Environmental Protection: Federal Planning Requirements for	 
Transportation and Air Quality Protection Could Potentially Be	 
More Efficient and Better Linked (28-APR-03, GAO-03-581).	 
                                                                 
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
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 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.							 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-581 					        
    ACCNO:   A06718						        
  TITLE:     Environmental Protection: Federal Planning Requirements  
for Transportation and Air Quality Protection Could Potentially  
Be More Efficient and Better Linked				 
     DATE:   04/28/2003 
  SUBJECT:   Air pollution					 
	     Air pollution control				 
	     Environmental monitoring				 
	     Environmental policies				 
	     Strategic planning 				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-03-581

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

GAO- 03- 581

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.

Length of Conformity Lapses, 1997- 2002

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. 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. Highlights of
GAO- 03- 581, a report to

Congressional Requesters

April 2003

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

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

Page i GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection Letter 1 Results in Brief 3
Background 6 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 13 Frequency of Demonstrating Conformity and
Inconsistent Requirements for Updating Transportation and Air Quality
Plans Cause Problems 21 Conclusions 27 Recommendations for Executive
Action 28 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 29 Appendix I Objectives,
Scope, and Methodology 31

Appendix II Survey of Local Transportation Planners 35

Appendix III Survey of State Air Quality Planners 54

Figures

Figure 1: Counties in Nonattainment or Maintenance Status for at Least One
Criteria Pollutant 8 Figure 2: Process for Forecasting Future Travel
Demand 10 Figure 3: Length of Conformity Lapses, 1997- 2002 14 Figure 4:
Primary Causes of Conformity Lapses, 1997- 2002 15 Figure 5: Primary
Solutions to Conformity Lapses, 1997- 2002 17 Figure 6: Counties Expected
to Violate the New Ozone Standard

for the First Time 19 Contents

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. It may contain
copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. Permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce copyrighted
materials separately from GAO*s product.

Page 1 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection 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

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

Page 2 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection 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.* 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

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.

Page 3 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection 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.

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 Results
in Brief

Page 4 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection 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. 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

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

Page 5 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection 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. 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 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.

Page 6 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection 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.

The Clean Air Act requires EPA to establish air quality standards to
protect public health and the environment. These standards* known as the
Background

Page 7 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection *national ambient air quality
standards** establish health and environmentally- based limits on the
amount of six criteria pollutants that are allowed in the air. 4 States
must develop state implementation plans

(SIP) for implementing, maintaining, and enforcing the standards. 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. 6 The following map illustrates the counties of the
nation

currently in nonattainment or maintenance for at least one of the six
criteria pollutants.

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.

Page 8 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection Figure 1: Counties in
Nonattainment or Maintenance Status for at Least One Criteria Pollutant

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

Page 9 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection 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. 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

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.

Page 10 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection 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 Note: In some
cases, if conformity cannot be demonstrated, air quality plans and
emissions budgets, rather than transportation plans, may be revised
accordingly.

Page 11 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection 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

Page 12 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection conducted in July 2002. 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. 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. 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

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.

Page 13 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection 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 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.

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. 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.

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

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

Page 14 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection Figure 3: Length of
Conformity Lapses, 1997- 2002

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. 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. Most Conformity Lapses

Were Caused by Resource, Administrative, or Technical Problems Rather than
Difficulties Meeting Emissions Budgets

Page 15 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection 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
timeconsuming 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

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

Page 16 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection 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.

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 Most Areas Needed to

Take More Time or Make Technical Corrections to Their Conformity
Demonstration to Resolve Their Lapses

Page 17 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection paperwork to demonstrate
conformity. Figure 5 shows the primary solutions used to resolve their
lapses.

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

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

Page 18 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection rule designed to reduce the
sulfur content of diesel fuel, a critical component of provisions for
reducing tailpipe emissions from heavy- duty

diesel engines. 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. Some Areas May Have

Difficulty Demonstrating Conformity in the Future, Especially under the
New Air Quality Standards

Page 19 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection Figure 6: Counties Expected
to Violate the New Ozone Standard for the First Time

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.

Page 20 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection 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

Page 21 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection 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.

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.
Frequency of

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

Page 22 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection 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 Planners Said
Current

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

Page 23 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection 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.

Page 24 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection 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.

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
Requiring Updates to

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

Page 25 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection 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

Page 26 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection 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

Page 27 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection 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.

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 Conclusions

Page 28 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection 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. 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
Recommendations for

Executive Action

Page 29 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection incorporate the same, most
current planning data and emissions models used in updates to the TIP and
long- term transportation plans.

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
Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

Page 30 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection 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

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 31 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection 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, Appendix
I: Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 32 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection 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

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 33 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection 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

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 34 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection 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.

Appendix II: Survey of Local Transportation Planners

Page 35 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection

Appendix II: Survey of Local Transportation Planners

Appendix II: Survey of Local Transportation Planners

Page 36 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection

Appendix II: Survey of Local Transportation Planners

Page 37 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection

Appendix II: Survey of Local Transportation Planners

Page 38 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection

Appendix II: Survey of Local Transportation Planners

Page 39 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection

Appendix II: Survey of Local Transportation Planners

Page 40 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection

Appendix II: Survey of Local Transportation Planners

Page 41 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection

Appendix II: Survey of Local Transportation Planners

Page 42 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection

Appendix II: Survey of Local Transportation Planners

Page 43 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection

Appendix II: Survey of Local Transportation Planners

Page 44 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection

Appendix II: Survey of Local Transportation Planners

Page 45 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection

Appendix II: Survey of Local Transportation Planners

Page 46 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection

Appendix II: Survey of Local Transportation Planners

Page 47 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection

Appendix II: Survey of Local Transportation Planners

Page 48 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection

Appendix II: Survey of Local Transportation Planners

Page 49 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection

Appendix II: Survey of Local Transportation Planners

Page 50 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection

Appendix II: Survey of Local Transportation Planners

Page 51 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection

Appendix II: Survey of Local Transportation Planners

Page 52 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection

Appendix II: Survey of Local Transportation Planners

Page 53 GAO- 03- 581 Environmental Protection

Appendix III: Survey of State Air Quality Planners Page 54 GAO- 03- 581
Environmental Protection

Appendix III: Survey of State Air Quality Planners

Appendix III: Survey of State Air Quality Planners Page 55 GAO- 03- 581
Environmental Protection

Appendix III: Survey of State Air Quality Planners Page 56 GAO- 03- 581
Environmental Protection

Appendix III: Survey of State Air Quality Planners Page 57 GAO- 03- 581
Environmental Protection

Appendix III: Survey of State Air Quality Planners Page 58 GAO- 03- 581
Environmental Protection

Appendix III: Survey of State Air Quality Planners Page 59 GAO- 03- 581
Environmental Protection

Appendix III: Survey of State Air Quality Planners Page 60 GAO- 03- 581
Environmental Protection (360288)

The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and 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.

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 fulltext 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.

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

Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail:
fraudnet@ gao. gov Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202)
512- 7470 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 GAO*s Mission Obtaining Copies of

GAO Reports and Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal
Programs Public Affairs
*** End of document. ***