Transportation-related tasks of meeting air quality goals are significant because mobile sources may account for as much as 50% of the ozone and 90% of the carbon monoxide pollution on a national scale. This study contains an outline of the transportation-related requirements for emission inventories, State Implementation Plan submittals, implementation strategies, and possible sanctions for failure to meet the requirements, focusing on four urban areas in Texas that are in non-attainment for various pollutants. Included are a listing of acronyms used and suggested guidance documents.

Transportation conformity is required under the Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 176(c) to ensure that Federally-supported transportation activities are consistent with (“conform to”) the purpose of a State Implementation Plan (SIP). Transportation conformity establishes the framework for improving air quality to protect public health and the environment. Conformity to the purpose of the SIP means Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding and approvals are given to highway and transit activities that will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing air quality violations, or delay timely attainment of the relevant air quality standard, or any interim milestone. This Guide was prepared to help State and local officials understand transportation conformity and how conformity requirements relate to transportation investments in their communities. Specifically, the implications of conformity on metropolitan transportation plans, transportation improvement programs (TIPs), and transportation projects are discussed. The Guide provides overview information on the major elements of the conformity process and provides answers to basic questions. Several exhibits are included in the Guide to illustrate key elements of the conformity process. Appendices are also included that discuss the health effects of pollutants, options to reduce on-road mobile source emissions, and resource agency contacts.

The two distinct approaches to environmental policy include direct regulation-sometimes called 'command and control' policies-and regulation by economic, or market-based incentives. This book is the first to compare the costs and outcomes of these approaches by examining realworld applications. In a unique format, paired case studies from the United States and Europe contrast direct regulation on one side of the Atlantic with an incentivebased policy on the other. For example, Germany‘s direct regulation of SO2 emissions is compared with an incentive approach in the U.S. Direct regulation of water pollution via the U.S. Clean Water Act is contrasted with Hollands incentive-based fee system. Additional studies contrast solutions for eliminating leaded gasoline and reducing nitrogen oxide emissions, CFCs, and chlorinated solvents. The cases presented in Choosing Environmental Policy were selected to allow the sharpest, most direct comparisons of direct regulation and incentive-based strategies. In practice, environmental policy is often a mix of both types of instruments. This innovative investigation will interest scholars, students, and policymakers who want more precise information as to what kind of 'blend' will yield the most effective policy. Are incentive instruments more efficient than regulatory ones? Do regulatory policies necessarily have higher administrative costs? Are incentive policies more difficult to monitor? Are firms more likely to oppose market-based instruments or traditional regulation? These are some of the important questions the authors address, often with surprising results.