Back

PROPOSAL:

Public Hearing to Amend Rule 1902 - Transportation Conformity

SYNOPSIS:

In 1997, the federal Transportation Conformity Rule was amended by the U.S. EPA. The proposed amendment will incorporate the recently adopted changes to the federal Transportation Conformity Rule, and will incorporate specific administrative changes into the interagency consultation procedures in the MOU.

COMMITTEE:

Mobile Source, July 17, 1998, Reviewed

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt the attached resolution:

1. Certifying the Notice of Exemption for Rule 1902 - Transportation Conformity; and

2. Amending Rule 1902 - Transportation Conformity.

Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env.
Acting Executive Officer

Background

The Clean Air Act (CAA) sets out specific requirements to ensure that no federal actions interfere with a regional air quality attainment demonstration. Section 176 of the CAA identifies limitations of federal assistance and defines conformity as conforming to the intent of the applicable SIP. In order to conform to a SIP’s purpose, the action must not: cause or contribute to new violations of any pollutant standard; increase the frequency or severity of any existing violations; interfere with timely attainment or maintenance of any pollutant standard; delay emission reduction milestones; or, contradict SIP requirements.

On August 7, 1995, EPA published the first set of amendments in the Federal Register as a final rule. The amendment aligned the timing of certain consequences of state air quality planning failures under EPA’s Transportation Conformity Rule with the imposition of CAA highway sanctions. If an implementation plan for ozone, carbon monoxide, particulate matter or NO₂ is disapproved, the existing conformity determination will remain in effect until highway sanctions for the disapproval are put into effect under CAA sanctions. The District Board adopted Rule 1902 on September 9, 1994 as the Transportation Conformity SIP.

On November 14, 1995, EPA published the second set of amendments in the Federal Register. Under the proposed rule, TCMs included in approved SIPs and previous conforming transportation plans would be allowed continued implementation even if the status of the transportation plan or transportation improvement program (TIP) lapsed. The amendment extended the grace period to determine conformity to newly submitted SIPs to 18 months. The amendment also brought the conformity lapse period in line with the date of CAA highway sanctions for failure to submit or submission of an inadequate SIP. Under the CAA, highway sanctions would be put in place 24 months after the determination of an inadequate SIP or failure to submit a SIP. The final component of the second set of amendments required that ozone nonattainment or maintenance areas be consistent with the NOx motor vehicle emissions budgets in control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans, regardless of any previous conformity NOx waiver. The AQMD Board amended Rule 1902 on May 10, 1996 to respond to the federal amendments.

Proposal

Staff has prepared a Proposed Amended Rule 1902 which references the Federal Register and incorporates additional administrative changes made to the federal conformity rule. Existing Rule 1902 will be deleted and replaced with incorporation by reference of the federal conformity rule, except for specified sections discussed below under Deviations from the Federal Rule.

Amendments to Federal Conformity Rule

On August 15, 1997, EPA published the third set of amendments to the rules on transportation conformity. This proposed amendment will reference the federal conformity rule with the exception of certain deviations pursuant to federal court decisions, EPA guidance issued after promulgation of the federal Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments and local interagency consultation procedures.

Federal Rule Revisions

The following changes were made in response to changes contained in the rule published in the federal register on August 15, 1997. These changes summarize the differences between existing Rule 1902 and the federal conformity rules which are incorporated by reference.

• The use of a submitted SIP budget for the primary measure of conformity is allowed, even before EPA approves the SIP. Budgets from a submitted SIP cannot, however, be used in place of budgets from an approved SIP. This eliminates the requirement of the "build/no build test" or other emission reduction tests in the previous rule.

• The state or local government may approve and advance non-federal projects when there is no currently conforming transportation plan and TIP if the projects are from the first three years of the most recent conforming plan and TIP.

• The disapproval of a SIP by EPA without a protective finding does not prevent projects from the first three years of the most recent conforming plan and TIP from advancing.

• Traffic signal synchronization projects are exempted from conformity but must be included in subsequent regional emissions analyses.

  Deviations from the Federal Rule
  These changes are separately adopted as part of Rule 1902.

  • The federal Court of Appeals denied the 12-month grace period for new nonattainment areas. Thus, conformity applies as soon as a re-designation occurs.

  • The federal rule requires a separate local SIP consultation procedure to be developed.

  • A definition for "adopt or approve" was added to clarify what type of actions signify approval of regionally significant projects and are subject to the conformity requirements.

  • Language was modified to require enforceable commitments to project level mitigation measures.

  Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

  An MOU to implement the interagency consultation requirements of Rule 1902 was developed with SCAG and other transportation agencies (Attachment D). The MOU addresses policies and procedures on interagency consultation, public involvement, and conflict resolution. The MOU sets forth the required interagency conformity consultation procedures and will be submitted to EPA for inclusion in the SIP. The MOU outlines the roles and responsibilities of the various public agencies in the development process of the regional transportation projects, and conformity analyses; administrative changes have been incorporated to clarify intent; and the document sections have been renumbered to be consistent with the federal rule numbers.

  AQMP & Legal Mandates

  The CAA sets out specific requirements to ensure that no federal actions interfere with a regional air quality attainment demonstration. Section 176 of the CAA identifies limitations of federal assistance and defines conformity as conforming to the intent of the applicable SIP. In order to conform to a SIP’s purpose, the action must not: cause or contribute to new violations of any pollutant standard; increase the frequency or severity of any existing violations; interfere with timely attainment or maintenance of any pollutant standard; delay emission reduction milestones; or, contradict SIP requirements.

  CEQA & Socioeconomic Impacts

  The purpose of the proposed amendments to Rule 1902 is to streamline the transportation conformity process and incorporate most of the Federal Conformity Regulations by reference. The proposed amendments are administrative in nature and do not impose any additional requirements on affected sources. As such, the amendments to Rule 1902 do not result in any adverse socioeconomic impacts.

  On October 14, 1994, the Governing Board adopted a resolution that requires staff to address whether rules being proposed for adoption or amendment are being considered in the order of cost-effectiveness. The 1997 AQMP ranks, in the order of cost-effectiveness, all of the proposed control measures for which costs were quantified. The amendments to Rule 1902 are not part of the 1997 AQMP, but incorporate the Federal Conformity Regulations. Consideration in the order of cost-effectiveness, therefore, is not applicable.

  Health and Safety Code Section 40920.6 requires an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis for potential control options which would achieve the emission reduction objective in the proposed regulations. No emission reductions are attributed to the proposed amendments to Rule 1902. Therefore, incremental cost-effectiveness analysis is not applicable for the proposed amendments.

  AQMD staff has reviewed the proposed amended Rule 1902 pursuant to state CEQA Guidelines §15002 (k)(1). The proposed amendments involve incorporating by reference the Federal Conformity Regulation into Rule 1902. The proposed administrative rule amendment is considered a ministerial project, as defined by CEQA Guidelines §15369, and therefore is statutorily exempt under CEQA Guidelines §15268 (b). In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15062, a Notice of Exemption will be prepared for proposed amended Rule 1902 and will be filed with the county clerks of all four Basin counties immediately following the adoption of the proposed amendments.

  Resource Impacts
  Not applicable.

  Future Amendment

  All issues with EPA have not been resolved, but due to the August 15, 1998 deadline for SIP submittal, AQMD staff is moving forward with the Conformity Rule. AQMD staff will continue to work with EPA and SCAG on necessary amendments. The remaining outstanding issue is the ARB/Caltrans conflict resolution process.

  Attachments

  A. Summary of Attachments
  B. Rule 2202 Resolution
  C. CEQA Notice of Exemption
  D. Summary of Proposed Rule Amendments
  E. Rule Development Process
  F. List of Key Contacts
  G. Transportation Conformity - MOU
  H. Draft Rule 1902 Language
  I. SCAG/AQMD MOU
  J. SCAG's Policies and Procedures
  K. RTIP Guidelines
  L. AB 1246
  M. ARB Approval Letter

/ / /