Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments: Miscellaneous
Revisions
[Federal Register: August 29, 1995 (Volume 60, Number 167)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 44790-44799]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 51 and 93
[FRL-5284-5]
RIN 2060-AF95
Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments: Miscellaneous
Revisions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: EPA proposes in this action to make several changes to its
current regulation requiring certain transportation actions to conform
to the state's air quality plan. This action proposes to amend the
November 24, 1993, transportation conformity rule in order to allow
transportation control measures (TCMs) to proceed even if the
conformity status of the transportation plan and program has lapsed,
provided the TCM is included in an approved state implementation plan
or federal implementation plan and was included in a previously
conforming transportation plan and program. Such TCMs would be halted
under the existing transportation conformity rule should a conformity
lapse occur.
This proposal would also extend the grace period before which areas
must determine conformity to a submitted control strategy
implementation plan. This extension would provide relief most
immediately to some moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas, for
which conformity otherwise would lapse on November 15, 1995, should
such areas fail to demonstrate conformity.
This action proposes to align the date of conformity lapse with the
date of application of Clean Air Act highway sanctions for any failure
to submit or submission of an incomplete control strategy state
implementation plan (SIP).
This proposal would also correct the nitrogen oxides (NOX)
provisions of the transportation conformity rule consistent with
previous commitments made by EPA in Federal Register notices concerning
transportation conformity NOXwaivers. This proposal to change the
statutory authority for NOXwaivers is also published as an
interim final rule in the final rule section of today's Federal
Register, and is effective immediately.
Finally, this action proposes to establish a grace period before
which transportation plan and program conformity must be determined in
newly designated nonattainment areas; clarify certain wording; and make
certain technical corrections.
EPA proposes that a transportation conformity SIP revision
consistent with these amendments would be required to be submitted to
EPA by 12 months following the date of publication of the final rule.
DATES: Comments on this action must be received by September 28, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit written comments (in
duplicate, if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Attention: Docket No. A-
95-05, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20460.
Materials relevant to this proposal have been placed in Public
Docket A-95-05 by EPA. The docket is located at the above address in
room M-1500 Waterside Mall (ground floor) and may be inspected from 8
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, including all non-government
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathryn Sargeant, Emission Control
Strategies Branch, Emission Planning and Strategies Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI
48105. (313) 668-4441.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The contents of this preamble are listed in
the following outline:
I. Background on Transportation Conformity Rule
II. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs)
III. Requirement to Redetermine Conformity to Submitted Control
Strategy SIP
IV. Grace Period for Use of Submitted Motor Vehicle Emissions
Budgets
V. Alignment With Clean Air Act Highway Sanctions
VI. Applicability of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Provisions
VII. Grace Period for Newly Designated Nonattainment Areas
VIII. Wording Clarifications to 40 CFR 51.448 and 93.128
IX. Technical Corrections to 40 CFR 51.452 and 93.130
X. Conformity SIPs
XI. Administrative Requirements
I. Background on Transportation Conformity Rule
The transportation conformity rule, ``Criteria and Procedures for
Determining Conformity to State or Federal Implementation Plans of
Transportation Plans, Programs, and Projects Funded or Approved Under
Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act,'' was published November
24, 1993, (58 FR 62188) and amended 40 CFR parts 51 and 93. The Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking was published on January 11, 1993 (58 FR 3768).
[[Page 44791]]
Required under section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act, as amended in
1990, the transportation conformity rule established the criteria and
procedures by which the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal
Transit Administration, and metropolitan planning organizations
determine the conformity of federally funded or approved highway and
transit plans, programs, and projects to SIPs. According to the Clean
Air Act, federally supported activities must conform to the
implementation plan's purpose of attaining and maintaining the national
ambient air quality standards.
On February 8, 1995, EPA published an interim final rule entitled,
``Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments: Transition to the Control
Strategy Period.'' This interim final rule, which was effective
immediately and applied until August 8, 1995, aligned the dates of
certain adverse consequences that are imposed by the transportation
conformity rule with the date that Clean Air Act section 179(b) highway
sanctions become effective. A proposal to make the alignment of these
dates permanent was also published February 8, 1995, and the final rule
was published **.
Since publication of the transportation conformity rule in November
1993, EPA, DOT, and state and local air and transportation officials
have had considerable experience implementing the criteria and
procedures in the rule. It is that mutual experience which leads to the
amendments which EPA is proposing today. In each case, the amendments
are needed to clarify ambiguities, correct errors, or make the
conformity process more logical and feasible.
EPA intends to propose further amendments to the transportation
conformity rule to address concerns raised by conformity stakeholders,
such as the build/no-build test, non-federal projects, adding projects
between plan/TIP cycles, and rural nonattainment areas.
II. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs)
A. Background
The November 1993 transportation conformity rule does not allow
TCMs to be federally funded, accepted, or approved without a conforming
transportation plan and transportation improvement program (TIP) in
place.
Clean Air Act sections 176(c)(2) (C) and (D) require that
conforming transportation plans and TIPs be used to determine whether
projects are in conformity. According to the November 1993
transportation conformity rule, the only federally funded or approved
projects which may proceed in the absence of a conforming plan and TIP
are those which have already been found to conform and those which the
rule exempts because of their de minimis emission impacts. TCMs in
general are not exempt projects.
EPA acknowledged in the preamble to the final rule that it may
appear intuitively counterproductive to delay transportation projects
which benefit air quality just because an area is unable to develop a
conforming transportation plan and TIP. However, EPA asserted that
allowing project-by-project approvals in the absence of a conforming
transportation plan and TIP is contrary to the underlying philosophy
that transportation actions must be planned and evaluated for emissions
effects in the aggregate and for the long term. If TCMs proceeded
outside the context of the transportation plan and TIP, EPA feared that
there would be no assurance that the analysis of reasonable
alternatives had been properly conducted and that the effect of the TCM
on the flow within the network had been properly accounted for.
Furthermore, EPA stated its concern that allowing TCMs to proceed
without a conforming transportation plan and TIP may undermine the
cooperative transportation planning process. All constituencies should
have a stake in the development of a conforming transportation plan and
TIP, particularly given that compromises and tradeoffs among involved
parties are often necessary.
B. Description of Proposal for TCMs
This proposal would allow TCMs which are in an approved SIP and
have been included in a previously conforming transportation plan and
TIP to proceed even if the conformity status of the current
transportation plan or TIP lapses. Specifically, it would allow a
project-level conformity determination to be made for a TCM
specifically included in an approved SIP even if there were no
currently conforming transportation plan and TIP in place (as presently
required by 40 CFR 51.420 and 93.114), provided that the TCM was
previously included in a conforming plan and TIP and all other relevant
criteria for a project from a transportation plan and TIP have been
satisfied (e.g., hot-spot analysis was performed as necessary).
According to this proposal, a TCM that had been included in a
conforming plan and TIP would be considered to come from a plan and TIP
(as required by 40 CFR 51.422 and 93.115) even if the conformity status
of that transportation plan and TIP had subsequently lapsed. However,
the other requirements in 40 CFR 51.422 and 93.115 defining what
projects ``come from'' a transportation plan and TIP would continue to
apply, including the requirement that the project's design concept and
scope have not changed significantly from those which were described in
the transportation plan/TIP.
C. Rationale
Even if an area's conformity status lapses, this proposal would
allow work to continue on TCMs which have completed the metropolitan
transportation planning process and are included in an approved SIP,
but have not completed the National Environmental Policy Act process.
EPA believes that it would be counterproductive to overcoming future
difficulties in demonstrating conformity to halt progress on a TCM
which has been approved through the air quality planning process and
has met the metropolitan transportation planning process' requirements.
Such a TCM has been endorsed by both the transportation and air quality
communities as a project beneficial for air quality, and stopping its
progress would make it more difficult to implement the SIP, develop a
revised plan and TIP which can be found to conform, and attain the
national ambient air quality standards.
EPA's previously expressed concerns about allowing TCMs to proceed
in the absence of a conforming transportation plan and TIP do not apply
in the context of this proposal, because this proposal's applicability
is limited to TCMs which have been in a conforming transportation plan
and TIP. Such TCMs have been considered in the long term and in the
aggregate, in the context of the transportation plan and TIP and the
cooperative transportation planning process. This amendment would not
allow TCMs to circumvent the metropolitan transportation planning
process; it would simply prevent the consequences of conformity
failures from disrupting further project development activities for the
implementation of TCMs.
Furthermore, EPA believes that this proposal is consistent with the
Clean Air Act conformity provisions. Conformity is defined in Clean Air
Act section 176(c)(1) as conformity to the implementation plan's
purpose. Accordingly, implementation of a measure specifically included
in the implementation plan should conform.
[[Page 44792]]
The subsequent requirement in section 176(c)(2)(C)(i) for a project to
come from a conforming plan and program is an elaboration of the
general definition in section 176(c)(1) and should not prevent actions
obviously consistent with the general definition from proceeding.
D. Impact
At the present time, few control strategy SIPs (e.g., attainment
demonstrations, 15volatile organic compound emission reduction SIPs)
have been approved by EPA. As a result, there are currently few TCMs
which would be affected by this proposal. However, EPA expects that in
the future there will be a number of TCMs which are included in an
approved SIP and have been included in a conforming transportation plan
and TIP which might be jeopardized by subsequent plan/TIP conformity
lapses.
In particular, major highway and transit infrastructure projects
which have been designated as TCMs in the SIP frequently have a lengthy
period for project planning and development, including the federal
environmental review. As a result, these major infrastructure
investments are especially susceptible to being delayed by future
lapses in transportation plan and TIP conformity status, despite their
role in contributing to the conformity status of previously approved
transportation plans and TIPs. This proposal would allow such projects
to complete the project development process even if subsequent
conformity difficulties caused an area's plan or TIP conformity status
to lapse.
III. Requirement to Redetermine Conformity to Submitted Control
Strategy SIP
A. Background
40 CFR 51.448(a)(1) and 93.128(a)(1) require the transportation
plan and TIP to be found to conform to a submitted control strategy SIP
revision within one year from the date the Clean Air Act requires its
submission. Thus, in areas required to submit ozone attainment/3rateof
-progress SIPs, which were generally due November 15, 1994, the
current transportation conformity rule requires conformity to those
SIPs to be determined by November 15, 1995, or else conformity status
will lapse.
B. Description of Proposal
This proposal would amend 40 CFR 51.448(a)(1) and 93.128(a)(1) to
allow areas 18 months to determine conformity, starting from the date
of the State's initial submission to EPA of a control strategy SIP
revision establishing a motor vehicle emissions budget. If conformity
is not demonstrated within 18 months following such submission, the
conformity status of the transportation plan and TIP will lapse, and no
new project-level conformity determinations may be made.
This deadline for determining conformity to a submitted control
strategy SIP would apply to the initial submission of each type of
control strategy SIP. Ozone 15SIPs, ozone 3rate-of-progress SIPS,
and attainment demonstrations (for any pollutant) are all control
strategy SIPs whose initial submission would require conformity to be
determined within 18 months.
The 18-month time period for determining conformity would not be
affected by subsequent changes to the submitted control strategy SIP.
For example, if within the 18-month period the initial submission is
revised before conformity has been determined, the 18-month clock would
not be restarted. However, when conformity is eventually determined,
the relevant motor vehicle emissions budget must be used. If conformity
to the initial submission has been demonstrated and that submission is
subsequently revised, no 18-month clock would be started until, as
required in Sec. 51.400(a)(3) (93.104(a)(3)), ``Frequency,'' the SIP is
approved by EPA.
C. Rationale
This proposal is consistent with the existing transportation
conformity rule in that it imposes a one-time requirement to determine
conformity after the initial submission of a control strategy SIP. EPA
is proposing to redefine the beginning and length of the grace period
before conformity to a newly submitted SIP must be demonstrated in
order to be consistent with flexibility EPA is allowing on submission
deadlines for ozone attainment SIPs.
EPA has provided flexibility regarding the deadline for submission
of ozone attainment/3SIPs because of unavoidable delays in their
development (see March 2, 1995, memorandum from Mary D. Nichols,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to EPA Regional
Administrators, titled, ``Ozone Attainment Demonstrations''). The
existing conformity rule requires conformity to these SIPs to be
determined by November 15, 1995, but many ozone areas have not even
submitted such SIPs yet. As a result, EPA believes it is more
appropriate to begin the grace period with a State's actual submission,
rather than the Clean Air Act deadline for submission.
In addition, EPA is proposing to extend the grace period from 12
months to 18 months because experience with the existing conformity
rule indicates that 18 months is a more reasonable timeframe. Also, the
18-month grace period is consistent with the grace period allowed in 40
CFR 51.400 and 93.104 after publication of the final rule and after EPA
approval of control strategy SIP revisions.
EPA notes that there is a possibility that the agency will be
unable to complete final rulemaking on these proposed amendments by
November 15, 1995, in light of the date of this proposal and the need
to respond to any comments submitted on the proposal. However, EPA
believes that even should this proposed change not be effective by
November 15, 1995, the conformity status of plans and TIPs would not
lapse for certain areas taking advantage of the flexibilities provided
in the March 2, 1995, memorandum. This is because in the March 2
memorandum EPA interpreted the statute as not requiring such areas to
submit attainment demonstrations on November 15, 1994.
In the March 2 memorandum, EPA acknowledged that circumstances
beyond the control of the States had precluded the States from
completing the SIP submittals within the deadline (November 15, 1994)
prescribed in the Act. Moreover, the deadline had passed and States
could not reasonably be expected to complete the submissions in the
immediate future. EPA emphasized that much of the problem stemmed from
technical issues that arose in compiling the inventories and conducting
modeling, particularly in light of the complexities of accounting for
ozone transport.
In light of this unique situation, EPA implemented the statutory
requirements for SIP submissions in a more flexible manner. EPA, in
effect, extended the submission date and established new, staggered
submission deadlines for various components of the required submittals.
The lapsing provisions of the current conformity rule impose a lapse
one year from the date the Clean Air Act requires submission of a
control strategy implementation plan revision. Since under EPA's
interpretation of the Act in the circumstances just described the
statute does not require submissions for such states in November 1994,
the conformity status of plans and TIPs in such areas will not lapse in
November 1995, but rather would lapse one year from the various dates
described in the March 2, 1995, policy referred to above. Prior to any
of those dates, EPA will
[[Page 44793]]
have ample time to complete final action on the rule change proposed
today.
However, those areas which are not taking advantage of the
flexibility of the March 2 memorandum are still required under the
current rule to determine conformity by November 15, 1995. These areas
will lapse on November 15, 1995, if final action on this proposal is
not effective by then and they have not determined conformity.
D. Effect on Deadline to Determine Conformity to Submitted 15SIPs
The current conformity rule requires conformity to submitted 15
SIPs to be demonstrated by November 15, 1994. Conformity status in some
areas has already lapsed because of failure to meet this deadline. This
proposal would affect the deadline to determine conformity to submitted
15SIPs in only a very few areas, because most 15SIPs were submitted
more than 18 months ago. For the few areas that submitted very late 15
SIPs, this proposal would extend by a few months the time allowed to
demonstrate conformity to the 15SIP.
IV. Grace Period for Use of Submitted Motor Vehicle Emissions
Budgets
This proposal would clarify the existing transportation conformity
rule's 90-day grace period before motor vehicle emissions budgets in
newly submitted control strategy SIPs are required to be used to
demonstrate conformity (presently section 51.448(a)(1)(ii) and
93.128(a)(1)(ii)).
This proposal clarifies that although areas are not required to use
motor vehicle emissions budgets in the first 90 days following their
submission, they may do so if EPA agrees the budgets are adequate for
transportation conformity purposes. Newly submitted motor vehicle
emissions budgets are required to be used in transportation conformity
determinations beginning 90 days after their submission, provided EPA
has not rejected the use of such submitted budgets for the purposes of
transportation conformity.
V. Alignment With Clean Air Act Highway Sanctions
A. Description of Proposal
This proposal would not impose a transportation plan/TIP conformity
lapse as a result of failure to submit or submission of an incomplete
ozone, CO, PM-10, or NO<INF>2 control strategy SIP until the date that
Clean Air Act section 179(b) highway sanctions are applied as a result
of such failure.
The February 8, 1995, interim final rule aligned transportation
plan/TIP conformity lapse with application of Clean Air Act highway
sanctions only in the cases of incomplete 15SIPs with protective
findings, failure to submit or submission of incomplete ozone
attainment/3SIPs, and disapproval of control strategy SIPs with a
protective finding. This proposal would also align with application of
Clean Air Act highway sanctions the conformity lapse resulting from
failure to submit a 15SIP, submission of an incomplete 15SIP
without a protective finding, and failure to submit or submission of an
incomplete CO, PM-10, or NO<INF>2 attainment SIP.
This proposal would not align the conformity lapse resulting from
disapproval of a control strategy SIP without a protective finding. EPA
will continue to consider this issue in the context of future
conformity rule amendments addressing conformity stakeholders'
concerns.
B. Rationale
EPA did not previously propose to align the conformity lapse in the
cases of failure to submit a 15SIP or incomplete 15SIP without a
protective finding because in these cases there is no other motor
vehicle emissions budget to be used for the purposes of demonstrating
transportation conformity. Since the February 8, 1995, interim final
rule, EPA has made protective findings for all incomplete 15SIPs, and
areas which failed to submit required 15SIPs are expected to submit
such SIPs very shortly. As a result, aligning conformity lapse with
highway sanctions for these cases will have no real impact, and by
aligning conformity lapse for all ozone control strategy SIPs, the
complexity of the regulatory text is greatly reduced.
EPA did not previously propose to align conformity lapse with
application of highway sanctions for failure to submit or submission of
incomplete CO, PM-10 and NO<INF>2 attainment SIPs because there were no
such SIP failures, and these cases therefore did not qualify for the
interim final rule's emergency exception to the Administrative
Procedures Act. The CO, PM-10 and NO<INF>2 attainment SIPs required to
date are complete, and there are some PM-10 attainment SIPs which are
not due yet. Aligning conformity lapse and highway sanctions for these
control strategy SIPs would reduce the complexity of the conformity
regulation and is not anticipated to have any other significant impact.
C. Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs)
This proposal would prevent or remove the conformity lapse imposed
as a result of a control strategy SIP failure on the date EPA
promulgates a FIP with motor vehicle emissions budget(s) addressing
that failure. Promulgation of a FIP with motor vehicle emissions
budget(s) would serve as an appropriate basis for conformity
determinations. EPA does not believe it is appropriate to impose a
conformity lapse where a budget is in place against which conformity
can be assessed. Moreover, nothing in section 176(c) suggests that such
a lapse would be appropriate.
VI. Applicability of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Provisions
A. Background
Clean Air Act section 176(c)(3)(A)(iii) requires that
transportation plans and TIPs contribute to emissions reductions in
ozone and carbon monoxide areas before control strategy SIPs are
approved. This requirement is implemented in 40 CFR 51.436 through
51.440 (and 93.122 through 93.124), which establishes the so-called
``build/no-build test.'' This test requires a demonstration that the
``Action'' scenario (representing the implementation of the proposed
transportation plan/TIP) will result in lower motor vehicle emissions
than the ``Baseline'' scenario (representing the implementation of the
current transportation plan/TIP). In addition, the ``Action'' scenario
must result in emissions lower than 1990 levels.
The November 1993 final transportation conformity rule does not
require the build/no-build test and less-than-1990 test for NOx as an
ozone precursor in ozone nonattainment areas where the Administrator
determines that additional reductions of NOx would not contribute to
attainment. Clean Air Act section 176(c)(3)(A)(iii), which is the
conformity provision requiring contributions to emission reductions
before SIPs with emissions budgets are approved, specifically
references Clean Air Act section 182(b)(1). That section requires
submission of State plans that, among other things, provide for
specific annual reductions of VOC and NOx emissions ``as necessary'' to
attain the ozone standard by the applicable attainment date. Section
182(b)(1) further states that its requirements do not apply in the case
of NOx for those ozone nonattainment areas for which EPA determines
that additional reductions of NOx would not contribute to attainment.
On June 17, 1994 (59 FR 31238), EPA issued guidance in the form of
a general preamble specifically focusing on how the agency intended to
process
[[Page 44794]]
conformity NOx waiver requests for nonclassifiable ozone nonattainment
areas located outside the Ozone Transport Region. For other ozone
nonattainment areas, the process for submitting waiver requests and the
criteria used to evaluate them are explained in the December 1993 EPA
document ``Guidelines for Determining the Applicability of Nitrogen
Oxides Requirements Under Section 182(f),'' and the May 27, 1994, and
February 8, 1995, memoranda from John S. Seitz, Director of the Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Division
Directors, entitled ``Section 182(f) NOx Exemptions--Revised Process
and Criteria.''
B. Applicability of Motor Vehicle NOx Emission Budgets Following a NOx
Waiver
This proposal would make it clear that consistency with NOx motor
vehicle emissions budgets in control strategy SIPs and maintenance
plans is still required in ozone nonattainment or maintenance areas
which previously received a conformity NOx waiver. Although the NOx
build/no-build test and less-than-1990 test would not apply for ozone
nonattainment areas with a conformity NOx waiver, consistency with the
NOx motor vehicle emissions budget in a submitted control strategy SIP
(e.g., attainment demonstration) or approved maintenance plan would be
required for transportation conformity demonstrations, regardless of
the conformity NOx waiver. Before approving any conformity NOx waivers,
EPA stated in the June 17, 1994, Federal Register notice that EPA
intended to propose to amend the transportation conformity rule in this
manner. In addition, the Natural Resources Defense Council, on behalf
of several environmental groups, commented on this issue during EPA's
rulemaking process for granting area-specific NOx waivers, and EPA in
its response to comments acknowledged the error in EPA's transportation
conformity rule and stated EPA's intent to propose amending the rule.
Although when EPA promulgated the November 24, 1993, final
conformity rule EPA intended the conformity NOXwaiver to provide
relief from the NOXbuild/no-build test only, due to a drafting
oversight in the final conformity rule, none of the provisions related
to NOXapply under that rule if an area had received a conformity
NOXwaiver. This proposal would delete the phrase ``unless the
Administrator determines that additional reductions of NOXwould
not contribute to attainment'' in the ``Applicability'' section of the
rule (40 CFR 51.394(b)(3)(i) and 93.102(b)(3)(i)) and in the ``Motor
vehicle emissions budget (transportation plan)'' section (40 CFR
51.428(b)(1)(ii) and 93.118(b)(1)(ii)). A revised version of this
phrase would be retained only in the sections requiring the build/nobuild
and less-than-1990 tests, in order to continue to allow relief
from that requirement if a NOXwaiver is granted, consistent with
EPA's original intent.
EPA is proposing this change in order to properly implement the
Clean Air Act. The requirement for consistency with the SIP's motor
vehicle emissions budget is required in section 176(c)(2)(A) of the
conformity provisions. That section specifically requires conformity
determinations to show that ``emissions expected from implementation of
plans and programs are consistent with estimates of emissions from
motor vehicles and necessary emission reductions contained in the
applicable implementation plan.'' SIP demonstrations of reasonable
further progress, attainment, and maintenance contain these emissions
estimates and ``necessary emission reductions.'' Since the Act
specifically requires an emissions-based comparison between the
transportation plan/TIP and the SIP, EPA believes the emissions budget
is the appropriate mechanism for carrying out the demonstration of
consistency. This is true even with respect to regional-scale
pollutants, since the air quality analysis in the SIP can be relied
upon to show that the SIP emission levels will not cause or exacerbate
violations.
EPA believes that it is crucial for areas with attainment
demonstrations or maintenance plans to demonstrate consistency with the
NOXmotor vehicle emissions budgets in those plans in order to
demonstrate conformity with the SIP. EPA requires ozone attainment
demonstrations and most ozone maintenance plans to include estimates of
NOXemissions in order to adequately demonstrate attainment of the
ozone standard by the Clean Air Act deadline or maintenance of the
ozone standard. The resulting motor vehicle NOXemissions budgets
may not necessarily represent reductions in motor vehicle NOX
emissions, but these budgets are the motor vehicle NOXemission
levels consistent with attainment and/or maintenance, and they must not
be exceeded.
C. Authority for NOXWaivers and Process for Application and
Approval
Change in Authority From Clean Air Act Section 182(f) to 182(b)(1)
This proposal would also change the conformity rule's reference to
Clean Air Act section 182(f) as the authority for waiving the NOX
build/no-build and less-than-1990 tests for certain areas based on
EPA's determination that additional reductions of NOXwould not
contribute to attainment. This change is also made in an interim final
rule that is published in the ``Final rules'' section of today's
Federal Register and is effective immediately.
As described in paragraph V.A. ``Background,'' above, the stated
authority for such a determination to provide relief from the interimreductions
requirements of the Clean Air Act is actually Clean Air Act
section 182(b)(1), which is specifically referenced in section
176(c)(3)(A)(iii) of the conformity provisions. The Natural Resources
Defense Council brought this to EPA's attention in its comments on
EPA's rulemakings for area-specific NOXwaivers.
EPA agrees with the commenters, but also notes that section
182(b)(1), by its terms, only applies to moderate and above ozone
nonattainment areas. Consequently, EPA believes that the interimreductions
requirements of section 176(c)(3)(A)(iii), and hence the
authority provided in section 182(b)(1) to grant relief from those
interim-reductions requirements, apply only with respect to those areas
that are subject to section 182(b)(1). As explained further below, for
areas not subject to section 182(b)(1) (e.g., marginal and below ozone
nonattainment areas), EPA intends to continue to apply the
transportation conformity rule's build/no-build test and less-than-1990
tests for purposes of implementing the requirements of section
176(c)(1), and EPA intends to continue to provide relief from these
requirements under section 182(f). In addition, because general federal
actions are not subject to section 176(c)(3)(A)(iii), which explicitly
references section 182(b)(1), EPA will also continue to offer relief
under section 182(f) from the applicable NOXrequirements of the
general conformity rule.
In order to demonstrate conformity, transportation-related federal
actions that are taken in ozone nonattainment areas not subject to
section 182(b)(1) (and hence, not subject to section 176(c)(3)(A)(iii))
must still be consistent with the criteria specified under section
176(c)(1). Specifically, these actions
[[Page 44795]]
must not, with respect to any standard, cause or contribute to new
violations, increase the frequency or severity of existing violations,
or delay attainment. In addition, such actions must comply with the
relevant requirements and milestones contained in the applicable SIP,
such as reasonable further progress schedules, assumptions specified in
the attainment or maintenance demonstration, numerical emissions limits
or prohibitions. EPA believes that the build/no-build and less-than-
1990 tests provide an appropriate basis for such areas to demonstrate
compliance with the above criteria.
As stated earlier, EPA intends to continue to offer relief under
section 182(f) from the interim NOXrequirements of the conformity
rules that would apply under section 176(c)(1) for the areas not
subject to section 182(b)(1). EPA believes this approach is consistent
both with the way NOXrequirements in ozone nonattainment areas
are treated under the Act generally, and under section 182(f) in
particular. The basic approach of the Act is that NOXreductions
should apply when beneficial to an area's attainment goals, and should
not apply when unhelpful or counterproductive. Section 182(f) reflects
this approach but also includes specific substantive tests which
provide a basis for EPA to determine when NOXrequirements should
not apply. There is no substantive difference in the technical analysis
required to make an assessment of NOXimpact on attainment in a
particular area with respect to mobile source or stationary source
NOXemissions. Moreover, where EPA has determined that NOX
reductions will not benefit attainment or would be counterproductive in
an area, the Agency believes it would be unreasonable to insist on
NOXreductions for purposes of meeting reasonable further progress
or other milestone requirements. Thus, even as to the conformity
requirements of section 176(c)(1), EPA believes it is reasonable and
appropriate, first, to offer relief from the applicable NOX
requirements of the general and transportation conformity rules in
areas where such reductions would not be beneficial and, second, to
rely in doing so on the exemption tests provided in section 182(f).
2. Implications of Change in Statutory Authority
The change in authority for granting NOXwaivers from section
182(f) to section 182(b)(1) for areas subject to section 182(b)(1) has
different impacts depending on whether the petitioning area is relying
on ``clean'' air quality data or on modeling data. According to EPA's
current information, almost all areas which intended to request a
conformity NOXwaiver have already applied. Most areas that are
eligible for a conformity NOXwaiver on the basis of ``clean
data'' have already applied for (and in most cases, received) their
waivers. There are less than ten areas which are eligible for a ``clean
data'' conformity NOXwaiver but which have not applied and do not
have a pending redesignation request.
Moderate and above ``clean data'' areas that have pending
redesignation requests and are subject to section 182(b)(1) could be
relieved of the NOXbuild/no-build and less-than-1990 tests under
section 182(f) when EPA takes final action implementing its recentlyissued
policy concerning, among other things, the applicability of
section 182(b)(1) requirements for the areas that are demonstrating
attainment of the ozone standard based on ``clean data.'' The May 10,
1995, memorandum from John Seitz, Director of EPA's Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, entitled ``Reasonable Further Progress,
Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone
Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard,'' should be referred to for a more thorough discussion. The
aspect of the policy that is relevant here is EPA's determination that
the section 182(b)(1) provisions regarding reasonable further progress
and attainment demonstrations may be interpreted so as not to require
the SIP submissions otherwise called for in section 182(b)(1) if an
ozone nonattainment area that would otherwise be subject to those
requirements is in fact attaining the ozone standard (i.e., attainment
of the standard is demonstrated with three consecutive years of
complete, quality-assured air-quality monitoring data). Any such
``clean data'' areas, under this interpretation, would no longer be
subject to the requirements of section 182(b)(1) once EPA takes final
rulemaking action adopting the interpretation in conjunction with its
determination that the area has attained the standard. At that time,
such areas would be treated like ozone nonattainment areas classified
marginal and below, and hence eligible for NOXwaivers from the
interim-period transportation conformity requirements by obtaining a
waiver under section 182(f), as described above.
For moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas which are relying
on modeling data in petitioning for a transportation conformity
NOXexemption, the proposed change affects the process for
applying for such waivers. Unlike section 182(f)(3), section 182(b)(1)
requires that EPA approve a NOXwaiver (i.e., determine that
additional reductions of NOXwould not contribute to attainment)
as part of a SIP revision. In discussing the NOX(and VOC)
reductions required under its provisions, section 182(b)(1) states that
SIP revisions must be submitted which provide 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 attainment date. The
requirement does not apply in the case of NOXif the EPA makes a
determination that additional reductions of NOXwould not
contribute to attainment. The Act also states that this determination
must be made ``when the Administrator approves the plan or plan
revision.'' The phrase ``the plan or plan revision'' clearly refers to
the plan required under this subsection that must provide for the
specific annual VOC and NOXreductions determined to be necessary
for the area to attain the ozone national ambient air quality standard.
EPA believes, consistent with its existing NOXexemption guidance,
that this language can be interpreted to encompass approvals of SIP
submittals containing NOXexemption requests based on adequate
modeling. If the modeling demonstration for such requests is submitted
as part of a SIP revision and provides adequate evidence that for the
relevant area specific additional annual reductions of NOXare not
``necessary'' for that area to attain the NAAQS, EPA believes such a
demonstration would be consistent with the requirements of the NOX
exemption test provided in section 182(b)(1).
3. New Process for Conformity NOXWaiver Application
As discussed in the previous section, under Clean Air Act section
182(b)(1), petitions for transportation conformity NOXwaivers for
areas subject to that section must be submitted as formal SIP revisions
by the Governor (or designee) and following a public hearing. As
explained previously, EPA will continue to process and approve under
section 182(f)(3) conformity NOXwaivers for areas not subject to
section 182(b)(1), without public hearings or submission by the
Governor.
Except for the requirement for modeling data petitions to be
submitted as part of a SIP revision for ozone areas subject to section
182(b)(1), previous guidance on section 182(f) NOXwaivers
continues to apply for the purpose of
[[Page 44796]]
conformity NOXwaivers. As described in paragraph V.A.
``Background,'' above, this guidance includes the June 17, 1994 (59 FR
31238), general preamble entitled, ``Conformity; General Preamble for
Exemption for Nitrogen Oxides Provisions,'' the December 1993 EPA
document ``Guidelines for Determining the Applicability of Nitrogen
Oxides Requirements Under Section 182(f),'' and the May 27, 1994, and
February 8, 1995 memoranda from John S. Seitz, Director of the Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Division
Directors, entitled ``Section 182(f) NOXExemptions--Revised
Process and Criteria.''
EPA believes that the new procedural requirement for a public
hearing and submission by the Governor (or designee) for these ozone
nonattainment areas will not adversely affect states applying for
transportation conformity NOXwaivers since only two areas are
awaiting an exemption based on modeling data.
4. General Conformity
As noted earlier, the NOXprovisions of the general conformity
rule, ``Determining Conformity of General Federal Actions to State or
Federal Implementation Plans'' (58 FR 63214, November 30, 1993), would
not be affected by this proposal. A NOXwaiver under Clean Air Act
section 182(f) removes the NOXgeneral conformity requirements
entirely and would continue to do so. The Clean Air Act's provision for
transportation conformity NOXwaivers stems from section
176(c)(3)(A)(iii), which addresses only transportation conformity, and
not general conformity. Therefore, the statutory authority for general
conformity NOXwaivers is not required to be Clean Air Act section
182(b) for any areas and may continue to be section 182(f) for all
areas.
VII. Grace Period for Newly Designated Nonattainment Areas
This proposal would allow areas which have been redesignated from
attainment to nonattainment a 12-month grace period after final
redesignation during which to determine the conformity of the
transportation plan and TIP.
Section 176(c)(3)(B)(i) of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990
allowed a similar grace period for 12 months after the date of
enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. EPA believes it is
appropriate to allow newly designated nonattainment areas this grace
period to determine transportation plan/TIP conformity. Otherwise, no
transportation projects could be found to conform in a newly designated
nonattainment area until the conformity of the transportation plan and
TIP had been demonstrated. Transportation plan/TIP conformity
determinations take time, particularly for an area's first time, and
EPA believes not allowing a grace period would unduly disrupt
implementation of transportation projects.
EPA believes it has authority under Sierra Club v. EPA, 719F.2d 436
(DC Cir. 1983) to provide grandfathering from new requirements where
the new rule is an abrupt departure from prior practice parties have
relied on, the application of the new rule would impose a burden on
parties, and there is not a strong interest in applying the new rule
immediately.
VIII. Wording Clarifications to 40 CFR 51.448 and 93.128
A. Introductory Paragraph (a)(1) of Secs. 51.448 and 93.128
This proposal would clarify EPA's original intention that if
conformity status lapses due to failure to redetermine conformity after
a control strategy SIP submission, that lapse is remedied when
transportation plan and TIP conformity to the new submission is
eventually determined (although lapsing for other reasons would not be
remedied). There is no reason to maintain a conformity lapse once
conformity to a new budget has been demonstrated.
B. Secs. 51.448(g) and 93.128(g)
Paragraph (g) in Secs. 51.448 and 93.128 would be deleted, because
the other amendments in this proposal make paragraph (g)'s
clarifications irrelevant and unnecessary.
IX. Technical Corrections to 40 CFR 51.452 and 93.130
A. Consistency With SIPs
The preamble to the November 1993 transportation conformity rule
states that for all areas there must be consistency between the SIP and
the conformity analysis regarding temperature, season, time period, and
other inputs (58 FR 62195, November 24, 1993). However, this regulatory
requirement is by error stated in section 51.452(b) (93.130(b)), which
applies only to serious, severe, and extreme ozone nonattainment areas
and serious carbon monoxide areas after January 1, 1995.
EPA indicated in an October 14, 1994, memorandum from Philip A.
Lorang to EPA Branch Chiefs entitled ``Transportation Conformity Q &
A's'' that EPA's intent was for this requirement to apply to all areas.
This proposal would redesignate paragraph (b)(5) as paragraph (a)(6),
because paragraph (a) is titled ``General requirements.'' This would
clarify that the provision applies in all areas pursuant to EPA's
original intention as stated in the preamble to the November 1993 rule.
B. Cross-References in Section 51.452(c)(1) and 93.130(c)(1)
As EPA has indicated in the October 14, 1994, ``Transportation
Conformity Q & A's'' memorandum cited above, section 51.452(c)(1)
(93.130(c)(1)), contains two incorrect references to paragraph (a). It
should instead reference paragraph (b) of section 51.452 (93.130).
EPA's intent was to require areas not subject to paragraph (b) (ozone
and CO areas not serious and above or before January 1, 1995) to
continue using the procedures which satisfy some or all of the
requirements of paragraph (b) (applying to serious and above ozone and
CO areas after January 1, 1995) where those procedures have been the
previous practice of the MPO. The current cross-reference does not make
sense because it refers to ``General requirements,'' which apply to all
areas. This proposal would correct the incorrect reference.
X. Conformity SIPs
A conformity SIP revision consistent with these amendments would be
required to be submitted to EPA 12 months from the date of publication
of the final rule. Section 176(c)(4)(C) of the Clean Air Act as amended
in 1990 allowed States 12 months from the promulgation of the original
transportation conformity rule to submit conformity SIP revisions. EPA
believes that it is consistent with the statute to provide states a
similar time period to revise their conformity SIPs.
XI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or
[[Page 44797]]
State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof;
(4) Raise novel or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive
Order.
It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866. EPA has
submitted this action to OMB for review. Changes made in response to
OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public
record.
B. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
This rule does not contain any information collection requirements
from EPA which require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires federal agencies to
identify potentially adverse impacts of federal regulations upon small
entities. In instances where significant impacts are possible on a
substantial number of these entities, agencies are required to perform
a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA).
EPA has determined that today's regulations will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
regulation affects federal agencies and metropolitan planning
organizations, which by definition are designated only for metropolitan
areas with a population of at least 50,000.
Therefore, as required under section 605 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., I certify that this regulation
does not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates
Under Sections 202, 203 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995,
EPA must undertake various actions in association with proposed or
final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to State,
local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.
EPA has determined that to the extent this rule imposes any mandate
within the meaning of the Unfunded Mandates Act, this final action does
not include a mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate
or to the private sector. This proposal consists of additional
flexibilities and clarifications. Therefore, EPA has not prepared a
statement with respect to budgetary impacts.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 51
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 93
Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone.
Dated: August 17, 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR parts 51 and 93 are
proposed to be amended as follows:
PARTS 51 AND 93--[AMENDED]
The authority citation for parts 51 and 93 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
2. The identical text of Secs. 51.392 and 93.101 is amended by
adding a definition in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. . Definitions.
* * * *
Protective finding means a determination by EPA that the control
strategy contained in a submitted control strategy implementation plan
revision would have been considered approvable with respect to
requirements for emissions reductions if all committed measures had
been submitted in enforceable form as required by Clean Air Act section
110(a)(2)(A).
* * * *
The identical text of Secs. 51.394 and 93.102 is amended by
revising paragraph (b)(3)(i) and adding paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. . Applicability.
* * * *
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) Volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides in ozone areas;
* * * *
(d) Grace period for new nonattainment areas. For areas which have
been in attainment for either ozone, CO, PM-10 or NO<INF>2 since 1990
and are subsequently redesignated to nonattainment for any of these
pollutants, the provisions of this subpart shall not apply for 12
months following the date of final designation to nonattainment for
such pollutant.
Sec. 51.396(a) is amended by adding a sentence after the second
sentence to read as follows:
Sec. 51.396 Implementation plan revision.
(a) * * * Further revisions to the implementation plan required by
amendments to this subpart must be submitted within 12 months of the
date of publication of final amendments to this subpart.* * *
* * * *
Sec. 51.420 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 51.420 Criteria and procedures: Currently conforming
transportation plan and TIP.
There must be a currently conforming transportation plan and
currently conforming TIP at the time of project approval. This
criterion applies during all periods. It is satisfied if the current
transportation plan and TIP have been found to conform to the
applicable implementation plan by the MPO and DOT according to the
procedures of this subpart.
(a) Only one conforming transportation plan or TIP may exist in an
area at any time; conformity determinations of a previous
transportation plan or TIP expire once the current plan or TIP is found
to conform by DOT. The conformity determination on a transportation
plan or TIP will also lapse if conformity is not determined according
to the frequency requirements of Sec. 51.400.
(b) This criterion is not required to be satisfied at the time of
project approval for a TCM specifically included in the applicable
implementation plan, provided that the TCM was included in a
transportation plan and TIP previously found to conform, and all other
relevant criteria of this subpart are satisfied.
6. Section 93.114 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 93.114 Criteria and procedures: Currently conforming
transportation plan and TIP.
There must be a currently conforming transportation plan and
currently conforming TIP at the time of project
[[Page 44798]]
approval. This criterion applies during all periods. It is satisfied if
the current transportation plan and TIP have been found to conform to
the applicable implementation plan by the MPO and DOT according to the
procedures of this subpart.
(a) Only one conforming transportation plan or TIP may exist in an
area at any time; conformity determinations of a previous
transportation plan or TIP expire once the current plan or TIP is found
to conform by DOT. The conformity determination on a transportation
plan or TIP will also lapse if conformity is not determined according
to the frequency requirements of Sec. 93.104.
(b) This criterion is not required to be satisfied at the time of
project approval for a TCM specifically included in the applicable
implementation plan, provided that the TCM was included in a
transportation plan and TIP previously found to conform, and all other
relevant criteria of this subpart are satisfied.
7. The identical text of Secs. 51.422 and 93.115 are amended by
adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (a) and by adding paragraph
(d) to read as follows:
Sec. . Criteria and procedures: Projects from a plan and TIP.
(a) * * * Special provisions for TCMs are provided in paragraph (d)
of this section.
* * * *
(d) TCMs. If the conformity status of the transportation plan or
TIP has lapsed, a TCM may be considered to satisfy this criterion if it
meets the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section with
respect to a previously conforming transportation plan and TIP.
The identical text of Secs. 51.428 and 93.118 is amended by
revising paragraph (b)(1)(ii) to read as follows:
Sec. . Criteria and procedures: Motor vehicle emissions budget
(transportation plan).
* * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) NOXas an ozone precursor;
* * * *
Section 51.448 is amended by removing paragraph (g),
redesignating paragraphs (h) and (i) as (g) and (h), and revising
paragraphs (a) through (d) and the newly designated paragraph (g) to
read as follows:
Sec. 51.448 Transition from the interim period to the control strategy
period.
(a) Control strategy implementation plan submissions. (1) The
transportation plan and TIP must be demonstrated to conform by eighteen
months from the date of the State's initial submission to EPA of each
control strategy implementation plan establishing a motor vehicle
emissions budget. If conformity is not determined by 18 months from the
date of submission of such control strategy implementation plan, the
conformity status of the transportation plan and TIP will lapse, and no
new project-level conformity determinations may be made, until the
transportation plan and TIP have been demonstrated to conform.
(2) For areas not yet in the control strategy period for a given
pollutant, conformity shall be demonstrated using the motor vehicle
emissions budget(s) in a submitted control strategy implementation plan
revision for that pollutant beginning 90 days after submission, unless
EPA declares such budget(s) inadequate for transportation conformity
purposes. The motor vehicle emissions budget(s) may be used to
determine conformity during the first 90 days after its submission if
EPA agrees that the budget(s) are adequate for conformity purposes.
(b) Disapprovals. (1) If EPA disapproves the submitted control
strategy implementation plan revision and so notifies the State, MPO
and DOT, which initiates the sanction process under Clean Air Act
sections 179 or 110(m), the conformity status of the transportation
plan and TIP shall lapse 120 days after EPA's disapproval, and no new
project-level conformity determinations may be made. No new
transportation plan, TIP, or project may be found to conform until
another control strategy implementation plan revision fulfilling the
same Clean Air Act requirements is submitted and conformity to this
submission is determined.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(1) of this section, if EPA
disapproves the submitted control strategy implementation plan revision
but makes a protective finding, the conformity status of the
transportation plan and TIP shall lapse on the date that highway
sanctions as a result of the disapproval are imposed on the
nonattainment area under section 179(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act. No new
transportation plan, TIP, or project may be found to conform until
another control strategy implementation plan revision fulfilling the
same Clean Air Act requirements is submitted and conformity to this
submission is determined.
(c) Failure to submit and incompleteness. For areas where EPA
notifies the State, MPO, and DOT of the State's failure to submit or
submission of an incomplete control strategy implementation plan
revision, which initiates the sanction process under Clean Air Act
sections 179 or 110(m), the conformity status of the transportation
plan and TIP shall lapse on the date that highway sanctions are imposed
on the nonattainment area for such failure under section 179(b)(1) of
the Clean Air Act, unless the failure has been remedied and
acknowledged by a letter from the EPA Regional Administrator.
(d) Federal implementation plans. When EPA promulgates a federal
implementation plan that contains motor vehicle emissions budget(s) as
a result of a State failure, the conformity lapse imposed by this
section because of that State failure is removed.
* * * *
(g) Nonattainment areas which are not required to demonstrate
reasonable further progress and attainment. If an area listed in
Sec. 51.464 submits a control strategy implementation plan revision,
the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (e) of this section apply.
Because the areas listed in Sec. 51.464 are not required to demonstrate
reasonable further progress and attainment the provisions of paragraphs
(b) and (c) of this section do not apply to these areas at any time.
* * * *
Section 93.128 is amended by removing paragraph (g),
redesignating paragraphs (h) and (i) as (g) and (h), and revising
paragraphs (a) through (d) and the newly designated paragraph (g) to
read as follows:
Sec. 93.128 Transition from the interim period to the control strategy
period.
(a) Control strategy implementation plan submissions.
(1) The transportation plan and TIP must be demonstrated to conform
by eighteen months from the date of the State's initial submission to
EPA of each control strategy implementation plan establishing a motor
vehicle emissions budget. If conformity is not determined by 18 months
from the date of submission of such control strategy implementation
plan, the conformity status of the transportation plan and TIP will
lapse, and no new project-level conformity determinations may be made,
until the transportation plan and TIP have been demonstrated to
conform.
(2) For areas not yet in the control strategy period for a given
pollutant, conformity shall be demonstrated using the motor vehicle
emissions budget(s) in a submitted control strategy implementation plan
revision for that pollutant beginning 90 days after submission, unless
EPA declares such budget(s) inadequate for transportation conformity
purposes. The motor vehicle
[[Page 44799]]
emissions budget(s) may be used to determine conformity during the
first 90 days after its submission if EPA agrees that the budget(s) are
adequate for conformity purposes.
(b) Disapprovals. (1) If EPA disapproves the submitted control
strategy implementation plan revision and so notifies the State, MPO
and DOT, which initiates the sanction process under Clean Air Act
sections 179 or 110(m), the conformity status of the transportation
plan and TIP shall lapse 120 days after EPA's disapproval, and no new
project-level conformity determinations may be made. No new
transportation plan, TIP, or project may be found to conform until
another control strategy implementation plan revision fulfilling the
same Clean Air Act requirements is submitted and conformity to this
submission is determined.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(1) of this section, if EPA
disapproves the submitted control strategy implementation plan revision
but makes a protective finding, the conformity status of the
transportation plan and TIP shall lapse on the date that highway
sanctions as a result of the disapproval are imposed on the
nonattainment area under section 179(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act. No new
transportation plan, TIP, or project may be found to conform until
another control strategy implementation plan revision fulfilling the
same Clean Air Act requirements is submitted and conformity to this
submission is determined.
(c) Failure to submit and incompleteness. For areas where EPA
notifies the State, MPO, and DOT of the State's failure to submit or
submission of an incomplete control strategy implementation plan
revision, which initiates the sanction process under Clean Air Act
sections 179 or 110(m), the conformity status of the transportation
plan and TIP shall lapse on the date that highway sanctions are imposed
on the nonattainment area for such failure under section 179(b)(1) of
the Clean Air Act, unless the failure has been remedied and
acknowledged by a letter from the EPA Regional Administrator.
(d) Federal implementation plans. When EPA promulgates a federal
implementation plan that contains motor vehicle emissions budget(s) as
a result of a State failure, the conformity lapse imposed by this
section because of that State failure is removed.
* * * *
(g) Nonattainment areas which are not required to demonstrate
reasonable further progress and attainment. If an area listed in
Sec. 93.136 submits a control strategy implementation plan revision,
the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (e) of this section apply.
Because the areas listed in Sec. 93.136 are not required to demonstrate
reasonable further progress and attainment the provisions of paragraphs
(b) and (c) of this section do not apply to these areas at any time.
* * * *
Secs. 51.452, 93.130 [Amended]
11. The identical text of Secs. 51.452 and 93.130 is amended by
redesignating paragraph (b)(5) as paragraph (a)(6); and in paragraph
(c)(1) by revising the references, ``paragraph (a)'' to read
``paragraph (b)'' in two places.
[FR Doc. 95-21405 Filed 8-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20081106070231im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}