Opinion ID: 2746796
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: delay timely attainment of any standard

Text: or any required interim emission reductions or other milestones in any area. Id. § 7506(c)(1)(B). The CAA does not define the term “any area.” Instead, it delegates to the EPA and the U.S. Department of Transportation (“DOT”) the duty to “promulgate, and periodically update, criteria and procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity in the case of transportation plans, programs, and projects.” Id. § 7506(c)(4)(B). Acting pursuant to that authority, the EPA has promulgated regulations that mandate a “hot-spot analysis” for several air pollutants, including PM2.5. Hot-spot analysis is described as an estimation of likely future localized . . . PM2.5 pollutant concentrations and a 10 NRDC V. USDOT comparison of those concentrations to the national ambient air quality standards. Hot- spot analysis assesses impacts on a scale smaller than the entire nonattainment or maintenance area . . . and uses an air quality dispersion model to determine the effects of emissions on air quality. 40 C.F.R. § 93.101. Project sponsors must carry out this hotspot analysis to ensure that the project does not “cause or contribute to any new localized . . . PM2.5 violations, increase the frequency or severity” of such violations, or “delay timely attainment” of air quality goals. Id. § 93.116(a). When a project’s sponsors conduct a hot-spot analysis, concentrations “must be estimated and analyzed at appropriate receptor locations in the area substantially affected by the project.” Id. § 93.123(c)(1). Hot-spot analyses may be either qualitative or quantitative. “Where quantitative analysis methods are not available,” as was true of PM2.5 during the period at issue here, the demonstration required by § 93.116(a) “must be based on a qualitative consideration of local factors.” Id. § 93.123(b)(2). The parties agree that Defendants were required to conduct a qualitative hot-spot analysis rather than a quantitative analysis. In March 2006, the EPA and DOT jointly published the Transportation Conformity Guidance for Qualitative Hot-spot Analyses in PM2.5 and PM10 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas (“Conformity Guidance”). According to the EPA, all qualitative PM2.5 analyses “should be completed” according to the Conformity Guidance. 71 Fed. Reg. 12468, 12471 (Mar. 10, 2006). The Conformity Guidance does not define NRDC V. USDOT 11 “any area,” nor does it refer to “appropriate receptor locations.” It does, however, provide a detailed methodology for how project sponsors should conduct qualitative PM2.5 hot-spot analyses, and it features several examples of permissible analyses. NRDC’s CAA claim turns on whether the statute’s use of the phrase “any area” means that Defendants were required to estimate PM2.5 increases within the area immediately adjacent to the proposed expressway. If Defendants were required to do so, then it follows that their approval of the Project was contrary to law and must be set aside. If not, then their Conformity Determination complied with the CAA.