This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-581 
entitled 'Environmental Protection: Federal Planning Requirements for 
Transportation and Air Quality Protection Could Potentially Be More 
Efficient and Better Linked' which was released on May 08, 2003.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately.

Report to Congressional Requesters:

United States General Accounting Office:

GAO:

April 2003:

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION:

Federal Planning Requirements for Transportation and Air Quality 
Protection Could Potentially Be More Efficient and Better Linked:

Environmental Protection:

GAO-03-581:

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-03-581, a report to Congressional Requestors 

Why GAO Did This Study:

To protect the public from harmful emissions, transportation planners 
in areas with poor air must show that their plans will not make it 
worse. Every time they update their transportation improvement program 
(TIP) and their 20-year plan—every 2 and 3 years respectively—federal 
laws and regulations require that they ensure the emissions from their 
plans will not exceed the mobile source emissions budget. This is 
known as “demonstrating conformity.” Areas that fail to do so 
generally cannot spend federal funds on new projects until they 
resolve the problem. The Committee asked GAO to determine (1) how many 
areas have failed, why, and what corrective actions they took, and (2) 
what issues transportation planners had with the conformity process 
and what solutions are possible. 

What GAO Found:

Since 1997, 56 of the 159 transportation planning areas with air 
quality problems failed to demonstrate conformity by a required 
deadline at least once, according to federal agency data, but only 
five areas had to change their transportation plans as a result. About 
half of the areas failed because of resource, administrative, or 
technical problems, such as a lack of time and staff, and resolved the 
problem in 6 months or less. About one-third of the 253 transportation 
planners responding to our survey said they anticipate having trouble 
demonstrating conformity in the future, especially in meeting the more 
stringent limits on two pollutants resulting from vehicle emissions—
ozone and fine particulate matter.

A majority of transportation planners who had trouble demonstrating 
conformity or failed to do so by a deadline said that the required 
frequency of demonstrations robs them of time and resources to solve 
other issues, such as growing congestion. The planners support 
extending the current 3-year time frame between required updates of 
the 20-year plan, which could also result in less frequent conformity 
demonstrations. Under this change, areas would still demonstrate 
conformity of their TIP every 2 years, and could still update and 
demonstrate conformity on their long-term plans more frequently than 
required, such as to add new projects or shift funds. These factors 
could help to ensure that the change would not have a significant 
impact on the conformity process’ role to protect air quality.
 
Transportation planners also noted the difference between their 
frequent plan updates, which must use the latest emissions model and 
data (such as the types of vehicles on the road and the number of 
miles they travel), and air quality plans, with their associated 
emissions budgets, which are not required to be updated with the 
current model or data. The transportation planners said this creates 
conflicts and can result in ineffective changes to an area’s 
transportation plans. Any proposal to require that air quality plans 
be regularly updated, however, needs to weigh the benefits against the 
fact that such updates are difficult and costly.

What GAO Recommends:

To help improve the conformity process, GAO recommends that the 
relevant federal agencies (1) consider extending the 3-year time frame 
between required transportation plan updates and asking the Congress 
to amend the Clean Air Act to change the conformity rules to match, 
and (2) assess the advantages and disadvantages of statutorily 
requiring that the emissions budgets in air quality plans be regularly 
updated with new travel data and emissions models.  DOT and EPA 
generally agreed with these recommendations.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-581.

To view the full report, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact John Stephenson at (202) 512-3841.

[End of section]

Contents:

Letter:

Results in Brief:

Background:

Few Areas Have Needed to Change Transportation Plans to Resolve a 
Conformity Lapse, but More May Need to Do So in the Future to Meet New 
Standards:

Frequency of Demonstrating Conformity and Inconsistent Requirements for 
Updating Transportation and Air Quality Plans Cause Problems:

Conclusions:

Recommendations for Executive Action:

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:

Appendix II: Survey of Local Transportation Planners:

Appendix III: Survey of State Air Quality Planners:

Figures:

Figure 1: Counties in Nonattainment or Maintenance Status for at Least 
One Criteria Pollutant:

Figure 2: Process for Forecasting Future Travel Demand:

Figure 3: Length of Conformity Lapses, 1997-2002:

Figure 4: Primary Causes of Conformity Lapses, 1997-2002:

Figure 5: Primary Solutions to Conformity Lapses, 1997-2002:

Figure 6: Counties Expected to Violate the New Ozone Standard for the 
First Time:

United States General Accounting Office:

Washington, DC 20548:

April 28, 2003:

The Honorable James M. Jeffords
Ranking Minority Member,

Committee on Environment and Public Works
United States Senate:

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman
United States Senate:

As the nation has grown, so has its dependence on cars as its primary 
mode of transportation. Over the past 30 years, the volume of miles 
traveled on the nation's roadways in these vehicles has increased four 
times faster than the total population. Although they contribute to the 
increased mobility of the population, these vehicles also burn fuel 
that emits harmful pollutants into the air, thereby posing risks to 
public health and the environment. Clean Air Act provisions, as well as 
technological advances with cleaner vehicles and fuels, have helped to 
significantly curb these emissions over this same time period. But 
because of continued growth and increased travel, states and localities 
must continue to monitor and control these emissions to achieve or 
preserve clean air.

In an effort to protect public health from such emissions, the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set ambient air quality 
standards, or limits, on the amount of certain harmful pollutants, such 
as ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter, which can be present 
in the air. The Clean Air Act requires the states to develop air 
quality protection plans to implement, maintain, and enforce these 
standards. These plans define the amount of these pollutants that four 
main sources can emit--surface transportation, such as cars, trucks, 
and buses (on-road mobile sources); other vehicles, such as 
construction equipment, train engines, and airplanes (non-road mobile 
sources); industry, such as factories and power plants (point sources); 
and business, such as dry cleaners or bakeries (area sources). For the 
on-road mobile source sector, this limit on emissions is known as a 
"motor vehicle emissions budget.":

Transportation planners in areas where emissions exceed the standards 
or did so in the past are required by the Clean Air Act to consider 
these budgets when developing their two primary documents outlining 
their future transportation network. The first is a long-range plan 
that specifies a 20-year vision for a metropolitan area's 
transportation system; the second is a short-range transportation 
improvement program (TIP) that specifies the priority projects to be 
implemented in the next 3 years in more detail. These transportation 
planners are required to update their plans at least once every 3 
years, and their TIPs at least once every 2 years. Each time they 
conduct these updates, federal laws and regulations require the 
planners to demonstrate that the estimated emissions from the planned 
transportation system, including projects in the plan or TIP, will not 
exceed the emissions budgets in the state air quality plans. This is 
known as "demonstrating conformity."[Footnote 1] The planners must 
submit their demonstrations to the Department of Transportation (DOT), 
which is responsible for ensuring it conforms to the air quality plan, 
in coordination with EPA. If DOT determines that an area has not passed 
its conformity demonstration by specified deadlines, the area enters 
into what is known as a "lapse." During a lapse, an area generally can 
only spend federal transportation funds on certain projects, such as 
safety, mass transit, and air quality projects, until it resolves the 
problem and can demonstrate conformity.

The ease or difficulty with which transportation planners complete the 
conformity process, especially in light of upcoming changes to air 
quality standards, has prompted interest in reviewing this process. EPA 
will soon implement two new and more stringent standards, or limits, on 
ozone and fine particulate matter--two substances prevalent in or 
created by vehicle emissions--that will subject some areas of the 
country to the conformity process for the first time. In addition, as 
some of the nation's developed areas balance the pressures of a growing 
population, urban sprawl, and congested roadways, areas already having 
to demonstrate conformity may find compliance an even greater 
challenge.

As the Congress reauthorizes the nation's major surface transportation 
law, it is interested in knowing how well the conformity process is 
working and what effect, if any, it is having on an area's 
transportation plan, projects, and federal funding. A number of 
transportation stakeholders have studied various pieces of the 
conformity process and have offered reauthorization proposals to make 
changes to it. You asked us to focus on three such proposals that, 
among other things, would streamline the transportation planning 
process and in turn affect the required steps in the conformity 
process. Two of the proposals would extend the time between required 
updates of the plan and TIP, thereby extending the time between the 
associated conformity demonstrations, respectively, and the third would 
combine these two plans into a single planning document, subject to a 
single conformity demonstration.

More specifically, you asked us to determine (1) how many areas of the 
country have had their conformity status lapse at least once since 1997 
(the earliest date for which data are available), why, and what 
corrective actions were taken, and (2) what issues planners have 
encountered during the conformity process and the extent to which each 
of the proposed changes to the transportation planning process will 
address these issues.

In responding to the first objective, we reviewed the reliability of 
all available data from EPA and DOT on areas that have experienced a 
conformity lapse. EPA began collecting these data on a regular basis in 
1997 and DOT in 1999. In responding to the second objective, we 
conducted a Web-based survey of all 341 local transportation planning 
organizations nationwide, commonly known as Metropolitan Planning 
Organizations, and all air quality planning agencies in the 50 states 
plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. We obtained responses 
from 253 transportation planning organizations (74 percent) and 45 
state air quality agencies (86 percent). See appendixes I, II, and III 
for more details on our scope and methodology and for the results of 
each survey. We conducted our review from August 2002 through April 
2003 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards.

Results in Brief:

Over the past 6 years, 56 of the 159 transportation planning areas with 
air quality problems (35 percent) have experienced at least one 
conformity lapse, although few had to change their transportation plans 
to resolve the lapse. Areas lapsed in 26 cases because transportation 
planners lacked the time and resources to complete the conformity 
process by the required deadlines, or because they experienced 
administrative or technical problems. Areas lapsed in 18 cases because 
they had difficulty designing a transportation plan that would control 
future emissions enough to meet their budget, but in 6 of these cases, 
the difficulty was with the requirements of the conformity process 
itself and not with the amount of emissions that would be generated by 
the projects in their plan. In the remaining cases, areas lapsed for a 
variety of other reasons, such as not having an EPA-approved state air 
quality plan with an emissions budget in time for the conformity 
demonstration. While some took longer, about 65 percent of all lapses 
took 6 months or less to correct. Most areas addressed their lapse by 
correcting administrative or technical issues, or taking the needed 
time to catch up with their workload and complete the conformity 
process. Another 11 areas recalculated the emissions budget to resolve 
the lapse, and only 5 areas needed to revise their transportation 
plans. About one-third of the 253 transportation planners nationwide 
responding to our survey anticipate having difficulty demonstrating 
conformity in the future, however, especially under the new air quality 
standards for ozone and particulate matter. For example, EPA estimates 
that about 50 areas of the country that will not meet the revised 
standards will have to demonstrate conformity for the first time. EPA 
and DOT have taken some preliminary steps to help prepare these new 
areas, but some are concerned, for example, about having the resources 
and staff with the necessary technical skills to complete the 
conformity process.

About two-thirds of the 118 transportation planners responding to our 
survey who currently demonstrate conformity reported that the frequency 
with which they must do so limits the time and funds available to 
address other important transportation challenges, such as alleviating 
congestion and ensuring highway safety. All three of the proposed 
changes to the transportation planning process that stakeholders have 
offered could result in less frequent conformity demonstrations, 
addressing the planners' concerns. Nearly three-quarters of the 
transportation planners favored extending the frequency between updates 
of the long-range plan and most preferred at least once every 5 years, 
rather than once every 3 years as currently required for areas with air 
quality problems. If the requirement to demonstrate conformity of the 
plan were also revised accordingly, this could result in less frequent 
demonstrations. Forty-five percent of the planners favored extending 
the frequency between updates of the TIP, and 30 percent favored 
combining the plan and TIP into a single document.[Footnote 2] 
Seventeen state air quality planners responding to our survey also 
supported the most favored proposal to extend updates of the plan. But 
when asked if the proposal could jeopardize their ability to meet air 
quality standards, 16 air quality planners said they thought that it 
could. However, in responding to this question, the air quality 
planners were not asked to take into account the fact that the 
transportation planners would still be demonstrating conformity of 
their TIPs every 2 years. As EPA program managers also noted, any time 
transportation planners add a project to their TIP that was not in the 
plan, they would have to demonstrate conformity on both the TIP and 
plan. Furthermore, transportation planners could, as needed, update 
their long-range plan and associated conformity demonstration more 
frequently than required. In fact, a number of transportation planners 
reported that they have done this in order to add new projects, shift 
funds among projects, or make other changes. All of these factors would 
help to ensure that adopting the proposal to extend the frequency of 
updates to the long-term plan would not have a significant impact on 
the conformity process and its role in air quality protection. Because 
there are advantages to be gained from freeing up transportation 
planners' time and resources and ways to mitigate potential 
disadvantages, we are recommending that DOT, in coordination with EPA, 
consider (1) revising its regulations to extend the current 3-year time 
frame between required updates of the long-range transportation plan, 
and (2) submitting a legislative proposal to revise the conformity 
provisions of the Clean Air Act so that they similarly extend the time 
frame between required conformity demonstrations for the plan.

Transportation planners responding to our survey who experienced a 
lapse or difficulty demonstrating conformity identified a second issue 
that none of the three proposals in our study addresses, one that stems 
from a difference between requiring updated transportation plans and 
TIPs but not air quality plans and emissions budgets. Currently, 
transportation planners must update their plans and TIPs and 
demonstrate conformity on a regular basis. In doing so, they must use 
such factors as the most current data on the size of the area's 
population and the number and types of vehicles in use. The planners 
must also input this data into the most current version of the model 
that estimates future emissions from their planned transportation 
projects. State air quality planners, on the other hand, are not 
required to periodically update their plans and vehicle emissions 
budgets to reflect the more current data and model.[Footnote 3] As a 
result, if the more current factors or model indicate a larger than 
expected increase in future emissions, the transportation planners must 
further revise the projects they include in their plans and TIPs until 
they can offset all of the additional increase and stay within the 
vehicle emissions budget. Such revisions could cause some areas to 
delay projects, such as building a new road, while other areas may not 
have that option and instead have to rely on adding a number of 
projects to the plans and TIPs intended to reduce emissions. If states 
periodically updated their air quality plans to incorporate the most 
current data and model, they could reassess whether these types of 
transportation changes were best for an area, or whether they have 
achieved enough, or more cost-effective, reductions from other sources 
so that they could revise the vehicle emissions budgets and provide 
transportation planners some flexibility. Twelve of 45 air quality 
planners responding to our survey reported that they updated air 
quality plans and increased the emissions budget or built a safety 
margin into it, allowing transportation planners to be able to 
demonstrate conformity. In addition, 13 others reported that they would 
consider updating their plans. Conducting these updates, as with 
conducting transportation plan updates, can be challenging, time-
consuming, and costly, however, according to 32 of the air quality 
planners and EPA program managers. For example, the air quality 
planners would have to solicit agreement on allowable emissions levels 
from all sources, stakeholders, and the public, and running the 
required photochemical model could take as long as 3 years in larger 
metropolitan areas with many sources of air pollution. Recognizing that 
updating air quality plans could be costly for some areas, we recommend 
that EPA, in coordination with DOT, more comprehensively assess the 
potential disadvantages of such updates and the likely extent that 
anticipated benefits would be achieved by establishing a Clean Air Act 
requirement to regularly update state air quality plans with the most 
current data and models.

We provided DOT and EPA with a draft of this report for their review 
and comment. Both agencies provided technical comments that we 
incorporated into the report as appropriate. DOT generally agreed with 
our conclusions and recommendations and said that the report was timely 
and highlighted issues that needed to be addressed. EPA generally 
agreed with our conclusions and recommendations for changes to the 
transportation planning process and the associated requirements to 
demonstrate conformity, but wanted to consult with the states before 
agreeing with our recommendation that the agency comprehensively assess 
the advantages and disadvantages of establishing a requirement to 
periodically update state air quality plans.

Background:

The Clean Air Act requires EPA to establish air quality standards to 
protect public health and the environment. These standards--known as 
the "national ambient air quality standards"--establish health and 
environmentally-based limits on the amount of six criteria pollutants 
that are allowed in the air.[Footnote 4] States must develop state 
implementation plans (SIP) for implementing, maintaining, and enforcing 
the standards.[Footnote 5] When the level of any of these pollutants 
exceeds the standard in an area of the country, EPA may designate that 
area as being in nonattainment of the standard. Once the standard is 
attained, EPA redesignates the area as being in attainment, but the 
state must submit revisions to its state air quality plan demonstrating 
how it will maintain this level of air quality for 20 more 
years.[Footnote 6] The following map illustrates the counties of the 
nation currently in nonattainment or maintenance for at least one of 
the six criteria pollutants.

Figure 1: Counties in Nonattainment or Maintenance Status for at Least 
One Criteria Pollutant:

[See PDF for image]

Note: If a county was designated both nonattainment and maintenance for 
different pollutants, they will appear on this map as being in 
nonattainment.

[End of figure]

The Clean Air Act requires states to develop the SIP. To begin, state 
air quality planners must estimate the emissions from mobile, point, 
and area sources. The air quality planners are then required to 
establish emissions goals for each of these sources and design cost-
effective and feasible strategies that will result in progress towards 
attaining, or maintaining, the air quality standards. For on-road 
mobile sources, the emissions goal is known as a motor vehicle 
emissions budget. The total amount of emissions that can come from on-
road mobile sources, such as cars, motorcycles, and trucks, as well as 
transit vehicles that include buses, cannot exceed this budget. EPA is 
responsible for approving the state's initial air quality plan and any 
subsequent revisions to it. Although states are not required to 
regularly update their plans for attaining or maintaining the 
standards, they are required to update them at certain times, such as 
when EPA revises an air quality standard or the area's designation 
changes.

Transportation planners also play a key role in making sure areas meet 
their emissions budget. Local planning agencies are responsible for 
carrying out the transportation planning process in a metropolitan or 
urbanized area.[Footnote 7] As part of this process, these agencies are 
to develop transportation plans and transportation improvement programs 
(TIP). A transportation plan specifies a long-range, 20-year vision for 
a metropolitan area's transportation system. DOT regulations require 
that for nonattainment and maintenance areas, their plans be updated at 
least once every 3 years and attainment areas at least once every 5 
years. In contrast, the TIP is a short-range, more detailed document 
that specifies the priority projects to be implemented in the next 3 
years. Federal transportation laws specify that all areas must update 
the TIP at least once every 2 years. In developing the plan and TIP, 
the transportation planners must consult with state and federal 
transportation and environmental agencies, as well as the public. The 
purpose of this consultative requirement is to ensure that all agencies 
meet regularly and share information on changes to the area's future 
network that will preserve air quality.

Transportation planners rely on three types of information, among other 
things, in developing their transportation plan and TIP: (1) the future 
size of an area's population and where the people will live and work, 
(2) how these people will travel, and (3) what kind of transportation 
network is and will be in place to meet travel needs. The planners 
predict future travel most often by inputting this information into a 
model that forecasts future travel demand, such as how many cars will 
be on a particular road at a certain time. The planners determine the 
mix of transportation projects they will propose in the plan and TIP to 
meet this demand. Planners in nonattainment or maintenance areas for 
ozone, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, or nitrogen dioxide must 
meet additional requirements. While all planners must estimate future 
travel needs, planners in nonattainment and maintenance areas must more 
precisely calculate the number of vehicle miles people will travel 
under the plan and TIP, and, among other things, input this information 
into another model that estimates the emissions their transportation 
plans will generate. Figure 2 outlines this travel forecasting process.

Figure 2: Process for Forecasting Future Travel Demand:

[See PDF for image]

Note: In some cases, if conformity cannot be demonstrated, air quality 
plans and emissions budgets, rather than transportation plans, may be 
revised accordingly.

[End of figure]:

Under the Clean Air Act, transportation planners in nonattainment or 
maintenance areas must demonstrate that the estimated emissions 
generated through this process will not exceed the area's emissions 
budget, a process known as "demonstrating conformity." Planners must 
make this comparison at least once every 3 years, if they update either 
the plan or TIP, or if states make certain changes to air quality 
plans. The transportation planners must submit the results of this 
demonstration to DOT, which reviews them, determines whether the area 
complies with the requirements, and makes an independent conformity 
determination, in consultation with EPA. If either the plan or TIP does 
not conform to the emissions budget by a specified deadline, or if the 
plan or TIP expires before a new one is adopted, the area enters into 
what is known as a "conformity lapse." In this case, the transportation 
planners can only spend federal transportation funds on certain 
projects, such as safety, mass transit, and air quality projects, until 
it resolves the problem and can demonstrate conformity.

In 2004, EPA plans on designating nonattainment areas under two new, 
more stringent air quality standards for ozone and fine particulate 
matter in order to be more protective of public health. The current 
ozone standard limits the concentration of ozone allowed in the air 
over a 1-hour period of time. The revised standard is more stringent 
and is averaged over an 8-hour period. EPA revised the standard because 
it is now known that chronic exposure to the pollutant is a health 
concern. The new fine particulate matter standard is also more 
stringent and covers smaller size particles found in vehicle emissions, 
among other sources, which can be more deeply inhaled, making them more 
likely to contribute to health problems. Areas that EPA designates as 
not meeting either standard will be subject to the conformity process 1 
year after the effective date of this designation.

The Congress has taken an interest in reviewing these requirements as 
it attempts to reauthorize the nation's surface transportation 
programs. To help the Congress in its efforts, we first reported on the 
conformity process and other transportation-related air quality 
programs and issues in an October 2001 report, and in a statement for a 
congressional hearing conducted in July 2002.[Footnote 8] A number of 
other stakeholders, such as research organizations, industry 
associations, and environmental organizations, have also issued reports 
or proposed changes related to transportation planning and conformity 
as part of the TEA-21 reauthorization debate. For example, Resources 
for the Future recently released a report examining how conformity is 
affected by the transportation and air quality planning 
processes.[Footnote 9] In addition, Harvard University's Taubman Center 
for State and Local Government issued a report discussing challenges 
that areas will face in implementing the new standards, including 
requirements to demonstrate conformity.[Footnote 10] Furthermore, 
industry groups, including the Association of Metropolitan Planning 
Organizations; the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program 
Administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control 
Officials; the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
Officials; and Environmental Defense have also developed positions on 
transportation planning, conformity, or both.

We were asked to review three proposals that could directly impact the 
conformity requirements outlined in the Clean Air Act: (1) extending 
the time between required updates of the long-range transportation 
plan, (2) extending the time between required updates of the TIP, and 
(3) combining these two documents into one. All three proposals would 
result in extended time frames between conformity demonstrations. While 
we recognize that other changes have been proposed that would impact 
the conformity requirements, we did not include them in our review 
because other organizations are either studying them or have recently 
issued reports that discuss them. For example, transportation planners 
have raised concerns about having to use the latest version of the 
model to estimate future emissions, the MOBILE6 model, and the impacts 
the model will have on their estimates. DOT and EPA have a number of 
modeling initiatives underway, such as training, to help address these 
concerns. In addition, some planners have raised concerns because they 
have to estimate emissions and demonstrate conformity over the entire 
20-year horizon of the long-range transportation plan, while air 
quality planners typically only have to project emissions and set a 
budget for the period until their attainment date, which is a shorter 
period of time. The Resources for the Future study referred to above 
assessed the impact of these differing requirements and ways to address 
problems they presented.

Few Areas Have Needed to Change Transportation Plans to Resolve a 
Conformity Lapse, but More May Need to Do So in the Future to Meet New 
Standards:

Few areas that experienced a conformity lapse since 1997 had to revise 
or change their transportation plans in order to resolve the problem. 
Instead, in order to end the lapse, most of these areas needed to 
resolve administrative and technical problems or take additional time 
to complete the conformity process. However, more than one-third of the 
transportation planners responding to our survey reported that they 
expected their areas to have difficulty demonstrating conformity in the 
future. For example, a number of areas will be subject to EPA's new, 
more stringent air quality standards for ozone and fine particulate 
matter and will have to demonstrate conformity for the first time, 
posing challenges for some areas.

One-Third of Areas Had Conformity Lapses but Most Were 6 Months or 
Less:

Over the past 6 years, 56 (35 percent) of the 159 transportation 
planning areas with air quality problems had at least 1 conformity 
lapse, according to EPA and DOT data.[Footnote 11] Thirty-nine (65 
percent) of these lapses lasted 6 months or less. Figure 3 shows the 
length of conformity lapses from 1997 through 2002.

Figure 3: Length of Conformity Lapses, 1997-2002:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]


Lapses ranged from 4 days to just over 4 years, with the median lapse 
lasting approximately 4 months. Nine conformity lapses lasted a year or 
more, but EPA conformity program managers explained that most of these 
areas did not have pending new projects and, therefore, were not under 
time pressures to resolve their lapse. During the lapses, areas did not 
lose their federal transportation funds permanently; rather, federal 
funds were restricted to certain projects, such as safety, mass 
transit, and air quality projects, until the lapses were resolved. The 
data the agencies provided did not include information on the impacts 
that the lapses may have had on new transportation projects, but, 
according to the DOT conformity program manager, even short lapses can 
be disruptive to the transportation planning process. For example, in 
some states, a short lapse could delay the start of a project until the 
next construction season.

Most Conformity Lapses Were Caused by Resource, Administrative, or 
Technical Problems Rather than Difficulties Meeting Emissions Budgets:

Twenty-six of the conformity lapses that occurred since 1997 were 
caused by areas' transportation planners lacking time and resources (8 
lapses) to complete the conformity process by the established 
deadlines, or experiencing administrative or technical problems (18 
lapses). For example, planners in eight of these areas indicated that 
they simply did not have enough time to complete the transportation 
planning and conformity processes. Several planners stated that they 
missed deadlines because their area's transportation planning 
organization did not have enough staff. One of these planners noted 
that even though their organization had a relatively small staff, they 
had to complete all the same steps in the process as planning 
organizations with many more staff, such as the time-consuming step of 
coordinating the plan among all relevant stakeholders and the general 
public. Common administrative problems planners faced included 
misunderstandings as to when deadlines occurred, confusion about the 
specific requirements in the process, or delays at the federal level in 
processing required paperwork. Technical problems included 
difficulties related to the data needed to complete the process, such 
as the types of vehicles in use, or the model that estimates emissions 
from transportation plans and projects. Figure 4 shows the primary 
causes of conformity lapses.

Figure 4: Primary Causes of Conformity Lapses, 1997-2002:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]


Another 18 lapses resulted from areas experiencing difficulties in 
designing a transportation plan that achieved sufficient emissions 
reductions to meet the budget. However, in 6 of these cases, the 
difficulty was with the conformity requirements and not with the amount 
of emissions expected from the proposed transportation projects. For 
example, some areas had more current data on the types of vehicles in 
use that they had to incorporate into their most recent demonstration. 
Even though the planners did not change the mix of transportation 
projects in their plan, the use of the new data resulted in a higher 
estimate of emissions from the plan. In addition, areas must 
demonstrate that all 20 years of their long-term transportation plan 
will conform to the emissions budget. However, states typically only 
set a budget for 10 years or less, although in a few cases, states 
established budgets over a longer time period, according to EPA program 
managers. As a result, transportation planners generally must restrict 
emissions in each of the final 10 years of the transportation plan to 
the amount that is set in the 10th year of the emissions budget. This 
can pose problems because some areas are likely to experience growth 
that could increase emissions in these later years. Since the emissions 
budget does not cover these years, it does not account for this growth. 
Therefore, areas may have to be more restrictive than necessary in the 
types of projects they include in the later years of their plans.

Finally, in six cases, planners in these areas experienced difficulties 
meeting certain additional federal planning requirements. These 
included DOT's requirement that planners prove their area will have 
sufficient funds to cover the projects in its TIP, and EPA's 
requirement that a state's air quality plan and emissions budget be 
approved or found to be adequate before it can be used for a conformity 
demonstration. In the remaining 10 cases, the EPA and DOT data did not 
provide the reasons why areas missed the conformity deadlines.

Most Areas Needed to Take More Time or Make Technical Corrections to 
Their Conformity Demonstration to Resolve Their Lapses:

Areas used a range of activities to resolve their conformity lapses, 
according to the data EPA and DOT provided. For example, the 8 areas 
that lapsed as a result of insufficient time or staff resources were 
able to take the extra time to complete the process. Those 18 areas 
that experienced administrative or technical difficulties also resolved 
them by taking more time, making a technical change, using some other 
solution, or a combination of activities. Overall, we found that in 16 
cases, areas used some administrative or technical solution to resolve 
the lapse, while in another 16 cases, areas took the additional time 
needed to catch up with their schedules or workload. For example, in 7 
of the 16 cases where areas used an administrative or technical 
solution, areas had to apply the correct model or other methodology to 
their conformity demonstration. Several of these areas had to use 
updated versions of the model that predicts vehicle emissions, or to 
update or correct other calculations in the conformity analysis, such 
as projections of the number of miles people typically drive. In 5 of 
the 16 cases, lapses were resolved through administrative actions, such 
as federal agencies correcting delays in reviewing the required 
paperwork to demonstrate conformity. Figure 5 shows the primary 
solutions used to resolve their lapses.

Figure 5: Primary Solutions to Conformity Lapses, 1997-2002:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]


Another 16 lapses were resolved through more substantive steps, such as 
recalculating emissions budgets (11) or revising transportation plans 
(5). In most of the 11 cases, the states revised their air quality 
plans to reflect recalculated emissions budgets or to reflect 
strategies, such as the introduction of more stringent emissions tests 
for cars or tighter controls on emissions from industry and other 
sources, to reduce emissions. In the 5 cases, areas revised their TIP 
or long-range transportation plan to achieve the necessary emissions 
reductions to demonstrate conformity. For example, areas added mass 
transit projects to their plans because they produce relatively lower 
emissions. Similarly, areas may have resolved a lapse by taking credit 
for adding emissions-reducing programs to their plan that they will 
implement in the future, such as the heavy-duty diesel rule designed to 
reduce the sulfur content of diesel fuel, a critical component of 
provisions for reducing tailpipe emissions from heavy-duty diesel 
engines.

Some Areas May Have Difficulty Demonstrating Conformity in the Future, 
Especially under the New Air Quality Standards:

While most areas have been able to demonstrate conformity or resolve a 
lapse through some administrative or technical action, some areas may 
have difficulty demonstrating conformity in the future. Of the 253 
transportation planners nationwide responding to our survey, 91 (36 
percent) reported anticipating having such difficulty in the future 
and, of these, 80 anticipated difficulty when EPA introduces the two 
new, more stringent air quality standards. Another 52 respondents (21 
percent) did not know whether they would have difficulty demonstrating 
conformity in the future.

Of the 91 planners who anticipate having difficulty, 59 work in areas 
that already have air quality problems or had them in the past, and 32 
work in areas that have not had problems. These 32 planners will have 
to demonstrate conformity for the first time if any county within their 
jurisdiction is designated as being in nonattainment for either of the 
standards. Using the most recent EPA air quality monitoring data, we 
estimated that 88 counties currently meeting the 1-hour standard will 
not meet the 8-hour standard. Figure 6 illustrates the counties that 
will not meet the new ozone standard for the first time.

Figure 6: Counties Expected to Violate the New Ozone Standard for the 
First Time:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]


This estimate may be understated because EPA's data are based on data 
received only from those counties that have an ozone monitor showing a 
violation of the standards. However, a number of other counties do not 
have monitors or data on air quality. In these cases, the state 
governor or EPA can still designate such counties as not meeting the 
standard. For example, if the county without data is contiguous to a 
county with data that show it violates the standard, the governor can 
recommend that EPA designate the contiguous county as also not meeting 
the standard because it contributes to a violation in another county, 
or EPA can independently decide to make this designation.

According to an EPA conformity program manager, the agency has done a 
preliminary analysis of the counties with data that show they will 
violate either of the new standards, as well as contiguous counties 
that might be designated as being in nonattainment. Using this 
information, EPA has grouped counties into potential areas that would 
be subject to conformity under either of the new standards. EPA 
estimates that about 150 areas will be subject to conformity and that 
50 of them will be demonstrating conformity for the first time.

Several transportation planners volunteered to provide additional 
details on why they were concerned about demonstrating conformity in 
the future. Their concerns included not having the trained staff or 
funds to complete the process. For example, one planner said the new 
standards will require that more time and attention be given to the 
transportation plans in order to demonstrate conformity, which will be 
burdensome and difficult for local transportation planning agencies 
that have a small number of staff. A DOT conformity program manager 
pointed out that in addition to demonstrating conformity for the first 
time, these new areas will now have to update their long-term plans 
every 3 years instead of 5 to comply with current requirements, 
increasing the demand on staff and resources. The program manager added 
that besides being resource intensive, demonstrating conformity is also 
very challenging. For example, the model used to estimate emissions is 
technically complex and some of the planners, as well as other key 
stakeholders, expressed concerns about whether the local planning 
organizations would have staff with the requisite skills to run the 
model. Another planner, as well as a key stakeholder, pointed out that 
while state transportation organizations currently run the model for 
some local planners, the state organizations might not have the staff 
or funds to manage an additional workload in the future. In addition, 
while state organizations receive federal funds to support local 
transportation planning activities, as more local planners have to 
demonstrate conformity and need resources to do so, the state agencies 
will have to spread these funds to a greater number of planners. 
Furthermore, as our analysis of the causes of conformity lapses shows, 
some transportation planners who had to demonstrate conformity to date 
had difficulty understanding all of the conformity requirements or 
lacked time to complete them, thus planners who will be demonstrating 
conformity for the first time could also face these problems.

EPA and DOT have recognized that new areas may need help in 
demonstrating conformity and have taken some action to provide it. For 
example, areas will have a 1-year grace period after EPA formally 
designates them as not meeting either one of the standards before the 
transportation planners will have to demonstrate conformity. In 
addition, areas that meet the current ozone standard but that may 
violate the revised standard can enter into a compact with EPA. Under 
this Early Action Compact, an area can begin to take steps to control 
ozone now, and in exchange, EPA will defer the effective date of the 
nonattainment designation of the area, thereby postponing the 
requirement to demonstrate conformity. DOT conformity program managers 
noted that such compacts do not apply to areas that may be designated 
as being in nonattainment for the fine particulate matter standard. 
Furthermore, (1) DOT offered training courses on conformity and both 
agencies offered training on the latest version of the emissions model, 
(2) the agencies are developing several new courses, (3) they have 
entered into a cooperative agreement with the National Association of 
Regional Councils (NARC)--an association whose members include 
transportation planners--to provide some training to members, and (4) 
DOT has established a Web site for planners to exchange information on 
conformity issues. Finally, as EPA program managers pointed out, since 
some of the areas that will have to demonstrate conformity for the 
first time are contiguous to other areas that have already had to 
demonstrate conformity, transportation planners may already be 
experienced in the conformity process or, if not, can get help from 
other planners in the state. The agencies' actions to date, however, do 
not address planners' concerns about having enough resources or staff 
with the necessary technical skills to successfully demonstrate 
conformity.

Frequency of Demonstrating Conformity and Inconsistent Requirements for 
Updating Transportation and Air Quality Plans Cause Problems:

Most of the planners who have to demonstrate conformity said the 
frequency under the current requirements limits the time and funds 
available to address other transportation challenges. A proposed change 
to the transportation planning process, which most of the planners 
favor, would reduce the frequency of conformity demonstrations, thereby 
helping to address the problem transportation planners identified. They 
also identified a second problem with the conformity process--the 
difference between requirements to update transportation and air 
quality plans--that the proposed change does not address. This 
difference can result in transportation planners having to revise their 
transportation plans in ways that may not best serve the transportation 
needs of the area.

Planners Said Current Frequency of Demonstrating Conformity Strains 
Time and Resources but Support a Proposed Change That Could Reduce This 
Burden:

Transportation planners responding to our survey reported that updating 
their long-range plans as often as currently required does have certain 
advantages. One primary advantage they identified was that it gave them 
an incentive to work cooperatively with other agencies. Such 
cooperation for transportation planners that must demonstrate 
conformity can promote early and frequent coordination between 
transportation and air quality planners, helping to avoid last minute 
conformity problems and lapses. Furthermore, frequent updates can help 
focus public attention on transportation planning. For example, one 
transportation planner commented that updating the long-range plan 
helped provide the public with a greater understanding of the nature of 
air quality problems and why alternative modes of travel may be needed 
in the future.

Given these advantages, nevertheless, 77 of the 118 (66 percent) 
transportation planners who have to demonstrate conformity when they 
update their long-range plan reported that the current frequency can 
limit the amount of time available to address other transportation-
related challenges, such as relieving congestion and ensuring safety. 
In addition, 79 of the 118 (69 percent) said that it strains staff 
resources. Some transportation planners expressed concern that once 
they complete a long-range plan update, and demonstrate conformity if 
required to do so, they are already behind in developing the next long-
range plan. Some also said they have no time in between plan updates to 
think more strategically about future alternatives for their 
transportation network, build their modeling and other technical 
skills, or obtain better information for their planning process, such 
as congestion levels on certain roads.

The three proposals to change the transportation planning process that 
we reviewed could also result in less frequent conformity 
demonstrations, which would, in turn, address the planners' concerns. 
However, the majority of transportation planners responding to our 
survey favored only one of the proposals--reducing the frequency of 
required updates to the long-range transportation plan. Seventy-four 
percent (186) of the 253 transportation planners responding to our 
survey would be in favor of less frequent plan updates, most preferring 
that these updates be performed at least every 5 years. This could 
result in less frequent conformity demonstrations for some areas. 
Besides freeing up time and staff resources, another reason planners 
supported the change was that planning factors, such as travel behavior 
and the transportation projects already underway, do not change enough 
to justify the time and expense of revising the plan every 3 years. In 
addition, they also responded that extending the update cycle may 
provide more time to better coordinate their plans and projects with 
other agencies and stakeholders, such as local land use agencies that 
guide an area's future growth and development.

Planners were less supportive of the two other proposals to change the 
transportation planning process that could also reduce the frequency of 
conformity demonstrations--reducing the frequency of required updates 
to the TIP and combining the TIP and plan into a single document. 
Although planners recognize that both proposals would have benefits, 
they noted that the changes would eliminate some advantages of the 
current requirement. While 45 percent (113) of the planners supported 
reducing the frequency of required updates to the TIP, a majority of 
the planners who did not support the change reported that frequent 
updates of the TIP allowed areas to add new projects that had not been 
part of the prior TIP because funding priorities changed in the 
meantime. According to the DOT conformity program managers, reducing 
the frequency of required updates to the TIP does not preclude 
transportation planners from conducting the updates more frequently.

Thirty-nine percent of the 253 planners responding to the survey did 
not favor combining the TIP and plan. Some of these planners felt that 
the two documents serve very distinct functions. For example, they 
believe the TIP allows them to more easily respond to changing needs. 
Therefore, some planners expressed concern that combining the two 
documents could undermine the effectiveness of both plans. On the other 
hand, 30 percent favored the change, stating that the TIP is really a 
subset of the plan and having to demonstrate conformity on both plans 
is unnecessarily redundant. (An additional 31 percent neither favored 
nor opposed the change or were unsure of their position.):

Seventeen of the 45 state air quality planners responding to our survey 
also supported reducing the frequency of updates to the long-range plan 
(12 did not support the change and 16 were unsure or had no opinion). 
When asked what effect the change would have on their state's ability 
to meet air quality standards, 16 said it would have a negative effect 
and 5 said it would have a positive effect (of the remaining planners, 
most said it would have no effect or they had no basis to judge its 
effect). Some of the air quality planners mentioned that the 
transportation network in high growth areas could generate increased 
travel, resulting in higher emissions. They suggested that these areas 
might warrant more frequent updates to the long-range plan than the 
proposal would provide to ensure that air quality goals are being met.

The air quality planners who thought the change could have a negative 
effect, however, were not asked to take into consideration the fact 
that the transportation planners will still be required to demonstrate 
conformity of their TIPs at least every 2 years when they are updated. 
In addition, EPA program managers also noted that if planners want to 
include a new project in their TIP that is not in their 20-year plan, 
they must demonstrate conformity on both the TIP and plan. Furthermore, 
as our survey showed, transportation planners could still choose to 
update their long-range plans more frequently than once every 5 years, 
at which time they would be required to demonstrate conformity. In 
fact, 58 (23 percent) of planners responded that they update their 
long-range plans more frequently than currently required, primarily to 
add new projects that are needed to address the area's changing 
transportation needs. All of these factors would help to preserve the 
role that conformity plays in protecting air quality, even under the 
proposed change. Because the proposal to extend the frequency of 
updates to the long-range plan--and, therefore, the frequency of 
conformity demonstrations--addresses the primary problem 
transportation planners have with the conformity process, and the 
proposal's potential effects on air quality protection could be 
limited, modifying conformity regulations and the Clean Air Act in this 
manner may be feasible.

Requiring Updates to Transportation Plans but Not Air Quality Plans 
Makes It Difficult to Demonstrate Conformity in Some Areas:

Those transportation planners who experienced a lapse or said they had 
trouble demonstrating conformity in the past identified a second issue 
with the conformity process that stems from the difference between the 
update requirements for the transportation and air quality plans. State 
air quality planners are not required to regularly update their plans, 
even though an area may have experienced population growth and a 
sometimes unexpected increase in the types of certain vehicles in use, 
which in turn can result in an increase in emissions. States with areas 
in nonattainment for ozone and carbon monoxide are required to take an 
inventory of the emissions being generated by each of the major sources 
every 3 years, but are not generally required to update their air 
quality plans to reflect this data. Consequently, the state air quality 
planners do not regularly reassess to what extent they should revise 
the vehicle emissions budgets for transportation, or add other measures 
to reduce emissions from mobile sources to the plan, to offset this 
increase given their ability to reduce emissions from industrial or 
area sources where possible. Transportation planners, on the other 
hand, are required to update their TIP and plan on a regular basis--at 
least every 2 or 3 years respectively for areas in nonattainment or 
maintenance and every 2 or 5 years for areas in attainment of the 
standards. With each of these updates, planners are required to use the 
most current model that estimates the vehicle emissions generated by 
their plans. They must also use the most current information on factors 
that are inputs to the model, such as population and the number and 
types of vehicles in use, so that they can more realistically determine 
whether their plans and TIPs are consistent with the emissions budget, 
according to EPA conformity program managers. When this model and data 
indicate an increase in emissions, the transportation planners must 
address it.

In the absence of an updated air quality plan, transportation planners 
must generally try to offset all of the extra emissions from 
transportation activities by revising their plan or TIP so that they do 
not have a conformity lapse. However, transportation planners may be 
limited in the ways in which they can make changes that reduce 
emissions enough to meet the vehicle emissions budget and demonstrate 
conformity. For example, one possible change is to remove projects that 
modeling estimates may increase emissions in an area, such as a highway 
or road expansion project, or to add measures, such as increasing the 
size of the bus fleet that uses diesel engines. However, such projects 
were most likely added to address other transportation challenges, such 
as reducing congestion or better linking existing road networks. 
Furthermore, as one transportation planner explained, planners in some 
areas may have few projects to eliminate because the transportation 
network is already developed.

Rather than eliminate projects, transportation planners can also try to 
add certain emissions control strategies to their TIP or plan. These 
include bicycle or pedestrian facilities or expanded transit options to 
discourage the use of vehicles. Other strategies include synchronized 
traffic lights to reduce idling vehicles, the conversion of public 
buses to cleaner burning fuels, and the retrofitting of certain 
vehicles with cleaner engines. EPA program managers also pointed out 
that transportation planners can estimate the emissions reductions that 
will be achieved by new programs they will implement but that are not 
yet in air quality plans, such as new emissions standards for light-
duty trucks. The planners can take credit for the emissions reductions 
from such programs in order to demonstrate conformity. However, these 
strategies may provide relatively small emissions reductions.

For example, the Washington, D.C., region recently had difficulty 
demonstrating conformity, in part because many more drivers than 
anticipated were using higher-polluting sport-utility vehicles. 
Because transportation planning staff were updating the TIP and plan, 
they had to use this new data on vehicle use in their conformity 
demonstration, even though the emissions budget that they had to meet 
was based on the older data. The new data caused a significant yet 
unanticipated increase in the emissions estimates for the area that the 
staff had to offset in order to meet these outdated budgets. They 
delayed plans to build 100 miles of new roads, but this did not create 
enough of a reduction. Therefore, they had to add a number of emission 
control measures, such as park and ride lots, shuttle bus services, and 
bicycle and pedestrian facilities at rail stations, however these 
measures may achieve relatively small emissions reductions.

The transportation planner in the Washington, D.C., region explained 
that if the air quality planners were required to update their plans 
periodically, account for the new model and data, and revise the 
emissions budgets, the transportation planners might be able to 
demonstrate conformity without cutting needed projects or adding costly 
control measures that achieve little emissions reductions. If states 
were required to periodically update their air quality plan, they would 
be required to reassess whether they had achieved or could achieve more 
cost-effective ways to reduce emissions in order to provide 
transportation planners with revised emissions budgets. For example, 12 
of the 45 air quality planners responding to our survey said they had 
revised their air quality plan to update emissions budgets used to 
demonstrate conformity and 13 said they would consider doing so. 
Several planners that had updated their plan determined that the amount 
of projected emissions from all sources was less than the level needed 
to meet the standards, thus providing transportation planners a safety 
margin in the emissions budget. Such efforts can help an area 
compensate for unanticipated future growth or uncertainty in projected 
emissions.

In 2003, some states that used an older version of the emissions model 
for their plan will have to update their air quality plan with the most 
recent version, which could temporarily address the differing 
requirements in these areas. In addition, according to EPA program 
managers, some areas are in the process of voluntarily revising their 
SIPs with the new model as well, and other areas that are designated as 
nonattainment for either of the two new standards will have to submit 
new plans to address these pollutants. Thirty-two of the 45 state air 
quality planners responding to our survey reported that revising their 
plans would be somewhat challenging. For example, with every update, 
air quality planners would have to obtain public input and involve many 
stakeholders with competing interests, especially those representing 
the other sources of pollution, including industrial (point) sources. 
The air quality planners would also have to use a complex photochemical 
model that estimates emissions from all sources, as well as the extent 
to which measures designed to control emissions achieve this result. 
According to air quality planners, running such a model requires a 
significant investment in resources and staff hours, and, according to 
one planner, can take as much as 3 years for a major metropolitan area 
with serious pollution problems to complete. Also, once a state revises 
its plan, EPA must review it and determine that it protects air quality 
before transportation planners can use the updated emissions budget to 
help them demonstrate conformity. Furthermore, according to EPA 
conformity program managers, some metropolitan areas will find they do 
not have the luxury of a safety margin to provide additional 
flexibility in their emissions budget. In considering whether to 
require updates of air quality plans to incorporate the most current 
data on travel patterns and emissions, as well as the most current 
emissions model, so as to resolve the difference with requirements to 
update transportation plans, stakeholders must weigh the potential 
benefits against the potential disadvantages.

Conclusions:

Overall, the conformity requirements of the Clean Air Act have helped 
to integrate transportation and air quality planning processes to 
better consider the emissions from the nation's transportation systems 
and networks. In addition, few of the localities that have experienced 
a conformity lapse to date appear to have had to make major changes to 
their future transportation systems. Localities may have trouble 
demonstrating conformity in the future, however, if they cannot meet 
new air quality standards for ozone and fine particulate matter and may 
have to complete the conformity process for the first time. Both EPA 
and DOT have been working on guidance and training, among other things, 
to help the transportation planners in these areas, but some are 
concerned about having enough resources and staff with the necessary 
technical skills to successfully complete the conformity demonstration.

While the conformity process has its advantages, most transportation 
planners who have to demonstrate conformity find that the frequency 
with which they have to do this robs them of staff and resources that 
could be used to solve transportation problems. Extending the 3-year 
time frame between updates to the long-term transportation plans--as 
well as amending the conformity requirements in the Clean Air Act to 
match--would help to relieve some of this burden. Although some air 
quality planners fear this change would jeopardize their ability to 
meet clean air standards, this risk can be mitigated by several 
factors. For example, transportation planners will continue to 
demonstrate conformity when they update their TIPs or add new projects 
to the TIP that were not previously in the plan. Also, a number of 
planners have already been updating their long-term plans more 
frequently than required and could continue to do so as needed under 
the change.

Finally, some transportation planners have found it difficult to manage 
the conflict posed by the fact that they must frequently update their 
TIP and long-term plan--incorporating the most current data on an 
area's population and travel patterns, as well as the most current 
version of the model that estimates emissions--while air quality 
planners do not. Establishing a requirement for air quality plans--and 
the vehicle emissions budgets they set for conformity--to be 
periodically updated with this new data and model could provide some 
benefits. These include incentives for areas to develop a more 
realistic emissions budget and to determine whether they could provide 
some flexibility in it so that transportation plans would not have to 
be restricted or modified in ways that may not be best for an area's 
future. Some states updated their air quality plans and have 
experienced such benefits. Recognizing that compliance with such a 
requirement would be challenging and resource intensive for some 
states, however, emphasizes the need to more comprehensively assess the 
advantages and disadvantages of establishing such a requirement. One 
option to consider would be to establish a long enough time frame 
between required updates of the air quality plan as a way to limit the 
impact on resources. In addition, better synchronizing the time frame 
for air quality updates with the time frames established for 
transportation planning updates, and basing both on the same, most 
current data and models, would address the problems transportation 
planners identified with the differences in requirements.

Recommendations for Executive Action:

In order to make the conformity process a more effective and better 
link between air quality and transportation planning, we recommend the 
following to the Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator, 
EPA:

* DOT, in coordination with EPA, should consider extending the current 
3-year time frame between required updates to the long-range 
transportation plan and submitting a legislative proposal to change the 
conformity provisions of the Clean Air Act so that they similarly 
extend the time frames between required conformity demonstrations for 
the plan.

* EPA, in coordination with DOT, comprehensively assess the advantages 
and disadvantages of establishing a Clean Air Act requirement to 
periodically update state air quality plans so that they incorporate 
the same, most current planning data and emissions models used in 
updates to the TIP and long-term transportation plans.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

We provided DOT and EPA with a draft of this report for review and 
comment. We subsequently met with or received comments from 
representatives of the following offices:

* DOT's Office of Natural and Human Environment within the Federal 
Highway Administration:

* DOT's Office of Planning within the Federal Transit Administration:

* EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality:

In general, DOT agreed with our conclusions and recommendations and 
said that the report was timely and highlighted issues that needed to 
be addressed. The DOT representatives said they would work with EPA to 
address our recommendation to consider extending the current 3-year 
time frame between required updates to the long-range transportation 
plan, and looked forward to working with EPA to assess the advantages 
and disadvantages of establishing a requirement to periodically update 
state air quality plans. DOT also suggested some technical changes 
throughout the report that we have incorporated as appropriate. In 
general, EPA agreed with our conclusions and recommendations for 
changes to the transportation planning process and the associated 
requirements to demonstrate conformity. However, EPA neither agreed nor 
disagreed with our recommendation that the agency comprehensively 
assess the advantages and disadvantages of establishing a requirement 
to periodically update state air quality plans. The EPA representatives 
said they believe the states already have the flexibility to decide 
whether new data or models justify the costs of conducting an update to 
the state air quality plan and that states are in a better position to 
make this decision. EPA also stated that they would want to discuss the 
issue with the states to understand their perspectives and how the 
states currently decide whether air quality plan updates are needed, 
before agreeing with the recommendation. However, as our survey data 
show, even though states have flexibility in deciding whether to update 
their plans, not all states would be willing to consider doing so. 
Furthermore, our survey data show that the current practice among the 
states has not resolved the problems the transportation planners 
reported experiencing as a result of the difference between 
requirements to update transportation plans but not air quality plans, 
given that this was one of the most significant problems transportation 
planners identified with the conformity process. Therefore, we believe 
this issue merits further assessment by EPA to determine if there is a 
possible solution, as we have recommended.

The EPA representatives also said they thought it was important to 
point out not only the number of areas that have experienced a lapse, 
but also the number of times an individual conformity demonstration 
resulted in a lapse. While EPA did not have actual data to provide this 
statistic, the agency estimated that since 1997, areas most likely 
conducted a total of between 550 to 600 conformity demonstrations and 
that only 10 percent of these demonstrations resulted in a lapse. 
Finally, EPA suggested some technical changes throughout the report 
that we have incorporated as appropriate.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 10 days 
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report 
to the appropriate congressional committees; the Secretary of 
Transportation; the Administrator, EPA; Director, Office of Management 
and Budget; and other interested parties. We also will make copies 
available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be 
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If 
you or your staffs have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-
3841. Key contributors to this report were Teresa Dee, Elizabeth 
Erdmann, Samantha Goodman, Stuart Kaufman, Eileen Larence, Jonathan 
McMurray, and Anne Rhodes-Kline.

John B. Stephenson
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:

Signed by John B. Stephenson:

[End of section]

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:

The Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works 
Committee, and Senator Lieberman asked us to determine (1) how many 
areas of the country have had their conformity lapse at least once 
since 1997 (the earliest date for which data are available), why, and 
what corrective actions were taken, and (2) what issues have planners 
encountered with the conformity process and the extent to which each of 
the proposed changes to the transportation planning process will 
address these issues.

To address the first objective, we analyzed datasets supplied by the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Transportation 
(DOT) that listed the conformity lapses that have occurred in 
nonattainment or maintenance areas over the last several years. EPA's 
Office of Transportation and Air Quality provided information supplied 
by its regional offices on lapses occurring since August 1997. The 
Federal Highway Administration, the agency within DOT that, along with 
the Federal Transit Administration, is directly responsible for making 
conformity determinations, provided information on lapses that have 
occurred since July 1999.

We compared the data provided by both agencies to create a single, more 
comprehensive, and accurate dataset of all conformity lapses that have 
occurred since August 1997. We discussed and corrected any 
discrepancies between the two datasets with each agency and achieved 
consensus on a method to summarize and categorize the individual data 
points. In addition, to the extent possible, we corroborated lapse 
information we obtained from the agencies with information we obtained 
directly from the transportation planners in the areas with lapses. We 
obtained this latter information through our survey of each of the 341 
local transportation planning organizations responsible for the 
conformity process in nonattainment and maintenance areas around the 
country. Furthermore, to fill in any remaining gaps in information on 
the causes of, and solutions to, conformity lapses, we conducted 
telephone interviews with the relevant transportation planners in those 
areas.

To determine the accuracy and completeness of each agency's data and 
their validity in providing evidence to support our findings, 
conclusions, and recommendations, we performed a data reliability 
assessment. All available information indicated the data to be 
sufficiently reliable for these purposes; corroborating evidence was 
strong and provided additional information necessary to ensure that the 
final consolidated dataset was accurate and relevant. To conduct this 
assessment, we subjected the datasets to documented standards that 
determine the sufficiency, competence, and relevance of supporting 
evidence. More specifically, we verified three data components that 
were key to our findings: (1) the location of nonattainment areas that 
have experienced a conformity lapse since 1997, (2) the reasons or 
contributing factors for each conformity lapse, and (3) the solutions 
or steps areas took to resolve each lapse.

To address the second objective, we conducted an Internet-based survey 
of the 341 local transportation planning organizations in existence as 
of November 2002. The survey included questions addressing the current 
requirements for updating the short-and long-range transportation 
plans, the current requirements for demonstrating conformity, and 
proposed changes to the transportation planning and conformity 
requirements. We did not attempt to gain information from the state 
departments of transportation, which are responsible for transportation 
planning in those areas without a designated local transportation 
planning organization. We did not do so because the areas that the 
state departments of transportation cover are relatively small--with a 
population less than 50,000. However, to help ensure that we identified 
any unique issues that these smaller areas may have with the conformity 
requirements, we met with officials of the American Association of 
State Highway and Transportation Officials. Its members are the state 
agencies that would conduct the conformity demonstrations for the 
smaller areas in their jurisdictions.

We also conducted an Internet-based survey of the 50 state air quality 
agencies, plus air quality planners in the District of Columbia and 
Puerto Rico. These offices are responsible for preparing the state 
implementation plan (SIP), which is a detailed description of the 
programs that a state will use to carry out its responsibilities under 
the Clean Air Act to reduce air pollution. This survey included 
questions concerning the air quality and transportation planning 
processes, including conformity. Both surveys were pretested with 
potential respondents to ensure that (1) the questions were clear and 
unambiguous, (2) the terms we used were precise, (3) the survey did not 
place an undue burden on the agency officials completing it, and (4) 
the survey was independent and unbiased.

The practical difficulties of conducting surveys may introduce errors 
into the results. Although we administered our survey to all known 
members of both populations, and thus our results are not subject to 
sampling error, nonresponse to the entire survey or individual 
questions can introduce a similar type of variability or bias into our 
results--to the extent that those not responding differ from those who 
do respond in how they would have answered our survey questions. We 
took steps in the design, data collection, and analysis phases of our 
survey to minimize population coverage, measurement, and data-
processing errors. These steps included checking our population lists 
against known lists of planning organizations, pretesting and expert 
review of the questions in the survey instrument, and follow-up with 
those not reachable at original E-mail addresses or otherwise not 
immediately responding.

The surveys were conducted using self-administered electronic 
questionnaires posted on the World Wide Web. We sent E-mail 
notifications to all 341 MPOs and 52 state air quality offices 
beginning on January 13, 2003, and January 22, 2003, respectively. We 
then sent each potential respondent a unique password and username by 
e-mail to ensure that only members of the target population could 
participate in the appropriate survey. To encourage respondents to 
complete the questionnaire, we sent an E-mail message to prompt each 
nonrespondent approximately 2 weeks after the initial e-mail message. 
We closed the surveys on February 28, 2003, and March 7, 2003, 
respectively. For the survey of transportation planners, we received a 
total of 253 responses, for an overall response rate of 74 percent. For 
the survey of state air quality offices, we received 45 out of 52 
possible responses. Copies of each survey, with the quantitative 
results, can be found in appendixes II and III.

For our analysis of the anticipated impact of the 8-hour ozone 
standard, we used listings of the counties currently in nonattainment 
and maintenance for the 1-hour standard and a listing of counties 
expected to violate the 8-hour standard, both found on EPA's Web site. 
For the map depicting areas currently in nonattainment or maintenance 
for any of the criteria pollutants, we used county listings found on 
EPA's Web site, coded and graphed each one using the counties' Federal 
Information Processing Standards (FIPS) code. EPA's estimate of the 
number of counties likely to be in violation of the 8-hour ozone 
standard is based on 3 years of 8-hour monitoring data during 1999 
through 2001. The 1-hour ozone data include counties in nonattainment 
of the standard as of February 6, 2003.

Furthermore, to address the second objective, we also interviewed 
cognizant officials and collected documented studies from the federal 
agencies administering air quality and transportation programs, as well 
as from relevant stakeholders. Specifically, we interviewed and 
gathered documentation from (1) EPA program managers in the Office of 
Transportation and Air Quality; (2) the Department of Transportation's 
(DOT) program managers in the Federal Highway Administration, including 
the Office of Natural and Human Environment, and in the Federal Transit 
Administration's Office of Planning; and (3) relevant stakeholders, 
including the following--the Association of Metropolitan Planning 
Organizations, American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
Officials, Environmental Defense, National Association of Regional 
Councils, and the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program 
Administrators/Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials.

We conducted our review from August 2002 through April 2003 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

[End of section]

Appendix II: Survey of Local Transportation Planners:

[See PDF for image]

[End of section]


Appendix III: Survey of State Air Quality Planners:

[See PDF for image]

[End of section]

FOOTNOTES

[1] DOT conformity program managers noted that a number of additional 
factors, other than updating transportation plans and TIPs, such as the 
approval of a new or revised motor vehicle emissions budget or certain 
other changes to air quality plans, can also trigger a required 
conformity demonstration. 

[2] Thirty-one percent of survey respondents neither favored nor 
opposed, or are unsure at this time, about combining the plan and TIP.

[3] In certain areas, state air agencies must conduct an inventory of 
emissions every 3 years, but are not required to update their plans 
based on these data, even if the inventory shows an increase in 
emissions. Some of these areas must use the data to demonstrate to EPA 
that they are making the necessary progress in achieving air quality 
standards, and if not, they may have to revise their plans accordingly.

[4] The six criteria pollutants are ozone, particulate matter, carbon 
monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide.

[5] In some cases, localities within a state may also develop air 
quality plans.

[6] According to DOT conformity program managers, states are to submit 
these maintenance plans in two 10-year increments, in part because it 
is difficult to make projections 20 years into the future with some 
certainty.

[7] The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 authorized the use of federal 
funding for local planning agencies--known as metropolitan planning 
organizations--in areas with populations of 50,000 or more to carry out 
planning at the metropolitan level. There are currently 341 
metropolitan planning organizations in the United States and Puerto 
Rico.

[8] U.S. General Accounting Office, Environmental Protection: Federal 
Incentives Could Help Promote Land Use That Protects Air and Water 
Quality, GAO-02-12 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 31, 2001; and Environmental 
Protection: The Federal Government Could Help Communities Better Plan 
for Transportation That Protects Air Quality, GAO-02-988T (Washington, 
D.C.: July 30, 2002).

[9] Winston Harrington, Arnold Howitt, Alan J. Krupnick, Jonathan 
Makler, Peter Nelson, and Sarah J. Siwek, "Exhausting Options: 
Assessing SIP-Conformity Interactions," RFF Report, January 2003.

[10] Jonathan Makler and Arnold M. Howitt, "Regulating Transportation 
in New Nonattainment Areas Under the Eight-Hour Ozone Standard," 
Taubman Center for State and Local Government, Presented at the 82nd 
Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 
January 12-16, 2003.

[11] Since 1997, 56 areas experienced a total of 60 conformity lapses. 
Four areas had more than one conformity lapse during this period.

GAO's Mission:

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly 
released products" under the GAO Reports heading.

Order by Mail or Phone:

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW,

Room LM Washington,

D.C. 20548:

To order by Phone: 	

	Voice: (202) 512-6000:

	TDD: (202) 512-2537:

	Fax: (202) 512-6061:

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:

Public Affairs:

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.

General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.

20548: