[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 238 (Monday, December 13, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72140-72156]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27171]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 93

[OAR-2003-0049; FRL-7847-2]


Options for PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>10</INF> Hot-Spot 
Analyses in the Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the New 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and Existing PM<INF>10</INF> National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This supplemental proposal follows EPA's recent final rule 
that includes most of the transportation conformity requirements for 
the new 8-hour ozone and fine particulate matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) 
national ambient air quality standards. In today's action, EPA is 
requesting further comment on options for consideration of localized 
emissions impacts of individual transportation projects in particulate 
matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>10</INF>) nonattainment and 
maintenance areas. The Clean Air Act requires federally supported 
highway and transit projects to be consistent with (``conform to'') the 
purpose of a state air quality implementation plan. EPA has consulted 
with the Department of Transportation (DOT), and DOT concurs with this 
supplemental proposal.

DATES: Written comments on this supplemental proposal must be received 
on or before January 12, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. OAR-2003-
0049 by one of the following methods:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    <bullet> Agency Web site: http://www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, 
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred 
method for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#78195519161c550a551c171b131d0c381d0819561f170e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dabbf7bbb4bef7a8f7beb5b9b1bfae9abfaabbf4bdb5ac">[email protected]</span></a>.
    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> Fax: 202-566-1741.
    <bullet> Mail: Air Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20460, 
Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0049.
    <bullet> Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, room B102, EPA West 
Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC. Such deliveries 
are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and 
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed 
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0049. 
EPA's

[[Page 72141]]

policy is that all comments received will be included in the public 
docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-
mail. The EPA EDOCKET and the federal regulations.gov Web sites are 
``anonymous access'' systems, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public 
docket visit EDOCKET on-line or see the Federal Register of May 31, 
2002 (67 FR 38102). For additional instructions on submitting comments, 
go to Unit I.C. of the Supplementary Information section of this 
document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index 
at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in EDOCKET or in hard 
copy at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the 
telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rudy Kapichak, State Measures and 
Conformity Group, Transportation and Regional Programs Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Road, Ann Arbor, MI 
48105, e-mail address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a7ccc6d7cec4cfc6cc89d5d2c3c8cbd7cfe7c2d7c689c0c8d1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bbd0dacbd2d8d3dad095c9cedfd4d7cbd3fbdecbda95dcd4cd">[email protected]</span></a>, telephone number: 
(734) 214-4574, fax number 734-214-4052; or Laura Berry, State Measures 
and Conformity Group, Transportation and Regional Programs Division, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Road, Ann Arbor, 
MI 48105, e-mail address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7012150202095e1c11050211301500115e171f06"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f89a9d8a8a81d694998d8a99b89d8899d69f978e">[email protected]</span></a>, telephone number: (734) 
214-4858, fax number 734-214-4052.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The contents of this preamble are listed in 
the following outline:

I. General Information
II. Background
III. PM<INF>2.5</INF> Hot-Spot Analyses
IV. PM<INF>10</INF> Hot-Spot Analyses
V. Minor Change for Compliance With PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP Control 
Measures
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    Entities potentially regulated by the conformity rule are those 
that adopt, approve, or fund transportation plans, programs, or 
projects under title 23 U.S.C. or title 49 U.S.C. Regulated categories 
and entities affected by today's action include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Category                  Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local government.......................  Local transportation and air
                                          quality agencies, including
                                          metropolitan planning
                                          organizations (MPOs).
State government.......................  State transportation and air
                                          quality agencies.
Federal government.....................  Department of Transportation
                                          (Federal Highway
                                          Administration (FHWA) and
                                          Federal Transit Administration
                                          (FTA)).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this 
supplemental proposal. This table lists the types of entities of which 
EPA is aware that potentially could be regulated by the conformity 
rule. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be 
regulated. To determine whether your organization is regulated by this 
action, you should carefully examine the applicability requirements in 
Sec.  93.102 of the transportation conformity rule. If you have 
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 
entity, consult the persons listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

1. Submitting CBI
    Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI 
electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. 
Send or deliver information identified as ``CBI only'' to the following 
address: Attention: Joe Pedelty, State Measures and Conformity Group, 
Transportation and Regional Programs Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, Docket ID 
No. OAR-2003-0049. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as 
CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you 
submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as 
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the 
specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be 
publicly disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 
CFR part 2.
    In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 
any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not 
contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion 
in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit 
the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside 
of the disk or CD ROM clearly indicating that it does not contain CBI. 
Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and 
EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any 
questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please

[[Page 72142]]

consult Joe Pedelty. He can be contacted at: Joe Pedelty, State 
Measures and Conformity Group, Transportation and Regional Programs 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Road, 
Ann Arbor, MI 48105, e-mail address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f1819495949d8588df9b9e94b1948190df969e87"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0e7e6b6a6b627a772064616b4e6b7e6f20696178">[email protected]</span></a>, telephone 
number: (734) 214-4410, fax number (734) 214-4052.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
    When submitting comments, remember to:
    <bullet> Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other 
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and 
page number).
    <bullet> Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to 
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    <bullet> Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives 
and substitute language for your requested changes.
    <bullet> Describe any assumptions and provide any technical 
information and/or data that you used.
    <bullet> If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how 
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
    <bullet> Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
    <bullet> Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the 
use of profanity or personal threats.
    <bullet> Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period 
deadline identified.
3. Docket Copying Costs
    You may pay a reasonable fee for copying docket materials.

C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or 
through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, 
identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject 
line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your 
comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments 
received after the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.'' 
Although EPA is not required to consider these late comments, we may do 
so as appropriate, considering time and volume constraints.
1. Electronically
    If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, EPA 
recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail 
address or other contact information in the body of your comment. You 
should also include this contact information on the outside of any disk 
or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or 
CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the 
comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on 
the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit 
your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in 
the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's 
electronic public docket. However, if EPA cannot read your comment due 
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to further consider your comment.
    i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to 
submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for 
receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. To 
access EPA's electronic public docket from the EPA Internet Home Page, 
select ``Information Sources,'' ``Dockets,'' and ``EPA Dockets.'' Once 
in the system, select ``search,'' and then key in Docket ID No. OAR-
2003-0049. The system is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means 
EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact 
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
    ii. E-mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9effb3fff0fab3ecb3faf1fdf5fbeadefbeeffb0f9f1e8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e584c8848b81c897c8818a868e8091a5809584cb828a93">[email protected]</span></a>, Attention Air Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0049. In 
contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not 
an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly 
to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, 
EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail 
addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are 
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public 
docket, and are thus made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
    iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM 
that you mail to the mailing address identified in Section I.C.2. These 
electronic submissions will be accepted only in either WordPerfect or 
ASCII file format. Please avoid the use of special characters and any 
form of encryption, as this may adversely affect our ability to read 
these submissions.
2. By Mail
    Send two copies of your comments to: Air Docket, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC, 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0049.
3. By Hand Delivery or Courier
    Deliver two copies of your comments to: EPA Docket Center, Room 
B102, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 
DC., Attention Air Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0049. Such deliveries can 
only be accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation as 
identified in Section I.B.1.
4. By Facsimile
    Fax your comments to: (202) 566-1741, Attention Docket ID. No. OAR-
2003-0049.

D. How Can I Get Copies of This Document?

1. Docket
    EPA has established an official public docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0049. The official public docket consists of the 
documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments 
received, and other information related to this action. Although a part 
of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of 
materials that is available for public viewing at the Air Docket in the 
EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room 
is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is 
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 
566-1742.
2. Electronic Access
    You may access this Federal Register document electronically 
through EPA's Transportation Conformity Web site at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/traqconf.htm. You may also access this document 
electronically under the ``Federal Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through 
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may 
use EPA

[[Page 72143]]

Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public 
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official 
public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that 
are available electronically. Once in the system, select ``search,'' 
then key in the appropriate docket identification number.
    Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. 
Information claimed as CBI and other information for which disclosure 
is restricted by statute is not included in the official public docket 
and will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public 
docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in 
EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, 
paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, 
publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's 
electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index 
list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is 
available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not 
all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still 
access any of the publicly available docket materials through the 
docket facility identified in Section I.B.1. above. EPA intends to work 
towards providing electronic access in the future to all of the 
publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public 
docket.
    For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is 
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, 
will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public 
docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment 
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information for which 
disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment 
containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that 
material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's 
electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the 
copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
    Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or 
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public 
docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will 
be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where 
practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph 
will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief 
description written by the docket staff.
    For additional information about EPA's electronic public docket 
visit EPA Dockets online or see 67 FR 38102, May 31, 2002.

II. Background

A. What Is Transportation Conformity?

    Transportation conformity is required under Clean Air Act section 
176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)) to ensure that federally supported highway 
and transit project activities are consistent with (``conform to'') the 
purpose of the state air quality implementation plan (SIP). Conformity 
currently applies to areas that are designated nonattainment, and those 
redesignated to attainment after 1990 (``maintenance areas'' with plans 
developed under Clean Air Act section 175A) for the following 
transportation-related criteria pollutants: ozone, particulate matter 
(PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>10</INF>),\1\ carbon monoxide (CO), and 
nitrogen dioxide (NO<INF>2</INF>). Conformity to the purpose of the SIP 
means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality 
violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of 
the relevant national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or 
``standards''). EPA's transportation conformity rule establishes the 
criteria and procedures for determining whether transportation 
activities conform to the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 93.102(b)(1) of the conformity rule defines 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>10</INF> as particles with an 
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 and 10 
micrometers, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA first promulgated the transportation conformity rule on 
November 24, 1993 (58 FR 62188), and subsequently published a 
comprehensive set of amendments on August 15, 1997 (62 FR 43780) that 
clarified and streamlined language from the 1993 rule. EPA has made 
other smaller amendments to the rule both before and after the 1997 
amendments.
    Most recently, on July 1, 2004, EPA published a final rule (69 FR 
40004) that amends the current conformity rule to accomplish three 
objectives. The final rule:
    <bullet> Provides conformity procedures for state and local 
agencies under the new ozone and PM<INF>2.5</INF> air quality 
standards;
    <bullet> Incorporates existing EPA and DOT federal guidance into 
the conformity rule consistent with a March 2, 1999 U.S. Court of 
Appeals decision; and
    <bullet> Streamlines and improves the conformity rule.
    The July 1, 2004 final conformity rule incorporated most of the 
provisions from the November 5, 2003 proposal for conformity under the 
new ozone and PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards (68 FR 62690). EPA is 
conducting its conformity rulemakings for the new standards in the 
context of EPA's broader strategies for implementing the new ozone and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards.
    The final rule also incorporated all of the amendments resulting 
from a separate June 30, 2003 proposal (68 FR 38974). This proposal 
addressed the March 2, 1999 court ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the District of Columbia Circuit (Environmental Defense Fund v. 
EPA, et al., 167 F. 3d 641, D.C. Cir. 1999), and incorporated existing 
federal guidance consistent with the court decision.

B. Why Are We Issuing This Supplemental Proposal?

    In the November 2003 proposal, EPA presented several options 
concerning hot-spot analyses in PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>10</INF> 
nonattainment and maintenance areas. EPA received substantial comment 
on this portion of the November 2003 proposal. After considering these 
comments, EPA, in consultation with the Department of Transportation 
(DOT), has decided to request further public comment through this 
supplemental proposal on PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot 
analyses, including additional options for PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 
PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot requirements and those options presented in 
the November 2003 proposal. EPA is not requesting today further comment 
on any other issues raised in the November 2003 proposal or the July 1, 
2004 final rule.
    EPA will address all comments received on PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 
PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot analysis requirements both in response to the 
November 2003 proposal as well as this supplemental proposal in a final 
rulemaking after the close of the comment period. EPA intends to 
complete its rulemaking on PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>10</INF> hot-
spot requirements before PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment designations 
become effective. The existing PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot conformity 
requirements are not affected by today's supplemental proposal, and 
continue to apply in PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment and maintenance 
areas unless and until EPA makes any final rule changes in response to 
this supplemental proposal.
    EPA has consulted with DOT, our federal partners in implementing 
the transportation conformity regulation, in developing this 
supplemental proposal, and DOT concurs with its content.

[[Page 72144]]

III. PM<INF>2.5</INF> Hot-Spot Analyses

A. What Are We Proposing?

1. Background
    EPA is proposing several additional options for hot-spot analyses 
for project-level conformity determinations in PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
nonattainment and maintenance areas. Some options were proposed in the 
November 5, 2003 proposal, and other options are being newly proposed 
today. Comments can be submitted on all PM<INF>2.5</INF> hot-spot 
options during the comment period for this supplemental proposal. The 
options below are listed in terms of what would be required for 
project-level conformity determinations before and after a 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP is submitted in a given PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
nonattainment or maintenance area. Today's proposed regulatory text 
combines various PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot options 
as illustrative examples, since common sections and paragraphs of the 
conformity rule would be affected under the supplemental proposal. 
However, EPA believes that any combination of the proposed 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> or PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot options could be included 
in the final rule.
    A hot-spot analysis is defined in Sec.  93.101 of the conformity 
rule for CO and PM<INF>10</INF> areas as an estimation of likely future 
localized pollutant concentrations and a comparison of those 
concentrations to the relevant air quality standard. In general, a 
quantitative or qualitative hot-spot analysis must show that a given 
project does not cause or contribute to any new violations of the air 
quality standard or increase the frequency or severity of existing 
violations. A hot-spot analysis assesses impacts on a scale smaller 
than an entire nonattainment or maintenance area, including for 
example, congested roadway intersections and highways or transit 
terminals.
    The existing conformity rule requires a hot-spot analysis for all 
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit 
Administration (FTA) funded or approved non-exempt transportation 
projects in CO and PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment and maintenance areas 
(see 40 CFR 93.116 and 93.123). This requirement applies for all 
project-level conformity determinations that occur both before and 
after a SIP is submitted for the CO or PM<INF>10</INF> air quality 
standard.
    The type of hot-spot analysis--quantitative or qualitative--varies 
depending on the type of project involved. The current conformity rule 
requires quantitative hot-spot analyses for projects of most concern in 
CO and PM<INF>10</INF> areas. For example, Sec.  93.123(b)(1) currently 
requires quantitative PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot analyses for the 
following types of transportation projects in PM<INF>10</INF> areas:
    <bullet> Projects which are located at sites at which violations 
have been verified by monitoring data;
    <bullet> Projects which are located at sites which have vehicle and 
roadway emission and dispersion characteristics that are essentially 
identical to those of sites with verified violations (including sites 
near one at which a violation has been monitored); and
    <bullet> New or expanded bus and rail terminals and transfer points 
which increase the number of diesel vehicles congregating at a single 
location.
    Section 93.123(b)(4) of the conformity rule clarifies that the 
requirements for PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot quantitative analysis will 
not take effect until EPA releases modeling guidance and announces in 
the Federal Register that these requirements are in effect. 
Quantitative hot-spot analyses use dispersion modeling to determine the 
effects of motor vehicle emissions associated with a highway or transit 
project on air quality. Qualitative reviews are required for all other 
non-exempt projects in CO and PM<INF>10</INF> areas. Qualitative 
reviews are more streamlined and consider local factors, such as local 
monitoring data near a proposed project rather than dispersion 
modeling. See Section IV. of this notice for further information 
regarding EPA's proposed options for retaining or changing the current 
conformity rule's PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot analysis requirements.
    In the November 5, 2003 proposal, EPA presented two options for 
hot-spot analyses for project-level conformity determinations in 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment and maintenance areas. Under the first 
option (Option 1), hot-spot analyses would not be required for any 
FHWA/FTA non-exempt projects in PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment and 
maintenance areas at any time. Under the second option (Option 2), 
quantitative PM<INF>2.5</INF> hot-spot analyses would only be required 
for FHWA/FTA projects at certain types of locations if the 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP for an area identified such locations. Under 
Option 2, PM<INF>2.5</INF> hot-spot analyses would not be required for 
any projects prior to the submission of a SIP and then only if the 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP in a given nonattainment area identified 
susceptible types of project locations. See the November 5, 2003 
proposal (68 FR 62712-62713) for further information. These options are 
also repeated below along with the additional options EPA is proposing 
today.
2. PM<INF>2.5</INF> Hot-Spot Analyses Before SIP Submission
    EPA is proposing the following PM<INF>2.5</INF> hot-spot options 
for project-level conformity determinations that occur prior to the 
submission of a PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP:
    <bullet> Options 1 and 2: Do not apply any PM<INF>2.5</INF> hot-
spot analysis requirements for any PM<INF>2.5</INF> area before the 
submission of the PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP, as described in the November 
2003 proposal;
    <bullet> Option 3: Apply the existing conformity rule's 
PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot analysis requirements with respect to 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> in all PM<INF>2.5</INF> areas;
    <bullet> Option 4: Apply the existing conformity rule's 
PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot analysis requirements with respect to 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, unless the EPA Regional Administrator or state air 
agency finds that localized PM<INF>2.5</INF> violations are not a 
concern for a given PM<INF>2.5</INF> area; or
    <bullet> Option 5: Apply the existing conformity rule's 
PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot analysis requirements with respect to 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, if the EPA Regional Administrator or state air agency 
finds that localized PM<INF>2.5</INF> violations are a concern for a 
given PM<INF>2.5</INF> area.
    For Options 4 and 5, EPA intends localized PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
concentrations to be a concern if the Clean Air Act requirements for 
projects are not met, that is, if projects create new violations, 
increase the severity or frequency of existing violations, or delay 
timely attainment of the PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard. Please note that 
Options 3-5 would extend the existing PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot 
requirements with respect to the PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard, subject to 
the conditions outlined in the options. EPA is not proposing to require 
PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot analyses in PM<INF>2.5</INF> areas. Although 
EPA has not proposed specific language in Sec.  93.123(b) for Options 4 
and 5, EPA has described these options sufficiently in this preamble to 
include either or both of them in the final rule, if selected.
    EPA requests comments on all of these options. Specifically, EPA 
invites commenters to submit any data as well as argument regarding the 
relevant statutory authority in support of their preferred option(s). 
EPA requests commenters to submit any information that exists that 
would support Options 1, 2, or 3. In addition, for Options 4 and 5 
above, EPA requests comment today on whether state and local agencies 
will have information available to make findings prior to 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP submission, and what type of information will be 
available during this time period.
    An EPA or state air agency finding that PM<INF>2.5</INF> localized 
violations are or are not a concern (i.e., a ``hot-spot finding'') 
prior to PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP submission would be

[[Page 72145]]

based on a case-by-case review of local factors for a given 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> area. For example, such a review could consider the 
following local factors: PM<INF>2.5</INF> monitoring data and proximity 
to the PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard, future modeling projections and 
likelihood of new or worsening localized PM<INF>2.5</INF> violations at 
transportation-related project locations, the prevalence of heavy-duty 
diesel vehicles at certain types of locations (e.g., highly congested 
intersections or large transit stations where significant traffic and 
engine idling occurs), site-specific terrain, meteorology, etc. As 
noted in the November 2003 proposal, since secondary particles take 
several hours to form in the atmosphere giving emissions time to 
disperse beyond the immediate area of concern, hot spot findings under 
options 4 and 5 would be based on direct particulate emissions that are 
attributable to an individual project.
    If EPA finalizes an option under which hot-spot findings would be 
made, such findings would be made only after discussions among federal, 
state, and local air quality and transportation agencies through the 
interagency consultation process for a given PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
nonattainment area. A hot-spot finding would be made through a letter 
to the relevant state and local air quality and transportation 
agencies, MPO(s), FHWA, FTA, and EPA (in the case of a state air agency 
finding).
    EPA notes that a hot-spot finding under Options 4 and 5 would not 
be completed through EPA's adequacy process for submitted SIPs with 
motor vehicle emissions budgets. Hot-spot findings would be done prior 
to a SIP's submission and would not affect the development of future 
SIPs and budgets for use in regional emissions analyses for conformity 
determinations.
3. PM<INF>2.5</INF> Hot-Spot Analyses After SIP Submission
    EPA is proposing the following PM<INF>2.5</INF> hot-spot options 
for project-level conformity determinations that occur after the 
submission of a PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP:
    <bullet> Option A: Do not apply any PM<INF>2.5</INF> hot-spot 
analysis requirements for any PM<INF>2.5</INF> area (i.e., Option 1 
from the November 2003 proposal);
    <bullet> Option B: Only require quantitative PM<INF>2.5</INF> hot-
spot analyses for projects at those types of locations that the 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP for a given area identifies as a localized 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> air quality concern (i.e., Option 2 from the November 
2003 proposal). No quantitative or qualitative analyses would be 
required for projects in other types of locations, or in 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> areas where the SIP does not identify types of 
locations as a localized PM<INF>2.5</INF> air quality concern; or
    <bullet> Option C: Apply the existing conformity rule's 
PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot analysis requirements with respect to 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> for all projects in PM<INF>2.5</INF> areas with one 
minor addition, as described below.
    Under Option B, PM<INF>2.5</INF> hot-spot analyses would only be 
required for projects at the types of locations identified in the 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP; no qualitative hot-spot analyses would be done 
for any other projects. Option B would not require hot-spot analyses 
for all FHWA/FTA non-exempt projects in the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
nonattainment or maintenance areas, as is proposed under Option C and 
currently required for CO and PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment and 
maintenance areas.
    If EPA finalizes Option B, we would provide guidance on how to 
identify locations where transportation-related PM<INF>2.5</INF> hot-
spots may exist. Examples of types of possible project locations 
include:
    <bullet> Highly congested intersections,
    <bullet> Large transit stations where significant traffic and 
engine idling occurs,
    <bullet> Projects involving long or steep grades, or
    <bullet> Monitors where the PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard has been 
exceeded or violated.
    EPA requests comment on the above examples, and requests further 
information regarding other types of project locations that should be 
considered in possible future guidance on potential PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
hot-spots in a given area. Any future guidance would be available for 
use when states prepare their PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIPs.
    Minor change to quantitative hot-spot requirements: For Option C, 
EPA is proposing one minor change to the existing rule's 
PM<INF>10</INF> requirements for when quantitative analyses are 
required in PM<INF>2.5</INF> areas. As applied to PM<INF>2.5</INF> hot-
spot analyses, the proposal would require that quantitative analyses be 
performed in those types of project locations that the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
SIP identifies as a PM<INF>2.5</INF> hot-spot concern, in addition to 
the three types of projects where quantitative analysis would always be 
required, as outlined in Section III.A.1. This criterion would only be 
relevant after the PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP is submitted. If EPA finalizes 
this minor change, we propose that it would apply to both 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot analyses. This change is 
described in greater detail in Section IV. of today's supplemental 
proposal relating to PM<INF>10</INF> and the reader should refer to 
that section for further details. Regulatory text for this minor change 
is in Sec.  93.123(b)(1) of today's action.
    EPA also proposes to make a minor change to Sec.  93.123(b)(1)(iii) 
to clarify that quantitative analyses would be required for such 
projects that significantly increase the number of diesel vehicles, so 
that quantitative analyses are not required for insignificant vehicle 
increases with de minimis localized emissions increases. The proposed 
change may also cover the cases where the number of vehicles increases 
but emissions do not increase because the added vehicles are cleaner 
(e.g., retrofitted diesel vehicles).
4. Quantitative PM<INF>2.5</INF> Hot-Spot Analyses and Future EPA 
Guidance
    For options that would require quantitative hot-spot analyses, EPA 
proposes to extend the current rule's Sec.  93.123(b)(3) and (b)(4) 
requirements with respect to PM<INF>2.5</INF>. Section 93.123(b)(3) 
currently requires that the consultation process be used to identify 
the specific cases in a given nonattainment or maintenance area under 
which PM<INF>10</INF> quantitative hot-spot analyses are performed, and 
addresses categorical conformity determinations for certain transit 
projects and FTA actions in PM<INF>10</INF> areas. A categorical 
conformity determination under the existing conformity rule and this 
proposal allows FTA to determine that a quantitative hot-spot analysis 
is not needed for a particular project if there is modeling that shows 
that such a project will not cause or contribute to new or worsening 
localized violations. Today's action would also propose to extend this 
sub-paragraph for PM<INF>2.5</INF> and allow DOT to choose to make a 
categorical conformity determination for PM<INF>2.5</INF> on bus and 
rail terminals or transfer points based on appropriate modeling of 
various terminal sizes, configurations, and activity levels. Today's 
proposal does not substantively change Sec.  93.123(b)(3) for FTA 
actions on certain transit projects, and EPA is not requesting comment 
on this existing flexibility.
    However, the proposal would modify Sec.  93.123(b)(3) to allow FHWA 
to make a categorical conformity determination for PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 
PM<INF>10</INF> on certain roadways and intersections based on 
appropriate modeling of various configurations and activity levels. As 
described above, the current rule provides for such FTA categorical 
conformity determinations for only certain transit projects in 
PM<INF>10</INF> areas.
    We request comment on allowing FHWA to make a categorical 
determination for hot-spot analyses in appropriate cases if it believes 
that Clean Air Act requirements are met without additional 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> hot-spot analyses. EPA also requests information on 
what types of roadway and

[[Page 72146]]

intersection projects would be appropriately covered by this aspect of 
today's proposal. If finalized, EPA and DOT would consult on the 
development of additional guidance on the implementation of such a 
provision.
    Under the proposal, the modeled scenarios used to make the 
categorical determinations would need to be derived in consultation 
with EPA, and more refined analyses would be necessary for projects 
which do not meet the parameters of the modeled scenario. See EPA's 
January 11, 1993 proposal (58 FR 3780) for further information on the 
current rule's requirements.
    Similar to Sec.  93.123(b)(4) of the current rule for 
PM<INF>10</INF> areas, EPA also proposes to not require any 
quantitative PM<INF>2.5</INF> hot-spot analyses until EPA releases 
quantitative modeling guidance and announces in the Federal Register 
that PM<INF>2.5</INF> quantitative modeling requirements are in effect. 
If EPA finalizes an option that would require quantitative and/or 
qualitative PM<INF>2.5</INF> hot-spot analyses, we would provide 
guidance and appropriate models for carrying out such analyses in a 
timely manner. EPA would consult with conformity stakeholders when 
developing quantitative guidance.
5. Other Requirements
    General requirements: For options that would require a 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> hot-spot analysis, EPA is proposing to extend the 
general requirements in Sec.  93.123(c) of the current conformity rule 
to PM<INF>2.5</INF> areas. EPA is not proposing any substantive changes 
to these requirements in today's action. Under these current 
requirements, all hot-spot analyses include:
    <bullet> The total emissions burden of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
emissions which may result from the implementation of the project 
(including re-entrained road dust and construction dust as applicable), 
summed together with future background concentrations;
    <bullet> The entire transportation project, after the 
identification of major design features which will significantly impact 
local concentrations;
    <bullet> Consistent assumptions with those used in regional 
emissions analyses for inputs that are required for both analyses 
(e.g., temperature, humidity);
    <bullet> Assumptions for the implementation of mitigation or 
control measures only where written commitments for such measures have 
been obtained; and
    <bullet> No temporary emissions increases from construction-related 
activities which occur only during the construction phase and last five 
years or less at any individual site.
    See the preamble for the January 1, 1993 proposal (58 FR 3779-3780) 
and November 24, 1993 final rule (58 FR 62212-62213) for further 
information regarding the intent and rationale for these general hot-
spot requirements.
    Finally, as described in the November 2003 proposal, EPA is 
proposing to also extend the requirements of Sec.  93.125(a) of the 
current conformity rule to PM<INF>2.5</INF> areas if a PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
hot-spot requirement is finalized. Section 93.125(a) of the existing 
conformity rule currently applies to all projects in CO and 
PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment and maintenance areas.
    As described in the November 2003 proposal and today's action, FHWA 
or FTA must obtain from the project sponsor and/or operator enforceable 
written commitments to implement any required project-level control or 
mitigation measures, prior to making a project-level conformity 
determination in a PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment or maintenance area. 
These control or mitigation measures may be a condition of either a 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) approval or a conformity 
determination for a transportation plan or TIP or be included in the 
design concept and scope of the project that is used in the regional 
emissions analysis required by Sec. Sec.  93.118 or 93.119 of the 
conformity rule, or used in the project-level hot-spot analysis 
required by Sec.  93.116. These measures may be applicable during 
construction and/or operation of the project. Such measures would 
already be applicable to such projects through the mechanisms cited 
above; however, including commitments to them in conformity 
determinations will provide an additional enforcement tool.
    Changes to other related existing requirements: Today's proposal 
also includes minor clarifications with respect to PM<INF>2.5</INF> to 
various parts of the current conformity rule that are consistent with 
existing CO and PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot analysis requirements. For 
example, EPA has proposed to add PM<INF>2.5</INF> to the current rule's 
``hot-spot analysis'' definition in Sec.  93.101. EPA proposes that 
this and the other minor clarifications in today's proposed regulatory 
text would be finalized under any option that would require 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> hot-spot analyses.

B. Why Are We Proposing These Options?

1. General
    EPA believes it is important to consider the full range of options 
for addressing localized PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations which may 
cause or contribute to any new violation of the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
standard; increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation; 
or delay timely attainment of the standard. In developing this 
supplemental proposal, EPA considered several factors:
    <bullet> The Clean Air Act conformity requirements for individual 
transportation projects;
    <bullet> The current scientific understanding of PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
hot-spots and public health effects;
    <bullet> The feasibility of implementing proposed options; and
    <bullet> The impact of proposed options on state and local 
resources.
    The following paragraphs outline how these factors relate to the 
proposed options.
    First, EPA believes that any option that is selected in the final 
rule must ensure that all federally funded and approved transportation 
projects in PM<INF>2.5</INF> areas are consistent with Clean Air Act 
requirements. Section 176(c)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act states that 
federally-supported transportation projects must not ``cause or 
contribute to any new violation of any standard in any area; increase 
the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any standard in 
any area; or delay timely attainment of any standard or any required 
interim emission reductions or other milestones in any area.'' While 
these statutory requirements apply at all times for highway and transit 
project conformity determinations, as noted in the November 3, 2003 
proposal, Section 176 (c)(3)(B)(ii) only specifically requires hot-spot 
analysis for projects in CO nonattainment areas and therefore, EPA has 
discretion to decide if hot-spot analyses are necessary to protect air 
quality in particulate matter nonattainment and maintenance areas. EPA 
received comments concerning this interpretation of the Agency's 
statutory authority during the comment period following the November 3, 
2003 proposal and invites further comments on this matter.
    EPA also considered what is currently known about the possibility 
that transportation-related PM<INF>2.5</INF> hot-spots exist in the 
development of the November 2003 proposal and today's supplemental 
proposal. In the November 3, 2003 proposal EPA indicated that the 
Agency was not certain that hot-spots will occur, or that in the event 
such hot-spots are confirmed, that requiring a qualitative hot-spot 
analysis for every FHWA and FTA project in PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
nonattainment and maintenance areas would provide an environmental 
benefit due to the

[[Page 72147]]

regional nature of PM<INF>2.5</INF> and the significant role of 
secondary formation of these fine particles.
    Understanding whether transportation projects can result in 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> hot-spots and if so, under what circumstances, 
provides a basis for considering whether explicit hot-spot reviews must 
be required. The state of scientific research continues to evolve on 
the relationship between individual transportation projects and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> air quality. EPA noted in the November 2003 proposal 
that most of the research studies that had been reviewed at that time 
indicated that concentrations of some components of PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
increase near heavily traveled roadways. In the November 2003 proposal, 
EPA noted its review of a number of key studies that represent the 
range of available research on the impact of on-road mobile source 
emissions of particles on air quality near roadways. The majority of 
these studies indicate that concentrations of some components of 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, such as black carbon and ultrafine particles, 
increase near roadways. However, many of these studies did not measure 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> directly. Several studies concluded that on-road 
sources were one of several contributors to the concentrations measured 
near roadways. Please see the November 2003 proposal for additional 
information on these and other studies (68 FR 62713).
    EPA has also considered information that has become available since 
the November 2003 proposal and has further considered the information 
that was described in the November 2003 proposal. For example, one new 
study published this year examines changes in traffic patterns 
associated with a single transportation project that can result in 
statistically significant differences in PM<INF>2.5</INF> mass 
concentrations measured along affected roadways (Burr, et al., 2004). 
Some commenters also provided other information regarding 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> hot-spots for EPA's consideration. The information 
available prior to the November 2003 proposal did not measure 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> directly and did not isolate the effects of new 
transportation projects. However, both this information as well as the 
most recent information does indicate a potential for higher localized 
emissions and PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations near transportation 
projects. EPA is considering the context for how this information was 
developed, including how localized emissions increases and existing 
background concentrations relate to the potential for localized 
violation of the PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard. We invite others to submit 
data or research relevant to the existence of transportation-related 
hot-spots during the comment period for this supplemental proposal. 
Please read C. of this section for further information.
    EPA also considered what would be known about the potential for 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> hot-spots in individual PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment 
areas, and as a consequence, the feasibility of implementing any 
proposed option to meet statutory requirements before and after 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP submission. We invite state and local agencies to 
comment on the feasibility of implementing all of the proposed options, 
including what state or local information would be available for 
implementation purposes as appropriate.
    In addition, EPA will be considering in the final rule the impact 
of our new diesel fuel and engine standards (January 18, 2001, 66 FR 
5002) for the necessity of applying any of the proposed options. Such 
standards are expected to significantly impact the amount of 
particulate emissions that will be emitted by new diesel vehicles, and 
consequently may impact the potential for PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
transportation-related hot-spots.
2. PM<INF>2.5</INF> Hot-Spot Analyses Before SIP Submission
    EPA has proposed several options for PM<INF>2.5</INF> hot-spot 
analyses prior to SIP submission (Options 1-5). As stated above, our 
understanding of transportation-related PM<INF>2.5</INF> and the 
potential of PM<INF>2.5</INF> hot-spots will continue to develop, 
especially during the time period when conformity first applies for the 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard.
    EPA is again proposing Options 1 and 2 which do not require any 
explicit PM<INF>2.5</INF> hot-spot analysis for any project before 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP submission in PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment and 
maintenance areas. Please see the November 2003 proposal (68 FR 62712-
62713) for further information on these options.
    EPA has also proposed to apply the existing rule's PM<INF>10</INF> 
hot-spot requirements to PM<INF>2.5</INF> areas before PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
SIP submission (Option 3). EPA believes that this option would meet 
statutory requirements since it relies on an existing interpretation 
that has already been implemented under the current conformity rule. In 
the November 24, 1993 conformity rule (58 FR 62188), EPA promulgated 
the existing conformity requirements for CO and PM<INF>10</INF> hot-
spot analyses. A hot-spot analysis is currently required for all non-
exempt federal projects in CO and PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment and 
maintenance areas, regardless of whether or not a SIP has been 
submitted. Quantitative hot-spot analyses under the current rule are 
required for projects that meet specific criteria in the conformity 
rule, rather than based on criteria identified in a SIP.
    The current conformity rule requires hot-spot analyses for all non-
exempt FHWA/FTA projects at all times in PM<INF>10</INF> areas, since 
we believed that emissions produced by individual highway and transit 
projects in these areas could potentially result in a new air quality 
violation or worsen an existing violation. Option 3 relies on this same 
rationale.
    Applying the current rule's provisions in PM<INF>2.5</INF> areas 
would provide an environmentally conservative approach to any 
uncertainty regarding the potential or prevalence of PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
hot-spots, since some type of hot-spot analysis would be completed for 
every non-exempt FHWA/FTA project in PM<INF>2.5</INF> areas. Although 
state and local agencies have developed boundary recommendations for 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> designations, SIPs for individual nonattainment areas 
will not be developed for three years after designations. As a result, 
information regarding localized PM<INF>2.5</INF> air quality challenges 
in individual areas may not be available for most areas. EPA will 
consider in the final rule whether sufficient information is available 
to confidently confirm or eliminate the possibility of PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
hot-spots for categories of project types or locations, and as a 
result, if explicit hot-spot reviews are necessary before 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP submission.
    EPA is also proposing Options 4 and 5 for the time period prior to 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP submission, due to the evolving nature of our 
understanding of PM<INF>2.5</INF> air quality issues. These options 
would apply current PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot requirements with respect 
to PM<INF>2.5</INF> depending on whether or not worsening 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations would result in a new violation or 
increased severity or frequency of an existing violation of the 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard in an area prior to PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP 
submission. These options would rely on the proposed interpretation 
stated in the November 2003 proposal (68 FR 62713): Clean Air Act 
section 176(c)(1)(B) requirements could be met as long as explicit 
reviews are performed at locations identified in the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
SIP as susceptible to PM<INF>2.5</INF> hot-spots. If hot-spots are 
found not to be a concern (Option 4) for any projects in a given area 
prior to PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP submission, then statutory requirements 
could be met in these areas without any explicit hot-spot review. 
Conversely, if hot-spots are found to be a concern (Option 5) in a 
given area, then all project-level conformity determinations in these 
areas should include explicit

[[Page 72148]]

hot-spot reviews to ensure that statutory requirements are met. Both of 
these options would allow EPA and states to target hot-spot 
requirements in PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment areas where hot-spots 
may or may not be an air quality concern.
    As described in A.2. of this section, EPA is requesting comment on 
whether state and local air agencies will have the necessary data and 
other information to make the hot-spot findings described in Options 4 
and 5 prior to PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP submission. The appropriateness and 
feasibility of these options--that is, the ability to argue that 
section 176(c)(1)(B) requirements are met under these options--depends 
on whether well-considered, informed findings will be possible prior to 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP submission.
3. PM<INF>2.5</INF> Hot-Spot Analyses After SIP Submission
    EPA has also proposed options for PM<INF>2.5</INF> hot-spot 
analyses after SIP submission (Options A-C). Option C would extend the 
existing rule's PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot requirements (with a minor 
addition) to PM<INF>2.5</INF> areas after PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP 
submission. Similar to Option 3 for the time period before 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIPs, EPA concludes that Option C would meet statutory 
requirements since it relies on existing rationale for the current 
conformity rule.
    EPA also notes that extending the current rule's provisions for 
PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot analyses to PM<INF>2.5</INF> areas would 
ensure that potential transportation-related PM<INF>2.5</INF> hot-spots 
for all areas are addressed, especially in cases where it is not 
possible to determine through the SIP process what the potential for 
localized PM<INF>2.5</INF> violations would be in a given nonattainment 
or maintenance area. As noted previously, EPA will consider in the 
final rule the potential existence of PM<INF>2.5</INF> hot-spots for 
transportation projects, and whether explicit hot-spot reviews will be 
needed to meet Clean Air Act requirements. Option C would require state 
and local resources be used for all FHWA/FTA non-exempt projects in 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> areas, although EPA is proposing flexibility to 
require more intensive quantitative hot-spot reviews only for a subset 
of projects.
    EPA also proposed Option B to require quantitative PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
hot-spot analyses only at types of project locations identified as a 
localized air quality concern in a given PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP. When the 
SIP identifies such locations, a quantitative hot-spot analysis would 
be completed for affected projects. No qualitative analyses would be 
required for projects in other types of locations, or in 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> areas where the SIP does not identify types of 
locations as a localized PM<INF>2.5</INF> air quality concern. Under 
Option B, EPA is proposing quantitative hot-spot analyses only for 
projects at locations identified in the SIP as a localized concern, 
since EPA believes that if a SIP identifies such a project location as 
problematic, then a more thorough examination of the localized impacts 
of transportation projects at such locations is necessary to ensure 
that the SIP's purpose and Clean Air Act conformity requirements are 
met.
    As stated in the November 2003 proposal, Option B is consistent 
with the purpose of conformity, which is to ensure that federally 
funded or approved transportation projects are consistent with the SIP 
in a given nonattainment or maintenance area. Section 176(c)(1)(A) 
requires ``conformity to an implementation plan's purpose of 
eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of the 
national ambient air quality standards and achieving expeditious 
attainment of such standards * * *.'' Under this option, the SIP would 
define the types of locations where transportation projects are a 
localized PM<INF>2.5</INF> concern, and therefore, when explicit hot-
spot reviews are necessary to meet statutory requirements.
    For Option B, EPA is considering whether PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIPs can 
be developed so potential transportation-related hot-spot locations are 
defined for each PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment and maintenance area. 
This option would be feasible in the case where sufficient information 
exists that allows a state to specify susceptible locations for 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> hot-spots are or are not a concern. However, there may 
be other cases where it is unclear whether susceptible locations for 
hot-spots exist, or where there is a potential for localized 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> violations but it is difficult to specify which 
project locations could create hot-spots. EPA is requesting comment on 
whether such cases could occur in future PM<INF>2.5</INF> areas, and 
whether other proposed options would be more appropriate in such cases 
after a PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP is submitted.
    EPA also requests comment on how the proposed options should be 
implemented in cases where the latest information available on the 
potential for PM<INF>2.5</INF> hot-spots is not reflected in the 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP. For example, suppose an attainment demonstration 
for the PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard is developed that specifies that 
there are no project locations susceptible to PM<INF>2.5</INF> hot-
spots. However, after the attainment demonstration is submitted, 
information becomes available outside the SIP process that indicates 
that there may be potential transportation-related hot-spot locations. 
One may argue that in such a case under Option B PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIPs 
would need to be updated in a timely manner to reflect new information 
so that project-level conformity determinations could be made that meet 
statutory requirements. On the other hand, there may be arguments to 
allow the SIP process to evaluate any new information prior to its use 
in the conformity process.
    EPA has committed to issue SIP guidance under this option if it is 
finalized. Due to the evolving nature of our understanding of 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, there may be challenges to any guidance document that 
is developed in the near future. EPA requests in today's action further 
comment on whether state and local air quality agencies will have the 
necessary local information and resources to specify in 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIPs which project locations are a potential 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> hot-spot concern, in order to support Option B and 
provide flexibility in the conformity process.
    State and local agencies may identify types of locations in each 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP that may increase or decrease the kinds of 
projects requiring quantitative hot-spot analyses, as compared to the 
current conformity rule's criteria for such PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot 
analyses. Ultimately, EPA anticipates that this option would likely 
result in fewer total projects having some type of PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
hot-spot review as compared to the current conformity rule's 
requirements, since not all PM<INF>2.5</INF> areas may have future 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIPs that identify hot-spots as a concern.
    EPA is again proposing options for not requiring any explicit 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> hot-spot analysis for any project after 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP submission (Option A). As stated in B.2. of this 
section, this option could be finalized based on the discussion of this 
option in the November 3, 2003 proposal.
4. Specific Analysis Requirements
    EPA continues to believe it has discretion both to decide if hot-
spot analyses are necessary and to establish the level of any 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> hot-spot analysis that would be required for 
transportation projects. For example, the options that involve applying 
the existing conformity rule's PM<INF>10</INF> requirements with 
respect to PM<INF>2.5</INF> would require quantitative hot-spot 
analyses only for certain projects. Qualitative hot-spot analyses would 
be completed under these options for other projects that are not 
subject to quantitative analyses. Applying the current conformity 
rule's approach for requiring dispersion modeling only at certain 
project locations would

[[Page 72149]]

streamline PM<INF>2.5</INF> hot-spot reviews and utilize state and 
local resources in an efficient and reasonable manner while still 
satisfying Clean Air Act requirements.
    EPA's minor proposal to add a new criterion under Option C to Sec.  
93.123(b)(1) of the regulatory text for when PM quantitative hot-spot 
analyses are required would ensure that Clean Air Act and SIP goals are 
met. That is, requiring quantitative hot-spot analyses to also be 
completed for types of project locations that the SIP identifies will 
support the SIP's goals for an individual area in those cases where a 
state has the information to identify specific types of locations. 
Where a state does not have such information, EPA believes that the 
remaining three criteria for when quantitative analyses are completed 
sufficiently cover the cases where it is most likely to have a hot-spot 
occur.
    EPA notes that this minor proposal would be consistent with a 
similar criterion in Sec.  93.123(a)(1)(i) of the existing rule's 
requirements for quantitative CO hot-spot analyses. This criterion 
requires quantitative CO hot-spot analyses ``[f]or projects in or 
affecting locations, areas, or categories of sites which are identified 
in the applicable implementation plan as sites of violation or possible 
violation; * * *.''
5. Other Requirements
    Finally, EPA is proposing to apply the current conformity rule's 
other provisions for conducting hot-spot analyses with respect to 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> for any option that requires a PM<INF>2.5</INF> hot-
spot analysis. As described in A.5. of this section, these minor 
proposed changes would not substantively change these provisions of the 
current conformity rule (e.g., Sec. Sec.  93.123(c) and 93.125(a)). 
These proposed changes would allow EPA to implement any 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> hot-spot requirement in the final rule, if necessary.

C. Request for PM2.5 Hot-Spot Information

    EPA again invites commenters to submit studies or data regarding 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> hot-spots during the comment period for this 
supplemental proposal. All comments and information submitted for the 
November 2003 proposal and today's action will be considered when EPA 
develops the final rule that addresses PM<INF>2.5</INF> hot-spot 
requirements.

IV. PM10 Hot-Spot Analyses

A. What Are We Proposing?

1. Background
    EPA is proposing several options for PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot 
analyses in today's action for project-level conformity determinations 
in PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment and maintenance areas. As described in 
Section III. of today's action, a highway or transit project subject to 
transportation conformity provisions of the Clean Air Act must not 
cause or contribute to any new violations of the air quality standard, 
increase the frequency or severity of existing violations or delay 
timely attainment of any standard or interim emission reductions or 
milestones.
    Comments can be submitted on all options during the comment period 
for this supplemental proposal. The options below are listed in terms 
of what would be required for project-level conformity determinations 
before and after a PM<INF>10</INF> SIP is submitted in a given 
PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment or maintenance area.
    The following paragraphs describe the November 5, 2003 proposal's 
PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot options along with new options proposed for 
comment today. Today's proposed regulatory text combines various 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot options as illustrative 
examples, since common sections and paragraphs of the conformity rule 
would be affected under the supplemental proposal. However, EPA 
believes that any combination of the proposed PM<INF>2.5</INF> or 
PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot options could be included in the final rule.
    As described in Section III., the existing conformity rule requires 
some type of hot-spot analyses for all FHWA/FTA non-exempt projects in 
CO and PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment and maintenance areas (see 40 CFR 
93.116 and 93.123). These requirements currently apply for all project-
level conformity determinations that occur before and after a SIP is 
submitted for these standards.
2. PM<INF>10</INF> Hot-Spot Analyses Prior to SIP Submission
    In today's supplemental proposal, EPA is proposing the following 
PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot options for project-level conformity 
determinations that occur prior to the submission of a PM<INF>10</INF> 
SIP:
    <bullet> Option 1: Retain the existing conformity rule's 
PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot analysis requirements in all PM<INF>10</INF> 
areas.
    <bullet> Option 2: Apply the existing conformity rule's 
PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot analysis requirements, unless the EPA Regional 
Administrator or state air agency finds that localized PM<INF>10</INF> 
violations are not a concern for a given PM<INF>10</INF> area;
    <bullet> Option 3: Only apply the existing conformity rule's 
PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot analysis requirements, if the EPA Regional 
Administrator or state air agency finds that localized PM<INF>10</INF> 
violations are a concern for a given PM<INF>10</INF> area; or
    <bullet> Option 4: Delete the current PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot 
analysis requirements from the conformity rule and impose no hot-spot 
analysis requirements.
    For Options 2 and 3, EPA intends localized PM<INF>10</INF> 
violations to be a concern if Clean Air Act requirements for projects 
are not met, that is, if projects create new or worsen existing 
PM<INF>10</INF> violations. Although EPA has not proposed specific 
language in Sec.  93.123(b) for Options 3 and 4, EPA has described 
these options sufficiently in this preamble to include either or both 
of them in the final rule, if selected.
    For Options 2 and 3, EPA requests comment today on whether state 
and local agencies that do not already have established PM<INF>10</INF> 
SIPs have information available to make such findings (``hot-spot 
findings''), and what type of information would be available in the 
future for those limited number of PM<INF>10</INF> areas without 
PM<INF>10</INF> SIPs. An EPA or state hot-spot finding that localized 
PM<INF>10</INF> violations are or are not a concern prior to 
PM<INF>10</INF> SIP submission would be based on a case-by-case review 
of local factors for a given PM<INF>10</INF> area. For example, such a 
review could consider the following local factors: PM<INF>10</INF> 
monitoring data and proximity to the PM<INF>10</INF> standard, future 
modeling projections and likelihood of new or worsening localized 
PM<INF>10</INF> violations at transportation-related project locations, 
the prevalence of heavy-duty diesel vehicles at certain types of 
locations (e.g., highly congested intersections or large transit 
stations where significant traffic and engine idling occurs), site-
specific terrain, meteorology, etc.
    The proposed rule would require hot-spot findings under the 
proposed options to be made only after discussions with federal, state, 
and local air quality and transportation agencies through the 
interagency consultation process for a given PM<INF>10</INF> 
nonattainment area. A hot-spot finding would be made through a letter 
to the relevant state and local air quality and transportation 
agencies, MPO(s), FHWA, FTA, and EPA (in the case of a state air agency 
finding). A hot-spot finding under the proposed options would not be 
completed through EPA's adequacy process for submitted SIPs with motor 
vehicle emissions budgets, as noted in Section III.A.2. of today's 
supplemental proposal.

[[Page 72150]]

3. PM<INF>10</INF> Hot-Spot Analyses After SIP Submission
    EPA is proposing the following PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot options for 
project-level conformity determinations that occur after 
PM<INF>10</INF> SIP submission:
    <bullet> Option A: Retain the existing conformity rule's 
PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot analysis requirements for FHWA/FTA non-exempt 
projects in all PM<INF>10</INF> areas with one minor addition, as 
described below;
    <bullet> Option B: Only require quantitative PM<INF>10</INF> hot-
spot analyses for projects at those types of locations that the 
PM<INF>10</INF> SIP for a given area identifies as a localized 
PM<INF>10</INF> air quality concern. No qualitative analyses would be 
required for projects in other types of locations, or in 
PM<INF>10</INF> areas where the SIP does not identify types of 
locations as a localized PM<INF>10</INF> air quality concern; or
    <bullet> Option C: Do not apply any PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot 
analysis requirements for any PM<INF>10</INF> area and delete the 
current PM<INF>10</INF> requirements from the conformity rule.
    EPA notes that all of these options were represented in the 
November 2003 proposal. As described in Section III. for 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> PM<INF>10</INF> quantitative hot-spot analyses under 
Option B would only be required for projects at the types of locations 
identified as a concern in the PM<INF>10</INF> SIP; no qualitative hot-
spot analyses would be done for all other projects. This option would 
not require some type of hot-spot analyses for all projects in the 
PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment or maintenance area, as is currently 
required. If EPA finalizes Option B, we would provide guidance on how 
to identify locations where transportation-related PM<INF>10</INF> hot-
spots may exist. The majority of PM<INF>10</INF> areas already have an 
attainment demonstration or a maintenance plan; therefore, SIP 
revisions may be necessary under Option B to identify types of 
locations where quantitative analyses must be performed.
    As described in Section III. of today's notice, examples of types 
of project locations include:
    <bullet> Highly congested intersections,
    <bullet> Large transit stations where significant traffic and 
engine idling occurs,
    <bullet> Long or steep grades, or
    <bullet> Monitors where the PM<INF>10</INF> standard has been 
exceeded or violated.
    EPA requests comment on the above examples, and requests further 
information regarding other types of project locations where potential 
PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spots could occur in a given area.
    Minor change to quantitative hot-spot requirements: For Option A, 
EPA is proposing one minor change to the existing conformity rule's 
requirements for PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot analyses after 
PM<INF>10</INF> SIPs are submitted. The proposal would add another 
criterion for when quantitative (rather than qualitative) analyses 
would be performed--in those types of project locations that the 
PM<INF>10</INF> SIP identifies as a PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot concern. 
This criterion would only be relevant after the PM<INF>10</INF> SIP is 
submitted. If EPA finalizes this minor change, it would apply to both 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot analyses. This change is 
also being proposed in Section III. of today's action for a similar 
option for PM<INF>2.5</INF> analyses. Regulatory text for this minor 
change is in Sec.  93.123(b)(1).
    Section 93.123(b)(1) currently requires quantitative 
PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot analyses for the following types of 
transportation projects:
    <bullet> Projects which are located at sites at which violations 
have been verified by monitoring data;
    <bullet> Projects which are located at sites which have vehicle and 
roadway emission and dispersion characteristics that are essentially 
identical to those of sites with verified violations (including sites 
near one at which a violation has been monitored); and
    <bullet> New or expanded bus and rail terminals and transfer points 
which increase the number of diesel vehicles congregating at a single 
location.
    EPA proposes to make a minor change to Sec.  93.123(b)(1)(iii) to 
clarify that quantitative analyses would be required for such projects 
that significantly increase the number of diesel vehicles, so that 
quantitative analyses are not required for insignificant vehicle 
increases with de minimis localized emissions increases. The proposed 
change may also cover the cases where the number of vehicles increases 
but emissions do not increase because the added vehicles are cleaner 
(e.g., retrofitted diesel vehicles).
    EPA notes that today's action would not change Sec.  93.123(b)(2) 
of the current rule for relevant options, which requires a qualitative 
hot-spot analysis of local factors for all other projects, rather than 
dispersion modeling.
    Section 93.123(b)(3) currently requires that the consultation 
process be used to identify the specific cases in a given nonattainment 
or maintenance area under which PM<INF>10</INF> quantitative hot-spot 
analyses are performed, and addresses categorical conformity 
determinations for certain transit projects and FTA actions in 
PM<INF>10</INF> areas. A categorical conformity determination under the 
existing conformity rule and this proposal allows FTA to determine that 
a quantitative hot-spot analysis is not needed for a particular project 
if there is modeling that shows that such a project will not cause or 
contribute to new or worsening localized violations. Today's proposal 
does not substantively change Sec.  93.123(b)(3) for FTA actions on 
certain transit projects, and EPA is not requesting comment on this 
existing flexibility.
    However, today's proposal would modify Sec.  93.123(b)(3) of the 
current conformity rule to allow FHWA to also make a categorical 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> or PM<INF>10</INF> conformity determination on certain 
roadways and intersections based on appropriate modeling of various 
configurations and activity levels. As described above, the current 
rule provides for such FTA categorical conformity determinations for 
only certain transit projects in PM<INF>10</INF> areas. We request 
comment on allowing FHWA to make a categorical determination without 
additional PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot analyses if it believes this would 
meet Clean Air Act requirements. EPA also requests information on what 
types of roadway and intersection projects would be appropriately 
covered by this proposal. If finalized, EPA and DOT would consult on 
the development of additional guidance on the implementation of such a 
provision. See Section III.A.4. of today's proposal for further 
information.
4. Quantitative PM<INF>10</INF> Hot-Spot Analyses and Future EPA 
Guidance
    If EPA finalizes an option that would require quantitative 
PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot analyses, we would provide guidance and 
appropriate models for carrying out such analyses in a timely 
manner.\2\ Section 93.123(b)(4) of the current rule does not require 
any quantitative PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot analyses until EPA releases 
quantitative modeling guidance and announces in the Federal Register 
that quantitative modeling requirements are in effect. EPA would 
consult with conformity stakeholders when developing PM<INF>10</INF> 
quantitative guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ PM<INF>10</INF> qualitative hot-spot guidance has already 
been issued, titled, ``Federal Highway Administration Guidance for 
Qualitative Project Level ``Hot Spot'' Analysis in PM-10 
Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas,'' September 2001. This guidance 
can be downloaded from the following website: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/conform/policy.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Other Requirements
    For options that require PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot analyses, EPA is 
proposing to continue to apply the general requirements for such 
analyses in Sec. Sec.  93.123(c), 93.125(a), and other provisions of 
the current conformity rule for all PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot analyses. 
EPA is not proposing any substantive changes to these requirements. See 
Section III. of this

[[Page 72151]]

preamble or the proposed regulatory text for further general 
information regarding these requirements.

B. Why Are We Proposing These Options?

1. General
    EPA considered the following factors in developing the 
PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot options in the November 2003 proposal and 
today's action:
    <bullet> The Clean Air Act conformity requirements for individual 
transportation projects in PM<INF>10</INF> areas;
    <bullet> The current scientific understanding of PM<INF>10</INF> 
hot-spots and public health effects;
    <bullet> The feasibility of implementing proposed options; and
    <bullet> The impact of proposed options on state and local 
resources.
    As stated in the November 2003 proposal, EPA believes it is 
important to re-evaluate the need for hot-spot analyses for 
PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment and maintenance areas. EPA is addressing 
hot-spots in PM<INF>10</INF> areas, in addition to PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
areas in this SNPRM, because of the similarity between sources of these 
two pollutants and the similarity of the requirements. For example, 
both types of particulate matter result from tailpipe emissions, as 
well as brake and tire wear, and in some areas, road dust. 
PM<INF>10</INF> includes particles that are 2.5 microns in diameter and 
smaller, as well as particles that range from 2.5 microns to 10 
microns. In addition, because we are soliciting comment on a range of 
options for hot-spot analyses in PM<INF>2.5</INF> areas, EPA believes 
it is reasonable to seek comment on a similar range of options for hot-
spot analyses in PM<INF>10</INF> areas. We are soliciting input to 
guide our decision on the proposed options both before and after a 
PM<INF>10</INF> SIP is submitted. The following paragraphs outline how 
the above factors relate to the proposed options.
    When the conformity rule was promulgated in 1993, EPA interpreted 
Clean Air Act section 176(c)(1)(B) to require PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot 
analyses because of the requirement to ensure that transportation 
activities do not create new violations, worsen existing violations or 
delay timely attainment of the air quality standard (January 11, 1993, 
58 FR 3776). Any option that is selected in the final rule must be 
consistent with these Clean Air Act requirements, which apply at all 
times for highway and transit project conformity determinations.
    EPA's developing understanding of potential PM<INF>10</INF> hot-
spots is one of the factors that needs to be considered for applying 
the proposed options. EPA believes it is appropriate to focus 
conformity resources where air quality issues are significant and need 
to be in place to address Clean Air Act requirements. To that end, EPA 
will consider information that was available when the original 
conformity rule was developed, as well as new information that is 
submitted through the rulemaking process or has otherwise become 
available. For example, in 1993, EPA believed that typically sized bus 
terminals or transfer points would not create PM<INF>10</INF> hot-
spots, however, we decided that it was practical to require a 
determination to that effect to ensure that Clean Air Act requirements 
were met. We also believed at that time that direct PM<INF>10</INF> 
emissions would be capable of causing violations only in conditions of 
unusually heavy diesel truck/bus traffic and limited dispersion, such 
as street canyons (January 11, 1993, 58 FR 3780). On the other hand, 
EPA may not have fully considered the role of re-entrained road dust in 
contributing to potential PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spots. EPA will consider 
all past and current information on the potential for PM<INF>10</INF> 
hot-spots in the development of the final rule.
    In addition, EPA will be considering in the final rule the impact 
of our new diesel fuel and engine standards (January 18, 2001, 66 FR 
5002) for the necessity of applying any of the proposed options. Such 
standards are expected to significantly impact the amount of 
particulate emissions that will be emitted by new diesel vehicles, and 
consequently may impact the potential for PM<INF>10</INF> 
transportation-related hot-spots.
    Understanding the potential for PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spots provides 
a basis for determining when explicit hot-spot reviews must be 
required. As indicated in the November 3, 2003 proposal, section 
176(c)(3)(B)(ii) specifically requires hot-spot analyses for projects 
only in CO nonattainment areas.
    EPA also considered the feasibility of implementing any proposed 
option to meet statutory requirements before and after PM<INF>10</INF> 
SIP submission. We invite state and local agencies to comment on the 
feasibility of implementing all of the proposed options, including what 
state or local information would be available for implementation 
purposes.
2. PM<INF>10</INF> Hot-Spot Analyses Before SIP Submission
    EPA has proposed to apply the existing rule's PM<INF>10</INF> hot-
spot requirements to PM<INF>10</INF> areas before PM<INF>10</INF> SIP 
submission (Option 1). EPA believes that this option would meet 
statutory requirements since it relies on the existing interpretation 
for the current conformity rule. In the November 24, 1993 conformity 
rule (58 FR 62188), EPA promulgated the existing conformity 
requirements for PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot analyses. Section 93.116 of 
the current conformity rule requires an explicit PM<INF>10</INF> hot-
spot review to be completed for all non-exempt federal projects in 
PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment and maintenance areas, regardless of 
whether or not a SIP has been submitted. EPA believed that emissions 
produced by individual highway and transit projects in PM<INF>10</INF> 
nonattainment and maintenance areas could potentially result in a new 
air quality violation or worsen an existing violation. Option 1 would 
continue to rely on this same rationale.
    EPA is also proposing today Options 2 and 3 to apply current 
PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot requirements depending on whether or not new 
or worsening localized PM<INF>10</INF> violations could occur in a 
given area prior to PM<INF>10</INF> SIP submission. These options would 
rely on the proposed interpretation stated in the November 2003 
proposal (68 FR 62713): Clean Air Act section 176(c)(1)(B) requirements 
could be met as long as explicit reviews are performed at locations 
susceptible to PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spots. If hot-spots are found not to 
be a potential concern (Option 2) in a given area, then EPA believes 
that statutory requirements could be met in these areas without an 
explicit hot-spot review. Conversely, if potential hot-spots are found 
to be a concern (Option 3) in a given area, then all project-level 
conformity determinations in these areas should include explicit hot-
spot reviews to ensure that statutory requirements are met. Both of 
these options would allow EPA and states to target hot-spot 
requirements in PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment areas where hot-spots may 
or may not be an air quality concern.
    Commenters should consider the practical impact of all of the 
options that are being proposed for the time period prior to 
PM<INF>10</INF> SIP submission. Since most PM<INF>10</INF> 
nonattainment and maintenance areas already have submitted or approved 
PM<INF>10</INF> SIPs, the proposed options may impact a small number of 
PM<INF>10</INF> areas. EPA requests information on the appropriateness 
of the proposed options in any PM<INF>10</INF> areas without SIPs, 
including whether there are unique circumstances of these areas that 
would be relevant to the potential for PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spots and 
necessity of project-level conformity analyses.
    As described in A.2. of this section, EPA is requesting comment on 
whether state and local air agencies that have not yet established 
PM<INF>10</INF> SIPs will have the

[[Page 72152]]

necessary information to make the hot-spot findings described in 
Options 2 and 3. The appropriateness and feasibility of these options 
in meeting Clean Air Act requirements depends on whether well-
considered, informed findings will be possible prior to PM<INF>10</INF> 
SIP submission.
    EPA is again proposing Option 4 to not require any explicit 
PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot analysis for any project before 
PM<INF>10</INF> SIP submission in PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment and 
maintenance areas. See the November 5, 2003 proposal (68 FR 62713--
62714) for further information.
3. PM<INF>10</INF> Hot-spot Analyses After SIP Submission
    EPA continues to consider the November 2003 proposal's options for 
PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot analyses after SIP submission (Options A-C). 
Option A would continue to apply the existing rule's PM<INF>10</INF> 
hot-spot requirements (with a minor addition) after PM<INF>10</INF> SIP 
submission. Similar to Option 1 for the time period before 
PM<INF>10</INF> SIPs, EPA concludes that Option A would meet statutory 
requirements since it relies on existing rationale for the current 
conformity rule.
    Like similar PM<INF>2.5</INF> hot-spot options discussed in Section 
III., EPA notes that retaining the current PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot 
requirements would ensure that potential transportation-related hot-
spots for all areas are addressed, especially in cases where it is not 
possible to determine through the SIP process the potential for 
localized PM<INF>10</INF> violations in a given nonattainment or 
maintenance area. EPA will consider in the final rule the potential 
existence of PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spots for transportation projects, and 
whether explicit hot-spot reviews will be needed to meet Clean Air Act 
requirements. Option A would require state and local resources be used 
for all FHWA/FTA non-exempt projects in PM<INF>10</INF> areas, although 
the existing conformity rule and today's proposal streamlines hot-spot 
analyses for projects that do not require quantitative analyses.
    EPA also proposed Option B to require quantitative PM<INF>10</INF> 
hot-spot analyses only at types of project locations identified as a 
localized air quality concern in a given PM<INF>10</INF> SIP. When the 
SIP identifies such locations, a quantitative hot-spot analysis would 
be completed for affected projects. No qualitative analyses would be 
required for projects in other types of locations, or in 
PM<INF>10</INF> areas where the SIP does not identify types of 
locations as a localized PM<INF>10</INF> air quality concern. Under 
Option B, EPA is proposing quantitative hot-spot analyses only for 
projects at locations identified in the SIP as a localized concern, 
since EPA believes that if a SIP identifies such a project location, 
then a more thorough examination of the localized impacts of projects 
at such locations is necessary to ensure that the SIP's purpose and 
Clean Air Act conformity requirements are met.
    As indicated in the November 2003 proposal, Option B is consistent 
with the purpose of conformity, which is to ensure that federally 
funded or approved transportation projects are consistent with the SIP 
in a given nonattainment or maintenance area. See Section III.B. for 
more information regarding similar rationale for PM<INF>2.5</INF>.
    However, it is unclear how Option B would be implemented in current 
PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment and maintenance areas since most 
PM<INF>10</INF> areas may not have considered the potential for 
PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spots during the development of existing 
PM<INF>10</INF> SIPs. In such cases, should existing SIPs be revised to 
consider potential PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spots? Should states evaluate 
the potential for PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spots outside the SIP process? 
How do the practical circumstances of Option B affect the other 
proposed PM<INF>10</INF> options? EPA requests comments on all of these 
questions.
    Like PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIPs, EPA is also considering whether 
PM<INF>10</INF> SIPs can be developed so potential transportation-
related hot-spot locations are defined for each PM<INF>10</INF> 
nonattainment and maintenance area. EPA is requesting comment on 
whether such cases could occur in PM<INF>10</INF> areas, and whether 
other proposed options would be more appropriate in such cases after a 
PM<INF>10</INF> SIP is submitted. EPA also requests comment on how the 
proposed options should be implemented in cases where the latest 
information available on the potential for PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spots is 
not reflected in the PM<INF>10</INF> SIP. See Section III.B.3. of 
today's proposal for further information.
    EPA has committed to issue SIP guidance under this option if it is 
finalized. EPA requests further comment on whether state and local air 
quality agencies will have the necessary local information and 
resources to specify in PM<INF>10</INF> SIPs which project locations 
are a potential PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot concern, in order to support 
Option B and provide flexibility in the conformity process.
    State and local agencies may identify types of locations in each 
PM<INF>10</INF> SIP that may increase or decrease the kinds of projects 
requiring quantitative hot-spot analyses, as compared to current 
conformity requirements. EPA anticipates that this option would likely 
result in fewer total projects having some type of PM<INF>10</INF> hot-
spot review as compared to the current conformity rule's requirements, 
since not all PM<INF>10</INF> areas may have future PM<INF>10</INF> 
SIPs that identify hot-spots as a concern.
    Finally, EPA is again proposing options for not requiring any 
explicit PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot analysis for any project after 
PM<INF>10</INF> SIP submission (Option C), for reasons cited above and 
in the November 2003 proposal.
4. Specific Analysis Requirements and Other Requirements
    EPA continues to believe it has discretion to define what level of 
PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot analysis would be required for proposed 
options that involve such analyses, as described in Section III. of 
today's proposal. EPA believes that applying the current conformity 
rule's approach would streamline hot-spot reviews and utilize state and 
local resources in an efficient and reasonable manner while still 
satisfying Clean Air Act requirements.
    Finally, EPA has proposed to add a new criterion for when 
quantitative PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot analyses are completed after a 
PM<INF>10</INF> SIP is submitted for Option A. As stated in Section 
III.B., EPA believes that if Option A is finalized for PM<INF>10</INF> 
hot-spot requirements, quantitative analyses should also be done if the 
PM<INF>10</INF> SIP identifies certain types of locations as a 
PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot concern. Since the primary intent of the Clean 
Air Act is to ensure consistency between transportation decisions and 
SIP air quality objectives, it is appropriate to require more intensive 
hot-spot reviews in cases where the SIP specifically identifies a type 
of transportation project location as having the potential to increase 
local emissions and worsen air quality. EPA notes that this minor 
proposal would be consistent with a similar criterion in Sec.  
93.123(a)(1)(i) of the existing rule's requirements for quantitative CO 
hot-spot analyses.
    EPA is also proposing to retain the existing conformity rule's 
general provisions for conducting PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot analyses for 
those options that would apply the existing rule's requirements. 
Examples would include related provisions in Sec. Sec.  93.101, 93.123, 
and 93.125 of the conformity rule.

C. Request for PM<INF>10</INF> Hot-Spot Information

    EPA again invites commenters to submit studies or data regarding 
PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spots during the comment period for this 
supplemental proposal. All information submitted for the November 2003 
proposal and today's action will be considered when EPA develops the 
final

[[Page 72153]]

rule that addresses PM<INF>10</INF> hot-spot requirements.

V. Minor Change for Compliance With PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP Control 
Measures

    Today EPA is proposing a small change to the footnote at the bottom 
of Table 2 in Sec.  93.126. Section 93.126 is titled, ``Exempt 
projects'' and Table 2 lists these projects under several different 
headings. Projects listed in the table are exempt from the requirement 
to determine conformity, and may proceed even in the absence of a 
conformity transportation plan and TIP.
    Today's proposed change would add ``and PM<INF>2.5</INF>'' after 
``PM<INF>10</INF>'' in the footnote at the bottom of Table 2. 
Currently, the footnote reads, ``Note: In PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment 
or maintenance areas, such projects are exempt only if they are in 
compliance with control measures in the applicable implementation 
plan.'' However, PM<INF>2.5</INF> areas also need to be included in 
this note to make Sec.  93.126 consistent with Sec.  93.117. In the 
July 1, 2004, final rule, EPA updated Sec.  93.117, which discusses 
compliance with control measures in PM areas, to include 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> as well as PM<INF>10</INF>. EPA should have updated 
the footnote in Sec.  93.126 in the July 1, 2004 rule; we are proposing 
to correct this oversight in today's action. With this change, projects 
on the exempt list in Sec.  93.126 would be exempt in a 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> area only if they are in compliance with control 
measures in the applicable SIP.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993) the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to review and the requirements of the Executive 
Order. The Order defines significant ``regulatory action'' as one that 
is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or otherwise adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector 
of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, 
public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof;
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    It has been determined that this supplemental proposal is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 
12866 and is therefore not subject to review by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements for this supplemental 
proposal have been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and as ICR 2130.02. The 
information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB 
approves them.
    Transportation conformity determinations are required under Clean 
Air Act section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)) to ensure that federally 
supported highway and transit project activities are consistent with 
(``conform to'') the purpose of the SIP. Conformity to the purpose of 
the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause or 
contribute to new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, 
or delay timely attainment of the relevant air quality standards. 
Transportation conformity applies under EPA's conformity regulations at 
40 CFR parts 51.390 and 93 to areas that are designated nonattainment 
and those redesignated to attainment after 1990 (``maintenance areas'' 
with SIPs developed under Clean Air Act section 175A) for 
transportation-source criteria pollutants. The Clean Air Act gives EPA 
the statutory authority to establish the criteria and procedures for 
determining whether transportation activities conform to the SIP.
    Amendments in today's supplemental proposal that are related to 
conformity requirements in existing PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment and 
maintenance areas do not impose any new information collection 
requirements from EPA that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An agency may not conduct 
or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of 
information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 
The information collection requirements of EPA's existing 
transportation conformity rule and any revisions in today's action for 
existing PM<INF>10</INF> areas are covered under the DOT information 
collection request (ICR) entitled, ``Metropolitan and Statewide 
Transportation Planning,'' with the OMB control number of 2132-0529.
    EPA provided two opportunities for public comment on the 
incremental burden estimates for transportation conformity 
determinations under the new 8-hour ozone and PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
standards. EPA received comments on both the initial burden estimates 
provided in the November 5, 2003 proposal (68 FR 62720) and on the 
revised estimates in the January 2004 ICR (69 FR 336). EPA responded to 
all of these comments, including accounting for some PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
hot-spot burden during the time period of the ICR in the final ICR that 
was submitted to OMB for approval for all aspects of the conformity 
rulemaking effort for the new air quality standards (ICR 2130.02). EPA 
estimated burden in this ICR based on implementing the most intensive 
options proposed.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When ICR 2130.02 is 
approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 
CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control number 
for the approved information collection requirements.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, requires the Agency to 
conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any significant impact a 
rule will have on a substantial number of small entities. Small 
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit organizations 
and small government jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's final rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as 
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 
CFR 121.201; (2) a

[[Page 72154]]

small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, 
town, school district or special district with a population of less 
than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit 
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This 
regulation directly affects federal agencies and metropolitan planning 
organizations that, by definition, are designated under federal 
transportation laws only for metropolitan areas with a population of at 
least 50,000. These organizations do not constitute small entities 
within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    EPA has determined that this supplemental proposal itself does not 
contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 
million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. The primary purpose 
of this supplemental proposal is to determine requirements for hot-spot 
analyses in PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment and 
maintenance areas. Clean Air Act section 176(c)(5) requires the 
applicability of conformity to such areas as a matter of law one year 
after nonattainment designations. Thus, although this rule explains how 
these analyses should be conducted, it merely implements already 
established law that imposes conformity requirements and does not 
itself impose requirements that may result in expenditures of $100 
million or more in any year. Thus, today's supplemental proposal is not 
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA and EPA 
has not prepared a statement with respect to budgetary impacts.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The Clean Air Act requires 
conformity to apply in certain nonattainment and maintenance areas as a 
matter of law, and this supplemental action merely proposes to 
establish and revise procedures for transportation planning entities in 
subject areas to follow in meeting their existing statutory 
obligations. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local 
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule 
from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175: ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian 
Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000) requires EPA to 
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input 
by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have 
tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal implications'' is 
defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have 
``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the 
relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes.''
    Today's proposed amendments to the conformity rule do not 
significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal 
governments, as the Clean Air Act requires transportation conformity to 
apply in any area that is designated nonattainment or maintenance by 
EPA. This supplemental proposal would incorporate into the conformity 
rule provisions addressing newly designated PM <INF>2.5</INF> 
nonattainment and maintenance areas subject to conformity requirements 
under the Act that would not have substantial direct effects on tribal 
governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and 
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 
13175 are not applicable to this supplemental proposal.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies 
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' 
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may 
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action 
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health 
or safety effects of

[[Page 72155]]

the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is 
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible 
alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This supplemental proposal is not subject to Executive Order 13045 
because it is not economically significant within the meaning of 
Executive Order 12866 and does not involve the consideration of 
relative environmental health or safety risks on children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution or Use

    This supplemental proposal is not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Action Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355; May 22, 2001) because it 
will not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, 
or use of energy. Further, we have determined that this supplemental 
proposal is not likely to have any significant adverse effects on 
energy supply.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 
U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in 
its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA 
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides 
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This supplemental proposal does not involve technical standards. 
Therefore, the use of voluntary consensus standards does not apply to 
this supplemental proposal.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 93

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, 
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Transportation, Volatile 
organic compounds.

    Dated: December 7, 2004.
Michael O. Leavitt,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 93 is proposed 
to be amended as follows:

PART 93--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 93 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.


Sec.  93.101  [Amended]

    2. Section 93.101 is amended in the first sentence of the 
definition for ``Hot-spot analysis'' by removing ``CO and 
PM<INF>10</INF>'' and adding in its place ``CO, PM<INF>10</INF>, and/or 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>''.
    3. Section 93.105(c)(1)(v) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  93.105  Consultation.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (v) Identifying, as required by Sec.  93.123(b), projects located 
at sites in PM<INF>10</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment areas 
which have vehicle and roadway emission and dispersion characteristics 
which are essentially identical to those at sites which have violations 
verified by monitoring, and therefore require quantitative 
PM<INF>10</INF> and/or PM<INF>2.5</INF> hot-spot analysis;
* * * * *
    4. Section 93.109 is amended as follows:
    a. In Table 1 of paragraph (b), revising both entries for ``Sec.  
93.116'';
    b. By redesignating paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) as paragraphs (i)(2) 
and (3) and adding new paragraph (i)(1);
    c. In paragraph (k) by removing ``CO and PM<INF>10</INF>'' and 
adding in its place ``CO, PM<INF>10</INF>, and PM<INF>2.5</INF>''; and
    d. In paragraph (l)(1) by removing ``(``Localized CO and 
PM<INF>10</INF> violations (hot spots)'')'' and adding in its place 
``(``Localized CO, PM<INF>10</INF>, and PM<INF>2.5</INF> violations 
(hot-spots)'')''.


Sec.  93.109  Criteria and procedures for determining conformity of 
transportation plans, programs, and projects: General.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *

                      Table 1.--Conformity Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                * * * * *
Sec.   93.116.............................  CO, PM10, and PM2.5 hot
                                             spots
                                * * * * *
Sec.   93.116.............................  CO, PM 10, and PM 2.5 hot
                                             spots
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (1) FHWA/FTA projects in PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment or 
maintenance areas must satisfy the appropriate hot-spot test required 
by Sec.  93.116(a).
* * * * *
    5. In Sec. 93.116 the section heading and paragraph (a) are revised 
to read as follows:


Sec.  93.116  Criteria and procedures: Localized CO, PM10, and PM2.5 
violations (hot-spots).

    (a) This paragraph applies at all times. The FHWA/FTA project must 
not cause or contribute to any new localized CO, PM<INF>10</INF>, and/
or PM<INF>2.5</INF> violations or increase the frequency or severity of 
any existing CO, PM<INF>10</INF>, and/or PM<INF>2.5</INF> violations in 
CO, PM<INF>10</INF>, and PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment and maintenance 
areas. This criterion is satisfied if it is demonstrated that during 
the time frame of the transportation plan (or regional emissions 
analysis) no new local violations will be created and the severity or 
number of existing violations will not be increased as a result of the 
project. The demonstration must be performed according to the 
consultation requirements of Sec.  93.105(c)(1)(i) and the methodology 
requirements of Sec.  93.123.
* * * * *
    6. Section 93.123 is amended as follows:
    a. Revising the section heading;
    b. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (a)(1) introductory 
text;
    c. Amending paragraph (b) by either:
Under Option A
    i. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(iii);
    ii. Adding new paragraph (b)(1)(iv); and
    iii. Revising paragraph (b)(3); or
Under Option B
    i. Revising paragraph (b)(1) and (2); and
    ii. Removing paragraph (b)(3) and redesignating paragraph (b)(4) as 
(b)(3);
    d. Amending paragraph (c)(4) by removing ``PM<INF>10</INF> or CO'' 
in the first sentence and adding in its place ``CO, PM<INF>10</INF>, or 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>''; and e. Amending paragraph (c)(5) by removing ``CO 
and PM<INF>10</INF>'' in the first sentence and adding in its place 
``CO, PM<INF>10</INF>, and PM<INF>2.5</INF>''.


Sec.  93.123  Procedures for determining localized CO, PM10, and PM2.5 
concentrations (hot-spot analysis).

    (a) CO hot-spot analysis. (1) The demonstrations required by Sec.  
93.116 (``Localized CO, PM10, and PM<INF>2.5</INF> violations'') must 
be based on quantitative analysis using the applicable air quality 
models, data bases, and other requirements specified

[[Page 72156]]

in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W (Guideline on Air Quality Models).* * *
* * * * *
    Option A for paragraph (b):
    (b) PM<INF>10</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> hot-spot analyses. (1) * * 
*
    (iii) New or expanded bus and rail terminals and transfer points 
which significantly increase the number of diesel vehicles congregating 
at a single location;
    (iv) Projects in or affecting locations, areas, or categories of 
sites which are identified in the PM<INF>10</INF> or PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
applicable implementation plan or implementation plan submission, as 
appropriate, as sites of violation or possible violation.
* * * * *
    (3) The identification of the sites described in paragraphs 
(b)(1)(i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) of this section, and other cases where 
quantitative methods are appropriate, shall be determined through the 
interagency consultation process required in Sec.  93.105. DOT, in 
consultation with EPA, may choose to make a categorical conformity 
determination on bus and rail terminals or transfer points based on 
appropriate modeling of various terminal sizes, configurations, and 
activity levels. DOT, in consultation with EPA, may also choose to make 
a categorical conformity determination on roadways and intersection 
based on appropriate modeling of various configurations and activity 
levels.
* * * * *
    Option B for paragraph (b):
    (b) PM<INF>10</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> hot-spot analyses. (1) The 
hot-spot demonstration required by Sec.  93.116 must be based on 
quantitative analysis methods for projects in or affecting locations, 
areas, or categories of sites which are identified in the 
PM<INF>10</INF> or PM<INF>2.5</INF> applicable implementation plan or 
implementation plan submission, as appropriate, as sites of violation 
or possible violation.
    (2) The identification of the sites described in paragraph (b)(1) 
of this section shall be determined through the interagency 
consultation process required in Sec.  93.105. DOT, in consultation 
with EPA, may choose to make a categorical conformity determination on 
bus and rail terminals or transfer points based on appropriate modeling 
of various terminal sizes, configurations, and activity levels. DOT, in 
consultation with EPA, may also choose to make a categorical conformity 
determination on roadways and intersection based on appropriate 
modeling of various configurations and activity levels.
* * * * *


Sec.  93.125  [Amended]

    7. Section 93.125(a) is amended by removing ``PM<INF>10</INF> or 
CO'' in the first sentence and adding in its place ``CO, 
PM<INF>10</INF>, or PM<INF>2.5</INF>''.


Sec.  93.126  [Amended]

    8. Section 93.126 is amended in footnote 1 by removing 
``PM<INF>10</INF>'' and adding in its place ``PM<INF>10</INF> and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>''.


Sec.  93.127  [Amended]

    9. Section 93.127 is amended by removing ``CO or PM<INF>10</INF>'' 
and adding in its place ``CO, PM<INF>10</INF>, or PM<INF>2.5</INF>''.

[FR Doc. 04-27171 Filed 12-10-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>