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

The EPA¿s mission is to protect human health and the environment by implementing and enforcing environmental laws intended to improve the quality of the nation¿s air and water and to protect its land. EPA's policies and programs affect virtually all segments of the economy, society, and gov¿t. This report identifies challenges at EPA that hinder its ability to implement its programs effectively, including: (1) improving agencywide mgmt.; (2) transforming EPA's processes for assessing and controlling toxic chemicals; (3) improving implementation of the Clean Air Act; (4) reducing pollution in the nation's waters, (5) speeding the pace of cleanup at Superfund and other hazardous waste sites; and (6) addressing emerging climate change issues. Illus.

Everyone in the modern diversity drenched, multimedia, multitasking, multi-channel society seems to have their own agenda, activity and polarised point of view. One of the few things which unites them all is the necessity to breath air, and the less harmful, the better. The air, on the other hand, although presumably not opposed to providing the agenda gobblers with that which is essential to them, is being bombarded with smoke, auto exhaust fumes, and every kind of pollutant known to exist. This book presents the latest information on these crucial issues including the usual feeble legislation being offered up, analyses of air quality and electricity, and the elusive standards necessary to maintain a decent level of relativity clean air.

This new book presents a summary of the Clean Air Act and its major requirements, current issues concerning the Act and the Plain English version of the Act's interpretation. A comprehensive index rounds out this important reference to a major law dealing with an area of vital interest to mankind.

Meting the nation¿s mobility needs requires constructing, improving, and repairing roads and bridges. However, these actions can have serious environ. impacts, such as harming water quality and wildlife and their habitats. This report assesses whether the changes Congress envisioned for transport. planning and the environmental review and approval of highway projects are being effectively carried out. The author assessed: (1) the progress that selected state departments of transport., metro. planning org., and the Fed. Highway Admin. (FHWA) have made in incorp. environ. considerations in transport. planning; and (2) the progress that selected states and FHWA have made in implementing changes in the environ. review of highway projects.

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. 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.