+(,121/,1(

Citation: 46 Fed. Reg. 7182 1981 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Thu Sep 22 13:32:29 2011

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

 of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license

 agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from 

 uncorrected OCR text.
7182 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 1981 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMAENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 51

[A-FRL 1722-8]

State Implementation Plans; Approval

of 1982 Ozone and Carbon Monoxide

Plan Revisions for Areas Needing an

Attainment Date Extension

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final policy.

SUMMARY: Provisions-of the 1977 Clean

Air Act Amendments require states that

have received an extension of the

attainment date for a national ambient

air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone

or carbon monoxide beyond 1982 to

submit a state implementation plan (SIP]

revision by July 1, 1982. This policy

describes the criteria that the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

will use to review these 1982 SIP

submittals and also updates and

supplements the Administrator's

February 24,1978 memorandum,

"Criteria for Approval of 1979 SIP

Revisions," (43 FR 21673) and

subsequent guidance.

EPA proposed this policy on

September 30,1980 (45 FR 64855] and

announced a 60-day period for public

comment. The comments received on

major issues, EPA's response to the

comments, and the changes to the

proposed policy are summarized below.

A more detailed summary of comments

and the EPA responses have been

included in Docket No. A-79--43 and are'

also available for review at EPA

regional offices.

DATES: Final policy effective January 22,

1981.

ADDRESS: Docket No. A-79-43,

containing material relevant to this

action, is located at the EPA Central

Docket Section, West Tower Lobby,

Gallery 1, 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, D.C. 20460. The docket may

be inspected between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00

p.m. on weekdays and a reasonable fee

may be charged for copying. A summary

of the comments received on the

proposed policy and EPA responses to

the comments are also available for

review at the EPA regional office

locations listed in Appendix E.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Additional information about the policy

is available from the following: General

policy contact: Mr. Johnnie L. Pearson,

Standards Implementation Branch,

Environmental Protection Agency (MD15), Research Triangle Park, North

Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-

5497.

Transportation policy contact: Mr.

Gary C. Hawthorn, Office of

Transportation and Land Use Policy

(ANR-445), Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,

D.C. 20460, telephone (202) 755-0603.

'Vehicle inspection and maintenance

contact: Mr. Donald White, Motor

Vehicle Emission Test Lab,

Environmental Protection Agency, 2565

Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan

48105, telephone (313) 668-4350.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: During

the 60-day comment period for the

proposed policy EPA received comments

from 28 organizations and individuals.

Comments from over 30 other

organizations and individuals were

received after the close of the comment

period. EPA carefully considered all the

comments and made several changes to

the policy. Major issues raised by those

submitting comments, EPA's responses,

and any resultant changes in the policy

are summarized below. A more detailed

summary of comments and EPA

responses are included in Docket No. A79-43 and available at EPA regional

offices.

Attaining NAAQSs After 1987

In the proposed policy EPA

recognized that a few large urban areas

with very severe ozone and carbon

monoxide problems may not be able to

attain NAAQSs by December 31, 1987,

the deadline set in the Clean Air Act.

EPA proposed that such areas should

submit SIP revisions by July 1, 1982 that

demonstrate attainment as soon as

possible after 1987 using additional,

more effective measures beyond those

required in other areas.

Some public and private organizations

commenting on this portion of the

proposal supported the course of action

outlined by EPA. Others believed,

however, that such a policy would

encourage some areas to slow or

abandon their air quality clean-up

efforts. For example, one state

environmental agency commented that

granting any delay was inappropriate as

federal policy and that asking the public

to accept additional years of poor air

quality was unacceptable. Several state

and local agencies stated they believed

that the EPA Administrator would be

exceeding his authority under the Clean

Air Act if he accepted a SIP that did not

demonstrate attainment by 1987.

The final EPA policy still permits the

submission from a few urban areas with

severe ozone and carbon monoxide

problems of SIPs that provide for

expeditious attainment of NAAQSs by a

specific date after 1987. The policy now

makes more explicit, however, EPA's

intent to carefully evaluate the

effectiveness of measures inSIPs for all

area and ensure that the most effective

measures have been adequately

considered in any area that does not

demonstrate attainment by 1987.

EPA recognized in the proposal that

current provisions of the Clean Air Act

may not allow appioval of-a SIP that

provides for attainment of NAAQSs

after 1987 and that action by-the

Congress may be necessary. EPA

considers any request to the Congress

for additional delay of attainment

deadlines to be a serious step and one

that should be considered only after it is

clear that all available and

implementable control measures will be

adopted.

Providing Adequate Time for SIP

Adoption

The proposed policy reiterated and

expanded upon the Clean Air Act

requirements that a fully adopted,

legally enforceable SIP revision must be

submitted to EPA by July 1,1982.

Several state and local agencies

responsible for SIP development

commented that they would be unable

to ensure the adoption and submittal of

all required measutes by July 1982,

particularly if EPA guidance mentioned

in the proposed policy is not available

early in 1981. EPA recognizes that -

meeting the July deadline may be a

problem for some areas, but is

constrained by the Clean Air Act from

granting any time extensions.

EPA will continue the practice of

granting conditional SIP approval

followed in acting on the plan revisions

due in 1979. If a SIP revision is in

substantial compliance with Part D of

the Clean Air Act and the state provides

assurances that remaining minor

deficiences will be remedied within a

short time, EPA may approve the plan

with conditions that corrective actions

will be completed according to a

specified schedule. For example, iff

missing regulations applying RACT to

required sources constitutes a minor

deficiency in the SIP and the state

commits to a schedule for submitting

those regulations, then EPA may

-conditionally approve the SIP.

The proposed policy included the

requirement that states must adopt

regulations applying reasonably

available control technology (RACT3 to

all sources of volatile organic

compounds (VOCs) covered by a control

technique guideline (CTG) and to all

other major sources of VOCs. EPA also

,announced its intent to issue additional

CTGs during 1981. A number of agencies
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 1981 / Rules and Regulations

responsible for developing SIPS

commented that they do not have

sufficient resources to finalize

regulations for both CTG and non-CTG

source categories. Some of the agencies

also indicated that the time necessary to

satisfy state and local procedural

requirements makes it unlikely that the

required regulations will be fully

adopted by July 1982. A state

environmental agency, for example,

stated that although the agency agrees

in principle with the requirements for

regulating both CTG and non-CTG

source categories, the agency does not

have adequate staff and financial

resources to complete the necessary

technical analysis and rulemaking

activities. In addition, the requirements

of the state administrative review

process cannot be metby July 1982,

even if rulemaking is limited only to

CTG sources. A local environmental

agency commented that it may not be

possible to submit regulations for source

categories covered by CTGs issued late

in 1981. In order for the regulations to be

included in the July 1982 submittal, the

local agency must provide the

regulaticns to the state by the end of

1981.

To help ensure that states have

adequate opportunity to meet the July

1982 deadline, EPA will issue the new

CTGs as early as possible in 1981. The

CTGs are in preparation and will be

available in draft form between January

and May 1981. The final CTGs will be

published between July and October

1981. If state and local agencies begin

now to develop the necessary data and

work with the draft CTGs, they should

be able to complete development of

regulaticns by July 1982.

Providing for the Implementation of I/M

Programs

The proposed policy included the

requirement that states submit, by July

1982, the rules and regulations for

vehicle inspection and maintenance [i/

M-) programs, as well as documentation

of 10 other critical I/M program

elements. The proposed policy stated

that EPA would update I/M guidance for

determining I/M program adequacy.

Some state and local agencies

commented that guidance not available

for their use in planning and

implementing JI/M programs should not

be used to evaluate the I/M portion of

the 1982 SIP. Many of these agencies

vere concerned that updated guidance

would include new requirements- which

could adversely affect I/M activities

already in progress and which could not

be completed by July 1, 1982. Other

agencies commented that EPA should

not evaluate individual elements of an I/

M program, but should evaluate the

program as a whole; that the I/M

guidance should be promulgated through

rulemaking to allow review and

comment by interested parties; and that

the intent of requiring the I/M public

awareness plan in the 1982 SIP is

unclear.

A state agency also questioned

whether additional emission reductions

from other source categories could be

used to offset any shortfall from I/M.

rather than making the I/M program

more stringent. That agency also

questioned whether, in a state with a

post-1978 attainment date and with

legislative authority which needed to be

changed before I/M effectiveness could

be increased, commitments to obtain

needed legislative changes were

adequate for the 1982 SIP, rather than

having the legislative changes

themselves before July 1982.

EPA's basic requirements for I/M

programs are included in a widely

distributed July 17, 1978 policy

memorandum. Subsequent clarifications

to that policy have defined the factors

involved in designing I/M program

elements and provided information on

designing programs which optimize

technical and cost effectiveness.

Additional information along these lines

will be provided.

The July 17,1978 policy memorandum

will be the primary basis for

determining I/M program adequacy in

the 1982 SIP process. The final policy

has been revised to reflect this. EPA

agrees that the policy should contain

provisions for those states that are

meeting an approved schedule, but will

not be able to make a complete I/M

submission by July 1982. Appropriate

changes have been incorporated into the

final policy. EPA also agrees that the I/

M program must be evaluated as a

whole, rather than element by element.

EPA does not believe that I/M policy

and guidance needs to be promulgated

through rulemaking, but does agree that

review and comment by interested

parties are important. The appropriate

place for rulemaking for I/M is the SIP

review and approval process. EPA feels

that the states and other interested

parties have always been extensively

involved in the policy and guidance

development process. EPA will continue

to seek such review and comment.

EPA feels that the I/M public

awareness plan is critical for the

successful implementation of an I/M

program and that it must be included as

part of the 1982 SIP. EPA recognizes,

however, that much of the public

awareness activity should generally

have been completed before the 1982

SIP deadline and will work with the

states in developing and implementing

their public awareness plans. Guidance

is available on what should be included

in a good public awareness plan.

If an I/M programs fails to achieve the

requisite emission reduction, then the

program will have to be modified to.

obtain that reduction. Additional

emission reductions from other source

categories cannot be used to

compensate for a shortfall from I/M.

Because section 172(c) of the Act

requires all measures in the 1982 SIP to

be legally enforceable, any further

legislative authority will have to be

obtained before the 1982 SIP is

submitted. A commitment to obtain such

authority will not be sufficient for the

1982 SIP.

Making Commitments to Implement

Transportation Measures

The proposed policy required that the

1982 SIP submittal include commitments

by state and local governments to

implement the necessary transportation

measures. The documentation of the

commitment must include identification

of costs, funding sources, and

responsibilities of state and local

agencies and officials. Several state and

local agencies commenting on the

proposal expressed concern about

making commitments to transportation

improvement projects that are only in

the early stages of planning and have

not been included in state and local

budgets or been approved for federal

funding.

The definition of implementation

commitments contained in Appendix C

has been expandel to clarify the form of

the commitment for projects that are

progressing towards implementation,

but have not received budget approvals.

Essentially, the implementation

commitment for these projects or

measures should be a schedule of the

major steps required to advance the

project through the planning and

programming processes. This schedule

should also contain an identification of

the responsible agencies that must take

significant actions to implement the

measure. An illustration of such a

schedule is also contained in Appendix

C.

If a particular measure cannot be

implemented because the necessary

funds cannot be obtained from the

funding source identified in the schedule

and if the SIP planning agencies can

demonstrate comrdiance with the

provisions of the Clean Air Act requiring

priority treatment for projects important

for improved air quality and basic

transportation needs, then the measure

may justifiably be delayed. If this does

occur,. another substitute measure may

7183
7184 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 1981 / Rules and Regulations

be needed for replacement to ensure

that NAAQSs are attained (see the

section on contingency plans).

Developing Monitoring and Contingency

Plans for Transportation Measures

The proposed policy included

requirements for developing a

monitoring plan for regularly assessing

the effectiveness of transportation

measures and a contingency plan for

implementing additional transportation

measures if forecasted emission

reductions do not occur. A number of

state and local governments commented

that they do not have sufficient time and

resources to develop monitoring and

contingency plans at the same time that

they are developing the measures to

meet the emission reduction targets for

transportation. Some of those

commenting-interpreted the monitoring

requirements as being primarily for air

quality monitoring. In the fidal policy the monitoring plan

requirements emphasize the use of

methods that rely on surrogate measures

.and on data already being collected for

other purposes. The monitoring plan

need not include additional air quality

monitoring.

The requirements for a contingency'

* plan have been revised to require a

listing only of transportation measures

and projects that, because of their

potentially adverse effect on air quality,

will be delayed while a SIP is being

revised. The projects will be delayed

when the Administrator of EPA finds

that a SIP is inadequate to attain ozone

or carbon monoxide NAAQSs and calls

for a SIP revision under section 110(c} of

the Clean Air Act. EPA has also adopted

the suggestion of a local transportation

planning agency'and is requiring that

the SIP include a description of the

process to be used to develop and

implement additional transportation

control measures when they are

determined necessary.

Establishing Emission Reduction Targets

The proposed policy required state

and local officials to reach agreement on

the emission reductions necessary to

attain NAAQSs, the extent to which the

emission reductions will come from

controls on mobile or stationary sources,

and the responsibilities for

implementation of the measures; Several

comments were received noting the

difficulties in determining emission

reduction targets for meeting the ozone

NAAQS because of the form of the

standard, the characteristics of the

Empirical Kinetic Modeling Approach

(EKMA) model, and the effects of

pollutant transport. Other comments

reflected confusion about where in the

SIP development process the

identification of targets would occur.

An August 1, 1978 EPA policy

memorandum outlined the reasons for

establishing emission reduction targets

through a negotiated process involving

state and local officials from affected

jurisdictions. In the past, emission

reduction targets and responsibilities for

achieving the targets have sometimes

been determined without adequate

intergovernmental consultation. In some

instances, for example, states attempted

to require local agencies to make up

large shortfalls in needed reductions

entirely through transportation -

measures without examining whether

other measures, such as more stringent

emission limitations for stationary

sources, might make up some of the

shortfall.

The final-policy has been revised to

help clarify the intent of the section on

emission reduction targets. The process

for negotiating emission reduction

targets becomes especially important in

those areas where the minimum control

measures described in subsections I.BI.D are not sufficient to attain NAAQSs

and additional measures must be

evaluated and selected. The subsection

on analysis of alternatives has been

revised to indicate that the results of the

evaluation of alternatives should be

used in defining emission reduction

targets. -

Demonstrating Reasonable Further

Progress

The proposed policy included

requirements for demonstrating

reasonable further progress towards

attaining NAAQSs. A substantial

number of comments were received

objecting to the requirement for a

"linear attainment program" represented

graphically by a straight line from base

year to attainment year emissions.

Those commenting noted that many

control measures, particularly those for

vehicle emissions, have long lead times

and-do not have significant effectj

within the first few years after adoption.

Those measures that are implemented

within the early years will generally not

result in a linear rate of emission

reduction.

The final policy has been redrafted to

clarify that the linear attainment

program represents only the upper limit

for annual net emissions from 1980

through the year of attainment. The

measures encompassed by the linear

attainment program include those in

both the 1979 and 1982 submittals.

Although there may be some lag time

before the measures in the 198Z

submittal result in emission reductiois,

reductions should already be occurring

as a result of measures in the 1979

submittal.

The final policy now also reiterates

the reporting requirements included in

the approval criteria for the 1979

submittal and asks that the annual

reasonable further progress reports be

combined with related information

already being submitted on July 1 of

each year.

Ensuring Conformity of Federal Actions

Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act

requires that federal actions conform to

SIPs. The proposed policy indicated that

states should, where possible, identify

the emissions associated with federal

actions planned during the period

covered by the SIP. A number of

comments received on that portion of

the proposed policy requested

clarificatiori of the process for ensuring

conformity and the respective

responsibilities of federal, state, and

local governments. The comments noted

the potentially large number of actions

involved, the associated work load for

state and local governments, and the

lack of available state and local " resources. The comments also included

questions about the methods to be used

for determining conformity.

The final policy outlines the general

responsibilities of federal, state, and

local governments. Further clarification

will be provided in a proposed rule that

EPA intends to issue shortly. Section

176(c) states that the assurance of

conformity of federal actions is the

affirmative responsibility of the head of.

each federal agency. EPA believes that

each federal agency should establish

criteria and procedures for making

conformity determinations and that

state and local governments should have

opportunity to review proposed criteria

and procedures, as well as the

individual conformity determinations

that result from their application. The

proposed rule that EPA is preparing

encourages the use of existing review

processes, such as those required by the

National Environmental Policy Act and

Office of Management and Budget

Circular A-95, to reduce the resources

required for ensuring conformity.

Interim criteria for use in making and

reviewing conformity determinations are

included in an advance notice of

proposed rulemaking published by EPA

on April 1, 1980 (45 FR 21590). Criteria

and procedures for evaluating the direct

and indirect air quality effects of

wastewater treatment facilities funded

under the Clean Water Act are included

in the section 316 policy published on

August 11, 1980 (45 FR 53382].

Identification, during SIP preparation, of

the emissions associated with future
Federal Register I Vol. 46, No. 14 1 Thursday, January 22, 1981 / Rules and Regulations

major federal actions will facilitate state

and local review of conformity

determinations.

Consultation Among State and Local

Officials

Two state environmental agencies

commenting on the proposed policy

thought that the consultation provisions

were generally unclear. A local planning

agency asked that the policy be

supplemented to indicate that the

designations of agency responsibilities

made by governors prior to the 1979 plan

submittals remain in effect. A public

interest group requested that the policy

forbid states from making unilateral

changes in SIP provisions developed by

local governments.

Modifications were made in the

consultation provisions of the final

policy to help clarify apparently

ambiguous points and to indicate that

new section 174 agency designations are

not necessary. Although EPA agrees that

a state should not revise a locally

developed SIP provision without

consulting local officials, EPA believes

that the regulations for implementing •

section 121 of the Clean Air Act already

adequately cover such a situation and

provide opportunity for appeal to EPA if

adequate consultation does not take

place.

Determining Data and Modeling

Requirements

The proposed policy required that

emission inventories should, where

possible, be prepared for a 1980 base

year. The policy also required that base

year and projected year emission

inventories for the ozone portion of the

SIP be seasonally adjusted annual

inventories. The proposal required the

SIP to be based on the most recent three

years of air quality data, generally

including data collected through the

third quarter of 1981. The proposal

recommended use of the city-specific

EKMA model to develop the ozone

portion of the SIP. • Several agencies responsible for

developing emission inventories

commented that agreements had been

reached and work had already begun on

inventories for base years other than

1980. The agencies recommended that

EPA remain flexible in the final policy

and accept inventories for those other

base years, The final policy continues to

allow inventories for base years other

than 1980 to be used.

A number of state and local agencies

questioned the validity of requiring

seasonally adjusted annual inventories

of VOCs. Most of those commenting

recommended that the inventories be

prepared for a typical summer weekday

instead. The final policy requires the o

weekday inventory.

Several agencies indicated in their

comments that their normal processing

time to validate air quality data would

prevent them from using data through

the third quarter of 1981, if the SIP was

to be developed and submitted by July

1982. The final policy encourages the use

of data through the third quarter of 1981,

but allows states to use earlier data. If a

state selects to use earlier data, it still

must present a summary of air quality

data through 1981 in its July 1982

submittal and describe how the data

may affect the SIP.

State and local agencies that had

applied photochemical dispersion

models in their previous SIP

development work commented that they

should be allowed to use these models,

rather than the less sophisticated cityspecific EKMA model, in developing

their 1982 submittals. The final polciy

encourages the use of the photochemical

dispersion models where the agency

developing the SIP has a demonstrated

capability to use such models and

wishes to do so. Use of a model other

than city-specific EKMA or its

equivalent must be approved by EPA.

Final Policy-Criteria for Approval of

The 1982 Plan Revisions

Introduction

In circumstances where a state has

received an extension beyond 1982 for

attaining a NAAQS for ozone or carbon

monoxide, the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1977 [Section 129(c) of

Pub. L. 95-95] require the state to adopt

and submit a SIP revision to the

Administrator of EPA by July 1,1982.

The areas that are affected by this

requirement are listed in Appendix A,.

The purpose of this notice is to outline

the criteria that EPA will use in

evaluating the adequacy of the 1982 SIP

revisions. These criteria fall into four

general categories: (1) Control strategies

and attainment demonstration, (2) SIP

development process, (3) data collection,

and (4) modeling.

The Clean Air Act Amendments of

1977 require all SIPs for the areas that

have received an extension beyond 1982

to demonstrate attainment of the

NAAQSs for ozone and carbon

monoxide as expeditiously as

practicable, but not later than December

31,1987. As a condition for extending

the attainment date, Congress also

required that each SIP contain certain

control provisions covering stationary

sources, vehicle IIM, and transportation

measures. The control provisions must

be included in the SIP for an area where

an extension has been granted,

regardless of the date after December

31,1982 when attainment can be

demonstrated. These minimum

measures and their relationship to the

plan's attainment demonstration are

described in Section L Section I also

discusses the approach that EPA

believes should be followed by those

few large urban areas where air quality

problems are so severe that analyses

may indicate that attainment by 1987 is

not possible.

In addition to including a

demonstration of attainment, the

development of the 1982 SIP must

conform to the process and follow the

procedures required by the Clean Air

Act and described in subsequent EPA

guidance. Section II identifies the major

steps in the SIP development process.

Selected EPA guidance documents for

the SIP process are listed in Appendix B.

Terms used in the transportation-air

quality process are defined in Appendix

C. Also, the air quality and emissions

data bases to be used in developing the

1982 SIP must be updated. The data

requirements for both ozone and carbon

monoxide are explained in Section I.

The data base for the ozone portion of

the SIP must be sufficient to support at

least a Level III modeling analysis. The

requirements for a Level IMI analysis are

summarized in Appendix D.

Finally, Section IV describes the

status of the various air quality models

and alerts states to modeling

requirements. EPA recommends

application of city-specific EKMA or an

equivalent method for developing the

ozone portion of the SIP, unless the

agency preparing the SIP already has

the capability and wants to apply a

more sophisticated level of modeling.

For the carbon monoxide portion, EPA

recommends application of the models

identified in existing EPA guidance.

I. Control Strategiee and Attainment

Demonstration

A. Summary

The Clean Air Act requires the 1982

SIPs to contain a fully adopted,

technically justified program that adopts

and commits to implement groups of

control measures that will result in

attainment of the ozone and carbon

monoxide NAAQSs no later than 1987

and that will provide reasonable further

progress in the interim. All plans must

contain the three categories of minimum

control measures described in this

section. If these minimum control

measures are not adequate to show

attainment by 1987, additional measures

which can be implemented by 1987 must

be identified and adopted. If all

measures which can be implemented by

7185
7186 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 1981 / Rules and Regulations

1987 are not adequate to demonstrate

attainment by 1987, additional measures

which can be implemented after 1987

must be identified and adopted and

attainment must be demonstrated by the

earliest possible date. the date of

attainment must be specified in all SIPs.

In order to ensure equity among the

areas unable to demonstrate attainment

by 1987, EPA intends to evaluate all SPs

submitted in July 1982 for the

effectiveness of measures applied in all

areas. Should EPA find that any of the

areas not demonstrating attainment by

1987 have failed to adopt the most

effective measures available, EPA will

compile a list of such controls and

require these areas to revise their SIPs

to include the more effective control

measures.

Subsections B-D describe in detail the

minimum control measures which must

be contained in each plan submitted in

July 1982. The state must demonstrate

that adoption and implementation of

these elements will result in the

attainment of the ozone and carbon

monoxide standards by the most

expeditious date possible. Control

measures must be adopted in legally

enforceable form. The SIP submittal

must include implementation schedules

and commitments. Subsections E and F

describe reasonable further progress

and attainment demonstration

requirements. Subsection G describes

the conformity of federal actions

requirement.

B. Stationary Sources

Section 172(b) of the Clean Air Act

requires states to implement all

reasonably available control measures

as expeditiously as practicable and, in

the interim, maintain reasonable further

progress, including such reduction in

emissions from existing sources as may

be obtained through the adoption, at a

minimum, of RACT. In order to complete

the requirement to adopt all reasonably

available control measures, states must

include as part of the 1982 submittal,

adopted regulations applying RACT to

the following categories of sources: (1)

All sources of VOCs covered by a CTG,

(2) all remaining major (emitting more

than 100 tons per year potential

emissions as defined under section

302(j) of the Clean Air Act) stationary

sources of VOCs, and (3] all sources of

carbon monoxide emitting more than

1,000 tons per year potential emissions. . The guidelines for the 1979 ozone

submittals permitted states to defer the

adoption of regulations until the CTG for

a source category was published. This

delay allowed the states to make more

technically sound decisions regarding

the application of RACT. EPA

anticipates issuing a number of

additional CTGs in 1981 for various

source categories of VOCs. These

documents, in conjunction with the

previously issued CTGs, will address

most of the major source categories

which are of national imbortance.

Legally enforceable measures

implementing RACT for all sources

addressed by these documents must be

included in the July 1982 submittal.

There will remain numerous other

major sources of VOCs that may be of

local importance for which a CTG will

not be available. For the major sources

for which a CTG'does not apply, a state

must determine whether additional

controls representing RACT are

available. EPA will require the submittal

to include either legally enforceable

measures implementing RACT on these

sources or documentation supporting a

determination by the state that the

existing level of control represents

RACT for each of these sources.

If application of RACT to all sources

covered by a CTG and all other major

sources, together with implementation of

a vehicle I/M program and

transportation controls, does not result

in attainment of the ozone standards by

1987, then additional stationary source

controls must be adopted by the state.

C. Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance

All major urban areas needing an

extension beyond 1982 for attainment of

a standard for ozone or carbon

monoxide were required to include

vehicle I/M as an element of the 1979

SIP revision. States were required at

that time to submit oily evidence of

adequate legal authority, a commitment

to implement and enforce a program

that will reduce hydrocarbon and

carbon monoxide exhaust emissions

from light duty vehicles in 1987 by 25

percent, and a schedule for

implementation. Full implementation of

that program, in accordance with EPA's

established I/M policy, is required in all

cases by December 31, 1982.

States with areas that have I/M

programs under development or

operational as part of their 1979 SIP

revisions were required to submit only

qualitative descriptions of their I/M

program elements in the 1979 SIP

submittal. The documentation discussed

below must be submitted by July 1982, if

not previously submitted as evidence of

compliance with the 1979

implementation schedule. The 1982 SIP

revision must include rules and

regulations and all other I/M elements

which could affect the ability of the I/M

program to achieve the minimum

emission reduction requirements. More

specifically, the 1982 submittal must

include: (1) Inspection test procedures;

(2) emission standards; (3) inspection

station licensing requirements; (4)

emission analyzer specification and

maintenance/calibration requirements;

(5) recordkeeping and record submittal

requirements; (6) quality control, audit,

and surveillance procedures; (7)

procedures to assure that noncomplying

vehicles are not operated on the pubic

roads; (8) any other official program

rules, regulations, and procedures; (9) a

public awareness plan; and (10] a

mechanics training program if additional

emission reduction credits are being

claimed for mechanics training.

As part of the 1982 SIP review

process, EPA will determine the overall

adequacy of the critical elements of

each I/M program and, therefore, the

approvability of the 1982 SIP by

comparing those elements to established

I/M policy. I/M program elements must

-be consistent with EPA policy or a

demonstration must be made that the

program elements are equivalent.

State or local governments that have

I/M programs, but plan to increase the

coverage and/or stringency of the

programs in order to achieve greater

reductions, must submit the progam

modifications in legally enforceable

form through the 1982 SIP revision

process.

If a state wisies to submit all or part " of the I/M elements required for the 1982

SIP revision before July 1982, with or

without other portions of the 1982 SIP

revision, EPA will review and evaluate

the submittal and take appropriate

action as expeditiously as practicable.

In the case of a partial submittal, EPA's

action ;ill be" limited to the available

program elements. Final action on the

total I/M program must be reserved

until all elements are submitted and

reviewed in order to assure that the

program satisfies the provisions in Part

D of the Clean Air Act.

If a state is implementing an I/M

program on an approved schedule which

extends beyond July 1,1982, and the

state is unable to finalize some of the

critical elements of its I/M program in

time to include them in the 1982 SIP

revision, the state may submit those

elements at a later date. This later date

must, however, be identified and

justified by the state in its 1982 SIP

revision and be consistent with the I/M

implementation schedule in its 1§79 SIP

submittal. In such cases EPA will r~view

the available program elements and, if

adequate, conditionally approve the

I/M program on the submittal (by the

designated date) and approval of the

outstanding elements.
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 14 1 Thursday, January 22, 1981 1 Rules and Regulations

D. Transportation Measures

The portion of the 1982 SIP addressing

emission reductions to be achieved

through the implementation of

transportation measures must include

the basic provisions listed below.

Further guidance will be issued, as

necessary, to describe these

requirements in greater detail.

1. An updated emission reduction

target for the transportation sector. As

dipcussed below, the target must be

determined by consultation among state

and local officials using the procedures

established under sections 121 and 174

of the Act.

2. All reasonably available

transportation measures and packages

of measures necessary for the

expeditious attainment of the

transportation emission reduction target.

Categories of reasonably available

transportation measures are identified

in section 108(ff of the Act. The

submittal should present documentation.

based on technical analysis, of the basis

for not implementing any of the

measures Identified in this section. The

1982 SIP submittal must contain

transportation emission reduction

estimates for adopted measures and -

packages of measures for each year

between 1982 and the attainment date.

Any reasonably available transportation

measures that have been adopted

between the submission of the 1979

revision and the preparation of the 1982

revision should be included in the 1982

submittal along with the associated

emission reductions.

3. Commitments, schedules of key

milestones, and, where appropriate,

evidence of legalauthority for

implementation. operation, and

enforcement of adopted reasonably

available transportation measures.

Costs and funding sources for planning,

implementing, operating, and enforcing

adopted measures must be determined

for all measures. Tasks and

responsibilities of state and local

agencies and elected officials in carrying

out required programming.

implementation, operation, and

enforcement activities associated with

adopted transportation measures must

be identified. The 1982 submittal must

also include documentation that state

and local governments are continuing to

meet the schedules and commitments for

the transportation measures included in

the 1979 SIP.

4. Comprehensive public

transportation measures to meet basic

transportation needs. The measures

must be accompanied by an

identification and commitment to use, to

the extent necessary, federal, state, and

local funds to implement the necessary

improvements. Commitments and

schedules for the implementation of

these measures must also be submitted.

5. A description of public participation

and elected official consultation

activities during development of the

transportation measures.

6. A monitoring plan for periodically

assessing success or failure of

transportation measures or packages of

measures in meeting emission reduction

projections. The plan should contain

methods for determining the reasons for

success or failure.

7. Administrative and technical

procedures and agency responsibilities

for ensuring, in response to section

176(c) of the Clean Air Act, that

transportation plans, programs, and

projects approved by a metropolitan

planning organization (MPO) are in

conformance with the SIP.

8. A two-part contingency provision.

the first part is applicable to only those

areas with populations of 200,000 or

more. These areas must submit as part

of the SIP a list of planned

transportation measures and projects

that may adversely affect air quality and

that will be delayed, while the SIP is

being revised, if expected emission

reductions or air quality improvements

do not occur. The second part, which

must be submitted by all areas

preparing 1982 SIP revisions, consists of

a description of the process that will be

used to determine and inplement

additional transportation measures

beneficial to air quality that will

compensate for the unanticipated

shortfalls in emission reductions. The

contingency provision must be initiated

when the EPA Administrator determines

that a SIP is inadequate to attain

NAAQSs and that additional emission

reductions are needed.

The Administrator's February 24,1978

memorandum. "Criteria for Approval of

1979 SIP Revisions," and the October

1978 SIP Transportation Checklist

identified the elements necessary for the

transportation portion of the 1979 SIP,

The provisions listed above supplement the elements described in the earlier

guidance.

The guidance for 1979 placed primary

emphasis on the establishments of a

continuing air quality-transportation

planning process. This continuing

planning process must be used in

developing the transportation portion of

the 1982 SIP revision. The process is

described in the June 1978 EPADepartment of Transportation (DOT)

Transportation-Air Quality Planning

Guidelines and the May 1,1980 EPADOT Expanded Guidelines for Public

Participation. Where the process for an

area has changed from that described in

the 1979 submittal. an updated

description. including key planning,

programming, and funding decision

points, should be submitted in 1982.

Solutions to carbon monoxide

problems can be found through

metropolitan-wide planning, as well as

through analyses of relatively small

("hotspot") problem areas. Evidence of

specific carbon monoxide problem areas

is derived from modeling and monitoring

information. Although the geographic

area that is nonattainment for carbon

monoxide may be small, the measures

necessary to meet standards may have

to be applied over a larger area. It is

essential to guard against selecting

measures that will solve the carbon

monoxide problem in a small geographic

area, but that will worsen the ozone

problem or simply transfer the carbon

monoxide problem to another area.

E. Reasonable Further Progress

The July 1982 submittal must

demonstrate that reasonable further

progress toward attainment of the ozone and carbon monoxide standards will

continue to be made and reported

throughout the period of nonattainment.

The annual emission reductions must at

least equal the emission reductions that

would be achieved through a linear

attainment program. As described in the

criteria for approval of the 1979 SIP

submittal, this program is represented

graphically by a straight line drawn

from the emissions inventory for the

base year of the 1979 submittal to the

allowable emissions on the attainment

date. Compliance with the reasonable

further progress requirement does not

authorize delays in implementation or

adoption of any measures. All controls

must be implemented as expeditiously

as practicable.

The demonstration of reasonable

further progress must indicate the total

amount of the annual reduction in

emissions and must distinguish between

those reductions projected to result from

mobile source and stationary source

measures. The projected reductions to

be achieved from these source

categories must be consistent with the

emission reduction targest established

through the consultation process

involving state and local officials.

The criteria for approval of the 1979

submittal recognized that there would

be a lag in the early years in achieving

reasonable further progress because

most measures would not achieve

immediate reductions. By 1982. however,

a significant number of the stationary

source controls and transportation

measures included in the 1979 submittal

will be implemented, as will the vehicle

7187
7188 Federal Register-/ VoL 46, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 1981 / Rules and Regulations

emission I/M program. Emission

reductions will also continue to result

from the control systems required by the

Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program

for new vehicles. Accordingly, each plan

must demonstrate for each year until

attainment is achieved that the annual

net emissions fall on or below the point

representing that year on the straight

line. No lag period will be-allowed in

1982 and later years.

The criteria for approving the 1979 SIP

submittals included a requirement for

annual reporting of reasonable further

progress. The information demonstrating

reasonable further progress shall be

submitted along with the source

emissions and annual state action report

required by July 1 of each year (40 CFR

51.321-51.328).

F. Additional Control Measures

Required for Attainment

If the minimum control measures

described in subsections B-D are not

adequate to demonstrate attainment by

1987, the state must identify, evaluate,

and adopt additional measures which

can be implemented as quickly as

possible, but no later than 1987.

Examples of such measures include the

following: (1) Requiring control of all major

stationary sources to levels more

stringent than those generally regarded.

as RACT,

(2) Extending controls to stationary

sources and scource categories other

than those subject to the minimum

control measures described in

subsection B,

(3) Implementing a broader range of

transportation controls (e.g., extending

the geographic coverage of some

measures or providing more intensive

implementation), and

(4) Increasing the coverage and

stringency of the vehicle emission I/M

program.

If implementation of all measures

which can be implemented by 1987 will

still not demonstrate attainment by 1987,

the state should then analyze the

transportation and other measures

possible in a longer time frame that,

together with the measures already

evaluated, will result in attainment as

quickly as possible after 1987. The

specific date for attainment shall be

included in the SIP. State and local

governments must commit to

implementation of such measures.

Given the additional time and

potential resources available to areas

with a post-1987 attainment date, more

extensive evidence will be required to

demonstrate that any of the measures

identified in section 108(f) of the Clean

Air Act is not reasonably available.

Many transportation measures which

cannot be implemented by 1987 can, - because of the additional time and

resources available, be implemented by

a post-1987 attainment date. The 108(f)

measures ultimately selected should,

both individually and collectively, be at

least as ambitious-as applications of

these measures in other comparable

areas. EPA, in consultation with the

DOT, will act as a clearinghouse in

identifying ambitious performance

levels for specific measures.

The 1982 SIP revision to achieve a

post-1987 emission reduction target must

include a convincing demonstration that

the target cannot be achieved by 1987

and, that the post-1987 date is the most

expeditious date possible. The

demonstration must identify the

-minimum times needed for planning,

programming, and implementation of

adopted transportation and stationary

source control measures and must

demonstrate that all possible measures

will be implemented prior to 1987. In

addition, the demonstration must show

that projected resources from available

sources (federal, state, and local) are

insufficient for faster implementation of

the measures.

EPA will use the technical evaluatiofn

prepared by a state to assess whether

areas are making all efforts possible to

attain the ozone and carbon monoxide

standards by 1987. If an area is unable

to attain the ozone and carbon

monoxide NAAQSs by 1987, then the

"most expeditious date beyond 1987"

must be agreed to by state and local

agencies. The transportation and

stationary source control measures

necessary for demonstrating attainment

by the most expeditious date must be

adopted as part of the 1982 SIP

submitted to EPA.

EPA believes that an approach which

requires a state to'demonstrate

attainment by a certain date using

measures it is committed td implement

is more in keeping with the spirit of the

Clean Air Act than 'an approach which

would accept "paper" demonstrations of

attainment by 1987 which relied on

measures which would be virtually

impossible to implement. EPA will not

approve a plan which relies on such

unimplementable measures to

demonstrate attainment, when it is clear

that the state is not committed to

implement and enforce those aspects of

the plan.

EPA will review plans with post-1987

attainment dates in accordance with the

requirements of the Clean Air Act. If

EPA concludes that the current

provisions of the Act do not allow

approval of a SIP that provides for

expeditious attainment of standards

after 1987, EPA intends to seek

legislative changes that will allow such

an approval. The nature of any

legislative change that the Agency may

request will be based on a careful

evaluation of the status of state efforts

to develop plans which attain the

standards on or before 1987. One option

for legislative change that EPA will

consider recommending would provide

area-specific schedules and control

requirements for each of the areas that

cannot demonstrate attainment by 1987.

G. Conformity of Federal Actions

Section 176(g) of the Clean Air Act

* requires all federal projects, licenses,

permits, financial assistance and other

activities to conform to SIPs. Assurance

of conformity is an affirmative

responsibility of the head of each

federal agency. In addition, section

316(b) requires that the direct and

indirect emissions associated with any

wastewater treatment facility funded

under the Clean Water Act be

accommodated in the SIP. In preparing

the 1982 SIP revision, states and local

governments should identify, to the

extent possible, the direct and indirect

emissions associated With major federal

actions, including wastewater treatment

facility grants, that will take place

during the period covered by the SIP.

Explicit identification of emissions will

enable state and local governments to

more quickly and easily evaluate

subsequent federal conformity

determinations. To assist in determining

conformity, the population projections

on which the 1982 SIP revision is based

should be capable of being

disaggregated at the time of project

analysis so that the areas affected by

individual federal actions not explicitly

accounted for in the SIP can be

identified.

II. SIP Development Process

The Clean Air Act, as amended in

1977, and subsequent regulations,

policies and guidance from EPA have

defined specific procedural

requirements for developing SIP

revisions for nonattainment areas.

Appendix B includes a list of selected

guidance documents that should be used

in the preparation of the 1982 SIP. EPA

regional offices will work with states

and affected local governments during

the preparation of the SIP to help ensure

that procedural requirements are

satisfied and that interim products and

activities are completed on a schedule

that will enable the July 1, 1982

submittal deadline to be met.

- I
Federal Register I VoL 46, No. 14 1 Thursday, January 22, 1981 I Rules and Regulations

A. Consultation Among State and Local

Officials

Section 121 of the Clean Air Act

requires each state to provide a process

for consultation with local governments, organizations of local elected officials,

and federal land managers during

certain actions under the Act, including

preparation of SIP revisions for

nonattainment areas. Section 174 of the

Act requires a joint determination by

state and local officials of the roles that

various governmental agencies will take

in the SIP development, implementation,

and enforcement process. Section 174

also requires the governor of each state

to designate the agency or agencies

responsible for SIP development. The

designation made by the governor for

the 1979 SIP submittal remains in effect,

unless the governor designates a new

agency. The joint determination of

responsibilities and any revised agency designations should be completed early

in the process and must be submitted as

a part of the 1982 SIP revision. Final

regulations on section 174 and 121 (40

CFR Part 51, [Subpart M) were

published on June 18, 1979 (44 FR 35176).

B. Establishment of Emission Reduction

Targets

The control strategy for the 1982 SIP

must reflect agreement among affected

state and local 6fficials on the emission

reductions needed to attain NAAQSs. It

is particularly important that the

emission reduction targets established

for stationary and mobile sources be

determined through a process of

negotiation among state and local

officials of affected jurisdictions. In

most cases, the initial emission

reduction targets will be established

soon after the technical evaluation of

reasonably available stationary and

mobile source control measures. Targets

may have to be revised as additional

information becomes available during

SIP development. Revised targets should

also be determined through consultation

among state and local officials.

C. Analysis of Alternatives and Their

Effects

In order for decision-makers and the

public to have adequate information

during development of SIPs requiring

measures beyond the minimumdescribed in subsections I.B-I.D,

alternative control strategies should be

developed and analyzed. For example,

where a vehicle I/M program and RACT

applied to all major stationary sources

will not be sufficient, in combination

with reasonably available

transportation measures, to attain

standards, a range of more stringent

stationary and mobile source controls

should be evaluated to determine the

best combination to achieve the

required emission reductions. This

evaluation should be used in

determining the emission reduction

targets described in the previous

subsection. Examples of these more

stringent controls are listed in

subsection LF.

The Clean Air Act requires that SIP

submittals include an analysis of air

quality, health, welfare, economic,

energy, and social effects of the SIP and

of the alternative measures considered

during SIP development. EPA believes

that, in assessing the effects of

alternative control measures, two

national concerns should receive special

emphasis. These concerns are (1)

conservation of petroleum and natural

gas, and (2) protection of the economies

of declining urban areas. Additional

emphasis on the effects of SIPs on

energy conservation and economies of

distressed urban areas will implement

the intent of Executive Order 12185,

Conservation of Petroleum and Natural

Gas (45 FR 8537, February 7,1980), and

the National Urban Policy.

1. Air Quality and Emission Data

Bases

The requirements for the 1979 SIP

submittal included use of the best data

available at the time of SIP

development. Although states generally

complied with this provision, in many

cases the available data base had many shortcomings. All states will have had

adequate time by 1982 to have an

updated data base.

States will need to have the data

necessary for SIP development

significantly before the July 1,1982

submittal date. To ensure that this effort

receives appropriate priority and

attention, EPA expects states to

complete data collection, analyses, and

documentation by December 31,1981.

This requirement in no way relieves a

state from any prior commitments to

have such data available at an earlier

date.

Emission inventories should, where

possible, be prepared for a 1980 base

year and projected to a date that will, at

a minimum, include the anticipated year

of attainment. Population projections

and other forecasts used for determining

growth rates and areawide emission

estimates must be consistent with

population projections developed in

accordance with the EPA's costeffectiveness guidelines for wastewater

treatment facilities (40 CFR Part 35,

Supart E, Appendix A.

The most recent three years of air

quality data from the state and local air

monitoring system network must be

reduced, validated, and summarized in

the plan submiffal. Generally, this will

include all data collected through the

third quarter of 1981. All data from

special studies implemented to support

the modeling effort must also be

compiled, reduced, and documented. If a

state cannot reduce, evaluate, and

validate data through the third quarter

of 1981 in sufficient time to develop the

SIP revision and still meet

intergovernmental consultation, public

participation, and other requirements,

the state shall present the data in the

SIP submittal and describe how the data

may effect the plan.

A. Data for Ozone SIP Revisions

EPA previously described the

minimum data that the Agency

anticipated would be necessary to

prepare an ozone modeling effort for

four levels of analyses (44 FR 65667,

November 14. 1979). It now appears,

however, that many of the areas

requiring the more sophisticated levels

of modeling will not be able to complete

the more extensive data base collection

efforts required for these models in time

to support the 1982 SIP submittal.

Accordingly, every urban area must

complete a data base sufficient tosupport at least a Level III (city-specific

EKMA) modeling analysis. The elements

of this data base are summarized in

Appendix D.

EPA anticipates that states with

especially severe ozone problems will

need to apply a photochemical

dispersion model or an equivalent

technique in subsequent modeling

analyses after 1982. Data collection

efforts should be structured to provide

for this contingency.

In order to ensure that all the data

bases will be compatible and that there

is a consistent level of documentation

and quality assurance, state submittals

of environmental data must be

consistent in format and content with

the EPA guideline document, Emission

InventoryRequirements for 1982 Ozone

SIP&

B. Data for Carbon Monoxide SIP

revisions

The emission inventory for carbon

monoxide must be of sufficient accuracy

and detail to provide the necessary

input to models, and to determine the

effectiveness of proposed control

measures. The inventory should

normally represent a typical weekday

during the worst carbon monoxide

season and should cover the entire

urban area. More detailed inventories

for smaller hotspot areas may be needed

for analyzing specifically identified

i

7:189
7190 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 1981 1 Rules and Regulations

problems. In developing carbon

monoxide emission inventories states

may, if they desire, limit the

identification of stationary sources to

those with potential emissions of 1000

tons per year. The final acceptability of

the inventory developed will be

dependent on the modeling approach

selected and will be judged on a caseby-case basis.

IV. Modeling

States will need to apply the best

tools available in their 1982 SIP

submittal. The air quality models that

EPA considers acceptable are identified

below.

A. Ozone Models

Photochemical dispersion models

have the greatest potential for

evaluating the effectiveness of ozone

control strategies. This potential arises

primarily from the ability to relate

emissions directly to ambient ozone

concentrations, taking into account

atmospheric chemistry and dispersion.

In most cases, however, data

requirements associated with applying

these models by 1982 are prohibitive. Of

the generally available, less data

intensive models, only the various

applications of EKMA consider local

meteorological influences and

atmospheric chemistry in evaluating

control requirements. The city-specific

EKMA approach is the most promising

for 1982 and EPA recommends its use. If

the agency preparing the SIP already

has the capability to apply a more

sophisticated level of modeling and

wants to do so, EPA encourages such

applications. The use of a modeling

approach other than city-specific EKMA

must be approved by EPA prior to a

commitment by the state to its use. EPA

is currently finalizing the guideline on

the use of city-specific EKMA; the

guideline should be available by March

1981.

The inability of other simpler models

to adequately consider chemical kinetics

and meteorological parameters reduces

their ability to represent local situations.

Accordingly, EPA will not consider

plans based on linear or proportional

rollback to provide an adequate

demonstration of attainment. EPA is

publishing a proposal in today's Federal

Register to modify 40 CFR 51.14 by

deleting the provision allowing the use

of rollback as an acceptable modeling

technique. A state that used rollback in

the SIP revision submittal in 1979 to

demonstrate attainment by 1982 will not

be required to revise the analysis on

which its SIP is based, unless EPA

determines the SIP to be deficient for

attaining the ozone NAAQS. Upon such

a determination, the state will be

required to meet the provisions of this

policy including adoption of the

minimum control measures, as well as

the modeling requirements.

B. Carbon Monoxide Models

States and urban areas must estimate

the impact of local and regional control

strategies on carbon monoxide

nonattainment areas and demonstrate

attainment of the carbon monoxide

standard. The generally available

carbon monoxide models are described

in Guideline on Air Quality Models,

April 1978, EPA 450/2-78-027. These

guidelines, and any subsequent updates,

should be followed in preparing a

carbon monoxide attainment analysis.

The dcceptability of models other than

those listed in the guideline will be

evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Other models proposed for use must be

adequately documented and validated.

Dated: January 13,1981.

Douglas M. Costle,

Administrator.

Appendix A-Extension Areas

Table 1.-Areas Requesing an Extension

Beyond 1982 for A taining the Ozone Standard

EPA

region State' Metropolitan area

I----. Connectict ...... .._ Statewide.

Massachusetts..... Statewide.

Rhode Island........ Statewide.

New Jersey_........... Statewide.

New York ... . New York City. I1. .. . Delaware.'....... . WilmingtonDistrict of Columbia .._ Washington.

Maryland .......... Baltimore.

Washingon.

Pennsylvania---- Allentown,

Philadelphia,

Pittsburgh,

Scrantonaruakes.

Barre.

Virginia. ............ Richmond,

Washington.

IV..-.....*. Kentucky _............ Cincinnatl, Louisville.

Tennessee_............. Nashville.

V. . Itinols.......... Chicago. St Louis.

Ind'.ia.. ...... Chicago, Louisville.

Mlchlgan...... Detroit

Ohio .. . Cincinnati, Cleveland.

Wisconsin.......... Milwaukee.

V) = Texas...... Houston.

VII.... Missour....... St. Louis.

Vill - Colorado_...... Denver.

Utah._. __ Sat Lake City.

... . California......... - Fresno,' Sacramento,

San Diego, San

Francisco Bay Area

Basin, South Coast

Basin,'VenturaOxnard.'

X_ _.... Oregon....... Portland.

Waaslnglon........ Portland. Seattle.

2 San Joaquin Valley Nonattainment Area.

2 South Central Coast Nonattafriment Area.

Table 2.-Areas Requesing an Extension Beyond 1982 for Attaining the Carbon Monoxide Standard

EPA State MetropoT.ian area region

I ....... Connectcut._. Bridgeport Hartford,

New Haven.

Massachusetts_.... Boston, Springie,

Worcester.

New Hampshtre_ Manchester Nashua.

II......... New Jersey-.... Atlantic City Burlingto CamsdaN,

Elizabeth, Freehold.

Hackenasck, 4erey

City, orrlstovm.

Newark. Paterson,

Penns Grove, Perth

Amboy. SomervIe,

Toms River,

Trenton. New York _ _ _ New York City.

III ... District of Columbia - Washington.

Maryland ._ Baltimore,

Washington.

Pennsylvanal.. . Pittsburgh,

Philadelphi.

Kentucky. ... . L e. North Carolina - Charlotte.

Tennessee _ Nashville, Memphs.

V..... Illinois... Chicago.

Ohio _ __,-. Cindnnat. Cleveland.

Michlsn............... Detroit.

Wisconsin - Milwaukee.

VI........ . New Mexdco. Albuquerque. VlI .... Missouri . ... St Louis.

Vill . Colorado. Denver, Colorado

Springs, Fort

Collins, Greely.

Utah ... ..... Salt Lake City.

IX _ Arizona.-......... Phoeni.

California - Fresno, Lake Tahoe,

Sacramento, San

D;ogo, San

Francisco Bay Area

Basim South Coast

SBakL

Nevada...... Las Vegas.

X .... Oregon........................... Eugene, Medford,

Portand.

Washington._ -. Seattle, Tacoma.

Idaho............. Boise.

Appendix B-Selected EPA Guidance for SIP

Development

The following list identifies selected EPA

guidance for SIP development. A compilation

of major EPA guidance for SIP development

is included in the "Air Programs Policy and

Guidance Notebook," which is distributed to

state and local agencies. Copies of the ' notebook are available for copying at the

EPA Public Information Reference Unit in

Washington, D.C. and at each EPA regional

office.

1. Criteria for Approval of 1979 SIP

Revisions, memorandum from Douglas M.

Costle, Administrator of EPA to Regional

Administrators, Regions I-X, February 24,

1978 (43 FR 21673).

2. Memorandum of Understanding

Between DOT and EPA Regarding the

Ifitegration of Transportation and Air Quality

Planning, June 1978.

3. EPA-DOT Transportation-Air Quality

Planning Guidelines, June 1978.

4. Inspection/Mantenance Policy,'

memorandum from David G. Hawkins to

Regional Administrators, Regions I-X, July

17,1978.

5. Determination of Emission Reduction

Responsibilities, memorandum from David G.

Hawkins to Regional Administrators, August

1,1978.
1r, ,n.nl1 kh. r / VnL 4B No. 14 1 Thursday. January 22, 1981 1 Rules and Regulations 79

. General Preamble for Proposed

Rulemaking, April 4,1979 (44 FR 20372). The

General Preamble was amended on the

following dates: April 30,1979 (44 FR 25243);

July 2,1979 (44 FR 38583); August 28,1979 (44

FR 50371); September 17,1979 (44 FR 53161);

and November 23,1979 (44 FR 67182].

7. 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart M--

Intergovernmental Consultation, June 18, 1979

(44 FR 35176)

8. EPA-DOT Expanded Public

Participation Guidelines, May 1,1980 (45 FR

42032).

9. DOT-EPA Procedures for Conformance

of Transportation Plans, Programs and

Projects with Clean Air Act State

Implementation Plans, June 12,1980.

10. Policy and Procedures to Implement

Section 316 of the Clean Air Act, as

Amended, memorandum from Douglas M.

Costle to Regional Administrators, Regions

I-X July 23,1980, [45 FR 53382].

Appendix C-Description of Terms Used in

the Transportation-Air Quality SIP

Development Process

Adopted Measures

A transportation measure, program, or

policy that state and local planning and

implementing agencies and governments

have agreed to include in the official SIP

submission.

Planning Process

The process defined in the September 17,

1975 Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA)-Urban Mass Transportation

Administration (UMTA) regulations, the June

1978 EPA-DOT Transportation-Air Quality

Planning Guidelines, and the May 1, 1980

EPA-DOT Expanded Public Participation

Guidelines. Through this process

transportation measures are introduced,

evaluated, placed in the Transportation

Systems Management [TSM) or long range

element of the urban transportation plan, and

advanced to the Transportation Improvement

Program (TIP] and the annual element of the

TIP.

Programming Process

The process by which transportation

measures are advanced from the annual

element of the TIP to the capital programs

and budgets of implementing agencies and

then to funding by state and local

governments, FHWA (through the statewide

105 program), or UMTA (through the section 3

and 5 programs).

Fypeditious Attainment Date

The attainment date approved in the 1979

SIP submission. This date may be modified if

the analysis of alternatives done as part of

the development of the 1982 SIP submittal

shows that an earlier date is possible through

expeditious implementation of all reasonably

available control measures or that a later

date is necessary because the approved

attainment date cannot be achieved.

Reasonably Available Transportation

Measures

A measure that has been determined to be

beneficial to air quality and which will not

result in substantial and long-term adverse

impacts. These measures need to be adopted

by the affected state and local officials

participating in the planning and

programming processes. The process of

determining reasonably available

transportation measures Is analytical.

participatory, and negotiatory, and involves

the public, as well as local, state, and federal

agencies and officials. The analytic part of

the process includes determinations of

technical and economic feasibility.

Expeditious Implementation of Reasonably

Available Transportation Measures

Implementation by the earliest possible

date considering.

1. The minimum time required to advance

the measure through planning and

programming processes.

2. The minimum time required to obtain

implementation commitments.

3. The minimum time required to construct

(if needed) and begin operation of the

measures.

Implementation Commitments

Certification (may be by reference to

budgets or other legally adopted documents]

by federal, state, and local agencies with the

authority to implement SIP measures that (1)

funds to implement the measure are obligated

and 12) all necessary approvals have been

obtained. Identification by the implementing

agency of the scheduled dates for start of

construction (if appropriate] and for start of

operation.

If a project has not reached the stage of

receiving budget approval, then the

implementation commitment should be in the

form of a schedule that lists the projected

dates for completing the major steps required

to advance the measure through the

remaining planning and programming

processes. The schedule should also contain

an identification of the responsible agencies

that must take significant actions to

implement the measure. Actions by many agencies and elected

officials are usually iequired before a

transportation project is implemented. The

SIP should list the important actions, the

agencies or officials required to take each

action, and a schedule that will lead to

implementation.

The lead planning agency is usually

charged with obtaining the various

commitments. This requires:

1. Identifying all remaining actions and the

agency or official responsible for each action.

2. Consulting with each agency or official

to establish the date by when the action will

be taken.

The product of these efforts should be

submitted in the SIP in a form similar to the

following example.

Example

The MPO for an urban area has adopted

for inclusion in the SIP a busway that will

connect a suburban residential area with the

central business district. Operation of the

busway will require the purchase of 25 new

buses. Corridor location studies have been

completed and final design is underway. The

provision in the 1982 SIP submittal should

include an approximate schedule similar to

-R..!.tPr / Vol 46, N u I Thursday. January 22. 1981 / Miles and Regulations

that outlined below for completion of the

project:

1. MPO places project in annual element of

the SIP; each funding agency prepares budget

requests for necessary fnds-Complete.

2. Transit operating agency adopts project

as part of capital program-Complete.

3. Transit operating agency or appropriate

project sponsor solicits approval of local

government share of project costs from the

city and county councils-Fall 1982.

4. Transit operating agency submits project

application to state department of

transportation-Winter 1982.

5. State department of transportation

requests state legislature to appropriate state

share of matching funds-Spring 1983.

6. Transit operating agency submits a grant

application to UMTA (submittal occurs if the

funding match has been approved; if the

project is delayed at this point, contingency

provisions will be adopted)-Summer 1983.

(Checkpoint: project receives approval

from IJMTA]-Spring 19B4.

7. Transit operating agency places order for

new buses-Spring 1984.

S. State department of transportation starts

construction contract for busway-Winter

1985.

9. Agreement with state and local

enforcement authorities is signed-Spring

1986.

(Checkpoint: Buses delivered and

construction completed}-Summer 1986.

10. Transit operating agency initiates

operation-Summer 1986.

Justification for not Adopting a Section 108f)

Measure

Justification should include:

1. Documentation of air quality, health,

welfare, economic, energy, social and

mobility effects of the measure, as

appropriate for the type of measure and the

scale of application.

2. Documentation that the measure was

considered in a process that involved the

public and state and local officials.

3. Determination that implementation of the

measure results in substantial and long-term

adverse impacts.

4. Demonstration that the air quality

standards can be expeditiously attained

without the measure.

Monitoring Plan

The monitoring plan to be contained in the

1982 SIP should be designed for periodically

assessing the extent to which transportation

measures, either individually or packaged,

are resulting in projected emission reductions

and the reasons for any shortfalls in

reductions. The monitoring plan need not

cover air quality monitoring. The plan should

contain methods for determining the reasons

for success or failure of the emission

reduction achievements of the transportation

measures contained in the 1982 SIP. The

monitoring plan should depend upon existing

data, regularly collected data, surrogate

emission indicators (such as the number of

auto trips, trip speeds, etc.] and

approximation techniques. Collection of new

data should be minimized.

7191
7192 Federal Register / Vol'. 46, No. 14 ,/Thursday, January 22, '1981 / Rules and Regulations

Contingency Plan

The contingency provision is needed in the

event that EPA calls for a SP revision based on its determination that the reasonable

further progress schedule is not being met

The contingency provision contains two

parts. The first part is only for areas over 200,000 population. For these areas, the

contingency provision should include a locally developed list of projects which

implementing agencies have agreed can be

delayed during an interim period while the

SIP is being revised. The second part of the

contingency provision is a description of a process for determining additional

transportation measures beneficial to air

quality that can be implemented to

compensate for unanticipated shortfalls in

emission reductions or can be accelerated to

replace adopted measures that are not

proceeding on schedule. This second part of

the contingency provision should be included

in every 1982 SIP submittal.

Appendix D-Summary of Minimum Level Il

Data Requirements for 1982 Ozone Modeling

Submittals

A. Emission Data Requirements

1. Spatial Resolution. County-wide

emission inventories for VOCs and nitrogen

oxides (NO1] are needed for a Level IMI

analysis.

2. Temporal Resolution. Typical summer weekday emission estimates are required as part of the Level M data submittal.

Preparation of these estimates is described in

the guideline,.Em'ssion Inventory

Requirements for the 1982 Ozone SIPs.

3. VOC Categories. Classification into

reactive species of VOCs is not required for a Level III analysis. 4. Source Category Delineation. It is

necessary to separate the emissions

estimates according to major source categories such as is described in the

guideline, Emission InventoryRequlrements

for the 1982 Ozone SIs. This disaggregation

of estimates is useful for making projections

of future aggregated emissions.

B. Air Quality Data Requirements

1. Ozone Monitors (3 sites). Ozone

monitors should-be located at (a) one upwind

site, (b) one downwind site at the edge of the

urbanized area, and (c) one downwind site

approximately 15-40 kilometers from the

urbanized area. 2. THC/CH, NO. Monitors (1 site required,

2 sites desirable). Guidance presented in

EPA-450/4-80-011, Guidance for the

Collection of Ambient NMOC Data for Use i

1982 Ozone SIP Development and Network

Design and Siting Criteria for the NMOC and

NO. Monitors, should be followed.

3. Upwind PecursorData. Optional air

quality data for Level Ell are measurements o ambient NO. and THC/CH, at one site

upwind of an urbanized area. These data are generally unnecessary and are needed only

for unusual cases when it is desirable to take

explicit account of transported precursors in

the analysis. Most studies have indicated tha

transported ozone is of greater significance

than transported precursors in contributing tc

urban problems. Because of the lack of

precision associated with nonmethane

hydrocarbon (NMHC] estimates from

continuous THC/CH4 monitors at low

concentiations, use of these instruments at

upwind sites Is not recommended. It is

preferable to collect a limited number of grab

samples, analyze these chromatographically.

and sum species to estimate upwind NMHC.

Guidance presented in EPA-450/4-80-008,

Guidance for the Collection and Use of

Ambient Hydrocarbon Species Data in the

Development of Ozone Control Strategies,

should be followed. Continuous measurement

of NO/NO1 is appropriate.

C. Meteorological Data Requirements

1. Upper Air and Surface Temperature

Data. Estimates of the morning (8:00 a.m.)

and maximum afternoon mixing heights are

required. Preferably, estimates should be

obtained using the nearest National Weather

Service radiosonde data (if available) in

conjunction with hourly urban surface

temperature data. If radiosonde data are not

available, morning and afternoon mixing

heights can be estimated using AP-101,

"Mixing Heights, Wind Speeds and Potential

for Urban Air Pollution Throughout the

Contiguous United States."

2. Surface WindData. Surface wind data at

two sites (one site located in an area of high

precursor emissions and another outside the

urban core) are required. The wind data are used to help ensure that the recorded design

value is measured downwind of the city.

Appendix E-Reglonal Office Locations of

Comments and Responses on the Proposed

1982 SIP Policy

The locations and times for review of the

comments on the proposed 1982 SIP policy

and EPA responses may be determined by

contacting the following:

Harley F. Laing, Chief, Air Programs Branch,

EPA-Region L John F. Kennedy Federal

Building, Boston, MA 02203, 617-223-6883

Bill Baker, Chief, Air Programs Branch,

EPA-Region 11, 26 Federal Plaza, New

York, NY 10007, 212-264-2517,

Raymond Cunningham, Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA-Region III, Curtis Building,

6th & Walnut Streets, Philadelphia, PA

19106, 215-597-8175

Winston Smith, Chief, Air Programs Branch,

EPA-Region IV, 345 Courtland Street,

N.E., Atlanta, GA 30308, 404-881-3043

Steve Rothblatt, Chief, Air Programs Branch,

EPA-Region V, 230 South Dearborn Street,

Chicago, IL 60604, 312-353-6030

Jack Divita, Chief, Air Programs Branch,

EPA-Region VI, First International

Building, 1201 Elm Street, Dallas, TX 75270,

214-767-2742

Art Spratlin, Chief,'Air Programs Branch,

EPA-Region VII, 324 East Eleventh Street,

Kansas City, MO 64106, 816-374-3791

Robert DeSpain, Chief, Air Programs Branch,

EPA-Region VIII, 1860 Lincoln Street,

Denver, CO 80295, 303-837-3471

David Howekamp, Chief, Air Programs

Branch, EPA-Region IX, 215 Fremont

Street, San Francisco,.CA 94105, 415-556-

t 4708

Richard Thiel, Chief, Air Programs Branch,

EPA-Region X, 1200 6th Avenue, Seattle,-

WA 98101, 206-442-1230

[FR Doc. 81-2221 Filed 1-21-81; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-26-M