TRANSPORTATION CONTROL STRATEGY
5
o
\
w
UJ
CD
r
&
-------
Spokane, Washington
July 30, 1973
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chronology of Events 1
Introduction to State and Federal Strategies 3
A Compilation of Federal and State Proposals 10
Map of the Affected Area 11
Frequently Asked Questions 12
Proposed Federal Regulations 16
-------
1
^CHRONOLOGY,J)F..SIGNIFICANT DATES
I1 ,t ? u.-.d ¦¦ 't " W. ' I
REifATEC^fo 'fi^ansporjation control plans
April '30, 197,1
Augul^;i:4f:f|-971.
January 31', 1972
May 31, 1972
January 12, 1973
January 31, 1973
February 5, 1973
February 15, 1973
March 20, 1973
April 11, 1973
April 12, 1973
April 16, 1973
May 29, 1973
EPA..promulgated national ambient air quality
standard's;
i -i,£.r ' '' r ¦
EPA^promulgated requirements for preparation,
adoption and submittal of State Implementation
l * * 1
Plans.
t . V : , V
.tted implementation plans to EPA.
EPA made, approval/disapproval decisions for State
Implementation Plans. EPA granted extension for
submittal of transportation control plans.
EPA proposed requirements for preparation,
adoption and submittal of transportation control
plans.
U. S. Court of Appeals ruled that Clean Air Act
did not permit extensions for States in submitting
transportation control plans and restricted
granting of extension for attaining national
standards.
Region X notified States of the January 31, 1973,
court decision.
States originally required to submit transportation
control plans.
EPA rescinded the extensions previously granted for
the submission of transportation control plans and
attainment of air quality standards.
The State of Washington held a public hearing on
its Transportation Control Plan in Seattle.
The State of Washington held a public hearing on
its Transportation Control Plan in Spokane.
States submitted transportation control plans to
EPA.
The State of Oregon held a public hearing on its
Transportation Control Plan in Portland.
-------
2
June 8, 1973
June 15, 1973
July 30, 1973
August 15, 1973
December 30, 1973
EPA promulgated requirements for preparation,
adoption and submittal of transportation control
plans.
EPA made approval/disapproval decisions for State
transportation control plans.
States required to submit documentation of
legal authority to implement transportation
control plans.
EPA will promulgate transportation control plans,
if necessary.
State required to adopt detailed regulations to
implement their transportation control plans.
-------
3
HISTORY OF TRANSPORTATION CONTROL PLANS
Congress amended the Clean Air Act in 1970 to direct the Environmental
Protection Agency to establish ambient air quality standards for States to
implement. EPA was given thirty days after the amendments were effective
to propose standards for pollutants for which criteria identifying adverse
effects already existed. One of the pollutants addressed by EPA is
carbon monoxide (CO). Standards of 9 parts per million for an 8-hour
period and 35 parts per million for a 1-hour period were established for
CO. The Spokane Central Business District (CBD) is the only location in
the Washington portion of the Eastern Washington Northern Idaho Interstate
Air Quality Region where a carbon monoxide problem has been identified.
The highest 8-hour carbon monoxide concentration measured in Spokane was
22 parts per million, recorded in 1972. That year the 8-hour national ambient
air quality standard for carbon monoxide was exceeded on at least 59 days.
Based on information submitted by the State, the reduction in carbon monoxide
emissions resulting from implementation of Federal emission standards for new
cars will be sufficient to prevent the 1-hour carbon monoxide standards from
being exceeded in 1975, the deadline for meeting the Federal ambient air quality
standards. After reductions in carbon monoxide from stationary sources, such
as industries, and from the Federal motor vehicle emission program are
achieved, Spokane will have a final increment of 36% reduction of carbon
monoxide needed to assure attainment of national ambient air quality
standards by May 31, 1975, as mandated by the Clean Air Act.
Transportation control strategies necessary to meet the carbon monoxide
standards were supposed to be included as part of each State's plan to
-------
4
implement national ambient air quality standards. These plans were submitted
for EPA approval in January 1972. Each.plan was to describe how the State
intended to meet air quality standards for all pollutants named by EPA.
However, EPA believed it impossible for the States to establish- transporta-
tion control strategies by January 1972, and therefore gave the States
until February 15, 1973, to submit the strategies. EPA granted extensions
until May 31, 1977, to some states (Washington among them) for achievement
of air quality standards. However, in January 1973, the U.S. Court of
Appeals of the District of Columbia Circuit delivered a decision against
EPA's extensions in a suit brought by the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The Court said that EPA had not met the requirements of the Clean Air Act
and ordered EPA to rescind the extensions granted both for submitting
transportation control strategies and for attaining air quality standards.
The Court set the date for submission of transportation control strategies
by the States to April 15, 1973, ordered EPA approval or disapproval of
the plans by June 15, 1973, and ordered EPA to establish regulations by
August 15, 1973, where State plans were disapproved.
STATE PLAN
Faced with a short time period in which to develop a transportation
control strategy and a general lack of data on the Spokane area, EPA
hired a consulting firm to assist the State of Washington in a study of Spokane
to find out where and when the carbon monoxide standards were being exceeded
and to suggest measures which could alleviate the problem. Using the data
from the consultant's study, the State of Washington submitted its trans-
portation control strategy for Spokane to EPA on April 16, 1973. The State,
-------
5
in examining possible alternatives, held public hearings in Spokane and also met
with city and local officials before the State's final plan was submitted
to EPA.
The State plan for Spokane called for (1) traffic flow improvements
through computerized traffic signals, (2) exclusion of heavy-duty vehicles
from the CBD, (3) accelerated mass transit plan, (4) an inspection/maintenance
program with retrofitting of older vehicles, (5) an intermittent exclusion
of light-duty vehicles from the CBD during certain days when pollution
levels are expected to go above the standards, and (6) a system of elevated
sidewalks.
FEDERAL RESPONSE
On June 15, 1973, EPA approved this plan with certain exceptions. This
qualified approval was based on the fact that there was not adequate
assurance that the proposals would be carried out in the time allowed. The
inspection/maintenance and intermittent exclusion programs needed substantial
amplification of the surveillance and monitoring methods, resources
available, implementation schedules and legal authority. In regard to the
intermittent exclusion measure, there was not adequate assurance that accurate
predictions could be made of high pollution days. The other measures were
approved as defined in the plan.
EPA PROPOSAL
EPA is proposing three measures to complement the State plan to assure
compliance with national ambient air quality standards by May 31, 1975.
-------
6
They are (1) an inspection/maintenance program for light-duty vehicles,
(2) selective vehicle use exclusion and (3) a parking management program.
1. Inspection/maintenance of light-duty vehicles. (I&M)
The I&M program would require a yearly inspection of all vehicles reg-
istered in specified areas around Spokane to assure that each vehicle
meets the appropriate emission levels. The EPA-proposed I & M program
would not require retro-fitting (installation of emission control devices)
in addition to whatever controls an automobile may already have.
The inspection program would use the idling test procedure, a less
expensive method than the loaded (dynamometer) test. EPA estimates that
the average yearly cost for each vehicle for inspection and maintenance
would be about $15.
The proposed EPA regulation governing I & M would be effective in
Lincoln, Adams, Spokane and Whitman Counties.
The EPA proposals require the State to submit by October 1, 1973, a
detailed compliance schedule showing the steps it will take to establish
and enforce the program.
Under the proposed regulations, the State of Washington would have to
obtain the necessary authority and adopt regulations for the I & M program
by March 1, 1974.
The first inspection cycle would be from January 1, 1975, to May 31,
1975, after which it would be unlawful to operate a vehicle which has not
passed the inspection. Again, this would only apply to vehicles registered
in the specified counties.
2. Selective vehicle-use exclusion
The selective vehicle-use exclusion sets up a system for issuing
-------
7
"access certificates" at the regular motor vehicle registration periods.
The certificates, which would have to be affixed to the vehicle, would
indicate which workday(s) the vehicle is not allowed to go into specified
"vehicle limited zones." The limited zone would be bordered by Trent
on the north, Monroe on the west, Third Street on the south and Division
on the east.
The effect of selective exclusion would be limited almost entirely
to the commuter who drives to work each day in the central business district.
The regulation would apply only to workdays between the hours of 7:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. On days when the commuter's car is excluded he would ride
the bus, arrange to car pool with a neighbor or co-worker or drive to a
parking lot periphereal to the central business area.
By October 1, 1973, the State of Washington would have to submit to EPA
a compliance schedule to implement this plan. Some of the procedures would
have to include:
--Provisions to assure that multiple-car owners receive no more than
one category of certificate;
--Provisions for additional categories of access certificates for vehicles
the State deems necessary to have unlimited access to the vehicle restricted
zone, including but not limited to police and fire vehicles, ambulances and
public transit vehicles;
--Prohibitions of vehicles from being in the restricted zones from 7:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m. on specific workdays as delineated by the vehicle access certificate.
The number of categories to be excluded each day would have to be submitted
to EPA in the State's semi-annual report in November 1974;
--Designation of an agency or agencies to administer and enforce the
program.
-------
8
By March 1, 1974, the State would have to submit to EPA legally
adopted regulations to establish the selective vehicle exclusion program.
The State could not register any vehicle without issuing the access
certificates after January 1, 1975, and by March 31, 1975, it would be
illegal to operate a vehicle in the controlled areas without a certificate.
(This provision would apply only to vehicles registered in the counties
surrounding Seattle and Spokane--the same counties as designated in the
inspection/maintenance and parking supply regulations.)
The actual selective exclusion must begin no later than May 30, 1975.
3. Management of parking supply
The parking supply management program is not designed to reduce
carbon monoxide levels, but to prevent any increase in air pollution
caused by motor vehicles.
The proposed program would immediately stabilize the supply of
parking in areas where transportation control measures are necessary.
The proposal for parking management applies to the same counties as
the inspection/maintenance program and says, in effect, that after August 15,
1973, no new parking facilities could be built, or present parking facilities
expanded, without a permit from EPA (or an agency that EPA might designate to
issue such permits.)
The regulations spell out the information to be provided on an application
for such a permit, and reguire the opportunity for a public hearing on each
permi t application.
-------
9
In addition to helping assure the success of the State-adopted programs
for traffic flow improvement and increased transit patronage, management of
the parking supply should also encourage car pooling. Increased transit
use and improved traffic flow might have a tendency to attract even more
vehicles into air pollution problem areas without controls like parking
management.
-------
10
COMPILATION OF STATE/FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION CONTROL
STRATEGY EFFECTS ON
MAY 31, 1975
Spokane Central Business District
Carbon Monoxide Reductions
Transportation Control Measures
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Percent
Percent
Traffic-signal optimization 1
•completed by Dec. 31, 1974
2.9
2.9
Exclusion of heavy-duty vehicles^
•legal authority and regulations adopted
by December 30, 1973
•instituted by January 1, 1975
8.1
8.1
Accelerated transit plan^
•satellite lots to be completed by 1975
1.0
1.0
Second-level sidewalks^
•5skyways completed by May 1974
0.3
0.3
Inspection and maintenance of light-duty
vehicles (idle test and no retrofit^ 10.0
•plan submitted by Oct. 1, 1973
•authority and legally adopted regula-
tions by March 1, 1974
•first inspection cycle Jan. 1, 1975 to
May 31, 1975
•all cars inspected by May 31, 1975
Selective vehicle use exclusion? 13.9 23.9
•plan submitted by Oct. 1, 1973
•legally adopted regulations by March 1, 1974
•number of categories to be excluded daily
by November 1974
•schedule of certificate exclusions by Jan. 1, 1975
•deadline for enforcing exclusion: May 31, 1975
Parking management?
•review procedure instituted on
August 15, 1973 — ---
TOTAL 3672 3O"
1 State-adopted transportation control measure.
2 EPA-proposed transportation control measure.
July 16, 1973
-------
-------
12
Frequently Asked Questions
Q 1: Do we really have an air pollution problem?
A: Yes, national ambient air quality standards, established by the
Administrator of EPA at levels to protect public health, are frequently
violated. Forecasts by EPA and by the State indicate that, unless
transportation control strategies are implemented, the standards will
still be violated in 1975, the attainment deadline established by the
1970 amendments to the Clean Air Act.
Q 2: What methods are available for controlling air pollution from motor
vehicles?
A: Two general categories of measures are available that will, if
implemented, improve air quality: (1) measures for reducing air
pollutant emissions from individual vehicles (e.g., inspection/
maintenance programs) and (2) measures for reducing automobile travel within the
metropolitan area (e.q., selective exclusion measures).
Q 3: Why isn't the Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Control Program
going to do the job?
A: Ultimately, the emission reductions resulting from implementation of
the EPA emission standards applicable to new vehicles will be sufficient
to enable meeting national ambieht air quality standards without additional
measures. Because the emission standards apply only to new vehicles, the
effect of the Federal program is gradual as older cars without emission
control systems are phased out and more of the total vehicle population is
equipped with control systems. Transportation control measures are needed
to assure attainment of the standards by 1975.
Q 4: Why do the automobile manufacturers get a one-year delay and not the
States?
A: The 1970 amendments to the Clean Air Act provided for a one-year extension
to auto manufacturers if the technology to meet the vehicle emission standards
is not available. An extension of up to two years for meeting national
ambient air quality standards is available to States if measures for meeting
the standards are not available. However, as the State and EPA proposals
indicate, there are measures available which should enable standards to be
met by 1975.
Q 5: Who is responsible for carrying out the plan?
A: In most instances, the responsibility for carrying out a transportation
control measure belongs to the State or a local agency authorized by the
State.
-------
13
Q 6: What if the State does not carry out the transportation measures required
to meet national ambient air quality?
A: Section 113 of the 1970 amendments to the Clean Air Act does provide for
court action and other penalties to help enforce transportation control
measures adopted by the State or promulgated by EPA. However, based on
past experience, EPA expects that transportation control plans will be imple-
mented by the States without EPA having to take any enforcement actions.
Q 7: What does this mean to me?
A: Attainment of national ambient air quality standards means pollutant
concentrations at levels that will protect public health. Some transporta-
tion control measures may initially result in some inconvenience and increased
vehicle maintenance costs to motorists. The extent of the adverse effects is
largely a function of the extent to which alternative means of 'transportation
are made available.
PARKING MANAGEMENT MEASURE
Q 1: Who will review applications?
A: Either the EPA or a State or local agency with adequate expertise and
legal authority will review applications.
Q 2: How big must a parking lot be to be reviewed?
A: Although the proposed regulation includes no size limitation on the
parking facilities that will require a permit, EPA expects to set such a limit
in the finally promulgated regulation. Information presented at the public
hearing will be used in determining the limit.
Q 3: If I demolish a parking facility, can I build another of comparable size?
A: The criteria which the EPA will use in reviewing applications is whether
or not the proposed action will result in an increase of vehicle miles
traveled. Thus, it may be possible to demolish old spaces and construct
new spaces if the net result is not an increase in vehicle miles traveled.
However, local or State agencies may impose other criteria after adopting
legally enforceable regulations.
Q 4: Where will this review apply?
A: Within the State of Washington, the EPA proposal applies to the four
counties in the Puget Sound Intrastate Air Quality Control Region '(King,
Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish) and in the counties of Spokane, Lincoln,
Adams and Whitman.
-------
14
Q 5: Does the use of parking spaces make any difference in the review pro-
cedure (e.g., shopper, resident, commuter, fleet or delivery parking
spaces)?
A: The EPA proposal applies to any facility which is used for temporary
storage of motor vehicles. Thus, a parking space used for any of these
functions would be subject to the same review procedure.
INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
Q 1: What is retrofit?
A: "Retrofit" refers to the non-factory installation of pollution control
equipment on a motor vehicle. Thus, a non-retrofit inspection/maintenance
program will not require installation of additional devices on any auto-
mobile. Existing devices may however, have to be replaced or repaired.
Q 2: Who will administer the program?
A: The State is primarily responsible for instituting, managing and enforcing
the inspection/maintenance program.
Q 3: What will it mean if my car fails to pass the inspection?
A: An automobile which fails the inspection procedure will require corrective
maintenance. This maintenance may include carburetor adjustments and perhaps
a general tune-up. In many cases, this corrective maintenance will improve
automobile performance. Automobiles must be re-inspected following mainte-
nance.
Q 4: How much will this maintenance cost?
A: The EPA estimates that the proposed program (without retrofit) will cost
an average of $15 per vehicle inspected. For cars which fail the inspection
program, corrective maintenance may cost $40. The financing of the program
will be decided by the State.
Q 5: Will there be a safety inspection at the same time?
A: The State may decide to institute a safety inspection at the same time
as the EPA proposed emission inspection. However, a safety inspection is
not part of the EPA proposal.
SELECTIVE EXCLUSION
Q 1: How wi11 thi s work?
-------
•15
A: One possible method relies upon the issuance and display of access certi-
ficates. These certificates may be in the form'of license plates or tabs
with a separate color for each category or group of vehicles. The State
will determine the number of categories which should be excluded each
weekday and establish a schedule prohibiting specific categories each
working day. Special categories of access certificates may be issued to
emergency and other essential vehicles.
Q 2: How will this be enforced?
A: Again, the State is responsible for enforcing the exclusion. This might
be accomplished by establishing spot-check locations at major intersections
and issuing citations to prohibited vehicles.
Q 3: What if I own two cars?
A: , The EPA proposal specifies that multiple-vehicle owners or households
may be issued only one category of access certificate.
Q 4: Why doesn't this apply to other areas (e.g., the University District,
Southcenter or Northtown?
A: The worst carbon monoxide concentrations in Seattle and Spokane now occur
in the Central Business Districts of these cities. If it is determined that
national ambient air quality standards will not be attained by 1975 at other
locations, the selective exclusion program will be extended to these areas.
Q 5: What is the difference between selective and intermittent exclusion?
A: An intermittent exclusion program, such as that proposed by the State of
Washington relies upon forecasts of meterological conditions. When adverse
meteorological conditions that might cause air quality standards to be
exceeded are expected, the exclusion is instituted. Because EPA questions whether
forecasts are sufficiently accurate and intermittent exclusion enforcement
procedures are adequate to insure that standards will be attained, a selective
exclusion program that will be in effect on all workdays has been proposed.
-------
V "1
\
~
i
/
r i
• i—
/'
( i
* s
\
\
f" '
\ '
\
' J
S
::::]
MONDAY, JULY 16, 1973
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Volume 38 h Number 135
PART II
RCMMENTAL
PROTECTION
'AGENCY
AIR QUALITY
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
Proposed Rulemaking
for Certain Stafes
-------
18370
PROPOSED RULES
[ 40 CFR Part 52 ]
WASHINGTON
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans
Background. The transportation con-
trol plan submitted to EPA on April 16,
1973, by the State of Washington for
attainment of the primary national am-
bient air quality standards for carbon
monoxide and photochemical oxidants
(hydrocarbons) in the Puget Sound
Intrastate Air Quality Control Region
and for carbon monoxide in the Wash-
ington portion of the Eastern Washing-
ton-Northern Idaho Interstate Region
was approved with certain exceptions on
June 15, 1973 (38 PR 16550). This Notice
of Proposed Rule Making sets forth regu-
lations that in the Administrator's judg-
ment can be Implemented in addition to
the approved portions of. the Washing-
ton. transportation control plan to attain
national standards in the two regions by
May 31, 197E-.
If, prior to Federal promulgation, the.
State of Washington submits transporta-
tion control plan revisions which will as-
sure attainment of national standards
by May 31, 3 975, and which the Admin-
istrator determines are acceptable, these
proposed Federal regulations will be
withdrawn. If revisions to the State plan
are submitted and determined to be
approvable after promulgation of Fed-
eral regulations, then those regulations
will be rescinded. It is the desire of the
Environmental Protection Agency that
the plan to attain and maintain national
standards in both Regions be a State
plan carried out by the State or by au-
thorized local governments. To the
greatest extent feasible, the Federal
regulations proposed are designed to im-
plement transportation control measures
that are acceptable to the State and/or
that received public support at the State
hearings held on April 11 and 12, 1973,
or that were contained in the comments
submitted tc EPA following EPA receipt
of the State transportation control plan.
Pollution in the Pocet Sound
INTRASTATE REGION
The Puget Sound Intrastate Region
encompasses the four counties of King,
Pierce, Snohomish, and Kitsap. In this
Region, an urbanized corridor contain-
ing over a million people and Including
"he cities of 3verett, Seattle, and Tacoma
stretches tire length of a north-south
basin lying between the Olympic Moun-
tains to the west and the Cascade moun-
tains to the east. The highest valid
carbon monoxide concentration meas-
urements taken In the Puget Sound Re-
gion were recorded In the Seattle central
.business district during 1972. The trans-
portation control strategy submitted by
Washington, therefore, deals principally
with the Seattle portion of the Region.
In 1972 the 8-hour national ambient air
Quality standard for carbon monoxide of
9 parts per million (10 milligrams per
cubic meter), not to be exceeded more
than once per year, was exceeded on 107
days. The Tnavimnm 8-hour concentra-
tion recorded In Seattle in 1972 was 22
parts per million. The highest 1-hour
concentration at carbon monoxide was
38 parts per million, compared to a 1-
hour national ambient air quality stand-
ard of 35 parts per million. The State
forecasts that by 1975 the emission re-
ductions resulting from Implementation
of Federal emission standards for new
cars will be sufficient to prevent the 1-
hour carbon monoxide standard from
being exceeded and will reduce to ap-
proximately 37 the number of days Mie
8-hour standard will be exceeded. In De-
cember 1972, EPA began monitoring
carbon monoxide concentrations at (-wo
locations in the Seattle central busincm
district to acquire data for use in vali-
dating a carbon monoxide dispersion
model. Based on the measurements re-
corded thus far, concentrations hightur
than those recorded by the 3tate c'c-
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 135—MONDAY, JULY 16, 1973
-------
PROPOSED RULES
18971
occur. The ambient carbon monoxide
data collected by EPA are now being
evaluated; the results will be forwarded
to the State upon completion of the
evaluation.
The 1-hour national ambient air qual-
ity standard for photochemical oxidants
of 0.08 part per million (160 micrograms
per cubic meter), not to be exceeded
more than once per year, was exceeded
seven times during 2 days in 1972. The
maximum 1-hour oxidant concentration
measured was 0.14 part per million. The
State indicates, but has not adequately
demonstrated, that by 1975 no reduc-
tions in hydrocarbon emissions beyond
those resulting from implementation of
the Federal emission standards for new
motor vehicles will be necessary to meet
national ambient air quality standards
for photochemical oxidants.
Pollution in the Eastern Washington-
Northern Idaho Interstate Region
The Washington portion of the East-
ern Washington-Northern Idaho Inter-
state Region encompasses the counties
of Spokane, Lincoln, Grant, Adams,
Whitman, Columbia, Garfield, and Aso-
tin. The City of Spokane is the major
urbanized area in the Region and the
only location where a carbon monoxide
problem has been identified. In terms of
meteorological factors influencing air
pollution levels, the Spokane area Is pro-
tected from Pacific storms by the Cas-
cade Mountains to the west and from
Canadian storms by the Rocky Moun-
tains to the east. The topographical
features and dry climate of the area favor
the formation of stable, stagnant air
masses and the accumulation of air
pollutants.
The highest 8-hour carbon monoxide
concentration measured in Spokane was
22 parts per million, recorded during
1972. That year the 8-hour national am-
bient air quality standard for carbon
monoxide was exceeded on 59 days. The
highest 1-hour carbon monoxide concen-
tration recorded was 40 parts per million.
Based on information submitted by the
State, the reduction in carbon monoxide
emissions resulting from implementation
of Federal emission .standards for new
cars will be sufficient to prevent the 1-
hour carbon monoxide standard from
being exceeded and will reduce to ap-
proximately 25 the number of days the
8-hour standard is exceeded.
Summary of State Plans
The measures adopted by the State for
implementation in the Seattle portion of
the Puget Sound Intrastate Region and
in the Spokane portion , of the Eastern
Washington-Northern Idaho Interstate
Region and submitted to EPA on April 16
include (1) annual inspection to deter-
mine emissions from and maintenance
required for gasoline-powpred light-duty
vehicles; (2) exclusion of gasoline-
powered heavy-duty vehicles from the
central business districts through regu-
lation of the hours for loading and un-
loading; (3) traffic-signal optimization
programs to improve vehicle low; and
(4) intermittent exclusion of gasoline-
powered light- and heavy-duty vehicles
from the central business districts as an
alternative measure if the State Is un-
successful in obtaining the legal author-
ity and funding to implement its
inspection/maintenance program. Two
additional measures, an "accelerated"
transit plan that will include satellite
parking facilities, and second-level side-
walks that will improve vehicle flow
through reduction of pedestrian-vehicle
conflicts, are included in the strategy for
the Spokane portion of the Eastern
Washington-Northern Idaho Region..
State Emission Density Calculations
•
In developing the transportation con-
trol strategies it submitted, the State
used a proportional mathematical model
to establish the maximum emission den-
sities allowable if the 8-hour national
ambient air quality standard for carbon
monoxide is to be attained and main-
tained In the Puget Sound Intrastate and
the Eastern Washington-Northern Idaho
Interstate Regions. The reductions In
motor vehicle carbon monoxide emissions
necessary to attain the ambient carbon
monoxide standard -by 1975 were deter-
mined by forecasting the emission densi-
ties for that year and subtracting the
allowable emission densities established
by means of the proportional model. Es-
timates of 1975 emissions were calculated
on a square mile basis for areas with
high traffic densities in both Regions.
Based on these calculations the State
determined that the only locations where
the 8-hour ambient carbon monoxide
standard will be exceeded are the central
business districts of Seattle and Spokane.
An estimated 41 percent reduction in
motor vehicle carbon monoxide emis-
sions, in addition to the reductions
achieved by Implementation of the Fed-
eral emission standards for new motor
vehicles, is required to attain the 8-hour
national ambient air quality standard In
Seattle by 1975. A 36 percent reduction
in carbon monoxide emissions Is required
in Spokane to attain the standard.
Tabular Summary—Control Strategy
Effects
The following tables summarize the
effect of each of the control measures
included In the strategies adopted by the
State of Washington on the overall emis-
sion reductions necessary in the Puget
Sound Intrastate and Eastern Washing-
ton-Northern Idaho Interstate Regions.
The State estimates that the 8-hour
standard for carbon monoxide can be
met in the central business district of
Seattle by reducing the emission density
per 8-hour period to 5786 kilograms per
square mile. The emission density fore-
cast for 1975 is 9823 kilograms per square
mile. The 1975 estimate takes into ac-
count the reduction in emissions from
the Federal standards for new motor
vehicles and assumes implementation of
the transit plan adopted by the Munici-
pality of Metropolitan Seattle.
The emission density that the State
estimates will enable the attainment of
the 8-hour carbon monoxide standard In
Spokane Is 3729 kilograms per square
mile. The estimated 1975 emission den-
sity, again taking into account the reduc-
tion In emissions resulting from the Fed-
eral standards for new motor vehicles, is
5845 kilograms per square mile.
The emission reductions needed In the
Seattle and Spokane central business
districts can be achieved by combining
either the Inspection and maintenance
of light-duty vehicles (alternative 1), or
the intermittent exclusion of light- and
heavy-duty vehicles (alternative 2) with
the other emission reduction measures
included In the strategy for each area.
The State Indicates that the intermit-
tent exclusion procedures can be varied
so that this measure alone will achieve
the emission reductions required to meet
the national standards for carbon
monoxide.
Compilation of Control Strategy Effects or State
Plans on Mat 81,1975
SEATTLE CENTS AX BUSINESS DISTRICT
Transportation
control
Car boa monoxide reductions
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
kg/mi»
%
kg/ml"
%
-8 hr
-8 hr
Traffic-signal
opMmiT.fttion
-518
5.3
-1«8
5.3
Exclusion of heavy-
duty vehicles
-1331
13.5
-1331
13 5
Inspection and
maintenance of
light-duty
vehicles
-2338
23.8
Intermittent ex-
clusion of light-
arid heavy-duty
vehicles ....
-3893
39.6
Total..
-4187
42.6
-5742
58.4
Motor vehicle
emissions fpre-
cast in 1975
9823
9823
Motor vehicle
emissions re-
maining
0636
4081
Maximum emis-
sions allowable
to attain
5786
5786
Compilation or Control Strategy Eftects o? State
Plans on May $1,1975
SPOKANE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
Transportation
oontrol
measure
Carbon monoxide reductions
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
kg/mi1-
8hr
%
frg/mfi-
8 hr
Traffic-signal
optimization.
Exclusion of
heavy-duty
vehicles
Inspection and
maintenance of
light-duty
vehicles .,
Intermittent ex-
clusion of light-
and heavy-duty
vehicles
Accelerate^ transit
plan...
Second-level side-
walks
-170 2.9
—478 8.1
-170 2.9
-476 8.1
-1417 24.2
-68 1.0
-18 0.3
Total
Motor veliicle
emissions fore-
cast in 1975
Motor vehicle
emissions re-
maining
Maximum emis-
sions allowable
to attain
standard
-2139 86.6
6845
3706 =
5729
-2034 34.8
-68 1.0
-18 0.3
2766 58 4
5845 :
8089 ..-...-a
3729 r.r.-.-a
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 135—MONDAY, JULY 16, 1973
-------
18972
PROPOSED RULES
Control Measures Required in Tacoma
In preparing the transportation con-
trol strategy for the Paget Sound Intra-
state Region, the State did not evaluate,
subsequent tD the rescinding of the 2-
year extension by EPA, the need for
additional measures to mes* standards
for carbon monoxide in Tacoma by 1975.
The implementation plan submitted by
the State in January 1372 indicated thit
in the central business district of Ta-
coma an additional 24 percent reduction
in carbon monoxide emissions, beyond
the reductions achieved by implementa-
tion of the Federal emission standards
for new motor veh.cies, is needed to at-
tain the national ambient air quality
standards for carbon monoxide by 1975.
The measured concentrations upon
which the need for "Jie additional 24
percent reduction i3 bEsed may be influ-
enced by stationary sources of carbon
monoxide and mar not be en'Jrely the
result of motor vehicle emissians. EPA
has requested the 3ta~-e to tetter define
the nature of the carbc-n mcnoxide prob-
lem in Tacoma, to submit an assessment
of the problem to EPA, and to submit a
timetable for developing additional
motor vehicle emission redaction meas-
ures if they are required.
Deficiencies in State Plans
Although "he types of transportation
control measures adopted by the State
of Washington to attain national stand-
ards are generally acceptable to the Ad-
ministrator, the manner of implementa-
tion proposed for some of the measures
appears questionable. Consequently, the
implementation and enforcement proce-
dures for the intermittent exclusion of
light- and heavy-dut> vehicles must be
explicit in any resubmission to obviate
promulgation of EPA proposals. Pro-
posed surveillance procedures to deter-
mine and monitor the effectiveness of
all the adopted measures must be pro-
vided by the State.
The percentage reductions m carbon
monoxide emissions claimed for the
traffic-signal optimization programs ap-
pear optimistic and attainable only if
the forecasted improvements In tra9c
flow can be achieved and maintained.
There Is no demonstration by the State
that the traffic-signal optimization pro-
grams will not eventually result in in-
creased trafnc volumes suScient to in-
crease carbon monoxide emissions. The
Seattle Engineering Department indi-
cates that such programs are experi-
mental and that the reductions in ve-
hicle stops and starts gained tlirough
implementation of the programs may be
short-lived. The State die. not propose
any surveillance procedures ta monitor
the efficacy of the trrJEc-signal optimi-
zation programs ir_ improving traffic flow
and reducing motor vehicle carbon mon-
oxide emissions.
The hours proposed (10 a tn. to 6 p.m.)
for excluding heavy-duty vehicles from
the central business districts of Seattle
and Spokane do not include the period
of morning peak traffic. Emissions from
heavy-duty vehicles could account for a
significant portion :>f the pollutants
emitted during the period of morning
peak traffic (particularly if increased
heavy-duty vehicle traffic occurs during,
the morning peak). Loading and unload-
ing vehicles during the period of morn-
ing peak traffic could also hinder traffic
flow and increase emissions from through
traffic. The regulations and administra-
tive policies implementing this strategy
must be submitted by the State to EPA
no later than December 30, 1973.
There are many uncertainties associ-
ated with the intermittent exclusion of
gasoline-powered motor vehicles from
the central business district. As with all
intermittent control systems, the exclu-
sion measu-e will, If implemented, pro-
vide significant improvement In air
quality, but will not provide positive
assurance thai; the national ambient air
quality standards for carbon monoxide
will be attained and maintained. A pre-
diction accuracy of 60 to 90 percent in
forecasting days when ambient stand-
ards may be exceeded could still result
in four to seven violations of the 8-hour
standard for carbon monoxide in Seattle
and four to five violations of the stand-
ard in Spokane. The ability of the State
to develop a model for predicting the
days when a potential for exceeding am-
bient standards exists Is obviously the
element critical to the successful Imple-
mentation of the intermittent exclusion
measure.
The type of inspection system the
State intends to Implement is not indi-
cated in sufficient derail, nor is the geo-
graphical area identified to which the
requirement for inspection will apply. A
schedule detailing specific milestones,
such as securing necessary funding, ac-
quiring land and equipment, and con-
structing facilities, is not Included in the
State's submittal. Ic appears unlikely
that the inspection system can be Imple-
mented by the State by May 31, 1975.
Proposed Federal Regulations
Because of the lack of specificity of
the administrative and enforcement pro-
cedures for implementing the State pro-
gram for emission inspection and main-
tenance af light-duty vehicles, the
uncertainty concerning the emission
reductions that will result from traffic
flow improvements and the potential
difficulties in developing a forecast capa-
bility sufficiently accurate to make Inter-
mittent exclusion of vehicles a viable
control measure, Federal regulations are
proposed to implement the following
transportation control measures:
1. An inspection and maintenance pro-
gram. using an idle emission test, for
light-duty vehicles. No retrofitting is pro-
posed as part of this measure.
2. A parking management program
that will (a) immediately stabilize the
amount of parking available in the por-
tions of the Regions where there is not
sufficient assurance that national stand-
ards will be attained by May 31, 1975;
lb) prevent increases In parking else-
where within the Region where such a
parking increase might result in an In-
crease in motor vehicle emission sufficient
to cause national standards to be
exceeded.
3. Selective exclusion of vehicles from
portions of the Puget Sound Intrastate
and the Eastern Washington-Northern
Idaho Interstate Regions where there is
not sufficient assurance that national
standards will be attained by May 31,
1975, through implementation of the
measures'contained in the State trans-
portation control plan.
These Federally proposed measures are
intended to strengthen and supplement,
not wholly replace, State-adopted trans-
portation control measures.
A more stringent selective vehicle-use
exclusion program could be Implemented
that would, by Itself, achieve the needed
reductions In motor vehicle missions.
The more stringent program would ne-
cessitate those entering the central busi-
ness districts of Seattle and Spokane to
find alternative means of transportation,
other than their own automobiles, ap-
proximately once every week rather than
once every two weeks as would be neces-
sary under the currently proposed pro-
gram.
Other measures are available to EPA
and to the State that will, if Imple-
mented, assist In achieving a reduction in
motor vehicle emissions equivalent to
that resulting from the three proposed
measures. In the State of California, for
example, EPA is proposing regulations
that will require the establishment of a
system of traffic lanes for the exclusive
use of buses and car pools. The proposed
regulations require that, for streets hav-
ing four or more traffic lanes in one
direction, at least one lane must be desig-
nated for use only by buses or by buses
and car pools with an additional lane
during rush hours. In the case of a street
or highway with only three lanes in one
direction, at least one of the lanes must
be open only to buses or buses and car
pools from 6:30 to 9:30 a.m. and from
3:30 to 6:30 p.m.
If Federal promulgation of any of the
regulations is necessary, the selection of
the measures to be implemented will be
based to the greatest extent possible on
testimony presentedr at the public hear-
ing held prior to Federal promulgation.
The first two Federally proposed meas-
ures, the Inspection and maintenance
program and the parking management
program, did receive support in testi-
mony presented at the public hearings
held by the State. Although the third
measure, a selective vehicle use exclusion
program, was not discussed at the public
hearings, it is a measure that should
strengthen other State-adopted meas-
ures, such as traffic flow improvement
and transit patronage increases, that did
receive public support.
The inspection and maintenance pro-
gram proposed by the State was disap-
proved because administrative and en-
forcement procedures were not specified
in the plan, nor was a schedule of dates
submitted by which significant steps in
the inspection program will be imple-
mented. The Administrator is continuing
to assess the earliest practicable date on
which the Inspection and maintenance
program can be fully Implemented. He
may revise this date based on results o£
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 135—MONDAY, JULY 16, 1973
-------
PROPOSED RULES
18973
this assessment. Under the Federally
proposed inspection program, emission
limits for light-duty vehicles with no
emission control systems will not be set
at a level which would necessitate retro-
fitting.
Because the State may not be able to
develop the forecasting capability neces-
sary to successfully Implement the inter-
mittent exclusion measure, and because
of the uncertainty of the emission re-
ductions resulting from the State-
adopted programs for traffic-signal
optimization, exclusion of heavy-duty
vehicles, improvement of public transit,
and construction of second-level side-
walks, Federal regulations are also pro-
posed for the establishment and imple-
mentation of a parking management
program and a selective vehicle-use ex-
clusion program.
The proposed parking management
programs are Intended to stabilize im-
mediately the supply of parking In areas
where transportation control measures
are necessary for attainment of national
standards. In addition to helping assure
the success of the State-adopted pro-
grams for traffic flow improvement and
increased transit patronage, ¦ manage-
ment of the parking supply should also
encourage car pooling.
The selective vehicle-use exclusion
program will provide for metering the
amount of traffic entering those areas of
Seattle and Spokane where air quality
standards are presently not being met.
To implement the program, portions of
the Puget Sound and Eastern Washing-
ton-Northern Idaho Regions where na-
tional standards are presently being ex-
ceeded will be designated as "vehicle-
limited zones." The areas now proposed
for such designation are the central busi-
ness districts of Seattle and Spokane.
The exact boundaries of these areas are
identified In the proposed regulations.
Traffic entering the vehicle-limited
zones will be metered to limit the ve-
hicle miles of travel within the zone so
that the resultant motor vehicle emis-
sions will not cause national standards to
be exceeded. To meter the amount of
traffic entering a zone, the State will be
required to issue an "access certificate"
to each vehicle registered within certain
counties of the affected Regions. The
certificate will be affixed in a prominent
place on the vehicle. On specified days
of. the week, vehicles displaying desig-
nated certificates will be prohibited from
operating or parking in vehicle-limited
zones between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. The num-
ber of categories of access certificates
to be prohibited each weekday will be
determined by the State no later than
the time of submittal to EPA of the No-
vember 1974 semiannual report of prog-
ress on implementation of the State plan
for achieving national standards. This
determination will be based upon the
effectiveness of other State and/or Fed-
eral motor vehicle emission reduction
programs.
Two alternative transportation con-
trol strategies that could be implemented
in Seattle and Spokane, should the State
be unable to implement an intermittent
exclusion pTogram, are presented in the
following tables.
Compilation or State/Tedkbil Transportation
Control Stbateot Errscro on Mat 81,1076
aZATTLB CXtfTRAL BD8IKX38 DISTRICT
Carbon monoxide redactions
Transportation
control meaauroa
EPA
Proposal
EPA
Alternative
kg/ml1 % kg/mi* %
-8 hr —8 hr
5.8
Truffle-signal optimisa-
tion -618 6.8 —518
Exclusion of beavy-
duty vehicles * -1331 13.6 -1331 13.6
Inspection and raainte- •
nance of light-duty
vehicles (no retrofit) —982' 10.0
Selective vehiclcHise ex-
clusion > -1206 12.2 -2188 22.2
Parking management * -
Total -4037
Motor vehiclo emissions
forecast in 1976 9823 .
Motor vehicle emissions
remaining 5788 .
Maximum emissions
allowable to attain
standard 5786 .
41.1 -4037
41.1
6786 .
6786 .
* State-adopted transportation control measure,
i EPA-proposed transportation control measure.
Compilation of 8tatb/Fedebal Transportation
Control Stbatbo* Effects on Mat 31,1975
SPOKANE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
Carbon monoxide red notions
Transportation
oontrol measures
EPA
Proposal
EPA
Alternative
kg/ml*-
8 hr
%
kg/rai«-
8 hr
%
Traffic-signal optimisa-
tion i
-170
2.9
-170
2.9
Exclusion of heavy-
duty vehicles1
-478
8-1
—476
8.1
Accelerated transit
plan 1
-58
1.0
-58
1.0
Second-level sidewalks
-18
0.3
-18
as
Inspection and mainte-
nance of Ugbt-duty
vehicles (no retrofit) K
-585
10.0
Selective vehicle-use ex-
clusion i
-809
13.9
-1894
28.9
Total ....
2116
30.2
2110
56.2
Motor vehicle emissions
forecast in 1976 6846 .
Motor vehicle omissions
remaining 3729 .
Maximum emissions al-
lowable to attain
standard 3729 .
6845 .
3729 .
3729 .
» State-adopted transportation control measure.
a EP A-propooed transportation oontrol measure.
The alternative strategies shown as-
sume that the State's estimates of the
emission reductions resulting from the
traffic-signal optimization and heavy-
duty vehicle exclusion programs are
achievable. Alternative 1, the current
Federal proposal, indicates the additonal
carbon monoxide emission reductions
that will be achieved through the im-
plementation of the selective vehicle-
use exclusion and parking management
programs together with State-adopted
measures. No reduction In piotor vehicle
emissions is attributed to the parknlg
management program. The barking
management program Is proposed to as-
sure the efficacy of other control meas-
ures and to assist in the maintenance of
national standards. Alternative 2 indi-
cates the emission reductions that will
result if only the selective vehicle-use
program is used to supplement the State-
adopted measures.
Social and Economic Impacts op Pro-
posed Federal Transportation Con-
trol Measures
A quantitative assessment of the eco-
nomic and social impacts of the proposed
Federal transportation control measures
on the two Regions in the State of Wash-
ington has not been possible due to the
short time available for development of
the measures and the Innate complexities
of the Issues involved. However, an at-
tempt has been made to identify some
of the more important impacts that will
result If the proposed Federal measures
are promulgated and implemented.
First, If the proposed Inspection/main-
tenance program is implemented, vehicle
owners will probably have to assume di-
rectly some of the costs of vehicle in-
spection and all of the costs of any vehi-
cle maintenance required to meet the In-
spection emission standards. If a failure
rate of 50 percent Is set for the inspec-
tion/maintenance program, the annual
cost for each vehicle inspected is esti-
mated to average $15.
Second, reductions In the accessibility
of the Seattle and Spokane central busi-
ness districts could result If automobile
use is restricted through either selective
vehicle exclusion or parking manage-
ment and no adequate alternative mode
of transportation is provided. If the cen-
tral business districts become less con-
venient to workers and shoppers, the eco-
nomies of these districts may be adverse-
ly affected. Property values could fall
and private profits and government reve-
nues could decline. The extent of adverse
economic effects and the degree to which
these effects can be ameliorated through
providing alternatives to travel by auto-
mobile are difficult to estimate. However,
economic losses in the central business
districts may be offset by gains elsewhere
within the Regions.
EPA Efforts-To Mitigate the Effects
of Proposed Regulations
The proposed Federal regulations, to-
gether with the State-adopted measures,
will eliminate the danger to human
health and welfare that exists in the
Puget Sound Intrastate Region and the
Washington portion of the Eastern
Washington-Northern Idaho Interstate
Region as a result of air pollution from
motor vehicles. The regulations may,
however, have adverse economic and
social Impacts. The Administrator will
make every effort to mitigate the adverse
effects of his final promulgation. He will
be In contact with the Department of
Transportation and other departments
as necessary. The Administrator will re-
quest that these departments give special
attention to the need for funding of pro-
grams necessary to offset any adverse ef-
fects resulting from the implementation
of transportation control measures.
Public Comments Solicited
The Administrator intends that any
Federal regulations which must be pro-
mulgated be as responsive as possible to
the needs of the Puget Sound Intrastate
and Eastern Washington-Northern
Idaho Interstate Regions; he therefore
desires to obtain the comments and sug-
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 135—MONDAY, JULY 16, 1973
-------
1897-1
PROPOSED RULES
gestions of the public on the proposed
regulations and on any other measures
that may be taken by Federal, State, or
local governments to strengthen, supple-
ment, or replace the proposed measures.
Public hearings will be held on this
and any alternative proposals in Seattle
at the Ore as Room, Coliseum Northwest,
Seattle Center, at 7:30 p-m., on July 31,
1973, and in Spokane at the Rennais-
sance Room, Gonzaga University, at 7:30
p.m. on July 30, 1973.
In any promulgation of regulations
necessary, the Administrator will' con-
sider all comments and testimony he re-
ceives, as well as any additional strategies
submitted by the State.
Submittal op Written Comments
i I
Interested persons may participate in
this rule making by submitting written
comments, preferably in triplicate, to the
Administrator, EPA, Region X, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101,
Attention: A. J. Frankel. All relevant
comments received within 30 days of this
date will be considered. Receipt of com-
ments will be acknowledged, but sub-
stantive responses to individual com-
ments will not be provided. Comments
received will be available for public in-
spection during nsrmal business hours
at the EPA Region X library. The
changes proposed by this notice, with
appropriate modifications, will be effec-
tive as noted. This notice of proposed
rule making is issued under the author-
ity of sections 110(c) and 301(a) of the
Clean Air Act.
(42 TJJ3.C. 18B7c et Jseq.)
Dated July 6,1073.
Robert W. Fri,
Acting Administrator.
It is proposed to amend Part 52 of
Chapter I, Title 40, of the Code of Fed-
eral Regulations as follows:
Subpart WW—Washington
1. Subpart WW is amended by adding
§§ 52.2485, 52.2486, and 52.2487 as fol-
lows:
§ 52.2485 Inspection and maintenance
program.
(a) Definitions.
(1) "Inspection and maintenance pro-
gram" means a program for reducing
emissions from in-use gasoline-powered
vehicles through identifying vehicles
which need emission-control-related
maintenance and requiring that main-
tenance be performed.
(2) All other terms used in this sec-
tion which are defined'in Part 51, Ap-
pendix N, of this chapter are used
herein with the meanings so defined.
(b) This relation is applicable in all
the counties which constitute the Puget
Sound Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region and in trie counties of Spokane,
Lincoln, Adams,' and Whitman in the
Eastern Washington-Northern Idaho
Interstate Air Quality 'Control Region
(hereafter referred to as the Regions).
(c) The State, of Washington shall
establish an inspection and maintenance
program applicable to all light-duty
gasoline-powered vehicles which operate
on public streets or highways within the
applicable counties. No later than March
1, 1974, the State shall obtain necessary
authority and shall adopt regulations to
establish such a program. The regula-
tions shall Include:
(1) Provisions for inspection of all
gasoline-powered light-duty motor ve-
hicles at periodic intervals no more than
1 year apart by means of an idle-mode
emission test.
(2) Provisions for inspection failure
criteria consistent with the emission re-
ductions claimed in the plan for the
strategy. These criteria shall include
failure of 50 percent of the vehicles in
the first Inspection cycle.
(3) Provisions to ensure that failed
vehicles receive the maintenance neces-
sary to achieve compliance with the in-
spection standards. These shall include
sanctions against individual owners and
repair facilities; retest of failed vehicles
following maintenance; use of a certifi-
cation program to ensure that repair fa-
cilities performing the required mainte-
nance have the necessary equipment,
parts, and knowledge to perform the
tasks satisfactorily; and use of such other
measures as may be necessary or appro-
priate.
(4) A program of enforcement to en-
sure that vehicles are not Intentionally
readjusted or modified subsequent to the
inspection and/or maintenance in such
a way as would cause them to no longer
comply with the inspection standards.
This enforcement program might include
spot checks of idle adjustments and/or
a suitable type of physical tagging.
(5)_ Provisions for beginning the first
inspection cycle by January 1, 1975, and
completing it by May 31,1975. (
: (6) Designation of an agency or agen-
cies responsible for conducting, oversee-
ing, and enforcing the inspection and
maintenance program.
(d) After May 31, 1975, the State shall
not register or allow to operate on public
streets or highways any light-duty gaso-
line-powered vehicle which does not com-
ply with the applicable standards and
procedures adopted pursuant to para-
graph (c) of this section. This shall not
apply to the initial registration of a new
motor vehicle. i
(e) After May 31, 1975, no owner»of a
light-duty gasoline-powered vehicle shall
operate or allow the operation of such
vehicle which does not comply with the
applicable | standards and procedures
adopted pursuant to paragraph (c) of
this section.
(f) The State of Washington shall sub-
mit, no later than October 1, 1973, a de-
tailed compliance schedule showing the
steps it will take to establish and enforce
an inspection and maintenance program
pursuant to paragraph (c) of this sec-
tion, including:
(1) The [text of needed statutory pro-
posals and of regulations which It will
propose for adoption.1 1
(2) The date by which the State will
recommend needed 1 legislation to the
State legislature.
, (3) The date by which necessary equip-
ment will be ordered.
(4) A signed statement from the Gov-
ernor or his designee identifying the
sources and amounts of funds for the
program. If funds-cannot legally be ob-
ligated under existing statutory author-
ity, the text of needed legislation shall
be submitted.
(g) Failure to comply with any provi-
sions of this paragraph shall render such
person or governmental entity failing to
comply in violation of a requirement
of an applicable implementation plan
and subject to enforcement action under
section 113 of the Clean Air Act.
§ 52.2486 Management of parking gup-
ply.
(a) Definitions
(1) "Construction" means fabrication,
erection, or installation of a parking
facility, or any conversion of land to use
as a facility.
(2) "Modification" means any change
to a parking facility which Increases the
vehicle capacity of such facility.
(3) "Enlargement" means any physi-
cal change or addition to a parking facil-
ity which Increases the vehicle capacity
of such facility. ' j .
(4) "Commenced" means the owner or
operator has undertaken a continuous
program of construction, modification,
or enlargement. '
(5) "Parking facility" (also called
"facility") means any facility, building,
structure, or lot, or portion thereof, used
primarily for temporary storage of motor
vehicles.
(b) This regulation is applicable in
all counties included in the Puget Sound
Intrastate Air Quality Control Region
and in the counties of Spokane, Lincoln,
Adams, and Whitman in the Washing-
ton-Northern Idaho Interstate Air Qual-
ity Control Region (hereafter referred
to as the Regions). ;
(c) No person, after the date of this
regulation, shall commence construction
of any new parking facility or modifica-
tion or enlargement of any existing park-
ing facility until he has first received
from the Administrator or from an
agency approved by the Administrator a
permit stating that construction, modi-
fication or enlargement of such facility
will not interfere with attainment or
maintenance of applicable Federal air
quality standards.1
(d) In order for any agency to be ap-
proved by the Administrator for purposes
of issuing permits for construction of any
new parking facility or any modification
or enlargement of any existing parking
facility, such agency shall demonstrate
to the satisfaction of the Administrator
that:
(1) Requirements for permit applica-
tions and issuance have been established.
Such requirements shall include but
not be limited to a requirement that
before a permit may be issued the fol-
lowing findings of fact or factually sup-
ported projections must be made:
(i) The location of the facility.
(li) The total motor vehicle capacitr
before and after the construction, modi-
fication, or enlargement of the facility.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 135—MONDAY, JULY 16, 1973
-------
PROPOSED RULES
18975
(iii) The normal hours of operation of
the facility and the enterprises and ac-
tivities which it serves.
(iv) The number of people using or
engaging in any enterprises or activities
which the facility will serve.
(v) The number of motor vehicles
using the proposed facility on an average
hourly basis and a peak hour basis.
Cvi) A projection of the geographic
areas in the community from which
people and motor vehicles will be drawn
to the facility. Such projections shall in-
clude data concerning the availability of
public transit from such areas.
(2) Criteria for Issuance of permits
have been established and published.
Such criteria shall include but not be
limited to:
(1) Pull consideration of all facts con-
tained in the application.
Cii) Provisions that no permit shall
be issued If such permit will result in the
increase of vehicle miles of travel within
any area the air quality of which fails to
meet applicable Federal air quality
standards.
(3) Agency procedures provide that no
permit for the construction, enlargement
or modification of a facility covered by
this section shall be issued without notice
and opportunity for public hearing. The
public hearing may be of the legislative
type; the notice shall conform to the
requirements of S 51.4(b) of this chap-
ter; and the agency rules of procedure
may provide that if no notice of Intent
to participate in the hearing is received
from any member of the public (other
than the applicant) prior to 7 days before
the scheduled hearing date, no hearing
need be held. Such a requirement, if im-
posed, shall be noted prominently in the
required notice of hearing.
§ 52.2487 Selective vchicle-nse exclu-
sion.
(a) Definitions:
(1) "Selective vehicle-use exclusion
program" means a program whereby use
of light- and heavy-duty vehicles within
a specified area is selectively prohibited
in a manner equitable for all vehicle
operators.
(2) "Seattle central business district"
means an area enclosed by Yesler Way,
the 1-5 freeway, Eighth Street. Virginia,
and the Alaska Way Viaduct. Traffic on
1-5 and the Alaska Way Viaduct is not
included.
(3) "Spokane central business district"
means an area enclosed by Trent. Mon-
roe, Third Street, and Division. Traffic
on Division is not Included. -
(4) "Vehicle-limited zone" means the
geographic area to which a selective ve-
hicle-use exclusion program applies.
(b) On or before October 1, 1973, the
Governor of the State of Washington
shall submit to the Administrator for his
approval a compliance schedule contain-
ing the text of proposed procedures for
designating and Issuing up to 10 primary
categories of access certificates for vehi-
cles registered, beginning no later than
January 1, 1975, in all the counties in-
cluded within the Puget Sound Intra-
state Air Quality Control Region and in
the counties of Spokane, Lincoln, Adams,
and Whitman in the Eastern Washing-
ton-Northern Idaho Interstate Air Qual-
ity Control Region and for selectively re-
stricting vehicle use in vehicle-limited
zones consisting of the Seattle and
Spokane central business districts. The
procedures shall Include:
(1) Provisions to assure that multiple-
vehicle owners or households receive no
more than one category of access certif-
icate.
(2) Provisions that additional cate-
gories of access certificates may be Issued
for vehicles the use of which is deemed
essential by the State of Washington,
including, but not limited to, police and
fire vehicles, ambulances, and public
transit vehicles.
(3) Prohibitions of vehicles bearing
specified certificates from being operated
or parked on public streets within
designated vehicle-limited zones. These
prohibitions shall provide for excluding
vehicles bearing one or more types
of the primary categories of access
certificates from the vehicle-limited
zones between 7:00 ajn. and 5 :00 pjn. on
specific workdays. The number of cate-
gories excluded each day shall be speci-
fied no later than the semiannual report
to be submitted to EPA by the State of
Washington in November 1974.
(4) Provisions that certificates of ac-
cess will be distributed ""to vehicle own-
ers during the motor vehicle registration
period beginning no later than Janu-
ary 1, 1975. However, all such certificates
shall be issued by March 31, 1975.
(5) Designation of an agency or agen-
cies which shall be responsible for ad-
ministration and enforcement of this
program.
(6) An explanation of procedures nec-
essary to implement and enforce this pro-
gram (such as establishing spot-check
locations at major Intersections and issu-
ing citations to those driving on prohib-
ited days).
(7) Provisions that actual exclusion
will begin as expeditiously as practicable;
however, this exclusion shall begin no
later than May 31,1975.
(c) No later than March 1, 1974, the
State shall submit legally adopted regu-
lations to EPA establishing such a vehi-
cle use exclusion program specified in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(d) Beginning no later than January
1, 1975, the State of Washington shall
not register any motor vehicle subject to
the provision of subparagraph (b) of
this section without issuing suitable ac-
cess certificates to vehicle owners.
(e) Beginning no later than March 31,
1975, no owner or operator of a vehicle
subject to the provisions of paragraph
(b) of this section shall operate or allow
the operation of his vehicle unless an
access certificate is prominently affixed
to that vehicle.
(f) Failure to comply with any provi-
sions of this paragraph shall render a
person or governmental entity so failing
to comply In violation of a requirement
of an applicable implementation plan
and subject to enforcement action under
section 113 of the Clean Air Act
[PR Doc.73-14270 Piled 7-13-73:6:46 ami
FEDERAL BEGISTEB, VOL tt, NO. 135—MONDAY, JULY 16, 1973
------- |