(a) No department, agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government shall engage in, support in any way or provide financial assistance for, license or permit, or approve any activity which does not conform to an applicable implementation plan.
(b) A Federal agency must make a determination that a Federal action conforms to the applicable implementation plan in accordance with the requirements of this subpart before the action is taken.
(c) [Reserved]
(d) Notwithstanding any provision of this subpart, a determination that an action is in conformance with the applicable implementation plan does not exempt the action from any other requirements of the applicable implementation plan, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), or the Clean Air Act (Act).
(e) If an action would result in emissions originating in more than one nonattainment or maintenance area, the conformity must be evaluated for each area separately.
[58 FR 63253, Nov. 30, 1993; 58 FR 67442, Dec. 21, 1993; 75 FR 17272, Apr. 5, 2010]
Notes of Decisions
Dep't of Transp. v. Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S. 752 (2004).
· cites it 2× “§ 7506 (c)(1); 40 CFR § 93.150 (a) (2003). Federal agencies must, in many circumstances, undertake a conformity determination with respect to a proposed action, to ensure that the action is consistent with § 7506(c)(1).”
Cnty. of Delaware v. Dep't of Transp., 554 F.3d 143 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
“See 40 C.F.R. § 93.150 et seq. According to these general conformity regulations, if an agency’s proposed action affects a maintenance or nonattainment area, the agency must determine whether its proposed action conforms to the Clean Air Act.”
South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 621 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2010).
“Under the CAA, if a federal agency’s actions will likely result in “direct” or “indirect” emissions exceeding a certain EPA-mandated threshold, the agency must prepare a conformity analysis looking at the effects and must mitigate the project’s emissions.”
Sierra Club v. Donald Trump, 977 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2020).
“40 C.F.R. § 93.150 (a). Moreover, local air districts with jurisdiction over the California Project areas enforce rules to reduce the amount of fine particulate matter generated from construction projects by requiring those responsible to develop and implement a dust control…”
Stand Up for Cal. v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 328 F. Supp. 3d 1051 (E.D. Cal. 2018).
“It is undisputed that the Madera Site is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, which is a nonattainment area, triggering the conformity determination requirement of section 176 of the CAA.”
Vill. of Indian Creek, Florida v. FAA (11th Cir. 2022).
“See 40 C.F.R. § 93.150 et seq. However, the FAA need not perform a con- formity analysis on certain exempt actions that result in no emis- sions increases or increases that are clearly de minimis.”
Vill. of Indian Creek, Florida v. FAA (11th Cir. 2022).
“See 40 C.F.R. § 93.150 et seq. However, the FAA need not perform a con- formity analysis on certain exempt actions that result in no emis- sions increases or increases that are clearly de minimis.”
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.