Federal
Register
Environmental
Documents
Recent
Additions
|
Contact
Us
|
Print
Version
Search:

EPA
Home
>
Federal
Register
>
FR
Years
>
FR
Months
>
FR
Days
>
FR
Daily
>
Transportation
Conformity
Rule
Amendments:
Miscellaneous
Revisions
FR
Home
About
the
Site
FR
Listserv
FR
Search
Contact
Us
Selected
Electronic
Dockets
Regulatory
Agenda
Executive
Orders
Current
Laws
and
Regulations
Transportation
Conformity
Rule
Amendments:
Miscellaneous
Revisions
[
Federal
Register:
November
14,
1995
(
Volume
60,
Number
219)]
[
Rules
and
Regulations]
[
Page
57179­
57186]
From
the
Federal
Register
Online
via
GPO
Access
[
wais.
access.
gpo.
gov
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Parts
51
and
93
[
FRL­
5329­
9]
RIN
2060­
AF95
Transportation
Conformity
Rule
Amendments:
Miscellaneous
Revisions
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Final
rule.

SUMMARY:
This
action
makes
several
changes
to
the
current
regulation
requiring
transportation
plans,
programs,
and
projects
to
conform
to
state
air
quality
implementation
plans.
This
action
allows
any
transportation
control
measure
from
an
approved
state
implementation
plan
(
SIP)
to
proceed
during
a
conform
lapse;
aligns
the
date
of
conformity
lapses
with
the
date
of
application
of
Clean
Air
Act
highway
sanctions
for
any
failure
to
submit
or
submission
of
an
incomplete
control
strategy
SIP;
extends
grace
period
before
which
areas
must
determine
conformity
to
a
submitted
control
strategy
implementation
plan;
establishes
a
grace
period
before
which
transportation
plan
and
program
conformity
must
determined
in
newly
designated
nonattainment
areas;
and
corrects
the
nitrogen
oxides
provisions
of
the
transportation
conformity
rule
consistent
with
the
Clean
Air
Act
and
previous
commitments
made
by
E
A
transportation
conformity
SIP
revision
consistent
with
these
amendments
must
be
submitted
to
EPA
by
12
months
from
November
14,
1995.

EFFECTIVE
DATE:
This
regulation
is
effective
December
14,
1995,
exce
for
Secs.
51.448(
a)(
1)
and
93.128(
a)(
1)
which
will
be
effective
November
14,
1995,
and
Secs.
51.394(
b)(
3)(
i),
93.102(
b)(
3)(
i),
51.428(
b)(
1)(
ii),
and
93.118(
b)(
1)(
ii)
which
will
be
effective
Febru
12,
1996,
for
the
reasons
explained
in
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.

ADDRESSES:
Materials
relevant
to
this
rulemaking
are
contained
in
1
of
17
5/
6/
2003
11:
46
AM
EPA:
Federal
Register:
Transportation
Co...
Rule
Amendments:
Miscellaneous
Revisions
wysiwyg://
9/
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
docs/
EPA­
AIR/
1995/
November/
Day­
14/
pr­
1197.
html
Public
Docket
A­
95­
05.
The
docket
is
located
in
room
M­
1500
Watersid
Mall
(
ground
floor)
at
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
401
M
Street
SW.,
Washington,
DC
20460.
The
docket
may
be
inspected
from
8
a.
m.
to
4
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
including
all
non­
government
holidays.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Meg
Patulski,
Transportation
and
Market
Incentives
Group,
Regional
and
State
Programs
Division,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
2565
Plymouth
Road,
Ann
Arbor,
MI
48105,
(
313)
741­
7842.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

I.
Background
This
final
rule
amends
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''
(
58
FR
62188,
November
24,
1993).
Required
under
secti
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,
metropolitan
planning
organizations
(
MPOs)
determine
the
conformity
federally
funded
or
approved
highway
and
transit
plans,
programs,
an
projects
to
state
implementation
plans
(
SIPs).
Conformity
ensures
th
transportation
planning
does
not
produce
new
air
quality
violations,
worsen
existing
violations,
or
delay
timely
attainment
of
national
ambient
air
quality
standards.
According
to
the
Clean
Air
Act,
federally
supported
activities
must
conform
to
the
implementation
plan's
purpose
of
attaining
and
maintaining
these
standards.
This
final
rule
is
based
on
the
August
29,
1995
proposed
rule
entitled,
``
Transportation
Conformity
Rule
Amendments:
Miscellaneous
Revisions''
(
60
FR
44790)
and
comments
received
on
that
proposal.
Th
public
comment
period
for
the
proposed
rule
ended
on
September
28,
1995.

EPA
also
issued
on
August
29,
1995,
an
interim
final
rule
entitl
[[
Page
57180]]

``
Transportation
Conformity
Rule
Amendments:
Authority
for
Transportation
Conformity
Nitrogen
Oxides
Waivers''
(
60
FR
44762).
T
interim
final
rule
changed
the
statutory
authority
for
transportatio
conformity
nitrogen
oxides
(
NO<
INF>
X)
waivers
from
Clean
Air
Act
section
182(
f)
to
section
182(
b)(
1),
for
areas
subject
to
section
182(
b)(
1).
The
interim
final
rule
took
effect
on
August
29,
1995,
without
prior
notice
and
comment,
and
the
subsequent
public
comment
period
ended
on
September
28,
1995.
This
final
rule
includes
the
provisions
of
the
August
29
interim
final
rule,
after
completing
notice­
and­
comment
rulemaking
procedures
on
such
provisions.
This
final
rule
is
the
second
in
a
series
of
three
anticipated
amendments
to
the
transportation
conformity
rule.
The
first
set
of
amendments
was
published
as
an
interim
final
rule
on
February
8,
199
(
60
FR
7449),
and
was
finalized
on
August
7,
1995
(
60
FR
40098).
The
first
set
of
amendments
aligned
the
dates
of
conformity
lapses
(
i.
e.
halting
of
new
federally
funded
highway/
transit
projects)
due
to
SIP
failures
with
the
application
of
Clean
Air
Act
highway
sanctions
for
few
ozone
areas
and
all
areas
with
disapproved
SIPs
with
a
protectiv
finding.
The
third
set
of
amendments,
which
will
be
proposed
shortly
will
streamline
the
conformity
rule
and
address
other
issues
related
non­
federal
projects,
the
build/
no­
build
test,
adding
projects
to
th
transportation
plan
and
transportation
improvement
program
(
TIP),
an
rural
nonattainment
areas.

2
of
17
5/
6/
2003
11:
46
AM
EPA:
Federal
Register:
Transportation
Co...
Rule
Amendments:
Miscellaneous
Revisions
wysiwyg://
9/
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
docs/
EPA­
AIR/
1995/
November/
Day­
14/
pr­
1197.
html
II.
Description
of
Final
Rule
This
final
rule
makes
changes
from
the
proposed
rule,
involving
transportation
control
measures
(
TCMs)
and
grace
periods
for
new
nonattainment
areas.
All
other
provisions
of
the
proposal
are
includ
in
this
final
rule
without
modification.
EPA
will
not
restate
here
i
rationale
for
the
changes
which
are
identical
to
the
August
29
proposal.
The
reader
is
referred
to
the
proposal
notice
for
such
discussions.

A.
TCMs
The
proposed
rule
would
have
allowed
TCMs
in
an
approved
SIP
to
proceed
even
if
the
conformity
status
of
the
current
transportation
plan
and
TIP
lapses,
provided
the
TCMs
were
in
a
previously
conformi
transportation
plan
and
TIP.

In
the
final
rule,
EPA
is
changing
the
provisions
of
the
proposa
in
response
to
public
comment
such
that
any
TCM
in
an
approved
SIP
m
proceed,
regardless
of
whether
there
is
a
currently
conforming
transportation
plan
and
TIP
or
whether
the
project
was
once
included
a
previously
conforming
transportation
plan
and
TIP.
However,
this
position
does
not
alter
or
affect
the
title
23
(
23
CFR
Part
450)
or
Federal
Transit
Act
requirements
for
the
funding
of
TCMs.
EPA
acknowledges
that
the
implementation
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
is
done
in
conjunction
with
statewide
and
metropolitan
planning
requirements
of
the
Intermodal
Surface
Transportation
Efficiency
Act
(
ISTEA).
Most
current
and
all
future
TCMs
are
subject
to
these
provisions
and
are
generally
from
a
previously
conforming
transportation
plan
and
TIP.
EPA
received
public
comment
that
a
TCM
which
is
in
an
approved
S
should
be
allowed
to
proceed
at
any
point
in
time,
regardless
of
whether
or
not
the
TCM
was
once
included
in
a
previously
conforming
transportation
plan
and
TIP.
The
commenter
stated
that
since
SIP
requirements
are
legally
binding,
as
evidenced
by
the
fact
that
fail
to
comply
subjects
the
violator
to
enforcement
action,
EPA
cannot
restrict
the
implementation
of
a
TCM
in
the
context
of
conformity.
Furthermore,
given
that
approved
SIPs
must
be
implemented
according
the
Clean
Air
Act
and
sanctions
can
be
imposed
for
nonimplementation
EPA
cannot
adopt
a
rule
that
has
the
effect
of
preventing
TCMs
in
an
approved
SIP
from
being
implemented.

EPA
agrees
with
the
commenter.
Although
Clean
Air
Act
sections
176(
c)(
2)
(
C)
and
(
D)
require
that
the
conforming
transportation
pla
and
TIP
be
used
to
determine
whether
a
TCM
conforms
to
an
approved
S
a
TCM
contained
in
an
approved
SIP
must
necessarily
conform
to
the
purpose
of
the
SIP,
as
required
by
section
176(
c)(
1).
By
definition,
TCM
in
an
approved
SIP
conforms
to
the
SIP
because
it
is
contained
i
the
SIP.
To
halt
the
implementation
of
TCMs
in
approved
SIPs
during
conformity
lapse
of
a
transportation
plan
and
TIP
would
be
contrary
the
purpose
of
conformity
and
the
approved
SIP.
EPA
is
not
exempting
TCMs
from
the
requirement
for
a
conformity
determination,
however.
Also,
where
applicable,
hot­
spot
analysis
would
still
be
required.
T
are
simply
not
required
to
satisfy
Secs.
51.420
(
93.114)
and
51.422
(
93.115)
because
to
require
such
compliance
could
prevent
TCM
implementation.

Another
commenter
stated
that
any
transportation
project
that
is
an
approved
SIP
and
a
previously
conforming
transportation
plan
and
should
be
allowed
to
proceed
during
a
conformity
lapse.
EPA
believes
that
this
final
rule's
change
to
the
proposal
accommodates
this
comment,
because
all
transportation
projects
that
are
in
approved
SI
that
require
conformity
determinations
are
TCMs.
No
transportation
project
would
be
approved
into
a
SIP
unless
it
was
designed
to
reduc
emissions
from
transportation
activities,
and
these
projects
should
specifically
identified
as
TCMs.

3
of
17
5/
6/
2003
11:
46
AM
EPA:
Federal
Register:
Transportation
Co...
Rule
Amendments:
Miscellaneous
Revisions
wysiwyg://
9/
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
docs/
EPA­
AIR/
1995/
November/
Day­
14/
pr­
1197.
html
Although
EPA
is
changing
the
proposed
rule
in
response
to
public
comment,
EPA
does
not
foresee
an
instance
as
a
practical
matter
wher
TCM
would
be
contained
in
an
approved
SIP
without
first
meeting
the
transportation
planning
requirements
contained
in
23
CFR
Part
450
an
49
CFR
Part
613.
In
order
for
EPA
to
approve
a
SIP,
the
measures
contained
in
the
SIP
must
have
commitments
from
appropriate
agencies
and
have
adequate
funding
and
resources
as
stipulated
in
section
110(
a)(
2)(
E)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.

In
the
case
of
TCMs,
EPA
expects
this
to
be
demonstrated
by
the
project's
inclusion
in
a
fiscally
constrained
and
conforming
transportation
plan
and
TIP.

Furthermore,
EPA
does
not
intend
to
approve
SIPs
containing
TCMs
that
have
not
been
coordinated
through
the
transportation
planning
process,
because
the
Clean
Air
Act
and
ISTEA
require
that
an
integra
transportation/
air
quality
planning
process
be
used
as
the
vehicle
t
identify
effective
TCMs
and
ensure
their
funding
sources.
The
interagency
consultation
required
by
the
conformity
rule
and
the
States'
conformity
SIPs
is
intended
to
ensure
that
the
transportatio
planning
process
becomes
a
routine
component
of
any
analysis
involvi
TCMs
slated
for
inclusion
in
a
SIP.
Furthermore,
as
a
practical
matt
a
project
cannot
receive
federal
highway
or
transit
funds
or
Federal
Highway
Administration
(
FHWA)/
Federal
Transit
Administration
(
FTA)
approval
unless
it
is
contained
in
a
fiscally
constrained
and
conforming
transportation
plan
and
TIP
that
has
been
approved
throug
the
transportation
planning
process,
under
the
requirements
of
23
CF
Part
450
and
49
CFR
Part
613.

Finally,
projects
in
approved
SIPs
remain
subject
to
other
plann
requirements,
such
as
provisions
of
the
National
Environmental
Polic
Act
and
ISTEA,
which
further
stipulate
that
these
projects
be
review
through
the
transportation
process
prior
to
approval
and
implementation.

[[
Page
57181]]

B.
Grace
Period
for
New
Nonattainment
Areas
Like
the
proposed
rule,
the
final
rule
allows
newly
designated
nonattainment
areas
a
12­
month
grace
period
before
conformity
determinations
to
the
transportation
plan
and
TIP
are
required.
In
response
to
public
comment,
EPA
clarifies
in
the
final
rule
that
thi
grace
period
also
applies
if
a
nonattainment
area's
boundaries
are
newly
expanded.
Transportation
plan
and
TIP
conformity
determination
will
not
be
required
to
include
transportation
projects
in
the
porti
of
the
area
that
is
newly
added
until
12
months
from
the
date
of
the
boundary
change.
Although
the
proposed
rule
did
not
specifically
discuss
applying
the
12­
month
grace
period
to
newly
expanded
areas,
believes
that
this
is
a
logical
extension
of
the
proposed
rule.
EPA
believes
a
grace
period
is
appropriate
because
transportation
plan
a
TIP
conformity
determinations
will
not
have
included
projects
in
the
new
portion
of
the
nonattainment
area
prior
to
the
expansion.
As
described
in
the
proposal,
Clean
Air
Act
section
176(
c)
allowed
a
similar
grace
period
for
12
months
after
the
date
of
enactment
of
th
Clean
Air
Act
Amendments
of
1990.
EPA
believes
it
is
consistent
with
Congressional
intent
and
appropriate
to
include
such
a
grace
period
newly
designated
areas
to
prevent
short­
term
adverse
impacts
in
the
implementation
of
transportation
projects
immediately
following
redesignation.

C.
Grace
Period
for
Determination
of
Conformity
to
Newly
Submitted
S
4
of
17
5/
6/
2003
11:
46
AM
EPA:
Federal
Register:
Transportation
Co...
Rule
Amendments:
Miscellaneous
Revisions
wysiwyg://
9/
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
docs/
EPA­
AIR/
1995/
November/
Day­
14/
pr­
1197.
html
Like
the
proposed
rule,
this
final
rule
extends
the
grace
period
before
which
areas
need
to
complete
conformity
determinations
to
new
submitted
SIPs.
Under
this
final
rule
and
for
reasons
explained
in
t
proposal,
conformity
to
a
newly
submitted
SIP
must
now
be
determined
within
18
months
of
its
submission.
This
grace
period
provision
in
Secs.
51.448(
a)(
1)
and
93.128(
a)(
1)
is
effective
immediately.
This
grace
period
will
prevent
the
conformity
status
of
certain
plans
and
TIPs
from
lapsing
on
November
15,
1995,
in
several
moderat
and
above
ozone
areas
that
have
not
completed
conformity
determinati
to
newly
submitted
SIPs.
This
conformity
lapse
would
be
contrary
to
public
interest
because
as
explained
in
the
proposal
EPA
now
believe
that
halting
of
transportation
plan,
program,
and
project
implementation
in
these
cases
is
not
necessary
at
this
time
for
the
lawful
and
effective
implementation
of
Clean
Air
Act
section
176(
c).
EPA
did
not
make
this
provision
of
the
rule
effective
by
November
15
1995,
conformity
lapse
which
is
contrary
to
the
public
interest
coul
occur
in
some
areas
during
the
30­
day
period
between
publication
and
the
effective
date
which
is
ordinarily
provided
under
the
Administrative
Procedures
Act
(
APA),
5
U.
S.
C.
553(
d).
EPA
therefore
finds
good
cause
to
make
this
grace
period
provision
contained
in
th
final
rule
effective
on
publication.
In
addition,
the
extension
of
t
grace
period
relieves
a
restriction
and
therefore
qualifies
for
an
exception
from
the
APA's
30­
day
advance­
notice
period
under
5
U.
S.
C.
553(
d)(
1).

The
other
provisions
of
this
final
rule
will
be
effective
on
December
14,
1995,
except
for
Secs.
51.394(
b)(
3)(
i),
93.102(
b)(
3)(
i)
51.428(
b)(
1)(
ii),
and
93.118(
b)(
1)(
ii)
which
will
be
effective
90
da
from
November
14,
1995.

D.
Alignment
of
Certain
Conformity
Lapses
With
Sanctions
Like
the
proposed
rule,
this
final
rule
does
not
impose
a
transportation
plan/
conformity
lapse
as
a
result
of
failure
to
submi
or
submission
of
an
incomplete
ozone,
carbon
monoxide
(
CO),
particle
with
an
aerodynamic
diameter
of
less
than
or
equal
to
a
nominal
10
micrometers
(
PM­
10),
or
nitrogen
dioxide
(
NO<
INF>
2)
control
strategy
SIP.
Conformity
lapse
as
a
result
of
these
SIP
failures
is
delayed
until
Clean
Air
Act
section
179(
b)
highway
sanctions
for
these
failu
are
applied.

Like
the
proposed
rule,
this
final
rule
does
not
change
the
timi
of
conformity
lapse
for
disapproval
of
any
control
strategy
SIP
with
a
protective
finding.
This
issue
will
be
addressed
in
a
forthcoming
proposal.

E.
NO<
INF>
X
Budgets
Like
the
proposed
rule,
this
final
rule
requires
consistency
wit
NO<
INF>
x
motor
vehicle
emissions
budgets
in
control
strategy
SIPs,
regardless
of
whether
a
NO<
INF>
x
waiver
has
previously
been
granted.
However,
the
NO<
INF>
x
build/
no­
build
test
and
less­
than­
1990
tests
would
not
apply
to
ozone
nonattainment
areas
receiving
a
NO<
INF>
x
waiver.
Furthermore,
as
described
in
the
Response
to
Comment
section
today's
action,
some
flexibility
is
possible
for
areas
that
have
bee
issued
a
NO<
INF>
x
waiver
based
upon
air
quality
modeling
data.
Pleas
refer
to
that
section
for
further
discussion
on
this
issue.
The
NO<
INF>
x
budget
provisions
will
be
effective
90
days
from
November
14,
1995.
In
response
to
public
comment,
EPA
has
delayed
th
effective
date
to
prevent
difficulties
in
identifying
appropriate
NO<
INF>
x
budgets
from
disrupting
conformity
determinations
that
are
currently
underway.

EPA
believes
that
Sierra
Club
v.
EPA,
719
F.
2d
436
(
DC
Cir.
1983
gives
EPA
the
authority
to
delay
the
effective
date
of
the
NO<
INF>
x
5
of
17
5/
6/
2003
11:
46
AM
EPA:
Federal
Register:
Transportation
Co...
Rule
Amendments:
Miscellaneous
Revisions
wysiwyg://
9/
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
docs/
EPA­
AIR/
1995/
November/
Day­
14/
pr­
1197.
html
budget
provisions
in
today's
action.
EPA
believes
that
Sierra
Club
provides
a
legal
basis
to
allow
grandfathering
when
there
is
an
abru
departure
from
requirements
that
affected
parties
have
previously
relied
upon.
Although
EPA
had
previously
announced
that
the
NO<
INF>
x
budget
changes
to
the
transportation
conformity
rule
would
be
contai
in
this
action,
comments
on
the
proposal
indicate
that
certain
areas
are
not
prepared
for
these
provisions
to
be
effective
within
the
usu
30­
day
timeframe
following
publication
of
the
final
rule.
Therefore,
EPA
finds
good
cause
to
make
these
provisions
effective
90
days
from
November
14,
1995.

F.
NO<
INF>
x
Waiver
Authority
Like
the
interim
final
rule,
the
final
rule
changes
the
statutor
authority
for
transportation
conformity
NO<
INF>
x
waivers
from
Clean
Act
section
182(
f)
to
section
182(
b)(
1),
for
areas
subject
to
sectio
182(
b)(
1).
In
general,
NO<
INF>
x
waivers
are
findings
by
the
EPA
Administrator
under
Clean
Air
Act
section
182(
f)
or
182(
b)
that
additional
reductions
of
NO<
INF>
x
would
not
contribute
to
attainment
the
ozone
national
ambient
air
quality
standards
by
the
statutory
deadline.
The
interim
final
rule
will
remain
in
effect
until
Decembe
14,
1995,
at
which
time
the
final
rule
will
be
effective
and
superse
the
interim
final
rule.
As
a
result,
the
requirements
for
NO<
INF>
x
waivers
granted
after
August
29,
1995,
remain
the
same
and
are
not
altered
by
today's
action.

G.
Conformity
SIP
Revision
A
conformity
SIP
revision
consistent
with
these
amendments
is
required
to
be
submitted
to
EPA
12
months
from
November
14,
1995.
Section
176(
c)(
4)(
C)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
as
amended
in
1990
allowed
States
12
months
from
the
promulgation
of
the
original
transportatio
conformity
rule
to
submit
conformity
SIP
revisions.
EPA
believes
tha
it
is
consistent
with
the
statute
to
provide
states
a
similar
time
period
to
revise
their
conformity
SIPs
in
response
to
these
rule
revisions.

III.
Response
to
Comments
Twenty
comments
on
the
proposed
rule
and
interim
final
rule
were
submitted,
including
comments
from
MPOs,
state
and
local
air
and
transportation
agencies,
neighborhood
associations,
and
environmenta
groups.

[[
Page
57182]]

The
majority
of
the
comments
supported
the
proposed
rule
and
the
interim
final
rule.
A
complete
response
to
comments
document
is
in
t
docket.
Major
comments
and
EPA
responses
are
summarized
here.

A.
TCMs
Some
comments
suggested
that
TCMs
from
a
submitted
(
and
not
yet
approved)
SIP
should
be
allowed
to
proceed
at
any
time,
without
rega
to
the
conformity
status
of
the
transportation
plan
and
TIP.
However
Clean
Air
Act
section
176(
c)
requires
conformity
to
the
``
applicable
implementation
plan.''
Clean
Air
Act
section
302(
q)
defines
an
applicable
implementation
plan
as
a
portion
(
or
portions)
of
the
current
implementation
plan
which
has
(
have)
been
approved
or
promulgated
by
EPA.
Projects
from
a
submitted
SIP
that
has
not
yet
b
approved
do
not
necessarily
conform
to
the
``
applicable''
(
approved)
SIP.
In
order
for
such
projects,
including
TCMs,
to
conform,
there
m
be
a
conforming
transportation
plan
and
TIP,
as
required
by
Clean
Ai
Act
sections
176(
c)(
2)
(
C)
and
(
D).
For
these
reasons,
only
TCMs
whi
are
included
in
an
approved
SIP
are
affected
by
today's
rule
change
6
of
17
5/
6/
2003
11:
46
AM
EPA:
Federal
Register:
Transportation
Co...
Rule
Amendments:
Miscellaneous
Revisions
wysiwyg://
9/
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
docs/
EPA­
AIR/
1995/
November/
Day­
14/
pr­
1197.
html
allowing
implementation
of
TCMs
in
an
approved
SIP
to
proceed
during
transportation
plan
and
TIP
conformity
lapse.
Similar
comments
suggesting
ways
in
which
to
increase
the
scope
impact
of
this
final
rule
changes
regarding
TCMs
are
not
possible
du
to
the
reasons
already
outlined
above.
For
example,
one
commenter
suggested
that
any
new
project
with
a
demonstrated
emission
reductio
benefit,
regardless
of
whether
it
is
in
an
approved
SIP,
should
be
allowed
to
proceed
even
if
it
was
not
in
a
previously
conforming
transportation
plan
and
TIP.
EPA
could
not
make
this
change
because
agency
has
no
evidence
that
such
projects
conform
to
the
approved
SI
B.
Grace
Period
for
New
Nonattainment
Areas
One
commenter
opposed
the
12­
month
grace
period
for
newly
designated
nonattainment
areas
and
stated
that
this
grace
period
is
consistent
with
Clean
Air
Act
section
176(
c).
As
stated
in
the
propo
rule,
section
176(
c)(
3)(
B)(
i)
allowed
a
similar
grace
period
for
12
months
after
the
date
of
enactment
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
Amendments
o
1990.
EPA
continues
to
believe
it
is
appropriate
to
implement
sectio
176(
c)
so
as
to
allow
this
same
grace
period
for
newly
designated
areas.
The
existence
of
the
grace
period
in
section
176(
c)
indicates
that
Congress
clearly
did
not
wish
to
immediately
halt
transportatio
activities
upon
application
of
section
176(
c)
to
an
area.
The
commenter
suggested
that
there
is
sufficient
time
during
the
redesignation
process
in
which
areas
could
plan
ahead
and
prepare
to
meet
conformity
requirements
upon
being
designated
to
a
nonattainmen
area.
However,
as
stated
in
the
preamble
of
the
proposed
rule,
conformity
determinations
take
time
and
the
12­
month
grace
period
provides
local
and
state
transportation
agencies
with
the
temporary
relief
that
is
necessary
for
these
agencies
to
complete
future
conformity
requirements.
Further,
such
agencies
do
not
control
the
timing
of
redesignation
requests
by
state
air
quality
agencies.
The
commenter
also
disagreed
that
Sierra
Club
v.
EPA,
719
F.
2d
4
(
DC
Cir.
1983),
gave
EPA
the
authority
to
grant
such
a
grace
period
newly
designated
nonattainment
areas.
EPA
believes
that
Sierra
Club
provides
a
legal
basis
to
allow
grandfathering
when
there
is
an
abru
departure
from
requirements
that
affected
parties
have
previously
relied
upon.
Although
the
case
did
involve
retroactivity,
the
legal
analysis
applies
equally
to
grandfathering
from
new
requirements,
an
EPA
has
historically
relied
on
the
case
in
this
context.
See,
e.
g.,
FR
2214,
2219
(
Jan.
19,
1989);
59
FR
13044,
13057
(
March
18,
1994).
Although
the
Court
of
Appeals
did
not
uphold
all
of
the
grandfatheri
provisions
in
Sierra
Club,
the
Court
did
uphold
grandfathering
when
supported
by
reliance.
Attainment
areas
have
traditionally
relied
up
not
being
required
to
fulfill
conformity
requirements
that
are
manda
for
nonattainment
areas.
Immediate
application
of
such
requirements
newly
designated
areas
without
an
appropriate
transition
period
clea
represents
a
significant
departure
from
past
practice.
The
commenter
points
to
Supreme
Court
case
law
indicating
that
if
any
reliance
on
prior
law
were
enough
to
shield
everyone
from
all
changed
requiremen
all
laws
would
be
frozen
forever.
However,
this
case
law
does
not
prohibit
limited
grandfathering
from
new
complex
requirements
for
a
short
time
period
to
allow
areas
time
to
complete
activities
necessa
to
comply
with
such
requirements,
where
such
areas
had
relied
on
pas
law
that
did
not
impose
such
requirements.
Based
on
the
Court's
interpretations
of
reliance
in
Sierra
Club,
EPA
believes
that
this
c
supports
its
authority
to
grant
a
12­
month
grace
period
to
newly
designated
nonattainment
areas
prior
to
subjecting
such
areas
to
transportation
conformity
requirements.

C.
Grace
Period
for
Determination
of
Conformity
to
Newly
Submitted
S
Several
commenters
were
concerned
that
the
18­
month
grace
period
before
which
a
conformity
determination
is
required
for
a
newly
submitted
SIP
was
not
extended
to
those
areas
that
have
already
7
of
17
5/
6/
2003
11:
46
AM
EPA:
Federal
Register:
Transportation
Co...
Rule
Amendments:
Miscellaneous
Revisions
wysiwyg://
9/
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
docs/
EPA­
AIR/
1995/
November/
Day­
14/
pr­
1197.
html
submitted
a
SIP
revision.
Specifically,
the
comments
raised
concerns
surrounding
the
equity
of
the
proposed
grace
period.
The
proposed
rule
states
that
the
grace
period
would
begin
upon
date
of
a
new
SIP's
submission.
This
also
applies
to
SIPs
submitted
prior
to
today's
rule
change.
Therefore,
although
areas
that
have
already
submitted
a
SIP
prior
to
this
final
action
will
not
benefit
from
the
grace
period
extension
as
much
as
areas
that
have
not
yet
submitted
a
SIP,
they
will
still
get
the
full
18­
month
period
from
S
submission
to
make
a
conformity
determination.
EPA
believes
that
thi
final
action
makes
the
conformity
rule
more
equitable
because
every
area
has
the
same
time
period
in
which
to
determine
conformity
to
ne
submitted
SIPs.
Prior
to
this
final
action,
time
periods
for
complet
conformity
determinations
were
calculated
starting
from
SIP
submitta
deadlines.

One
commenter
stated
that
EPA
did
not
provide
adequate
rationale
the
preamble
of
the
proposed
rule
regarding
the
selection
of
the
len
of
this
grace
period.
The
commenter
further
suggested
that
12
months
would
be
a
more
appropriate
grace
period
length
and
would
be
consist
with
prior
EPA
policy
regarding
this
issue.
Based
on
experience
with
the
transportation
conformity
rule
to
date,
EPA
continues
to
believe
that
18
months
reflects
the
most
realistic
timeframe
required
for
nonattainment
areas
to
determine
conformity
to
newly
submitted
SIPs.
Conformity
determinations
are
typically
completed
by
local
transportation
planners
on
an
annual
basis.
If
the
grace
period
was
months
instead
of
18
months,
a
newly
submitted
SIP
could
be
introduc
into
a
local
conformity
cycle
at
a
time
in
that
cycle
that
is
disruptive
to
the
local
transportation
planning
process.
Such
a
disruption
could
necessitate
that
additional
time
be
required
to
complete
the
conformity
determination,
which
may
then
delay
the
implementation
of
local
transportation
projects.
EPA's
experience
wi
the
existing
12­
month
grace
period
has
convinced
the
agency
that
12
months
is
an
unrealistic
grace
period
in
this
context.

[[
Page
57183]]

D.
Alignment
of
Certain
Conformity
Lapses
With
Sanctions
All
commenters
that
commented
on
this
issue
supported
the
alignm
of
conformity
lapses
due
to
SIP
failures
with
Clean
Air
Act
sanction
In
addition,
some
commenters
advocated
aligning
lapses
and
sanction
deadlines
even
in
the
case
of
SIP
disapprovals
without
a
protective
finding.
As
utilized
under
transportation
conformity
regulations,
a
protective
finding
is
a
mechanism
that
would
allow
a
submitted
SIP's
motor
vehicle
emissions
budget
to
be
used
for
conformity
purposes
ev
though
the
SIP
does
not
fulfill
all
requirements
in
enforceable
form
as
stipulated
by
Clean
Air
Act
section
110(
a)(
2)(
A).
This
conclusion
based
on
a
determination
by
EPA
that
a
SIP
would
have
been
approvabl
with
respect
to
requirements
for
emissions
reductions
if
all
of
the
section
110(
a)(
2)(
A)
requirements
had
been
met.
Thus,
a
protective
finding
allows
an
area
to
proceed
with
transportation
planning
and
project
implementation
while
the
area
revises
the
SIP.
In
contrast,
SIP
that
is
disapproved
without
a
protective
finding
does
not
contai
an
emissions
budget
that
could
be
used
for
transportation
conformity
purposes.
A
protective
finding
only
allows
the
SIP's
motor
vehicle
emissions
budget
to
be
used
for
conformity
purposes;
it
does
not
guarantee
that
the
SIP
will
eventually
be
approved.
EPA
has
been
aware
of
stakeholder
concerns
regarding
conformity
lapse
following
SIP
disapprovals
without
protective
findings,
and
as
EPA
has
previously
stated,
this
issue
will
be
raised
for
comment
in
preamble
of
the
upcoming
proposal
of
the
third
set
of
conformity
amendments.
EPA
could
not
take
final
action
on
this
issue
today
beca
it
had
never
proposed
to
do
so.

E.
NO<
INF>
X
Budgets
8
of
17
5/
6/
2003
11:
46
AM
EPA:
Federal
Register:
Transportation
Co...
Rule
Amendments:
Miscellaneous
Revisions
wysiwyg://
9/
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
docs/
EPA­
AIR/
1995/
November/
Day­
14/
pr­
1197.
html
Several
commenters
stated
that
consistency
with
a
NO<
INF>
X
budge
should
not
be
required
for
areas
that
have
received
a
NO<
INF>
X
waive
from
EPA
based
on
air
quality
modeling.
NO<
INF>
X
waivers
are
finding
by
the
EPA
Administrator
under
Clean
Air
Act
section
182(
b)
or
182(
f
that
additional
reductions
of
NO<
INF>
X
would
not
contribute
to
attainment
of
the
ozone
national
ambient
air
quality
standards
by
th
statutory
deadline.
NO<
INF>
X
waivers
may
be
granted
on
the
basis
of
modeling
demonstrations
or
monitoring
data.
For
the
reasons
described
in
the
preamble
to
the
August
29,
1995
proposal,
EPA
continues
to
believe
that
the
Clean
Air
Act
requires
consistency
with
NO<
INF>
X
motor
vehicle
emissions
budgets
in
control
strategy
SIPs,
regardless
of
whether
a
NO<
INF>
X
waiver
has
previousl
been
granted.
The
demonstration
typically
utilized
to
justify
a
NO<
INF>
X
waiver
does
not
necessarily
address
the
level
of
NO<
INF>
X
emissions
necessary
for
an
area
to
attain
and
maintain
the
ozone
standard.
That
is,
a
NO<
INF>
X
waiver's
demonstration
that
additional
NO<
INF>
X
reductions
would
not
contribute
to
attainment
does
not
necessarily
mean
that
NO<
INF>
X
increases
would
not
affect
an
area's
ability
to
attain
and
maintain
the
ozone
standard.
The
purpose
of
conformity
to
a
NO<
INF>
X
budget
is
to
prevent
NO<
INF>
X
emissions
fro
reaching
levels
that
would
threaten
attainment
or
maintenance
of
the
ozone
standard.

The
commenters
opposing
a
NO<
INF>
X
budget
test
in
areas
with
modeling­
based
NO<
INF>
X
waivers
state
that
the
attainment
demonstrations
in
such
areas
do
not
include
NO<
INF>
X
inventories
or
NO<
INF>
X
projections
with
sufficient
accuracy
to
warrant
their
use
i
determining
conformity.
Although
the
attainment
demonstration
contai
NO<
INF>
X
projections
that
EPA
could
treat
as
an
``
implicit
budget,''
areas
may
not
have
performed
the
modeling
necessary
to
determine
how
high
NO<
INF>
X
emissions
could
be
while
remaining
consistent
with
attainment
and
maintenance
of
the
ozone
standard.
The
projections
th
could
act
as
an
implicit
budget
could
thus
be
unnecessarily
constraining,
and
exceeding
those
projections
may
not
have
real
air
quality
consequences.
Furthermore,
commenters
argue
that
if
the
modeling
that
would
determine
a
maximum
NO<
INF>
X
motor
vehicle
emissions
budget
is
not
a
necessary
part
of
the
attainment
demonstration,
it
should
not
be
required
solely
for
conformity
purposes.

Although
EPA
is
retaining
in
the
final
rule
the
requirement
for
consistency
with
NO<
INF>
X
emissions
budgets
for
all
ozone
areas
with
control
strategy
SIPs,
including
areas
that
received
NO<
INF>
X
waiver
EPA
agrees
that
in
some
circumstances
it
is
appropriate
to
interpret
the
control
strategy
SIP
as
not
establishing
a
NO<
INF>
X
motor
vehicl
emissions
budget.
EPA
may
conclude
in
such
circumstances
that
modeli
sensitivity
analyses
included
in
the
attainment
or
maintenance
demonstration
are
sufficient
to
indicate
that
motor
vehicle
NO<
INF>
X
emissions
could
grow
without
limit
over
the
transportation
planning
horizon
because
the
area
would
still
attain
the
ozone
standard
witho
jeopardizing
attainment
in
other
areas.
In
such
a
case,
EPA
would
ag
that
the
control
strategy
SIP
does
not
establish
a
NO<
INF>
X
motor
vehicle
emissions
budget,
and
the
NO<
INF>
X
budget
test
would
not
hav
to
be
satisfied
for
transportation
conformity
purposes.
For
example,
EPA
expects
that
it
would
be
able
to
interpret
the
attainment
demonstration
as
not
establishing
a
NO<
INF>
X
motor
vehicl
emissions
budget
if
it
included
modeling
demonstrating
that
addition
reductions
of
NO<
INF>
X
would
increase
peak
ozone
concentrations.
In
contrast,
modeling
that
did
not
examine
the
effect
of
NO<
INF>
X
reductions
would
not
be
sufficient
to
show
that
the
attainment
demonstration
did
not
establish
a
NO<
INF>
X
motor
vehicle
emissions
budget.
Also,
areas
with
a
SIP
requirement
to
control
NO<
INF>
X
emissions
in
order
for
downwind
nonattainment
areas
to
attain
the
oz
standard
would
have
an
established
NO<
INF>
X
budget,
because
of
the
n
9
of
17
5/
6/
2003
11:
46
AM
EPA:
Federal
Register:
Transportation
Co...
Rule
Amendments:
Miscellaneous
Revisions
wysiwyg://
9/
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
docs/
EPA­
AIR/
1995/
November/
Day­
14/
pr­
1197.
html
to
indicate
the
level
of
NO<
INF>
X
reductions
required.
In
addition,
it
is
important
to
note
that
areas
that
are
in
nonattainment
or
maintenance
for
both
PM<
INF>
10
and
ozone
may
have
a
NO<
INF>
X
motor
vehicle
emissions
budget
established
in
the
PM<
INF>
10
SIP,
regardless
of
whether
the
area
has
a
NO<
INF>
X
waiver
for
ozone
purposes
or
the
area's
ozone
attainment
or
maintenance
SIP
establish
a
NO<
INF>
X
motor
vehicle
emissions
budget.
EPA
continues
to
believe
that,
in
general,
control
strategy
SIPs
their
nature
establish
motor
vehicle
emissions
budgets,
whether
or
n
these
budgets
are
explicitly
stated.
Motor
vehicle
emissions
budgets
are
implicitly
a
feature
of
control
strategy
SIPs,
and
a
statement
i
the
SIP
that
no
motor
vehicle
emissions
budget
is
established
does
n
necessarily
relieve
the
requirement
to
demonstrate
consistency
with
SIP's
implicit
budget.
However,
as
described
above,
EPA
believes
tha
there
are
special
circumstances
under
which
EPA
would
agree
that
the
attainment
or
maintenance
SIP
demonstrates
that
no
motor
vehicle
emissions
budget
is
necessary,
and
the
budget
test
is
not
required
f
transportation
conformity
purposes.

EPA
encourages
areas
that
are
developing
SIPs
to
explicitly
stat
the
motor
vehicle
emissions
budget(
s)
for
each
relevant
pollutant
or
pollutant
precursor.
For
SIPs
that
have
already
been
submitted,
agencies
should
work
through
the
interagency
consultation
process
to
identify
the
motor
vehicle
emissions
budget(
s)
that
is
(
are)
not
explicitly
stated.
EPA
will
not
consider
a
submitted
SIP
adequate
fo
transportation
conformity
purposes
unless
it
either
includes
explici
motor
vehicle
emissions
budgets
or
adequate
information
to
establish
budgets,
or
EPA
[[
Page
57184]]

has
agreed
that
the
SIP
sufficiently
demonstrates
that
a
NO<
INF>
X
mo
vehicle
emissions
budget
is
not
necessary.

F.
Additional
Comments
Not
Addressed
in
the
Proposal
Several
commenters
also
raised
concerns
about
aspects
of
the
transportation
conformity
rule
which
are
not
relevant
to
this
action
including
the
build/
no­
build
test,
non­
federal
projects,
and
adding
projects
to
the
transportation
plan
and
TIP.
These
comments
do
not
affect
whether
EPA
should
proceed
with
this
final
action,
but
EPA
wi
be
considering
these
and
other
issues,
such
as
issues
related
to
rur
nonattainment
areas,
in
the
context
of
the
third
set
of
conformity
r
amendments.

EPA
did
not
address
in
this
final
rule
the
issues
contained
in
t
Environmental
Defense
Fund
et
al.'
s
Petition
for
Reconsideration
relating
to
the
November
24,
1993,
transportation
conformity
rule
th
may
still
be
outstanding.
Many
of
the
issues
contained
in
this
petit
were
beyond
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking.
The
third
set
of
conformit
amendments
will
address
several
of
these
issues,
and
EPA
intends
to
formally
respond
to
others
at
a
later
date.

IV.
Administrative
Requirements
A.
Administrative
Designation
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''
one
that
is
likely
to
result
in
a
rule
that
may:
(
1)
Have
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$
100
million
or
more
10
of
17
5/
6/
2003
11:
46
AM
EPA:
Federal
Register:
Transportation
Co...
Rule
Amendments:
Miscellaneous
Revisions
wysiwyg://
9/
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
docs/
EPA­
AIR/
1995/
November/
Day­
14/
pr­
1197.
html
or
otherwise
adversely
affect
in
a
material
way
the
economy,
a
secto
of
the
economy,
productivity,
competition,
jobs,
the
environment,
public
health
or
safety,
or
State,
local,
or
tribal
governments
or
communities;

(
2)
Create
a
serious
inconsistency
or
otherwise
interfere
with
a
action
taken
or
planned
by
another
agency;
(
3)
Materially
alter
the
budgetary
impact
or
entitlements,
grant
user
fees,
or
loan
programs
or
the
rights
and
obligations
of
recipie
thereof;

(
4)
Raise
novel
or
policy
issues
arising
out
of
legal
mandates,
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.
Therefore,
this
notice
was
not
subject
to
OMB
review
under
the
Executive
Order
12866.

B.
Reporting
and
Recordkeeping
Requirements
This
rule
does
not
contain
any
information
collection
requiremen
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
identify
potentially
adverse
impacts
of
federal
regulations
upon
sma
entities.
In
instances
where
significant
impacts
are
possible
on
a
substantial
number
of
these
entities,
agencies
are
required
to
perfo
a
Regulatory
Flexibility
Analysis
(
RFA).
EPA
has
determined
that
these
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
metropoli
areas
with
a
population
of
at
least
50,000.
These
organizations
do
n
constitute
small
entities.

Therefore,
as
required
under
section
605
of
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act,
5
U.
S.
C.
601
et
seq.,
I
certify
that
this
regulatio
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
propose
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
mand
within
the
meaning
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Act,
this
final
action
d
not
include
a
mandate
that
may
result
in
estimated
costs
of
$
100
million
or
more
to
State,
local,
or
tribal
governments
in
the
aggreg
or
to
the
private
sector.
Therefore,
EPA
has
not
prepared
a
statemen
with
respect
to
budgetary
impacts.

List
of
Subjects
40
CFR
Part
51
11
of
17
5/
6/
2003
11:
46
AM
EPA:
Federal
Register:
Transportation
Co...
Rule
Amendments:
Miscellaneous
Revisions
wysiwyg://
9/
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
docs/
EPA­
AIR/
1995/
November/
Day­
14/
pr­
1197.
html
Environmental
protection,
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Carbon
monoxide,
Intergovernmental
relations,
Nitrogen
dioxide,
Ozon
Particulate
matter,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
Volati
organic
compounds.

40
CFR
Part
93
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Air
pollution
control,
Carbon
monoxide,
Intergovernmental
relations,
Ozone.

Dated:
November
6,
1995.

Carol
M.
Browner,

Administrator.

For
the
reasons
set
out
in
the
preamble,
40
CFR
parts
51
and
93
amended
as
follows:

PARTS
51
AND
93
­­[
AMENDED]

1.
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;

*
*
*
*

12
of
17
5/
6/
2003
11:
46
AM
EPA:
Federal
Register:
Transportation
Co...
Rule
Amendments:
Miscellaneous
Revisions
wysiwyg://
9/
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
docs/
EPA­
AIR/
1995/
November/
Day­
14/
pr­
1197.
html
(
d)
Grace
period
for
new
nonattainment
areas.
For
areas
or
portions
of
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
such
pollutant
for
12
months
following
the
date
of
final
designation
to
nonattainment.

Section
51.396(
a)
is
amended
by
adding
a
sentence
after
the
second
sentence
to
read
as
follows:

[[
Page
57185]]

Sec.
51.396
Implementation
plan
revision.

(
a)
*
*
*
Further
revisions
to
the
implementation
plan
required
amendments
to
this
subpart
must
be
submitted
within
12
months
of
the
date
of
publication
of
such
final
amendments
to
this
subpart.
*
*
*

*
*
*
*

Section
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
area
at
any
time;
conformity
determinations
of
a
previous
transportation
plan
or
TIP
expire
once
the
current
plan
or
TIP
is
fo
to
conform
by
DOT.
The
conformity
determination
on
a
transportation
plan
or
TIP
will
also
lapse
if
conformity
is
not
determined
accordin
to
the
frequency
requirements
of
Sec.
51.400.
(
b)
This
criterion
is
not
required
to
be
satisfied
at
the
time
o
project
approval
for
a
TCM
specifically
included
in
the
applicable
implementation
plan,
provided
that
all
other
relevant
criteria
of
th
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
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
area
at
any
time;
conformity
determinations
of
a
previous
transportation
plan
or
TIP
expire
once
the
current
plan
or
TIP
is
fo
13
of
17
5/
6/
2003
11:
46
AM
EPA:
Federal
Register:
Transportation
Co...
Rule
Amendments:
Miscellaneous
Revisions
wysiwyg://
9/
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
docs/
EPA­
AIR/
1995/
November/
Day­
14/
pr­
1197.
html
to
conform
by
DOT.
The
conformity
determination
on
a
transportation
plan
or
TIP
will
also
lapse
if
conformity
is
not
determined
accordin
to
the
frequency
requirements
of
Sec.
93.104.
(
b)
This
criterion
is
not
required
to
be
satisfied
at
the
time
o
project
approval
for
a
TCM
specifically
included
in
the
applicable
implementation
plan,
provided
that
all
other
relevant
criteria
of
th
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
paragrap
(
d)
as
follows:

Sec.
.
Criteria
and
procedures:
Projects
from
a
plan
and
TIP.

(
a)
*
*
*
Special
provisions
for
TCMs
in
an
applicable
implementation
plan
are
provided
in
paragraph
(
d)
of
this
section.

*
*
*
*

(
d)
TCMs.
This
criterion
is
not
required
to
be
satisfied
for
TCMs
specifically
included
in
an
applicable
implementation
plan.

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)
NO<
INF>
X
as
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
strat
period.

(
a)
Control
strategy
implementation
plan
submissions.
(
1)
The
transportation
plan
and
TIP
must
be
demonstrated
to
conform
by
18
months
from
the
date
of
the
State's
initial
submission
to
EPA
of
eac
control
strategy
implementation
plan
establishing
a
motor
vehicle
emissions
budget.
If
conformity
is
not
determined
by
18
months
from
date
of
submission
of
such
control
strategy
implementation
plan,
the
conformity
status
of
the
transportation
plan
and
TIP
will
lapse,
and
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
p
revision
for
that
pollutant
beginning
90
days
after
submission,
unle
14
of
17
5/
6/
2003
11:
46
AM
EPA:
Federal
Register:
Transportation
Co...
Rule
Amendments:
Miscellaneous
Revisions
wysiwyg://
9/
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
docs/
EPA­
AIR/
1995/
November/
Day­
14/
pr­
1197.
html
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
i
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
section
179
or
110(
m),
the
conformity
status
of
the
transportation
p
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
revis
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
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
section
179
or
110(
m),
the
conformity
status
of
the
transportation
p
and
TIP
shall
lapse
on
the
date
that
highway
sanctions
are
imposed
o
the
nonattainment
area
for
such
failure
under
section
179(
b)(
1)
of
t
Clean
Air
Act,
unless
the
failure
has
been
remedied
and
acknowledged
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)
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
[[
Page
57186]]

(
e)
of
this
section
apply.
Because
the
areas
listed
in
Sec.
51.464
a
not
required
to
demonstrate
reasonable
further
progress
and
attainme
the
provisions
of
paragraphs
(
b)
and
(
c)
of
this
section
do
not
appl
to
these
areas.

*
*
*
*

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:

15
of
17
5/
6/
2003
11:
46
AM
EPA:
Federal
Register:
Transportation
Co...
Rule
Amendments:
Miscellaneous
Revisions
wysiwyg://
9/
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
docs/
EPA­
AIR/
1995/
November/
Day­
14/
pr­
1197.
html
Sec.
93.128
Transition
from
the
interim
period
to
the
control
strat
period.

(
a)
Control
strategy
implementation
plan
submissions.
(
1)
The
transportation
plan
and
TIP
must
be
demonstrated
to
conform
by
18
months
from
the
date
of
the
State's
initial
submission
to
EPA
of
eac
control
strategy
implementation
plan
establishing
a
motor
vehicle
emissions
budget.
If
conformity
is
not
determined
by
18
months
from
date
of
submission
of
such
control
strategy
implementation
plan,
the
conformity
status
of
the
transportation
plan
and
TIP
will
lapse,
and
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
p
revision
for
that
pollutant
beginning
90
days
after
submission,
unle
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
i
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
section
179
or
110(
m),
the
conformity
status
of
the
transportation
p
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
revis
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
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
impo
on
the
nonattainment
area
for
such
failure
under
section
179(
b)(
1)
o
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)
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.

16
of
17
5/
6/
2003
11:
46
AM
EPA:
Federal
Register:
Transportation
Co...
Rule
Amendments:
Miscellaneous
Revisions
wysiwyg://
9/
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
docs/
EPA­
AIR/
1995/
November/
Day­
14/
pr­
1197.
html
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.

*
*
*
*

Secs.
51.452
and
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
27949
Filed
11­
13­
95;
8:
45
am]
BILLING
CODE
6560­
50­
P
EPA
Home
|
Privacy
and
Security
Notice
|
Contact
Us
Last
updated
on
Monday,
October
21st,
2002
URL:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
docs/
EPA­
AIR/
1995/
November/
Day­
14/
pr­
1197.
html
17
of
17
5/
6/
2003
11:
46
AM
EPA:
Federal
Register:
Transportation
Co...
Rule
Amendments:
Miscellaneous
Revisions
wysiwyg://
9/
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
docs/
EPA­
AIR/
1995/
November/
Day­
14/
pr­
1197.
html
