Air Program Policy Statement

A Status Report and Discussion of Future Program
  Considerations Involved in Implementing the
                 Clean Air Act

                 First Edition
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
            Washington, D.C.  20460

                  August, 1974


                          WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
                                 Co:    J  1974
                                                                    OFFICE OF THE
SUUJLCT:  A1r Proqrain Policy Statement.
           Russell f. Traifi
 TO:       Regional Administrators
      The attached Air Program Policy Statement provides a summary of
 current EPA policy in implementing the Clean A1r Act.  The document
 puts into context the many actions taken to date by EPA and the States
 in fulfilling the Act's requirements.

      This document should facilitate understanding of actions taken to
 date in implementing the Clean Air Act.  You are encouraged to make it
 available to air pollution control agencies and members of the public.

                        AIR PROGRAM POLICY  STATEMENT

                              Table of Contents


            Preface                                                 1

            Summary Statement of Goals and  Priorities for Air
              Pollution Control                                      2

Part I.     Introduction                                            4

            A.   Legislative Philosophy and Objectives              4
            B.   Clean Air Amendments                               6

Part II.    State Implementation Plans:  The Planning Process       8

            A.   Introduction                                       8
            B.   Historical Perspectives:   The Clean Air Act's
                   Process Implementation to Date                   9
            C.   Transportation Controls                           13

                 1.   Introduction                                 13
                 2.   Transportation Control Measures              16
                 3.   Energy Conservation Benefits of
                        Transportation Control Plans               21
                 4.   Pollutant Reduction Impact of Controls
                        on Specific AQCRs                          21

            D.   Maintenance of Standards and Prevention of
                   Significant Deterioration of Air Quality        22

                 1.   Air Quality Maintenance                      25
                 2.   Prevention of Significant Deterioration
                        of Air Quality                             26

 Part  III.  State Implementation Plans:  The Action Process--
              Compliance with Emission Limitations on Existing
              Stationary Sources                                   30

            A.   Introduction                                      30
            B.   Historical Perspective:  Action Process
                   Implementation                                  30
            C.   Enforcement of SIP Provisions and Source
                   Compliance Requirements                          32

                 1.   Introduction                                 32
                 2.   Enforcement Policy                           32
                 3.   Clean Air Act Authorities                    33
                 4.   Compliance Process                           34
                 5.   Federal Facilities Compliance                36

           D.    Specific Source Compliance Problems               37

                1.    Introduction                                 37
                2.    Power Plant Compliance                       37
                3.    SIP Requirements Changes                     41

Part IV.   Federal  Standards                                      46

           A.    New Source Performance Standards                  46

                1.    Introduction                                 46
                2.    SIP Complement                               46
                3.    Sources Covered by NSPS                      47
                4.    Control of Selected Pollutants               49
                5.    System for Assuring Compliance with
                       New Source Performance Standards           49

           B.    National Emission Standards for Hazardous
                  Air Pollutants                                  50

                1.    Standards                                    50
                2.    Enforcement of National Emission Standards
                       for Hazardous Air Pollutants               51

           C.    Mobile Sources                                    52

                1.    Introduction                                 52
                2.    Light-Duty Vehicles Control                  53

                     a.  Standards                                53
                     b.  Enforcement                              54
                     c.  Recall of In-use Vehicles                57
                     d.  Control of Tampering with Emission
                           Control Devices and Non-Compliant
                           Imports                                57

                3.    Heavy-duty Vehicles                          58
                4.    Motorcycles                                  58
                5.    Aircraft                                     59

           D.    Fuel and Fuel Additives                           59

                1.    Introduction                                 59
                2.    Control of Lead                              60

Part V.    Federal  Support of State and Local Activities          63

Appendix A      List of Abbreviations, Symbols and Acronyms       66


Appendix B      National  Ambient Air Quality Standards             68

Appendix C      Light Duty Motor Vehicle Exhaust Emission
                  Standards                                       69

Appendix D      Summary Listing of Significant Regulations
                  Promulgated by EPA in Implementing the
                  Clean Air Act                                   70

Appendix E      List of Air Quality Maintenance Areas             73

     This document summarizes key policy considerations Involved 1n
the implementation of the Clean A1r Act.  Its purpose 1s to foster
the understanding of actions taken by EPA 1n Implementing the Clean
Air Act.  Since the implementation of the Act and the Act itself are
subject to change through legislative, judicial, and administrative
action, it is planned to update this document regularly as warranted
by changes in policy.  The updating system is to consist of yearly
reissuances of the document, with less extensive updating of policy
statements as frequently as warranted.

     Amendments to the Clean Air Act for purposes of facilitating
actions aimed at alleviating energy shortages, incorporated in the
Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974, are not
fully treated 1n this edition of the Air Program Policy Statement.
It 1s expected that the first set of updating revisions will cover
policy changes made pursuant to these amendments.  Additional,
more extensive amendments to the Clean A1r Act are being considered
by the Congress at this time; final legislative action, however, 1s
not foreseen during 1974.

     The discussion which follows should be considered as both a
status report, an Indication of where we are now and how we got there,
and an outline of where we expect to go 1n the future.  It 1s not
Intended as a complete statement of the Environmental Protection
Agency's air pollution control program; 1t relates primarily to the
opprational objectives and programs of the Agency and the requisite
companion programs of the States 1n achieving the Clean A1r Act's
goals.  Thus, the discussion does not cover the Agency's substantial
research effort to define health effects, welfare effects, control
technology for mobile and stationary sources, or the definition of
mechanisms for atmospheric transportation and Interaction of pollutants,
nor 1s 1t an exhaustive compendium of all matters related to air pol-
lution control.  Furthermore, the discussion does not deal with al-
ternative future courses of action; the future is dealt with only to
the extent that policy 1s relatively well developed.

           Summary Statement of Goals  and Priorities  for A1r
                           Pollution Control
     The Clean Air Act, as amended, provides the basis for EPA's  Air
Program.  To date, EPA's efforts in implementing the Act have focused

     -  Developing standards:

        o  National Ambient A1r Quality Standards (NAAQS) for protection
           of health and welfare from the effects of certain pollutants.

        o  New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for controlling
           emissions from new or modified stationary sources of air

        o  National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant
           Sources (NESHAPS) for controlling emissions from stationary
           sources of specially dangerous pollutants.

        o  Standards for new light duty vehicles for controlling  their
           contribution to air pollution.

     -  Developing State and local air pollution control programs in
        order that control actions be taken at the most effective
        governmental level.

     -  Developing, in cooperation with States, State Implementation
        Plans for limiting pollutant emissions 1n order that NAAQS be

     -  Implementing new light duty vehicle emissions standards.

     Success in carrying out the foregoing activities requires that the
thrust of EPA's near-term Air Program priorities be shifted:

     -  First priority is to obtain compliance with existing emission
        limits for all sources, I.e., improve air quality by reducing
        pollutant emissions..

        o  The basic goal is for States to obtain source compliance.

        o  EPA will selectively enforce if States do not act effectively
           and expeditiously; EPA's enforcement efforts will be
           coordinated with the States.

     -   Simultaneously,  EPA  will  continue to carry out programs  for:

        o  Strengthening of  State/local  air pollution control  programs.
           It 1s  an Agency objective to  delegate all  responsibilities
           that can be properly carried  out by States.

        o  Finalizing incomplete SIPs through State action.

        o  Analyzing SIPs for their impacts on energy supplies 1n  order
           that energy supply and environmental  goals do not unnecessarily

        o  Finalizing control plans for  mobile source-related pollutants
           1n order that Implementation  actions be facilitated for
           attainment of oxidant and carbon monoxide NAAQS.

        o  Amending SIPs for the prevention of future environmental

           --  Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.

           --  Maintenance of NAAQS once achieved.

     -   Programs  for which the Federal government has primary responsi-
        bility will continue to be carried out.  These Include new
        motor vehicles control, standard-setting for stationary sources,
        and review of the need of control for additional pollutants.

     The highlights of EPA's Air Program during the period 1976-1980
are expected to be:

     -   A continued emphasis on stationary source enforcement.

     -   Implementation of controls for mobile source-related pollutants
        will be a major program effort during fiscal  1975, reaching  its
        peak 1n fiscal 1976.

     -   Prevention of significant deterioration and maintenance of
        standards will require the development of land use and transpor-
        tation patterns that are compatible with desirable air quality.

     -   New standards will be developed  over this period and existing
        SIP regulations may  have to be revised.

                       AIR PROGRAM POLICY STATEMENT
                             I.   Introduction

     A. Legislative Philosophy and Objectives

     The Clean A1r Act,* 1n order that air pollution be reduced and
prevented, provides for the establishment of a set of environmentally
Important goals, sets forth the process by which the goals are to be
attained, and expresses a philosophy with respect to both the goals
and their method of attainment.

     The goals are quantified 1n the National Ambient A1r Quality
Standards,** which set forth the allowable concentration 1n air of
a set of air pollutants associated with diverse sources widely dis-
tributed throughout the nation.   A second set of standards Impact
directly on emitting sources through the establishment of Federal
national emission limitations.  These standards Include National
Emission Standards for Hazardous A1r Pollutants, National New Source
Performance Standards, and nationwide limitations on pollutant emis-
sions from mobile sources.

     The philosophy of the Act gives first priority to the achieve-
ment of standards protective of health.  Where protective of health,
the Act established mandatory times for the attainment of the standard.
Where protective of welfare, the Act provides for administrative dis-
cretion as to the time of attainment of standards.

     Several interrelated types of action make up the process by which
environmental goals are to be attained.  The Act mandates the adoption
of regulations setting forth legally enforceable emission reduction
plans.  It provide^ for the adoption of certain technologies in the
private sector on a nationwide basis; for example, best adequately
demonstrated technology 1n the case of new stationary air pollution
sources and a mandated reduction from new light duty motor vehicles.
The Act furthermore requires the use of certain controls not tradition-
ally applied for air pollution control, such as the control of land use
and transportation, when control technology seems Inadequate to meet
the environmental goals within the mandatory time schedules set forth
1n the Act.
* References to the Clean Air Act (or simply the "Act") 1n this document
imply reference to all Its amendments, notable among them being the Clean
Air Amendments of 1970 (PL 91-604) and the Air Quality Act of 1967 (PL 90-
148).  The 1970 amendments'specified the mandatory time frames addressed
**Appendix B summarizes these standards.

      The philosophy circumscribing the process is as follows:

         o  The States* are to be given the opportunity to design and
            implement the plan for achieving the environmental  goals.

         o  The Federal Government must take action when States do not
            adopt or carry out an adequate plan for achieving the goals.

         o  Opportunity must be provided for public participation in the
            development of Federal standards, State plans, and subsequent
            changes in such standards or plans.  Furthermore, information
            must be made available to the public on State progress in
            carrying out the plan.

      The highest priority for Federal and State action has generally been
directed towards those Air Quality Control Regions where pollutant con-
centrations exceed national standards which are protective of health.
After three years of experience with the Act, it has become clear that
for some pollutants in some areas the standards protective of health can-
not be attained in the mandatory time period with the available control
technology.  The act provides only limited flexibility in case of such
eventuality:  Two year extensions of time for a given Air Quality Control
Region and one year extensions for compliance of specific sources (or
classes of sources) with plan requirements.  In the case of pollutants
emitted primarily by motor vehicles in some Air Quality Control Regions
requiring transportation controls, the level of social and economic
change which may be required to meet ambient standards may be unacceptable
in terms of economic and social impact.

      In tne fourth year of implementation of the Act, it is evident that
State Implementation Plans (SIPs) can achieve standards protective of
health within the mandatory time period in the majority of Air Quality
Control Regions.  Action to assure that the provisions of the plans are
carried out is required in these Regions.  For some Regions, control will
not be feasible due to circumstances beyond control agencies' control
(i.e., natural dust sources) or without unreasonable control measures.

      Additionally, two relatively new areas of program concern are to
be given increasing priority:  One is the broadening of the land-use
planning mechanism to assure the future maintenance of standards once
achieved and the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality
in relatively clean areas; the second is the utilization of flexibility
within the Act to assure that environmental goals and goals of energy
* The Act defines as States the 50 states, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands.

sufficiency do not unnecessarily conflict.  Likewise, legislative change
will be needed to provide some discretionary flexibility with respect to
the attainment of standards under conditions of unreasonable restraint
of normal social and economic activity and development.

      B.  Clear Air Act Amendments

      The Act has recently been amended by the Energy Supply and Environ-
mental Coordination Act of 1974, signed into law by the President on
June 22, 1974.  The amendments to the Act accomodate the need for in-
creased reliance on domestic energy supplies (i.e., coal) and extend
authorizations for appropriations for its implementation for an additional
year (i.e., FY1975).

      The Congress is also considering more far-reaching amendments recom-
mended by EPA and other Federal agencies; these amendments were submitted
to the Congress on March 22, 1974 by the EPA Administrator.  Extensive
hearings on the Act and its impact have been held to date by the Congress.
The Congress has also commissioned a study by the National Academy of
Sciences into the scientific validity of the Act's assumptions and EPA's
implementing actions.  The NAS is to report to Congress by September 1974.
At this time, it is not known what final Congressional action will be;
no action is expected until 1975.

      The Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974 provides
for the conversion of power plants and other fuel burning facilities to
the use of coal.  The legislation sets up a series of safeguards to assure
that the primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (protective of
health) are achieved and maintained. If the EPA Administrator determines
that conversions tr> coal would lead to the violation of the standards or
that the standards are not being achieved in the Air Quality Control Regions
in which the sources are located, the conversions can be prevented or
appropriate emission controls can be required.  The legislation also
facilitates the implementation of EPA's Clean Fuels Policy by providing
for the review of SIPs and their change, by States, on an expedited
schedule.  Extensions in meeting the emissions limitations imposed under
the SIPs can be granted by the EPA Administrator until January 1,1979 if
certain conditions are met by the sources applying for the extensions.
At no time can an extension be granted if the Administrator determines
that necessary technology for meeting standards is available.

      The new legislation provides for extensions of statutory auto emis-
sions standards to 1977 for carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons, sets the
standard for 1976 model year the same as for 1975, and provides for a
2.0 grams per mile emission standard for nitrogen oxides for 1977 model
year vehicles*.  The legislation also requires studies on the health
*  The emission standards for light duty motor vehicles are summarized in
Appendix C.

effects of increases in sulfur oxides emissions and a study on auto-
ir.uuile fuel economy.  The use of parking surcharges for implementation
of transportation controls is proscribed, and a study of the need for
certain transportation control measures is required.

      The amendments proposed by EPA, titled "The Clean Air Act Amend-
ments of 1974," would provide authorities for granting variances from
emissions limitations during 1974; facilitate the conversion of power
plants to the burning of coal (consistent with meeting primary ambient
air quality standards); provide for the review of the SIPs in order
that best use be made of scarce clean fuel supplies for meeting pri-
mary standards; provide for the granting of extensions in NAAQS achieve-
ment dates for those AQCRs in which unreasonable (i.e., having serious
adverse social or economic impacts) control measures would be required
to meet NAAQS within the current deadlines; provide for the setting of
equipment standards for the control of sources for which it is not
feasible to set a hazardous or performance emission standard; authorize
waivers of compliance with new source performance standards to encourage
innovative control approaches; authorize civil penalties of up to $25,000
per day of violation to facilitate enforcement activities; authorize
enforcement orders for stationary sources with final compliance dates
beyond attainment dates for the NAAQS to facilitate the installation of
control equipment; and would extend the Federal auto emission standards
applicable to the 1975 model year for CO and HC through the 1976 and
1977 model years.

      The amendments suggested by other Federal agencies would allow the
indefinite use of intermittent control systems and would eliminate the
need to provide for the prevention of significant deterioration of air

         II.  Stale Implementation Plans:   The Planning Process

     A.  Introduction

     The Clean A1r Act's provision for the setting of National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)  for pollutants for which criteria  have
been Issued triggers the planning and action process requirements of
Section 110 of the Act.   The development of control strategies by the
States for the achievement of the NAAQS constitutes the essence  of the
planning process.  This  part of the paper examines the history,  policy
implications, and nature of future action requirements of the planning
process.  (The execution of the plans 1s covered under Part III.)  This
part concentrates on the future, with an examination of past actions
for the purpose of clarifying the context in which future planning
activity must be carried out.

     The State Implementation Plans (SIPs), as documents, set forth the
control strategies that will be followed by a State (within given time-
frames), for achievement of NAAQS within specified geographic areas, i.e.,
Air Quality Control Regions (AQCR).  The Act places primary responsibil-
ities for air pollution control on the States.  The SIPs specify the plan
of action for achieving the Act's objectives, I.e., reduction 1n emissions
levels requisite for meeting NAAQS and the prevention of excessive In-
creases 1n emissions 1n the future in order that NAAQS be maintained and
that significant deterioration of air quality be prevented.

     As a planning process, the SIPs are dynamic.  Constant review and
improvements of the plans are a part of this process.  The Act includes
important features for reviewing, updating, and changing of plans for
the purpose of accommodating changing requirements, be they social
conditions, growth patterns, or the changing status of technology, while
preserving  the Act's essential thrusts, I.e., the achievement of air
quality levels consistent with protection of public health and welfare
within realistic tlmeframes and the preservation of the nation's air

     The SIP process is examined below In relation to the degree of
success that has been achieved 1n developing adequate plans for  the
various pollutants that require control and assesses the need for
future planning action.   Transportation controls, maintenance of
standards,  and prevention of significant deterioration of air quality
requirements of the Act have been selected for extensive treatment due
to their land use control implications and concomitant controversially.
Future Implementation of the planning process envisoned by the Act will
have to concentrate on land use decisions; for the foreseeable future,
technological solutions to air pollution problems will not suffice for
achievement and maintenance of the Act's goals in many parts of  the

     B.  historical  Perspectives;  The Clean Air Act's Planning
         Process Implementation to Date

         1.   Summary of Evernts^

     The promulgation of National Ambient Air Quality Standards on
April 30, 1971, for six pollutants set 1n motion the Act's planning
and plan execution process for achieving the NAAQS by 1975.   EPA
provided guidance to the States as to the analytical and procedural
requirements that States had to meet in order that the planning pro-
cess comply with the criteria set by the Act.*  By the end of January
1972 all States had submitted SIPs to EPA; on May 31, 1972,  EPA totally
approved 14 SIPs, with the remainder being in various degrees of non-
compliance with the criteria set up by the Act.  By June 1972, EPA
had started the process of formally (i.e., by regulatory action)
correcting deficient State plans.  The timing of actions was within
the timeframes established by the Act.

     Consistent with the philosophy of the Act, EPA encourages States
to submit their own regulations as replacements for the ones proposed
or promulgated by EPA.  Thus EPA assures that States have the primary
responsibility for carrying out air pollution control programs, but
EPA does take corrective action in cases 1n which the States cannot
or do not act in time to meet the requirements of the Act.  This policy
has resulted 1r. a minimization of Federal promulgation and maximum
participation by States in the implementation of the Act.

     To complete State Implementation Plans, EPA proposed and pro-
mulgated regulations for the public availability of data 1n 12 States;
source r^oHkr.jping and reporting in 9 States; and the review of new
sour~3s and modifications in 11 States.  The Act requires that SIPs
cover these functions, which are essential for adequate air pollution
control.  The emission limitations necessary to correct the deficiencies
in several States are 1n various states of development, proposal and
public comments, and promulgation.

     In some cases, however, EPA has found it Impossible to compy with
the Act within given timeframes and Its interpretation of the Act's
requirements have not always been substantiated by tests 1n the courts.
These legal  tests have resulted 1n significant plan change actions.
This plan refinement process 1s still being carried out; prospective
* This guidance was initially promulgated 1n the Federal  Register on
August 14, 1971.  Since then, the guidance has been amended substantially.
A listing of significant amendments 1s provided in Appendix D.

amendments to the Act will intensify the process of plan refinements.
To the extent possible, consistent with the requirements of the Act, 1t
is EPA'* policy to minimize the number and scope of plan revisions 1n
order to minimize problems associated 1n Implementing constantly changing

     Each significant refinement 1n the planning process has been coupled
with a better definition of the procedural and/or analytical requirements.
These changes have been documented by EPA in amendments (adopted after
opportunity for public comment) to the original August 14, 1971, guide-
lines for SIP preparation.

     Since the time of plan approval, a number of issues have been
identified and attention has been focused on them as a result of court
decisions involving Interpretation of the Act.  These court decisions,
by interpreting some of the Act's requirements differently from EPA's
interpretation (e.g., on extensions of compliance dates), have affected
the approvabillty of some State plans and have resulted 1n EPA disapproval
of portions of previously approved plans.  A few significant cases are
reviewed below.

     2. Legal Interpretations of the Act's requirements

        a.   Transportation Controls

        On January 31, 1973, the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit ordered EPA (pursuant to a suit brought by the Natural
Resources Defense Council and seven other related cases) to rescind the
extensions in time granted by EPA for the submissions of transporta-
tion and/or land use control portions of the SIPs.  The court order
held that the Clean Air Act did not permit the delay in submission of
these portions of the SIPs until February 15, 1973, or permit the
granting of extensions to mid-1977 for attainment of the primary NAAQS
where plans had not been submitted.  EPA had granted these delays at
the time of Initial plans submission.  In compliance with the court order,
EPA has approved plans submitted by the States or has promulgated substi-
tute plans where deficiencies were found.

        b.  Prevention of Significant Deterioration of A1r Quality

        On May 30, 1972, as the result of a suit filed by the Sierra
Club, EPA was ordered by the District Court of the District of Columbia
to disapprove all SIPs which do not "prevent significant deterioration of
air quality" in currently clean areas and to promulgate new regulations
which would prevent significant deterioration.  (The District Court order
was subsequently affirmed on appeal by the Court of Appeals and the
Supreme Court.)  As a result, all SIPs were disapproved on November 9,
1972, to the extent that they did not explicitly "prevent significant

deterioration."  For the purpose of soliciting public comments,
Alternative sets of regulations were proposed in the Federal
Register of July 16, 1973.  On August 16, 1974, regulations
for Implementing the prevention of significant deterioration
provisions of the Act were proposed.

         c.  Maintenance of Standards and New Source Review
                 (Indirect Sources)

     Pursuant to another court order of January 31, 1973, 1n
Natural Resources Defense Council vs. Ruckelshaus. EPA has proposed
and promulgated regulations requiring that SIPs include procedures
to prevent construction of "indirect sources" which would interfere
with attainment and maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards as well as for the revision of SIPs for the maintenance
of standards once achieved.

     The term "indirect sources" describes facilities which indirect-
ly cause air pollution by substantially increasing traffic and re-
sulting vehicular-related air pollution, e.g., shopping centers and
sports arenas.  Most States have not submitted approvable plans; EPA
promulgated indirect source control parts of SIPs on February 25,
1974, for all deficient plans.  However, in keeping with EPA policy,
all States are encouraged to implement EPA's or their own plans where
developed to replace EPA's promulgations.

     The maintenance of standards on a regional basis is to be achieved
by the development and implementation of air quality maintenance plans
for specific air quality maintenance areas (AQMAs).  AQMAs have been
proposed, wicn final designation expected by the fall of 1974.  Mainte-
nance plans are to be developed by June 1975.

         d.  Source Compliance Issues

     Another set of issues related to SIPs involves regulations re-
lated to sources' alleged inability to achieve requisite emission reduc-
tions.  The ultimate solution to these types of problems, 1f no techno-
logical solutions become available, resides in land use limitations.  The
legislation does envision the reduction or discontinuation of activities
(1n extreme cases, leading to plant closures) In cases that no alternative
exists for meeting emissions reductions.

     On May 31, 1972, EPA disapproved SIPs for Arizona, New Mexico,
Nevada, Utah, Idaho, and Montana.  These States did not submit adequate
plans to control sulfur dioxide from copper smelters.  Regulations for
control of these sources were proposed by EPA and public hearings on
the regulations were held during August, September, and October of 1972,
at which time substantial comments were received.  Numerous court suits
have been filed by the Individual copper smelters against the proposed

regulations.  Involved in these challenges to the SIPs is the utiliza-
tion of Supplementary Control Systems (SCS).  EPA and the States are
in process of finalizing control requirements.

     The courts have also found that the State of Georgia's SIP,
allowing the use of tall stacks for air pollution control, was not
in conformity with the Act's requirements.  This SIP would have
allowed sources to raise the height of stacks, thus dispersing pol-
lutants rather than eliminating them, as a means of meeting air
quality standards.  The Court found that constant emission limitations,
rather than pollution dispersion, were required by the Act where such
constant emission limitations are available.  Fourteen other States
may also have tall stack regulations similar to those In Georgia
which will require a revision to this portion of their control strategy.

         e.  Procedural Issues

     As a result of court decisions by the Third, Fourth, and Sixth
Circuit Courts of Appeals, EPA has modified the procedures for dealing
with regulatory plan revisions and supplemental information.  These
court decisions required EPA to comment on the "reasonableness" of a
State's plan prior to publishing the approval/disapproval decision.
To Implement this requirement, the public 1s notified by a notice of
proposed rulemaklng (published in the Federal Register) which provides
the opportunity to comment on all plan revisions which are regulatory
1n nature.  The opportunity for public comment will allow the Agency
to Incorporate all points of view Into its regulatory decisions and
to better judge the "reasonableness" of any control measure proposed.

     3.  Other Issues Affecting SIPs

     At the time of initial SIP approvals, 47 AQCRs were classified
Priority I for NO? (I.e., exceeding standards and requiring specific
control measures for achieving the NAAQS).  Deficiencies discovered
later in the air measurement method used for determining the air
quality levels used for classification led to a June 8, 1973 proposal
of reclassifylng most of the affected AQCRs as priority III (requiring
no specific NOg control strategies).  On May 8, 1974, reclasslflcation
action was taken, with only Los Angeles and Chicago requiring control
strategies for N02.  The New Jersey-New York-Connecticut, Wasatch Front
(Salt Lake City), and Baltimore AQCRs retain Priority I status, with final
classification action dependent on additional air quality data that
would allow a definitive assessment of the N02 air quality levels for
these AQCRs.

     Another significant land use Issue relates to the control of
wind blown dust.  On May 31, 1972, EPA disapproved the Nevada, Califor-
nia, Arizona, and New Mexico SIPs for the control of particulate matter.
These States failed to demonstrate attainability of both primary and
secondary standards for particulate matter in their SIPs.  The major

reason for disapproving these plans was the Inadequacy of the
proposed strategies to control particulate matter from wind
blown fugitive dust from farming, construction,  and areas bereft
of natural vegetation.  The SIPs of several other Western States,
i.e., Kansas, Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa, Oklahoma and Texas, are
being evaluated for this same problem.

        C.  Transportation Controls

            1.   Introduction

        Motor vehicle related pollutants (i.e.,  hydrocarbons and
carbon monoxide) must be controlled in many AQCRs by means in ad-
dition to the Federal new motor vehicle emissions standards if the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards are to be met within the
deadlines set by the Clean Air Act, I.e., 1976-1977, or, in many
cases, even at any time beyond the statutory dates.  These addition-
al measures have been collectively called "transportation controls"
because they affect pollutants generally associated with trans-
portation sources, although stationary sources of these pollutants
are also covered.

        Initially, EPA granted two year extensions (i.e., to 1977) in
all areas where such controls would be required.  However, the courts
concluded that EPA was not 1n compliance with the Act by not consider-
ing the application of all possible control measures, Including trans-
portation controls and land-use controls, before granting extensions
in NAAQS achievement dates.  Based on these court decisions, EPA had
to reevaluate its approval actions, require States to Impose or con-
sider additional controls, and promulgate such controls in cases in
which States could not act within the strict deadlines set by the

        Control of excessive vehicular emissions 1n the affected AQCRs
has been approached in two broad categories of actions:  Reductions
in emissions from individual vehicles beyond those achieved by the
Federal (or California, for this State) standards for new vehicles
applicable to the specific model year, and reductions in total
motor vehicle emissions by reducing the use, or vehicle miles traveled
(VMT), of all vehicles.

        Currently, 27 AQCRs are affected by the need to impose trans-
portation controls in addition to stationary source controls and the
Federal motor vehicle emission standards.  Table I lists these AQCRs.
In Birmingham and Mobile (Alabama), Kansas City (Kansas and Missouri),
Dayton and Toledo (Ohio), and El Paso and Austin-Waco (Texas),it was
determined that additional stationary source control, combined with
the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP), would be adequate

                             TABLE I
      A1r Quality Control  Regions Re
              Control  Measures for NAAQS Achievement*

District of Columbia

New Jersey

New York
Phoenix and Tucson
Fresno, Los Angeles, Sacramento,
San Diego, and San Francisco
Washington Metropolitan Area
Baltimore and
Washington Metropolitan Araa
Boston and Springfield
New York City Metropolitan Area
(Newark) and Philadelphia Metropolitan
Area (Camden-Trenton)
New York City and Rochester
Philadelphia and Pittsburgh
Dallas, Ft. Worth, Galveston,
Huston, and San Antonio
Salt Lake City

TABLE I (continued)

State                        City/Area
Virginia                     Washington Metropolitan Area
Washington                   Seattle and Spokane
*0nly major cities 1n the AQCR are listed; controls are generally
applicable to the AQCR as a whole.

to attain the NAAQS. In addition, the city of Indlo, California,
will achieve NAAQS If the transportation control plan for Los
Angeles 1s Implemented.

     VMT reduction measures, 1n general, require changes in
established patterns with respect to use of privately owned
passenger cars; technological approaches to reductions 1n emis-
sions from Individual vehicles require no changes 1n vehicle use,
although they may Impose financial hardships on Individuals.
Examples of these measures are given 1n Table II.  Stationary
source controls applied as part of transportation control plans
Include control of the use of organic solvents 1n paint thlnners,
dry cleaning operations, and recovery of gasoline vapors at gas
stations; these controls can help reduce the nonvehicular hydro-
carbon emissions, but do not affect the emissions of carbon mon-

     Under the law and the ruling of the courts, EPA 1s re-
quired to approve or promulgate whatever mix of controls 1s re-
quired to achieve ambient standards.  It 1s EPA policy to facili-
tate the application of these measures by approving State developed
measures and by taking Into account local conditions 1n determin-
ing the reasonableness of the application of control measures.  EPA
has also Indicated to the Congress that certain provisions of the
Act, specially 1n relation to NAAQS achievement dates, should be
amended to preclude  the need for  Imposition of unreasonable means
of control, i.e., those that would cause serious social or economic

     Detailed explanations as to  the justification for transport-
ation control plans, legal authority, control measures, and other
pertinent factors may be found 1n the November 6, 1973, Federal
Register, pp. 30626-30633 (38 FR  30626 et seq.).  This section of
the paper explains  the reasons for requiring certain control
measures, the relationships between various controls required for
the achievement of NAAQS for automotive related pollutants  (I.e.,
CO, HC and NOX ), and the applicability of control measures to
specific AQCRs.

         2.  Transportation Control Measures

             a.   Relationship of  New Motor Vehicle Controls
                  to  Transportation Control Requirements"

     The Federal  Motor Vehicle Control Program  (FMVCP) provides
for a cumulative  Improvement in ambient air quality  (all other
factors being equal) as vehicles  covered by Increasingly stringent
standards are Introduced and replace higher emitting cars.  This
turnover requires about ten years.  Thus, the statutorlly mandated
reductions 1n CO  and HC emissions for 1975 Impact only minimally

                             TABLE II

            Control  Measures  for Reductions  In  Total  Motor
                     Vehicle  Pollutant Emissions
        A.   VMT Reduction Measures:£/

            Parking restrictions, on- and off-streets
            Vehicle free zones
            Selective vehicle use prohibitions^/
            Gasoline supply limitations^/
            Charges for parking or roadway use

        B.   Alternative Means of Travel:

            Exclusive bus/carpool lanes
            Bus/carpool matching
            Mass transit Improvements

        C.   Other Controls:

            Traffic-flow Improvementsd/
            Heavy-duty vehicle use restrictions
             Emission Reduction Measures Applicable to
                     Individual Motor Vehicles

        A.  Inspection and Maintenance;

                 Mandatory maintenance
                 Emission testing, either loaded or idle mode,
                 followed by maintnenace for falling vehicles.

        B.  Retrofits;

                 Vacuum Spark Advance Disconnect (VSAD) with idle
                 Air bleed to the intake system
                 Oxidation catalysts
a/  These measures are Intended to shift ridership for work trips from
private automobiles with low average occupancy rates (2 persons per car)
to mass transit and to private automobiles with a greater average

Table II (continued)
occupancy rate, or to obviate the need for the use of the automobile at
all.  The reductions 1n automobile use, as well as the resulting
decongestlon of roadways, will lead to reductions 1n pollutant emissions
for both CO and HC.  The actual extent of the reductions 1n emissions
will vary from area to area, depending on local conditions and the actual
applicability of the measures.

b/  This measure has been considered, but has not been used due to
the Impractical 1ty of Implementation.

£/  Measure applied to comply with the letter of the law, but not
considered a reasonable control measure by EPA.

$J  Improvements 1n traffic flow will result 1n reduction 1n pollutant
emissions due to less Idling of engines and less acceleration-deceleration.
However, these measures also tend to attract additional traffic.

on the ability to meet ambient air quality objectives by the 1975-77
achievement dates.

     Changes in the emission standards for new vehicles will lead to
changes in the dates by which AQCRs will be able to meet NAAQS and/or
the need for the Imposition of additional transportation control
measures for NAAQS achievement.  NAAQS cannot be achieved in some
AQCRs with currently implementable new vehicle control strategies.
Therefore, some means of lowering VMT below current levels will have
to be in effect in these AQCRs indefinitely.  However, it is also
clear that the FMVCP will have a significant impact on the achieve-
ment and maintenance of the NAAQS 1n most areas of the country.  More
stringent controls for heavy duty and medium duty vehicles, and con-
trols for motorcycles are being developed to assure the maximum
feasible control of these sources.

             b.  Achievement of Full Compliance with Emission Standards
                 of Vehicles in Actual Use -- Motor Vehicle Inspection'"'

     The Implementation of provisions of the Clean Air Act applicable
to in-use vehicle compliance with emission standards and State In-
spection requirements 1s treated 1n Part IV of this paper.  The Act
intends the manufacture of vehicles capable of meeting emissions
standards throughout their useful lives.  The greatest burden of com-
pliance is placed on vehicle manufacturers rather than Individual

     The owners, however, must provide proper maintenance of the
engine and control devices if the vehicles' emissions are to continue
to meet design Criteria.  The Inspection of 1n-use vehicles' emissions
performance or hardware integrity will assure that owners perform the
requisite maintenance and refrain from rendering inoperative the
emissions control systems Installed by manufacturers.  The performance
of routine maintenance and restraining from tampering with emission
control devices will result in Improved fuel economy and emissions

     Funding of State inspection programs by EPA is not contemplated
under current budgets.  These programs can be fully funded through
inspection fees, in a fashion similar to safety Inspection programs;
some jurisdictions (e.g., Chicago) have already implemented such
funding schemes.  Additional information on inspection programs'
characteristics and emissions reductions achievable are documented
1n 40 CFR 51, Appendix N.

             c.  Emissions Reductions by Retrofitting

     The updating of emission controls on existing motor vehicles
by the incorporation of equipment or modifications not provided at
the time of manufacture 1s called retrofitting.  In prototype tests,

retrofits have b^en found to reduce emissions by as much as 68% for
HC, 63% for CO, and 48% for NOv for uncontrolled cars.   Reductions
of 50% *i,  HC and CO, and 40% for NOX, are achievable for some con-
trolled vehicles with the Installation of catalysts and exhaust gas
redrculatlon systems.  In California, retrofits are being Installed
in the field.

     However, the full potential of these measures has not been com-
pletely documented for all classes of vehicles.  In some cases, retrofit
technology will not be adaptable to all older vehicles, e.g., catalysts
may not be feasible due to physical limitations and gasoline octane
requirements of older engines.  Retrofitting of medium and heavy duty
vehicles, an area of significant emissions reductions potential, has
not been adequately assessed.  If evaluations currently underway confirm
potential benefits, retrofitting of these vehicles may also be required.

             d.  VMT Reductions

     In several urban areas a shift from our present reliance on auto-
mobiles occupied by one or two persons to a greater reliance on other
forms of transit 1s essential to the achievement of the air quality
standards.  Significant reductions 1n vehicle miles traveled and pol-
lutant emissions can be accomplished within a limited time span.

     EPA recognizes that the States have had practically no experience
with transportation control measures as a means of dealing with air
quality problems and that the success of particular VMT reduction
measures 1s difficult to predict.  However, recent developments In-
volving bus lanes, mass transit Improvements, carpool programs, bike-
ways, and other innovations Indicate that many VMT reduction measures
are available and feasible.  Examples would be the Shirley Highway
exclusive bus lanes and extensive blkeways in the Washington, D.C.
metropolitan area.  Furthermore, the public in many urban areas
recognizes the need to place less emphasis on the automobile for
urban mobility and is already encouraging the implementation of steps
to develop alternative forms of transit.

     Reasonable VMT reduction measures can be successfully implemented.
For example, Los Angeles has set a goal of achieving a 25% VMT reduction
by 1977.  EPA has promulgated a number of measures designed to both
increase t*ie attractiveness of some of these alternative forms of transit
and to discourage the low occupancy use of automobiles.  The applicabil-
ity of both measures — incentives such as bus lanes and disincentives
such as parking limitations — varies according to the conditions 1n
the individual urban area.  For example, bus lanes are a more appropriate
strategy in Washington, D.C. than certain other areas.  Similarly, park-
ing restrictions are more applicable to a major center like Boston than
to a small city with few transit alternatives Hke Fairbanks, Alaska.

     The amount of VMT reduction that can be considered "reasonably

available" varies greatly according to an area's Individual  character-
istics ar.1 the ability of other modes of transportation to absorb the
demand that would be created by a significant VMT reduction.  A measure
Cannot be considered "reasonably available" 1f putting 1t Into effect
would cause severe economic and social disruption.  Although some
reduction 1n personal travel could certainly be absorbed without dis-
ruption, to achieve a significant VMT reduction the bulk of the travel
displaced from single passenger automobiles must be absorbed by other
modes of transportation, e.g., carpools, public transit, walking, or

     Achievement of the levels of VMT reduction provided for 1n the
plans will require a strong commitment by local areas.  Some of the
plans will have significant effects on the future development of urban
transportation 1n the major cities of this country.  A clear Implica-
tion of these plans 1s that future augmentation of mass transit must
focus not only on the center city but also on the totality of the
urban/suburban areas.  The need, desirability, and feasibility of re-
ducing urban auto use are not at Issue.  The problem 1s to determine
the degree of VMT reduction which can be reasonably Implemented within
limited time-frames.

         3.  Energy Conservation Benefits of Transportation Control

     Several measures Included 1n the transportation plans will lead
to significant fuel savings.  The reductions 1n VMT have evident fuel
savings consequences.  Carpoollng and the use of mass transit facili-
ties, an essential part of many transportation control plans, are means
recommended to the public to help alleviate shortages 1n gasoline.
Reductions in fuel consumption will range from 3 to 10 percent as a
consequence of these provisions of the plans.

     The application of evaporative control devices to gas stations and
hydrocarbons storage facilities will also result 1n the conservation
of gasoline.  The inspection and maintenance provisions of the plans
(Included 1n 26 plans) will improve the fuel economy of motor vehicles
by up to 6%, by assuring that they are functioning properly.  In the
Washington, D.C. area, for example, the control of evaporative emissions
at gas stations will result 1n a savings of 11,000 gallons of gasoline
a day, while the inspection of motor vehicles will lead to an additional
savings of 150,000 gallons of fuel a day.

         4.  Pollutant Reduction Impact of Controls on Specific AQCRs

     The specific controls applied under transportation control measures
have a unique impact for each AQCR; generalizations as to the emissions
reductions potential are not very helpful in understanding the impact
of the measures.  Detailed assessments of the emission reductions ex-
pected to be achieved by each control measure have been made for each

affected AQCR; t'.ieso assessments are summarized in the appropriate
Federal Register regulatory proposal or final  regulatory action.
The cc.icrol requirements for specific AQCRs are summarized 1n Table

     D.  Maintenance of Standards and Prevention of Significant
         Deterioration of Air Quality

     The Clean Air Act has a clear requirement for the maintenance
of standards once achieved.  Likewise, through judicial interpreta-
tion, prevention of significant deterioration of present air quality
in the areas where air quality 1s better than that defined by the
NAAQS 1s required.  Both of these provisions of the Act will require
Increasing attention through the planning process.

     Changes in geographical patterns of activity, or increased
activity at the same geographical sites, may eventually result in
increases in pollutant emissions.  The current SIPs do not, in
general, provide for the control of these additional emissions to
the degree that would assure that the NAAQS are not violated in the
future.  The control strategy development process for SIPs has not,
up to the present time, included this type of consideration.  The
control strategies have concentrated on the achievement of emissions
reductions from existing sources, without specifically addressing the
control of new or modified sources in relation to the maintenance of
emission levels consistent with NAAQS achievement.  The planning pro-
cess must incorporate provisions for the preservation of desirable
air quality.

     The prever,t-ior of significant deterioration of air quality is not
addressed r,i the currently approved SIPs.  Growth may result in in-
creased pollutant emissions in clean areas, i.e., areas currently not
exceeding NAAQS.  The Federal criteria for the SIP planning process
are being modified to provide for State action to define and protect
these clean areas.

     The nature and magnitude of the restrictions necessary to implement
these provisions of the Act will vary with the nature of the specific
Issue addressed, I.e., measures for maintenance of ambient air quality
standards may vary from those for prevention of significant deteriora-
tion, but the conceptual problem 1s the same:   An a priori determina-
tion of the nature of land use and an assessment o7 the air pollution
Impact of a variety of types of human activity are required.  The most
reasonable approach 1s the Federal establishment of criteria for a
planning process that is implemented by the States, with the decisions
as to the ultimate control choices left to the States.

Table III - Summary of Transportation Control Plans

EPA Region/
Region I
Metropolitan Boston
Hartford-New Haven-
Sprlnqfleld Inter-
Region II
New Jersey
New York, New Jersey,
Conn. Interstate
Metropolitan Phil-
adelphia Interstate
New York
New York, New Jersey,
Region III
District of Columbia
National Capital
Interstate (D. C.,
Vt., Md.)
Metropolitan Balti-
more Interstate
t Baltimore)
Metropolitan Phil-
adelphia Interstate
Southwest Pennsyl-
vania Interstate
Region. V
Metropolitan dilcaoo
Interstate (Chicago)
Metropolitan Indian-
apolis (EPA
Proposal )
Mlnneapolls-St. Paul
Metropolitan Cincin-
nati Interstate
Region VI
Corpus Christ!
Metropolitan Houston-
Gil vet ton
Acceptable State portion (S) or EPA pronulgat1oh~(E)













































I Catalytic







Air bleed




VSAD retrofit






Htgh altitude

EGR/alr bleed






Traffic flow












Mass transit














4-* (A
Additional sta
source control

















Bus/carpool lo









Gasoline limit,















t vt
c o
£ >



E --" 24(0X)

-b 14









E E Ec '^(50>
E E 2«(0X)

— « 24 (HC)
i ; :i9(co)
! o





E 'E 24(0X)



-k i 12(CO)

E !-":>3i5xi

( .


. J .m





! ~~L .


             Table  III   (continued)  - Summary  of  Transportation Control  Plans

EPA Region/
Metropolitan Dallas-
Ft. Forth
Metropolitan San
El Paso-Las Cruces-
Alamogordo Inter-
Region VIII
Metropolitan Denver
Wasatch Front Inter-
itatt (Salt Lake
Region IX
Phoenlx-Tucion Intra-
ttate (Phoenlx-
San Francisco Bay
Metropolitan Los
San W ego
Sacranento Valley
San Joaquln Valley
Southeastern Desert
Region X
Northern Alaska In-
trastate Region
Portland Interstate
Puget Sound Intra-
state (Seattle)
Eastern Nashlnqton-
Northern Idaho
Interstate (Spokane)
Acceptable State portion (S) or EPA promulgation (E)

required. 1





























„ a.










A1r bleed







VSAD retrofit



High altitude










Traffic flow







Parking restrict










Hass transit




Additional stall
source controls







v 3
» V)






Gasoline 11 ml tit





emission regs.







« *











— "





— P














* Percent reduction In KC emissions required.
b Pricing policies (E).
c Delivery prohibited.
* Trenton.
e Taxi  ban, bridge tolls.
f Fleet.
9 Aircraft and t«x1 control.
1 On llght-and medium-duty vehicles.
J A(r/fue? control retrc^ft ci Iight-
  medlin, and heavy-duty vehicles.
k Aircraft controls.
1 Complete 1-35.
H Fringe parking and  transit.
n Off-highway user controls.
0 1977.
p Employee car-pool Incentives.
q Depends on control  for Los An;e1es.

         2.  Air Quality Maintenance

     To assure the implementation of the maintenance of standards
requirements of the Act, EPA promulgated revisions of the SIP pre-
paration guidelines.  These revisions of the planning process'
criteria specify that States "... shall identify those areas
(counties, urbanized areas, standard metropolitan statistical
areas, etc.) which, due to current air quality and/or projected
growth rate, may have the potential for exceeding any national
standard within the subsequent 10-year period."*  These regulations
also modified the new source review procedures to include the need
to review the source's indirect Impact on air quality due to the
emissions resulting from mobile source activities associated with
the source.**

     The "A1r Quality Maintenance Areas" require a regional-scale
analysis of the potential for violation of any NAAQS In the future.
The cumulative impact of the growth in emissions of many sources
that by themselves may not lead to the violation of the NAAQS (and
that would be acceptable under an Individual source review procedure)
requires assessment if regional emission levels are to be maintained
at levels consistent with the maintenance of NAAQS.

     The Indirect impact of selected sources (e.g., sports arenas,
airports) requires an analysis only for the carbon monoxide air
quality Impact, at the specific site of the facility.  The nature
of the source-receptor relationship for all automotive-related
pollutants is such that only the analysis for CO 1s appropriate.  The
other mobile source-related pollutants (I.e., HC and NOX), due to
their contribution to photochemical pollution, have a regional, rather
than local, effect.

     The guidelines for AQMA designation apply to the State agency
responsible for designation.  In most cases, this will be the State
air pollution control agency.  However, because the impact of the
provisions for maintenance of standards will affect areas which are
of concern to other State agencies and local general purpose govern-
ments  (e.g., regional land-use and transportation planning, water
pollution control), it is essential for the designating agency to
involve them in the designation process.

     To assist the States in Identifying and analyzing the required
Air Quality Maintenance Areas (AQMAs), guidelines for analyzing the
impact of growth and other relevant factors were issued in the spring of
1974.  Most AQMAs have been Identified and are 1n various stages of the
* 40 CFR 51.12(e).
**38 FR 13834; June 18, 1973, Federal Register.

public review process.*  The timetable for plan revisions contemplates
that by June, 1975, States will  submit to EPA an analysis of Impact on
air quality of projected growth  1n AQMAs and, where needed,  a plan to
prevent any NAAQS from being exceeded over the 10 year period from the
date of plan submittal.

     EPA's designation of AQMAs  for States which do not submit a 11st
1s based on SMSAs whose growth rates for particular demographic-
economic Indicators exceed a specified value.  The critical  growth
rates per demographic-economic Indicator would vary depending on the
pollutant priority classification of the AQCR 1n which the SMSA 1s
located.  Thus, a lower critical growth rate would be specified for
those areas having a currently significant air quality problem (e.g.,
Priority I regions) than for those areas which do not have a currently
significant air quality problem (Priority III regions).  Priority III
regions would also be subject to procedural limitations to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality.  Areas selected by States
as being allowed to reach secondary NAAQS levels would also be expected
to be designated AQMAs.

         3.  Prevention of Significant Deterioration of A1r Quality

     Four alternative approaches to the Implementation of the pre-
vention of significant deterioration provision of the Clean Air Act
were proposed by EPA on July 16, 1973.  Alternatives proposed were
intended to provide reasonable approaches to the Issue and to stim-
ulate public discussion on appropriate courses of action.  The pro-
posed alternatives were:  The A1r Quality Increment Plan, the Emission
Limitation Plan, the Local Definition Plan, and the Area Classification

     The proposed alternatives resulted 1n significant response from
private citizens, environmental  protection organizations, industry,
and governmental agencies at public hearing and through written sub-
missions to EPA.  Extensive discussions were held with air pollution
control officials, the governors of several States, and representatives
of local offlcals.  Based on the Information gathered through this
consultation process and technical considerations applicable to the
issue, EPA has developed a tentative approach to the Implementation of
this provision of the Act.\ Regulations were proposed on August 16, 1974,
1n order that a  period of public comment be afforded prior to final
action, which is currently envisioned for the fall of 1974.

     In reviewing public comments, several criteria for the regulatory
* Appendix E lists the AQMAs and their status.

action were established:

         o   The plan should allow for as much local flexibility
             1n decision making as possible within Federally
             established procedural requirements.

         o   The plan should Incorporate air quality considerations
             Into land-use planning, but should not establish land-
             use plans based only on air quality considerations.

         o   Land-use decisions should not be based on an extremely
             tenuous data base.

     The requirements of the planning process for Implementing this
policy of the Act consist of:

         o   State division of Its area Into three classes.

         o   State decisions as to Intended use of the land classified
             under each of these classes.

         o   A review of proposed development within these land-use
             classes to assure compliance with the air resource
             utilization decisions.

     The regulations specify minimum criteria that the State review
process must meet, as well as set criteria for determining acceptable
uses of the air resource within the land-use classes established by
the States.  States are encouraged to delegate to local governments
as many of these land-use decisions as practicable.  As for all other
SIP requirements, provisions are made for EPA action 1n case of State
failure to act according to the specified criteria.

     Classes are proposed as follows:  Class I consists of the areas
where almost no change  1n air quality is desired; Class II consists
of the areas where modest changes In air quality are accepted  (these
Increments are given in Table IV); and 1n Class  III areas air quality
levels may Increase 1n  concentration up to secondary NAAQS.  In many
cases, Class III areas would also be A1r Quality Maintenance Areas
(AQMAs) under the regulations for maintenance of ambient air quality
standards.  All areas would be Initially classified as Class II, with
States provided authority to reclasslfy areas.  The designation of
land areas Into classes will publicly Indicate a State's Intent to
provide for the type of air quality specified by the class designation.

     In areas classified under Classes I and II, specified sources will
be required to apply for a permit to construct.  A review procedure
will be employed which will allow an opportunity for State review of the
sources's data, public comment to the State, and review of the decision
by EPA.  Unless the EPA Administrator disagrees with the State's evaluation

                              Table IV
          Increases in Pollutant Concentration to be Allowed
                 Under Regulations  for Implementation
           of the"Prevention of Significant Deterioration
                    Provision of the Clean Air Act
TSP  (jug/m3)               S02  (jug/m3)
Class I
Class II
24 hr.
Annual 24 hr.
2 5
15 100
3 hr.
*  Class III areas would be allowed to reach the levels
   of the secondary NAAQS.

of the sources's Impact and with the procedure followed, a construction
permit would be Issued if the source's Impact on air quality would not
cause the Increment to be exceeded and the source (1f not covered by
New Source Performance Standards) applies Best Available Control
Technology.  In either Class I or II areas the guideline air quality
Increment may not be exceeded; however, areas may be redesIgnated.
There 1s no limit as to the number of redeslgnatlons for an area.

     Boundary problems Involving Interstate conflicts can result  from
the application of this plan.  In case where another State's air  quality
is affected, the State could request that EPA Intervene 1n an advisory
role.  If the Issue could not be resolved, then the affected States
could litigate.

     Only partlculates and SO? would be covered by these requirements.
The "automotive pollutants" (i.e., CO, NOX, and HC) are not covered.
Carbon monoxide 1s not Included because, as a pollutant, Its only
known or anticipated effect 1s on human health; the primary standard,
which must be met 1n all areas, 1s fully protective of health.  Further-
more, the Federal motor vehicle emission standards are expected to
result 1n sizeable reductions 1n emissions on an area-wide basis  for
many years Into the future.

     Hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen are not Included 1n this
plan because, as with CO, national and regional emission trends are
declining, and the nature of the HC-NOX photochemical Interaction
Indicates that specific source/receptor analysis 1s not appropriate.
Their contributions to air pollution are functions of total mass
emitted Into the atmosphere over a large area.  Federal motor vehicle
control and Federal and State control of new or existing sources  1s
expected to control this problem 1n most areas.

     Appropriate revisions to the regulations will be made 1f the
control of significant deterioration due to "automotive pollutants"
(or due to additional pollutants for which national standards might
be set 1n the future) becomes desirable.

               III.  State Implementation Plans:  The Action
                     Process—Compliance with Emission Limi-
                     tations on Existing Stationary Sources

     A.  Introduction

     Initial SIP development concentrated on the control of stationary
sources of particulates and sulfur oxides since the control of these
pollutants is relatively better understood (due to historical reasons)
and a minor part of such pollution results from mobile sources.  Re-
quisite control of emissions of partlculates and sulfur oxides is
generally well within the capability of available technology.  The
requirements of the SIPs for the control of these pollutants must be

     A few specific types of sources face problems related to their
ability to meet emissions within statutory deadlines.  After SIPs
were approved within the deadlines imposed by the Act, 1t became
clear that the cumulative impacts of the individual State require-
ments upon national demand for fuels and control equipment required

     This part reviews the actions required to assure compliance with
SIP provisions; reviews the policies EPA will follow 1n Us relations
with States and sources; and explains EPA's position on the alleged
inability of some sources to comply with SIP requirements.

     B.  Historical Perspective;  Action Process Implementation

     Beginning in May 1972, EPA has approved or promulgated State
implementation plans for the control of particulate matter and sul-
fur dioxide for all States, except for non-ferrous smelter require-
ments and the control of fugitive dust.  The majority of these sources
are stationary point sources.  Portions of plans dealing with the
abatement of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons from stationary sources
have also been approved.  Transportation control measures required In
addition to the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program for carbon mon-
oxide and photochemical oxldants NAAQS achievement are 1n the 1nt1al
stages of Implementation; they were described In Part II.

     Of the Air Quality Control Regions classified as exceeding the
health related standards for paniculate matter and sulfur dioxide, all
except nine (in which up to two year extensions 1n the NAAQS attainment
dates were granted) require attainment of the health-related air quality
levels by July 1975.

     In order to achieve reductions in pollution called for in the SIPs
by mid-1975, Federal and State activities must focus on ensuring com-
pliance with emission limitations.  The process of ensuring compliance
with the emission requirements 1n the State Implementation Plans is

based on the successful  accomplishment of three major facets of the
enforcement program:

         (1) Sources of air pollution which emit more than the allowed
             amounts of pollutant should be committed to an enforceable
             compliance schedule containing Increments of progress;

         (2) The Increments of progress 1n the compliance schedule
             should be met 1n a timely manner; and

         (3) Sources which were initially found In compliance or that
             come Into compliance should continue to meet emission
             limitation requirements.

     At the present time, the States and EPA are completing the first
of the three major tasks in achieving compliance, I.e., the development
of compliance schedules.  While progress has been made in ensuring
compliance for sources, 1t has been slow.  State and EPA Inability to
quickly focus massive efforts Into plan enforcement as well as the
contention by the utility industry and others that control technology
for the abatement of sulfur oxides from fuel combustion 1s unavailable
have contributed to delays In the process.

     EPA set February 15, 1973, as the date by which States had to
submit compliance schedules establishing increments of progress where
such increments were required.  Regulations establishing the final
emission limitations and compliance dates were required to be contain-
ed 1n the plan submitted by January 30, 1972; only the Incremental
steps (e.g., contract, start construction, finish construction) were
covered by the deferred submission date.  Where the emission control
regulation contained acceptable Increments (approximately 5,000 major
emitting facilities are included in such requirements), no submission
of Individual compliance schedules was required.  Although increments
of progress are not necessary for sources affected by requirements
with an effective date prior to January 1974, 1t is still necessary
for the States or EPA to establish reasonable compliance schedules
for such sources 1f the presently effective compliance date is un-
reasonable, I.e., control technology 1s not available within the
specified time frames.

     Despite substantial efforts by the EPA Regional Offices, only a
few States officially submitted schedules for all affected point
sources.  Of the 20 states with regulations with final compliance
dates after January 31, 1974, only 6 officially submitted any schedules
in time to comply with the EPA promulgation deadlines, i.e., June 15,
1973, for approval and August 13, 1973, for promulgation of substitute
compliance schedules.

     Approximately 10,000 major sources have come into compliance with

the SIP.  Most of these facilities are subject to a categorical-type
schedule, that 1s, a schedule tailored to a class of sources, e.g.,
asphalt batch plants.  Approximately.5,000 major facilities are still
not in compliance.  Of these, approximately 2,300 are on EPA approved
compliance schedules, 1,500 are on State schedules, and the rest are
in various stages of development.

     C.  Enforcement of SIP Provisions and Source Compliance Requirements

         1.  Introduction

     There are still a significant number of sources out of compliance
with the SIP requirements.  There are clear solutions available for the
problems presented by specific sources as impediments to compliance
with the requirements of the SIP process; some allegations of problems
are not substantiated by the facts of the case, i.e., control technology
for power plants' compliance with the emissions limitations for SOX  is
available and all such sources should be able to comply with the require-
ments .

     It is clear that not all sources will willingly agree to achieve
emission reductions required by the SIPs.  EPA has the tools for assur-
ing compliance of these sources with the Act's requirements 1n cases
in which the States cannot proceed with the requisite enforcement actions.
It is EPA's policy to fully utilize these tools for Insuring that the
Act's goals are achieved.  The Act provides for a process of Federal
action  in enforcing the requirements of the SIPs.  Outlined below are
the EPA policies in implementing these provisions of the Act and the
main features of this process.

         2.  Enforcement Policy

     It is EPA's policy that violations of approved implementation plans
be promptly prosecuted either by the appropriate State or local agency
or by EPA.  It is the intent of Congress, expressed in the Act, that
the Federal government should defer to a State agency when such agency
is moving effectively to abate a source in violation of the State's
Implementation Plan.  However, a notice of violation triggering Federal
enforcement will be issued whenever it appears that the State cannot or
will not take effective abatement action within a reasonable period of
time.   In cases where a State agency is willing to enforce but lacks the
resources to do so, it may be preferable for EPA to support the State
with technical assistance rather than Initiate independent action.

     It should be noted that implementation plans do represent require-
ments of Federal law and that EPA has ultimate responsibility for their
enforcement.  Where serious violations have occurred, Federal enforce-
ment action may have more impact and may be required to provide adequate
assurance of future compliance.  EPA enforcement action 1n such cases

does not imply that the State agency has failed to perform its re-

     EPA Regional Offices have the primary responsibility for the
initiation and conduct of Federal enforcement actions under Section
113 of the Act.  Notices of violation are issued by the Regional
Administrators in accordance with guidance and policy established
by the EPA Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and General

     One of the Agency's objectives is to ensure that all sources
are in compliance or on an approved compliance schedule.  In order
to meet this objective, several mechanisms must be utilized, among
them being the authorities established by Sections 113 and 114 of the
Clean Air Act.  A necessary condition for achieving this objective is
the establishment and implementation of a compliance monitoring system
in each EPA Regional Office; this system is to identify all signifi-
cant sources, to locate sources previously overlooked, to ensure that
those sources on a schedule meet Incremental progress requirements of
the compliance schedules, and to ensure that sources presently in
compliance remain so.

         3.  Clean A1r Act Authorities

     Section 113 provides for Federal enforcement in cases of violation
of a Federal standard or any requirement of a Federally approved im-
plementation plan.  In the case of a violation of a provision of a
Federally approved implementation plan, the Administrator must first
issue a notice of violation, unless the Administrator has declared
that State in which the violation occurred to be in a "period of
Federally assumed enforcement."  (Federally assumed enforcement, under
which Federal enforcement procedures are more expeditious, is appro-
priate whenever a State generally fails to enforce an implementation
plan.)  Thirty days after the issuance of a notice of violation, the
Administrator may issue an order or bring a civil action.

     In addition, Section 113 makes it a criminal offense for any
person to knowingly violate any requriement of an applicable  imple-
mentation plan more than 30 days after issuance of the notice of violation
(or at any time during a period of Federally assumed enforcement).
Criminal penalties are also provided for knowingly failing to comply
with any of the Administrator's orders.  The criminal penalties are a
fine of not more than $25,000 per day of violation or by imprisonment
for not more than one year, or both.  For any subsequent conviction,
the penal Hies are a fine of up to $50,000 per day of violation, or
imprisonment for not more than two years, or both.  The provisions of
Section 113 also apply to the enforcement of the requirements set under
the stationary source performance standards and hazardous pollutant
standards provisions of the Act  (Sections 111 and 112), and to the en-
forcement of Information gathering activities authorized under Section 114.

     To facilitate carrying out the requirements of the Act, Section

114 enables the Administrator to require owners or operators  of emis-
sion sources to establish and maintain records; make reports, Install,
use, and maintain monitoring equipment or methods; sample emissions
(1n accordance with methods, locations, Intervals, and 1n a manner as
the Administrator shall  prescribe); and provide other Information.
Section 114 also authorizes entry for certain purposes and the sampling
of emissions.

     Section 114 is a powerful tool when used for determining status
of compliance of sources.  The source can be required to provide the
information which may be the basis for enforcement action by  EPA.  EPA
Regional Offices are urged to make extensive use of Section 114 for
enforcement purposes since this 1s usually the most effective method
of obtaining the necessary Information for Initiating an enforcement
action.  Section 114 also enables the Administrator or his authorized
representative to enter a source so that EPA can do Its own monitoring,
sampling, inspecting, or copying of records.  This authority  also can
be used to determine whether a source 1s carrying out any obligations
imposed on 1t by EPA under Section 114 and for obtaining Information
necessary to Implement controls for overcoming emergency episodes
(covered by Section 303).

     Where a State has been delegated Section 114 authority from EPA,
the same authority EPA has to monitor, sample, Inspect or copy records,
and any other authority under Section 114 can, 1n like manner, be
exercised by the State.  No representative of EPA need accompany State
officials when exercising these delegated powers.

         4.  Compliance Process

     The key element 1n the SIPs that affects sources and that 1s the
basis for actions related to the enforcement of the requirements of  the
plan is the compliance schedule.  The term "compliance schedule" refers
to that part of any State regulation, order, decree, or other exercise
of State authority which establishes the date or dates by which a
source or category of sources 1s required to comply with an emission
limitation and with specified Increments of progress toward such com-
pliance.  Increments of progress Include:  (a) Submlttal of the source's
final control plan to the appropriate air pollution control agency;  (b)
contracts for emission control systems or process modifications awarded,
or orders issued for the purchase of component parts to accomplish
emission control or process modification; (c) Initiation of on-s1te
construction or Installation of emission control equipment or process
change; (d) on-site construction or installation of emission  control
equipment or process modification completion; and (e) final compliance

     States may employ a variety of procedures to develop and issue
compliance schedules.  For example:  (a) Schedules may be established
in State control regulations, Including regulations which set forth
the emission limitation or other control measure to which the schedule

relates; (b) schedules may be Imposed as conditions to a permit or
license; (c) schedules may be established In special or general variances
which revise a control regulation as 1t applies to a particular source
or group of sources; and (d) schedules may be contained 1n administrative
orders or 1n court orders, Including consent decrees, which are sub-
mitted to EPA for approval as revisions of the applicable Implementation

     In developing compliance schedules, the States may require sources
to submit proposed schedules at the outset of the State procedure, or
the State may hold negotiations or conferences with sources prior to
Issuance of a schedule.  Regardless of the procedure followed 1n de-
veloping and Issuing a compliance schedule, or whether the schedule
supplements the original plan or 1s submitted as a revision to a plan,
the schedule 1s approvable by EPA 1f:  (a) The procedure followed by
the State satisfies minimal procedural requirements specified in the
regulations; (b) the schedule 1s enforceable; (c) the schedule requires
full compliance by a specified date which satisfies the requirements of
of 40 CFR 51.1(b); and (d) the schedule Includes Increments of progress
to the extent required by 40 CFR 51.15(c).

     It has been Indicated that a substantial number of sources are not
1n compliance with these SIP requirements.  For these sources, one of
the following mechanisms must be used to establish schedules:

         o   If the compliance date is within the attainment date set
             by the approved SIP, States are to develop schedules and
             submit to EPA as plan revisions.

         o   If compliance date 1s beyond the attainment date 1n the
             SIP, EPA Issues notice of violation and follows up with
             abatement order.

     If a violator cannot reasonably be expected to comply Immediately
with an applicable requirement and has been making a good faith effort
to comply,  issuance of an order will normally be the most appropriate
action.  The time allowed for compliance is required by the Act to be
a reasonable time (determined by the EPA Regional Administrator),
"taking Into account the applicable requirements."  The person In vio-
lation must be given an opportunity to provide Information on this
point at the statutorily required conferences (Section 113(a)(4) of
the Act).   An essential part of this process is consultation with
appropriate State officials to minimize the possibility of Federal
duplication of State action.

     The date ultimately selected for compliance should be the earliest
date which  satisfies the requirement of Section 113(a)(4).  Whenever
possible, the order should contain Increments of progress towards ultimate

compliance and associated dates to keep the violator on a tight abate-
ment schedule.  It should be noted that while the order issued by EPA
may provide for compliance at a date later than that specified in the
SIP, it cannot vary from the plan in any other way.

     As of June, 1974, EPA had issued notices of violation to some 205
facilities and abatement orders to 79 of these.  In addition, some 2,000
Section 114 letters (i.e., requesting information) have been issued, and
1,500 inspections, tests, and opacity observations have been conducted
by EPA to ascertain compliance status of sources.  These investigations
are expected to culminate in the establishment of compliance schedules
by either the State or EPA.

         5.  Federal Facilities Compliance

     In response to Executive Order 11282, dated May 26, 1966, Federal
departments, agencies, and instrumentalities initiated organized pro-
grams to control and abate air pollution from the facilities under their
management.  This program was continued and strengthened by E.O. 11507,
dated February 4, 1970.

     Section 118 of the  Clean Air Act  (enacted after the issuance of E.O.
11507) directed Federal  agencies to:

          "... Comply with Federal, State,  interstate and local require-
         ments respecting the control and  abatement of air pollution to
          the  same extent that any person is subject to such requirements.'

     The  Administrator of EPA, on January  26, 1973, requested the Federal
agencies  to:   (1) Provide the States the information and data they need
to  determine  compliance  with standards,  (2) develop compliance schedules
in  cooperation with the  States, and  (3)  report to  EPA  the compliance
status of  their facilities.  All of  the  States were also informed of this

     On December  17,  1973, the President signed  Executive Order  11752,
which superseded  E.O.  11507.  This new Executive Order directs Federal
agencies  to cooperate  with States and  to comply  with "Federal, State,
interstate, and local  substantive standards and  substantive limitations"
(emphasis  added).

     Compliance by  Federal facilities with substantive State and
local air  quality and  emission standards is accepted by all as operative
policy.   Major Federal agencies contend, however,  that complying with
administrative procedural requirements infringes upon  the constitution-
al  principle  of Federal  supremacy.   Examples of  such procedural  require-
ments are  payment of fees, obtaining permits, and  submitting plans to
State and  local control  agencies for approval.

     Several States believed that Section  118 authorized them to impose
procedural requirements  on Federal agencies.  On June 5, 1974, the U S
Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, in ruling  on a suit initiated by'

Kentucky (who was joined by California, Texas, and Virginia), found that
Section 118 was intended to force compliance by Federal  facilities with
substantive standards set by States and was not intended to subject
Federal agencies to State administrative requirements.

     EPA's policy for Federal facilities stems from the Clean Air Act
as interpreted by the Courts and from E.O. 11752.  Under this policy,
all Federal facilities are required to comply with all applicable
substantive standards and limitations, but they are not required to
comply with State or local administrative requirements.  Federal agencies
shall cooperate with EPA and the State and local air pollution control
agencies to insure compliance with applicable substantive standards.
EPA will assure compliance by Federal facilities with the applicable
standards and limitations.

     For a more detailed discussion of pollution abatement and control
at Federal facilities, see EPA's Federal Activities Strategy Paper.

     D.  Specific Source Compliance Problems

         1.   Introduction

     Some  sources have alleged that SIP emission limitations are un-
reasonable and  impossible to comply with;  EPA has examined the issues
and found  them  to be solvable within the policy framework of the Act.
The nature of the problems can be generally summarized under the fol-
lowing categories:   (1) The preferred techniques for complying with
emission limitations by combustion sources, i.e., switching to clean
fuels, are not  generally applicable due to lack of appropriate sup-
plies  of such fuels; (2) certain sources cannot achieve requisite
emission reductions  on a continuous basis  without economically ruinous
control measures, i.e., permanent production curtailment; and (3)
assumptions as  to the feasibility and propriety of certain control
measures require revisions due to improvements  in techniques since the
initial SIP planning cycle.

     This  section of the paper explains the relationship between
evolving EPA  policies and-the resolution of these problems within the
context of the  Act's policies.  EPA's assessment of the compliance
problems of the power industry is summarized and action requirements

         2.   Power  Plant Compliance

     There are  about 970 fossil-fueled power plants in the U.S.
Approximately 55% of generating capacity is obtained from burning coal,
17% from oil, and 28% from gas.  All gas-fired  plants are obviously now
in compliance with  sulfur oxide emission limitations.  Some of the coal-
and-oil-fired plants were in compliance with sulfur oxide (SOX) emis-
sion limitations when these were adopted and many other plants have
been or are being brought into compliance  by converting to fuels having
lower  sulfur  contents.  Some of these changes were brought about by
economic considerations (i.e., fuel oil being less costly than coal at


the time of conversion) rather than environmental  protection require-
ments.  However, this change 1n fuel use has resulted in an undesirable
increase in oil imports and has increased our dependence on unreliable
foreign sources of fuels.  Current fuel  prices are favoring reconversion
to coal on the basis of economic considerations alone.

     Switching to a low-sulfur fuel would seem to be the simplest
route to compliance with SOX emission requirements.  However, reliance
on use of low-sulfur western coal (the only supply source available in
the requisite amounts other than imported oil) by plants east of the
Mississippi River would result in a failure to use readily available
high-sulfur eastern coal and raises serious questions as to the pos-
sibility of supplying the eastern coal market with western coal with-
in any reasonable time period.  The reliance on fuel conversion to
achieve SOX emissions reductions would aggravate the existing short-
age of low-sulfur fuels.  Since supplies of low-sulfur fuels will be
insufficient, flue gas desulfurization (FGD) systems will be required
on a large number of power plants in order to achieve compliance with
SOX emission limitations.  Use of FGD systems will enable power plants
to meet emission requirements while using readily available high-sulfur
fuel resources and severing their dependence on imported fuel oil sup-

     Currently, there are 11 units operating with FGD with a total
electricity production capacity of 2,276 megawatts.  There are a total
of 57 units planned for operation or operating with FGD, for a total
capacity of 20,687 megawatts.  Figure I summarizes the National need
for FGD in terms of total electrical power generating capacity that
would require  FGD for the period 1976 through 1981; three different
assumptions are given as to the levels that are probably required.
The estimate of the probable situation indicates that approximately
80,000 megawatts of capacity would have to have FGD installed by 1980,
or approximately a four-fold increase over the levels committed to date.
These figures  should be compared with total national electric power
generating capacity of approximately 300,000 megawatts.

     Many utilities have suggested that, rather than meet existing SOX
emission requirements, they be allowed to use Supplementary Control
Systems to achieve ambient air quality standards.  EPA considers con-
stant emission reduction techniques, such as FGD, far superior to dis-
persion techniques due to the effects of SOX  that are not accounted for
by the present NAAQS, e.g., sulfate formation, acidification of soil and
water.  (Dispersion techniques can, however, often be appropriately
required as interim steps, to minimize the impact of plant operation on
air quality, in schedules requiring compliance with emission limitations.)

     The utility industry's allegations and failure to install control
equipment that would result in compliance with emission limitations
have created a difficult situation in relation to compliance with SIPs.
In order that all the available evidence be brought to bear on the
resolution of the issues, EPA held a special public hearing in Washington,
D.C., from October 18 to November 2, 1973, to review the status of power


plant compliance with sulfur oxide emission limitations.   This hearing
was required because:  (a) Power plants are the largest source of SOX
emissions in the U.S. (emitting about 60% of total  SOX), (b) large num-
bers of power plants are not yet in compliance with SOX  emission limit-
ations, and (c) in most cases, only one and a half years remained under
the established SIPs for these plants to achieve compliance.*  Some
of the principal findings of the EPA hearing panel  are:

         o   Flue gas desulfurization technology must be installed
             on large number of power plants if SOX  emission
             limitations in SIPs are to be met in the 1970's.  Sup-
             plies of low-sulfur fuels are now and will continue to
             be inadequate to provide the sole means of complying
             with SOX  emission limitations.

         o   With several noteworthy exceptions, the electric
             utility industry has  not aggressively sought out
             solutions to the problems they  argue exist with  FGD

         o   Although most  utility witnesses testified that FGD
             technology  was  unreliable, created difficult sludge
             disposal problems, and  that  it  was too costly, the
             hearing panel  found,  on the  basis of  utilities'  and
             FGD  vendors' testimony,  that the alleged  problems
             can  be, and have been,  solved  at a reasonable  cost.
             The  reliability of both throw-away-product and sale-
             able-product FGD systems  has been  sufficiently de-
             monstrated  on  full scale  units  to warrant widespread
             commitments to FGD systems  for SOX  control  at coal-
             and  oil-fired  power  plants.

          o  The  utility industry has generally lacked a  real
              incentive to develop FGD technology and  to  install
              this technology where needed to meet  SOX  emission  re-

 The hearing panel concluded that:

          o   The electric utility industry should:  (a)  Make im-
              mediate commitments  to install  FGD systems where
              needed to meet SOx  emission requirements,  giving prior-
              ity to those sources where controls  are  needed to meet
              primary ambient air quality and new source performance
              standards; (b) aggressively pursue FGD developmental
              programs to improve reliability, to  lower operating
              costs, and to advance FGD technology that results in
              a saleable by-product; (c) undertake further character-
              ization and evaluation efforts on sludge disposal,  with
 * The Hearing Panel's findings are contained in Report of the Hearing Panel:
 National Public Hearings on Power Plant Compliancewith Sulfur Oxide AfF
 Pollution Regulations; EPA. January 1974.

            emphasis on large scale systems, to assure the widespread
            applicability and effectiveness of sludge disposal systems
            at reasonable cost; and (d) hire (and train) personnel with
            the skills needed to properly design and operate FGD systems,

        o   EPA and the States should:  (a) Create a stong Incentive
            for the Installation of FGD systems by establishing ex-
            peditious but reasonable  compliance schedules and by
            vigorously enforcing these schedules;  (b) formalize pro-
            cedures for dealing with  unpreventable control system
            malfunctions where such formal procedures do not already
            exist;  (c) urge  State  public utility commissions to treat
            Increased costs  from FGD  control 1n the same manner as
            increased fuel costs are  treated; and  (d) consider such
            methods of creating an Incentive to control SOX  emissions,
            such  as a charge (tax) on SOX emissions.

        o   Compliance schedules established by the utilities, States
            and EPA should:   (a) Be developed for  each  utility after
            considering the  number and types of plants  requiring  FGD
            systems and the  need to properly sequence Installations
            to  preserve utility power reserves;  (b) give priority  to
            installations of FGD systems at  those  plants where systems
            are needed to meet primary ambient air quality standards
            and new source performance standards;  (c) require instal-
            lation  of FGD systems  at  a rate  commensurate with vendor
            capacity; and  (d) require, where feasible,  the use of
             interim control  measures, such  as Supplemental Control
            Systems, In order that the Impact of SOX  emissions on
            air quality be minimized  until  FGD systems  can be in-
            stalled.  The development of compliance schedules
            incorporating these criteria should  be facilitated by
            prospective extensions of final  compliance  dates  en-
            visioned by amendments to the  Clean Air Act.

     A program to  carry  out  these  power plant recommendations  has  been
initiated; in  particular,  basic  data on each  power  plant is being
gathered and a strategy  1s being developed  to establish  compliance
schedules  for  all  utilities  based  on the  priorities established.
Approximately  90 power  plants have  been identified  for  EPA  investiga-
tions and  legal  action.  Approximately one-half of  these power plants
are currently  Involved  in  various  stages  of litigation.

         3.  SIP Requirements Changes

             a.   Clean  Fuels  Policy

     EPA studies show  that if SIP  control  requirements  that affect
supplies of low-sulfur  coal were enforced,  there would  be a significant
shortage of coal  amounting  to about one-half of  the combustion coal

demand in 1975 and 1977.  (Nineteen seventy-five demand 1s currently
estimated to be about 550 million tons and 1977 demand 1s estimated
to be 610 million tons.)  EPA recognized, when 1t approved the State
Implementation Plans, that there would be a shortage of acceptable
coal 1f all the States enforced their control regulations.

     To alleviate this potential shortage, EPA developed a policy
(the "Clean Fuels Policy") of encouraging State review of plans 1n
order that sulfur emission limits be modified whenever this could be
done without exceeding the primary air quality standards.  The date
of achievement of secondary standards (protective of welfare, e.g.,
vegetation), in many cases adopted by the States as the same as that
for primary standards, i.e., 1975, 1s also being revised under this
process.  The policy encourages the States to analyze their control
requirements in a more detailed fashion than was generally done at
the time of initial SIP development; substantial technical support
to States is provided by EPA.  These actions are specific to each
State, as the degree of control required to achieve the primary
standard varies widely between air quality control regions and in-
dividual sources in each region.

     The policy is designed to promote State review and subdivision
of large air quality control regions 1n order to make regulations
more directly related to regional air quality needs.  EPA has analyz-
ed individual power plants (through use of diffusion modeling) In
relation to air quality requirements 1n order to Identify those
plants which could burn a higher sulfur fuel than required under
previously adopted regulations, without violating the primary standard.
These studies show that the Clean Fuels Policy has the potential for
reducing the shortages of low-sulfur coal 1n 1975 and 1977 by about
40%.  The ultimate resolution of the Issues resides to a major extent
in the application of control technology that would allow the use of
high-sulfur containing fuels for energy generation.

     The Clean Fuels Policy, when implemented by a State, requires
changes in State regulations and compliance schedules (all part of the
SIP).  Such changes require public hearings and ultimate approval by
the Administrator of EPA.

     The Clean Fuels Policy, which aims at basic regulatory changes,
should not be confused with other provisions of the Act.  Variances
may be given 1n cases where extenuating circumstances require deviations
from compliance schedules.  These circumstances might Include special
problems in obtaining the required quality of fuel or unavoidable delays
in the installation of control equipment.  Such variances are for re-
latively short times and 1n no case beyond the date of mandatory attain-
ment of the primary NAAQS.  The granting of the variance follows public
disclosure and EPA approval since compliance schedules which would be
changed are part of the SIP, and SIP changes must conform with the
prescribed procedures.

     The way 1n which Initial  compliance schedules may be legally
extended beyond the mandatory  date for attainment of NAAQS 1s under
the provisions of Section 110(f) of the Act.  Under this Section,
compliance dates may be extended "... for not more than one year ..."
beyond mandatory dates.  The extension may be given for a source or
group of sources only where good faith efforts have been made to
comply, such compliance 1s Impossible or impracticable due to lack
of appropriate technology or alternative methods, and the continued
operation of the source or class of sources is essential for national
security, public health or welfare requirements.  Available procedures
must have been used which will reduce the Impact of such sources on
public health.  Extensions under Section 110(f) can only be obtained
through the request of the Governor to the Administrator of EPA and
his approval.  Public hearings must be held.  Decisions are subject
to judicial review.

     In summary, the Clean Fuels Policy is aimed at fundamental SIP
changes which can be made as a result of careful analysis and which
are completely consistent with attainment of NAAQS 1n the mandatory
time frame.  Variances have a much sharper focus and are constrained
by the mandatory dates.  Section 110(f) actions allow a maximum of one
year extension of the mandatory date 1n the case of the specified
sources following certain proofs and Interim actions.  All of the
above Involve changes to the SIPs, which then necessitates public
disclosure, discussion, and EPA approval actions.  The Act thus
provides some flexibility of response to unforeseen circumstances
but sharply circumscribes the time latitudes and processes 1n
making such responses.

             b.  Supplemental  Control Systems

     Supplemental Control Systems limit the rate of pollutant emis-
sions during periods when meteorological conditions conducive to
ground-level pollutant concentrations 1n excess of NAAQS exist or
are anticipated.  These systems take advantage of the changing
dispersive capacity of the atmosphere and, thus, they are an alter-
native to the application of constant emission reductions that
would otherwise be required for NAAQS achievement.

     EPA's position had been that the use of Supplemental Control
Systems (SCS) was not acceptable for attaining and maintaining NAAQS
since SCS were not considered reliable enough to preclude NAAQS vio-
lations.  On September 13, 1973, regulations were proposed which
recognized that in certain cases substantial and consistent Improve-
ment 1n SCS performance had occurred, to the degree that 1t would now
be possible to develop SCS as a reliable means of attaining and main-
taining the national standards 1n carefully selected situations.  This
proposal stated that SCS was a "partially and temporarily" acceptable

strategy, i.e., not as desirable as constant emission limitations,
but necessary under some circumstances.

     Current policy 1s that constant emission limitation 1s the
preferred strategy for attaining and maintaining the national
standards.  SCS is acceptable only as a  temporary measure where
constant emission limitation measures are demonstrated to be un-
available on a case-by-case basis, and only 1n circumstances
wherein the SCS can reliably attain and  maintain the national
standards.  However, the factors to be considered 1n determining
the availability of constant emission limitation measures have
not yet been completely specified by the Agency.  In the case  of
non-ferrous smelters, most Issues have been resolved and source-
specific regulations are being developed to complete affected SIPs.
In the case of fossil fuel-fired power plants, major Issues remain
unresolved and the Agency 1s not yet 1n a position to promulgate
regulations permitting use of SCS on power plants.

     The September 14 proposal also stated that stack height ex-
tensions beyond the level of "good engineering practice" would not
be an acceptable air quality control measure unless accomplished as
part of an approved SCS.  The proposed regulations were actually a
statement of the EPA "Tall Stack Policy" which evolved from the
Natural Resources Defense Council (and others) suit over the Georgia
SIP.  This suit included the claim that use of "Tall Stacks" (I.e.,
atmospheric dilution) was not a legal method for attaining the
national standards.  The court concluded that attainment of the NAAQS
should be achieved primarily through use of emission reduction con-
trols rather than dispersion enhancement techniques and that the
use of dispersion techniques 1s permitted only 1f exclusive reliance
on emission controls is 1nfeas1ble.

     EPA recognizes that Increasing the height of stacks plays a
useful, but limited, role in the thrust to attain ambient air quality
standards and to maintain the quality of the air environment.   Since
1960, there has been a pronounced trend toward Increasing the height
of stacks.  Not so well recognized has been the accompanying and
simultaneous trend toward substantially greater emissions at single
locations.  There are many environmental Insults, as yet unquantlfled,
that make undesirable the use of tall stacks in lieu of the application
of constant emission control.

     The effects of total atmospheric loading of pollutants, particu-
larly of sulfur oxides, are of great concern.  Effects of total load-
ing by sulfur oxides include suspended sulfate formation, add rainfall,
acidification of soil and water, visibility reduction, changes 1n the
colloidal stability of clouds and changes 1n the transmission of radiant
energy through the atmosphere.  For these reasons, the attainment of
national standards by means of constant emission reduction 1s  preferable

to the use of increased stack height to alleviate the ground-level
impact of sulfur oxide emissions.

     Increasing the height of stacks can reduce the probability of
occurrence of high ground-level  concentrations that are experienced
with shorter stacks under a few types of meteorological and fadllty-
and terrain-related conditions.   Increasing the height of the stack
cannot reduce the frequency of high ground-level concentrations that
are experienced with shorter stacks under other conditions, the peak
short-term concentrations beyond 5-6 miles from the source, and the
amount of pollutants emitted.

     It 1s considered good engineering practice to construct a stack
sufficiently tall to minimize the effects of the plume being entrapped
by factors related to aerodynamic conditions for a specific facility
whose emissions are great enough to threaten air quality standards and
to minimize the threat of the plume Impacting local terrain.  The stack
height that represents good engineering practice requires a case-by-case
judgement based on detailed engineering and meteorological Investigations
of the specific site.

     Increasing stacks to heights which exceed good engineering practice
1s not considered an acceptable control strategy except In very limited
Instances.  Briefly, an extension of a stack to a height exceeding good
engineering practice may be a part of a control strategy 1f the action
to Increase the stack height 1s taken 1n conjunction with the develop-
ment and operation of a supplemental control system.

                         IV.   Federal  Standards

     A.   New Source Performance Standards

         1.  Introduction

     The setting of performance standards for new sources under Section
111 of the Act contributes to the achievement of the Act's goals by
preventing or reducing the magnitude of increases in emissions from
stationary sources resulting from expanded industrial activity and/or
new or modified sources.  This helps to maintain National Ambient Air
Quality Standards and prevents significant deterioration of air quality
in those areas where present air quality is better than that required by
the NAAQS.  NSPS provide a mechanism by which the Federal Government
determines (and makes available to States) the feasibility of control
for emerging industries.  In addition, NSPS provide the only means for
control  of selected pollutants for which a NAAQS or hazardous pollutant
designation are not applicable.

         2.  SIP Complement

     The prevention of air pollution problems due to future growth in
hydrocarbon emissions and nitrogen oxides emissions is highly dependent
on the controls that are to be applied to new sources of these pollutants.
The problem related to NOe is currently of low significance; only five
AQCRs are classified as Priority I.  However, there is a clear danger
that increases in emissions due to expanded economic activity will lead
to widespread NAAQS violations by the 1980s unless all new sources are
controlled.  The current control philosophy for mobile sources envisions
the need for stringent NOx controls in the 1980s; a complementary pro-
gram for the control of stationary sources is required.  The setting of
standards for new sources now is preferable to the setting of control
requirements under the SIP process later in order to prevent the pos-
sibility of widespread NAAQS violations in the future.  NSPS, 1n this
case, complement the SIPs.

     The current SIP control strategies for hydrocarbons assure the
achievement of NAAQS for the specific AQCR involved.  Transport of
hydrocarbons to other areas where they contribute to high oxidant
levels is not currently accounted for by SIPs.  Evidence exists
that high oxidant concentrations (above background levels) 1n non-
urban areas are related to atmospheric loading of hydrocarbons which
were transported from densely populated areas.  The need to prevent
increases in emissions of hydrocarbons from new stationary sources
is similar to the need for such control of NOX.

     The application of control measures to new sources prior to the need
for such controls under SIPs is effective for preventing NAAQS violations
in the future and for minimizing air quality deterioration, regardless
of pollutants involved.  NSPS provide the mechanism for achieving this

Sip-complementing objective.   The  maintenance of NAAQS, the prevention
of significant deterioration  of air quality, and the control of emerg-
ing Industries are facilitated by  the setting of NSPS.

         3.  Sources Covered  by NSPS

     Standards of performance for  the first group  of ffve source
categories were promulgated December 23,  1971.  The Industries, pol-
lutants, and facilities covered are:
                               Group I  NSPS
    Sources Covered

Fossil fuel-fired steam
Portland cement plants
Nitric add plants
Sulfuric add plants

 S02, NOX,  &

S02, add
      Affected Facility
Each fossil  fuel-fired  steam
generating unit of more than
250 million B.T.U. per  hour
heat Input.

Each Incinerator of more than
50 tons per day charging rate.

Kiln, clinker cooler, raw mill
system, finish mill system,
raw mill dryer, raw material
storage, clInker storage,
finished product storage, con-
veyor transfer points,  bagging
and bulk loading and unloading

Each nitric add production

Each sulfurlc acid production
     These standards were effective August 17, 1971.   All  affected  sources
that are being or have been modified or construction  started  as  of  this
date must comply with the standards.*  Judicial  review of  the standards
for portland cement plants, sulfurlc acid plants,  and steam generators
* Definitions of applicability of standards are contained  1n  40  CFR 60.

was Initiated 1n late January 1972.  Court opinions supporting EPA's
position were rendered 1n September 1973, although 1n each situation
the case was remanded to EPA for clarification.

     The general provisions of the regulations on standards of per-
formance were revised by promulgation of regulations on start-up,
shut-down, and malfunction on October 15, 1973.  An additional major
revision 1s being drafted to clarify Interpretation and application
of the standards to modified sources.

     Standards of performance for seven additional source categories
(Group II) were proposed June 11, 1973.  Promulgation took place 1n
March 1974.  The sources covered are:
                               Group II NSPS
Sources Covered
Asphalt concrete plants

Petroleum refineries
Storage vessels for
petroleum liquids

Secondary lead smelters

Secondary brass and bronze
ingot production plants

Iron and steel plants
Sewage treatment plants


carbon monoxide,
and hydrogen sul-




Affected Facility

Process equipment

Catalyst regenerators
fluid catalytic crack-
Ing units, process
gas burners

Entire facility


Basic oxygen process

Sludge Incinerators
     The following sources are currently in process of control regulations
formulation:  Primary copper, zinc, and lead smelters (Group II-A); the
schedule currently followed envisions proposing these regulations by the
end of 1974.  Kraft pulp mills, primary aluminum reduction plants, coal
cleaning plants, ferroalloy plants, stationary gas turbines, Iron and
steel mills, and phosphate fertilizer plants will be regulated by early

1975.  Priorities are being set for control  of additional  sources;
among these are grain terminals, by-product coke ovens,  chlor-alkall
plants, lime plants, refuse combustion, and gasification of fossil

         4.  Control of Selected Pollutants

     Section m(d) of the Act provides a mechanism for  the control  of
pollutants not covered by criteria (Section 108) or National  Emission
Standards for Hazardous Pollutants (Section 112).  These pollutants  are
classified as non-criteria pollutants.  The Act provides that States
set up a system for the control of existing sources of the non-criteria
pollutants for which EPA sets NSPS.  Sulfuric add mist  from sulfurlc add
plants 1s currently covered by this requirement.  The criteria to be  used
for developing State control programs will be developed  by EPA at the end
of 1974.  Prospective NSPS will require the control of fluorides from
existing primary aluminum plants and the phosphate fertilizer Industry.

         5.  System for Assuring Compliance with New Source
             Performance Standards

     Pursuant to policies set by the Clean A1r Act, delegation of
authority to enforce promulgated standards to State agencies has begun
and will continue as standards are promulgated and States are capable
of enforcing them.  It 1s the Agency's policy to delegate the authority
to enforce these standards to the States whenever the State meets
requisite criteria, I.e., the State submits a plan for enforcement of
the NSPS and EPA approves it.  It is expected that about three-fourths
of the States will request and be eligible for delegated authority,  I.e.,
they will have resources requisite for carrying out an acceptable
enforcement plan.

     Enforcement of NSPS entails maintaining surveillance over sources
covered, preconstructlon review at the request of the source owner or
operator, observation of source tests and evaluation of  results, and
enforcement proceedings against sources found not to be  in compliance.
EPA Involvement with the delegated NSPS entails the monitoring and eval-
uation of State enforcement progress; making determinations on how the
standards are to be applied; the provision of technical  advice and
support; and, 1f needed, direct enforcement action.

     Since 1t is Important to assure a uniform national  application  of
NSPS, EPA headquarters will establish policy and provide assistance  to
the EPA Regional Offices in making determinations of applicability of
the NSPS.  These activities, at both State and Federal levels, are not
substantively different from those required to carry out SIPs.

     B.  National Emission Standards for Hazardous A1r Pollutants

         1.   Standards

     Section 112 of the Clean Air Act requires the Administrator to
establish national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants.  A
hazardous air pollutant is defined as " air pollutant to which no
ambient air quality standard is applicable and which...may cause, or con-
tribute to,  an Increase 1n mortality or an increase 1n serious Irrevers-
ible, or incapacitating reversible, illness."

     A 11st of such substances (identifying asbestos, beryllium, and
mercury as hazardous pollutants) was published in the Federal Register
on March 31, 1971.  In accordance with waiting periods and public hearing
requirements of the Act, proposed regulations for their control  were
published in the Federal Register on December 7, 1971.  Final regulations
were promulgated April 6, 1973.  Clarifying regulations were promulgated
May 3, 1974.

     Sources covered by the NESHAP are:  For asbestos, asbestos  mills,
surfacing of roadways with asbestos tailings, miscellaneous manufacturing
operations,  demolition, and asbestos spraying.  For beryllium, extraction
plants, ceramic plants, foundries, incinerators, propeliant plants which
process specific beryllium-containing materials, rocket motor test sites,
and machine  shops which process beryllium, Us oxides, or specific
alloys.  For mercury, stationary sources which process mercury ore to
recover mercury, and to those which use mercury chloralkall cells to
produce chlorine gas and alkali metal hydroxide.*

     Shortly after the final regulations were promulgated, the Environ-
mental Defense Fund (EOF) filed a civil action against EPA claiming
that the standards did not provide an ample margin of safety to  protect
public health.  Several meetings and discussions have taken place between
representatives of EPA and EOF.  EPA has initiated extensive Investiga-
tions of several unregulated sources of asbestos and mercury, e.g.,
fabrication  operations and disposal of asbestos waste materials, to
determine 1f such sources should be covered by the standards. Other
sources of asbestos emissions may be covered by the standards some time
In the future.  Sewage sludge incinerators are being Investigated to
determine whether their mercury and beryllium emissions should be
* The regulations are contained under 40 CFR 61;  a  detailed  explanation  of
the Agency's position on the control  of these pollutants  may be  found  1n
the April 6, 1973, Federal  Register.  38 FR 8820,  et.  seq.

     Although strong evidence exists that man's use of mercury alters
its natural distribution 1n the environment, that such uses may cause
or hasten additional deposits Into water or soil over and above those
occurring naturally, and that mercury levels accumulate 1n the biota
(with the result that potentially dangerous residue levels are reached
1n food consumed by man and animals), current data on the environmental
transport of mercury do not permit a clear assessment of the effect of
mercury emissions Into the atmosphere on the mercury content 1n the
aquatic and terrestrial environments.  The current standard 1s Intend-
ed only to protect the public health from the effects of Inhaled mer-

     At this time there are no new pollutants scheduled to be added to
the list of hazardous air pollutants.  However, Investigations are cur-
rently underway for several pollutants to determine the optimum control
option for each, which may Include Section  112.  One such pollutant 1s
vinyl chloride.

         2.  Enforcement of National Emission Standards for Hazardous
             A1r Pollutants

     The National Emission Standards for asbestos, beryllium, and mer-
cury require new sources to be 1n compliance upon promulgation.  Exist-
ing sources have up to 90 days to achieve compliance or they may obtain
a waiver of compliance for a period of up to two years after a promul-
gation.  To date, Regional Offices, after Investigating some 13,000
potential sources, have registered 675 stationary sources subject to
NESHAP; 550 of these are presently in compliance and 125 are covered
by waivers.  Demolition and asbestos spraying operations' owners or
operators are required to report to EPA 20 days 1n advance of such

     Guidelines have been issued establishing EPA procedures for
notifying affected sources of the NESHAP requirements, handling requests
and notifications required by NESHAP, and reviewing waivers of compliance
and source testing.  Regional Offices are maintaining surveillance over
sources in the subject categories, observing source tests and evaluat-
ing results, and carrying out enforcement proceedings against sources
found not to be In compliance.

     The activities may be carried out by States when they are delegated
enforcement authority, I.e., when they submit an acceptable plan for
carrying out such actions.  It Is the Agency's policy to delegate en-
forcement authority to States; they are encouraged to develop programs
for enforcing these regulations.  A precondition for delegation of
responsibility Is assurance that the State 1s capable of carrying out
an adequate program and that semiannual reports will be submitted to
EPA Regional Offices on the progress of such a program.  States may be
delegated responsibility for enforcement of all or major parts of the

     Once authority 1s delegated to the States, EPA Involvement will
entail monitoring and evaluating State enforcement progress; making
determinations on how the standards are to be applied; and render-
Ing technical advice and support.  If a State falls to adequately
carry out its delegated functions, or 1f other circumstances so dic-
tate, EPA will take direct enforcement action.  EPA Headquarters will
establish policy and provide assistance to Regional Offices 1n making
determinations of applicability of NESHAP.

     C.  Mobile Sources

         1.   Introduction

     Mobile sources of air pollution are significant contributors to
urban air pollution.  In our cities, almost all of the carbon monoxide,
more than half of the hydrocarbons, and slightly less than half of the
nitrogen oxides come from mobile sources.  The Clean A1r Act, under
Title II,* provides for the reduction of mobile source emissions by
establishing a system for controlling emissions from motor vehicles,
engines, and aircraft.

     Title II implements a philosophy of requiring control of these
sources at the most effective control point (I.e., the manufacturer),
and also places the burden of compliance at this point Insofar as new,
and properly maintained and used, vehicles are concerned.  Maintenance
of vehicles by owners 1s to be assured by transportation control measures
(i.e., inspection programs) and by the Implementation of the Act's pro-
visions that would require the manufacturers to warrant the emissions
performance of properly used and maintained vehicles, thereby providing
an incentive to consumers for proper use and maintenance.

     Congressional intent, reflected in the Act's philosophy, 1s to
achieve reductions in emissions from motor vehicles by the Incorporation
of technological advances and solutions to the emissions problem into
new motor vehicles at the point of manufacture.  This 1s the most ef-
fective point for the Incorporation of design changes and the addition
of appropriate control devices, 1f any are required.  The manufacturers
are also charged with the responsibility for developing the technology
required to meet emissions standards.

     The Act places the burden of producing vehicles that meet emissions
performance specifications set by EPA on the manufacturer by providing
enforcement tools and requiring warranties.  Among these are the require-
ment of testing prototype vehicles and engines prior to their intro-
duction into commerce and the authorization of Inspection and testing
of motor vehicles at the end of the assembly line, the recall of vehicles
found to be deficient in their emissions performance when 1n actual
use, civil sanctions for vehicles not produced 1n conformity with
* Title II of the Act is also known as the "National Emission Standards Act."

the conditions under which a certificate of conformity was  Issued,
the establishment of tests for the use of States that would ultimate-
ly require that a manufacturer warrant the vehicles'  emissions per-
formance if they are found to fall a State emissions  Inspection,  and
product defect warranties.

     This section examines the history and impact of  the emissions
standards for mobile sources, the EPA programs that Implement them,
and the prospects for future control actions.

         2.  Light-duty Vehicles Control

             a.  Standards

     Federal control of new passenger automobile's emissions (1n  con-
junction with light-duty trucks, those under 6,000 Ibs. gross vehicle
weight) began with the 1968 model year.  (California  had Imposed  stand-
ards two years earlier, under State law.)  Initially, CO and HC were
controlled.  Test procedures were revised and the standards made  more
stringent for the 1970 model year, and again for the  1972 model year.
Beginning with the 1973 model year, standards also applied to emissions
of NOX.*

     The standards set through the 1974 model  year were based on
estimates of technological feasibility at reasonable  costs; the premise
was that any control feasible 1n the near term could  not approach the
stringency requisite to solve urban air pollution.  The Clean Air Amend-
ments of 1970 revised this strategy for light-duty vehicles.  Using as
the basis for decisions estimates that had been developed as to the
levels of passenger car control that would be required to adequately
protect air quality 1n the most polluted cities of the United States
by the sole application of control technology (a measure that would
eventually obviate the need for transportation controls), the Congress,
in effect, established numerical emission standards,  to be applicable
for HC and CO 1n the 1975 model year, and for NOx in  1976, without
regard to the technological feasibility or the cost of meeting such

     Congressional action was based on a clear need to force additional
industry commitment to solving automobile-related pollution problems.
The Act embodied provisions for Congressional review of the statutory
emission standards requirement prior to the date of Us final applica-
tion.  These standards could be suspended by EPA for one year, with
stringent interim standards to apply 1n the case of a suspension.  Such
suspensions were granted in the spring of 1973.  The  Congress has Initiated
a  review of EPA's decisions, the need for, and the achievabillty of these
standards.  The Congressional review includes a study by the National
Academy of Sciences, which is to report Its findings  by September 1974.
* Appendix C summarizes the standards applicable to light duty motor vehicles.

     The application of the statutory emission standards has been
postponed for an additional year by the Energy Supply and Environ-
mental Coordination Act of 1974.  £PA has found that the statutory
emission standards for HC and CO are required for NAAQS maintenance
and are technologically feasible of attainment.  EPA has also ad-
vised the Congress that 1n the near term (t.e., through 1989 model
year) control of NOX from passenger cars need not be so stringent
as had been believed in 1970 since the national extent of NO? air
pollution has been found to have been overstated.

     Although not sufficiently stringent to eliminate the auto-
mobile as a significant source of air pollution 1n all cities, the
achievement of the statutory standards will solve the auto air pol-
lution problem 1n most places 1f within a decade all cars meet that
standard when new and continue to meet the standard 1n use.  Research
1s continuing to develop engine systems capable of even lower emissions
than the statutory HC and CO standards, but there will have to be pre-
sently unforeseen breakthroughs before significant further emission
reductions will be possible for gasoline-powered conventional Internal
combustion engines.

             b.  Enforcement

     To assure that new car designs Introduced into commerce are capable
of meeting applicable emission standards, the Act (under Section 206)
requires that prototypes of new motor vehicles or engines be tested
(according to procedures set by the Administrator) for conformity with
the applicable emission standards.  To implement this provision of the
Act, EPA has operated since the 1968 model year an activity known as
the Certification Program.  Before being allowed to sell a new car in
the United States, a manufacturer must obtain a Certificate of Conform-
ity from EPA.  To obtain the Certificate of Conformity, the manufacturer
must demonstrate, in accordance with detailed procedures that are spel-
led out 1n regulations, that the design of the cars proposed to be sold
is capable of allowing the car to meet applicable emission standards.
All cars of each type, when mass produced, must be "in all material
respects the same as11 the certified prototype.  The underlying assump-
tion 1s that 1f mass produced cars are materially the same as the proto-
type that demonstrated compliance with the standards, the cars 1n use
should also meet standards.

     To date, success in meeting emissions standards by all post-1968
cars on the road has been less than complete.  Nevertheless, substantial
reductions in emissions have been achieved.  Surveillance data show that,
while large numbers of cars exceed to some degree the applicable emissions
standard, the mean emissions from controlled cars are far below the
emission levels of earlier uncontrolled cars.  For example, the following
table summarizes the results of emissions tests on 1970 and 1971 1n-use

              Table V.  Actual Emissions Performance of In-Use

                    1970 and 1971  Model Year Automobiles
                                    Pollutant Emissions */
Uncontrolled Cars

1970/71 Standards

1970 Model Cars

1971 Model Cars
8.74gm/m ^
86 . 5gm/m
no standard
   In terms of the 1975 Federal Test Procedure.
   Note that 1n the absence of an NOX standard, NOX emissions
£/ Grams per mile.
d/ Excluding cars tested at high altitude (Denver) which have
   substantially higher emissions but which represent less than
   3% of all cars In U.S.
     There are three possible reasons for the excess emissions measured
from 1n-use cars:  The mass-produced cars may not have been 1n all  material
respects the same as the certified prototypes, the 1n-use cars may not
have been properly operated and maintained, and the certification process
itself may be deficient 1n evaluating a car's design capability for meet-
Ing applicable standards.  In all likelihood, a combination of all  three
reasons is operative.

     Possible Inadequacies 1n the certification process Itself are In
process of review.  EPA 1s undertaking a comprehensive review of the
whole certification program, with the objective of Identifying opportunities
for Improving its effectiveness and/or reducing its cost.

     In recognition of the problem of material sameness of mass-produced
cars, the Act [under Section 206(b)] authorized end-of-assembly-Hne
emissions testing to assure that cars as built meet the standards.   Re-
gulations for Implementing this provision of the Act are in process of
development within EPA.  Production compliance audits, 1n addition  to
emissions testing, by EPA enforcement officers will continue to provide
assurance that manufacturers are not Intentionally manufacturing vehicles
unlike the certified prototypes.

     The regulations being considered within EPA for Implementing the
end-of-assembly-Hne testing authority of the Act would Implement the
Selective Enforcement Audit concept (SEA).   SEA, like other assembly
line testing concepts, 1s expected to result 1n Increased attention
being paid, on the part of the manufacturers, to the emissions per-
formance of the vehicles that leave assembly plants.  SEA, as current-
ly conceived, would require the testing, using the Federal Test Pro-
cedure and pursuant to EPA orders, of samples of production vehicles
from selected assembly plants.

     In recognition of the problem of proper operation and maintenance
of vehicles, the Act envisions the periodic testing of motor vehicles
and the maintenance of vehicles falling emission tests.  Responsibility
for carrying out such programs belongs to the States 1n which such
controls are needed to meet ambient air quality standards; the need for
these controls 1s documented 1n the State Implementation Plans.  Under
Section 207(b), when there has been developed a practical short-test
for use 1n periodic inspection programs, which test reasonably correlates
with the full Federal certification tests, EPA 1s to Issue regulations on
the basis of which manufacturers are obligated to repair, without cost to
the vehicle owner, any vehicle that has been properly operated and main-
tained and that nevertheless falls an 1n-use emission Inspection test.*
This provision of the law applies only to vehicles of model years pro-
duced after the promulgation of regulations requiring that manufacturers
warrant vehicles against such failure.

     Another potentially significant section of the Act 1s section 207(a),
which requires manufacturers to provide, 1n effect, a materials and
workmanship warranty that will provide that any failure of the vehicle
to meet emissions standards due to defective materials or workmanship
will be rectified without cost to the vehicle owner.  Since difficult
problems exist regarding the ability of consumers to establish and document
valid warranty claims, EPA 1s developing a 11st of components which, 1f
defective, may be presumed to be covered by the warranty.

     Attending any significant degree of activation of the section 207(a)
or (b) warranties are potential threats to the abilities of Independent
aftermarkets parts manufacturers and service establishments to compete
against auto manufacturers who wish to condition the statutory warranties
on use of original equipment manufacturer parts and dealer service.  These
issues are being addressed by EPA and the automotive Industry, with hope
of some resolution during fiscal year 1975.
*  Tests for use 1n Inspection programs are available and are being used.
The correlation between these tests (and their pass/fail  points) and the
test used to certify new vehicles has not been established.

             c.  Recall of In-use Vehicles

     Section 207(c) of the Act allows EPA to require the recall  and
repair (at no cost to the vehicle owner) of classes or categories of
vehicles of which substantial numbers are found to exceed applicable
emission standards 1n spite of having been properly maintained and
operated.  To Identify such non-conforming vehicles, EPA conducted an
emission surveillance program for 1972 model year vehicles (the first
model year to which this provision applies); on the basis of this
program, manufacturers have been asked to provide data on certain
high-emitting vehicle classes.  A similar surveillance program for
1972, 1973, and 1974 model year vehicles has been Initiated.  EPA 1s
also using data from other sources (e.g., commercial diagnostic cen-
ers, manufacturers' records, State emission Inspection programs) to
identify component failures or other factors that may lead to high
emission rates for the purpose of assessing the need for recall.  On
this basis, two recalls have thus far been ordered, Involving a total
of more than 800,000 vehicles.

             d.  Control of Tampering with Emission Control Devices and
                 of Non-Compliant Imports

     Section 203(a)(3) of the Act prohibits tampering with emission
controls by automobile manufacturers and dealers.  States have to enact
and enforce prohibitions against tampering by other persons, I.e.,
owners and Independent service establishments.  More than half the States
have enacted such statutes, but their enforcement 1s not as vigorous as
would be desirable.  Definition of the tampering problem 1n terms of Its
scope and impact on air quality 1s currently proceeding.

     EPA Initiated, during the first 10 months of 1973, 28 Investigations
of consumer complaints of dealer tampering.  Several such cases have been
or will be referred to the Department of Justice for prosecution.  One
case, in Florida, has been completed; the dealer Involved was convicted
and fined on February 28, 1974.  These Investigations Implement a facet
of a policy of deterrence and guidance.  An Inspector's guidebook has
been prepared and made available to the States for use 1n tampering
control activities.  A program of education and guidance in their use
is conducted.

     Congress amended the Clean A1r Act 1n 1970 to expressly eliminate the
Importation, by any person, of vehicles not 1n compliance with the pro-
visions of a Certificate of Conformity.  EPA has taken appropriate steps
to advise the general public of the Import restrictions; working relations
have been established with U.S. Customs at all major ports of entry.
Although about 3 million vehicles and engines are Imported each year, the
major problems are associated with importation of approximately 15,000
non-complying vehicles by "gray market" commercial Importers and by In-
dividuals, e.g., tourists and servicemen returning from foreign countries.

Any nonconfornving vehicle Imported must be re-exported or brought Into
conformity with standards (.under EPA supervision) within 90 days of

     In 1975 and beyond, the need to monitor the entry of certified
vehicles which have been delivered overseas will constitute a new area
of activity.  Nineteen seventy-five model year and later vehicles will
be equipped with catalysts, requiring unleaded gasoline; such vehicles
entering the Unites States after use 1n foreign countries, where lead-free
gasoline may not be available, may require new catalysts.

         3.  Heavy-duty Vehicles

     Since the 1970 model year, the engines that are Installed In heavy-
duty vehicles have also been subject to emission standards.  In this
case, because of the nature of the Industry, the control 1s not on
complete vehicles (as 1t 1s 1n the light-duty area) but on engines.
These standards were made more stringent effective with the 1974 model

     It 1s generally recognized, however, that the current emissions
standards applicable to heavy-duty vehicle engines are comparatively
less stringent than are the emission standards for light-duty vehicles.
Problems standing 1n the way of Imposing on heavy-duty vehicle engines
emission standards of a severity comparable to, or at least approaching,
the standards that apply to light-duty vehicles are related to the
emission test procedure used.  The emissions from heavy-duty vehicles
cannot at this time be effectively related to the contribution to urban
air pollution of such vehicles.  The emission test procedure in use is
probably adequate to characterize heavy-duty vehicle emissions during
steady-state (I.e., highway) operation, but 1t does not adequately
describe how heavy-duty vehicles operate in, and thus contribute pollu-
tion to, congested urban areas.  Work 1s 1n progress to develop a
meaningful heavy-duty vehicle test procedure, on the basis of which the
air quality impact of heavy-duty vehicle emissions can be documented,
and stringent standards justified.

     It is also planned to split from the current heavy-duty class
(which covers vehicles above 6,000 Ibs. gross vehicle weight) those
vehicles (possibly up to 10,000 Ibs. GVW) that are more like light-duty
vehicles in their design, operations, and control potential.  Within
the next year, it is expected that a medium-duty vehicle class will be
established with emission standards less stringent than the standards
for light-duty vehicles, but substantially more stringent than at

         4.  Motorcycles

     Motorcycles, although subject to control under the Act, have until
recently received limited attention.  The combination of the stringent

light-duty statutory standards and the VMT restrictions contemplated
for some AQCRs under transportation control  plans have focused atten-
tion on motorcycles.  For some AQCRs, due to the potential  widespread
shift to the use of motorcycles (which have significantly better fuel
economy than automobiles), outlawing the sale or use of motorcycles  has
been proposed in case emissions standards are not applied to this class
of mobile sources.  An Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making on this
subject was published on January 17, 1974.  Emission standards for new
motorcycles are expected to apply by the 1976 or 1977 model year.

         5.  Aircraft

     Section 231 of the Act directed EPA to set emission standards for
aircraft.  Even though in the aggregate aircraft are a relatively minor
source of urban air pollution, in the vicinity of major airports air-
craft have been shown to be significant sources of HC, CO,  and NOX.
Accordingly, EPA has set certain emission standards for aircraft.  Fuel
venting and smoke emissions are limited, effective January 1, 1974;
sharp emission reductions on newly built aircraft engines go Into effect
in 1979, and even more stringent reductions for engines newly certified
after 1981.  EPA has proposed requiring the retrofit of existing engines
to the 1979 standards, beginning 1n 1979.

     Emission standards to apply to supersonic aircraft were proposed  in
July, 1974.  Much work needs to be done to Improve emission measurement
techniques for aircraft engines, and to continually assess the status
of and progress of technology being developed to meet the 1979 and 1981

     D.  Fuel and Fuel Additives

         1.  Introduction
     Section 211 of the Act provides for the registration and control  of
fuels and fuel additives.  Regulations for the control of the content of
lead and phosphorus in gasoline have been promulgated, requiring that
lead-free gasoline (defined as containing no more than 0.05 grams of
lead per gallon and no more than 0.005 grams of phosphorus per gallon)
be generally available by July 1, 1974,* and requiring a phased reduction
of the lead content of all gasoline.**

     On March 7, 1974, regulations for the registration of fuels and
fuel additives were proposed by EPA.  These proposed regulations would
supercede those in effect since June 13, 1970.  The purpose of the
regulations would be to establish procedures for obtaining basic in-
formation about fuels and their additives 1n order to determine the effects
* Federal Register v. 38, No. 6, 1/10/73, pp. 1254-56; 38 FR 1254
**Federal Register v. 38, No. 234, 12/6/73; 38 FR 33738.

which they, or their combustion products, may have on emission control
devices (e.g., catalytic converters) or on the public health and wel-
fare.  Control of specific motor vehicle fuels or fuel additives may
be Implemented as a result of this Information or other Information
available to the Administrator.  The proposed regulations would pro-
hibit the sale or introduction Into commerce of fuels or additives,
designated by the Administrator, after specified dates:  Within six
months after promulgation of the regulations, fuel additives for
addition to motor vehicle gasoline, motor vehicle diesel fuel, and/or
motor vehicle crankcase oil would have to be registered; within eight
and twelve months, motor vehicle gasolines and Diesel fuel would have
to be registered, respectively.  Additional fuels and additives may
be designated at a later date.

         2.  Control of Lead

             a.  Protection for Motor Vehicle Emission Control Devices

     Lead and phosphorus additives 1n gasoline quickly lead to the
disablement of catalysts.  Catalysts will be used 1n significant numbers
for the control of CO and HC emissions 1n 1975 and later model year light
duty motor vehicles.  It has been determined that catalysts require gaso-
line with an average lead content of 0.03 grams per gallon or less; the
regulation setting the maximum permissible level at 0.05 grams of lead
per gallon of gasoline Is expected to result In the marketing of gasoline
with an average lead content of 0.03 grams per gallon.

             b.  Protection of Health and Environment from the Effects  of

     The phased reduction of lead content of all gasolines 1s required
for the protection of public health and welfare.  The Issue concerning
the contribution of lead exhausted from automobiles to the country's
lead exposure problem Is complex and controversial.  EPA has concluded
that there is a health basis for reducing the use of lead 1n gasoline.

     A small but significant portion of the urban adult population and
up to 25% of children 1n urban areas are over-exposed to lead.  The
lead exposure problem 1s caused by a combination of sources Including
food, water, air, leaded paint, and dust; their aggregate contribution
of lead poses a significant threat to health.  However, 1t 1s extremely
difficult to determine each separate environmental factor's contribution.
Since these are cumulative sources, whose Importance varies considerably
among Individuals, 1t 1s likewise difficult to determine what Impact
would be achieved by partial or total reduction of lead from any one
source.  Should the lead 1n all sources be reduced, however, the danger
of exposure would be substantially reduced.

     Leaded gasoline 1s one of the few sources not yet subject to any
controls, although 1t accounts for approximately 90% of airborne lead.

Human exposure to this lead takes place by Inhalation and by Ingestion
of dirt and dust contaminated by airborne lead fallout.   Since increased
exposure to lead among the general  population is widespread, it is  reason-
able to reduce preventable sources of lead exposure including lead  emis-
sions resulting from lead in gasoline.  Furthermore, because leaded gas-
oline is a major cause of the unnatural amounts of lead in the envionment,
a reduction in the lead content of gasoline would decrease environmental
lead contamination.
             c.  Applicability of the Regulations

     The regulations provide for certain procedures and actions that
must be followed by refiners, retailers, auto manufacturers, and additive
manufacturers to assure that lead content of gasoline is phased down,
that there is available lead-free fuel, and that other-than-lead-free
fuel 1s not introduced into motor vehicles that require lead-free fuel.
Violations of the regulations are punishable by fines of up to $10,000
for each and every day of violation.

     A schedule for lead reduction 1s set, as follows:
                                             Lead Content
     	Date	                    (grams per gallon)*

     January 1, 1975                            1.7
     January 1, 1976                            1.4
     January 1, 1977                            1.0
     January 1, 1978                            0.8
     January 1, 1979                            0.5

Refiners and lead additive manufacturers are required (commencing with
the first quarter of 1975) to submit reports to EPA that will allow EPA
to assess compliance with the regulations.  Analysis of the data reported
to EPA will provide the primary basis for assuring compliance with the
regulations on the phase-down of gasoline lead content.  Action will be
taken to assure accuracy of reporting.

     After July 1, 1974, gasoline distributors are prohibited from selling
gasoline represented as unleaded gasoline that does not meet the require-
ments for unleaded gasoline, and retailers are required to install appro-
priate labeling to assure proper Identification of leaded and unleaded
gasoline dispensing pumps, equip pumps with appropriate nozzle spouts
* Average for each calendar quarter.  Refiners with less than 30,000
barrels per day crude oil capacity are exempted from the application
of  this schedule until January 1, 1977.

according to the type of gasoline dispensed, and offer for sale at
least one grade of unleaded gasoline In all retail outlets with sales
of 200,000 or more gallons per calendar year for any year beginning
with 1971.

     To complement these safeguards, auto manufacturers are required to
prominently label vehicles requiring unleaded fuel and to manufacture
vehicles with gasoline tank filler Inlets compatible with the nozzle
spout for the appropriate fuel requirement; their compliance will be
assured through the process of certification of prototypes and through
production compliance audits.

     Approximately 111,000 retail outlets are affected by the require-
ment to provide lead-free gasoline.  This requirement will provide
general accessibility to unleaded fuel 1n cities and all counties ex-
cept those most sparsely populated.  Regulations proposed on May 7,
1974 are aimed at increasing the coverage 1n low population density
counties.  The proposed regulations would require that retail outlets
located in a county containing a population density less than 50 persons
per square mile and that sold at least 150,000 gallons of gasoline 1n
1971 or later, offer unleaded gasoline.  The calculation of county
density excludes cities with populations equal to or greater than
50,000 persons.  It 1s expected that the proposed regulations would
Increase the number of gas stations with lead-free gasoline by 10,000.

     It 1s highly probably that manufacturers will not willfully violate
the requirement to manufacture gasoline that meets unleaded gasoline
specifications.  The only significant potential for violation of the
lead content regulations for unleaded gasoline resides 1n contamination.
Contamination of unleaded gasoline from lead contained in other types
of gasoline at any point In the distribution channel extending from the
refiner through the distributor to the retailer must be guarded against.
Prevention of such contamination Is entirely within these establishments'
control if sufficient resources are dedicated to prevent contamination.

     It is EPA strategy to present a sufficiently high risk associated
with non-compliance, I.e., risking being "caught" and heavily fined, to
assure that these resources are applied to the task by the affected
parties.  EPA Regional Office enforcement activities will provide survell-
lace over unleaded gasoline by use of mobile sampling laboratories.  In
keeping with EPA policy, State assumption of responsibilities for assuring
the general availability of lead-free gasoline 1s to be encouraged.

             V.  Federal Support of State and Local  Activities

     Historically, control agency support has been provided to stimulate
air pollution control agency development and growth  and to encourage a
systematized approach to the prevention and control  of air pollution on
a regional, State, and local basis.  Implementing the philosophy of the
Clean A1r Act, which emphasizes the Importance of the State and local
role, support mechanisms are geared to alleviating the need for Federal
enforcement of the State Implementation Plans by assisting in obtaining
resources for and providing technical assistance to  State and local

     Federal grant support to control agencies grew from approximately
$4.2 million 1n 1965 to $51.5 million 1n 1973.  The contribution of non-
Federal funds made by State and local governments over the same time
span has ranged from approximately $11.6 million 1n 1965 to $64 million
1n 1973.  Federal support has remained at a constant level of approximately
$51.5 million of each of the last two fiscal years and 1s expected to be
at the same level for fiscal year 1975.

     The resource estimates contained 1n the original SIP submissions
Indicated that State and local control agencies would have to expand
their activities to a level of approximately $144 million and 8,600 man
years of effort in 1975 (and for every year thereafter) to meet statutory
deadlines.  However, a number of new requirements made of these agencies
because of court interpretations of the Act's requirements or further
clarification of the SIPs, have led to recent estimates indicating
approximately 9,500 man years will be needed by these agencies in 1975.
Currently, there are approximately 5,700 man years devoted to air pol-
lution control in States and local agencies.  The potential shortfall
in resources, coupled with the nearness of mandatory deadlines, make
necessary the emphasis of "targeting" funds toward the highest priority

     In order to implement this policy, the control  agency support
funds allocation emphasis has been shifted from the historical
functional concept of building control programs at the State and
local level to the concept of supporting the preparation and revision of
State Implementation Plans and the performance of activities essential
to the attainment of the objectives of the Plans.  Furthermore, the
emphasis has shifted to priority geographical areas.  This was reflected
in the final allocation of funds for this program 1n FY 1974, which
emphasized support of those agencies having primary responsibilities
under the SIPs.  This concept will be continued for FY 1975, with the
following refinements:  (a) Definition of and commitment to the attain-
ment of management objectives (outputs) which will lead to the accomplish-
ment of the primary EPA goals In this area (I.e., the attainment of the
primary NAAQS in all AQCRs by the end of FY 1975 or, in some cases, 1977);
(b) a resources allocation which will emphasize the  highest priority air
outputs in geographic areas where increased resources are needed to attain

the NAAQS, particularly where expanded State and local  enforcement
activities are required; (c) assessment and evaluation  of State and
local agencies based on performance In meeting objectives; and (d)
implementation of funding decisions, based upon the assessment of
these factors.

     The grants mechanism involves the Issuance of a planning figure
to the EPA Regional Offices, along with annual guidance regarding
agency, and hence grant, priorities.  The Regional Offices then obtain
estimates of commitment, from State/local agencies, based on the plan-
ning figure, agency needs, and commitments to outputs and priorities
as described above.  These estimates are submitted, along with estimates
of shortfalls in accomplishment, 1f any, to EPA Headquarters.  The final
allocation to the Regional Offices will then reflect an evaluation of
these commitment figures, the level of funds available, and agency pro-
gram priorities.  The Regional Offices will, In turn, determine Individual
grants based upon these output commitments and evaluation of individual
grantee capability.

     Also available is support 1n the form of basic ordering agreements
funded by EPA (BOA contracts), EPA Regional Office technical assistance,
various types of personnel assignments, and training and training aids.
Priorities for these types of support reflect those used 1n determination
of grant support and should be complementary to and coordinated with such
support.  Skills are an Important resource and the need for training
should be examined along with the needs for other assistance.

     Generally, in FY 1975, EPA 1s concentrating on:  (1) Direct source
control by State and local agencies through compliance schedules 1n Air
Quality Control Regions where the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
currently are being violated; (2) selective direct enforcement activities
by EPA (on a priority basis), where needed to foster or augment State and
local activities;  (3) completion and performance of high priority SIP
revisions (transportation control plans, Indirect source control, and
prevention of significant deterioration of air quality measures); (4)
monitoring, collection and reporting of air quality and emissions data;
and  (5) acceptance of and action on delegable Federal authorities (I.e.,
NSPS, NESHAP) by the States.  The cessation or reduction of Federal
support to control agencies which do not have significant responsibilities
in the performance of these highest priority activities will continue.
EPA  does, however, acknowledge the importance of non-Federally mandated
functions, such as odor and nuisance controls, and encourages continuing
local and State support of these activities.

     Finally, the EPA Regional Offices, in addition to negotiating outputs
and  relating grants to priority commitments, track accomplishments and
perform program evaluations.  Generally, these program reviews cover the
following areas of activity:

          (1)  Enforcement:  The grantee should be getting the major stationary

sources of air pollution on compliance schedules and carrying out
adequate surveillance and, where appropriate, taking an adequate
role in the Implementation of transportation control plans.

         (2)  Source Emission Analysis;  The grantee should be able
to obtain and verify emissions data from sources, and should have the
capability to assess the Impact of individual sources on air quality.

         (3)  Monitoring:  Each State should meet the minimum EPA
monitoring requirements (as set out 1n regulations) and that such data
are collected and reported in compliance with Federal reporting require-
ments.  Funding of overly extensive or dupHcative monitoring systems
should be especially avoided.

         (4)  Long-Term Maintenance of Desirable Air Quality:  The
States should have submitted SIP revisions on maintenance of standards,
and, when due, prevention of significant deterioration.  In developing
these plan revisions, States must work closely with local air pollution
control and land use and transportation agencies, as well as State
planning and transportation agencies.  Agencies with responsibility for
these areas of the SIPs should have the capability to analyze indirect
and stationary sources of air pollution and should adequately enforce
development controls and land use practices which will maintain and
preserve air quality.

         (5)  EPA Delegations:  The Regions should obtain commitments
from the States for acceptance of delegations of the New Source Perform-
ance Standards and the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous A1r
Pollutants (NESHAP) and assure that the agencies which have responsibility
for these are adequately carrying them out.

     It should be noted that revised air grants regulations (which were
published on February 28, 1974, as interim regulations*) provide that
a Region may reduce a grant where the grantee has failed to produce an
output or to assume responsibility for a Federal delegation and where,
as a result, Federal intervention is necessary.  The Regional Offices
will utilize this authority 1n order to prevent the duplication of Federal
resource efforts which would result from Federal intervention and continua-
tion of grant support.  The revised regulations also require that there be
clearly stated agreements between State and local agencies (where there
are local agencies) as to the respective roles of the agencies.  Regional
Offices should use this provision to help foster coordination of programs
and to help eliminate duplication and oversight.
*  39 CFR 77.

                 Appendix A

List of Abbreviations. Symbols, and Acronyms

AQCRs          Mr Qualtty Control Regions
AQMA           Air Quality Maintenance Area
AQMP           Air Quality Maintenance Plan
BOAs           Basic Ordering Agreements
CFP            Clean Fuels Policy
CO             Carbon monoxide
EPA            (U.S.) Environmental Protection
FGD            Flue gas desulfurization
FMVCP          Federal Motor Vehicle Control
FY             Fiscal year
GVW            Gross vehicle weight
gm/m           Grams per mile
HC             Hydrocarbons
HQ             Headquarters (EPA)
NAAQS          National Ambient Air Quality
NESHAP         National Emission Standard for
                 Hazardous Air Pollutants
NOX            Nttrogen oxides
N02            Nitrogen dioxide
NSPS           New Source Performance Standards
Ox             Total oxidants

SCS            Supplementary Control  Systems
SIPs           State Implementation Plans
SMSA           Standard Metropolitan Statistical
SOX            Sulfur oxtdes
S02            Sulfur dioxide
TCPs           Transportation Control Plans
TSP            Total suspended particulates
VMT            Vehicle Miles Traveled
yg/m3          Micrograms per cubic meter

                         APPENDIX B
              National  Ambient Air Quality Standards
matter d/
Sulfur dioxide
oxidants £/
Hydrocarbons -*
(nonme thane)
Nitrogen .
dioxide *
Annual (Geometric
Annual (Arith-
metic mean)
3- hour
(6 to 9 a.m.)
Annual (Arith-
metic mean)
Primary b/
75 /jg/m3
260 /jg/m3
80 ^g/m3
(0.03 ppm)
365 >ug/m3
(0.14 ppm)
10 mg/m3
(9 ppro)
40 mg/m13
(35 ppm)
160 /ig/m3
(0.08 ppm)
160 jug/m3
(0.24 ppm)
100 /jg/m3
(0.05 ppm)
Secondary £/
60 ^ig/m
150 /jg/m3
1300 jjg/m3
(0.5 ppm)
Same as
Same as
Same as
Same as
 'All standards are specified as not to be exceeded more than once per
  year.  The measurement methods are also specified as Federal Reference
  Methods.  The air quality standards and a description of the reference
  methods were published on April 30, 1971 in 42 CFR 410, recodified to
  40 CFR 50 on November 25, 1972.
b/Set for the protection of health.
—/Set for the protection of welfare, which, in the words of the Act "includes.
  but is not limited to, effects on soils., water, crops, vegetation, man-
  made materials, animals, wild'iife, weather, visibility, and climate, damage
  to and deterioration of property, and hazards to transportation, as well
  as effects on economic values and on personal comfort and well being."
  (Section 302 (bj.)

•=Mhe secondary annual standard (60 pg/m ) is a guide to be used in assessing
  implementation plans to achieve the 24-hour secondary standard.
£/Expressed as ozone by the Federal Reference Method.

-/This NAAQS is for use as a guide in devising implementation plans to achieve
  oxidant standards.
•9/No Federal Reference Method currently in effect.

                        APPENDIX C
              Light Duty Motor Vehicle Exhaust
                      Emission Standards
Model Year Test
1970 7-mode
1972 CVS-C*
1975 National CVS-CH**
1975 Calif.
Same as


  *CVS-C = Constant Volume Sampling  with  a  cold  start.
 **CVS-CH = Constant Volume Sampling with cold and  hot  starts.
***After January 1, 1975,  manufacturers may apply for a one-
   year suspension of the  application of  these standards for
   HC  and CO.
                               69   (Revised  11/15/74)

                                Appendix D

     Summary Listing of Significant Regulations Promulgated by EPA

                     1n Implementing the Clean Air Act
      The Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Subchapter C contains the
most significant regulations that implement the Clean Air Act's requirements,
Subchapter C -- Air Programs consists of the following parts:


National primary and secondary ambient air quality standards.
Requirements for preparation, adoption, and submittal of
  implementation plans.
Approval and promulgation of implementation plans.
Ambient air monitoring equivalent and reference methods.
Prior notice of citizen suits.
Standards of performance for new stationary sources.
National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants.
Prevention, control, and abatement of air pollution from
  Federal Government activities:  performance standards
  and techniques of measurement.
Registration of fuel additives.
Regulation of fuels and fuel additives.
A1r quality control regions, criteria, and control techniques,
Control of air pollution form new motor  vehicles and new
  motor vehicle engines.
      This appendix lists only those original regulations or changes that are
deemed to be of significance in relation to the issuestreated in this paper.
The listing is not comprehensive.  Regulations with a specialized or narrow
application are excluded, e.g., emissions standards and testing procedures for
motor vehicles.  Likewise, SIP approval actions (part 52) are not listed due
to their bulk.
                   Date and
                Federal Register


                	Regulations and Significance	

                Notice of proposed national primary and
                secondary ambient air quality standards
                and list of air pollutants.

                Final NAAQS were set by this regulation.
                Proposed secondary S02 NAAQS change.


 50 (cont.)

   Date and
Federal Register





   8/17/71 ,

   12/23/71 ,




   3/31/71 ,
	Regulations and Significance	

The secondary NAAQS for SOg was limited to
a single level, I.e., 3-hour average, by
this action.

Proposed requirements to be met by States
for preparation, adoption, and submittal
of Implementation plans.

Final SIP requirements.
Proposed requirements for preparation and
adoption of transportation control plans.

Final requirements for transportation control
plans submission by States.

Proposed air quality maintenance and indirect
source control regulations

Final regulations requiring SIP changes for the
control of Indirect sources and the maintenance
of air quality.

Requirements for submission of quarterly
reports on air quality and semiannual reports
on emissions and progress.

Proposed regulations on the use of supplement-
ary control systems and implementation of
secondary standards.

Proposed NSPS for Group I industries.
                                 Final Group I NSPS.
                                 Supplemental statement explaining the basis
                                 for the Group I NSPS.

                                 Proposed NSPS for Group II industries.
                                 Final Group II NSPS
Listing of asbestos, beryllium, and mercury as
hazardous pollutants.

                 Date and
              Federal Register
Part             Reference       	Regulations and Significance	

 61 (cont.)      12/7/71,        Proposed NESHAP for pollutants listed on
                 36FR23239       3/31/71.

                 38FR8820        Final  NESHAP for asbestos,  beryllium, and

                              Appendix E
                List of Air Quality Maintenance Areas

A1 abama





District of Columbia

City/Area *

Birmingham, Gadsden, and Mobile.



Little Rock and Fort Smith.

Monterey County, Sacramento Valley Area,
San Diego County, San Francisco Bay Area,
San Joaquln Valley, South Coast Air Basin
(Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino, Santa Barbarba, Ventura
Counties), and Southern Desert Area
(Cochella Valley portion of Riverside

State Planning & Management Districts --
No. 2, Larimer and Weld Counties; No. 3,
Adams Arapahoe, Boulder, Clear Creek,
Denver, Douglas, Gil pin and Jefferson
Counties; No. 4, El Paso County; No. 7,
Pueblo County; and No. 11, Garfield, Mesa
and R1o Blanco Counties.

The total Connecticut portions of the New
York-New Jersey, and Hartford-New Haven-
Springfield Interstate Air Quality Control


The District of Columbia.

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood, Gainesville,
Jacksonville-Lakeland-Winter Haven,
Melbourne-Titusville-Cocoa, Miami, Orlando,
Pensacola, Tallahassee, Tampa-St. Peters-

Atlanta, Savannah, and Chattanooga Inter-
state  (Georgia portion, i.e., Catoosa and
Walker  Counties).
 *   Cities  usually include the surrounding county or metropolitan area.  All
 areas have been proposed; no final designation action taken as of this writing
 (August  1974).

                List of Air Quality Maintenance Areas  (continued)

















Chicago Interstate, Decatur, Peoria,
Rock Island, St. Louis Interstate, and

Anderson, Cincinnati Interstate, Evansville,
ChJGige Jntersfcite, Indianapolis, Lafayette,
Louisville !r»t§r§t§t§, §§uth Send, and
terre Haute.

Cedar Rapids, Council Bluffs, Davenport,
Oes Moines, Dubuque, and Waterloo.



Baton Rouge, New Orleans, and Shreveport.


Baltimore, National Capital Area (Maryland
portion, i.e., Montgomery and Prince Georges
Counties); Potomac River Basin (Allegheny
and Garrett Counties, Cumberland City, and
Hagerstown City).

Boston, Springfield, Worcester, and

Ann Arbor, Battle Creek, Bay City, Detroit,
Flint, Grand Rapids, Lansing, Monroe, and

Minneapolis-St. Paul  and Duluth.


St. Louis.

Billings, Great Falls, Butte, Anaconda,
Helena, Kalispell, Missoula, and Coal Area
(Bighorn, Powder River and Rosebud


                List of A1r Quality Maintenance Areas (continued)


New Hampshire

New Jersey
New Mexico

New York
North Carolina

North Dakota



Ci ty/Area

Las Vegas.


Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton (Pennsylvania -
New Jersey), Jersey City, Long Branch-
Asbury Park, New Brunswick-Perth Amboy-
Sayreville, Newark, Morris, Bergen, Passaic,
Philadelphia (Pennsylvania - New Jersey),
Trenton, and Salem.

Albuquerque, Four Corners, Grant County,
Las Cruces, Roswell,  and Santa Fe.

Binghamton, New York City Metropolitan
Area, Niagara Frontier (Erie and Niagara
Counties), Utica-Rome, Elmira-Corning,
Rochester, Jamestown, Syracuse, Capital
District (parts of Albany, Montgomery,
Rensselaer, Saratoga and Schenectady
Counties), and Mid-Hudson Area (Parts of
Dutchess County, all of Orange and Putnam
Counties, and parts of Ulster County).

Asheville, Charlotte-Gastonia, Greensboro,
Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem.

Cass and McLean-Mercer-Oliver.

Akron, Canton, Cincinnati Interstate,
Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Hamilton-
Mi ddletown, Lorain, Mansfield, Springfield,
Steubenville, Toledo and Youngstown.

Central Oklahoma (Oklahoma County and parts
of Canadian and Cleveland Counties), and

Portland-Vancouver, Eugene-Springfield,
and Medford-Ashland.

Allegheny County, Allentown-Bethlehem-
Easton, Beaver Valley Air Basin (portions
of Lawrence and Beaver Counties), Erie Air
Basin (a portion of Erie County), Harris-
burg Air Basin (portions of Cumberland and
Dauphin Counties), Johnstown Air Basin (a
portion of Cambria County), Lancaster Air

                List of Air Quality Maintenance Areas  (continued)

Pennsylvania (continued)
Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota







West Virginia



Puerto Rico

Basin (a portion of Lancaster County),
Monongahela Valley Air Basin (portions
of Washington, Fayette and Westmoreland
Counties), Reading A1r Basin (a portion
of Berks County), Southeast Pennsylvania
Air Basin (Bucks, Chester, Delaware,
Montgomery and Philadelphia Counties),
Scanton-Wilkes-Barre Air Basin (portions
of Luzerne and Lackawanna Counties), and
York Air Basin (a portion of York County).

Metropolitan Providence.

Charleston and Greenville.

Sioux Falls.

Chattanooga Interstate (Tennessee portion),
Kingsport-Bristol, Memphis, and Nashville.

Beaumont, Corpus-Christ!, Dallas-Fort
Worth, Houston-Galveston, El Paso, San
Antonio, and Austin.

Salt Lake City, Provo, Uintah Area (Duchesne
and Uintah Counties), Southern Utah Area
(Carbon, Emery, Garfield and Wayne Counties).


National Capital Area (Virginia portion)
Richmond, Petersburg-Colonial Heights-
Hopewell, Lynchburg, Hampton-Newport News,
Norfolk-Portsmouth-Virginia Beach, Roanoke.

Puget Sound, Spokane, and Portland-Vancouver.

Southeast Wisconsin and Lake Michigan Sub-


Sweetwater County, Powder Riber Basin
(Cambell, Johnson, Sheridan and Converse


Ponce, San Juan, Guayanilla, and Penuelas.

               List of Air Quality Maintenance Areas (continued)

State                               City/Area
U.S. Virgin Islands                 None.
American Samoa                      None.