SEPA
United Stoics
En vl r o nme nta i Pi o t &ct to n
Agency
Ajar* Radatai EPA420-B-Q4-017
November 2004
Conformity SIP Guidance
EPA420-B-O4-017
November 2G04
Conformity SIP Guidance
Trans pollution and Regional Programs Division
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Conformity SIP Guidance November 18, 2004
Conformity SIP Guidarwe
Introduction
This document provides guidance on the requirement that states adopt their own criteria
and procedures foi determining transportation conformity, these state confomuty rules
are known as "confonnity SIPs" Where EPA has approved a state *s conformity SIP, the
approved conformity SIP governs conformity determinations instead of the federal rule,
for those aspects of the rule that it addre;
EPA recently published a new final rule for transportation conformity on July 1 , 2004 (69
FR 40004} This guidance document will help areas that have appoved confomuty SIPs
know which provisions of the July 1, 2004, conformity rule amendments apply
immediately in their areas, and which provisions cannot apply until their conformity SIPs
are revised In addition, this guidance document includes questions and answers on other
aspects of conformity SIPs,
1 Q How is this guidance organized?
A. This document is organized by questions and answers under the following
headings
• Introduction (Q&A 1 - 4),
• Ap^ying the July 1, 2004, Transportation Conformity Rule (Q&A 5-11).
This section includes Q& As that specifically address what aspects of the July
1, 2004, transportation conformity rule (69 FR 40004) appiy in areas with and
without conformity SIPs, and other questions regarding that rulemaking
• NewS-hourOzoneandPM<Standards(Q&A12&13), These two
questions specifically address areas designated nonattainment under the new
air quality standards ,
• General Questions About Confomuty SIPs (Q&A 14 - 13). This section
includes Q & As about using a Memorandum of Agreement or Memorandum
of Understanding for a conformity SIP, incorporating die rule by reference,
whether existing confomuty SIPs apply to new areas, and which parts of the
conformity rule need to be tailored for specific areas
This document also includes an appendix:
• A ppendix A is a table that indicates whether a new federal rule provision
applies in areas with approved confomuty SIPs.
2. Q Does this guidance create new policy?
A. No, this guidance does not create new policy, it merely explams the current
confomuty SIP requirements m the conformity rule at 40 CFR Subpart T, codified at
40CFR51-390. This portion of the conformity regulation was published rn the
EPA Conformity SIP Guidance November 18, 2004
August 15. 1997. confomuty rule (63 FR43S01), In addition, die July 1. 2004.
conformity rule includes a discussion of conformity SIPs. at 69 FR4006S.
3 Q Who can I contact for additional questions regarding conformity SIPs?
A. If tliis guidance document does not answer a specific question, please contact the
hariSpDrtahon confomuty staff person responsible for jour state at the appropnate
EPA Regional Headquarters Office A listing ofRagional Offices, the states they
cove:, and contact information for the EPA Regional conformity staff people can be
found at the following website
Imp /Aram «pt|^vfeu^At'iitfpA:oirfoaa/cotTUct<h&a
For questions of a general nature about conformity SIPs, please contact;
Laura Beny.b*ny -bun @ep* gov , 734-214-4S5S,or
RudyKapichal^ltqjichiltrudobh^tpi&ov. 734-214-4574.
4 Q How can I find out if a conformity SIP applies in my area?
A Please contact the nar£j»rtahonconfornutystaff person at the appopnate EPA
Regional Office (see previous Q&Afor the website that lists these staff people)
This staff person will have the most up-to-date information regarding the status of a
specific state or area's approved or submitted confomuty SIP
AjDjflying the July 1, 2004 > TranspDrtahon Conformity Rule
5. Q Do die provisions of the July 1. 2004, transportation conformity rule (69 FR
40004; "July 2004 rulO apply in states without approved confomuty SIPs? What if
the SIP has been submitted to EPA but has not been approved?
A All of the provisions c ontamed in the July 2004 conformity rule apply upon the
effective date ofEPA's rulemaking in states without p*e\aouslyappDved conformity
SIPs. including those states that have submitted SIPs that have not been approved by
EPA.
6 Q Does die July 2004 rule apply if a state has a state conformity rule under which it
lias been operating, but which has not been appiovedby EPA into die SIP?
A Yts. Ifastate'sconformityrule hasnotbeenappovedbyEPAasaconforauty
SIP (note that a conformity SIP could also take the form ofa Memorandum of
Understanding (M3U) orftfemorandum of Agreement (MDA). see Q&A 14 and 15.
below), then the state does not have an approved confomuty SIP In this case, all of
the July 2004 rule changes apply
EPA Conformity SIP Guidance November 18, 2004
7. Q. What portions of the July 2004 confoimity rule apply in areas that have approved
conformity S IPs?
A The answer to this question is found in Appendix A for each section of the
conformity rule. The table indicates which conformity rulemaking finalized each
specific section and briefly indicates how the provision changed as a result of the July
2004 rulemaking The last column of the table answers whether the July 2004 rule
changes apply in areas with approved conformity SIPs
There are three possible answers to whether a provision applies and though we have
provided general examples for each of these three answers, readers should rat rely on
these generalizations States should thoroughly consider all fee information provided
in the table for each specific provision, in conjunction with xt\ntw of the specifics of
the particular state conformity nile
The three possible answers to whether or not a provision of the July 2004 rule applies
are as follows
(1) Yes, the change applies. The answer is y*$ t for example, for all provisions that
address the newairqualitystandardsorfhe March 2, 1999, conformity court decision
(2) No, the change does not apply. The answer is no for major changes that are not
the result of either the new an quality standards or the court decision Such
provisions cannot apply until the conformitySIP is revised to include it
13) States can ijiteipret their existing rules consistent with the Ju)y 2004 rule so
that the substance of the new rule applies. However, specific language of the
July 2004 rule clearly docs not apply until SIPs are changed. This statement is
the answer in the table for some types of minor clarifications, such as when
references have been updatedby the July 2004 rule. In addition, this statement
applies in other situations, such as when the July 2004 rule added a pre-existing
interpretation or policy into the rule for the purpose of codifying it EPA believes that
where changes merely codify an interpretation of the prior conformity regulations or
change a reference without changing the requirement, states can and may want to
inteipret their existing conformity regulations consistent with the interpretation as
EPA had done under the previous federal rule Note, although a state is not
compelled to interpret then conformitySIP in the same wayas the July 2004 rule,
some pre-existing or current EPA policy interpretations may still ap^Jy to their
conformitySIP The decision to interpret a conformity SIP in the same wayas the
July 2004 regulation should be made within interagency consultation process
Q Does a provision in the July 2004 conformity rule apply if a state lias an approved
conformitySIP, but it does not address that particular section?
EPA Conformity SIP Guidance November 18, 2004
A. If a conformity SIP does not include a complete section (i.e., an entire numbered
portion, such as §93 106 or §93 122) then that section of the federal rule applies in
that state Therefore, if any section of the conformity rule is missing from a state's
conformity SIP, that section as amended by the July 2004 rule applies immediately
However* if a state conformity SIP includes a particular section, then die state is still
considered to have a rule addressing that section. In such cases, whether or not the
new federal provision can apply immediately will depend on the specific section and
nature of the change at issue As discussed above, die Appendix A table indicates
whether or not a specific July 2004 amendment or addition in such a section can
apply in these circumstances
Q Can EPA approve a state confomuty SIP that is based on an earlier version of the
conformity rule lather than the July 2004 conformity rule?
A: EPA can only approve SIPs that meet the regulations as updated by the July 2004
rule Some provisions of the July 2004 rule change requirements from the previous
version of the rule Areas should include these new provisions in their confomuty
SIPs in accordance with 40 CFR 51 + 390 + EPA regions can only approve conformity
SIPs that address the current rule's requirements, rncludmg the 2004 rule revisions
10 + Q. What changes in the July 2004 rule that are not the result of either the newarr
quality standards or the court decision could make the most drfference to areas that
have approved conformitySIPs?
A. Among the updates EPA made to the rule that are not die result of either the new
airqualitystandardsorthe court decision, two stand out as those that could have the
greatest impact on how confomuty is done First, EPA has streamlined the frequency
requirements in §93 104 in the August 2002 and July 2004 rulemakings States with
approved confomuty SIPs that do not include these changes maybe required to make
conformrtydeternunationssoonei and more fre que nfly than the federal rule now
requires. Specifically, state confomuty SIPs may contain the requirement found in
the August 1997 rule todetemune conformity within IS months of submission of a
SIP feat includes budgets, rather than within IS months of EPA *s adequacy finding
for budgets ma submitted SIP Another example is that state confomuty SIPs may
contain the requirement to determine conformity within IS months of EPA's approval
of any SIP that contains budgets found in the August 1997 rule, but die updated
federal rule requires a conformity determination in this case onlyrf those budgets
have not already beenusedinaconforniity determination
The second rule change that stands out is the update to the latest planning
assumptions requirement in §93 110 Under die updated fedeial rule, areas can
determine conformrtybased on die latest planning assumptions that are available at
the time the conformity analysrs begins. However, areas with approved conformity
SIPs that include §93A 10 as rt exrsted in die Ai^ust 1997 rule must use tire latest
EPA Conformity SIP Guidance November 18, 2004
planning assumptions that are available at the time DOT makes its confoimity
cle te nmnation Areas may want to update their SIPs quickly to take advantage of
these two rule changes as well as others made m be July 2004 rule
11 Q Can EPA expedite a state *s conformity SIP revision so that an area could take
advantage of fee changes in die July 2004 rule that are not the result of either the new
air quality standards or die court decision as soon as possible?
A Yes EPA will work with states to approve conformity SIP revisions as
expeditiously as possible by using approaches such as parallel processing or direct
final rulemaking, so that areas can then take ad/antage of all of the amendments
included in the July 2004 rule and subsequent rulemakings
12 + Q Are two confoimity SIP revisions required for areas designated for both the S-
hour ozone standard and die PM : < standard?
A Not necessarily, states maybe able to address all confoimity rule provisions
within the same conformity SIP. The July 2004 conformity rule includes criteria and
pocedures for determining conformity for the S-hour ozone standard, as well as for
the PM : { standard However, there are two conformity requirements for die PM* ^
standard that were not addressed in July 2004 rule : PM> < hot-spot requirements, and
requirements for addressing PM < precursors m transportation conformity
detenmnations EPA intends to publish a supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking in the near future to request additional comment on options related to
PM : 5 and PM h; hot-spot requirements. EPA intends to finalize both the hot-spot
requirements and the requirements for addressing PM : ? precursors as soon as
possible, we anticipate these final rules to be completed in 2005.
State and local agencies can consider addressing the July 2004 rule amendments and
the upcoming PM : s rule requirements within the same conformity SIP revision, to the
extent possible given die requirements in §51 390, to minimize the work involved in
creating or revising the confoimity SIP. However, die drawback of this approach for
a state with an approved confoimity SIP is that it may need to wait longer before it
can apply some of the provisions of die July 2004 rule (see Q&A 7, and Appendix A)
If states decide to address all provisions in one conformity SIP, states should make
sure that the confornutySIP includes the consultation procedures that apply
specifically in PM < areas as well as in ozone areas.
State and local agencies should keep in mind that any federal rule provisions that
specifically address die new standards, whether they are included in the July 2004
final rule or an upcoming rulemaking, apply upon die federal rule's effective date for
all areas that determine conformity. Therefore, the PM * hot-spot and precursor
requirements will apply upon the effective date of EPA's final rule published in the
EPA Conformity SIP Guidance November 18, 2004
Federal Jtegi5ter,evenifanarea has alieadyupdateditsconfonmtySIP to include
the July 2004 final rule.
13. Q If a state has consultation procedures feat refer to general types of agencies (e g ,
MPOs) rather than specific agencies (eg, anMPO for a specific area), do fee
provisions of the confonmty SIP apply for new or expanded nonattainment areas?
A. As indicated previously, the answer depends on fee wording of fee conformity
SIP itself. If fee SIP's wording could be interpreted to include expended or new
nonattainment areas in the state, fee provisions of the conformity SIP would apply to
these areas However, if fee conformitySIP includes wording that limits its
applicability to particular areas, then it may not apply to new or expanded areas If
yDur state lias an approved conformitySIP and y^u are unsure whether or not it
applies to yDur particular area, please consult with >our EPA Regional Office (see
Q&A 3 for where to find contact information)
General Questions About Confonmty SIPs
14 Q In whatpartof the regulations is fee requirementforconformitySIPsfouncP
A. The regulations that explain the requirements foraconfoimity SIP are found in 40
CFR Part 51, subpart T, at 40 CFR 51 390, This portion of the confoimity regulation
was published in the August 15, 1997, conformity rale (62 FR 43S01). In addition,
the July 1, 2004, confoimity rule includes a discussion of conformity SIPs, at 69 FR
40068.
15, Q. Whatare fee requirements for confoimity SIP MOUs and MDAs?
A. Some states use a memorandum of undeistanding (MDU) or memorandum of
agreement (MDA) to include fee criteria and procedures of fee confonmty rule
instead of a state regulation. Some states have used MDUs and MDAs to codify their
consultation procedures, and have used a SIP revision to codify the remainder of the
rule In either case, a state can use an MDU or MDA if such a memo meets the
following requirements:
a) it is fully enforceable understate law against all parties im p oh t edin interagency
consultation and in approving, adopting and implementing transportation projects,
TIPs, or transportation plans (see d below for how this is done).
b) it is submitted for inclusion in fee SIP, and
c) it has been signedby all agencies that are covered by the conformity rule,
including federal agencies and fee recipients of funds designated under title 23
EPA Conformity SIP Guidance November 18, 2004
US .Cor the Federal Transit Laws (see the definition in §93,101). For example,
MDU signers would include MPOs, local and state air agencies, state DOTs,
transit agencies. FHWA, FTA, and EPA, and all cunent recipients of federal
surface tianspoitation funds, both public and private.
In addition, a state rule must be adopted which
d) requires all future parties covered by the rule, including new recipients of funds
designated under tide 23 US Cor the Federal Transit Laws, to sign the MOU.
16. Q If a state wants to revise its MOU, must ltbe done through the SIP process, or
can the state just have everyone sign a new MDU?
A: An MDU revision would have to be approved through the SIP process because
the MDU is pail of the SIP,
17. Q. Ifastate haspiepareditsconfonnitySIPbyiiicorporating the federal rule into
the SIP by reference rather than repeating the rule veibatun, do the changes made to
the federal rule automatically apply in that state, or does the state still have to update
the confonnitySIP to take advantage of changes to the federal rule?
A. The answer depends on what be confoimitySIP indicates;
• Ifastate incoiporates the federal rule into its SIP by reference, it may have
incorporated the federal rule that existed as of the date of the incorporation If
so, subsequent updates to the federal rule do not automatically apply and a
revision to the confomuty SIP must be submitted within 12 months of a
change to the federal rule
• However, a confonnitySIP that incorporates the federal rule by reference
could also indicate that it also incorporates by reference any future changes
made to be federal rule, although this is rare In this case, the confonnitySIP
does not need to be revised when the federal conformity rule is updated
If your state has an approved confoimitySIP that incorporates the rule by reference,
and )ou are unsure about whether or not rt also includes all future changes to the
federal rule, please consult with your EPA Regional Office (see Q&A 3 for where to
find contact information)
IS. Q What sections of a state's conformity SIP should be tailored for a specific area?
A Section 51 .390(d) states that a confonnitySIP must address all requirements of
part 93, subpart A(e g<, all provisions of the confoimityrule). In preparing
transportation confomuty SIPs, states can either adopt the langoageof the federal
confoimityrule verbatim or incorporate die rule into theirSIPbyreference.
EPA Conformity SIP Guidance November 18, 2004
However, there are some parts of the rule that either must be tailored in order to make
them enforceable, or could be tailored to improve readabilrty These provisions are as
follows:
Section 93.105: This section requires the adoption of area-specific consultation
procedures By definition, these procedures must be developed by local agencies
in consultation with state and federal agencies It is important that the state's
consultation procedures are clearly defined and enforceable .
Several sections of the conformity rule include references to §93.105. If a state
adopts these references verbatim, EPA could still approve the conformitySIP.
Regardless of the cross-references, die state's consultation section would exist
and explain how and when agencies should consult. However, if the state has the
ability to change the §93 105 references, doing so would help to clarify their rule.
The state can erther change the reference in each section to reflect the proper state
rule f s reference, or include a generic provision in the SIP that says that "federal
rule references to §93.105 correspond to §**** in the SIP"
Section 93.112: The second sentence in this section can be omitted from a state
conformity SIP, because this language is not relevant once a conformitySIP is
approved. However, a state could include this sentence without negative
consequences.
Section 93.1 19(d)(2): This provision is required to be adopted verbatim But, if a
PM , area "defines the baseline emissions to be dose occurring ma different
calendar y?ar for which a baseline emissions inventory was developed for the
puipose of developing a control strategy implementation plan," then the
conformitySIP should specify the baseline yjarhere An NO : area could choose
either to include this additional PM . area-specific language verbatim, or delete
everything after "calendar year 1990" in order to make it more readable. Either
choice will not change the enforceability of this section
Section 93. 122(a)(4)(ii): This provision stipulates that the confoimitySIP
submission must require that written commitments to implement control measures
be obtained prior to conformity determinations and that the commitments be
fulfilled The following is example language that could be substituted in the
conformitySIP for 93.122(a)(4)(ii):
"Written commitments to control measures bat are not included in the
transportation plan and TIP must be obtained paior to a conformity
deteiminahon and such commitments must be fulfilled."
However, if a state has already developed its conformity SIP and included die
federal rule *s language for §93.1 19(d)(2), it would still be enforceable
EPA Conformity SIP Guidance November 18, 2004
Section 93 125(c) This provision is similar to 93 122(a)(4)(ii) and states that the
SIP submission must require that written commitments for mitigation measures be
obtained before conformity determinations are made and such commitments must
be met The following is example language that could be substituted in the
conformrtySIP for 93.125(c);
"Written commitments to mitigation measures must be obtained poor to a
positive conformity determination and project sponsors must comply with
such commitments "
However, if a state has already developed its conformity SIP without adapting
§93 + 125(c)andsubmrttedittoEPA > this provision would still be enforceable
EPA Conformity SIP Guidance November 18 T 2004
[This page intentionally left blank J
10
EPA Conformity SIP Guidance
November 18, 2004
Appendix A: What Prov nioiu of the Conformity Rule Apply in Areas with Conformity SIPs?
Prov ision of c urrent federal
conformity rule
What rule finalized this provision?
Does the change to thi; provision apply immediately in
areas with an approved conformity SIP based on the 1997
rule, if the KIP includes tlus provision?
-Why or why not?
51390 Imp&menuucaxplin
revisiim
August 1997rule: ThisivoviHGnisnotinciidedin (+*-'A)
ccrtfcrmffy SIPs
93.100 Itapo». August 1997rule> not dunged vxtify 2004 mk (N/A)
93101 Defetatiare.
August 1P9 7 rule for majority c£ defnmons > exr ept th*
following
Jiifr :004 rule additions Yesfca: ihe luiTfr added Jufr 2004 d*f aubons
• 1-hour osoiw NAAQ S * 1-hour ozone NAAQ S
• S-hois : zoiLr NAAQ S ■ 8-hour ozone NAAQ S
• Dcnut areas * Dcrat areas
• IsoktednralwmatusmierAandmintmance areas* * Isol*tedniralnoiutusimeiftand:rantenance areas
• Linitedmar&eiunce plan • Lmkedmaiitenanceplan
Ihfse defataionsappfymiiediately because no approved confomtfy SIP
mc lades them.
Julv 2004 rule clanfications Forth* Juty200*cknfieddefnsions:
• - ontrol strategy srgilenienution plan revision * Control straUgy&ipleiwnutionplanrev&ion
• Milestone ■ Milestone
States can interpret tiierexistingrules consistent with the definitions nt
the July 2004 rule . However*d\e specific language of the J\xbr 2004
ckarfrdoesnotafgihruntil SIPs are changed
11
EPA Conformity SIP Guidance
November 18, 2004
Provision of current federal
conformity rule
Wfcat rule finalized this provision?
Does the change to thk provision apply immediately in
areas with an approved conformity SIPbaied cm the 1997
rule, if the SIP includes thisproviram?
—Why orwhy not?
93.102 Applktbilfy-
August 1997rule,exceptthe following
August 2002 nile addjtkn.
(d) adde d one -yetr grace period provision, is t reAih of
CAA amendment which allied immediately
July 2004 rule additions ;
(6X1) PM2-5 addedto list of pott*ams
0>X3)ro*ddastforPM2-5 nets
(c) requires currently confoanjttgplin and HP for project
phase approvals
(d) PM2.5 areas added to grace period provision
Julv 2004 rule clarification:
(b)(2Xin) clarified onfy > no practical dung*
Yes for the August 2002 nile addition:
rd| ThisproYisicn applies tiamediately as it implements a provision of
the statute , which applies as a matter erf law .
Yes fee the July 2004 nile additions in this section
(bXl) n*w standards
(bX3) new standards
(c): court decision
(d): new standards
These provisions appfy mmediate ly, because they are related to the new
standards cr court decision.
For lh* Ailv :004 claxific aaon
0>X2XnO
States ctnintfipretther existingrules consistent wish the July 2004 nile
so that the substance of the newnile applies However, specific linkage
of die July 2004 clearly does not apply until SIPs are changed.
93.103 frioriy.
Angus* 1997 nile- not dunged si Jufr 2004 rule (N/A)
i:
EPA Conformity SIP Guidance
November 18, 2004
Provision of current federal
conformity rule
Wfcat rule finalized this provision?
Does tlte change to tliis provision apply immediately iii
areas with an approved conformity SIP based on the 1997
rule, if the SIP includes tliis provision?
—Why or why not?
93.104 Frequency of coitfomuiy
determinations.
*N«4* Dy^"mmmt
provision as it existed in the CFRas
of the August 1997nil*niak»g
"Old" jrovisicrts have eiherbten
deleted wrautulbtre ■".
By *toew "we ma a provirion that
has beenupd*** d or addedby d\e
Jilt/ 2C04 niktvifcing
August 1997 ntle .except the following
August 2002 nil? revision:
01d*(eX-) : provision changed so 18-monfli cluck suits
uponEPA^ adecpaacy finding instead of SIP submission
Jut/ 2004 rule revisions and deletions ;
Old (cX4) deleted, this ms die requirement to determine
conformity cat die HP within 6 momhs of the pltn
01d(eXl)deleted; this was the IS-inorah trigger fcr
November 1993 date
01d(eX3)revisedsothat lS-motth clock for SIP
approvals app lies only if budgets not akeatyused
01d(eX4)deleted,thiswasthe lS-monih trigger for TC'M
changes
Old (eX5) revised so that a FTP change to a TCM does not
trigger an lS*ittonih clock
Julv 2004 rule renumbering:
OW(eX2)^n*w(eXl)
Old (eX3) -» new (eX2)>revised as noted above
Old (eX5) -> new (eX3),revised as noted above
Job/ 2004 rule clanf nations:
(bX3) tluified onto, no practical change
(cX3) clarified onfy;nopractxalthange
(d) claiifiedandccttribinedpr<rrisions f nopractical
change
1
1": i oi d\e following An^ist 2002 and July 2004revttionsAiel*tions:
01d(cX4).
01d(eXl>.
Old (eX2). (updated by August 2002rule)
01d(eX3>
01d(eX4).*tti
01d(eX5>
The se provision continue to appfy in states with aggvoved canfamty
SlPsdiatXtclude them, because revisions to these proviskms ire not
related to die new standards cr court decision
For Julv 2004 clarifications
(bX3),(cX3) 1 and(d> >
States can interpret tiierexistingrules consistent with die July 2004 nile
so that the substance of dienewrule appphes However, the specific
language of the Jufy 200* rule cleaify does not vppty until SIPsare
changed Akhough these provisions have been revised, diey reflect what
his been EPA ? s e:ostE\gpolkv,whxhco^tames to appfr
13
EPA Conformity SIP Guidance
November 18, 2004
Provision of current federal
conformity rule
Wkat rule finalized this provision? Does the change to tliK provision apply immediately in
areas with an approved conformity SIP based on the 1997
rule, if the SIP includes tliis provision?
—Why or why not?
93.105 Ccemifcation
August I997iule,«a«pt
Jufr2004: FbrfcXIJtviD:
(cXlXrax&nraivmsitbstuftnre dung? to update t States can inreipret titer existingrules consistent with the Jufr 2004 mle
reference so that the substance of thenewnile allies (in this ca«e, merely reference
changes). However^the specific language of the fafy 2004 rule clearly
doesnotipplyuntilSIPiare lianged
93 106 Dweni of transportation
plots.
August 1997 nik, except
Jalv 2004 revision: No far revision to (b):
(b) ejq>anded; now nuhide* additional ifruations under ie M (bX2)and(bX3)don0t*pp^ f The expanded provisams of (b) are not
whkh a 2-year grace periodfor transportation plan i* Uted to the new standards <x court decision
content would aroh'.fcr certain CO and ozone areas.
93.107 Re lationshi) of August WOTrule-notchingpdaxJuly 2004iule. (N/A)
transportation plan and TIP
c catf onuitv wtU the NEPAprocess.
9310$ Rscalconaramtsfar Augustl997rule-notchangedmJufy2004rule- {N/A)
Transportation plans and TIPs.
14
EPA Conformity SIP Guidance
November 18, 2004
Provision of current federal
conformity rule
What rule fbwKzfd this ]■ revision? Does tlte change to tliis provision apply immediately in
areaswith an approved conformity SIP based on the 1997
rule, if Die SIP includes thisprovision?
--Why or why not?
93 109 Crier!* tnd procedures for
drtmniiMC ccetf oimiy of
transportation plans , programs > md
projects: General
August lPWiuh:
(a) q it o ib v. uon
Juto 2004 rule revisions
(b)table l,confomi&y criteria
(c) l*hour ozone ireas
OCOtnu
(g)PM L . treas
Q\)N0 : areai
(Dsolatedraralareas
fn these p*ragraphs,the phrase "emissions reduction tests" is
replacedby "xutermeinissions tests " In addition, ii(cXl)*
(6(2) > ttX2)» «wi (JiX2>>ttw Jufr 2004 rcoviswns c krify
when budgets ti SIPs mist be us* d for c oitf omuiy :
i) Upon the effective date of EPA 's adequacy finding,
(ii) Upon the public ation date of EPA's approval of * SIP;
md
(iii)Upcnthe effective date of EPA's approval of a SIP
mad* via a drectfnxalrul*
Juk 2004 rule additions:
(d) B-hnur ozone areas wid\out budgets
(e) $-hour ozone areas with 1-hcur budgets
(i)PM2Jareas
(J) hinted maintenance plans
(k) iwiguif icance
Juty 2004 mle revisions
V/£h re gu"d to tlit change nthenune of tests 0mm Amissions reduction
wsts"to *laterjm emissions Wsts*^ mpira^*pl\s (^),(c),(f),Cg)>C^)>«^d
fl), states wih approve d conformity SIPs cai\i\tetpret their existing rules
consistent withth* July 2004 rule.
Yesforprovi5^msn(cXlXi>.<WXi).(^Xi>,^^XlX0>c^*
these provisions are aresukof the court decision They state thatth*
budgettestmustbe usediiponthe effective date of EPA's adequacy
fi*di*g.
For the remaining changes nxparagraphs (<),((),(£), and IhXsuch as the
addjbonof (cXlXa)and(ui),tfX2Xii)»^d(ai)»«c,sutesctt\nuenOTt
d\er extttingnilesconsisterawiihthe Jafr 2004rule + Ihougjidiese
regulatcay text provisions are new,theyreflectwhathas been EPA's
e xistiug policy, wluchcontiras to apply.
F6r JShr 2004 rule additions:
Yes for paragraphs (dX(e), and (Q>as they idfriss the new standards*
For paragraphs (J) and (k) T states cm interpret their existing rules
consistent with the July 2004 rule so Out die substance ci the new rale
ipphes These ttro paragraphs address limited maintenance plans and
insignificance respectively* lhou^\duseregolatorytext[rovisionsare
new *they ref bet what has bten cenf onnfy pobiy since 1993*
If
EPA Conformity SIP Guidance
November 18, 2004
Provision of current federal
conformity rule
Wfcat rule finalized this provision? Does the change to thkproVK»napply immediately in
areas with an approved conformity SIP based on the 1997
rule, if the SAP includes this provision?
--Why or why not?
93 110 frieria md procedures
L at e st p lanrung a* sumptions .
August 1997iule,txceptfor:
Jul/ 2004 rule revision: Ju^ 2004 rule revision:
Ochangedthe point at which latest planmgassuiigttians No, this change to(a)doesrwtappfr mtreaswihapprcrodconfoimiiy
ire detemiinedfor tccrfcamiEy determination SIPs,because this diinge t* not re hted to the nm standards or court
decision Arett in states with in amoved cortfciiniEy SIP izust continue
to use die latest planning assumptions available when the canfeeuuty
detemiinationi5made k untilthe SIPisrevisedtoreflectthe Jufy2004rule
93.111 Crxerii and procedures:
L attst emissions modeL
August 1997 nde -notchangedn Jufy 2004 rule (N/A)
93 112 Glteriaand procedures: August 1997 rule -not changedm July 2004 rule (VIA)
CamiQjljiML
93.113 Ctteri* and procedures:
Tmefyttiplemenutianof TCMs
August 1997 rule -not changed xiJofy 3004 rule (N/A)
93.114 frieria and procedures:
Cwr eittfy c atf coming transportation
plmtndTIP.
August 1997 nile -not changedmXify 2004 rule (N/A)
93.115 frieria and procedures:
Projects from * plan and TIP
August 1997nile -notchangedn>tf}'2004rule (N/A)
IS
EPA Conformity SIP Guidance
November 18, 2004
Provision of current federal
conformity rule
What rule finalized Oris provision? Does the change to thk provision apply immediately in
areas with an approved conformity SIP based on the 1997
rule, if the SSP includes thisprovision?
—Why or why not?
93.116 Qlteria and procedures
Localized CO and PMi.jViolatkiv
(hot spots).
Jufr 2004 rule tUnfied the time period to be addressed ix States can interpret the? existingrules cons but* with the Ju^r 2004 rule
hot*spot anafyses* ■: (hat die substance of the new rule spiles. However, the specific
language of the tefy 2004 rule clearly does not *ppK f until SIPs are
changed.
EPAbebeves the Jaly 2004 rule change simply clarifies previous existing
hoc* spot requirements established inth* 1997nile. Hie July 2004
preaatole states 'SPA does not anticipate that today's clartfication would
significant^- change how project* level masses are being conducted t\
practice " (69 FR 40056). In other words >in areas wih approved
confonaity SIPs,EPAe;qHctsthattheyear(s)tiiosenfcr the hot-spot
anafysis would be the yew where emissions are ejected to be the
greatest In choosing such a year, the hot-spot anatysis would meet the
reqiurem?nttoconsiderthe 20yearpenodasdescri>ediithe 2004 nUe
93.117 Giteria and procedures Jahr 2004 rule added PM2 5tothisprovis)CBi,£0 that Yes>because this thing? isrelatedtothe new PM2 5 standard
Comphante with PM, ; and PM- compliance w*h SIPcorQrolmeasure? isrequitdinPM2*5
control me a sure s. | areas
17
EPA Conformity SIP Guidance
November 18, 2004
Provision of current federal
conformity rale
Wfcat rule finalized this provision? Does the change to thkproVKion apply immediately in
areas with an approved conformity SIP based on the 1997
rule, if the SIP includes tliis provision?
—Why or why not?
93.113 frieria indprocedures
Mctor vehicle emissions budget
August 1997 nUe except the following:
Jul/ 2004 rule >■:!■: In K I . ■
(bX-K^*) : analysis years before lastyearof mantenance
phlimustbe < budgets ffccimost recent prior year.
(f) adequacy [roc e dure s
Julv 2004 rule revisions :
(a): reference iipdated
(b): tttro text revised to include attainment ye ax as a year
for which consistency mist be demonstrated,
frXIXm revised,
{*): <eXl).<*X2>,(*3)
Juty 2004 ml* additions
For paragraph (b)(2Xiv)»*t*tes cm interpret thexexrstingrules consistent
with the Jufy 2004 rule so that the substance of the Jalv 2004 provision
ipphes. However, the specific language of the Ai^ 2004 rule clearly does
not apply until SIPs are changed Ihou^thisregulatoiytextprovisionB
new,iireflects what has been EPA's exisungpolky which continues to
*ppfy Hie provision also niixors the 1997 provision s\(bXlXii),which
covers the period of tan* before maintenance plans are submitted
Yes forp*rigr*ph(f)>because this addition of die adequacy process to the
rule is a result of the court decision.
Juty 2004 rule revisions :
Ftor provisions n{a),(b)itiroductciytext, and (bX2)(jiQ|S&fl£i cm
&ttei]yetthei , exist3ngniles consistent with die July 2004 rule so that the
substance c£ the hify 2004 provision applies Hie Jufy 2004 rule language
for paragr*[fr (b) introductory text clarifies that the attainment year is*
yearfornhichccroistency widi budgets mustbe demonstrated* However,
EPA assumes most areas were dongsopnorto Jufy 2004 rule because of
the requxementto analyze the attainment year in §93 HS(d) Hie Jofy
2004 rule taigutge for (bX2X2i)tl*rtf)ts anan£)iguJty inthe prior 1997
rule, but even before this clarification EPA iiterpretedthis paragraph to
require ccrfomiity to budgets in submitted adequate SIPs.
Yesforparagnph(e)-(tXl)*(tX2)**iid(eX3), because diese dianges
axe a result of die court decisim
IS
EPA Conformity SIP Guidance
November 18, 2004
Provision of current federal
conformity rule
What rule finalized tliis provision?
Does the change to tlusprovision apply immediately in
areas with an approved conformity SIP based on the 1997
rule, if Die SAP includes thisprovision?
—Why or why not?
93.119 Crier!* and procedures:
Interim emissions in are as »t ihout
motor veluc le emissions budgets .
August 1997 rule ,except the foUo\rs^
July 2004 rule revisions ;
Tele of section
(a)itiro
(b) ozone arets
(c) CO areas
(d)PMi : andN0;ai*as
tOpoltaums
(g) «u lysis yens
Aib/ 3004 rule additions:
(bXlXiiXB) and (bX2XnXB), 2002 testfc* 8-hour ozone
mas
(e)PM:,aieas
3X7) and(S),PM2 J polbtants
C&X2): allotTsareisto&ip ananalysisyearinthe
buildJho-buildtest if action andbise lite scenarios ire tfw
sou
Juty 2004 rule revisions:
Noforthefollowingpaxagraphs:
(*>,
<b) exceptor (bXIXnXB) <nd<bX2XnXB>>
CO.
CO exceptfor (fXT) *nd<JXS),*nd
(£)
because these revisions were nude to titerm emissions test(s) n 1-hour
ozone . CO. HO ■. and PM lioiutttz^z^r" oiiimi^ltiiAitct ait as Huse
revisions do not address d*e new standards or the court decision.
Juty 2004 rale addjtions:
Yesfor the following paragraphs:
lbXlXnXB)and(bX2XnXB)
(*>>*nd
ffX7)*nd(S)>
because these [arovinons address the new S-hour ozone andPM2*5
standards.
For (gX2)>stat*swiih*t5«:oved SIP could mike antuerprettbanthatif
the build andno*build scenarios are the sanie, they have in effect done the
anatysisper se,butshouldcon5ukEPAbefci:e doing so IVwr to the July
2004 rule ,this provision did not specify this flexibility
93.120 Consequences tf control
snategy attplenientatkra p fan
failures*
August 1997 rule except f or the foUowng:
Mv2004nvisian:
(aX2)spec/ymg^uncc»rfGimityfreeze$ suit for SIP Y*s,(aX2) applies because this change is a result of the Mtxch 1999 court
disapproval \tihoitt * protective f aiding, decision
1?
EPA Conformity SIP Guidance
November 18, 2004
Prov ision of c urrent federal
conformity rule
What rule finalized this provision?
Dors the change to thisprovision ripply immediately in
areas with an approved conformity SIP based on the 1997
rule, if the SAP includes this provision?
—Why or why not?
93.121 Requirementsfor adoption
of proje cts by otter re c pxztts of
finds designated under tfll* 23
U l> C orfltt FederaiTiinsiLaws.
August lP97mle exceptfordiefoUowwg:
Jul/ 2004 revisions :
(*) revised
(b)referencesupdated>injncr change *° 00(1)
(Oaddedforlimitedmaritenance plans and areas where
inotor vehicles are insignificant
Yesforparagraph^Xbecause diese changes directfr resukfrom die court
decision
Fbr paragraph (b), states cm interpret dwr existing roles consistent \?Bh
die Jufy 2004 rule, so that die substance of die newnile applies However,
die specific language of die k\kr 2004 rule cle undoes not appfrxuttil
SIPs are changed.
No for paragraph (c),because (c) creates an excepticnthat is not included
instates' approved confonuity SIPs.
93.122 Procedures for detennaung
re gumal o anspoitatx&vr e late d
ems ■!■::/
August 1P97 i\ile except for the foUowaig
July 2004 revisions /addfiams :
(c) elands two year grace period before modeling
requirements ippty
fl) PIG _5 c onstnicuon dust
(gX3) clarifies ccrformiydetennziaticoithat relies on a
[reviews regional emissions analysis does not satisfy
fre cpjency re qurements
No for paragraph (c), which creates an exception that is not nc faded in
states* approved ccetfcamiEy SIPs. However ,practs:alattpact is ejected
to be bmied If am.
Yes feff paragraph (f), which applies to die new PM2 .5 air quality standard
For paragraph (g)(3) , state s c an interpret die ir e xistiigiules c msstoat
wahihe Jufy 200* rule so That the substance of die new rule applies. Even
Uun^hdiis [revision is not metaled in states 'confonnary SlPs^isiip^
clarifies an exiting requirement and describes how die ccrtfamntyiule
has akrays been interpreted
93.123 lYoceduresfordetermaiing
localized CO and PM10
concentrations (hot-spot analysis)
August 1997 nil* -not changed aifc$ f 2004 rule
(N/A)
20
EPA Conformity SIP Guidance
November 18, 2004
Provision of current federal
conformity rule
What rule finalized tlus provision? Does the change to tlusprovision apply immediately in
areas with an approved conformity SIP based on the 1997
rule, if the SIP includes thisprovision?
—Why or why not?
93.124 Usingtheinotorvehkle
■? mission* budget in the applicable
■axxp kinenution plan (or
Oxgiltinenutionplan submission)
August 1997 rule, except for the following
Jul/ 2004 rule deletion:
(b)debted$*e: safety margins ti SIPs futtnittedbefore Yes,because this change xesukedfrctn the couit decision
IPOS^rezmnxigparftgaiphsitbtfend,
93.125 Etfarcetbliyaf design
concept and scope and project- level
mitigation and c antro 1 me a sure s
August 1997 rule except for the follomng:
Jul/ 2004 rule revision:
Reference changes
Sutes tan interpret dierexistingrubs consistent with the Julv 2004 nib
so that die substance of fiinufrndi applies (in this case, reference
indites). However »d\e specific language of the July 2004 rule does not
■ .-. ':.- until SIPs are changed
93 126 Extuyt projects
August 1997nib exceptforthefoDowmg:
h\W 2004 rule revision:
Reference dung* to be consistent with DO T'sregilations
Sutes can interpret titer existingrubs consistent with fl*e Julv 2004 rule
so that the substance of tiunewiub allies (in disease, reference
updates) However, die specific language of the July 2004 rule does not
l H v' 1TnT: - ■ -^ *** changed
93.127 ffcojf cts exempt from
regioml emissions u\»h f ses
August 1997iub -not dunged a\ hfy 2004 rule (N/A)
93.128 Tiaffrc signal August 1997 nib -notchangedn Jafy2Q04rub (N/A)
sy chronization proje cts
21
