Opinion ID: 213650
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Transportation Projects and Transportation Plans

Text: The Clean Air Act requires that all federally funded transportation projects and transportation plans conform to the applicable SIP. 42 U.S.C. § 7506(c)(1), (2). Section 7506(c)(1) provides: Conformity to an implementation plan means (A) conformity to an implementation plan's purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of the national ambient air quality standards and achieving expeditious attainment of such standards; and (B) that such activities will not (i) cause or contribute to any new violation of any standard in any area; (ii) increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any standard in any area; or (iii) delay timely attainment of any standard or any required interim emission reductions or other milestones in any area. Those statutory requirements apply as soon as the state submits its SIP to the EPA for approval (and continue to apply after EPA approval). Id. The EPA has an affirmative responsibility to ensure conformity. Id. Those requirements mean, among other things, that a transportation project or plan cannot cause the applicable motor vehicle emissions budget to be exceeded. 40 C.F.R. § 93.118(a). Although perhaps not obvious at first glance, the EPA's affirmative responsibility to ensure that transportation projects do not, for instance, delay timely attainment, 42 U.S.C. § 7506(c)(1), puts the EPA in a difficult situation logistically. The EPA's approval process of a SIP, including the EPA's final determination whether the state's proposed motor vehicle emissions budget will meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act, can take a long time. But the statute requires that the EPA determine conformity for transportation purposes as soon as the state submits its SIP. Id. Without approved motor vehicle emissions budgets, however, state transportation agencies cannot determine whether transportation projects or plans will meet the statutory conformity requirements. Id. The EPA attempted to resolve this tension by promulgating the 1997 conformity rule, codified at 40 C.F.R. § 93.118. Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments: Flexibility and Streamlining, 62 Fed.Reg. 43,780-01 (Aug. 15, 1997). The EPA decided that, once a state submits a SIP, the agency will conduct a cursory review of the submitted motor vehicle emissions budgets within a short time frame. Id. at 43,782. If the submitted budgets meet six specified minimum criteria, the EPA will deem the budgets adequate for transportation conformity purposes. 40 C.F.R. § 93.118(e)(4). Once the EPA deems a motor vehicle emissions budget adequate, transportation projects and plans can proceed in accordance with that budget, even though the EPA has not givenand may never givefinal approval to either the budget or the SIP. The EPA's notice in the Federal Register made clear that the adequacy determination is independent of the EPA's final approval or disapproval of the SIP; thus, the EPA may later disapprove a budget that the EPA previously had found adequate. See 62 Fed.Reg. at 43,782; see also Sierra Club v. EPA, 315 F.3d 1295, 1300 (11th Cir.2002) (There are two, discrete EPA actions relevant to this case: (1) EPA's action finding the [motor vehicle emissions budget] to be adequate for transportation conformity purposes, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 93.118(e); and (2) EPA's approval of the SIP, effected by notice and comment rulemaking. EPA has consistently recognized that these separate actions are different from each other. (footnote and some citations omitted)). The EPA explains in its brief to this court that, [a]bsent such a process, transportation projects would, in many instances, soon come to a standstill while the region's SIP submittal was being reviewed. Not long after the EPA promulgated the 1997 conformity rule, an environmental petitioner successfully challenged certain aspects of the adequacy review process in the District of Columbia Circuit. [1] Envtl. Def. Fund v. EPA, 167 F.3d 641, 650-51 (D.C.Cir.1999). Importantly, however, the petitioner did not challenge the basic mechanism of this review process: The EPA can determine that a budget is adequate for transportation conformity purposes before the EPA makes a final determination to approve or disapprove a SIP or a budget. The EPA revised the conformity rule to its present form in 2004. 69 Fed.Reg. 40,004-01, 40,038-47 (July 1, 2004). The EPA stated that the final rule addresses only the procedures for making adequacy findings for submitted SIPs in accordance with the court decision. The final rule does not change the criteria listed in § 93.188(e)(4) of the rule for determining the adequacy of submitted SIPs, as the court did not address this provision in its decision. 69 Fed.Reg. at 40, 038. Again, environmental petitioners sought review of the conformity rule in the District of Columbia Circuit. Envtl. Def. v. EPA, 467 F.3d 1329 (D.C.Cir.2006). This time, the court held that, because the petitioners challenged only provisions that the EPA originally promulgated in 1997 and did not challenge the 2004 modifications, the petitioners' arguments were time-barred. Id. at 1333-34. In other words, the time had expired to challenge the EPA's overall process for making adequacy determinations. So long as the EPA conforms to its own regulations and does not change its interpretation of its regulations, the courts must not disturb the agency's action. Id. at 1334.