U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

90–365 PDF 2004

S. HRG. 108–280

TRANSPORTATION AND AIR QUALITY: CMAQ AND

CONFORMITY PROGRAMS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR, CLIMATE CHANGE

AND NUCLEAR SAFETY

AND THE

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND

PUBLIC WORKS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CMAQ PROGRAM AND TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY PROVISIONS OF TEA–21, THE TRANSPORTATION

EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

MARCH 13, 2003

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

(
(II)

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island

JOHN CORNYN, Texas

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado

JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont

MAX BAUCUS, Montana

HARRY REID, Nevada

BOB GRAHAM, Florida

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut

BARBARA BOXER, California

RON WYDEN, Oregon

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York

ANDREW WHEELER, Majority Staff Director

KEN CONNOLLY, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR, CLIMATE CHANGE AND

NUCLEAR SAFETY

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio, Chairman

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

JOHN CORNYN, Texas

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Lieberman

HARRY REID, Nevada

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
(III)

CONTENTS

Page

MARCH 13, 2003

OPENING STATEMENTS

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 21

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 9

Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 3

Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 18

Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio ........................ 1

WITNESSES

Frankel, Hon. Emil H., Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, Department of Transportation ........................................................................................ 7

Graph, Percentage of Change in Motor Vehicle Emissions, Demographics,

and Travel (1970–2000) ................................................................................ 72

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 65

Responses to additional questions from Senator Voinovich .......................... 72

Holmstead, Hon. Jeffrey R., Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation,

Environmental Protection Agency ...................................................................... 5

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49

Responses to additional questions from:

Senator Jeffords ......................................................................................... 54

Senator Voinovich ..................................................................................... 63

Kaiser, Marsha, director, Department of Planning and Capital Programming,

Maryland Department of Transportation, on behalf of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials .................................... 40

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 123

Lasker, Jerry, executive director, Indian Nations Council of Governments ....... 33

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 111

Liebe, Annette, manager, Air Quality Planning, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality on behalf of the State and Territorial Air Pollution

Program Administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control

Officials ................................................................................................................. 28

Letter to Senator Voinovich ............................................................................. 80

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 75

Procedures, Substitution of Transportation Control Measure (D–10–2-Volume 3) ............................................................................................................ 82

Statement, STAPPA/ALAPCO—CMAQ and Transportation Conformity

Principles for Reauthorization of TEA-21 ................................................... 79

Maier, Howard R., executive director, Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating

Agency ................................................................................................................... 35

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 111

Replogle, Michael, transportation director, Environmental Defense .................. 32

Graph, Share of Selected Criteria Pollutants from Highway Sources by

Year and Area from Adopted or Submitted SIPs ....................................... 104

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 86

Responses from a previous hearing held in the 107th Congress on air

quality to additional questions from:

Senator Jeffords ......................................................................................... 96

Senator Smith ............................................................................................ 101

Senator Voinovich ..................................................................................... 99

Steed, Diane, president, American Highway Users Alliance ............................... 37

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 119
Page

IV

Teague, W. Gerald, M.D., professor and vice chairman of pediatrics, director,

Division of Pulmonary Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine ........ 30

Fact Sheet, Olympic Asthma Study ................................................................ 86

Graphs:

Acute Care Visits for Asthma, 1–16 Year Old Residents of Atlanta ..... 84

Mean Levels of Major Pollutants Before, During, and After the Olympic Games as a Percentage of the EPA’s National Ambient Air

Quality Standard ................................................................................... 85

One-Hour AM Peak Traffic Counts .......................................................... 85

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 83

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

Articles:

Lawsuit Pits Risks and Roads, USA Today ................................................... 131

Too Freeway Close, The Times, December 15, 2002 ...................................... 133

Statements:

Associated General Contractors of America ................................................... 135

Becker, S. William, executive director, State and Territorial Air Pollution

Program Administrators (STAPPA)/Association of Local Air Pollution

Control Officials (ALAPCO) ......................................................................... 79

Flowers, Melody, Sierra Club Washington Representative ........................... 127

Report, Key Studies on Air Pollution and Health Effects Near HighTraffic Areas, Sierra Club ..................................................................... 129

National Association of Home Builders .......................................................... 10
(1)

TRANSPORTATION AND AIR QUALITY:

CMAQ AND CONFORMITY PROGRAMS

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2003

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR, CLIMATE CHANGE AND

NUCLEAR SAFETY, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room

406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. George V. Voinovich (chairman

of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Voinovich, Thomas, Carper, and Jeffords [ex

officio].

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Senator VOINOVICH. Good morning. The hearing will come to

order.

We will convene this hearing. We have a number of witnesses

today, many of them in the second panel. I think that in fairness

to them, we should get started.

I will restrain myself from giving my opening statement which

I will have put in the record.

[The prepared statement of Senator Voinovich follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF OHIO

The Hearing will come to order. Good Morning.

This hearing continues a long-running conversation that this subcommittee and

indeed the whole EPW Committee has had on the issues of congestion and air quality.

Specifically, we are here to discuss two programs—the Conformity program under

the Clean Air Act and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality—or—CMAQ program under TEA–21. Although these two programs are placed under separate enabling legislation, they both have a lot to do with two major problems—congestion

and air quality.

The Department of Transportation has estimated that the cost of traffic congestion to travelers topped $72 billion in terms of hours of lost time and wasted fuel

in 1999 alone. Between 1982 and 2000, the annual hours of delay per driver in 75

urban areas studied by the Texas Transportation Institute increased by 46 hours.

Drivers in these areas spent 4 times longer sitting in traffic in 2000 than they did

in 1982. Even more startling, small urban areas saw a 400 percent increase over

the same period, according to U.S. DOT. These numbers are projected to grow even

further in the near future.

One recent study estimated that Cincinnati drivers spent an average of 43 hours

in traffic jams in 2000, compared to 4 hours in 1982; while Columbus drivers sat

in traffic an average of 38 hours in 2000 compared to 4 hours in 1982; and in my

hometown of Cleveland, drivers spent an average of 21 hours in congestion in 2000,
2

compared to 1 hour in 1982. As a result, 104 million gallons of fuel was wasted in

these three cities in 2000.

These costs—hours of delay, lost time and wasted fuel—are not the only costs associated with congestion. Congestion contributes to air quality degradation by increasing travel delays, engine idle time and unproductive fuel consumption.

As we move forward on reauthorizing the Highway Bill in this Committee, it is

critically important that we look for ways to reform these two programs—Conformity and CMAQ—so they can be used by the States to reduce congestion and improve their air quality.

The transportation conformity process was designed to ensure that an area’s transportation projects and plans fit within a State’s implementation plan, which is

set pursuant to the Clean Air Act. This sounds like a simple prospect, but making

this process work in a high-growth area is anything but simple. Those areas tend

to simultaneously have transportation and air quality problems.

As Governor of Ohio, I spent considerable effort to bring Ohio counties into attainment for the air quality standards. When I first entered office, 28 out of Ohio’s 88

counties failed to meet the 1-hour ozone standard. As a result of some very hard

choices, all 88 of Ohio’s counties are now in attainment for ozone.

Unfortunately, under two new NAAQS standards, many of these counties will

likely be re-designated as non-attainment counties. Over the next 2 years, EPA is

set to implement its new 8-hour standards for ozone and the new 2.5 standards for

particulate matter. Preliminary estimates indicate that when these new standards

go into effect, 30 counties in Ohio will become non-attainment counties for ozone,

and another 15 for particulate matter. Under the current rules, each of these counties stands to lose Federal funding for important highway projects, which imperils

countless efforts to reduce congestion and repair our increasingly dilapidated infrastructure.

According to the Ohio Department of Transportation, over $1.4 billion worth of

projects identified for fiscal year 2004 through 2007 would be subject to conformity

once the new 8-hour standards are effective.

Many of you may recall that our late Chairman, Senator John Chafee, held a

hearing on this topic back in 1999. At that hearing, I stated that a lot of communities in this country would have a dickens of a time meeting the new NAAQS

standards and predicted that the chickens would come home to roost when they

went into effect. Well, here we are 4 years later, and it looks like the chickens indeed are coming home to roost. Under the new ozone standard, 232 counties in 32

States will be designated non-attainment next year and 176 counties in 26 States

for the PM2.5 standard in 2005. As I just mentioned, each of these counties stands

to lose Federal funding for all of their highway projects under the current rules.

As we move forward on reauthorizing the Highway Bill and on clean air legislation this year, I think we need to take a look at this process and see if there are

ways we can change it to make it work better for States and counties in a manner

that is consistent with our national clean air goals. I would be interested to hear

from our witnesses what suggestions they would have on how to improve this process.

In 1991, Congress authorized $6 billion for the Congestion Mitigation and Air

Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) in order to help areas fight congestion in

order to maintain conformity. Congress reauthorized the CMAQ program in TEA–

21, and increased the funding to $8.1 billion over 6 years. The main goal of CMAQ

is to fund transportation projects that reduce emissions in non-attainment and

maintenance areas. A second goal of CMAQ is to fund projects that slow the growth

of congestion, reduce emissions, and maintain economically viable and mobile communities.

CMAQ funding is apportioned to the States by means of a formula that takes into

account the severity of air quality problems and the size of affected populations. The

States are required to spend the money in non-attainment areas and maintenance

areas. CMAQ funds are focused primarily on the transportation control measures

contained in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. The primary purpose of these

measures is to lessen the pollutants emitted by motor vehicles by decreasing travel

demand and decreasing congestion. Over the first 8 years of the CMAQ program,

funding has been concentrated in two areas—transit and traffic flow improvements.

Having been funded at a total of $14.5 billion over 8 years, the CMAQ program

represents less than 1 percent of the total amount spent by all levels of government

on highway and transit projects. However, the fact that CMAQ funding will not

solve an area’s air quality or congestion problems single-handedly does not mean

that the program is not valuable. In fact, one of its greatest benefits has been toward assisting areas in the demonstration of conformity—by funding emissions-reducing projects which will offset the emissions increases that are expected when
3

highway projects are completed. Such projects have included park-and-ride facilities,

high-occupancy vehicle lanes, traffic monitoring and incident management centers,

special freeway service patrols, and emissions-testing programs.

One major concern that I do have with the CMAQ program is that—in terms of

reducing emissions—you don’t get much bang for your buck. A recent study of the

CMAQ program conducted by the National Academy of Sciences revealed that most

CMAQ funds have been allocated to the least cost-effective strategies for reducing

emissions. Department of Transportation statistics show that 89 percent of CMAQfunded projects in 1997 reduced VOC emissions by fewer than 100 kilograms per

day or less. In fact, 50 percent of these projects reduced VOC emissions by fewer

than 5 kilograms per day or less. This is simply an unacceptable waste of taxpayer

dollars when several CMAQ-funded projects, such as inspection and maintenance

programs, have shown much higher emissions-reduction totals.

As this Committee considers whether to reauthorizing this program, we need to

take a look at whether there any changes—such as reforming the criteria used to

fund these projects—that will deliver more emissions-reductions bang for our bucks.

I would be interested to hear from our witnesses what suggestions they would have

on how best to accomplish this.

I look forward to examining these issues in today’s hearing. As I mentioned earlier, we need to find a way to reform these programs in a way that will allow our

States to fight congestion in a manner consistent with our national clean air goals.

Our witnesses on the first panel today include Mr. Jeffrey Holmstead, the Assistant Administrator for Air Quality at the Environmental Protection Agency, and Mr.

Emil Frankel, the Assistant Secretary for Policy at the Department of Transportation. In our second panel we will hear from various witnesses about the effects

these programs have on States and local MPOs. I would like to thank these witnesses for coming here today to discuss these issues and I look forward to their testimony.

Senator VOINOVICH. The former chairman would like to make a

brief opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT

Senator JEFFORDS. This will be brief. I have a lengthy statement

I would like to have made a part of the record.

[The prepared statement of Senator Jeffords follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF VERMONT

Thank you Mr. Chairman. In July 2002, the committee held a hearing similar to

the one we are having today. From that hearing, I concluded that while there may

be occasional conflicts between air quality protection and transportation investments, the overall system is working pretty well and continues to improve.

Today, I hope we will hear about the Administration’s plans for increased funding

for the CMAQ program and tightening the linkages between air quality and transportation planning and policies. Strengthening the conformity process and ensuring

that adequate resources are available for planners is essential.

It is becoming clearer all the time that our ability to meet national air quality

standards and continue economic growth requires a very thoroughly integrated approach.

There is no doubt that coordinating these two policy areas and disciplines is complicated. But, our CMAQ investments and conformity have encouraged smarter

growth, better land use decisions, and provided air quality benefits.

We should continue moving aggressively along this same path. If we don’t, even

tomorrow’s cleaner vehicles could swamp our efforts to achieve cleaner air as their

numbers grow and they travel ever farther.

The total vehicle miles travelled (VMT) has grown 4 times faster than the rate

of population growth in the last 30 years. And, at least one study in Tennessee indicates that the VMT increases there will overwhelm the reductions from the cleaner

Tier 2 vehicles and heavy duty vehicles. This may make it difficult for them to attain the national air quality standards.

There is no question that attaining the revised ozone and fine particulate standards will be a challenge for all communities across the United States. Fortunately,

nonattainment status and conformity requirements due to that status will only be

new to a relatively small portion of the areas.
4

For those that may experience nonattainment for the first time, EPA and DOT

should already be providing guidance, training and resources, so these new areas

can be ready with the necessary expertise. I hope our witnesses will comment on

that.

Expanding and increasing funding for the CMAQ program will make it an even

more important tool for communities to reduce vehicle emissions creatively and permanently so that the standards can be attained. We also need to look at possible

ways that CMAQ can be used effectively in clean areas so they might stay clean

and avoid being designated as a nonattainment area at all.

The first transportation authorization bill of the 21st Century should, in all respects, bring us closer to the point at which vehicle emissions are a trivial or disappearing source of air quality and environmental health problems. That means

dealing with all emissions, not just those that contribute to nonattainment.

Mobile sources are a significant source of toxic air pollutants. In 1998, the entire

transportation sector was responsible for emitting 2.3 million tons or 4.6 billion

pounds of toxic air pollutants, such as benzene and 20 other hazardous chemicals.

Recent studies indicate that people living within a short distance of high-volume

freeways have a much higher than normal risk of cancer and other adverse health

effects. EPA’s final rule on mobile source air toxics, which is scheduled for July

2004, should consider these studies.

Federal Highways should use this information in conducting NEPA analyses too.

As the Committee heard in the August 2001 hearing on mobile source air pollution, the transportation sector is a huge and growing component of the nation’s

greenhouse gas emissions. One third or 1.8 billion tons in carbon emissions comes

from the sector, about 18 percent above 1990 levels and continuing to rise. Senators

know my belief about global warming. Scientists appearing before this Committee

have told us that unmitigated increases in emissions increase the risks associated

with global warming and climate change.

This year’s reauthorization bill is the place to start thinking about how to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions from this sector. We must also look for ways to strengthen

the linkages we have already forged between transportation and air quality and environmental health protection.

I hope we will hear today from DOT and EPA on their proposals, if any, to change

policy or law in this area as part of reauthorization, rather than revisiting this

again later.

Senator JEFFORDS. One of the witnesses in the second panel is

Jerry Lasker with whom I have worked since I was mayor of the

city of Tulsa. We have gone through attainment programs over the

years. This is something we are going to try to do under the leadership of Senator Voinovich to come up with some real sensible compromises and efforts to work with the States, the countries, and

areas so that we are not assuming an attitude of punishment, but

of help.

So I look forward to working with you on your subcommittee,

Senator Voinovich.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to welcome the two witnesses on our first panel. Our

first witness is the Honorable Emil H. Frankel, Assistant Secretary

for Transportation Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation. Mr.

Frankel, we are glad to have you here.

Our second witness is the Honorable Jeffrey R. Holmstead, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency.

We are here to discuss two programs—the Conformity Program

under the Clean Air Act, and the Congestion Litigation and Air

Quality, or CMAQ Program under TEA–21. Although these two

programs are placed under separate enabling legislation, they both

have to do with two major problems that we have in this country—

congestion and air quality.

I would like to call on you first, Mr. Holmstead.
5

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFFREY R. HOLMSTEAD, ASSISTANT

ADMINISTRATOR FOR AIR AND RADIATION, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Mr. HOLMSTEAD. Thank you very much for having me, Chairman

Voinovich, and Chairman Inhofe. I am delighted to be here today.

With your permission, I would also like to submit my written statement for the record.

Congress has long recognized that a successful strategy for reducing emissions from mobile sources must address the vehicles we

drive, the fuels we use, and the roads on which we travel. This

morning, as you mentioned, I would like to briefly offer my

thoughts on these programs—the Congestion Mitigation and Air

Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program and the Transportation

Conformity Program.

Since the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970, we as a country

have been extremely successful in reducing pollution from cars,

trucks, and other mobile sources. For example, as I think you

know, new cars today are more than 90 percent cleaner than cars

purchased 30 years ago. They will become even cleaner still as the

Agency gears to passenger and light truck standards and related

fuel requirements that come into place beginning next year.

In addition, new technologies for diesel engines, which are enabled by cleaner diesel fuel will result in even greater emission reductions over the next few years. Beginning in 2007, new heavyduty diesel trucks and buses will be more than 90 percent cleaner

than they are today. Within the next 2 months, we will be proposing a rule for non-road diesel engines and fuels that will achieve

even greater emission reductions than the 2007 rule for on-road

trucks and buses.

Concentrations of the four key pollutants affected most by the

transportation sector—carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone,

and particulate matter—have all declined significantly. They will

decline even more because of the upcoming standards I just mentioned. These reductions will help protect public health by reducing

incidents of premature mortality, asthma attacks, and other health

problems caused by air pollution. These reductions are obviously

extremely good news.

But we have also learned that cleaner cars and cleaner fuels

alone cannot achieve the air quality improvements we need. Notwithstanding all the progress we have made, transportation is still

a major contributor to air quality problems. It accounts for about

15 percent of inventoried particulate matter emissions, almost 30

percent of the pollutants that cause ozone, and 62 percent of carbon

monoxide emissions.

Preliminary data suggests that about 80 million people will live

in areas that don’t meet the new National Ambient Air Quality

Standard for ozone and about 75 million will live in areas not

meeting the new fine particulate matter standard. The number of

cars and the number of miles driven continue to increase dramatically. Since 1970, the number of vehicle miles driven has almost

tripled to 2.8 trillion miles a year.

CMAQ is an innovative and important tool designed to reduce

pollution from the transportation sector by funding innovative

projects and programs to reduce emissions, and also vehicle miles
6

traveled. Many of these projects have not only improved air quality, but have the added benefit of reducing traffic congestion and

making communities more livable.

We agree with the recommendation of the National Academy of

Sciences that CMAQ should be continued and even expanded in

certain ways. We also agree, however, that this program can and

should be improved. For example, fine particulate matter, or PM2.5, is the biggest health concern posed by air pollution and is clearly

linked to motor vehicles.

But fine particulate matter and the technologies to address it,

such as diesel engine retrofits and anti-idling technologies are not

currently considered in the allocation formula or eligibility criteria

of CMAQ. As more areas need funds to help them address congestion and air quality issues, it is also clear that pressure on funding

decisions will only increase, and so will the need for State and local

transportation and air quality agencies to work together closely to

select projects for funding. We believe that more effective consultation between air quality planners and transportation planners is

critical to maximize the air quality benefits of limited CMAQ resources.

In addition, areas that are able to make the leap from nonattainment to attainment are essentially penalized by reductions to

their CMAQ funds. We believe that this disincentive needs to be

addressed and that a more stable funding basis should be provided

for areas redesignated to attainment.

In addition to the CMAQ program, Congress created another program known as the Transportation Conformity Program to ensure

that air quality planning and transportation planning are better coordinated. We believe that the Conformity Program has helped to

maintain progress toward meeting air quality goals without unduly

compromising improvements in our transportation network. We

also believe, however, that this program can and should be improved.

As I mentioned earlier, new National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone and fine particulate matter will become effective in

2004. A significant number of counties will become new non-attainment areas under these new standards. A number of people have

expressed concern about what this will mean for transportation

programs. I want to just briefly address these concerns.

We understand that there will be challenges, but we have

learned a lot about the Conformity Program over the last decade.

Perhaps more importantly, local and State agencies have developed

expertise that will provide a solid basis for success. We are working

with the Department of Transportation (DOT) to develop new conformity guidance and regulations that will streamline the program

without compromising its air quality benefits. We also will be

working with DOT to provide training and other assistance to help

new non-attainment areas implement the Conformity Program successfully.

Finally, I would like to briefly address a couple of common

misperceptions about what happens if a State fails to meet the conformity deadlines. This is often referred to as a conformity lapse.

First, these conformity lapses are relatively infrequent and generally resolved quickly. In some cases, conformity lapses have de-
7

layed some highway funding until the plan is approved. I don’t

want to minimize the impact of these delays because I know they

can be disruptive. However, we are not aware of any State that has

actually lost highway funding due to a conformity lapse.

I know that there will be many questions about these issues. I

would be delighted to answer those questions and to work with the

committee to discuss these and any other issues.

Thank you.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Holmstead.

Mr. Frankel.

STATEMENT OF HON. EMIL H. FRANKEL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORTATION POLICY, DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION

Mr. FRANKEL. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to

discuss transportation conformity and the CMAQ Program—the

Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program.

I would also ask that my written statement be made part of the

record of this hearing.

Meeting the dual challenges of congestion relief and air quality

improvement is a very high priority for the Department of Transportation, as I know it is for you personally and for the members

of this subcommittee and the committee.

Secretary Mineta has noted that one of the core principles of the

Department of Transportation’s efforts to reauthorize TEA–21 will

be to ensure an efficient infrastructure while retaining environmental protections that enhance our quality of life.

As you know, the bill to reauthorize TEA–21 is currently in

interagency review and clearance. We are anticipating that that

bill will be introduced to Congress within the next few weeks.

While I obviously, under those circumstances, can’t go into the specifics of the bill, which, therefore is not yet the Administration’s

bill, I do want to assure you that continuation of a robust and

strong CMAQ Program will be a key feature of our proposal, building on the approximately $14 billion that has been spent under this

Program since its adoption in ISTEA.

Over the last 30 years, as Mr. Holmstead has said, we have

made remarkable progress in reducing air pollution, particularly

from transportation sources. Since 1970, we have reduced carbon

monoxide emissions by 45 percent, coarse particulate matter, or

PM10 emissions, by 38 percent, and volatile organic compounds,

VOC emissions, by 61 percent, despite increases in population,

GDP, and vehicle miles traveled.

The automotive fuels: highway, and transit communities have

managed to achieve this success while still working to improve mobility.

While the downward trend in emissions is expected to continue,

some of our Nation’s largest metropolitan areas still face challenges

in meeting the current 1-hour ozone standard. We must meet the

challenges of implementing the new Ambient Air Quality Standards. The Department of Transportation and EPA are working together to help the States meet these challenges.

We have learned a lot about the linkages between transportation

and air quality, including that there is no one right way for the en-
8

tire Nation to reduce congestion and improve air quality. The problem requires a flexible multilevel solution. The CMAQ Program

provides States flexibility to fund transportation improvements

that cross traditional Federal aid program boundaries, including

transit, ride-sharing, bicycle and pedestrian, alternative fuels and

vehicles, emissions inspection and maintenance, and ITS—Intelligence Transportation System—implementation.

In addition, CMAQ supports experimentation by States and

MPOs to meet travel demand in the most environmentally sensitive ways and has encouraged cooperation between transportation

and air quality agencies.

As we approach reauthorization of TEA–21 we must consider

stakeholder concerns about the CMAQ Program. One issue relates

to the statutory apportionment formula which I know is of interest

to you and to members of this subcommittee. The current formula

does not take into account areas that would be designated under

the new Ambient Air Quality Standards. There is some concern

that State apportionments would not be based on the total number

of people living in non-attainment areas.

Another issue relates to the integration of transportation and air

quality planning. We have now almost a decade of experience in

implementing the Clean Air Act’s Transportation Conformity Provisions. Stronger institutional links between transportation and air

quality planning agencies have been created and this has led to the

development of more realistic plans.

In addition, the conformity provisions have been instrumental in

fostering improvements to the modeling processes. However, we

have heard concerns that transportation and air quality plans are

not synchronized and that this can cause unwarranted lapses in

conformity that can disrupt the transportation funding process.

While transportation plans have very long planning horizons and

are updated frequently, most air quality plans have very short

planning horizons and are updated less frequently. DOT and EPA

are evaluating all of these issues as part of the reauthorization

process.

DOT actions other than highway and transit, such as airport development, are subject to a different EPA rule, the General Conformity Rule. We are working with EPA to improve implementation

of these requirements as well.

In addition, EPA’s new Ambient Air Quality Standards will also

impact the conformity process. These new standards are more

stringent. Many areas across the Eastern United States and California have pollution levels now exceeding these standards. It is too

early to tell the magnitude of transportation and air quality planning and conformity issues that might surface following implementation of the new standards. But the Department of Transportation

and EPA are working with these areas to increase their capacity

to deal with new non-attainment designations and conformity.

Finally, I want to assure you that the Department is committed

to continue the progress our Nation has made in reducing motor

vehicle emissions. I am proud of our successes under CMAQ with

flexible funding for innovative transportation projects that improve

air quality and mitigate the congestion. Continued progress will re-
9

quire improved coordination of the transportation and air quality

planning processes.

The American public demands and deserves both mobility and

clean air. We must remain focused on providing the highest level

of service and environmental protection possible.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my oral statement. I look forward

to working with you and your colleagues as we prepare for reauthorization of the surface transportation programs and responding

to any questions you may have.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Frankel.

The chairman has asked that I insert in the record, after his

short opening statement, a letter from the National Association of

Home Builders.

Without objection, it will be inserted in the record.

[The referenced statement and letter follow:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Over the years, I’ve have had the opportunity to work on the issue of conformity

quite a bit. Having chaired this subcommittee during TEA–21, I worked to ensure

that States had the tools necessary to meet the requirements in the Clean Air Act.

Working with Senator Bond, this committee gave States the flexibility to demonstrate conformity once an area may be newly designated as being in non-attainment. These new non-attainment areas were given a 1-year grace period to demonstrate conformity avoiding the immediate risk of losing critical funding for highway projects.

More recently, having served as Ranking Member for the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee, I, again, had the opportunity to work closely on the

issue of conformity by working to ensure that requirements of the Clean Air Act and

the transportation needs of States and communities do not run in conflict with each

other.

Today, conformity remains a major issue. It is crucial that the important goals

of conformity remain a top priority of the work of this committee. We must work

to ensure that rather than being a process driven issue, conformity will be about

striking the right balance between transportation needs and improving air quality

standards, and allowing communities the flexibility to achieve both.

I am pleased to report to this Committee that currently Oklahoma is fully in attainment. However, my home town of Tulsa may soon face issues with ozone attainment with the adoption of the new standards. I have invited Mr. Jerry Lasker here

today representing the MPO for Northeastern Oklahoma. I understand that Tulsa

is working on an ‘‘early action compact’’ to avoid a non-attainment designation. I

look forward to hearing Mr. Lasker’s testimony today on this ‘‘compact.’’ I wanted

to highlight the ‘‘early action compact’’ because it is just another example of flexibility for States to meet air quality and transportation needs. Programs like early

action compacts should shape our frame of mind in considering issues of conformity

and attainment.

Nevertheless, there are currently 196 counties in non-attainment for ozone. However, under the new standards, there will be 291 counties in non-attainment for

ozone. In reality, this figure will be much, much higher because counties that are

on the boarders of these new 291 non-attainment counties will be also placed in

non-attainment. With this many more areas in non-attainment, these ‘‘early action

compacts’’ could be more important than ever. Regardless, these attainment problems around the country are the makings of a ‘‘perfect conformity storm.’’ Therefore,

we must take a very close look at the issues surrounding conformity.

Specifically, we should look at:

1. Synchronizing conformity requirements with State Implementation Plans

(SIP’s), Transportation Improvement Plans (TIP’s), and long range transportation

plans in a better way;

2. Ensuring that governmental agencies and MPO’s have more flexibility on conformity; and

3. A greater degree of predictability on the conformity process for the private sector.
10

Under the same principle of flexibility, CMAQ was designed to give States flexibility to tailor projects to meet attainment with NAAQS. With ISTEA’s and TEA– 21’s authorization of CMAQ funds, we now have a number of years of experience

to evaluate the value of CMAQ funding to States. With that information and National Academy of Sciences Report 264, it is important that this committee consider

the future of CMAQ as to how best to enable States to meet air quality attainment.

One last item: I would like to submit for the record testimony from the National

Association of Homebuilders. I think Members and staff would benefit from NAHB’s interesting perspective on the issues of conformity and CMAQ.

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, and, again, would like to welcome Mr. Lasker and thank him for coming all the way to Washington from Oklahoma to help educate the Committee on these issues.

STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS

Thank you for the opportunity to submit a statement for the record presenting

the views of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) on the issue of the

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) and transportation conformity process and their impact on the home building industry.

NAHB represents more than 205,000 member firms involved in home building, remodeling, multifamily construction, property management, housing finance, building

product manufacturing and other aspects of residential and light commercial construction. The members of NAHB recognize the importance and value of a safe, easily accessible and reliable transportation system. Homeowners and potential homebuyers depend upon transportation systems to move from homes, to places of employment, to shopping and to schools. Homeowners also demand communities with

clean air. The transportation conformity process creates the nexus between the necessity of a safe and efficient transportation system with the desire for maintaining

clean air. Unfortunately, the conformity process can be confusing, bureaucratic and

burdensome without necessarily demonstrating unmistakable air quality benefits.

The transportation conformity program goals and processes must be reevaluated

and reforms need to be made. NAHB’s members believe that the building industry

can play a constructive role in addressing this issue.

BACKGROUND

Transportation Conformity

Transportation conformity is a requirement under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and

the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA–21) that mandates States

with impaired air quality to conduct air quality assessments prior to Federal approval, or the expenditure of Federal funds, for construction of any major transportation project that may have an impact on regional air quality (e.g., highway expansion, bridge construction, new freeway construction, or transit project). In short, it

is a Federal requirement that local transportation plans must ‘‘conform’’ to the State

air quality plan.

Transportation conformity applies to counties with impaired air quality (‘‘called

‘‘non-attainment’’ areas—today there are approximately 276 counties in 32 States

that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated as having excessive amounts of ozone (smog), particulate matter (soot), carbon monoxide, and/

or nitrogen dioxide. In addition, EPA is in the process of implementing new, more

stringent standards for ozone and particulate matter. With the implementation of

these new standards, the number of non-attainment areas considered to have impaired air quality and subject to transportation conformity requirements could double by 2007.

A transportation conformity determination is set up as an all-or-nothing proposition. The projects in the local transportation plan are taken in the aggregate. If

local planners are unable to show conformity of both a 20-year transportation plan

and a 3-year transportation plan (including the funding to back the projects contained in those plans) with a the State air quality plan, the area experiences a ‘‘conformity lapse.’’ The result of a conformity lapse is that all Federal transportation

funding for the area is frozen until the transportation plans are approved. With

Federal funding suspended due to a conformity lapse, badly needed transportation

projects are delayed or even canceled, leaving the population of these areas with

continued traffic congestion and no better air quality.

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ)

Enacted as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991

and reauthorized in TEA–21, the CMAQ program sought to highlight the impact
11

highways and transportation facilities have on the environment and quality of life.

The CMAQ program provides a flexible funding source to State and local governments for transportation projects and programs that improve air quality and congestion in areas of the country with the most severe air quality problems. Originally,

funding was available for only non-attainment areas for ozone and carbon monoxide.

However, TEA–21 expanded the program to include former non-attainment areas

that are now in Clean Air Act compliance (maintenance areas). Eligible activities

for CMAQ funding include transit improvements, traffic flow improvements, cleaner

fuels conversion of public vehicles, and bicycle and pedestrian programs that reduce

congestion and emissions and improve the quality of life.

Impacts on the Home Building Industry

By all measures, the housing industry, which accounts for 14 percent of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product, has been a bellwether during the recent difficult economic times. Fortunately, to date, transportation conformity requirements have not

hindered the industry’s ability to continue producing safe, affordable housing in

most cities. In recent economic data for 2002, builders produced 1.7 million housing

units, including 1.36 million single-family units and 345,000 multifamily units. As

a result, U.S. homeownership reached its highest level—yet 68.3 percent—in 2002’s

final quarter. Over the past year, low interest rates and strong underlying demographic demand has kept housing strong while the rest of the economy has struggled to regain its footing.

The construction of 1,000 single-family homes generates 2,448 jobs in construction

and construction-related industries, approximately $79.4 million in wages and more

than $42.5 million in Federal State and local revenues. The construction of 1,000

multifamily homes generates 1,030 jobs in construction and related industries, approximately $33.5 million in wages, and more than $17.8 million in Federal, State

and local revenues and fees. NAHB members will construct approximately eighty

percent of the almost 1.6 million new housing units projected for 2003.

In 2001, 41 of the largest 50 housing markets in the United States were either

non-attainment or maintenance areas subject to transportation conformity requirements. As these population centers grow, the demand for affordable housing must

be coupled with the need for a safe, efficient and modern transportation system.

Driven by consumer demand, land developers and builders plan their projects according to local growth plans. Local transportation plans and projects must be designed to complement and support the local growth plan. Since many consumers factor transportation into their decisions about home location, delayed or canceled

transportation projects change the demands of the homebuyer after development

projects are planned or even completed. If a metropolitan area is unable to appropriately wade through the red-tape of the Federal conformity requirements so that

it can keep transportation project funding flowing, previously approved transportation projects are halted, the congestion continues, and homebuyers are left idling

in traffic.

In 1999, a NAHB survey showed that 83 percent of the survey’s respondents favored a detached single-family home in a suburban setting with a longer commute

to work and farther distances to public transportation and shopping. Overwhelmingly, the survey showed that the greatest concern to respondents was traffic congestion. Respondents chose road widening (44 percent), new road construction (27

percent) and greater availability to public transportation (33 percent) as solutions

to traffic problems. Though a substantial number of respondents advocated the use

of public transportation, 92 percent owned automobiles and 85 percent said that

they use them for commuting.

The survey highlights the tradeoff Americans are willing to make: tolerance of

traffic congestion in return for the home of their choice, in the setting of their

choice. Further, while Americans support public transportation, they rely on the

automobile as their primary means of transportation and support transportation improvements to ease traffic congestion. It is clear that transportation, whether by

automobile or by transit, is a vital component of the decisionmaking process for

homebuyers. This point is not lost on home builders. Home builders depend on a

safe, efficient, modern transportation system (to complement land use choices and

patterns) because it is an important selling point for the homebuyers they serve.

NAHB Activity

NAHB began working on transportation conformity in 1999 when environmental

advocates in Atlanta, Georgia decided to mount legal challenges to transportation

plans in Federal court. Throughout the country, environmental groups have petitioned Federal courts to have transportation plans frozen and then voided by the

court because they are ‘‘flawed’’ in some way. If a transportation plan is stricken,
12

essentially there is no plan and, therefore, no conformity. Without conformity, Federal funding would be frozen until a ‘‘better’’ plan is approved.

In response, NAHB formed a coalition with other construction interests to intervene on a national level in transportation conformity lawsuits. NAHB has participated in transportation-related litigation in Sacramento, Atlanta, Baltimore, and

Salt Lake City. NAHB is of the opinion that Congress did not intend for environmental groups to have standing to challenge transportation planning decisions

under the Federal Aid Highways Act and that the courts should not resort to picking and choosing specific transportation projects for a region. Congress envisioned

a dynamic process where transportation documents are continuously reviewed and

updated on a regular basis in an effort to account for new data, technology improvements, and shifts in transportation growth. The conformity process is not static, and

by necessity, is dependent on estimates and predictions based on ever-changing data

and projections regarding future transportation trends. However, while this litigation continues, it is imperative for parties with an economic interest or those parties

who are reasonably affected by an ultimate decision have the opportunity to intervene in those lawsuits. Efforts to keep transportation planning flowing without

court-selection of specific transportation projects have been very successful.

NAHB has also recognized that a conformity lapse can result from a poorly coordinated administrative process as much as any court decision. For example, Houston

was days away from lapse in the summer of 2001, and San Francisco did experience

conformity lapse twice in 2002. Both of these areas became bogged down in underlying challenges to State air quality planning (such as modeling issues) that overlapped with upcoming deadlines for approval of transportation plans. It was not

that the transportation plan itself was flawed, but that the air quality plan approval

process was not synchronized with the transportation plan approval process. The

transportation planning process itself can be unnecessarily burdensome on local

planners, and changes should be made to the requirements to facilitate better air

quality and transportation planning.

Concerns about Current Transportation Conformity Requirements

In reconsidering transportation conformity while reauthorizing TEA–21, NAHB

urges Congress to carefully weigh the air quality benefits gained by implementing

the complicated transportation conformity requirements against the economic impacts of the current transportation conformity system. NAHB supports air quality

planning aimed at reaching the goals of the CAA and understands the need for future motor vehicle emissions to be factored into transportation planning. As the reauthorization effort progresses, Congress first should carefully consider whether the

transportation conformity program is fundamentally addressing the goals of Congress.

NAHB would like to work with Congress to address the major problems with the

transportation conformity program. Through several meetings and conversations

with industry stakeholders and transportation and environmental officials, NAHB

has identified several areas of concern:

• The inconsistency of statutory timelines between transportation and air quality

plans results in the delay of transportation projects and subjects MPOs to excessive

and burdensome planning requirements. Under TEA–21, conformity is required at

least every 3 years, the regional transportation plan must be revised every 3 years

and the transportation improvement program (although a 3-year plan) must be revised every 2 years. Congress should enact statutory reforms to merge transportation and clean air requirements into a single timeline that avoids overlapping efforts and additional conformity requirements.

• Excessive statutory triggers result in non-attainment areas continually performing countless transportation conformity demonstrations that often overlap and

are considered obsolete before they are complete. Under the existing transportation

conformity program, non-attainment areas must demonstrate conformity each time

EPA proposes or approves a State Implementation Plan (SIP), each time EPA modifies a control measure that impacts the motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB),

and each time a transportation control measure is added, modified or deleted. Conformity determinations are also required each time a MPO adds or modifies a

project in its transportation plan. Congress should ensure that conformity determinations are only required once every 3 years and on a cycle that has timelines

consistent with transportation planning. Further, Congress should consider establishing a level of change in the MVEB below which MPOs can make changes to the

transportation program without triggering a conformity determination.

• Transportation planners are confused by current EPA and U.S. Department of

Transportation (DOT) guidance about what procedures should be followed and

which data should be used in planning. Under the current transportation conformity
13

system, the introduction of ‘‘new’’ air or transportation data triggers the need for

a new air quality plan and, in turn, a new conformity determination. Unfortunately,

it is difficult to find a balance between introducing new air and transportation data

into the system while still maximizing the time available to State and local transportation planners to make conformity determinations prior to statutory deadlines.

Congress should ensure that a region is not liable for new data that becomes available during the course of developing a conformity determination. By doing so, an

area will be able to meet conformity timelines and avoid penalizing the area for ongoing data collection and analysis. • The Federal agencies have not concluded properly or consistently what kind of

transportation projects can move forward during a transportation conformity lapse.

As EPA and DOT address a court decision from 1999 that interprets the statute,

once a project is approved by a local government and well on its way to becoming

a reality, conformity lapse can leave a partially completed project unfinished. Unfinished or idled transportation projects serve only to perpetuate traffic congestion and

dirty air, the very consequences these projects presumably are intended to alleviate. • The way that EPA implements its new 8-hour ozone and fine particulate matter

standards will have significant impact on the transportation conformity process. As

stated previously, the number of non-attainment areas may double, limiting State

and Federal resources. Further, the newly designated non-attainment areas will

have little experience with the implementation of an already complicated conformity

process.

Concerns about the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program

Unfortunately, over its history, the CMAQ program, which is extremely popular

with State and local officials, has funded some questionable projects that fail to improve air quality. As a result, in 1998 Congress requested a National Academy of

Sciences (NAS) study of the program’s effectiveness in improving air quality. The

study recommended reauthorization of the CMAQ program with caveats, such as

that State and local air quality agencies should be more involved in the CMAQ

project decisionmaking process and that CMAQ funding should be expanded to

areas with pollutants other than ozone and carbon monoxide.

During the reauthorization of TEA–21, NAHB urges Congress to weigh the air

quality benefits gained by the current administration of the CMAQ program. First,

Congress should fully examine whether the CMAQ program is realizing the goals

of Congress. Through several meetings and conversations with industry stakeholders and transportation and environmental officials, NAHB has identified the following areas of concern: • CMAQ-funded projects must not only reduce congestion but also be scientifically

proven to provide air quality benefits. By allowing projects with questionable results

to continue to be funded, the CMAQ program is not fulfilling its intended goals of

cleaning the air and reducing congestion. Further, the program is not making efficient use of taxpayers’ dollars and deriving no air quality benefits for the citizens

who live in non-attainment areas, the very citizens the program is designed to help.

• Congress should preserve the original intent of the CMAQ program by ensuring

that funding is used exclusively in non-attainment and maintenance areas. Opening

up the CMAQ program to non-designated areas would serve only to dilute the already limited funding levels and take away projects from the areas that need the

funding the most desperately.

• Only a fully funded CMAQ program that accounts for the increase in non-attainment areas will ensure the popular program’s viability. As stated previously,

due to EPA’s implementation of the new 8-hour ozone and fine particulate matter

standards, the number of non-attainment areas may double, stretching limited

CMAQ funding.

Thank you for allowing NAHB the opportunity to share its views on the CMAQ

and transportation conformity programs. NAHB applauds the efforts of the Senate

Environment and Public Works Committee to tackle these difficult issues. We look

forward to working with members of the committee on these issue and other issues

of concern to the home building industry during the reauthorization of TEA–21.

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Holmstead, several years ago, as a matter of fact when Senator Chafee was chairman of this committee,

I indicated that under the new National Ambient Air Quality

Standards that many communities would not be in conformity with

the new ozone and particulate standards.

According to the information that I have, under the new Standards, you will have 232 counties in 32 States that will be des-
14

ignated non-attainment and 176 counties in 26 States for PM2.5

standard in 2005. In my own State, the statistics are that 30 of

Ohio’s 88 counties are projected by EPA to be designated as nonattainment for the new ozone standards, and 15 counties in 2005

for the particulate standards.

As you know from previous conversations that we have had, I am

very proud of the fact that when I was Governor of Ohio we worked

very hard to bring all of our counties into attainment. Under these

new standards, many of them are going to fall out of attainment.

What are you going to do for these counties in terms of the problem of conformity? Many of the projections are that we could lose

$1.7 billion of money in terms of these counties not being in conformity. You have talked about new technology that is out there,

such as automobiles are cleaner.

Where are you going right now, looking down the road, as to how

this is going to be handled so we don’t end up having a gigantic

traffic jam of projects that are going nowhere?

Mr. HOLMSTEAD. We are keenly aware of this issue. As you may

know, we are going through this process that will culminate in

April of next year of actually designating areas. We anticipate that

nationally there will be about 50 new areas that haven’t really had

to deal with conformity before. As Mr. Frankel mentioned, we are

doing a couple of things to address this issue.

We are working with DOT to make the Conformity Program

work better. There are things that we believe that we can do administratively. We are now, in fact, working on new conformity regulations that will address many of the issues faced by these new

areas. We also will be providing additional assistance and training

to States and local governments so that they can understand how

the process works.

One of the things that we take some comfort in is that when the

Conformity Program was first created under the 1990 Amendments—and you are certainly aware of all of the issues that that

raised—there were some significant bumps in the road as people

began doing conformity for the first time. I think EPA has learned

from that experience.

Senator VOINOVICH. They weren’t doing conformity. Period. We

had a lawsuit that was filed because people were ignoring that. We

had quite a crisis for awhile to try to see if we could clean it up.

Mr. HOLMSTEAD. We anticipate that this transition will be quite

a bit smoother in part because our regulatory programs will be improved. We have ironed out some of the bugs in large part because

of what Mr. Frankel mentioned. The tools are available to make

this work. I don’t want to minimize the challenges that we will

face, but we really are doing everything we can within the current

statutory scheme to try to minimize the burden, while at the same

time encouraging State air quality planners and transportation

planners to continue to work together on these issues.

Senator VOINOVICH. Have you sat down and looked down the

road at some of the major projects that are contemplated in areas

where you know there will be non-attainment of ozone and particulate matter standards?

Mr. HOLMSTEAD. I haven’t done that personally. I am sure that

is something that we could respond to you. I know that many of
15

the areas that now have conformity lapses are areas where there

are no projects going on, so they have no real need to resolve those

lapses. This is something that Mr. Frankel and I could probably do

together. We could look at where some of the upcoming projects are

expected to come.

As I think you might know, projects that are already approved,

or steps in projects that are already approved, are not subject to

these conformity lapses. So those will continue, as will many of the

other non-exempt projects. At this point, I don’t think we are anticipating that there will be a significant number of conformity

lapses.

I think it makes sense for us to look at big projects coming up

in some of these areas. But we really don’t expect that there will

be a significant number of conformity lapses because of the way the

program has been refined over the years.

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, for example, in our State we have a

track system of transportation allocation of resources. We have Tier

1, Tier 2, and Tier 3. We know what we are going to be doing in

the next several years. Right away, design has been done. It would

seem to me that you would look down the road to see where those

kinds of things are going to occur. You are talking about educating

people about what they can do. It seems to me that is where you

can spend a little more time in some other areas.

The other thing is that I would be very interested—and I know

other members of the committee would be as well—as to how you

are going about doing this. I think it is really important that those

regulations be vetted; we would then have a lot of input. Once this

is done, we won’t have a cry from a lot of people out there saying

that you are trying to get around the new ozone and particulate

matter standards and trying to avoid the laws. This is what triggered the lawsuit that got us in a jam several years ago.

Mr. HOLMSTEAD. Currently, we are going through what we refer

to as a ‘‘stakeholder process,’’ to make sure that we really do understand the issues of various stakeholders. We are confident that

the refinements that we are looking at will be fully in accordance

with the laws. So we don’t expect any significant problems there.

We will have these revised regulations and guidance out well before areas are actually designated under the new standards.

Senator VOINOVICH. You will share that with the committee?

Mr. HOLMSTEAD. Yes.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you.

Mr. Frankel, you say that $14 billion has been spent over the

last 8 years. I am familiar with some of those projects in the State

of Ohio. The information that I have is that a lot of that money

that has been spent has not gone for projects that really do very

much about reducing emissions. In fact, I think the National Academy of Sciences did a study of them and was quite critical that

many of the projects that were done. One could question about

whether or not they complied with the congressional intent.

I just wonder. Are you contemplating looking at some new criteria in determining which of those projects are going to be funded?

There are certain ones that were highlighted in that study that

contributed more toward reducing emission and helping with the
16

conformity problem than many others. Could you share with us

what your thinking on that is?

Mr. FRANKEL. Well, Mr. Chairman, first of all, roughly $14 billion has been authorized and $11 billion spent since the beginning

of the program in 1991 and the enactment of ISTEA. That is actually a little longer period. As Mr. Holmstead has said, and as you

acknowledged, the National Academy of Science study was generally supportive of the program and recommended its continuation.

It is, as is true under the programs under TEA–21, and ISTEA

before it, a grant program—in this case to the States, depending

on their level of air quality attainment. There is flexibility on the

part of the States and MPOs to develop specific programs and

projects. Funded projects do have to meet certain standards, obviously, and must contribute to air quality improvements and congestion relief.

We are looking, in the context of the reauthorization bill, at eligibility issues and what sorts of projects should be eligible or not. We

will continue to examine what projects are selected by States to

make sure, through general oversight of these programs, that the

projects are consistent with the program requirements.

As is true of programs under TEA–21 generally, there is flexibility on the part of States to develop programs that meet these

goals. Overall, it is hard to measure the specific impact of the

CMAQ program on improvements in air quality, let alone the impact of individual projects.

I think you would acknowledge this, and both of us have said,

there have been dramatic improvements in the reduction of emissions attributable to mobile sources. CMAQ has been a big part of

that. I think CMAQ will continue to make those contributions

while DOT exercises appropriate oversight of the program.

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, I would like to have you review that

report and get back to us with your comments on it. Perhaps you

can give some consideration in terms of language. We want to be

sure that we don’t build a bunch of garages all over the United

States that couldn’t be built with any other money. CMAQ funds

are there and people go after them.

I just think that the programs that are being supported and paid

for ought to have some real connection with reducing emissions in

the area and helping with conformity. I know that is a tough one.

I am for flexibility, but if you look at them, they don’t fit in with

the law that made this money available.

Mr. FRANKEL. I appreciate that, Senator. We will be responsive

to that.

[Material to be supplied follows:]

Response to Senator Voinovich’s request: The National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

report makes ten major recommendations in four different areas of evaluation. A review of each is discussed below.

NAS Recommendation 1. The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement

Program (CMAQ) has value and should be reauthorized with modifications.

We agree that CMAQ has value and should be continued. It is the only transportation program focused on contributing to improvement in air quality. We agree that

some modifications are warranted, primarily for streamlining the program and allowing for funding of areas that will become nonattainment under the Environmental Protection Agency’s new air quality standards. The exact changes that will
17

be contained in the Administration’s proposal for reauthorization have not been finally decided, but will likely address many of the report’s recommendations.

NAS Recommendation 2. Air quality improvement should continue to receive high

priority in the CMAQ program.

The report notes that there are other highway funding categories that focus on

congestion relief and finds that the prohibition of construction of single occupant vehicle capacity with CMAQ funds should be continued. We agree that cost-effective

congestion relief projects should be funded when they have been found to have emission reduction benefits.

NAS Recommendation 3. State and local air quality agencies should be involved

more directly in the evaluation of proposals for expenditures of CMAQ funds.

We have encouraged interagency consultation in the CMAQ project selection process and many areas have responded by including State and local air pollution control officials in project selection. In the interests of local flexibility and decisionmaking, we have not required any specific make-up of these local project selection

committees. It is not clear whether Federal specification of the local project selection

process is warranted.

NAS Recommendation 4. The CMAQ program should be broadened to include, at

a minimum, all pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act.

The report specifically notes the new data showing fine particulates (PM2.5) as

having serious human health impacts. That is our understanding as well. The current focus of the program is on those EPA-regulated pollutants that can be affected

by transportation-related measures. While EPA has not yet designated any areas as

being in nonattainment of its new standard for fine particulate matter or under the

8-hour ozone standard, there may well be justification for including these areas in

the CMAQ apportionment formula. Failure to do so could restrict funding in States

whose nonattainment populations have grown substantially. Other pollutants suggested in the NAS report may not be as applicable to mitigation under the CMAQ

program. For example, transportation contributes just 2 percent to sulfur dioxide,

and no standards have yet been set for air toxics. As such, it may not be worthwhile

to pursue funding for S02 reduction since transportation sources are so small compared to thy whole. Similarly, without standards and nonattainment designations,

we may not be able to target control strategies and areas to address air toxics in

reasonable ways.

NSA Recommendation 5. Any local project that can demonstrate potential to reduce mobile source emissions should be eligible for CMAQ funds.

The report specifically mentions vehicle scrappage programs, which are statutorily

ineligible, as well as public-private projects, diesel programs and freight, all of

which are eligible and have been funded by the CMAQ program. With the exception

of scrappage programs, it is not clear what else might be funded under the program

that is not already eligible.

NAS Recommendation 6. Relax the restriction on the use of CMAQ funds for operations.

The use of CMAQ funds for operational support is being evaluated by the Department to determine whether eligibility for such funding should be continued and, if

so, for how long. Discussions within the Department have ranged from 0 to 5 years

of eligibility. The use of CMAQ for operations must be considered very carefully because CMAQ funds are used for transit projects, inspection and maintenance programs, as well as highway projects, and the combined operational needs of just the

transit operators and the State and local highways agencies is about $32 billion annually, many times larger than the $1.8 billion of CMAQ funding apportioned to the

States in fiscal year 2002. In further discussions with the NAS panel, it is clear that

this recommendation carried the requirement that further air quality benefit be demons trated. We are not sure that such a demonstration can be made under existing

EPA procedures since operating support does not yield further emission reductions

toward attainment.

NAS Recommendation 7. Consider the use of CMAQ funds for land use strategies

leading to long term reduction in future mobile source emissions.

As noted in the report, the potential for land use strategies to reduce congestion

or vehicle emissions is complex and unclear. An important consideration is that

CMAQ funding, is derived from the Highway Trust Fund and must be used for

‘‘transportation’’ projects that assist attainment. Some land use strategies may not

be reasonably considered to be transportation activities. Those that are transportation activities may already be eligible for CMAQ funding. At least one proposal

for transit-oriented development has been determined to be eligible for CMAQ support. Further, it may be difficult to demonstrate an emission reduction which assists

attainment of the standards.
18

NAS Recommendation 8. Develop more rigorous procedures for selection and evaluation of CMAQ projects in the context of local air quality and congestion problems.

The Department is evaluating what reauthorization recommendations to make

concerning project selection. While we support performance-based approaches, there

is concern about balancing the needs of the local decisionmakers against the strictures of a federally required project evaluation and selection process.

NAS Recommendation 9. Provide incentives and guidance to local recipients of

CMAQ funds to encourage more evaluations of funded projects.

We currently allow CMAQ funds to be used for evaluation purposes of a CMAQfunded project. We even require it for experimental pilot projects. We are evaluating

just how something more might be accomplished. One of the problems is that a high

quality evaluation, including before and after studies, can cost as much as the transportation improvement being evaluated according to a recent NCHRP report. State

and local jurisdictions might prefer to spend that money doing another project.

NAS Recommendation 10. Undertake a national level, targeted program of evaluation.

We find this an interesting proposal. The CMAQ program has funded more than

$11 billion thus far; some funding might be justified to make sure that the program

investment is optimized. It seems unlikely that State and local programs will have

the ability to undertake such a program, and the Federal Government may be the

only entity that could provide such assessments and disseminate the results nationally.

Mr. FRANKEL. As I think you know, I served as a State transportation executive. So I am aware of that. I think that you would acknowledge, and I am sure under your leadership in Ohio, that it

was the case that overall these projects are the ones that do meet

the goals of the program.

Senator VOINOVICH. You know and I know that in some instances

you get a project and you figure out how you can fund it. You look

at all the pots of money. ‘‘There is the CMAQ money. Let’s go after

that money and use it.’’ That is the way it is. I think that we ought

to be careful about how we are going about spending that money.

I have to excuse myself to cast a vote. I want to apologize to witnesses that we didn’t get started on time. This is the last day that

our Chaplain is giving our Senate prayer. We had a vote at 9:30.

We just had another vote. That is how it is here in the Senate for

our guests that haven’t been around Washington.

We never know about our schedule here. Senator Carper and I

were once Governors. One of the things that we were able to do

when we were Governors is control our schedules. Now we are

members of the Senate, the system controls the system. So I apologize to you for the delay in opening the hearing.

I am going to turn the gavel over to Senator Carper, the ranking

member of this committee.

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We have been joined by Senator Craig Thomas of Wyoming. Senator Thomas, do you have a statement you would like to make?

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

Senator THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Like the rest of us,

I have another meeting to go to.

I am concerned about the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality

standards. Wyoming, of course, being fairly low in population, we

don’t have some of the difficulties that they have in other States.

They have been in compliance. But now with the proposal to

change the particulate matter portion of it from 10 ppm to 2.5 ppm,
19

it impacts us and reduces our ability to work with this. Much of

it will be dust and dirt.

I guess I am interested in where you think that is and whether

it seems to be good policy to allow the States to get the money to

be able to use them proactively before we had problems.

Mr. FRANKEL. Obviously, I can’t speak, Senator, to the specifics

of what can be anticipated under the new standards for Wyoming.

Perhaps Mr. Holmstead can. I don’t think we necessarily anticipate

that the change in the standards would necessarily have an impact

on Wyoming.

But nonetheless, there is a minimum allocation. Even though

Wyoming doesn’t currently have non-attainment areas, those funds

can be utilized. The Federal Highway Administration funds, the

STP program, are available so that a State can be proactive in trying to develop these sorts of projects that can meet air quality concerns in a State such as Wyoming.

The Federal Highway Administration, I know, would look forward to working—and I am sure has worked—with your State government and your State Department of Transportation in trying to

develop projects which would be appropriate under the circumstances.

Senator THOMAS. That minimum allocation has been useful. We

have worked on projects. I am just concerned. I hope that we can

continue to have that minimum payment to Wyoming. Thank you

very much.

Senator CARPER. Gentleman, I apologize for missing your statements. I am not going to ask you to give your statements again.

Mr. HOLMSTEAD. They were short.

Senator CARPER. They must have been.

[Laughter.]

Senator CARPER. Could you each just take a minute or two and

give me the gist of what you had to say. The nub of what you think

I really need to take out of here would be helpful.

Mr. HOLMSTEAD. I would be happy to do that quickly. As I think

you know, we have made enormous strides in reducing air pollution

from mobile sources. This is largely because of much cleaner cars

and much cleaner trucks and buses, but it is also due in part to

what Congress has done in the area of linking transportation and

air quality through the CMAQ program and transportation conformity.

I think we both agree with the recommendations of the National

Academy of Sciences that it is an important program and that in

certain respects, it could be expanded and improved. We are working with Mr. Frankel and other folks in the Administration to

make some recommendations that will be part of the new Administration bill. But overall I think we are supportive of the goals of

that program and think it has worked fairly well. Again, we have

had some experience and we think it can be made better.

On the transportation conformity side, as I think you know, conformity was created during the 1990 Amendments. It has been, in

some respects, challenging, because for the first time it required

State air quality planners and State transportation planners to

work together in a way that they hadn’t before.
20

As you can imagine as a former Governor, there were a few

bumps in the road, but we think it is working quite well now. In

fact, a lot of the models that people use to do these plans have a

significant amount of data that go into those models. This whole

process has worked out fairly well.

We do anticipate that with new non-attainment areas designated

over the next 11⁄2 or 2 years, there will be new areas that have not

had to deal with transportation conformity before. We are working

to make sure that, first of all, they are educated about how they

can do conformity, and that second, our regulations can be further

refined specifically to address the needs of some of these areas. We

are committed to doing that before the designations occur.

Our bottom line is that we think both of these programs have

been good programs and successful programs, but we do agree with

those who say they can be improved.

Mr. FRANKEL. I might say, Senator, in response to your request,

I want to emphasize something that Mr. Holmstead has said, and

that I referred to in my opening statement. That is the closer relationship that both of these programs, CMAQ and conformity rules,

have stimulated, particularly at the State level, between transportation officials, air quality officials, transportation planners, and

MPOs.

I know you are very aware of this from your experience, particularly as a Governor. Even though we are moving toward more developed and stricter standards, in some regards, in terms of attainment, I think we are not where we were in 1990, 1991, and 1992.

I think it is instructive, and I hope encouraging to the Congress.

I know you have heard this from others.

Congress adopted the Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990, and

ISTEA in 1991. It was not accidental that these two programs were

merged. I think this committee was in the lead in trying to tie and

bridge the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, and ISTEA, the

transportation programs, in 1991. I think Congress did so in a very

imaginative and thoughtful way. There were a lot of bumps and a

lot of difficulties. As you know, when these came into force, I was

a State transportation executive in grappling with these sort of

things. It is not perfect, by any means.

As Mr. Holmstead has said, as we go forward developing the reauthorization of TEA–21, we will be with EPA. We have been trying to develop some ideas to make improvements in the conformity

process. There are some issues that have developed in terms of the

synchronization, if you will, of the timing, the scheduling, and the

planning processes which I think together we can smooth out. Unintended conformity lapses can be addressed.

Generally, we are committed. The Administration is committed

specifically here through EPA and the Department of Transportation, to propose to Congress and to this committee some thoughtful changes which will continue to make improvements. As we go

forward in the implementation of these programs, those institutional relationships which have developed at the State level, the

metropolitan level, and the Federal level, I think will ensure that

we can continue to make progress in reducing emissions.

Senator CARPER. I have a statement that I will ask be entered

into the record. I am not going to go through my statement today.
21

[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF DELAWARE

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today, and to our witnesses,

thank you for taking the time to be here.

The connection between transportation and air quality is clear. Its interesting

that at the same time this hearing is being held, the Banking Committee, on which

I also serve, is having a hearing on transit. Talking about transit should remind

us that it is simplest to manage air pollution from a vehicle that rarely hits the

road—or even easier from one that is never built. Whatever we can do to reduce

the number of vehicles on the road in any given day is important. But we should

also remember, although today’s hearing is not about this, we should continue to

help our colleagues take steps to improve the mileage of vehicles and reduce the

emissions from them.

Today’s hearing is about the TEA–21 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality

(CMAQ) program, which has been a successful effort to pursue our dual goals of improved mobility through reduced traffic congestion and a better environment

through reduced air emissions. We should seek to buildupon this legacy of effectiveness through the reauthorization of TEA–21. By strengthening the program and

providing more resources, we can continue to hand our States and Metropolitan

Planning Organizations (MPOs) the tools they need to improve air quality while enhancing mobility.

Transportation remains the dominant source of air pollution in our Nation, posing

a significant threat to public health. As a former Governor, I understand the challenges States face in meeting clean air and conformity requirements. In Delaware,

mobile source emissions account for over one half of the State’s emissions inventory.

Two of Delaware’s three counties—including New Castle County where I–95 runs— are currently non-attainment areas, with the third county most likely joining them

as the new PM2.5 and 8-hour Ozone standards are put in place.

However, Delaware has managed to remain in conformity with its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The State has accomplished this by taking advantage of the

CMAQ program to fund transportation projects that reduce emissions, by strengthening long-term air quality/transportation planning processes and by facilitating

close collaboration and cooperation between the State’s Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control and the Department of Transportation in harmonizing air quality and transportation goals.

I believe we can improve the existing CMAQ program structure to provide even

more benefits to air quality, while preserving the flexibility our States need to maintain our transportation network and improve our quality of life. To do this, we must

first expand the amount of resources devoted to CMAQ. As more regions across our

country face conformity issues, it is appropriate to expand available funds to meet

the increasing needs. Out of this larger pot, we should make PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone

non-attainment and maintenance areas eligible for CMAQ funding. We should devise a way to fund former non-attainment areas as needed to ensure continued attainment, and fund CMAQ projects in travel corridors feeding into non-attainment

areas.

Additionally, we should consider extending project funding by phasing it in over

time and adopt an interim policy of funding projects beyond 3 years on a case-bycase basis based on continuing air quality benefits.

To ensure that CMAQ resources are well spent and deliver the maximum air

quality benefits, greater emphasis should be placed on projects that will result in

direct, timely, and sustained air quality benefits. I believe State air quality agencies

could help determine such projects by participating in a well-defined consultation

and concurrence process during CMAQ project selection. The State air quality agency could establish criteria for identifying air quality benefits and determining a minimum air quality benefit threshold for projects. This would help ensure projects with

the most impact get top priority for funding while still providing flexibility to the

States to set their own standards and transportation agendas. Part of this process

would be providing State resources to improve data collection so that we can clearly

understand the impacts of transportation projects on air quality.

Also, where we can make the conformity process more consistent, with planning

horizons and the frequency of updates harmonized, we should. The purpose of the

conformity requirement is to ensure a healthy and safe environment for us all and

we must focus on reaching that result. We should maintain regular and timely analyses to demonstrate compliance of constrained Transportation Improvement Plan

(TIP’s) and Regional Transportation Plan (RTP’s) with State Implementation Plan
22

(SIP’s) motor vehicle budgets, and possibly combine the TIP and RTP into one document to better harmonize timelines. Additionally, we should conduct conformity

analyses on the combined TIP/RTP document no less than once every 3 years and

retain the 20-year planning horizon for transportation plans. Because the conformity

of transportation plans to air quality plans is critical to achieving clean air goals,

particularly given the continued increase in motor vehicle use and vehicle miles

traveled, preserving, and improving upon, the basic conformity requirements and

schedules now in place is crucial.

States and regions also need the flexibility that CMAQ provides to address their

attainment goals. We need to further that flexibility by explicitly making both

freight and intercity passenger rail eligible activities through the CMAQ program.

Rail’s ability to reduce emissions by taking drivers and trucks off the road is well

documented and CMAQ has been used so far to fund rail projects in my State and

others. We must push to make rail clearly eligible to encourage these types of investments when they can be shown to benefit air quality directly.

Combined, these changes could make a good program even better, bringing CMAQ

into the 21st century with an even stronger focus on air quality. But in this effort,

we must also not forget the daunting issue of congestion. In fact, I believe that congestion is perhaps the single biggest transportations challenge facing my State and

the Nation. Yet, the CMAQ program is the only TEA–21 program specifically aimed

at fighting congestion. While I absolutely support the connection between air quality

improvements and congestion reduction, I believe it is perhaps time to take congestion on, front and center, in new program. Simply put, congestion is too big for

CMAQ, at its $1.35 billion annual funding level, to fight alone.

According to the US DOT, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) have more than doubled

over the past 20 years, with similar predictions for the next 20 years. Meanwhile,

our highway infrastructure has roughly reached its development maximum, thereby

greatly increasing congestion. We need to promote more options to fight congestion

through transit, passenger and freight rail, smarter development, land use and

other strategies. By providing more resources and enhanced flexibility to States and

MPO’s through a new program to fight congestion directly, we could make major

improvements in mobility, while also including safeguards to ensure such projects

are commiserate with a states’ air quality goals.

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion I will say that we have an important task ahead of

us. The two major contributors to air pollution—transportation and electricity generation—will be topics we should debate this year, and I hope we will. The fact is

that we must make significant progress on both of these sources of pollutants. I

think we all know it’s the right thing to do. We should put out heads together and

find a way to strengthen the conformity and CMAQ tools we have, and consider others if necessary, and I look forward to working with you and the committee to get

something done that we can both agree to.

Senator CARPER. I do have a couple more specific questions that

I would like to ask, if I could.

Mr. Frankel, you have alluded to your sordid past, which included a stint as a transportation agency not far from ours.

Mr. FRANKEL. Thank goodness for Delaware. Connecticut is bigger.

Senator CARPER. A little bit bigger.

We think of Vermont and New Hampshire as big States.

[Laughter.]

Senator CARPER. Put your old hat on, the hat you wore for a

number of years as the head of a State transportation agency. Just

talk to me a little bit about the kind of changes that you would recommend seeing made from the States’ perspective, with respect to

CMAQ or conformity. I am really looking for common sense

changes.

Mr. FRANKEL. Right. I would say in the CMAQ area, Senator,

and you probably heard the part of my answer to the chairman, the

CMAQ Program is like the other core highway programs. I would

like to say that I think that the basic programs of the Department

of Transportation through TEA–21 are really based on the flexibility, the discretion, of States to design their own programs. We
23

set out national goals and national purposes for these core programs, whether it is the national highway system or interstate

maintenance, or the CMAQ Program.

I think you have heard me say this before, in the bill that we

present on behalf of the Administration to reauthorize TEA–21, we

will try to build on that flexibility and discretion on the part of

States. It is not so much that there are specific requirements that

I would like to see added—and certainly wearing my old hat that

is the case—but rather to continue to work with States and MPOs

to assist them in developing their programs to meet their particular needs for shaping a transportation investment program that

also meets the requirements of the Clean Air Act and environmental quality.

I think we are on the right road with that. We have had extensive discussions with EPA, stakeholders, and others, about eligibility issues under CMAQ. The chairman has just asked about the

other side of it, if you will, and that is projects that perhaps get

funded under CMAQ that really don’t meet objectives. So I think

we need to continue to refine that. Basically the CMAQ Program

is a good program that has made an important contribution to the

reduction of emissions.

In the case of conformity, again wearing my old hat, the disparity—if I can use that word—between the planning cycles is

something that we have to address. I think too much burden has

fallen on transportation planners and transportation agencies because the air quality planning process is not as up-to-date as it

should be in some places. We have addressed that, and I think we

will have some proposals.

I think that is very important not only at the State level and not

only for Governors, commissioners, secretaries of transportation,

but MPO officials and air quality environmental officials at the

State level as well. So I think that is an important thing that we

can address.

Also, although not subject to legislation, but I can say we all

have to work together to continue to make improvements in the

modeling so that the analytical process that occurs on which the

conformity findings are based, is more authentic.

I think everybody would acknowledge that we have work that

has to be done. Both agencies have struggled over the years to improve that. That is in everybody’s interest. It is also extremely difficult, as you know—very, very challenging.

Senator CARPER. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, back to you.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Senator Carper.

Could you explain how Clear Skies might impact on the new National Ambient Air Quality Standards? As you know, Senator

Inhofe and I recently introduced the Clear Skies Proposal. Is there

any connection between the two?

Mr. HOLMSTEAD. As I think all three of you know, the real issue

in these transportation programs and their link to air quality is an

attempt to come into attainment with national air quality standards.

We have done very extensive projections, based on state-of-theart computer modeling techniques to explore what would happen
24

over the next few years if there were these national caps put in

place under Clear Skies. Just to put it in context, right now I think

there are roughly 330 some odd counties in the country that are

out of attainment with the ozone standard. There may be 125 or

130 counties that are out of attainment with the PM2.5. There is

some overlap there. You don’t just add those up, but it is hundreds

and hundreds of counties.

If you look at the reductions that you get regionally from Clear

Skies, especially in the Eastern part of the United States, that

number drops dramatically over time. Part of that is due to the

other things that are happening—the cleaner standards and cleaner fuels are coming into place, which help to reduce emissions.

So, when you look at those measures and you add on top of that

the very dramatic reductions that you get from Clear Skies, the

number of remaining non-attainment areas is dramatically reduced. I don’t have the exact numbers, but by the 2015 timeframe,

which will be the attainment date for most parts of the country for

PM2.5, the number goes down from 300–400 to in the neighborhood

of 50.

This means that all of those counties that had to deal with transportation conformity, are now in a very different position. Some of

them may still have to do conformity because they will be doing a

maintenance plan. It will dramatically reduce the burden on States

and local governments throughout the Eastern United States.

Instead of putting all of that burden on the Conformity Program

and on local controls, you just get a dramatic reduction in these regional air pollutants. It will make a very big difference, not only

in terms of transportation conformity, but in terms of all of the

other planning that States and local governments have to do to

come into attainment.

Senator VOINOVICH. I didn’t see the ranking member of our committee, Senator Jeffords, come in. Have you had an opportunity to

ask any questions?

Senator JEFFORDS. No. I didn’t make my statement either. I

would like to make my statement part of the record.

Without objection, I assume that would happen.

[Laughter.]

Senator VOINOVICH. Without objection, it will be included, reserving the right to object.

[Laughter.]

Senator VOINOVICH. No, not really.

Senator JEFFORDS. We don’t object down here.

Mr. Holmstead, Governor Whitman testified that when Clear

Skies is fully implemented, sometime around 2018 or later, it

would prevent premature deaths of approximately 12,000. I have

two questions for you.

No. 1, how many people does EPA estimate are dying prematurely each year from power plant pollution right now?

Mr. HOLMSTEAD. There is no way to attribute deaths just to

power plants because, as I think you know, what is actually causing these premature deaths is PM2.5, fine particles. These fine particles are made up of emissions from power plants and emissions

from cars. It is a collection of emissions from all of these sources.

Collectively we believe that the total number of premature deaths
25

from PM2.5 is tens of thousands of people a year. I don’t know that

we have an official Agency estimate. But it is in the range of probably more than 25,000 or 30,000 premature deaths that occur every

year.

A number of programs already in place will reduce that number.

On top of those existing programs, Clear Skies would reduce an additional 12,000 premature deaths. That is our best estimate. The

improvement is very dramatic.

Senator JEFFORDS. How many people does EPA estimate are

dying prematurely each year from power plant pollution right now?

Mr. HOLMSTEAD. We are not able to estimate that. As I said before, if power plants were the only source of emissions, then we

could estimate that. But it really is not fair to power plants to say

that they are causing all this pollution when, in fact, what is causing the premature mortality comes from a number of other sources

at the same time. But what we can say is that by reducing pollution from power plants we can reduce this number very significantly. It is impossible for anybody to say with certainty the estimated number of premature deaths from power plants.

Senator JEFFORDS. In the past 2 years, what specific steps has

EPA taken using its existing authority to reduce that number?

Mr. HOLMSTEAD. The Clean Air Act is passed by Congress and

gives us limited ability to do anything until we go through this

process of designating areas. We have done a number of things

using our non-regulatory authority. For instance, we have a very

significant program working with people to reduce diesel retrofits.

We certainly continue to pursue enforcement cases that get reductions from power plant emissions. Since I have been at EPA, there

have been several settlements of those cases. Additional settlements, I think, are expected fairly soon.

The real reductions under our regulatory authority come once we

actually have 3 years of data from States and we do the designations. As you know, this process takes many years to play out. This

is one of the reasons why we are so eager to get multi-pollutant

legislation, because we can get those reductions, and much bigger

reductions, much sooner, especially over the next decade or so.

Senator JEFFORDS. No regulatory actions have been done or

started?

Mr. HOLMSTEAD. We are, as you know, limited. We just can’t go

out and regulate anyone that we want to. We are constrained by

the Clean Air Act. So we are actually right now looking at what

we would do under something called the Transport Rule. We could

do that at some point in the future.

We are also in the process now of developing something called

the MACT Standard for power plants. That MACT Standard will

be finalized under a settlement agreement at the end of 2004. So

we are working on that standard right now.

Under the Clean Air Act we have a number of existing programs

that we implement including the Acid Rain Program and other

things. We only have the authority that you give us. This is why

we are so eager to ask you to put in place more stringent caps and

a stronger program.

Senator JEFFORDS. As you may know, I am not very happy about

the Agency’s level of cooperation with the committee, particularly
26

regarding the Office of General Counsel and your office. Congress

and this committee needs truly responsive information in a much

more timely fashion.

Just recently Governor Whitman pledged to reverse this unfortunate situation. I really hope that starts to happen. Can you tell me

why I still don’t have a complete answer to the questions, the NSR

questions that I sent you on July 20, 2002, approximately 71⁄2

months ago?

Mr. HOLMSTEAD. Here is what I can tell you about that issue.

First of all, Governor Whitman made it clear that she is following

up on her commitment to you to make sure that we can be more

responsive. We will do that.

As you know, we have been involved in many, many activities regarding the NSR program, including working on regulations, preparing for hearings and answering questions. I believe that we

have answered several hundred questions. We have a handful that

we still haven’t answered. I will check to see and make sure we can

get that.

Senator JEFFORDS. I appreciate your doing that because I am

concerned.

This is not a question but rather a comment. There are several

other air-related examples where the Agency has given us the runaround in the form of inadequate answers, unresponsive answers,

or no answers. I will be talking with the Governor about those

shortly. In general, you should note that this noncooperation of

NSR and other matters will make it harder to get the multi-pollutant bill done. I just urge you to expedite that.

I have many questions, but we will do it for the record.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you.

The only comment I have, Senator Jeffords, is that I know the

utilities in Ohio are moving forward with the SER technology

which is to reduce their emissions which have some side benefits

in terms of particulate matter. All of the utilities are moving forward to comply with the NOx SIP call that is upcoming in 2004

or 2005?

Mr. HOLMSTEAD. Yes, 2004. That is correct.

Senator VOINOVICH. So there is some action taking place. I would

comment that because of the uncertainty about new source review,

many of them are doing nothing but what they have to do because

they are uncertain about whether if they go forward with something, it will trigger new source reviews. So the sooner we get that

cleared up so they know where they stand, the better off we will

be.

Senator Carper, do you have any other questions?

Senator CARPER. I would just like to ask one more quick question.

Putting on my old hat, and looking back at my checkered past,

as Governor of Delaware and a colleague of Governor Voinovich, I

was always struck by how in our States we could use CMAQ money

for freight railroads, for highways, for bridges, for roads, and for bicycle paths, but we couldn’t use it for passenger rail. I always

thought that was peculiar. I know the Senate has voted a couple

of times by fairly wide margins to change that. I don’t think it has

worked its way through the House and dropped out in conference.
27

Do you have any thoughts on that proposal?

Mr. FRANKEL. Well, again, Senator, the projects have to have

Congestion Mitigation Air Quality benefits. I take to heart what

the chairman has said that there are some projects perhaps that

kind of sneak through that stretch a bit. But that continues to be

the requirement.

For example, grade separation projects—rail and road—I think

frequently CMAQ funds have been utilized for that. States have

made the decision to utilize that. Perhaps that is what you have

in mind. A freight-rail project in and of itself is not appropriately

fundable under CMAQ unless you can show the benefits in terms

of traffic movements at a place where there was not grade separation. So I think one needs to look a little bit more at the specific

projects as opposed to the elements that would be funded.

Senator CARPER. Thank you. And then one last question if I

could, Mr. Holmstead, for you.

With respect to the Administration’s budget request for 2004 for

CMAQ funds, do you have any idea how CMAQ fares in the Administration’s proposal for funding?

Mr. FRANKEL. Actually, I guess I would let Mr. Holmstead answer that but since it is our budget and our proposal, I will try to

be responsive. The funding—and I don’t want to hold you up—in

the President’s budget for fiscal year 2004 for CMAQ—generally

the highway core program is somewhat down from fiscal year 2003

which was contained in the Omnibus Appropriations bill.

But over the life of the Reauthorization bill, it is our anticipation

that the funding for the CMAQ Program will grow consistent with

the growth in the other highway core programs.

Senator CARPER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you very much for your testimony.

We look forward to the responses to the questions that we have

asked of you today.

Our next panel will come forward. While you are coming forward,

I am going to be introducing you.

On our panel we have Howard Maier, executive director of the

Northeast Ohio Area Coordinating Agency. Howard, it is nice to see

you. Howard and I have worked with each other since my days

when I was mayor of the city of Cleveland and then Governor.

Howard, I think, represents many of the other people that we are

having here from various States.

Mr. Jerry Lasker is executive director of the Indian Nation Council of Governments, Tulsa, OK. Annette Liebe is manager, Air

Quality Planning, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

Marsha Kaiser is director of the Department of Planning and Capital Programming, Maryland Department of Transportation.

These are people that work for government. Many of them have

been at it for a long, long time. We thank you for your service to

your country. Thank you for coming a long distance to testify

today.

Our other witnesses are W. Gerald Teague, M.D., professor and

vice chairman of Pediatrics, and director, Division of Pulmonary

Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine. Mr. Michael

Replogle, Environmental Defense. Michael has been here before, I
28

think, to testify. We also have Ms. Diane Steed, president, American Highway Users Alliance.

Because we have so many witnesses today, I am going to stick

to our 5-minute rule as fastidiously as I possibly can. So if you

could limit your remarks to 5 minutes, I would be most grateful.

I want you to know that we appreciate the testimony that you have

submitted for the record. They will be looked at in terms of the decisionmaking that we are going to have to make in terms of these

two important programs.

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make an observation. If we had more witnesses, we would need a bigger table.

[Laughter.]

Senator CARPER. The second thing, the Banking Committee in

the Senate has jurisdiction over transit. We are having a simultaneous hearing there on transit funding. I am going to slip out. I

don’t mean to be rude. It is not a walkout or a protest in anything

that you are saying. But I need to be in two places at once which

is not uncommon here, as Senator Voinovich knows.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you.

Ms. Liebe, we will start with you.

STATEMENT OF ANNETTE LIEBE, MANAGER, AIR QUALITY

PLANNING, OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY, ON BEHALF OF THE STATE AND TERRITORIAL AIR

POLLUTION PROGRAM ADMINISTRATORS AND THE ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICIALS

Ms. LIEBE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Senator Carper. As

you know, my name is Annette Liebe. I am with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. I am here today testifying on

behalf of STAPPA and ALAPCO, which are two national associations of State and local air quality agencies in 54 States and territories, and over 165 major metropolitan areas.

We are here today because transportation remains a dominant

source of air pollution across the Nation, contributing substantial

amounts of smog-forming emissions, particulate matter, carbon

monoxide, greenhouse gasses, and toxic air pollutants, as well as

to the formation of regional haze.

Although we continue to make great progress, as Administrator

Holmstead mentioned, in reducing emissions from mobile sources,

it is clear that the benefits from technological advances alone will

not keep pace with current and foreseeable trends in the growth of

vehicle miles traveled.

We firmly believe that the CMAQ and transportation conformity

programs are critically important to the goal of achieving full integration of environmental and transportation decisionmaking processes, and to ensuring that transportation choices do not undermine efforts to achieve and sustain clean, healthful air throughout

the country.

For this reason, our associations have adopted a set of CMAQ

and transportation conformity principles for the reauthorization of

TEA–21. A copy of our principles is attached to our written statement.

We strongly support the CMAQ program and believe it can be

strengthened in several ways. First, since CMAQ was originally es-
29

tablished, the scope and magnitude of transportation-related emissions and their impact on air quality have expanded significantly.

As you know, EPA has adopted new health-based standards for

fine particulate and ozone, both of which will be implemented in

the next few years, and we have gained an increased understanding of the phenomenon of transported pollution.

Accordingly, we urge that areas eligible to receive CMAQ funding

be expanded to also include any area that faces air quality challenges as a result of transportation-related emissions. Specific recommendations are included in our written testimony.

We strongly urge a substantially increased Federal commitment

of resources to the CMAQ Program to reflect the true and very significant impact of transportation-related emissions on air quality.

This increase should be no less, proportionately, than that to be

provided for highway investments.

In Oregon, for example, CMAQ funds have been critical to the

implementation of transportation control measure commitments in

our air quality plans. I have also cited those examples in the written testimony.

However, to meet the challenges that lie ahead, continued and

additional CMAQ funding is necessary. With respect to project eligibility, we urge that greater emphasis be placed on projects that

result in direct, timely, and sustained air quality benefits.

Finally, we recommend that the concurrence of State and local

air quality agencies be required for CMAQ project selection

through a well-defined consultation and concurrence process. In Oregon, for example, this concurrence has occurred through an ongoing robust interagency consultation process that we established

under our own conformity rule.

With respect to transportation conformity, our associations

strongly believe that the purpose of the program, which is to ensure that transportation plans and programs stay within the allotted motor vehicle emissions budget, is absolutely crucial to achieving clean air goals. Unless this purpose is achieved, it will be necessary to call upon other source sectors, potentially including small

businesses, to further reduce emissions.

We believe conformity is working well and strongly endorse preserving the major conformity requirements and schedules that are

now in place. Therefore, we are deeply concerned with recent proposals seeking changes. I would like to cite three examples.

First, we are strongly opposed to proposals to shorten the planning horizon for the transportation plan so that the plan’s conformity determination would be based on a 10-year rather than a

20-year planning horizon.

In planning for clean air, we must not only chart a course for

achieving healthful air quality, but also for maintaining it over the

long term. Major transportation investments can have huge air

quality impacts, much of which may not occur for several decades.

These investments can also significantly have growth and sprawl.

Therefore, long-term planning, over at least a 20-year planning horizon, is imperative to ensuring that the potential growth in mobile

source emissions is identified, the impact on air quality is assessed,

and appropriate adjustments are made.
30

Second, we oppose proposals to reduce the frequency of conformity determinations for transportation plans from 3 to 5 years.

Continued timely analyses will ensure that sound data is generated

and allow for the timely improvement of motor vehicle emission estimates.

Finally, we are concerned with the suggestion to lengthen from

1 to 3 years the grace period before an area found to be in violation

of an air quality standard for the first time must demonstrate conformity. To allow transportation planning in an area with poor air

quality to go unchecked for 3 years is a substantial weakening of

the conformity program and of public health protection.

We believe that, as it is currently structured, conformity provides

ample flexibility to States to accommodate individual needs and

circumstances, while maintaining the integrity of the program.

Rather than statutory changes to such things as planning horizons,

analyses frequencies, and grace periods, we believe that State and

local officials should retain the flexibility to work through a robust

interagency consultation process to resolve issues in a way that results in the best solution for everyone.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am happy to answer

any questions. I would ask that my testimony be included in its entirety.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you for your excellent testimony.

Dr. Teague.

STATEMENT OF DR. W. GERALD TEAGUE, M.D., PROFESSOR

AND VICE CHAIRMAN OF PEDIATRICS, DIRECTOR, DIVISION

OF PULMONARY MEDICINE, EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF

MEDICINE

Dr. TEAGUE. Good morning and thank you. I am Gerald Teague,

a pediatrician and a professor at Emory University. I would like to

thank Senators Voinovich and Carper for having me here today.

As many in the room know, outdoor air quality does affect respiratory health. Studies that were done 10 years ago in children

showed a clear relationship between exposure to unhealthy levels

of ozone and asthma attacks. Other studies—and these are also

done in Atlanta—showed that apart from ozone, suspended particles can increase respiratory symptoms in children.

Today, as a practicing pediatrician, I regularly see and care for

children with asthma attacks due solely to air pollution episodes.

We have also known, since the 1950’s, that vehicle exhaust has a

major role in the deterioration of air quality in urban areas. The

Clean Air Act, originated in 1970, helped this a lot, and as a result,

the air is cleaner today compared to its levels in 1970.

During this same time, though, the prevalence of asthma in

urban areas has increased significantly. An estimated 62 million

Americans live in areas where the air quality does not meet healthbased standards. At the same time as the improvement in air, the

United States has experienced a staggering increase in traffic congestion. From 1982 to 1997, traffic congestion increased by 45 percent in metropolitan Atlanta.

This gets to the study that I did that was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The study basically

looked at a simple question: What happens when a city makes a
31

well organized highly collaborative attempt to decrease automobile

traffic congestion? Would this have any impact on the health of its

residents?

The 1996 summer Olympic games in Atlanta provided an opportunity to answer these questions. Atlanta was preparing to be host

to an additional 1 million visitors during the 17 days of the games.

The visitors would all be concentrated downtown.

To meet this challenge, the city of Atlanta, the Department of

Transportation, and the Atlanta Committee on the Games, along

with local business leaders, came today to enact a traffic mitigation

strategy. It consisted of five basic efforts.

No. 1, we encouraged use of public transportation. We promoted

alternative commuting practices to the residents of Atlanta, to shift

travel away from rush hour periods, media warnings of severe traffic congestion, specific highway improvements, additional lanes,

and widened lanes, and finally traffic restrictions around the

venue.

This brings me to the study. To study the effects of this, what

we did—colleagues with the Centers for Disease Control—was to

measure all acute care visits for asthma around the city. We measured the air pollution variables—weather, traffic, gasoline sales,

and public transportation use. We did this during the 17 days of

the Olympics and compared all these variables to a baseline period

consisting of 4 weeks before and 4 weeks after the Olympic games.

That would be a reasonable scientific project.

This is what we learned. During the Olympic games, acute asthma events around Atlanta decreased 42 percent for George Medicaid recipients, 44 percent in a health maintenance organization,

11 percent in two pediatric emergency rooms, and for Georgia hospitals in the region, a 19 percent reduction in asthma-related discharges.

Was the air cleaner? Peak daily ozone concentrations fell 28 percent from 81.3 ppb during the pre-Olympic period to 58.6 ppb during the Olympics. I will refer you to the figures in my submitted

written testimony. The peak weekday a.m. traffic counts decreased

22.5 percent.

So based on our study we conclude that efforts to decrease downtown traffic congestion in Atlanta during the Olympic games resulted in reduced automobile use, particularly during the critical

morning rush hour period. These changes were associated with a

long period of low ozone pollution and significantly lower rates of

childhood asthma events.

This study provides direct evidence and supportive evidence to

reduce air pollution, and to improve the health of children via reductions in motor vehicle traffic.

Thank you very much.

I would ask that my statement be included in the record in its

entirety.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Dr. Teague. It is wonderful that

you did that study during that period of time. We have some good

information. Thank you.

Mr. Replogle.
32

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL REPLOGLE, TRANSPORTATION

DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE

Mr. REPLOGLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Michael

Replogle, Transportation Director of Environmental Defense. I am

representing our 300,000 members. I also chair the Energy and Environment Issue Team of the Surface Transportation Policy Project.

I speak on behalf of a dozen other groups this morning, including

the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Sierra Club, NRDC,

Defenders of Wildlife, the Oregon Environmental Council, the TriState Transportation Campaign in New York, the Southern Environmental Law Center, and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

Conformity is vital to keeping transportation accountable for effects on public health, air quality, and the environment. Like balancing a checkbook, conformity keeps track of the impacts of transportation spending. Conformity requires transportation plans to respect the pollution limits that are established in the State Air

Quality Plans, the SIPs.

Conformity was strengthened by Congress in 1990 because for

two decades growth and motor vehicle use and related emissions

have been underestimated, leading to the failure of SIPs and

missed attainment deadlines. Although cars and trucks are much

cleaner than in 1970, their pollution will cause continuing serious

harm to the health of Americans in coming decades, even with all

the cleaner technologies that are coming down the pike.

Although setbacks have delayed and hampered its implementation, conformity has produced huge benefits. It has been very effective behind the scenes, motivating actions to curb pollution and to

protect health.

Now grumbling from conformity’s accountants has often drowned

out tales of conformity’s successes. Yet, conformity has spurred

support for cleaner vehicles, fuels, and maintenance, and strategies

to curb traffic and pollution growth with better travel choices. It

has transportation and air quality agencies finally talking to each

other.

Some assert there is a timing mismatch that should be fixed by

having conformity look only at the first half of 20-year transportation plans, or by allowing use of out-of-date assumptions and

data for conformity analysis, or by reducing the frequency of conformity checks. These ideas would likely cause regional air quality

control strategies to fail for the fourth time since the 1970 Clean

Air Act.

I met this week with Federal highway officials who could cite no

examples where demonstrating conformity for all the projects in

the 20-year plan, rather than just the projects in the first 10 years,

had created a problem that States hadn’t fixed by committing to future emission controls. ‘‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.’’ Some propose that conformity disregard new data that would

show motor vehicle emissions will exceed the estimates that have

been used to demonstrate attainment in SIPs. This would simply

reenact the old broken pre-1990 system that conformity was intended to fix. There would be no accountability for excess emissions, no need to find solutions, and SIPs would fail again.

Conformity is like balancing your checkbook. It is not a fun way

to spend time, but it is vital to your welfare. If you do it frequently
33

and routinely with current data, you avoid surprises, bounced

checks, and overdrafts that are due to bad recordkeeping or bad

arithmetic.

Most areas redo their conformity analysis annually voluntarily as

they add new road projects. This means timely improvements in

tracking vehicle emission assumptions. They get updated when a

change of vehicle mix, or parking fares, or transit costs, development patterns, or the models get better. Timely updates improve

accountability and protect the integrity of the transportation and

the air quality planning process.

What is causing the timing mismatch? Well, it is the failure of

the air agencies and EPA to prepare required milestone compliance

demonstrations for SIPs every 3 years, with corrective actions

where necessary. This is parallel to the current required transportation conformity schedule—every 3 years.

Rather than disconnecting the schedule for conformity determinations from other schedules in the Clean Air Act, this committee should compel prompt EPA action on compliance demonstrations.

The 5-year conformity schedule that is proposed by some would

leave no mechanism to hold transportation accountable to revised

emission budgets or improved estimates of emissions within the

time between the approval of new SIPs and the attainment deadlines. This means that the pollution cleanup burden would fall

alone on stationery and area sources or the SIPs would fail again.

In Metro Washington, here in our home region, updated data on

the use of SUVs and light trucks show that emissions would exceed

the SIP emission budget. Officials in a timely way solved this conformity problem with better accounting for emission strategies that

were already under way, by adopting $42 million of clean buses

and other measures to cut pollution, and trimming $800 million

from the region’s road programs which cut forecast traffic growth, congestion, and pollution. This saved taxpayers $800 million.

In Charlotte, NC, conformity showed excess emissions in the 20-

year transportation plan. Officials considered and adopted a revised plan with better transit and smarter growth, trimming the

forecast traffic growth and pollution by almost a quarter, and winning voter approval for that plan.

To conclude, Congress should reject the changes that have been

proposed to the successful Conformity Program that would threaten

these successes and harm public health and the environment.

Thank you. I would ask that my prepared testimony be placed

in the record.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, very much.

Mr. Lasker.

STATEMENT OF JERRY LASKER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF

THE INDIAN NATIONS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

Mr. LASKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to

address this subcommittee. I am Jerry Lasker. I am the executive

director of the Indian Nations Council of Governments in Tulsa,

OK.

We have been very proactive in trying to make our air cleaner

in our region. We have taken many steps in this regard. To give
34

you a little bit of history, in 1990 the Tulsa area was in non-attainment. We got in attainment before the Clean Air Act Amendments

came into effect. In 1991, we had two exceedences of the 1-hour

standard. We developed a program in 2 weeks called the Ozone

Alert! Program. It is the fastest I have ever seen Government act.

We established an Air Quality Committee which consisted of

public agencies, the private sector, environmental groups, and just

general citizens. We came up with the Nation’s first episodic voluntary control program. This was called the Ozone Alert! Program.

We went the rest of the summer and the next year without having

any exceedences of the standard.

The program was very successful. One of the major things was

our oil companies and our gasoline suppliers and distributors volunteered to reduce the revapor pressure in their gasoline. This

helped out a lot. Our transit company gave free bus rides on ozone

alert days. Our health department forecasted the days when there

was a potential to exceed the ozone standard. General citizens volunteered to do things that would reduce emissions. As I said, this

was a very successful program.

We went from there into being the Nation’s first flexible attainment region. This was a program that the private sector, the public

sector, the State, the environmental agencies, and the transportation agencies all agreed to. This was a program that if we had

problems, exceedences, or violations, we would agree to undertake

various measures to bring our emissions down and to keep us in

attainment.

With the FAR expired, we went into what is called the 0–3 Flex

Program. Again, this was a program where we got into a Memorandum of Agreement with the EPA. Here, if we had an exceedence

of the standard, we would institute various measures to again reduce emissions.

I am proud to say that from 1991 until the present, we have been

in attainment of the 1-hour standard. We did this for many reasons. The first reason was health related. We were very concerned

about the air quality impacts on the health of our citizens.

Second, we wanted to avoid the stigma of non-attainment. When

you are looking to develop a region and you need growth, you do

not want to be on EPA’s Dirty Air List because that is one of the

things that if a company is looking to relocate they are looking at

certain factors. If you are on that list, it is not going to help you.

The third thing was that we were very concerned about conformity. We have never done conformity, but we had heard that it

takes a lot of work and, as Mr. Replogle said, it is not any fun. So

we have tried to avoid that.

We are in attainment for the 1-hour standard. When the new 8-

hour standards came into effect, this was going to provide a great

challenge for the Tulsa area. Right now, two of our five monitors

are slightly above the 8-hour standard. Again, we are being very

proactive.

What we have done is that we have gotten into an agreement

with the EPA and the State to have an Early Action Compact.

What this Compact does is basically commits us to being in attainment in the Year 2007, which would be 2 years earlier than if we
35

did nothing and just slipped into non-attainment in this next season.

To do this we have agreed to undertake SIP modeling. We have

agreed to have our stakeholders agree on what emission reduction

measures we would implement to reach attainment in the year

2007. In return, the Compact basically says that EPA would defer

the effective date of the designation of non-attainment if we were

to continue to be slightly above in our monitoring.

The problem we are running into right now is that EPA has told

us that they have to make a designation of attainment or nonattainment. Since we are slightly above, they will probably, in

April 2004, designate us non-attainment. When DOT looks at that,

they say, ‘‘Well, you are in non-attainment’’. That means that conformity will kick in 1 year from the date of designation.

This makes no sense to us. We have signed an agreement with

EPA. We are doing all the things to come into attainment 2 years

earlier than if we did nothing. It looks like we are being penalized

for getting into this Agreement and being proactive. We are very

concerned about that.

Our resolution to that problem is to take areas, like Tulsa, that

are doing proactive things like becoming an agent in an early action compact, and classifying those areas as unclassifiable. If we

miss a milestone, if we don’t meet it at the monitors in 2007, we

are going to go into non-attainment anyway. But don’t penalize us

for doing things that are proactive in nature.

That is our main concern right there. We believe that when you

do conformity that there should be some consistency in terms of

looking at the SIP and the transportation plan. Right now, as much

as I like my planning staff, what we have is a job security act that

keeps us going and doing things that can be done more efficiently.

Flexibility in CMAQ—right now we are in attainment. We are

not eligible to receive CMAQ funds. We believe that areas that are

doing things proactively should be eligible.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. It is nice to hear from someone

who has been involved and has practical experience with some of

these things that we are talking about today. Thank you for being

here.

Howard, we are glad to have you here, as I mentioned.

STATEMENT OF HOWARD R. MAIER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

NORTHEAST OHIO AREAWIDE COORDINATING AGENCY

Mr. MAIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Howard Maier, executive director of the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency. I will just refer to it as NOACA from now on. Thank you for

inviting me here to address air quality and the CMAQ Program for

our region and metropolitan planning organizations, or MPOs,

across the country.

I am representing NOACA in my national association today, the

National Association of Regional Councils, which is working with

MPOs large and small to better understand changes we can make

to CMAQ and to conformity to make them more understandable,

easier to implement, and more flexible.
36

NOACA is the regional voice for the Greater Cleveland area. It

represents the five counties of Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain,

and Medina. Within these five counties are 170 units of local government. NOACA is the one forum in which these communities

come together and make decisions from a regional perspective. The

five counties we represent have a population of 2.1 million, which

makes us the 14th largest metropolitan area in the United States.

Mr. Chairman, like all major metropolitan regions, we are concerned about growth, our business climate, and being an active

partner in national and international trade. NOACA is not only in

the business of encouraging economic development, but also in trying to enhance the quality of our life.

I am sure, as the former mayor of Cleveland and former Governor and former NOACA board member, you remember the delicate edge we walk when we choose transportation investments that

provide accessibility, recreational, and employment opportunities,

and yet do not damage our natural and community systems.

NOACA, like all regional councils and MPOs, represents the interests of the public through a comprehensive transportation decisionmaking process.

Conformity is one piece of the overall process we use to plan and

program projects in our region. In 1992, the Federal Government

classified Northeast Ohio as a moderate non-attainment area for

ozone. This generated a planning challenge for our region. We were

required to reduce hydrocarbon pollutants by 15 percent in a 4-year

period. That amounted to a reduction of 75 tons per day. That is

a substantial amount.

The EPA requirement gave areas less than 4 years to generate

this considerable decrease. The reductions identified had to be real,

that is, the activities had to meet Federal requirements. We used

CMAQ funding to develop some projects that were able to meet this

verifiable reduction requirement.

The CMAQ Program, through its specialized focus, afforded us

the unique opportunity to pursue projects that helped us meet this

requirement. We used this money to purchase buses and other

transit improvements, construct park-and-ride lots, develop traffic

signal projects, and also to develop our public education program,

Ozone Action Days. Of course, there are many other eligible activities, such as trails and intelligent transportation systems. We hope

to have projects along those lines in the future.

It is likely that given the limited resources available, these

projects would not be completed with regular transportation dollars. They would fall victim to the many competing priorities for

these funds.

For this reason, NOACA believes that the CMAQ Program

should be expanded to give life to these project opportunities. A

very real conformity challenge for us has been the fact that our

transportation plans, programs, and projects must be conformed. In

our case, it was an eight-county basis that included not only the

five counties of NOACA, but also the two counties represented by

the Akron Metropolitan Area Transportation Study plus one other

county not affiliated with a MPO.

It was quite a challenge for governing bodies of two independent

MPOs to be required to establish transportation schedules based
37

solely on required conformity finding. It was costly in terms of time

and other factors. This was through MPOs that get along just fine.

We had some difficulties to work through.

NOACA recognizes that its experience with CMAQ and conformity analysis has been possibly different from other MPOs.

Many of our projects really emphasize the maintaining and rebuilding of the existing infrastructure rather than adding capacity. So

that has given us a bit of an advantage in that regard. We have

to look at the entire totality of MPOs across the country.

Let me mention some recommendations quickly. Congress should

make the planning horizons, the State implementation plans, and

transportation plans consistent. Furthermore, the metropolitan

transportation plans should only have to conform every 5 years instead of every 3 years. Federal and State Government, as well as

the MPO modeling process, should be consistent and help realize

our regional transportation goals. We had to see our transportation

projects held hostage to updates in computer programs.

Congress should allow the use of trading between point, area,

and mobile sources to allow us to meet cleaner goals. Clean air is

clean air and we can all collaborate to help make that happen.

Mr. Chairman, the loss of highway funds as a penalty for lack

of conformity should be closely reexamined. Of course, I think that

Congress should increase CMAQ funding. It helps make the existing system more efficient. We believe that locally elected officials

are best suited to make these decisions. I have an exhaustive list.

Thank you for inviting me here. We will be available through

NOACA and through NARC to be helpful in any way we can. I

would ask that my statement, which is together with Mr. Lasker’s,

be placed in the record in its entirety.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you.

Ms. Steed.

STATEMENT OF DIANE STEED, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN

HIGHWAY USERS ALLIANCE

Ms. STEED. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to appear before

you today for the first time as the new president of the American

Highway Users Alliance. For 70 years the Highway Users has represented both motorists and a broad cross-section of businesses

that depend on safe and efficient highways to transport their families, customers, employees, and products.

Our members pay the user fees that finance the Federal Highway Program, and they expect the Government to be good stewards

of their investment in our Nation’s roads and bridges. Highway

Users members strongly believe that the user fees paid on the Nation’s roads should be rapidly returned to the roads through

projects that make their motoring safer and less frustrating.

I use the term ‘‘rapidly’’ for a reason, Mr. Chairman. I know that

you have been a leader among those who want to streamline the

project delivery process. I want to thank you for your attention to

that issue and assure you that we want to work with you and support your efforts to advance highway projects quickly.

When I tell someone that I work for the Highway Users, the frequent, joking reply is that he is she is one. Nearly every American

can claim to be a highway user regardless of race, creed, or even
38

political affiliation. Representing such a broad group, I can say confidently that highway users, like all Americans, care about the

quality of the air we breath and we want to see it getting cleaner.

But we have also lost patience with the increasing amount of

traffic that chokes up our roads, delays our trips, causes accidents,

strangles commerce, and even slows emergency vehicles when time

really matters. With that in mind, I am very pleased to talk about

the Clean Air Act and the CMAQ Program in particular, a transportation program that should address both the problems of congestion and pollution.

The good news is that we have a freer, more mobile society than

ever and our air is cleaner. The dramatic improvements in air

quality are truly a testament to the outstanding benefits of the

Clean Air Act. Incredibly, today’s cars on the roads emit less pollution than a 1960’s car sitting in its driveway with the engine off.

More progress has been made in mobile source pollution reduction than any other source. For most metropolitan areas, mobile

source emissions are no longer the principal source of pollution,

and in many cases they aren’t even second. The chart I have here

to my left depicts the huge gains that have been made in reducing

pollution at the same time we have seen increasing population,

more cars, more vehicles on the road, and more vehicle miles traveled. Impressively, vehicle miles traveled has increased nearly

point-by-point with the gross national domestic product, and that

is no coincidence. Mobility leads to economic growth.

In his State of the Union address, President Bush said, regarding

his fuel cell car initiative, that the greatest environmental progress

will come about through technology and innovation. When contrasting the gross and vehicle miles traveled with the reduction in

Clean Air Act pollutants, it is clear that technology and innovation

have done far more to clean the air than increased travel has done

to sully it.

For example, today’s diesel truck engine is eight times cleaner

than the engine built just a dozen years ago. With new technology

for dramatically cleaner fuels and engines coming along, it is clear

that technological advancement leading to cleaner air is only gaining in momentum.

Last summer, this committee held a hearing on CMAQ and conformity. One of the common conclusions reached by several of the

witnesses was that the biggest environmental bang for the buck

comes from traffic flow improvements, diesel engine retrofits, and

in vehicle inspection and maintenance programs.

Yet according to EPA the highest priority for CMAQ funds is the

implementation of transportation control measures intended to reduce VMT. The use of the word ‘‘control’’ I think is very telling.

TCMs are intended to control the so-called bad people who either

need or want to drive alone. Those measures are advocated by

some anti-car, anti-motorist planners and groups who believe that

Government should be in the business of forcing people out of their

cars. TCMs just don’t sit well with the population accustomed to

basic freedoms.

However, even if that were not the case, TCMs are doomed to

failure for another reason, we believe. They are directed mainly at

commuters. Eighty percent of trips are not commutes. It should be
39

no surprise that TCMs have little or no proven track record in

causing measurable clean air progress or congestion relief.

Many projects that would result in clean air progress and congestion relief are not mutually exclusive. Nowhere is that more clear

than in a comprehensive evaluation of the benefits of making modest improvements to unclog America’s bottlenecks. In 1999 we analyzed those bottlenecks and took a look at what it would do to

make a small improvement in those bottlenecks.

What we found was astonishing. If the worse 167 bottlenecks

were unclogged, the average emissions of volatile organic compounds would drop 44 percent, and carbon monoxide would be reduced 45 percent. Greenhouse gases would drop more than 70 percent and at the same time traffic delays would be reduced 71 percent, saving the average commuter 40 minutes per trip.

Clearly a comprehensive program to relieve bottlenecks is an example of a program that should meet the logical requirements for

active congestion mitigation and air quality programs. But currently it is ineligible because it would provide capacity for single

occupancy vehicle.

Although we clearly have concerns with the CMAQ Program, the

majority of problems can be remedied with only minor statutory

adjustments, we think. We believe the CMAQ Program can be restructured to better meet the true pollution reduction goals of the

Clean Air Act and markedly reduce traffic congestion. So we recommend the following:

First, allow all transportation projects that reduce congestion

and clean air act pollutants to be eligible for funding. Next, focus

on technological improvements instead of trying to get people out

of their cars. We think we have to be realistic. TCMs just aren’t

convincing people to stop driving and they never will.

When funding CMAQ projects, we believe that we should measure the benefits and the costs of alternative strategies to relieve

congestion and clean air pollution. Based on those criteria, engage

in those projects that can be shown to do the most good for congestion and air quality.

Finally, frustrated drivers stuck in traffic would really appreciate

targeted programs that fix the worse bottlenecks. We need to give

motorists a break from traffic jams and clean the air.

In conclusion, since 1991, $41 billion, as you have already heard,

has been spent for the CMAQ program. But CMAQ doesn’t reduce

congestion and clean the air just because of its name. Changes in

the way the account is administered could go a long way toward

realizing the transportation goals of the Clean Air Act.

We look forward to working with you. I would be pleased to answer any questions. I would ask that my testimony be placed in the

record in its entirety.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you.

Ms. Kaiser.
40

STATEMENT OF MARSHA KAISER, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT

OF PLANNING AND CAPITAL PROGRAMMING, MARYLAND

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ON BEHALF OF THE

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS

Ms. KAISER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Marsha Kaiser. I am the director of Planning and Capital Programming for the

Maryland Department of Transportation. On behalf of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, we

thank you for your leadership in holding this important hearing on

transportation congestion and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program.

Just since 1977, over 80 non-attainment or maintenance areas

have gone into or barely missed going into a lapse, putting billions

of transportation dollars at risk or on hold. Meanwhile, conformity

has become a year-end and year-out process consuming scarce staff

and resources at a time when our planning needs are growing and

our funding for staff is dwindling.

Our recommendations for legislative improvement include four

key areas: consistency, flexibility, consultation on new standards,

expanded flexibility and eligibility for the CMAQ Program.

On consistency: The goal of conformity, as you know, is to ensure

that transportation plans are consistent with plans for attaining

air quality standards. But the two planning processes have not

been coordinated well. The result is a mismatch of deadlines, timeframes, emission estimates, basic planning assumptions, and penalties, resulting in a convoluted and ineffective process.

I will give you an example in Baltimore. A couple of years ago,

as we were updating our long-range plan, we decided to update

some assumptions we were using in our traffic forecasting process.

However, we were using SIP, State implementation plan assumptions, that were almost 10 years old. What happened was that the

huge change and the type of vehicles manufactured and their

attractiveness to the driving public alone have resulted in a substantial increase in emissions, a factor that we as a transportation

department or metropolitan planning organization, had no control

over.

We are not asking that the transportation sector use outdated assumptions. We are asking that the assumptions used be coordinated between the air quality and the transportation planning

process. Achieving alignment and greater consistency between

these planning processes, including analytical tools and planning

assumptions is essential.

Flexibility is needed to help States achieve conformity, greater

flexibility is needed to adjust to changing circumstances and chose

cost-effective emission reduction strategies. You may be surprised

to learn that transportation control measures that are included in

State air quality plans cannot be added, deleted, or changed, even

if they are not working without going through the cumbersome and

very time consuming task of revising the entire State air plan. If

a conformity lapse does occur, States are prohibited from applying

any off-the-road remedies, even if they reduce emissions in a costeffective way.
41

Let me give you two examples. In the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in the San Francisco Bay area, they were sued

because one of their transportation control measures from their

1982 SIP increased transit spending, and failed to achieve the projected results and increased ridership. Since the measure was not

revised in the SIPs, the court ruled that the MTC was still obligated to continue the provision and to provide funding for this ineffective service.

Another example is in the Maryland-Washington Region of an inadmissible emission solution. The Maryland DOT, with our State

air agency, came up with a creative solution. We found that if we

provided a million dollars of our transportation funding to the

State Air Agency for development of a gas can replacement program, we could get reductions of emissions of almost a ton per day.

However, this kind of off-road emission reduction, known as intersector trading, is not allowed to be used in the conformity process.

TEA–21 should increase flexibility and allow TCMs substitutions

with equivalent emission reduction and to allow trading emission

savings from other off-road savings if the goal is truly to clean the

air.

In terms of consultation, the bad news is that things are about

to get worse. As a result of the new standards for ozone, 242 counties are likely to become new non-attainment areas while another

150 counties will fail to meet new standards for fine particulate

matter. There is great uncertainty about what requirements will be

applied and how the process will work.

The Environmental Protection Agency should issue guidance on

the new standards in consultation with stakeholders prior to the

designations. We believe a 3-year grace period to demonstrate conformity is needed once a non-attainment designation is made in

order to allow these new areas to develop the tools to establish the

consultation process, and to obtain the resources they need, especially in non-urbanized areas to do conformity analysis.

Expanded eligibility for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program is something we hope happens under the reauthorization. This program has broad support, as you have heard from most

members of this panel. It should be continued but with some added

flexibility to allow us to address both air quality improvements and

the challenges of congestion.

For example, in California decisionmakers have found it cost effective to provide cash incentives to owners to replace older, heavily

polluting diesel trucks and buses with cleaner models that were

built after 1994. This proven program for reducing emissions is not

eligible for CMAQ funding under current restrictions.

Mr. Chairman, our detailed recommendations are presented in

our written testimony. We have engaged in a dialog with the environmental councils of the State on these important issues. I would

be glad to answer any questions you may have.

I would ask that my prepared statement be inserted in the

record in its entirety.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you all for your testimony.

When you are doing this work on conformity, do you rely upon

your own staff to do this, or do you do it in conjunction with your

State’s environmental protection agency?
42

Ms. KAISER. We do it with our staff.

Senator VOINOVICH. I would be interested in the comments of all

of you that are in the business.

Ms. Kaiser.

Ms. KAISER. I have staff in the DOT that works on it. We do it

in consultation with the State air agency staff. The DOT, by the

way, provides funding to the environmental staff to pay for it. We

do it in consultation with the Metropolitan Planning Organizations.

Ms. LIEBE. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would also like to offer a

few comments on that question.

I think one of the common misperceptions about the conformity

process is that the air quality agencies somehow establishes an

emission budget that then gets imposed on the transportation community. Just to clarify, when the conformity rule was originally established, it required our agencies to work together on both transportation planning and on development of the air quality plans.

When we develop an air quality plan, we use the regional transportation plan for purposes of evaluating the mobile source emissions that will go into an air quality plan. We also then evaluate

the regional transportation plan for what elements are in that regional transportation plan that might be instrumental to achieving

that level of travel that is predicted under the regional transportation plan. We look at those elements for selecting our transportation control measures.

So really the consultative process goes both ways. The regional

transportation plan becomes a very important source of input in

the air quality planning process, not only from the travel data, but

also the population and employment forecasts that are used in that

process.

Senator VOINOVICH. The question I have is in terms of getting

things done. So often what really stands in the way of progress in

dealing with some of these problems is the adequacy of the people

that you need to get the job done.

Ms. Liebe, you indicated that the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality oversees what the MPOs are doing. Do you provide

them any staffing? How does that work?

Ms. LIEBE. Mr. Chairman, we work in partnership. Their staff is

responsible for running the travel model. They help us with the

emission estimates. We don’t pay them. They provide those resources to us.

Senator VOINOVICH. But in your State they do have the staff to

get that done; is that correct?

Ms. LIEBE. That is correct.

Senator VOINOVICH. How about in Maryland?

Mr. MAIER. The Metropolitan Planning Organization has the

staff. They have the resources to do it. The Maryland Department

of the Environment has staff that the Department of Transportation pays for to do the conformity analysis and the air quality

planning.

Senator VOINOVICH. Do you feel that you have the adequate staff

combined to get the job done?

Mr. MAIER. At the State level, the process is becoming more complex. It’s getting more difficult to stay on top. I have had to add

more staff to keep on top of the issues. My concern is in some of
43

the newer non-attainment areas. In some of our more rural, less

urban, non-attainment areas, MPOs, they don’t have the resources

and the qualified staff to really deal with the complexity of the conformity rule.

Senator VOINOVICH. Howard.

Mr. MAIER. Thank you. At NOACA we are fortunate in that we

do have staff members who are well trained and quite able to take

care of the modeling process. We work with the Ohio EPA, as you

know, on that. We also work with our neighboring MPOs, as well.

I don’t see any particular problem with the staff work. They have

to continually get upgraded and reeducated to work with the models. But they do what they have to do.

Senator VOINOVICH. You all have concerns about conformity and

the different perspectives on it. We heard Mr. Holmstead talk.

They are trying to deal with this on a regulatory basis; is that correct? It is not statutory. They have the authority through regulation to deal with the conformity problems. Is that your understanding?

The issue is: How much input do those of you who are on the

ground actually doing the work in your respective organizations

have? Have you been consulted, those of you that represent national organizations that are professionals with the MPOs or with

the environmental agencies in their working on these changes? Are

they not that far along yet to share that information?

Has there been any input from any of you in terms of these? Mr.

Holmstead said they were putting together some new regulations

dealing with conformity. Mr. Replogle, you commented about some

of the suggestions that they have?

Mr. MAIER. I can start with that, Mr. Chairman. In a word, no.

We have not had much—maybe directives have been addressed to

staff members. I have not seen anything yet.

Senator VOINOVICH. So the people that are there where the rubber hits the road haven’t been involved? I want to find out what

the status is?

Mr. HOLMSTEAD. Mr. Chairman, the National Association of Regional Councils is looking at the whole picture. We have advisory

committees made up of executive directors and others that are

making recommendations. I believe we do have a series of recommendations that Howard has referred to that we are willing to

put forth.

Senator VOINOVICH. How about the environmental groups? Have

you had any input? Didn’t you say, Mr. Replogle, that you were

over there?

Mr. REPLOGLE. Well, we met earlier this week with Federal highway officials to talk about some of conformity issues. We do engage,

on occasion, with EPA staff as well. EPA is familiar with them.

Senator VOINOVICH. EPA has the conformity responsibility

though, right?

Mr. REPLOGLE. Well, it’s a shared responsibility between the two

agencies to jointly agree upon revisions to the conformity rules. I

understand from the testimony this morning that they are working

together on new guidance. They have been working for some time

on developing a new set of regulations around conformity in the
44

wake of various court decisions in past years. That has been long

in the works. I am not sure what the status of it is.

Senator VOINOVICH. Here is the thing. I have a lot of questions

to the process. Maybe this is too simple.

Mr. Lasker, you say your organization has some recommendations on what should be done on conformity.

Mr. LASKER. The National Association of Regional Councils has

developed a position which I will leave with you. Howard has referred to those recommendations.

Senator VOINOVICH. Are there any other organizations that have

developed some recommendations?

Ms. KAISER. Mr. Chairman, AASHTO has developed some positions. I believe all of us probably have forwarded our own positions

to EPA and Federal Highway. I can’t say there has been any dialog

with them.

Senator VOINOVICH. Here’s a suggestion. I used to be president

of the National League of Cities and chairman of the National Governors Association. When we had a major problem that was involved with State and local governments, I was very involved in

what we called the ‘‘Big Seven.’’ These were the mayors and the

State legislators. We would try to get various people in a room to

start to talk with each other about what various groups were recommending to see if there isn’t some way that you could come back

to a Federal agency, for example, and say, ‘‘Here is what we really

think ought to be done.’’

Too often it seems here that your group is going to see them, and

then Mr. Replogle’s group comes to see them, and somebody else’s

group comes to see them. So they have all of this on their table.

I am suggesting, Mr. Replogle, that Environmental Defense be

the responsible organization. Perhaps maybe you could work with

the regional groups and maybe try to get together and talk about

these things. You would share your point of view and they share

their point of view. There would be some coordinated effort so that

when you talk to the Agency there would be a consensus to say,

‘‘Hey, this is the way we think that this thing should get done.’’

This is rather than have you just listen to us and then go off and

do your own thing.

Mr. REPLOGLE. That’s is an excellent idea. In the last 4 to 6

weeks, environmentalists, including myself, have sat down and met

on several occasions with representations from the Association of

MPOs and AASHTO, trying to find some common ground on some

of these issues. We still have a long way to go.

Senator VOINOVICH. I would like to challenge you to get back to

me in a month’s time. You represent a lot of the environmental

groups, the Sierra Club and so forth. I would like to know what

you have been able to do in a month’s time about what progress

you have made in getting things done. I would like you to do it on

your own. If you don’t, I may ask you to come in.

We have some of these problems that confront us. It just seems

so often there is a lot easier way of getting some of these things

done. I would really encourage you to do that. I am going to be in

touch with you to see if it is happening.

Senator VOINOVICH. Yes, Ms. Kaiser?
45

Ms. KAISER. Mr. Chairman, just last week, AASHTO, the environmental councils of the States, STAPPA/ALAPCO, and AMPO

did spend a whole day discussing our different positions on conformity and CMAQ. I have to say it was a very long day. I can’t

say we reached much in the way of consensus, but we did enter

into a dialog. We have committed to continue that dialog going.

Senator VOINOVICH. That would be good. There are different perspectives on things. It is also to hear what they have to say and

if there is some compromise that could be made. There are some

practical things.

Mr. Lasker, I was impressed with you. You really tried to move

along and deal with problems. You have been very flexible. What

you are saying to me is that the Agency doesn’t seem to have any

kind of flexibility in terms of some of these things. It would seem

if you have somebody that is consciousness and not dragging their

feet and they are moving forward, that that should be recognized.

Mr. LASKER. Two key words—flexibility and common sense. If

that could prevail, everyone would be happy. The National Association of Regional Councils works very closely with the National

League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors. We will involve them in this discussion.

Senator VOINOVICH. It is really difficult. If you all came to the

Agency and said this is what you think, it would be very difficult

for them to say no to you. What you are saying is that the environmental groups thinks that means dragging our feet, delaying what

needs to be done. I know from your testimony that is not what you

are doing. So there is this commonality that I think can somehow

be achieved.

Ms. Liebe, you have been trying to get in a word in.

Ms. LIEBE. Actually, I just wanted to make you aware that

STAPPA/ALAPCO also has a position on some potential improvements. There are a number of areas where we, in the State of Oregon, have implemented this program with a great degree of flexibility. I would be happy to provide those examples to you and to

the committee.

I also just want to make you aware of the effort that was already

mentioned with the environmental commissioners of States and

STAPPA/ALAPCO and AASHTO to try to come up with some consensus position on conformity.

Senator VOINOVICH. That is good. The other one is the CMAQ

Program. I have been there. We worked the system. There is nothing wrong with working the system in trying to get money for

projects that you think are very important for your community.

Is there any consensus that we ought to review the CMAQ Program to make sure that the dollars that we are providing are more

oriented toward things that are going to make a difference and

really help? Am I stepping on someone’s toes? Any comment?

Ms. STEED. That’s exactly what we would like to see done. In

fact, we would like to see cost effective measures be developed. We

know, for example, there has been some transit projects that cost

something like $272,000 per ton of pollution removed while at the

same time traffic signalization improvements cost something like

$23,000. And yet that year most of the funding for CMAQ projects

went toward the transit area which is not as cost effective. That
46

is why we are recommending some cost effective measures be developed for the program.

Mr. REPLOGLE. Mr. Chairman, I think this area of evaluating

cost effectiveness is one that in principle everyone would agree

with that we ought to be looking at cost effective strategies. Where

the challenge comes is in getting agreement on reasonable analysis

methods to make that evaluation. Sadly, we still have very deficient methods in use in many metropolitan areas to evaluate. For

example, what is the effectiveness of making an area a safe and attractive place to walk? More people then can walk and fewer people

have to drive their car just to go across the street because you can’t

get across the street.

We have a difficult challenge getting good evaluations of some

transit projects in areas where if you implement it in one place, it

is highly effective and if you implement it in a different context

where everybody gets free parking and where you can’t walk anywhere, you will get very much less great effectiveness.

The context is everything for implementation. The CMAQ Program is a tiny fraction of the total Federal transportation dollars

which, in turn, is a small fraction of the total transportation dollars. So we really can’t evaluate small CMAQ projects except within their larger context. If they are being implemented in a region

in an area where we are throwing billions of dollars to subsidize

car use and car dependence to work against those alternatives,

then it is hard to say whether that investment in a bicycle project

is ineffective or whether it is simply being undermined by our

spending.

Senator VOINOVICH. It is a difficult decision. To put in some criteria might be very difficult because of the difficulty in objectively

evaluating it. You are leaving that up to the local folks who are

pretty conscientious about trying to do the right thing.

The last point I am going to make is this. We don’t have enough

money for highways. The challenge is that we need to recognize

that. Ms. Steed was talking about the bottlenecks. There is no way

with the current funding today that we are going to be able to take

care of the bottlenecks. I think we had some other hearing here

with Ms. Peters. I think it is $109 billion a year that is required

between the Federal and the State to take care of the issue of highways. We are only spending about $67 billion for it.

So we have a big discrepancy here in what is needed. I am lobbying you and your respective organizations to really look at this

issue and to come back to us with some recommendations on what

you think is a practical thing that we ought to be doing to deal

with this problem, recognizing that highway funding is a partnership.

I know that in my State we have a very bad financial situation,

as we have in most of the States, but our Governor is recommending that we increase the gas tax in the next 3 years, 2 cents,

2 cents, and 2 cents. He is trying to sell it on the basis of environmental and economic development.

I think we need to face up to this situation. We need to do it rapidly. We were able to get the Highway Trust Fund. Senator Carper

and I worked on that in 1998. We worked very hard to get the
47

Trust Fund money to be used exclusively for highways. We were

successful.

Unfortunately, the money coming into that is not adequate to get

the job done. Some of us that consider ourselves conservative fiscal

hawks do not want to borrow the money to do it. That is where we

are. We are borrowing money right now.

It has to be paid for if we are going to move forward. I would

be interested in your organization’s position on this issue.

Senator Carper.

Senator CARPER. Senator Voinovich, I need to be somewhere else

at 12 o’clock. So I am going to not ask you to respond orally right

now, but I am going to ask you to respond in writing to this question, if you would.

When we have a big panel like this, one of the things I often

times look for, particularly when there are people from diverse

backgrounds and diverse points of view, is what do you agree on?

Senator Voinovich may have already asked this. But what basic

concepts or precepts do you agree on, that there is broad agreement

on?

That would be helpful to us as we approach our job particularly

in the months ahead in the area of transportation. That makes our

job so much easier. If you can help me with that, I would appreciate that very much.

Mr. Maier.

Mr. MAIER. If I may get started on this, one of the things that

I gather just from listening to the comments is that CMAQ as a

funding source is very well accepted, whether it is for traffic signals, whether it is for transit, no matter what. It does make the

existing system more efficient. It allows for us to conserve the

funds that we do have and have some opportunity to fund projects

that can help all of us, no matter what our points of view might

be.

Mr. LASKER. Let me add to that. CMAQ is a good program. But

if you are in attainment, you do not get any CMAQ. So what you

are doing is that you are getting penalized for being good. If you

fail, we will give you money. If you don’t fail and you want to do

good things, we won’t give you any money for that.

I think that you have to look at those areas that are doing something, that have a proactive program. You should get something to

try to continue to reduce emissions. I will leave it at that.

Senator CARPER. Thank you.

Mr. Replogle.

Mr. REPLOGLE. I sense a general agreement across the community about expanding the CMAQ Program and expanding its eligibility so that communities can spend those funds in ways that help

reduce pollution and address pressing community needs.

Recognizing that we are going to have a lot more people living

in non-attainment areas with the new designations, that we have

air toxics problems, and fine particulate problems that need to be

addressed—the additional population and the additional problems

to which we need to apply that program, are things that justify significant program growth over and above the baseline.

Another area where I think there is a general consensus, or a

good potential to get one, is that we are all well served by investing
48

more in better analysis tools and strategic planning systems that

help us to better understand that the traffic consequences, air pollution consequences, and growth consequences are of different policies. We can then spend less time fighting about the numbers and

spend more time talking about what is the most sensible set of

policies that gets us the best performance for the taxpayer dollar.

Ms. STEED. I should also add that there is an EPA/DOT program

called ‘‘It All Adds Up to Clean Air’’ that the highway users are

participating in. That is exactly what it is trying to, is to come to

agreement on some of the things that could be done that has broad

agreement across the spectrum. So we will be happy to get back

to you on that as well.

Senator CARPER. One more comment. I will just ask you to flesh

this out a little more in writing, please.

Ms. LIEBE. This will be short. Just as a final comment, I do think

that we all very much support the goal of achieving public health

objectives. One very important way of doing that is integrating

transportation and environmental planning.

Senator VOINOVICH. Dr. Teague, you were left out. I would be

real interested if you have some material on asthma, in light of the

fact that we have been reducing emissions overall, what you attribute that increase in asthma. What specifically has the most impact on it?

We have a study down at the University of Cincinnati, Dr. James

Lacky. He is looking at diesel fuel and how the particulates from

diesel are impacting on children. I would be interested in this

whole area of asthma and really what is the culprit here?

Dr. TEAGUE. Thank you. The growth of asthma in the United

States population has become a staggering problem, and is close to

epidemic proportions. The reason is not known. It is complex.

There are many, many factors.

Clearly there are more allergies among the general population.

Thirty years ago, 30 percent of people were allergic. Today 60 percent are.

There is something in our lifestyle. It may be a more sedentary

lifestyle, staying indoors more, not enough exercise, and maybe dietary patterns related to saturated fat intake. Something has created this asthma epidemic. It has also occurred in other civilized

nations while the air has gotten cleaner.

The role of air pollution in asthma was pretty clear, I think, from

our study. You come with asthma as a child. Your airways are sensitized. They are inflamed. Then the pollution event occurs. It triggers an attack. That seems to be the role.

We just found by reducing pollution in Atlanta during the Olympics, there was less asthma in the children in Atlanta.

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, anything you have on that, I would

really like the best stuff that’s out there and the best research

work. It seems to me that because it is growing there ought to be

the best and brightest looking at it to come up with some recommendations.

I would like to thank all of the panelists for coming. This has

been very, very informative for me. I look forward to hearing back

from you. Thank you.
49

[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to

reconvene at the call of the chair.]

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFFREY HOLMSTEAD, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity

to appear here today to discuss the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program and the transportation conformity program in the context

of the new health-based air quality standards for ozone and fine particulate matter.

There has been considerable progress in achieving better air quality for Americans since the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990. As we move forward with the implementation of the new air quality standards, the continued integration of transportation and air quality planning will be important for meeting

these new standards.

Achieving and maintaining healthy air quality remains an important national priority. EPA sees the reauthorization of TEA–21 as an opportunity to employ all tools

available to improve air quality, including transportation, in ways that could help

cities across the country make progress toward attainment under both the pre-1997

and the new ozone and particulate matter standards.

According to EPA’s latest air quality trends report, air quality monitoring data

show that from 1992–2001, concentrations of all six criteria pollutants have declined, including the four criteria pollutants that are most affected by the transportation sector: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone (smog), and particulate matter (soot).

These air quality data are good news, and are attributable to the transportation

and air quality programs currently in place. However, there are approximately 51

million Americans living in 77 counties that are measuring violations of the current

1-hour ozone ambient air quality standard, and 11.1 million people living in 17

counties that are measuring violations of the current standard for particulate matter. Furthermore, when we begin to implement the new, health-based standards for

ozone and particulate matter and designate the areas that are not attaining the

standards, the number of people living in areas with air quality considered

unhealthy will increase.

The criteria pollutant emissions have a significant impact on the health of Americans. Particulate matter is linked to aggravation of pre-existing respiratory ailments, reductions in lung capacity, and a significant number of premature deaths.

Ozone can impair lung function, cause chest pain and coughing, and worsen respiratory diseases and asthma. Carbon monoxide can aggravate angina (heart pain).

Even though overall emissions have been reduced, on-road mobile sources continue to be a significant contributor to pollution problems. EPA estimates that in

2001, motor vehicles accounted for 62 percent of the total U.S. carbon monoxide

emissions, 27 percent of the ozone precursor of volatile organic compounds (VOCs),

37 percent of the ozone precursor nitrogen oxides (NOx), and 6 percent of the traditionally inventoried direct emissions of particulate matter nationwide. On a regional

scale, motor vehicles can be an even larger portion of an area’s inventory. For example, in 1999, motor vehicles accounted for 48 percent of NOx in Atlanta, Georgia.

According to State air quality plans, on-road vehicles account for 63 percent of total

NOx in the Springfield, Massachusetts area; 56 percent of the total NOx in the Los

Angeles region in California; and 80 percent of the total carbon monoxide and 53

percent of the total coarse particulate matter in the Las Vegas, Nevada area. Although emissions reductions from stationary sources are important in many areas

throughout the country, the continued high incidence of health problems related to

these pollutants demonstrates the continuing need to reduce air pollution from

motor vehicles. As a Nation, our techniques for reducing motor vehicle emissions

have to encompass both technology improvements to vehicles and fuels, as well as

programs that encourage other, less polluting, transportation choices and practices.

Technology has provided significant air quality benefits in the past and will continue to do so into the future. Emissions from today’s new cars have been reduced

by more than 95 percent per vehicle relative to new cars 35 years ago. EPA’s new

Tier 2 vehicle standards are designed to reduce the emissions of new passenger cars

and light trucks even further. The rule combines these requirements with requirements for much lower levels of sulfur in gasoline. We estimate by 2020, NOx produced by vehicles will be approximately 70 percent lower as compared to what the

levels of NOx would have been without the Tier 2 program in place.
50

EPA’s new clean diesel program for large trucks and buses is another technologybased program. It will achieve emissions reductions based on the use of high-efficiency exhaust emissions control devices coupled with changes in diesel fuel sulfur

levels. Testing indicates that this program will result in particulate matter and NOx

emissions levels that are as much as 90 and 95 percent below the current standards

for heavy duty engine emissions in effect today.

A third example of emissions-reducing technologies is EPA’s Voluntary Diesel Retrofit Program, which is designed to help owners of trucks, buses, and off-road equipment install innovative and cost-effective emission control technology on existing

diesel engines. These technologies can result in reductions of particulate matter and

volatile organic compounds.

But technology may not be able to achieve all the necessary emission reductions

from transportation sources alone. Although emissions per vehicle have declined

dramatically, the number of miles Americans are driving continues to increase. In

1970, Americans traveled just over one trillion vehicle miles per year; in 2000 it was

almost 2.8 trillion. Growth in vehicle miles traveled (or VMT) has far outpaced population growth. From 1970 to 2001, population grew 39 percent, but VMT grew 149

percent. These trends are continuing. A conservative national estimate of VMT

growth is approximately 2 percent per year. However, in many cities, particularly

in the southern and western States, VMT is growing much faster than this average.

For example, in the early 1990’s, Charlotte’s VMT grew about 4.9 percent per year,

Denver’s VMT grew 4.5 percent per year, and Salt Lake City’s VMT grew by 4.3

percent per year. Las Vegas projects that its VMT will increase more than 4 percent

per year through the year 2020. The continued integration of transportation planning and air quality planning is a means to preserve and continue the progress we

have made in ensuring that Americans breathe healthy air.

In addition to technology-based programs, programs that are based on providing

travel choices are also important in achieving better air quality. For example, the

Commuter Choice Leadership Initiative is a new and successful non-regulatory approach to achieving emission reductions. Built around the tax-free commuter benefits in TEA–21 and modeled after the Energy Star partnership programs, the Commuter Choice Leadership Initiative is an EPA-DOT voluntary partnership program

with business to reduce traffic and traffic-related emissions. In the first year and

a half of the program, over 1,300 companies from 28 States and Washington, DC,

have signed voluntary agreements to offer 640,000 employees commuter benefits

meeting a national standard of excellence. EPA projects that if half of U.S. employees worked for employers that offered commuter benefits at the national standard

of excellence promoted by the Commuter Choice Leadership Initiative, air pollution

and traffic would be cut by the equivalent of taking 15 million cars off the road

every year.

In January of this year, EPA launched another innovative, non-regulatory clean

air program, SmartWay Transport—a voluntary partnership program that aims to

reduce ground freight sector energy use by promoting the use of energy-efficient

technologies and improved management practices. Over a dozen top companies representing a diverse group of ground and freight shippers and carriers have already

joined EPA as Charter Partners and are helping the Agency to develop performance

measures for the program. Although the SmartWay Transport program was created

primarily to reduce carbon emissions, the program will also result in voluntary reductions of NOx (a precursor to ozone) and particulate matter that could assist

areas in achieving the new air quality standards.

THE CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

The CMAQ program, initially begun under ISTEA and reauthorized in TEA–21,

provides funding for transportation projects to improve air quality and reduce congestion. EPA views the program as a valuable transportation funding tool for air

quality improvement because the pool of potential projects is largely restricted to

areas with poor air quality, (non-attainment areas), or those that had poor air quality in the past (maintenance areas). The CMAQ funds are not restricted to just traditional highway or transit projects. The funds can be used for Travel Demand Management (TDM) programs such as park and ride lots, car and van pool programs

and public education, or for other unique Transportation Control Measures (TCMs).

There is increasing interest in using CMAQ funds for other measures, such as diesel

engine retrofit programs and anti-idling equipment.

An EPA analysis of the benefits of TCMs, such as those funded by the CMAQ program, documents the emission reductions from 22 different shared ride, bicycle and

pedestrian, traffic flow, transit and demand management programs. The CMAQ program has funded projects that:
51

• contribute to attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS; • produce long-term emission reductions and support sustainable growth; • fund innovative transportation options (enabling projects such as public education, technology, and support services); and, • provide alternatives to single occupant vehicle travel and reduce congestion

through, for example, regional rideshare programs.

While some of the projects may produce small emission reductions, cumulatively

these projects can add up to significant reductions over the life of the attainment

plan. In many cases our stakeholders indicate that CMAQ projects are important

for helping a State to meet Clean Air Act air quality planning and conformity requirements. The benefits of the CMAQ program, and particularly projects that reduce VMT or manage system capacity, extend beyond emissions reductions. Other

benefits include roadway congestion relief, energy conservation, greenhouse gas

emission reductions, as well as economic development and community livability. By

requiring the project to be implemented in nonattainment areas, more local government and public involvement in transportation investment decisions is encouraged.

EPA and DOT have documented CMAQ’s numerous benefits in reports, brochures

and fact sheets available to transportation and air quality planners. From EPA’s perspective, there is little doubt that the program is beneficial for air quality and

is an important program for nonattainment areas and maintenance areas that want

to address transportation emissions. Air quality agencies have told us how important it is to have a transportation funding program that is dedicated for air quality

purposes. We have been told that many projects that have been highlighted as examples of innovative and effective emission reduction programs would not have been

implemented without the availability of CMAQ funds. A National Academy of

Science study mandated by Congress and undertaken by the Transportation Research Board draws similar conclusions. The findings of ‘‘Special Report 264. The

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years

of Experience’’ are favorable and include recommendations to reauthorize and expand the program.

While EPA generally agrees with the NAS recommendations, there are some important issues to consider. These issues fall into two main categories apportionment

and eligibility. At a time when implementation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS may

change the nonattainment landscape based upon our most advanced understanding

of how air pollution affects public health, EPA, as well as other stakeholders, are

concerned that the eligibility criteria and apportionment formula in TEA–21 are

based upon the old standards and nonattainment classifications.

Under the current program, a change in the classification of nonattainment areas,

or the number of areas, will likely change both the amount of CMAQ funds apportioned to each State and the amount available to nonattainment areas. Given the

current statutory language in TEA–21, nonattainment areas designated under the

8-hour ozone standard would be eligible for CMAQ funding, but the funds apportioned to the States would not account for the new areas unless they were classified

under the system for the 1-hour standard. EPA is working with the Department of

Transportation to evaluate this issue and possible solutions.

Like 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas, areas that are designated nonattainment

for particulate matter are eligible to receive CMAQ funding under the current program, but the apportionment formula does not explicitly account for them. Just as

our knowledge of the health risks of particulate matter has grown, programs to reduce the very small but hazardous particulates known as PM2.5 will likely increase

in importance. Generally, both diesel and gasoline powered vehicles emit fine particulate matter as well as NOx and VOCs that lead to its formation. Since the emphasis of most TCMs over the past two decades has been to reduce VOCs and to a lesser degree NOx, the degree to which TCMs can reduce PM2.5 is not as well understood. However, there is optimism that new programs for heavy-duty diesel retrofits,

anti-idling devices, cleaner fuels and travel demand strategies can produce significant reductions in concentrations of PM2.5. The CMAQ program offers the opportunity for regions to explore innovative strategies to address this pollutant. Consideration should be given to amending the apportionment formula to account for the

importance of this emerging air quality issue.

TEA–21’s flexible guidelines allow DOT to issue project eligibility guidance that

cuts across traditional modal boundaries and makes the funds available for highway, transit and some non-traditional program areas that are more difficult to categorize. EPA and DOT continue to work collaboratively within those guidelines, to

make the CMAQ program a more effective air quality resource for State and local

government agencies. State and local transportation and air quality agencies need

to work together to get the most out of the program as well. Some stakeholders have

indicated that consultation between transportation and air quality agencies is not
52

taking place on an ongoing and consistent basis. We believe that more consultation

between State and local transportation and air quality agencies would make the

program more effective.

TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY AND THE NEW OZONE AND FINE PARTICULATE

MATTER STANDARDS

Transportation conformity was established by Congress in the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990 and was designed to help ensure that an area’s transportation

activities are consistent with its air quality goals. EPA is responsible for writing the

conformity regulations and the Department of Transportation (DOT) must concur

with all conformity rules, as DOT is our Federal partner in the implementation of

the program. EPA first published the conformity rule in November 1993. We subsequently streamlined and clarified the rule in August 1997, based on extensive discussions with State and local air pollution officials, transportation planners, and

other stakeholders, as well as the experience of both DOT and EPA in the field.

In March 1999, however, a decision from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals

changed several aspects of the 1997 conformity rule. Shortly after that decision,

EPA and DOT published guidance that addressed issues affected by the court. Nonattainment and maintenance areas have been operating under this existing guidance since it was published in 1999. On August 6, 2002, we finalized a rule to provide flexibility in implementing conformity, consistent with the court decision. We

also plan to incorporate EPA and DOT’s existing guidance implementing the court

decision into the conformity regulations.

The transportation conformity program requires State and local agencies to evaluate the impact of new transportation activities on air quality on a regular basis.

Areas that have air quality worse than the national standards (nonattainment

areas) or that have violated the standards in the past (maintenance areas) are required to examine the air quality impacts of their transportation system to ensure

that such systems are compatible with clean air goals. In the simplest terms, conformity serves as an ‘‘accounting check’’ to assure that a nonattainment or maintenance area’s future transportation network conforms to the area’s air pollution reduction plan.

A benefit of conformity accounting is that it requires State and local governments,

and the public, to consider the air quality impacts of the planned transportation system as a whole, before transportation plans are adopted and projects are built. Billions of dollars every year are spent on developing and maintaining our transportation system. Conformity helps ensure that these dollars are not spent in a manner

that would worsen air quality, as that outcome would only necessitate spending additional money to reverse the air quality impact.

Prior to the 1990 Clean Air Act, transportation planners and air quality planners

often did not consult with one another or even use consistent information regarding

future estimates of growth. To address these problems, the 1990 Clean Air Act

Amendments explicitly linked the air quality planning and transportation planning

processes in a manner that had not previously existed. Above all, transportation

conformity has compelled the two types of planning agencies to work together

through the interagency consultation process to find creative and workable solutions

to air quality issues. Most everyone agrees that consultation is an important benefit

of the conformity program. A 1999 Harvard study on the program, which was jointly

funded by DOT and EPA, confirmed that the program has improved consultation

between transportation and air quality planners, and made that consultation more

effective.

Consultation is meaningful because air quality and transportation planners have

a common goal: transportation activities that are consistent with the State’s air

quality goals. A State’s air quality plan (a State implementation plan, or SIP) establishes emissions ceilings, or budgets, for the various types of sources that contribute

to air pollution problems. Transportation conformity makes State and local agencies

accountable for keeping the total motor vehicle emissions from an area’s current and

future transportation activities within these air quality plan budgets. We believe

that the interagency consultation that occurs as areas work to ensure that their

planned transportation activities conform to their air quality plan budgets will continue to play a critical role in States’ efforts to meet the new ozone and particulate

matter standards in the future.

EPA is currently working on an implementation strategy for both the new ozone

and fine particulate matter standards and intends to finalize the strategies prior to

designating areas for these standards. Under the Clean Air Act, newly designated

nonattainment areas must start to comply with the conformity requirements beginning 1 year after the effective date of EPA’s designation. Because most areas al-
53

ready know whether they are likely to be designated nonattainment under the new

standards, we strongly encourage them to prepare themselves for implementing the

conformity program by establishing interagency consultation roles, assessing modeling capabilities and updating planning assumptions as soon as possible. Engaging

in these activities now will greatly ease their transition to conformity under the new

standards.

Before making designations under the new ozone standard, EPA will provide clarification to States and local government about several broad issues that relate to

the conformity program. For example, some areas that will be designated as nonattainment for the 8-hour standard already designated nonattainment for the 1-hour

standard and we are working to ensure a smooth transition from the 1-hour standard to the 8-hour standard. This issue is relevant for conformity because the Agency

believes that States should not be required to demonstrate conformity for both ozone

standards at the same time. We will address this important issue in our 8-hour implementation which will be finalized before areas are designated under the 8-hour

standard.

Along with our 8-hour implementation rule, EPA also plans to issue guidance and

conformity regulations so that areas are fully aware of the specific criteria and procedures for meeting conformity under the new standards. Through this process, EPA

will address questions such as: what options does an area have for demonstrating

conformity before a State implementation plan for the new air quality standards is

submitted? The current conformity rule provides for alternative conformity tests

when an area has not yet submitted a State air quality plan. EPA plans to make

these alternative conformity tests available to newly designated areas. We will be

answering specific questions about how to apply these tests in our upcoming conformity guidance and rulemaking. We understand that providing areas with adequate and timely guidance is imperative and are working with the Department of

Transportation to ensure a smooth transition to implementing conformity under the

new air quality standards.

Under the conformity program, there are consequences for an area that does not

meet a conformity deadline. However, there may be some misconceptions about

these conformity consequences and how they affect a State’s highway and transit

funding. Under the new air quality standards, for example, if a metropolitan area

does not have a conforming transportation plan in place by the expiration of its 1-

year grace period, the area would not lose its Federal funding for highway and transit projects. Rather, the area’s conformity status would ‘‘lapse.’’ During a conformity

lapse, additional project funding and approvals are restricted to certain types of

projects. These types of projects that can proceed during a lapse include: exempt

projects such as safety projects, projects in an approved State air quality plan, traffic signal synchronization projects and Federal highway and transit projects that received funding and approval prior to the lapse. Once a metropolitan area resolves

its conformity issue and establishes a conforming transportation plan, the lapse

ends and all Federal funding and approvals can resume.

EPA has no knowledge of any State that has lost its highway funding due to an

area’s inability to demonstrate conformity, but recognizes that even short term conformity lapses can cause disruptions to the transportation planning and project development processes. However, in some cases, lapses have no effect on an area’s

transportation projects because the area has no new non-exempt projects pending.

Most conformity lapses that have occurred over the past 5 years have been relatively short. There have been few instances during this time period where lapses

have occurred for more than 6 months.

When communities face difficulties demonstrating conformity, they can choose

from several options. When a transportation plan’s emissions are greater than the

allowable budgets in the air quality plan, areas can decide whether to revise the

transportation plan or revise the air quality plan. For example, some areas have

added transit programs to reduce the emissions of their transportation plan, while

others have gone back to the State air quality plan to see if other sources of pollution could be further controlled to allow the transportation sector’s emissions budget

to grow. An area can choose to build transportation projects that increase emissions,

as long as the net effect of the total transportation system is consistent with the

State air quality plan. Due to continued improvements in vehicle emission performance, most areas have been able to continue adding to their transportation network

and still stay within their clean air budgets. Consultation between transportation

and air quality agencies has played a critical role in developing such solutions that

have allowed areas to meet both transportation and air quality goals.

EPA estimates the number of areas that will possibly be designated as nonattainment for the new ozone and particulate matter standards will be less than 150. Of

these, around 50 areas will not have had prior experience with demonstrating con-
54

formity. EPA and DOT, as well as stakeholders across the United States, have

gained a wealth of experience in implementing conformity over the past decade.

Newly designated areas with no prior experience with conformity will benefit from

our collective experience and implementation guidance.

We also expect that several recent EPA actions will make it easier for States and

local governments to meet their emissions targets and demonstrate conformity. For

example, the emissions reductions from EPA’s Tier 2 and clean diesel standards will

greatly benefit all areas that are designated under the new standards in their efforts to achieve those standards and ensure conformity. In addition, the President’s

Clear Skies legislation will reduce emissions of SO2 by 73 percent, and NOx by 67

percent. These substantial reductions from the power sector will provide great flexibility for many counties by reducing the need for reductions from other sectors. We

have learned a great deal about the conformity program and how we can make it

less cumbersome while still preserving its benefits. We are pursuing several actions

to simplify the conformity process, which should help the areas designated under

the new standards.

As part of this effort, EPA is exploring options that would specifically address two

aspects of the conformity process that have been of concern to many stakeholders.

The first issue pertains to how often conformity is required. Some air quality planners believe that any change in the minimum frequency of conformity would delay

the use of new information in the transportation and conformity process. On the

other hand, many transportation planners believe that conformity is required too

often, leaving them with little time to focus on planning. These stakeholders claim

that increasing the minimum 3-year conformity and transportation plan updates

would give transportation planners the ability to develop better plans that focus on

other environmental and planning issues, such as environmental justice, in addition

to air quality.

In coordination with the Department of Transportation, we are evaluating options

that might be able to improve the current conformity frequency requirements.

The second aspect of conformity that is of concern to some stakeholders is the

timeframe over which conformity must be demonstrated. The transportation community believes that the current 20-year timeframe for which transportation plans

must demonstrate conformity is unfair. Since State air quality plans typically cover

a shorter timeframe (typically 10 years or less), they claim that the burden of

growth in the years past the timeframe of the State air quality plan rests on the

transportation sector. However, environmental stakeholders see a need for longterm planning to ensure that both transportation and air quality goals are achieved.

In response to these stakeholders, EPA is working with DOT to examine the current conformity timeframe requirement to determine whether there is a compromise

that would address the issues raised by the transportation community and the longterm air quality concerns held by environmental agencies.

In conclusion, EPA is committed to partnering with DOT to continue our progress

in meeting both transportation and air quality goals. EPA has been actively working

with the Department of Transportation in developing the President’s proposal for

the reauthorization of TEA–21, and that proposal will be submitted to Congress

soon. Based on our collective experience in implementing the CMAQ and transportation conformity programs, we believe the Administration’s proposal will build on

the success of TEA–21 and will further assist areas in their efforts to achieve clean

air now and in the future, as we move forward with implementing the new ozone

and fine particulate matter standards. Thank you again for this opportunity to testify today and discuss our programs with you. I would be happy to respond to any

questions that you may have.

RESPONSE OF JEFFREY R. HOLMSTEAD TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR JEFFORDS

Question 1. Please describe the resources and the guidance that your agency is

going to provide in fiscal year 2004, assuming the budget request is satisfied, to

States and communities to help them demonstrate conformity with the PM2.5 standard.

Response. A top priority for the EPA is to ensure that newly designated 8-hour

ozone and PM2.5 nonattainment areas are provided with adequate guidance for implementing these new health-based air quality standards. With regard to the PM2.5

standard, EPA is currently working on a broader implementation strategy proposal

to provide States with the procedures and criteria for PM2.5 area designations and

compliance to the Clean Air Act requirements for that standard. We plan to propose
55

this broader implementation strategy in December 2003, with a final rule expected

later in 2004.

EPA is also working on another rulemaking that would amend the conformity regulations to provide clear guidance and rules for implementing conformity for the

new 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 air quality standards. EPA plans to publish a proposal

(the ‘‘new standards proposal’’) for this conformity rulemaking this summer, and will

hold a public hearing on the proposal in Washington, DC, soon after it is published.

We anticipate taking a final action on the new standards proposal by April 2004.

We will also be releasing guidance documents, as needed, to implement the conformity program for the new standards.

In addition, EPA has supported and will continue to support throughout fiscal

year 2004 specific training opportunities to assist areas in meeting the conformity

requirements for the new air quality standards. These training opportunities include: • NTI Conformity Course: The National Transit Institute has been offering a

course called, ‘‘Introduction to Transportation/Air Quality Conformity’’ in locations

across the country. This course was developed by the Federal Transit Administration, in coordination with the Federal Highway Administration and EPA. This 2.5

day course offers an in-depth overview of the criteria and procedures for implementing conformity and is designed for Federal, State and local agencies involved

in the conformity process. This course is offered free of charge. • MOBILE6 training: MOBILE6 is EPA’s latest motor vehicle emissions factor

model for official use by State and local governments to meet Clean Air Act requirements outside of California. EPA announced the availability of MOBILE6 in the

Federal Register on January 29, 2002, (67 FR 4254). EPA and DOT jointly sponsored seven MOBILE6 training courses across the country in 2002. These courses

were open to the public and were offered free of charge. The training materials for

these courses are on the MOBILE6 website and can be downloaded at: http://

www.epa.gov/otaq/m6.htm Other training materials prepared by EPA are also available on this website. • EPA is also considering other potential training and outreach mechanisms and

tools that could be developed and made available, within current budget constraints,

to State and local transportation and air quality agencies affected by the designations for the new standards.

Question 2. As has been discussed, the purpose of conformity is to ensure that

transportation plans achieve the motor vehicle emissions levels set in State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for air quality. Would the Agency agree this coordination is

needed for all national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), including the new

ozone and PM2.5 standards?

Response. Yes. EPA would agree that linking transportation and air quality planning through the conformity process is necessary for all pollutants and standards

for which on-road motor vehicles are important. The purpose of conformity is to ensure that emissions from transportation sources stay within the air quality targets

or ‘‘budgets’’ established by the SIP so that public health is protected. Therefore, we

believe that it makes environmental sense to have conformity apply for those criteria pollutants, including ozone and PM2.5, for which transportation sources are a

major contributor.

Question 3. As I understand the responses you provided last fall to the Committee

on this subject, many States have not demonstrated compliance with their 1999

milestones—that is the showing of reasonable further progress in reducing V.O.C.’s

and NOx as required by section 182(g) of the Act. What is EPA doing to correct that

situation?

Response. Under sections 182(c), (d) and (e) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended in 1990, State plans for serious, severe, and extreme ozone nonattainment areas

are required to demonstrate attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard no later than

specific dates in the CAA. The dates are 1999 for serious areas, 2005 or 2007 for

severe areas, and 2010 for the single extreme area.

In addition, subsections 182(a)-(e) of the Act requires States to show that their

clean air plans provide for ‘‘rate-of-progress’’ (ROP) emission reductions. The Act requires a rate of progress of 15 percent reduction in an area’s volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions by 1996 and a 9 percent reduction of VOC or equivalent

oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emission reductions every 3 years thereafter until the attainment date. A progress report, called a ‘‘milestone compliance demonstration’’ is

due from affected States, in accordance with EPA regulation, after the applicable

milestone is to have been met. If a milestone is not met or the milestone compliance

demonstrations are not submitted, the State, under section 182(g)(3), has three options: it can request that the area be reclassified to a higher classification, it can
56

implement specific additional measures adequate to meet the next milestone, or it

can adopt an economic incentive program.

In the late 1990’s, EPA began to draft a rule suggesting to States two possible

approaches to performing the milestone compliance demonstration: (1) emission inventory updates (where possible) and/or (2) indicators of compliance such as growth

rates, VMT change information, regulations planned and adopted, etc.

As it analyzed the issue, EPA recognized that technical problems, centering upon

the timeliness of State emission inventory updates and associated growth projections, would arise in many States when the control agencies attempted to develop

complete milestone demonstrations. In other words, many States would have problems synchronizing the periodic inventories with the milestone compliance time period. For States with this problem, it would have been prohibitively expensive to implement a revised emissions inventory program, or a separate new inventory program, that matched the compliance milestone demonstration period. Additional

costs to States and industry would have resulted from condensing the process of collecting and quality assuring emissions data, which could take from 12 to 18 months,

into a 90-day period.

Consequently, EPA did not finalize the draft rule because there were no reliable,

readily available methods to evaluate compliance with the milestones. Under the

terms of section 182(g)(2), States are not obligated to submit milestone compliance

demonstrations until EPA promulgates the rule. Although not required, some States

did submit specific milestone compliance demonstrations. While New Jersey did not

submit a milestone compliance demonstration, information submitted with its emission inventory update showed that the milestone target were met.

To assist States, the EPA has issued a series of guidance documents that outline

how to calculate the many different inventories and how to prepare rate-of-progress

SIP revisions. These were made available to States for use in their individual efforts:

1. Guidance on the Adjusted Base Year Inventory and the 1996 Target for the 15

Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans, EPA–452/R–92–005, October 1992.

2. Guidance for Growth Factors, Projections, and Control Strategies for the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans, EPA–452/R–93–002, March 1993.

3. Guidance on the Relationship Between the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans

and Other Provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments, EPA–452/R–93–007, May

1993.

4. Guidance on Preparing Enforceable Regulations and Compliance Programs for

the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans, EPA–452/R–93–005, June 1993.

5. Guidance on the Post–1996 Rate-of-Progress Plan and Attainment Demonstration, EPA452/R–93–015, January 1994.(Erratta 2–18–94)

The EPA intends to complete rulemaking for the milestone compliance demonstration associated with the rate of progress requirements for implementing the 8-hour

ozone NAAQS in the near future. Our rule and guidance will address a number of

issues concerning this requirement, including the mismatch of deadlines between

the emissions inventory cycle and the milestone compliance demonstration deadlines.

Question 4. Please provide the Committee with an update to the information requested last summer regarding the status of milestone compliance demonstrations

that were required to be filed by the States in February 2003 with respect to the

2002 milestones.

Response. The EPA has received documents relating to the 2002 milestone compliance demonstrations for the Illinois portion of the Chicago nonattainment area; Ventura Co., CA and from Sacramento, CA.

Question 5. Would the Agency agree that the purpose of transportation conformity

is to ensure that motor vehicle emissions will be reduced to stay within the emissions budgets established in the State Implementation Plans for the most recent

milestone and the attainment years, and then the 10-year maintenance year once

an area has attained? And that that should be the case even after those milestones

or dates have passed?

Response. Yes. The purpose of transportation conformity is to ensure that emissions from on-road motor vehicles stay within the air quality limits or ‘‘budgets’’ established by the State air quality implementation plan (SIP). The 1990 Clean Air

Act Amendments emphasize reconciling the estimates of emissions from transportation plans and programs with the SIP. This integration of transportation and air

quality planning is intended to protect the integrity of the SIP by ensuring that:

(1) its growth projections are not exceeded without additional measures to counterbalance the excess growth; (2) progress targets are achieved; and, (3) air quality

maintenance efforts are not undermined.
57

To achieve the purpose of conformity and ensure that the SIP’s goals are achieved

and maintained, EPA has always required transportation plans, programs and

projects to demonstrate conformity to the most recent applicable budget in a control

strategy SIP (attainment plans and reasonable further progress plans) or maintenance plan for the year that budget is established and for all future years. In the

original 1993 transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62194) we state: ‘‘The emissions

budget applies as a ceiling on emissions in the year for which it is defined, and for

all subsequent years until another year for which a different budget is defined or

until a SIP revision modifies the budget.’’ The budget represents an emissions target

that is established to make progress toward, attain or maintain the respective air

quality standard by a given date.

Therefore, EPA believes it is reasonable to expect that if an area’s planned transportation activities continue to meet that emissions target in future years, such activities will not cause or contribute to any new violations, increase the frequency

of existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the air quality standard.

Question 6. EPA has proposed changes to the conformity provisions of the Clean

Air Act or the CMAQ program as part of the Administration’s pending proposal for

reauthorization of TEA–21. What outside groups were consulted in the process of

developing your proposal?

Response. Proposed Changes to Transportation Conformity and CMAQ Programs:

The U.S. Department of Transportation took the lead for the Administration in developing the Administration’s proposal for the reauthorization of TEA–21, including

the proposals concerning conformity and CMAQ. EPA was one of many Administration participants in this process and did not hold a formal stakeholder process. However, we have heard from a number of stakeholders through various forums about

their views on potential changes to various aspects of the current conformity and

CMAQ processes.

Question 7. Please provide a quantitative and qualitative air quality and emissions analysis and a justification for the statutory changes in the Clean Air Act, or

in other laws affecting that Act’s implementation, that the Administration proposes

to make as part of reauthorization of TEA–21, at whatever time that proposal is

submitted to Congress.

Response. Transportation Conformity: The Administration has included in its proposal for the reauthorization of TEA–21 four changes that will affect the transportation conformity program. Those changes include: (1) defining the ‘‘transportation

plan’’ for the purposes of conformity to be, at a minimum, the first 10 years of the

plan; (2) combining the transportation plan and transportation improvement program (or TIP) into one planning document; (3) extending the minimum conformity

frequency and transportation plan updates requirements in nonattainment and

maintenance areas to 5 years; and (4) streamlining the Clean Air Act’s requirements

for State conformity SIPs, so that such SIPs only include the interagency consultation procedures for a given nonattainment or maintenance area.

EPA did not perform a quantitative analysis for each of these proposed legislative

changes, as we do not have the specific local area information that is required to

perform such analyses. In addition, EPA believes it is reasonable to assume that results from individual area analyses, if conducted, would greatly vary. When considering these targeted improvements to the conformity program, however, EPA did

consider a wealth of qualitative information.

For example, when considering the proposed change to the conformity timeframe

horizon we considered whether prohibiting the implementation of transportation

projects today because of emissions that may exceed an emissions budget 20 years

into the future is a reasonable and equitable approach to implementing the conformity program. For the Administration’s proposed changes to conformity frequency

and other planning requirements, EPA primarily considered the need to develop

good, comprehensive transportation plans with the need to incorporate new planning information into the conformity process. EPA understands that transportation

planners need time and resources to develop comprehensive transportation plans

that adequately address many planning and environmental factors including air

quality. On the other hand, EPA believes it is important to incorporate the most

recent planning information into the conformity process in a timely manner so that

good transportation and air quality decisions can be made. From our experience implementing the conformity program, we believe the Administration’s proposals strike

this balance.

EPA considered the resource burden that the current conformity SIP requirements place on States. Under the current Clean Air Act section 176(c)(4)(C), States

are required to submit a conformity SIP that establishes State and local rules for

implementing conformity, much of which mirrors the Federal transportation con-
58

formity rules verbatim. The Act also requires areas to revise their conformity SIPs

each time EPA amends the conformity regulations to reflect such changes in their

State rules. Under the Administration’s proposal, however, States would be required

to establish conformity rules that include only the area-specific interagency consultation procedures required by the Federal regulations. This streamlined proposal

would result in fewer required SIP revisions, as States could rely on the Federal

rules for most conformity provisions and would no longer have to revise their SIPS

each time EPA amends the Federal conformity rule. Furthermore, this proposal

would ensure that all States can take advantage of regulatory changes to the conformity program as soon as they are promulgated. EPA believes it can offer this

flexibility in the conformity SIP requirement without any adverse impacts on the

environment.

Question 8. Do you agree with Mr. Frankel or with the State and local air directors who disagree with him on the so-called ‘‘mismatch’’ between air quality and

transportation planning cycles?

Response. There are two different ‘‘mismatch’’ issues in the conformity process.

The first is the difference between transportation and air quality planning timeframe horizons. The second is the difference between transportation plan and SIP

updates.

To address the difference between transportation and air quality planning horizons, the Administration has included in its proposal for the reauthorization of

TEA–21 to define the ‘‘transportation plan’’ for the purposes of conformity to be, at

a minimum, the first 10 years of the plan. The proposal would also require a ‘‘For

Informational Purposes Only’’ regional emissions analysis for the last year of the

transportation plan. Transportation plans are required to cover a planning horizon

of at least 20 years. However, SIPs are typically developed for a timeframe of 10

years or less. The Administration’s proposal would address this discrepancy in the

timeframe horizons for the two different planning processes.

In the past, areas have had difficulty demonstrating conformity of the last 10

years of the plan to a budget that is established for a year in the near future (e.g.,

demonstrating conformity of a 2003–2023 transportation plan to an attainment

budget established for 2010). Such difficulties arising from emissions projected 10

to 20 years into the future could cause delays in the implementation of transportation projects that are presently scheduled. EPA believes that the Administration’s

proposal for adjusting the transportation plan timeframe horizon would provide a

reasonable and equitable approach to implementing the conformity program. In addition, the information only analysis would ensure that emissions in the last year

of the plan are considered for future conformity determinations.

With regard to the difference in transportation plan and SIP update cycles, EPA

believes that the current flexibility provided by the Clean Air Act allows States to

decide for themselves whether a SIP revision to incorporate new data or additional

control measures justifies the costs of conducting an update to the SIP. States are

in a better position to decide whether a revision to their existing SIP is necessary.

Since the SIP is based on a demonstration of how to achieve clean air, the motor

vehicle emissions budgets within the SIP are also representative of a level of transportation emissions that can protect public health. Therefore, although transportation mobility goals and the models and assumptions on which a SIP is based may

change over time, in many cases the SIP’s public health goals can be appropriate

even without regular SIP updates. Furthermore, most SIP revisions require a great

deal of time and resources from State and local agencies and EPA to complete.

Therefore, EPA would not want to require regular SIP updates in areas where air

quality improvements are occurring as anticipated by the SIP and conformity determinations are being made without difficulty.

Although the CAA does not mandate regular SIP updates, some areas have updated or are in the process of updating their SIPs and as a result, may have more

recent mobile source emissions budgets available for conformity purposes. In particular, areas that have had conformity difficulties have often addressed such issues

by revising their SIPs to incorporate new planning assumptions and data and/or additional control measures to allow for growth in transportation (e.g., Baltimore MD,

New Jersey, Salt Lake City, UT, Albuquerque NM). In addition, many 1-hour ozone

areas are revising their current SIPs to accurately reflect estimates of EPA’s Tier

2 emissions standards (e.g., New York City, Philadelphia PA, Baltimore MD, Houston, TX). Also, after area designations have been made for the new 8-hour ozone

and PM2.5 standards, many areas that are designated nonattainment for these

standards will be submitting new SIPs to address these standards.
59

Question 9. How many premature deaths could be avoided starting in 2010 as a

result of implementation of the so-called ‘‘straw’’ proposal prepared by the Agency

in 2001 and its emission reductions?

Response. Although for internal discussion EPA did some preliminary and incomplete analysis of some benefits in the year 2020 of emissions reductions at the levels

of the ‘straw’ proposal, the analysis did not include any of the more detailed and

necessary analysis that we have performed for the Clear Skies Act of 2003. Thus,

neither the ‘straw’ proposal emissions caps nor our preliminary benefits analysis

were based on adequate analysis of technology and engineering feasibility, nor of the

ability of capital and labor markets for the power sector to meet the levels and timing of the proposal.

Question 10. In your testimony, you claimed that the Clean Air Act gives the

Agency limited ability to do anything [to reduce the number of people dying prematurely from power plant pollution] until the Agency goes through the process of

designating [nonattainment areas]. What specific regulatory steps, using sections

176A, 184, 111(d),112, etc. or other parts of the Act that provide useful authorities,

has the Agency taken since January 2001 to reduce power plant pollution that contributes to premature deaths?

Response. EPA has promulgated rules under sections 110 and 126 to reduce regional NOx emissions to reduce interstate ozone pollution in the East. NOx reductions can help reduce fine particle pollution as well.

Section 110: In 1998, EPA issued the NOx SIP Call under section 110(a)(2)(D) of

the CAA requiring 22 States and the District of Columbia to revise their SIPs to

impose additional controls on NOx emissions. The NOx SIP Call required statewide

NOx emissions reductions by an average of 28 percent (over emissions projected to

occur in 2007). EPA recommended that States could meet their NOx emission budgets, in part, by establishing a cap-and-trade program for NOx emissions from large

power plants and large industrial boilers and turbines. Under the NOx SIP Call

EPA expects these sources to achieve an average reduction of 64 percent (over emissions projected to occur in 2007). Since January 2001, EPA has completed rulemaking to approve State implementation plan revisions which meet the NOx SIP

Call requirements for the following areas: AL, the District of Columbia, DE, IL, IN,

KY, MD, NJ, NY, OH, PA, SC, and WV. Eight of these States and the District of

Columbia began implementation of the NOx emission reduction requirements in

May 2003.

This program is the single most important measure to reduce interstate ozone pollution from power plants in the short term. Reductions of NOx emissions from the

program will enhance the protection of public health for over 100 million people in

the Eastern half of the United States. It is a centerpiece of the clean air plans for

many cities.

Sec. 126: In 2000, EPA issued a rule to control NOx emissions under section 126

of the CAA (the Section 126 Rule). This rule required large power plants and large

industrial boilers and turbines located in 12 Eastern States and the District of Columbia to reduce NOx emissions. It established a cap-and-trade program that was

essentially the same as that suggested by EPA for State implementation in the NOx

SIP Call. Both the Section 126 Rule and the NOx SIP Call are intended to reduce

interstate ozone pollution. When EPA approves a State implementation plan revision as meeting the NOx SIP Call requirements, the Agency withdraws the Section

126 rule requirements for that State.

In addition, EPA has published two additional actions related to the NOx SIP Call

and the section 126 rulemakings which affect power plant pollution. On February

22, 2002 (67 FR 8396), EPA proposed to amend these rules in response to court remands. On May 1, 2002 (67 FR 21868), EPA responded to two court decisions directing EPA to reconsider heat input growth rates projected and used in setting NOx

emission budgets in the two rules. After reviewing the heat input growth rates and

considering the court decisions and additional comments, EPA decided to continue

to use the heat input growth rates developed in the rules.

Question 11. What is the status of the implementation rules and guidance necessary for the areas that will soon be designated nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone

or fine particulate matter standards?

Response. On June 2, 2003, EPA published proposed rulemaking on alternative

approaches to implementation of the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA held three public

hearings: Irving, Texas (Dallas area), on June 17, 2003; San Francisco, California

on June 19, 2003; and Alexandria, Virginia on June 27, 2003. The public comment

period runs to August 1, 2003. EPA plans to publish a final rule by the end of December 2003. Supplemental guidance on specific technical aspects related to prepa-
60

ration of State implementation plans for the 8-hour standard are either available

in draft for comment now or are under preparation.

PM2.5 designations are scheduled to be finalized in late 2004 or early 2005. State

implementation plans would be due no later than 3 years after designations. EPA

is in the process of developing a proposed rule outlining the requirements for State

implementation plans designed to attain the standards. We intend to issue the proposal in the fall or early winter 2003 and to finalize the rule in the fall or early

winter of 2004.

EPA is also conducting another rulemaking that will revise the transportation

conformity regulations to address conformity for the new 8-hour and PM2.5 standards. EPA plans to publish a proposal (the ‘‘new standards proposal’’) for this conformity rulemaking this summer, and will hold a public hearing on the proposal in

Washington, DC, soon after it is published. We anticipate taking a final action on

the new standards proposal by April 2004. This proposal will provide clear guidance

for when conformity will first apply in areas that are designated nonattainment for

the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 standards. Specifically, the proposal will discuss the implementation of the 1-year conformity grace period and revocation of the 1-hour

ozone standard.

The conformity rulemaking will also describe the general requirements for conducting transportation conformity determinations for the new standards. It will include the conformity test(s) that would apply during the time period before newly

designated nonattainment areas submit an initial 8-hour ozone or PM2.5 SIP that

establishes motor vehicle emissions budgets. In addition, the rulemaking will address PM2.5 as a criteria pollutant subject to transportation conformity and will outline the specific conformity requirements that would apply in newly designated

PM2.5 nonattainment areas.

Question 12. At my and Senator Lieberman’s request, the GAO has been doing

a survey of all the States’ air quality and transportation planners on conformity.

The final report should be available by the end of April. It will cover many of the

topics discussed at the hearing, in plenty of time to factor into reauthorization. But

so far, it appears that GAO has found that most of the conformity lapses are a result of administrative or procedural issues, unrelated to emissions budgets constraints. Is that EPA’s experience?

Response. EPA agrees with the GAO report that in some cases areas lapse because of administrative or procedural issues such as delays in the planning process.

EPA also agrees with the GAO report that most lapses are relatively short (less

than 6 month). Although the GAO report does not provide information on the impact of these administrative or procedural lapses that in most cases did not persist

for a significant amount of time, EPA believes that most of these short-term administrative lapses had no significant impact on transportation projects or the planning

process. However, EPA believes it is important to ensure that the final mix of

projects in the plan and TIP conform to the area’s SIP before such projects are allowed to proceed, especially in areas where lapses are due to an area not meeting

its emissions budget.

We would also like to note that the GAO report did not discuss the number of

nonattainment and maintenance areas that have and continue to meet their conformity deadlines on time. There are currently well over a hundred nonattainment

and maintenance areas that are meeting the frequency requirements for demonstrating conformity. At any given time, typically no more than 8–10 areas experience a conformity lapse, some of which have no consequences on projects. In those

areas where emissions increases from transportation activities exceed the limits established in the SIP and a conformity lapse occurs, EPA believes it is important for

air quality and the public health to limit those projects that can proceed during the

lapse since the emissions from such projects could cause violations or worsen existing violations of the air quality standard.

Question 13. Would the Agency agree that a transportation plan and TIP may not

be found to conform to the SIP if it fails to reduce motor vehicle emissions to the

level of the motor vehicle emissions budget for an attainment year?

Response. Yes. EPA generally agrees that if the projected emissions from an

area’s transportation plan and TIP are not at or below the motor vehicle emission

budget in the applicable SIP by a specific conformity deadline, the plan and TIP do

not conform and the area enters into a conformity lapse. Motor vehicle emissions

budgets can be established for several different years in an area’s SIP, including the

attainment year, rate-of-progress (or milestone) years, maintenance years, and any

other year for which the area chooses to establish a conformity budget. Therefore,

to satisfy the conformity requirements the plan and TIP must conform in all years
61

that establish an adequate or approved budget that are within the timeframe of the

transportation plan and TIP.

If an area conducts a conformity determination and discovers that emissions from

the transportation plan and TIP exceed the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the

SIP, such a result is a clear indication that air quality and public health goals are

not being met. In this case, the area will need to make changes to either the plan/

TIP and/or the SIP. Options that many areas have considered to address such conformity issues include adding air quality beneficial projects to the plan/TIP, delaying

capacity increasing highway projects, and revising the SIP to incorporate new information or additional control measures. Other areas, however, have not had to make

any adjustments to their plan and TIP or SIP because emissions from their transportation activities have routinely been at or below the budgets in the SIP.

Question 14. Would the Agency agree that a transportation plan and TIP may not

be found to conform to the SIP if it fails to reduce motor vehicle emissions to the

level of the motor vehicle emissions budget for a number of years following the attainment years?

Response. Yes. It is important that areas continue to maintain clean air to protect

public health after the attainment year. EPA has always believed it was reasonable

to require conformity of planned transportation activities for some time into the future, since the full emissions impact of projects that are built today may not be fully

realized until some years later. Therefore, for nonattainment areas that only have

an adequate or approved attainment year budget, EPA’s policy has always been that

conformity of transportation plans, programs and projects be demonstrated to that

attainment budget for the year for which it was established and for all subsequent

years that require a regional emissions analysis and budget test.

Question 15. Would you support a rollback of the conformity lapse enforcement

provisions so that metropolitan areas failing to comply with transportation planning

requirements face no mandatory consequences?

Response. No. EPA believes that allowing areas to implement an existing plan

and TIP during a conformity lapse could worsen air quality since all projects in that

plan and TIP could still proceed, even though the emissions impact from those

projects no longer conform. The purpose of conformity is to ensure that an area’s

planned transportation activities are consistent with or ‘‘conform to’’ the motor vehicle emissions level established by the SIP before such activities can be federally

funded or approved. Conformity ensures that future funding for additional air pollution control measures won’t be needed to offset emissions from previously approved

and funded projects.

Furthermore, EPA does not believe that allowing areas to continue to implement

their existing planned transportation activities during a conformity lapse is necessary. Lapses are not frequent; only about 56 lapses have occurred since 1997 and

the majority of these lapses have been brief. However, there have been other areas

where lapses created a forum to consider significant air quality concerns. EPA believes that removing the incentive to determine conformity by specific deadlines in

areas that have difficulty keeping emissions from planned transportation activities

within the limits established in the SIP would not be protective of air quality or

public health in those areas.

Question 16. In the case of Sierra Club v. Atlanta Regional Commission decided

by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in October 2002, the Court held that the

transportation plan could be found to conform even though motor vehicle emissions

had not been reduced to the level required by the SIP for attainment year 1999,

and the emissions analysis performed by the metropolitan planning organization

demonstrated that if the proposed long-range transportation plan and TIP were

adopted motor vehicle emissions in the Atlanta area during 2000 would exceed the

NOx emissions budget for 1999 by 50 tons per day, and would likely not be reduced

to the budget levels during any year prior to 2004. Is this a correct interpretation

of the conformity requirements of the Act?

Response. In Sierra Club v. Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), the Eleventh

Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the analysis years for which ARC chose to demonstrate conformity for the Atlanta 2001–2025 transportation plan were consistent

with the Clean Air Act and existing conformity regulations. EPA agrees with the

court decision and its interpretation of the statutory and regulatory conformity requirements.

The conformity rule (40 CFR 93.118) outlines the budget test and regional emissions analysis years required of areas that have an applicable motor vehicle emissions budget. Specifically, the rule requires a regional emissions analysis for the attainment year (if it is in the timeframe of the transportation plan), the last year of
62

the transportation plan and any interim years so that analysis years are no more

than 10 years apart. The rule contains similar requirements for the budget test, but

in no case has EPA ever required the budget test or a regional emissions analysis

for a year outside the timeframe of the transportation plan. EPA structured the conformity rule in this manner for two primary reasons.

First, EPA believes that to require a conformity determination for every year

within the timeframe of a transportation plan would be a tremendous resource burden on transportation agencies. Describing the transportation system envisioned for

future horizon years and running a regional emissions analysis for those years requires a great deal of time and technical capability. Therefore, EPA believes that

requiring such analyses for a few select years provides a workable approach for

meeting the conformity requirements for the entire transportation plan.

Second, the purpose of conformity is to be an iterative and prospective evaluation

of the emissions impact of planned transportation activities. Therefore, EPA has

never required areas to look backwards and demonstrate conformity for years that

are now in the past. At the time that ARC demonstrated conformity for its 2001–

2025 plan, the only applicable budgets in Atlanta’s SIP were the 1999 attainment

year budgets. In this case, EPA saw no environmental value in having ARC run a

regional emissions analysis for 1999, since 1999 was in the past and any projects

scheduled to advance during that year were already approved and funded. Under

the conformity regulation, ARC had the option of choosing any analysis year within

the first 10 years of the 2001–2025 plan (since analysis years can be no more than

10 years apart for the entire timeframe of the transportation plan). EPA believes

ARC’s decision to select 2005 as its first analysis year was consistent with the Clean

Air Act and conformity rules requirements. Our position is supported by the Eleventh Circuit Court’s ruling.

Question 17. Does EPA intend to apply this interpretation to other nonattainment

areas, or does EPA intend to clarify its rule to require that transportation plans and

TIPs achieve the emissions budgets established by a State Implementation Plan for

the attainment year and each year thereafter?

Response. EPA sees no discrepancy between its interpretation of the Clean Air

Act and conformity regulation for Atlanta and for other nonattainment areas. As

previously stated, an adequate or approved motor vehicle emissions budgets (e.g.,

an attainment budget) is applicable for the year for which it is established and for

any future analysis year as required by 40 CFR 93.118. EPA does not intend to require nonattainment or maintenance areas to demonstrate conformity for every individual year within the timeframe of the transportation plan due to the tremendous

resource burden of such a requirement, nor does EPA intend to require areas to

analyze years outside the timeframe of the transportation plan.

The Atlanta situation was unique in that the area had failed to attain the 1-hour

ozone standard by its Clean Air Act deadline and controversy arose over how the

conformity rule would apply due to the missed attainment date. However, consistent

with our implementation of the conformity rule in other nonattainment areas, ARC

chose analysis years and made a conformity determination using the most recent

applicable budgets available to them (i.e., the 1999 attainment budget) that met the

rule’s minimum requirements.

Question 18. Given the current growth rate of VMT, projections on vehicle fuel

efficiency, and any other relevant factors, please provide the Committee with an estimate of mobile source emissions of greenhouse gases in 2020.

Response. The Energy Information Administration’s Annual Energy Outlook 2003

projects transportation carbon dioxide emissions of 767 million metric tons of carbon

equivalent (MMTCE) in 2020. (This is equivalent to 2,813 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.) This compares to emissions of 514.5 MMTCE in 2001, and projected

emissions of 530.1 MMTCE in 2003. These estimates do not include other greenhouse gas emissions—nitrous oxide (N20), methane (CH4), or hydrofluoro-carbons

(HFCs). In 2001, carbon dioxide accounted for roughly 95 percent of transportation

greenhouse gas emissions, with the other gases accounting for the remaining 5 percent.

Note that the EIA projections of CO2 emissions in 2020 are based on the continuation of current trends in VMT growth and a limited increase in vehicle fuel economy through technology improvement and through increases in CAFE. Successful

introduction of advanced automotive technologies has the potential to improve fuel

efficiency and lower CO2 emissions more than the ‘‘business as usual’’ case currently

projected by the EIA. Development of clean and efficient technologies are a major

focus of the Bush Administration. One key program is the FreedomCAR Partnership, a joint effort between DOE and the automotive industry to develop fuel cell
63

and other technologies. Another is the 21st Century Truck Partnership that has as

its goal to accelerate technologies that can improve the efficiency of heavy trucks.

EPA’s Clean Automotive Technology program is also developing technologies that

have the potential to provide cost-effective improvements in fuel economy and reductions in CO2 emissions. EPA engineers are the world’s leading experts in hydraulic

hybrids and now have cooperative research and development agreements with Ford

Motor Company, Eaton Corporation, and Parker-Hannifin. Because hydraulic hybrids are particularly efficient at recapturing the energy otherwise lost in vehicle

braking, the Agency is currently working with several automotive companies interested in developing and demonstrating hydraulic hybrids in urban delivery truck applications. EPA has also developed Clean Diesel Combustion, a diesel engine design

that retains the diesel engine’s high efficiency while reducing engine-out emissions

of oxides of nitrogen to levels that could potentially meet future stringent emission

standards without the need for oxides of nitrogen after treatment. EPA is actively

discussing Clean Diesel Combustion with industry partners who could commercialize the technology.

In addition, EPA has initiated voluntary programs that will reduce CO2 emissions

from motor vehicles. One is the Best Workplaces for Commuters Program (formerly

known as Commuter Choice). As a result of this program, 3500 employers around

the country currently offer their 900,000 employees commuter benefits, such as

transit subsidies, van pools, and tele-commuting, as incentives to driving alone to

work. Another is the SmartWay Transport Program, in which EPA and 15 charter

partners (including major trucking firms, railroads and shipping companies) are developing specific performance goals to improve efficiency, reduce fuel consumption

and lower emissions from the U.S. freight industry.

RESPONSES BY JEFFREY R. HOLMSTEAD TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR VOINOVICH

Question 1. In my opening remarks, I mentioned that 30 of Ohio’s 88 counties are

projected by EPA to be designated as nonattainment in 2004 when the new ozone

NAAQS is implemented, along with 15 additional counties in 2005 when the new

PM2.5 NAAQS is implemented. I was glad to hear in your opening remarks that you

are currently working with States, like Ohio, that will be affected by these new

NAAQS.

What specifically are you doing to help these States and counties so that they do

not have their highway funding cutoff when these new NAAQS standards get implemented?

Response. A top priority for the EPA is to ensure that newly designated 8-hour

ozone and PM2.5 nonattainment areas are provided with adequate guidance for implementing transportation conformity under these new health-based air quality

standards. EPA is currently working on a rulemaking that would amend the conformity regulations to achieve this goal. EPA plans to publish a proposal (the ‘‘new

standards proposal’’) for this conformity rulemaking this summer, and will hold a

public hearing on the proposal in Washington, DC, soon after it is published. We

anticipate taking a final action on the new standards proposal by April 2004. We

will also be releasing guidance documents, as needed, to implement the conformity

program for the new standards.

Every area that is designated nonattainment for the new air quality standards

will receive a 1-year grace period for conformity to the new standards upon the effective date of their designation. Areas should use the conformity grace period and

the time prior to designations to prepare themselves for demonstrating conformity.

EPA has and will continue to support specific training opportunities to assist areas

in meeting the conformity requirements for the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 standards

by the 1-year grace period deadline. These training opportunities include:

• NTI Conformity Course: The National Transit Institute has been offering a

course called, ‘‘Introduction to Transportation/Air Quality Conformity’’ in locations

across the country. This course was developed by the Federal Transit Administration, in coordination with the Federal Highway Administration and EPA. This 2.5

day course offers an in-depth overview of the criteria and procedures for implementing conformity and is designed for Federal, State and local agencies involved

in the conformity process. This course is offered free of charge.

• MOBILE6 training: MOBILE6 is EPA’s latest motor vehicle emissions factor

model for official use by State and local governments to meet Clean Air Act requirements outside of California. EPA announced the availability of MOBILE6 in the

Federal Register on January 29, 2002, (67 FR 4254). EPA and DOT jointly sponsored seven MOBILE6 training courses across the country in 2002. These courses
64

were open to the public and were offered free of charge. The training materials for

these courses are on the MOBILE6 website and can be downloaded at: http://

www.epa.gov/otaq/m6.htm Other training materials prepared by EPA are also available on this website. • EPA is also considering other potential training and outreach mechanisms and

tools that could be developed and made available, within current budget constraints,

to State and local transportation and air quality agencies affected by the designations for the new standards.

No metropolitan area’s highway funding will be adversely affected once the new

standards are implemented unless the area fails to demonstrate conformity by the

time the 1-year grace period expires, and as a consequence, enters into a conformity

lapse. Of course, highway funding could also be restricted if an area fails to submit

a new State implementation plan (or SIP) for the new standards on time and highway sanctions are imposed 24 months later. Under EPA’s anticipated implementation rules for the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 standards, areas will have no more than

3 years after nonattainment designations to develop and submit SIPs for the new

air quality standards. Under these anticipated rules, some areas may also need to

submit plans within 2 years after nonattainment designations that provide for reasonable further progress toward attainment. EPA intends to work with areas over

the next several years to insure that all areas complete their transportation and air

quality planning in a timely manner to avoid any potential adverse impacts on highway funding.

Question 2. As you know, Senator Inhofe and I introduced the President’s Clear

Skies bill last month, and this subcommittee is going to hold hearings on that legislation next month.

What effect would Clear Skies have on this situation where the NAAQS are being

made even more stringent than they have been for the last several years?

Response. Clear Skies combined with existing and proposed Federal rules would

dramatically bring most of the Eastern United States into attainment with both the

fine particle and 8-hour ozone NAAQS (see chart below). According to 1999–2001

measured air quality data, there are 129 counties nationwide that are currently exceeding the level of the annual fine particle standard and 290 counties that are currently exceeding the level of the 8-hour ozone standard. Our modeling projects that,

in 2020 with Clear Skies, in combination with existing air quality control programs

and the proposed non-road diesel rule, only eight counties in the Eastern United

States would be out of attainment with the national standards for fine particles and

only 20 eastern counties would be out of attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard.

In the West, 10 counties (all in California) are predicted to remain out of attainment

for the fine particle standard and 7 counties (all in California) are predicted to remain out of attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard.

Clear Skies Would Help Areas Attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Counties Projected to Exceed the NAAQS

Fine Particle Standards 8-Hour Ozone Standards

Existing Control Programs

(Base Case)

Clear Skies

and Existing

Control

Programs

Existing Control Programs

(Base Case)

Clear Skies

and Existing

Control

Programs

Monitored Data 1999–2001 ......................................................... 129 129 290 290

Projection: 2010 ............................................................................ 80 38 59 56

Projection: 2020 ............................................................................ 53 18 30 27

Question 3. I understand that the Administration has been working on some new

proposals to reform the Conformity program. Can you tell me what you are considering and what your timetable is for them?

Response. EPA has and continues to develop both legislative and regulatory proposals to improve the conformity program. In May 2003, the Administration unveiled its proposal for the reauthorization of TEA–21. This legislative proposal contains four changes that will affect the transportation conformity program, including:

(1) defining the ‘‘transportation plan’’ for the purposes of conformity to be, at a minimum, the first 10 years of the plan; (2) combining the transportation plan and

transportation improvement program (or TIP) into one planning document; (3) extending the minimum conformity frequency and transportation plan updates requirements in nonattainment and maintenance areas to 5 years; and (4) stream-
65

lining the Clean Air Act’s requirements for State conformity SIPs, so that such SIPs

only include the interagency consultation procedures for a given nonattainment or

maintenance area. EPA believes that, if enacted, these proposed changes would provide a more flexible and practicable approach to implementing the conformity program.

EPA is also working on two rulemakings that will change the transportation conformity program. First, EPA is developing a rulemaking to incorporate into the conformity rule EPA and DOT’s current guidance that implements the March 2, 1999,

U.S. Court of Appeals decision affecting EPA’s 1997 amendments to the conformity

regulations. We recently published a proposal for this rulemaking in the Federal

Register on June 30, 2003 (68 FR 38973), and we anticipate a final action on the

proposal by April 2004. Specifically, the proposed rulemaking addresses two major

issues affected by the court regarding projects that can proceed during a conformity

lapse and EPA’s process for finding newly submitted SIP budgets appropriate to use

in a conformity determination (i.e., the ‘‘adequacy process’’). The proposal would also

make a few additional changes to the conformity regulation that would streamline

and improve implementation of the program. Of particular interest are EPA’s proposals to streamline the number of triggers that require a new conformity determination, and to allow transportation planners to base regional emissions analyses

on assumptions available at the beginning of the conformity process.

The second conformity rulemaking that EPA is conducting would amend the conformity rule to address the new 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 air quality standards. EPA

plans to publish a proposal (the ‘‘new standards’’ proposal) for this conformity rulemaking this summer, with a final rule expected in April 2004. This proposal will

provide clear guidance for when conformity will first apply in areas that are designated nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 standards.

The new standards proposal will also describe the general requirements for conducting transportation conformity determinations for the 8-hour and PM2.5 standards. It will address the conformity test(s) that would apply during the time period

before newly designated nonattainment areas submit an initial 8-hour ozone or

PM2.5 SIP that establishes motor vehicle emissions budgets. In addition, the rulemaking will address PM2.5 as a criteria pollutant subject to transportation conformity and will outline the specific conformity requirements that would apply in

newly designated PM2.5 nonattainment areas.

STATEMENT OF HON. EMIL H. FRANKEL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORTATION

POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity

to discuss transportation conformity and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality

Improvement (CMAQ) Program.

Meeting the dual challenges of congestion relief and air quality improvement is

a high priority for all of us at the Department of Transportation, as I know it is

for members of this Committee. In the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA–21), you gave us new tools and authorities to assist us in achieving this

goal, and we are proud of the progress that has been made. In reauthorization, the

Department wants to continue to buildupon the successes of TEA–21 and the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). Five key performance

goals, including the protection of the human and natural environment, form the

basis for the fiscal year 2004 budget request. Under Secretary Mineta’s leadership,

these goals will help us develop a safer, simpler, and smarter national transportation system for a strong America.

We are developing the President’s proposal for surface transportation reauthorization, and expect that the Secretary will submit it to the Congress soon. The Department has articulated a set of core principles and values that have guided development of our proposal. We plan to build on the successes and lessons of TEA–21. We

seek to enhance the safety and security of all Americans, even as we increase their

mobility, reduce congestion, and strengthen the economy. We want to ensure an efficient infrastructure while retaining environmental protections that enhance our

quality of life.

In my testimony today, I will address three main points. First, I want to assure

you that progress has been made in reducing transportation-related emissions of

pollutants, and that the Department of Transportation is committed to doing its

part to ensure progress continues. Second, I will describe how the CMAQ program

has assisted States and localities in addressing their mobility, air quality, and quality of life concerns. Finally, I want to restate the commitment of the Department
66

to work with our transportation planning and air quality planning partners for effective coordination of the transportation and air quality planning processes.

CONTINUED FOCUS ON AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS

As a Nation, we have made remarkable improvements in reducing air pollution,

especially pollution that comes from transportation sources. Where transportation is

a significant source of pollutants, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports that ozone (formed by the reaction of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and

oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM), have

all decreased substantially since 1970. A majority of the areas designated as nonattainment (that is, areas that do not meet air quality standards) since 1990 now

meet national air quality standards. Air quality monitoring data through 2001

shows that 77 out of 78 carbon monoxide nonattainment areas, 73 out of 85 coarse

particulate matter (PM10) areas, and 69 out of 101 ozone areas no longer show air

pollution levels that exceed the national ambient air quality standards.

The Clean Air Act (CAA) has led to reduced pollutant emissions from all air pollution sources, the greatest success can be found in the reduction of motor vehicle

emissions: CO emissions have been reduced by 45 percent since 1970, PM10 emissions reduced by 38 percent, and VOC emissions by 61 percent from motor vehicles

(see Attachment A). While NOx emissions increased by 10 percent over the period,

the rate of increase was less than the increase from all sources (19 percent). And,

NOx emissions from automobiles (excluding sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and light

trucks) decreased by 33 percent. For VOC and CO, motor vehicle emission reductions were greater than the reductions from all other sources. Thus, motor vehicle

emissions now make up a smaller percentage of total emissions. In 1970, motor vehicles contributed 59 percent of total emissions of carbon monoxide, NOx, VOCs,

and PM10, when compared to stationary, area, and non-road mobile sources. However, by 2000, the motor vehicle portion of emissions of these pollutants dropped to

46 percent. Most of these emissions reductions have resulted from stricter emissions

standards, improved engine technology, and cleaner fuels.

It is especially important to note that these reductions in emissions were accomplished during a period of 38 percent increase in population, 157 percent growth in

gross domestic product (GDP), and 148 percent increase in vehicle miles traveled.

The automotive, fuels, highway, and transit communities have managed to achieve

this success in improving air quality while at the same time working to address increasing demands to improve mobility.

The downward trend achieved in emissions is expected to continue into the future.

Engines and fuels are to become even cleaner under recent EPA-issued regulations

for emissions standards and cleaner fuel requirements. Between 2004 and 2007,

more protective tailpipe emissions standards will be phased in for all passenger vehicles, including SUVs, minivans, vans, and pick-up trucks. This regulation marks

the first time that larger SUVs and other light-duty trucks will be subject to the

same national pollution standards as cars. In addition, the EPA tightened standards

for sulfur in gasoline, which will ensure the effectiveness of low-emission control

technologies in vehicles and reduce harmful air pollution. When the new tailpipe

and sulfur standards are implemented, Americans will benefit from the clean-air

equivalent of removing 164 million cars from the road. These new standards require

all passenger vehicles sold after the phase-in period to be 77 to 95 percent cleaner

than those on the road today, and will reduce the sulfur content of gasoline by up

to 90 percent.

We expect that motor vehicle emissions will be reduced as new heavy-duty vehicles that meet the 2004 emissions standards for heavy-duty engine standards enter

the fleet. Beginning with the 2007 model, heavy-duty engines for trucks and buses

must meet even tighter emissions standards, and the level of sulfur in diesel fuel

must be reduced by 97 percent by mid-2006. As a result, after a phase-in period,

each new truck and bus will be more than 90 percent cleaner than current models.

In addition to tighter standards, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has been

working with industry to develop and demonstrate low-and zero-emissions advanced

propulsion technologies for transit buses, including hybrid-electric, battery electric,

and fuel cell-powered buses. UUnder FTA/DOT leadership, a national program is

underway to accelerate the development and commercial viability of these advanced

technologies. Projects to purchase clean-fuel buses are eligible for assistance under

FTA’s funding programs.

However, despite dramatic improvements in air quality, some of the nation’s largest metropolitan areas still face challenges in meeting the current ozone standard

(also known as the 1-hour standard due to the averaging time for the ozone concentration levels). Areas that do not meet the national air quality standards must
67

develop air quality ‘‘State implementation plans’’ that show how the areas will

achieve the standards. The transportation plan for these areas, taken as a whole,

as well as individual transportation projects receiving Federal funds, must be found

to conform to the air quality plans.

Furthermore, the Nation as a whole, and the transportation community in particular, face additional challenges as new air quality standards are implemented.

The new 8-hour ozone and fine particulate (PM2.5) standards will be more stringent,

and many areas across the Eastern United States and in California have pollution

levels now exceeding these standards. Some of these areas, including small urban

and rural areas, may be designated nonattainment for the first time. Other existing

nonattainment areas may become larger and involve more jurisdictions under the

new standards. The Department and EPA are working with these areas to increase

their capacity to deal with new nonattainment designations.

The President’s Clear Skies legislation will assist in these efforts by reducing

emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide by approximately 70 percent from the

power generatingpower-generating sector. In many areas, these reductions will provide needed flexibility in meeting the new standards, thus reducing the pressure on

other sources.

CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

We have learned a great deal about transportation and air quality over the last

30 years, and over the last 10 years in particular. One thing we have learned is

that there is no one ‘‘right way’’ to address transportation needs that meets the requirements of the entire nation. The transportation needs of Houston differ markedly from those of Chicago. This is doubly true when trying to reduce congestion

and improve air quality. We have also learned that if we are to address our mobility

and air quality needs simultaneously, we must incorporate national approaches,

State and local planning, and project-level investments.

The CMAQ Program was established in 1992 by ISTEA as one of the programs

designed to provide States and metropolitan areas flexibility to better address their

particular needs, specifically targeted at air quality improvements. Through this

program, we have provided $6 billion during the life of ISTEA and $8 billion under

TEA–21 (1998–2003) to States and local governments for innovative programs and

projects that demonstrate an air quality benefit and contribute to attainment of a

national ambient air quality standard. Under TEA–21, State and local governments

also received additional CMAQ funds from the programmatic distribution of minimum guarantee funds and funds made available through the revenue aligned budget authority (RABA) mechanism.

The concept of the CMAQ program is to provide needed flexibility to fund transportation improvements, whether they be highway, transit, shared ride, bicycle and

pedestrian or other types of projects. This flexible approach allows for investments

that cross traditional boundaries of the Federal-aid program to support projects focused on transit systems, alternative fuels and vehicles, intermodal highway facilities, emissions inspection and maintenance (I&M) programs, and a host of other

projects.

The CMAQ program has also supported more highway and systems management

improvements that contribute to emissions reductions through traffic flow enhancements or other means, and has been an important funding source in the implementation of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). In Arizona, for example, CMAQ

funding accounted for 87 percent of the Federal funds used for ITS investments.

Overview of CMAQ-Funded Projects

Through fiscal year 2002, about $11.3 billion had been obligated under the CMAQ

program. According to the latest data, the majority of CMAQ funding goes for new

and enhanced transit services and traffic flow improvements that ease congestion,

reduce starts and stops, and reduce emissions. These two categories are the backbone of any metropolitan area’s transportation system, but they are also the most

capital-intensive of the types of projects eligible under the program.

A breakdown of CMAQ funding by type of project is provided in the table below.

CMAQ Funding by Type of Project: 1992–2000

Type of Project

Amount

Obligated

($ Millions)

In Percent

Transit ............................................................................................................................................. $3,383 44%

Traffic Flow ..................................................................................................................................... 2,452 32 
68

CMAQ Funding by Type of Project: 1992–2000—Continued

Type of Project

Amount

Obligated

($ Millions)

In Percent

Shared Ride .................................................................................................................................... 290 4 

Demand Management ..................................................................................................................... 249 3 

Bicycle/Pedestrian ........................................................................................................................... 268 3 

Inspection and Maintenance and Other ......................................................................................... 588 8 

States with no Nonattainment or Maintenance Areas ................................................................... 491 6 

In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the amount of CMAQ

funding used for emissions I&M programs. Both Illinois and New Jersey have used

CMAQ funding extensively for this purpose. In fact, 75 percent of New Jersey’s re- cent CMAQ funding has been used for its I&M program. This is noteworthy because

I&M programs have proven to be important strategies for meeting Federal air quality standards, demonstrating relatively large emission reductions, especially in

acute ozone nonattainment areas.

The Benefits of the CMAQ Program

Some CMAQ projects and programs, for example those supporting vehicle I&M

programs, have registered notable emissions reductions. According to the States’ an- nual CMAQ reports, I&M programs can yield a reduction of about 5 tons per day

in VOC in Illinois to over 40 tons per day in New Jersey. Regional projects, like

traffic management centers and other projects that contribute to a modern, intelligent transportation system, also demonstrate larger emissions reductions than

local or corridor level projects. Finally, we foresee greater potential for projects that

advance new vehicle and fuel technologies which can be much more cost-effective

than traditional projects. On the transit side, funding for bus replacement, removing

older higher polluting vehicles from city streets in favor of newer models, has shown

results, as have heavy-duty diesel retrofit programs and the introduction of alternative fuels.

Further, even the more traditional transportation control measures (TCMs) funded under the CMAQ program can help our State and local partners achieve other

goals in addition to improving air quality. Examples include High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes (HOV), turn lanes, transit projects and new buses. These measures improve our quality of life, by reducing pollution, by relieving congestion, and by allowing us to walk or bike in a more pleasant environment.

Finally, the flexibility of the CMAQ program supports experimentation by our

partners in the States and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to meet

travel demand in the most environmentally sensitive ways. In addition to ITS services, intermodal projects, and I&M programs, the CMAQ program has funded: • Station cars and car-sharing programs • Telecommuting • Parking cash-out programs • New vehicle technologies, including fuel cell vehicles • Alternative fuels • Public-private partnerships • Transit-oriented development

Many States have made excellent use of their CMAQ funds by implementing innovative and useful projects to address their congestion and air quality problems. In

Ohio, for example, the State has spent more than $50 million in recent years for

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) projects, including signalization improvements, freeway surveillance and transit communications that can help speed traffic

through its metropolitan areas and reduce emissions. It has also invested about $20

million in Intermodal Centers, including the modern and very popular Waterfront

Station serving the Rock-n-Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland. Over $17 million has

been used for new buses to expand transit systems in several Ohio cities, with another $4 million to support transit fare reductions during the ozone season. And finally, Ohio has used CMAQ funding to continue its focus on reducing the number

of at-grade crossings benefiting not only air quality and congestion, but also reducing fatalities. In Ohio and other places around the country, CMAQ funding has facilitated the implementation of critical transportation improvements with multiple

benefits.

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released a comprehensive assessment of

the CMAQ program in April 2002. A number of findings and recommendations were

offered, with the study concluding the program is valuable to State and local governments and should be continued. The assessment highlighted in particular the impor-
69

tance of the program’s flexibility, encouragement of innovative approaches to reduce

emissions, and support for new partnerships across jurisdictions.

Recent Issues

In recent discussions, stakeholders have raised several issues about the CMAQ

program and its role in the overall surface transportation program. The first involves concerns about the CMAQ funding formula. The statutory formula apportions

funds to the States based on the population living in nonattainment and maintenance areas and the severity of the ozone and CO pollution problem. However, the

statutory formula does not include factors for the EPA’s new air quality standards.

Thus, a State whose nonattainment population will grow under the new EPA standards will receive no comparable increase in funding. Because these new areas will

be eligible to use CMAQ funding under provisions enacted in TEA–21, the States’ CMAQ apportionments will be stretched thin to cover them. The NAS report and

others in the air quality community have also pointed out the importance of addressing the new fine particulate matter standard in the apportionment formula

and eligibility, because of the mortality impacts associated with this type of pollution.

Expanding the eligible use of CMAQ funding for operating assistance constitutes

a second issue. One of the current strengths of the program is the focus on improvement projects, which could be diminished by providing assistance for routine operations. Currently, we provide operating assistance for up to 3 years under the

CMAQ program for new services to help them get established.

A third issue that has been raised is whether to expand CMAQ funding to areas

outside of existing nonattainment and maintenance areas. In January of 2002, DOT

published a Federal Register notice maintaining our current policy of limiting funding to nonattainment and maintenance areas, but allowing projects to be funded

that are in close proximity to, and primarily benefiting, a nonattainment or maintenance area. Comments to the docket revealed that our stakeholders are divided on

the issue of funding outside of existing nonattainment and maintenance areas, although the majority of States and MPOs favored retention of our current policy.

We are considering these issues as we develop our reauthorization recommendations. We expect to send a proposal to Congress soon.

THE TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY PROCESS: COORDINATING TRANSPORTATION

AND AIR QUALITY PLANNING

Conformity refers to a requirement of the CAA that is designed to ensure that

federally funded or approved highway and transit projects conform to the air quality

goals and priorities established in a State’s implementation plan (SIP). For programs administered by the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration, we determine whether highway and transit projects conform to

a State’s SIP by comparing the total expected air quality emissions from the whole

transportation system within the nonattainment or maintenance area, including the

expected emissions that would result from projects contained in the transportation

plan and transportation improvement program (TIP), with the emissions budget for

motor vehicles in the SIP.

A failure or inability to make a conformity determination by the required deadline

is referred to as a ‘‘conformity lapse.’’ During a conformity lapse, the use of Federal

highway and transit funds is restricted. Currently, most areas of the country are

in conformity. But, as of March 4, 2003, seven areas are in a conformity lapse.

Fulfilling the transportation conformity requirements has created stronger institutional links between two sets of agencies—transportation and air quality—that operated quite independently of each other prior to enactment of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990 (CAAA). This interagency consultation has played a crucial

role in the development of more realistic and achievable transportation and air quality plans. In addition, the transportation conformity provisions have been instrumental in fostering improvements to the travel demand and emissions modeling

processes, because of the specificity of data necessary to meet conformity requirements.

We now have almost a decade of experience in implementing the transportation

conformity provisions of the CAAA and, despite successes, stakeholders indicate that

there remain opportunities to improve the transportation conformity process. Transportation conformity was intended to form strong linkages between the transportation and air quality planning processes. However, there is a concern among transportation agencies—and even some air quality agencies—that transportation plans

and SIPs are not synchronized with one another due to different planning horizons

and update frequencies. This sometimes causes ‘‘lapses’’ in conformity that can disrupt the transportation funding process. While transportation plans have very long
70

planning horizons and have to be updated frequently, most air quality plans have

comparatively shorter planning horizons and are updated less frequently.

TEA–21 and the CAA require that transportation plans must cover at least 20

years and be found conforming for that entire time period. However, air quality

plans have much shorter planning horizons, often only 5–10 years, resulting in a ‘‘mismatch’’ in which transportation plans must consider emissions controls in the

absence of comprehensive air quality planning. Without comprehensive air quality

planning, there is no analysis of the most cost-effective emissions controls across all

sources beyond the end of the SIP timeframe. If an MPO has a conformity problem

in the timeframe beyond that covered by the SIP, it has limited options for achieving substantive emissions reductions with programs over which the transportation

agencies have control. Traditional TCMs have little impact on regional emissions

levels, despite benefits realized at the local level, and such strategies will provide

even fewer reductions in the future, as technology continues to reduce total mobile

source emissions. Although MPOs bear the responsibility of assuring that plans conform to air quality budgets, they do not have the authority under current law to

establish more effective measures, like I&M programs or reformulated fuels. That

process of identifying future control strategies is the intended purpose of the SIP.

This ‘‘mismatch’’ can be further aggravated by differences in the frequency with

which transportation plans and air quality plans are updated. Conformity determinations for transportation plans must be made at least every 3 years, must be

based on the latest demographic and travel information, and must use the latest

emissions estimation model. However, air quality plans are not updated on a regular cycle, and may reflect out-of-date assumptions or may have been developed

using an outdated emissions estimation model. When a conformity analysis is performed in such a situation, it is impossible to determine whether the emissions associated with the transportation plan are truly consistent with the emissions budget

in the air quality plan. This may be because the transportation plan emissions were

estimated using one set of assumptions and model, while the emissions budget was

developed under another. Some stakeholders have reported that such situations

have occurred and are likely to happen again with the recent release of a new emissions estimation model.

EPA, in coordination with U.S. DOT, has allowed a 2-year grace period before

States have to use the new emission model, MOBILE6, for conformity. EPA also requires that SIPs that are started after the official release use MOBILE6. While the

Clean Air Act does not require SIP updates in all cases, EPA guidance encourages

States to evaluate the effects of MOBILE6 early to plan for any needed SIP updates

to accommodate change.

Stakeholders indicate that conformity lapses have occurred because areas could

not complete the complex, comprehensive transportation planning and conformity

processes within the required timeframes, even though they met their emissions

budgets. Data collection, model development, public outreach, and consensus building can all take a considerable amount of time and resources. MPOs also face other

daily challenges of ever-increasing congestion, transportation needs due to economic

growth, protection of water quality and other environmental resources, efficient

freight management, safety, and security.

Many stakeholders have suggested bringing the planning horizons and frequency

of updates of both the transportation plans and air quality plans much closer together. Some have suggested a shorter planning horizon, and less frequent updates,

while others have suggested a longer air quality planning horizon. We note that

some areas have opted to voluntarily extend their air quality planning horizons.

In any case, some stakeholders have suggested it is in the best interests of an

effective, integrated process that the air quality plans and the transportation plans

are both using the latest, and most consistent, set of planning assumptions, and

that the air quality plans include the necessary control measures to ensure timely

attainment of the standards. Stakeholders have stated that this would also help us

anticipate air quality problems and correct them in a more proactive and coordinated transportation and air quality planning process.

The Department recognizes the value of transportation conformity, and is committed to reducing motor vehicle emissions. We will monitor potential and actual

transportation conformity lapses, and strive to minimize the number of conformity

lapses that occur.

EPA’s new air quality standards will also impact the conformity process. The new

standards are more stringent, and many areas across the Eastern United States and

in California have pollution levels now exceeding these standards. Some of these

areas, including small urban and rural areas, may be designated nonattainment for

the first time. Other existing nonattainment areas may become larger and involve

more jurisdictions under the new standards. It is too early to tell the magnitude of
71

transportation and air quality planning and conformity issues that might surface

following implementation of the new standards. However, based on our experience

when the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments were implemented, we would expect

these areas to face challenges in the early years. The Department and EPA are

working with these areas to increase their capacity to deal with new nonattainment

designations and conformity.

Over the years, we have worked closely with EPA and our State and local stakeholders to improve the transportation conformity process. We are committed to better coordinating the transportation and air quality planning processes and will continue to work with EPA and our stakeholders to identify ways to remedy the mismatch issues, including consideration of possible remedies in the development of our

reauthorization proposal.

GENERAL CONFORMITY

The Clean Air Act’s General Conformity requirement applies to Federal actions

other than the highway and transit actions to which Transportation Conformity applies, and requires that Federal actions conform to State air quality implementation

plans. These provisions affect airport improvement and other DOT programs. The

FAA and EPA issued guidance last September that will help FAA and airport sponsors perform the analysis supporting FAA conformity decisions on federally assisted

and approved airport projects. Because we expect new nonattainment areas to be

designated under the new air quality standards, the new standards can also be expected to increase the number of actions requiring general conformity determinations.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the Department of Transportation is committed to continuing the

progress made over the last 30 years in reducing motor vehicle emissions and

strongly supports the goals of the Clean Air Act’s transportation conformity provisions. Improving transportation safety and mobility, while protecting the environment and enhancing the quality of life for all of our communities, are compatible

goals. I am proud of the successes we have achieved under the CMAQ program by

providing flexible funding for innovative transportation projects that improve air

quality and by improving interagency cooperation between transportation and air

quality agencies. However, I also recognize that additional improvement in the coordination of the transportation and the air quality planning processes can be

achieved.

Integrating transportation and environmental decisionmaking can effectively advance environmental stewardship and improve our efficiency in meeting our nation’s

mobility needs. The American public demands and deserves both mobility and clean

air, and we must remain focused on providing the highest level of service and environmental protection that we can provide.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, this concludes my statement.

I again thank you for the opportunity to testify today and I look forward to working

with you as we prepare for reauthorization of the surface transportation programs.

I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
72

RESPONSES BY EMIL FRANKEL TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR VOINOVICH

Question 1. Please describe the resources and the guidance that your agency is

going to provide in fiscal year 2004, assuming the budget request is satisfied, to

states and communities to help them demonstrate conformity with the PM2.5 standard.

Answer. The Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have worked closely in providing technical assistance to nonattainment and maintenance areas to address conformity and transportation air

quality issues. In anticipation of the number of new areas designated nonattainment

for the first time, DOT has embarked on a number of activities to prepare the areas

for this challenge:

1. Revise transportation conformity regulations—DOT is working closely with

EPA to revise the EPA conformity rule for the implementation of the new ozone and

fine particulate standards. Our goal is to complete the rulemaking process by the

time the new ozone nonattainment designations are finalized. We believe this will

allow newly designated nonattainment areas to fully utilize the 1-year conformity

grace period in meeting conformity requirements.

2. Continue existing training courses—DOT has developed a well-received basic

training course on transportation conformity. EPA assisted in the development of

this training course. The course was offered 6 times during FY 2002, and about 230

public and private sector representatives of transportation and air quality disciplines attended the course. DOT offered this course through the National Transit

Institute in 7 cities in FY 2003 and anticipates offering it 7 times in FY 2004. Our

field resource centers provided workshops and tailored seminars, primarily focusing

on emissions modeling, transportation conformity, and the CMAQ program. In 2004,

the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will also continue to provide training

in MOBILE6, EPA’s current emissions factor model.

3. Provide new training opportunities—FHWA’s National Highway Institute will

be launching 3 new training courses in FY 2004 that will be very helpful in preparing for conformity analysis.

a. Estimating Regional Mobile Source Emissions

b. The Implication of Air Quality Planning on Transportation

c. The CMAQ Program: Purpose and Practice.
73

4. In May 2002, FHWA launched a Transportation Conformity Community of

Practice (CoP) website to allow for sharing of best practices, free exchange of ideas

and discussions on topics related to conformity among practitioners. The CoP

website can be accessed at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/aqupdate/

index.htm

Question 2. Studies are showing that toxic air pollutants from mobile sources are

turning out to be a very significant health threat for people living near high-volume

traffic. How is DOT incorporating this elevated risk of cancer and developmental

problems from mobile source toxics exposure into NEPA reviews of projects?

Answer. The Department is aware of the evolving science surrounding toxic air

pollutants, and is following the basic research that is underway by the Health Effects Institute (HEI) and others to enhance our knowledge. HEI, which is jointly

funded by EPA and industry to provide unbiased assessments of health effects, just

announced a new research program, ‘‘Assessing Exposure to Air Toxics‘‘ to reduce

what it refers to as ‘‘large data gaps in understanding exposures to many air toxics.’’

(see www.healtheffects.org/RFA/RFA2003.pdf). HEI’s Strategic Plan 2000-2005 focuses its air toxics research on reducing uncertainties in evaluating the human

health risks associated with exposure to mobile-source air toxics.

FHWA is also funding studies focusing on mobile sources to help fill in the current gaps in our understanding. Among major research efforts, FHWA has commissioned research on:

• the Multiple Air Toxics Emissions Study (MATES II) in California and its

transferability to other areas,

• particulate matter and air toxics analyses in 7 cities to establish the relationship between transportation activity and air toxic emissions,

• differences between modeling results and monitoring data, and

• development of a Strategic Workplan for Air Toxic Emissions for the transportation community at large.

We are also interested in the nature of mobile source air toxics, the analytical

tools available or in development, and the contrast between regional and local, i.e.

project-level, impacts.

Finally, FHWA has convened a working group with our EPA counterparts to establish a policy framework for agency field staff and State Departments of Transportation to better assess the effects of air toxics during project development and the

NEPA process.

Question 3. Your agency has proposed changes to the conformity provisions of the

Clean Air Act or the CMAQ program as part of the Administration’s pending proposal for reauthorization of TEA-21. What outside groups were consulted in the

process of developing your proposals?

Answer. The Department consulted with a broad range of transportation and environmental stakeholders in developing SAFETEA proposals, including the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the Association of

Metropolitan Planning Organizations, the National Association of Regional Councils,

the State and Territorial Pollution Prevention Association/Association of Local Air

Pollution Control Officials, and State and local air quality agencies. Other interest

groups such as the Highway Users Alliance, the National Association of Home

Builders, the Surface Transportation Policy Project, Environmental Defense, and the

Sierra Club were also consulted. For the conformity and CMAQ recommendations,

DOT also worked closely with EPA.

Question 4. Can you provide the Committee with some examples where an MPO

had a problem with finding conformity in the out-years of the transportation plan

(the second 10-year period) that had not been solved by the State using EPA’s enforceable commitment policy under the conformity rule?

Answer. In SAFETEA, DOT proposes a new provision regarding metropolitan

planning to more closely align the transportation and air quality planning horizons

for purposes of transportation conformity, and to better integrate the transportation

planning and air quality planning processes. Transportation conformity currently

must be determined for the entire 20-year planning horizon of metropolitan transportation plans. On the other hand, air quality State implementation plans (SIPs)

usually cover a much shorter timeframe (10 years or less). This mismatch in timeframes does not provide for an integrated planning process beyond the life of the

SIP.

Without comprehensive air quality planning, there is no analysis of the most costeffective emissions controls across all sources beyond the end of the SIP timeframe.

If an MPO has a conformity problem in the time frame beyond that covered by the

SIP, it has limited options for achieving substantive emissions reductions with pro-
74

1SCAG’s Comments on Transportation Conformity Issues for the Senate Hearing on TEA-21

Reauthorization, July 22, 2002.

grams over which the transportation agencies have control. Traditional TCMs have

little impact on regional emissions levels, and such strategies will provide even

fewer reductions in the future, as technology continues to reduce total mobile source

emissions. Although MPOs bear the responsibility of assuring that plans conform

to air quality budgets, they do not have the authority under current law to establish

more effective measures, like I&M programs or reformulated fuels. That process of

identifying future control strategies is the intended purpose of the SIP.

MPOs that have experienced conformity problems in the outyears have worked

with their air quality partners through the interagency consultation process, because they often could not solve these issues themselves. In several cases, the SIP

was revised to establish out-year conformity budgets to solve the issue (e.g., Washington, DC established budgets and a trading program in the outyears to address

projected emission increases in future years.) In addition, Colorado committed to reimplement an I/M program in the future to solve the outyear conformity problems.

The potential for timeframe mismatch is found in the June 2002 Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (SEPW) staff survey of 16 MPOs on their experience of the conformity process. The Southern California Association of Governments

(SCAG) described the potential for this mismatch in the following excerpt. However,

it should be noted that although the potential for a mismatch issue exists in this

case, SCAG does not actually report that it has an outyear emissions problem for

its 2025/2030 transportation plan.

Federal regulations require at least a 20-year planning horizon for the development

of any RTP [Regional Transportation Plans]. However, SIPs are only required to address the time period up to the attainment or maintenance date for the relevant area.

Thus, SCAG’s 2001 RTP extends up to the year 2025, and the upcoming 2004 RTP

will extend up to the year 2030. However, and as one example, the 1-hour Ozone SIP

for the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) in the SCAG region is only required to consider the period preceding its stipulated attainment year of 2010. As a consequence,

there is always a gap of about 15 to 20 years between SIP and RTP planning horizons. The complex interplay of socio-demographic projections and emission budgets

between the SIP and the RTP processes means that there is almost always the potential of a procedural conformity lapse.1

Other examples can also be found in the same SEPW survey. The PM10 attainment year for a PM10 nonattainment area in the South Coast Air Basin in California is 2006, while the transportation planning horizon is 2025—a gap of at least

19 years. In the absence of realistic PM10 emissions budgets for these future years,

the MPO has experienced difficulty in demonstrating conformity beyond the attainment year of 2006. The MPO for San Joaquin Valley (PM10 nonattainment) had a

similar experience.

SAFETEA proposed to address this issue by revising the conformity requirement

of a transportation plan to be more closely aligned with the timeframe of a SIP.

SAFETEA proposed to limit transportation conformity to the first 10 years of the

transportation plan, the latest year for which the SIP contains a motor vehicle emissions budget, or the completion date of a regionally significant project, if the project

requires approval before the subsequent conformity determination, whichever is

longer. Areas will still be required to conduct a regional emissions analysis for the

last year of the transportation plan, for informational purposes only, if the transportation plan extends beyond the timeframe covered by the conformity analysis. The

proposed changes will ensure that a coordinated and integrated transportation and

air quality planning process is used to develop the SIP budgets and to determine

transportation conformity. This provision is also intended to encourage the development of longer-term SIPs in areas that anticipate extended air quality problems.

Question 5. At my and Senator Lieberman’s request, the GAO has been doing a

survey of all the states’ air quality and transportation planners on conformity. The

final report should be available by the end of April. It will cover many of the topics

discussed at the hearing, in plenty of time to factor into reauthorization. But so far,

it appears that GAO has found that most of the conformity lapses are a result of

administrative or procedural issues, unrelated to emissions budgets constraints. Is

that DOT’s experience?

Answer. The GAO report, ‘‘Federal Planning Requirements for Transportation and

Air Quality Protection Could Potentially Be More Efficient and Better Linked,’’ was

issued in May 2003. It found that since 1997, about half of the conformity lapses

were caused by resource, administrative, or technical problems rather than difficulties meeting emissions budgets. The report indicates that most areas resolved their
75

conformity problems in 6 months or less. The GAO report also included DOT’s observation that even short conformity lapses can have an impact on the transportation planning process. However, GAO itself did not specifically analyze the impacts of these lapses in its report. The GAO report also stated that ‘‘a majority of

transportation planners who had trouble demonstrating conformity or failed to do

so by a deadline said that the required frequency of demonstrations robs them of

time and resources to solve other issues, such as growing congestion.’’ The GAO

findings are consistent with DOT analysis.

Question 6. It has been said: ‘‘If you build it, drivers will come.’’ In transportation

planning, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) typically consider a wide

array of factors including economic growth, safety, efficiency, and air quality. Is it

appropriate for MPOs to also consider the need for open space in conducting metropolitan transportation planning?

Answer. It is appropriate for MPOs to consider the need for open space in conducting transportation planning. The role of the MPO in land use and transportation varies according to state and locality. In some areas, MPOs are responsible

for reviewing regionally significant local land use decisions, including the need for

open space. In others, land use decisions are solely the prerogative of local officials.

Regardless of the MPO’s role in decisionmaking, transportation planners need to

consider the comprehensive land use plans of the region and local jurisdictions, including plans for open space, and create a constructive dialogue with land use officials. In that way, each group is informed of actions that might affect the other. In

SAFETEA, the Administration proposes language to encourage each MPO to coordinate its planning process, to the maximum extent practicable, with those officials

responsible for other types of planning activities that are affected by transportation,

including State and local economic development, environmental protection, airport

operations, and freight.

Question 7. TEA-21 required DOT to streamline the environmental review process

for highway projects. While we are still waiting for the Administration’s proposal,

some have suggested exempting transportation plans from NEPA altogether. Does

it make more sense to try implementing TEA-21 by streamlining environmental reviews before considering exempting transportation plans from requirements that all

other federal actions have needed to comply with since 1969?

Answer. The Department’s position has long been that metropolitan and statewide

transportation plans and programs are not major Federal actions under the National Environmental Policy Act. Section 1203 (m) of TEA-21 explicitly continued

this practice by stating that any decision by the Secretary on a metropolitan transportation plan shall not be considered to be a Federal action subject to review under

NEPA (23 USC 134(o)), and Section 1204(h) made a similar provision for statewide

plans (23 USC 135 (i)). Individual projects and actions that receive DOT funding

or approval are subject to NEPA.

STATEMENT OF ANNETTE LIEBE, MANAGER, AIR QUALITY PLANNING, OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ON BEHALF OF THE STATE AND TERRITORIAL AIR POLLUTION PROGRAM ADMINISTRATORS AND THE ASSOCIATION OF

LOCAL AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICIALS

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I am Annette

Liebe, Manager of the Air Quality Planning Section of the Oregon Department of

Environmental Quality. I am testifying today on behalf of STAPPA—the State and

Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators—and ALAPCO—the Association of

Local Air Pollution Control Officials—the two national associations of air quality officials in 54 States and territories and over 165 major metropolitan areas. The members of STAPPA and ALAPCO have primary responsibility under the Clean Air Act

for implementing our nation’s air pollution control laws and regulations and, moreover, for achieving and sustaining clean, healthful air for our citizens. Accordingly,

we are pleased to have this opportunity to provide our perspectives on implementation of the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program

under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA–21) and the transportation conformity program under the Clean Air Act.

STAPPA and ALAPCO are acutely aware of the key role that transportation plays

in our nation’s economy. We endorse the fundamental principle that transportation

and environmental goals need not be at odds with one another, but, rather, that our

transportation system can flourish and our economy can grow without jeopardizing

our environment. In fact, our transportation choices can contribute to environmental

improvements.
76

Today, however, transportation remains a dominant source of air pollution across

the country, contributing substantially to unhealthful levels of ozone, particulate

matter (PM) and carbon monoxide (CO). In particular, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), these sources are responsible for over 40 percent of volatile organic compounds and more than 50 percent of nitrogen oxides—

both of which are ozone precursors—more than 25 percent of fine particulate matter

emissions and 70 percent of CO emissions. Transportation sources are also very significant contributors of greenhouse gases—including over a third of carbon dioxide

emissions—and toxic air pollutants and play a role in the formation of regional

haze. Although we continue to make great progress in reducing emissions from mobile sources, it is clear that the benefits of these technological advances cannot keep

pace with current and foreseeable trends of steadily increasing vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

STAPPA and ALAPCO firmly believe that the CMAQ and transportation conformity programs are critically important to our goal of achieving full integration

of our environmental and transportation decisionmaking processes and ensuring

that transportation choices do not undermine our efforts to achieve and sustain

clean, healthful air throughout the country. For this reason, last fall, our associations adopted a set of CMAQ and transportation conformity principles for the reauthorization of TEA–21; a copy of our principles is attached.

CMAQ PROGRAM

STAPPA and ALAPCO strongly support the CMAQ program, which provides a

discrete source of funding explicitly set aside for transportation projects that meet

air quality objectives and for projects that result in sustainable air quality improvement. The CMAQ program appropriately reinforces the interrelationship between

the transportation and air quality planning processes by specifically recognizing and

seeking to ameliorate the transportation sector’s impact on air quality. Over the

past 10 years, it has been demonstrated that CMAQ can play a significant role in

helping States and localities address transportation-related air quality problems. We

believe, however, that this important program can be strengthened in several ways.

First, since CMAQ was originally established, the scope and magnitude of transportation-related emissions and their impact on air quality have expanded significantly. EPA has adopted new, health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter and 8-hour ozone, both of which will be

implemented in the next few years. A National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment has

concluded that motor vehicles are the largest source of hazardous air pollutants nationwide, producing nearly 1.4 million tons of air toxics each year. And we have

gained an increased understanding of the phenomenon of transported pollution and

precursors and its impact on the ability of many areas to attain and maintain clean

air goals.

While STAPPA and ALAPCO believe CMAQ funds should be apportioned based

on the severity of an area’s air quality problem and its population, we urge that

the areas eligible to receive CMAQ funding be expanded from 1-hour ozone, PM10

and CO nonattainment and maintenance areas, to also include PM2.5 and 8-hour

ozone nonattainment and maintenance areas; areas nearing nonattainment; areas

whose transportation-related emissions have an impact on a nonattainment area;

and areas that experience other air quality problems as a result of transportationrelated emissions, including, but not limited to, hazardous air pollutants from mobile sources.

Accordingly, we believe that the historic allocation of CMAQ funds is inadequate.

We strongly urge a substantially increased Federal commitment of resources to the

CMAQ program, to reflect the true and very significant impact of transportationrelated emissions on air quality. This increase should be no less, proportionately,

than that to be provided for highway investments.

In Oregon, CMAQ funds have been used to implement transportation control

measure commitments in numerous maintenance plans. Some examples include expansion of transit service and programs, support of transit-oriented development,

implementation of commuter trip reduction programs, expansion of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and the purchase of advanced equipment to remove winter road

sand that could contribute to PM10. In order to meet the challenges of implementing

new standards to protect public health, it is necessary to increase the amount of

funding available for these types of projects and assure eligibility for areas that are

making progress to maintain healthful air.

With respect to project eligibility, we urge that greater emphasis be placed on

projects that will result in direct, timely and sustained air quality benefits. Certain

types of congestion mitigation projects, such as road and bridge construction and ex-
77

pansion, may have the long-term effect of promoting growth in VMT and urban

sprawl, and of creating new congested corridors. CMAQ funding should be directed

to projects that demonstrate sustained air quality benefits. STAPPA and ALAPCO

also recommend that to qualify for CMAQ funds, a project should be required to

demonstrate that a specified minimum air quality benefit threshold is met or exceeded, based on established criteria and supporting data, with such a threshold determined with—the concurrence of the appropriate State and/or local air quality

agency. Based on more clearly defined funding eligibility criteria and guidance,

States and localities should have discretion in determining which qualifying projects

receive funding.

Finally, STAPPA and ALAPCO recommend that State and local air quality agencies have a more defined and consistent role in the evaluation and selection of

CMAQ projects. We believe the concurrence of State and local air quality agencies

must be required for project selection, through a well-defined consultation and concurrence process. In Oregon, this concurrence has occurred through the ongoing

interagency consultation process that we established under the conformity rule.

TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY

STAPPA and ALAPCO remain firmly committed to the purpose of transportation

conformity, which is to ensure that shorter-term Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) and long-term Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) contribute to the

timely attainment and maintenance of healthful air quality and are consistent with

the motor vehicle emissions budgets contained in the State Implementation Plan

(SIP) for air quality; we believe that conformity can be implemented as intended,

and that its purpose can be fulfilled with increasing success.

In numerous areas, the conformity process has improved working relationships

between State and local air quality and transportation officials by requiring consultation and coordination among agencies. The process has made air quality and

transportation planners more aware of each others’ objectives; resulted in the inclusion in TIPS and RTPs of additional projects that benefit air quality; and opened

up the SIP development process to more input from the transportation community.

Clearly, this has been the case in Oregon. STAPPA and ALAPCO believe that we

must continue to strive for such successes across the country. Moreover, our associations strongly believe that the purpose of conformity—to ensure that transportation

plans and programs stay within the allotted mobile vehicle emissions budget—is absolutely crucial to achieving clean air goals, especially given the continued increase

in motor vehicle use. While we understand that others seek changes to the conformity process, STAPPA and ALAPCO strongly endorse preserving the major conformity requirements and schedules that are now in place.

For example, we understand that some seek to shorten the planning horizon for

the RTP, so that the plan’s conformity determination would be based on a 10-year

horizon versus the current 20-year horizon. STAPPA and ALAPCO strongly oppose

such a change.

Long-term planning, over a 20-year horizon, is imperative to ensuring that the potential growth in mobile source emissions is identified, the impact on air quality is

assessed and appropriate adjustments to transportation plans are made accordingly.

In planning for clean air, State and local air agencies must not only chart a course

for achieving healthful air quality, but also for maintaining it over the long term.

Shortening the timeframe over which a transportation plan is required to demonstrate conformity is extremely troubling to us because it takes only the first part

of our responsibility—attaining an air quality standard—into account, and ignores

our responsibility to plan for maintenance over the subsequent 20 years. Major

transportation investments can have huge air quality impacts, much of which may

not occur for several decades; these investments can also significantly induce

growth. If we eliminate the responsibility to account for the impact of transportation

investments beyond 10 years, then we eliminate the ability to hold these projects

accountable for their air pollution, and severely compromise our ability to adequately protect public health.

We also understand that some are seeking to reduce the frequency of conformity

determinations for transportation plans from every 3 years to every 5 years, and to

eliminate the requirement for conformity determinations on the TIP, currently conducted every 2 years. STAPPA and ALAPCO oppose these changes, as well.

Regular and timely analyses to demonstrate compliance of financially constrained

TIPs and RTPs with SIP motor vehicle emission budgets must be maintained. Such

continued frequency will ensure that sound data is generated and allow for the

timely improvement of motor vehicle emission estimates. The result will be improved air quality and timely progress toward attainment of health-based NAAQS
78

and other air standards. However, in recognition of the desire of transportation officials to improve the alignment of conformity timelines, STAPPA and ALAPCO recommend that the frequency of the conformity analysis on the TIP and the RTP be

synchronized and conducted no less frequently than once every 3 years.

A final example of a conformity requirement where change is being sought is the

length of the grace period to be allowed before an area found to be in violation of

an air quality standard for the first time must demonstrate conformity. We understand that some seek to extend the length of the grace period for such areas from

the current 1 year to 3 years. First, we note that Congress has already addressed

this issue. Just 2 years ago, statutory conformity provisions were amended to provide for a 1-year grace period. Moreover, an extension of this period to 3 years is

of significant concern to our associations. To allow transportation planning in an

area with poor air quality to go unchecked for 3 years would be a substantial weakening of the conformity program and of public health protection. While both ozone

and PM2.5 pose dangerous health consequences, PM2.5 is especially dire because of

its potentially deadly nature. We believe the 1-year grace period following formal

designation is sufficient in terms of allowing an area to ramp up to its responsibilities, even for areas that have never faced nonattainment and conformity before.

Most, if not all, of these areas are already aware of their forthcoming nonattainment

status. In addition, given all of the areas that already implement conformity, there

is now a wealth of experience for new areas to draw on. At least part of the reason

many areas across the country will become nonattainment for the new ozone and

PM2.5 standards is transportation-related sources. This being the case, postponing

for 3 years efforts to address the impact of transportation plans and programs on

air quality is highly imprudent.

STAPPA and ALAPCO believe conformity is working. We believe it is well worth

the effort it requires, given the benefits that will follow in terms of public health

and smart growth. In addition, we believe that conformity as it is currently structured provides ample flexibility to States to accommodate individual needs and circumstances, while maintaining the integrity of the program. Rather than statutory

changes to such things as planning horizons, analysis frequency and grace periods,

STAPPA and ALAPCO believe that State and local officials should retain the flexibility to resolve issues in the way that works best at the State and local level. This

may involve revising the emissions budget in a SIP in one area, adding transportation control measures to a TIP in another area or extending the air quality planning horizon in yet another area. In each case, the State and local officials can develop the best solution for their jurisdictions through a strengthened interagency

consultation process.

CONCLUSION

At its winter meeting last month, the National Governors Association (NGA) reaffirmed its existing policy on ‘‘Transportation Conformity with the Clean Air Act.’’

In that policy, the Governors state:

With the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, and the Transportation

Equity Act for the 21st Century, Congress took steps to advance two essential

national goals: achieving air quality standards and providing for the transportation needs of the American people. The Governors strongly support the attainment of both of these goals and believe that neither should be sacrificed in pursuit of the other.

STAPPA and ALAPCO embrace this perspective, as well. To that end, we are very

pleased to have the opportunity to participate with State environmental commissioners, and their transportation counterparts, in a dialog initiated by the Environmental Council of the States and the American Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials at the request of NGA to explore potential areas of common-ground regarding CMAQ and transportation conformity. Likewise, we look forward to working with members of this subcommittee, as well as with EPA, U.S.

DOT and other stakeholders, as discussions regarding these two extremely important programs continue.

Thank you.
79

STATEMENT OF S. WILLIAM BECKER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STATE AND TERRITORIAL

AIR POLLUTION PROGRAM ADMINISTRATORS (STAPPA)/ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL AIR

POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICIALS (ALAPCO)

STAPPA/ALAPCO—CMAQ AND TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY PRINCIPLES FOR

REAUTHORIZATION OF TEA–21

Transportation is the dominant source of air pollution in our Nation, posing a significant threat to public health. The State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAPPA) and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials

(ALAPCO) endorse the fundamental principle that transportation and air quality

goals should be harmonized to ensure that our transportation choices contribute to

improving our environment. As we seek to reduce transportation-related emissions,

we recognize the critical importance of the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality

Improvement (CMAQ) program, long-term air quality/transportation planning processes and close collaboration and cooperation between air quality and transportation

agencies in harmonizing air quality and transportation goals. As the Transportation

Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA–21) undergoes reauthorization, STAPPA and

ALAPCO urge that opportunities for enhancing these programs and processes be explored.

CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

STAPPA and ALAPCO strongly support the CMAQ program, which appropriately

reinforces the interrelationship between the transportation and air quality planning

processes by specifically recognizing and seeking to ameliorate the transportation

sector’s impact on air quality. Over the past 10 years, it has been demonstrated that

CMAQ—which provides a discrete source of funding explicitly set aside for transportation projects that meet air quality objectives and for projects that result in sustainable air quality improvement—can play a significant role in helping States and

localities address transportation-related air pollution problems. As CMAQ undergoes

review as part of the reauthorization of TEA–21, STAPPA and ALAPCO offer the

following principles for enhancing the program:

Role of Air Quality Agencies in CMAQ Project Selection

• State and local air quality agencies must have a more defined and consistent

role in the evaluation and selection of CMAQ projects. • The concurrence of State and local air quality agencies must be required for

project selection, through a well-defined consultation and concurrence process.

Increase in CMAQ Funds and Expansion of Areas Eligible to Receive Funding

• The historic allocation of CMAQ funds is inadequate to address transportationrelated air quality problems that exist now and that. will exist in the future. Therefore, overall funding of the CMAQ program should be increased, to reflect the expanding scope and magnitude of transportation-related emissions and their impact

on air quality, and in anticipation of new PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas. • CMAQ funding should be apportioned based on the severity of an area’s air

quality problem and its population. • The types of areas currently eligible to receive CMAQ funding ‘‘(i.e., 1-hour

ozone, PM10 and CO nonattainment and maintenance areas) should be expanded to

include PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone nonattainment and maintenance areas. • areas eligible to receive funding should also include: • areas nearing nonattainment; • areas whose transportation-related emissions have an impact on a nonattainment area; and • areas that experience other air quality problems as a result of transportationrelated emissions, including, but not limited to, hazardous air pollutants from

mobile sources.

Project Eligibility

• Greater emphasis should be placed on projects that will result in direct, timely

and sustained air quality benefits; criteria for substantiating such benefits should

be established and data to support the quantification of such benefits should be required. • Certain types of congestion mitigation projects (e.g., road and bridge construction and expansion) may have the long-term effect of inducing growth in vehicle

miles traveled and urban sprawl, and of creating new congestion corridors. CMAQ

funding should be shifted away from such projects unless there is a demonstration

that these projects will result in sustained air quality benefits.
80

• To qualify for CMAQ funds, a project should be required to demonstrate that

a specified minimum air quality benefit threshold is met or exceeded, based on established criteria and supporting data; such a threshold should be determined with

the concurrence of the appropriate State and/or local air quality agency. • Funding eligibility criteria and guidance should be more clearly defined to meet

the above objectives. • To the extent that these project eligibility criteria are followed, States and localities should then have discretion in determining which qualifying projects receive

funding.

Project Funding Beyond Three Years

• Project funding beyond 3 years should be allowed and decided on a case-bycase

basis and contingent on a demonstration of need and continuing air quality benefit. • Such extended project funding should be phased out over time.

Transportation Conformity

Implementation of transportation conformity as Congress envisioned it in Section

176(c) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 has only begun to occur within the

last few years. Delays in establishing motor vehicle emissions budgets resulted in

the unintended consequence of protracted use of the less-than-perfect build/no-build

test for determining conformity. However, now that motor vehicle budgets are in

place in nonattainment areas, STAPPA and ALAPCO firmly believe that conformity

can be implemented as intended, and that its purpose—to ensure that shorter-term

Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) and long-term Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) contribute to the timely attainment of healthful air quality and

are consistent with (i.e., conform to) the motor vehicle emissions budgets contained

in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality—can be fulfilled with increasing success.

Because the conformity of transportation plans to air quality plans is critical to

achieving clean air goals—particularly given the continued increase in motor vehicle

use and vehicle miles traveled—preserving the conformity requirements and schedules now in place is crucial. Specifically, STAPPA and ALAPCO recommend the following:

Frequency of Conformity Determinations

• Regular and timely analyses to demonstrate compliance of constrained TIPs and

RTPs with SIP motor vehicle budgets must be maintained. Such continued frequency will ensure that sound data is generated and allow for the timely improvement of motor vehicle emissions estimates. The result will be improved air quality

and timely progress toward attainment of the NAAQS and other air quality goals.

• To better harmonize timelines, conformity analyses. on the TIP and the RTP

should be synchronized and conducted no less frequently than once every 3 years.

• In addition, the 18-month SIP ‘‘trigger’’ for determining conformity must be

maintained.

Planning Horizon

• The 20-year planning horizon for transportation plans must also be retained.

Such long-range planning is imperative to ensuring that the potential for growth in

mobile source emissions is identified, the impact on air quality is assessed and adjustments to transportation plans are made accordingly.

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY,

Portland, OR, April 2, 2003.

Hon. GEORGE VOINOVICH,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Re: Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change and Nuclear Safety—CMAQ and

Conformity Hearing of March 13, 2003

DEAR SENATOR VOINOVICH: At the March 13th hearing I testified on behalf of the

State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators and the Association of

Local Air Pollution Control Officials (STAPPA/ALAPCO) about transportation conformity and the Congestion Mitigation-Air Quality program. At the end of the hearing I offered to provide additional information concerning how the conformity and

air quality planning processes work in Oregon. Overall, I believe that transportation

conformity works well in Oregon because affected agencies work cooperatively to

achieve conformity’s intent: ensure that transportation decisions and investments do

not jeopardize healthful air quality.
81

When the conformity rules were implemented in Oregon, the Oregon Department

of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), the Oregon Department of Transportation

(ODOT) and the State’s Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) organized

themselves as standing committees to achieve the required interagency consultation.

These committees meet monthly, and the regular contact allows participants to develop mutual trust and to identify issues before they become critical problems.

Moreover, transportation and air quality planning is integrated into the activities

of the various agencies through workload sharing. Typically, an MPO or the ODOT

conducts the transportation modeling and combines the results with the output of

the mobile emissions modeling performed by ODEQ. The product is an estimate of

motor vehicle emissions derived from the efforts of several organizations with a good

understanding of, and a degree of ownership in, the outcome. Whenever possible,

ODEQ utilizes the results of travel modeling that is done for transportation planning purposes in the air quality planning process. This minimizes the amount of

modeling that is needed and ensures that the planning processes are coordinated.

This climate of collaboration helped develop of some of the innovative features

first applied in the Portland, Oregon maintenance plans for ozone and carbon monoxide. One of the features developed in these plans was the ‘‘TCM Substitution’’

process. Transportation Control Measures (TCM) are motor vehicle emission reduction strategies in a SIP that are backed by especially strong enforcement requirements. They include techniques such as expanding public transit services and designating lanes that are available only to High Occupancy Vehicles. Normally, changes

to TCMs must be formally approved by EPA before those modifications can take effect. This usually results in a protracted process. Working with EPA’s Region X and

the MPO for the Portland area, DEQ found ways accelerate the procedure and reduce the amount of effort.

Briefly explained, TCM substitution can be used when ODEQ, EPA and the MPO

agree that a replacement control measure of equal or greater effectiveness is appropriate. First a substitute measure is identified using an advisory committee process

and that substitute is made available for public comment. Following a comment period that meets both Federal and State procedural criteria, comment materials are

provided to EPA for their concurrence. If EPA finds the measure to be acceptable,

Oregon’s Environmental Quality Commission is free to adopt and implement the

substitution without a SIP revision. (Please see enclosure from the Portland Carbon

Monoxide Maintenance Plan for details.)

Another feature of the Oregon SIP is a Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget that extends beyond the duration of the air quality plan. The addition of new highway capacity typically leads to changes in land use that can often result in sprawl. In turn,

these changes in land use frequently lead to ever greater demand for highway construction. The phenomenon is identified as ‘‘induced demand’’ and is the reason

many conclude ‘‘you can’t build your way out of congestion.’’ The interaction between

transportation and land use can be subtle, and it takes decades for its effects to be

felt. Therefore, we feel that a long planning period is essential to capturing the full

consequences of an area’s transportation decisions. To address this concern Oregon

DEQ established motor vehicle emission budgets 10 years beyond the last year of

the SIP to balance the emissions from industry, ordinary citizens and highway vehicles. This approach to addressing the ‘‘mismatch’’ between transportation and air

quality planning horizons can be implemented by any jurisdiction under current

law.

In order to effectively evaluate alternatives during the planning processes, it is

necessary to have the analytical tools available that are capable of assessing the full

impacts of the proposed alternatives. Computer models for predicting travel behaviors are often not sensitive to the complete range of policy choices that transportation and air quality planners need to assess. In Oregon, potential solutions to

these problems are discussed and developed by the Oregon Modeling Steering Committee (OMSC).

The OMSC was organized by ODOT about the same time the conformity rules

took effect, and consists of representatives from the Federal Highway Administration, State agencies for Housing, Transportation, Environmental Quality and all of

Oregon’s MPOs. Through quarterly meetings and modeling projects of common interest, the OMSC has provided a vehicle for standardizing and improving travel

models across the State. These efforts allowed the development of new modeling capabilities that can better inform policymakers of the consequences their transportation choices will have on the environment, land use and economic development.

The OMSC has also been a forum for sharing expertise between large and small

MPOs and the group has recently devised a mechanism that allows the temporary

sharing of expert personnel among participating agencies. Such close cooperation
82

broadens members’ professional perspective and nurtures a sense of common purpose.

These examples illustrate how the interagency consultation process can address

concerns that have been raised about conformity without the need for changes to

the statute. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on behalf of STAPPA/

ALAPCO and to share this information about our experience in Oregon. If you or

your staff would like further information, please contact me.

Sincerely,

ANNETTE LIEBE,

Manager, Air Quality Planning.

SUBSTITUTION OF TRANSPORTATION CONTROL MEASURES (D2–10–2—VOLUME 3)

In the event that a Transportation Control Measure (TCM) is not included in the

Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) or Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)

in the timeframe contained for that measure in this maintenance plan adopted by

the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC), the parties in the interagency consultation process established pursuant to OAR 340–020–0760 shall assess whether

such measure continues to be appropriate. Where the Metro and the Department

of Environmental Quality (DEQ) concur that a transportation control measure identified in the SIP is no longer appropriate, the agencies may initiate the process described in this Appendix to identify and adopt a substitute transportation control

measure. A substitute TCM must provide for equivalent or greater emissions reductions

than the measure contained in the maintenance plan. In addition, a replacement

measure must be implemented in the timeframe established for the measure contained in this plan. Where such implementation date has already passed, funding

based measures selected pursuant to this Appendix must be included in the first

year of the next TIP and long range plan adopted by Metro. The substitution process described in this Appendix may be a basis for a finding of timely implementation

under OAR 340–020–0840 for no more than 2 years after the implementation date

established for the measure to be replaced.

Metro will convene a committee (or working group) to identify and evaluate possible substitute measures. The committee shall include members from all affected

jurisdictions, State and/or local air quality agencies and local transportation agencies. In addition, the working group shall consult with EPA. Consultation with EPA

may be accomplished by sending copies of all draft and final documents, agendas

and reports to EPA Region 10.

Metro, DEQ, and EPA Region 10 must concur with the appropriateness and

equivalency of the substitute TCM. All substitute measures must be adopted by the

Environmental Quality Commission following the. public comment period and EPA’s

14-day concurrence period described below. The measure to be replaced shall stay

in effect until the substitute measure has been adopted.

The TCM to be replaced must be rescinded for the new TCM substituted pursuant

to this Appendix to be effective. By adopting a substitution under this Appendix,

the EQC formally rescinds the previously applicable TCM and adopts the substitute

measures.

Prior to adopting a substitute measure under this Appendix, the substitute transportation control,measure(s) must have been subject to a public hearing and comment process. This means there must be at least one public hearing on the substitution. The hearing can only be held after reasonable public notice which will be

considered to include, at least 30 days prior to the hearing:

• notice given to the public by prominent advertising in the area affected announcing the date time and place of the hearing;

• availability of each proposed plan or revision for public inspection in at least

one location in each region to which it, will apply;

• notification to interested parties in accordance with the Oregon Administrative

Procedures Act;

• notification to the Administrator (through the Region 10 Office);

• notification to the Southwest Washington Air Pollution Control Agency and the

Washington Department of Ecology; and

• notification of the chief executives of affected local governments, planning agencies, transportation agencies, environmental control agencies, and economic development agencies.

A description of the measure(s) and analysis supporting the proposal, including

assumptions and methodology, must be made available to the public, DEQ, and EPA

Region 10 within a reasonable time before the public hearing, and at least 30 days
83

prior to the close of the comment period. DEQ shall submit to EPA Region 10 a

summary of comments received during the public comment period along with DEQ’s

responses following the close of the public comment period. EPA shall notify DEQ

within 14 days if the Agency’s concurrence with the substitution has changed as a

result of the public comments. Where EPA fails to notify DEQ within 14 days, EPA

is deemed to concur.

The analysis of substitute measures under this Appendix must be consistent with

the methodology used for evaluating measures in the maintenance plan. Where

emissions models and/or transportation models have changed since those used, for

purposes, of evaluating measures in the maintenance plan, the TCM replaced and

the substitute measure(s) shall be evaluated using the latest modeling techniques

to demonstrate equivalent or greater emissions reductions will be achieved through

implementation of the substitute measure(s).

Key methodologies and assumptions that must be consistent, and reconciled in the

event of a discrepancy, are, for example:

• EPA approved regional and hot-spot (for CO and PM10) emissions models;

• the area’s transportation model; and

• population and employment growth projections.

DEQ will maintain documentation of approved TCM substitutions. The documentation, will also provide a description of the substitute and replaced TCMs, including the requirements and schedules. The documentation will also provide a description of the substitution process including the committee or working group members, the public hearing and comment process, EPA’s concurrence, and EQC adoption. The documentation will be submitted to EPA following adoption of the substitute measure by the EQC, and made available to the public as an attachment to

the maintenance plan. See Section 4.51.4.4, Maintenance Plan Commitments.

STATEMENT OF W. GERALD TEAGUE, M.D., PROFESSOR AND VICE CHAIRMAN OF

CLINICAL AFFAIRS, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PULMONARY MEDICINE, DEPARTMENT

OF PEDIATRICS, EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE

Good morning. I am Dr. Gerald Teague, Professor of Pediatrics at the Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta. I would like to thank Senators Voinovich and

Carper and the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works for inviting me here today.

HEALTH EFFECTS OF URBAN AIR POLLUTION

As many of us in this room already know, outdoor air quality is known to affect

respiratory health. Studies done over 10 years ago in children seen at Grady Hospital, an inner city hospital that serves primarily minorities, established a clear relationship between exposure to unhealthy levels of ozone and increased symptoms

of asthma (White et al). Other studies done in Atlanta showed that airborne particles, apart from ozone, can also increase respiratory symptoms in children (Tolbert

et al). As a pediatrician who practices in Atlanta, a city which has not met U.S.

air quality standards, I regularly care for children with asthma attacks caused by

air pollution episodes.

The evidence that air quality significantly impacts health is not limited to breathing problems like asthma. The link between particulate pollution and increased

deaths due to heart attacks and arrhythmias in adults is clearly established (Samet

et al). Evidence is also mounting that air quality is directly linked to the risk of

lung cancer, childhood leukemia, complications of pregnancy like low birth weight,

prematurity, and possibly congenital heart defects.

IMPORTANCE OF TRAFFIC CONGESTION

Since the 1950’s, we have known that vehicle exhaust fumes play a major role

in the deterioration of air quality in urban areas (CMAQ). The Clean Air Act,

passed in 1970, authorized the EPA to cap pollutants emitted from a wide range

of sources to meet air quality standards and preserve human health. As a result

of this legislation, the air is much cleaner today than it was in 1970. However, the

prevalence of asthma in urban areas has increased significantly, and an estimated

62 million Americans live in areas where the air quality does not meet the healthbased standards. Furthermore, the United States has experienced a staggering increase in traffic congestion (CMAQ). From 1982 to 1997, traffic congestion increased

by 45 percent in metropolitan Atlanta.
84

INTRODUCTION TO THE ATLANTA OLYMPICS STUDY

All of this leads me to the questions we face today. What happens when a city

makes a well-organized, highly collaborative, and aggressive attempt to decrease

automobile traffic congestion? Can such a strategy work in terms of decreasing traffic volumes and traffic congestion, and increasing traffic flow? If it does, what impact would this have on the air quality of that city? And what impact would this

improvement in air quality, in turn, have on the health of the residents of that city?

The 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta provided an opportunity to answer

these questions. To set the stage, Atlanta was preparing to be host to an additional

1 million visitors during the 17 days of the Olympic Games. These visitors would

be concentrated in the downtown area, where traffic congestion was already a very

serious problem.

METHODS TO REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION DURING THE 1996 ATLANTA OLYMPIC GAMES

In response, the city of Atlanta, the Department of Transportation, and the Atlanta Committee of the Olympic Games along with local business leaders came together to develop and enact a comprehensive traffic mitigation strategy which included the following key components:

• Expand and encourage use of public transportation—24 hour bus and rapid rail

services, additional buses

• Promote alternative commuting practices to shift travel away from rush hour

periods—telecommuting, flex hours, etc.

• Media warnings of particularly severe traffic congestion

• Highway improvements—additional lanes, widened lanes

• Traffic restrictions around the venue

STUDY METHODS

To do this study, we measured acute care visits for asthma, mean air pollution

concentrations, weather variables, traffic counts, public transportation use, and

monthly gasoline sales during the 17 days of the Olympics. This was compared to

a baseline period consisting of the 4 weeks before and after the Olympics.

RESULTS

During the Olympics, acute asthma events decreased 42 percent in the Georgia

Medicaid Claims file, 44 percent in a health maintenance organization, 11 percent

in 2 pediatric emergency rooms, and 19 percent in the Georgia Hospital Discharge

data base (see figure above).
85

Peak daily ozone concentrations decreased 28 percent from 81.3 ppb during the

baseline period to 58.6 ppb during the Olympics (see figure above).

Peak weekday AM traffic counts decreased 22.5 percent (see figure above).

CONCLUSIONS

Efforts to reduce downtown traffic congestion in Atlanta during the Olympics resulted in decreased automobile use, especially during the critical morning rush

hours. These changes were associated with a prolonged period of low ozone pollution

and significantly lower rates of childhood asthma events. This study provides evidence in support of efforts to reduce air pollution and improve health via reductions

in motor vehicle traffic.
86

OLYMPIC ASTHMA STUDY MEDIA FACT SHEET

Friedman MS, Powell KE, Hutwagner L, Graham LM, Teague, WG. Impact of

changes in transportation and commuting behaviors during the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in on air quality and childhood asthma. JAMA 2001; 285(7): 897–905.

1. Our study showed that decreased city-wide use of automobiles in Atlanta during the Olympics led to improved air quality and a large decrease in childhood asthma events.

2. Automobile use decreased most dramatically during the weekday morning rush

hour period, which we believe is a critical time period for the buildup of ozone pollution latter in the day.

3. Dramatic increases in public transportation use and the widespread implementation of alternative downtown commuting schedules resulted in the observed decrease in automobile use. Strategies to decrease rush hour commuting included closure of the downtown area to car traffic, flextime, carpooling, telecommuting, and

promotion of commuting alternatives through the media. Cooperation between city

government, ACOG, local businesses, the local media, and residents of Atlanta ensured the success of these strategies.

4. Our findings are consistent with other studies linking poor air quality to increased asthma events and decreased lung function in children.

5. Our study is important because: (1) it provides evidence that decreasing automobile use can reduce the burden of asthma in our cities. (2) City-wide efforts to

reduce rush hour automobile traffic through the use of public transportation and altered work schedules is possible in America.

6. Atlanta’s inner-city children on Medicaid seemed to benefit the most from this

Olympic experiment in city transportation planning.

7. While some Atlantans may have left the city during the Olympics, we found

that overall emergency medical visits did not change while emergency asthma visits

did, suggesting this was a real decrease.

8. The decrease in automobile use was driven by the Olympics; the question is

whether there can be such a dramatic change in car usage under more routine and

sustainable conditions.

9. We believe that sustainable transportation changes are possible if city governments, businesses, and city residents have a strong desire to reduce automobile pollution, and work together in innovative ways to accomplish this.

10. We hope that this study spurs interest in the development and use of near

emission-free cars in our cities. The technology and practical application of such cars

already exist. Efforts now need to focus on how to encourage and promote their use

over the next 5 years.

11. Asthma is a very complicated disease with many possible causes. Air pollution

and automobile congestion is only one factor in why a person’s asthma may flare

up. Efforts to decrease automobile emissions and improve air quality will not help

everyone’s asthma. But as our study shows, it may have a significant impact on the

burden of asthma, especially in our inner-cities.

REFERENCES

1. Friedman MS, Powell KE, Hutwagner L, Graham LM, Teague, WG. Impact of

changes in transportation and commuting behaviors during the 1996 Summer

Olympic Games in on air quality and childhood asthma. JAMA 2001; 285(7): 897–

905.

2. White MC, Etzel RA, Wilcox WD, Lloyd C. Exacerbations of childhood asthma

and ozone pollution in Atlanta. Environ Res 1994; 65:56–68.

3. Tolbert P, Mulholland JA, MacIntosh DL, et al. Air quality and pediatric emergency room visits for asthma in Atlanta, Georgia. Am J Epidemiol 2000; 151: 798–

810.

4. U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration. The congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program. Publication No. FHWAEP–00–020.

5. Samet JM, Dominici F, Curriero FC, Coursac I, Zeger SL. Fine particulate air

pollution and mortality in 20 U.S. cities 1987–1994. N Engl J Med 2000; 343: 1742–

1749.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL REPLOGLE, TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR,

ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE

Mr. Chairman, my name is Michael Replogle, and I serve as Transportation Director of Environmental Defense. Environmental Defense is a leading, national, NY-
87

based nonprofit organization, representing 300,000 members, that links science, economics, and law to create innovative, economically viable solutions to today’s environmental problems. I serve as Chair of the Energy and Environment Issue Team

of the Surface Transportation Policy Project, and today also speak on behalf of the

Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Defenders of Wildlife, Center for

Community Change, America Walks, the Southern Organizing Committee for Economic and Social Justice, Metropolitan Atlanta Transportation Equity Coalition, the

Tri-State Transportation Campaign (based in New York), and the Chesapeake Bay

Foundation.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss transportation and air quality,

especially focusing on transportation conformity and the Congestion Mitigation and

Air Quality (CMAQ) Program and to offer our views as the subcommittee begins

work in reauthorizing TEA–21. I want to incorporate by reference the extensive testimony I provided on transportation and air quality issues to the full Senate EPW

hearing on July 30, 2002. I stand by that testimony.

TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY: A KEY ELEMENT IN TIMELY ATTAINMENT

OF HEALTHY AIR

Conformity is a principal way to keep the transportation system accountable to

public health, air quality and the environment. In the 12 years, since TEA–21 was

enacted, the science linking emissions from the transportation sector to public

health has confirmed, time and again, the powerful link between health and the environment. Conformity is way to balance the checkbook, to keep track of air quality

impacts and spur greater efficiency in the transportation system. Without conformity, money will be spent on transportation without this basic accountability.

Clean Air Act (CAA) transportation conformity requires transportation plans that

are designed to achieve motor vehicle emission within the pollution limits established in State air pollution implementation plans (SIPs). Conformity was strengthened in the 1990 CAA Amendments to require quantitative emission limits so transportation plans could be held accountable for their performance, and to assure that

transportation and air quality planners would coordinate their activities.

Conformity was strengthened because, since adoption of the 1970 CAA, growth in

the number of vehicle miles traveled and related transportation emissions had been

routinely underestimated, leading to repeated failure of many metropolitan areas to

attain healthful air quality by established deadlines. Despite the adoption of far

cleaner vehicle and fuel technologies, air pollution from motor vehicles—then and

now—continues to harm the health of millions of our citizens.

Today, it is clear that, despite setbacks that have delayed and hampered its implementation, transportation conformity has been successful in many ways.

• It has spurred broad support for timely implementation of cleaner vehicle technologies, fuels, and vehicle maintenance initiatives.

• It has spurred adoption of strategies to reduce traffic and related pollution

growth by expanding transportation choices and better managing transportation

systems.

• Conformity has made it routine business for transportation planners to consider

the air quality implications of alternative policies and investments and fostered

much better interagency coordination.

Conformity: Like Balancing Your Checkbook. Transportation conformity has been

most effective behind the scenes, providing timely information to decisionmakers to

motivate action to reduce pollution and protect public health. Most conformity success stories have gone unreported and little noticed, while the complaints from some

transportation officials about the nuisance of transportation conformity are often recounted.

Conformity is a lot like balancing your checkbook—it’s not a fun way to spend

your time, but its vital to the health of your household or business in the long run

that it be done. Doing it routinely, frequently, and with the most accurate, up-todate information available helps avoid surprises, bounced checks, and overdrafts

that can result from untimely failure to record an ATM banking transaction, catch

checkbook register arithmetic errors, or mis-recording of data, thereby protecting

one’s financial health and reputation. So too metropolitan areas doing frequent conformity analysis can catch early errors in forecasting motor vehicle emissions that

result from changes in assumptions—such as the share of SUVs and light trucks

vs. passenger cars, job and housing patterns, transit fares, parking rates, or improved travel behavior data—or from mistakes in transportation and emissions

modeling and analysis. Timely updates to modeling assumptions improve accountability and protect the integrity of transportation and air quality planning.
88

1Kirby, Ronald. F., ‘‘Emissions Estimates Associated with the 2002 CLRP and fiscal year

2003–08 TIP, and Potential Transportation Emissions Reductions Measures (TERMs), memorandum of June 28, 2002 to Transportation Planning Board, Washington, DC, Attachment 1,

‘‘New 2005 Emissions Calculations Reflecting Changes In the Six-Year Plan and Certain Posted

Speed Limits in Virginia’’.

However, some highway officials argue that there is a ‘‘timing mismatch’’ between

the transportation and air quality planning process. They advocate ‘‘fixing’’ this by

reducing the frequency of conformity analyses, limiting the future time horizon for

air quality analysis, and by allowing use of out-of-date assumptions and data for

conformity analysis. Such proposals would greatly weaken transportation conformity

and make it likely that regional air quality control strategies will fail for the third

time since enactment of the Clean Air Act in 1970. These proposals would put off

for another generation the day when all Americans might breathe healthful air.

Congress should reject these proposals that threaten public health and the environment.

To explain why, I’d like to recount several conformity success stories, including

a recent one here in the Washington, DC-northern Virginia-suburban Maryland

area. Successes like these would be imperiled by ill-advised proposals from some

highway officials.

Frequent Conformity Checks Deliver Timely Correction of Emission Reduction

Shortfalls. In July 2001, Washington-area officials sought to update the region’s transportation plan more than a year before its conformity finding was due to expire, so they could include several new regionally significant highway projects. The

area’s Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), in a routine update of modeling

assumptions, found mobile source emissions exceeding the SIP emission limits by

about 8 tons per day of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) when the growing use of sport utility

vehicles (SUVs) and light trucks was accounted for, as these vehicles produce significantly more pollution per mile driven than standard cars. This finding was an

early warning that additional emission reduction strategies needed to be adopted before new road projects could be added to the transportation plan. Officials formed

a task force to consider reopening the SIP to allow for more motor vehicle pollution

by finding offsets from other emission sources or fixing the conformity problem by

adopting added emission reduction measures. Over the course of a year, area officials deliberated, and eventually settled on three major types of actions which each

contributed significantly to address the conformity problem within the transportation planning process: • The MPO refined their models to better account for emissions and for emission

reducing measures already being implemented by the District of Columbia and other

jurisdictions, but not previously credited by planners. • The State of Maryland advanced a $42 million package of new transportation

emission reduction strategies, including buying clean buses, improving pedestrian

and bicycle access to transit, and supporting transit oriented development and

telework.

• The State of Virginia cut back its proposed short-term road program for 2005

by 100 lane miles of new road capacity (representing about 0.5 percent of 2005 modeled road capacity), which the MPO estimated would result in a 1 percent reduction

in regional mobile source NOx, a 0.1 percent decrease in VOC, a 0.6 percent reduction in daily VMT, and a 1.3 percent increase in daily transit trips.1 And Virginia

taxpayers saved $800 million.

If proposals being pushed by some transportation officials and road lobby groups

to reduce the frequency of required conformity analysis of regional transportation

plans to every 5 years or to allow the use of obsolete data assumptions for conformity analysis had been in effect, this $42 million package of emission reduction

measures would almost certainly not have been funded. Awareness of the emission

benefits of reduced road expansion—driven by fiscal problems more than by the

pressures of transportation conformity—would have gone unnoted. The MPO would

have devoted less time and resources to considering strategies to reduce emissions

and traffic growth.

If the region had been allowed to use old data for conformity analysis of Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) and regional transportation plans, the region’s

officials would have been able to add major new highway projects to the plan at a

time when it was clear that motor vehicle emissions would far exceed the pollution

budget established in the SIP, almost guaranteeing that the region would not be

able to attain the 1-hour ozone standard by 2005, after it had already missed the

1999 deadline for meeting that standard that was set in the 1990 Clean Air Act.

Our families here in the Washington region would face worse health problems

from breathing the air. The ‘‘fixes’’ proposed by some highway officials ostensibly to
89

‘‘align planning horizons and frequency of updates for transportation plans and

SIPs’’ would actually have the effect of reducing the timely alignment of transportation and air quality plans, leading to much dirtier air, more sick kids, more premature deaths from respiratory problems, and more damage to the health of the

Chesapeake Bay and other ecosystems caused by excess air pollution from motor vehicles.

Twenty-Year Conformity Planning Horizon: Vital to Considering Long-Term Effects of Transportation Investments. I’d like to recount another relatively unheralded

conformity success story that would have been put in peril by the ‘‘fixes’’ proposed

by AASHTO and the road lobby. In the mid-1990’s, it became clear that Charlotte,

North Carolina’s 20-year transportation plan would not stay within the pollution

limits set in the region’s air quality plan. This helped prompt local officials to consider and adopt a new 2025 Transit Land/Use plan for Charlotte-Mecklenburg with

bus rapid transit and light rail to support the five major transportation and development corridors. Funding for the plan is coming from a combination of local, State,

and Federal funding, including a half cent local sales tax approved in 1998 by Mecklenburg County voters to expand bus and rapid transit improvements. The requirement that the regional transportation conform 20 years into the future was a vital

element in motivating this regional progress and action to curb pollution while expanding transportation choices.

Indeed, the proposal by the road lobby to weaken conformity by having it apply

only to the first 10 years of the RTP or to the last horizon year in the SIP threaten

to cause a renewed widespread failure of SIP control strategies. Such a proposal

would allow major projects, such as new outer beltways, to advance far into planning, development, and construction before accounting more fully for their profound

long-term impacts on regional growth and traffic patterns, and related air pollution.

The unsophisticated regional traffic models currently in use by most MPOs are already too insensitive to induced traffic and land use effects. This proposal would exacerbate this problem. Some State DOTs complain that they must make up for pollution growth from traffic in the out years of their 20-year transportation plans,

without help from SIP control strategies after the attainment year. While SIPs are

not required to adopt control strategies beyond the attainment year until the attainment year is reached and requirements for a 10-year maintenance plan are triggered, at least a half dozen States have adopted SIP control strategies that extend

beyond or begin after the attainment year, to help transportation agencies deal with

this problem.

But this problem would not materialize if metropolitan areas adopted development policies that combine transit oriented development with the implementation

of comprehensive regional transit programs. To eliminate the obligation of the

transportation agencies to account for the long-range impats of the choices they

make will force other emissions sources to bear the entire cost of future emission

reductions.

Adoption of Emission Controls For Years After Attainment Deadline: Ready Solution to Emissions Growth Issues. For example, Denver was faced with a terrible particulate matter (PM) problem in the 1980’s. Agencies began taking action against

wood burning. There was progress made during this period, but PM was still measuring 185 μg/m3 compared to the NAAQS of 150 μg/m3. Conformity made transportation planning and air quality agencies look at other sources of PM. They started

looking at street maintenance practices and implemented street sanding and sweeping strategies in the mid-1990’s as a short-term emission reduction measure. Strategies have been implemented beyond the initial strategies adopted as part of the Colorado SIP. Within 2 years PM level dropped to 80 μg/m3. Conformity spurred Denver to also build into regional plans enough maintenance plan measures to meet

long-term health standards through 2015. Conformity provided additional incentive

for developing light rail in Denver since it would provide long-term help to mitigate

the PM problem. Conformity also led to the development of Metro Vision 2020 which

includes a commitment by metro area governments to limit growth to a 730-square

mile area and has committed the region to transportation alternatives to support

this goal. Denver also has a number of travel demand management (TDM) strategies in their long range plan such as a RideArrangers program and a telework program. They do not take credit for TDM system management in the 2025 conformity

finding, but they recognized the potential for reduction and retain them as a safety

margin in meeting the emissions budget.

Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are recognized in the Clean Air Act as

a key part of attaining and maintaining healthful air quality. Some regions have

used them extensively to help assure progress on clean air, including them in their

plans even well beyond the attainment year of the SIP. For example, TCMs represent nearly 5 percent of total emission reductions in the San Joaquin region of
90

California. The MPO projects that TCMs will deliver as much as 10 percent reduction in emissions by 2020. In San Joaquin County rideshare, vanpool, and commuter

rail provide significant emissions reductions, with a large percentage of San Joaquin

County residents facing long distance commutes into the San Francisco Bay Area.

Conformity: A Key to Coordination Between Transportation and Air Quality Agencies. Since the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, conformity has been a significant

factor fostering local, regional, and national political support for cleaner fuels and

vehicles and inspection and maintenance programs that have helped produce more

timely progress toward attainment of healthful air quality. In that period, conformity has been the single greatest factor promoting interagency cooperation between transportation and air quality agencies at the State, local, and Federal levels.

Prior to 1990, transportation agencies paid no attention to the air quality consequences of transportation investments and plans. But in recent years, many metropolitan areas have adopted changes to their transportation plans and programs

to help reduce traffic growth and emissions. Consideration of air quality impacts of

investments has become a routine matter in many metropolitan areas where pollution problems are more severe. In most regions with serious air quality problems,

officials and staff of air agencies and transportation agencies routinely meet and

work together to help foster effective program administration that delivers progress

on both mobility and air quality goals.

For example, Atlanta’s conformity problems led the Governor to create a new regional authority responsible for better planning and funding transportation, air

quality, and growth management in Georgia’s non-attainment areas in an effort to

fix a broken interagency cooperation process. The political impetus to accomplish

this was obtained only once the transportation plan conformity finding expired. Had

the road builder’s proposal for a once in 5 year conformity review been in force, informed observers can have little doubt this governance reform would have faced insurmountable obstacles.

And while road builders have often raised the spectre of transportation conformity

causing major disruptions to transportation programs, there have been no such disruptions. Even in Atlanta, where the longest conformity lapse of consequence to date

took place, the region lost no transportation funding but instead redirected several

hundred million dollars of funds from sprawl-inducing, pollution-generating roads

into projects that reduced pollution and into safety and system improvements that

would not increase emissions.

Proposals to reduce the frequency and time horizon for conformity analysis and

to allow use of obsolete assumptions for conformity will not make the system work

better. Instead, by reducing incentives for agency coordination they will make the

system less efficient. Conformity works well when transportation and air quality experts work closely together on a routine basis, to plan and implement highway and

transit investments and air pollution reduction strategies. Conformity, and the current schedule of deadlines, gives these agencies a powerful incentive to work together. The deadlines are also spaced just far enough apart to allow problems to

be identified early—before they become crises that threaten air quality targets.

If the minimum frequency of conformity determinations for transportation plans

is set at 5 years, and if the life of a short-term transportation funding program conformity finding is extended beyond the current 2 years, as some propose, this will

likely be too far apart to detect and correct significant increases in emissions, especially in fast-growing metropolitan areas where vehicle miles traveled or the use of

SUVs and light trucks grows, or to account in a timely way for important new data

on housing, employment, and travel patterns produced periodically by the U.S. Census and other sources.

Conformity Time Frames Must Be Keyed to Attainment Schedules. The ultimate

purpose of conformity is to ensure that motor vehicle emissions are reduced to the

levels required by the States in the SIPs to attain the national health standards.

For the Clean Air Act to work, all emissions in an area must be reduced to the allowable levels established in the SIP by the deadline for attainment, and kept within those levels thereafter.

Updates of motor vehicle emissions must be coordinated with the Act’s attainment

deadline. In areas where the deadline has been extended, emissions updates must

also be coordinated with the milestones set for making interim progress toward attainment. If the motor vehicle emissions analyses required for conformity are not

coordinated with important CAA deadlines, then there is no possibility for taking

corrective action to reduce motor vehicle emissions to meet the emission-reduction

targets that must be met to attain the national standards.

The key points when emissions targets must be met are the attainment date, and

the 3-year interim milestones that are required to ensure progress toward attainment. All the intervals between these dates are 3 years, or less.
91

For example, the Act’s default schedule for nonattainment areas allows less than

3 years between the time the limit on motor vehicle emissions, i.e., the ‘‘motor vehicle emissions budget,’’ established in the SIP by the State, and the date when the

area is required to attain the NAAQS. Unless EPA grants an extension, States are

required to submit a SIP for each nonattainment area within 3 years after designation as nonattainment, and the SIP is required to provide for attainment within 5

years after designation. See CAA section 172(b). That means an area is only allowed

2 years from the time the motor vehicle emissions budget is established in the SIP

until the attainment date when motor vehicle emissions must meet the budget.

If the conformity analysis is not required for 5 years, the conformity process

would be disconnected from moving an area toward attainment of the NAAQS because the transportation agencies would not have to analyze emissions, or take corrective action to revise their transportation plans and TIPs, during the period when

emissions must be reduced. This entire process would become irrelevant. Then the

transportation agencies would come back 5 years from now and ask for repeal because conformity had become a paper exercise that no longer served any air quality

purpose. To ensure that conformity continues to play a very important role in attaining the NAAQS, the schedule for conformity reviews must remain closely coordinated with statutory timeframes for achieving emissions reductions.

Another set of important emissions reduction targets mandated by the Act are the

3-year milestones established for areas that have extended attainment dates. The

Act allows EPA to set later attainment dates than the 5-year deadline required by

section 172(b), but also requires interim reductions to achieve ‘‘reasonable further

progress.’’ See sections 171(1), 172(c)(2) generally. Section 182(c)(2)(B) requires the

adoption of measures to achieve at least 9 percent reductions in emissions every 3

years, and 182(g) requires the States to determine if actual emissions comply with

the milestones at the end of each 3-year period.

To establish milestones for total emissions in an area, motor vehicle emissions

must be determined for the area as well as stationary source emissions. To determine compliance at the end of a milestone, motor vehicle emissions must again be

analyzed. The 3-year schedule for conformity was intended to ensure that the transportation agencies would be determining motor vehicle emissions around the time

that milestone compliance demonstrations are required by the Act. If conformity is

determined every 5 years, the emissions estimates will not be available for the

States to make their compliance demonstrations. More importantly, the transportation agencies will have no obligation to take corrective action when a milestone

is violated as a result of motor vehicle emissions that exceed the budgets in the SIP.

Corrective action will not be required until a new conformity determination is required, which could be as much as 4 years later.

In short, the Act can’t work as intended if the conformity schedule is not coordinated with the key statutory deadlines for emissions reductions. Nor will the transportation agencies be as likely to receive cooperation from the State in the development of additional emissions to solve excess motor vehicle emissions. Under current

law, sections 182(c)(5) and 182(g)(3), when motor vehicle emissions exceed SIP levels, the State is required to submit additional measures to reduce motor vehicle

emissions back down to the levels used to demonstrate attainment in the SIP. If

these State obligations are not coordinated with conformity determinations, the

transportation agencies may not get timely help to prevent or resolve a conformity

lapse.

Transportation agencies and others, such as the authors of the misguided January

2003 Resources for the Future (RFF) Report, Exhausting Options, who propose to

relax the current conformity schedule do not discuss any of these coordination

issues, or the potential adverse impacts on implementation of the Act if the schedules are no longer coordinated. They only consider the burdens on transportation

agencies that result from the obligation to keep transportation emissions within the

limits required by the States’ air quality plans. A balanced approach to these issues

is required to ensure that the Act remains an effective tool for achieving a safe air

supply for every American. The evidence in the RFF Report demonstrates that while

significant efforts are required to keep motor vehicle emissions within bounds, the

cooperative efforts of air and transportation agencies has produced effective solutions to these challenges. This kind of effective partnership was a goal of the Act,

and is working. Emissions are being kept in bounds and the public is being well

served.

Air Agency Performance Needs to Be Enhanced. Rather than disconnecting the

schedule for conformity determinations from the other schedules in the Act, the

committee should require effective implementation of the corrective measures required of the State air agencies and EPA. EPA supplied this committee with responses to questions transmitted at the hearing last summer which indicate that,
92

aside from California, almost all States with serious and severe ozone nonattainment areas have not submitted the milestone compliance demonstrations for 1999

required by section 182(g). Even more disturbing, EPA States in its response to

Question 16: ‘‘We sent no correspondence addressing State failures to submit milestone compliance demonstrations.’’ EPA has been derelict in not taking action to require emissions updates needed to determine if the States are on track toward attainment, and to require corrective action if they are not.

Implementing this requirement of the Act would go a long way toward resolving

the complaints from the transportation agencies that the States are not updating

their SIPs to overcome shortfalls in achieving the emissions reductions needed for

conformity, milestone compliance and attainment.

Effects of Conformity Fix on New NAAQS Attainment and on Use of 2000 Census

Data. Let’s look at how the road builder’s package of conformity ‘‘deadline mismatch

fixes’’ might affect the timeliness of considering new information, data, and control

strategy requirements.

• Data from the 2000 Census journey-to-work survey is expected to become available in late 2003. Many MPOs continue to use inadequate transportation analysis

models that were calibrated on travel data from the early or mid-1990’s on 1990

Census data. Many MPOs are anticipating revisions to their travel forecasting models using 2000 Census data so they can better reflect current travel patterns and

behavior. It is not uncommon for a major MPO model update to take 18–24 months,

which means improved analysis methods and data to support conformity analysis

may become available in late 2005. But a new conformity analysis of a 10-year regional transportation plan, based on a deficient travel model based on obsolete 1990

travel data, might be adopted in the fall of 2005 and, under the road lobby’s proposal, this analysis would continue to be valid until late 2010, after the expenditure

of all the funds authorized in a new 6-year transportation bill. In the meantime,

major pollution-increasing transportation projects could proceed to be approved and

funded for construction without any consideration of their emissions impacts, even

if the revised travel data and model shows that the previous 1990-data based model

significantly underestimated emissions.

• The MOVES model, which will update the Mobile 6 emission factor model for

mobile sources, is anticipated to be made available by EPA in the fall of 2005, and

will become mandatory for use in SIPs and conformity analysis by 2007. A conformity analysis made in 2006 might rely on by then out-of-date Mobile 6 emission

estimates, but would not need to be updated and replaced with a new regional plan

conformity finding until 2011, 6 years after the issuance of the improved MOVES

model, which is likely to lead to significant changes in the estimation of mobile

source emissions. In the meantime, major pollution-increasing transportation

projects could proceed to be approved and funded for construction without any consideration of their emissions impacts, even if the MOVES model shows that the Mobile 6 emission estimates were significantly underestimated.

• The 8-hour ozone designations to be made by EPA in April 2004 are not anticipated to require adoption of SIPs and motor vehicle emission budgets until 2007.

The first conformity analysis will be required for newly designated areas 1 year

after designation in 2005. The SIP for such areas will be required to provide for attainment by 2009 (see section 172(b)), but the next conformity demonstration would

not be required until 2010. Thus, if the transportation plan is not adequate to reduce motor vehicle emissions to the level required for attainment, there would be

no requirement to change the plan before the attainment deadline. As a result, the

area would fail to attain and another SIP would be required. Thus, a new conformity finding made in early 2007 for a 10-year regional transportation plan might

continue to be valid until 2012, allowing a network of new outer beltways to be approved for construction in 2010 or 2011 which would result in massive sprawl, traffic growth, and pollution without considering the impact on the region’s capacity to

meet the deadline for attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard in 2012. The burden

for emissions reduction required for attainment would fall on stationary and area

sources, small businesses, and consumers, while giving the road construction industry a free pass to build new roads that cause substantially greater pollution at taxpayer expense. All the funds authorized in a new 6-year transportation bill would

be spent before considering the impacts of 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 air quality standards on the road building industry, even if it was clear that the transportation plan

approved in 2007 would make it impossible to attain the new NAAQS by an extended 2010 or 2012 deadline.

Helping Conformity Work Better. Instead of the statutory ‘‘fixes’’ sought by the

road lobby, schedule coordination should come from better interagency coordination

and by ensuring that EPA carries out its obligations to review the adequacy of SIPs
93

every 3 years, not through relaxing the frequency of accounting system checks and

balances.

If there is any statutory adjustment to conformity, it should assure that areas in

a conformity lapse will be able to add new emission-reducing transportation projects

to non-conforming short-term Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP) and

long-range transportation plans, even if those projects were not previously contained

in a conforming, fiscally constrained TIP or plan. This is discussed in greater detail

in Attachment 1 to this testimony, which is the response I offered to this Committee

to followup questions after the July 30, 2002 hearing on transportation and air quality.

Promote Performance-Oriented Planning Systems. Better interagency coordination

and air quality and transportation planning, and more timely project delivery, could

also result from a requirement that all State and metropolitan areas develop and

periodically update, with public involvement, coordinated transportation, natural resource protection, and growth management plans that consider alternative scenarios

that considerably reduce traffic growth and enhance environmental performance

through better system management. Such an activity would fit naturally within a

new environmental management system for transportation agencies. Such a system

should be supported by annual reports on the current and projected performance of

transportation system management, investment, and proposed programs and plans,

accounting for cumulative and secondary impacts on growth patterns, public health,

greenhouse gas emissions, the achievement of natural resource planning goals for

air, water, and habitat protection, and the provision of equal access to jobs and public facilities for all residents, including those without cars, without undue time and

cost burdens. Short of a mandate for such activities, the Congress could offer a 100

percent Federal funding share for these activities to encourage their voluntary adoption by States and MPOs.

Enforce Fiscal Constraint and Travel Modeling Requirements. Congress should

also take steps to assure that EPA and FHWA will better comply with the Clean

Air Act and transportation planning laws. Traffic and emission forecasts often rely

on unsupportable assumptions that go unquestioned in the interagency review process. FHWA and EPA have failed to enforce key Clean Air Act and TEA–21 planning

requirements that transportation plans and programs must be fiscally constrained

and show the sources of funding that can be relied upon to implement and operate

them. They have also failed to enforce regulatory requirements that the effects of

congestion and new transportation capacity on travel time and cost appropriately

be ‘‘fed-back’’ through the travel behavior analysis process and reflected in emission

and traffic estimates.

Many MPOs continue to rely on unrealistic and questionable financial and technical forecasts as they determine the quality and performance of regional transportation systems in future years, including the level and price of transit services, the

characteristics of motor vehicles being driven, and the amount of traffic and emissions. Poor accounting often leads to underestimation of motor vehicle emissions,

making it more likely that State Implementation Plan (SIP) air pollution control

strategies will again fail to deliver on the promise of healthful air for all Americans,

more than 35 years after the first Clean Air Act. These problems were detailed in

my testimony to the full Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on July

30, 2002.

The failure to reflect ‘‘induced’’ traffic often leads to underestimation of emissions.

EPA and FHWA should assure that MPO traffic models used for conformity and

project impact analysis appropriately reflect scientifically established relationships

between travel time, travel cost, and traveler behavior, as reflected in numerous induced traffic studies. If MPO models do not reflect these relationships adequately,

immediate corrective action should be required to assure honest accounting for traffic and emissions growth, with a timely investment in developing best practice analysis methods, regionally and nationally. These empirical relationships are well reviewed in a paper by two former EPA scientists, which I attach to this testimony

by reference. Their survey of the literature found that in general for every 10 percent increase in road lane miles, it is typical to find a 3 to 11 percent increase in

vehicle miles traveled, with 8 percent being a typical median value. As this paper

notes,

Regional transportation planning agencies (or the States) generally maintain

a system of models to forecast and evaluate the impact of transportation

projects and plans. These models are usually deficient in accurately forecasting

emissions (Transportation Research Board 1995) partially because they do not

adequately account for both short and long run induced travel effects. This can

be partially corrected by building feedback mechanisms into the models to at

least account for some of the short run impacts (Johnson and Ceerla, 1996 a).
94

2 Robert Noland and Lewison Lem, ‘‘A review of induced travel and changes in transportation

and environmental policy in the US and the UK,’’ Transportation Research Part D, Vol. 7, 2002.

Air quality regulations already require this step for conformity analysis, though

actual practice has generally not kept up with the regulatory requirement.

Some EPA regions are working with metropolitan planning organizations to

improve the State of the practice in the modeling of transportation impacts, in

particular the impacts of transportation on land development. Various modeling

packages (none of which are ideal) are available to provide estimates of land

development changes induced by transportation and accessibility changes. Improved modeling of these impacts would provide decisionmakers with far better

information on the short-run and long-run emission impact of alternative transportation plans and are critical for development of State Implementation Plans

that will actually help bring a region into attainment of the NAAQS. Project

selection criteria would also be vastly improved.2

Notable improvements to models used for transportation and air quality planning

are being made in many regions, including Portland, Oregon and Sacramento, California. And other States are making progress.

Mr. Chairman, the Ohio Department of Transportation has launched a $6 million

program to develop an integrated transportation and land use model. This work follows the example of Oregon, which has pioneered a similar State-wide model and

which is sharing it with its metro area planning agencies. And the Columbus MidOhio Regional Planning Commission is developing an activity-based travel microsimulation model which offers the promise of bringing that area’s analysis tools up

to best practice standards. These kinds of tools are vital to making performancebased planning a reality rather than an ill-supported pipe-dream.

Ensure the Integrity of SIP Attainment Strategies.EPA has issued guidance that

encourages submission of Attainment SIPs that sound science suggests are unlikely

to provide for the attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) as they are required to do. Moreover, EPA has been finding such SIPs

adequate and granting them full approval. Conformity to the emission budgets in

these SIPs is unlikely to result in attainment by the statutory deadlines.

In January 2002, EPA released a new Mobile 6 emission factor model that metropolitan areas and States must use this year or next year to update their SIPs. In

nearly all metropolitan areas, this improved model is showing that mobile source

emissions of NOx and VOC are significantly higher than previously estimated for

years prior to 2007. Thus, emissions will be higher than previously thought in the

attainment deadline years that have been established for serious and severe 1-hour

ozone nonattainment areas. These substantial excess emissions in the attainment

year are likely to cause the attainment SIPs to fail unless these emissions are offset

by added emission reductions.

Before accepting new Mobile 6 SIPs as adequate for purposes of conformity, or as

new attainment demonstrations, EPA should require States to either offset these increased emissions or to use a regional airshed model to evaluate whether their SIP

strategies will be adequate to demonstrate attainment by the statutory deadlines.

However, EPA has offered States guidance that would allow them to use scientifically unsupported ‘‘rollback’’ methods in lieu of new modeled demonstrations of attainment with the latest emission inventories and forecasts.

Congress should ask EPA in what areas and by how much emissions will increase

in each SIP milestone and attainment year using Mobile 6, compared to the emissions estimated using the older Mobile 5 model, and ask EPA or the States to evaluate with regional airshed models the effect these increased emissions will have on

forecast ozone levels in various attainment years. Congress should ask EPA to explain the science behind its assumption of a linear relationship between NOx and

VOC emissions and ozone levels that is at the heart of the EPA weight-of-evidence

and rollback methods for appraising the adequacy of attainment SIPs, in light of

a National Academy of Sciences study finding that:

Nonlinearities in the response of ozone concentrations to emission changes

generally result in smaller ozone reductions than might be expected or desired

from reducing emissions. For example, by the year 2000, mobile sources in Los

Angeles are expected to account for about 30 percent of total VOC emissions.

Airshed model calculations indicate that removing this fraction of VOCs would

decrease peak ozone 16 percent from 270 to 230 ppb for the particular set of

episode conditions studied (Russell et al., 1989) . . .

Several recent studies have shown that ozone in rural areas of the Eastern

United States is limited by the availability of NOx rather than hydrocarbons,
95

3 National Research Council, Rethinking the Ozone Problem in Urban and Regional Air Pollution, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1991, page 361–363.

and that reductions in NOx probably will be necessary to reduce rural ozone

values.3

ASSURE PROGRESS IN DEALING WITH LOCAL HEALTH IMPACTS OF

TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

Recent scientific research shows that there are many adverse local health impacts

experienced by those who live close to major highways carrying large volumes of

traffic, including high cancer risk and multiple adverse health effects related to the

exposure to small particle air toxics. While diesel exhaust is implicated as the largest contributor to these toxic exposures, all motor vehicles make a contribution. The

South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study

(MATES-II), a Colorado study of leukemia risk factors, and a California Air Resources Board study of the Barrio Logan in San Diego have all found that mobile

sources contribute as much as 90 percent to the excess cancer risk people experience

due to exposure to hazardous air pollutants. At a January 2003 panel of the Transportation Research Board annual meeting in Washington, DC, several US DOT and

EPA officials agreed that this was a serious problem that both agencies are working

to develop new policies to address it. Panelists agreed that hot spot exposures near

major roads and bus terminals represent a significant health threat that warrants

further study.

However, the Federal Highway Administration has thus far resisted calls to

evaluate and take steps to mitigate or avoid these health effects in relation to major

highway expansion environmental review studies, as required by law. This issue is

currently in litigation in relation to the US–95 highway widening project in Las

Vegas, Nevada, and has been raised in transportation plan and project reviews in

several other regions.

Congress should assure timely EPA action to regulate air toxics and assure that

FHWA accounts for and avoids or mitigates the adverse health impacts of exposure

of communities to hazardous air pollutants caused by expansion of major highways.

Appendix 1 provides more information on this subject.

ASSURING ADEQUATE RESOURCES FOR THE CMAQ PROGRAM

The Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program (CMAQ), which helps local communities and States reduce traffic and transportation pollution, should be reauthorized at a substantially higher level, recognizing the much larger population living

in non-attainment areas and exposed to hazardous air pollutants. CMAQ funds

should be targeted to innovative strategies that produce lasting traffic and pollution

reduction, rather than to short-term one-time emission reduction strategies or traffic

flow improvements.

Health studies have shown air pollution is more widespread and hazardous at

lower levels than previously thought, with major health threats from fine particulate matter and air toxics. There is widespread consensus that CMAQ funds should

be made available to help the hundreds of additional counties that face new requirements to address their previously unrecognized air quality problems. We join in that

consensus. There is also wide support for allowing CMAQ funds to be used to help

reduce emissions and exposures to air toxics. We agree with this as well. But this

means that CMAQ funding must rise by about half over current levels in the next

transportation authorization just to sustain the current level of effort in non-attainment areas on a per capita per pollutant basis.

CMAQ is the key source of transportation funding dedicated to improving transportation related air quality. Failure to boost CMAQ funding levels is likely to hamper the ability of existing non-attainment areas to sustain ongoing pollution-reduction transportation investments or limit funds available to newly designated nonattainment areas that need similar access to resources.

TEA–21’s CMAQ obligation formula currently recognizes only the population living in ozone and carbon monoxide non-attainment areas, even though funds can be

spent on project that help reduce particulate matter. In 1999, nearly 54 million people live in areas that do not meet the 1-hour ozone standard. According to the latest

available monitoring data from EPA, more than double this number—123 million

people—live in the 333 counties violating the new 8-hour ozone standard. Some 82

million live in 173 counties that violate the PM fine National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS), with some overlap with ozone non-attainment areas. If contiguous counties that make up metropolitan areas are included, as is usual in desig-
96

4 estimated: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/pdf/appendix/DOT.pdf, page

721.

nating non-attainment areas, these numbers will grow significantly. Additional millions live in areas that violate the CO standards.

The Federal Highway Administration counts 172 million people living in 1-hour

ozone and CO non-attainment or maintenance areas and has used this figure for

fiscl year 2003 CMAQ apportionments to States. Initial estimates suggest that this

apportionment population number will increase by about one-fourth when non-attainment area designations are made under the new 8-hour ozone and fine particulate NAAQS in 2004 and 2005. But this increased apportionment estimate does not

include the population living in areas affected by air toxics that are outside of what

will likely be designated as non-attainment areas under the new NAAQS, nor does

it take into account the increased scope of air pollution control efforts that will be

needed by existing non-attainment areas to attain the new 8-hour ozone and PM

fine air quality standards.

Broad consensus exists that CMAQ eligibility should be expanded to help counties, cities, and States deal with fine particulates and air toxics in addition to ozone

and CO. Reauthorization apportionments should recognize the expanded scope of

funding needs by proportionate expansion of CMAQ funding based on both population and the degree of pollution remediation needed. Otherwise existing non-attainment areas will face cut-backs in funds for air pollution reduction programs

while being asked to take additional steps to further cut pollution to protect public

health.

If the eligibility of the CMAQ program is expanded to include air toxics and fine

particulates and all newly designated non-attainment areas without cutting the per

capita allocation of CMAQ funds to existing non-attainment areas, an increase of

at least 50 percent in CMAQ funding will be needed in TEA–3. This will require

growing the program from its fiscal year 2002 program obligation level4 of $1.435

billion in fiscal year 2003 to an average of $2.15 billion a year over the upcoming

authorization period.

REPRINTED RESPONSES BY MICHAEL REPLOGLE TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR JEFFORDS

Question 1. In general would you agree that conformity is spurring investments

in transportation strategies and technologies that reduce air pollution and create

better interagency cooperation?

Answer. Yes. Since the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, conformity has been a

significant factor fostering local, regional, and national political support for cleaner

fuels and vehicles and inspection and maintenance programs that have helped

produce more timely progress toward attainment of healthful air quality. In that period, conformity has been the single greatest factor promoting interagency cooperation between transportation and air quality agencies at the State, local, and Federal

levels. Prior to 1990, transportation agencies paid no attention to the air quality

consequences of transportation investments and plans. But in recent years, many

metropolitan areas have adopted changes to their transportation plans and programs to help reduce traffic growth and emissions. Consideration of air quality impacts of investments has become a routine matter in many metropolitan areas

where pollution problems are more severe. In most regions with serious air quality

problems, officials and staff of air agencies and transportation agencies routinely

meet and work together to help foster effective program administration that delivers

progress on both mobility and air quality goals.

Atlanta’s conformity problems led the Governor to create a new regional authority

responsible for better planning and funding transportation, air quality, and growth

management in Georgia’s non-attainment areas in an effort to fix a broken interagency cooperation process. While road builders have often raised the spectre of

transportation conformity causing major disruptions to transportation programs,

there have been no such disruptions. Even in Atlanta, where the longest conformity

lapse of consequence to date took place, the region lost no transportation funding

but instead redirected several hundred million dollars of funds from sprawl-inducing, pollution-generating roads into projects that would reduce pollution and into

safety and system improvements that would not increase emissions.

After conformity analysis led Charlotte, North Carolina, to see that its transportation plan would lead to emission problems 20 years in the future, local officials

developed, considered, and adopted a new 2025 Transit Land/Use plan for CharlotteMecklenburg with a new rapid transit system to support the five major transpor-
97

tation and development corridors identified in the 1994 Centers and Corridors Plan

as well as connections to key development hubs between these corridors. The plan

seeks to concentrate jobs around stations, provide residential multi-family housing

at stations, and develop rail and bus rapid transit. Capital costs, plus operation,

maintenance and other expenditures will cost $1.085 billion over 25 years and quantifiable benefits such as travel time savings and vehicle operating cost savings total

$72 million a year, generating a benefit cost ratio of 1.6. There are also numerous

benefits of the plan that are not quantifiable such as improved access to jobs and

revitalization of the core center. Funding for the plan will come from a combination

of local, State, and Federal funding. Mecklenburg County Voters approved a halfcent local sales tax in 1998 to fund expansion of bus service and rapid transit improvements in major corridors. The requirement that the RTP conform 20 years into

the future was a vital element in motivating this regional progress and action. Limiting conformity determinations to a 10-year time horizon—as some propose—might

reduce the incentive for other regions to take the kind of leadership initiatives seen

in Charlotte.

Conformity helped Denver develop cost-effective strategies to reduce particulate

matter (PM) problems. Agencies began taking action against wood burning in the

1980’s, but PM was still measuring 185 μg/m3 compared to the NAAQS of 150 μg/

m3. Conformity made transportation planning and air quality agencies look at other

sources of PM. They found that street sanding and sweeping strategies was a very

effective measure and implemented controls beyond what was federally mandated,

reducing PM levels to 80 μg/m3. Conformity also provided an incentive for developing light rail in Denver and the Metro Vision 2020 Plan, which seeks to limit

growth to a 700 square mile area with supportive transportation strategies. Denver

also has a number of travel demand management (TDM) strategies in their longrange plan such as a Ride Arrangers program and a telework program. While Denver does not take credit for TDM system management in the 2025 conformity finding, the region recognizes TDM emission benefits as a safety margin in meeting

their emissions budget.

To deal with emissions problems recognized through the conformity process, many

other regions have adopted transportation control measures (TCMs). These represent nearly 5 percent of total emission reductions, for example, in the San Joaquin

region of California. The San Joaquin Council of Governments projects that TCMs,

including rideshare, vanpool, and commuter rail, will deliver as much as a 10 percent reduction in emissions by 2020.

Conformity has also been valuable in helping to win adoption of new short-term

emission reduction strategies in the metropolitan Washington, DC region. In July

2001, the DC metropolitan planning organization updated its modeling assumptions

to reflect the growing use of sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and light trucks, which

produce more pollution per mile driven than standard cars. As a result, they observed that that they could no longer add new road projects to their transportation

improvement program (TIP) and regional transportation plan (RTP) and still conform with the NOx motor vehicle emission budget in their adopted SIP. Officials

formed a task force to consider reopening the SIP to allow for more motor vehicle

pollution by finding offsets from other emission sources or fixing the conformity

problem by adopting added emission reduction measures. With adjustments for

some refinements to their model estimates and for emission reducing measures already being implemented but not previously credited, the MPO found that the 8 tpd

NOx excess emissions over budget was reduced to about 3 tpd.

Following further meetings and analysis, Maryland proposed a $42 million package of transportation emission reduction strategies, including buying clean buses,

improving pedestrian and bicycle access to transit, and supporting transit oriented

development. Along with measures advanced by other jurisdictions, this package

provides sufficient reductions to offset this emission budget shortfall and the region

in July 2002 adopted them as part of a new TIP and RTP. If proposals made by

some parties to lengthen the life of TIP conformity findings to 3 or 5 years had been

in effect, this $42 million package of emission reduction measures would almost certainly not have been funded.

Question 2. If Congress does make any changes in the conformity process as part

of the next transportation bill, what would be your No. 1 suggestion and please be

specific?

Answer. Congress should make one change to the conformity process as part of

the next transportation bill. It should adopt the bill introduced in the 106th Congress, 2nd Session as H.R. 3686, the ‘‘Road Back to Clean Air Act,’’ by Rep. John

Lewis and as S. 2088 by Senator Max Cleland. This bill would put into law the EPA

and DOT guidance that helped get Atlanta more focused on solving the city’s trans-
98

portation and air quality problems. It would increase flexibility so other areas of the

country could continue to receive Federal funds for transit, safety improvements,

road rehabilitation, and other projects even during a lapse in the conformity of their

transportation plans. Without this legislative change, because of the way that DOT

has at times in the past administered conformity and planning requirements, regions in a conformity lapse can face difficulty adding air quality improving projects

to their transportation spending plans unless those projects had been part of a previously conforming fiscally constrained TIP and regional transportation plan.

The text of this bill follows:

A BILL

To amend the Clean Air Act and titles 23 and 49, United States Code, to provide

for continued authorization of funding of transportation projects after a lapse in

transportation conformity.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States

of America in Congress assembled,

Section 1. Continued Authorization of Funding of Transportation Projects After

Lapse in Transportation Conformity.

Section 176(c)(2) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C 7506(c)(2)) is amended by adding

at the end the following:

‘‘(E) Notwithstanding subparagraphs (C) and (D), any transportation project identified for funding in a transportation plan and transportation improvement program

adopted under section 134 of title 23 or sections 5303 through 5306 of title 49,

United States Code, shall remain eligible for funding under title 23 or chapter 53

of title 49, Unites States Code, as applicable, after the long-range transportation

plan or transportation improvement program no longer conforms as required by subparagraphs (2)(C)(i) or (2)(D), if——

‘‘(i) the long-range transportation plan and transportation program met the

requirements of subsection (c) at the time at which a project agreement for the

transportation project was approved under section 106 (a)(2) of title 23 United

Sates Code, or the project was otherwise approved for assistance under chapter

53 of title 49, United States Code, as applicable;

‘‘(ii) the transportation project is a transportation control measure (as defined

in section 93.101 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulation s (as in effect

on March 1, 1999);

‘‘(iii) the transportation project qualifies for an exemption from the requirement that the transportation project come from a conforming metropolitan long

range transportation plan and transportation improvement program under section 93.126 or 93.127 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on

March 1, 1999); or

‘‘(iv) the transportation project is exempt from a prohibition on approval

under section 179(b)(1), except that this paragraph shall not apply to a transportation project described in section 179(b)(1)(B)(iv).’’

Section 2. Amendment of Long-Range Transportation Plans and Transportation Improvement Programs Not Conforming to Applicable Implementation Plans.

(a) TRANSPORTATION PLANS—Section 134 of title 23, United States Code, is

amended by adding at the end of the following:

‘‘(p) AMENDMENTS TO PLANS AND PROGRAMS NOT CONFORMING TO APPLICABLE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS—Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, a long-range

transportation plan or transportation improvement program under this section that

no longer conforms to the applicable implementation plan under section 176(c) of the

Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)) and part 93 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation), may be amended without a demonstration of conformity if the amendment is solely fort he purpose of adding transportation

project——

‘‘(1) for which that State submits a revision of the applicable implementation

plan to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency requesting

approval of the project as a transportation control measure (as defined in section 93.101 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on March 1,

1999); or

‘‘(2) that qualifies for an exemption from the requirement that the transportation project come from a conforming metropolitan long-range transportation

improvement program under section 93.126 or 93.127 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on March 1, 1999)’’

(b) MASS TRANSPORTATION PLANS—Section 5303 of title 49, United States Code,

is amended by adding at the end the following:
99

‘‘(i) AMENDMENTS OF PLANS AND PROGRAMS NOT CONFORMING TO APPLICABLE IM- PLEMENTATION PLANS—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a long-range

transportation plan under this section or a transportation improvement program

under section 5304 that no longer conforms to the applicable implementation plan

under section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)) and part 93 of title

40, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation), may be amended without a demonstration of conformity if the amendment is solely for the purpose of adding a transportation project——

‘‘(1) for which the State submits to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency a request for approval as a transportation control measure (as defined in section 93.101 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulation s (as in effect on

March 1, 1999)) under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7410); or

‘‘(2) that qualifies for an exemption from the requirement that the transportation

project come from a conforming metropolitan long-range transportation plan under

and transportation improvement program under section 93.126 and 93.127 of title

40, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on March 1, 1999).’’

REPRINTED RESPONSES BY MICHAEL REPLOGLE TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR VOINOVICH

Question 1. During the hearing, several witnesses talked about how the coordination of the frequency of submittals for the State Implementation Plan (SIP), the

Transportation Plan, and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is an important and necessary reform. Among other things, such a reform would lessen the

confusion of those involved, reduce costs, and help States meet air quality goals. In

your testimony, you reject any proposal to reduce the frequency of conformity analyses. Do you see value in better coordinating the transportation and air quality

planning processes?

Answer. Environmental Defense and other environmental groups strongly support

better coordination of transportation and air quality planning processes. However,

we strongly object to proposals currently being put forward under the misleading

name of ‘‘streamlining.’’ By extending deadlines and creating overly long gaps between conformity analyses, these proposals will threaten air quality, threaten public

health and reduce information available to the public about the air they breathe.

Equally important, these proposals won’t make the system work better—they’ll

make the system more inefficient. They reduce incentives for agency coordination.

Conformity works well when transportation and air quality experts work closely together on a routine basis, to plan and implement highway and transit investments.

Conformity, and the current schedule of deadlines, gives these agencies a powerful

incentive to work together. The deadlines are also spaced just far enough apart to

allow problems to be identified early—before they become crises that threaten air

quality targets.

But reducing the frequency of required conformity analysis—currently 2 years for

TIPs and 3 years for regional transportation plans (RTPs)—is likely to reduce rather

than enhance such coordination. Conformity analysis is rather like balancing one’s

checkbook. If done routinely and frequently, problems will be detected when they

are small and correctable. If done infrequently, the costs of errors is likely to soar,

as unrecorded transactions or errors go undetected, with their impacts compounded

over time.

If the minimum frequency of conformity determinations is set at 3 or 5 years, this

will likely be too far apart to detect and correct the rapid growth in VMT in fastgrowing metropolitan areas. Across the country, this rapid growth is causing those

areas to fail to attain on time. At a time when ou transportation investments are

proving to threaten air quality and health, it makes no sense to relax deadlines.

Instead of statutory changes, schedule coordination (if any is needed) should come

from better interagency coordination, not through relaxing the frequency of accounting system checks and balances. With wider gaps between reporting deadlines, opportunities for abuses and poor accounting grow larger. Uncertainty about true air

quality impacts and benefits would increase.

Today, most metropolitan areas update their TIPs annually and redo their conformity analysis as they do so. Analysis of conformity as TIPs undergo changes to

regionally significant projects provides opportunities for timely improvement of what

have often proven to be out-of-date or previously incorrect model assumptions.

Many regions, such as Washington, DC, have recently updated motor vehicle fleet

data assumptions to reflect the growing use of SUVs and light trucks, which

produce more pollution per mile traveled than light duty cars, with a resulting increase in the estimates of motor vehicle emissions in the attainment year. In the
100

case of Washington, DC, this conformity re-analysis led to increased attention by

transportation and air officials and staff to the need for improved interState and

interagency coordination and collaborative data collection to upgrade the regional

inventories of motor vehicle pollution factors. It also led local and State officials to

add $42 million in new emission-reducing transportation projects to the region’s TIP

in July 2002 to offset the increased pollution observed through the conformity reanalysis. This investment would not likely have occurred had the 2-year life of the

TIP conformity finding been relaxed to 3 or 5 years. These investments will benefit

not just air quality, but they will increase mobility in the region, increase access

to jobs, foster better quality of life, and promote economic growth.

Conformity helped catch this problem sooner rather than later, when it was still

a manageable problem that could be addressed through transportation measures,

without needing to reopen the SIP. Had the problem been left to fester, it is more

likely that the region’s officials would simply have said the problem was too big to

manage, and sought to make it someone else’s problem. In fact, fear of this kind

of crisis is what may motivate concerns about conformity. But by having tight deadlines and careful coordination among agencies, the challenges can be addressed with

incremental measures before they escalate to crisis. The beneficiaries of tight deadlines are the millions of children, elderly people, and other individuals who suffer

respiratory distress, premature death, injury, and other impairments every year

when Federal air quality health standards continue to be unmet. The beneficiaries

of relaxed conformity deadlines are primarily polluting industries and other special

interests that profit at our society’s expense.

In fact, States already have flexibility and discretion in the current system. The

current tiered schedule for reappraising TIP and RTP conformity provides appropriate advance notice of conformity problems in a way to encourage timely solutions.

For example, many regions first uncover conformity challenges when updating their

TIPs to incorporate new projects. Updating these planning factors uncovers previous

underestimates in regional vehicle emissions and allows timely corrective measures

to be adopted—as they have been in Washington, DC, in the example described

above.

At times, this may create what some call a ‘‘conformity lockdown,’’ during which

the current 2-year TIP conformity finding remains valid, but no new regionally significant transportation projects can be added to the TIP until the region adopts new

emissions-reducing measures to offset the incremental increase. At this point, the

increment of emissions imbalance is usually still relatively small and manageable,

and measures can be taken reasonably easily to offset the impacts of the new

projects. In essence, the system provides ‘‘early warning’’ that provides the time to

adopt new emission reduction measures to ensure that the TIP stays in conformity.

If the region fails to offset motor vehicle emissions that exceed the adopted SIP

motor vehicle emission budget before the expiration of the 2-year TIP conformity

finding, the region would likely enter a conformity lapse. In a lapse, there is yet

another safety valve: the region can adopt an Interim TIP composed of projects with

funding agreements, exempt projects, and transportation control measures drawn

from the conforming long-range RTP, relying on its 3-year conformity finding. At

any time, a State can choose to reopen its SIP to identify additional emission reduction measures from mobile or non-mobile sources to offset excess emissions from mobile sources that are in violation of the motor vehicle emission budget.

In short, States have discretion at every stage to align the schedule for updating

their transportation and air quality plans and where they choose to seek emission

reductions. The system works and should be sustained. If any change is warranted,

it would be toward more frequent reviews of SIPs—but not less.

Better coordination of air quality and transportation planning should take several

forms:

• Interim Milestone Reports. First, Congress should enhance this interagency coordination by ensuring that EPA adopts regulations to govern State submissions of

SIP milestone compliance reports. These reports would track and report regional

emissions every 3 years in nonattainment areas and ensure that remedial measures

are implemented immediately when emission reduction targets are not met, as required by Clean Air Act Sections 182(c)(5) and (g). EPA has failed to issue these

sorts of regulations, and that failure must be remedied. By ensuring that States

meet this required 3-year cycle of SIP reappraisal, Congress could address the concerns of transportation agencies that SIPs are too infrequently updated, while transportation plans are subject to more frequent updates.

• Prompt Upgrade of Models. Second, transportation agencies should be required

to promptly upgrade their computer models to effectively consider air quality, induced traffic, and fully up-to-date planning factors. Congress should provide EPA

and DOT with a strong mandate to establish best-practice planning model stand-
101

ards and to require timely action by MPOs and other agencies to meet these standards for conformity and SIP planning. A recent report (U.S. General Accounting Office, Environmental Protection: Federal Incentives Could Help Promote Land Use

That Protects Air and Water Quality, Washington, DC, October 2001, GAO–02–12,

page 95) notes that, ‘‘DOT and EPA efforts to improve travel-demand-forecasting

models may help MPOs and communities determine the effects of transportation improvements on congestion and air quality. However . . . these efforts currently do

not call for integrating land use or environmental components into the travel demand model . . . Without such integrated models, communities cannot consider the

likely effects that their transportation decisions will have on land use, future growth

and development, and air quality.’’ U.S. GAO–02–12, op. cite, page 95.

In regions where transportation models used for conformity and air quality planning have not been upgraded to integrate land use and environmental components,

including full sensitivity to induced traffic and growth effects of transportation investments, urban design, and pricing policies, less frequent conformity analysis is

likely to impair timely upgrading of analyses.

Question 2. Do you think there are more cost-effective options for achieving air

quality improvements in the transportation sector than through the current program?

Answer. Transportation conformity is not an air quality improvement strategy in

and of itself. It is a highly cost effective accounting mechanism that assures the integrity of adopted air quality attainment plans by preventing adoption of transportation plans and programs likely to cause pollution in excess of the levels determined to endanger public health. The Clean Air Act allows States great flexibility

in determining how to achieve health-based air quality standards—whether through

controls on stationary sources, area sources, or transportation sources, and whether

through adoption of cleaner technologies, management and pricing strategies, or

growth and demand management.

Without a strong and well-enforced transportation conformity program, experience

shows that transportation emissions tend to be underestimated, leading to the failure of air pollution control strategies. That failure—more than three decades after

the 1970 Clean Air Act—continues to impose huge costs on our society, with the adverse health costs of motor vehicle air pollution estimated by US DOT in 2000 at

$40 billion to $65 billion, which pales beside the $27 billion in annual Federal transportation expenditures.

Transportation conformity has played a significant behind-the-scenes role fostering cost-effective air pollution improvements in the transportation sector, including adoption of cleaner vehicle and fuel standards by States and Federal agencies,

adoption of inspection and maintenance programs, and reallocation of transportation

investments from sprawl-inducing, pollution-generating roads into transit, walking,

bicycling, and Smart Growth strategies that meet economic and social needs for mobility with less need for travel by single-occupant vehicles.

EPA’s own recent analysis shows that proposed air pollution reduction strategies

and technology fixes alone are insufficient to deliver healthful air quality for all

Americans over the next decade or even two (http://www.epa.gov/clearskies/

maps.pdf). Thus, conformity is vital to assuring that motor vehicle emissions are

properly accounted for as States and regions strive to achieve emission reductions

from various sources and avoid having uncontrolled traffic growth undo progress toward healthful air quality.

REPRINTED RESPONSES BY MICHAEL REPLOGLE TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR SMITH

Question 1. You testified that before State SIP’s had established motor vehicle

emission budgets, the transportation agencies were forced to rely on complex and

widely criticized transition rules. EPA and DOT may be proposing a return of these

transition rules in new non-attainment areas that will have a 1-year grace period

to make a conformity determination. Would you agree that our air quality goals are

better served by coordinating conformity with motor vehicle emissions budgets, rather than returning to these transition rules?

Answer. As designed by Congress in the 1990 Clean Air Act, conformity is intended to focus on comparing forecast motor vehicle emissions in a transportation

plan and program with an adopted motor vehicle emission budget (MVEB) established in a SIP designed to enable a region to attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by deadlines established by law. Where such MVEBs exist,

they should be used as the fundamental yard-stick to measure conformity of transportation plans and programs with air quality plans.
102

The problem we see with the ‘‘build/no-build’’ transition rule is principally in how

it has been applied, and in the length of the transition to conformity against adopted SIP MVEBs, not in the underlying principal of the build/no-build transition rule.

The build/no-build rule, first issued by EPA and DOT in 1991, compares emissions

in a base-case no-build future scenario vs. emissions in a build scenario, adding or

subtracting the applicable transportation projects changes proposed in any given

TIP or RTP amendment. This is a desirable and acceptable conformity test to use

in the absence of an adopted SIP MVEB when the evaluation uses analysis methods

that properly account for induced land use and traffic effects of transportation investments and policies. However, as applied in many regions, build/no-build analyses have assumed no induced land use change or shift in the time-of-day of traffic

caused by transportation system changes. Numerous peer-reviewed studies have

demonstrated that induced traffic effects are profound and the addition of 10 percent more lane miles of roadways can be expected to induce an additional 6 to 10

percent vehicle miles traveled in a region in a few years time. If induced traffic is

unaccounted for, the build/no-build analysis is invalid, and will underestimate motor

vehicle emissions growth associated with major highway system expansions, working against the CAA statutory mandate that transportation plans and programs

must contribute to timely attainment of the NAAQS.

It is vital that areas expected to be designated as new non-attainment areas

should now begin to take steps to prepare to meet conformity analysis requirements.

The TEA–21 Federal transportation law provides flexible funding to States and regions in the Surface Transportation Program and other funding categories that can

be used for planning and data collection. Such funds should be used now to establish sound, up-to-date, local inventories of jobs, housing, highways, transit resources,

and travel behavior, to develop locally applicable transportation planning models

that meet best practice standards for appraising travel behavior and induced traffic,

to code information on planned transportation investments and forecast job and

housing growth expectations, and other information. Outside consultants should be

retained to help cultivate local expertise to sustain these analysis systems, which

have many cost-effective applications beyond conformity analysis in supporting

sound capital program planning, traffic and transit operations planning, transportation equity analysis, growth management, cost-allocation evaluation, and other activities. The cost of establishing such planning and analysis systems is but a tiny

fraction of the annual capital facilities investment costs of most States and regions,

but can have a payoff far in excess of these costs by assuring more sound decisionmaking, investment planning, and identification of lower-cost and more optimal

strategies for meeting local and national mobility, environmental, economic development, and equity goals. Establishing these planning and analysis tools in a metropolitan area can be accomplished in less than a year, but does require agency commitment and ongoing support.

EPA and DOT should promptly issue long-promised additional model guidance

and regulations to assure that non-attainment areas properly account for induce

land use and traffic effects in conformity analysis and SIP transportation modeling.

There are no valid reasons why any newly designated non-attainment area cannot

establish the requisite transportation and emissions analysis systems well in advance of the expiration of the 1-year grace period following designation. Until adopted SIP MVEBs are available to provide a basis for conformity, the build/no-build

test (with appropriate consideration of induced land use and traffic effects), along

with the Reasonable Further Progress requirements of the CAA, should be the basis

for evaluating conformity in non-attainment areas.

Question 2. If I am interpreting your testimony correctly, you appear to suggest

that one way to judge the success of conformity is by how much it redirects transportation spending away from new highway construction. In Northern Virginia,

however, they have delayed over $800 million in highway projects generating a total

of 2 tons reduction in emissions, or $400 million per ton reduced. By comparison,

EPA’s vehicle emission standards cost below $1600 per ton. Stopping new highways

does not sound like a very cost-effective strategy to reduce emissions, wouldn’t you

agree?

Answer. I’m sorry, but you have misinterpreted my testimony and data and I

must disagree with your assertion. I noted that a recent analysis by the Metropolitan Washington Transportation Planning Board showed that by deferring 100 lane

miles of highway expansion projects in 2002—a 0.5 percent reduction in lane-miles

of road capacity—Virginia saves $800 million in capital costs while cutting NOx

emissions by more than 1 percent, or nearly 2 tons per day, and reducing vehicle

miles of traffic by 0.6 percent. This illustrates how the very expensive expansion of

new highways typically produces a growth in air pollution emissions by spurring
103

more traffic, rather than a reduction in emissions as often claimed by the road

lobby. It illustrates how reducing expenditures on new roads is often the most costeffective emission reduction strategy, because it avoids generating both costs and air

pollution. By not building additional traffic, sprawl, and pollution-inducing highways, regions like Northern Virginia can avoid the need for additional expenditures

of up to $1600 per ton to reduce emissions because they can prevent the pollution

from being emitted in the first place.

A savings of nearly $400 million per ton of NOx reduction for cutting highway

expansions is highly competitive when compared to alternative emission reduction

costs of $1600 per ton for pollution-control technology investments! More regions

faced with missed deadlines for clean air attainment should be protecting public

health and the taxpayer’s wallet by redirecting public investments from road expansions into other more productive forms of investment, such as transit, the revitalization of walkable neighborhoods, education, affordable housing close to jobs, and public health services.

Question 3. You have been an advocate of using land use and other ‘‘Smart

Growth’’ strategies to reduce air pollution. Yet, we all know that these strategies

take a decade or more to change transportation patterns. How do you expect to generate substantial pollution reductions from these projects when the emission levels

from these vehicles will be 95–99 percent cleaner than their 1970’s counterparts?

Answer. Even with significantly cleaner cars and truck technologies, Smart

Growth strategies offer the promise of avoiding—at essentially no cost—as much as

one-quarter of the potential motor vehicle emissions in 2020, thus helping to achieve

more timely attainment at less cost. If Smart Growth strategies are ignored and

sprawl and highway building advance without any accountability for impacts on

emissions, society will need to invest billions of dollars more in pollution abatement

technologies to clean up mobile and non-mobile sources so we can achieve healthful

air quality.

The amount of motor vehicle pollution emitted per mile driven has fallen by more

than 90 percent since 1970, but today motor vehicles still account for a major share

of pollution—from one forth to three fourths of the NOx and VOC emissions—in

most non-attainment areas. Adopted or submitted SIPs show that in the attainment

year and in future years going out as far as 2020, motor vehicle emissions are expected to continue to account for a large share of emissions in many metropolitan

areas, as Graph 1 shows. For example, despite adoption of cleaner technologies,

motor vehicles are estimated to account for 28 percent of VOC and 39 percent of

NOx emissions in Washington, DC (in 2005), 31 percent of NOx emissions in Connecticut/NY (in 2007), 45 percent of VOC and 61 percent of NOx emissions in Chicago/Illinois (in 2007), 67 percent of NOx emissions for Portland, Maine (in 2012),

30 percent of VOC and 39 percent of NOx emissions in Denver (in 2013), 79 percent

of CO emissions and 71 percent of PM emissions in Las Vegas (in 2020), and 38

percent of VOC and 44 percent of NOx emissions in Salt Lake City (in 2020). And

despite the fact that California leads the Nation in adopting cleaner vehicles and

fuels, the Bay Area expects motor vehicles to contribute 42 percent of VOC emissions and 52 percent of NOx emissions (in 2006), and the South Coast non-attainment area expects motor vehicles to contribute 59 percent of PM emissions and 49

percent of NOx emissions (in 2020).
104

The magnitude of emission reductions needed to reach healthful air quality is considerably greater than that now identified through submitted and approved SIPs.

EPA’s recent posting of maps of estimated effects of the proposed ‘‘Clean Skies’’ initiative (http://www.epa.gov/clearskies/maps.pdf) shows that adopted and proposed

measures are together inadequate to bring many of the nation’s largest metropolitan

areas into full attainment of the NAAQS even by 2020. Significant further emission

controls will be needed also to deal with hazardous air pollutants, greenhouse gas

emissions, and other environmental pollution, even with the cleaner motor vehicles

produced under the Tier II and heavy-duty diesel engine rules.

A conservative estimate is that Smart Growth strategies have the potential to reduce traffic growth and emissions over the timeframe of 20-year regional transportation plans by 15 to 25 percent compared to forecast trends in most metropolitan

areas. Over the shorter timeframe of a 2-year TIP conformity cycle or the several

years prior to reaching ozone attainment deadlines, many regions could accomplish

reductions in traffic growth and related pollution well of several percent a year relative to trends with a concerted effort combining Smart Growth, pricing, and demand management strategies.

The degree to which Smart Growth can affect emissions and traffic growth is

closely related to the pace of job and housing growth in a community. In slow

growth communities, the opportunities for Smart Growth to change travel patterns

are modest compared to fast-growing communities. Smart Growth is very progrowth in the areas where it is being implemented while seeking to discourage job

and housing growth in other locations where people lack non-driving travel choices.

Where fast growth is occurring, there tend to be more opportunities for growth to

become smarter.

The effectiveness of Smart Growth strategies in reducing traffic and pollution is

also closely linked to how comprehensively these strategies are implemented. Effective Smart Growth means transit-oriented (not just transit proximate) development

that is attractive for walking and cycling, includes a vibrant mix of land uses for

various income groups, and highly attractive non-automobile access to other parts

of the metropolitan area. It includes pricing policies and incentives that favor transit, walking, bicycling, and alternatives to driving while curbing subsidies for driving. Even in slow growth areas, Smart Growth transportation pricing and urban design incentives, such as Commuter Choice programs where employers pay for transit benefits and offer cash-in-lieu-of-parking benefits can produce substantial shifts

in travel behavior and pollution reductions in the span of a year or two, with concerted marketing, promotions, demonstrations, and incentives for rapid adoption of

Smart Growth changes. Research and experience cited in my most recent testimony

to the Committee shows the magnitude of near-term travel behavior and emission

changes that have been achieved in a number of communities with these sorts of

strategies.

Question 4. In your written testimony you State, ‘‘Because of steep increases in

the number of vehicle miles, cuts in the amount of pollutant emitted per mile, particularly for NOx, and small particulates, have been offset by growth in miles driven.’’ While this has been true in the past, doesn’t EPA’s data clearly show that future vehicle emissions are decreasing, even as vehicle travel increases?
105

Answer. Since the 1970 Clean Air Act, increasingly stringent motor vehicle and

fuel standards have significantly reduced vehicle emissions per mile. Federal light

duty Tier 1 vehicle emission standards today allow only 4 percent as much VOC pollution per mile as vehicles emitted in 1969, and 10 percent as much NOx. Despite

this sharp reduction, in 1999 motor vehicles still accounted for 29 percent of VOC

and 34 percent of NOx emissions nationwide according to EPA. VOC emissions from

highway vehicles declined 18 percent during the past decade, but NOx emissions increased by 19 percent during the same period. And as a 2002 TRB study, The

CMAQ Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience, noted (page 70), ‘‘Although tailpipe emissions from highway vehicles are only a small share of directly emitted PM

on a national basis, they account for a substantially higher proportion of longerlived atmospheric concentrations of fine particles in urban areas, for example, up

to 40 to 50 percent in the Denver and Los Angeles metropolitan areas.’’

With the full phase-in of Tier 2 standards beginning in 2009, light duty vehicle

emission standards will allow only 22 percent as much VOC pollution per mile as

Tier 1 standards, and 18 percent as much NOx. But the slow pace of motor vehicle

fleet turnover means that the full benefits of these emission reductions will not take

effect until 2020 or later. In the meantime, unless regions adopt strategies to better

manage travel demand, sprawl, and subsidies that encourage driving, motor vehicle

travel will continue to grow and offset much of these emission reduction benefits.

Between 1980 and 1999, vehicle miles traveled grew by 87 percent. If a similar pattern continues through 2020, NOx and VOC emissions from motor vehicles will decline by 2020 by only little more than half. But much deeper reductions than this

will be needed to achieve healthful air quality for all Americans. In other words,

technology alone will not make the amount of driving irrelevant to considerations of

pollution control in the foreseeable future.

The recent adoption of more stringent motor vehicle emissions and fuel standards

for light duty trucks and heavy-duty diesel engines will offer important additional

contributions toward clean air. Nonetheless, progress toward timely attainment will

for the next several decades be dependent on continued and improved measurement

and monitoring of the amount and pattern of motor vehicle use, and greater efforts

to avoid pollution by shaping motor vehicle use and travel behavior.

Question 5. In your written testimony, you State, based on the MATES-II study,

‘‘that 90 percent of the total cancer risk is attributable to toxic air pollutants emitted by mobile sources.’’ But you fail to mention that 70 percent of that risk is from

diesel emissions, and the EPA heavy duty diesel rule will substantially reduce these

emissions. Moreover, you also fail to mention that the same study shows that cancer

risk has been declining from 700 per million in 1990 to 300 per million in 1997,

which suggests progress is being made on non-diesel related toxic emissions. You

suggest that less highway construction and more programs to reduce vehicle travel

are needed to reduce these risks, yet isn’t technology and better fuels the real answer to reduce most of these risks?

Less highway construction and improved programs to reduce vehicle travel should

indeed be evaluated through the planning and project review process to appraise

their capacity to avoid or mitigate adverse health risks caused by transportation related air toxics emissions. Travel demand and growth management strategies, pricing incentives, and other actions related to the operation, management, investment

in transportation systems and related community systems can often provide very

cost-effective approaches to reduce exposure of communities to air toxics and the

cancer and other health risks associated with these exposures. Indeed, expansion of

highways where unacceptably high air toxic exposure problems already exist will

likely increase the scope of the problem by inducing traffic growth and exposures

to air toxics. Cleaner technology and better fuels are not the only or best way to

reduce most of these health risks, although these are an important part of the solution. While a reduction in cancer risk from 1990 to 1997 is documented in the

MATES-II study, the cancer risk in 1997 is many times higher than the level at

which EPA and FHWA are required to take actions to safeguard public health from

such documented risks.

Diesel emissions are indeed the largest source of toxic air pollutants emitted from

mobile sources and the EPA heavy duty diesel rule will eventually reduce those

emissions substantially. But because of the long-delayed timeframe for implementation of the heavy-duty diesel rule and the very long lifetime of diesel engine equipment, barring major new pollution control initiatives, it will take decades to achieve

the substantial emission reductions required to protect public health from toxic air

pollutants from these motor vehicles. While technology and fuels will do a lot to reduce these risks, public health will be best protected by a program that combines

such initiatives with better strategies to manage the demand and use patterns of
106

motor vehicles—both diesel and non-diesel—and to manage exposure of the public

to these emissions. This must include consideration of how changes in transportation investments—such as highway expansions—will affect the amount of traffic

emitting toxic air pollutants, and whether alternative investments might better satisfy mobility objectives while avoiding or mitigating these adverse health impacts.

As the example in Washington, DC, cited above shows, reducing highway system expansions can—at least at times—produce both cost savings and substantial reductions in pollution. There are many ways to better manage the system to minimize

air toxics while meeting mobility needs, including promotion of faster adoption of

cleaner technologies and alternative transportation investment and management

strategies. But FHWA is refusing to face core issues related to health impact assessment in its project approval and transportation plan and program approval process.

The health risks from transportation related air toxics remaining after the

emission reductions of the last decade far exceed Federal criteria for unacceptable health risks, and will continue to be unacceptably high even if further reductions in per-vehicle emissions are achieved in the foreseeable future. The future risks expected due to the traffic volume anticipated in many major highway corridors are not acceptable to the families who are exposed to toxic emissions. Furthermore, proper consideration of strategies that serve mobility needs

without increasing single occupant vehicle travel can minimize these risks.

FHWA has not given adequate consideration of these harmful health effects and

the alternatives that could mitigate them in its process for reviewing and approving transportation plans, programs, highway funding agreements, and

project environmental and design documentation.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., requires

a review of the harmful effects of exposure to these motor vehicle pollutants generated by highways. FHWA has violated both NEPA and the requirements imposed

by 23 USC § 109(a) and (h) and 23 CFR § 771.105 to assess and mitigate the adverse

effects of air pollution from highway projects in a number of cases, such as the proposed widening of US 95 in Las Vegas.

It is not acceptable to dismiss the substantial cancer risks that are exacerbated by highway expansions simply because cleaner technologies are likely to

be introduced into the marketplace at some future time without considering the

health impacts on several generations of children and adults who we know will

be harmed by these effects in the decades prior to these cleaner technologies

coming into wider use. The evidence of serious health risks is compelling. California’s South Coast Air Quality Management District published a study entitled Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES-II) in March 2000. In February 2000, the Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association published a study entitled ‘‘Distance Weighted Traffic Density in Proximity to

Home is a Risk Factor for Leukemia and Other Childhood Cancers’’ (JAWMA

Study). But FHWA routinely fails to even attempt to estimate the concentrations of toxic vehicular emissions likely to result from vehicle travel in high volume traffic corridors proposed for major expansion, or to assess the health risks

of public exposure to pollutant concentrations identified by these recent scientific studies as the source of elevated cancer risks and rates. Not performing

such an assessment is arbitrary and capricious and inconsistent with NEPA.

EPA has listed 21 toxic air contaminants from mobile sources, including diesel particulate and diesel exhaust organic gases. The EPA concluded that ‘‘[t]he

current EPA position is that diesel exhaust is a likely human lung carcinogen

and that this cancer hazard exists for occupational and environmental levels of

exposure.’’ 65 Fed. Reg. 35, 446 (June 2, 2000). The EPA premised this position

on findings by the World Health Organization, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and International Agency for Research on Cancer. Id.

Other Federal health agencies have listed diesel emissions as containing carcinogens. The National Toxicology Program at NEIHS on May 15, 2000, 2

months before your letter, listed diesel particulate as a ‘‘known human carcinogen.’’ EPA has published a list of ‘‘Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT)’’ which

‘‘includes various volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and metals, as well as diesel particulate matter and diesel exhaust organic gases (collectively DPM +

DEOG).’’ 66 FR 17,229 (March 29, 2001). This list clearly defines the hazardous

air pollutants from motor vehicles that FHWA should consider in assessing the

health effects of air toxic emissions from the major highway expansion projects.

In refusing to prepare environmental analyses, FHWA has cited evidence that

toxic emissions from individual automobiles and overall emissions in urban areas

had declined from 1990–97. FHWA has failed to explain, however, why this decline

justifies a refusal to consider the public health significance of ongoing cancer risks
107

identified in studies that relied on monitored ambient concentrations of toxic contaminants near major highways and other information gathered after 1997. Indeed,

the toxic pollutant concentrations reported in MATES-II reflect lower per-vehicle

emissions than are occurring in most States, because California vehicles are subject

to stricter emission standards.

FHWA’s response to environmental critics does not address the information

showing that the health risks remaining after the emission reductions of the

last decade far exceed Federal criteria for unacceptable health risks, and will

continue to be unacceptably high even if further reductions in per-vehicle emissions are achieved in the foreseeable future. The future risks expected due to

the traffic volume anticipated in the US–95 Las Vegas corridor and many other

areas of the Nation subject to highway expansion are not acceptable to the families who are exposed to toxic emissions. Furthermore, proper consideration of

strategies that serve mobility needs without increasing single occupant vehicle

travel can minimize these risks. Congress should reaffirm FHWA’s obligation to

consider as part of project reviews these harmful health effects and the alternatives that could mitigate them.

Emissions per vehicle mile traveled are not relevant to assessing the magnitude

of the public health risk associated with motor vehicle emissions. The key issue is

total emissions from highway corridors and the impacts total emissions are expected

to have on the health of nearby populations. When highway expansion increases the

vehicle-carrying capacity of the highway it induces additional traffic volumes, which

in turn will contribute to increased total emissions from the highway and exposure

to higher concentrations in the ambient air of hazardous pollutants in nearby neighborhoods. Risks to human health increase in proportion to human exposure to pollutants in the ambient air, not emissions per vehicle. These increased exposures create significant public health hazards that must be addressed in environmental reviews, the regional planning process, and the air quality conformity process.

At least one reasonable estimate of the cancer risk attributable to diesel emissions

is the estimate developed by the California environmental agencies presented in the

MATES-II study. Even if a careful review of the evidence suggests a better estimate

of the cancer risk is only one-half or one-quarter of the risk estimated by California,

the risk would still be very high.

Estimates that regional concentrations of criteria pollutants may improve are simply not relevant to assessing the likely public health impacts of toxic contaminants

from motor vehicles. The regional modeling assessments performed to satisfy the

‘‘conformity’’ requirements of the CAA address only the direct emissions of CO,

PM10 and ozone precursors from motor vehicles. These pollutants are subject to

emissions limitations established by EPA for new motor vehicles, and are expected

to decline in the future because future vehicles are required to meet more stringent

emissions standards. But no such standards have been established for toxic air contaminants. There is no basis for assuming that comparable reductions will be

achieved for toxic air contaminants. Even if emissions from future vehicles are reduced, that reduction would not obviate the need to assess future emissions levels

and whether total emissions in a heavily trafficked corridor will cause or contribute

to unacceptable health hazards.

In considering whether technology cleanup vs. demand management and improved transportation system planning should be preferred strategies for avoiding or mitigating health impacts of transportation, it is vital to consider the

health costs of highways. The Department of Transportation has estimated the

national aggregate health costs of criteria air pollutants from highways at $40

to $68 billion per year. Table 9, Addendum to the 1997 Federal Highway Cost

Allocation Study Final Report, U.S. Deppartment of Transportation, Federal

Highway Administration (May 2000). The methodology developed in the Addendum to the Highway Cost Allocation Study to estimate the costs of adverse

health effects from air pollution provides a basis for estimating the adverse

health effects, and costs, attributable to emissions from specific highway corridors. The Addendum assessed only the health effects attributable to pre-1997

criteria pollutants, and did not include the health effects attributable to toxic

air contaminants emitted from motor vehicles. If FHWA intends to justify highway expansions by comparing the value of increased travel against the costs of

providing that capacity, a fair assessment of the health costs to the community

must be part of the calculus. In addition, that kind of cost-benefit calculus must

be applied to both the highway option and reasonably available alternatives

that can reduce or mitigate the adverse impacts on health.

Recent studies have significantly improved understanding of the linkage between

vehicle emissions and the risk and incidence of cancer among people living near
108

major highways. The MATES-II and JAWMA studies demonstrate that projects like

the US–95 expansion in Las Vegas will increase cancer risks among exposed populations, a highly significant impact on the human environment that warrants environmental impact review. The most important new information derived from these

studies is (1) the magnitude of the cancer risk caused by motor vehicle emissions

from a highway corridor of the size of the US–95 project, and (2) the demonstrated

increased incidence of cancer among children exposed to higher traffic volumes.

It has been known for nearly two decades that motor vehicles emit toxic pollutants that include known or suspected carcinogens. What had not been firmly established by sound scientific research prior to the MATES-II results is that these pollutants reach concentrations in the ambient air in the vicinity of heavily traveled

highways that present cancer risks of at least 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 650, i.e., levels far

greater than the threshold for mitigation established by EPA’s cancer risk policy

and Federal agency policies generally.

EPA’s cancer risk policy requires that pollutants be reduced when risks exceed

1 in 10,000 for the maximally exposed individual. These high cancer risks for nearby

residents, and even higher risks for those living adjacent to roadways, far exceed

the risk levels adopted by EPA and Congress in setting national health standards,

and are unacceptable to the residents of these neighborhoods. EPA has summarized

the consensus cancer risk policy of Federal agencies as requiring careful assessment

of measures to reduce cancer risks when the population risk is greater than 1 in

1 million.

Where the entire U.S. population is exposed to a chemical classified as a probable human carcinogen, the agency consensus appears to be that risks less than

1 in 1 million generally can be found acceptable without consideration of other

factors while risks greater than that level require further analysis as to their

acceptability.

56 Fed. Reg. 7757 (February 25, 1991). On the other hand, EPA and other Federal

agencies have generally acted to reduce cancer risks greater than 1 in 10,000. Here,

the evidence from MATES-II shows that communities near corridors such as US–

95 with traffic volumes in excess of 220,000 vehicles per day will be exposed to cancer risks well above 1 in 10,000.

The MATES-II study derived its estimates of community cancer risks from ambient air monitoring of toxic pollutants in 12 residential neighborhoods during 1998

and 1999. MATES-II also included regional toxic emission data for the Los Angeles

Basin and a computer modeling program to estimate exposures for areas of the region where monitors were not located. The conclusions of the MATES-II study are

startling: the regional average risk of cancer for residents of the Basin is 1400 in

one million (1 cancer for each 714 residents), and 90 percent of this heightened cancer risk is attributable to air pollution from mobile sources. (MATES-II at ES–3).

MATES-II determined that exposure to diesel particulate emissions and other

toxics from mobile sources combine to cause 90 percent of the elevated risks. Id. at

E–3. Areas with concentrated traffic suffered from increased risks of cancer above

the regional average. Id. at ES–5. The study found that the highest cancer risk is

in neighborhoods nearest highways where modeled risks were as high as 5800 in

one million, meaning that one person out of 170 is likely to suffer cancer. Id. at Fig.

5–3a, p. 5–10.

The JAWMA study of cancer rates in Denver, also published in 2000, is consistent

with the MATES-II findings. That study focused on rates of childhood leukemia

among children under 12 living very near highways (within 750 feet). The study

found that children with leukemia were 12 times more likely to live close to highways than children without leukemia, and concluded that a ‘‘strong association’’ exists between proximity to high traffic streets and childhood leukemia. JAWMA

Study at 2. The study built on established research connecting childhood cancers to

benzene and other volatile organic compounds found in automobile emissions. Id.

Both the MATES-II and JAWMA studies have broad applicability. While

MATES-II examined the L.A. Basin specifically, the general findings establish

a clear link between automobile emissions and cancer risk. Even if the relative

magnitude of emissions of cancer causing agents differs somewhat between

locales, the underlying conclusion remains irrefutable: highways are the largest

source of carcinogens emitted into the ambient air in the urban environments,

and the pollutant concentrations are highest in neighborhoods near highways.

The size of the cancer risk is proportional to daily traffic loads in the corridor.

When traffic loads are known, approximations of ambient concentrations of mobile source toxics can be made for neighborhoods located next to highways in

other States by comparing the daily traffic loads on those highways with the
109

daily traffic loads on highways for which emissions are modeled in the MATESII study.

Except for diesel particulate, these risk estimates are derived from well-established

risk factors that have been the subject of intensive scrutiny for many years. Although the MATES-II cancer risks are derived from risk factors adopted by the California environmental agencies, those factors do not differ significantly from those reported by EPA. See Integrated Risk Information System (EPA, Cincinnati,

OH)[http://www.epa.gov/iris]. In addition, these risk estimates are not for the maximally exposed individual living adjacent to heavily traveled highway corridors, but

rather for regional populations. Nearby neighborhood exposures are substantially

higher, and may be as much as an order of magnitude higher for the maximally exposed individuals.

With regard to diesel particulate, the cancer risks in MATES-II are estimated

based on unit risk factors adopted by California, but not yet by EPA. ‘‘The current

EPA position is that diesel exhaust is a likely human lung carcinogen and that this

cancer hazard exists for occupational and environmental levels of exposure.’’ 65 FR

35,446 (June 2, 2000). This characterization of DPM as a carcinogen is supported

by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and the World Health Organization

(WHO). Id. The National Toxicology Program at NEIHS on May 15, 2000, also listed

diesel particulate as a ‘‘known human carcinogen.’’ Although a risk factor for DPM

has not yet been adopted by a Federal agency, more than enough data has been accumulated from numerous epidemiological studies to allow a risk factor to be determined for risk assessment purposes. Further, California’s more stringent emissions

standards mean that other jurisdictions, like Las Vegas, may suffer from higher concentrations of toxic emissions from mobile sources.

The JAWMA study emphasized the relationship between proximity to highways

and childhood cancers. As such, this study has broad application. Nothing in the

study indicates that the areas examined were in any way exceptional. Based on the

findings in the JAWMA study, one would predict higher rates of childhood leukemia

among those living near major highways such as the expanded US–95 in Las Vegas.

In response to this new information, Sierra Club and local civic and environmental interests have sought action by FHWA to assure a Supplemental Environmental Impact Study (SEIS) for the US–95 corridor expansion project in Las Vegas.

Similar issues are presented in other corridors around the country where extremely

high traffic volumes would be increased by road expansions in an area close to thousands of residents. But FHWA has refused to consider the issues being raised by

environmental and health groups. These issues go to the underlying questions posed

by Senator Smith—should such requests for analysis be dismissed because of cleaner technologies are expected to become available in coming years and because emissions are decreasing somewhat in some areas? And are facility investment and

transportation system management strategies worth considering as control strategies related to these public health problems?

A significant purpose of an EIS is the involvement and education of the public

that the process entails. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that SEISs are necessary

to ensure that this purpose is furthered. Marsh, 490 U.S. at 371 (1989). The cancer

studies raise an issue that clearly warrants such public involvement. The US–95 expansion may look dramatically different to residents alerted to the heretofore unconsidered link between highways and cancer. An SEIS would provide an opportunity

to inform the public about the issue and the degree of risk involved. The public has

an obvious, critical interest in providing input on this issue.

Public involvement in the consideration of alternative modes of meeting travel demand in the US–95 corridor is critical. NEPA not only serves as a vehicle for informing the public of impacts, it also requires that alternatives be considered. Taken

together with the requirement of 23 U.S.C. § 109(h) to mitigate the adverse impacts

of air pollution from highways, an SEIS should identify the alternatives that can

mitigate or eliminate the cancer risk while at the same time meeting the mobility

needs of people who live and work in the US–95 corridor or other similar corridors

around the United States

Federal law requires assessment, reporting, and mitigation of health risks attributable to highway projects. FHWA’s failure to assess the adverse health effects, the

costs of these health effects, and the alternative transportation facilities and/or services that could prevent or minimize the adverse effects of the project violates NEPA,

section 109 of the Federal transportation code and the Department of Transportation’s (‘‘DOT’’) environmental regulation at 23 CFR § 771.105.

The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the position adopted by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) that the purpose of the National Environmental Protection Act would be thwarted without an SEIS requirement. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c);
110

Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 370 (1989). Accordingly,

CEQ regulations implementing NEPA impose a duty on Federal agencies to prepare

an SEIS when ‘‘[t]here are significant new circumstances or information relevant to

environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed actions or its impacts.’’ 40

C.F.R. § 1502.9(c)(ii). As noted above, the CEQ defines ‘‘significantly’’ according to

context and intensity. Context includes effects on society generally and the locality

in particular, and intensity includes the magnitude of the impacts on public health

and the nature of the risks. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27.

When deciding whether to prepare an SEIS, the agency must apply a ‘‘rule of reason,’’ while taking a ‘‘hard look’’ at new information. Marsh, 490 U.S. at 373–74.

In weighing the value of new information, the agency must make the decision according to the same NEPA guidelines governing the decision whether to prepare an

EIS in the first instance. Id. If new information shows that the proposed action will

affect the environment in ‘‘a significant manner or to a significant extent not already considered, a supplemental EIS must be prepared.’’ Id. When new scientific

data raise environmental concerns that have not been addressed in a previous EIS,

an SEIS is required. Portland Audubon Society v. Babbitt, 998 F.2d 705, 708 (9th

Cir. 1993). New concerns that require an SEIS can be either quantitative or qualitative. Environmental Defense Fund. v. Marsh, 651 F.2d 983, 996 (5th Cir. 1981).

In addition to NEPA, Federal highway law requires the consideration of the adverse effects of air pollution prior to approval of the plans and specifications for a

highway, 23 U.S.C § 109(a), and the adoption of measures that ‘‘eliminate or minimize’’ the adverse effects of ‘‘air pollution.’’

23 U.S.C. § 109(h). In a case challenging DOT’s approval of a highway project without assessing its impact on air pollution, the court in D.C. Federation of Civic Associations v. Volpe, 459 F.2d 1231 (D.C. Cir. 1971), held that 23 U.S.C. § 109(a) required such an analysis:

We can find no basis in the statute’s language or purpose for the conclusion

that certain hazards are, as a matter of law, immaterial to the Secretary’s evaluation of a project’s safety. The District Court would surely agree that Congress

did not intend to permit construction of a bridge in a situation, however rare,

where air pollution would be a significant threat to safety. It does not follow,

of course, that air pollution will be a significant hazard in all-or even any-highway projects. And the District Court apparently concluded that no extraordinary

dangers are likely to arise from the Three Sisters Bridge. Still, the gathering

and evaluation of evidence on potential pollution hazards is the responsibility

of the Secretary of Transportation, and he undertook no study of the problem.

DOT’s approval of the highway bridge was remanded.

Federal highway law goes beyond NEPA by requiring that the decision to approve

a highway be——

‘‘made in the best overall public interest taking into consideration the need for

fast, safe and efficient transportation, public services, and the costs of eliminating or minimizing such adverse effects and the following: (1) air, noise, and

water pollution; (2) destruction or disruption of man-made and natural resources, aesthetic values, community cohesion and the availability of public facilities and services; (3) adverse employment effects, and tax and property value

losses; (4) injurious displacement of people, businesses and farms; and (5) disruption of desirable community and regional growth. Such guidelines shall

apply to all proposed projects with respect to which plans, specifications, and

estimates are approved by the Secretary after the issuance of such guidelines.’’

23 USC § 109(h). At a minimum, this provision requires DOT to determine the

costs of eliminating or minimizing the adverse health effects attributable to air pollution, and then requiring mitigation in the ‘‘best overall public interest.’’

DOT’s 1987 regulations implementing this requirement and NEPA provide that

the analyses required by § 109(a) and (h) are to be performed as part of the NEPA

review of the project. 23 CFR Part 771. Thus because both § 109(a) and (h) require

an analysis of the adverse effects of air pollution and the costs of eliminating or

minimizing such effects, a supplemental EIS is required.

Section 109(h) also requires DOT to ‘‘eliminate or minimize’’ the adverse effects

attributable to a new or expanded highway. This provision is implemented through

DOT regulations in 23 CFR § 771.105, but has not been applied by FHWA with regard to the adverse health affects associated with toxic and fine particle air pollutants emitted from this highway project. DOT’s regulation adopts as——

the policy of the [Federal Highway] Administration that:

(b) Alternative courses of action be evaluated and decisions be made in the

best overall public interest based upon a balanced consideration of the need for
111

safe and efficient transportation; of the social, economic, and environmental impacts of the proposed transportation improvement; and of national, State, and

local environmental protection goals.

(c) Public involvement and a systematic interdisciplinary approach be essential parts of the development process for proposed actions.

(d) Measures necessary to mitigate adverse impacts be incorporated into the

action. Measures necessary to mitigate adverse impacts are eligible for Federal

funding when the Administration determines that:

(1) The impacts for which the mitigation is proposed actually result from the

Administration action; and

(2) The proposed mitigation represents a reasonable public expenditure after

considering the impacts of the action and the benefits of the proposed mitigation

measures. In making this determination, the Administration will consider,

among other factors, the extent to which the proposed measures would assist

in complying with a Federal statute, Executive Order, or Administration regulation or policy.

On its face, paragraph (d) requires that measures necessary to mitigate the adverse health effects of hazardous air pollutants and fine particles be incorporated

into the plans and specifications for the project. Subparagraphs (1) and (2) then establish criteria for determining whether the costs of mitigation are eligible for Federal funding. The rule does not contemplate the approval of a project that would

have significant adverse effects on human health without requiring that those effects be mitigated. The project must either include measures to eliminate long-term

human exposure to the levels of hazardous air contaminants that are associated

with significant risks of adverse health effects, or alternatives must be developed

that can prevent these adverse health effects. None of these requirements of DOT’s

rule have been addressed in the review of the US–95 project in Las Vegas.

For all of the above reasons, less highway construction and more programs to reduce vehicle travel should indeed be evaluated through the planning and project review process to appraise their capacity to avoid or mitigate adverse health risks

caused by transportation related air toxics emissions. While cleaner technology and

better fuels are an important part of the solution, they are not the only way or necessarily the best way to reduce most of these risks.

Proposals to streamline NEPA reviews through such actions as imposition of arbitrary deadlines for agency action, limits on public involvement, curbs on the engagement of resource agencies and the public in determinations of project purpose and

need or available reasonable alternatives, limitations on judicial review of NEPA decisions threaten to reduce compliance with these important legal requirements and

public health safeguards. We urge Congress to oppose such efforts as fundamental

assaults on America’s core environmental and public health laws.

STATEMENT OF HOWARD MAIER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NORTHEAST OHIO AREAWIDE

COORDINATING AGENCY, CLEVELAND, OH AND JERRY LASKER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDIAN NATIONS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, TULSA, OK, REPRESENTING THE

NORTHEAST OHIO AREAWIDE COORDINATING AGENCY (NOACA), THE INDIAN NATIONS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (INCOG) AND THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

REGIONAL COUNCILS (NARC)

WHAT ARE NOACA AND INCOG?

The Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (NOACA) and the Indian Nations Council of Government (INCOG) are two of over 300 federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) in the country. MPOs perform the planning component of the Federal surface transportation act to keep the funding for

transportation projects flowing into their regions. Part of their responsibility is

meeting Clean Air Act and Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA–

21) requirements and regulations relating to transportation conformity and cleanair planning.

NOACA represents 170 local governments in a five county region. These five counties (Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain and Medina) total 2.1 million people. This is

one fifth of the State of Ohio’s population. NOACA operates in the heart of a home

rule State—where units of local government make autonomous decisions regarding

roads, zoning, and economic development within the confines of their respective

boundaries. There is no State or Federal mandate to compel these communities to

cooperate on these issues. NOACA is the one forum in which these communities

come together and make decisions from a regional perspective.
112

INCOG is a voluntary association of some 50+ local governments in the five-county Tulsa, Oklahoma metropolitan area and has served as the MPO for over 20 years.

The city of Tulsa, the region’s largest city, contains about half of the region’s approximately 800,000 population. Osage County, the region’s largest county, borders

the State of Kansas, is bigger than the State of Rhode Island and has a population

of approximately 45,000.

THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGIONAL COUNCILS (NARC)

NARC is a 32-year-old organization serving the interests of regional councils, and

MPOs. NARC is an umbrella organization comprised of planning commissions and

development districts made up of large urban and small rural councils, and MPOs

from across the country. NARC provides advocacy and technical assistance in and

for environmental issues, economic and community development, emergency management, and transportation. NARC emphasizes regional intergovernmental cooperation to resolve common problems in all of these important areas.

Regional councils and MPOs are created by compact and enabling legislation as

consortia of local governments. As such, regional councils and MPOs represent local

elected officials from cities, counties, townships, and villages. Their mission is regional planning and coordination across multiple jurisdictions. Regional Councils

and MPOs deliver a wide-range of programs and services such as economic development, first responder and 9–1–1, health care, infrastructure development, aging

services, air and water quality, land-use planning, work force development, emergency management and homeland security, and transportation.

Among all of these programs, transportation is key to the continued prosperity

and health of all regions across the country. Access to employment and recreation

and the movement of goods and services, drive regional economies and serves to

bridge communities otherwise separated.

The Committee is addressing one of the most complex aspects of transportation

system development—transportation conformity. First and foremost, Congress

should consider whether air quality conformity as it currently exists is a tool that

truly achieves clean air quality goals in our regions.

Our Nation needs to maintain its commitment to clean air and healthy communities. The Nation has made great strides in the application of new technology to

environmental betterment, in the maintenance of our freight and transport fleets,

and in energy savings, all leading to cleaner air across the country. However, the

complex and burdensome system currently used for assisting our regions in determining standards, in applying data, and in selecting projects does not always work

to improve community livability. The current process, while proving itself over the

years, also has proven challenging for MPOs. Benefits gained in clean air through

the law need to be measured against the increasing cost and complexity of clean

air planning.

THE NORTHEAST OHIO EXPERIENCE WITH CMAQ AND CONFORMITY

The 1992 classification of Northeast Ohio as a moderate nonattainment area for

ozone generated a planning challenge for the region. State Implementation Plans

(SIPs) must be developed for nonattainment areas. SIPs identify how an area will

achieve attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Because earlier SIP planning efforts often generated documents that did not result in

significant improvements in actual air quality conditions, USEPA required a specific

format for the new SIPs for the newly classified nonattainment areas. USEPA required that moderate ozone nonattainment areas develop plans that would generate

15 percent reductions in hydrocarbon pollutant emissions by 1996 beyond already

mandated improved vehicle technologies (e.g., catalytic converters). Hydrocarbons, a

precursor of ozone, were believed to be the primary contributor to ozone attainment

problems at that time. In northeast Ohio, the required reduction amounted to

roughly 75 tons per day. This SIP requirement gave areas less than 4 years to generate a considerable decrease in hydrocarbon emissions.

Northeast Ohio, like many nonattainment areas, found itself facing a challenge.

The reductions identified in the 15 percent SIP had to be real, that is, the activities

that were to generate the reduction had to be recognized by USEPA to be certain

to achieve the stated reduction. USEPA held the authority to approve or reject any

methodology submitted for a given reduction strategy. In many instances (e.g. the

Automobile Inspection Maintenance Program), USEPA supplied the approved methodology for local use. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funded projects

also had to meet this ‘‘verifiable reduction’’ requirement.

Areas planning to achieve the 15 percent reduction generally adopted a two-tiered

approach to the planning effort. First, they identified the available control measures
113

that could be mandated. These included m easures such as changes in fuel formulation and the Automobile Inspection and Maintenance (AIM) Program. Second, once

all the possible reductions from these measures were identified, other measures

were identified to make up the remaining reduction target. These measures (e.g. signal projects) were generally not things that could be mandated. They also generally

required the development of some quantitative or qualitative methodology for estimating the emission reductions associated with them.

During this planning stage, USEPA approved a NOACA methodology for estimating emission reductions from signalization projects. This approval, and the need

for additional reductions toward the 15 percent target, led NOACA to ask local governments to identify signalization projects that could aid in meeting its goal. Generally, only signalized corridors generated sufficient reductions to be worth consideration for this planning purpose. Once a set of possible candidate projects was identified, NOACA asked municipalities to become project sponsors and to commit to implementing the projects by the summer of 1996. The projects of those municipalities

who could make this commitment were added to the 15 percent Plan. Twenty-two

signalization projects made this cut. CMAQ funds were the obvious choice for funding these transportation improvements.

These events led to three results that persist to this day:

1. Twenty-two signalization projects were guaranteed CMAQ funding for their

projects in order to ensure compliance with the 15 percent SIP;

2. A large reservoir of additional signal projects whose project sponsors could not

commit to the 1996 deadline were on the table and were also candidates for CMAQ

funding; and

3. Local communities became aware that CMAQ funds were available and could

be used for signalization projects. This resulted in a continuing stream of applications for additional signal projects.

In addition to signalization projects CMAQ dollars have also been used to fund

the purchase of buses and the construction of park-n-ride lots. These lots provide

an increased opportunity for non-auto dependent travel to work and other destinations. It is probable that many of these projects would not exist in the absence of

the CMAQ program.

The CMAQ program through its specialized focus affords a unique opportunity to

pursue projects that are beneficial to air quality. It is likely that given the limited

resources available, these projects would not be completed with regular transportation dollars. They would fall victim to the many competing priorities for these

funds. For this reason, NOACA believes that the CMAQ program should remain to

give priority to these air-quality projects.

It should be noted that in the State of Ohio, as it is in many States, CMAQ funding is allocated by the Department of Transportation. While there is general agreement about this process—it is applied at the discretion of the State. Direct apportionments to MPOs in this next surface transportation bill would eliminate any uncertainties they have concerning their share of CMAQ dollars.

NOACA’s experience with transportation conformity analyses has been somewhat

different than that experienced in many metropolitan areas around the country.

Conformity analyses were introduced as a required element of transportation planning in December 1993. Since that time all proposed new projects or revisions that

could generate a possible air quality impact must be evaluated for their conformity

to the purposes of the State Implementation Plans (SIPs) in nonattainment and

maintenance areas. Conformity determination in nonattainment areas involves the

comparison of the aggregate system-wide emissions resulting from the construction

of a project with those existing in its absence. This is referred to as the Build/NoBuild Test. Conformity determination also involves the comparison of the resulting

emissions with those in the emissions budget from the applicable SIP. This is called

the Budget Test. In maintenance areas, only the SIP Budget Test is required.

Prior to its redesignation to attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard in 1996,

NOACA had to conduct both the Build/No-Build and the Budget Tests for its transportation plans, programs, and projects. During this period, the Build/No-Build test

was the only aspect of the conformity process that posed a potential problem in the

NOACA area. This is because in a long established area like Northeast Ohio, new

capacity additions are responsible for very small changes in total area wide emissions. As a result, differences between Build/No-Build scenarios were very small and

the demonstration of a net improvement from an analysis frequently needed to rely

on the use of off-network reductions to offset tiny increases generated by the model.

Off-network reductions are reductions from activities that cannot be captured by the

transportation-modeling environment. Signalization projects are an example of such

a reduction. Changes in signal number and or timing are not captured in a traditional four-step transportation model. As a result, their impact must be determined
114

separately and then combined with the model results. Using these off-network results, NOACA successfully passed both Build/No-Build and Budget Tests during its

period of nonattainment.

Following redesignation, NOACA only experienced problems with conformity determinations when changes in the MOBILE model resulted in dramatic changes in

the forecast of emissions from the transportation system. The MOBILE model,

which is developed and updated by USEPA, has been updated several times during

the past decade. Twice during this period, NOACA has had to seek revision to its

SIP Budgets in order to allow for conformity of its transportation plans with the

SIP budget.

Outside of the aforementioned modeling circumstances, the remaining conformity

challenge for the area has been that its transportation plans, programs, and projects

must be conformed based on the entire nonattainment/maintenance area. In the region this has meant the need to conduct conformity for two MPOs and one additional county.

This situation has resulted in the need for significantly more coordination, and

therefore, time than would be experienced in the absence of this requirement.

Compounding this situation have been efforts by FHWA to require the two MPOs

to share identical transportation planning timeframes as a result of their participation in conformity planning for this multi-jurisdictional area. It severely taxes the

governing bodies of two independent MPOs to be required to establish transportation planning schedules based solely on a required conformity finding. The conformity process in and of itself is expensive and time consuming—when the coordination of two Federal agencies, a State DOT, and multiple local jurisdictions is

added the costs become unmanageable. This experience is similar for all MPOs—

and many of them have multiple State boundaries and many more local jurisdictions.

NOACA recognizes that its experience of CMAQ and conformity analyses has been

different from many other metropolitan areas. The area’s relatively stable population has resulted in slower VMT growth than in many other areas. As a result,

emission reductions from new vehicle improvements have outweighed any emission

increases associated with VMT growth. This has averted any of the planning difficulties associated with major population growth and capacity increases realized in

other urbanized areas. NOACA expects however along with our colleagues from

other MPOs that we will have difficulty in planning for the new 8 hour standards.

THE EXPERIENCE OF TULSA, OKLAHOMA IN CMAQ AND CONFORMITY

Tulsa County was a non-attainment area until 1990. INCOG worked very hard

locally to achieve attainment status and Tulsa became a clean air county prior to

the signing of the Clean Air Act Amendments. It was very important to avoid the

stigma associated with being on the EPA non-attainment list, especially for economic development purposes. Since that time, INCOG worked even harder to maintain our clean air status. While efforts were wide ranging, perhaps most notable was

the creation of the nationally recognized Ozone Alert! Program, the nation’s first episodic voluntary emissions control program. This program reflects INCOG’s philosophy of seeking voluntary common sense measures that are most effective in improving air quality rather than the command and control approach too often used

by State and Federal regulators. As part of this program, gasoline suppliers and distributors agreed to voluntarily reduce the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) of gas sold

in the Tulsa area. The regional transit agency provided free bus rides on Ozone

Alert! Days and citizens and businesses were asked to voluntarily reduce their driving and other pollution causing activities.

In addition to the Ozone Alert! Program, Tulsa, by formal agreement with EPA

and a host of other Federal, State and local partners, became the nation’s first

Flexible Attainment Region (FAR). Beginning in 1995, the FAR provided the region

a locally crafted strategy to reduce emissions and adequate time to evaluate results

before implementing more stringent measures to meet regional goals. This approach

avoided the ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ command and control system , which has been historically imposed by EPA. The FAR agreement came about because the region as local

governments and private industry are committed to improving air quality. The necessary ingredients to make this work are flexibility and common sense. When the

regions are allowed to develop their own program the local ‘‘buy in’’ is assured and

the willingness to commit financial and political capital to achieve results is more

readily accepted.

The Tulsa area successfully maintained the 1-hour ozone standard during the 5-

year FAR agreement. After the expiration of the FAR agreement in 2000, the Tulsa

area experienced a unique weather pattern that resulted in a number of exceedences
115

of the ozone standard, putting the region close to violating the standard. Again, in

order to avoid going into non-attainment INCOG entered into EPA’s Ozone Flex program which was designed to defer redesignation until it was shown that locally imposed emission control reduction measures would not work. INCOG is proud to relate that their continuing efforts have been successful and they have remained in

attainment of the 1-hour standard.

Presently, Tulsa faces its next challenge in meeting the 8-hr. standard. Current

readings at two of the five ozone monitors in Tulsa County place the entire fivecounty Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) on the verge of non-attainment. EPA

provided two strategies for reaching attainment. The conventional nonattainment

approach requires the Governor of each State to submit to EPA a classification of

‘attainment’, ‘nonattainment’ or ‘unclassifiable’ based on information available for

each affected area. This conventional approach then requires nonattainment areas

to develop enforceable control measures to reduce emissions, modify the State Implementation Plan (SIP) accordingly and reach attainment by as early as 2009.

Transportation conformity analysis begins 1 year after nonattainment designation

and is required to continue for 20 years after reaching attainment. Specific EPA

guidance for the implementation of this strategy is not yet available for the 8-hour

standard. The second strategy provided by EPA is the Early Action Compact (EAC).

The EAC is a 5-year agreement allowing local areas to develop an area specific

program identifying and implementing effective control measures to achieve attainment at the monitors by 2007. Further, EAC defers the effective date of the nonattainment designation. If an area fails to achieve EAC commitments, then the conventional nonattainment strategy kicks in. INCOG has pr oactively entered into the

EAC. The EAC will allow EPA to defer the effective date of designation. In return,

the EAC commits INCOG and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality

to develop additional modeling necessary to identify control measures that will be

implemented to bring the area into compliance by 2007 rather than 2009, the date

required if INCOG were to slip into non-attainment this next season.

Since the Tulsa area is in compliance with our EAC, INCOG is requesting the definition of ‘unclassifiable’ designation be expanded to include areas under EAC agreements. Even though INCOG is under an EAC, and the effective date of the designation is put off, they are told that EPA designations of nonattainment will still occur.

This being the case, Tulsa will be designated nonattainment. The problem will be

solved if States are given the opportunity to defer the designation by recommending

an ‘unclassifiable’ designation.

For a complete discussion of the EAC, please see the material in Attachment A.

INCOG has taken a pro-active approach to improve regional air quality. The stigma associated with being designated non-attainment will have adverse effects on

the region’s economic development initiatives that so desperately need to be effective

during these tough times. INCOG is also very concerned about the health related

implications of poor air quality and its program is designed to address those concerns.

For all of our regions, it is clear that clean air is one of several key health goals.

They do everything possible to balance accessibility and development goals with a

healthy environment. It also is clear that air quality planning is very complex, often

misunderstood, and misapplied.

There is also concern in our regions and local communities that current conformity law may strip local elected officials of the authority they exercise through

the comprehensive transportation decisionmaking process. This process is adopted

in coordination with their citizens, environmental groups, and the business community. Conformity law has the capability to alter decisions made locally and change

the very structure of decisionmaking process in a sweeping and possibly regionally

detrimental fashion. Therefore, NARC believes, with this new reauthorization, we

have the opportunity to fix provisions that will serve only to enhance the current

process.

NOACA, INCOG, and NARC as well as all the associations regional members

have undertaken an extensive look at current conformity processes and what can

be done to make the process smoother, easier to apply, and more effective and meeting clean air goals. The key issues are summarized as follows:

CLEAN AIR PLANNING CYCLES AND CONFORMITY

MPOs are required by law to undertake a comprehensive planning process. Concurrently, air quality plans are undertaken as well. There is no synchronization of

timing on all the different plans that MPOs are doing. Plans start and stop at different times and for different reasons. Because this makes coordination extremely
116

difficult between transportation and air-quality planning, NARC proposes the following revisions.

• Congress should require the planning horizons of State Implementation Plan

(SIP) and transportation plans consistent. Furthermore, the Metropolitan Plan

would only have to conform every 5 years—when it is updated.

• ‘‘Maintenance’’ should be reduced to 5 years.

There is also the problem of implementing new national modeling standards.

NARC is concerned about the implementation of these new standards and the effect

new data runs in new models will have on transportation programs. NARC recommends that:

• Conformity modeling processes and modeling results Federal and State Governments adopt should be consistent with regional metropolitan transportation planning processes and fluctuations in modeling outcomes should be accounted for. Furthermore, an appropriate timeframe for model implementation should be allowed

and regions should not be held accountable for new variances in model outputs

without adequate time to plan.

Very specific aspects of conformity need to be changed to allow our regions to

meet clean air goals. For example, the mitigation of emissions from industry to offset emissions from mobile sources can be used as a comprehensive clean air strategy. Specifically, NARC believes changes in these areas will have tremendous benefits to regions:

• Congress should eliminate the conformity update triggers.

• Allow Transportation Control Measure (TCM) substitution in SIPs without SIP

revisions as long as equivalent emissions reductions are identified and implemented

on a consistent schedule.

• Congress should allow the use of intersector trading for attaining clean air

standards. Congress should also allow trading between pollutant categories.

• Conformity provisions should be reassessed in light of experience with implementation of existing provisions. The purpose/benefit of Build/No-Build Tests should

be closely reviewed.

• Conformity requirements for areas containing more than one MPO must be

clearly stated so as to inform those areas of the precise requirements regarding the

coordination of their planning efforts.

• The loss of highway funds as a penalty for non-compliance with conformity or

other air quality requirements should be closely reexamined. The penalty should not

exacerbate the problem. In many instances, the project that would not be completed

due to the loss of highway funds would contribute to reductions in congestion and

air pollution.

CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY PROGRAM

CMAQ has been demonstratively successful in helping to relieve congestion and

improve air quality. Recently released reports indicate that CMAQ is a very effective program and well received by MPOs. Some specific adjustments will improve

the program and the use of it at the regional level:

• Congress must increase CMAQ funding.

• Congress needs to introduce more flexibility into CMAQ with fewer restrictions

on how long programs or projects can be funded and which are eligible, e.g. 13-year

limitation on operations.

• Congress should suballocate CMAQ funds to all MPOs in air quality non-attainment and maintenance areas.

• In States where all regions are in attainment, the CMAQ funds will be provided

to all MPOs through suballocation (see above) in order to maintain attainment.

• Congress needs to incorporate PM10 and PM2.5 into calculations on funding for

a region.

EIGHT-HOUR STANDARDS

NARC is also aware that current advances in attaining clean air goals may

change as a result of the implementation of USEPA’s new more stringent 8-hour

ozone standard. This will place Northeast Ohio, Tulsa, and many other regions,

under a nonattainment status once more. Depending on how conformity analysis is

handled under this new standard, this could result in more difficulty in demonstrating conformity, and could influence how the area chooses to spend available

CMAQ dollars.

The new 8-hour standards (NAAQS) were revised by EPA in July 1997. The

standard set at 0.08 parts per million (ppm) with 8-hour readings that would be

averaged over 3 years. If an MPO is designated nonattainment then requirements
117

will result in a State Implementation Plan (SIP), Conformity, New Source Review,

and other planning requirements—a cumbersome process.

MPOs are concerned by the litigation that took place under the 1-hour standard

and the potential for a similar rash of lawsuits once the 8-hour designations are

made and the SIPs are submitted. MPOs and States would like to find a legislative

solution to this problem in order to avoid the financial burden of defending their

TIPs and SIPs.

Rural communities and counties are also aware that their designations for nonattainment may change. Under the new 8-hour standards over 400 counties may be

newly designated for nonattainment. Many of these areas are small city or rural

counties not covered by MPO planning areas. These areas have neither the tools nor

expertise necessary to prepare for and/or meet the standards. The costs of compliance far outweigh the ability of rural counties to fund air-quality initiatives.

To help MPOs prepare for the new standards NARC has a cooperative agreement

with EPA and FHWA to provide outreach to all regional councils and MPOs on integrating transportation and air quality planning. A series of workshops have been

provided to help our members understand the 8-hour standards and the implementation. NARC is in the process of preparing Guidelines for Regional Councils and

MPOs on Integrating Transportation and Air Quality Planning.

CLEAN AIR INCENTIVES

The only ‘‘incentives’’ that exist relative to clean air and conformity are disincentives aimed at punishing regions that fail current air quality standards. These disincentives may, in the extreme, shut down a region’s transportation program. The

only extra funding regions receive to combat air quality problems are those from the

CMAQ program, applied when a region reaches non-attainment or maintenance status. To correct this imbalance and reward those regions that are in attainment or

moving toward a maintenance or attainment status, NARC proposes the Clean Air

and Attainment Pilot Program (CAAPP).

• Congress should consider setting-aside, above the normal allocation of category

funding, a reward to those regions that are in attainment or in demonstrated maintenance for a set number of years. This allocation would be discretionary and allocated directly to regions to fund strategies to promote clean air. The funding could

be used to fund planning, management and operations, and other ‘‘clean-air’’ activities. The program would help create a set of ‘best practices’ that could be emulated

by other regions to improve air quality.

• Funding for the CAAPP shall not be taken from the CMAQ program.

Of concern to our regions is the purported linkage between congestion and airquality. MPOs do not necessarily believe there is always a direct linkage between

the two. While cities grow and become more vibrant and while roads in some areas

become congested—our air is becoming cleaner. Government reports have concluded

that the application of new vehicle technology has been a positive contributor to air

being the cleanest it has been in decades. NARC respectfully encourages Congress

to look at congestion mitigation in other discussions and through other programs—

not through the conformity process.

NARC proposes changes in TEA–21 to allow all States and regions the flexibility

to achieve air quality goals and implement world-class transportation systems.

NARC is urging Congress to consider all its partners as important to building and

maintaining the best transportation system in the world. NARC has released a

twelve-point program to help our lawmakers help regions. NARC seeks more funding for MPOs, better coordination within State and Federal programs, and new and

innovative programs aimed at alleviating urban transportation problems such as

congestion, funding flexibility, and freight and goods movement. To this end, Congress should guarantee States the flexibility to spend funds and program projects

based on their priorities and extend that same responsibility and authority to all

local elected officials.

Our association hopes Congress will also consider the role of fiscal constraint on

MPOs and councils. While absolutely necessary to allow for the accurate accounting

of our public expenditures it is critical that revenue forecasts are precise and fiscal

standards remain consistent. MPOs and regional councils are held to higher fiscal

standards in their planning and programming processes then the States that fund

them. Congress should require States to provide accurate revenue forecasts to MPOs

and councils and engage them in calculating these forecasts as well.

NARC will also urge Congress throughout this and the coming year to consider

greater emphasis on safety in rural and urban communities, a balanced and intermodal approach to Federal funding, comprehensive review and consideration of tech-
118

nology deployment, and greater consideration of freight movement as an essential

part of the transportation planning process.

Of particular concern to NARC members and the citizens they represent are the

tens of thousands of accidents and deaths on rural roads each year. Coupled with

increasing safety concerns in urban areas, this presents a sobering picture of travel

on America’s roads. NARC is urging Congress to apply resources in new and innovative ways to lessen this tragedy.

NARC is also urging Congress to consider ways to streamline the project delivery

process, while ensuring the health of our natural environment. The ability to move

projects quickly, especially those that will make our roads safer and eliminate bottlenecks is of key concern. Bound intimately with safety are new concerns for security.

Given the fact that many regional councils are currently involved in emergency

management planning, NARC will also urge Congress to consider regional councils

and MPOs as primary recipients of homeland and surface transportation security

funding.

NARC would like to help all MPOs achieve the same success as that of Cleveland,

Tulsa, and in other places, through a balanced, intermodal, comprehensive, and locally and regionally led process of planning, programming, and project selection.

ATTACHMENT A.—CONSIDERATION OF EARLY ACTION COMPACT AREAS AND REGIONS

CURRENTLY IN ATTAINMENT

A. THE TULSA AREA’S DESIGNATION FOR THE REVISED NAAQS SHOULD BE

‘‘UNCLASSIFIABLE’’. IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO CLARIFY THE CAA LANGUAGE FOR

‘‘UNCLASSIFIABLE’’ AREAS, (CAA SEC 107 D–1 A III) TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE DESIGNA- TION STATUS FOR EAC AREAS MEETING ALL MILESTONES

By July 15, 2003, State Governors are to submit to EPA a list of all areas in the

State recommending designation of nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable on

the basis of available information as meeting or not meeting the revised NAAQS.

These designation and boundary recommendations will precede the EPA’s April

2004 designations. We believe it appropriate and critical that the Tulsa area be ‘‘unclassified’’ during this initial revised NAAQS designation process. We believe we

meet the intent of the CAA’s unclassifiable provision through the Tulsa area’s EAC

commitment and efforts.

Tulsa is very nearly meeting the 8-hour standard, clearly meeting the 1-hour

standard, and through EAC MOA, committed to meeting the 8-hour standard by

2007. The EAC provides for ‘deferring the effective date of a non-attainment designation’ for the Tulsa area. With the past 13 years of pro-active air quality improvements, Tulsa’s air quality continues to improve. At present, two of the five

Tulsa area monitors are only marginally above 8-hour standard and are expected

to be in compliance before the end of 2007. Given that the EAC effectively is intended to provide a transition status only for those areas meeting the 1-hour standard but only marginally not meeting the 8-hour standard, we believe it reasonable

and appropriate to be considered ‘‘unclassifiable’’ on the basis of available information as EAC committed milestones are underway and monitor data reflecting these

aggressive EAC strategies pending near-implementation.

Once EAC areas are determined to be fully incompliance with all milestones and

meeting the standard at the monitor, a designation of attainment could be issued.

The EAC agreement includes a local ‘maintenance plan’ for growth. This plan takes

the place of transportation conformity maintenance requirements and includes updating and modeling for future transportation projects for 5 years beyond December

2007.

Additional support for not designating EAC areas, rather defining them as

unclassifiable, is provided by EPA’s own statement in the November 14, 2002 Jeffrey Holmstead, Memorandum, page 7, 2d paragraph 3d sentence: ‘‘If any milestone

is missed and EPA withdraws the deferred effective date, thereby triggering a nonattainment designation and applicable statutory requirements, a nonattainment SIP

would have to be submitted to EPA within 1 year of the new effective date of the

nonattainment designation.’’

B. TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY ISSUES

Transportation conformity is intended to encourage municipalities and States to

consider the impacts of transportation projects on air quality. State Transportation

Improvement Plans (TIPs) must conform to State Implementation Plans (SIPs). S

pecific mandates are placed on areas not in attainment with clean air standards.
119

The current transportation conformity law holds several requirements we find counterproductive to cleaner air, and more costly than beneficial. Additionally, because

the Tulsa area is an EAC Agreement area and expected to meet NAAQS by 2007

or earlier, the ‘triggers’ for transportation conformity requirements are unclear.

Transportation conformity requirements add burden and significant cost to MPOs

and local regions by requiring modeling of mobile source emissions for future year

modeling. The non-attainment SIP already takes into account the prescribed future

growth for all area emissions. Mobile source emissions are modeled for future

growth and incorporated into an EPA approved SIP.

There is a disconnect between areas covered by EAC agreements and Federal

transportation conformity requirements. If a nonattainment designation (with a deferred effective date on non-attainment designation and related requirements) were

to occur for the Tulsa area in 2004, it is unclear whether or not conformity would

kick-in within 1 year. Reasonably, transportation conformity would also be deferred

under the EACs ‘‘related requirements’’ clause.

There is a disconnect between whether or not—and when—transportation conformity would begin for EAC areas meeting milestones and meeting attainment at

the monitors in 2007. The problem arising from this issue is resolved through our

earlier recommendation that EAC areas, like Tulsa, be eligible to be designated

unclassifiable until 2007. At the end of 2007, when EAC area monitors are in compliance with the revised NAAQS, transportation-planning requirements as planned

for in the EAC agreement and SIP planning process would begin.

Once an area reaches attainment, the 20-year maintenance transportation conformity requirement for areas redesignated to attainment creates an arbitrary and

unreasonable burden for areas, like Tulsa, that have never been more than marginally above the standard. A reasonable rule for maintenance conformity requirements

would take into account the degree of nonattainment an area reached. Areas like

Tulsa should not be required to perform conformity nearly as long as areas classified as ‘serious’ or ‘extreme’. A 5-year maintenance conformity period is more reasonable. Also, maintenance requirements for conformity should be better partnered

with SIP planning, providing reasonable synchronization of modeling efforts.

Newly designated nonattainment areas will be faced with data inadequacies.

Local areas, like Tulsa, will need time to accumulate the necessary resources and

data to produce updates to the long range plan every three rather than 5 years.

There should be some consideration for a necessary delay in shifting the requirement to update the long-range transportation plan from 5 to 3 years at a minimum.

We believe retaining a 5-year plan update is appropriate.

C. OTHER RELATED ISSUES

The current limitations placed on Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)

funding is constraining and minimizes effective project implementation especially in

the area of using funds for operational purposes. For example, our transit agency

provides free bus rides on Ozone Alert! Days—an important part of our program.

They are constrained by the current CMAQ rules for continuing this program for

more than 3 years. We recommend allowing more flexibility in both the type of

CMAQ projects selected and removing the 3-year limitation for project eligibility for

funding.

The current TEA–21 legislation does not provide for areas that are in attainment,

like Tulsa, to receive CMAQ funds to undertake air quality improvement programs.

We would recommend that consideration be given to expanding the eligibility for receiving CMAQ funds to those areas that have entered in to Early Action Compact

agreements with EPA. Simply put, ‘‘An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of

cure’’.

STATEMENT OF DIANE STEED, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN HIGHWAY USERS ALLIANCE

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am honored to appear before

you for the first time as the new President of the American Highway Users Alliance.

Since 1932, The Highway Users has represented both motorists and a broad crosssection of businesses that depend on safe and efficient highways to transport their

families, customers, employees, and products. From coast-to-coast, our members pay

the user fees that finance the Federal highway program, and they expect the government to be good stewards of their investment in our nation’s roads and bridges.

Highway User members strongly believe that user fees paid on the nations roads
120

should be rapidly returned to the roads through projects that make their motoring

experience safer and less frustrating.

I use the term ‘‘rapidly’’ for a reason. Mr. Chairman, I know that you have been

a leader among Senators who want to streamline the project delivery process. I

want to take a second to thank you for your attention to the problems of project

delay. You can count on us to support your efforts to advance highway projects

quickly.

This morning I will focus my testimony mainly on our views of the Congestion

Mitigation and Air Quality program or CMAQ. However, I would also like to state

for the record that I endorse the comments of those who testified last summer (and

here today, if applicable) on the specific need to coordinate the submission of Clean

Air Act State Implementation Plans (SIPs) with statewide and Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Plans (TIPs).

WE CARE ABOUT CONGESTION RELIEF AND CLEAN AIR

When I tell someone that I work for the Highway Users, the frequent, joking reply

is that he or she is one. Nearly every American can claim to be a highway user—

regardless of race, creed, or even political affiliation. Representing such a broad

group, I can say confidently that highway users, like all Americans, care about the

quality of the air we breathe and want it to keep getting cleaner.

Of course, we have also lost patience with the increasing amount of traffic that

chokes up our roads, delays our trips home to our families, causes accidents, strangles commerce, and even slows emergency vehicles when time really matters most.

With that in mind, I am so pleased to speak to you about the Clean Air Act and

the CMAQ program—a transportation program that should address both the problems of congestion and air pollution.

CLEAN AIR PROGRESS

The good news is that we have a freer, more mobile society than ever and our

air is cleaner. The dramatic improvements in air quality are truly a testament to

the outstanding benefits of the Clean Air Act. Incredibly, today’s car on the road

emits less pollution than a 1960’s car sitting in its driveway with its engine off. And

more progress has been made in mobile source pollution reduction than any other

source. For most metropolitan areas, mobile source emissions are no longer the principal source of pollution; for many, they aren’t even second.

Since 1970, there is 28 percent less carbon monoxide in the air, 39 percent less

sulfur dioxide, 42 percent less volatile organic compounds, 75 percent less particulate matter, and lead pollution has been all but eliminated. In fact, the only pollutant that has increased since 1970 has been Nitrous Oxides. However the amount

of NOx being emitted from automobiles is down over 31 percent.

At the same time, the population has grown 38 percent, transportation energy

consumption has gone up 61 percent, there are 71 percent more drivers, and 99 percent more vehicles. And most impressively, vehicle-miles-traveled or VMT has increased nearly point-by-point with the gross domestic product at 148 percent and

158 percent, respectively. This is no coincidence. Mobility leads to economic growth.

In the State of the Union address, President Bush introduced his pollution-free

fuel cell car initiative by noting that ‘‘the greatest environmental progress will come

about . . . through technology and innovation’’. When contrasting the growth in vehicle miles traveled with the reductions in Clean Air Act pollutants, it is clear that

technology and innovation have done far more to clean the air than increased travel

has done to sully it. For example, today’s diesel truck engine is eight times cleaner

than an engine built just a dozen years ago. And with new technology for dramatically cleaner diesel fuels and engines coming online, it is clear that technological

advancement leading to cleaner air is only gaining in momentum.

A MAJOR FLAW IN THE 1990 CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS

When the Clean Air Act Amendments were written in 1990, there was an assumption from EPA models that increased vehicle-miles of travel (VMT) would be a major

source of increased air pollution. As I have already discussed, this has not been the

case. VMT has gone up; pollution has gone down. EPA’s models did not reflect the

improvements that would be realized by technology. But due to this flaw in the

CAAA, State Implementation Plans for air quality conformity are not approved unless States include projects to reduce VMT. If States do not show how their plans

would reduce VMT, the EPA can impose sanctions that freeze money for highway

projects.
121

WHICH CMAQ PROJECTS WORK AND WHICH DO NOT

Mr. Chairman, last summer this Committee held a hearing on CMAQ and conformity. One common conclusion reached by several witnesses was that the biggest

environmental bang for the buck comes from traffic flow improvements, diesel engine retrofits, and vehicle inspection and maintenance programs. Yet, according to

the EPA, the highest priority for CMAQ funds is the implementation of transportation control measures (TCMs) intended to reduce VMT. The use of the word ‘‘control’’ is telling. TCMs are intended to control the ‘‘bad’’ people who either need or

choose to drive alone. These measures are the ‘‘carrots and sticks’’ advocated by

some anti-car, anti-motorist planners and groups who believe that government

should be in the business of forcing people out of their cars. TCMs sit uneasily with

a population accustomed to basic freedoms. However, even if that were not the case,

TCMs are doomed to failure for another reason: They are directed mainly at commuters—but over 80 percent of trips are NOT commutes. It should be no surprise

that TCMs have little to no proven track record in causing measurable clean air

progress or congestion relief.

What should be clear is that there are serious flaws in the CMAQ program. And

the reasons are actually quite simple. First, road improvements that increase capacity for single occupant vehicles are prohibited. In other words, by law, the vast majority of drivers idling in congestion cannot get any relief under the program. Second, there is no measurement of the projects funded under the program so there

is no incentive for prioritize the most effective projects. For example, according to

a recent Federal Highway Administration report, transit improvements cost

$272,000 per ton of hydrocarbon removed while traffic signalization improvements

only cost $23,000 per ton. Yet inexplicably, the year that this data was reported,

transit received 47 percent of all CMAQ funds while only 32 percent went to traffic

lights.

SOME OF THE MOST EFFECTIVE PROJECTS ARE INELIGIBLE FOR FUNDING

Many projects that would result in clean air progress and congestion relief are

not mutually exclusive. Nowhere is that more clear than in a comprehensive examination of the benefits of making modest improvements to unclog America’s worst

bottlenecks. In 1999, we analyzed the worst traffic bottlenecks in the country and

calculated the benefits of improving them from what engineers call level of service

‘‘F’’ (or failing) to just passable level of service ‘‘D’’. What we found was astonishing.

If the worst 167 bottlenecks were unclogged, the average emissions of volatile organic compounds would drop by 44 percent, carbon monoxide would be reduced 45

percent. Greenhouse gases would drop over 70 percent. At the same time, traffic

delays would be reduced by 71 percent, saving the average commuter 40 minutes

per roundtrip. Clearly, a comprehensive program to relieve traffic bottlenecks is an

example of a program that should meet the logical requirements for an effective

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program. But under the current program it

is ineligible because it would provide capacity for single occupancy vehicles.

In addition, vehicle scrappage programs are ineligible under CMAQ. The EPA estimates that the dirtiest 10 percent of vehicle contribute 40 percent of the pollution.

Providing incentives to scrap old, dirty vehicles would do nothing for congestion relief, but it would do far more to improve air quality than trying in vain to convince

people to give up their cars.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE THE CMAQ PROGRAM

Although we clearly have concerns with the CMAQ program, fortunately the majority of problems can be remedied with only minor statutory adjustments. We believe the CMAQ program can be restructured to better meet the true pollution-reduction goals of the Clean Air Act. At the same time, these program improvements

can markedly reduce traffic congestion. We recommend the following:

(1) Ease CMAQ’s inflexibility. Allow all transportation projects that reduce congestion and Clear Air Act pollutants to be eligible for funding.

(2) Focus on technological improvements instead of trying to gget people out of

their cars. Let’s be realistic: TCMs aren’t convincing people to stop driving and they

never will. And changes in VMT are not accurate indicators of air pollution anyway.

(3) When funding CMAQ projects, measure the benefits and costs of alternative

strategies to relieve congestion and reduce air pollution. Based on those criteria, engage in projects that can be shown to do the most good for congestion and air quality. DOT should report results and develop best practices for obligating CMAQ

funds.
122

(4) Frustrated drivers stuck in traffic would appreciate a targeted program that

fixws the worst bottlenecks. Give motorists a break from traffic jams and clean the

air! Traffic congestion is positively nightmarish in many parts of the country. We’re

wasting 3.6 billion hours and 5.7 billion gallons of fuel in delay. The air quality,

safety, and time management benefits of unclogging those bottlenecks would be extraordinary.

CONCLUSION

Since 1991, $14 billion has been authorized for the CMAQ program. But CMAQ

doesn’t reduce congestion and clean the air because of its name alone. Changes in

the way the account is administered could go a long way toward realizing the transportation-related goals of the Clean Air Act. We look forward to working with you

as you reconsider the structure of this program. I’d be happy to answer your questions at the appropriate time.

States

Congested

Miles of

Major

Highways

Total Miles

of Major

Highways

Percentage

Congested

Alabama ............................................................................................................................. 490 1,349 36%

Alaska ................................................................................................................................ 28 110 25 

Arizona ............................................................................................................................... 793 1,316 60 

Arkansas ............................................................................................................................ 141 859 16 

California ........................................................................................................................... 5,314 8,379 63 

Colorado ............................................................................................................................. 637 1,289 49 

Connecticut ........................................................................................................................ 385 1,048 37 

Delaware ............................................................................................................................ 128 188 68 

District of Columbia .......................................................................................................... 91 121 75 

Florida ................................................................................................................................ 2,433 3,677 66 

Georgia ............................................................................................................................... 1,013 2,360 43 

Hawaii ................................................................................................................................ 129 221 58 

Idaho .................................................................................................................................. 92 347 27 

Illinois ................................................................................................................................ 1,481 3,359 44 

Indiana ............................................................................................................................... 686 1,988 35 

Iowa .................................................................................................................................... 116 863 13 

Kansas ............................................................................................................................... 162 957 17 

Kentucky ............................................................................................................................. 394 977 40 

Louisiana ............................................................................................................................ 406 1,181 34 

Maine ................................................................................................................................. 40 248 16 

Maryland ............................................................................................................................ 817 1,349 61 

Massachussetts ................................................................................................................. 805 2,155 37 

Michigan ............................................................................................................................ 1,317 2,699 49 

Minnesota ........................................................................................................................... 409 939 44 

Mississippi ......................................................................................................................... 195 854 23 

Missouri .............................................................................................................................. 603 1,743 35 

Montana ............................................................................................................................. 31 230 13 

Nebraska ............................................................................................................................ 157 476 33 

Nevada ............................................................................................................................... 188 350 54 

New Hampshire .................................................................................................................. 68 260 26 

New Jersey .......................................................................................................................... 1,028 1,926 53 

New Mexico ........................................................................................................................ 199 629 32 

New York ............................................................................................................................ 1,376 3,986 35 

North Carolina .................................................................................................................... 769 2,022 38 

North Dakota ...................................................................................................................... 20 204 10 

Ohio .................................................................................................................................... 1,042 3,110 34 

Oklahoma ........................................................................................................................... 355 1,155 31 

Oregon ................................................................................................................................ 327 858 38 

Pennsylvania ...................................................................................................................... 962 3,305 29 

Rhode Island ...................................................................................................................... 144 468 31 

South Carolina ................................................................................................................... 395 933 42 

South Dakota ..................................................................................................................... 21 182 12 

Tennessee ........................................................................................................................... 846 1,778 48 

Texas .................................................................................................................................. 2,686 7,159 38 

Utah ................................................................................................................................... 284 455 62 

Vermont .............................................................................................................................. 11 155 7 

Virginia ............................................................................................................................... 837 1,665 50 

Washington ........................................................................................................................ 645 1,677 38 

West Virginia ...................................................................................................................... 89 306 29 
123

States

Congested

Miles of

Major

Highways

Total Miles

of Major

Highways

Percentage

Congested

Wisconsin ........................................................................................................................... 382 1,665 23 

Wyoming ............................................................................................................................. 13 297 4 

U.S. Total ....................................................................................................................... 31,980 75,827 42%

STATEMENT OF MARSHA KAISER, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND CAPITAL PROGRAM- MING, MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ON BEHALF OF THE AMER- ICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Marsha Kaiser. I am

Director of Planning and Capital Programming for the Maryland Department of

Transportation. I am here today to testify on behalf of the American Association of

State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). We applaud your continuing commitment to improving air quality in your State and across the Nation,

and thank you for your leadership in holding this hearing to address transportation

congestion and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ).

In my testimony today, first I will discuss ‘‘next-generation’’ refinements to the

transportation conformity process to build on the experience we have gained over

the last decade. We would like to see procedural modifications to conformity to provide for:

• The alignment and greater consistency between the transportation and air quality planning processes, including analytical tools and planning assumptions;

• Greater flexibility to implement cost effective emission reduction strategies; and

• Enhanced consultation on implementation of the new national standards for

ozone and fine particulates.

Second, I will discuss AASHTO’s views on the Congestion Mitigation and Air

Quality Program, which we believe should be continued with some added flexibility

to enhance our ability to meet the dual challenges of congestion and air quality improvement.

TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY

Background. The Clean Air Act closely aligned transportation and air quality

planning through an analytical process called ‘‘transportation conformity.’’ The policy objective of transportation conformity is to coordinate air quality and transportation planning by ensuring that transportation plans are consistent with plans for

attaining Federal air quality standards.

Mr. Chairman, I want to assure you that all of the State transportation officials

across the country fully support the national goal of improving air quality and ensuring a healthy environment in all of our States. After 10 years of experience,

transportation and air quality agencies have learned a great deal about how to better coordinate their intertwined planning efforts. That experience has also exposed

procedural weaknesses with transportation conformity that we believe can only be

addressed legislatively. After 10 years, it is appropriate for Congress to consider refinements to the conformity requirements.

The current transportation conformity regulations were drafted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) to implement provisions of the Clean Air

Act Amendments of 1990, which more explicitly defined the process for ensuring

that transportation plans and programs conform to State air quality implementation

plans (SIPs). The dual policy objectives of transportation conformity are to:

• Coordinate the transportation and air quality planning processes; and

• Ensure that transportation plans and Transportation Improvement Programs

(TIPs) are consistent with SIPs.

There is generally agreement among the transportation agencies that implement

the conformity process that it has improved coordination between transportation

and air quality plans and has vastly improved communications between transportation and air quality professionals. In addition, the process has been successful in

raising awareness among decisionmakers of the connection between transportation

and air quality and has promoted broader involvement in transportation planning

by stakeholders.

Nevertheless, 10 years of experience with transportation conformity has also exposed some weaknesses in the current procedures designed to integrate air quality

and transportation planning through conformity:
124

• Misalignments and inconsistencies in planning assumptions, planning horizons,

and modeling tools; and • Absence of any flexibility to revise Transportation Control Measures without

first revising the State air quality implementation plan (SIP).

The impact on transportation programs is substantial. Just since 1997, over 80

nonattainment or maintenance areas have gone into—or barely missed going into— a conformity lapse, putting billions of dollars of transportation dollars at the risk.

Process inefficiencies impose an additional administrative burden with sizable opportunity costs—scarce staff and resources are diverted from addressing the wide

array of existing and emerging transportation policy challenges, including for example, safety and security or broader environmental and community objectives.

AASHTO has identified several procedural improvements to the conformity process improvements which would harmonize the transportation and air quality planning process and reinforce the role of conformity to ensure consistency with SIPs.

The goal is simply to strengthen the connection between transportation and air

quality planning by making common sense improvements to the conformity process

that will benefit transportation and air quality agencies alike.

TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY PROCEDURE REVISIONS

Provide better integration and consistency in the transportation and air quality planning processes, timelines and updates, planning assumptions and modeling

tools.

1. Align Planning Horizons

Metropolitan transportation plans are required to have a minimum of a 20-year

planning horizon. The time horizons for SIPs are much shorter—the SIP time horizons extend only to the attainment date, with the latest being 2010. As a result,

there is frequently a gap of 10 years or more between the horizon year for the SIP

and the horizon year for the long-range transportation plan.

Transportation agencies must demonstrate conformity to the last year of the plan

which means that on-road mobile sources are constrained to the motor vehicle emissions budget from the attainment year to the last year of the transportation plan

unless SIPs specifically establish budgets for years after the attainment date yet

within the transportation planning horizon. Also, there can be no credit taken for

technology or other measures that may be available during the out-years unless

those measures have a regulation in place and implementation is assured.

The mismatch in the timeframes for transportation and air quality plans has

placed an undue burden on the on-road mobile sector where there are very few

measures remaining that can be implemented that will yield significant emissions

reductions. This is especially true as vehicles continue to get cleaner and Federal

controls on vehicles are phased in. This has caused problems for transportation

agencies in making conformity determinations, which is a criterion for receiving

Federal highway and transit funding.

Recommendation: Require conformity determination on the first 10 years of the

transportation plan or to the attainment date, whichever is the longer time period.

For informational purposes, regional emissions analysis would be done on the remaining years of the transportation plan.

2. Provide More Predictable and Coordinated Planning Update Cycles and

Consistent Planning Assumptions

Long-range transportation plans, which are for 20 year periods, must be updated

not less frequently than every 3 years. Transportation Improvement Programs

(TIPs) must be updated every 2 years. In addition, there are various SIP-related

triggers in the transportation conformity rule that require plan and TIP updates

within 18 months of various SIP actions. State Implementation Plans (SIPs) do not

have a regular update cycle.

This has created a situation where transportation plans are updated regularly

while SIPs are updated on a discretionary and sporadic basis, resulting in overlapping plan cycles, public confusion, less time spent on other important planning tasks

and a continuous conformity process in many areas. In addition, the unpredictable

nature of the 18-month SIP triggers for conformity redeterminations has caused uncertainty in the transportation planning and TIP development processes. Because

transportation plans, TIPs and SIPs must use the latest planning assumptions each

time they are updated, the assumptions used in SIPs tend to be older than—and

inconsistent with—those in transportation plans and TIPs. AASHTO believes that

the conformity process must provide a more predictable and coordinated transportation and air quality plan update cycle along with consistent planning assumptions.
125

Recommendation: Require the update of metropolitan transportation plans at least

every 5 years with transportation conformity determinations required after each update, unless more frequent updates of the TIP are needed. Reaffirm that TIPs must

continue to be consistent with plans and eliminate the requirement for a conformity

determination on TIPs because it is duplicative of the conformity requirement for

plans.

3. Provide Coordinated and Consistent Use of Emissions Models and Emissions Factors

EPA recently released MOBILE6, the new generation of the emissions factor

model used in all States except California. The California model, EMFAC2000 was

released in 2001 and will be updated in the near future. The conformity rule requires that latest planning assumptions and emissions models be used in transportation plans, TIPs and SIPs when they are updated.

Nonattainment areas have 2 years to begin using MOBILE6 (or EMFAC2001) in

conformity determinations with no corresponding requirement that SIPs be updated

during that period using the new emissions factors model. (There are exceptions to

this 2-year phase in for areas that took credit for Tier II vehicle standards and

heavy duty engine regulations in their SIPs—these areas have either 1 or 2 years

depending on the specific conditions in their SIPs).

The thrust of the transportation conformity requirement was to provide for an integrated transportation and air quality planning process. However, requiring that

regional emissions analysis be done with latest emissions model without requiring

a SIP revision using that model prior to use in conformity is contrary to an integrated and seamless process. In fact, the different estimating techniques and parameters used in the models result in significant differences in estimates of current

and future emissions levels. Conducting conformity analysis on transportation plans

and TIPs that use one model while SIPs used an older model creates an apples to

oranges comparison, contrary to congressional intent and rationale for transportation conformity.

Use of latest planning assumptions requires that vehicle mix data be the most recently available data for use in conformity determinations and in SIPs. However,

because SIPs are not updated on a regular basis, the vehicle mix data used to develop SIPs may be many years older than that required for use in transportation

conformity determinations. This has caused problems in several areas simply because different data was used in the SIP planning process than is being used in

transportation plan and TIP development.

Recommendation: Require that SIP budgets and conformity demonstrations be

based on the same mobile-source emissions factors model and/or same vehicle fleet

mix data. Require the use of the latest EPA-approved emissions models in SIPs prior

to requiring their use in transportation plans and TIPs. Require the use of the latest

vehicle fleet mix data in SIPs prior to requiring their use in transportation plans and

TIPs.

4. Synchronize Sanction Clocks

In the event of a conformity lapse, there are immediate consequences in that only

certain types of transportation projects may proceed until the lapse is resolved. In

contrast, in the event of a SIP failure, there is an 18-month period in which to correct the SIP failure prior to the imposition of sanctions. In essence, a conformity

lapse functions as an immediate sanction with no time permitted to correct situations that might have led to the lapse.

Recommendation: Align the conformity lapse with same 18-month time clock for

imposition of sanctions for SIP failures in order to provide a similar amount of time

to correct deficiencies in transportation plans and TIPs.

5. Require Conformity Only for Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas

Transportation conformity determinations must be undertaken for all nonattainment and maintenance areas. Currently, if an area has completed its 20-year maintenance period prior to the last year of transportation plan, the area still must meet

conformity requirements all the way to the last year of the transportation plan—

the ‘‘horizon year’’ (e.g., end of 20-year maintenance period is 2006 and the transportation plan horizon is 2025). Because some areas are approaching the end of their

20-year maintenance periods, this situation is beginning to surface. Similarly, when

Maintenance Plans reach their 8-year update point, the new SIP budget need only

be for 10 years out, rather than the 20+ years required for transportation plans.

Recommendation: Clarify that conformity determinations are required only for that

time period when an area is classified as nonattainment or maintenance, and can

be suspended when reclassified as attainment.
126

1 U.S. Federal Highway Administration, Transportation and Air Quality: Selected Facts and

Figures, January, 2000.

Provide flexibility to enable transportation agencies to respond to changing circumstances.

1. Allow Substitution of Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) Without

a SIP Revision

Transportation control measures that are included in SIPs cannot be added, deleted, or changed unless a formal SIP revision is made with its accompanying processing delays, and a subsequent conformity determination. This discourages the inclusion of TCMs in SIPs with the result that transportation control measures are

often included in transportation plans and TIPs and contribute to meeting emissions

budget, but are only included in SIPs if they are absolutely essential to achieving

needed emission reductions.

Recommendation: Permit the revision or substitution of transportation control

measures that yield equivalent emission reductions without the need for either a SIP

revision or a conformity determination.

2. During a Conformity Lapse, Consider Emission Reductions from Other than

On-Road Mobile Sources

In the event of a conformity lapse, transportation agencies have very few tools at

their disposal that will generate sufficient emission reductions to correct a lapse.

This is increasingly the case because vehicle technologies continue to improve and

new technologies are being phased in that will continue to reduce the amount of

emissions from on-road motor vehicles. Further, the cost of emission reductions from

on-road sources is higher than other sectors given the tight controls on these sources

already.

At the same time, there are uncontrolled sources that account for large portions

of emissions in nonattainment and maintenance areas (e.g., marine vessels, off-road

vehicles, etc.) Such sources could generate emissions reductions more cost effectively

than on-road mobile sources. The ability to ‘‘purchase’’ emissions credits from other

sources would provide needed flexibility and cost effective emissions reductions.

Recommendation: In the event of a conformity lapse, permit all polluting sectors

to be included in an analysis of strategies to reduce emissions in order to correct the

conformity lapse and permit the purchase of emissions credits from other sources.

Develop an inclusive process for implementation of the new National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and fine particulates.

1. Require Adequate Consultation

EPA recently held public meetings on the implementation of the new ozone and

PM NAAQS. These new standards are expected to affect many areas that are not

currently nonattainment areas. A significant number of the new nonattainment

areas are rural. The impacts will include transportation conformity requirements

and new areas will need adequate time to prepare to meet these new requirements.

Recommendation: Require that EPA provide adequate notification of proposed, new

requirements and consult with affected areas sufficiently in advance of new designations for those areas to be prepared to address any new transportation-related requirements.

2. Provide an Adequate Grace Period for New Nonattainment Areas

to Demonstrate Conformity

Congress provided a 1-year grace period for new areas to demonstrate conformity

after the new ozone and/or PM2.5 non-attainment designations are made. One year

may be insufficient for areas, particularly those that have not had to address conformity issues in the past.

Recommendation: Allow for a 3-year period for an area to demonstrate conformity

after the EPA makes designations under the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. Ensure that

the SIPs for these areas are also developed within this timeframe, which is consistent with Clean Air Act requirements for SIP development within 3 years of a

designation.

CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY PROGRAM (CMAQ)

Since the 1970’s we have made remarkable progress in reducing air pollution, including emissions from motor vehicles. According to the U.S. Federal Highway Administration1 emissions from Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) are down 59 percent and emissions from Carbon Monoxide (CO) are down 43 percent. Emissions
127

from Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) are up slightly (5 percent) for all vehicles, but decreased by more than 30 percent for automobiles. The introduction of Tier II engine

and gasoline standards and heavy duty diesel engine standards are predicted to decrease NOx emissions by 61 percent and 88 percent, respectively, by 2030. This is

a remarkable success story when we recognize that these reductions have occurred

at the same time we had 37 percent growth in population, 147 percent growth in

gross domestic product and 143 percent growth in vehicle miles traveled.

Despite the progress we have made in reducing emissions, the complementary

goal of congestion relief remains a challenge. Too many Americans are spending

time stuck in traffic. Congestion deeply affects our nation’s ability to move goods

and services and threatens the health of our economy. Congestion is no longer confined to urban areas, peak periods or work trips. According to the Texas Transportation Institute’s 2002 Urban Mobility Study, ‘‘Congestion is growing in metropolitan areas of every size . . . The average annual delay per peak road traveler

climbed from 16 hours in 1982 to 62 hours in 2000.’’ At least fifty percent of the congestion problem is associated with inadequate capacity. The remainder is caused by non-recurring delays, which result from vehicle

crashes and breakdowns, weather, construction, special events, poor signalization

and even the mix of vehicle types.

To address the dual goals of relieving congestion and reducing emissions, a diverse set of strategies and options—tailored to individual States and regions—is

needed. The CMAQ Program was established in 1992 in the Intermodal Surface

Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) with funding targeted for programs and

projects that could address mobility and air quality needs simultaneously. CMAQ

provided flexibility to fund a wide array of transportation improvements including

more traditional projects such highway traffic flow and intersection projects, transit,

bicycle and pedestrian projects as well as alternative fuels and new vehicle technologies, telecommuting, intermodal highway facilities, and inspection and maintenance programs. After 10 years and a $14 billion Federal investment, the CMAQ Program enjoys

broad support, largely attributable to its flexibility and broad eligibility. We believe

that the key to the continued success of the CMAQ program is continuing and enhancing that flexibility.

AASHTO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CMAQ PROGRAM

• Continue the CMAQ Program with funding levels increasing commensurate

with increases in the overall highway program. • Extend the eligibility of CMAQ funds to all types of projects that reduce congestion or improve air quality, including traffic flow improvements and Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) capacity enhancement projects that have air quality benefits.

• Permit States to use CMAQ funds in attainment areas if emissions reductions

benefit adjacent non-attainment or maintenance areas, or in areas identified as high

risk.

• Eliminate the CMAQ 3-year restriction on highway and transit projects, including operations and Inspection and Maintenance.

Mr. Chairman, I want to assure you that all of the State transportation officials

across the country fully support the national goal of improving air quality and ensuring a healthy environment in all of our States. We strongly believe that environmental stewardship is very much a part of our fundamental transportation mobility

mission, and continually seek new and innovative, multi-modal strategies to more

effectively unite the two. We stand ready to work with you, the Members of your

Committee and your staff to simplify, demystify and bring common sense to transportation conformity. And we urge you to broaden the CMAQ Program to enable

funds to be used to more effective target the dual goals of improving mobility and

air quality.

STATEMENT OF MELODY FLOWERS, SIERRA CLUB WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the implementation of Clean Air

Conformity and the CMAQ program. The Sierra Club, the nation’s largest and oldest grassroots environmental organization with over 700,000 members in 65 chapters and over 400 local groups nationwide, is committed to protecting and strengthening Clean Air Conformity and the CMAQ program as one of our top priorities in

the reauthorization of TEA–21.

These important programs are aimed at achieving clean air in order to protect

public health and safety. While the improvements in air quality over the past 30

years have been impressive, we still have a long way to go. One-half, or more than
128

1http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003–03–06-vegas-highway-usat—x.htm 2http://www.latimes.com/classified/realestate/la-re-freeway15dec15.story

142 million, Americans breathe air that is not healthy, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It is essential that we maintain conformity between

clean air and transportation rules since transportation is one of the largest sources

of air pollution in many areas. The Sierra Club endorses the testimony and recommendations put forward today by Michael Replogle.

We would like to take this opportunity to specifically draw your attention to the

mounting number of studies that examine health and safety questions surrounding

the expansion of highways near schools, hospitals, and other places where children,

the elderly and vulnerable populations spend large amounts of time. These studies

link air pollution near high-traffic areas to cancer, asthma, heart attacks, and low

birth weight babies for people who live in nearby communities.

We have attached 17 peer-reviewed, published studies making this link between

traffic-related air pollution and increased health risks. We have raised these issues

on numerous highway projects from Washington, DC. to Los Angeles to Las Vegas

and Wisconsin.

With highway expansions and constructions proposed in many populated urban

areas across the country, the Sierra Club and public health professionals are calling

on the Federal Highway Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation

to study the health impacts of increased air pollution and air toxics on children and

neighbors where these expansions and constructions are planned.

According to Dr. Ronald Rosen, a pediatric oncologist from Las Vegas, demographic and environmental risk factors are linked to increasing incidence and trends

for certain malignancies. Highway air pollution and particulate matter aggravate

respiratory and cardiopulmonary disease, asthma, bronchitis, and preliminary data

suggest a relationship to childhood leukemia. Historically and more recent studies

call attention to urban industrialization contributing to serious public health problems.

Furthermore, Dr. Seth Foldy, city of Milwaukee Medical Commissioner, States

there is mounting evidence that people who live near highways and other high-traffic areas may be at higher risk for asthma attacks, lung cancer and other health

problems because of motor vehicle pollution, and that in general, expanding highways will draw more cars and trucks to neighboring communities and exacerbate

these problems.

The USA Today story printed on March 7, 2003, Lawsuits Pits Risks and Roads,1

focused in particular on the health impacts of the proposed expansion of US–95 in

Las Vegas to ten lanes. Sierra Club is suing the Federal Highway Administration

on the grounds that the agency failed to adequately consider the health risk associated with increased air pollution and air toxics from the expansion.

Studies conducted in Las Vegas confirm what similar studies across the country

have shown: that people who live adjacent to large highways are at a much higher

risk for cancer and lung disease because of the pollution from cars.

More recently, scientists have begun to look at the problem on a neighborhood

scale to estimate how particular sources of air pollution—including highways—affect

nearby communities. These studies have found that certain pollutants can be 25

times more concentrated near busy highways, and people who live near high-traffic

areas are more likely to suffer a variety of health problems, like more asthma, cancer, and low birth weights. People who spend many hours driving in traffic are at

high risk as well.

The good news is that the California Air Resources Board is considering mapping

neighborhoods to warn residents of the pollution risk. See the Los Angeles Times

story attached below.2

We ask you to require detailed studies to investigate how much of the health risk

could be eliminated if cleaner transportation services—such as clean buses, rail systems, and improved pedestrian and bicycling infrastructure—are built in high traffic

corridors.

As Congress proceeds to chart the spending of billions of dollars in Federal transportation funding in the reauthorization of TEA–21, we need to look at the impact

of transportation investments on densely populated, high-traffic areas, where highway expansions cause the greatest health problems. These locations are precisely

the kinds of places where public transportation is most practical.

By law, the Federal Highway Administration is supposed to evaluate public

health risks and explore alternatives for transportation projects. When the agency

ignores that part of its responsibility, neighborhoods get more pollution and communities get stuck with bad projects and never know what they are missing—clean air.
129

For a summary of scientific studies on the health risks associated with high-traffic

highways, please contact Brett.hulsey@sierraclub.org, 608–257–4994.

Thank you.

KEY STUDIES ON AIR POLLUTION AND HEALTH EFFECTS NEAR HIGH-TRAFFIC AREAS

AIR POLLUTION FROM BUSY ROADS LINKED TO SHORTER LIFE SPANS

FOR NEARBY RESIDENTS

Dutch researchers looked at the effects of long-term exposure to traffic-related air

pollutants on 5,000 adults. They found that people who lived near a main road were

almost twice as likely to die from heart or lung disease and 1.4 times as likely to

die from any cause compared with those who lived in less-trafficked areas. Researchers say these results are similar to those seen in previous U.S. studies on the

effects of long-term exposure to traffic-related air pollution. The authors say traffic

emissions contain many pollutants that might be responsible for the health risks,

such as ultrafine particles, diesel soot, and nitrogen oxides, which have been linked

to cardiovascular and respiratory problems. (Hoek, Brunekreef, Goldbohn, Fischer,

van den Brandt. (2002). Association between mortality and indicators of traffic-related air pollution in the Netherlands: a cohort study. Lancet, 360 (9341): 1203–9.)

TRUCK TRAFFIC LINKED TO CHILDHOOD ASTHMA HOSPITALIZATIONS

A study in Erie County, New York (excluding the city of Buffalo) found that children living in neighborhoods with heavy truck traffic within 200 meters of their

homes had increased risks of asthma hospitalization. The study examined hospital

admission for asthma amongst children ages 0–14, and residential proximity to

roads with heavy traffic. (Lin, Munsie, Hwang, Fitzgerald, and Cayo. (2002). Childhood Asthma Hospitalization and Residential Exposure to State Route Traffic. Environmental Research, Section A, Vol. 88, pp. 73–81.)

PREGNANT WOMEN WHO LIVE NEAR HIGH TRAFFIC AREAS MORE LIKELY TO HAVE

PREMATURE AND LOW BIRTH WEIGHT BABIES

Researchers observed an approximately 10–20 percent increase in the risk of premature birth and low birth weight for infants born to women living near high traffic

areas in Los Angeles County. In particular, the researchers found that for each one

part per million increase in annual average carbon monoxide concentrations where

the women lived, there was a 19 percent and 11 percent increase in risk for low

birth weight and premature births, respectively. (Wilhelm, Ritz. (2002). Residential

Proximity to Traffic and Adverse Birth Outcomes in Los Angeles County, California,

1994–1996. Environmental Health Perspectives. doi: 10.1289/ehp.5688.)

TRAFFIC-RELATED AIR POLLUTION ASSOCIATED WITH RESPIRATORY SYMPTOMS

IN TWO-YEAR-OLD CHILDREN

This cohort study found that 2 year old children who are exposed to higher levels

of trafficrelated air pollution are more likely to have self-reported respiratory illnesses, including wheezing, ear/nose/throat infections, and reporting of physician-diagnosed asthma, flu or serious cold. (Brauer et al. (2002). Air Pollution from Traffic

and the Development of Respiratory Infections and Asthmatic and Allergic Symptoms in Children. Am J Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. Vol. 166 pp 1092–

1098.)

PEOPLE WHO LIVE NEAR FREEWAYS EXPOSED TO 25 TIMES MORE PARTICLE POLLUTION

Studies conducted in the vicinity of InterStates 405 and 710 in southern California found that the number of ultrafine particles in the air was approximately 25

times more concentrated near the freeways and that pollution levels gradually decrease to near normal (background) levels around 300 meters, or 990 feet, downwind

from the freeway. The researchers note that motor vehicles are the most significant

source of ultrafine particles, which have been linked to increases in mortality and

morbidity. Recent research concludes that ultrafine particles are more toxic than

larger particles with the same chemical composition. Moreover, the researchers

found considerably higher concentrations of carbon monoxide pollution near the

freeways. (Zhu, Hinds, Kim, Sioutas. Concentration and size distribution of ultrafine

particles near a major highway. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association. September 2002; Zhu, Hinds, Kim, Shen, Sioutas. Study of ultrafine particles

near a major highway with heavy-duty diesel traffic. Atmospheric Environment.

36(2002), 4323–4335.)
130

ASTHMA MORE COMMON FOR CHILDREN LIVING NEAR FREEWAYS

A study of nearly 10,000 children in England found that wheezing illness, including asthma, was more likely with increasing proximity of a child’s home to main

roads. The risk was greatest for children living within 90 meters of the road. (Venn

et al. (2001). Living Near A Main Road and the Risk of Wheezing Illness in Children. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. Vol. 164, pp.

2177–2180.)

A study of 1,068 Dutch children found that asthma, wheeze, cough, and runny

nose were significantly more common in children living within 100 meters of freeways. Increasing density of truck traffic was also associated with significantly higher asthma levels—particularly in girls. (van Vliet et al. (1997). Motor exhaust and

chronic respiratory symptoms in children living near freeways. Environmental Research. 74:12–132.)

CHILDREN LIVING NEAR BUSY ROADS MORE LIKELY TO DEVELOP CANCER

A 2000 Denver study showed that children living within 250 yards of streets or

highways with 20,000 vehicles per day are six times more likely to develop all types

of cancer and eight times more likely to get leukemia. The study looked at associations between traffic density, power lines, and all childhood cancers with measurements obtained in 1979 and 1990. It found a weak association from power lines, but

a strong association with highways. It suggested that benzene pollution might be

the cancer promoter causing the problem. (Pearson et al. (2000). Distance-weighted

traffic density in proximity to a home is a risk factor for leukemia and other childhood cancers. Journal of Air and Waste Management Association 50:175–180.)

MOST TRAFFIC-RELATED DEATHS DUE TO AIR POLLUTION, NOT TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

Another study analyzed the affect of traffic-related air pollution and traffic accidents on life expectancy in the area of Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany. It estimated

that 4325 deaths in this region would result from motor vehicle emissions compared

to 891 from traffic accidents (over a lifetime). (Szagun and Seidel. (2000). Mortality

due to road traffic in Baden-Aurttemberg—air pollution, accidents, noise.

Gesundheitswesen. 62(4): 225–33.)

EMISSIONS FROM MOTOR VEHICLES DOMINATE CANCER RISK

The most comprehensive study of urban toxic air pollution ever undertaken shows

that motor vehicles and other mobile sources of air pollution are the predominant

source of cancer-causing air pollutants in Southern California. Overall, the study

showed that motor vehicles and other mobile sources accounted for about 90 percent

of the cancer risk from toxic air pollution, most of which is from diesel soot (70 percent of the cancer risk). Industries and other stationary sources accounted for the

remaining 10 percent. The study showed that the highest risk is in urban areas

where there is heavy traffic and high concentrations of population and industry.

(South Coast Air Quality Management District. Multiple Air Toxics Exposure StudyII. March 2000.)

CANCER RISK HIGHER NEAR MAJOR SOURCES OF AIR POLLUTION, INCLUDING HIGHWAYS

A 1997 English study found a cancer corridor within three miles of highways, airports, power plants, and other major polluters. The study examined children who

died of leukemia or other cancers from the years 1953–1980, where they were born

and where they died. It found that the greatest danger lies a few hundred yards

from the highway or pollution facility and decreases as you get away from the facility. (Knox and Gilman (1997). Hazard proximities of childhood cancers in Great

Britain from 1953–1980. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 51:151–

159.)

A SCHOOL’S PROXIMITY TO FREEWAYS ASSOCIATED WITH ASTHMA PREVALENCE

A study of 1498 children in 13 schools in the Province of South Holland found

a positive relationship between school proximity to freeways and asthma occurrence.

Truck traffic intensity and the concentration of emissions measured in schools were

found to be significantly associated with chronic respiratory symptoms. (Speizer,

F.E. and B.G. Ferris, Jr. (1973). Exposure to automobile exhaust. I. Prevalence of

respiratory symptoms and disease. Archives of Environmental Health. 26(6): 313–8.

van Vliet, P., M. Knape, et al. (1997). Motor vehicle exhaust and chronic respiratory

symptoms in children living near freeways. Environmental Research. 74(2): 122–32.)
131

1Find this article at http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003–03–06-vegas-highwayusat—x.htm

LUNG FUNCTION REDUCTION AMONG CHILDREN MORE LIKELY IF LIVING

NEAR TRUCK TRAFFIC

A European study determined that exposure to traffic-related air pollution, ‘in

particular diesel exhaust particles,’ may lead to reduced lung function in children

living near major motorways. (Brunekreef B; Janssen NA; de Hartog J; Harssema

H; Knape M; van Vliet P. (1997). ‘‘Air pollution from truck traffic and lung function

in children living near motorways.’’ Epidemiology. 8(3):298–303.)

ASTHMA SYMPTOMS CAUSED BY TRUCK EXHAUST

A study was conducted in Munster, Germany to determine the relationship between truck traffic and asthma symptoms. In total, 3,703 German students, between

the ages of 12–15 years, completed a written and video questionnaire in 1994–1995.

Positive associations between both wheezing and allergic rhinitis and truck traffic

were found during a 12-month period. Potentially confounding variables, including

indicators of socio-economic status, smoking, etc., did not alter the associations substantially. (Duhme, H., S. K. Weiland, et al. (1996). The association between selfreported symptoms of asthma and allergic rhinitis and self-reported traffic density

on street of residence in adolescents. Epidemiology 7(6): 578–82.)

PROXIMITY OF A CHILD’S RESIDENCE TO MAJOR ROADS LINKED TO HOSPITAL

ADMISSIONS FOR ASTHMA

A study in Birmingham, United Kingdom, determined that living near major

roads was associated with the risk of hospital admission for asthma in children

younger than 5 yrs of age. The area of residence and traffic flow patterns were compared for children admitted to the hospital for asthma, children admitted for nonrespiratory reasons, and a random sample of children from the community. Children

admitted with an asthma diagnosis were significantly more likely to live in an area

with high traffic flow (> 24,000 vehicles/24 hrs) located along the nearest segment

of main road than were children admitted for nonrespiratory reasons or children

form the community. (Edwards, J., S. Walters, et al. (1994). Hospital admissions for

asthma in preschool children: relationship to major roads in Birmingham, United

Kingdom. Archives of Environmental Health. 49(4): 223–7.

EXPOSURE TO CARCINOGENIC BENZENE HIGHER FOR CHILDREN LIVING NEAR

HIGH TRAFFIC AREAS

German researchers compared 48 children who lived in a central urban area with

high traffic density with 72 children who lived in a small city with low traffic density. They found that the blood levels of benzene in children who lived in the hightraffic-density area were 71 percent higher than those of children who lived in the

low-traffic-density area. Blood levels of toluene and carboxyhemoglobin (formed after

breathing carbon monoxide) were also significantly elevated (56 percent and 33 percent higher, respectively) among children regularly exposed to vehicle emissions.

Aplastic anemia and leukemia are associated with excessive exposure to benzene.

(Jermann E, Hajimiragha H, Brockhaus A, Freier I, Ewers U, Roscovanu A: Exposure of children to benzene and other motor vehicle emissions. Zentralblatt fur Hygiene and Umweltmedizin 189:50–61, 1989.)

[From USA Today]

LAWSUIT PITS RISKS AND ROADS1

(By John Ritter)

LAS VEGAS.—Tens of thousands of workers commute from suburbs to resort and

casino jobs on the glimmering Strip, the economic soul of this booming entertainment mecca. Many of them creep tediously along U.S. 95, the most congested road

in the nation’s fastest growing urban area.

With the six-lane freeway morphing twice daily into a rush-hour parking lot, policymakers from the Governor on down ardently support a plan to widen 95 to 10

lanes.

Bucking the popular project are environmentalists and health experts worried

about pollution from the more than 300,000 vehicles a day that already troll up and
132

down 95. They cite studies linking higher levels of foul air along busy urban highways to heightened cancer risks among people who live and work nearby.

Urban highway ‘‘hot spots’’ such as 95 are battlegrounds in many cities, but here

the issue has come to a head. The Sierra Club sued in January to stop the project.

It says the Federal Government failed to consider health consequences and alternatives to highway construction as required by law.

Highway projects have been challenged before on environmental and health

grounds, but this is the first such lawsuit based on scientific research into trafficgenerated pollution.

U.S. 95 is a test case with broad implications for urban highway expansion and

population growth in metro areas across the USA. The outcome not only could send

Nevada transportation officials back to the drawing board but also could delay relief

measures for other snarled roads. It could force planners to give greater weight to

solving congestion with mass transit and even alter the patterns of where people

choose to live.

‘‘We’re spending the most money on the most polluting source, highways, and

we’re saying we need to balance that out,’’ says Brett Hulsey, national coordinator

of the Sierra Club’s anti-sprawl campaign.

Besides 95, environmentalists want the Federal Highway Administration to study

the health risks of widening InterState 75 from Dayton, Ohio, to Cincinnati; building a beltway segment around Denver called the Northwest Parkway; widening 1–

94 in downtown Detroit; widening 1–94 and U.S. 45 around Milwaukee; expanding

1–10 and U.S. 290 out of Houston; and widening Virginia’s portion of the Capital

Beltway around Washington, DC.

HIGHWAYS CAN’T KEEP UP

Beyond health issues, the Las Vegas case spotlights a problem facing many thriving cities, particularly in the West. Las Vegas has grown so fast that its highway

system hasn’t kept up. Congestion worsens monthly. Yet in the last decade, population spilled over such a wide area that developing mass transit will be costly.

‘‘We have 6,000 people a month moving here, bringing 4,000 automobiles with

them,’’ says Jacob Snow, general manager of the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada. ‘‘The worst thing we could do from an air quality standpoint is stop building roadways.’’

Last month, Federal Judge Philip Pro denied the highway administration’s motion

to dismiss the Las Vegas case.

Opponents say the widening will funnel even more traffic onto U.S. 95. ‘‘I’ll leave

if this project goes in,’’ says Barbara Roth, 70, who moved near what was then a

two-lane street 38 years ago. ‘‘The pollution is going to be terrific because the traffic

will back up immediately, just like it is now. Crazy is the word.’’

The judge could stop work on the project and order the highway agency to reassess health risks. He could order it to consider alternatives to widening, such as

mass transit, as required under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Highway administration officials won’t comment on the case. But in a sign that

the highway pollution issue is gaining traction, a Transportation Department research panel held a forum in January called ‘‘Air Toxics: The Next Poison Pill for

Transportation?’’

Delaying or killing the 95 expansion would anger many who believe growth will

choke southern Nevada unless its road system expands rapidly. The 6 miles to be

widened have more aggressive drivers than any other road in the region, a study

in January found. An irate Gov. Kenny Guinn threatened to erect billboards on 95

that say, ‘‘Traffic congestion brought to you by the Sierra Club.’’

At the lawsuit’s core is whether high concentrations of auto emissions such as

benzene and 1,3 butadiene, which are known carcinogens, raise health risks. Opponents of the expansion say they do:

A Denver study in 2000 found that children living within 250 yards of highways

used daily by more than 20,000 vehicles were eight times more likely to get leukemia.

A study the same year of InterStates 405 and 710 in Los Angeles showed that

vehicles accounted for 90 percent of the cancer risk from air pollution, and that the

highest risk was in congested, heavily populated urban zones.

A study in suburban Buffalo last year found that children living in neighborhoods

close to heavy truck traffic had increased asthma risks.

A Sierra Club-financed study of three pollutants concluded that widening 95

would cause up to 1,400 more cancers per 1 million people over 70 years, more than

10 times greater than what the Environmental Protection Agency considers a serious risk.
133

2Find this article at http://www.latimes.com/classified/realeStatella-re-freeway15dec15.story

‘‘It’s obvious there’s some correlation,’’ says Ronald Rosen, a pediatric oncologist

in Las Vegas. He says he has no evidence of more cancers along 95. The study only

predicted higher rates. ‘‘But to dismiss an environmental group that wants to look

at this critically is really a big mistake.’’

TRANSIT’S LIMITED REACH

Environmentalists want more buses, trains and light rail, but relying on mass

transit as much as denser Eastern cities do is unrealistic in the greater Las Vegas

sprawl, experts say. Even in the most optimistic scenario, transit could handle no

more than 15 percent of trips, says Shashi Nambisan, director of the Transportation

Research Center at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas. ‘‘People are choosing to live farther and farther out. Commute times and distances

are going up,’’ Nambisan says. Low gasoline prices, the comfort and convenience of

personal vehicles, and abundant, cheap parking also work against mass transit in

Las Vegas. But efforts are underway. Nevada voters in November endorsed a $2.7 billion transportation initiative that includes $1 billion for transit. The first leg of a 3.6-

mile monorail serving the Strip will open next year. A rapid transit bus line will

begin serving northern suburbs next winter.

Environmentalists complain that bus service was the budget ax’s first victim in

the recession. Transit officials say they had no choice because fewer riders meant

declines in operating revenue. Transit’s supporters point to Salt Lake City’s two

light-rail lines as proof Las Vegas could do more. Ridership on both lines is nearly

double initial estimates. Still, that system carries only about 1 percent of peak-hour

trips.

Work is progressing despite the lawsuit. Bulldozers are moving earth, overpasses

are being built and new sound walls are going up. More than 200 homeowners were

forced to sell and leave.

Three schools, two community centers, a day care facility, 27 apartment buildings

and nearly 400 houses abut this stretch. But many residents are unaware of health

concerns. Rick Winget, principal of Ruth Fyfe Elementary School, says he’s eager

to use more of his playground once a wall replaces a chain-link fence between the

school and the highway. He says no parents have complained about pollution.

‘‘People are really insensitive to the health risks,’’ says Jane Feldman of the Sierra Club’s Las Vegas chapter. ‘‘They think cancer won’t happen to them, that it

happens long-term. But this is hard scientific data and it’s scary.’’

[The Times, December 15, 2002]

TOO FREEWAY CLOSE?2

(By William J. Kelly)

Homes along the Southland’s busy highways may be more affordable, but new

studies show possible health risks linked to increased pollution.

At sunset, Regina Kennard’s house stands in the shadow of an elevated stretch

of InterState 15. Attracted by the home’s affordability and its proximity to, the

onramp for her daily commute to work at a mortgage company in Orange County,

Kennard moved from Ontario to Fontana more than a year ago and joined countless

other Southern Californians who live along a freeway.

The mother of two chose the 4,729-square-foot lot next to the freeway because it

was bigger than those farther up the street. She purchased the 1,977-square-foot

home new last year for $189,900.

‘‘I wanted a big yard,’’ said Kennard, who keeps the windows shut at night because of the din. ‘‘I should have been more concerned. I didn’t realize the noise.’’

Even further from her thoughts were the long-term health effects of freeway pollution. Like most buyers, Kennard was unaware of emerging scientific research that

shows air pollution immediately downwind of freeways can be more than 4 to 10

times higher than average levels throughout much of Southern California.

‘‘There’s a building body of data that living next to a freeway has adverse health

effects, particularly among children,’’ said Ira Tager, a UC Berkeley epidemiologist

who is studying how air pollution affects asthmatic children for the California Air

Resources Board. Work by a variety of health researchers and environmental agencies is finding that the highly concentrated pollution from autos and trucks in-
134

creases the incidence of asthma, respiratory infections and cancer in people residing

along freeways and other heavily traveled thoroughfares.

The studies, some of which have come out in California during the last year and

others that are ongoing, are attracting attention as new homes and condominiums

have become more common along freeways because of the shrinking availability of

land suitable for building and the increasing demand for housing.

If buyers are unaware of the health dangers, so are builders. ‘‘It’s new information

to me,’’ said Tim Piasky, director of environmental affairs for the Building Industry

Assn. of Southern California, who noted that individual builders cannot track every

study. ‘‘We count on our regulatory agencies to set the requirements,’’ he said. ‘‘Unless

there are requirements, builders will use the maximum area.’’ There are no current requirements or recommendations for buffers between homes

and freeways, but the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research has drafted new

planning guidelines for cities and counties, which are responsible for regulating

local land use. The guidelines, according to associate planner Brian Grattidge, ask

cities to consider whether it is appropriate to zone housing right next to freeways,

given the emerging studies on air pollution.

The California Air Resources Board will issue its first official warning in the

spring and advise, but not require, that builders create buffer zones between future

residential developments and freeways. ‘‘People who construct new homes should consider having at least 100 meters [less

than a tenth of a mile] between them and the freeway,’’ said Shankar Prasad,

health advisor for the board.

Buyers have long been aware of home health risks ranging from groundwater contamination—think Erin Brockovich—to the interior culprits of leaded paint, mold

and asbestos. But most haven’t considered air pollution levels along freeways, according to real eState broker Remy Agaton, who is selling the home of Lydia Fabres,

just one house north of InterState 10 in West Covina. Like Kennard, Fabres did not

know about the studies showing higher pollution levels. ‘‘Out of 100, maybe 10 are concerned about the noise, and they never ask about

the pollution,’’ said Agaton of Jasrel Real EState Brokers Inc. in the city of Industry. Buyers are more concerned about amenities, such as good schools and proximity

to shopping and transportation routes, said Agaton, who has sold many homes near

freeways in her 17-year career.

Fabres, a single mother of four teenagers, said that the location is what attracted

her to the West Covina home. She worked in the health-care field near downtown

Los Angeles when she purchased the house 3 years ago after a divorce, and freeway

proximity saved the busy mother time. ‘‘It was an advantage,’’ she said. ‘‘When you came home it was close.’’ It also was

close enough for her children to walk to school, a nearby park and the West Covina

Plaza.

The noise bothered the family at first, and Fabres said she was fleetingly concerned about pollution. However, she found that the location and features of the

three-bedroom, two-bath home with a den and large backyard outweighed those concerns. Fabres is taking time off from work to sell her home and move to Walnut

for its schools and proximity to Mt. San Antonio College, where her children, who

have no respiratory disease, plan to continue their education after completing high

school.

In addition to saving time, buyers are often attracted to freeway-close homes because of lower prices, according to real eState industry executives. Fabres, for instance, is asking $275,000 for her home.A couple blocks farther north of InterState

10, a comparable three-bedroom home in the same neighborhood sold for $289,900

in mid-November.

‘‘Home prices near freeways generally are less expensive,’’ said John Burns, president of John Burns Real EState Consulting in Irvine. A rule of thumb, he said, is

that these homes cost the buyer about $5 less per square foot than a comparable

home in the same area far enough away that buyers do not perceive the freeway

as a negative.

But researchers are beginning to document the drawbacks. Large doses of pollutants emitted by motor vehicles can irritate the respiratory system and exacerbate

asthma and chronic bronchitis, from which 10 percent to 20 percent of the population suffers, according to Dr. John Balmes of UC San Francisco. Published studies

examining the respiratory health of people along freeways show a 75 percent to 100

percent increase in asthma because of the higher concentration of air pollutants,

said Balmes, former president of the California Thoracic Society, the medical section

of the American Lung Assn. of California. Some of the pollutants, including benzene

and diesel soot, are known carcinogens.
135

One study published earlier this fall in the Journal of the Air & Waste Management Assn. shows that the level of so-called ultra-fine particles, which are emitted

from automotive tailpipes but are too small to be visible, was four times higher just

downwind and east of the 405 Freeway in Westwood. About a fifth of a mile downwind, the level of the particles gradually fell to the same level as upwind of the busy

freeway, wrote the research team, headed by William C. Hinds, a professor in the

Department of Environmental Health Sciences at UCLA. Carbon monoxide, a good

indicator for a range of other automotive emissions, also fell sharply a fifth of a mile

downwind of the freeway.

STATEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA

The Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) is the largest most diverse

trade association in the construction industry. The association’s 33,000 members include 7,500 of the nation’s leading general construction contractors engaged in the

construction of highways, bridges, tunnels, airport runways and terminals, buildings, factories, warehouses, shopping centers and both water and wastewater treatment facilities. AGC members perform construction contracts for states and other

recipients of Department of Transportation (DOT) funding and are, therefore, directly impacted by changes in administration of the Federal-aid highway program.

AGC is pleased to provide the following comments on Clean Air Act Transportation

Conformity requirements.

CLEAN AIR PROGRESS

Americans have made great progress in cleaning the air. Over the past 30 years

national emission trends have been declining. All of the years throughout the 1990’s

have had better air quality than any of the years in the 1980’s, demonstrating a

steady trend of improvement. Air quality has improved nationwide primarily because motor vehicle emissions have decreased substantially even as vehicle travel

has increased rapidly. From 1980 through 1998, overall motor vehicle emissions of

volatile organic compounds (VOC) was reduced 41 percent, emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) were reduced 10 percent, and carbon monoxide emissions were reduced

35 percent. This improvement came despite a 72 percent increase in travel during

that period.

These reductions are the result of an array of cleaner fuels that have virtually

eliminated lead and other pollutants and reformulated gas that reduce smog and

tailpipe emissions. New engine technology and vehicle design and construction have

reduced tailpipe emissions in the average car in use today by 95 percent compared

to the average car in use in the 1960’s.

EPA studies show that air quality by 1996 had improved to the point that 80 percent of Americans lived where air quality met the standards for six criteria air pollutants, nearly double the amount from 10 years earlier. Since 1996 air quality has

continued to improve. In the past 10 years, the average number of days the air in

major metropolitan areas failed to met Federal ozone (smog) standards has been cut

in half. Violations of the national standards for carbon monoxide have been virtually

eliminated. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) studies estimate that an

additional 32 million tons of emissions per year (22 percent) will be eliminated between 1997 and 2015 because of better motor vehicle technology. All of this progress

despite significant increased motor vehicle usage.

OVERVIEW OF TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY

Transportation conformity provisions under the Clean Air Act (CAA) attempt to

coordinate transportation planning and air quality planning. The CAA requires metropolitan areas with air quality problems to demonstrate that future transportation

projects will not impede the area’s ability to attain air quality standards established

by the Act. Under the CAA the EPA is required to establish national Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six criteria pollutants. If an area exceeds the Federal standard for any one of these six pollutants, it is designated as a nonattainment area. States must submit State Implementation Plans (SIPs) detailing how

these nonattainment areas will be brought into compliance. The SIP typically includes a specific motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) capping emissions from

transportation sources. Nonattainment areas are then required to demonstrate,

using various calculations and models, that car and truck emissions associated with

current and future road, highway, and transit projects listed in the area’s transportation plan are below this budget. This demonstration is called transportation conformity. If the metropolitan area cannot demonstrate that car and truck emissions
136

from new roads and highways are below the motor vehicle emissions budget, the

area falls into a transportation conformity ‘‘lapse’’ where many new road and transit

projects cannot move forward.

TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY REQUIREMENTS

Under the Federal-Aid Highway Act (as amended in ISTEA and TEA–21), metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) for each urban region develop a long-term

regional transportation plan and a short term transportation improvement plan

(TIP). Section 176 of the CAA links air quality planning with transportation planning by requiring both of these transportation plans to match, or ‘‘conform’’ to the

SIP. Transportation conformity must be demonstrated once every 3 years, although

numerous other triggers render this requirement almost meaningless. For example,

conformity must be demonstrated every time a significant change is made to a

transportation plan and within 18-months of a State Implementation Plan modification that effects the motor vehicle emissions budget. This overabundace of conformity triggers means that planning organizations are continually performing overlapping demonstrations. The resulting web of incongruous deadlines impose a minefield of procedural traps for nonattainment areas to fall into. As Judge Williams in

the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for D.C. wrote, ‘‘the Act’s conformity requirements

are astonishingly confusing, and could if interpreted as stringently as possible seriously disrupt state and local transportation planning.’’

RAMIFICATIONS OF FAILING TO DEMONSTRATE CONFORMITY ‘‘LAPSE’’

One of the principle disruptions to state and local transportation planning from

transportation conformity requirements is the consequences of a conformity ‘‘lapse’’. A conformity ‘‘lapse’’ occurs when a conformity determination for a transportation

plan or TIP has expired and is no longer valid. A conformity lapse may be caused

by several situations such as: (1) not meeting the required 3-year period for conformity redetermination of a transportation plan or TIP; (2) certain State Implementation Plan consequences; (3) not redetermining conformity within 18 months of a

specific State Implementation Plan modification; or (4) a potentially successful citizen suit that invalidates the conformity determination or the motor vehicle emissions budget on which the conformity determination was based.

Only certain types of projects can advance during a conformity lapse. FHWA will

not fund active highway design and right-of-way acquisition projects during a conformity lapse. Only those highway projects which have received full funding and/or

approval prior to the conformity lapse may continue. A conformity lapse applies to

both road and transit projects. Moreover, lapses impact both federally funded and

non-federally funded but regionally significant projects (since these projects require

Federal approval).

Conformity lapses have caused significant problems across the country. In At- lanta, for example, a conformity lapse suspended over $700 million in much needed

road work. In the Southern California Air Quality Management District, $0.5 and

$2 billion in transportation projects were subject to postponement during a 1998 and

2001 conformity lapse, respectively.

Conformity lapses have several deleterious impacts. Financially, delays increase

project costs due to normal cost escalation factors and contractors needing to reschedule planned work. Costs also increase due to delayed traffic congestion relief

(for example, the Houston-Galveston Area Council estimates that traffic congestion

costs the Houston area approximately $2 billion per year). Delays due to conformity

lapses also effect road safety. According to the U.S. DOT, poor road conditions or

obsolete road and bridge alignments are a factor in 12,000 highway-related deaths

each year—that’s four times the number killed in fires and a third more than die

annually of asthma and bronchitis combined.

Conformity lapses are almost never caused by a nonattainment area building too

much transportation infrastructure, but are almost always caused by procedural

problems with the timing of multiple deadlines for revising the motor vehicle emissions budget, revising the transportation plans, and/or lawsuits.

Currently there are 142 nonattainment areas which contain 414 counties nationwide that are out of compliance for ozone alone with more out of compliance for

other pollutants. An additional 194 areas which include 656 counties may soon be

in nonattainment status when EPA imposes new standards for ozone and particulate matter.

CONFORMITY PROCESS DOES NOT IMPROVE AIR QUALITY

The transportation conformity process is expensive and burdensome and has not

been shown to have a significant impact on improving air quality. The United States
137

1 Environment Protection: The Federal Government Could Help Communities Better Plan for

Transportation That Protects Air Quality, United States General Accounting Office, Testimony

Before the Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, GAO–02–988T, July 30,

2002, p. 11.

General Accounting Office (GAO) in testimony before the Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, July 30, 2002 (GAO–02–988T p. 10), said that,

‘‘Only 31 percent of the planners responding to our survey found the process of demonstrating conformity to be effective in helping their areas achieve air quality goals

(40 percent found it to be ineffective).’’ GAO also stated that, ‘‘[T]he current clean

air and surface transportation requirements and programs do not directly encourage

communities to consider more innovative transportation projects or alternative land

development strategies as a means to reduce emissions. Nor do they encourage communities to take action that will preserve the clean air that they still enjoy.’’ (Id.

at 15–16).

In addition, the conformity process is being used as a means to prevent transportation improvement projects from being built, not because of their impact on air

quality but as a tactic to prevent any transportation improvement project from

being undertaken. Transportation project opponents use legal challenges and other

maneuvers to disrupt the planning process and stop project construction. This activity undermines safety improvements, increases the cost of the projects significantly

and can undermine clean air objectives. Delaying or and stopping transportation improvements has no beneficial impact on air quality and can have a negative impact

by keeping congestion relief projects from moving forward. Idling in traffic significantly increases air pollution. Eliminating bottlenecks and traffic congestion can reduce carbon monoxide emissions by as much as 45 percent and ozone forming VOCs

by 44 percent. Automobiles operate at a higher efficiency at higher speeds and emission rates for major air pollutants increase at slower speeds. Congress should reconsider whether the costs associated with the transportation conformity process result

in equal benefits.

RECOMMENDED REFORM

SEPARATE TRANSPORTATION AND AIR QUALITY PLANNING

Steps should be taken to improve the process and keep it from being used merely

as a means for delaying necessary transportation improvement projects as follows:

• Transportation planning and air quality planning should not be linked. There

is no air quality improvements that result from the conformity process.

Reducing the Number of Conformity Triggers and Increasing the Time Between

Conformity Determinations

• Non-attainment areas are continually and exhaustingly performing transportation conformity demonstrations. Although the Clean Air Act requires a conformity

demonstration once every 3 years, numerous other triggers render this requirement

meaningless. Under EPA’s rules, non-attainment areas must demonstrate conformity each time EPA proposes or approves a control strategy implementation plan

revision which affects an existing motor vehicle emissions budget, each time the

EPA modifies a control measure that impacts the motor vehicle emissions budget,

and each time a transportation control measure is added, modified, or deleted. Conformity demonstrations are also needed each time the metropolitan planning organization needs to add or modify a project in its transportation plan (since a road or

transit project cannot generally move forward unless it is specifically included in a

conforming transportation plan). This overabundance of conformity triggers means

that planning organizations are continually performing overlapping demonstrations,

wasting valuable time and resources. As the GAO stated in its recent assessment

of the transportation conformity requirements: ‘‘According to DOT program managers, some planners have found the requirement to update their transportation

plans and meet the conformity test at least every 3 years to be too burdensome. Because of the complexity and time involved in preparing the plan and demonstrating

conformity, it can take some areas more time than 3 years to complete their plan

updates, after which time they need to begin the update process all over again. The

tight timeframe inhibits them from devoting their attention or resources to developing more strategic transportation solutions or adopting new and better models for

assessing emissions and analyzing transportation plans, among other things.’’1

• Transportation conformity demonstrations are a prolonged and arduous process.

The metropolitan planning organization (typically a local council of governments)

must conduct extensive emissions modeling and inventory work. All conformity demonstrations must go through an interagency consultation process and other agency
138

2 42 C.F.R. § 7506.

scrutiny that involves EPA, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and state

agencies. Conformity demonstrations must also go through public notice and comment and public hearing procedures. • Once a conformity demonstration is complete (often after more than a year and

hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of work), each conformity demonstration becomes subject to a potential lawsuit from environmental organizations and others

who are unhappy with such issues as urban sprawl, the construction of certain road

projects, or the area’s mass transit choices. Transportation conformity lawsuits have

occurred across the country; including Houston, Atlanta, Sacramento, San Francisco, and Salt Lake City. These suits force local governments or other interested

parties to mount legal defenses which are expensive and time consuming. The costs

of these legal defenses take funds that could otherwise be used to provide services

to the public. The potential repercussions of a successful lawsuit or repercussions

for failing to demonstrate conformity are the withholding of Federal highway funding or the halting of road and transit projects, including those that do not receive

any Federal funding. • For the above reasons, the number of conformity triggers should be reduced to

one, whether that one trigger be a specific date in time or the time at which the

transportation plan is approved. • In addition to reducing the number of conformity triggers, the length of time

between mandatory conformity demonstrations should be increased from 3 years to

at least 5 years. As stated above, many metropolitan planners are already having

trouble meeting the 3 year requirement. Since most road projects take at least 15

to 20 years to plan and construct, projects will still have several opportunities to

be included in a conformity demonstration. • Along with reducing the number of conformity triggers and the length of time

between conformity determinations, a method is needed whereby metropolitan planners can add or modify a road or transit project (to some degree) without the need

for a full conformity demonstration. Currently, planning organizations must essentially go through a full conformity analysis in order to make certain changes to a

road or transit project. This exercise is unnecessary and a waste of valuable local,

state, and Federal resources.

GRANDFATHERING

• Up until 1999, transportation improvement projects that had reached a certain

stage in the review and approval process could continue through the design and construction phase despite a conformity lapse. These projects were said to be ‘‘grandfathered.’’ A Federal Court ruled in 1999 that EPA did not have the statutory authority to permit grandfathering. State departments of transportation were put

under a constraint on what activities they can undertake during a conformity lapse.

As a result, $700 million in transportation projects in Atlanta were halted and

projects throughout the country have been threatened.

AGC recommends that transportation projects that are included in a conforming

plan and TIP should be allowed to move forward to construction if an area later has

a conformity lapse. Project design and right of way acquisition should be allowed

to continue during a conformity lapse.

USE OF THE LATEST PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS

• The Clean Air Act requires that all conformity demonstrations be based on the

latest planning assumptions. Specifically the Act states that ‘‘the determination of

conformity shall be based on the most recent estimates of emissions, and such estimates shall be determined from the most recent population, employment, travel and

congestion estimates as determined by the metropolitan planning organization or

other agency authorized to make such estimates.’’2

• Conformity problems can result if modeling assumptions change between the

time the motor vehicle emissions budget from the State Implementation Plan was

created and the time that conformity must be demonstrated. For example, if a nonattainment area sets a motor vehicle emissions budget at 156 tons of NOx per day

and later realizes, prior to its next conformity determination, that the number

should really be 165 tons per day (because of new inventory information regarding

the number of sport utility vehicles in the area), the metropolitan area could have

a difficult time demonstrating conformity to the lower number. This problem could

lead to a transportation conformity lapse because it would take several months to

revise the motor vehicle emissions budget through the notice-and-comment rulemaking process.
139

• The Clean Air Act should be clarified to stipulate that the most current modeling assumptions are those assumptions used in the creation of the latest motor

vehicle emissions budget. In the alternative, the Act should be amended to include

a time-delay before new planning assumptions must be used in a conformity determination.

RAMIFICATIONS OF CONFORMITY FAILURE VS. SIP FAILURE

• When an area fails to demonstrate conformity and enters into a conformity

lapse, the consequences of the lapse are immediate. On the other hand, if an area

fails to submit or implement an adequate State Implementation Plan, there is a

range of time, a minimum of 18 to 24 months, before sanctions are imposed. This

disparate treatment is not warranted. Transportation planners should also have

time to remedy problems before sanctions are imposed. Most of the time conformity

lapses occur only for a few short months due to a technical or procedural error.

Rather than the current ‘‘gotcha’’ system, planners should be given a short period

of time to rectify minor problems before public transportation projects are halted.

This would save communities millions of dollars without negatively impacting air

quality (since roads and highways in the TIP are not even built, let alone in operation).

LIMIT LAW SUITS

• Special interest groups have successfully used legal challenges to advance nogrowth strategies. They have demonstrated the ability to delay and in some cases

curtail development of significant transportation projects throughout the country.

Limits should be placed on ‘‘citizen suits’’ filed under the authority of the CAA.

CONCLUSION

AGC strongly urges Congress to reconsider the impact of the transportation conformity process on motorist safety, economic development and even air quality improvement.

For further information contact Brian Deery, Senior Director, Highway Division,

AGC of America, 703–837–5319, deeryb@agc.org

Leah Wood, Environmental Counsel, Environmental Law, AGC of America, 703–

837–5332, wood@agc.org

Æ