Opinion ID: 717461
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: contribute to in the interim period

Text: 10 Section 176(c) provides for conformity determinations to be made for transportation plans, programs, and projects before revised SIPs are approved by the Agency. During this so-called interim period, transportation plans and improvement programs may be found to conform if inter alia they, with respect to ozone and carbon monoxide nonattainment areas, contribute to annual emissions reductions consistent with [42 U.S.C. §§ 7511a(b)(1) and 7512a(a)(7) ]. 42 U.S.C. § 7506(c)(3)(A) (emphasis added). Section 7511a(b)(1) requires that SIPs provide for Moderate Area emissions reductions of volatile organic compounds in an amount of at least 15 percent from [1990] emissions by 1996, and for such specific annual reductions in emissions of volatile organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen as necessary to attain the national primary ambient air quality standard for ozone by the applicable date. 42 U.S.C. § 7511a(b)(1)(A)(i). Section 7511a(b)(1) further provides that certain emissions reductions--increasingly demanding tailpipe exhaust standards, for example--will not be creditable toward the required 15% reduction. Section 7512a(a)(7) states that, within Moderate Areas, SIPs must provide for attainment of the carbon monoxide national ambient air quality standard and for such specific annual emission reductions as are necessary to attain the standard by the applicable date. 11 The Agency's rules for determining whether a transportation plan (40 C.F.R. § 51.436) or program (40 C.F.R. § 51.438) contributes to annual emissions reductions during the interim period require two comparisons. The metropolitan planning organization (or other recipient of federal highway funds) determines what the transportation emissions levels for volatile organic compounds, oxides of nitrogen, and carbon monoxide were for 1990. The metropolitan planning organization must also predict the emissions from its transportation system if the projects existing or very near completion today were to continue to exist at specified points in the future but without the plan or program. This level of emissions is called the Baseline or no build scenario. And, the future emissions if the given transportation plan or improvement program were to be implemented and if other regionally significant projects were to be undertaken--the Action or build scenario--must be determined. Once these three emissions levels are calculated, the metropolitan planning organization compares the Action scenario emissions with the emissions under the Baseline scenario and with the emissions level as of 1990. If the Action scenario emissions are lower than both the Baseline and 1990 emissions, then the transportation plan or improvement program has met the contribute to requirement. 12 Petitioners challenge the contribute to rules, which allegedly fail to require that the transportation plan or improvement program reduce emissions at all, much less at the amount that the statute is said to command. Petitioners complain that non-plan and non-improvement program technologies and measures that reduce emissions after 1990 may render the Action scenario emissions lower than 1990 levels even though the plan or improvement program fails to produce any emissions reduction. 10 Further, petitioners contend that the rule improperly allows the Action scenario to account for projects and traffic reduction measures not included in the plan or improvement program. If non-plan, non-improvement program projects reduce Action scenario emissions enough, the plan and improvement program need not reduce emissions at all and may in fact increase emissions. It is also argued that the Action scenario allows credit to be taken for emissions reductions that are expressly noncreditable under section 7511a(b)(1)(D). Permitting plans and programs to be found to conform despite their contributing no emissions reductions is particularly egregious, petitioners suggest, since the plan or improvement program must reduce emissions at a level sufficient to meet the 15% requirement set forth in section 7511a(b)(1). 13 The Agency does not disagree with petitioners' assessment of the possible consequences of its contribute to regime. Rather, it takes issue with the premise of petitioners' criticisms: that the plan or improvement program must itself produce an absolute reduction in the given emissions. According to the Agency, section 176(c)(3)(a)(iii) may be interpreted such that a plan or improvement program need not itself produce demonstrable emissions reductions so long as the projected emissions of a region with the plan or improvement program are lower than those for the region without the plan or improvement program. The Agency asserts that plans and improvement programs may contribute to emissions reductions by avoiding or reducing increases in emissions over the years. EPA Br. at 46. It is also argued that the contribution to the emissions reductions need only be consistent with the provisions of sections 7511a and 7512a--a requirement that is met so long as the contribution is congruous or compatible with the reductions required by those sections even though the contribution may not comport with every jot and tittle of those sections. Along these lines, the Agency further contends that the determination of whether a plan or improvement program contributes to annual emissions reductions need not be performed according to the standards of section 7511a(b)(1)(D)--which provides that certain kinds of emissions reductions are not creditable. Those crediting restrictions are said to apply only to SIP revisions, not to plans and programs adopted in the interim. And, those provisions apply to computing the ultimate 15% reduction in emissions, not to the annual emissions reductions required by section 7511a(b)(1) to which section 176(c)(3)(a)(iii) specifically refers. 14 Petitioners contend that the contribute to rules run afoul of the plain language of the statute by failing to require that any given plan or program produce emissions reductions by itself. The Agency has demonstrated, however, that the contribute to language of the statute--particularly in combination with the consistent with language--is ambiguous. In the first place, the language leaves wide open the question of how large a reduction in emissions must be to constitute a contribution. As the Agency discussed in its notice of proposed rulemaking, the language could be read to require that the plan or program produce any nonzero reduction or it could be read to require that the plan or program provide for the entire 15% reduction in volatile organic compounds required under section 7511a(b)(1). Nor does the language clearly set forth whether emissions reductions that can be counted as contributing to annual emissions are those directly attributable to the implementation of the plan or program, or those that follow indirectly. In the face of this ambiguity, and given the statute's express directive to the Agency to promulgate criteria and procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity in the case of transportation plans, programs, and projects, § 176(c)(4)(A), we will uphold the Agency's rules if they are reasonable. 11 15 We think that it was reasonable for the Agency to construe the contribute to ... consistent with requirement as not necessarily requiring the reduction of emissions attributable to the plan or program standing alone. Sections 7511a(b)(1) and 7512a(a)(7) require reductions in volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxide, and carbon monoxide, but do not require that the emissions come entirely from mobile sources. 12 A requirement that the transportation plan or program provide all the statutorily required reductions would seem to impinge on the prerogative of states to determine how and where to comply with the Act's emissions reductions requirements. A plan or program that does not reduce emissions, but that facilitates the reduction of emissions by other projects could still contribute to annual emissions reductions consistent with sections 7511a(b)(1) and 7512a(a)(7). And, as we have noted with respect to the requirement of timely implementation of transportation control measures, the requirement that the contributions be consistent with sections 7511a(b)(1) and 7512a(a)(7) calls for congruence or compatibility with those sections, not lock-step correspondence. The Agency's test for interim-period conformity may not be perfect--it seems to us that the test could also result in the converse of the problem petitioners identify: emissions reductions directly attributable to a plan or program could be erased by increased emissions from non-plan, non-program projects included in the Action scenario--but we cannot say that it is unreasonable. The Agency acted well within its delegated discretion in construing the contribute to language for interim-period transportation plans and improvement programs as it has.