Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2007/05/02/E7-7770/transportation-conformity-rule-amendments-to-implement-provisions-contained-in-the-2005-safe
Timestamp: 2018-02-25 12:36:29
Document Index: 673638688

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200951', '§\u200951', '§\u200993', 'art 51', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', 'art 93', 'art 51', 'art 93', '§\u200993', 'art 93', 'art 93', '§\u200993', 'art 93', '§\u200993', 'art 93', 'art 93', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993', '§\u200993']

72 FR 24471
24471-24494 (24 pages)
FRL-8303-9
E7-7770
C. How Can I Get Copies of This Proposed Rule and Other Documents?
B. History of the Transportation Conformity Rule
C. Why Are We Issuing This Proposed Rule?
D. Related Proposed Change: Consequences of a Control Strategy SIP Disapproval
B. Timeframe Covered by Conformity Determinations in Areas Without Second Maintenance Plans
1. Proposal for Metropolitan Areas
C. Timeframe of Conformity Determinations in Areas With Second Maintenance Plans
C. How Would This Proposal Impact States?
1. Areas That Never Submitted a Conformity SIP
2. Areas That Submitted a Conformity SIP That Was Never Approved
X. Deletion of Regulation 40 CFR 93.109(e)(2)(v)
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/E7-7770 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/E7-7770
In this action EPA is proposing to amend the transportation conformity rule to make it consistent with Clean Air Act section 176(c) as amended by SAFETEA-LU, which was signed into law on August 10, 2005 (Pub. L. 109-59). The Clean Air Act requires federally supported transportation plans, transportation improvement programs, and projects to be consistent with (“conform to”) the purpose of the state air quality implementation plan.
To make the transportation conformity rule consistent with SAFETEA-LU's revisions to the Clean Air Act, this proposal would change the regulations to reflect that the statute now provides more time for state and local governments to meet conformity requirements, provides a one-year grace period before the consequences of not meeting certain conformity requirements apply, allows the option of shortening the timeframe conformity determinations, and streamlines other provisions.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0612, by one of the following methods:
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0612. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/​epahome/​dockets.htm. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
Rudy Kapichak, State Measures and Conformity Group, Transportation and Regional Programs Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, e-mail address: kapichak.rudolph@epa.gov, telephone number: (734) 214-4574, fax number: (734) 214-4052; or Laura Berry, State Measures and Conformity Group, Transportation and Regional Programs Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, e-mail address: berry.laura@epa.gov, telephone number: (734) 214-4858, fax number: (734) 214-4052.
Start Printed Page 24473
Provided conformity procedures for state and local agencies under the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 standards;
On May 6, 2005, EPA promulgated a final rule entitled, “Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the New PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard: PM2.5 Precursors” (70 FR 24280). This final rule specified transportation-related PM2.5 precursors and when they apply in transportation conformity determinations in PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance areas.
Finally, on March 10, 2006, EPA promulgated a final rule (71 FR 12468) that established the criteria for determining which transportation projects must be analyzed for local particulate matter emissions impacts in PM2.5 and PM10 nonattainment and maintenance areas. This rule established requirements in PM2.5 areas and revised existing requirements in PM10 areas.
In response to the revised statutory requirements, on February 14, 2006, EPA and DOT issued joint interim guidance to provide areas that are subject to transportation conformity with guidance on implementing the changes. This guidance, as well as additional information on the transportation conformity rule and associated guidance, can be found on EPA's Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/​otaq/​stateresources/​transconf/​index.htm.
EPA proposes to change § 93.104(b)(3) to require that the MPO and DOT determine conformity of a transportation plan at least every four years, and § 93.104(c)(3) to require that the MPO and DOT determine conformity of a transportation improvement program (TIP) at least every four years.
These proposed changes to § 93.104 are necessary to make the conformity regulation consistent with the law. In SAFETEA-LU, Congress amended Clean Air Act section 176(c)(4)(D)(ii) to require that conformity be determined with a frequency of four years, unless the MPO decides to update its transportation plan or TIP more frequently, or the MPO is required to determine conformity in response to a trigger (see Section IV.). The Clean Air Act previously required transportation plan and TIP conformity to be determined every three years. These Clean Air Act provisions have been in effect as of August 10, 2005.
In addition, section 6001(b) of SAFETEA-LU requires DOT to issue guidance on a schedule for implementing SAFETEA-LU's transportation planning provisions, and specifically states, “The Secretary shall not require a State or metropolitan planning organization to deviate from its established planning update cycle to implement changes” made by SAFETEA-LU prior to July 1, 2007. The DOT guidance, which is available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/​hep/​legreg.htm, provides information on the development of transportation plans and TIPs prior to and on/after July 1, 2007, as part of SAFETEA-LU implementation. Conformity determinations continue to be required when such updates are made, as well as for any other amendments to the transportation plan and TIP made mid-cycle, unless the amendment merely adds or deletes exempt projects (see 40 CFR 93.104(b)(2) and (c)(2)). Further discussion of the implementation of the SAFETEA-LU update cycles can also be found in DOT's February 14, 2007, final Start Printed Page 24475rulemaking on metropolitan and statewide transportation planning (72 FR 7224).
EPA's proposal does not change other details for implementing conformity and planning frequency requirements. Both the transportation planning update clock and the conformity update clock continue to be reset on the date of the FHWA and FTA conformity determination for the respective transportation plan and/or TIP. For more information, see DOT's May 25, 2001, guidance, available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/​environment/​conformity/​planup_​m.htm.
EPA is proposing to revise § 93.120(a)(2) to allow projects in the conforming TIP, rather than the first three years of the conforming transportation plan and TIP, to proceed after final EPA disapproval of a control strategy SIP without a protective finding, i.e., when a conformity freeze occurs.
SAFETEA-LU section 6001(a) revised DOT's metropolitan planning requirements by extending the duration of TIPs from three years to four years. Therefore, EPA believes that it is appropriate to revise § 93.120(a)(2) to take into account the revised duration of TIPs. As we stated in the 1996 proposed and 1997 final conformity rules, EPA believes that aligning the requirements of § 93.120(a)(2) with the duration of the TIP provides the right balance between the competing objectives of minimizing new transportation commitments after a SIP disapproval and minimizing disruption to the transportation planning process.
Instead of changing “three years” to “four years” in the proposed regulatory text, EPA simply proposes to allow a project to proceed during a freeze if it is included in the conforming TIP. EPA is generalizing this language in order to account for the transition to new SAFETEA-LU planning requirements, because some MPOs will have three-year TIPs prior to developing four-year TIPs for SAFETEA-LU.
However, this proposed general language is not intended to change other rule requirements. Although EPA's proposed change to § 93.120(a)(2) would no longer include the phrase “conforming transportation plan,” the requirements of § 93.114 continue to apply. Specifically, there must still be a currently conforming transportation plan in place to approve projects during a conformity freeze (except as noted in Section V.E., below).
EPA is proposing to revise § 93.104(e), which requires a new transportation plan and TIP conformity determination to be made after actions that establish a new motor vehicle emissions budget for conformity, also known as “triggers.” EPA is proposing that MPOs and DOT would have two years to determine conformity of a transportation plan and TIP when a new budget is established, increased from the current rule's 18 months. An MPO and DOT must make a conformity determination within two years of the effective date of:
With the passage of SAFETEA-LU, the Clean Air Act now includes the requirement to determine conformity of a transportation plan and TIP within two years of a trigger. The language added to the Clean Air Act in section 176(c)(2)(E) closely followed EPA's regulation at § 93.104(e). Therefore, EPA is merely proposing to align the deadline in § 93.104(e) with the new deadline under the statute.
Clean Air Act 176(c)(2)(E)(ii) states that conformity must be determined when EPA approves a SIP that establishes a budget “if that budget has not yet been determined to be adequate * * *” The regulation at 40 CFR 93.104(e)(2) states that conformity must be determined when EPA approves a SIP that establishes a budget “if the budget(s) from that SIP have not yet been used in a conformity determination.” EPA believes this statement in the regulation is substantively the same as the law, because a budget from an approved SIP would have been used in a conformity determination prior to the SIP's approval only if that budget had previously been found adequate. If a budget had previously been found adequate, a clock for that budget would already have started on the effective date of EPA's adequacy finding, so no new clock would start at the time of Start Printed Page 24476EPA's approval of the budget in the SIP. This interpretation is consistent with how state and local agencies have implemented 40 CFR 93.104(e)(1) and (2) for some time, and changing this language may cause confusion without adding value.
The requirements to determine conformity of a transportation plan and TIP every four years under § 93.104(b)(3) and § 93.104(c)(3) (see Section III.),
The requirement to determine conformity within two years of a trigger under § 93.104(e) (see Section IV.), and
The pre-SAFETEA-LU planning requirements to update a transportation plan every three years, and update a TIP every two years, during the transition to SAFETEA-LU's four-year planning cycle for transportation plans and TIPs.[2]
We are also proposing a new § 93.104(f), which would provide the rules to allow projects to meet conformity requirements [3] during the lapse grace period.
New § 93.104(f)(1) would clarify that non-exempt FHWA/FTA projects can be found to conform during the lapse grace period if they are included in the currently conforming transportation plan and TIP.
New § 93.104(f)(2) would allow non-exempt FHWA/FTA projects to be found to conform during the lapse grace period if they were included in the most recent conforming transportation plan and TIP. However, even though EPA proposes in § 93.104(f)(2) that a project could be found to conform when the transportation plan and TIP have expired, a project must also meet DOT's planning requirements to receive federal funding or approval.
In addition, EPA is also proposing to revise §§ 93.114, 93.115, and 93.121 by including a reference to § 93.104(f) to account for the lapse grace period:
Similarly, § 93.121 currently requires that regionally significant non-federal projects either come from the currently conforming transportation plan and TIP, or the regional emissions analysis that supports such a transportation plan and TIP. EPA proposes to add that during the lapse grace period, regionally significant non-federal projects could be approved if they are from the most recent conforming transportation plan and TIP, or the regional emissions analysis that supported the most recent conforming transportation plan and TIP.
These proposed changes are necessary to make the conformity regulation consistent with the amended law and the intentions of Congress. In SAFETEA-LU, Congress amended the Clean Air Act to provide a one-year grace period before the consequences of a conformity lapse apply in section 176(c)(9) and added a definition of “lapse” in section 176(c)(10). The changes to the law have been in effect as of August 10, 2005. However, SAFETEA-LU's addition of paragraphs (9) and (10) to the Clean Air Act conformity provisions in section 176(c) and today's proposal do not affect other requirements not related to conformity, such as the statutory transportation planning requirements and DOT's regulations that implement them. These other requirements are unchanged by the addition of Clean Air Act sections 176(c)(9) and (10) and thus continue to apply during the lapse grace period. See Section V.C. below for further discussion.
Through SAFETEA-LU, Congress created new Clean Air Act section 176(c)(9) to provide a one-year grace period before the consequences of a conformity lapse apply. This section states that if a conformity determination for a transportation plan or TIP “is not made by an applicable deadline and such failure is not corrected * * * within 12 months after such deadline * * *, the transportation plan shall lapse.”
Congress also added a statutory definition for the word “lapse” in Clean Air Act section 176(c)(10) which states, “the term ‘lapse' means that the conformity determination for a transportation plan or transportation improvement program has expired, and thus there is no currently conforming transportation plan or transportation improvement program.” This statutory definition is generally consistent with EPA's existing definition of the word “lapse” in 40 CFR 93.101.
EPA concludes from these two Clean Air Act paragraphs that the conformity status of a transportation plan and TIP does not lapse for 12 months from an applicable deadline. Thus, as long as they are still valid in terms of meeting other federal requirements, the transportation plan and TIP continue to Start Printed Page 24477exist as the currently conforming transportation plan and TIP during the lapse grace period.
Through § 93.104(f)(1), EPA proposes that projects from the currently conforming transportation plan and TIP (or regional emissions analysis) can be found to conform during the lapse grace period. Clean Air Act section 176(c)(2)(C)(i) states,
(i) such a project comes from a conforming plan and program.
Similarly, the existing language in Clean Air Act section 176(c)(2)(D) and § 93.121(a) allows regionally significant non-federal projects in metropolitan and donut areas to proceed during the lapse grace period if they are from a currently conforming transportation plan and TIP (or regional emissions analysis).
In the case where during the lapse grace period, the transportation plan or TIP expire (i.e., the transportation plan or TIP has reached the end of the transportation planning cycle and has not yet been updated), EPA believes that Clean Air Act sections 176(c)(2)(C)(i) and (D) are ambiguous in light of the addition of sections 176(c)(9) and (10). EPA proposes in § 93.104(f)(2) that non-exempt FHWA/FTA projects and regionally significant non-federal projects from the most recent conforming transportation plan and TIP (or regional emissions analysis) can meet conformity requirements during the lapse grace period, based on our reading of Congressional intent. (As discussed in C. of this section, although EPA interprets the added paragraphs (9) and (10) of Clean Air Act 176(c) to allow projects to meet conformity requirements without a currently conforming transportation plan and TIP, a project must also meet DOT's planning requirements to receive federal funding or approval.)
However, by adding sections 176(c)(9) and (10) to the Clean Air Act in SAFETEA-LU, Congress clearly meant to give areas the ability for transportation projects to meet conformity requirements when transportation plan and TIP conformity is not determined on time. Part of the definition of “lapse” in Clean Air Act section 176(c)(10) is that “there is no currently conforming transportation plan or TIP.” An area that has a conforming transportation plan and TIP is not in a lapse and thus would have no need of a lapse grace period.
During the 12-month grace period, only transportation projects in the most recent conforming plan and TIP could be funded or approved until the required determinations are made pursuant to Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act.[4]
The report language says that projects from the “most recent conforming plan and TIP” can be funded or approved during the lapse grace period. It does not say that a currently conforming transportation plan and TIP need to be in place at the time of project approval. EPA concludes from this language that Congress meant to allow conformity requirements to be met for projects during the lapse grace period even if there is no conforming transportation plan and TIP at that time.
In other words, based on the legislative history, EPA interprets the lapse grace period established in Clean Air Act section 176(c)(9) as a time where the Clean Air Act section 176(c)(2)(C)(i) and (D) requirements for a project to come from a currently conforming transportation plan and TIP (or regional emissions analysis) could be met if the project comes from the most recent conforming transportation plan and TIP (or regional emissions analysis). In sum, the addition of Clean Air Act section 176(c)(9) allows a project to meet conformity requirements during the grace period as long as the project was in the “most recent conforming plan and TIP” (or in the regional emissions analysis that supported the most recent conforming transportation plan and TIP) prior to the start of the lapse grace period.
Note, however, that EPA believes this conclusion only applies to transportation conformity—what Congress included in section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act and discussed in its report language referenced above pertain only to transportation conformity requirements, not to DOT's transportation planning requirements. DOT and EPA agree that planning requirements still must be met during the lapse grace period in order for DOT to fund or approve a project as discussed further in C. of this section.
Finally, EPA believes that today's proposal would be consistent with the Clean Air Act's general goals to ensure that the air quality impacts of projects are considered prior to meeting conformity requirements. These goals are accomplished by ensuring that the regional and localized emissions impacts of projects have been considered prior to meeting conformity requirements. Again, in order for a project to meet conformity requirements during the lapse grace period, the project's regional emissions impacts would have already been considered in the conformity determination for the current or most recent transportation plan and TIP. Project-level conformity requirements—including any applicable hot-spot requirements—must also be met during the lapse grace period.
The one-year conformity lapse grace period begins when the conformity determination required for a transportation plan or TIP is not made by the applicable deadline. As described above, during the grace period, a project may meet conformity requirements as Start Printed Page 24478long as it was included in either the currently conforming transportation plan and TIP or the most recent conforming transportation plan and TIP and other project-level conformity requirements are met.
Three specific scenarios are presented below to show how expiration of the transportation plan and/or STIP/TIP at the time of the missed deadline affects the ability to advance FHWA/FTA projects during the lapse grace period. These scenarios are consistent with those highlighted in EPA and DOT's joint February 14, 2006, guidance entitled, “Interim Guidance for Implementing the Transportation Conformity Provisions in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).”
EPA also notes in the preamble to today's proposal the interaction of conformity lapse grace periods and conformity freezes. A conformity freeze occurs if EPA disapproves a control strategy SIP without a protective finding for the budgets in that SIP (see § 93.120(a)(2)).[7] During a freeze, some projects can be advanced, but the area cannot adopt a new transportation plan or TIP until a new SIP is submitted with budgets that EPA approves or finds adequate. If conformity of a transportation plan and TIP has not been determined using a new control strategy SIP with budgets that EPA approves or finds adequate within two years of EPA's SIP disapproval, highway sanctions apply (under Clean Air Act section 179(b)(1)) and the freeze becomes a lapse.
One of the changes Congress made via SAFETEA-LU was to add a new Start Printed Page 24479paragraph (7) to Clean Air Act section 176(c), which provides MPOs the option to elect to shorten the period of time addressed by their transportation plan/TIP conformity determinations, or “timeframe.” Prior to this change, every conformity determination for a transportation plan and TIP has had to cover the entire timeframe covered by the transportation plan. Transportation plans cover a period of 20 years or longer. Because of the requirement to determine conformity of the entire transportation plan, the last year of the transportation plan has had to be analyzed in all transportation plan or TIP conformity determinations, as well as other earlier years in the timeframe of the transportation plan.
Under the amended Clean Air Act, an MPO demonstrates conformity for the entire timeframe of the transportation plan unless the MPO elects to shorten the conformity timeframe. An election to shorten the conformity timeframe could be made only after consulting with the state and local air quality agencies [8] and soliciting public comment and considering such comments. If an MPO makes this election, the conformity determination does not have to cover the entire length of the transportation plan, but in some cases an informational analysis is also required.
EPA is proposing in § 93.106 that a conformity determination must cover the longest of these three timeframes.
Under this proposal, the MPO would not be able to choose which of these three timeframes it prefers to examine in the conformity determination; it would have to examine the longest of them. The MPO would have to determine which timeframe is the longest for each conformity determination, as the longest timeframe could change from determination to determination, because for example new budgets have been established or new regionally significant projects have been added to the TIP since the previous conformity determination.
The proposed changes to allow MPOs to shorten the timeframe covered by a conformity determination are necessary to make the conformity regulation consistent with the law. In SAFETEA-LU, Congress amended the Clean Air Act by adding section 176(c)(7), which allows MPOs to elect to shorten the timeframe of conformity determinations. EPA is proposing that conformity determinations cover the timeframe of the transportation plan unless the MPO makes an election because Clean Air Act section 176(c)(7)(A) specifically states, “Each conformity determination * * * shall require a demonstration of conformity for the period ending on either the final year of the transportation plan, or at the election of the metropolitan planning organization, * * *” a shorter timeframe. EPA's proposal that a shortened timeframe must cover the longest of the three periods specified also comes directly from the Clean Air Act. Specifically, section 176(c)(7)(A) states that a shortened conformity determination must cover:
EPA has followed this statutory language in the proposed regulatory language in § 93.106.
EPA is proposing that in areas that have an adequate or approved maintenance plan under Clean Air Act section 175A(b), transportation plan and TIP conformity determinations would cover the timeframe of the transportation plan unless an MPO elects to shorten the timeframe. Section 175A(b) of the Clean Air Act is the provision that describes the submission of a maintenance plan that covers the second ten years of the maintenance period. If the MPO elects to shorten the timeframe, transportation plan and TIP conformity determinations would cover the period of time through the end of the maintenance period, that is, the period of time covered through the Start Printed Page 24480second maintenance plan. This period of time is in contrast to the longest of the three periods proposed in Section VI.B. for areas that do not have an adequate or approved second maintenance plan. EPA has proposed regulatory language for shortening the timeframe in areas with second maintenance plans in § 93.106 as well.
Our proposal for a shortened timeframe for metropolitan areas with an adequate or approved second maintenance plan results directly from the Clean Air Act as amended by SAFETEA-LU. Clean Air Act section 176(c)(7)(C) states that conformity determinations can be made for a shorter timeframe “at the election of the metropolitan planning organization * * *” Therefore, in these areas EPA proposes that conformity determinations must cover the timeframe of the transportation plan unless an election is made. The proposal that the shortened timeframe would cover through the end of the second maintenance plan also results directly from Clean Air Act section 176(c)(7)(c). This section specifically says that in areas with a second maintenance plan, a shortened conformity timeframe is “required to extend only through the last year of the implementation plan required under section 175(A)(b)” [sic] rather than the longest of the three periods established in Clean Air Act section 176(c)(7)(A).
Finally, EPA is proposing to place the requirements to consult the state and local air quality agencies, solicit public comments, and consider these comments when electing to shorten the conformity timeframe in § 93.106, with the rest of the regulatory language for shortening the timeframe.
General process. Clean Air Act section 176(c)(7)(A) and (C) are the sections of the statute that allow elections to shorten the conformity timeframe. Both of these sections allow such elections to be made only “after consultation with the air pollution control agency and solicitation of public comments and consideration of such comments.” The Clean Air Act specifies consultation with the air agency and does not require concurrence.
A definition of “air pollution control agency” has been added at Clean Air Act section 176(c)(7)(E), which states that this term “means an air pollution control agency (as defined in Section 302(b)) that is responsible for developing plans or controlling pollution within the area covered by the transportation plan.” Clean Air Act section 302(b) states, “the term ‘air pollution control agency’ means any of the following” and lists several kinds of agencies. Because the statute says the term means “any” of the listed agencies rather than all of them, EPA believes the term refers to the relevant air quality agencies. In the transportation conformity process, the relevant agencies are the state and local air quality agencies that have regularly participated in the consultation process, pursuant to Clean Air Act section 176(c)(4)(D)(i). Therefore, EPA is using the term “state and local air agencies” in this preamble and in our proposal for § 93.106, consistent with the statute and 40 CFR 93.105.
MPOs are encouraged to make their elections prior to the start of the public comment period for their subsequent conformity determination. Making the election prior to the start of the public comment period for the subsequent conformity determination ensures that the public will understand that future conformity determinations will address a shorter period of time. However, there may be instances when an MPO will want to take public comments on the election to shorten the conformity timeframe at the same time that it is taking public comment on a conformity determination. In those cases, the conformity information presented to the public should include both a regional emissions analysis reflecting the election of a shorter timeframe and a regional emissions analysis that reflects the full length of the transportation plan. EPA recommends that both a shortened and a full-length analysis be included so that the MPO can complete its conformity determination according to its desired schedule, even if it receives negative public comment about shortening the timeframe.
EPA is proposing that once an election to shorten the timeframe is made, it would remain in effect until the MPO elects otherwise, because that statement is specifically included in the statute. Clean Air Act section 176(c)(7)(D) states, “Any election by a metropolitan planning organization under this paragraph shall continue to be in effect until the metropolitan planning organization elects otherwise.”
Changing previous elections. EPA requests comment on the two options for the process that MPOs must follow if they have shortened the conformity timeframe and want to revert back to determining conformity for the full length of the transportation plan. EPA asks commenters to consider under what circumstances, if any, would Start Printed Page 24481consultation with state and local agencies and solicitation of public comment be warranted when reverting back to a full-length conformity timeframe.
Option A would require MPOs to consult with the state and local air pollution control agencies, solicit public comment, and consider any comments received before reverting to a timeframe that covers the full length of the transportation plan. This approach is an option because Clean Air Act section 176(c)(7)(D) states that a shortened timeframe remains in effect unless an MPO “elects otherwise.” In other instances in Clean Air Act section 176(c)(7), an “election” includes consultation with the state and local air quality agencies, solicitation of public comment and consideration of any comments received. Therefore, one interpretation is that an election to revert to determining conformity for the entire length of the transportation plan should also include consultation with the state and local air pollution control agencies, solicitation of public comment, and consideration of those comments.
Placement in regulatory text. Regarding the placement of requirements for state and local air quality agency consultation and public comment, EPA is proposing to include them in § 93.106 because we are proposing most of the regulatory text for implementing the provision to shorten the timeframe in this section. The main advantage of including requirements for state and local air agency consultation and public comment in this section is that it would not require any amendments to state conformity SIPs. EPA believes that it is reasonable to include these process requirements along with other timeframe requirements, because this type of consultation would only occur when the MPO is considering electing to shorten the timeframe. The proposal would also streamline the rule and eliminate redundant text.
EPA is not proposing to include these consultation requirements in § 93.105 because such a change is not required by the Clean Air Act as amended by SAFETEA-LU. In addition, doing so would force states that already have submitted or approved conformity SIPs to amend them, which could require significant state and local resources. This result would be an unfortunate coincidence, given that SAFETEA-LU streamlined the conformity SIP requirements (see Section VII. of this preamble for this discussion).
Isolated rural nonattainment and maintenance areas do not have MPOs and are not required to prepare transportation plans or TIPs. Projects in these areas are generally included in the long-range statewide transportation plan and the statewide TIP. Isolated rural areas are not “donut areas.[9] ”
EPA is including regulatory text for Option 1 in § 93.109(l)(2)(i) by including a reference to § 93.106(d). To finalize Option 2, EPA would simply delete this reference. EPA could finalize either option under this proposed rule.
EPA requests comment on these two options, and asks whether there are other alternatives that would also be viable in isolated rural areas. We are including regulatory text for the state DOT option in § 93.109(l)(2)(i), however EPA could finalize either option or an alternative suggested during the comment period under this proposed rule.
EPA's proposed process requirements for isolated rural areas are exactly the same as the proposed requirements for metropolitan areas. This result is achieved because EPA is proposing in § 93.109(l)(2)(i), which addresses isolated rural areas, that references to the MPO in § 93.106(d) should be taken to mean the state DOT. Start Printed Page 24482
Our rationale in giving isolated rural areas the flexibility to choose among several tests for years after the time period addressed by the SIP is especially relevant to today's proposal to give these areas the ability to shorten their conformity timeframes. In the July 9, 1996, proposed rule, we stated, “isolated rural areas generally do not have a metropolitan transportation planning process that could serve as a forum for identifying and addressing long-term growth issues in years not addressed by the SIP” (61 FR 36121). Today's proposal to allow isolated rural areas to shorten their timeframe would also help to alleviate that concern. EPA believes that giving isolated rural areas the ability to shorten their timeframe would still ensure that projects conform.
In the 1996 proposal we also said, “In addition, regionally significant, federally funded or approved projects usually occur infrequently in isolated rural areas. Conformity demonstrations for such areas as required by the existing conformity rule would place the burden of long-term planning on a few or even a single transportation project” (61 FR 36121). Again, allowing isolated rural areas to shorten their timeframe could alleviate the concern that long-term planning rests on only a few or even one project, while still ensuring that a project conforms, because the timeframe must be at least as long as the year after the completion date of a regionally significant project.
EPA is proposing to include most of the necessary regulatory language for shortening the conformity timeframe within § 93.106, and is also proposing changes in §§ 93.118 and 93.119.[10]
First, today's proposal would rename § 93.106, which is currently labeled “Content of transportation plans,” as “Content of transportation plans and timeframe of conformity determination.”
Second, EPA proposes to amend § 93.106(a)(1) to update the horizon years that apply when an area shortens the conformity timeframe. (Section 93.106(a)(1) only applies to serious, severe or extreme ozone and serious CO nonattainment areas with urbanized populations greater than 200,000.)
Third, EPA is proposing changes to §§ 93.118 and 93.119 to indicate that particular years must be analyzed only if they are in the conformity timeframe and to include the requirements for any needed informational analyses.
EPA is also proposing an additional requirement for areas that do not have an adequate or approved second maintenance plan budget. In these areas, EPA is proposing that the conformity determination must be accompanied by a regional emissions analysis for the last year of the transportation plan, as well as for any year where the budgets were exceeded in a previous regional emissions analysis if that year is later than the shortened conformity timeframe. EPA proposes that these regional emissions analyses would be done in manner consistent with all relevant requirements of the transportation conformity regulation (e.g., 40 CFR 93.110, 93.111, and 93.122). However, these analyses would be for informational purposes only, and emissions would not have to meet the Start Printed Page 24483budgets in these years. (EPA is not proposing these information-only analysis requirements for areas with an adequate or approved second maintenance plan, for the reasons described below.)
Areas that use the interim emissions tests. In areas that do not have budgets and use the interim emissions tests, EPA is proposing that the requirements for analysis years would be similar to the existing requirements in § 93.119 that apply under a full transportation plan-length conformity determination. Under a shortened timeframe, EPA is proposing that instead of analyzing the last year of the transportation plan, the analysis would be done for the last year of the shortened timeframe.
Option Z: Emissions for the last year of the transportation plan would be estimated, but no comparison to emissions from the baseline year or the “no-build” scenario would be required.
EPA's proposed regulatory language in § 93.119 could be finalized under any of these options, and other alternatives can be submitted during the comment period. EPA also requests information regarding whether the proposed options would result in useful information about future emissions for consideration by state and local agencies and the public. EPA also proposes that this regional emissions analysis would be done in manner consistent with all relevant requirements of the transportation conformity regulation (e.g., 40 CFR 93.110, 93.111, and 93.122). Note that there is no proposal for an informational regional emissions analysis for years where the interim tests were not met in a previous regional analysis, as there is for areas that use the budget test that do not have adequate or approved second maintenance plans.
Areas without second maintenance plans that shorten their conformity timeframe. If the conformity timeframe is shortened in an area that does not have an adequate or approved second maintenance plan, EPA proposes that the conformity determination be accompanied by an informational analysis. EPA's proposals for the regional emissions analysis for the last year of the transportation plan, and for any year where the budgets were exceeded in a previous regional emissions analysis if that year is later than the shortened conformity timeframe, are also based in the statutory language. Clean Air Act section 176(c)(7)(B) requires that the conformity determination “be accompanied by a regional emissions analysis” for these years. Absent a definition for “regional emissions analysis” in the statute, EPA assumes that the phrase has its usual meaning in the context of transportation conformity. Therefore, EPA believes that these analyses need to be done in a manner consistent with all the relevant requirements of the conformity regulations.
This same statutory language is the reason EPA proposes that these analyses do not need to meet the required tests. The statutory language makes it clear that these emissions analyses “accompany” the conformity determination, and thus are not part of the conformity determination.
EPA is proposing that areas that use the interim emissions tests would only have to run an informational analysis for the last year of the transportation plan, rather than for any years where they did not pass the tests in previous conformity determination that extend beyond the shortened timeframe, as would areas that use the budget test. This result is because Clean Air Act section 176(c)(7)(B) states that these information-only regional emissions analyses are to be done “for the last year of the transportation plan and for any year shown to exceed emissions budgets by a prior analysis, if such year extends beyond” the end of the shortened timeframe. Areas subject to the interim emissions tests for a given pollutant or precursor do not have budgets for that pollutant or precursor. Therefore, there is no statutory requirement for these areas to perform an informational regional emissions analysis for any year other than the last year of the transportation plan.
EPA requests comment on the three options for what an information-only regional emissions analysis would consist of in an area that uses the interim emissions test. EPA believes that any of the options could be finalized under the proposed regulatory language because the statute is ambiguous regarding this requirement prior to SIP budgets being established. The statutory language states that the the regional emissions analysis that accompanies the conformity determination must be performed for the last year of the transportation plan, but does not specify that the interim emissions tests be conducted. The Congressional report language for this section states, “Generating this information will be helpful in ensuring Start Printed Page 24484that conformity is maintained,” [11] but does not include any direction on how this goal should be met in those areas that use the interim emissions tests.
EPA believes Option X could meet this goal because using the same test or tests as the conformity determination, whether it is the baseline year test, the build/no-build test, or both, would reveal whether or not the emissions from the last year of the transportation plan would meet that test or tests. Although the conformity test would not be required to be met, using the same test as in the conformity determination for the informational analysis provides similar information as in the conformity determination and is a format that is familiar to reviewers. The additional information—emissions in the baseline year and/or emissions from the no-build scenario—may be helpful to inform state and local agencies and the public about emissions trends beyond the conformity determination's timeframe. In addition, Option X is similar to the requirement Congress included for the informational analysis in areas that have a budget, in that the area would use the same test(s) used for the conformity determination as a comparison.
Areas with second maintenance plans that shorten their conformity timeframe. EPA is not proposing any information-only analyses in areas with an adequate or approved second maintenance plan, given Clean Air Act section 176(c)(7)(C). The statute labels this section, which applies to areas that have an adequate or approved second maintenance plan, as “Exception.” EPA interprets section 176(c)(7)(C) to mean that areas with adequate or approved second maintenance plans that shorten their conformity timeframe do not have to comply with the requirements of Clean Air Act section 176(c)(7)(A) or (B), and (C) does not require any informational analyses. Therefore, EPA believes that areas with a second maintenance plan that shorten their conformity timeframe do not have to perform a regional emissions analysis for the last year of their transportation plans, or for a year shown to exceed budgets by a prior analysis, as required by Clean Air Act section 176(c)(7)(B) for other areas that have shortened their timeframe.
EPA is primarily proposing these changes to § 51.390 to make the transportation conformity regulation consistent with the law, which has been in effect since August 10, 2005. In SAFETEA-LU, Congress amended the Clean Air Act so that states are no longer required to copy much of the federal transportation conformity rule into their SIPs. Instead, Clean Air Act section 176(c)(4)(e) now requires states to include in their conformity SIPs:
EPA is proposing to delete the requirement for states to submit Start Printed Page 24485conformity SIPs to DOT to be consistent with SAFETEA-LU's changes. In revising the Clean Air Act's previous conformity SIP requirements, Congress did not retain the previous requirement that “each State shall submit to the Administrator and the Secretary of Transportation * * * a revision to its implementation plan * * *.” The new statutory language in Clean Air Act section 176(c)(4)(E) does not include this previous requirement, and therefore, we are removing this requirement to reduce state and local air agency processing of their conformity SIPs. However, EPA does not believe that this proposal will substantively change DOT's involvement in conformity SIP development. The proposal does not change the existing conformity rule's requirement that EPA provide DOT with a 30-day comment period on conformity SIP revisions.
The reorganizational changes to § 51.390 that are proposed are for clarity and readability and not related to changes in the law. EPA is proposing these changes to make this section more user-friendly.
States that never submitted a conformity SIP would only address the three provisions noted above in their conformity SIPs according to any existing conformity SIP deadline (see D. of this section below).
In some cases, states have submitted conformity SIPs to EPA for approval, but EPA has not yet acted on them. These states could write their EPA Regional Office and request that EPA approve only the three provisions that are required to be included in their SIPs and that EPA take no action on the remainder of the submission. States could also leave the full conformity SIP pending before EPA for rulemaking action. However, if EPA approves the full SIP, states could not apply any subsequent changes that EPA makes to the federal rule without first revising their state conformity SIP and obtaining EPA's approval.
States with EPA-approved conformity SIPs that decide to eliminate the provisions that are no longer mandatory would need to revise the SIP to eliminate those provisions. EPA would have to approve the changes to a state's conformity SIP through the Federal Register rulemaking process. Such a SIP revision should not be controversial because the provisions are no longer required by the Clean Air Act as amended by SAFETEA-LU. In addition their elimination from a state's conformity SIP should not change conformity's implementation in practice since the federal conformity rule would apply for any provision not addressed in a state SIP. States are encouraged to work with their EPA Regional Office as early in the process as possible to ensure the SIP submittal meets all requirements and is fully approvable.
Once a state has an approved conformity SIP that addresses only the three sections that the Clean Air Act now requires, the state would need to revise its conformity SIP only if EPA revises one of these sections of the conformity rule, or the state chooses to revise one of these three provisions. Any future changes to the federal conformity rules beyond these three provisions would apply in all states that have only these three provisions in their approved conformity SIP.
A state with a previously approved conformity SIP may decide to retain all or some of the federal rule in its SIP or a state without an approved conformity SIP could choose to submit for EPA approval all or some of the other sections of the federal rule. In such a case, the state should be aware that the conformity determinations in the state continue to be governed by the state's approved conformity SIP. Such a state would need to revise its conformity SIP when EPA makes changes to the federal rule in order to have those changes apply in the state. For more information, please refer to EPA's November 2004 Conformity SIP Guidance, which is found at: http://www.epa.gov/​otaq/​stateresources/​transconf/​policy.htm.
SAFETEA-LU section 6011(d) amended the Clean Air Act by adding a new section 176(c)(8) that establishes specific criteria and procedures for replacing TCMs in an existing approved SIP with new TCMs and adding TCMs to an approved SIP. SAFETEA-LU section 6011(g) directs EPA to “promulgate revised regulations to implement the changes made by this section.” EPA is proposing to revise the definition of a TCM in 40 CFR 93.101 to clarify that TCMs as defined for conformity purposes also include any TCMs that are incorporated into the SIP through this new TCM substitution and addition process. However, EPA is not proposing regulatory text to implement this Clean Air Act amendment. EPA has determined that revising the transportation conformity regulations is not necessary to implement the TCM substitution and addition provision.
Second, regulatory changes are needed to address the other Clean Air Start Printed Page 24486Act amendments made by SAFETEA-LU (e.g., the frequency of conformity determinations and the lapse grace period) because the existing transportation conformity regulation is inconsistent with the revised Clean Air Act. However, no such inconsistency exists for the TCM substitution and addition provision because the transportation conformity regulation has never addressed the substitution or addition of TCMs to approved SIPs. Therefore, the detailed criteria and procedures for TCM substitutions and additions contained in Clean Air Act section 176(c)(8) can be relied on without any conflict with the regulation.
EPA and DOT issued joint guidance on February 14, 2006, on the implementation of all of the Clean Air Act amendments made by SAFETEA-LU. This guidance clarified EPA and DOT expectations for how TCM substitutions and additions are to be carried out by state and local agencies. State and local agencies considering TCM substitutions or additions should review this guidance and consult with their local EPA, FHWA and FTA offices. The guidance is available at: http://www.epa.gov/​otaq/​stateresources/​transconf/​420b06901.pdf.
The conformity rule currently requires a hot-spot analysis to be completed for all project-level conformity determinations in CO nonattainment and maintenance areas (40 CFR 93.116 and 93.123(a)). A CO hot-spot analysis is an estimation of likely future localized pollutant concentrations and a comparison of those concentrations to the CO national ambient air quality standards (“standards”) (40 CFR 93.101). A hot-spot analysis assesses air quality impacts on a scale smaller than the entire nonattainment or maintenance area, such as a congested roadway intersection.
Hot-spot analyses are also required for certain projects in PM2.5 and PM10 nonattainment and maintenance areas. The current conformity rule allows DOT, in consultation with EPA, to make a “categorical hot-spot finding” in PM2.5 and PM10 nonattainment and maintenance areas if there is appropriate modeling that shows that a particular category of highway or transit projects will meet applicable Clean Air Act conformity requirements without further analysis (40 CFR 93.123(b)(3)). If DOT makes such a finding, then no further hot-spot analysis to meet 40 CFR 93.116(a) is needed for any project that fits the category addressed by the finding. A project sponsor would simply reference a categorical hot-spot finding in the project-level conformity determination to meet hot-spot analysis requirements. See EPA's March 10, 2006, final rule for further information (71 FR 12502-12506) on categorical hot-spot findings in PM2.5 or PM10 areas.
Today's proposal would extend this current PM provision for categorical hot-spot findings to CO nonattainment and maintenance areas. The proposal would allow DOT, in consultation with EPA, to make categorical hot-spot findings for appropriate cases in CO nonattainment and maintenance areas if appropriate modeling shows that a type of highway or transit project does not cause or contribute to a new or worsened local air quality violation of the CO standards, as required under 40 CFR 93.116(a).[12] The regulatory text for today's proposal can be found in § 93.123(a)(3).
Any DOT categorical hot-spot finding would have to be supported by a credible quantitative modeling demonstration showing that all potential projects in a category satisfy statutory requirements without further hot-spot analysis. Such modeling would need to be derived in consultation with EPA, and consistent with EPA's existing CO quantitative hot-spot modeling requirements, as described in 40 CFR 93.123(a). Modeling used to support a categorical hot-spot finding could consider the emissions produced from a category of projects based on potential project sizes, configurations, and levels of service. Under the proposed Start Printed Page 24487regulatory language, modeling could also consider the emissions produced by a category of projects and the resulting impact on air quality under different circumstances.
EPA believes it is both appropriate and in compliance with the Clean Air Act to propose that DOT make categorical hot-spot findings where modeling shows that such projects will not cause or contribute to new or worsened air quality violations. As long as modeling shows that all potential projects in a category meet the current conformity rule's hot-spot requirements (40 CFR 93.116(a))—either through an analysis of a category of projects or a hot-spot analysis for a single project—then certain Clean Air Act conformity requirements are met.
As noted above, CO categorical hot-spot findings under today's proposal could not be used to meet an additional hot-spot requirement for CO areas without approved attainment demonstrations or maintenance plans. Clean Air Act section 176(c)(3)(B)(ii) requires projects in these CO areas to also “eliminate or reduce the severity and number of violations of the carbon monoxide standards in the area substantially affected by the project.” This criterion is stipulated by 40 CFR 93.109(f)(1) and 93.116(b) for FHWA/FTA projects in these CO areas. EPA believes that this criterion is more appropriately met by evaluating the unique circumstances of an individual project, rather than based on a broader analysis of a category of projects. Since most CO areas already have approved attainment demonstrations or maintenance plans, there should be limited practical impact of this aspect of today's proposal.
Finally, today's proposal also addresses a comment that EPA received during a previous rulemaking. In the March 10, 2006, final rule, one commenter believed that the flexibility for FHWA and FTA to make PM2.5 and PM10 categorical hot-spot findings should be extended to CO nonattainment and maintenance areas (71 FR 12504). EPA could not take final action on such an expansion in that rulemaking since no proposal had been provided for public comment.
If finalized, EPA would implement a CO categorical hot-spot finding provision similar to the implementation of PM2.5 and PM10 categorical hot-spot findings, as described in the March 10, 2006, final rule. A project-level conformity determination would continue to be required for all non-exempt FHWA/FTA projects in CO areas. Modeling used to support a categorical hot-spot finding would be based on appropriate motor vehicle emissions factor models, dispersion models, and EPA's existing requirements for quantitative CO hot-spot modeling as specified in 40 CFR 93.123(a)(1) (40 CFR part 51, Appendix W (Guideline on Air Quality Models)).
EPA is proposing to eliminate a provision of the transportation conformity rule that was vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Environmental Defense v. EPA, et al., D.C. Cir. No. 04-1291) on October 20, 2006. This provision, 40 CFR 93.109(e)(2)(v), allowed 8-hour ozone areas to use the interim emissions test(s) for conformity instead of 1-hour budgets where the interim emissions test(s) was Start Printed Page 24488determined to be more appropriate to meet Clean Air Act requirements. The court vacated this provision and remanded it to EPA.
As discussed in the July 1, 2004 preamble (69 FR 40025), EPA anticipated that this provision would be used infrequently but that there would be some cases where using the interim emissions test(s) would be more appropriate to meet Clean Air Act requirements. Because of the court's decision on this provision, areas can no longer rely on § 93.109(e)(2)(v) to use an interim emissions test(s) instead of using 1-hour ozone budget(s). Such areas must now use all relevant existing 1-hour ozone budgets in future conformity determinations until 8-hour ozone emissions budgets are found adequate or are approved for a given analysis year.
EPA is proposing a minor revision to § 93.102(b)(4), which addresses the period of time that transportation conformity applies in maintenance areas. This is the period of time during which the requirements of the conformity rule apply in an area, and not the timeframe any one conformity determination examines, as discussed in Section VI., “Timeframes for Conformity Determinations.”
Section 93.102(b)(4) currently states that conformity applies in “maintenance areas for 20 years from the date EPA approves the area's request under section 107(d) of the CAA for redesignation to attainment, unless the applicable implementation plan specifies that the provisions of this subpart shall apply for more than 20 years.” We are proposing to clarify this section to ensure that conformity would apply in maintenance areas through the last year of their approved Clean Air Act section 175A(b) maintenance plan, unless the applicable implementation plan specifies that conformity would continue to apply beyond the end of the area's approved second 10-year maintenance plan.
EPA is only proposing to clarify § 93.102(b)(4) because the current regulation may be read to not account for the situation where a maintenance area submits a second maintenance plan that establishes a budget for a year more than 20 years beyond the date of EPA's approval of the area's redesignation request and first maintenance plan.
For example, suppose an area's redesignation request and first maintenance plan are approved in 2006 and the maintenance plan establishes budgets for 2016. This area submits a second maintenance plan that establishes budgets for 2030. Under the current regulatory language, conformity applies in this area “for 20 years from the date EPA approves” the area's redesignation to maintenance, i.e., until 2026, despite the fact that the area would have budgets for 2030. This result would not be consistent with the Clean Air Act, which requires that transportation activities conform to the SIP. EPA's proposed change to clarify that conformity applies through the last year of the approved second maintenance plan would ensure that conformity applies throughout the time period covered by the SIP budgets. In this example, conformity would apply until 2030.
This proposed revision should not change the implementation of conformity requirements in maintenance areas. The Clean Air Act requires that maintenance plans cover a period of 20 years from the year that EPA approves the area's redesignation request. With this proposed change, conformity would continue to apply in maintenance areas for at least 20 years beyond the date of EPA's redesignation of an area to maintenance. This clarification is consistent with EPA's intention as expressed in the preamble to the 1993 final transportation conformity rule, which stated, “If the maintenance plan establishes emissions budgets for more than twenty years, the area would be required to show conformity to that maintenance plan for more than twenty years” (58 FR 62206).
EPA is proposing corrections to §§ 93.102(b)(2)(v) and 93.119(f)(10) to change “sulfur oxides” to “sulfur dioxide” and “SOX” to “SO2.” In the May 6, 2005, transportation conformity final rule (70 FR 24279), EPA finalized requirements for PM2.5 precursors. In that final rulemaking, we included “sulfur oxides” as one of the precursors and referred to sulfur oxides as SOX. Since that rulemaking was finalized, EPA has proposed the PM2.5 implementation rule (70 FR 65984) and indicated that sulfur dioxide (SO2) would be regulated as a PM2.5 precursor rather than all sulfur oxides. We are proposing these corrections to the transportation conformity rule in order to make it consistent with EPA's broader PM2.5 implementation strategy. This proposed change would not impact current conformity practice.
EPA is proposing several minor clarifications to “Table 2—Exempt Projects” in § 93.126, under the category of “Safety.” Specifically, EPA is proposing to update the following terms:
“Hazard elimination program” would become “Projects that correct, improve, or eliminate a hazardous location or feature;”
“Safety improvement program” would become “Highway Safety Improvement Program implementation;” and
“Pavement marking demonstration” would become “Pavement marking.”
In section 1401, SAFETEA-LU removed the hazard elimination program as a stand-alone program previously under 23 U.S.C. 152. Projects that were covered by the hazard elimination program are now covered under the phrase, “Projects that correct, improve, or eliminate a hazardous road location or feature,” as included in 23 U.S.C. 148. Therefore, EPA proposes to update this term in Table 2 of the conformity rule.
SAFETEA-LU also established the “Highway Safety Improvement Program” in title 23 U.S.C. 148, which includes the types of projects that were previously covered in the “Safety Improvement Program.” Therefore, EPA is proposing to change this term within Table 2 as well. SAFETEA-LU defines “Highway Safety Improvement Project” as “a project described in the State strategic highway safety plan that—(i) Corrects or improves a hazardous road location or feature; or (ii) addresses a highway safety problem.” Given that the Highway Safety Improvement Program is substantively the same as the prior Safety Improvement Program, EPA proposes that projects defined in 23 Start Printed Page 24489U.S.C. 148 under the Highway Safety Improvement Program would be exempt from transportation conformity.
Finally, “pavement marking demonstration” is no longer a demonstration program and the reference is out of date. However, those types of projects will continue to be exempt under the updated phrase, “Pavement marking.” Therefore, EPA proposes changing this term in Table 2 to be consistent with SAFETEA-LU's term.
EPA is proposing revisions to the definitions of “metropolitan planning organization (MPO)” and “transportation improvement program (TIP)” to reflect the definitions in SAFETEA-LU sections 3005(a) and 6001(a). Pursuant to SAFETEA-LU, the term “MPO” now refers to the policy board for the organization that is designated under 23 U.S.C. 134(d) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(d). EPA is proposing to revise the definitions of these terms in § 93.101 to be consistent with the new statutory definitions. These proposed changes would have no practical impact in conformity implementation.
First, EPA is proposing to make minor changes to §§ 93.109(l)(2)(i) and 93.116(a) to ensure that CO, PM10, and PM2.5 hot-spot analyses will continue to consider a project's air quality impact over the entire timeframe of the transportation plan or long-range statewide transportation plan, as appropriate. EPA's minor change to § 93.116(a) will ensure that hot-spot analyses cover the timeframe of the transportation plan in metropolitan and donut nonattainment and maintenance areas. And the proposed addition in § 93.109(l)(2)(i) will ensure that hot-spot analyses in isolated rural areas will also examine a project's air quality impact over the timeframe of the long-range statewide transportation plan.
As discussed in Section VI., EPA is proposing several options for shortening the timeframe addressed by transportation plan and TIP conformity determinations, and in some cases, regional emissions analyses. These changes are proposed in accordance with new Clean Air Act provisions from SAFETEA-LU. The proposed changes to §§ 93.116(a) and 93.109(l)(2)(i) will ensure that project-level hot-spot analyses examine the appropriate time period, even if the timeframe of the long-range transportation plan or TIP conformity determination or regional emissions analysis is shortened. The SAFETEA-LU amendments allowing an election to shorten the timeframe covered by conformity determinations apply only to transportation plan and TIP conformity determinations, not project-level conformity determinations.
Second, EPA is proposing a technical clarification to § 93.123(b)(1)(i) to address some confusion in the field since our March 10, 2006, final rule (71 FR 12468). Section 93.123(b)(1)(i) of the current rule requires PM2.5 or PM10 hot-spot analyses to be completed for “New or expanded highway projects that have a significant number of or significant increase in diesel vehicles;* * *” EPA is proposing to clarify this provision as “New highway projects that have a significant number of diesel vehicles, and expanded projects that have a significant increase in the number of diesel vehicles.”
Since the March 2006 final rule was promulgated, EPA has received several questions regarding what types of new and expanded highway projects are covered by § 93.123(b)(1)(i). For example, some state and local transportation agencies have asked how the current rule's reference to a “significant increase in diesel vehicles” applies to new highway projects. Although DOT and EPA have answered these and other questions,[13] clarifying this provision of the conformity rule will assist planners as they implement the rule in the future. Again, today's proposal does not change the type of new or expanded highway projects that would require PM2.5 or PM10 hot-spot analyses for transportation conformity purposes; we are simply clarifying the current provision through a grammatical change.
EPA is also proposing a minor revision to how §§ 93.104(b)(2) and 93.105(c)(1)(v) describe transportation plan changes that require conformity determinations, but are not comprehensive transportation plan updates. EPA is proposing to change references for transportation plan “revision(s)” to be transportation plan “amendment(s),” in order to be consistent with the proposed planning definitions in DOT's February 14, 2007, final transportation planning regulations (72 FR 7224). Today's proposed changes would also provide consistency between how mid-cycle transportation plan and TIP changes are currently described in the conformity rule. Section 93.104(c)(2) currently requires conformity determinations for a TIP “amendment,” rather than a “revision.” The proposal would not change the substantive requirements for when a conformity determination is required for transportation plan changes. In addition, the minor wording change to § 93.105(c)(1)(v) would not require a conformity SIP revision.
EPA is proposing to update one of the references in § 93.105(e) of the conformity rule to be consistent with DOT's transportation planning regulations. Section 93.105(e) describes the procedures for consulting with the general public on conformity determinations. This provision currently refers to 23 CFR 450.316(b) of DOT's transportation planning regulations, which describes how public involvement occurs during the development of transportation plans and TIPs.
EPA is proposing to change the reference in § 93.105(e) to be 23 CFR 450.316(a), so that the conformity rule is consistent with DOT's planning regulations. In its February 14, 2007, final rule (72 FR 7224), DOT reorganized 23 CFR 450.316 to reflect the new SAFETEA-LU statute. DOT moved the public consultation procedures that EPA has historically relied upon in the conformity rule from 23 CFR 450.316(b) to 23 CFR 450.316(a). Today's proposal would simply update the conformity rule to reflect this change in the planning regulations.
Today's proposal would not change the substantive requirements for the public consultation requirements for conformity determinations. In addition, the proposal would not require a state to revise its conformity SIP, since the proposal involves an administrative change to one reference in DOT's regulations. EPA has not required conformity SIP revisions for similar reference changes in the past; the public participation requirements in existing approved conformity SIPs can be implemented as intended even if they do not reflect the most current citation in DOT's regulations. Start Printed Page 24490
Transportation conformity determinations are required under Clean Air Act section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)) to ensure that federally supported highway and transit project activities are consistent with (“conform to”) the purpose of the SIP. Conformity to the purpose of the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause or contribute to new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the relevant air quality standards. Transportation conformity applies under EPA's conformity regulations at 40 CFR 51.390 and part 93 to areas that are designated nonattainment and those redesignated to attainment after 1990 (“maintenance areas” with SIPs developed under Clean Air Act section 175A) for transportation-source criteria pollutants. The Clean Air Act gives EPA the statutory authority to establish the criteria and procedures for determining whether transportation activities conform to the SIP.
This action does not impose any new information collection burden or any new information collection requirements. However, the Office of Management and Budget has previously approved the information collection requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information collection requirements of EPA's existing transportation conformity rule and the proposed revisions in today's action are addressed by two information collection requests (ICRs). Requirements for carbon monoxide, PM10, nitrogen dioxide, and 1-hour ozone nonattainment and maintenance areas are covered under the DOT ICR entitled, “Metropolitan and Statewide Transportation Planning,” with the OMB control number of 2132-0529. Requirements related to PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone nonattainment and maintenance areas are covered by the EPA ICR entitled, “Transportation Conformity Determinations for Federally Funded and Approved Transportation Plans, Programs and Projects Under the New 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,” with OMB control number 2060-0561, EPA ICR number 2130.02.
EPA has determined that this proposal itself does not contain a federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. The primary purpose of this proposal is to amend the conformity rule to be Start Printed Page 24491consistent with Clean Air Act section 176(c) as amended by SAFETEA-LU. The Clean Air Act amendments made by SAFETEA-LU were intended to reduce the burden of demonstrating conformity in designated nonattainment and maintenance areas subject to conformity requirements. Thus, although this proposal explains how to implement these Clean Air Act amendments, it merely implements already established law that imposes conformity requirements and does not itself impose requirements that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any year. Thus, today's proposal is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA and EPA has not prepared a statement with respect to budgetary impacts.
This proposal is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Action Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355; May 22, 2001) because it will not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have determined that this proposal is not likely to have any significant adverse effects on energy supply.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., material specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
1. An authority citation for subpart T of part 51 is added to read as follows:
2. Section 51.390 is revised to read as follows:
(b) Conformity implementation plan content. To satisfy the requirements of Clean Air Act section 176(c)(4)(E), the implementation plan revision required by this section must include the following three requirements of part 93, subpart A, of this chapter: §§ 93.105, 93.122(a)(4)(ii), and 93.125(c). A state may elect to include any other provisions of part 93, subpart A. If the provisions of the following sections of part 93, subpart A, of this chapter are included, such provisions must be included in verbatim form, except insofar as needed to clarify or to give effect to a stated intent in the revision to establish criteria and procedures more stringent than the requirements stated in this chapter: §§ 93.101, 93.102, 93.103, 93.104, 93.106, 93.109, 93.110, 93.111, 93.112, 93.113, 93.114, 93.115, 93.116, 93.117, 93.118, 93.119, 93.120, 93.121, 93.126, and 93.127. A state's conformity provisions may contain criteria and procedures more stringent than the requirements described in this subpart and part 93, subpart A, of this chapter only if the state's conformity provisions apply equally to non-federal as well as federal entities.
(c) Timing and approval. A state must submit this revision to EPA by November 25, 1994 or within 12 months of an area's redesignation from attainment to nonattainment, if the state has not previously submitted such a revision. The state must also revise its conformity implementation plan within 12 months of the date of publication of any final amendments to §§ 93.105, 93.122(a)(4)(ii), and 93.125(c) of this chapter, as appropriate. Any other portions of part 93, subpart A, of this chapter that the state has included in its conformity implementation plan and EPA has approved must be revised in the state's implementation plan and submitted to EPA within 12 months of the date of publication of any final amendments to such sections. EPA will provide DOT with a 30-day comment period before taking action to approve or disapprove the submission. In order for EPA to approve the implementation plan revision submitted to EPA under this subpart, the plan revision must address and give full legal effect to the following three requirements of part 93, subpart A: §§ 93.105, 93.122(a)(4)(ii), and 93.125(c) of this chapter. Any other provisions that are incorporated into the conformity implementation plan must also be done in a manner that gives them full legal effect. Following EPA approval of the state conformity provisions (or a portion thereof) in a revision to the state's conformity implementation plan, conformity determinations will be governed by the approved (or approved portion of the) state criteria and procedures as well as any applicable portions of the federal conformity rules that are not addressed by the approved conformity SIP.
4. Section 93.101 is amended by:
5. Section 93.102 is amended as follows:
a. In paragraph (b)(2)(v), revising “sulfur oxides (SOx)” to read “sulfur dioxide (SO2)”; and
b. In paragraph (b)(4), revising “for 20 years from the date EPA approves the area's request under section 107(d) of the CAA for redesignation to attainment” to read “through the last year of a maintenance area's approved CAA section 175A(b) maintenance plan”.
6. Section 93.104 is amended as follows:
(2) All transportation plan amendments must be found to conform before the transportation plan amendments are approved by the MPO or accepted by DOT, unless the amendment merely adds or deletes Start Printed Page 24493exempt projects listed in § 93.126 or § 93.127. The conformity determination must be based on the transportation plan and the amendment taken as a whole.
7. Section 93.105 is amended by removing “revisions or” in paragraph (c)(1)(v), and by revising the reference “23 CFR 450.316(b)” in paragraph (e) to read as “23 CFR 450.316(a)”.
8. Section 93.106 is amended as follows:
9. Section 93.109 is amended as follows:
a. By removing “, subject to the exception in paragraph (e)(2)(v)” in the introductory text of paragraph (e)(2);
c. By revising in paragraph (l)(2)(i) “§§ 93.118 and 93.119” to read “§§ 93.106(d), 93.116, 93.118, and 93.119” and by adding to the end of this same paragraph, “When the requirements of § 93.106(d) apply to isolated rural nonattainment and maintenance areas, references to “MPO” should be taken to mean the state department of transportation.”
10. Section 93.114 is amended by revising the introductory text to read as follows:
11. Section 93.115 is amended by revising the section heading and adding a new paragraph (e) to read as follows:
12. Section 93.116 is amended by removing in paragraph (a) “(or regional emissions analysis)”.
13. Section 93.118 is amended as follows: Start Printed Page 24494
c. By adding new paragraph (d)(3) to read as follows:
(3) When the timeframe of the conformity determination is shortened under § 93.106(d)(2), the conformity determination must be accompanied by a regional emissions analysis (for informational purposes only) for the last year of the transportation plan, and for any year shown to exceed motor vehicle emissions budgets in a prior regional emissions analysis (if such a year extends beyond the timeframe of the conformity determination).
14. Section 93.119 is amended to read as follows:
a. In paragraph (f)(10), by revising “SOX” to read “SO2”;
15. Section 93.120 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:
(2) If EPA disapproves a submitted control strategy implementation plan revision without making a protective finding, only projects in the currently conforming TIP or that meet the requirements of § 93.104(f) during the 12-month lapse grace period may be found to conform. This means that beginning on the effective date of a disapproval without a protective finding, no transportation plan, TIP, or project not in the currently conforming TIP or that meets the requirements of § 93.104(f) during the 12-month lapse grace period may be found to conform until another control strategy implementation plan revision fulfilling the same CAA requirements is submitted, EPA finds its motor vehicle emissions budget(s) adequate pursuant to § 93.118 or approves the submission, and conformity to the implementation plan revision is determined.
16. Section 93.121 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) to read as follows:
17. Section 93.123 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(3) and revising paragraph (b)(1)(i) to read as follows:
(3) DOT, in consultation with EPA, may also choose to make a categorical hot-spot finding that § 93.116(a) is met without further hot-spot analysis for any project described in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section based on appropriate modeling. DOT, in consultation with EPA, may also consider the current air quality circumstances of a given CO nonattainment or maintenance area in categorical hot-spot findings for applicable FHWA or FTA projects.
18. Section 93.126, Table 2 is amended by revising “Hazard elimination program” to read “Projects that correct, improve, or eliminate a hazardous location or feature”, “Safety improvement program” to read “Highway Safety Improvement Program implementation”, and “Pavement marking demonstration” to read “Pavement marking”.
2. Prior to July 1, 2007, MPOs can still develop and adopt transportation plans and TIPs consistent with the “pre-SAFETEA-LU” requirements (see DOT's guidance at http://www.fhwa.dot/​hep/​legreg.htm for more information).
4. Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference, “Section 6011, Transportation Conformity,” p. 1060.
8. The amendment to the Clean Air Act that allows areas to shorten the timeframe of conformity determinations, Clean Air Act section 176(c)(7), requires the MPO to consult with “the air pollution control agency” and defines this term in paragraph (E) to mean “an air pollution control agency (as defined in section 302(b)) that is responsible for developing plans or controlling air pollution within the area covered by a transportation plan.” Clean Air Act section 302(b) states, “The term “air pollution control agency” means any of the following” and lists several kinds of agencies. Because the statute says the term means “any” of the listed agencies rather than all of them, EPA believes the term refers to the relevant state and local air quality agencies. In the transportation conformity process, the relevant agencies are the state and local air quality agencies that have always participated in the consultation process, pursuant to Clean Air Act section 176(c)(4)(D)(i). Therefore, EPA is using the term “state and local air agencies” in this preamble and proposed rule, consistent with CAA 176(c)(4)(D)(i) and 40 CFR 93.105.
9. Donut areas are defined as “geographic areas outside a metropolitan planning area boundary, but inside the boundary of a nonattainment or maintenance area that contains any part of a metropolitan area(s)* * *” (40 CFR 93.101).
10. Note that the proposals in V.F. would apply to isolated rural areas as well as metropolitan areas if EPA finalizes Option 1 to allow isolated rural areas to shorten the timeframe of conformity determinations.
11. Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference, “Section 6011, Transportation Conformity,” p. 1059.
12. As discussed further below, categorical hot-spot findings under the proposal could not be used to meet 40 CFR 93.116(b) requirements in the limited number of CO areas without approved attainment demonstrations or maintenance plans.
13. Questions and answers for PM2.5 and PM10 hot-spot analysis requirements can be found at FHWA's Web site: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/​environment/​conformity/​pm25faqs.htm.