Opinion ID: 717461
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: grandfather provision

Text: 3 First, the petitioners challenge grandfather provisions that temporarily exempt certain projects from the section 176 conformity determination requirements. Both final rules require generally that conformity determinations for covered projects be made before any federal action is taken on them. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 51.850(a)-(b), 51.394(a). 7 Each rule exempts from the conformity determination requirement, however, projects that have undergone recent National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses--for non-transportation projects within the preceding five years and for transportation projects within the preceding three years. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 51.850(c)(1), 51.394(c)(1). 8 The petitioners contend the rules' grandfather provisions conflict with the clear conformity mandate of section 176(c)(1) and (c)(2). We disagree. 4 While the statute requires that a conformity determination be made before any federal action is taken, it also vests the Agency with discretion to set the appropriate frequency for making conformity determinations so long as such determinations for transportation plans and programs [not] be less frequent than every three years. 42 U.S.C. § 7506(c)(4)(B)(ii). Exercising its discretion, the Agency set a conformity determination deadline of five years after a NEPA analysis for non-transportation projects and three years after a NEPA analysis for transportation projects. See 40 C.F.R. § 51.857(a) (The conformity status of a Federal action automatically lapses 5 years from the date a final conformity determination is reported under § 51.855, unless the Federal action has been completed or a continuous program has been commenced to implement that Federal action within a reasonable time.); 40 C.F.R. § 51.394(c)(1) (exempting conformity determinations for transportation projects if there has been a NEPA process completion within the past three years). As the Agency explained, the accommodation was necessary to avoid immediate retroactive implementation of the new conformity requirement which would impose a substantial and unforeseen burden on federal projects that had already satisfied existing federal requirements. 58 Fed.Reg. at 63,216; see also 58 Fed.Reg. at 62,200 (By proposing to allow projects which have final approval to proceed, and by proposing to require only one project-level conformity determination, EPA intended to avoid disrupting the implementation process for projects which are underway.). The resulting scheme permits projects in compliance with former statutory requirements, as demonstrated by the NEPA review, to proceed as planned so long as the newly required compliance determination is made according to the Agency's regulatory schedule. Because its schedule is consistent with the statutory language (preserving the one statutorily fixed three-year deadline for transportation project compliance determinations), we conclude it must be upheld as a reasonable exercise of the Agency's express statutory discretion to set conformity determination deadlines. See Woolen Mill Assocs. v. FERC, 917 F.2d 589, 593 (D.C.Cir.1990).