# + 2

(,1 1/,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 forAreas Needing an Attainment Date Extension

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final policy.

SUMMARY: Provisions-of the 1977 Clean Air ActAmendments require states that have received an extension ofthe attainment date for a national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone

or carbon monoxide beyond 1982to 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 forApproval of1979 SIP Revisions," (43 FR 21673) and subsequent guidance.

EPAproposed thispolicy on September 30,1980 (45FR 64855] and announced a60-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 ofcomments and the EPA responses have been included in Docket No. A-79--43 and are' also available forreview 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 docketmay 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 ofthe comments received on the proposed policy and EPAresponses 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 EmissionTest 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 ofthe comment period. EPA carefully considered all the
comments and made several changes to the policy. Major issues raised by those submitting comments, EPA'sresponses, and any resultant changes in the policy

are summarized below. A more detailed summary ofcomments and EPA responses are included in Docket No. A79-43 and available at EPA regional offices. Attaining NAAQSs After 1987

Inthe 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 AirAct. EPA proposed that such areas should submit SIPrevisions byJuly 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 thisportion ofthe proposal supported the course ofaction outlinedby 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 ofpoor air quality was unacceptable. Several state and local agencies stated theybelieved that the EPAAdministrator would be exceeding his authority under the Clean Air Act ifhe accepted a SIP that did not demonstrate attainment by 1987.

The final EPA policy stillpermits the submission from a few urban areas with

severe ozone and carbon monoxide problems ofSIPs that provide for expeditious attainment ofNAAQSs by a specific date after 1987. The policy now makes more explicit, however, EPA's intent to carefully evaluate the effectiveness ofmeasures 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 AirAct
may not allow appioval of-a SIP that provides for attainment ofNAAQSs after 1987 and that action by-the Congress maybe necessary. EPA considers any request to the Congress for additional delay ofattainment deadlines to be a serious step and one that should be considered only after itis clear that all available and implementable control measures will be adopted. Providing Adequate Time forSIP Adoption

The proposed policyreiterated 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 ifEPA 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, butis constrained by the Clean Air Act from granting any time extensions.

EPAwill continue the practice of granting conditional SIP approval followed in acting on the plan revisions due in 1979. If a SIPrevision 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 ofvolatile organic compounds (VOCs) covered by a control technique guideline (CTG) and to all othermajor sources ofVOCs. EPA also ,announced its intent to issue additional CTGs during 1981. A number of agenciesFederal 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 ofthe 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 ifrulemaking is limited only to CTG sources. A local environmental
agency commented that it may not be possible to submitregulations for source categories covered by CTGs issued late in 1981. In order for the regulations tobe 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 inpreparation 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 forthe Implementation ofI/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 of10 other critical I/Mprogram 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/Mprograms 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 ofan 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 ofrequiring 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/Mprogram
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 beforeI/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 forI/M programs are included in a widely distributed July 17, 1978policy memorandum. Subsequent clarifications
to thatpolicy 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 SIPprocess. The final policy has beenrevised 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 tomake 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 mustbe evaluated as a whole, rather than element by element.

EPA does not believe thatI/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 forI/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. EPAwill continue to seek such review and comment.

EPA feels that the I/Mpublic

awareness plan is critical for the successful implementation of anI/M program and that it must be included as part ofthe 1982 SIP.EPA recognizes, however, that much ofthe 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 shouldbe included in a good public awareness plan.

If an I/Mprograms fails to achieve the requisite emission reduction, then the program willhave to be modified to. obtain thatreduction. Additional emission reductions from other source categories cannot be used to compensate for a shortfall from I/M.

Because section 172(c) ofthe Act requires all measures in the 1982 SIP to be legally enforceable, any further legislative authority will have to be obtained before the 1982 SIPis 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 ofthe commitment must include identification of costs, funding sources, and responsibilities ofstate 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 ofplanning and have
not beenincluded in state and local budgets orbeen approved for federal funding.

The definition ofimplementation 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 ofthe 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 ofsuch a schedule is also contained in Appendix C.Ifa particular measure cannot be implemented because the necessary funds cannot be obtained from the funding source identified in the schedule and ifthe SIPplanning agencies can demonstrate comrdiance with the provisions of the Clean AirAct 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 71837184 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 1981 / Rules and Regulations

be needed forreplacement to ensure that NAAQSs are attained (see the section on contingency plans). Developing Monitoring and Contingency Plans forTransportation Measures

The proposed policy included requirements for developing a monitoring plan forregularly assessing the effectiveness oftransportation

measures and a contingencyplan for implementing additional transportation

measures ifforecasted emission reductions do not occur. A number of state and local governments commented that they do nothave 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 ofthose commenting-interpreted the monitoring requirements as being primarily for air quality monitoring.

Inthe fidalpolicy the monitoring plan requirements emphasize the use of methods that rely on surrogate measures .andon data already being collected for other purposes. The monitoring plan need notinclude additional air quality monitoring. The requirements for a contingency' *plan havebeen revisedto require a

listing onlyof transportation measures and projects that,because oftheir potentially adverse effect on air quality, willbe delayed while a SIP isbeing revised.The projects willbe delayed when the Administrator ofEPA finds that a SIP is inadequate to attain ozone
or carbonmonoxide NAAQSs and calls for a SIPrevisionunder section 110(c} of the Clean AirAct.EPA has also adopted the suggestion ofa local transportation planning agency'and is requiring that the SIPinclude a description ofthe process tobe 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 extentto which the emission reductions will come from controls onmobile or stationary sources, and the responsibilities for implementation of themeasures; Several
comments were received noting the difficulties in determining emission reduction targets for meeting the ozone NAAQS because ofthe form ofthe standard, the characteristics ofthe Empirical Kinetic Modeling Approach (EKMA)model, and the effects of pollutant transport. Other comments reflected confusion about where in the SIPdevelopment process the identification oftargets would occur.

An August 1, 1978 EPApolicy memorandum outlined the reasons for establishing emission reduction targets through anegotiated process involving state and local officials from affected jurisdictions. Inthe 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 othermeasures, such as more stringent emission limitations for stationary
sources, mightmake up some ofthe shortfall.

The final-policy has been revised to help clarify the intentof the section on emission reduction targets. Theprocess for negotiating emission reduction targets becomes especially important in those areas where theminimum 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 ofalternatives has been revised toindicate that the results ofthe evaluation ofalternatives should be used in defining emission reduction targets.

- Demonstrating Reasonable Further Progress

The proposedpolicy included requirements for demonstrating reasonable further progress towards attaining NAAQSs. A substantial number ofcomments were received objecting to the requirement for a "linear attainment program" represented graphically by a straightline frombase year to attainment year emissions. Those commenting noted that many control measures, particularly those for vehicle emissions, have long lead times and-do nothave significant effectj within the firstfewyears after adoption. Those measures that are implemented within the earlyyears willgenerally not result in a linearrate ofemission reduction. The final policyhas been redrafted to clarify that the linear attainment program represents only theupper limit for annual net emissions from 1980 through the year ofattainment. The

measures encompassed by the linear attainment program include those in both the 1979 and 1982 submittals. Although there maybe some lag time before the measures in the 198Z submittal result in emission reductiois, reductions should already be occurring as a result ofmeasures in the 1979 submittal.

The finalpolicy now also reiterates the reportingrequirements includedin the approval criteria for the 1979 submittal and asks thatthe annual reasonable further progress reports be combined withrelated information already being submitted on July 1 of each year. Ensuring Conformity ofFederal Actions

Section 176(c) ofthe Clean Air Act requires that federal actions conform to SIPs. Theproposed policy indicated that
states should, where possible, identify the emissions associated with federal actions planned during the period covered by the SIP.Anumber of comments received onthat portion of the proposed policy requested clarificatiori ofthe process for ensuring conformity and the respective responsibilities offederal, state, and localgovernments. The comments noted the potentially large number ofactions involved, the associated work load for state and local governments, and the lack of available state andlocal "

resources. The comments also included questions about themethods to be used for determining conformity.

The final policy outlines the general responsibilities offederal, state, and local governments. Further clarification willbe provided in a proposed rule that EPA intends to issue shortly. Section 176(c) states that the assurance of conformity offederal actionsis the affirmative responsibility ofthehead 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 shouldhave opportunity to reviewproposed criteria and procedures, as well as the individual conformity determinations thatresult from their application. The proposed rule that EPA is preparing encourages the use of existing review processes, such as thoserequired by the National Environmental PolicyAct and Office ofManagement and Budget CircularA-95, to reduce theresources required for ensuring conformity.

Interim criteria foruse in making and reviewing conformity determinations are included in an advance notice of proposed rulemaking published by EPA

on April 1, 1980 (45 FR21590). Criteria and procedures for evaluating the direct and indirect air quality effects of wastewater treatment facilities funded under the Clean Water Act areincluded in the section 316policy published on August 11, 1980 (45FR 53382]. Identification, during SIPpreparation, 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 localreview ofconformity determinations.
Consultation Among State and Local Officials

Two state environmental agencies commenting on the proposed policy thought thatthe consultationprovisions

were generally unclear. A localplanning agency asked that the policy be supplemented to indicate that the designations of agencyresponsibilities made by governors prior to the 1979plan submittals remain in effect.A public interest group requested thatthe policy forbid states from making unilateral changes in SIPprovisions developed by local governments.

Modifications were made in the consultationprovisions 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 SIPprovision without consulting local officials, EPAbelieves thatthe regulations for implementing • section 121 ofthe Clean Air Act already adequately cover such asituation and provide opportunity for appeal to EPAif adequate consultation does not take place. Determining Data and Modeling Requirements

The proposed policyrequired that emission inventories should, where possible, be prepared for a 1980base year. The policy also required thatbase year andprojectedyear emission inventories for the ozone portion ofthe SIPbe seasonally adjusted annual inventories. The proposal required the SIP tobe based on the most recent three years ofair quality data, generally including data collected through the third quarter of1981. The proposal recommended use ofthe city-specific EKMA model to develop the ozone portion ofthe SIP. •

Several agencies responsible for developing emission inventories commented that agreements hadbeen reached and work had already begun on inventories for baseyears other than 1980.The agencies recommended that EPAremain flexible in the final policy and accept inventories forthose other baseyears, The final policy continues to allow inventories forbase years other than 1980to be used.

A number of state andlocal agencies questioned the validity ofrequiring seasonally adjusted annual inventories ofVOCs. Most ofthose commenting recommended that the inventories be prepared for a typical summer weekday instead. The final policyrequires the o weekday inventory.

Several agencies indicated in their
comments that their normal processing time tovalidate air quality data would prevent them from using data through the third quarter of1981, ifthe SIPwas to be developed and submitted by July 1982. The final policy encourages the use ofdata through the third quarter of1981, but allows states to use earlier data. Ifa state selects to use earlier data, it still
mustpresent a summary of airquality data through 1981 in its July1982 submittal and describe how the data may affect the SIP.

State and local agencies thathad appliedphotochemical dispersion models intheir previous SIP development work commented that they shouldbe allowedto use these models, rather thanthe less sophisticated cityspecific EKMA model, in developing their 1982 submittals. The finalpolciy encourages theuse ofthe photochemical dispersion models where the agency developing the SIPhas a demonstrated capability touse suchmodels and wishes to do so. Use ofa model other than city-specific EKMA or its equivalent must be approvedby EPA.
Final Policy-Criteria for Approval of The 1982Plan Revisions
Introduction

In circumstances where a state has received anextension beyond 1982for attaining a NAAQS for ozone or carbon monoxide, the Clean AirAct Amendments of1977 [Section 129(c) of Pub. L.95-95] require the state to adopt and submit a SIPrevision to the Administrator ofEPAby July1,1982. The areas that are affected bythis requirement arelisted in Appendix A,. The purpose ofthis notice is to outline the criteria that EPA will use in evaluating the adequacy ofthe 1982 SIP revisions. These criteria fallinto four general categories: (1) Control strategies and attainment demonstration, (2) SIP development process, (3) data collection, and (4)modeling.

The CleanAir Act Amendments of 1977 require all SIPs forthe areas that have received an extension beyond 1982
to demonstrate attainment ofthe NAAQSs for ozone and carbon monoxide as expeditiously as practicable, butnotlater 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 SIPfor an area where

an extensionhas been granted, regardless of the date after December 31,1982 when attainment canbe demonstrated. These minimum

measures and theirrelationship to the plan's attainment demonstration are described inSection L Section Ialso discusses the approach that EPA believes should be followed bythose few large urban areas where air quality problems are so severe that analyses
may indicate that attainment by 1987 is
notpossible.

In addition to including a demonstration of attainment, the development ofthe 1982 SIPmust conform to the process and followthe procedures required by the CleanAir Act and described in subsequent EPA guidance. Section IIidentifies the major steps in the SIP development process. SelectedEPA guidance documents for the SIPprocess arelisted inAppendix B. Terms used inthe transportation-air quality process are defined in Appendix C.Also, the air quality and emissions data bases to beused in developing the 1982 SIPmust be updated. The data requirements forboth ozone and carbon monoxide are explained in Section I. The data base for the ozone portion of the SIPmust be sufficient to support at least a Level III modeling analysis. The requirements for aLevel IMI analysis are summarized in AppendixD.

Finally, Section IV describes the status ofthe various air quality models and alerts states to modeling requirements. EPA recommends application ofcity-specific EKMA oran 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 levelofmodeling. For the carbon monoxide portion,EPA recommends application ofthe models identified in existing EPA guidance.

I.Control Strategieeand Attainment Demonstration
A. Summary

TheClean AirAct requires the 1982 SIPs to contain a fully adopted, technically justified program that adopts and commits to implement groups of control measures that willresult in attainment of the ozone and carbon monoxide NAAQSs no later than 1987 and that will provide reasonable further progress in the interim. All plansmust contain the three categories ofminimum control measures described in this section.Ifthese minimum control

measures are not adequate to show attainment by 1987, additional measures which canbe implemented by 1987must be identified and adopted. Ifall

measures which canbe implemented by 71857186 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 mustbe demonstrated by the earliest possible date. the date of attainment mustbe 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 forthe effectiveness ofmeasures applied in all

areas. ShouldEPA find that any ofthe

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 ofthe 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 offederal actions requirement.

B. Stationary Sources

Section 172(b) of the Clean AirAct 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, ofRACT. In order to complete the requirement to adopt all reasonably available control measures, states must include as part ofthe 1982 submittal, adopted regulations applying RACT to the following categories of sources: (1) All sources ofVOCs covered by a CTG, (2) all remaining major (emittingmore than 100 tons per yearpotential emissions as defined under section 302(j) of the Clean AirAct) stationary

sources ofVOCs, 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 ofregulations until the CTG for

a source category was published. This delay allowed the states to make more technically sound decisions regarding the application ofRACT. EPA anticipates issuing a number of additional CTGs in 1981 for various

source categories ofVOCs. These documents, in conjunction with the previously issued CTGs, will address most ofthe major source categories which are ofnational imbortance. Legally enforceable measures implementing RACT for all sources addressed by these documents must be included in the July 1982 submittal.

There willremain numerous other major sources ofVOCs that may be of local importance for which a CTG will notbe available. For the major sources for which a CTG'does not apply,a state must determine whether additional controls representing RACT are available. EPA willrequire 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 ofcontrol represents RACT for each ofthese sources.

Ifapplication ofRACT 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 notresult in attainment ofthe ozone standards by 1987, then additional stationary source controls mustbe adopted bythe 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 ofthe 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 dutyvehicles in 1987 by25 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 oftheir 1979 SIP revisions were required to submit only qualitative descriptions of theirI/M program elements in the 1979 SIP submittal. The documentation discussed below must be submittedby July 1982, if not previously submitted as evidence of compliance withthe 1979 implementation schedule. The 1982 SIP revision must include rules and regulations and all other I/M elements which could affect the ability ofthe 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 thepubic 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 formechanics training.

As part ofthe 1982 SIPreview process, EPA will determine the overall adequacy ofthe critical elements of each I/M program and, therefore, the approvability ofthe 1982 SIP by comparing those elements to established I/M policy. I/Mprogram elements must -be consistent with EPA policy or a demonstration must be made that the program elements are equivalent.

State orlocal governments that have I/M programs, butplan to increase the coverage and/or stringency ofthe programs in order to achieve greater reductions, must submit the progam modifications in legally enforceable form through the 1982 SIPrevision
process.

Ifa state wisies to submit all orpart " of the I/M elements required for the 1982 SIP revisionbefore July 1982, with or without otherportions ofthe 1982 SIP revision, EPA willreview and evaluate the submittal and take appropriate action as expeditiously as practicable. In the case ofa 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 anI/M program on an approved schedule which extends beyond July 1,1982, and the state isunable to finalize some ofthe critical elements ofits I/M programin 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 ofthe 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 ofthe Act.

2. All reasonably available transportation measures and packages ofmeasures necessary for the expeditious attainment ofthe transportation emission reduction target. Categories ofreasonably available transportation measures are identified in section 108(ff ofthe Act.The submittal shouldpresent documentation. based on technical analysis, of the basis for not implementing any ofthe

measures Identified in this section. The 1982 SIP submittal must contain transportation emission reduction estimates for adopted measures and

- packages ofmeasures for each year between 1982 and the attainment date. Any reasonably available transportation

measures that have been adopted between the submission ofthe 1979 revision and the preparation ofthe 1982 revision should be included in the 1982 submittal along with the associated emission reductions.

3. Commitments, schedules ofkey milestones, and,where appropriate, evidence oflegalauthority for implementation. operation, and enforcement ofadopted reasonably available transportation measures. Costs and funding sources forplanning, implementing, operating, and enforcing adopted measures mustbe determined for all measures. Tasks and responsibilities ofstate 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 mustbe accompanied by an identification and commitment to use, to the extent necessary, federal, state, and localfunds to implement the necessary improvements. Commitments and schedules for theimplementation of these measures must also be submitted.

5.A description ofpublic participation and elected official consultation activities during development ofthe transportation measures.

6. Amonitoring plan forperiodically assessing success orfailure of transportation measures orpackages 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 firstpart is applicable to only those

areas withpopulations of200,000 or
more. These areas must submit aspart of the SIP a list ofplanned transportation measures andprojects that may adversely affect air quality and that will be delayed, while the SIP is being revised, ifexpected emission reductions or air quality improvements do not occur. The second part,which mustbe submittedby all areas preparing 1982 SIPrevisions, consists of

a description ofthe process that willbe 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 theEPA 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 forApproval of 1979 SIP Revisions," and the October 1978 SIP Transportation Checklist identified the elements necessary forthe transportation portion ofthe 1979 SIP, The provisions listed above supplement the elements described inthe earlier guidance.

Theguidance for 1979 placed primary emphasis on the establishments of a continuing airquality-transportation planning process. This continuing planning process must be used in developing the transportation portion of the 1982 SIPrevision.The process is described in the June 1978 EPADepartment ofTransportation (DOT) Transportation-Air Quality Planning Guidelines and theMay 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, shouldbe submitted in 1982.

Solutions to carbon monoxide problems can be found through metropolitan-wide planning, as well as through analyses ofrelatively 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 maybe small, themeasures necessary to meet standards may have
to be applied over a larger area. It is essential to guard against selecting

measures that will solvethe 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 FurtherProgress

The July 1982 submittalmust demonstrate that reasonable further
progress toward attainment ofthe ozone and carbon monoxide standards will continue to be made and reported throughout the period ofnonattainment. 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 ofthe 1979 SIP submittal, this programis represented graphically by a straight line drawn from the emissions inventory for the base year ofthe 1979 submittal to the allowable emissions on the attainment date. Compliance with the reasonable further progress requirement does not authorize delays inimplementation or adoption ofany measures. All controls
must be implemented as expeditiously

as practicable.

The demonstration ofreasonable furtherprogress must indicate the total
amount ofthe 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 inthe early years in achieving reasonable further progress because
mostmeasures would not achieve immediate reductions. By 1982. however,

a significant number ofthe stationary

source controls and transportation

measures included in the 1979 submittal will be implemented, as will the vehicle 71877188 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 fornew 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 periodwill be-allowed in 1982 and later years.

The criteria for approving the 1979 SIP submittals included a requirement for annual reporting ofreasonable 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 ofeach year (40 CFR 51.321-51.328).

F. Additional Control Measures Required forAttainment

Ifthe 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

canbe implemented as quickly as possible, butno 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 ofsome
measures orproviding more intensive implementation), and

(4)Increasing the coverage and stringency ofthe vehicle emission I/M program.

Ifimplementation ofall 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 inalongertime frame that, together with the measures already evaluated, willresult 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 ofsuch measures.

Given the additional time and potential resources available to areas with a post-1987 attainment date, more extensive evidence willbe required to demonstrate that any ofthe measures identified in section 108(f) ofthe Clean Air Actis not reasonably available. Many transportation measures which cannot be implemented by 1987 can, - because ofthe 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 SIPrevision to achieve a post-1987 emission reduction targetmust 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 forplanning, 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 forfaster 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. Ifan 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 bythe 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 inkeeping with the spirit ofthe Clean Air Act than 'anapproach which would accept "paper" demonstrations of attainment by 1987 which relied on
measures which wouldbe 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 willreview plans with post-1987 attainment dates in accordance with the requirements ofthe Clean AirAct. If EPA concludes that the current provisions ofthe Act do not allow approval ofa 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 theAgency may request will be based on a careful evaluation of the status ofstate 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 ofFederal Actions

Section 176(g) of the Clean AirAct *requires all federal projects, licenses,

permits, financial assistance and other activities to conform to SIPs.Assurance ofconformity is an affirmative responsibility ofthe head ofeach federal agency. Inaddition, section 316(b) requires that the direct and indirect emissions associated with any wastewater treatment facility funded underthe Clean Water Act be accommodated in the SIP. Inpreparing the 1982 SIPrevision, states and local governments should identify, to the
extent possible, the direct and indirect emissions associated With majorfederal actions, including wastewater treatment facility grants, that willtake place during theperiod covered by the SIP. Explicit identification ofemissions 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 SIPrevision is based should be capable ofbeing disaggregated at the time ofproject analysis so that the areas affected by individual federal actions not explicitly accounted for in the SIP can be identified.

II. SIPDevelopmentProcess

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 fornonattainment areas. Appendix B includes a list ofselected guidance documents that shouldbe used in the preparation ofthe 1982 SIP.EPA regional offices will work with states and affected local governments during the preparation of the SIPto 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. - IFederal Register 

## I VoL 46, No. 14 

## 1 Thursday, January 22, 1981 I Rules and Regulations

A. Consultation Among State and Local Officials

Section 121 ofthe Clean AirAct requires each stateto provide a process forconsultation with local governments, organizations oflocal elected officials, and federal land managers during certain actions under the Act,including preparation ofSIP revisions for nonattainment areas. Section 174 ofthe Act requires a joint determination by state and local officials of the roles that various governmental agencies will take in the SIPdevelopment, implementation, and enforcement process. Section 174 also requires the governor ofeach state to designate the agency or agencies responsible forSIP development. The designation made by the governor for the 1979 SIP submittalremains in effect, unless the governor designates a new agency. Thejoint determination of responsibilities and any revised agency designations should be completed early in the process andmustbe submitted as
a part ofthe 1982 SIPrevision.Final regulations on section 174 and 121 (40 CFRPart51, [Subpart M) were published onJune 18, 1979 (44FR 35176).
B. Establishment ofEmission Reduction Targets

The control strategy forthe 1982 SIP must reflect agreement among affected state andlocal 6fficials on the emission reductions needed to attainNAAQSs. It is particularly important that the emission reduction targets established for stationary and mobile sources be determined through aprocess of negotiation among state and local officials ofaffected jurisdictions. In mostcases, the initial emission reduction targets will be established

soon after thetechnical evaluation of reasonably available stationary and mobile source control measures. Targets may have to berevised as additional information becomes available during SIP development. Revised targets should also be determined through consultation among state andlocal officials.
C.Analysis ofAlternatives and Their Effects

In order fordecision-makers and the public tohave adequate information during development ofSIPs requiring

measures beyond theminimumdescribed in subsections I.B-I.D, alternative control strategies shouldbe developed and analyzed. For example, where a vehicle I/M program and RACT applied to all majorstationary sources will notbe sufficient, in combination withreasonably available transportation measures, to attain standards, arange ofmore 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 ofthese more stringent controls are listed in subsection LF.

The Clean AirAct requires that SIP submittals include an analysis ofair quality, health, welfare, economic, energy, and social effects ofthe SIPand of the alternative measures considered during SIPdevelopment. EPA believes that, in assessing the effects of alternative control measures, two national concerns should receive special emphasis. These concerns are (1) conservation ofpetroleum and natural gas, and (2) protection ofthe economies ofdeclining urban areas. Additional emphasis on the effects ofSIPs on energy conservation and economies of distressed urban areas will implement theintent ofExecutive Order 12185, Conservation ofPetroleum and Natural Gas (45FR 8537, February 7,1980), and the National Urban Policy.
1. Air Qualityand EmissionData Bases

The requirements for the 1979 SIP submittal included use ofthe best data available at the time ofSIP development. Although states generally complied with thisprovision, in many
cases the available data base had many shortcomings. All states willhave had adequate time by 1982to have an updated database.

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 byDecember 31,1981. Thisrequirement in no way relieves a state from anyprior commitments to have such data available at an earlier date.

Emission inventories should, where possible,be prepared for a 1980base year and projected to a date that will, at

aminimum, include the anticipated year ofattainment. Population projections and otherforecasts 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 Part35, Supart E, Appendix A.

The mostrecent threeyears of air quality datafrom the state and local air monitoring system network mustbe reduced, validated, and summarized in the plan submiffal. Generally, this will include all data collected through the third quarter of1981. All data from special studies implemented to support the modeling effort must also be compiled, reduced, and documented. Ifa state cannot reduce, evaluate, and validate data through the third quarter of1981 in sufficient time to develop the SIPrevision and still meet intergovernmental consultation, public participation, and otherrequirements, the state shall present the data in the SIP submittal and describe how thedata may effect the plan.
A. Data for Ozone SIPRevisions

EPA previously described the minimum data that the Agency anticipated wouldbe necessary to prepare an ozone modeling effort for fourlevels ofanalyses (44FR 65667, November 14. 1979). Itnow appears, however, thatmany of the areas requiring themore sophisticated levels ofmodeling willnot be able to complete the more extensive data base collection efforts required for these models in time to support the 1982SIP submittal. Accordingly, every urban areamust complete a database sufficient tosupport at least aLevel III (city-specific EKMA) modeling analysis.The elements of this data base are summarized in Appendix D.

EPA anticipates that stateswith 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 toprovide for this contingency.

In order to ensure thatall the data bases willbe compatible andthat there is a consistentlevel ofdocumentation and quality assurance, state submittals of environmental data mustbe consistentin format and content with the EPA guideline document, Emission InventoryRequirements for 1982Ozone SIP&
B. Datafor Carbon Monoxide SIP revisions

The emission inventory for carbon monoxide mustbe ofsufficient accuracy and detailtoprovide the necessary input to models, and to determine the effectiveness ofproposed 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 

### 7:1897190 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 14 

## / Thursday, January 22, 1981 

## 1 Rules and Regulations

problems. In developing carbon monoxide emission inventories states may, ifthey desire, limitthe identification ofstationary 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 bejudged 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 ofozone control strategies. This potential arises primarily from the ability to relate emissions directly to ambient ozone concentrations, taking into account atmospheric chemistry and dispersion. Inmost 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 ofEKMA 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 ofmodeling and wants to do so, EPA encourages such applications. The use ofa modeling approach other than city-specific EKMA mustbe approved by EPA prior to a commitment by the state to itsuse. EPA is currently finalizing the guideline on the use ofcity-specific EKMA; the guideline should be available by March 1981.

The inability ofother simpler models
to adequately consider chemical kinetics andmeteorological parameters reduces their ability to represent local situations. Accordingly, EPA will not consider plans based on linear orproportional rollback to provide an adequate demonstration ofattainment. EPA is publishing a proposal in today's Federal Register tomodify 40 CFR 51.14 by deleting the provision allowing the use ofrollback as an acceptable modeling technique. A state that used rollback in the SIPrevision submittal in 1979 to demonstrate attainment by 1982 will not be required torevise the analysis on which its SIP is based, unless EPA determines the SIP tobe deficient for attaining the ozone NAAQS. Upon such

a determination, the state will be required to meet theprovisions ofthis policy including adoption ofthe minimum control measures, as well as themodeling requirements.

B. Carbon Monoxide Models

States and urban areas must estimate the impact oflocal and regional control strategies on carbon monoxide nonattainment areas and demonstrate attainment ofthe carbon monoxide standard. The generally available carbon monoxide models are described in GuidelineonAir Quality Models, April 1978, EPA 450/2-78-027. These guidelines, and any subsequent updates, should be followed inpreparing a carbon monoxide attainment analysis. The dcceptability ofmodels other than those listed in the guideline will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Other models proposed foruse 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 1982forAtainingthe 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 CoastBasin,'VenturaOxnard.' X_

_.... Oregon....... Portland. Waaslnglon........ Portland. Seattle.

2San Joaquin Valley Nonattainment Area. 2South Central Coast Nonattafriment Area. Table 2.-Areas RequesinganExtensionBeyond 1982 forAttainingthe 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

... Districtof 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 ofmajorEPA guidance for SIP development is included in the "AirPrograms Policy and Guidance Notebook," which is distributedto state andlocal agencies. Copies ofthe ' notebook are available forcopying atthe EPA Public Information Reference Unit in Washington, D.C. andat each EPA regional
office.

1. Criteria for Approval of 1979 SIP Revisions, memorandum from Douglas M. Costle, Administrator ofEPA to Regional Administrators, Regions I-X, February 24,
1978 (43 FR 21673).

2. Memorandum ofUnderstanding Between DOT and EPARegarding the Ifitegration ofTransportation and Air Quality Planning, June 1978.

3. EPA-DOTTransportation-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 ofEmission 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 (44FR 25243); July 2,1979 (44 FR 38583); August 28,1979 (44 FR 50371); September 17,1979 (44 FR53161); and November 23,1979 (44FR67182].

7. 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart M-- Intergovernmental Consultation, June 18, 1979 (44FR 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 AirAct State Implementation Plans, June 12,1980.

10. Policy and Procedures toImplement Section 316 ofthe Clean AirAct, as Amended, memorandum from Douglas M. Costle to Regional Administrators, Regions
I-X July 23,1980, [45 FR 53382].
Appendix C-Description ofTerms Used in the Transportation-Air Quality SIP Development Process
AdoptedMeasures

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 PublicParticipation Guidelines. Through this process transportation measures are introduced, evaluated, placed in the Transportation Systems Management [TSM) or long range element ofthe urban transportation plan, and advanced to the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP] and the annual element ofthe TIP.
Programming Process
The process by which transportation

measures are advanced from the annual element oftheTIP to the capital programs and budgets ofimplementing 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 AttainmentDate

The attainment date approved in the 1979 SIP submission. This date may be modified if the analysis ofalternatives done as part of the development of the 1982 SIP submittal shows that an earlier date is possible through expeditious implementation ofallreasonably
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 theaffected 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.
ExpeditiousImplementationof 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 timerequired to obtain implementation commitments.

3.Theminimum time required to construct (ifneeded) andbegin operation ofthe

measures. ImplementationCommitments

Certification (maybe byreference to budgets or other legally adopteddocuments] byfederal, state, and local agencies with the authority to implement SIP measures that (1) funds to implement themeasure are obligated and 12) allnecessary approvals have been obtained. Identification by theimplementing
agency ofthe scheduled dates for start of construction (ifappropriate] andfor startof operation.

Ifa project has not reached the stage of receiving budget approval, then the implementation commitment shouldbe in the form ofa 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 ofthe responsible agencies that must take significant actions to implement the measure.

Actions by many agencies and elected officials are usuallyiequired before a transportation project is implemented. The SIP should list the important actions, the agencies or officials requiredto take each action, and a schedule that will lead to implementation.

The lead planning agency isusually chargedwith obtaining the various commitments. This requires:

1.Identifying allremaining actions and the
agency or official responsible for each action.

2. Consulting with each agency orofficial
to establish the date by when the action will be taken.

The product ofthese efforts shouldbe submitted in the SIPin a form similar to the following example. Example

The MPO for an urban area hasadopted forinclusion in the SIP abusway that will
connect a suburban residential area with the central business district. Operation of the busway will require the purchase of25 new buses. Corridor location studies havebeen 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 ofthe project:

1.MPO places project in annual element of the SIP;each funding agencyprepares budget requests fornecessary fnds-Complete.

2. Transit operating agencyadopts project

aspart ofcapital program-Complete.

3.Transit operating agency or appropriate project sponsor solicits approval oflocal government share ofproject costs from the city and county councils-Fall 1982.

4. Transit operating agency submits project application tostate department of transportation-Winter 1982.

5.State department of transportation requests state legislature to appropriate state share ofmatching funds-Spring 1983.

6.Transit operating agency submits a grant application to UMTA (submittaloccurs if the funding match has been approved; ifthe project is delayed at this point, contingency provisions will be adopted)-Summer 1983.

(Checkpoint: projectreceives approval from IJMTA]-Spring 19B4.

7.Transit operating agency places order for

new buses-Spring 1984.

S. State department oftransportation starts constructioncontract 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 fornot AdoptingaSection108f) Measure

Justification shouldinclude: 1.Documentation ofair quality,health, welfare, economic, energy, social and mobility effects ofthe measure, as appropriate for the type ofmeasure and the scale of application.

2.Documentation that the measure was considered in aprocess that involved the public and state and local officials.

3.Determination that implementation ofthe

measure results in substantial and long-term adverse impacts.

4. Demonstration that the airquality standards canbe expeditiously attained without themeasure. Monitoring Plan
The monitoring plan tobe contained in the 1982 SIP should bedesigned forperiodically assessing the extent to which transportation

measures, eitherindividually or packaged,

are resulting inprojected emission reductions and the reasons for any shortfalls in reductions. The monitoring planneed not

cover air quality monitoring.The plan should contain methods for determining the reasons for success orfailure ofthe emission reduction achievements ofthe transportation

measures containedin the 1982 SIP.The monitoring plan should depend upon existing data, regularly collected data, surrogate emission indicators (suchas the number of
auto trips, trip speeds, etc.] and approximation techniques. Collection ofnew data shouldbe minimized. 71917192 Federal Register / Vol'. 46, No. 14 ,/Thursday, January 22, '1981 / Rules and Regulations

Contingency Plan The contingency provision is needed in the eventthat EPA calls for a SP revisionbased

on its determination that thereasonable further progress schedule is not being met The contingency provision contains two parts. The first partis only for areas over 200,000 population.For these areas, the contingency provision shouldinclude a locally developed list ofprojects which implementing agencies have agreed canbe delayed during an interim period while the SIPis being revised. The second partofthe contingency provision is a description ofa process for determining additional transportation measures beneficial to air qualitythat canbe implemented to compensate for unanticipated shortfalls in emission reductions orcan be accelerated to replace adopted measures that are not proceeding on schedule.This second part of the contingency provision shouldbe included in every 1982 SIP submittal. Appendix D-Summary of Minimum LevelIl Data Requirements for 1982 Ozone Modeling Submittals
A. EmissionData Requirements 1. Spatial Resolution.County-wide emission inventories for VOCs and nitrogen oxides (NO1] are needed for aLevel IMI analysis.

2. Temporal Resolution.Typical summer weekday emission estimates are required as part ofthe Level M data submittal. Preparation ofthese estimates is described in the guideline,.Em'ssion Inventory Requirements forthe1982 Ozone SIPs. 3. VOC Categories. Classification into reactive species ofVOCs is notrequired fora 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, EmissionInventoryRequlrements forthe1982 OzoneSIs.This disaggregation ofestimates is useful for making projections offuture aggregated emissions.

B.Air Quality Data Requirements 1.OzoneMonitors(3sites). Ozone monitors should-be located at (a) oneupwind site, (b) one downwind site at the edge ofthe urbanized area, and (c) one downwind site approximately 15-40kilometers from the urbanized area.

2. THC/CH,NO. Monitors (1 site required, 2 sites desirable). Guidance presented in EPA-450/4-80-011, Guidance forthe Collectionof AmbientNMOCData for Usei 1982 OzoneSIPDevelopment and Network Designand Siting Criteria fortheNMOC 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 ofanurbanized area. These data are generally unnecessary and are needed only for unusual cases when it is desirable to take explicit account oftransported precursors in the analysis. Most studieshave indicated tha transported ozone is ofgreater significance than transported precursors in contributing tc urbanproblems. Because ofthe lack of precision associated with nonmethane hydrocarbon (NMHC] estimates from continuous THC/CH 4 monitors at low concentiations, use ofthese instruments at upwind sites Is not recommended. It is preferable to collect a limitednumber ofgrab samples, analyze these chromatographically. and sum species to estimate upwind NMHC. Guidance presented in EPA-450/4-80-008, Guidance forthe CollectionandUseof AmbientHydrocarbon SpeciesDatainthe Developmentof Ozone ControlStrategies, shouldbe followed. Continuous measurement ofNO/NO 1 is appropriate.

C.Meteorological Data Requirements 1. Upper Airand Surface Temperature Data. Estimates ofthe morning (8:00 a.m.) and maximum afternoon mixing heights are required. Preferably, estimates shouldbe obtained using the nearest NationalWeather Service radiosonde data (ifavailable) in conjunction with hourly urban surface temperature data. Ifradiosonde data are not available, morning and afternoon mixing heights can be estimated usingAP-101, "MixingHeights, 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 ofhigh precursor emissions and another outside the urban core) are required. The wind data are used tohelp ensure that the recorded design value is measured downwind ofthe city. Appendix E-Reglonal Office Locations of Comments and Responses on the Proposed 1982 SIP Policy

The locations andtimes for review ofthe
comments on the proposed 1982 SIP policy and EPAresponses may be determined by contacting the following: Harley F.Laing, Chief,Air Programs Branch,

EPA-Region LJohn F.Kennedy Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203, 617-223-6883 Bill Baker, Chief,Air Programs Branch,

EPA-Region 11, 26Federal Plaza, New York, NY 10007, 212-264-2517, Raymond Cunningham, Chief, AirPrograms

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 SteveRothblatt, 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, FirstInternational Building, 1201 Elm Street,Dallas, TX 75270, 214-767-2742 Art Spratlin, Chief,'Air Programs Branch,

EPA-Region VII, 324East Eleventh Street, Kansas City, MO 64106, 816-374-3791 Robert DeSpain, Chief,Air Programs Branch,

EPA-Region VIII, 1860 Lincoln Street, Denver, CO80295, 303-837-3471 DavidHowekamp, 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