40 C.F.R. § 93.116

Criteria and procedures: Localized CO, PM10, and PM2.5 violations (hot-spots)

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) This paragraph applies at all times. The FHWA/FTA project must not cause or contribute to any new localized CO, PM10, and/or PM2.5 violations, increase the frequency or severity of any existing CO, PM10, and/or PM2.5 violations, or delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or any required interim emission reductions or other milestones in CO, PM10, and PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance areas. This criterion is satisfied without a hot-spot analysis in PM10 and PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance areas for FHWA/FTA projects that are not identified in § 93.123(b)(1). This criterion is satisfied for all other FHWA/FTA projects in CO, PM10 and PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance areas if it is demonstrated that during the time frame of the transportation plan no new local violations will be created and the severity or number of existing violations will not be increased as a result of the project, and the project has been included in a regional emissions analysis that meets applicable §§ 93.118 and/or 93.119 requirements. The demonstration must be performed according to the consultation requirements of § 93.105(c)(1)(i) and the methodology requirements of § 93.123.

(b) This paragraph applies for CO nonattainment areas as described in § 93.109(d)(1). Each FHWA/FTA project must eliminate or reduce the severity and number of localized CO violations in the area substantially affected by the project (in CO nonattainment areas). This criterion is satisfied with respect to existing localized CO violations if it is demonstrated that during the time frame of the transportation plan (or regional emissions analysis) existing localized CO violations will be eliminated or reduced in severity and number as a result of the project. The demonstration must be performed according to the consultation requirements of § 93.105(c)(1)(i) and the methodology requirements of § 93.123.

[69 FR 40077, July 1, 2004, as amended at 71 FR 12510, Mar. 10, 2006; 73 FR 4440, Jan. 24, 2008; 75 FR 14285, Mar. 24, 2010; 77 FR 14988, Mar. 14, 2012]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases, 1999–2017 · leading case: Audubon Naturalist Soc'y of the Cent. Atl. States, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Transp., 524 F. Supp. 2d 642 (D. Maryland 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Audubon Naturalist Soc'y of the Cent. Atl. States, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Transp., 524 F. Supp. 2d 642 (D. Maryland 2007). · cites it 2× “40 C.F.R. § 93.116 (a). The parties do not dispute that the Inter-County Connector project falls within the meaning of 40 C.”

Sierra Club v. Env't Prot. Agency, 873 F.3d 946 (D.C. Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “40 C.F.R. § 93.116 . (A separate set of regulations applies to federal actions other than highways and mass transit.”

City of South Pasadena v. Slater, 56 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (C.D. Cal. 1999). · cites it 3× “40 C.F.R. § 93.116 (a). The regulations provide specific methodologies for analyzing emission hotspots.”

City of South Pasadena v. Slater, 56 F. Supp. 2d 1095 (C.D. Cal. 1999). · cites it 5× “40 C.F.R. § 93.116 (a). The regulations provide specific methodology requirements for making this demonstration.”

Env't Def., Inc. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 509 F.3d 553 (D.C. Cir. 2007). · cites it 4× “at 12,470-71 (amending 40 C.F.R. § 93.116 ). The new hot spot regulation, which applies in nonattainment and maintenance areas regardless of the SIP, 40 C.”

Nat. Resources Def. Council v. Env't Prot. Agency, 661 F.3d 662 (D.C. Cir. 2011). · cites it 4× “at 12,510 (codified at 40 C.F.R. § 93.116 (a)) (printed here with the same omissions and alterations as printed in Environmental Defense, 509 F.”

Nat. Resources Def. Council, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., 770 F.3d 1260 (9th Cir. 2014). “NRDC argues that the EPA’s 2010 amendment to 40 C.F.R. § 93.116 confirms that the term “a location” referred to an area smaller than the project area.”

Coalition for a Sustainable 520 v. United States Dep't of Transp., 881 F. Supp. 2d 1243 (W.D. Wash. 2012). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff also alleges the FEIS fails to *1247 comply with a regulation promulgated pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act, specifically 40 CFR § 93.116 , and Washington State law regarding greenhouse emissions, RCW 70.”

Protecting Arizona's Resources v. Fhwa (9th Cir. 2017). “” Final Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”) at 4!75 (citing 40 C.F.R. § 93.116 (a)). Appellees adequately analyzed Mobile Source Air Toxic (“MSAT”) emissions, in compliance with NEPA.”

Nrdc v. Usdot (9th Cir. 2014). “NRDC argues that the EPA’s 2010 amendment to 40 C.F.R. § 93.116 confirms that the term “a location” referred to an area smaller than the project area.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.