entire urbanized' area and adjacent fringe areas of development.
SIP revisions must provide for expeditious implementation of reasonably
available control measures. At a minimum the following transportation
measures for which EPA will publish information documents are considered,
for the purpose of analysis, to be reasonably available:
-------
12
1. To be published by February 1978
a. inspection/maintenance
b. vapor recovery ;
c. improved public transit
d. exclusive bus and carpool lanes
e. area wide carpool programs
2. To be published by August 1978
a. private car restrictions
b. long range transit improvements
c. on street parking controls
d. park and ride and fringe parking lots
e. pedestrian malls
f. employer programs to encourage car and
vanpooling, mass transit, bicycling
and walking
g. bicycle lanes and storage facilities
h. staggered work hours (flexi-time)
i. road pricing to discourage single occupancy
auto trips
j. controls on extended vehicle idling
k. traffic flow improvements
1. alternative fuels or engines and other
fleet vehicle controls
m. other than light duty vehicle retrofit
n. extreme cold start emission reduction programs
The above measures (either individually or in packages) should be analyzed
promptly and thoroughly. This alternatives analysis for each urban area
will produce the essential information needed to determine precisely
what comprehensive strategies are reasonably available. The selected
strategies should then be scheduled for: (1) more detailed analysis, if
necessary, (2) submittal to, and adoption by, policy boards, and
(3) implementation. Because all analyses of every measure or package
cannot be completed by January 1979 for inclusion in the SIP, where
necessary a submitted schedule may provide for subsequent completion.
(Where subsequent analyses demonstrate that certain measures may be
unnecessary, ineffective or infeasible, a decision not to implement them
may be justifiable. Such decisions will, however, be reviewed carefully
by EPA and DOT Regional Offices.)
As described previously, annual incremental reductions in total emissions
must occur to demonstrate reasonable further progress prior to attainment
of the standards. Therefore, implementation activities should not be
delayed until completion of the comprehensive analyses of alternative
-------
13
transportation improvement packages. For example, feasibility studies
and demonstration projects are often essential steps in the planning and
implementation of specific measures (e.g., auto-restricted zones,
specialized transit service). Where demonstration projects are appro-
priate, they should be scheduled for implementation prior to the end of
1980.
Planning and implementation of certain air quality-related transportation
measures and strategies may be a complicated and lengthy process extending
beyond 1982 in areas with severe CO or Ox problems. Implementation of
even very extensive transportation measures, however, must be initiated
before December 31, 1982.
Where revised SIPs justify an extension of the attainment date, the adopted
transportation portion must provide:
1. Specific procedures and criteria developed by the agencies
designated according to Section 174 for determining whether the
transportation planning process conforms to the SIP.
2. A schedule for the expeditious implementation of already planned,
reasonably available transportation measures including transportation
provisions in existing SIPs and other transportation measures with
demonstrable air quality benefits developed as part of the transporta-
tion process administered by DOT.
3. A program for evaluating alternative packages of transportation
options covering at least those measures for which EPA will develop
information documents. The analyses must identify a package of measures
which will attain the emission reduction target ascribed to trans-
portation sources in the SIP. The comprehensive analysis of alternative
must be completed by July 1980 unless the lead agency can demonstrate
a need for additional time.
4. A program for evaluating long range (post-1982) transportation and
growth policies. Alternative growth policies and/or development patterns
must be examined to determine the potential for modifying total travel
demand.
5. A schedule for adoption of needed transportation control measures
as expeditiously as practicable. Adopted measures must be expeditiously
implemented on a continuous schedule demonstrating incremental emission
reductions from 1979 to the attainment date. The reasonableness of
a schedule will be determined by the nature of the existing or
planned transportation system and the complexity of implementing an
individual measure or package of measures.
-------
14
III. PROCESS
A. Introduction
The integrated planning process described in Chapter III should accomplish
the policy goals identified in the Introduction and satisfy the SIP
requirements outlined in Chapter II. Again, the DOT joint planning
regulations should be used in conjunction with these guidelines as the
basis for all transportation-air quality activities carried out under
the Clean Air Act. The scope and intensity of planning activities
discussed in this chapter should be commensurate with the size of the
metropolitan area and the complexity of its transportation and air
quality problems. Special emphasis should be placed on the following
elements of the existing planning process: public participation,
involvement of elected officials, alternatives development and evalu-
ation, and plan implementation. Numerous provisions from DOT and EPA
legislation further define requirements of the transportation-air quality
planning process that must be met.'0
B. Interagency Coordination
The designated lead agency should first establish a program, in cooperation
with other agencies identified under Section 174, for developing the
joint responsibilities and working relationships of all agencies and
organizations involved in the transportation-air quality planning and
implementation process. The program should include:
1. Documenting roles and responsibilities of all agencies having
transportation and/or air quality planning and implementation functions
for the area.
2. Jointly defining necessary formal and informal working relationships
among programs and agencies to achieve an integrated comprehensive
planning process.
3. Jointly developing mechanisms to maintain or establish (where
necessary) these working relationships, including: assessing the
adequacy of informal coordination among staffs, setting up interagency
advisory groups, and developing more formal interagency agreements or
memoranda of understanding as needed. These mechanisms should address
the following tasks as well as others the agencies find necessary:
(a) Modifying existing institutional and technical
transportation and air quality planning processes to achieve
integration at and between local and regional levels.
-------
15
(b) Applying criteria and procedures for evaluation and
revision of projects, plans and programs to ensure their
conformity with the SIP. (Criteria and procedures are being
developed and will be provided subsequently.)
(c) Incorporating into the SIP major air quaility-related
elements of the UPWP and specific transportation control measures
from the transportation plan, TSME, TIP and AE.
(d) Implementing, operating, and enforcing transportation-
related elements of the SIP.
(e) Monitoring air quality and transportation trend
indicators.
C. Involvement of Elected Officials
The lead agency should insure joint development of procedures, where
necessary, to increase involvement of appropriate elected officials in
transportation-air quality decisionmaking including:
1. Providing preliminary information to such officials regarding
both the range of individual measures and packages of measures being
considered that could require an implementation commitment by such
officials.
2. Providing increasingly more detailed information to officials as
specific transportation strategies are developed, evaluated and sub-
jected to interagency and public consultation.
3. Obtaining the commitment from officials to support and fund the
adoption and implementation of reasonably available transportation
projects and programs within their areas of jurisdiction.
4. Advising officials of proposed modifications to air quality-
related transportation projects and programs within their .jurisdictional
areas.
D. Public Information and Consultation
A parallel procedure should be developed for adequate public information
and consultation on transportation, air quality and public health issues
as well as the integrated planning process. Interest groups should
participate in the development and analysis of alternative transportation
strategies. Existing procedures for public participation should be used
Whenever such procedures achieve the objectives of this section. As
with other SIP revision tasks the exact details of a public information
-------
16
and consultation program must be worked out under the auspices of the
lead agency by participating state, regional and local agencies in
consultation with appropriate citizen groups. The basic elements of any
program should be conducted by the agencies or interest groups best
equipped to carry out the tasks effectively.
An effective public information and consultation process should include
the following elements:
1. Inventory: An inventory of agency public information programs
and interest groups is essential for a well managed, effective and
efficient public consultation process. This inventory should cover:
(1) agency information and consultation programs aimed at the public
and/or elected officials, identifying duplicative tasks and those
receiving inadequate attention and (2) special interest groups
(e.g., environmental advocacy groups, Chambers of Commerce) and major
local citizen's associations.
2. Assessment of Existing Programs: Periodically the programs
and the working relationships of the agencies and groups inventoried
should be jointly assessed — for example by the lead agency and an ad
hoc committee of public interest groups such as a citizen advisory
committee or public counsel mechanism. Public information and consul-
tation programs should be evaluated for: (1) reaching other agencies and
interest groups; (2) informing and educating the public and elected
officials about air quality, transportation, public health, and the
integrated planning process; C3) responding to and acting on issues
raised by the public; and (4) effectively involving the public in the
transportation-air quality planning process.
3. Program Development: The public consultation program should
correct deficiencies found in the assessment and cover two areas: information
and participation.
Information on air quality, transportation and public health should be
scaled and targeted toward appropriate agencies and interest groups. It
should cover the magnitude of the air quality problem, inventory and
assessment of programs and groups, integrated planning process concepts,
procedural steps of that process, the alternative transportation improve-
ments being developed and evaluated including their incidence of the
costs and benefits, and so forth.
Second, mechanisms should be developed and implemented, where necessary,
to allow the public and elected officials to participate in all phases
of the integrated planning process. For example, where such mechanisms
do not exist or are determined ineffective, the process could be revised
to include: (1) a Citizen Advisory Committee reflecting a representative
-------
17
cross section of interest groups, (2) a Technical Advisory Committee
that includes representatives of the Citizen Advisory Committee and
staff from state and local environmental and transportation agencies,
and (3) procedures to allow timely and effective exchanges between these
two committees, agency policy committees, and elected officials.
E. Evaluation of Alternative Strategies
Alternatives analysis systematically develops and evaluates a wide
range of transportation actions, individually and in combination.
Alternatives analysis develops infermation on costs and effects of
various actions for local decisionmaking and federal review. The periodic
reassessment of transportation plans and programs provides both the
occasion and opportunity for alternatives analysis. Appendix G summarizes
pertinent DOT and EPA legislation requiring alternatives analysis, along
with selected information supplementing the following subsections.
1. Assignment of Responsibility
MPOs should in most cases take lead responsibility for overseeing the
implementation of these guidelines on evaluating alternatives because
of their central role in the urban transportation planning process
administered by DOT. These alternatives analysis guidelines should of
course be applied by the MPO in cooperation with federal, state, and
local planning, transportation, and environmental agencies, public
interest groups, elected officials, and others. Detailed institutional
arrangements and assignments of responsibility should be tailored to the
particular situation in each metropolitan nonattainment area.
2. Agency, Elected Official and Public Consultation
Other agencies, local elected officials and the public should participate
in developing transportation-air quality strategies. Information should
be made available on the alternatives being considered and their likely
effects, both beneficial and adverse. Interested and affected partici-
pants should be given the opportunity to express their views early
enough in ~ and throughout — the study process to influence both the
course of studies and implementation decisions.
3. Generation of Alternatives
Areas that will not attain the standards by 1982 and that currently
have an EPA-approved or promulgated transportation control plan (TCP)
as part of their SIP should first evaluate measures in the TCP. Imple-
mented TCP measures should be noted, while those not yet implemented
-------
18
should be reviewed and their current status indicated (e.g., study
underway, project programmed for implementation, stalled for lack of
funds, not considered, studied and rejected). Measures determined
ineffective or infeasible or whose impacts are highly deleterious may be
dropped from the TCP if the action is supported by properly documented
analysis. Any suspension or elimination of an existing SIP provision
must be included in the January 1979 submittal.
In areas where new transportation control measures are needed, trans-
portation agencies should identify those that appear potentially capable
of contributing to air quality improvements consistent with other community
goals. The measures should span a broad range of inter-related air
quality and community effects so that further analysis can reveal trade-
offs and possibilities for packaging the measures into strategies.
Measures or groups of measures identified at this stage should be ones
that appear to be worthy of further analysis and should not exclude
ambitious measures that could be controversial. (EPA will subsequently
be providing guidance on packaging transportation measures as part of
the information documents required fay Section TQ8(f).} To insure that
ambitious packages of measures are analyzed and considered for implementa-
tion, one of the alternative packages should include a mix of transportation
measures that would either:
a. Achieve the emission reduction target assigned to transportation
sources (according to Section 174 procedures and after consultation
with EPA) needed to attain ambient air quality standards for CO and Ox
by 1987. This target should reflect expected pollutant decreases from
the federal motor vehicle control program, non-transportation source
controls, and vehicle inspection/maintenance program. Or,
b. Reduce transportation CO and HC emissions by a percentage
jointly determined (according to Section 174 procedures and after con-
sultation with EPA) to represent the most expeditious progress toward
attainment that can ambitiously be accomplished by 1987 (e.g., one such
target could be a 15-20 percent reduction).'2 This emission reduction is
in addition to reductions achieved through the federal motor vehicle
control program and an inspection/maintenance program.
4. Analysis of Alternatives
a. Analysis Considerations: Consistent with DOT's joint planning
regulations, the detail and resources used to develop and evaluate
transportation alternatives should be commensurate with the magnitude
and geographic extent of the air quality problems facing each nonattain-
ment area. Areas with severe and persistent air quality problems should
make a major effort toward finding solutions, while areas with less
extensive or shorter term problems may find a lower level of effort
sufficient. Regfonwide air quality problems (e.g., high Ox levels) will
-------
19
require investigation of regionwide strategies; more localized air
quality problems (e.g., high CO concentrations) may also require region-
wide solutions but in some cases may only require sub-area studies and
corrective strategies.
The level of detail of analysis also should reflect the planning horizon
of the actions under consideration. Approximate, or "sketch planning,"
analysis is appropriate for the long range plan because long range
projections are sufficiently uncertain that additional detail may provide
only marginally better information. More detailed analysis should be
carried out on the projects and packages of projects contained in the
TIP. The planning analyses should primarily focus on the Congres-
sionally mandated deadlines of 1982 and 1987.
Simplified analysis techniques should be used initially to assess the
impacts of alternative measures and strategies, followed by more detailed
analysis on those strategies that survive this initial screening. The
information produced — including the incidence of social, economic and
environmental impacts — should clarify the critical issues of choice
available to involved communities and should point out the trade-offs
among alternatives.
Key assumptions made in the analysis (e.g., choice and sensitivity of
demand models, trip assignment techniques, network speeds, meteorology,
emission factors) should be fully documented. In some cases, real-life
variations from such assumptions may alter significantly the course of
implementation or may invalidate projections upon which plans are based.
Under changed conditions, the desirability and feasibility of certain
measures may change significantly. For this reason, alternatives analysis
should explore the sensitivity of key impact predictions and project
choices to key assumptions and parameters. For example, where alternative
population and land use projections result in significantly different
estimates of travel demand, it is important to examine how alternative
demand estimates affect the proposed system performance and point to
alternative mixes of transportation measures. Where sensitivity analyses
identify significant differences in air quality under varying assumed
conditions, procedures for monitoring those conditions and:updating
plans and programs in accordance with observed conditions should be
developed.
b. Criteria for Evaluation of Alternatives; In evaluating the
costs and effectiveness of alternatives, all potential impacts should be
taken into account. This includes not only air quality but also imple-
mentation feasibility as well as transportation and urban development
needs, economic, social and other environmental impacts. Measures that
create serious hardships obviously should not be selected simply because
they appear to improve air quality. For each alternative package of
-------
20
measures or strategy the following factors should be considered at least
qualitatively, but also quantitatively where data and methodologies are
available.
(1) Air quality: regional and local impacts by pollutant;
other environmental impacts;
(2) Energy consumption: fuel consumed by each alternative;
(3) Effects on the community: employment and employment
patterns; retail sales and other business activity indicators;'
effects on the tax base; changes in land use patterns; impacts on
regional development; urban development plans; property acquisition
requirements; neighborhood disruption and displacement; and
compatibility with community goals;
(4) Financial analysis: funding sources and uses (e.g., matching
requirements, opportunities foregone);
(5) Economic analysis; present and future capital and operating
costs;
(6) Economic impacts: present and future indirect costs and
benefits, including incidence of costs and benefits by:
0 public and private sector
0 income group
0 geographic area
0 social group;
(7) Travel impacts; changes in auto usage, vehicle-
miles of travel, modal split, travel time, level of service and
accessibility, convenience, volume of travellers by: mode,
origin-destination, time-of-day, and trip purpose;
(8) Political feasibility: required public and elected
official support, new legislation, promotional efforts, success-
ful applications elsewhere, potential controversy;
(9) Institutional feasibility: assessment of need for new
agency authority, special interagency agreements, extensive
cooperation among agencies, dependence on other actions
for successful implementation; and
(10) Other factors considered important by the local community.
-------
21
IV. MODIFICATION AND DOCUMENTATION OF EXISTING PLANNING ACTIVITIES
A. Introduction
This chapter describes: (1) modifications to ongoing transportation
planning activities required by the Clean Air Act and (2) documentation
of those modifications. The modifications and documentation require
minimal alteration of existing procedures and reporting requirements.
B. Planning Work Programs
1. General
Proposed transportation planning work required under the Clean Air Act
should be included as part of the UPWP currently prepared by MPOs in
response to DOT requirements (23 CFR S 450, Subpart A). This should
be accomplished by all nonattainment areas that establish planning
procedures in accordance with Section 174 of the Act, regardless of
whether the MPO is the certified lead agency or whether any Section 175
funding is provided.
2. Prospectus
The UPWP prospectus should be modified to: (a) summarize the integrated
planning process including discussion of the important air quality-
related transportation issues facing the area; and (b) describe the
interrelationships of the functional responsibilities of participating
planning and operating agencies, including air quality agencies.
3. Unified Planning Work Program
The UPWP should describe all air quality-related transportation planning
activities anticipated within the area regardless of funding source. Work
funded under Section 175 of the Clean Air Act should be described in the
UPWP format prescribed by the Intermodal Planning Group (IPG) or in a
modified version agreed upon by EPA and the IPG.
C. Transportation Plan
1. Development of the short-range or transportation system
management element (TSME) of the transportation plan should
consider measures which will quickly reduce transportation
system emissions including traffic engineering, public trans-
portation, regulatory, prictng, management, operational
and other TSM improvements.
-------
22
2. Development of the long-range element of the transportation
plan should consider new transportation policies and facilities
and/or major changes in existing facilities with long-range
potential for reducing transportation-related emissions and
contributing to attainment and maintenance of the ambient
health standards.
3. ATI short-range (TSM) and long-range measures in Section
108(f) of the Act are, for the purpose of analysis, reasonably
available. They should be specifically considered in the analysis
and development of alternative TSMEs and long-range elements.
D. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
The TIP, including the annual element, should identify from the TSM
and long-range elements of the transportation plan improvements that
produce incremental emission reductions and air quality improvements.
These improvements should expeditiously advance toward implementation
during the program period consistent with SIP planning and programming
schedules. Priorities assigned to transportation improvements should be
consistent with the requirements of Section 176(d) of the Clean Air Act
(i.e., federal agencies conducting or supporting programs with air
quality-related transportation consequences shall give priority, consistent
with other statutory requirements, to the implementation of measures in
approved or promulgated plans under Section 110 of the Clean Air Act).
E. Documentation of Alternatives Analysis
The MPO or lead planning agency should coordinate the development of a
working reference document describing the methods and results of
alternatives analysis. This work document should use and supplement,
as necessary, technical reports required by the DOT joint regulations.
While the entire alternatives analysis document will not normally be
submitted with EPA's periodic progress reports (Chapter V), it should be
kept updated and available for review at all times by other agencies and
the public. This document plays a key role in the integrated planning
process as the basic resource for the joint determination by parti-
cipants that all reasonable measures are being implemented as expeditiously
as practicable.
The document should: (1) describe the alternative measures and packages
of measures selected for preliminary analysis; (2) provide reasons for
rejection or selection of alternatives for more detailed analysis. (The
initial list of alternative measures shall include all those listed in
Section 108(f) of the Clean Air Act.); (3) describe the effects considered
in both the preliminary and more detailed alternatives analysis (e.g.,
-------
23
air quality, travel, economic effects — see Section III E.4.b) and the
methodology used in estimating these effects; (4) summarize results of
the alternatives analysis to date; and (5) explain why alternatives were
finally rejected, or selected for implementation.
F. Consistency Determination Documentation
Procedures established to satisfy FHWA requirements for determining
consistency of areawide transportation plans with SIPs (required under
23 USC 109(j)) should be used to respond to the transportation-related
requirements of the Clean Air Act. Documentation of annual consistency
determinations should continue to be provided to EPA according to
existing procedures. This documentation can be used to: (1) demonstrate
that all reasonable measures are being implemented as expeditiously as
practicable (in accordance with Section 172(b)(2]), (2) demonstrate
reasonable further progress (S 172(b)(3}), and (3) assure conformity
(5 176(c)]. EPA will consider the consistency determination along with
the nonattainment plan provisions submitted in response to Section
172(b) in assessing SIP progress.
G. SIP
The required 1979, 1982 and subsequent SIP revisions should include
major air quality-related work elements of the UPWP and specific trans-
portation control measures from the transportation plan, TSME, TIP and
AE. Chapter II above outlines the transportation-related contents of an
approvable 1979 SIP. Appendix B contains the complete, more detailed
description of the elements of an approvable 1979 SIP.
V. PROGRESS REPORTS
A. Introduction
EPA will require periodic reports to: (1) monitor and assess progress in
developing and implementing the transportation-related provisions of the
Clean Air Act; (2) develop uniform review criteria for assessing SIP
progress; and (3) develop information for decisions on: (a) planning
funds allocation, (b) conformity and consistency determinations, and
(c) imposition of Section 176 sanctions. The reporting requirements
described below are designed to minimize time spent on documenting and
reviewing routine activities, allowing staffs to concentrate on identi-
fying and resolving significant problems. These reports should not
substitute for the more effective mechanism of direct staff contact for
demonstrating and determining progress.
-------
24
Although progress reports will normally be expected every six months,
alternative arrangements are possible by agreement between the lead
agency and the EPA Regional Office. Existing reports and reporting
procedures should be used to comply with Clean Air Act requirements;
i.e., wherever a progress report of similar format and content is
currently prepared for another agency and/or program, such a report may
be modified as necessary to satisfy EPA requirements.
B. Content
The progress report should briefly summarize the status of the air
quality-related elements of the: (1) UPWP, (2) transportation plan
(including TSME), (3) TIP, and (4) annual elements of the TIP for both
the current and preceeding year.'3 Specific elements of the progress
reports for each nonattainment area should be worked out individually
with the EPA Regional Office. An acceptable report should include, but
need not be limited to, the following:
1. UPWP
The status of major air quality-related work elements (including but not
limited to alternatives analysis, procedures for interagency coordination,
involvement of elected officials, public information and consultation),
covering: (a) brief summary (two or three sentences) and percentage of
work accomplished to date; (b) description of outstanding issues and
problems, if any, that may alter scope or completion times; and (c)
program contact person responsible for each work element.
2. Transportation Plan
The status of each major air quality-related portion of the transportation
plan.
3. TIP
The status of each major air quality-related transportation improvement
listed in the annual elements of both the current TIP and that of the
previous year, including but not necessarily limited to EIS status,
funding commitment, and implementation status.
C. Annual Report
The Annual Report required by the "Criteria for Approval of 1979 SIP
Revisions" (p. 14, Appendix B) shall describe: (1) progress toward meeting
SIP schedules for development and implementation of transportation control
measures, (2) contribution of transportation source controls to the
incremental emission reductions required for standard attainment,
(3) growth of mobile sources, and (4) an updated mobile source emission
inventory. The Annual Report should be based upon and may incorporate
appropriate parts of the progress reports described above.
-------
25
Footnotes
1 42 USC 7401 et sag, hereafter referred to as "The Act" or "The Clean
Air Act."
2 Section 108(e) requires publication of guidelines for the planning
process assisted under Section 175 of Part D, Plan Requirements for
Nonattainment Areas. The Guidelines must include information on:
1. methods to identify and evaluate alternative planning and
control activities (this information is principally contained
in Chapter III (Process) of the guidelines);
2. methods of reviewing plans on a regular basis as conditions
change or new information is presented (Chapters III (Process),
IV (Documentation), V (Progress Reports));
3. identification of funds and other resources necessary to
implement the plan, including interagency agreements on
providing such funds and resources (Chapter I and Appendix F,
Identification of Funds to Implement the Plan);
4. methods to assure participation by the public in all phases
of the planning process (Chapter III (Process)); and
5. such other methods as the Administrator determines necessary
to carry out a continuous planning process.
3 Appendix A is a summary of the transportation-related sections of the
Clean Air Act.
4 Appendix C illustrates how the transportation-air quality planning
process could fit into the entire SIP revision process.
5 Sections 171(1), 172(B)(2)(3).
6 EPA identified nonattainment areas in a press release on February 23,
1978 and also in the March 3, 1978 Federal Register.
7 EPA and DOT jointly issued Section 174 guidelines in December 1977.
This guidance concerns designation of lead planning organizations for
nonattainment areas and determination of agency responsibilities. By
April 1, 1978, the Governors of all states with nonattainment areas
must transmit to EPA a certification of the lead planning organization
and a joint determination of agency responsibilities for those areas.
-------
26
8 Written evidence that the state, the general purpose local government
or governments, or a regional agency designated by general purpose local
governments for such purpose, have adopted by statute, regulation, ordinance
or other legally enforceable document the necessary requirements and
schedules and timetables for compliance and are committed to implement
and enforce the appropriate elements of the SIP. The relevant organiza-
tions shall provide evidence that the legally enforceable attainment
measures and the "criteria, standards and implementing procedures necessary
for effectively guiding and controlling major decisions as to where growth
shall and shall not take place," prepared by state and local governments
in compliance with Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954, as amended, are
fully coordinated in the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
9 As defined by the U.S. Bureau of Census, urbanized areas generally include
core cities plus any closely settled suburban areas.
10 The transportation-air quality planning process should:
(1) Consider social, economic, energy, transportation, air quality,
and other environmental effects, in support of the require-
ments of 23 USC 109(h), Sections 5(h)(2) and 15 of the UMT
Act C49 USC 1604(h)(2) and 1610} and Sections 108(f)(2)(C)
and 172(b](9] of the Clean Air Act [42 USC 7408(f)(2)(C) and
75020>) (.9)).
(2) Be coordinated with transportation planning pursuant to
23 USC 134, 49 USC 1607(a). and 23 USC 450.120, 109(F)
and 307(c) in support of the requirements of Section 174(b)
of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7504(b)).
(3) Ensure public, local government and state legislatures
involvement in support of the requirements of Sections
172(bl(9), 121, and 127 of the Clean Air Act (42 USC
7502(b)(9), 7421, and 7427).
11 Section 172(b)(9) of the Clean Air Act specifies that 1979 SIP revisions
shall:
evidence public ... involvement and consultation in accordance
with Section 174 (relating to planning procedures) and include
... a summary of public comment on [the] analysis [of the
effects of plan provisions]
Section 127, Public Notification, requires SIPs to contain effective
measures for public notification of air quality standard violations:
-------
27
to advise the public of the health hazards associated with such
pollution, and to enhance public awareness of the measures
which can be taken to prevent such standards from being exceeded
and the ways in which the public can participate in regulatory
and other efforts to improve air quality.
Most specifically, Section 108(e)(4) directs that the transportation
planning guidelines shall include information on:
methods to assure participation by the public in all phases
of the planning process.
Finally, the DOT joint planning regulations (CFR 450.120) specify that
the urban transportation planning process shall "include provisions
to ensure involvement of the public."
12 The selection of an ambitious emission reduction target such as
15-20% is necessary to insure that a sufficient range of measures
is adequately evaluated. Certain ambitious and possibly contro-
versial classes of measures (e.g., parking management, pricing, auto
limitation) should be included when evaluating alternatives to
meet ambitious targets. A priori rejection of these measures is
not acceptable. All agencies engaged in the SIP revision process
in each urban area should jointly decide for that urban area a
specific, ambitious emission reduction target for the purpose of
developing and analyzing alternative transportation strategies.
The 15-20% figure is not meant to be an arbitrary selection
of an achievable emission reduction for all urban areas, but
rather is one example of such a target.
13 Progress reports are expected to be brief, but complete (e.g., not
exceeding 6 to 12 pages). Longer reports may be necessary in non-
attainment areas requiring extensive air quality-related
transportation activities.
-------
REF Ii-1
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APPENDICES
TO
TRANSPORTATION-AIR QUALITY PLANNING GUIDELINES
June 1978
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR APPENDICES
APPENDIX Page
A TRANSPORTATION-RELATED PROVISIONS OF 1
THE CLEAN AIR ACT
B CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP 9
REVISIONS
C SIP REVISION PROCESS 23
D DEFINITIONS 27
E BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON TCP PROGRAM 31
F FUNDING 35
G EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES 42
H FHWA/UMTA ACTION MEMO 45
I HUD-EPA AGREEMENT 47
J SUMMARY OF RELATED EPA GUIDELINES AND 50
REGULATIONS
K DOT PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING REGULATIONS 52
(23 CFR 450)
-------
APPENDIX A
TRANSPORTATION-RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1977
I. Introduction
This Appendix contains a general summary and description of the
provisions of the Clean Air Act that primarily concern or most directly
affect the transportation-air quality planning process.
These sections include:
0 § 108: AIR QUALITY CRITERIA AND CONTROL TECHNIQUES (S 108(e):
Planning Process Guidelines, § 108(f): Information Documents)
0 S 110: IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0 S 121: CONSULTATION
0 S 172: NONATTAINMENT PLAN PROVISIONS
0 S 174: PLANNING PROCEDURES
0 § 175: EPA GRANTS
0 § 176: LIMITATIONS ON CERTAIN FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
The statutory authority for: requiring transportation controls, the
transportation planning guidelines and the information documents on
/
control techniques is contained in the following sections of the Act:
/
Section 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act enumerates the requirements for
state implementation plans. This section specifies that:
The Administrator shall approve such plan if he
determines that...(B) it includes...such other measures
as may be necessary to insure attainment and maintenance
of such primary or secondary standards including but not
limited to, transportation controls
Section 108(e) specifies that the guidelines should include informa-
tion on:
"(1) methods to identify and evaluate alternative planning
and control activities;
-------
(2) methods of reviewing plans on a regular basis as
conditions change or new information is presented;
(3) identification of funds and other resources necessary
to implement the plan, including interagency agreements
on providing such funds and resources;
(4) methods to assure participation by the public in all phases
of the planning process; and
(5) such other methods as the Administrator determines
necessary to carry out a continuous planning process."
Section 174(b) requires the preparation of implementation plan
provisions for nonattainment areas to be coordinated with the continuing,
cooperative and comprehensive transportation planning process required
under Section 134 of title 23, USC, and the air quality maintenance
planning process required under Section 110 of the Clean Air Act
(42 USC 7410).
Finally, Section 108(f) directs the Administrator to publish
information documents on processes, procedures and methods to control
pollution and explicitly identifies a broad range of transportation
projects and system management measures to be included in the information
documents.
The amendments significantly expand the requirements and procedures
for developing and implementing transportation measures as part of State
Implementation Plans (SIPs). Specifically, the Act:
-------
(1) establishes new plan submittal and attainment
deadlines (S 172(a)),
(2) requires the development of information documents
and process guidelines (S 108(e),(f)),
(3) Specifies a planning process that includes
extensive consultation among agencies, the public
and local elected officials along with coordination
with related planning (S 121, § 174),
(4) requires nonattainment plans to document consul-
tation and contain a commitment to implement
(S 172(b)),
(5) authorizes new planning funds (S 175),
(6) provides for new funding sanctions for failure
to develop and implement adequate plans (S 176).
II. Plan Deadlines and Criteria
The new requirements of the Act are intended to insure state submission
of SIP revisions adequate to attain and maintain the air quality standards
for the auto-related pollutants. Any nonattainment area for carbon
monoxide and photochemical oxidants must submit a SIP revision by
January 1, 1979 that: (1) provides for the implementation of all
reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable
(§ 172(b)(2)) and (2) demonstrates attainment of the air quality standard
not later than December 31, 1982 (§ 172(a)(l)).
If a state demonstrates in the 1979 SIP submittal that attainment
of the carbon monoxide and oxidant standard is not possible despite
the implementation of all reasonably available measures, EPA may grant
-------
an extension beyond December 31, 1982 to provide for attainment as
expeditiously as practicable but not later than December 31, 1987. In
cases where such a demonstration is made, the 1979 SIP submission must:
(1) establish a program of alternatives analysis prior to issuance of
permits for construction or modification of major emitting facilities,
(2) establish a specific schedule for implementing a vehicle inspection
and maintenance program and (3) identify all other measures necessary to
provide for attainment not later than December 31, 1987.
Also according to § 110(a)(3)(D), 1979 SIP submittals that demonstrate
attainment beyond December 31, 1982 shall be revised by July 1, 1979 to
include written evidence on comprehensive measures listed in S 110(c)(5)(B)
that:
(i) establish, expand, or improve public transportation
measures to meet basic transportation needs,
as expeditiously as is practicable; and
(ii) implement transportation control measures necessary
to attain and maintain national ambient air quality
standards.
The revised plan shall, for the purpose of implementing such comprehensive
public transportation measures, include requirements to use (insofar as is
necessary) federal grants, state or local funds, or any combination of
such grants and funds as may be consistent with the terms of the legislation
providing such grants and funds. (EPA is currently developing guidelines
on the minimum elements of the public transportation plan SIP revision.)
-------
Section 110(c)(5) also allows states to eliminate existing TCP
bridge toll requirements on bridges located entirely within a city. If
bridge tolls are eliminated, the Governor must certify that a plan will
be submitted by August 7, 1978, which satisfies the requirements of
Section 110(c)(5)(B). The public transportation plan submitted in
August must at least compensate for the air quality and mass transit
benefits which were reasonably expected to be achieved from use of the
eliminated tolls.
Other measures in existing plans may be suspended until January 1,
1979, under Section 110(c)(4) of the Act, including requirements for
retrofits on non-commercial vehicles, gas rationing provisions and
on-street parking restrictions. A suspension will not be granted unless
the state agrees to prepare, adopt and submit a plan revision by
January 1, 1979, which meets the requirements of the Administrator.
Section 110(a)(5)(A) also prohibits the Administrator from requiring
states to include indirect source review (ISR) programs in their SIPs.
Further, EPA may not promulgate ISR regulations except for federally-
assisted highways, airports and other major federally-assisted or
operated indirect sources (S 110(a)(5)(B)). Any ISR program in an
existing SIP may be suspended or revoked if, in all respects except
attainment and maintenance of the air quality standards, the plan meets
the requirements of S 110(a); and with respect to attainment and mainte-
nance, the state is preparing in good faith a plan revision to meet
-------
the requirements of Part D by January 1, 1979, for all nonattainment
areas [s 110(a)(5)(A)(1ii); 43 FR 10708 (March 15, 1978)].
Finally, those states that demonstrate a need in the 1979 SIP
submittal for a deadline extension to 1987 must submit a SIP revision
before July 1, 1982 that contains enforceable measures to assure
attainment no later than December 31, 1987.
III. Planning Process
The Act emphasizes locally developed plans resulting from extensive
consultation among agencies (S 121, S 174), public education and
participation (S 127, § 172(b)(9)), elected official involvement and
the documented analysis of a wide range of alternative measures and
strategies (§ 172(b)(9)). The Act specifies that the transportation-air
quality planning process be coordinated with the continuing, cooperative,
and comprehensive ("3C") transportation planning process administered by
DOT (§ 174(b)).
Local governments and organizations of local elected officials are
explicitly encouraged to assume greater responsibilities in the development,
implementation and enforcement of SIPs (5 121, § 174(a)). Section 174(a)
specifically states that "where possible" nonattainment plans
... shall be prepared by an organization of elected
officials of local governments designated by
agreement of the local governments in an affected
area and certified by the State for this purpose.
This section gives specific preference to designation of metropolitan
planning organizations or the agencies responsible for air quality
maintenance planning. EPA has established April 1, 1978 as the deadline
by which states submit: (1) a list of designated agencies, their boundaries,
-------
responsibilities, and a brief discussion of the Governor's designation
or certification decision.
The Act also directs EPA to consult with DOT, HUD and state and
local officials in the development of planning process guidelines (S 108(e)),
Furthermore, the Act calls for EPA to cooperate with DOT in the prepara-
tion of information documents on a wide range of transportation measures
including: mass transit improvements, carpool programs, exclusive bus
lanes, parking management, employer-incentive programs, work schedule
changes, selected auto restrictions, road user charges and bicycle lanes
and facilities (S 108(f)).
IV. EPA Grants
Section 175 directs EPA to award grants to cover 100 percent of
the additional costs of nonattainment plan development to organizations
of local elected officials with transportation or air quality maintenance
planning responsibilities and certified by the state in accordance with
Section § 174(a). Section 325 authorizes $75 million to be appropriated
beginning in fiscal year 1978 for this purpose.
V. Sanctions
Section 176 provides for limitations on certain federal assistance
as follows:
1. Plan Submittal. Where the Administrator finds that the
Governor has failed to submit an adequate plan which
considers the nonattainment plan provisions specified
in Section 172, EPA is prohibited from approving projects
or awarding grants authorized by the Clean Air Act.
-------
Similarly, the Secretary of Transportation is pro-
hibited from approving projects or awarding grants
under title 232 (S 176(a)).
2. Plan Implementation. In areas where the state, local
government(s), or designated regional agency fails
to implement any requirement of an approved or promul-
gated plan under Section 110, the Administrator is
prohibited from making grants under the Clean Air Act
(§ 176(b)).
3. Plan Conformity. No federal department or agency shall
support or approve any activity that does not conform to
a plan approved or promulgated under Section 11(5. No
metropolitan planning organization designated under
23 USC 134 shall approve any project, program
or plan that does not conform with a plan approved
or promulgated under Section 110. The assurance of
conformity shall be the affirmative responsibility of
the head of such department or agency (5 176(c)).
4. Priority to Implementation of Plan Provisions. Federal
agencies and departments conducting or supporting programs
with air quality-related transportation consequences
shall give priority, consistent with statutory require-
ments, to the implementation of measures in approved
or promulgated plans under Section 110 (S 176(d)).
Footnotes
1 Or make reasonable efforts toward submitting an adequate plan.
2 Safety, mass transit and other transportation projects with air
quality benefits are not affected.
-------
9
APPENDIX B
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D'.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
AIR AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
FE8 24 1978
SUBJECT: Criteria for Approval of 1^79 S.IP Revisions
FROM: The Administrator (A-100)
TO: Regional Administrators, I-X
The attachment to this memo summarizes the elements
which a 1979 State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
for a non-attainment area must contain in order to be
approved by EPA as meeting the requirements of Part D of
the Clean Air Act.
In summary, the Act requires the demonstration of
attainment of the air quality standards (primary and
secondary) as expeditiously as practicable, but in the
case of national primary standards not later than
December 51, 1982. However, for carbon monoxide (CO) and
oxidants (Ox), if the State can demonstrate attainment
is not possible by 1982 despite the implementation of all
reasonable stationary source and transportation control
measures, the Act provides for up to a five-year extension.
In those cases the plan revisions must demonstrate
attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no later
than December 31, 1987. The extension is not automatic;
a demonstration of need must be made and the State must
fulfill the other statutory requirements.
It is the intent of the Agency to establish reasonable
and achievable goals for SIP submissions and to take a firm
posture on the imposition of sanctions where the reasonable
goals are not achieved. Accordingly, while the policy
requires a commitment to many specific strategies in the
1979 submissions (e.g., RACT on stationary sources, inspec-
tion/maintenance programs where attainment for carbon
monoxide or oxidants extends beyond 1982, other reasonable
transportation control measures, etc.) the memo also
requires (for carbon monoxide and oxidants) a commitment
to'a continuing process. This process must be one which
extensively involves the public as well as State and local
elected officials and which ambitiously pursues a wide
range of alternatives.
-------
10
Since reliance on stationary controls and Federal
new car standards alone will not enable most areas with
oxidant and carbon monoxide problems to attain these
standards by 1982, each Regional Office will need to put
particular emphasis on additional measures to reduce
transportation system emissions. The process committed
to in the 1979 plan submission must lead to the
expeditious selection and implementation of comprehensive
transportation control measures. In judging the adequacy
of 'the 1979 plan submission for the transportation
sector, each Regional Administrator should ensure that
ambitious alternatives (as described in the draft
"Transportation Planning Guidelines" which have been
circulated) will be analyzed.
The Department of Transportation (DOT), Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) and EPA are seeking to integrate
the transportation/air quality planning and implementation
required by the Clean Air Act into existing planning and
programming procedures. The air planning activities should
bfs.included in the Unified Work Program required by DOT
ap4 the adopted transportation measures should be included
in the Transportation Improvement Program required by DOT.
In complying with the Clean Air Act requirements, the Regions
should also keep in mind the requirements of the HUD-EPA
Agreement which provides for coordination of air quality
planning and planning assisted under the HUD Comprehensive
Planning Assistance (701) Program. Integration of air
and transportation planning with comprehensive planning
which incorporates growth management concerns should improve
the effectiveness of air quality planning and could reduce
the need for enforcement measures in the future.
States will be provided some discretion regarding
the amount of emissions growth to be accommodated within
the SIP. EPA generally will not question the growth rates
desired by the State so long as reasonable further progress
is demonstrated and there is a demonstration of attainment
by the statutory deadline (1982 or 1987). However, the
growth rate identified in the SIP must be consistent with
growth rates used (or implied by) other planning programs
in the area (e.g., FWPCA §208, 201, HUD §701, FHWA
§134).
-------
11
You should note that there are other SIP revisions
which are not discussed in the attachment but which are
required by the 1977 Amendments. These include:
1. Section 128 (relating to State boards)
2. Section 126 (relating to interstate pollution)
3. Section 127 (relating to public notification)
4. Part C (relating to prevention of significant
deterioration)
5. Section 110(a)(2)(K) (relating to permit fees)
6. Section 123 (relating to stack heights for
existing source in other than non-attainment
areas)
7. Section 121 (relating to consultation)
Although incorporation of these provisions is required
by the law, failure to achieve final approval by
July 1, 1979 does not trigger the new source prohibition
of Section 110(a) (2) (I).
It is important to emphasize to the States that all
current SIP requirements remain in effect despite the
development of the 1979 revisions. Any suspension or
discontinuance of an existing SIP provision must be
submitted for EPA approval. This should be done as part
of the revision submitted in January 1979. Exceptions
to this procedure may be found in certain new provisions
of §110 relating to reduction of on-street parking, bridge
tolls, and other measures.
The development of the January 1979 SIPs to meet the
minimum requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1077 is a complex and demanding program. It will require
the commitment of significant resources on the part of the
air programs staff of the Regional Office to ensure that
the States develop and submit a comprehensive and
approvable plan. We are working with your staff to develop
the necessary guidance and follow-up programs which will
assist your office and the State to*carry out this very
difficult but important part of the overall air program.
-------
12
Criteria for Approval of 1979 State Implementation PI an Revisions
for Non-Attainment Areas
Purpose
The purpose of this document is to define the criteria by which
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions for non-attainment areas
required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 (the Act) will be
approved. These revisions are to be submitted to EPA by January 1, 1979.
Categories of SIP Revisions
SIP revisions submitted by January 1, 1979 can be divided into
two categories:
1. Those which provide for attainment of the Primary Ambient
Air Quality Standards (primary standards) for alj_ criteria pollutants
on or before December 31 8 1982.
2. Those which provide for attainment of the primary standards
for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen, oxides, and particulate matter on or before
December 31, 1982 but show that despite the implementation of all
reasonable transportation and stationary source emission control measures
attainment of the primary standards for carbon monoxide and/or oxidants
cannot be achieved until after this date. In these cases, the revisions
must demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no later
than December 31, 1987.
In order for an adequate SIP revision to fall into the second
category, the State has an affirmative responsibility to demonstrate
to the satisfaction of EPA that attainment of the primary carbon
monoxide and/or oxidants standards is not possible in an area prior
to December 31, 1982.
It should be noted that SIP revisions of either category should
niso provide for attainment of Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards
(secondary standards) as expeditiously as practicable although there is
no specific deadline contained in the Act.
General Requirements of All 1979 SIP Revisions
Each 1979 SIP revision must contain the following:
1. A definition of the geographic areas for which control
strategies have been or will be developed. Consideration should be
given to the practical benefits of defining areas which correspond
v/henever possible to those substate districts established pursuant
to Part IV, Attachment A of OMB Circular No. A-95.
-------
2. An accurate, comprehensive, and current (1977 calendar year)
inventory of existing emissions.
3. A determination of the level of control needed to demonstrate
attainment by 1982 (including growth). This demonstration should be
made by the application of modeling techniques as set forth in EPA's
Guideline on Air Quality Models. For ox-idants, any legitimate modeling
technique (e.g., those referenced in "Use, Limitation ana Technical
Basis of Procedures for Quantifying Relationships " itween Photochemical
Oxidants and Precursors." EPA 450/2-77-021 a. November 1977) can be
used. Consideration of background and transport for oxidants should
generally be in accordance with the procedures documented in "Procedures
for Quantifying Relationships Between Photochemical Oxidants and
Precursors." In developing photochemical oxidant control strategies
for a particular area, states may assume at a minimum that the standard
will be attained in adjacent states.
If a state can demonstrate that the level of control necessary for
attainment of the primary standards for carbon monoxide and/or oxidant
is not possible by 1982 despite the application of all reasonable
measures, an extension past 1982 (but not beyond 1987) is authorized.
4. Adoption in legally enforceable forml of all measures necessary
to provide for attainment by the prescribed date or, where adoption of
all such measures by 1979 is not possible, (e.g., certain transportation
control measures, and certain measures to control the oxides of nitrogen
and total suspended particulate) a schedule for expeditious development,
adoption, submittal, and implementation of these measures. The
situations in which adoption of measures may be scheduled after 1979
are discussed in the pollutant specific sections of this document. Each
schedule must provide for implementation of all reasonably available
control measures as expeditiously as practicable. During the period
prior to attainment, these measures must be implemented rapidly enough
to provide at a minimum for reasonable further progress (see discussion
Written evidence that the State, the general purpose local
government or governments, or a regional agency designated by general
purpose local governments for such purpose, have adopted by statute,
regulation, ordinance or other legally enforceable document, the
necessary requirements and schedules and timetables for compliance,
and are committed to implement and enforce the appropriate elements
of the plan. The relevant organizations shall provide evidence that
the legally enforceable attainment measures and the "criteria,
standards and implementing procedures necessary for effectively guiding
and controlling major decisions as to where growth shall and shall not
take place," prepared by State and local governments in compliance with
Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954, as amended, are fully coordinated
in the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
-------
14
below). Each schedule will be considered part of the applicable
implementation plan and thus will represent a commitment on the part
of the State to meet the key milestones set forth in the submitted
schedule.
5. Emission reduction estimates for each adopted or scheduled
control measure or for related groups of control measures where
estimates for individual measures are ir.practical. It is recognized
that reduction estimates may change as measures are more fully
analyzed and implemented. As such estimates change, appropriate
responses will be required to insure that the plan remains adequate
to provide for attainment and for reasonable further progress.
6. Provision for reasonable further progress toward attainment
of the primary and secondary standards in the period prior to the
prescribed date for attainment. Reasonable further progress is defined
as annual incremental reductions in total emissions (emissions from
new as well as existing sources) to provide for attainment by the
prescribed date. The plan shall provide for substantial reductions in
the early years with regular reductions thereafter.
Reasonable further progress will be determined for each area
by dividing the total emission reductions required to attain the appli-
cable standard by the number of years between 1979 and the date pro-
jected for attainment (not later than 1937). This is represented
graphically by a straight line drawn fron the emissions inventory sub-
mitted in 1979 to the allowable emissions on the attainment date.
However, EPA recognizes.that some measures cannot result in immediate
emission reduction. Therefore,, if a State can show that some lag in
emissions reduction is necessary, a SIP will be acceptable even though
reductions sufficient to produce decreases at the "straight-line rate"
are not achieved for a year or two after 1979. This lag in achieving
the "straight-line rate" for emissions reduction is to be accepted
only to accommodate the time required for compliance with the first set
of regulations adopted on or before January 1, 1979, if immediate
compliance is not possible. It does not authorize delays in adoption
of control requirements.
The requirement to demonstrate reasonable further progress will,
in most areas designated non-attainment for oxidant or carbon monoxide,
necessitate a continuous, phased implementation of transportation
control measures. In areas where attainment of all primary ambient
standards by 1982 is not possible EPA will not accept mere reliance on
the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program by itself as a demonstration
of reasonable further progress.
-------
15
In determining "reasonable further progress", those emission
reductions obtained, from compliance between August 7, 1977, and "
Oeceober 31, 1979, with (1) SIP revisions that have been submitted
after August 7, 1977, and (2) regulations which were approved by the
Agency prior to the enactment of the 1977 Clean Air Amendments, can
\>e treated as having been achieved during 1979* Ther^ should be an
Assurance, however, that these are real emission reductions and not
just "paper" ones.
7. An identification and quantification of an emissions growth
increment which will be allowed to result from the construction and
operation of major new or modified stationary sources within the area
for which the plan has been developed. Alternatively, an emissions
offset regulation can be adopted to provide for major new source growth.
The growth rates established by states for mobile sources and new
minor stationary sources should also be specified, and in combination
with the growth associated with major new or modified stationary sources
vrill be accepted so long as they do not jeopardize the reasonable further
progress test and attainment by the prescribed date. However, the growth
vato identified in the SIP must be consistent with the growth rates used
(or implied by) the other planning programs in the area (e.g., FWPCA
Section 208 [201], HUD Section 701, FHWA Section 134). A system for
monitoring the emission growth rates from major and minor new stationary
sources and from transportation sources and assuring that they do not
cvxc-sad the specified amounts must also be provided for in the revision.
8. Provision for annual reporting on the progress toward meeting
the- schedules summarized in (4) above as well as growth of mobile
sources, minor new stationary sources, major new or modified stationary
sources, and reduction in emissions from existing sources to provide for
reasonable further progress as in (6) above. This should include an
emission inventory.
9. A requirement that permits be issued for the construction and
operation of new or modified major sources in accordance; with Section
173 and 110(a)(2)(D).
10. An identification of and coiraiitment to the financial and
iKtnpower resources necessary to carry out the plan. The commitment
should be made at the highest executive level having responsiblity for
SIP or that portion of it and having authority to hire new employees.
This commitment should include written evidence that the State, the
general purpose local government or governments, and all state, local or
regional agencies have included appropriate provision in their respective
budgets and intend to continue to do 'so in future years for which budgets
have not yet been finalized, to the extent necessary.
-------
16 .
11. Evidence of public, local government, and state legislative
involvement and consultation. It shall also include an identification
and brief analysis of the air quality, health, welfare, economic,
energy, and social effects of the plan revisions and of the alternatives
considered by the State, and a summary of the public comment on such
analysis.
12. Evidence that the SIP v/as adopted by the state after reasonable
notice and public hearing.
Additional Requirements for Carbon Monoxide and Oxidant SIP Revisions
which Provide for Attainment of the Primary Standards Later than 1982
For those SIP revisions which demonstrate that attainment of the
primary standards for carbon monoxide and/or oxidants is not possible
in an area prior to December 31, 1982 despite the implementation of all
reasonable emission control measures the following items must be
included in the January 1, 1979 submission in addition to all the
5eneral requirements listed above:
1. A program which requires prior to issuance of any permit for
construction or modification of a major emitting facility an analysis
of alternative sites, sizes, production processes, and environmental
control techniques for such proposed source which demonstrates that
benefits of the proposed source significantly outweigh the environmental
and social cost imposed as a result of its location, construction, or
modification.
2. An inspection/maintenance program or a schedule endorsed by
and committed to by the Governor for the development, adoption, and
implementation of such a program as expeditiously as practicable.
Where the necessary legal authority does not currently exist, it must
be obtained by June 30, 1979. Limited exceptions to the requirement
to obtain legal authority by June 30, 1979 may be possible if the state
can demonstrate that (a) there was insufficient opportunity to conduct
necessary technical analyses and/or (b) the legislature has had no
opportunity to consider any necessary enabling legislation for inspection/
maintenance- between enactment of the 1977 Ar;endements to the Act and
June 30, 1979. In addition, where a legislature has adequate opportunity
to adopt enabling legislation before January 1, 1979, the Regional
Administrator should require submission of such legal authority by
January 1, 1979. In no case can the schedule submitted provide for
obtaining legal authority later than July 1, 1980.
-------
17
Actual implementation of the inspection/maintenance program must
proceed as expeditiously as practicable. EPA considers two and one half
years from the time of legislative adoption to be the maximum time
required to implement a centralized inspection/maintenance program and
one and one half years to implement a decentralized program. In no case
may implementation of the program, i.e., mandatory inspection and
mandatory repair of failed vehicles be delayed beyond 1.982 in the case
of a centralized program (either state lanes or contractor lanes) or
beyond 1981 in the case of a decentralized (private garage) system.
3. A commitment by the responsible government official or
officials to establish, expand, or improve public transportation
measures to meet basic transportation needs as expeditiously as is
practicable.
4. A commitment to use insofar as is necessary Federal grants,
state or local funds, or any combination of such grants and funds as
may be consistent with the terms of the legislation providing such
grants and funds, for the purpose of establishing, expanding or
improving public transportation measures to meet basic transportation
needs.
Note that HUD has prepared guidelines for local development codes
and ordinances to provide special requirements for areas which for
significant periods of time may exceed the primary standards. These
guidelines specify criteria for new construction operation of buildings
which minimize pollutant concentrations to ensure a healthy indoor and
outdoor environment. States are encouraged to adopt such measures as
part of the SIP.
Pollutant Specific Requirements
Sulfur Dioxide
Specifically, with regard to item (4) of the General Requirements,
the January 1979 plan revisions dealing v/ith sulfur diox • -nust cont:
all the necessary emission limitations and legally enforceable pr" \
to "provide for attainment by no later than December 31, 1982 (i.e.,
schedules for the development, adoption, and submittal of regulations
will not be acceptable).
*Written evidence on comprehensive public transportation measures
must be submitted in a SIP revision by July 1, 1979.
-------
18
Nitrogen Oxides
For NOX, the January 1979 plan must contain all the necessary
emission limitations and the legally enforceable procedures, or as a
minimum, the appropriate schedules to adopt and submit the emission
limitations and legally enforceable procedures which provide for
implementation so that standards will be attained by no later than
December 31, 1982. EPA is currently evaluating the need for a short
term N02 standard and expects to promulgate such a standard during
1973. If such a standard for air quality is promulgated, a new and
separate SIP revision will be required for this pollutant.
Particulate Matter
The January 1979 plan revisions dealing with particulate matter
must contain all the necessary emission limitations and legally enforce-
able procedures for traditional sources. These emission limitations and
enforceable procedures must provide for the control of fugitive
emissions, where necessary, as well as stack emissions from these
stationary sources. Where control of non-traditional sources (e.g.,
urban fugitive dust, resuspension, construction, etc.) is necessary for
attainment, the plan shall contain an assessment of the impact of these
sources and a commitment on the part of the state to adopt appropriate
control measures. This commitment shall take the form of a schedule to
develop, submit, and implement the legally enforceable procedures, and
programs for controlling non-traditional particulate matter sources.
These schedules must include milestones for evaluating progress and
provide for attainment of the primary standards by no later than
December 31, 1982, and attainment of the secondary standards as expe-
ditiously as practicable. States should initiate the necessary studies
and demonstration projects for controlling the non-traditional sources
as soon as possible.
Carbon Monoxide and Oxidant
An adequate SIP for oxidant is one which provides for sufficient
control of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from stationary and mobile
sources to provide for attainment of the oxidant standard. Accordingly,
the 1979 plan revision must set forth the necessary emission limitations
and schsdules to obtain sufficient control of VOC emissions in all non-
cLttainmant areas. They must be directed toward reducing the peak
concentrations within the major urbanized areas to demonstrate attainment
as expeditiously as practicable but in no case later than December 31, 1937.
This should also solve the rural oxidant problem by minimizing VOC
emissions and more importantly oxidants that'may be transported from
urban to rural areas. The 1979 submission must represent a comprehensive
strategy or plan for each non-attainment area; plan submissions that
address only selected portions of non-attainment are not adequate.
-------
19
For the purpose of oxidant plan development, major urban areas are
those with an urbanized population of 200,000 or greater (U.S. Bureau
of Census, 1970). A certain degree of flexibility will be allowed in
defining the specific boundaries of the urban area^ However, the areas
must be large enough to cover the entire urbanized^ area and adjacent
fringe areas of development. For non-attainment urban areas, the highest
pollutant concentration for the entire area must be used in determining
the necessary level of control. Additionally, uniform modeling tech-
niques must be used throughout the non-attainment urban area. These
requirements apply to interstate as well as intrastate areas.
Adequate plans must provide for the adoption of reasonably
available control measures for stationary and. mobile sources.
For stationary sources, the 1979 oxidant plan submissions for
major urban areas must include, as a minimum, legally enforceable
regulations to reflect the application of reasonably available control
technology (RACTp to those stationary sources for which EPA has
published a Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) by January 1978, and
provide for the adoption and submittal of additional legally enforce-
able RACT regulations on an annual basis beginning in January 1980, for
those CTGs that have been published by January of the preceeding year.
For rural non-attainment areas, the Ox plan must provide the
necessary legally enforceable procedures for the control of large HC
sources (more than 100 ton/year potential emissions) for which EPA
has issued a CTG by January 1978, and to adopt and submit additional
legally enforceable procedures on an annual basis beginning in
January 1980, after publication of subsequent CTGs as set forth above.
For mobile sources in urbanized area (population 200,000) SIPs
must provide for expeditious implementation of reasonably available
control measures. Each of the measures for which EPA will publish
information documents during 1978 is a reasonably available control
measure. These measures are listed on the following page:
2As defined by the U.S. Bureau of Census, urbanized area generally
include core cities plus any closely settled suburban areas.
Awhile it is recognized that RACT will be determined on a case-by-
case basis, the criteria for SIP approval rely heavily upon the
information contained.in the CTG. Deviations from the use of the CTG
must be adequately documented.
-------
20
1. To be published by Febrjary l'??~
a. inspection/maintenance
b. vapor recovery
c. improved public transit
d. exclusive bus and carpool lanes
e. area wide carpool programs
2. To be published by August 1978
a. private car restrictions
b. long range transit improvements
c. on street parking controls
d. park and ride and fringe parking lots
e. pedestrian malls
f. employer programs to encourage car and van pooling,
mass transit, bicycling and walking
g. bicycle lanes and storage facilities
h. staggered work- hours
i. road pricing to discourage single occupancy auto trips
j. controls on extended vehicle idling
k. traffic flow improvements
1. alternative fuels or engines and other fleet
vehicle controls
m. other than light duty vehicle retrofit
n. extreme cold start emission reduction programs
The above measures (either individually or combined into packages
of measures) should be analyzed promptly and thoroughly and scheduled
for expeditious implementation. EPA recognizes that not all analyses
of every measure can be completed by January 1979 and, where necessary,
schedules may provide for the completion of analyses after January 1,
1979 as discussed below. (If analysis after January 1979 demonstrates
that certain measures would" be unnecessary or ineffective, a decision
not to implement such measures may be justifiable. However, decisions
not to implement measures will have to be carefully reviewed to avoid
broad, rejections of measures based on conclusory assertions of
infeasibility.)
As described previously, annual incremental reductions in total
emissions must occur in order to achieve reasonable further progress
during the period prior to attainment of the standards. Therefore,
not all transportation measure implementation activities should wait
until the comprehensive analyses of control measures are completed.
Demonstration studies are important and should accompany or precede
-------
21
full scale implementation of the comprehensive, strategy. It is EPA's
policy that each area will be required to schedule a representative
selection of reasonable transportation measures (as listed above) for
implementation at least on a pilot or demonstration basis prior to the
end of 1980.
Every effort must be made to integrate the air quality related
transportation plan and implementation required by the Clean Air Act
into planning and programming procedures administered by DOT. EPA will
publish "Transportation Planning Guidelines" which will, if followed
carefully, insure that an adequate transportation planning process
exists.
EPA recognizes that the planning and implementation of very
extensive air quality related transportation measures can be a complicated
and lengthy process, and in areas with severe carbon monoxide or oxidant
problems, completion of some of the adopted measures may extend beyond
1982. Implementation of even these very extensive transportation
n-easures, however, must be initiated before December 31, 1982.
In the case of plan revisions that make the requisite showing to
justify an extension of the date for attainment, the portion of the 1979
plan submittal for transportation measures must:
1. Contain procedures and criteria adopted into the SIP by which
it can be determined whether the outputs of the DOT Transportation
planning process conform to the SIP.
2. Provide for the expeditious implementation of currently
planned reasonable transportation control measures. This includes
reasonable but unimplemented transportation measures in existing SIPs
and transportation controls with demonstrable air quality benefits
developed as part of the transportation process funded by DOT.
3. Present a program for evaluating a range of alternative
packages of transportation options that includes, as a minimum, those
measures listed above for which EPA will develop information documents.
The analyses must identify a package of transportation control measures
to attain the emission reduction target ascribed to it in the SIP.
4. Provide for the evaluation of long range (post-1982) trans-
portation and growth policies. Alternative growth policies and/or
davelopmant patterns must be examined to determine the potential for
modifying total travel demand. One of the growth alternatives evaluated
should be that prepared in response to Section'.701 of the Housing Act of
1954, as amended.
-------
22
5. Include a schedule for analysis and adoption of transportation
control measures as expeditiously as practicable. The comprehensive
analysis of alternatives (item 2 above) must be completed by July 1980
unless the designated planning agency can demonstrate that analysis
of individual components (e.g., long range transit improvements) may
require additional time. Adopted measures must be implemented as
expeditiously as practicable and on a continuous schedule that demonstrates
reasonable further progress from 1979 to the attainment date. Deter-
minations of the reasonableness of a schedule will be based on the
nature of the existing or planned transportation system and the com-
plexity of implementation of an individual measure.
Additional Carbon Monoxide and Oxidant Monitoring Requirements
It is EPA's policy to require that all SIPs which provide for
attainment of the oxidant standard after December 31, 1982, must con-
tain conanitments to implement a complete oxidant monitoring program in
major urbanized areas in order to adequately characterize the nature
and extent of the problem and to measure the effectiveness of the
control strategy for oxidants. The 1979 plan submittal must provide
for a schedule to conduct such CO monitoring as necessary to correct
any deficiencies as identified by the Regional Office.
SIPs for Unclassified Areas Redesignated Non-Attainment
With respect to unclassified areas which are later found to be
non-attainment areas the state will be required to submit a plan
within nine months of the non-attainment determination. During plan
development, the state will be required to implement the offset policy
for that area. However, it should be noted that in many cases, because
of previous plan revisions or adoption of previous control regulations,
the baseline for offsets will be more restrictive and thus offsets may
be more difficult to obtain. For oxidants, state-wide regulatory
development (for at least all sources greater than 100 tons/year),
however, would permit the state to utilize the regulations developed
for the entire state as the applicable plan for the newly designated
non-attainment area. This would normally constitute an approvable SIP
per the above criteria and could essentially accommodate the proposed
growth within the previously submitted state plan and not require
offsets once the area is designated as non-attainment.
-------
23
APPENDIX C
SIP REVISION PROCESS
Appendix C provides one general illustration of how the transportation
portion of the implementation plan could be developed and implemented
within the context of the entire SIP revision process. In this illustration
(see Figure 1) the MPO has been assigned the responsibility for the
transportation portion of the SIP, while other agency responsibilities
are as snown in 5d-f. (The acronyms are defined at the end of the Appendix.)
Explanatory Notes for Flow Chart
1. Blocks # 1-4 concern scoping the problem. Blocks # 5-6 concern
the development of a control strategy.
2. All tasks are to be performed in accordance with the planning
procedures jointly determined by the state and local elected officials
as specified in Section 174 of the Clean Air Act, as amended August 1977.
Section 174 indicates that elements of a revised implementation plan should
be planned, implemented, and enforced by either the state, local govern-
ments or regional agencies or some combination of the three. This cooperative
approach will probably require some involvement by all appropriate agencies
in each task, although a single lead agency may be assigned to specific
tasks (e.g., see tasks 5a-c). Tasks 5 and 6 will require full participation
by all key agencies.
3. Jask__l: The Emissions Inventory will be periodically revised as
new and more accurate information becomes available for stationary and
mobile sources.
2
O
-------
24
FIGURE 1
FLOW CHART FOR DEVELOPMENT/REVISION
OF 1979 SIP TO ATTAIN NAAQS BY 1987
. Develop/Revise Comprehensive
Emissions Inventory
Review Air Quality Data and Determine
Necessary Emissions Reductions to
Attain NAAOS
3. Estimate/Update Emissions for Each Calendar
Year Through 1987 Factoring in RACT,
FMVCP. I/M. Committed RACM. and Growth
47 Determine Emissions Shortfall for Each
Calendar Year Through 1987 to Achieve
RFP Line by 1982 and Attain NAAQS by 198>
5. Develop/Revise Target Emission Reduction
Goals for Transportation/Stationary Sources
Transportation
Stationary Source
I a. Develop/Revise Planning 1
Process (MPO) I
|b. Select RACM for Implementation |
-I c. Determine Progress in Developing/1
1..' Implementing Measures fMPQ] f
res
*
d. Develop/Expand RACT Guidance
(EPA)
\ e. Apply RACT (State Env. Agency)
f. Determine Progress in Applying
RACT (Env. Agency)
16. Periodic Review of Achievement
of Emission Reduction Goals
-------
25
4. Task 2: In the crudest, most straight-forward approach the gross
magnitude of emission reductions for standard attainment can be roughly
determined with air quality and emission data using the simple roll-back
technique. The emission reduction line in the graph on page 23 is shown
to be straight for simplicity's sake only. The line represents emission
reductions from both stationary and mobile source controls and in actuality
will not, of course, be straight. The general slope aind shape of the line
will -- especially for transportation controls — be other than straight
due to, among other factors, the non-linear hydrocarbon (emission)-oxidant
(air quality) relationship and the implementation lag times (e.g., substan-
tial emission reductions from transportation sources is likely to occur in
later years closer to 1987 because of longer planning and implementation
lead times). The graph on page 23 actually represents an emission reduction
schedule that is jointly negotiated, reviewed, and periodically revised
(e.g., in Tasks 5 and 6).
The graph can be used to communicate fundamental Agency policy concepts
if the difficulties and uncertainties of drawing such a line are temporarily
set aside. For example, by 1982 emissions should be reduced -- and air
Quality improved -- sufficient to reach the emission reduction line.
(This allows the necessary lead time for the application of RACT and the
implementation of certain RACM.) From 1982 to 1987 the line represents
reasonable further progress (RFP) (the annual incremental emission
reductions called for in Section 171). If an area is below the line
after 1982 additional growth of major stationary sources is permitted.
If an area is on or above the line, growth will only be permitted as
part of the Agency offset policy.
5. Task 3 will show the annual decrease in emissions between 1979
and 1987 that will result from certain (hard) control strategies.
6. Task 4 will show the additional emission reduction required from
other stationary and mobile sources (to be achieved from the future
application of RACT and the implementation of RACM).
7. Task 5 produces an estimate of emission reduction goals achievable
through future RACT and RACM (soft strategies) jointly determined by all
appropriate agencies identified in accordance with Section 174. This
estimate is one of the major decisions to be made in the SIP revision process,
8. Task 5a: The 1979 SIP submission must contain a well-defined,
functioning planning process complete-with interagency agreements,
memoranda of understanding, etc.
9. Task 5b: The 1979-submission should contain evidence that certain
measures currently in the TIP are being implemented as rapidly as possible.
However, because of planning and lead times it is expected that the
majority of transportation RACM will be selected and implemented after 1979.
-------
26
10. Task 5c and the feedback arrow to 5a acknowledges that implementa-
tion progress will be highly dependent on the adequacy of the planning
process (i.e., RACM is largely a question of public and political accepta-
bility whereas RACT is more of a technological and economic determination).
11. Task 5d indicates that future control progress with other stationary
sources will be determined by EPA's schedule for promulgating RACT documents.
12. Task 6 is another critical joint decision that should be made at
least annually by all participating agencies, followed by another run
through all the tasks as part of the continuous SIP revision process.
Definition of Acronyms
(from top to bottom in Figure 1)
SIP = State Implementation Plan
NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standard
RACT = Reasonable Available Control Technology (applied to
stationary sources)
FMVCP = Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program
I/M = Inspection and Maintenance program for in-use vehicles
RACM = Reasonably Available Control Measure (generally applied to
transportation, measures)
RFP = Reasonable Further Progress: annual incremental emission
reductions
MPO = Metropolitan Planning Organization
-------
27
APPENDIX D
DEFINITIONS
1. "Clean Air Act, as amended August 1977 (CAAA)": The Clean Air
Act as amended by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, P.L. 95-95, 91
Stat. 685, 42 USC 7401 et seq (formerly 42 USC 1857 et seq).
2. "State Implementation Plan (SIP)": The plan which each state is
required to develop under Section 110 of the Clean Air Act. If the state
fails to submit an approvable plan, EPA is required to promulgate one
for the state. The SIP must provide for the attainment and maintenance
of the established air quality standards within the time frames set forth
in the Act.
3. "Approvable SIP": A SIP which satisfies the requirements outlined
by the Administrator of EPA in a memorandum dated February 24, 1978.
4. "Air Quality Maintenance Plan (AQMP)": The plan required in areas
where, based on current emission inventory and the projected growth rate,
national ambient air quality standards will be exceeded over a 10-year
period. The AQMP is usually required to assure attainment as well as
maintenance of the air quality standards, and thus must contain control
strategies to ensure that projected emissions are compatible with
attainment and maintenance of the national standards.
5. "Transportation Control Plan (TCP)": That portion of the SIP
which describes the transpor,t$ti on-air quality planning process and the
transportation system mea-sures applicable to each area.
6. "Transportation Control Measure (TCM)": Any measure directed
toward reducing emissions of air pollutants from transportation sources,
such as, reducing vehicle use, changing traffic flow patterns, decreasing
emissions from in-use motor vehicles, or altering existing modal split
patterns (see 40 CFR § 51.1).
7. "Reasonably Available Control Measure (RACM)": The determination
of reasonably available measures will be made on a case-by-case basis
through the existing transportation policy decision apparatus by all
agencies identified according to § 174 of the CAAA. This determination
results from an analytical, participatory and negotiatory process
that involves both EPA and DOT. The transportation measures listed in
§ 108(f) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, provide an initial list of
measures that are considered reasonably available for the purpose of
analysis. The applicability, scale and speed of implementation of
specific measures and strategies for specific areas will vary. The
reasonableness of a measure will generally depend on the severity of the
pollution problem, other available alternative means of attaining or
maintaining air quality standards and the social and economic impact of
the measure.
-------
28
8. "174 Planning Organization": The organization designated under
§ 174 of the CAAA to conduct or coordinate the planning process and
eligible for assistance under § 175 of the CAAA.
9. "Short Term Measures": Those transportation measures with the
potential of reducing transportation system emissions which can be
developed and implemented by 1982.
10. "Longer Term Transportation Improvements": Those transportation
measures which may be necessary for attainment and maintenance of the
air quality health standards beyond 1982.
11. "Attainment": For any pollutant, the status of an area which
has met the national ambient air quality standard for such pollutant.
12. "Nonattainment": For any pollutant, the status of an area which
is shown by monitored data or which is calculated by air quality modeling
to exceed any national ambient air quality standard for such pollutant
(see S 171(2) of the CAAA, 42 USC 7501 (2)).
13. "Emission Inventory": The comprehensive, accurate, current
inventory of actual emissions taking into account the implementation of
strategies in the transportation plan and program, so that the need for
additional reductions to assure attainment may be assessed, as required
in § 172(b)(4) of the CAAA.
14. "Incremental Progress in Reducing Emissions from the Trans-
portation System": The requirement that the transportation-related portion
of the SIP show progress toward attainment and/or maintenance of the air
quality standard. "Incremental Progress": demonstration of which will
initially be based on progress made in developing, programming and
implementing measures to reduce emissions, and later will be based on
progress in actually reducing emissions.
15. "Conformity" (as related to transportation): A determination
under S 176(c) of the CAAA that DOT has assured that transportation
plans and programs in an area conform to the transportation-related
requirements of the SIP.
16. "Consistency": The requirement in 42 USC 109(j) that proposed
transportation plans and projects be consistent with the approved SIP.
-------
29
*
17. "Public Participation and Education; Interagency Consultation":
The process of effectively involving citizens, local elected officials
and state officials and legislators in air quality related planning,
programming and decisionmaking.
18. "Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)": That organization
designated by the Governor as being responsible, together with the state,
for urban transportation planning under the Federal-Aid Highway Act
(23 USC S 101 et segj and the Urban Mass Transportation Act (49 USC 1601
et seq). This organization is the forum for cooperative decisionmaking
by principal elected officials of general purpose local governments
(see 23 CFR § 450.104(b)).
19. "Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP)": The document that must
be developed by the MPO under 23 CFR S 450.112(a) and satisfy the require-
ments of 23 CFR S 450.114(c). The UPWP describes all urban transportation-
related planning activities within the area during the next 1- or 2-year
period, regardless of funding sources and documents work to be performed
with planning assistance under Section 9 of the UMT Act (49 USC 1607a)
and 23 USC 104(f) and 307(c).
20. "Modified UPWP": The UPWP currently prepared for an area by the
MPO in response to DOT requirements which has been modified to include
transportation-related air quality planning activities in response to CAAA
requirements.
21. "Prospectus": That part of the UPWP which summarizes the planning
program and generally describes the status and anticipated accomplishments
of each element, the procedures to be used in carrying out each element and
the functional responsibilities of each participating agency (see 23 CFR
S 450.114(b)).
22. "Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)": The plan that must be
developed under the DOT urban transportation planning process to satisfy
the requirements of 23 CFR § 450.116. The RTP includes a transportation
systems management element and a long range element and must be consistent
with the area's comprehensive long-range land use plan and overall social,
economic, environmental, system performance and energy conservation goals
and objectives.
23. "Transportation Systems Management Element (TSME)": That part
of the RTP which provides for the short-range transportation needs of the
urbanized area, not including new J^ansportation facilities or major changes
in existing facilities (see 23 ' 450.116(b)).
-------
30
24. "Long-Range Element (LRE)": That part of the RTF which must
identify new transportation policies and facilities or major changes in
existing facilities (see 23 CFR S 450.116(c)).
25. "Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP)": A staged multi-year
program of transportation improvements including an annual element listing
transportation improvement projects proposed for implementation during
the first program year (see 23 CFR § 450.304(b)).
26. "Annual Element (AE)": A list of transportation improvement
projects proposed for implementation during the first program year of
the TIP (see 23 CFR S 450.304(b)).
27. "Intermodal Planning Group (IPG)": A group composed of repre-
sentatives of all DOT administrations, and other agency representatives
on an ad hoc basis, which serves as a forum for coordinating trans-
portation planning programs funded individually by the different DOT
administrations. In all regions EPA is represented by an ad hoc member,
and HUD and state agencies are represented in some regions. The IPG has
no decisionmaking power.
28. "Highway Planning and Research Funds (HPR Funds)": Funds apportioned
to the states under 23 USC S 104 and made available under 23 USC S 307 for
expenditure on request by the state for statewide planning, urban planning
and highway-related research. The amount available is a 1 and 1/2 percent
deduction from sums apportioned to any state for all federal-aid systems
under 23 USC § 104. The funds may be used only for planning and research.
29. "Planning Funds (PL Funds)": Funds apportioned to the states
under 23 USC S 104 and made available through the states to MPOs for
carrying out 23 USC 134. The funds may be used to establish and maintain
a continuing, comprehensive and cooperative (3C) process in urban areas
with more than 50,000 population. The amount of funds available are based
upon 1/2 percent of funds to be apportioned to all states for federal-aid
systems. This amount is then apportioned to the states as a ratio of
urbanized area population.
30. "Planning and Research Funds (PR f-u.." V1: Construction funds
which may be used for planning and research, or demonstration projects
in connection with highway-related research. The amount of funds is
limited to 1/2 percent of sums apportioned for federal-aid primary,
secondary and urban systc. .
-------
31
APPENblX E
BACKGROUND INFORMATION OF ERA'S TRANSPORTATION CONTROL PROGRAM
Under the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1970, each state was required
to develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that provided for the
attainment and maintenance of the established air quality standards
within the time frames set forth in the Act. If a state failed to submit
an approvable plan, EPA was required to promulgate one. Controls on
stationary sources and the federal new car emission control program went
a long way toward achieving the air quality standards. However, despite
the substantial emission reductions from these controls, many areas were
in need of further controls if the standards were to be attained and
maintained;* Recognizing this need for further controls, the Act
(Section 110(a)(2)(B)) specifically required the use of transportation
control measures where necessary. As a result of a suit filed by the
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC v. EPA, 475 F.2d 968), the U.S
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ordered the
Administrator to require submission of complete implementation plans
(including transportation control measures) during 1973.
The extremely tight time constraints imposed by the Court took
their toll on the quality of transportation control plans that were
produced. Some states decided that it was impossible to produce a plan
*This was true in many cases even assuming all cars on the road were
actually meeting the original statutory standards. However, this
assumption was contingent on having the necessary inspection and
maintenance programs to ensure that in-use performance matched the
capability demonstrated in certification.
-------
32
within the time limit because of manpower and funding shortages, leaving
EPA with the responsibility of preparing and promulgating the plans.
Other states submitted only partial plans, again leaving EPA with the
responsibility of promulgating additional measures as necessary for
attainment. Overall, the effect of the Court decision was to require
extremely rapid adoption and implementation of some very substantial,
and in some cases -- potentially disruptive -- changes in urban trans-
portation systems for which the public and the political process were
largely unprepared and about which they were largely uninformed. By
December 1973, EPA had approved or promulgated transportation control
measures in all the then demonstrably deficient areas. (Originally 31
urban areas required transportation control plans. Many other areas
were strongly suspected to have similar air quality problems, but adequate
monitoring data was not available in 1973.)
The transportation control measures can be divided into classes of
measures that reduce in-use automobile emission rates (emissions per
mile) and classes of measures that both reduce vehicle usage and promote
transit. The former class includes inspection/maintenance and vehicle
retrofit programs. The latter includes transit improvement, carpooling,
and selected restrictions on the use of automobiles. These latter measures
are identified in Section 108(f) of the Clean Air Act and are similar
to the Transportation System Management (TSM) measures identified by
the Department of Transportation in their joint planning regulations
(23 USC 450).
-------
33
In developing the original plans for reducing emissions from the
transportation system, emphasis was placed on controlling the in-use
automobile emissions (27 areas required inspection/maintenance). Measures
to reduce auto trips were used where in-use controls were not sufficient.
In the case of hydrocarbons the Agency first examined additional
stationary source controls before either type of mobile source control
was used. The promulgation of gasoline marketing vapor recovery regulations
is an example.
The implementation phase since December 1973, was a mix of successes
and failures. Some metropolitan areas made good faith efforts to adopt
and implement transportation control measures. However, there have also
been unsuccessful examples. There are various reasons for this failure
to implement transportation control measures. First, information on the
effectiveness, costs, and implementability of transportation options in
1973 was limited. Time did not allow for the investigation of social
and economic effects-oh a case-by-case basis.
In addition, experience was lacking at all levels of government
to plan and implement effective measures. Due to the time restrictions,
many of the transportation control requirements could not be adapted to
the existing institutional framework, to ongoing planning schedules and
processes, and to agency budget cycles. Also the 1977 time deadline for
achieving health related national air quality standards did not allow
credit for long-range measures such as mass transit improvements. Conse-
quently, both the alternatives considered and the effects analyzed were
-------
34
limited. Perhaps the greatest deficiency was the lack of inter-
governmental coordination and citizen participation. A considerable
amount of the opposition to the plans centered not so much on the
measures but rather on the manner in which the measures were developed
and imposed.
-------
35
APPENDIX F
FUNDING
IDENTIFICATION OF FUNDS TO IMPLEMENT-THE PLAN AND TO CONDUCT RELATED PLANNING
(a) FHWA
The United States Code, Title 23 provides funds for transportation
improvements in a number of categories identified by highway system. In
addition* funds for planning and research programs are provided which
could be used to plan for and implement transportation control measures.
These funds are apportioned under Section 104 or made available for
expenditure on planning and research activities under Section 307.
(1) Construction
Funds that are available for project development and
construction in urbanized areas which could be used to
implement certain transportation control measures
include:
0 Federal-Aid Primary
0 Federal-Aid Interstate
0 Federal-Aid Urban
These funds are available for use statewide and are not
specifically earmarked for use in urbanized areas. One
exception is the portion of urban system funds that are
attributable to urbanized areas of 200,000 population
or more.
-------
36
Funds also are available for special categories of
improvement, such as control of outdoor advertising,
control of junkyards, special bridge replacement, priority
primary routes, pavement marking demonstration, projects
for high-hazard locations, elimination of roadside
obstacles, highways crossing federal projects, bicycle
transportation and pedestrian walkways and safer off-
system roads. Most of these funds are for special
purposes and are not generally applicable to trans-
portation control measures.
(2) Planning
Funds commonly referred to as PL funds are apportioned to
states under Section 104(f) and made available through
the states to metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs)
for carrying out the provisions of Section 134,
Transportation planning in certain urban areas:
0 To establish and maintain a continuing, compre-
hensive, and cooperative (3C) planning process in
urbanized areas (urban areas with more than 50,000
population).
0 Funds are based on one-half percent of funds to be
apportioned to all states for federal-aid systems.
This amount is then apportioned to the states as
a ratio of urbanized area population, except that
no state receives less than one-half percent of
the total apportionment.
-------
37
(3) Planning and Research
Funds commonly referred to as HPR and PR funds are
made available for expenditure on request by the
state for statewide planning, urban planning, and
highway-related research.
0 Amount of HPR funds available is a -1-1/2 percent
deduction from sums apportioned to any state for
all federal-aid systems under Section 104.
0 Since the HPR funds are used for statewide planning,
research, and to satisfy certain planning data
reporting requirements of the FHWA, the amounts
available for urban planning are limited. These
funds, however, are to be used only for planning
and research.
0 PR funds are construction funds which may be used
for planning and research. These funds may also
be used for demonstration projects in connection
with highway-related research. The amount of
funds is limited to one-half percent of sums
apportioned for federal-aid primary, secondary,
and urban systems.
(b) UMTA
(1) Construction
Section 3: Federal Financial Assistance
-------
38
0 Assists states and local agencies in financing
(1) the acquisition, construction, reconstruction,
and improvement of facilities and equipment for use
in mass transportation service in urban areas and in
coordinating such service with highway and other
transportation in such areas, and (2) the establishment
and organization of public and quasi-public transit
corridor development corporations or entities.
0 Eligible facilities and equipment include buses and
other rolling stock and real property including land
(but not public highways) within the entire zone
affected by the construction and operation of transit
improvements, including station sites, needed for any
efficient and coordinated mass transportation system.
0 Up to one-half of any financial assistance provided
under this Act (other than Section 5) may be used
for the payment of operating expenses incurred in
connection with the provision of mass transit service
in an urban area.
Section 5
0 For use in urbanized areas.
0 Funds available for construction of mass transportation
facilities (with construction covering a broad range
of activities).
-------
39
0 The federal share available for construction under
this section is 80 percent.
0 The federal share available for operating subsidies
is 50 percent.
0 Funds made available on the basis of a formula under
which urbanized areas will be entitled to receive
an amount equal to:
(a) one-half the total amount apportioned X the
ratio which the population of the urbanized
area bears to the total population of all
the urbanized areas in all the states
(b) one-half the total amount so apportioned X a
ratio for that urbanized area determined on
the basis of population weighted by a density
factor
0 To-ebtain these funds, the recipient must certify
that public hearings have been conducted and must
submit a report indicating the consideration given
to the economic, social, environmental and other
effects of the proposed project.
(2) Planning
Section 9: Grants for Technical Studies
0 Available to states and local governments for the
planning, engineering, designing, and evaluation of
urban mass transportation projects or for other
-------
40
technical studies to be included in a program for a
coordinated urban transportation system as a part
of the comprehensively planned development of the
urban area.
0 Activities which qualify for funding include:
(1) studies relating to management, operations,
capital requirements, and economic feasi-
bility;
(2) preparation of engineering and architectural
surveys, plans and specifications;
(3) evaluation of previously funded projects; and
(4) other related activities in preparation for
the construction, acquisition, or improved
operation of mass transportation systems,
facilities, and equipment.
(3) Other
Section 6: Research, Development and Demonstration Projects
0 The Secretary may contract or provide grants for
RD&D in all phases of urban mass transportation.
(c) HUD
Transportation control planning activities are eligible to
receive HUD funding under 8 701 grant program (S 701 of Housing Act of
1954, 40 USC 461, as amended by the Housing and Community Development
-------
41
Act of 1974, 42 USC 5301 et seq; 24 CFR Part 600). However, the availa-
bility of funds for transportation planning is limited. While $57 million
is available for land use and housing planning ($21.5 million is available
to A-95 metropolitan planning agencies), most areas exhaust their allotment
satisfying HUD directives. If any funds remain after required planning
activities have been performed, a local decision could be made to use
remaining funds for transportation planning.
-------
42
APPENDIX G
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ON THE EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
1. Legal Mandate
Section 172(b)(9) of the Clean Air Act, as amended 1977, specifies
that the plan for nonattainment areas shall include:
... an identification and analysis of the air quality,
health, welfare, economic, energy and social effects
of the plan provisions ... and of alternatives considered
by the state.
(Section 129(c) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 (Pub. L. No. 95-95,
91 Stat. 750-51) indicates that this plan shall be submitted by January 1,
1979.) In addition, Section 108(f) requires the preparation of information
on a wide range of alternative transportation measures, including an
assessment of "the relative effectiveness, ... potential effect on
transportation systems and the provision of transportation services, ...
and the environmental, energy and economic impacts."
The joint planning regulations issued by FHWA and UMTA on September 17,
1975 (23 CFR 450) specifically call for alternative analyses:
The urban transportation planning process shall ... include:
(ii) An evaluation of alternative transportation
systems management improvements ...
(iv) Analysis of alternative transportation invest-
ments to meet areawide needs for new transportation
facilities.
The joint regulations further state that energy conservation, air
quality improvement, and increased social and environmental amenities
are purposes of the transportation systems management requirement. The
regulations also specify "the urban transportation planning process
-------
43
shall: (1) Provide for the consideration of social, economic and environ-
mental effects ... (2) Be coordinated with air quality planning conducted
pursuant to 42 USC 1857 (Clean Air Act)."
The DOT regulations direct urban areas in developing the TSM element
to consider a wide range of options. The Appendix to the regulation
presents a lengthy list of measures which are suggested for consideration.
The categories of measures include: traffic operations improvements;
preferential treatment for high occupancy vehicles; provision for pedestrians
and bicycles; management and control of parking; changes in work schedules,
fares and tolls; reduced vehicle use incentives; transit service improve-
ments; and transit management improvements. Significantly, the Appendix
also contains the following guidance in an "Actions to be considered"
section:
... While the feasibility of and need for individual
actions may differ with the size of an urbanized area
or the extent of congestion all categories of actions
should be considered. It is expected that some actions
in each category will be appropriate for any urbanized
area.
2. Scope of Analysis
Effective transportation planning requires analysis not only of
individual transportation measures but also of different options for
implementing measures and of overall transportation strategies, or
packages of measures. Because the feasibility and effectiveness of
certain measures may be influenced by the presence or absence of certain
other transportation activities in a particular sub-area or corridor,
studies of combinations of measures may be appropriate in some cases.
-------
44
For example, an urban area might combine studies of park and ride facili-
ties and transit circulator service with an auto-restricted zone study.
In addition, the areawide effects of proposed transportation programs on
factors such as oxidant concentrations often must be assessed. Thus,
depending on local circumstances and the pollutant to be controlled the
alternatives that are analyzed might consist of individual measures,
combinations of measures applicable to certain corridors or sub-regional
areas, or entire transportation programs.
3. Assignment of Responsibility
The detailed institutional arrangements and assignments of responsi-
bility in the analysis of alternatives should be tailored to the particular
conditions in each metropolitan area. For example, a number of the measures
to be considered in TSM and transportation control planning traditionally
have been the responsibility of various operating agencies — city planning
departments, transit authorities, traffic divisions, county transportation
commissions, and enforcement agencies. In many urban areas, these
organizations will continue to play the major role in the generation of
alternatives, assessment of their impacts and feasibility, and implementation.
In these areas the MPO may wish to coordinate study efforts, perform special
supplementary studies and areawide analyses, and integrate the recommenda-
tions of the local agencies into a TSM plan and a TIP. In some urban
areas, the MPOs may wish to develop additional capabilities to conduct
its own short range planning and analysis.
-------
121 r
-------
46
-3. For areas requiring TCPs, funds within already approved'
Unified Planning Work Programs (UPWPs) may be
reprogramed as appropriate to support the identification
and analysis of transportation control measures in
coordination with the SIP revision process;
4. Air quality planning tasks in support of the SIP
revision process should be given a high priority in
UPWPs now being developed. Air quality planning is
a national priority and must be given appropriate
emphasis in the conduct of the transportation planning
process;
5. The transportation improvement program (TIP)/annual
element (AE) review process should be conducted with a
renewed emphasis on the inclusion of projects benefiting
air quality in the TIP/AE; and
6. The certification review process should be conducted
with a renewed emphasis on the coordination of air
quality planning and transportation planning as
required by the joint regulations.
The President has requested the establishment of a single Federal
mechanism to integrate transportation and air quality planning.
We are confident that through the mutual commitment of FHWA and
UMTA, we can meet this goal. Regional Administrators and
Directors should furnish their respective modal administrators
with a progress summary on each of the six items in their
periodic reports (in UMTA, the Biweekly Highlights Report to
the Administrator) beginning with the March 1978 report.
fttl {LI
•
. i
Richard S. Page // William M. Cox'
-------
47
APPENDIX I
INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
*• PURPOSE;
This Interagency Agreement has been developed to: (1) coordinate
the planning and management activities of the two signatory agencies,
the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) in accordance with the Administration's
objectives; (2) encourage interagency cooperation and coordination of
planning between local levels of government; (3) ensure that any land
use policies and control strategies undertaken for air quality improve-
ment are developed and implemented within a broader framework of compre-
hensive planning and management; and (4) ensure that comprehensive
planning and management reflects the constraints attendant in attaining
and maintaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and
in preventing, significant deterioration of air quality.
II. PROGRAMS INVOLVED:
The following programs are involved:
Comprehensive Planning Assistance Program (Section 701) of the
Housing Act of 1954, as amended;
State Implementation Plan (SIP) Program of the Clean Air Act,
as amended.
III. PROVISIONS
1. To the extent that resources are available, the HUD 701 land
use element shall provide basic land use planning including: (1) long
and short term policies regarding where growth should and should not
take place; (2) the type, intensity and timing of growth; (3) studies,
criteria, standards and implementing procedures necessary for effec-
tively guiding and controlling major decisions as to the location of
growth; and should include, as an objective, policies and management
programs which contribute to the attainment and maintenannce of NAAQS
and to the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.
-------
48
To the extent that resources are available, any evaluation of
potential land use measures performed under section 110 of the Clean
Air Act shall analyze land use/air quality relationships to determine
what revisions could be made to existing or proposed land use plans,
policies, and regulations in order to reduce'or prevent air pollution
from stationary and mobile sources.
2. In those geographic areas where land use elements are to be developed
pursuant to the Comprehensive Planning Assistance Program and where land
use related provisions are to be added to a SIP, HUD and EPA shall en-
courage through appropriate guidelines that units of government and
planning agencies involved in the two processes consult in the process
of developing their work programs so that: (1) there is no duplica-
tion of effort; (2) completed land use elements and SIP provisions are
consistent-, and (3) the objectives of .both the Comprehensive Planning
Assistance and the SIP development..pnsgraas are achieved.
3. The OMB Circular A-95 Clearinghouse procedures shall.be used for
review of SIP land use provisions by State and areawide 701 recipients.
The 701 land use element will be reviewed by air quality planning and
management agencies prior to submission to HUD. Criteria to assist the
Clearinghouses in making this review will be developed. The principle
intent of the review and comment is to allow interested parties to
point out potential inconsistencies between the SIP and the land use
element for further consideration by the appropriate planning agencies.
Neither HUD nor EPA will approve a land use element or a ]and use related
provision of a SIP* respectively, unless such an opportunity for review
1s granted.
4. In activities funded under the Comprehensive Planning Assistance
Program, grant recipients shall, as a condition of continued eligibility
for funding (1) incorporate any land use related measures identified in
the SIP as necessary for the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS
as performance critieria, and (2) reflect any State or Federal programs
for prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.
5. EPA will encourage the designation and continuous substantive involve-
ment of qualified State and areawide comprehensive planning agencies in
(1) the development of land use related SIP provisions and (2) State
or Federal programs for prevention of significant deterioration of air
quality.
6. All HUD 701 recipients and EPA or State designated agencies responsi-
ble for the SIP development will be actively encouraged to use common
data bases, common analytic techniques and consistent criteria in their
planning activities and to adopt compatible work programs and imple-
mentation strategies.
-------
49
8. HUD and EPA regional or field offices will develop lines of commu-
nication and effective means to jointly address issues, problems or
disputes that may impede the timely and effective implementation of
either the HUD 701 land use elements or the land use related portions
of the SIP. Where these impediments are the result of planning assisted
or required by a Federal agency, the HUD and EPA field offices will
invite representatives of interested Federal, State, areawide and local
agencies to review the situation and whenever possible remove the impedi-
ments.
9. Existing coordination mechanisms such as the A-95 Clearinghouse
procedures and the Federal Regional Councils will be used to the extent
that they prove capable of meeting the objectives of this agreement.
10. HUD and EPA will develop such procedures as may be required to
implement the above provisions. These will be developed in accordance
with Executive Orders and regulations governing both programs and will
require joint approval prior to issuance.
-------
50
APPENDIX J
SUMMARY OF SELECTED EPA GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS RELATED
TO THE TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
Guideline:
Purpose:
Status:
"Clean Air Act Section 174 Guidelines" issued jointly
by the Environmental Protection- Agency and the Department
of Transportation.
To implement Section 174 of the amended Clean Air Act
which requires (1) that state and local governments jointly
determine responsibilities for developing, implementing and
enforcing plans for areas where national ambient air quality
standards for carbon monoxide and photochemical oxldajits
have not been attained and (2) that a lead planning organiza-
tion be designated to coordinate plan development for such
areas. State and local responsibilities must be jointly
determined and lead plan development organizations nominated
by local governments by February 7, 1978. Governors must
certify by April 1, 1978, a lead organization nominated
by local officials for plan development or must designate
an alternative organization..
Issued December 14* 1977.
Guideline:
Purposes
Status:
Regulation:
"Criteria for Approval of 1979 SIP Revisions." Memorandum
from the EPA Administrator to all Regional Administrators.
To Implement subpart D of the amended Clean Air Act which
sets forth the requirements for revising a state imple-
mentation plan (SIP} for any area for which national ambient
air quality standards have not been attained,.- The SIP
revisions must be submitted by states to the Environmental
Protection Agency by January 1, 1979, and must provide for
attainment of standards no later than December 31, 1582. If
a: state 1s able to demonstrate that attainment of the standards
for carbon- monoxide and photochemical oxidants 1s not possible
by 1982.. an extension of the attainment deadline up to
December 31, 1987* is possible. The- guidelines summarize
the elements of an approvable 1979 SIP that must be Included
tn-order to avoid Imposition of sanctions provided for 1r
the Act.
Issued February 24, 1978.
Establishment of a process for consultation with general
purpose local governments, organizations of local elected
officials and federal land managers.
-------
Purpose:
Status:
To .implement the requirements of Section 121 of the amended
Clean Air Act which requires states to provide a satisfactory
process of consultation for provisions of state implementation
plans dealing with (1) transportation controls, air quality
maintenance and new source review; (2) control measures for
nonattainment areas; and (3) measures for prevention of
significant deterioration of air quality. The consultation
process requirement is applicable to all implementation plan
revisions for the three categories listed that are adopted
after August 7, 1978, The consultation processes established
by states must be in accordance with regulations promulgated
by the Environmental Protection Agency. The Act requires
regulations to be promulgated, after notice and opportunity
for public hearing, by February 7, 1978.
Drafts of the Environmental Protection Agency regulation have
undergone extensive review and will be proposed in the
Federal Register in March 1978.
Guideline:
Purpose:
Status;
Information documents for transportation control measures.
To Implement Section 108(f) of the amended Clean Air Act which
requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency to publish, in cooperation with the Secretary of the
Department of Transportation, Information about processes,
procedures and methods to reduce transportation-related air
pollution. The information must include assessments of
Oi the. relative effectiveness of such processes» procedures
and: methods;. (2) the potential effects on transportation
systems- and- on the provision of transportation services; and *
(3) environmental f energy and-econcmic effects. Information
about programs for vehicle inspection and maintenance, control
of vapor emissions from fuel transfer and storage and from
solvent operations,, improved publfc transit, exclusive bus
and carpool lanes and areawide carpool programs must be
published by February 7, T978. Information on a number of
other programs including long-range transit improvement,
control of on-strest parking,. Construction of park-and-ride
facilities, staggered work hours and road user charges
must be? published by August 7, 1978.
Information documents covering vehicle inspection and
maintenance.,, control of vapor emissions from fuel transfer
and storage, improved public transit, exclusive bus and
carpooT lanes and areawide- carpool programs have been drafted
and sent to the Department of Transportation for review.
Contracts to develop the additional information documents
to be available by August 7, 1978, are under development.
-------
52
DOT PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING REGULATIONS APPENDIX K
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1975
PART II:
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway
Administration
Urban Mass Transportation
Administration
TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM
-------
53
-1297G
Title 23—Highways
CHAPTER I—FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMIN-
ISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANS-
PORTATION
PART 450—PLANNING ASSISTANCE AND
STANDARDS
Urban Transportation Planning
The purpose of this document is to
issue final regulations implementing
certain provisions of title 23, U.S.C., and
the Urban Mass Transportation Act of
1964, as amended, 49 U.S.C. 1601, et seq.
(UMT Act), governing urban transpor-
tation planning under the Federal
Highway Administration and the Ur-
ban Mass Transportation Administra-
tion programs.
In the November 8, 1974, edition of
the FEDERAL REGISTER (39 PR 39660),
the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) and the Urban Mass Trans-
portation Administration (UMTA) pub-
lished a notice of proposed rulemaking
(the "notice") to add a new Part 450,
Subpart A, to 23 CFR, Chapter I, and
a new Part 613, Subpart B, to 49 CFR,
Chapter VI.
The public was invited to participate
in this rulemaking through .submission
of written comments. Over 120 inter-
ested groups and individuals provided
comments, including the House Com-
mittee on Public Works and Transpor-
tation, the Senate Committee on Pub-
lic Works, the American Public Transit
Association, the American Association
of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, State departments of transpor-
tation, cities, and a number of metro-
politan planning organizations. In ar-
riving at the final regulations set forth
below, FHWA and UMTA have given
consideration to all comments received
in response to the notice of proposed
rulemaking insofar as they related to
matters within the scope of that notice.
Review of the comments received indi-
cated the desirability of making changes
in the regulations as originally pro-
posed. In view of the interest expressed
in these regulations, except for editorial
revisions, those sections of these final
regulations which have been revised or
were the subject of major interest are
discussed in this commentary.
Since the publication of the notice of
these proposed rules. Congress lias en-
acted the National Mass Transportation
Assistance Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-503.
88 Stat. 1565 >, which amended the UMT
Act to add among other matters a new
formula grant program under which both
capital arid operating assistance may
be provided, and to make the "3-C" plan-
ning process described in 23 U.S.C. 134
applicable to all UMTA-assisted capital
and operating projects. While the enact-
ment of Pub. L. 93-503 did require some
modification of these regulations, these
changes were essentially technical in na-
ture, and, where made, do not represent
any overall substantive change except
for the addition of the Transportation
Systems Management (TSM) element
(discussed in/ra).
In response to the notice, some con-
cern was expressed that the role of the
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO) in the planning and programing
process tended to impinge on State and
local authority. It was intended that the
MPO provide a forum for cooperative de-
cisionmaking by principal elected offi-
cials of general purpose local govern-
ment; accordingly, the definition of the
MPO has been modified to clarify this
intent. It is not intended to preclude the
State and publicly owned operators from
acting through this forum.
A few comments addressed the Gov-
ernor's designation of these organiza-
tions. The Department recognizes that
institutional arrangements are at differ-
ent stages of evolution in the various ur-
banized areas; accordingly, considerable
flexibility will be afforded by FHWA and
UMTA in the administration of § 450.106.
We note in this connection that while
it is encouraged, nothing in the regula-
tions requires that the MPO and the A-95
agency be the same. Further, designa-
tions made under 8 450.106 may be
changed when appropriate, consistent
with the provisions of that section.
A number of comments on the geo-
graphic scope of the urban transporta-
tion planning process indicated concern
that the regulation could be interpreted
to encourage coverage of rural areas. The
intent is that the planning process ex-
tend to urban and urbanizing areas;
consistent with that intent, the regula-
tion has been revised to allow each ur-
banized area miximum flexibility in de-
termining the geographic scope of the
urban transportation planning process.
Several comments were directed to the
failure of S 450.112 to reflect the tri-
partite nature of the planning process,
i.e., the involvement in the process of
State, government, local government, and
publicly owned operators of mass trans-
portation services as specified in the
section on "Agreements." For this rea-
son. S 450.112 has been revised to stipu-
late that the MPO, in cooperation with
the State and with publicly owned opera-
tors of mass transportation services, is
responsible for carrying out the urban
transportation planning process.
Section 450.116 has been revised to
provide greater detail regarding the com-
ponents of the transportation plan. The
transportation plan includes the TSM
and the long-range elements. The TSM
element was initially referenced in
S 450.120 of the proposed regulation. It is
designed to meet the short-range trans-
portation needs of urban areas through
efficient use of existing facilities. A joint
issuance appended to these regulations
provides additional advisory information
on the scope and objectives of the TSM
element.
Notice is given that the inclusion in
the Transportation Improvement Pro-
gram (TIP) of projects recommended
from the TSM element will be a condi-
tion of UMTA program approvals. The
TSM element and the programing for
its implementation in the TIP supports
the requirement to Improve the efficiency
of mass transportation service pursuant
to section 5(d) (2) of the UMT Act (49
U.S.C. 1604(d) (2)) and is deemed to be
the program of actions referred to in the
expression of intent described in Sec-
tion F of the Capital and Operating As-
sistance Formula Grants and the In-
terim Guidelines and Procedures (40 PR
2534, January 13, 1975).
The target date envisioned for the de-
velopment of the TSM element and the
programing for its implementation is
March 30,1976.
Section 450.120 of the regulation has
been reorganized to group the general
planning activities, first, and the activi-
ties of a technical nature, second. In re-
sponse to comments and to statutory re-
quirements, planning process elements
were added to cover energy conservation,
consideration of existing private mass
transportation services, coordination
with air quality planning and with plan-
ning for the transportation needs of the
elderly and handicapped.
A number of comments addressed the
criteria for Federal determinations under
the "Certification" section. In response,
§ 450.122 has been simplified to indicate
that certification will be based on com-
pliance with the requirements in this
subpart and that the determination will
be made by UMTA and FHWA acting
jointly. The certification determination
is a Federal evaluation of the planning
process.
A further clarification in § 450.122 per-
tains to the lapsing of certification. The
Department intends that a negative
planning finding be a deliberate deter-
mination and not the result of an ad-
ministrative oversight. Accordingly, the
planning certification will remain in ef-
fect until a new determination is made.
These regulations unify the individual
planning requirements of FHWA and
UMTA and supersede the following op-
erating procedures: FHWA Policy and
Procedure Memorandums 50-9 and 50-
11, Instructional Memorandums 50-3-71
and 50-4-68; Sections D and P of the
Capital and Operating Assistance For-
mula Grants; Interim Guidelines and
Procedures (40 PR 2534, January 13,
1975>; and the Urban Mass Transporta-
tion Planning Requirements Guide as
contained in Appendix 2 of the UMTA
External Operating .Manual (UMTA
Order 1000.2, dated August 22, 1972). '
In consideration of the foregoing, and
under the authority of 23 U.S.C. 104(f)
(3), 134, and 315. and sections 3, 4(a),
and 5 of the UMT Act (49 U.S.C. 1602,
1603(a), and 1604), and the delegation
of authoritv by the Secretary of Trans-
portation at 49 CPR 1.48(b) and 1.50(f),
Chapter I of title 23 and Chapter VI of
title 49 of the Code of Federal Regula-
tions are hereby amended by adding a
new Part 450, Subpart A as set forth
below.
Effective date: These regulations take
effect on October 17, 1975.
Issued on: Septmber 11,1975.
L. P. LAMM,
. Executive Director,
Federal Highway Administration.
ROBERT E. PATRICELLI,
Urban Mass Transportation
Administrator.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 181—WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1975
-------
54
Subpart A of Part 450 Is adde.» as set
forth below:
Subpart A—Urban Transportation Planning
Sec.
450.100 Purpose.
450.102 Applicability.
450.104 Definitions.
450.106 Metropolitan Planning Organiza-
tion: designation.
450.108 Metropolitan Planning Organiza-
tion : agreements.
450.110 Metropolitan Planning Organiza-
tion: geographic scope.
450.112 Metropolitan Planning Organiza-
tion : responsibilities.
450.114 Urban transportation planning
process: planning work programs.
4S0.116 Urban transportation planning
process: transportation plan.
450.138 Urban transportation planning
process: transportation improve-
ment program.
450.120 Urban transportation planning
process: elements.
450.122 Urban transportation planning
process: certification.
Appendix: Advisory Information on Develop-
ment of Transportation Systems Manage-
ment Elements.
AUTHORITY: 23 U.S.C. 104(f)(3), 134, and
315; Sections 3, 4(a), and 5 of the Urban
Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended,
(UMT Act) (49 U.S.C. 1602, 1603fa), and
1604); and 49 CPR 1.48(b) and 1.50(f).
Subpart A—Urban Transportation
Planning
§450.100 IWposo.
The purpose of this subpart is to im-
plement 23 U.S.C. 134, and Sections 3(a)
(2), 4(a), 5(g) (1), and 5(1) of the Urban
Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as
amended, (49 U.S.C. 1602 (a) (2), 1603 (a),
and 1604(g)(l) and (1)), which require
that each urbanized area, as a condition
to the receipt of Federal capital or op-
erating assistance, have a continuing, co-
operative, and comprehensive transpor-
tation planning process that results in
plans and programs consistent with the
comprehensively planned development of
the urbanized area.
§ 150.102 Applirnbility.
The provisions of this subpart are ap-
plicable to the transportation planning
process In urbanized areas. Certification
under this subpart shall be a prerequisite
for program approvals in urbanized areas
pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 105(d) and 134(a),
section 5(g) of the UMT Act (49 U.S.C.
1604(g)), and Subpart C of this part.
§150.101 Defmilions.
(a) Except as otherwise provided,
terms defined in 23 U.S.C. 101 (a) are
used in this subpart as so defined.
(b) As used in this subpart:
"Governor" means the Governor of any
one of the fifty States, and includes the
Mayor of the District of Columbia.
"Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPCM " means that organization desig-
nated by the Governor as being respon-
sible, together with the State, for carry-
ing out the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 134,
os provided in 23 U.S.C. 104(f)(3), and
capable of meeting the requirements of
sections 3(al(2) and (e>(l), 4(a>, and
5(g)(l> and 0> of the UMT Act (49
RULES AND REGULATIONS
U.S.C. 1602(a)(2) and (e)(l), 1603(a),
and 1604(g) (1) and (D). This organiza-
tion is the forum for cooperative deci-
siomnaking by principal elected officials
of general purpose local government.
§ 450.106 Metropolitan Planning Orga-
nization: designations.
(a) The Governor of each State shall
designate the Metropolitan Planning Or-
ganization (MPO). To the extent pos-
sible, only one MPO shall be designated
for each urbanized area or group of con-
tiguous urbanized areas.
(b) Funds authorized by 23 U.S.C.
104(f) shall be made available by the
State to the MPO, as required by 23
U.S.C. 104(f) (3). To the extent possible,
the MPO shall be eligible to receive
planning funds authorized by section 9
of the UMT Act of 1964, as amended, (49
U.S.C. 1607a).
(c) To the extent possible, the MPO
designated by the Governor shall be es-
tablished under specific State legislation,
State enabling legislation, or by Inter-
state compact, with authority to carry
out metropolitan transportation plan-
ning, and should perform the functions
required by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) Circular A-95 "Eval-
uation, Review, Coordination of Federal
Assistance Programs and Projects"
November 13, 1973, as amended.
(d) Principal elected officials of gen-
eral purpose local government within the
jurisdiction of the MPO shall have ade-
quate representation on the MPO.
(e) Nothing herein shall be deemed to
prohibit the MPO from utilizing, through
contractual agreements, the staff re-
sources of other local agencies to carry
out selected elements of the planning
process.
(f) An MPO designated under the
provisions of this section shall remain
designated until the Governor designates
another MPO under the provisions of
this section.
§ 450.108 Metropolitan Planning Or-
ganization: agreements.
(a) The responsibilities for coopera-
tively carrying out transportation plan-
ning and programing shall be clearly
identified in an agreement or memo-
randum of understanding between the
State and the MPO.
(b) Where the MPO is different from
the A-95 agency, there shall be an agree-
ment between the two organizations
which prescribes the means by which
their activities will be coordinated, as
required by Part IV of OMB Circular A-
95. This agreement shall specify how
transportation planning and program-
ing will be part of the comprehensively
planned development of the urbanized
area.
(c) There shall be an agreement be-
tween the MPO and publicly owned op-
erators of mass transportation services
which specifies cooperative procedures
for carrying out transportation plan-
ning and programing as required by
this subpart.
(d) To the extent possible, there shall
be one cooperative agreement contain-
42977
ing the understandings required by this
section among the State, MPO, publicly
owned operators of mass transportation
services and, where necessary, the A-95
agency.
§ 450.110 Metropolitan Planning Orga-
nization : geographic scope.
The transportation planning process
shall, as a minimum, cover the urban-
ized area and the area likely to be ur-
banized in the period covered by the
long-range element of the transporta-
tion plan described in § 450.116 of this
subpart.
§450.112 Metropolitan Planning Orga-
nization : responsibilities.
(a) The MPO in cooperation with the
State, and in cooperation with publicly
owned operators of mass transportation
services, shall be responsible for carry-
ing out the urban transportation plan-
ning process specified in § 450.120 and
shall develop the planning work pro-
grams, transportation plan, and trans-
portation improvement program spec-
ified in §§450.114 through 450.118 of
this subpart. The MPO shall be the
forum for cooperative decisionmaking
by principal elected officials of general
purpose local government.
(b) The MPO shall annually endorse
the plans and programs required by
§§450.114 through 450.118 of this sub-
part.
§ 450.114 Urban transportation plan-
ning process: planning work pro-
grams.
(a) The urban transportation plan-
ning process shall include the develop-
ment of a prospectus and a unified
planning work program.
(b) The prospectus shall establish a
multiyear framework within which the
unified planning work program is ac-
complished and shall include:
(1) A summary of the planning pro-
gram including discussion of .the im-
portant transportation Issues racing the
area;
(2) A general description of Vhe status
and anticipated accomplishments of each
of the elements specified In § 450.120 of,
this subpart;
(3) A description of the procedures to
be used in carrying out each element
specified in § 450.120 of this subpart;
(4) A description of the functional
responsibilities of each participating
agency; and
(5) Copies of agreements .specified in
§ 450.108 of this subpart.
(c) The unified planning work pro-
gram shall: (1) Annually describe all
urban transportation and transporta-
tion-related planning activities antici-
pated within the area during the next 1-
or 2-year period regardless of "funding
sources; and (2) Document work to be
performed with planning assistance pro-
vided under section 9 of the UMT -Act
(49 U.S.C. 1607a) and 23 U.S.C. 104(f)
and 307 (c).
(d) The prospectus and the unified
planning work program may be com-
bined in a single document. Arrange-
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 181—WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER
-------
55
42978
ments may be made to further combine
these documents with work program re-
quirements of other Federal sources of
physical planning funds (e.g., Depart-
ment of Housing «,nd Urban Develop-
ment, Environmental Protection Agency,
and Department of the Interior).
§ 450.T16 Urban transportation plan-
ning process: transportation plan.
(a) The urban transportation plan-
ning process shall include the develop-
ment of a transportation plan consist-
ing of a transportation systems manage-
ment element and a long-range element.
The transportation plan shall be re-
viewed annually to confirm its validity
and its consistency with current trans-
portation and land use conditions.
(b) The transportation systems man-
agement element of the transportation
plan shall:
(1) Provide for the short-range trans-
portation needs of the urbanized area by
making efficient use of existing trans-
portation resources and providing for the
movement of people in an efficient man-
ner; and
(2) Identify traffic engineering, pub-
lic transportation, regulatory, pricing,
management, operational and other
Improvements to the existing urban
transportation system not including
new transportation facilities or major
changes In existing facilities.
(c) The long-range element of the
transportation plan shall:
(1) Provide for the long-range trans-
portation needs of the urbanized area;
and
(2) Identify new transportation poli-
cies and transportation facilities or ma-
jor changes in existing facilities by lo-
cation and modes to be implemented.
(d) The transportation plan shall be
consistent with the area's comprehensive
long-range land use plan, urban devel-
opment objectives, and the area's overall
social, economic, environmental, system
performance and energy conservation
goals and objectives.
§ 450.118 Urban transportation plan-
ning process: transportation im-
provement program.
(a) The urban transportation plan-
ning process shall include development
of a transportation "improvement pro-
gram including an annual element as
prescribed in Subpart C of this part.
(b) The program shall be a staged
multiyear program of transportation
improvement projects consistent with
the transportation plan developed under
§ 450.116 of this subpart.
§ 450.120 Urban transportation plan-
ning process: elements.
(a) The urban transportation plan-
ning process shall:
(1) Provide for the consideration of
social, economic, and environmental ef-
fects, in support of the requirements of
23 U.S.C. 109(h>, and sections 5(h) (2)
and 14 of the UMT Act (49 U.S.C. 1604
(h) (2) and 1610);
(2) Be coordinated with air quality
planning conducted pursuant to 42
U.S.C. 1857 (Clean Air Act);
RULES AND REGULATIONS
(3) Include provisions to ensure in-
volvement of the public;
(4) Be consistent with Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Title VI
assurance executed by each State under
23 U.S.C. 324 and 29 U.S.C. 794, which
ensure that no person shall on the
grounds of race, color, sex, national
origin, or physical handicap be excluded
from participation in, be denied benefits
of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimi-
nation under any program receiving
Federal assistance from the Department
of Transportation;
(5) Include special efforts to plan pub-
lic mass transportation facilities and
services that can effectively be utilized
by elderly and handicapped persons
pursuant to section 16 of the UMT Act
(49 U.S.C. 1612) and section 165(b) of
the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973,
as amended;
(6) Provide for the consideration of
energy conservation;
(7) Include consideration of existing
private mass transportation services; and
(8) Include the following technical ac-
tivities to the degree appropriate for the
size of the metropolitan area and the
complexity of its transportation prob-
lems:
(i) An analysis of existing conditions
of travel, transportation facilities, and
systems management;
(ii) An evaluation of alternative
transportation systems management im-
provements to make more efficient use
of existing transportation resources and
the development of the transportation
systems management element of the
transportation plan.
(Hii Projections of urban area eco-
nomic, demographic, and land use activi-
ties consistent with urban development
goals and the development of potential
transportation demands based on these
levels of activity;
(iv) Analysis of alternative transpor-
tation investments to meet areawlde
needs for new transportation facilities
and the development of the long-range
element of the transportation plan; '
(v) Refinement of the transportation
plan through the conduct of corridor,
transit technology, and staging studies;
and subarea, feasibility, location, legis-
lative, fiscal, functional classification,
and institutional studies;
(vi) Monitoring and reporting of urban
development and transportation indica-
tors and a regular program of reappraisal
of the transportation plan; and
(vii) Implementation programing
which merges -the results of plan refine-
ment of the long-range element and the
improvements recommended in the
transportation systems management ele-
ment of the transportation plan to pro-
duce a transportation improvement pro-
gram as specified in Subpart C of this
part.
(b) The urban transportation plan-
ning process shall include preparation of
technical reports to assure documenta-
tion of the development, refinement, and
reappraisal of the transportation plan.
§ 450.122 Urban transportation plan-
ning process: certification.
(a) The Federal Highway and Urban
Mass Transportation Administrators
jointly will review and evaluate annually
the transportation planning process in
each urbanized area to determine if the
process meets the requirements of this
subpart.
(b) If, upon the review and ovaluation
conducted under paragraph (a) of this
section, the Administrators jointly deter-
mine that the transportation planning
process in an urbanized area meets or
substantially meets the requirements of
this subpart, they may take one of the
following actions, as appropriate:
(1) Certify the transportation plan-
ning process; or
(2) Certify the transportation plan-
ning process subject to one of the follow-
ing conditions:
(i) That certain specified corrective
actions be taken; or
(ii) That the process is a basis for
approval of only those categories of pro-
grams or projects that the Administra-
tors may jointly detremine and that cer-
tain specified corrective actions be taken.
(c) The State and the MPO shall be
notified of the actions taken under para-
graph (b) of this section.
id i A certification under paragraph
(b> of this section will remain in effect
until a new certification determination is
made.
APPENDIX
ADVISORY INFORMATION ON DEVELOPMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT ELE-
MKNTS UNDER UMTA AND FIIWA JOINT REGU-
LATIONS, 23 CFR PART 450, SUBPARTS A AND C,
AND 49 CFR PART 013, SUBPARTS A AND B
1. Purpose. The preamble to the National
Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1974
states that efficient, economical and con-
venient mass transportation is a vital public
service essential to the health and welfare
of urban areas. The resources provided by the
Act are intended to assist communities in
preserving and revitalizing their mass transit
systems. An essential part of this goal is to
Improve the efficiency of transit service—not
only to achieve greater economies of opera-
tion, but also to help contribute 'to the wider
national objectives of energy conservation,
improved air quality, and increased social
and environmental amenity. The 1974 Act
provides additional resources to enable lo-
calities to improve the efficiency of transit
operations.
Similarly, Section 135 of title 23 declares it
to be iii the national interest that there
should be a continuing program within urban
areas "designed to reduce traffic congestion
and to facilitate the flow of traffic." Improve-
ments which "directly facilitate and control
traffic flow" are made eligible projects for
Urban Extension and Urban System funds.
Pursuant to the planning requirements
established for urbanized areas in title 23
and the Urban Mass Transportation Act of
19G4, as amended, UMTA and FHWA have
Jointly issued regulations (23 CFR Part 450
and 49 CFR Part 613) that require the urban
transportation planning process to develop
(1) a Plan containing a Transportation Sys-
tem Management (TSM) element, and (2)
a Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) for each urbanised area.
The purposes of these supplementary
guidelines is to Jointly provide additional def-
initions and explanation of the Intent and
scope of the Transportation Systems Man-
agement requirements specified In the Joint
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 181—WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1975
-------
56
planning regulations. Each Administration
-------
57
42082
'In consideration of the foregoing, and
under the authority of 23 U.S.C. 105,
134'ai. and 135, and sections 3, 4
and 5 of the UMT Act f49 U.S.C. 1602,
1603(a>, 16041, and the delegation of au-
thority by the Secretary of Transporta-
tion at 49 CPR 1.48 and 1.50,
Chapter I of Title 23 of the Code of Fed-
eral Regulations is amended by adding
a new Part 450, Subpart C.
Effective date: These regulations take
effect on October 17, 1975.
Issued on: September 11, 1975.
L. P. LAMM,
Executive Director,
Federal Highiuay Administration.
. ROBERT E. PATRICELLI,
Urban Mass Transportation
Administrator.
Subpart C of Part 450 is added to read
as follows:
Subpart C—Transportation Improvement
Program
Sec.
450.300 Purpose.
450.302 Applicability.
450.304 Definitions.
450.306 Transportation Improvement Pro-
gram: general.
450.308 Transportation Improvement Pro-
gram: content.
450.310 Annual clement: project initiation.
450.312 Annual elfiiitfttt: content.
460.314 Annual element: modification.
450.316 Action required by Metropolitan
Planning Organization.
450.318 Selection of projects for implemen-
tation.
450.320 Program approval.
AUTHORITY: 23 U.S.C. 105, 134(a), and 135
(b); sections 3. 4(a). and 5 of the Urban Mass
Transportation Act of 1964. as amended, (49
C.S.C. 1602, 1603(a), and 1604); and 49 CFR
1.48(b) andl.50(f)
Subpart C—Transportation Improvement
Program
§ 150.300 Pin pose.
The purpose of these regulations is to
establish guidelines for the development,
content, and processing of a coopera-
tively developed transportation improve-
ment program in urbanized areas and to
prescribe guidelines for the selection by
implementing agencies of annual pro-
grams of projects to be advanced in
urbanized areas.
§ 450.302 Applicability.
(a) After January 1, 1976, the regula-
tions In this subpart shall be applicable
to projects In or serving urbanized areas
with funds made available under:
RULES AND REGULATIONS
'!) 23 U.S.C. 104'b><6) 'urban systems
projects);
'2> 23 U.S.C. I03'ei<4> 'Interstate
substitution projects);
'3» Sections 3 and 5 of the Urban Mass
Transportation Act of 1964, as amended
iUMT Act) (49 U.S.C. 1602 and 1604-
UMTA capital and operating assistance
projects);
'4i 23 U.S.C. 104(b><3> 'projects on
urban exten.sions of primary and second-
ary systems i, except as provided in this
subpart;
'5) 23 U.S.C. 104ibi<5> (projects on
the Interstate System > except as pro-
vided in this subpart.
(b) Projects under paragraphs la) (4)
and (a i of this .section, which are in-
cluded in the highway safety improve-
ment program, may be excluded from
the transportation improvement program
at the option of the State.
£ 150.301 Definitions.
ia> Except as otherwise provided,
terms defined in 23 U.S.C. 101 (a i are
used in this subpart as so defined.
As used herein:
"Annual element" means a list of
transportation improvement projects
proposed for implementation during the
first program year.
"Governor"' means the Governor of
any one of the fifty States, and includes
the Mayor of the District of Columbia.
"Highway safety improvement pro-
gram" means a program prepared by the
State pursuant to 23 CPR, Part 655, Sub-
part E.
"Interstate substitution projects"
means projects funded under 23 U.S.C.
103(e) i4) (Withdrawal of Interstate seg-
ments and substitution of nonhighway
public mass transportation projects).
"Interstate System projects" means
projects funded under 23 U.S.C. 104 12) and il), and 4(a>, and 5 (gl
U) and U) of the UMT Act (49 U.S.C.
1602 ia><2> and , 1603(a) and
1604 (g> (1) and ill. This organisation is
the forum for cooperative decisionmak-
ing by principal elected officials of gen-
eral purpose local government.
"Transportation Improvement Pro-
gram" means a staged multiyear pro-
gram of transportation improvements
including an annual element.
§ 450.306 Transportalion improvement
program: general.
(a) The transportation improvement
program shall be developed and updated
annually under the direction of the
Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO) in cooperation with:
(1) State and local officials;
(2) Regional and local transit opera-
tors;
(3) Recipients authorized under sec-
tion 5(b) (2) or (3) of the UMT Act (49
U.S.C. 1604(b)) (2) or (3); and
'4» Other affected transportation and
regional planning and implementing
agencies.
(b) The transportation improvement
program shall consist of improvement
recommended from the transportation
systems management and long-range
elements of the transportation plan de-
veloped under S 450.116 of this part.
Identify transportation improve-
ments recommended for advancement
during the program period;
ib> Indicate the area's priorities;
• c) Group improvements of similar
urgency and anticipated staging into ap-
propriate staging periods;
i d) Include realistic estimates of total
costs and revenues for the' program
period; and
Include a discussion of how im-
provements recommended from the long-
range element and the transportation
systems management element prepared
pursuant to §450.116 of this part were
merged into the program.
§ '150.3 10 Annuiil element: projeel ini-
liiiliuii.
Federally funded projects shall be ini-
tiated for inclusion in the annual ele-
ment at all stages in the development of
the transportation improvement for
which program action is proposed. These
projects shall be initiated as follows:
(at Proposed urban system highway
projects shall be initiated by local offi-
cials in whose jurisdiction the project is
located.
(b) Proposed urban system nonhigh-
way public mass transportation projects
and Interstate substitution nonhighway
public mass transportation projects shall
be initiated by principal elected officials
of general purpose local governments in
consultation with local transit operating
officials or by local transit operating of-
ficials.
Proposed UMTA section 3 projects
(49 U.S.C. 1602) shall be initiated by
recipients authorized under section 5(b)
(2) or (31 of the UMT Act (49 U.S.C.
1604(bi (2) or (3)), by local transit op-
erating officials, or by principal elected
officials of general purpose local govern-
ments in cooperation with local transit
operating officials.
id) Proposed UMTA section 5 projects
(49 U.S.C. 1604) shall be initiated by
recipients authorized under section 5(b)
(2) or 13) of the UMT Act (49 U.S.C. 1604
(b) <2> or (3)). Nothing in this subsec-
tion is intended to prohibit or discour-
age the initiation by such recipients of
projects recommended by local transit
operating officials or by principal elected
officials of general purpose local govern-
ments in cooperation with local transit
operating officials.
(e) Proposed urban extension and In-
terstate System projects shall be ini-
tiated by the State highway agency.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 181—WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1975
-------
58
§ 130.312 Annual fit-incut: c-oiilrnt.
(a) Except as provided in § 450.302
(b> of this subpart, the annual element
shall contain:
(1) Projects initiated under § 450.310
and endorsed under § 450.316 of this sub-
part; and
(2) For informational purposes, all
nonfederally funded projects recom-
mended from the transportation systems
management element.
(b) With respect to each project under
paragraph (a) of this section the annual
element shall include:
(1) Sufficient descriptive material 'i.e.,
type of work, termini, length, etr.i to
identify the project;
(2) Estimated total cost and the
amount of Federal funds proposed to be
obligated during the program year;
(3) Proposed source of Federal and
non-Federal funds; and
(4) Identification of the recipient and
State and local agencies responsible for
carrying out the project.
(c) Projects proposed for Federal sup-
port that are not considered by the State
and MPO to be of appropriate scale for
individual inclusion in the annual ele-
ment may be grouped by functional clas-
sification, geographic area, and work
type.
(d> The annual element shall be rea-
sonably consistent with the amount of
Federal funds expected to be available
to the area. Federal funds that have
been allocated to the area pursuant to
23 U.S.C. 150 shall be identified.
(e) The total Federal share of proj-
ects included in the annual element and
proposed for funding under section 5 of
the TTMT Act (49 U.S.C. 1604> may not
exr _u pportioned section 5 funds avail-
able to the urbanized arcii during the
program year.
§150.311 Annual rlrmrnl: iii> Through the State to the federal
Highway Administrator.
§ 1.">0.3IK S.Wlil.tl of llmjrrls fill- illl-
plr-lllrlllalion.
The projects proposed to be im-
plemented with Federal assistance under
sections 3 and 5 of the UMT Act (49
U.S.C. 1602 and 1604> shall be those con-
tained In the annual element of the
transportation improvement program
submitted by the MPO to the Urban Mass
Transportation Administrator.
RULES AND REGULATIONS
(b) Upon receipt of the transporta-
tion improvement program, the State
shall include in the statewide program
of projects required under 23 U.S.C. 105:
(1) Those projects drawn from the
annual element and proposed to be im-
plemented with Federal assistance under
23 U.S.C. 104(b) (6) (Federal-aid urban
System; and 103 Upon the determination by the
Federal Highway Administrator and the
Urban Mass Transportation Administra-
tor that the transportation improvement
program or portion thereof is in con-
formance with this subpart and that the
area is under planning certification, pro-
grams of projects selected for implemen-
tation under § 450.318 of this subpart,
will be considered for approval as
follows:
(1 > Federal-aid urban system projects
included in the statewide program of
projects under 23 U.S.C. 105 will be ap-
proved by:
(i) The Federal Highway Administra-
tor with respect to highway projects;
(ii) The Urban Mass Transportation
Administrator with respect to nonhigh-
way public mass transportation projects;
and
(iii) The Federal Highway Adminis-
trator and the Urban Mass Transporta-.
tion Administrator jointly in any case
where the statewide program of projects
submitted pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 105 does
not include all Federal-aid urban sys-
tem nonhighway public mass transporta-
tion projects contained in the annual
element.
(2) Interstate substitution nonhigh-
way public mass transportation projects
included in the statewide program of
projects under 23 U.S.C. 105 will be ap-
proved by the Urban Mass Transporta-
tion Administrator. *
(3) Projects proposed to be imple-
mented under sections 3 and 5 of the
UMT Act (49 U.S.C. 1602 and 1604) in-
cluded in the annual element of the
transportation improvement program
will be approved by the Urban Mass
Transportation Administrator after con-
sidering any comments received from the
Governor within 30 days of the submittal
required by § 450.316(b) (1) of this
subpart.
(4) Federal-aid urban extension and
Interstate projects included in the state-
wide program of projects under 23 U.S.C.
105 will be approved by the Federal
Highway Administrator.
(b) Approvals by the Federal High-
way Administrator or joint approvals by
the Federal Highway Administrator and
Urban Mass Transportation Administra-
tor will be in accordance with the provi-
sions of this subpart and with 23 CFR
630, Subpart A. Approvals granted under
this section will constitute:
(1) The approval required under 23
U.S.C. 105; and
(2) A finding that the progi'am is based
on a continuing, comprehensive planning
process carried on cooperatively by the
States and local communities in accord-
ance with the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 134.
(O Approvals by the Urban Mass
Transportation Administrator will be in
accordance with the provisions of this
subpart and with other applicable provi-
sions of 49 CFR 613, Subpart B. These
approvals will constitute:
(1) The approval required under sec-
tion 5(g> (2) of the UMT Act (49 U.S.C.
1604(g>(2)):
(2) A finding that the projects are
based on a continuing comprehensive
transportation planning process carried
on in accordance with the provisions of
sections 3(a> (2) or 5(g) (1) of the UMT
Act (49 U.S.C. 1602(a) (2) or 1604(g)
(1)), as applicable; and
(3) A finding that the projects are
needed to carry out a program for a uni-
fied or officially coordinated urban trans-
portation system in accordance with the
provisions of sections 4 (a) or 5(1) of the
UMT Act (49 U.S.C. 1603(a) or 1604(1)),
as applicable.
[PR Doc.75-24697 Filed 9-16-75;8:45 am]
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 181—WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1975
-------
59
42984
Title 49—Transportation
CHAPTER VI—URBAN MASS TRANSPOR-
TATION ADMINISTRATION. DEPART-
MENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PART 613—PLANNING ASS'STANCE
AND STANDARDS
Urban Transportation Planning
The purpose of this document is to is-
sue final regulations implementing cer-
tain provisions of Title 23, United States
Code, and the Urban Mass Transporta-
tion Act of 1964, as amended (49 U.S.C.
1601, et seq.), which govern urban trans-
portation planning under the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) and
Urban Mass Transportation Administra-
tion (UMTA) programs.
In the November 8, 1974, edition of
the FEDERAL REGISTER (39 FR 39660),
FHWA and UMTA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking to add a new Part
450, Subpart A, to 23 CFR, Chapter I,
and a new Part 613, Subpart B, to 49
CFR, Chapter VI.
The final regulations are published in
full under 23 CFR, Part 450, Subpart A.
Ihe purpose of the regulations published
below is to Incorporate 23 CFR, Part 450,
Bubpart A, Into 49 CFR, Part 613, Sub-
part A. The original notice indicated
that the Urban Transportation Plan-
ning regulations under 23 CFR, Part
450, Subpart A, were to be incorporated
Into 49 CFR, Part 613, Subpart B. For
reasons of continuity, these regulations
are published as being incorporated into
49 CFR, Part 613, Subpart A rather than
Subnart B.
The preamble to the joint FHWA/
UMTA regulations, Title 23, CFR Part
450, Subpart A, published at page 42976 of
this edition of the FEDERAL REGISTER and
to be incorporated by reference in 49
CFR, Part 613, Subpart A, is hereby in-
corporated as the preamble for the fol-
lowing regulations.
Pursuant to Sections 3, 4(a), and 5 of
the Urban Mass Transportation Act of
1964, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1602, 1603
(a) and 1604), and 23 U.S.C. 104(f)(3),
134, and 315, and the delegation of au-
thority by the Secretary at 49 CFR 1.48
(b) and 1.50 (f), Chapter VI of-JTitle 49
of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended by adding a new Subchapter B,
Part 613, Subpart A, as set forth below.
Effective date: These regulations take
effect on October 17,1975.
Issued on: September 11,1975.
L. P. LAMM,
Executive Director,
Federal Highway Administration.
ROBERT E. PATRICELLI,
Urban Mass Transportation
Administrator.
Subpart A of Part 613 is added as set
forth below:
Subpart A—Urban Transportation Planning
Sec.
613.100 Urban transportation planning.
AUTHORITY: 23 U.S.C. 104(f) (3), 134. and
315; §53, 4(a), and 6 of the Urban Mass
Transportation Act of 1964, as amended (49
RULES AND REGULATIONS
TT.S.O. 1602, 1603(a), and 1604); 49 CPR
§§ 1.48(b) and 1.60(1).
Subpart A—Urban Transportation
Planning
§ 613.100 Urban transportation plan-
ning.
The urban transportation planning
regulations implementing 23 U.S.C. 134
and sections 3,4(a), and 5(g) (1) and (Z)
of the Urban Mass Transportation Act
of 1964, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1602,
1603(a) and 1604(g)(l) and U)), which
require comprehensive planning of
transportation improvements which are
set forth in 23 CFR Part 450, Subpart A,
are incorporated into this subpart.
[FR Doc.75-24698 Piled 9-16-75;8:45 am|
PART 613—PLANNING 'ASSISTANCE
AND STANDARDS
Transportation Improvement Program
The purpose of this document is to issue
final regulations which implement cer-
tain provisions of title 23, United States
Code, and the Urban Mass Transporta-
tion Act of 1964, as amended, 49 U.S.C.
1601, et seq., governing the planning and
programing, of urban transportation im-
provements under the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and Urban
Mass Transportation Administration
(UMTA) programs.
In the November 8, 1974, edition of the
FEDERAL REGISTER (39 FR 39665), FHWA
and UMTA published a notice of pro-
posed rulemaking to add a new Part 450,
Subpart C, to 23 CFR, Chapter I, and a
new Part 613, Subpart A, to 49 CFR,
Chapter VI.
, The final regulations are published in
full under 23 CFR, Part 450, Subpart C.
The purpose of these regulations, pub-
lished below, is to incorporate 23 CFR.
Part 450, Subpart C, into 49 CFR, Part
613, Subpart B, and to set forth certain
additional requirements applicable to the
UMTA administered program. The origi-
nal notice indicated that the Transpor-
tation Improvement Program regulations
under 23 CFR, Part 450, Subpart C, were
to be incorporated into 49 CFR, Part 613,
Subpart A. For reasons of continuity,
these regulations are published as being
incorporated into 49 CFR, Part 613, Sub-
part B rather than Subpart A.
The preamble to the joint FHWA-
UMTA regulations, Title 23 CFR, Part
450, Subpart C, published at page 42976
of this edition of the FEDERAL REGISTER,
and to be incorporated by reference in
49 CFR Part 613, Subpart B, is hereby
incorporated as the preamble for the fol-
lowing regulations.
Pursuant to sections 3, 4ia) and 5 of
the Urban Mass Transportation Act of
1964, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1602, 1603
(a), arid 1604) and 23 U.S.C. 105,134(a^,
and 135(b), and the delegation of au-
thority by the Secretary at 49 CFR 1.48
(b) and 1.50(f), Chapter VI of Title 49
of the Code of Federal Regulations, is
hereby amended by adding a new Sub-
chapter B, Part 613, Subpart B, as set
forth below.
Effective date: These regulations take
effect on October 17, 1975.
Issued on: September 11, 1975.
ROBERT E. PATRICELLI,
Urban Mass
Transportation Administrator.
L. P. LAMM,
Executive Director,
Federal Highway Administration.
Subpart B of Part 613 is added as set
forth below:
Subpart B—Transportation Improvement
Program
Seq.
613.200 Transportation Improvement Pro-
gram.
613.202 Additional criteria for urban mass
transportation Administrator's
approvals under 23 CFR 450.320.
AUTHORITY: 23 U.S.C. 105, 134(a), and
135(b); §§ 3. 4(a), and 5 of the Urban Mass
Transportation Act of 1964, as amended (49
U.S.C. 1602, 1603(a), and 1604); and H 49
CPR 1.48(b) and l.BO(f).
Subpart B—Transportation Improvement
Program
§ (>I3.200 Transportation Improvement
Program.
The transportation improvement pro-
gram regulations establishing guidelines
lor the development, content, and proc-
essing of a cooperatively developed trans-
portation improvement program in ur-
banized areas and also prescribing guide-
lines for the selection, by implementing
agencies, of annual programs of projects
to be advanced in urbanized areas which
are set forth in 23 CFR Part 450, Subpan
C, are incorporated into this subpart.
§613.202 Additional criteria for urban
muss transportation Administrator's
approvals under 23 CFK 450.320.
(a) This section establishes certain ad-
ditional criteria to be considered by the
Urban Mass Transportation'Administra-
tor in his program approval pursuant to
23 CFR 450.320(a)(3) for all projects
proposed lor implementation with Fed-
eral assistance under sections 3 and 5 of
the Urban Mass Transportation Act of
1964. as amended (23 U.S.C. 1602 and
1604), in urbanized areas having a pop-
ulation of 200.000 or more.
(b) After March 30, 1976, the Urban
Mass Transportation Administrator will
grant program approval for projects
under paragraph (a) of this section only
alter he has determined that:
(i) The transportation plan developed
pursuant to 23 CFR 450.116 contains a
Transportation System Management
After March 30, 1977, the Urban
Mass Transportation Administrator will
grant program approval for projects
under paragraph (a* of this section only
after he has determined that reasonable
progress has been demonstrated in im-
plementing previously programed proj-
ects.
[FR Do".75-24699 Filed 9 16-75;8:45 am]
FEDERAl REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 181—WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1975
-------
REF II-2
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGARDING
THE INTEGRATION OF TRANSPORTATION AND AIR QUALITY PLANNING
I. Introduction
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 were signed into law by the President
on August 7, 1977. These Amendments require state and local governments
to develop for all areas where national ambient air quality standards have
not been attained, revisions to state implementation plans (SIPs). The
revised SIPs must be submitted by the state to the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) by January 1, 1979. These revised plans must provide for
attainment of the national ambient air quality standards by 1982 or, in
the case of areas with severe photochemical oxidant or carbon monoxide
problems, not later than 1987. The revised plans must also provide for
incremental reductions in emissions ("reasonable further progress") between
the time the plans are submitted and the attainment deadline.
In many major urbanized areas of the country the revised SIPs will require
transportation controls, i.e. strategies designed to reduce emissions from
transportation-related sources by means of structural and operational changes
in the transportation system. A mechanism is required that will enable
state and local governments to: (1) develop a wide range of alternative
transportation control strategies, (2) analyze the air quality and other
impacts of the strategies, and (3) select among the alternatives in a
timely and informed manner.
Federal transportation planning requirements in urbanized areas are imple-
mented by the Department of Transportation (DOT) through a joint delegation
of authority to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Urban
Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA). The FHWA and UMTA provide funds
to states and local governments to plan, develop, and improve transportation
systems and services. In urbanized areas improvements are implemented
according to a continuing, comprehensive, and cooperative transportation
planning process carried out pursuant to FHWA/UMTA joint regulations. It
-------
is in this context that "DOT" is utilized in this document. In order to
effectively achieve the objectives of the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments,
the DOT and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agree that the trans-
portation-related air quality planning requirements of EPA will be integrated
with the transportation planning process administered by the DOT. Closer
integration of the planning requirements of DOT and EPA will ensure the
timely consideration of air quality concerns and will reduce potentially
duplicative, overlapping, and inconsistent activities at the state and
local level. DOT administers other planning programs through other
administrations (e.g. FAA and FRA) which have lesser impact on air
quality but may be subject to future discussion.
II. Purpose
This Memorandum of Understanding, developed pursuant to the President's
request, is designed (1) to establish certain principles which DOT and EPA
agree to follow in the preparation of more detailed regulations and
administrative procedures required to achieve the objective of integrating
the air quality and transportation planning processes; (2) to identify
specific areas of agreement with regard to the joint administration of the
air quality aspects of the planning process.
III. Principles that Will Guide the Integration of the Air Quality
and Transportation Planning Processes
A. The reduction of air pollution is an important national goal and
must be among the highest priorities of the transportation planning
process in areas not meeting primary Air Quality Standards. However,
the transportation planning process must also consider other national
and local objectives such as mobility, safety, energy conservation,
urban economic development, full employment and orderly metropolitan
growth.
B. It is the affirmative responsibility of federal, state and local
agencies involved in funding or conducting transportation planning
and implementation to ensure that evaluation of an adequate range
of alternative transportation control strategies is conducted in
order to furnish local, state and federal officials with an adequate
basis on which to reach informed decisions.
C. Any transportation planning activites conducted pursuant to this
agreement must continue to provide for an adequate process of
consultations with and involvement of the general purpose local
government, responsible state agencies and the public as called for
in the joint UMTA/FHWA Urban Transportation Planning regulations.
-------
D. It is the objective of the activities undertaken pursuant to this
agreement to contribute to the maximum extent feasible, in com-
bination, with other emission reduction measures, to a reduction of
emissions necessary to meet the prescribed air quality standards.
IV- Joint Administration of the Air Quality Aspects of the
Urban Transportation Planning Process
The Department of Transportation and Environmental Protection
Agency agree to modify existing procedures concerning the administration
of the urban transportation and air quality planning processes in
nonattainment areas as follows:
1. DOT and EPA regional/division offices will have the opportunity
for joint review of and concurrence in the Unified Work Program (UWP)
required pursuant to paragraph 450.114 of the Joint Planning Regulations
(23 CFR 450), to ensure that adequate air quality planning tasks are
included in the planning programs. Any disagreements at the regional
level shall be referred to the DOT Secretary for resolution. Before
making his final decision on the UWP, the Secretary will consult with
the EPA Administrator and will, notify EPA of the disposition of its
comments, with appropriate supporting materials. In addition, where an
MPO has failed, without adequate reason to carry out the analysis or
other activities committed in its Unified Work Program, DOT will prescribe
conditions which will require specified remedial actions to be taken in
order to correct the identified failure in the Unified Work Program.
DOT and EPA will develop in the near future a document identifying
appropriate categories of remedial actions.
2. DOT and EPA regional/division offices will have the opportunity
for joint review of transportation plans (including TSM elements) in
nonattainment areas required pursuant to paragraph 450.116 of the
Joint Plannning Regulations, to ensure that air quality considerations
are adequately addressed. DOT and EPA will consult with the planning
agency on how air quality related planning deficiencies will be
corrected. DOT will also explicitly consider EPA comments in taking
subsequent actions on program approvals and will notify EPA of the
disposition of its comments, with appropriate supporting materials.
3. DOT and EPA regional/division offices will have the opportunity
for joint review in connection with the annual planning certification
required pursuant to paragraph 450.122 of the Joint Planning Regulations,
on the adequacy of the planning process to address air quality considerations.
DOT and EPA will consult with the planning agency on how air quality
related planning deficiencies will be corrected. DOT will also explicitly
consider EPA comments in making any certification decisions and will
notify EPA of the disposition of its comments, with appropriate
supporting material.
-------
4. DOT and EPA regional/division offices will have the opportunity
for joint review of the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and its
annual element required pursuant to paragraph 450.118 of the Joint
Planning Regulations for consistency with the air quality elements of
the transportation plan and/or the SIP. DOT will explicitly consider
EPA's comments in program approvals, and will notify EPA of its disposition
of the comments. If EPA disagrees with the disposition of_its comments,
the procedures for resolution set forth in Addendum 1 to this memorandum
will be followed.
5. DOT and EPA regional/division offices will have the opportunity
for joint review of the revised SIPs, for compliance with the objectives
of statutes administered by DOT (e.g., Title 23 USC and the Urban Mass
Transportation Act) to provide for mobility and for safe and efficient
transportation. EPA will explicitly consider DOT comments in approving
or disapproving SIP revisions, and will notify DOT of its disposition of
the comments, with appropriate supporting materials. If DOT disagrees
with the disposition of its comments, the procedures for resolution set
forth in Addendum 2 to this memorandum will be followed.
6. DOT and EPA agree to work toward greater coordination in the
administration of their respective grants for local planning activities
by including these grants in the UWP, to ensure that such grants support
effectively the related objectives of both agencies while avoiding
duplication and overlapping planning activities.
DOT and EPA will take appropriate steps to alter their existing internal
procedures and to issue a joint appendix to the existing transportation
planning regulations to implement the above understandings.
DOT and EPA agree to consult one another in the development of
criteria and procedures required by Section 176 of the Clean Air Act,
including insuring that all major capital improvement projects are
consistent with the SIP.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 14th day of June t 1973.
Department, of Transportation
Environmental Protecjjon Agency
-------
ADDENDUM 1
If the EPA Regional Administrator disagrees with the disposition
of his comments by DOT, he will so notify the DOT Regional/Division
Administrator within seven days. In such a case, the DOT Regional/
Division Administrator will not aparove the element or elements of
the TIP in disagreement until so advised by headquarters.
Within 30 days after the EPA Regional Administrator notifies DOT
of his disagreement, the EPA Administrator will notify the Secretary
of Transportation if the EPA Administrator disagrees with the DOT
field staff disposition of EPA comments, and the reason for the EPA
Administrator's disagreement.
If such notification is received within 30 days, the Secretary of
Transportation will carefully consider the EPA Administrator's views
and in the event of disagreement will notify the EPA Administrator
of the disposition of his comments; with appropriate supporting
materials before making his decision.
-------
ADDENDUM 2
If the DOT Regional/Division Administrator disagrees with the
disposition of his comments by EPA, he will so notify the EPA
Regional Administrator withiri> seven days. In such a case, the
EPA Regional Administrator will not approve the SIP until so
advised by headquarters.
Within 30 days after the DOT Regional/Division Administrator
notifies EPA of his disagreement, the Secretary of Transportation
will notify the EPA Administrator if the Secretary of Transportation
disagrees with the EPA field staff disposition of DOT comments, and
the reason for the Secretary's disagreement.
If such notification is received within 30 days, the EPA Administrator
will carefully consider the Secretary of Transportation's views and
in the event of disagreement will notify the Secretary of the
disposition of his comments, with appropriate supporting materials
before making his decision.
-------
REF III-l
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105
JUL 1 7 1978
OFFICE OF
AIR AND WATER PROGRAMS
SUBJECT: Inspection/Maintenance Policy
FROM: David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Waste Management
MEMO TO: Regional Administrators, Regions I - X
As you know, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 set forth
specific requirements for the implementation of motor vehicle
inspection/maintenance (I/M) programs. Attached is a policy paper
indicating what EPA will consider a minimally acceptable program
wherever I/M is required by the Act. It should aid your efforts to
provide for adequate I/M submissions for the State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revisions of January 1, 1979. Please continue to contact
me if problems in I/M implementation develop.
cc: Air and Hazardous Materials Division
Directors, Regions I, III - X.
Environmental Programs Division Director,
Region II
Air Programs Branch Chiefs, Regions I - X.
-------
ref III-l
Policy for the Development and Implementation of
Inspection/Maintenance Programs
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 provide new direction for the
development and implementation of motor vehicle inspection/maintenance
(I/M) programs. If states are not able to demonstrate attainment of the
standards for oxidant (Ox) or carbon monoxide (CO) by December 31, 1982,
a specific schedule for the implementation of I/M must be included in
the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions of January 1, 1979 for the
plan to meet the requirements, of Section 172. The general requirements
for the I/M programs are set out in a February 24, 1978 memorandum from
the EPA Administrator to the Regional Administrators (reprinted in the
Federal Register on May 19, 1978, 43 F.R. 21673). The requirements, for
these programs, are explained in more detail below.
*
A. I/M SIP Revision Development and the January 1, 1979, Submittal
In producing an I/M SIP revision, the states should provide for:
1. an analysis of the benefits and costs of the program;
2. a public information effort;
3. a legislative proposal; and
4. a schedule for I/M implementation.
A copy of suggested steps for development of the SIP revision is attached
(Attachment 1). Before the January 1, 1979 submittal, the SIP revision
must be adopted by the state air pollution control board or agency head as
appropriate. As a part of the SIP revision submittal itself, there must
be a commitment by the Governor to implement the I/M program according to
the schedule submitted.*
*Sections 172(b)(7) and (10) provide that the plan revisions required
for nonattainment areas shall —
(7) identify and commit the financial and manpower resources
necessary to carry out the plan provisions required by this subsection;
[Emphasis added]
and shall —
(10) include written evidence that the state, the general purpose
local government or governments, or a regional agency designated by general
purpose local governments for such purpose, have adopted by statute, regu-
lation, ordinance, or other legally enforceable document, the necessary
requirements and schedule and timetables for compliance, and are committed
to implement and enforce the appropriate elements of the plan; [Emphasis
added]
-------
REF III-l
These plan elements should be prepared in accordance with the guidance
on pages 186-188 of the Compilation of Presentations prepared by EPA's
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) for the "Workshops
on Requirements for Nonattainment Area Plans" February -March 1978
(pages 218-220 in the April 1978 edition).
B. The I/M Implementation Schedule
The specific items listed below must be included as a part of the
States' I/M implementation schedules with specified dates for implementation
of each item. The stringency planned for the program and other factors
affecting -the potential for emission reductions should also be indicated.
Additional items if necessary because of local factors may be required by
USEPA Regional Offices.
1. Initiation (or continuation) of public information
program including publicizing the I/M program in the
media, meeting and speaking with affected interest
groups, etc.
2. Preparation of a draft legislative package and
submittal of legislation package to legislature
if additional legislative authority is needed.
3. Certification of adequate legal authority by approp-
riate state official.
\
4. Initial notification of garages explaining program
and schedule of implementation.*
5. Development and issuance of RFPs.*
6. Award to contractor(s).*
7. Initiation of construction of facilities.*
8. Completion of construction of facilities.*
9. Adoption of procedures and guidelines for testing
and quality control including emission analyzer
requirements (and licensing requirements for private
garages, if applicable*).
10. Notification of and explanation to garages of actions
in step 9.*
-------
J REF III-l
11. Completion of equipment purchase and delivery of
equipment.
12. Development and adoption of outpoints.
13. Initiation of hiring and training of inspectors or
licensing of garages.*
14. Initiation of introductory program (voluntary main-
tenance with either voluntary or mandatory inspection)
if not previously initiated.
15. Initiation of mechanics training and/or information
program.
16. Initiation of mandatory inspection.
17- Initiation of mandatory repair for failed vehicles.
If certification of adequate legal authority occurs after January 1979,
the States may modify previous commitments to implement and enforce the elements
of the schedule to conform to the legal authority.** These modifications will be
approved by the EPA Regional Offices and must be consistent with the Administra-
tor's February 24, 1978, policy memorandum. The documents should be submitted
to the EPA Regional Offices for inclusion in the SIP revisions already submitted
by January 1, 1979. Any necessary adjustments to the schedule may be made at
this time but must be approved by the EPA Regional Offices.
C. Authority to Implement I/M
Normally, adequate legal authority to implement a SIP revision must exist
for a revision to be approved. Where a legislature has had adequate
opportunity to adopt enabling legislation before January 1, 1979, the
Regional Administrator should require certification that adequate legal
authority exists for I/M implementation by January 1, 1979. However,
for many states there will be insufficient opportunity to obtain adequate
legal authority before their legislatures meet in early 1979. Therefore,
a certification of legal authority for the implementation of I/M in
these states must be made no later than June 30, 1979. An extension to
July 1, 1980, is possible, but only when the state can demonstrate that
(a) there was insufficient opportunity to conduct necessary technical
analyses and/or (b) the legislature has had no opportunity to consider
any necessary enabling legislation for inspection/ maintenance between
enactment of the 1977 Amendments to the Act and June 30, 1979. Certifi-
cation of adequate legal authority, or other evidence that legal authority
has been adopted, must be submitted to the EPA Regional Offices to be
included in the SIP revision already submitted. Failure to submit evidence
of legal authority by the appropriate deadline will constitute a failure
to submit an essential element of the SIP, under Sections 110(a)(2)(I)
and 176(a) of the Act.
*Dependent on type of system chosen (state-run centralized, contractor
centralized, or decentralized).
**See footnote on page 1.
-------
REF III-l
Prior to the respective deadlines for initiating mandatory inspection
and mandatory repair of failed vehicles, the state, local government, or
regional agency should adopt whatever legally enforceable requirements
are necessary to ensure that vehicles are not used unless they comply
with the inspection/maintenance requirements. Written evidence of
adoption of these requirements should be submitted to the EPA Regional
Offices, to be included in the SIP revision already submitted by January
1, 1979.*
D. I/M Implementation Deadlines
Implementation of I/M "as expeditiously as practicable" shall be
defined as implementation of mandatory repair for failed vehicles no
later than two and a half years after passage of needed legislation or
certification of adequate legal authority for new centralized systems
and one and a half years after legislation or certification for decen-
tralized systems or for centralized systems which are adding emission
inspections to safety inspections. For the normal legislation deadline
of June 30, 1979, new centralized programs must start by December 31,
1981, and all others must start by December 31, 1980. For the case of
the latest possible legislation date, July 1, 1980, this means that a
new centralized program must start by December 31, 1982, while all other
programs must start by December 31, 1981. Where I/M can be implemented
more expeditiously, it must be. Each state implementation schedule must
be looked at individually to determine if it is as expeditious as practi-
cable. Implementation dates ordered by courts, if earlier than these
dates, take precedence.
E. Geographic Coverage.
I/M should focus on metropolitan areas and should include the entire
urbanized area and adjacent fringe areas of development. Boundaries of the
area affected may be adjusted if an equivalent emission reduction is achieved.
For urbanized areas of 200,000 population or greater which need I/M to obtain
an extension of the 1982 attainment date, full mandatory I/M must be implemented
by the deadlines indicated above. Statewide programs are encouraged, especially
for those states which are small and highly urbanized.
It should be emphasized that all nonattainment areas must have SIPs
which are adequate to attain and maintain the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) by 1982 or by no later than 1987 should an
acceptable nonattainment demonstration be made. For areas under 200,000,
EPA will not at this time automatically require I/M schedules in 1979 as a
condition for SIP approval or an extension. However, areas under 200,000
still have to attain and maintain NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable,
and I/M is encouraged as a means of helping to provide for an adequate
SIP. EPA will review the need for I/M in areas under 200,000 after the
1979 SIP revisions are submitted, and will consider additional require-
ments at that time.
*See footnote on page 1.
-------
-5~ REF III-l
F. Emission Reductions Required for I/M
I/M programs must produce at least a 25 percent reduction in light
duty vehicle (LDV) exhaust emissions of hydrocarbons and a 25 percent
reduction in LDV emissions of carbon monoxide by December 31, 1987,
compared to what emissions would be without I/M on the basis of the most
recent motor vehicle emission factors. However, the choices of stringency
factor to be used and other actions affecting the potential for emission
reduction should be made by the states. States should of course be
encouraged to develop programs which produce more emission reduction
when possible. The final revision to Appendix N (40 C.F.R., Part 51)
when promulgated (along with its minimum program requirements) should be
used to determine if the program described in the implementation schedule
will meet the minimum 25 percent CO/25 percent HC criterion. Should a
program not need to be this stringent to attain and maintain the NAAQS
by 1982, the I/M program need be only as stringent as needed to assure
conformity with NAAQS. Should a state want to emphasize control of one
particular pollutant at the expense of the other, the plan for such an
I/M program must be submitted to the appropriate EPA Regional Office for
approval.
G. Minimum Program Requirements
In addition to the emission reduction requirement above, all I/M
programs must:
1. provide for regular periodic inspections of all vehicles
for which emission reductions are claimed;*
2. provide for maintenance and retesting of failed vehicles
to provide for compliance with applicable emission
standards;
3. prohibit registration or provide some equally effective
mechanism to prevent vehicles which do not comply with
the applicable exhaust emission requirements from operating
on public roads;
4. provide for quality control regulations and procedures
for the inspection system including:
*Random roadside checks, while a useful addition to an I/M program,
are not an acceptable substitute for regular periodic inspections.
-------
REF III-l
-6-
a. minimum specifications for emission analyzers
b. required calibrations of all types on analyzers and
c. minimum record keeping;
5. provide for either a mechanics training program or a program
to inform the public of service establishments with approved
emission analyzers; and
6. inform the public of the reason for the I/M program plus
the locations and hours of inspection stations.
Decentralized systems must also comply with the following require-
ments .
1. All official inspection facilities must be licensed.
Provisions for the licensing of inspection facilities
must insure that the facility has obtained, prior to
licensing, analytical instrumentation which has been
approved for use by the appropriate state, local, or
regional government agency. A representative of the
facility must have received instructions in the proper
use of the instruments and in vehicle testing methods
and must have demonstrated proficiency in these methods.
The facility must agree to maintain records and to submit
to inspection of the facility. The appropriate government
agency must have provisions for penalties for facilities
which fail 'to follow prescribed procedures and for mis-
conduct.
2. Records required to be maintained should include the
description (make, year, license number, etc.) of each
vehicle inspected, and its emissions test results.
Records must also be maintained on the calibration of
testing equipment.
3. Summaries of these inspection records should be submitted
on a periodic basis to the governing agency for auditing.
4. The governing agency should inspect each facility
periodically to check the facilities' records, check
the calibration of the testing equipment and observe
that proper test procedures are followed.
5. The governing agency should have an effective program
of unannounced/unscheduled inspections both as a routine
measure and as a complaint investigation measure. It is
also recommended that such inspections be used to check
the correlation of instrument readings among inspection
facilities.
-------
_? REF III-l
6. The governing agency should operate a "referee" station
where vehicle owners may obtain a valid test to compare
to a test from a licensed station. At least one "referee"
station must be present in each I/M metropolitan area.
-------
REF III-I
Attachment 1
Suggested I/M Milestones
1. Complete plan for preparing and implementing I/M SIP revision
including:
a. technical analysis
b. public information program
c. development of necessary legislation
d. development of I/M implementation schedule.
2. Complete technical analysis including:
a. emission reduction benefits
b. fuel economy benefits
c. costs.
3. Complete elements of a continuing public information program
including:
a. further publicity concerning oxidant (and/or carbon
monoxide) episodes
b. meeting with and speaking to affected interest groups
(including the public and public officials)
c. news releases.
4. Complete development of legislative proposals.
5. Complete development of I/M implementation schedule.
6. Receive approval of I/M, including implementation schedule, from
air pollution control board or agency head as applicable and
introduce into state legislature.
7. Submit SIP revision for I/M, including implementation schedule, to
EPA (due no later than January 1, 1979).
8. Obtain legal authority needed to implement I/M (required by July 1,
1979, with some exceptions allowed until July 1, 1980).
-------
REF V-3
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CONCERNING THE BASIS FOR THE AGENCY'S
POSITION ON CONTROLLING HYDROCARBONS TO REDUCE OXIDANT
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Monitoring and Data Analysis Divison
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
September, 1978
-------
The Environmental Protection Agency is sometimes asked what the basis
is for the strategy of controlling organic emissions to reduce ambient
levels of photochemical oxidant. Recently, concern about the strategy has
been voiced by State/local air pollution agencies and others in light of a
report prepared for the Manufacturing Chemists Association.* This report
concludes that existing ambient air quality data do not necessarily support
the hypothesis that reducing hydrocarbon emissions reduces ambient ozone
levels. The Agency believes that convincing evidence exists that reducing
hydrocarbons will reduce ambient concentrations of ozone. This position rests
primarily upon experimental and theoretical studies which have clearly
established a physical cause-effect relationship between organic pollutants
and ozone in the presence of oxides of nitrogen. In addition, there are
a limited number of areas having ambient air quality and emission estimates
over sufficiently long periods of record which tend to confirm the theory
of smog formation. Following is a series of questions and answers pertaining
to the strategy of controlling organic emissions to reduce ambient levels of
ozone. The questions/answers first discuss the theoretical and experimental
basis for control of organic emissions. Next, the issue of oxidant transport
and its impact on control strategies is referred to. Third, the uses and
difficulties of trend analyses are mentioned. Finally, statistically signi-
ficant associations of downward trends in ozone with precursor trends are
presented. The answers to the questions posed are intentionally concise.
*Radian Corporation, Examination of Ozone Levels and Hydrocarbon Emissions
Reduction. Final Report DCN 77-100-151-04 submitted to the Manufacturing
Chemists Association, (November 1977).
-------
2
As such, they cannot go into the detail required for complete understanding
of the State of the Art. Lists of references pertaining to each major
subject area are enclosed. These may be pursued by the interested reader.
-------
What roles are organic pollutants and oxides of nitrogen believed to play in
formation of ozone?
Synthesis of ozone (0,} is formed through several reactions involving oxides
O \
of nitrogen (NO ), organic pollutants and sunlight. Most anthropogenic
A
sources emit NO as nitric oxide tNO). NO is then oxidized by ambient ozone
A
or organic species to form nitrogen dioxide (N02).
NO + 03 > N02 + 02 (la)
or
NO t [organics] —^
N02 is next photolyzed by sunlight to form more NO and atomic oxygen (0).
N02 ^ > NO + 0 (2)
The atomic oxygen then reacts with abundant atmospheric oxygen (02) to
form ozone.
Q + 0, 3 0- (3)
Reactions Cl) - (3), some of which produce ozone, others of which destroy
ozone, are all very fast. The result is a chemical equilibrium which
is established among Oo, N02 and NO:
[N02]
[0 ] = k ^ (4)
3 [NO]
where k = a constant value reflecting reaction rate constants and sunlight
intensity.
Equation (.4) is sometimes called the "photostationary state." It can be
seen from Equation C4) that anything which increases NCL concentrations
and/or decreases NO concentrations, increases 03. Reaction (Ib) is more
effective than reaction (l.a) in converting NO to N02 because:
-------
(a) other organic species which may also convert NO to N02
are formed, and
(b) ozone is not destroyed as it is in reaction (la).
Summarizing the previous discussion, organic pollutants are important
precursors of 03 because they cause the equilibrium among N02, NO and 03
to be shifted towards higher N09 and 0, and lower NO. The role of NO is
f. <3 X
more ambiguous. Near sources of NO it diminishes 03 levels. Further downwind,
more of the NO is converted to N02 which, in turn, reacts with sunlight to form
ozone.
2. What observations exist to support the roles of organic pollutants and
oxides of nitrogen in the formation of ozone?
The roles of organics and NO in ozone formation have been studied
/\
extensively in smog chambers. A smog chamber is a transparent container
which can be as large as a room. The usual experimental procedure is to
inject known amounts of organic and NO precursors into the chamber and
*\
then irradiate the mixture with artificial lights or sunlight. Measurements
are then made of ozone and other compounds which are formed during the
ensuing chemical reactions. Chemical kinetics models (mechanisms) are
then hypothesized to explain the observed behavior of pollutants in smog
chamber experiments. By altering only the initial concentration of
organic pollutants or of NO and repeating chamber experiments a number of
J\
times, the sensitivity of maximum ozone concentrations to organics and NO
n
concentrations can be observed. Using either kinetics models or chamber
data directly, one can plot maximum hourly ozone as a function of precursor
concentrations, as shown by the ozone isopleths in Figure 1. For a variety
of different chambers and kinetics models employing different assumptions,
ozone isopleths have an essentially similar shape to the L-shape shown in
Figure 1. It can be seen from Figure 1, that the effectiveness of organic
or N0x controls depends on the relative amounts of organics or NOX available
to react to form ozone. For example, maximum ozone concentrations are much
more sensitive to organic controls if the NMHC/NO ratio is low than if
A
-------
flatic
NMHC, ppmC
FIGURE 1 .
Example set of maximum hourly ozone isopleths expressed as a function
ambient organic and NO precursors.
A
Of
-------
this ratio is high. Thus, if NHHC/NO ratios are less than about
A
15-20:1, smog chamber experiments and kinetics models suggest controlling
VOC emissions should be an effective strategy for reducing ozone. The
lower the ratio, the more effective such a strategy is likely to be.
Examination of available NMHC and NO data suggests that most cities
s\
experience ratios in the order of 6-12:1. If isopleths generated by
kinetics models (typified by Figure 1) are considered in conjunction with
meteorological changes, the next step in sophistication is reached--
photochemical dispersion models. Much work has been conducted in develop-
ing photochemical dispersion models in the past few years. Extensive
efforts are currently underway to validate these models. However, limited
comparisons which have been undertaken in Denver and San Francisco have
produced reasonably good agreement with observed ozone data. Simulations
with these models suggest that controlling organic pollutants will reduce
both maximum concentrations of ozone and areawide exposure to ozone.
The results obtained thus far with simulations of NO controls are ambiguous.
A
These results suggest that controlling NO will increase ozone near sources
A
of NO, but that this effect becomes less pronounced as one proceeds
downwind. There is good reason to believe that if one were to proceed
downwind still further, a beneficial impact would be observed for NO
. «
control. In addition to the previously discussed theory, Sunday-weekday
comparisons of ozone concentrations in the northeast suggest this is the case,
3. How is long range transport likely to affect previously described Organic-
NO -Ozone relationships?
A
Long range (overnight) transport of significantly high C>-08 ppm)
concentrations of ozone has been well established in the northeastern
quadrant of the nation under some circumstances. Although measurements of rural
organic and NO precursor concentrations are very much lower than those
measured in urban areas, it is conceivable that non-negligible amounts of
precursors may occasionally be transported over long distances as,well.
The understanding of the role of precursors transported overnight is hindered
by the fact that their significance may depend on the ability of very low
concentrations of N02 to remain or be reformed in the atmosphere. Because
-------
the concentrations involved are so low, the usefulness of smog chamber
experiments to shed light on this process is a center of controversy.
Only a limited number of overnight chamber simulations have been run to
date. These suggest that organic emission controls may be less effective
in reducing the second day's maximum ozone concentration (.in the absence of
fresh precursor emissions on the second day). Although the applicability
of kinetics models is less certain in the absence of confirmatory chamber
data, these models may be useful in addressing the question of how
previously described ozone-precursor relationships are affected by long
range transport. Studies conducted by EPA to date suggest that ozone
transported from upwind of a city exerts a greater impact on maximum
ozone downwind of the city than do transported upwind precursors. This
impact appears to be only about 50 percent or less of what one might at
first expect. For example, if .12 ppm 0-, were transported from upwind,
the impact on maximum ozone downwind of a city might only be about .06 ppm.
Because measured data suggest that fresh urban precursors greatly exceed
transported precursors, fresh precursors overwhelm those transported from
afar. Hence, the impact of transported precursors in major urban areas is
probably relatively small.
The problem of organic-NOx-03 relationships in rural areas is not
sufficiently resolved. '[High NMHC/NOv ratios in such areas together with
X
some N0x plume data which suggest the possibility of 03 buildup far downwind
provide hints that the ability of new p3 to be generated in rural areas is
limited by the amount of available NOYJ. Kinetics model simualtions and
A
limited smog chamber data suggest that urban control programs based upon
VOC reductions which reduce 03 immediately downwind of urban areas will have
some, less dramatic beneficial impact on 03 in rural areas further downwind.
How should observed trends in ambient air quality data be used to assess
the effectiveness of control programs for ozone?
In utilizing trend data, it is desirable to keep all variables besides
emissions constant so that changes in 03 which result can be more readily
attributed to the changes in emissions. In practice, of course, this is
-------
8
impossible to do. Nevertheless, for trend analysis to be most meaningful,
one should strive to meet the following ground rules:
(a) comparisons should be made at identical locations;
(b) identical or similar measurement procedures, instrument
configurations and quality assurance checks should be
employed;
(c) similar dates of observation should be compared to remove
seasonal bias in the data;
(d) enough days should be included from each year to reduce bias
which may be introduced by weather system patterns;
(e) enough years should be considered so that the importance
of meteorological bias' can be discounted;
(f) similar configurations of sources should exist near the monitoring
location during each year.
Because the need to adhere to point (e). may cause the most frustration to State
and local agencies trying to document the effectiveness of previously imple-
mented controls, this point will be elaborated upon. A number of statistical
studies which have attempted to explain the variance in day to day fluctuations
in maximum 03 concentrations have found that a much greater portion of the
variance is explained by changes in meteorological parameters. Thus, despite
the fact that fairly substantial differences in emissions may be possible when
the wind blows in different directions, the impact of changes in emissions is
overwhelmed by more significant changes in meteorology. Hence, when one attempts
to compare fairly small changes in emissions, which may occur over a 2-3 year
period of record, to changes in ambient ozone levels, the effect of the emission
changes may be obliterated by unfavorable changes in meteorology. It had been
generally believed by EPA that at least a five year period of record may be
needed to discern a trend in air quality attributable to changes in emissions.
A recent review of ozone trend data conducted for EPA in areas having long period
of record suggest that periods as long as eight years may be required. Thus,
-------
while efforts are underway within EPA to develop procedures for "normalizing
trends" for differing meteorology during short periods of record, at the
present time trend analysis is only useful in a limited number of areas.
5. Do ambient air quality trend data exist which suggest that reducing
organic emissions will lead to reductions in ambient 03/oxidant levels?
Statistically significant downward trends in ambient oxidant levels
have been observed in two urban areas: the Los Angeles Basin and the
San Francisco Bay area. Statistically significant relationships between
organic emission reductions and oxidant levels appear to exist in these
two areas. In addition, significant downward trends have been observed
in highest oxidant concentrations and in the frequency with which the
.08 ppm Federal standard for oxidants is exceeded at central city CAMP
sites in 5 of 6 cities over a 10-year period of record. Tables 1 and 2
show the trends observed at the CAMP sites. The.downward trends are
likely attributable to reductions in organic emissions as well as
increases in NO emissions near each site.
Table 3 is derived from a recent report prepared by the California
Institute of Technology on oxidant and precursor trends observed in the
South Coast Air Basin (i.e., the. Los Angeles area) over a 9-year period.
The air quality trends (i.e., rows 3 and 4) represent composite trends
for all sites within each of the indicated counties. Note that trends
in organic emissions (row 1) are generally down and oxidant (row 3) are
generally down, whereas trends in NO emissions and ambient N00 are generally
x c.
up. Figure 2 depicts countywide organic and NO emission trends for each
A
county and ambient oxidant trends at individual sites in the basin. Note
the spatial distribution of trends. Downward oxidant trends are most
dramatic in Los Angeles County where the bulk of the organic emission
reductions have occurred and where the relative increase in NO is less.
A
At counties on the downwind (I.e., eastern) edge of the basin (I.e.,
Riverside and San Bernardino), oxidant has remained about the same or
gone up. These observations are consistent with the decreases in organic
emissions and the increase in ambient N02 observer! throughout the basin.
-------
TABLE 1
Comparisons of Average Highest and 2nd Highest Annual 1 Hr
Maximum Oxidant for Three Year Intervals 1964-66 & 1971-73
Site
Chicago
Cincinnati
Denver
Philadelphia
St. Louis,
Washington, D.C.
Average 1964-66 Values
Highest
0.125
0.175
0.215*
0.24
0.205
d.u
2d High
o.n
0.13
0.1853
0.205
0.145
0.145
Average 1971-73 Values
Highest
0.125
0.14
0.165b •
0.12C
0.135
0.145C
2d High
0.11
0.11
0.12b
0.115C
'•o.n
0,1 35C __
% Change
Highest
'0
-20
-23
- -50
.-34
-14
.2d High
0
-15
-36
-44
-24
-- 7
'1965-1967
J1970, 1972, 1973
'1970, 1971, 1973
Reference: AHshuller, A. P., "Evaluation of Oxidant Results at CAMP Sites in the United States",
JAPCA 25 (Jan 1975) pp. 19-24.
-------
TABLE 2
Comparisons of Total Number of (Observed) Days thatjDxidant
Concentration Fell in Intervals Aboye 0.08. ppm for Three-Year
Intervals 1971-73 and 1964-66
Site
Chicago
Cincinnati
Denver
Philadelphia
St. Louis
Washington, D. C.
1964-1966
0.085-
0.12 ppm
9
59
72
80
,85
87
0.125 ppm
& above
2
19
39
35
12
14
1971-1973
0.085-
0.12 ppm
14
37 '
34
21
14
42' •
0.125 ppm
& above
2
' 6
9
2
4
4
% Change
0.085 ppm-
0.12 ppm
+36
-37
-53
-74
-84
-52
0.125 ppm
& above
0
-68
-77
-94
-67
-71
Reference: Altshuller, A. P., "Evaluation of Oxidant Results at CAMP Sites in the United States",
JAPCA 25 (Jan. 1975) pp. 19-24.
-------
TABLE 3 — Emission and Air Quality Trends in the
South Coast Air Basin, 1966 - 19741 •
Prevailino l.'ind Direction
County
% Change in
RHC Emissions
% Change in
NO Emissions
% Change in
County-vn'de
Oxidant
(? of Stations)
" Change in
Ccunty-v/ide
N0? (# of
stations)
% of Basin
Population
Santa
Barbara
-9%
««
No
data
No
data
Ventura
-2%
+42%
No
data
No
data
Los
Anoeles
-24%
425%
•31%
(8 sites)
+19%
(& sites)
Oranae
+6%
+89%
-12%*
(2. sites)
+93%
(2 sites)
Riverside
Set
/J
+69%
+12%
(2 sites)
No
data
San ^
Bernardino
-17%
+38%
+2%
' (1 site)
+47%
(1. site) -
Basin-wide
Averaqe
-18%
+36%
-19%
(13 sites)
+35%
(11 sites)
(1970)
2.6
3.7
68.7
13.9
4.5
6.7
tVi
*0ne site'repcrted an increase of +7%, the other a decrease of .-31%. .
-------
7
BASINWIDE RHC EMISSION CHANGE: (-18%
BASINWIDE NOX EMISSION CHANGE: (+36%)
AVERAGE OXIDANT CONCENTRATION CHANGE (13 STATIONS); -194
TRENDS IN RHC EMISSIONS AND OXIDANT AIR QUALITY, 1965-1974
Figure 2
-------
14
Table 4 deph'cts trends observed over a 13-year period of record at
representative monitoring sites in counties within the San Francisco
Bay Area Air Basin. Note that over this long period of record, the trend
in oxidant concentrations is downward at all sites. The data at
San Jose serve to illustrate why it is a good idea to study the effect
of emission controls over a long period of record. If one only had
data for 1972-74 at San Jose, he would be led to conclude (falsely)
that emission controls exercised over this period have led to a deteriora-
tion in oxidant levels. As discussed earlier, it is likely that emission
changes exercised over such a short period are. overwhelmed by other,
unrelated factors.
6. What are the implications of a recent report, "Examination of Ozone Levels
and Hydrocarbon.Emissions Reduction", which has been prepared for the
Manufacturing Chemists Association?
This study was divided into three phases. In the first phase, trends
in ambient ozone were compared with estimated organic emission reductions
in five cities. The period of record was a short one—two, or at most,
three years. In some of the cities, observed oxidant levels increased
while in others observed levels remained about the same. The authors of
the study conclude that existing data did not necessarily support the
hypothesis that reducing hydrocarbon emissions reduces ambient ozone levels.
However, they also conclude that there are not sufficient amounts of good
quality data with which to draw more definite conclusions. For the reasons
discussed in the responses to questions 4 and 5, a review of trends over" a
2-3 year period is likely to be an exercise in futility. This is because
more significant changes in meteorology occur from year to year. One of
the cities reviewed in the MCA report is Houston, Texas. Houston is of
particular interest because large reductions in organic emissions are claimed
over the period studied for the MCA and the city experiences very high ozone
concentrations. Despite the 20-30 percent reduction in organic emissions claimed
over the period of record, ambient non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) concentrations
-------
TABLE 4
AVERAGE HIGH-HOUR OXIDANT CONCENTRATIONS FOR DAYS WITH COMPARABLE TEMPERATURE MO
INVERSION CONDITIONS. (APRIL THROUGH OCTOBER OXIDANT SMOG SEASONS, 1962-1974)
(Source: Information Bulletin 3-25-75: A Study of Oxidant Concentration Trends: Technical
Services Division, Bay Ares Air Pollution Control District.)
Monitoring
Average High-Hour Oxidant Concentration
Station
\
San Francisco
San Leandro
San Jose
Redwood City
Walnut Crerk
San Rafael
BAAPCD
Average*
Liverwore**
'62
.14
.13
.11
.13
.10
.08
.12
—
'63
.12
.16
.17
.10
.11
.09
.12
--
'64
..15
.19
.14
.10
.10
.07
.13
--
'65
.09
.19
.16
.14
.11
.08
.13
--
(KI parts- per
'65
.08
.14
.11
.10
.10
.07
.10
—
'67
.08
.12
.13
.09
.13
.07
.10
.13
'68
.05
.11
.13
.08
.10
.06
.09
.18
mi 1 1 i on )
'69
.04
.12
".13
.09
.13
.07
.10
.18
'70
.07
.12
.12
.08
.09
.08
.09
.13
'71
.05
.11
.08
.07
.09
.07
.08
.11
'72
.03
I1.0
.10
.08
.09
.05
.08
.09
'73
.04
.11
.11
.07
.08
..05
.08
.12
'74
.05
.10
.16
.07
.08
.06
.09
.13
13-yr , 'Oxidant
Trend
• Direction
(19^0-
74 only)
.08 • —
.13
r
.13 +
,09
. .10 .-• -
.07
.10
.13 +
Data
—
-
-
-
-
-
—
-
* Fn>- hpnchmark stations above, with 13 vears of record.
** Station with 8 years of record.
-------
16
increased at one of two sites in the city. Further, there is some
question about whether a significant fraction of the claimed emission
decrease occurred before or at the beginning of the period of record
for reported ozone observations. Ozone trends obviously would not
reflect such changes even if there were no complications introduced
by meteorology, monitor location and other extraneous factors.
Interpretation of the trends is, however, further complicated by more
adverse meteorology which occurred during the latter portion of the
study (1976).
The second phase of the study for MCA reviewed levels of NMHC and
NO, NOo and NO which occurred during periods of high ozone. In some
£• /\
cases ozone Increased as observed NMHC and/or NO went up. In other
J\
cases there were no obvious relationships. It is generally difficult
to draw any conclusions from observations of this sort, because much
of the variability in ozone concentrations has been eliminated before
the analysis is even begun. Hence, the changes in ozone levels one is
asked to explain are generally small and the number of possible explana-
tions are still large. The authors conclude that precursor-ozone
relationships cannot be readily derived without also considering meteoro-
logical changes. Other studies described in previous responses would
certainly support this conclusion.
The third and final phase of the study for MCA attempted to relate
high ozone levels to the passage of weather fronts (by inference
implicating stratospheric intrusion). The authors found that ozone
decreases with the passage of a weather front and then increases again
several days later. Such observations are consistent with those in
earlier studies conducted for EPA. These observations do not provide
support for the hypothesis that stratospheric intrusion is a significant
factor leading to widespread high concentrations of ozone which have
been reported in certain parts of the country.
-------
REFERENCES FOR FURTHER READING
I. General References on Atmospheric Chemistry Related to Ozone Formation
1. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Air
Quality Criteria for Photochemical Oxidants^ AP-63,
(March 1970), Ch. Z
2. Altshuller, A.P., and J.J. Bufalini, "Photochemcial Aspects
of Air Pollution: A Review," Environmental Science and
Technology, _5, 39 (January 1971JT
3. Dimitriades, B., Photochemical Oxidants in the Ambient
Air of the United States, EPA-60Q/3-76-017. (February 1976).
Ch. 3.
4. U.S. EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Other Photochemical
Oxidents, Volume I, EPA-600/8-78-004, (April 1978), Ch. 4.
II. Laboratory and Modeling Observations Related to Oxidant Control Strategies
1. Dimitriades, B., "Effects of Hydrocarbon and Nitrogen Oxides
in Photochemical Smog Formation," Environmental Sciences and
Technology. 6, 253 (1972).
2. McCracken, M.C., et al., Development of an Air Pollution Model
for the San Francisco Bay~Area, Volume I, NTIS No. UCRL-51920,
(October 1975).
3. Dodge, M.C., Combined Use of Modeling Techniques and Smog
Chamber Data to Derive Ozone-Precursor Relationships,
FPA-600/3-77-001b, p. 881, (January 1977).
4. Dimitriades, B., "Oxidant Control Strategies, Part 1: An
Urban Oxidant Control Strategy Derived from Existing Smog
Chamber Data," Environmental Science and Technology 11,
p. 80 (1977). '—~ ~
5. Anderson, 6.E., et al., Air Quality in the Denver Metropolitan
Region 1974-2000. EPA-908/I-77-002, (May 1977), Ch. 2.
6. U.S. EPA, Uses, Limitations and Technical Basis of Procedures
for QuantiTying Relationships Between Photochemical Oxidants
and Precursors. EPA-450/2-77-021 a. (November 1977)
-------
7. Seinfeld, J.H., and K.R.Wilson, International Conference
on Oxidants, 1976 - Analysis of Evidence and Viewpoints.
Part VI, The Issue of Air Quality Simulation Model Utility,
EPA-600/3-77-118, (November 1977).
8. U.S. EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Other Photochemical
Oxidants, Volume I, EPA-60Q/8-78-004, (April 1978), Ch. 6.
III. Impact of Transport on Control Strategies
1. Research Triangle Institute, Investigation of Rural Oxidant
Levels as Related to Urban Hydrocarbon Control Strategies,
EPA-450/3-75-036, (March 1975).
2. Jeffries, H.J., et al., Outdoor Smog Chamber Studies: Effect
of Hydrocarbon Reduction on Nitrogen Dioxide, EPA-650/3-75-001,
TJune 1975).~
3. Martinez, E.L., and E.L. Meyer, "Urban-Nonurban Ozone Gradients
and Their Significance," Proceedings, Ozone/Oxidant Interaction
with the Total Environment Speciality Conference, APCA, (March 1976),
4. Decker, C.E., et al., Formation on a Tranport of Oxidants Along
Gulf Coast andTrTNorthern U.S.', EPA-450/3-76-033, (August 1976).
5. Sickles, J.E., et al., Oxidant and Precursor Transport Simulation
Studies in the Research Triangle Institute Smog Chambers,
EPA-600-3-77-001a, p. 319 (January 1977).
6. Dimitriades, B., Oxidant Control Strategy; Recent Developments,
EPA--600/3-77-001b, p. 1143, (January 1977).
7. Ludwig, F.L., and E. Shelar, Ozone ^n the Northeastern United
States, EPA-901/9-76-007, (March 1977).
8. U.S. EPA, Uses, Limitations and Technical Basis of Procedures
for Quantifying Relationships Between Photochemical Oxidants
and Precursors, EPA-450/2-77-021a, Ch. 3, (November 1977).
9. Pack, D.H., et al.. International Conference on Oxidants, 1976 -
Analysis of Evidence and Viewpoints. Part V. The Issue of
OxTdant Transport. EPA-600/3-77-117, (November 1977).
10. U.S. EPA, Procedures for Quantifying Relationships Between
Photochemical Oxidants and Precursors: Supporting Documentation,
EPA-450/2-77-021b, (February 1978).
-------
11. U.S. EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Other Photochemical
Oxidants, Volume I, EPA-6QQ/8-78-004, Ch. 3-5, (April 19/8).
12. Cleveland, W.S., and J.E. McRae, "Weekday-Weekend Ozone Concentrations
in the Northeast United States," ES&T 12. p. 558 (May 1978).
13. Decker, C.E., et al., Project Da Vinci II: Data Analysis and
Interpretation, EPA-450/3-78-028, (June I9/«J.
IV. Observed Air Quality Trends and Their Underlying Explanations
1. U.S. EPA, Guideline for the Evaluation of Air Quality Trends,
Guideline Series OAQPS No. 1.2-014, (February 19/4).
2. Altshuller, A.P=, "Evaluation of Oxidant Results at CAMP Sites
in the United States," Air Pollution Control Association J,
25^, 19 (January 1975).
3. Trijonis, J.C., et al., Emissions and Air Quality Trends in
the South Coast Air Basin, EQL Memo No. 16, Environmental Qua!ity
Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125.
4. Wayne, L., et al., Detection and Interpretation of Trends in
Oxidant Air Quality. EPA-450/3-76-034. (October 1976).
5. Gise, J.P., Recent Ozone Trends in Texas, AIChE, 83rd National
Meeting, Houston, Texas, (March 1977).
6. Trijonis, J., et al., Verification of the Isopleth Method for
Relating Photochemical Oxidant to Precursors, EPA-600/3-78-019,
Ch. 2-3, (February 1978)T
-------
REF VI-1
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
' DATE: 2 8 APR 1978
SUBJECT: Development of 'Regulations for HC RACT from CTG's
FROM: Walter C. Barber, Director U2/
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO: Robert Duprey, Director
Air & Hazardous Materials Division, EPA Region V
The Control Techniques Guideline documents were published to aid
in developing RACT- type regulations for sources of volatile organics.
It appears that they are being interpreted too narrowly and that
regulations based 011 the. GTG's -documents are vising only live
presumptive emission number and neglecting to include the qualification
that Lhis number may be either too restrictive or too lenient for some
facilities. The CTG documents contain the statement "It must be
cautioned that the limits reported in this Preface are based on
capabilities and problems which are general to the industry, but may
not be applicable to every plant". This caveat was noted in the memo
on implementation of RACT for. HC sources from Dave Hawkins to all
R.A 's on February 2, 1978 "Where economics or other circumstances
justify regulatory requirements less stringent than those contained^
within the CTG's, such justification should be clearly documented in
the SIP submittal."
Tough presumptive numbers were selected assuming that they did
not have to be achievable or reasonable for every source. If the
presumptive CTG number is used verbatim in a regulation, there.
should be a provision or a procedure to allow relaxation after a
case-by-case demonstration of infeasibility , (technical or economic)
either during the proposal period or as a later SIP revision.
The example RACT- type regulations for VOC that GCA did for
Region V use the presumptive CTG numbers as absolutes. You should
consider adding the appropriate general provision or noting in the
package that a form of a variance procedure is needed if the
limitation in the example regulations are to be applicable to all
sources.
cc: D. Goodwin
J. Calc^gni
D. Rhoad's
R. Wilson
M. James
Air & Hazardous Materials Division Directors (Regions I-1V, VI-X)
Air Branch Chiefs (Regions I-X)
-------
duly 10, 1978
REF VI-4
STATIONARY SOURCES OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
AND SCHEDULE FOR APPLICABLE CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES^/
SOURCE CATEGORY
NATIONWIDE EMISSIONS,
1,000 metric tons/yr
FINAL REPORT DATE
Petroleum Refinery Fugitive
Emissions (Leaks)
Surface Coating of Miscellaneous
Metal Parts and Products
Vegetable Oil Processing
Factory Surface Coating of
Flatwood Paneling
Large Appliance Manufacture
Magnet Wire Insulation
Gasoline Bulk Plants
Metal Furniture Manufacture
Petroleum Liquid Storage,
Fixed Roof Tanks
Degreasing
Bulk Gasoline Terminals
Petroleum Refinery Vacuum Systems,
Wastewater Separators and Process
Unit Turnarounds
Cutback Asphalt Paving
Surface Coating of Automobiles,
Cans, Metal Coils, Paper, and
Fabric Products
Service Stations, Stage I
Pharmaceutical Manufacture
Rubber Products Manufacture
Graphic Arts (Printing)
Service Stations, Stage II
Petroleum Liquid Storage,
Floating Roof Tanks
150
200
70
50
35
10
150
100
700
700
250
700
700
900
400
50
150
400
500
150
Enclosed
Enclosed
Enclosed
Enclosed
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
Control technology
information has been
widely distributed, ».
available on request.—
December,
December,
December,
December,
1978
1978
1973
1978
December, 1978
-------
SOURCE CATEGORY
REF VI-4
- 2 -
NATIONWIDE EMISSIONS,
1,000 metric tons/yr
FINAL REPORT DATE
Organic Chemical Manufacture
Process Streams
Fugitive (Leaks)
Dry Cleaning
Architectural and Miscellaneous
Coatings
Ship and Barge Transport of
Gasoline and Crude Oil
Wood Furniture Manufacture
Organic Chemical Manufacture
Waste Disposal
Storage and Handling
Natural Gas and Crude Oil
Production
Natural Gas and Natural
Gasoline Plants
Adhesives
Other Industrial Surface
Coatings
Auto Refinishing
Other Solvent Usage
Metals Manufacture
Other Manufacturing
Fuel Combustion
Forest, Agricultural and
Other Open Burning
Solid Waste Disposal
TOTAL STATIONARY SOURCES
TOTAL TRANSPORTATION SOURCES
450
600
250
300
60
200
150
300
200
150
200
300
150
3,000
4,000
December, 1978
December, 1978
December, 1978
December, 1978
June, 1979
June, 1979
June, 1979
June, 1979
Screening studies underway
Screening studies being
initiated
Not yet scheduled
Not yet scheduled
Not yet scheduled
Source strengths of major
categories being confirmed
before initiating CTG
analysis.
None planned
16,700,000 metric tons per year
10,600,000 metric tons per year
-------
REF VI-4
- 3 -
— This inventory was developed from national production and consumption
information using average emission factors. The technique necessarily
requires assumptions that cannot be confirmed in every case. We
anticipate that the figures will change as better information is
developed and generalized categories such as "other solvent usage" are
more clearly defined.
2/
—' "Design Criteria for Stage I Vapor Control Systems Gasoline Service
Stations," U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, November, 1975, and
"A Study of Vapor Control Methods for Gasoline Marketing Operations:
Volume I - Industry Survey and Control Techniques," U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA-450/3-75-046a, April, 1975.
-------
REF VI- 6
FRIDAY, JULY 8, 1977
PART III
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
AIR QUALITY
Recommended Policy on Control of
Volatile Organic Compounds
-------
35314
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL 72&-5J
AIR QUAUTY
Recommended Policy on Control of Volatile
Organic Compounds
PimposE
I The purpose of this notice Is to rec-
ommend a policy for States to follow on
the control of volatile organic compounds
(VOC), which are a constituent In the
formation of photochemical oxidants
(smog). This notice does not place any
requirements on States; State Implemen-
tation Plan (SIP) provisions which offer
reasonable alternatives to this policy will
be approvable. However, this policy will
be followed by_EPA "whenever It Is re-
quired to draft State Implementation
Plans for the control of photochemical
oxidants.
BACKGROUND
Photochemical oxidants result from
sunlight acting on volatile organic com-
pounds (VOC)' and oxides of nitrogen.
Some VOC, by their nature, start to form
oxidant after only a short period of ir-
radiation in the atmosphere. Other VOC
may undergo Irradiation for a longer
period before they yield measurable
oxidant.
In Its guidance to States for the prep-
aration, adoption, and submittal of State
Implementation Plans published in 1971,
the Environmental Protection Agency
emphasized reduction of total organic
compound emissions, rather than sub-
stitution. (See 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix
B.) However, in Appendix B, EPA stated
that substitution of one compound for
another might be useful where it would
result in a clearly evident decrease in
reactivity and thus tend to reduce photo-
chemical oxidant formation. Subse-
quently, many State Implementation
Plans were promulgated with solvent
substitution provisions similar to Rule
66 of the Los Angeles County Air Pollu-
tion Control District. These regulations
allowed exemptions for many organic
solvents which have now been shown
to generate significant photochemical
oxidant.
On January 29, 1976, EPA published
Its "Policy Statement on Use of the Con-
cept of Photochemical Reactivity of Or-
ganic Compounds in State Implementa-
tion Plans for Oxidant Control." The
notice of availability of this document
appeared in the FEDERAL REGISTER on
February 5,1976 (41 FR 5350).
The 1976 policy statement emphasized
that the reactivity concept was useful
as an interim measure only, and would
not be considered a reduction in organic
emissions for purposes of estimating at-
tainment of the ambient air quality
standard for oxidants. The document
also Included the following statement:
Although the substitution portions of Rule
88 and similar rules represent a workable
and acceptable program at the present time.
better substitution regulations can be de-
veloped, based on current knowledge of re-
REF VI- 6
NOTICES
activity and Industrial rapablllty. EPA ta
collaboration with State and Industry repre-
sentatives will formulate In 1976 an Im-
proved rule for national use.
SUMMARY
Analysis of available data and Infor-
mation show that very few -volatile or-
ganic compounds are of such low photo-
chemical reactivity that they can be
ignored in oxidant control programs.
For this reason, EPA's recommended
policy reiterates the need for positive
reduction techniques (such as the reduc-
tion of volatile organic compounds in
surface coatings, process changes, and
the use of control equipment) rather
than the substitution of compounds of
low (slow) reactivity In the place of
more highly (fast) reactive compounds.
There are three reasons for this. First,
many of the VOC that previously have
been designated as having low reactivity
are now known to be moderately. or
highly reactive in urban atmospheres.
Second, even compounds that are pres-
ently known to have low reactivity can
form appreciable amounts of oxidant
under multiday stagnation conditions
such as occur during summer in many
areas. Third, some compounds of low
or negligible reactivity may have other
deleterious effects.
Of the small number of VOC which
have only negligible photochemical re-
activity, several (benzene, acetonitrile,
chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, ethyl-
ene dichloride, ethylene dibromide, and
methylene chloride) have been Identified
or implicated as being carcinogenic, mu-
tagenic, or teratogenic. An additional
compound, benzaldehyde, while produc-
ing 110 appreciable ozone, nevertheless,.
forms a strong eye irritant under irradia-
tion. In view of these circumstances, it
would-be inappropriate for EPA to en-
courage or support increased utilization
" of these compounds. Therefore, they are
not recommended for exclusion from
control. Only the four compounds listed
in Table 1 are, recommended for exclu-
sion from SIP regulations and, therefore,
it is not necessary that they be inven-
toried or controlled. In determining re-
ductions required to meet oxidant
NAAQS, these VOC should not be In-
cluded in the base line nor should reduc-
tions in their emission be credited toward
achievement of the NAAQS.
It is recognized that the two halo-
genated compounds listed in Table 1
(methyl chloroform and Freon 113) may
cause deterioration of the earth's ultra-
violet radiation shield since they are
nearly unreactive in the lower atmos-
phere and all contain appreciable frac-
tions of chlorine. The Agency has
reached conclusions on the effects of only
the fully halogenated chlorofluoroal-
kanes. The Agency on May 13, 1977 (42
FR 24542), proposed rules under the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to
prohibit the nonessentlal use of fully
halogenated chlorofluoroalkanes as aero-
sol propellants. The restrictions were ap-
plied to all members of this class. In-
cluding Freon 113, since they are poten-
tial substitutes for Freon 11, Freon 12,
Freon 114, and Freon 115, which are cur-
rently used as aerosol propellants. The
Agency Is planning to Investigate control
systems and substitutes for nonpropel-
lant uses under TSCA, as announced on
May 13. Methyl chloroform Is not a fully
halogenated chlorofluoroalkane. Rather,
It Is among the chlorine-containing com-
pounds for which the Agency has not
completed its analysis; EPA has not yet
concluded whether it Is or is not a threat
to the stratospheric ozone. Therefore, It
has been placed on this list as an accept-
able exempt compound. As new informa-
tion becomes available on these com-
pounds, EPA will reconsider the recom-
mendation.
The volatile organic compounds listed
in Table 2, while more photochemlcally
reactive than those in Table 1, never-
theless do not contribute large quantities
of oxidant under many atmospheric con-
ditions.
TABLE 1.—Volatile Organic Compounds of
Negligible Photochemical Reactivity That
Should Be Exempt From Regulation Under
State Implementation Plans
Methane
Ethane
1,1,1-Trlchloroethane (Methyl Chloroform)1
TrichlorotrLfluoroethane (Freon 113)l
'These compounds have been Implicated
as having deleterious effects on stratospheric
ozone and, therefore, may be subject to fu-
ture controls.
TABLE 2.—Volatile Organic Compounds of
Low Photochemical Reactivity
' Propane
Acetone
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methanol
Isopropanol
Methyl Benzoate
Tertiary Alkyl Alcohols
Methyl Acetate
Phenyl Acetate
Ethyl Amines
Acetylene
N, N-dlmethyl formamlde
Only during multiday stagnations do
Table 2 VOC yield significant oxidants.
Therefore, If resources are limited or if
the sources are located In 'areas where
prolonged atmospheric stagnations are
uncommon, priority should be given to
controlling more reactive VOC first and
Table 2 organics later. Table 2 VOC are
to be included In base line emission in-
ventories and reductions in them will be
credited toward achievement of the
NAAQS. Reasonably available control
technology should be applied to signifi-
cant sources of Table 2 VOC where neces-
sary to attain the NAAQS for oxidants.
New sources of these compounds will also
be subject to new source review require-
ments.
Perchloroethylene, the principal sol-
vent employed in the dry cleaning indus-
try, is also of low reactivity, comparable
to VOC listed In Table 2. It was not In-
cluded In Table 2 because of reported ad-
verse health effects. Uses, environmental
distribution, and effects of perchloro-
ethylene currently are being studied In-
tensively by occupational health author-
ethylene currently are being studied In-
vestigations may have major Impact on
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 42, NO. 131—FRIDAY, JULY 8, 1977
-------
REF V
fclr,
Industrial users. In designing control reg-
ulations tor perchloroettiylene sources,
particularly dry cleaners, consideration
should be given to these findings as well
as industry requirements and the cost of
applying controls. Available control tech-
nology Is highly cost effective for large
perchloroethylene dry cleaning opera-
tions. However, for' coin-operated and
small dry cleaners, the same equipment
would represent a heavy economic
burden.
As part of its continuing program, EPA
will review new Information relative to
the photochemical reactivity, toxicity, or
effects on stratospheric ozone of volatile
organic compounds. Where appropriate,
additions or deletions will be made to the
lists of VOC In Tabels 1 and 2.
DISCUSSION
Most air pollution control regulations
applicable to stationary sources of VOC
to the United States are patterned after
Rule 66 of the Los Angeles County Air
Pollution Control District (presently
Regulation 442 of the Southern Califor-
nia Air Pollution Control District). Rule
..66 and similar regulations Incorporate
.two basic strategies to reduce ambient
oxidant levels, J.e., positive VOC reduc-
tion and selective solvent substitution
based on photochemical reactivity. Posi-
tive reduction schemes such as Incinera-
tion, absorption, and the use of l^w-sol-
vent coatings are acknowledged means of
reducing ambient oxidant levels; they
should be retained in future VOC control
programs. In contrast, the utility of sol-
vent substitution strategies has been
questioned as more Information on pho-
to chemical reactivity has emerged.
EPA acknowledged the shortcomings
of solvent substitution based on Rule 66
reactivity criteria In a 1976 policy state-
ment (41 FR 5350). Findings were cited
which indicated that almost all VOC
eventually react In the atmosphere to
form some oxidant. Concurrently, EPA
Initiated an Investigation to consider im-
plications of revising the solvent substi-
tuton aspects of Rule 66. Three separate
forms were conducted with representa-
tives of State and local air pollution
control agencies, university professors,
and Industrial representatives with
knowledge and expertise in the fields of
bttnospheric chemistry and industrial
(solvent applications. In addition, nu-
tmerous discussions were held with ac-
knowledged experts In the field. Topics
of particular concern were:
Whether Rule 66 substitution criteria
could be revised consistent with available
reactivity data and yet be compatible with
Industrial processes and with product re-
quirements.
Whether some compounds are of suffi-
ciently low reactivity that they are not oxi-
dant precursors and can be exempted from
control under State Implementation Flans.
Whether the Imposition of reactivity re-
strictions In addition to positive emission
reductona •will delay the development or
implementation of promising technologies,
gMirtlculwly the use of water-borne and
high-solids surface coatings.
ICES
Investigation showed that:
1. Solvent substiutton based on Rule
66 has been dlrectionally correct In the
aggregate and probably effects some re-
ductions in peak oxidant levels. How-
ever, because of the relatively high re-
activity of most of the substituted sol-
vents, the reduction is small compared to
that which can be accomplished with
positive reduction techniques. Revision
of Rule 66 consistent with current knowl-
edge of reactivity would eliminate the
solvent substitution option for most
sources in which substitution Is new em-
ployed. Many of the organic solvents
which have been categorized as having
low photochemical reactivity are, In fact,
moderately or highly reactive; they yield
significant oxidant when subjected to
Irradiation In smog chambers designed to
simulate the urban atmosphere.
2. A few VOC yield only negligible
ozone when Irradiated in smog chambers
under both urban and rural conditions.
Experiments.conducted to date indicate
that only methane and ethane, a group
of halogenated paraffins, and three other
organics—benzene, benzaldehyde, and
acetonltrile—can be so classified. These
compounds react very slowly yielding
little ozone during the first few days
following their release to the atmosphere.
Available data suggest that none of the
listed compounds contribute significant
oxidant even during extended irradiation
under multiday stagnation conditions.
The broad group "halogenated paraf-
fins" Includes important industrial
solvents, most of which are chlorinated
methanes and ethanes and chlorofiuoro-
ethanes. They find use as metal cleaning
and dry cleaning solvents and as paint
removers. Halogenated paraffins also
serve as building blocks in the manufac-
ture of other halogenated organics; ,
these processes do not necessarily release
significant VOC to the atmosphere.
3. Besides focusing on VOC of
negligible reactivity, smog chamber
studies show that a few additional VOC
generate oxidant at a relatively slow rate.
Under favorable atmospheric conditions,
these VOC releases may not form oxidant
until they have been transported sub-
stantial distances and become greatly
diluted. However, under multiday stag-
nation conditions such as occur during
summer In many areas of the middle and
eastern United States, there Is the
potential for these organics to undergo
appreciable conversion to oxidant. The
more Important VOC in this category are
acetone, methyl ethyl ketone, parchloro-
ethylene, methanol, Isopropanol, and
propane. All except propane are indus-
trial solvents. The latter, a gas under
normal conditions, is associated prin-
cipally with crude oil and liquefied
petroleum gas operations.
4. The vast number of volatile organic
compounds—particularly nonhalogenat-
ed VOC—yield appreciable ozone when
Irradiated in the presence of oxides of
nitrogen. While there are measurable
variations In their rates of ozone forma-
tion, all are significantly more reactive
than VOC listed In Table 2. Quickly re-
active VOC Include almost all aliphatic
3531,-)
and aromatic solvents, alcohols, ke-
tones, glycols, and ethers.
5. Low photochemical-reactivity is not
synonymous with low biological activity.
Some of the negligible or slowly reactive
compounds have adverse effects on hu-
man health. Benzene, acetonitrile, car-
bon tetrachlorlde, chloroform, perchlo-
roethylene, ethylene dichloride, ethylene
dibromlde, and methylene chloride have
been Implicated as being carcinogens,
teratogens, or mutagens. In addition,
benzaldehyde, which produces no ap-
preciable ozone, nevertheless forms a
strong eye irritant under irradiation.
While their use might reduce ambient
oxidant levels, It would be unwise to en-
courage their uncontrolled release. Ad-
ditional halogenated organics are being
investigated for possible toxicity.
Most of the related health informa-
tion available at this time concerns acute
toxicity. Threshold limit values (TLV's)
have been developed for many VOC.
They are appropriate for the healthy,
adult work force exposed eight hours a
day, five days a week. Experts suggest
that more stringent levels should be
established for the general population.
Hazards represented by chronic and sub-
chronlc exposure are much more diffi-
cult to quantify than acute toxicity. Ad-
verse health effects of the VOC cited
above are generally recognized although
not completely quantified. Chlorinated
solvents currently are under intensive
study.
6. Some VOC are of such low photo-
chemical reactivity that they persist in
the atmosphere for several years, even-
tually migrating to the stratosphere
where they are suspected of reacting and
destroying ozone. Since stratospheric
ozone is the principal absorber of ultra-
violet (UV) light, the depletion could
lead to an increase in UV penetration
with a resultant worldwide increase in
skin cancer. The only in-depth analysis
of this potential problem has focused on
the chlorofluoromethanes (CFM), Freon
11 and Freon 12, because of their known
stability and widespread use in aerosol
containers. A report of the National
Academy of Sciences concerning envi-
ronmental effects of CFM's concluded
that:
• • • seletclve regulation of CFM uses
and releases Is almost certain to be necessary
at some time and to some extent of com-
pleteness.
In response to the report of the National
Academy of Sciences and other studies,
EPA on May 13, 1977 (42 FR 24542), pro-
posed rules to prohibit nonessential use-
age of fully halogenated chlorofluoroal-
kanes as areosol propellants. The re-
strictions were applied to all members
of this class Including Freon 113 since
they are potential substitutes for Freon
11, Freon 12, Freon 114, and Freon 115
which are currently used as aerosol
propellants.
Other stable halogenated solvents
which are released in volumes compara-
ble to the chlorofiuoroalkanes also are
suspected of depleting the earth's UV
shield. Of major concern to the wlde-
FEDERAl REGISTER, VOL. 42, NO. 131—FRIDAY, JULY 8, 1977
-------
REF VI-6
spread substitution of methyl chloroform
(1,1,1 trichloroethane) for the photo-
chemically reactive degreasing solvent
trlchloroethylene. Such substitution un-
der Rule 66 generation regulations has
already influenced industrial degreasing
operations to the extent that methyl
chloroform production has surpassed
that of trichloroethylene in the United
States. Any regulation in the area will
have a marked effect on the production
and atmospheric emissions of both sol-
vents. Endorsing methyl chloroform sub-
stitution would increase emissions, par-
ticularly in industrial States that have
not, heretofore, implemented Rule 66. On
the other hand, disallowing methyl chlo-
roform as a substitute or banning it alto-
gether would significantly increase emis-
sions of trichloroethylene even if de-
greasers were controlled to the limits of
available technology. Presently, tech-
nology is only able to reduce emissions by
approximately 50 percent. In metropoli-
tan areas which have already imple-
mented Rule 66, a return to trichloro-
ethylene would have an adverse effect
on ambient oxidant levels. In addition to
being highly reactive, trichloroethylene
has been implicated as a carcinogen.
Alternatives to the above-cited choices
would be (1) development and applica-
tion of highly efficient degreaser control
systems and (2) replacement with an
NOTICES
intermediate solvent which is neither re-
active nor detrimental to the upper at-
mosphere. Major revisions would be
needed to degreaser designs to improve
vapor capture above the current best
level. Anticipated design changes could
add materially to degreaser costs. No al-
ternative solvent is clearly acceptable
from the standpoints of photochemical
oxidant and stratospheric ozone deple-
tion. Neither methylene chloride nor
trichlorotrifluoroethane are reactive, but,
like methyl chloroform, are suspected of
causing damage to the stratospheric
ozone layer. In addition, methylene chlo-
ride is a suspect mutagen. Perchloro-
ethylene, the principal dry cleaning sol-
vent, does not present a hazard to the
stratosphere but has been implicated as
being a carcinogen and also reacts slowly
in the atmosphere to form oxidant.
7. Organic solvents of low or negligible
photochemical reactivity have only
limited use in many industries. Most are
chlorinated organics that find principal
applications as cleaners for metals and
fabrics. A few nonhalogenated VOC such
as acetone, methyl ethyl ketone, and
isopropanol are of low reactivity but
these can't possibly satisfy all the myriad
needs of the paint, plastics, pharmaceu-
tical, or many other Industries. While
users of reactive VOC usually can employ
effective control equipment to recover or
destroy VOC emissions, they seldom have
the option of applying reactivity con-
siderations in choosing sol vents. Applying
reactivity restrictions to the surface coat-
Ing industry would be especially disad-
vantageous since It wonld greatly inhibit
the development of low-solvent coatings;
essentially all of the organic solvents
used to constitute high-solids coatings
and water-borne coatings are. in fact,
highly reactive.
8. It is recognized that smog chamber
studies conducted to date are incomplete
because many organic compounds have
not been examined and it has been im-
possible to duplicate all atmospheric sit-
uations. For example, there has been
only limited examination of oxidant for-
mation under relatively high ratios of
VOC to NO, (30:1 and greater), compar-
able to rural conditions. Any policy on
photochemical reactivity necessarily has
to be open to revision as new information
is developed which may show specific
organic compounds to be more or less
photochemically reactive than indicated
by current data.
Dated: June 29, 1977.
EDWARD F. TUERK,
Acting Assistant Administrator
for Air and Waste Management.
[FR Doo.77-19386 Filed 7-7-77;8:45 am]
FH>EtA£ REGISTER VOL 42, NO. 131—FRIDAY, JULY 8, 1077
-------
REfi VI -7
* \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
' WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
AIR AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
JUL 2 8
SUBJECT: Seasonal Operation of Natural
Gas-Fired Afterburners
MEMO TO: Regional Administrators
It has been estimated that the use of afterburners for control of
air pollutants required 0.4 percent of the total 22 trillion cubic feet
of natural gas consumed in 1975 in the U.S.. While not a high percentage,
this is a substantial amount of natural gas—equivalent, for example, to
the annual amount required to heat 62,000.homes in Washington, D.C.
Many of these afterburners are required solely to reduce emissions
of hydrocarbons to control ambient oxidant levels. However, results
from both statistical analyses of ambient data and smog chamber tests
show that oxldants do not readily form at temperatures below about 59°F.
Thus, in many parts of the U.S., the operation of afterburners required
for oxidant control may not be needed during the winter months. This
fact and t-r.c expectation mat natural gas will oe in aiiui u iup^'j JUi i.,a
the coming winter support an EPA policy of allowing states to permit
natural gas-fired afterburners to be shut down during the coming winter
season provided there is reasonable assurance that this action will net
jeopardize the attainment or maintenance of the oxidant standard. The
situation in future winters should be evaluated in light of then-existing
circumstances.
The policy applies to gas-fired afterburners installed to control
hydrocarbon emissions for the purpose of reducing ambient oxidant con-
centration. It does not apply to flares (which do not use gas as an
auxiliary fuel), hydrocarbons vented to boilers, afterburners operated
principally for odor control, or afterburners operated to control toxic
substances. Some afterburners which control hydrocarbon emissions also
control, either primarily or secondarily, the emissions of carbon monoxide
and particulate matter. The seasonal shutoff of some of these also could
be permitted if neither the attainment nor the maintenance of the ambient
standards for those pollutants is jeopardized.
Measurements of oxidant air quality indicate that ambient concentra-
tions diminish substantially in many northern areas during the winter;
northern urban areas in which summertime oxidant concentrations often
exceed the national standard by large amounts experience greatly reduced
C-9
-------
REF VI-7
concentrations during the winter season. This observed seasonal phe-
nomenon 1s consistent with the theory of oxidant formation; high ambient
temperatures and strong sunlight assist 1n the production of oxidants
from a complex photochemical reaction involving hydrocarbons and
nitrogen oxides.
A recent analysis of oxidant air quality data and meteorological
data* Identifies areas of the country which, during specified months,
experience low oxidant concentrations. This analysis shows a high
correlation between maximum daily temperatures and maximum hourly
oxidant concentrations, with concentrations above the national standard
becoming highly improbable when maximum daily temperatures are consist-
ently below 59°F. The analysis suggests that the maximum daily tem-
perature can be used as a reasonably reliable indicator of the potential
for oxidant formation and supports a policy which would permit seasonal
use of natural gas-fired afterburners in many areas.
Figure 1 1s a map of the U.S. on which study results are summarized.
It shows general areas (or zones) in which seasonal shutoff of natural
gas-fired afterburners could be considered. However, it is important
to note that local conditions may obviate seasonal control even though
shutdown otherwise may appear to be acceptable. If, for example, winter-
time oxidant concentration5; in a particular area are in violation of
the amuient sCariuo-u, or the ccr.ccr.trat:zr.z -re rjfflci^rtly MCh *h:'t
afterburner shutdown could .create violations, you should neither encourage
nor allow seasonal afterburner operation even though the area is in a
theoretically acceptable zone.
A policy to seasonally control afterburners can only be Implemented
through the SIP process — by establishing new oxfdant SIPs or by revising
existing SIPs. Of course, the enforceability of the policy must be care-
fully considered in reviewing each specfic regulation. The approval of
SIP changes to permit seasonal afterburner operation need not require
detailed, time-consuming analyses of air quality impacts 1f the seasonal
shutdown time period is consistent with the zones delineated in Figure 1,
and if existing air quality data shows no past violations in the month
during which the afterburners will be shutdown. The attached staff study,
supported by air quality data where available, normally should be adequate
technical support for a decision to approve the seasonal operation of
afterburne-s in a given location. If an occasional high oxidant concentra-
tion has been noted during the winter months but the gas savings to be
achieved by afterburner shutoff appears to warrant favorable consideration
*See attached OAQPS "Staff Study: Oxidant Air Quality and Meteorology,"
dated February 6, 1976.
-------
KEF VI-7
of a variance request, a short trial period to test the impact on oxidant
concentrations may be suggested. If it is found that ambient violations
persist or are exacerbated, the trial program must be terminated.
It is recommended that you notify those state agencies in your
Region which may be eligible to implement this program that EPA sup-
ports a policy which would permit sources to shut off afterburners
during cold weather months this year when oxidant concentrations are
below the ambient standard. In discussing this policy with state agency
personnel, it is important to emphasize that the policy pertains only to
oxidant control strategy and that EPA is not encouraging a wide-spread in-
crease in hydrocarbon emissions. Moreover you must make it clear that,
consistent with §116 of the Clean Air^Act, the state is not required in
any way to relax its strategy.
Roger tftrelow
Assistant Administrator
for Air and Waste Management
Enclosure
cc: Stan Learo
William Frick
0-11
-------
DATE:
4 AUG 19/8
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REF VI-10
SUBJECT: Clarification of EPA Policy on Emissions^af Methyl Chloroform
FROM: Walter C. Barber, Director L
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-10)
T0: Regional Administrator, Regions I-X
The purpose of this memo is to clarify EPA's position with regard
to State and Federal regulation of emissions of methyl chloroform
(1,1,1, trichloroethane). On July 8, 1977, EPA published the present
"Recommended Policy on Control of Volatile Organic Compounds"
(42 FR 35314). This policy exempts methyl chloroform from inventory
requirements and regulations to meet the national ambient air quality
standard for photochemical oxidants. However, the policy indicated
that methyl chloroform had been implicated as having deleterious effects
on stratospheric ozone and therefore may be subject to future controls.
Nevertheless, the policy seems to be encouraging a shift to the
uncontrolled use of methyl chloroform in place of trichloroethylene and
other regulated solvents in metal degreasing operations.
We have been advised by -the Office of Toxic Substances that methyl
chloroform should be considered potentially harmful to the ozone layer
and that they are performing the necessary evaluations and assessments
prior to pursuing further regulatory initiatives. Hence, its use in an
uncontrolled fashion should not be encouraged. Accordingly, OAQPS has
begun the necessary actions to propose removal of methyl chloroform from
the list of exempt volatile organic compounds (-VOC). However, we do not
expect this action to be completed before the State Implementation Plans
for photochemical oxidants are to be submitted. In addition, I have
directed that the new source performance standards to be proposed for
solvent metal cleaning operations, as well as any other solvent uses,
require positive control of all VOC emissions including methyl chloroform.
I recognize that many States are well along in the preparation of
their regulatory packages and inventories. In order not to change the
existing guidance at this late date, I am requesting that you advise
your State directors that, although we will not disapprove a State
oxidant SIP submittal which exempts methyl chloroform from control, we
are very concerned with the environmental risks associated with wide
scale substitution to methyl chloroform; and that the uncontrolled use
of methyl chloroform as an approved means for compliance should be avoided
wherever possible.
cc: Director, Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I, III-X
Director, Environmental Programs Division, Regions II
Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X
Steven D. Jellinek, Office of Toxic Substances
Warren Muir, Office of Toxic Substances
EPA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 3
-------
REF VIII-3
DRAFT
OZONE AND OTHER PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANTS
Final Report (Draft)
August 1978
By: Richard H. Thuillier, Senior Research Meteorologist
Atmospheric Sciences Laboratory
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Attn: Mr. Norm Dunfee
Pollutant Strategies Branch
SASD, MD-12
Contract No. EPA-68-02-2835
Work Assignment No. 9
. ^i~^ .ajsi^^aes*^*
SRI Project 6780
Approved:
R.T.H. Collis, Director
Atmospheric Sciences Laboratory
:.arle*"*D. Jones, ExecyttiveWDirector
Advanced Development Division
(IMFM)
Vlnternational/
333 Ravenswood Ave. • Menlo Park, California 94025
(415) 326-6200 • Cable: STANRES, Menlo Park • TWX: 910-373-1246
-------
CONTENTS
PREFACE 1
I INTRODUCTION 2
II DEFINITIONS, EFFECTS, AND STANDARDS 3
A. What are Photochemical Oxidants 3
B. Are Oxidants Harmful? 3
C. How Clean Should the Air Be? c
III THE OZONE PROBLEM 7
A. Where Does Ozone Come From? 7
B. Which Sources Contribute Most to Ozone Problems. ... 7
C. How Does the Weather Affect Ozone Pollution o
D. How Serious is the Ozone Problem in the
United States g
IV OZONE AND THE LAW .' ]Q
A. What is Required? ' ]Q
B. Who is Responsible ]Q
C. What are the Penalties for Noncompliance "] ]
V APPROACHES TO CONTROL 13
A. What Can Be Done? (3
B. What Measures are Appropriate 14
C. How Much Control Will be Necessary -
D. How Should Controls be Applied?
15
E. Who Should be Involved
-------
PREFACE
Under provisions of the Federal Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has issued National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). These standards specify the maximum amounts of air pollutants to
which the general public may safely be exposed in the interest of health
and welfare. When the NAAQS are found to be violated in any location, the
Clean Air Act requires that steps be taken to bring the air in that location
into compliance with standards by a specified date. Under the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1977, local governments are empowered and encouraged to
participate fully in air-quality planning for their areas.
Ozone is an air pollutant for which NAAQS have been issued by the EPA.
Frequent and widespread violations have been recorded and extensive remedial
measures will be required. Current efforts to mobilize the nation to solve
the problem have been hampered by the complexity of the issues and controversy
regarding appropriate solutions.
To summarize and clarify the issues, the EPA Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards has prepared this document under contract. This
summary attempts to provide the local decisionmaker and other interested
persons with an understanding sufficient for informed consideration of
evolving issues and arguments related to oxidant pollution and its control.
Source material listed in the bibliography should be consulted by
persons desiring a treatment of the issues in greater depth.
-------
I INTRODUCTION
By the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, Congress gave EPA the responsibility
for setting air-quality standards. As an outgrowth of studies relating
photochemical oxidants to health effects and damage to plant and materials,
EPA in 1971 issued a standard for photochemical oxidants. This standard
was set at 0.08 parts of oxidant per million parts of air as a one-hour
average not to be exceeded more than once in any given year. Subsequent
revaluation led EPA in June of 1978 to propose a revised primary standard
to apply only to the most abundant oxidant, ozone, as a one-hour average
concentration of 0.10 ppm not to be exceeded more than an average of once
per year. The proposed secondary, welfare related standard is 0.08 ppm.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 require that the states make
steps to achieve the standard by 1987 at the latest, and by 1982 where
feasible. Because ozone pollution is substantial, widespread, and harmful
to both health and welfare, extensive measures will be required to eliminate
violations of the standard. The states are required to hold public hearing
to receive comments on the issues before submitting to EPA their plans to
implement appropriate measures. To further participation in the public
hearing process, this document has been prepared to inform local decisionmakers
and the interested public on the issues related to the nature and control
of ozone pollution in the United States.
-------
II DEFINITIONS, EFFECTS, AND STANDARDS
A. What are Photochemical Oxidants?
The term "oxidants" describes a complex group of compounds found in
the ambient air. The term "photochemical" indicates that much of these
particular oxidants are formed in the air by chemical reactions requiring
•the presence of sunlight. Oxidants in the ambient air were first associated
with undesirable effects on human health and welfare three decades ago,
when they were found to be major constituents of southern California
"smog." Since that time, much more has been learned about the photochemical
oxidants and their effects on public health, vegetation, certain ecosystems.
and materials. Ozone—the most abundant oxidant—has been singled out for
special concern from a public health and welfare standpoint.
B. Are Oxidants Harmful?
Numerous studies have been undertaken over the last three decades to
determine how harmful the oxidants are to public health and welfare. The
results are detailed in the EPA publication Air Quality Criteria for Ozone
and Other Photochemical Oxidants.* It should be noted that with synergistic
effects of ozone and other air contaminants, there has not been a sufficient
study to understand this relationship. The following is a summary of the
most significant effects.
*EPA-600/8-78-004 (April 1978) An earlier edition was published in 1971,
at the time the original NAAQS was adopted.
-------
Public Health
o The mechanical function of the lung is affected by exposure to
ozone for periods on the order of two hours. The effect is
pronounced at concentrations of 0.37 ppm or more; evident but
less pronounced at concentrations from 0.25 to 0.37 ppm, and
in some subjects this effect occurs at concentrations in the
range of 0.15 to 0.25 ppm.
o Asthma attacks occur more often when ambient concentrations of
ozone reach 0.20 ppm for a one-hour period. For some asthmatics
and other sensitive people, there is a likelihood of effect at
concentrations from 0.15 to 0.20 ppm.
o Ozone exposures in the range of 0.15 to 0.25 ppm for an hour
or so increase the risk of cough, chest discomfort, headache,
and eye irritation.
o There is evidence of impairment of physical performance (athletic
performance) at ozone concentrations as low as 0.15 ppm.
o Vigorous exercise is likely to increase the risk of health
effects from ozone.
o Existing evidence shows no consistent relationship between
ozone exposures and mortality rates.
o No convincing evidence is yet available relating either short-
term or long-term ozone exposure to chronic, health effects.
Public Welfare
o Ozone cause visible injury to a variety of plant species.
o Ozone reduce the yields of citrus, cotton, potatoes, soybeans,
wheat, spinach, and other sensitive crops.
o Concentrations of ozone as low as 0.1 ppm for a one-hour
exposure and 0.04 ppm for a four-hour exposure will affect
some vegetation.
o Ozone affect entire ecosystems, as evidence by damage to
mixed conifer forests in California, reduction in the fruit
and seed diet of small mammals, and alterations in species
composition and wildlife habitat.
o Ozone accelerates the deterioration or rubber, textile dyes
and fibres, and certain paints and coatings.
o Both health and welfare effects have severe economic impacts,
which can be measured in terms of monetary losses totalling
hundreds of millions of dollars each year.
-------
C. How Clean Should the Air Be?
Under the provisions of the Clean Air Act, EPA is charged with the
establishment of standards for the cleanliness (quality) of the ambient
air. "Ambient air" means the outdoor air to which the general public,
structures, plants, and animals are exposed. A standard is a combination
of the amount of pollutant in the air and the length of exposure permitted
as a maximum in the interest of public health and welfare. Standards are
established by the EPA after consideration of effects and application of an
adequate margin of safety. Separate standards are authorized by the Clean
Air Act for protection of public health (primary standards) and for protection
of public welfare (secondary standards).
On 30 April 1971 the EPA published a primary (and secondary) standard
for photochemical oxidants of 0.08 ppm as a one-hour average not to be
exceeded more than once in any given year. The human health effect category
of most concern is aggravation of chronic lung disease and the basic work
documenting the effect is the Schoettlin and Landau asthma study. This was
a key study in determining the level of the existing standard. Based on a
reevaluation of this study, the current criteria document attributes an
increase in asthmatic attacks to a level of 0.25 ppm and not 0.10 ppm as
presumed when the existing standard was promulgated. On 22 June 1978, the
EPA proposed a new one-hour average primary standard of 0.10 ppm for ozone
alone, not to be exceeded more than one time per year on the average.
The secondary standard remains at 0.08 ppm. This proposed standard anticipates
a few excesses in some years, balanced by years with no excesses at all to
give an average of one excess or less per year. Because ozone consititutes
the bulk or oxidants in the air and has been associated with most of the
-------
health effects previously ascribed to total oxidant, ozone is proposed to
replace total oxidants as the pollutant of concern. Ozone can also be
measured more reliably than the other oxidants.
Because of the specific importance of ozone, the probability of a
revised standard, and the confusion attending the alternate use of the
terms "oxidant" and "ozone," the term "ozone" is used exclusively throughout
the remainder of this document.
-------
Ill THE OZONE PROBLEM
A. Where Does Ozone Come From?
Unlike many other pollutants, ozone is not introduced directly to the
air by man or nature, but forms in the air by chemical reaction. The
compounds called "precursors," that eventually react to form ozone may be
natural constituents of the atmosphere (as are oxygen and nitrogen), may
be introduced directly as pollutants, or may be formed (as is ozone itself)
by chemical reaction.
High in the upper atmosphere, large amounts of ozone are produced by
sunlight from the oxygen present in the air. Near the ground, ozone is
produced primarily from man-made compounds. While many differenct compounds
are involved, two basic precursor classes control the ozone production
process: volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NO ).
/\
VOC enters the air from a variety of human activities, among them
fossil fuel combustion (primarily in auto exhaust), chemical processing,
fuel storage and handling and solvent usage (such as painting or degreasing).
VOC also enter the air from natural sources, such as biological decay and
the vegetative growth process. Oxides of nitrogen, a component in the
photochemical process, is primarily emitted to the atmosphere from the
burning of fossil fuels.
B. Which Sources Contribute Most to Ozone Problems?
Because the air moves readily from one location to another, the air we
breathe at a given place and time will contain ozone from natural as well
as man-made sources. Measurements have shown, however, that ozone concentrations
-------
in and near large urban centers where man-made sources predominate, are
frequently far greater than concentrations in remote locations unaffected
by human activity. These measurements; coupled with a variety of theoretical
studies, point to human activity—especially that concentrated in large
urban centers—as the source of primary concern. Control of emissions of
ozone precursors associated with human activity will be instrumental in
achieving the ozone standard throughout the United States.
C. How Does the Weather Affect Ozone Pollution?
Ultraviolet radiation from sunlight is required for the photochemical
process. Ozone episodes therefore occur typically on sunny days in spring,
summer, and fall, when the sun is high enough to provide sufficient ultraviolet
radiation. On cloudy days and during the winter months, ozone levels
rarely exceed the federal standard. Sluggish air movement aids in ozone
production by allowing air parcels to remain longer over the source areas
and permitting large amounts of precursors to accumulate and ozone to form.
Temperature inversions (i.e., layers of warm air several hundred meters
above the cooler air nearer the ground) frequently trap the pollutants near
the ground. Warm temperatures have always been associated with ozone
episodes, although the precise role of temperature in ozone production has
not been adequately defined.
D. How Serious is the Ozone Problem in the United States?
Measurements indicate that ozone levels in violation of the standard
occur in virtually every part of the United States. Ozone problems have
been found in rural as well as urban areas. The highest concentrations of
ozone are usually found a few miles downwind from large urban centers,
8
-------
which are the principal source areas. The ozone standard is exceeded
frequently in and near these urban centers, as often as 100 or more days
per year in some locations, and concentrations exceeding as 0.2 ppm are not
uncommon and as high as 0.5 ppm can occur at times in a few communities.
The seriousness of the problem is highlighted by the fact that violations
of the ozone standard have been detected in virtually every area where
measurements have been taken, with the exception of a few predominantly
rural locations.
-------
IV OZONE AND THE LAW
A. What is Required?
Under the Clean Air Act, states must submit to EPA State Implementation
Plans (SIPs), detailing approaches toward attainment and maintenance of all
air-quality standards. In areas where the ozone standard has not yet been
attained (nonattainment areas), SIPs must be revised to include control
strategies which provides for attainment of standards by December 31, 1982.
In areas where the attainment of standards cannot be demonstrated by implementing
reasonably available control measures the deadline can be extended (up to 5
years) until 1987. Implementation planning for nonattainment areas must be
completed in time for submittal of SIP revisions to EPA by January 1, 1979.
B. Who is Responsible?
While the EPA bears ultimate responsibility for enforcing requirements
of the Clean Air Act, the law provides for maximum participation of state
and local governments in the formulation and implementation of plans and
strategies aimed at achieving the air-quality standard for ozone. Each
state must provide for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of
primary and secondary air-quality standards in designated areas. Since
many control measures for ozone reduction will strongly affect local jurisdictions,
the Act provides that attainment plans be prepared, where possible, by an
organization of elected officials of local governments in the affected
areas certified by the state for this purpose. Otherwise, a state agency
must prepare the plans. The plan must demonstrate that necessary requirements,
10
-------
timetables, and compliance schedules have been adopted through submittal of
a legally enforceable document and that the agency or organization identified
in the plan as being responsible for carrying out the plan are committed to
the implementation and enforcement of appropriate plan elements. Attainment
plans must be developed with the continuing cooperative, and comprehensive
transportation planning process mandated by federal law and with the general
air-quality maintenance planning process of the SIP. Attainment planning
requires a coordinated effort and includes local agencies responsible for
transportation and maintenance planning. In carrying out any requirements
of the Act that bear upon the perogatives of local government, the states
must provide a satisfactory process of consultation with general-purpose
local governments and designated organizations of their elected officials.
C. What are the Penalties for Noncompliance?
One of the principal penalties attached to inadequate planning for
nonattainment areas has to .do with the construction or modification of
major stationary sources, such as industrial facilities. After June 30,
1979, no such construction or modification that contributes to violations
of NAAQS may take place in a nonattainment area unless an adequate plan for
attainment exists. In addition, inadequate implementation planning in
nonattainment areas precludes the approval of projects and grants for
transportation or air quality authorized, under the United States Code,
other than for safety, mass transit, or transportation improvement related
to air-quality improvement or maintenance.
EPA is required to enforce any requirement of a State Implementation
Plan when it is determined that the state has failed to enforce the plan
effectively. Enforcement against a source may take the form of an order to
11
-------
comply or a civil action. Persons violating or refusing to comply with any
order of the EPA Administrator or violating requirements of an applicable
implementation plan during a period of federally assumed enforcement can be
subject to a civil penalty of not more than $25,000 per day of violation,
or to permanent or temporary injunction, or both.
12
-------
APPROACHES TO CONTROL
A. What Can Be Done?
As discussed earlier, the ozone problem results primarily from chemical
reaction of man-made VOC and NOV. It is logical, that the control of ozone
X
precursors generated by human activity, particularly in large urban centers,
is necessary to achieve reductions in ambient ozone levels.
Laboratory studies suggest that control of VOC is an effective approach
to lowering ozone levels in urban areas and their immediate environs.
Significant downtrends in ozone pollution have been recorded in the Los
Angeles Basin and the San Francisco Bay Area, where VOC control programs
have been underway for some time. Studies suggest that control of NO may
/\
not be as effective in reducing ozone in urban areas. Because of the
demonstrated effectiveness of VOC control, the current EPA strategy for
reducing of the oxidant problem in urban areas is focused primarily on VOC
control, however programs such as the FMVCP reduce emission of both VOC and
NO . Recent research, has indicated that rural areas may also suffer from
A
ozone pollution and that urban pollutants—ozone as well as its precursors--
can travel considerable distances at relatively high concentrations.
Because the chemical composition of rural air differs from that of urban
areas, NOV control may be more effective in controlling rural ozone problems.
X
For this reason, NO control has received greater attention in recent years
y\
both for rural areas and for urban areas affecting rural areas through
transport.
On the whole, studies indicate that a more effective program for
reducing urban ozone concentrations should emphasize the control of VOC.
Current strategy favors a vigorous control program for VOC but a cautious
13
-------
approach to control of NO beyond that required to attain the ambient air
/\
quality standard for nitrogen dioxide. Additional emphasis on NOX control
may be required, however, at a later date.
B. What Measures are Appropriate?
State Implementation Plans for areas which have not attained the NAAQS
for ozone, must contain limitations on the amount of ozone precursors that
enter the air and timetables for compliance with such limitations. Other
measures must be contained, as necessary, including (as a minimum) transportation
controls, inspection and maintenance plans for autos for cities greater
than 200,000 population when a state has requested an extension beyond 1982,
and preconstruction review of direct sources of air pollution. State
Implementation Plans may (but are not required to) contain provisions for
land use controls, preconstruction review of indirect* sources of air
pollutants, and other such measures as may be appropriate.
c. How Much Control Will be Necessary?
Maximum ozone levels in and around major urban centers are typically
two to three times the federal ambient standard. Assuming a direct proportion
between VOC and ozone reductions, VOC emissions in these areas will have to
be reduced to one-half to one-third of their current values. This represents
a conservative estimate, since studies have indicated that reductions in
VOC yield less than proportional reductions in ozone concentration. When
*An indirect source is a facility such as a parking lot that tends to
increase air pollution from mobile sources (e.g., cars).
14
-------
ozone contribution from natural sources (including:vegetation and particularly
upper atmospheric ozone intrusion) is considered, which amounts to approximately
0.04 ppm, an even greater reduction in the contribution from man-made
activities may be required.
Methods for estimating required degree of control have been and are
continuing to be developed. Although no single currently available model
is satisfactory in every respect, evidence from a variety of modeling
techniques indicates a substantial control requirement in many areas.
Research is continuing at EPA to develop improved models to aid in determining
the most effective approaches to ozone control.
D. How Should Controls be Applied?
Most urban and many rural areas now have ozone concentrations greater
than the national standard. Since attainment of the ozone standard will be
costly, there is an obvious and justifiable interest in achieving the most
equitable distribution of the burden and the most efficient application of
the control program. One of the most sensitive issues at present concerns
the division of responsibility for^control when a portion of a local ozone
problem results from pollutants transported from nonlocal source areas.
This is especially sensitive in those parts of the United States where
transported pollutants from urban centers in close proximity accumulate
under stagnant weather conditions to form a regional "blanket" of background
ozone.
At present it is difficult to partition responsibility for ozone
control. Considering, however, the degree of control that will be required
to attain the standard, it is reasonable, until more information is at
hand, for everyone to exert maximum effort toward local control of VOC
15
-------
emissions. Cooperative efforts in implementation planning among the States
should minimize any gross inequities.
E. Who Should be Involved?
The ozone problem is one that affects every citizen: Very few urban
locations are free of ozone pollution and none are free of sources of
pollution which cause ozone and virtually everyone is subject to the
health and welfare effects. Because ozone is a regionwide problem with a
full spectrum of sources and causes, everyone will bear some portion the
great cost for ozone control. For these reasons, everyone should involve
themselves in the solution of the ozone problem by keeping well informed
and cooperating fully in the planning and implementation phases of the
solution process.
16
------- |