# Rural Conformity : A Surve y of Practice
Requested by: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Standing Committee on Planning

Prepared by: ICF Consulting 9300 Lee Highway Fairfax, Virginia 22031 In associatio n with: Sarah J. Siwek & Associates

The information contained in this report was prepared as part of NCHRP Project 08

- 36, Task 28, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board.NCHRP 8

- 36(28) ICF C ONSULTING

R URAL C ONFORMITY : A S URVEY OF P RACTICE F INAL REPORT

– O CTOBER 31, 2003 

### Acknowledgement This study

was reques ted by

the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and conducted as part of National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 08

- 36. The NCHRP is supported by annual voluntary contributions from the state D epartments of Transportation. Project 08

- 36 is intended to fund quick response studies on behalf of the AASHTO Standing Committee on Planning. The report was prepared b y ICF Consulting, with assistance from Sarah J. Siwek and Associates. The work was gui ded by a task group chaired by

Calvin L egget, North Carolina Department of Transportation which included Cecilia Ho, Federal Highway Administration; David Hyder, North Carolina Department of Transportation; Meg Patulski, U.S. Environmental Protection Agenc y; and Ly nn Soporowski, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. In addition, Angela Spickard from the US Environmental Protection Agency also provided extensive feedback on the methodology and draft report. Appendix B lists the many practitioners who provided the substance of this report by describing their experiences with the rural transportation conformity process. The project was managed by Ronald D. McCready, NCHRP Senior Program Officer.
Disclaimer The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied ar e those of the research agency that performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board or its sponsors. This report has not been reviewed or accepted b y the Transportation Research Board's Executive Committee or the G overning Board of the National Research Council.NCHRP 8

- 36(28) ICF C ONSULTING

R URAL C ONFORMITY : A S URVEY OF P RACTICE F INAL REPORT

– O CTOBER 31, 2003 

## T ABLE OF 

## C ONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION 

### ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 1 1.1 Background

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 1 1.2 Study

Purpose
................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 1 1.3 Research Approach

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 2 1.4 Report Organization

................................ ................................ ................................ 3 2 A N 

### O VERVIEW OF 

### T RANSPORTATION 

### C ONFORMITY 

### REQUIREMENTS AND 

### I SOLATED 

### R URAL 

### A REAS 

### ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 4 2.1 Ty pes of Rural Areas

................................ ................................ ............................... 4 2.2 What I s Transportation Conformity?

................................ ................................ ....... 5 2.3 Transportation Planning and Conformity Requirements in Metropolitan Areas

.... 6 2.4 Conformity

Requirements for Donut Areas

................................ ............................ 7 2.5 Conformity

Requirements for Isolated Rural Areas

................................ ................ 7 3 S TA TE OF THE 

### P RACTICE 

### ................................ ................................ ................................ 15 3.1 Frequency

of Conformity Analy sis

................................ ................................ ....... 15 3.2 Role of State DOT and Local Agencies

................................ ................................ 18 3.3 Outcomes

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 19 3.4 Issues Encountered in the Conformity Process
................................ ..................... 22 3.5 Preparations for New Standards

................................ ................................ ............ 25 4 L ESSONS 

### L EARNED 

### ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 27 4.1 

### Transportation Staff Need to be Involved in Development of the SIP
.................. 27 4.2 

### Build Trust Between DOT and Air Agency Staff

................................ ................. 27 4.3 Be Aware of Data Limitations and Improvements to Address Them

................... 28 4.4 Bu ild Institutional Memory and Expertise

................................ ............................ 30 4.5 Conclusion

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 31 5 RESOURCES 

### / REF ERENCES 

### ................................ ................................ ............................ 32 A PPENDIX 

### A: INT ERVIEW 

### GUIDE 

### ................................ ................................ ........................... 34 A PPENDIX 

### B: C ONTACT 

### INF ORMATION 

### ................................ ................................ ................. 36NCHRP 8

- 36(28) ICF C ONSULTING

R URAL C ONFORMITY : A S URVEY OF P RACTICE F INAL REPORT

– O CTOBER 31, 2003

1 

## 1 I NTRODUCTION 1.1 B ACKGROUND The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1990 requires that trans portation plans, programs and projects not cause or contribute to violations of the health based air quality standards. This requirement is met through the transportation conformity process, which helps ensure that transportation activities are consistent with, or are in “conformity,” with regional air quality plans in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas. 1 Although air quality is often thought of as primarily a concern for urban areas, a number of rural locations are designated as nonattainment or maintenance areas. Furthermore, EPA has promulgated a new eight

- hour ozone standard and fine particulate matter (PM

- 2.5) standard that are expected to result in additional rural areas being designated as nonattainment areas. These rural areas will be subject to the conformity process for the first time, and thus will need to understand the technical and procedural requirements. The conformity process is critically important to transportation agencies because a conformity determination must be made before advancing Federally funded or approved transportation projects. The conformity process is complex, however, and many state and local transportation agencies in rural areas have limited experience on conformity requirements and how to meet them. A rural area is defined as an area with an urbanized population of less than 50,000. Federal metropolitan transportation planning requirements do not apply to these areas. This study focuses on isolated nonattainment and maintenance rural areas (isolated rural areas) , which are rural areas not located within a metropolitan nonattainment or maintenance area. These areas are different from so

- called “donut” areas, which are areas located inside a metropolitan nonattainment or maintenance area boundary but out side the metropolitan planning boundary (i.e., outside a Metropolitan Planning Organization’s boundary). Isolated rural areas face different conformity requirements from metropolitan areas and typically have limited access to resources and technical tools.


### 1.2 S TUDY 

### P URPOSE The purpose of this report is to provide practical information to help transportation staff better understand the conformity requirements in isolated rural areas and the actions that need to be taken to meet them. The objectives are threefold: 1. Describe the conformity requirements for isolated rural areas, and how these differ from requirements in metropolitan areas and “donut” areas;

1 A nonattainment area is a region that does not meet (or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the na

tional ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for any of the six criteria pollutants. The area must take specified actions within a certain time frame to reduce emissions and attain the standard. A maintenance area is a region previously designated as nonattainment, and subsequently redesignated to attainment.NCHRP 8

- 36(28) ICF C ONSULTING

R URAL C ONFORMITY : A S URVEY OF P RACTICE F INAL REPORT

– O CTOBER 31, 2003

2 2. Describe the experience of isolated rural areas with the conformity process, including challenges faced, based on a limited set of interviews with transportation and air quality staff in these regions; and 3. Highlight state of the practice and lessons learned from these experiences. 

### 1.3 RESEARCH 

### A PPROACH This study builds on a number of previous efforts to addres s air quality issues in rural areas and the conformity process in general. The research approach involved, first, a review of relevant documents, case studies, and guidance on the conformity process, particularly as it relates to isolated rural areas. This information was used to develop a background guide on the conformity process focused on isolated rural areas. The research team then conducted a series of interviews with transportation and environmental agency staff in seven states containing isolated r ural areas. The interviews were designed to collect information both on existing experience with conformity in isolated rural areas and actions being undertaken to prepare for conformity in anticipated new isolated rural nonattainment areas under the eight

- hour ozone or fine particulate matter standards. The following seven states were selected for this study:  Colorado  Kentucky  Maine  Oregon  Ohio  Pennsylvania  South Carolina. These states were selected using the following criteria: 1. Each state contains one or more existing isolated rural nonattainment or maintenance areas for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter; some areas also anticipate new isolated rural nonattainment areas under the eight

- hour ozone and/or PM

- 2.5 standards. 2. Each of the states h as conducted at least one conformity analysis within the past five years or is undertaking substantial efforts to prepare for new rural nonattainment areas; this was an important criteria since many isolated rural areas have not undertaken a conformity ana lysis in recent years, according to a recent survey by FHWA. 2 3. The states represent a geographic diversity in terms of regions of the U.S., including all four AASHTO regions and six different EPA regions. The research team began the interview process with state department of transportation (DOT) staff because state DOTs typically take the lead in conformity for isolated rural areas. State DOT staff also could describe experience with more than one isolated rural area. Following the state DOT interviews, th e research team interviewed staff from the state air quality agency in each of the selected states. In some cases, the research team also interviewed staff from a regional EPA or FHWA division office to supplement the interviews.

2 Dye Management. Transportation/Air Quality Issues in Rural Areas. Prepared for Federal Highway Administration, June 2003.NCHRP 8

- 36(28) ICF C ONSULTING

R URAL C ONFORMITY : A S URVEY OF P RACTICE F INAL REPORT

– O CTOBER 31, 2003

3 

### 1.4 REPORT 

### O RGANIZATION This report contains the following sections: Section 1: Introduction This section describes the motivation and purpose of this report, as well as the study approach. Section 2: A Guide to Conformity Requirements for Isolated Rural Areas This section defines what is meant by an isolated rural area, and includes a summary of the conformity requirements for isolated rural areas and how they differ from requirements of metropolitan areas. It is intended to provide a simple description of what state and local tran sportation practitioners in isolated rural areas need to know about conformity requirements. Section 3: State of the Practice This section highlights findings from interviews conducted in seven states, in terms of their experience with conformity in iso lated rural areas, practices used, and activities to prepare for potential new nonattainment areas. These findings should help to inform existing and new isolated rural areas about what to expect with the conformity process. Section 4: Lessons Learned This section summarizes key lessons to be taken from the experience of the seven states. It highlights practices that were characterized as particularly successful and provides recommendations. Section 5: Resources and References This section provides inf

ormation on resources that transportation staff should be aware of to help prepare for conformity evaluations in isolated rural areas.NCHRP 8

- 36(28) ICF C ONSULTING

R URAL C ONFORMITY : A S URVEY OF P RACTICE F INAL REPORT

– O CTOBER 31, 2003

4 

## 2 A N 

## O VER

VIEW OF 

## T RANSPOR TAT ION 

## C ONFORMITY 

## REQUIREMENTS AND 

## I SOLA TED 

## RURAL 

## A REAS Regulations governing transportation c onformity are found in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR Parts 51 and 93). The specific requirements for isolated rural areas are described in 40 CFR §93.109(g). Given the unique issues associated with isolated rural areas, the different requirements for these areas compared to metropolitan areas, and the complexity of federal regulations, transportation practitioners who are new to the conformity arena may need assistance to decipher the requirements in these areas. Many states have a sma ll number of isolated rural non

- attainment and maintenance areas, and thus, have not had to conduct conformity analyses in isolated rural areas often, or on a regular cycle. This section is intended to help transportation and other agencies understand the conformity requirements for isolated rural areas. It is designed to provide a simple and concise summary of the key requirements. It defines isolated rural areas and describes how the conformity process differs between isolated rural areas, metropolitan a reas, and “donut” areas. This section draws from federal guidance on the conformity process, including Transportation Conformity: A Basic Guide for State and Local Officials and the Transportation Conformity Reference Guide . Readers are urged to consult th ese resources, and other references listed in Section 5 for more detailed information. 

### 2.1 T YPES OF 

### RURAL 

### A REAS The U.S. DOT (FHWA/FTA) defines a rural area as an area having an urbanized population of less than 50,000. U.S. DOT’s metropolitan planning requirements 3 including those related to the development of transportation plans and Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs), do not apply in these areas. For conformity purposes, nonattainment and maintenance areas that are rural fit into one of two categ ories: 1) An isolated rural area is a rural area that is not located within or adjacent to a metropolitan nonattainment or maintenance area; 2) A “donut” area is a rural area that is located inside a metropolitan nonattainment or maintenance area boundary, but is outside the metropolitan transportation planning boundary. Exhibit 1 provides a visual diagram of the geographic differences between these two types of areas.

3 23 CFR 450 Part 613, 58 FR 58040, Oct. 28, 1993.NCHRP 8

- 36(28) ICF C ONSULTING

R URAL C ONFORMITY : A S URVEY OF P RACTICE F INAL REPORT

– O CTOBER 31, 2003

5 Exhibit 1: Difference between Isolated Rural Area and Donut Area

Although both types o f rural areas may be similar in character, isolated rural areas and donut areas are very different when it comes to conformity analysis. An isolated rural area is not part of the emissions analysis or transportation demand modeling analysis of any Metropol itan Planning Organization’s (MPO) transportation plan or TIP. On the other hand, donut area projects must be incorporated into the metropolitan area’s regional emissions analyses and generally must follow the more standardized metropolitan area process.


### 2.2 W HAT 

### I S 

### T RANSPORTATION 

### C ONFORMITY 

### ? Transportation conformity is a way to ensure that transportation plans, programs, and projects that receive Federal funding and approval are consistent with Federal air quality goals. It ensures that these transportation activities do not worsen air quality or interfere with the “purpose” of the State Implementation Plan (SIP), which is to meet the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Meeting these standards often requires emission reductions from on

- road mobile sources. According to the Clean Air Act (CAA), transportation plans, programs, and projects cannot:  Cause new violations of the Federal air quality standards;  Increase the frequency or severity of ex isting violations of the standards; or  Delay timely attainment of the standards. The CAA requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects in nonattainment or maintenance areas that are funded or approved by the Federal Highway Administration ( FHWA) or Federal Transit Agency (FTA) be in conformity with the SIP through the process described in the transportation conformity regulation. This requirement also applies to projects that are not federally funded if they have regional significance. The foundation upon which a transportation conformity determination is based is the motor vehicle emissions budget contained in an approved SIP or a SIP budget that has been found adequate by EPA. It is this budget which establishes the ceiling on aggregate e missions allowed from transportation sources. The regional emissions analysis is the major analytical element of the Donut area Isolated rural area Nonattainment area boundary MPO boundaryNCHRP 8

- 36(28) ICF C ONSULTING

R URAL C ONFORMITY : A S URVEY OF P RACTICE F INAL REPORT

– O CTOBER 31, 2003

6 conformity process. A regional emissions analysis must show that the emissions resulting from the planned transportation system will not ex ceed the budget for specific analysis years. 4 In areas where budgets are not required, emission reduction tests are used. There are two such tests:  “Less than baseline” test

- shows that emissions are less than the baseline year emissions. 5  “Build/no bu ild” test 6

- shows that emissions from implementing the plan (the action/build scenario) are less than if the plan were not implemented (the baseline/no build scenario).


### 2.3 T RANSPORTATION 

### P LANNING AND 

### C ONFORMITY 

### REQUIREMENTS IN 

### M ETROPOLITAN 

### A REAS Under U.S . DOT’s planning regulations, 7 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) must have transportation plans in place that present a 20

- year perspective on transportation investments for their region. The MPO must also have a transportation improvement program (TIP), which is a multi

- year prioritized list of projects (covering at least 3 years) including all projects that require funding or approval by FHWA or FTA. The transportation plan must be updated every three years in nonattainment and maintenance areas and the TIP every two years. The Clean Air Act section 176(c) and conformity rule requires conformity to be demonstrated not less frequently than every three years. In general, the conformity process involves three components:
 Plan Conformity

- The transportation plan must be shown to conform to the SIP, based on a regional emissions analysis for the plan;
 TIP Conformity

– The TIP must be shown to be consistent with the transportation plan and SIP before it can be approved, based on a regional emissions analysis; 8 and
 Project Conformity

- FHWA/FTA projects must be found to conform before they are adopted, accepted, approved, or funded. This means that transportation projects must conform to the following criteria: 1) they must come from a conforming tran sportation plan and TIP; 2) the design concept and scope of the project that was in place at the time of the conformity finding must be maintained through implementation; and 3) the project design concept and scope must be sufficiently defined to determine emissions at the time of the conformity determination. Regions that are designated as carbon monoxide (CO) or particulate matter (PM

- 10) nonattainment or maintenance areas must also show that new localized violations of those pollutants will not result from project implementation. Certain types of projects are exempt from conformity requirements (e.g. safety, landscaping, and other projects with neutral or minimal emissions impacts).

4 In addition, compliance w ith the planning requirements of Title 23 and 49 U.S.C. is integral to making a conformity determination. These requirements include demonstration of a fiscally constrained plan and TIP. 5 1990 is the baseline year for existing nonattainment and maintenanc e areas. A “less than 1990” test is used for moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas that are subject to the reasonable further progress requirements of CAA section 182(b)(1), in moderate CO areas with design value greater than 12.7 ppm, and in serio us CO nonattainment areas. A “no greater than” (less than or equal to) 1990 test is used for other areas. For newly designated areas, 2002 has been proposed as the baseline. 6 The “build/no build” test is referred to as the “baseline/action” test in 40 C FR 93.119. The term build/no build is used through this report. 7 23 USC 134 and 135 codified in 23 CFR 450. 8 This is the same analysis as the plan analysis.NCHRP 8

- 36(28) ICF C ONSULTING

R URAL C ONFORMITY : A S URVEY OF P RACTICE F INAL REPORT

– O CTOBER 31, 2003

7 While conformity determination is required at least every three years, certain events, such as SIP revisions that establish or revise a transportation

- related emissions budget, or add or delete transportation control measures (TCMs) also trigger new conformity determinations. Conformity analyses must also be conducted for each new project unless it is an exempt project. Within the conformity process, the regional emissions analysis should reflect emissions of all travel, including all FHWA/FTA projects. Modeling must also include all regionally significant projects, regardle ss of project funding source. 9 Projects that are not regionally significant are not required to be modeled, but vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from such projects must be estimated in accordance with reasonable professional practice. Certain types of projects are exempt from conformity, such as safety projects, maintenance activities, rehabilitation of transit vehicles, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities, as long as they do not have potential adverse impacts on emissions. 10 The regional emissions analysis must estimate total projected emissions for a number of different future years. Per §93.118(d)(2) of the transportation conformity rule, analysis years must include:  Any years in the time frame of the transportation plan, provided they are no more than 10

- years apart;  The attainment year (if it is within the time frame of the transportation plan); and  The last year of the transportation plan (at least 20 years in the future).


### 2.4 C ONFORMITY 

### REQUIREMENTS FOR 

### D ONUT 

### A REAS A donut area is a geographic area that falls within the boundary of a nonattainment or maintenance area that contains a metropolitan area, but falls outside of the metropolitan planning area boundary. Emissions in donut areas must be included in the metropolitan area regional emissions analysis f or the Plan and TIP. 11 As a result, in most cases transportation emissions in donut areas must be analyzed and documented on the same schedule as the conformity analysis for the MPO area. In some cases, the State DOT takes the lead in analyzing emissions in donut areas, in coordination with the MPO. The process for addressing the donut areas is subject to agreement through the interagency consultation process.


### 2.5 C ONFORMITY 

### REQUIREMENTS FOR 

### I SOLATED 

### RURAL 

### A REAS An isolated rural nonattainment or maintenance area does not contain and is not part of any metropolitan planning area. 12 Isolated rural areas do not have metropolitan transportation plans or

9 Regionally significant project is defined as a transportation project (other than an exempt pr oject) that is on a facility which serves regional transportation needs (such as access to and from the area outside of the region, major activity centers in the region, major planned developments such as new retail malls, sports complexes, etc., or transp ortation terminals as well as most terminals themselves) and would normally be included in the modeling of a metropolitan area's transportation network, including, at a minimum, all principal arterial highways and all fixed guideway transit facilities that offer an alternative to regional highway travel. See 40 CFR 93.101 (Definitions). 10 See 40 CFR 93.126 (Exempt projects), 40 CFR 93.127 (Projects exempt from regional emissions analyses) and 40 CFR 93.128 (Traffic signal synchronization projects). 11 The re quirement that donut area emissions be included in the regional emissions analysis conducted by the associated MPO may not be applicable where there are sub

- area emissions budgets for the donut area. 12 Metropolitan planning areas are designated under 23 U. S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303.NCHRP 8

- 36(28) ICF C ONSULTING

R URAL C ONFORMITY : A S URVEY OF P RACTICE F INAL REPORT

– O CTOBER 31, 2003

8 TIPs 13 and do not have projects that are part of the emissions analysis of any MPO’s metropolitan transportation plan or TIP. Projects in such areas are instead included only in statewide transportation improvement programs and in some cases in the statewide transportation plan. As in other areas, the conformity process is intended to ensure that transportation proj ects conform to the SIP. However, isolated rural areas do not have a federally required metropolitan transportation plans or TIPs. As a result, the conformity frequency requirements for plans and TIPs 14 (including the three

- year conformity update requirement) do not apply. Federal transportation projects in isolated rural areas must be consistent with the Statewide Transportation Plan and incorporated into the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) prior to any federal approval. A region al conformity analysis must be conducted, therefore, only when a project sponsor seeks FHWA or FTA approval or funding for a regionally significant, non - exem pt project, or if there is a change in the design concept or scope of a regionally significant proj ect that was in place at the time of the conformity finding. In addition, conformity must be redetermined for any FHWA/FTA project if three years have elapsed since the most recent major step to advance the project occurred. Major steps are defined as the following: NEPA process completion; start of final design; acquisition of a significant portion of the right

- of

- way; or approval of the plans, specifications and estimates. 

### Overview of Isolated Rural Area Requirements /Differences from Metropolitan Areas In general, the conformity requirements for isolated rural areas are similar to metropolitan nonattainment or maintenance areas except that: 1. frequency requirements for updating conformity in metropolitan areas do not apply, and 2. some flexibility is availab le to isolated areas for the years after the attainment date or the last year of the maintenance plan. The state DOT often plays a key role in determining conformity in isolated rural areas. This is because isolated rural areas ordinarily do not have tra nsportation planning agencies or regional modeling capabilities. The state DOT usually performs the analytical work necessary to make a conformity determination in such areas, in conjunction with the state environmental agency and local or county transport ation agencies. Exhibit 2 contains a flowchart that shows the general process and conformity requirements for isolated rural areas. The steps in this process are described below.

13 Requirements for metropolitan plans and TIPs are described under 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303 and 5304. 14 These frequency requirements are described in 40 CFR 93.104. Difference in Frequency of Conformity Analysis In Metropolitan Areas: Conformity determinations must be made at least every three years In Isolated Rural Areas: Conformity determin ations must be made only prior to FHWA or FTA approval of a non

- exempt project

.NCHRP 8

- 36(28) ICF C ONSULTING

R URAL C ONFORMITY : A S URVEY OF P RACTICE F INAL REPORT

– O CTOBER 31, 2003

9 Exhibit 2: Conformity Process in Isolated Rural Areas

Yes Re gio na lly signi fi ca nt pr o j ec t in i sol at ed ru ra l ar ea? No No c on fo rm it y an al ysi s re qu ire d

Cond uc

t r eg io na l e mi ss io ns

a na ly si s

Do es S IP in cl ude a mo to r veh ic le e mis si ons b udge t?

Budget t est For analy si s ye ars be fore th e at ta in me nt d at e or

end of th e at ta in me nt /m ai nte na nce p er iod For an aly si s ye ar

s af ter th e atta in me nt d ate o r en d of th e at ta in me nt /m ai nte nance p eriod

• Bu dget t est OR
• Bu il d/n o - bui ld and/or Less - th an 199 0 test* OR
• Ai r qu ali ty mo de li ng No

Proj ec t ( hot spot ) anal ysi s Yes

Conf or mi ty Ana ly si s Co mpl et e Yes  Mu st be c ons is tent with s tatewide plan and inc lude d in ST IP

 NE PA

requirem ents m us t be me t

 Mu st not interfere w it h TC M im plem entation

 Mu st s atis fy lates t planning as su mp tions and em iss ions m odel

 Mu st s atis fy c onsu lt ation requirem ents

Bu il d/ no - bui ld an d/o r Le ss - th an - 1990 te st (acc ordi ng to area cl assi fi ca ti on)*

Ar ea i s ma in te na nc e or nona tta in me nt for

C O or PM - 10? No * Ex hi bi t 3 (below) c ontai

ns m ore specific de sc rip tions of wh ic h tes ts are req ui

re d.



### Regional Emissi ons Analysis A regional emissions analysis is required that includes travel from the entire transportation system, including all Federal projects, and all regionally significant non

- Federal projects in the isolated rural nonattainment or maintenance area. If there is no new regionally significant non

- exem pt project requiring Federal approval, no conformity analysis is required for that area. Projects in isolated rural areas must be included in a statewide transportation improvement program (STIP) prior to any Federal action to fund the project. Any Federally funded project must also meet National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. The required regional emissions analysis tests for isolated rural areas depend on whether the area has an emissions budget or not. If an area has an approved budget or an emissions budget found adequate by EPA, the emissions budget test must be used. If the area does not have an adequate emissions budget, emission reduction tests are used; the specific test that must b e used depends onNCHRP 8

- 36(28) ICF C ONSULTING

R URAL C ONFORMITY : A S URVEY OF P RACTICE F INAL REPORT

– O CTOBER 31, 2003

10 the area’s classification. In addition, for the period after the attainment date 15 or the end of the attainment or maintenance period, isolated rural areas have flexibility in the regional emissions analysis tests for those “out

- years” whe reas other areas do not have this flexibility. The requirements are shown below in Exhibit 3. Exhibit 3: Regional Emissions Analysis Tests Required for Isolated Rural Areas 16

Type of Area Analysis for years during time frame of last adequate SIP Analy sis for years af ter time frame of last adequate SIP No Emissions Budget Adequate Emissions Budget The following areas, which are required to submit a control strategy SIP containing an emissions budget:  Moderate or above ozone areas  Moderate CO areas with design value greater than 12.7 ppm  Serious CO areas If no adequate or approved budget is submitted, a regional emissions analysis must be performed that meets the following emissions reduction tests: build/no

- build and less

- than 1990 Conduct regional emissions analysis meeting emissions budget test (as long as the budget has been found adequate or approved by EPA). Projects must satisfy one of the following : 1) Regional emissions analysis meeting emissions budget test; 2) Build/no

- build a nd less than 1990 test including NOx in ozone areas, or 3) Air quality model as used in last adequate or approved SIP

 Rural PM 10 areas (which are required to submit a control strategy SIP containing an emissions budget)  An y rural NOx area. If there is no adequate or approved budget, a regional emissions analysis must be performed that meets the build/no

- build or no - greater
- than

1990 tests Projects must satisfy one of the following : 1) Regional emissions analysis meeting emissions budget test; 2) Build/n o - build or no greater
- than 1990 test including NOx in ozone areas, or 3) air quality model as used in last adequate or approved SIP Ar eas not required to submit a control strategy SIP containing an emissions budget:  Rural transport ozone area  Marginal an d below ozone area  Incomplete data ozone area  Moderate CO area with design value of 12.7 ppm or less  Unclassified CO area Source: Based on Exhibit 37 of the Federal Highway Administration Transportation Conformity Reference Guide

. Revised July 31, 2001

. 

### Regional Emissions Analysis Tests for Periods Before Attainment Date or End of Maintenance Period For analysis years before the attainment date or end of the maintenance period, the tests that must be applied depend on the classification of the area and whether it has an adequate emissions budget.

15 The attainment date is the date by which an area is required to meet air quality standards. 16 This table, and other parts of the report occasionally refer to areas that are required to submit SIPs. Technically speaking, it is the State that is required to submit the SIP.NCHRP 8

- 36(28) ICF C ONSULTING

R URAL C ONFORMITY : A S URVEY OF P RACTICE F INAL REPORT

– O CTOBER 31, 2003

11 Tests for Areas Required to Submit SIPs Areas that are required to submit control strategy SIPs are: moderate and above ozone areas; CO areas classified as serious or as moderate with a design value of greater than 12.7 ppm; and PM

- 10 areas. In addition, other areas can choose to voluntarily submit a motor vehicle emissions budget. As shown in Exhibit 3 above, isolated rural areas that have SIPs in place with adequate or approved motor vehicle emissions bud gets must meet the budget test for the period of the SIP or maintenance plan. This means that emissions from on

- road mobile sources cannot exceed the budget for specific analysis years including the attainment year or, in a maintenance area, the last year of the maintenance plan. If there is no adequate or approved emissions budget, the regional emissions analysis must use both the build/no

-build and the less

- than

- 1990 tests, with the exception of PM

- 10 areas, which may use either the build/no build or the no - greater
- than

- 1990 test. Tests for Areas Not Required to Submit SIPs Areas that are not required to submit control strategy SIPs include the following:  Rural transport ozone nonattainment areas,  Marginal ozone areas,  Submarginal ozone areas,  Incomplet e data ozone areas,  Moderate CO areas with a design value of 12.7 ppm or less, and  Not classified CO areas. In order to demonstrate conformity, projects located in one of the above areas that is an isolated rural nonattainment or maintenance area must mee t one of the emission reduction tests in 40 CFR 93.119 for all applicable pollutants or pollutant precursors (including NOx in ozone areas) within the nonattainment area. The emissions reduction test that is applied can be either the build/no

-build test or the no

- greater
than

- 1990 emissions level test. The emissions budget test is not applied in the above areas unless the State voluntarily submits an attainment demonstration and accompanying motor vehicle emissions budget(s) or maintenance plan. In such a case, the budget test replaces the above emissions reduction test once the EPA finds the budget adequate for conformity purposes. 

### Regional Emissions Analysis Tests Beyond the Attainment Year or Last Year of Maintenance Plan For the years beyond the attainment year or last year of the maintenance plan, an isolated rural area can choose among three tests :

 Budget test
- The area can use the budget test to demonstrate that on

- road mobile source emissions, including those from all regionally significant projects, will not exceed the motor vehicle emissions budget for the attainment year or the end year of the maintenance plan,

 Emission reduction test(s) - The area can use the emissions reduction tests that apply to that classification of nonattainment ar ea to demonstrate conformity for the years beyond the attainment date or end year of the maintenance plan. As shown in Exhibit 3:NCHRP 8

- 36(28) ICF C ONSULTING

R URAL C ONFORMITY : A S URVEY OF P RACTICE F INAL REPORT

– O CTOBER 31, 2003

12 o For moderate or above ozone areas, moderate CO areas with design value greater than 12.7 ppm, and serious CO areas, both the build/no

-build and the less

- than

1990 tests are required; o For other areas, either the build/no

-build or no - greater
- than

- 1990 test is required , or,

 Air quality modeling - The area can demonstrate through air quality modeling used in the attainment SIP or maintenance plan that the project in combination with all other regionally significant projects expected in the area in the time frame of the statewide transportation plan, will not: o Cause or contribute to any new violation of any standard in any areas; o Increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any standard in any area; or, o Delay timely attainment of any standard or any required interim emissions reductions or other milestones in any area. In choosing which option to use for region al emissions analysis beyond the attainment date or end date of the maintenance plan, the state DOT must use the interagency consultation process established in accordance with the conformity rule. Exhibit 4 provides an example of how an isolated rural area may conduct a regional emissions analysis using different tests for different analysis years. Exhibit 4: Example of Regional Emissions Analysis

– Ozone Maintenance Area Situation : An isolated rural area has been redesignated to maintenance from its original classification as a marginal ozone nonattainment area. The rural area has a maintena nce plan for ozone, with an end year of 2007. The maintenance plan includes an emissions budget for NO X and VOC emissions for 2007. A non

- exempt project has been included in the STIP within the maintenance area, requiring a conformity determination in 2003

. Regional Emissions Analysis Years: A regional emissions analysis must be conducted for the following years:  2007

– end year of maintenance plan;  2015

– interim analysis year  2023

– analysis year 20 years in the future Regional Emissions Analysis Tests : For the 2007 analysis, the budget test is required because there is an adequate budget. For the 2015 and 2023 analyses, a choice of tests can be made:  Budget test using 2007 budget, OR  Build/no build test OR no

- greater
- than

- 1990 test, OR  Air dispersion or other air quality modeling used in the attainment demonstration or maintenance plan and agreed to through the interagency consultation process.NCHRP 8

- 36(28) ICF C ONSULTING

R URAL C ONFORMITY : A S URVEY OF P RACTICE F INAL REPORT

– O CTOBER 31, 2003

13 

### Regional Analysis Without a Travel Demand Model If there is no network

-based travel demand model in the isolated rural area, estimates of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) based on FHWA’s Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) or locally

- approved traffic counts will need to be developed for vehicle travel in the area. These data can then be used to generate regional emissions estimates for each analysis year, which in turn will be used to perform the required motor vehicle emissions budget or emissions reduction tests. 

### Project Level (Hot Spot) Emissions Analysis Project level analys is is required in CO and PM

- 10 nonattainment and maintenance areas. In rural CO nonattainment or maintenance areas, projects that require Federal approval or funding must also meet the CO hot spot tests as required under the conformity rule (40 CFR 93.116 and 93.123). In CO nonattainment areas, it must be shown that the project will improve air quality and in CO maintenance areas, it must be shown that the project will not create new violations. For CO nonattainment areas, quantitative analysis is required for certain projects such as those that are listed in the SIP as having the worst level of service (LOS) in the nonattainment area. For all other projects, a qualitative analysis is required. For PM
- 10 nonattainment areas, qualitative analysis is requir ed to ensure that new PM

- 10 hotspots are not created and that projects will not delay progress toward attainment; in PM

- 10 maintenance areas, qualitative analysis is required to show that the project will not create new violations. The projects to be analyzed and analysis tools to be used are subject to agreement through the interagency consultation process. 17 

### General Requirements As with metropolitan areas, some general requirements apply for all conformity analyses. Some of the key requirements are highlighted below. 

### Latest Planning Assumptions As part of the regional emissions analysis, the latest planning assumptions requirements apply. This means that the latest demographic information (e.g., population, employment, land use) and travel information (e. g., vehicle classification, age and turnover of fleet, vehicle miles traveled) must be used in the regional emissions analysis. 

### Latest Emissions Model The latest EPA

- approved emissions model 18 must be used in estimating emissions in isolated rural nonattai nment and maintenance areas. In isolated rural areas, the model is ordinarily run by either the state DOT or the state environmental agency because isolated rural areas rarely have the resources to conduct emissions analysis. 

### Interagency Consultation Th e interagency consultation process that applies to metropolitan areas also applies to isolated rural areas. The state DOT or rural area agency should initiate the process and ensure that key assumptions are agreed to. In isolated rural areas, the lead is likely to be taken by the state DOT

17 FHWA’s PM10 qualitative analysis g uidance can be found at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/conformity/hspotmem.htm 18 The current EPA

- approved emissions model is MOBILE6 in all states except California.NCHRP 8

- 36(28) ICF C ONSULTING

R URAL C ONFORMITY : A S URVEY OF P RACTICE F INAL REPORT

– O CTOBER 31, 2003

14 but interagency consultation also includes the state environmental agency, local public works departments, local transit agencies, and other local agencies as appropriate. Timely Implementation of TCMs In all cases, pr ojects that are not from a plan or TIP (such as those projects implemented in isolated rural areas) must not interfere with the implementation of any transportation control measures in a State Implementation Plan (SIP).NCHRP 8

- 36(28) ICF C ONSULTING

R URAL C ONFORMITY : A S URVEY OF P RACTICE F INAL REPORT

– O CTOBER 31, 2003

15 

## 3 S TAT E OF

TH E 

## P RACTICE This section summarizes experiences with transportation conformity in isolated rural areas, drawn from interviews with the following seven states: Colorado, Kentucky, Maine, Oregon, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. Given the small sample of states, the results cannot necessarily be extrapolated to the nation as a whole. However, the findings do provide an indication of the ways in which conformity analysis has been undertaken in isolated rural areas, the types of issues encountered, and the perceived ramificati ons for transportation and air quality. This section also reports on what types of actions states are taking to prepare for new nonattainment areas that will be designated under the eight

- hour ozone and fine particulate matter standards. This information, in turn, is designed to help practitioners better understand the current state of the practice in isolated rural areas and actions that can be taken to prepare areas for conducting transportation conformity analyses. The key lessons learned from these exp eriences and recommendations are summarized in Section 4 of this report. This section is divided into the five sub

- sections, which address the following questions: 1. Frequency of Conformity Analysis  How often were conformity analyses conducted? 2. Role of S tate DOT and Local Agencies  Who was involved? 3. Outcomes  How many areas had a problem meeting conformity?  What types of effects has conformity had on transportation decisions? 4. Issues Encountered in the Conformity Process  What types of issues or challenges arose, and how were these resolved?  How has interagency consultation worked?  What data and tools were used for emissions analysis? 5. Preparation for New Standards  How are the new eight

- hour ozone and fine particulate matter standards expected to affect the number of isolated rural areas subject to transportation conformity?  And what is being done to prepare for the new standards?


### 3.1 F REQUENCY OF 

### C ONFORMITY 

### A NALYSIS Isolated rural areas are required to conduct conformity analyses only when there is a new non

- e xempt project or if there are significant changes to the scope or timing of a non

exempt project. Many of the areas interviewed for this research stated that there have been few projects in isolated rural areas, and consequently few conformity analyses hav e been conducted. Exhibit 5 summarizes the isolated rural areas and conformity analyses that have been conducted for the seven states interviewed for this study. Conformity analyses are conducted infrequently in most isolated rural areas.NCHRP 8

- 36(28) ICF C ONSULTING

R URAL C ONFORMITY : A S URVEY OF P RACTICE F INAL REPORT

– O CTOBER 31, 2003

16 Exhibit 5: Conformity Analyses Conducted State Number, Location, and Current Designation of

Isolated Rural Areas: Conformity Analyses Conducted Colorado Six (6) areas:

 Aspen

- PM
- 10 maintenance  Canon City

– PM
- 10 maintenance  Lamar

– PM
- 10 maintenance  Pagosa Springs

– PM
- 10 maintenance  Steamboat Springs

– PM
- 10 maintenance  Telluride

– PM
- 1 0 maintenance Only one conformity analysis has ever been conducted

- Entrance to Aspen project on State Highway 82 (1995/96).

Kentucky Two (2) areas:

 Paducah (Marshall Co. and Part of Livingston Co.)

– ozone maintenance  Edmonson County

– ozone maintenance Conformity analyses have been conducted in both of the isolated rural areas in the state within the past five years: Edmonson in 1999; Paducah failed to determine conformity in 1998, but eventually was able to make a conformity determination in 2002 afte r revising its motor vehicle emissions budget in the SIP. Maine Three (3) areas:

 Hancock and Waldo Co.

– ozone maintenance  Knox and Lincoln Co.

– mo derate for ozone  Presque Isle

– PM
- 10 maintenance (exempt from regional emissions analysis requirements b ecause mobile sources are insignificant) No significant projects requiring a conformity determination have been initiated within past five years but rural conformity analyses are conducted on a routine basis as part of the STIP cycle.

Ohio Four (4) are as:

 Clinton Co.

– ozone maintenance  Columbiana Co.

– ozone maintenance  Jefferson Co.

– PM
- 10 maintenance (exempt from regional emissions analysis requirements because mobile sources are insignificant)  Preble Co.

– ozone maintenance Conformity analyses have b een conducted in Clinton (about 1999/2000) and Columbiana (not within past five years).
Oregon Five (5) areas:

 LeGrande (Union Co.)

– mo derate PM

- 10  Lakevie w (L ake Co.)

– mo derate for PM

- 10  Oakridge (Lane Co.)

– mo derate for PM

- 10 (exempt from regiona l emissions analysis requirements because mobile sources are insignificant)  Klamath Falls (Klamath Co.)

– maintenance for CO, moderate for PM

- 10 (EPA redesignation and maintenance plan approval pending)  Grants Pass (Josephine Co.)

– maintenance for CO, mod erate for PM

- 10 (EPA redesignation and maintenance plan approval pending) Conformity analyses have been conducted in Lakevie w, Klamath Falls, and Grants Pass.NCHRP 8

- 36(28) ICF C ONSULTING

R URAL C ONFORMITY : A S URVEY OF P RACTICE F INAL REPORT

– O CTOBER 31, 2003

17 State Number, Location, and Current Designation of

Isolated Rural Areas: Conformity Analyses Conducted Pennsyl

vania Eleven (11) areas:

 Crawford Co.

– ozone incomplete data  Franklin Co.

– ozone incomplete data  Juniata Co.

– ozone incomplete data  Lawrence Co

– ozone incomplete data  Northumberland Co.

– ozone incomplete data  Pike Co.

- ozone incomplete data  Schuylkill Co.

– ozone incomplete  Snyder Co.

– ozone incomplete data  Susquehanna Co

– ozone incomplete data  Warren Co.

– ozone incomplete data  Wayne Co.

– ozone incomplete data Rural conformity analyses are conducted on a routine basis as part of the STIP cycle. In generally, isolated rural areas each had between two and five projects o ver of the past 4 years.

South Carolina One (1) area :

 Cherokee Co.

– ozone maintenance One conformity determination has been made. Regional conformity analysis included four projects in Cherokee County, generally associated with widening I

- 85 and approach routes. As shown in the table above, the states we interviewed each contain from one to six isolated rural non - attainment areas, with the exception of Pennsylvania, which has eleven ozone areas, classified as incomplete data areas. Most states have had only a handful of regionally significant non

- exempt projects requiring conformity determinations. For example, within the six isolated rural PM

- 10 areas in Colorado, only one conformity analysis has ever been conducted. Within the four isolated rural areas (three for ozone, one for PM

- 10) in Ohio, only one conformity analysis has been conducted within the past five years. In Oregon, conformity analyses have been conducted in three of five isolated rural areas. PennDOT staff estimated that there were an ave rage of two to five non

exempt projects in each area over the past four years. This somewhat higher frequency of non

exempt projects may be due to the fact that each of Pennsylvania’s isolated rural maintenance and non - attainment areas encompasses an enti re county, while other states isolated rural areas tend to be smaller. Two of the sample states

– Pennsylvania and Maine

– conduct conformity analyses for areas on a routine basis as part of their STIP cycle, despite the fact that conformity analyses in i solated rural areas are only required when there are regionally significant non

- exempt projects. In the case of Pennsylvania, the state DOT indicated that even where no new significant projects have been added, other changes might cause emissions calculati ons to change (e.g., fleet mix, registration data, etc.). The state DOT chooses to conduct conformity analyses to incorporate such new data even when no new projects are planned for a given area; however, the conformity regulation does not require a new a

nalysis and determination in these cases. In the case of Maine, the state DOT staff indicated that they believed analyses were required at least every three years, and so went through the process of conducting an analysis regularly. Some states such as Oregon and Pennsylvania expect even fewer rural conformity determinations in the future. This is partly because these states expect to continue current trends that have shifted funds toward system preservation and safety enhancement activities and away f rom activities involving new infrastructure development and capacity expansion. This shift may be most significant in slower growth states, but in some cases it represents a more general shift in investment priorities. More immediately, over the next sev eral years many states foresee budget shortfalls that may preclude regionally significant transportation projects in rural areas.NCHRP 8

- 36(28) ICF C ONSULTING

R URAL C ONFORMITY : A S URVEY OF P RACTICE F INAL REPORT

– O CTOBER 31, 2003

18 

### 3.2 ROLE OF 

### S TATE 

### DOT AND 

### L OCAL 

### A GENCIES Within all the states we interviewed, the State DOT played the lead role in conducting conformity analyses for isolated rural areas. 19 In some cases, local agencies 20 did not play any substantive role in the conformity process. In none of the cases did local agencies conduct the technical work for the regional emissions analysis. They also ty pically did not participate in interagency consultation activities, and in some cases probably had no idea that conformity analyses were being conducted, according to state DOT staff. Of the seven states, Colorado, Oregon, and Pennsylvania indicated that local governments played a role in the conformity process. The level of involvement and role in the process differed:

 In Colorado, the local governments in the City of Aspen / Pitkin County worked with Colorado DOT and the Colorado Air Pollution Control D ivision to provide input on control measures as part of a conformity analysis in the Aspen area. While the state agencies work with local agencies throughout the Colorado, the Aspen area is known for a high level of local involvement, and works more closel y with CDOT than most rural communities in the state. It is also somewhat unique in terms of air pollution controls, since paid parking in Aspen is a legally enforceable control measure in the SIP.
 Oregon had a relatively high degree of local involvement in Grants Pass, Lakeview, and Klamath Falls. In Oregon, a number of local and regional air pollution organizations had been formed to deal with air quality concerns. Oregon DOT involved these organizations in the conformity process. Since local residents trusted these organizations, these groups turned out to be a valuable means of communicating with public constituencies.

 Pennsylvania involves Local Development Districts (LDDs) in the conformity meetings at the early stages to discuss schedules and ensur e that all regionally significant projects have been identified. Once the data and report are assembled, they are sent to the LDD approval body. The approved report comes back to PennDOT, which assembles all the pieces for the statewide conformity docume nt. Each LDD has a technical committee and an approval body that endorses the report. 21

19 Alth ough donut areas were not the focus of our study, we also found that State DOTs played a lead role in conformity analyses in rural donut areas in North Carolina, Ohio, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania. This was somewhat surprising since the conformity requirements stipulate that regionally significant projects in donut areas must be incorporated into the MPO’s regional emissions analysis. In these cases, through the interagency consultation process, it was agreed that the State DOT would analyze emissions associated with the projects outside the MPO boundary and combine these results with the MPO analysis. 20 A local agency, in this context, refers to any government agency whose jurisdiction is below the state level. This is not intended to include local branche s of state agencies such as DOT district or regional offices. 21 Pennsylvania has six regional planning and development organizations in rural areas. These are known as local development districts (LDDs). LDDs were initiated through the state DOT’s rural transportation planning program in FY 1992

- 93 to complement the ongoing metropolitan activities. Each LDD has a technical committee that reviews conformity plans, and an approval body that receives a recommendation from the technical committee. LDDs also assist the state DOT with long

- range planning, Congestion Management System planning, and collection of Highway Performance Monitoring System data, and assist in advancing projects through needs assessments, environmental studies and public involvement. State DOTs tend to play the lead in conducting conformity analyses in isolated rural areas; local agencies have played a role in only some areas

.NCHRP 8

- 36(28) ICF C ONSULTING

R URAL C ONFORMITY : A S URVEY OF P RACTICE F INAL REPORT

– O CTOBER 31, 2003

19 There are a number of reasons why state DOT staff members play the key role in conformity for rural areas. Most state DOT staff indicated that local transportation age ncies and governments have limited understanding of the conformity requirements and lack the technical expertise to undertake such analysis. Moreover, most projects in isolated rural areas are state highway projects; as such, the state DOT includes the pro jects in the STIP and conducts environmental assessments. Moreover, the state DOT is in a better position to handle interagency consultation involving the state air agency, FHWA, FTA, and EPA. Many state DOTs felt that local officials typically only take an interest in conformity at the point where a desired project is threatened. In two specific cases where local agencies and officials actually were involved, it occurred as a result of project delays. In Oregon’s Grants Pass area, local officials became involved because problems meeting conformity caused delay for a downtown street improvement project. In Paducah, Kentucky, local officials involved themselves once they learned that a highway project was stopped because of challenges in satisfying conformity requirements.


### 3.3 O UTCOMES 

### Meeting Conformity: Problems Encountered and Solutions The seven states interviewed had a wide range of experience in terms of ease of meeting conformity requirements. Many of the states interviewed expressed that they had no t encountered any significant problems in meeting the emissions budget or emissions reduction tests in isolated rural areas. However, there have been a number of cases where a state was not able to initially demonstrate conformity for a project, causing pr oj ect delays. Moreover, there were procedural difficulties, stemming from limited experience with conformity, which hindered the ease of demonstrating conformity in some cases. Exhibit 6 provides a summary of outcomes of conformity analyses that have bee n conducted. In many isolated rural areas, meeting conformity has not been a problem, largely due to federal or state emission reduction measures. In several cases, however, states faced project delays and procedural difficulties; many of these related to lack of familiarity with conformity requirements.NCHRP 8

- 36(28) ICF C ONSULTING

R URAL C ONFORMITY : A S URVEY OF P RACTICE F INAL REPORT

– O CTOBER 31, 2003

20 Exhibit 6: Outcomes of Conformity Analyses State Conformity Analyses

Conducted Outcom es Colorado Aspen

- Entrance to Aspen project

on State Highway 82. Initial project was not able to meet build

- no build test. Conformity process influence d design of project: added busway/light

- rail component. [However, project is on hold due to other issues]. Kentucky Edmonson

Paducah Paducah

– failed to determine conformity in 1998. Eventually was able to make a conformity determination in 2002 after r evising its motor vehicle emissions budget in the SIP. Maine Rural conformity analyses are

conducted on a routine basis as part of the STIP cycle. No significant projects. Problem has been identifying projects to conduct build/no build test.
Ohio Clint on

Columbiana No problems meeting conformity have been encountered. Oregon Lakevie w

Klamath Falls Grants Pass Grants Pass

– Experienced difficulty in demonstrating conformity; however, the project wa s delayed long enough that fleet turnover, as reflec ted in an upgraded MOBILE model, allowed the area to demonstrate conformity. 22 Pennsyl

vania Conformity analyses are

conducted for the eleven isolated rural counties during each two

year STIP cycle. There have been two to five projects in isolated rural ar eas in over the past two STIP cycles. No projects have been delayed, but project components have been modified in order to demonstrate conformity. Conformity demonstration wa s challenging with the build/no

- build test but there have been no problems meeti ng conformity using the “less than 1990” test. South Carolina Cherokee County Conformity analysis for project was initiated in 1995 but only completed in 2000, due to a variety of technical and procedural issues, not issues associated with meeting the e missions budget. To a large degree, state DOT staff indicated that federal or state actions have been successful in reducing emissions. These actions have enabled areas to demonstrate conformity, particularly in terms of meeting the “less than 1990” tes t. For example, in Pennsylvania, where isolated rural areas do not have an emissions budget (as ozone incomplete data areas), the state has been able to show conformity using the “less than 1990” test. In the future, new federal requirements are expected t o help many isolated rural areas reduce emissions further. 23 In states in the sample with emissions budgets, there were generally few problems meeting the emissions budget limits. For example, Ohio and South Carolina indicated that they have never had pro blems staying within their emissions budgets.

22 Note the approved emissions models predict the fleet mix for future years, so although the vehicle fleet might be modernizing while a project is delayed; this would not generally affect future year emissions projections. However, the project delay and co ncurrent fleet modernization could help when an area is not meeting the budget for the current year. 23 A South Carolina assessment of rural communities, for example, found that Tier II and low sulfur fuel standards are likely to eliminate many ozone and PM violations in the longer

- term (sometime after 2007). The greatest concern is the near

- term during which increasing VMT and the new ozone and PM

- 2.5 standards will create ne w violations before Tier II and low sulfur fuel standards have their full, mitigat ing effect.NCHRP 8

- 36(28) ICF C ONSULTING

R URAL C ONFORMITY : A S URVEY OF P RACTICE F INAL REPORT

– O CTOBER 31, 2003

21 Only one state in the sample

– Kentucky

- indicated that it had faced a problem meeting conformity that was severe enough to require a revision to the SIP emissions budget. In Paducah, Kentucky, a project on U .S. Route 68 was included in the STIP, but was not able to meet the emissions budget test. The emissions budget for the isolated rural area did not allow for travel growth over time, and the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) could identify no feasible means to meet the test, despite several attempts, including developing vehicle speeds for roadway classifications and investigating whether the hot and cold start fractions were appropriate. KYTC made the case to the Kentucky Division for Air Quality (DAQ ) that revising the SIP motor vehicle emissions budget was necessary because the inventory on which the budget was developed was outdated and had underestimated future growth. The process of convincing the DAQ of the need for a SIP revision was difficult, as the DAQ was hesitant to undergo the potentially complex process involving reexamination of emissions contributions from all sources. Ultimately, the SIP was revised to increase the emissions budget. However, the affected segment of the project was delay ed from early 2000 until the resolution of the conformity issue in late spring 2002. In two other cases, states initially had a problem meeting conformity that caused project delay, but these were resolved without requiring a revision of the SIP. In Orego n, a highway project in the Grants Pass carbon monoxide nonattainment area was not able to meet conformity initially, and the project was delayed as a result. However, the area was later able to meet conformity without any project changes due in part to ve hicle fleet turnover, which resulted in lower emissions for the current year. In addition, new modeling techniques that were implemented in the transition from MOBILE4 to MOBILE5 lead to lower emissions estimates and helped to meet conformity. In Colorado, the Entrance to Aspen project on State Highway 82 did not meet conformity with the initial project design. However, by adding a busway/light rail component, the state was able to demonstrate conformity. In addition to these challenges satisfying regional emissions analysis tests, several states experienced problems meeting conformity due to procedural issues. Many of these problems stemmed from lack of familiarity with the conformity process in isolated rural areas, and the “learning curve” involved in un derstanding conformity requirements. For instance:

 In Maine, it appears that there have been misunderstandings in regard to the frequency requirements for conformity analysis in isolated rural areas. The DOT goes through the conformity process for all n onattainment areas, including isolated rural areas, every two years when they update the STIP. Because it has isolated rural areas that are moderate for ozone, but with no emissions budget, these areas must meet BOTH the less

- than

- 1990 test AND the build/n o -build test. Maine DOT staff indicated that they have no problems meeting the less

than

- 1990 test, but have had problems meeting the build/no

-build test when there are no projects in an isolated rural area. As a result, the DOT has tried to identify proje cts for these isolated rural areas, even when no project would otherwise have been planned, in order to pass the build/no build test. It appears that this problem would not exist if conformity analyses were only conducted when there are new non

- exempt proj ects.

 In Pennsylvania, PennDOT had problems when it began conducting conformity analyses using the build/no

-build test in isolated rural areas. The “less than 1990” test is easier to meet because Federal and state emissions reduction measures that have re duced motor vehicle emissions. After it was recognized that the isolated rural areas could use either test, due to their status as ozone incomplete data areas (without a budget), the state has used the “less than 1990” test, and has experienced no problems meeting conformity in isolated rural areas.

 In South Carolina, it took about a five

- year timeframe, 1995 to 2000, in order to demonstrate conformity for a project to widen I

- 85 in Cherokee County, largely due to limited informationNCHRP 8

- 36(28) ICF C ONSULTING

R URAL C ONFORMITY : A S URVEY OF P RACTICE F INAL REPORT

– O CTOBER 31, 2003

22 on conformity requireme nts and procedural issues involving the state air agency. The DOT submitted an EIS for the project in 1998, and was informed by the FHWA regional office that a conformity analysis needed to be completed before the EIS could be accepted. The conformity proc ess was basically unknown by staff at the state level

– both within the state DOT and air agency. Cherokee County is the only nonattainment/maintenance area in the state, so a conformity analysis had never been previously conducted, and there was a substan tial learning curve in terms of addressing all of the conformity requirements. First, the SIP had to be revised to incorporate updated mobile emissions factors. And the mobile source budget had to be increased. While staff succeeded in demonstrating that the isolated rural area would be under the new emissions budget, the SIP still needed to be updated since it had been developed initially using an earlier version of the MOBILE model. There were also some issues associated with different interpretations o f the regulations by the EPA regional office and FHWA, which caused delay. 

### 3.4 I SSUES 

### E NCOUNTERED IN THE 

### C ONFORMITY 

### P ROCESS 

### Time and Resources Involved in Comparison to Effects on Air Quality Although state DOT staff recognized the intent of the conformity process, a number of state DOTs expressed concern that the conformity process in isolated rural areas can take significant time and resources, without producing meaningful air quality benefits. In many isolated rural ozone areas, transportation sources p lay a small role in contributing to air quality problems. For example, in Paducah, KY, and Cherokee County, SC much of the ozone problem was due to transport from other areas. Some state DOT staff questioned whether isolated rural areas had significantly different air quality from surrounding areas. In one case, the DOT staff felt that their designation as a nonattainment area, which prompts conformity requirements, had more to do with the presence of an air quality monitor than anything else. In another c ase, the DOT explained that an area reached attainment because of three consecutive years of good weather. Moreover, the amount of time invested in rural conformity processes can be very large relative to the small amount of mobile source emissions associ ated with the project. In the case of Paducah, the U.S. 68 project, which was delayed as a result of conformity problems, involved a 15

- to 17

- mile section of highway, including a replacement bridge over Kentucky Lake; only about 2,000 feet of the project was located within the ozone maintenance area, but required considerable effort and resources to address. As noted earlier, in Grants Pass, Oregon, a project was delayed because it was not able to meet conformity initially; however, the area was later abl e to demonstrate conformity with exactly the same project because of vehicle fleet turnover and changes in the methodology applied within the emissions models. After a period of delay, the analysis found that the project no longer had a meaningful effect o n air quality. Due to these issues, a number of agencies felt that rural conformity requirements should provide greater flexibility to address situations where required staff time and resources would be disproportionate to the air quality benefits possible through mobile source reductions. State DOT staff expressed concern that conformity in isolated rural areas takes a disproportionat e amount of time and resources compared to its actual effects on air quality. On the other hand, the transportation conformity process has motivated increased coordination between air agencies and DOTs and has fostered an awareness of the air quality effec ts of different types of projects.NCHRP 8

- 36(28) ICF C ONSULTING

R URAL C ONFORMITY : A S URVEY OF P RACTICE F INAL REPORT

– O CTOBER 31, 2003

23 On the other hand, most state DOTs and air agencies felt that the transportation conformity process was an important motivator to increase interaction and coordination between the air agencies and the DOTs. Such interac tions almost never took place before conformity was required. In this regard, the process has been a success. Pennsylvania DOT, for example, noted that the rural conformity process has had an effect on the mix of projects they select. There is now a greater focus on projects that improve traffic safety in rural areas, and there is less likelihood of new “megaprojects” that can seriously impact a rural area’s ability to achieve conformity. Conformity has also increased attention to signal coordination in ru ral areas as a mitigation strategy. Within a number of states, DOT staff expressed that air quality concerns are rarely a priority for public officials in rural areas and it is challenging to persuade public officials to take these concerns seriously at an early stage in the planning process. Therefore, by raising the possibility of stopping projects, the conformity process forces a serious consideration of these issues. In some cases, experience with conformity in isolated rural areas has also informed ef forts to reduce emissions in other parts of the state. For example, high PM

- 10 concentrations registered in Triple Creek, Colorado threatened to bring this area into nonattainment. Based on Colorado’s experience with nonattainment and maintenance areas, Co lorado DOT (CDOT) examined road

sanding practices, which had been identified previously as a key problem in rural PM

- 10 nonattainment areas. A review of road sanding practices found that between CDOT and local road crews, the roads were being significantl y over - sanded. As a result, the state and local agencies coordinated to reduce sanding. CDOT’s six engineering regions each have regional environmental managers and maintenance superintendents that are now aware of potential PM

- 10 problems and are cooperative in the effort to manage these impacts. 

### Feasibility of Reducing On - Road Emissions in Isolated Rural Areas Transportation agencies in some states expressed concern about the feasibility of reducing emissions from motor vehicles in isolated rural are as. Traditional TCMs to reduce the demand for vehicle travel have limited application in most rural areas. Population densities are not high enough to support transit, ridesharing, bicycling, or other demand management measures. As a result, options available to state DOTs to reduce emissions are severely constrained. In Paducah, Kentucky, for example, state DOT staff felt that there were few viable opportunities to reduce emissions of ozone precursors by an amount sufficient to meet the emissions budget. On the other hand, there were some cases in which isolated rural areas had opportunities to reduce on - road emissions. For example Aspen, Colorado was able to demonstrate reduced emissions by adding a transit component. Although Aspen, Colorado has only abo ut 6,000 residents, the population expands dramatically when all the workers who live down valley come into town and tourists add to traffic volumes. The plan to widen State Route 82 into Aspen would not meet conformity solely as a road widening project. H owever, the inclusion of a busway or light

- rail component reduced the predicted VMT and mitigated community concerns about traffic. With the redesign, the project was able to meet conformity. In the case of isolated rural PM

- 10 areas, road dust is often a major source of emissions, and there are opportunities to reduce fugitive dust from rural transportation including paving commonly used dirt roads and switching from sand to chemical road de

- icers. In Colorado and Oregon, where much In isolated rural ozone areas, there are limited options for reducing project - related emissions. However, there are some opportunities, particularly in PM 10 areas and resort areas.NCHRP 8

- 36(28) ICF C ONSULTING

R URAL C ONFORMITY : A S URVEY OF P RACTICE F INAL REPORT

– O CTOBER 31, 2003

24 of the PM

- 10 problem was due to road dust, DOTs have successfully reduced emissions using these strategies. These experiences suggest that there are cases

– such as in resort

- type areas and PM
- 10 areas

– where there are reasonable opportunities to reduce motor vehicle emission s. 

### Role of Interagency Consultation The interagency consultation process is the formal coordinating mechanism among transportation and air agency staffs. Although some states have experienced problems in the past, interview subjects generally felt that their procedures for interagency consultation were working effectively, and emphasized the importance of coordination. In many cases, states characterized their coordination with the air agency as being very effective. Several practitioners, however, not ed that establishing an interagency consultation agreement takes significant time, preparation, development of professional trust, and legal expertise, and so significant time should be allotted for this aspect of the process. The actual mechanism of th e interagency consultation process, in terms of number of meetings, appeared to vary considerably among states. Some states found it valuable to hold regular meetings between the State DOT, the State air agency, EPA, FHWA, and FTA while others felt that this exchange worked best if meetings were held on an as

- needed basis. In most cases, states hold an initial kick

- off meeting when a conformity cycle is beginning in order to discuss schedules, data, methodology, and subsequent communications protocol. Rural areas are discussed during these meetings as needed. 

### Data and Technical Analysis Methods In isolated rural areas, network

-based travel demand modeling is not generally available, nor is it required by the transportation conformity regulation. Rural areas typically rely on the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) for VMT estimates, and MOBILE defaults for fleet mix and other factors, since these are often the only sources of data available for use in regional emissions analysis. A number of st ates, however, noted that HPMS and the MOBILE defaults have significant limitations for analyzing emissions in rural areas. The interviewees who expressed the most concern about the quality of HPMS data generally were those that had experienced some prob lems meeting conformity. These areas in particular had explored a number of improvements to better estimate VMT and speed at a local level. Limitations of HPMS for VMT Projections Several states noted the inadequacy of HPMS data for county level VMT fore casts. HPMS was not designed for use in county

- level analysis. Rather, it was designed as a statewide tool and is used nationally as an indicator of road use and performance. As a result, VMT projections may be very inaccurate for a rural county. In the case of Paducah, KY, motor vehicle emissions budgets that were developed based on HPMS data significantly underestimated VMT growth, and updated The interagency consultation proce ss appears to be working effectively, but in many cases took significant time and preparation to develop the process.

Simple sketch planning methods, using HPMS data and MOBILE default values, are commonly used for conformity analyses in rural areas. How ever, there are significant limitations to these sources, and a number of states have developed more refined methods, partly in response to potential conformity problems.NCHRP 8

- 36(28) ICF C ONSULTING

R URAL C ONFORMITY : A S URVEY OF P RACTICE F INAL REPORT

– O CTOBER 31, 2003

25 VMT estimates showed substantially higher VMT than assumed in the baseline. In response, Kentucky has undertake n a number of modeling improvements to better estimate VMT at the county level. Maine, Pennsylvania, and Ohio also have developed or maintain road management systems that provide detail beyond what is available from HPMS. Limitations of MOBILE Defaults f or Rural Areas Several states noted that defaults used within the MOBILE model (used to generate emissions factors) do not always accurately reflect “real

- world” conditions in rural areas. In particular, the defaults for the share of VMT on different types of roadways within the MOBILE model can be inaccurate for rural areas. For example, according to staff at the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, the MOBILE default values indicate that 8% of interstate VMT is on ramps, which is generally accurate for urban areas. However, in Kentucky’s rural areas, the ramps carry only about 1.5% of VMT. Several states also explained that vehicle mix default data used in MOBILE are often inaccurate for rural areas, and that in fact, the vehicle mix can vary substantially b etween rural areas within a single state. In response, a number of states have undertaken efforts to develop improved vehicle mix data for rural areas, which is particularly important if heavy

- duty vehicles comprise a large portion of the vehicle travel. The types of methodologies that states have used are described further in Section 4 on Lessons Learned.


### 3.5 P REPARATIONS FOR 

### N EW 

### S TANDARDS States are at different stages with regard to their preparation for the 8

- hour ozone and PM

- 2.5 standards. This situati on was evolving during the course of this research project. At the time that interviews for this report were conducted many state DOTs were still uncertain about the number of isolated rural non

- attainment areas that might be designated under new 8

- hour oz one and PM

2.5 standards. Some of this uncertainty was associated with how specific nonattainment boundaries would be drawn relative to new MPO boundaries. Several states such as Kentucky, South Carolina, and North Carolina are taking measures to prepare for new standards, by training staff on new models, educating rural officials about conformity and its potential impacts, and in some cases establishing early action compacts. Other states are waiting for requirements and designations to be complete befo re investing in staff preparations and/or education campaigns. Some of the preparatory actions being undertaken by sample states are described below: Educating the Public and Local Officials about New Standards The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet impleme nted a “Road Show” awareness tour for the 8

- hour ozone standard. The purpose was to meet with a wide range of local officials to discuss the forthcoming changes, the benefits of good air quality, and the importance of being involved in the process. The s tate expects to see the rewards of this education effort when new areas are designated nonattainment under the 8

- hour standard. The purpose is to familiarize local officials with the air quality requirements so they will better understand the implications of not meeting conformity and focus more on cooperatively working through the necessary steps, rather than being frustrated with the process. Establishing New Interagency Agreements South Carolina has been particularly aggressive in pulling together various counties and state agencies for a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that defines agency relationships for the purpose of conformity. The concept is to include all MPOs, all potentially violating counties, and all pollutants within an MOA, in order to pre vent delay if it is determined that some additionalNCHRP 8

- 36(28) ICF C ONSULTING

R URAL C ONFORMITY : A S URVEY OF P RACTICE F INAL REPORT

– O CTOBER 31, 2003

26 region or pollutant must later be included in the conformity analysis. Getting buy

- in from the necessary authorities and preparing the legal documents for this process can take longer than expected, and these MOAs are particularly important for rural areas where it may be difficult to predict where new violations occur. Regional Information Sharing Several states have increased their involvement with regional organizations that function to share professio nal practices. In particular, state agencies mentioned Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), the Midwest Regional Planning Organization, and the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO). These organizations include experienced modelers and emissions experts that are able to assist one another when challenging issues arise. The state of Ohio specifically attributes its readiness to work with new emissions models and conformity requirements to the support provided by such org anizations. Early Action Compacts A number of states have entered into Early Action Compacts (EACs), which were designed to defer nonattainment designations under the 8

- hour ozone standard in response to early actions to reduce emissions. Areas that hav e Early Action Compacts will not be required to conduct transportation conformity analyses under the 8

- hour ozone standard so long as they continue to meet the required milestones. Nevertheless, several states are currently considering some variation of th e conformity process in Early Action Compact areas, calling it, “conformity without the red tape.” This could have a significant impact on the EAC areas because one of the principal reasons some areas agreed to EACs was to get relief from conformity requ irements. 24 Efforts to Minimize Attainment Area Boundaries Several states are working with the U.S. EPA in an effort to minimize the size of new ozone non

attainment areas. Pennsylvania and Maine have been particularly focused on this goal. In many cas es, an entire county has been designated as an isolated rural area, when monitored data and travel conditions imply that only a portion of the county has an air quality problem. Having countywide designations in these conditions may create a situation where conformity is required for projects that may have little or no relationship to the area where standards are being violated. This is largely the case in nonattainment areas that receive transported pollution from upwind areas. Nevertheless, because of th e regional nature of ozone, some argue for larger ozone nonattainment areas. Air Agencies Encouraging Mobile Source Budget Restraint Anticipating the challenges of meeting the new 8

- hour ozone and PM

- 2.5 standards, a number of state air agencies have b ecome more restrictive in providing safety buffers for mobile source emissions budgets. These air agencies believe that a large buffer may deter the state DOT from exploring the full range of options for minimizing mobile source emissions in rural areas, which may be necessary to meet the new standards. Where previously the state air agencies might consider only the emissions reduction needs from other sources when allowing for mobile source buffers, they now work to establish a compromise with state DOTs that accommodates anticipated growth in VMT, but also acknowledge potential for some mobile source reductions.

24 In addition, there may be questions about EPA’s legal authority to defer nonattainment designations, which is central to the point of EACs. This has not been litigated thus far; however, some professionals anticipate that there may be litigation over this matter.NCHRP 8

- 36(28) ICF C ONSULTING

R URAL C ONFORMITY : A S URVEY OF P RACTICE F INAL REPORT

– O CTOBER 31, 2003

27 

## 4 L ESSONS 

## L EARNED Based on the experience of states in conducting conformity analyses in isolated rural areas and preparing for potential new no nattainment areas, a few key lessons can be derived from this experience. This section summarizes our synthesis of these lessons for practitioners, and recommendations for areas that may soon be facing new isolated rural nonattainment areas.


### 4.1 T RANSPORTATI ON 

### S TAFF 

### N EED TO BE 

### I NVOLVED IN 

### D EVELOPMENT OF THE 

### SIP One of the key lessons coming out of the interviews in this study is the importance of having state DOT staff actively involved in and aware of SIP development activities. In most isolated rural areas, with the exception of PM

10 areas, there are few options for reducing vehicle emissions in isolated rural areas. As a result, having an attainable emissions budget is critical to meeting conformity requirements for those rural areas that have budgets. The importance of the State DOT working closely with the state air agency to establish an emissions budget for motor vehicles that allows for traffic growth cannot be overemphasized. Failure to provide for adequate growth in VMT created a problem in meeting conformity in Paducah, KY, which ultimately required the state to undertake a time

- consuming revision of the SIP budget. When the state DOT initially provided VMT projections to the air agency, it did not clearly understand how the projections would be u sed and the severe implications of these projections for the emissions budget. Moreover, DOTs should work with air agencies to ensure that the emissions budget includes some safety buffer, if an emissions surplus exists, to account for changes in methodol ogies and data that may occur over time. In many rural areas, the majority of travel occurs on very few major facilities. A rural project subject to conformity would typically addresses capacity on one or more of these major facilities. Since rural areas have low population and VMT, a small underestimate in VMT forecasts for such facilities can lead to large percentage changes in the overall VMT for the area, which in turn can create a problem meeting the emissions budget. Consequently, reasonable safety buffers in mobile source emissions budgets should consider the potential for increases in VMT, which may account for a small amount of pollution but make an area unable to meet a budget. Most agencies described good coordination and flexibility on this matter. Several states

– in particular Maine and Ohio

– described cases where the DOT requested a safety buffer for mobile source emissions in the SIP. While the air agencies did not provide all of the requested mobile source budget increase, in both cases the agencies came to an informed agreement following a discussion about the constraints and other factors related to the SIP budget. 

### 4.2 B UILD 

### T RUST 

### B ETWEEN 

### DOT AND 

### A IR 

### A GENCY 

### S TAFF Most states pointed to the importance of maintaining some type of consiste nt contact and cooperative ethic between transportation and air agencies. This is important both for resolving conformity problems as they arise and more importantly to prevent problems It is critically important for State DOTs to be involved in the development of SI Ps and the motor vehicle emissions budget in rural areas.

It is important to build trust between state DOT and air agency staff in order to have an effective and collaborative process.NCHRP 8

- 36(28) ICF C ONSULTING

R URAL C ONFORMITY : A S URVEY OF P RACTICE F INAL REPORT

– O CTOBER 31, 2003

28 from occurring in the first place. Across the sample states, cooperati on and trust were achieved in a number of ways. The exchange of professional staff between agencies is one factor that seemed to enhance interagency communication. In several of the sample states, practitioners had experience working in both the transport ation and the air agency. This condition improved interagency understanding and cooperation. As such, agencies might consider a short

- term exchange program for staff me mbers that play a role in transportation conformity. In some cases, for example, South Carolina, both the DOT and air agency have significant experience operating the MOBILE models. This appears to have the effect of building a common vocabulary and mutual understanding of analysis challenges and priorities that work in favor of effective interagency relations. In other cases, regular meetings among interagency staff helped to build relationships and facilitate good working partnerships. Some air agency staff noted that relationships as well as project planning might be improved if air age ncies were more involved in the project selection process. For example, staff at one air agency felt that they should have a larger role in the selection of CMAQ projects. This had historically been the case, but at some point the State DOT took complete responsibility for this task. Since these projects are expected to reduce emissions, it could be helpful to take into account air agency perspective and expertise. On the other hand, many states noted that air agencies have very limited resources, and that the state DOT takes on many responsibilities related to emissions modeling and training staff on the MOBILE model, which are within the responsibility of the air agency.


### 4.3 B E 

### AWARE OF 

### D ATA 

### L IMITATIONS AND 

### I MPROVEMENTS TO 

### ADDRESS 

### T HEM Although the develop ment of local data for factors such as speeds and vehicle mix data is not required in isolated rural areas, staff involved in the conformity process should be aware of the limitations of using HPMS data and MOBILE model defaults alone to generate emissions estimates in isolated rural areas. As noted in Section 3, there are weaknesses to these methods. A number of states have developed methodologies or data systems to improve forecasting in rural areas, and these provide guidance on the types of activities that states can undertake to improve their emissions estimates. State and local agencies involved in the conformity process for isolated rural areas should decide through the interagency consultation process whether improvements in data and methodologies j ustify the costs of making such improvements. Several of these methods are discussed below. VMT Forecasts Since isolated rural areas typically do not have a travel demand model, improvements in VMT forecasts can be made by separately estimating local

- VMT and through

- VMT. Most of the sample states in this study used such a methodology. Local

- VMT refers to travel by residents of the county, which generally increases in proportion to the population. Local

- VMT is projected using per - capita VMT estimates alo ng with population projections. An important factor in these projections is the growth rate in per capita VMT. Through

- VMT refers to vehicles passing through the county, which generally increases in proportion to inter

- county or even interstate travel. Staff should be aware of the limitations of HPMS data and MOBILE defa ult values for use in isolated rural areas, and consider methods to develop more accurate emissions estimates where appropriate.NCHRP 8

- 36(28) ICF C ONSULTING

R URAL C ONFORMITY : A S URVEY OF P RACTICE F INAL REPORT

– O CTOBER 31, 2003

29 In most rural counties, inter

- county travel tends to increase faster than local travel, so strictly population based VMT growth rates would usually underestimate VMT. Where interstates are present in rural counties, it is wise to assess interstate VMT gro wth rates independently. For example, Kentucky found that VMT growth rates were nearly double in rural counties that had an Interstate compared to rural counties without an interstate. South Carolina has documented its methodology for VMT growth projectio ns in rural areas, which may be useful to other practitioners (listed in Section 5 of this document). Vehicle Fleet Mix and Roadway Distributions MOBILE model defaults may not always accurately reflect “real

- world” conditions in rural areas and may not a lways assign the appropriate factors for vehicle fleet mix and VMT by roadway type. State DOTs may have a better source of data to develop these factors, since they should have access to relatively current and geographically specific vehicle mix data from the state motor vehicle department. With heavy

- duty vehicles comprising an important portion of emissions, accurate identification of this component of the vehicle mix is vital. Ohio DOT makes use of their Statewide Economic Census Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey. This forms a critical component of their vehicle mix data since it presents the best source of geographic

- specific heavy

- duty vehicle information. Although most states do not have as detailed a heavy

- duty vehicle inventory as Ohio, the nation al Vehicle Inventory and Use survey can be helpful where a rural county includes an important truck corridor. Information about the survey is available through the Census Bureau. 25 Speed Estimation Vehicle emissions predicted by MOBILE are sensitive to ve hicle speed inputs. 26 Consequently, accurate speed estimates should be a priority for regional emissions analysis. Speeds have been traditionally estimated based on posted speeds, or derived using methods described in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). T hese HCM methods use hourly traffic volumes and capacities by roadway functional classification. 27 While such approaches provide reasonable estimates of speeds, speed studies could also be conducted in order to collect field data, which would be better than published default values or posted speed limits. A number of states have undertaken efforts to correct generic speed categories with more extensive local field data. These efforts need not be resource intensive. For example, about 40 hours of staff time w ere required in South Carolina for data collection and analysis for a speed study on a sample of urban, suburban and rural highways in Cherokee County. Research by the South Carolina DOT found that in rural areas, improved estimates of free

- flow mean speed s were much more important than improved estimates of congested speeds, and that applying a speed

- flow formula to estimate “congested” speeds complicates the analysis with minimal change in predicted mean speed on many road classifications since most rural areas have limited congestion. 28 Several resources are available to assist with speed estimation and other procedures. A good explanation focusing on rural applications can be found in a report titled Development of On

-Road

25 http://help.econ.census.gov/econhelp/vius/vius_FAQS.html 26 Sensitivity Analysis of MOBILE6 Motor Vehicle Emission Factor Model , Tianjia Tang, Mike Roberts, and Cecilia Ho, Federal Highway Administration Resource Center, Atlanta. < www.fhwa.dot.gov/resourcecenter/teamaq_pubs.htm> 27 A mo re com

plete summary of speed estimation techniques has b een developed by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Office of Multimodal Planning < www.kytc.state.ky.us/Multimodal/doc/> under “Summary of Travel Model Speed Estimation.” 28 Vehicle Miles of Trav el Projections and Speed Estimates for Rural Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas , John Gardner, AICP, South Carolina Department of Transportation.NCHRP 8

- 36(28) ICF C ONSULTING

R URAL C ONFORMITY : A S URVEY OF P RACTICE F INAL REPORT

– O CTOBER 31, 2003

30 Mobile Source Emission Inve ntories for Rural Counties. 29 Rural speed estimation is also covered in the National Highway Institute course titled, Estimating Regional Mobile Source Emissions

. 30 Several states have had success in using equations described in NCHRP Report 387, Planning T echniques to Estimate Speeds and Service Volumes for Planning Applications

. 31 Local Government Data In some cases, data to help develop improved VMT, speed, and fleet characterization estimates may be available from local governments. Both Oregon and Co lorado rely heavily on local agencies for lane

- miles, speed, and VMT data. The availability of such data is probably related to the level of transportation planning that occurs in rural areas. In the case of Oregon, all counties with population above 25 ,000 are required to develop Transportation Systems Plans that necessitate collecting such data. In Colorado, Regional Planning Commissions prepare 25

- year long range plans for all non

- MPO areas. State DOTs should be aware of the extent to which rural transportation planning agencies may provide better data before using defaults. Statewide Travel Demand Forecasting Model States may also wish to consider developing a statewide travel forecasting model. More advanced VMT forecasting techniques also take into account current and anticipated economic trends and anticipated changes in population age distribution for a range of household characteristics. Maine DOT incorporates these factors into their statewide travel demand forecasting model, which produces different VMT growth rates by county. 32 Ohio DOT is currently developing a statewide model that it believes will allow for more efficient and more accurate mobile source emissions estimates for conformity.


### 4.4 B UILD 

### I NSTITUTIONAL 

### M EMORY AND 

### E XPERTISE States agencies should prepare for the future by becoming familiar with the conformity regulations and flexibility available for isolated rural areas. The interviews for this research revealed that considerable effort was required in most of the seven sample st ates to understand how to undertake conformity analysis in isolated rural areas. In some cases, practitioners had difficulties understanding what types of tests needed to be conducted and when analyses needed to be conducted. Therefore, clearly understandi ng the conformity requirements, and flexibility available to isolated rural areas, is important, particularly in states with few existing nonattainment areas. As noted in Section 3, some states are actively preparing for potential new nonattainment areas b y undertaking educational and outreach efforts and developing memoranda of agreement.

29 G. B. Dresser, D. G. Perkinson, Texas Transportation Institute. Development of On

-Road Mobile Source Emissi on Inventories for Rural Counties . Available at < www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/conference/ei10/index.html#ses

- 6 >, listed as 30 < http://tmip.fhwa.dot.gov/clearinghouse/docs/ne wsletters/jan03_issue15.stm#nhi_course > 31 Dowling, R.; Kittelson, W; Zegeer, J.; Skabardonis, A.; National Cooperative Highway Research Report Program Report 387: Pl anning Techniques to Estimate Speeds and Service Volumes for Planning Applications; Transportation Research Board, 1997. 32 Maine’s VMT, speed forecasting approaches are effectively summarized in section five of the Maine DOT 2002

- 2004 STIP Conformity Ana lysis , August 2001. Available on

- line at < http://www.maine.gov/mdot/planning/air_qual/ca_docs.htm> It is important to build institutional memory and expertise in order to reduce the potential for increased effort and delay i n meeting conformity.NCHRP 8

- 36(28) ICF C ONSULTING

R URAL C ONFORMITY : A S URVEY OF P RACTICE F INAL REPORT

– O CTOBER 31, 2003

31 Moreover, given that conformity analyses take place infrequently in isolated rural areas, it is important to have mechanisms to build institutional memory and expertise. Several State DOTs emphasized the importance of being meticulous in documenting interagency agreements. They emphasized that agreements on seemingly minor issues may turn out to be critical, and that everything should be in writing. This serves not only for legal cover, but also for institutional me mory. Staff turnover can be particularly problematic because of the infrequency of rural conformity determinations. This became evident even in discussing projects for this research. A number of staff did no t have conformity determination reports available, and in many cases, the person that worked on the document was no longer at the agency. In this way, documentation is therefore perhaps more important in isolated rural areas than in metropolitan areas.


### 4.5 C ONCLUSION Conformity requirements are complex and significant preparation time is needed to develop the expertise, tools, and interagency relationships that facilitate an efficient and effective process. In most cases, the state DOT is in the best positio n to lead conformity analysis, rather than rural counties. In our review of seven states’ experience with conformity in isolated rural areas, several state DOTs encountered significant technical and procedural challenges in conducting these analyses, while others had relatively few difficulties. In general, the difficulties did not relate to problems in reducing emissions in nonattainment areas. They typically stemmed from limited familiarity with the conformity requirements and limited coordination between transportation and air agencies. States agreed that good relationships between state DOTs, state air agencies, and federal partners are paramount to a successful process. In most cases, rural areas produce small levels of transportation related emission s and have very few opportunities to reduce motor vehicle emissions. As a result, it is extremely important for state DOTs and air agencies to work together to develop an emissions budget in the SIP that is attainable by accounting for potential future VMT growth and potential changes in calculation methodologies. Coordination early on in the SIP development process will help to avoid potential problems in the future. There are also a number of steps that states can take to prepare for conformity in rural areas that do not have transportation models, including data collection to improve estimates of VMT and speeds in rural areas, developing interagency agreements, and educating public officials about conformity and air quality issues.NCHRP 8

- 36(28) ICF C ONSULTING

R URAL C ONFORMITY : A S URVEY OF P RACTICE F INAL REPORT

– O CTOBER 31, 2003

32 

## 5 RESOURCES 

## / REFERENCE S This section includes a list of useful resources that practitioners may wish to review in order to gain a better understanding of conformity requirements and methodologies for regional emissions analysis. It also includes recent research, including case studies, on the conformity process in rural and metropolitan areas. Legislation/Requirements, Guidance, and Training Conformity Requirements: Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR Parts 51 and 93) < http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_99/40cfr93_99.html > Transportation Conformity: A Basic Guide for State and Local Officials , U.S. Federal Highway Administration, Revised June 19, 2000. < http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/conformity/con_bas.htm> Transportation Conformity Reference Guide. Federal Highway Administration (last updated July, 2001) < http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/conformity/ref_guid/index.htm > Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401

- 7671q 

### ) <http://www.epa.gov/oar/caa/contents.html > SIP Req uirements < http://www.epa.gov/oar/caa/contents.html > National Transit Institute (NTI) Course on Introduction to Transportation/Air Quality Conformity < http: //www.ntionline.com> National Highway Institute (NHI) Course on Estimating Regional Mobile Source Emissions < http://www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov> Other FHWA/EPA Conformity Resources, including Transportation Conformi ty Community of Practice < http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/conform.htm> 

### Methodologies Development of On

-Road Mobile Source Emission Inventories for Rural Counties, G. B. Dresser, D. G. P erkinson, Texas Transportation Institute, May 2001. < http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/conference/ei10/index.html#ses

- 6 > Highway Speed Estimation for MOBILE6 by Bob Bostrom and Jess e Mayes, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. Planning Techniques to Estimate Speeds and Service Volumes for Planning Applications , National Cooperative Highway Research Report Program Report 387, Transportation Research Board, Dowling, R.; Kittelson, W; Zege er, J.; Skabardonis, A, 1997.NCHRP 8

- 36(28) ICF C ONSULTING

R URAL C ONFORMITY : A S URVEY OF P RACTICE F INAL REPORT

– O CTOBER 31, 2003

33 Vehicle Miles of Travel Projections and Speed Estimates for Rural Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas , John Gardner, South Carolina Department of Transportation, presented at Southern Transportation and Air Quality Summit, Oc tober 2001, Atlanta, Ga.


### Research Exhausting Options: Assessing SIP

- Conformity Interactions, Winston Harrington, Arnold Howitt, Alan J. Krupnick, Jonathan Makler, Peter Nelson, and Sarah J. Siwek, Resources for the Future, January 2003. < http://www.fhwa. dot.gov/environment/conformity/con_res.htm> Linking Transportation and Air Quality Planning: Implementation of the Transportation Conformity Regulations in 15 Nonattainment Areas. Arnold M. Howitt and Elizabeth M. Moore, Prepared for U.S. Environmental Pr otection Agency (EPA 420

- R
- 99

- 011), March 1999. < http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/conform/fullrpt.pdf > Regulating Transportation in New Nonattainment Areas Under the 8

- hour Ozone Standard, Jo nathan Makler and Arnold M. Howitt, Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, January 2003. < http://www.ksg. harvard .edu/taubmancenter/research/trenv.html > Transportation/A ir Quality Issues in Rural Areas , prepared by Dye Management for the Federal Highway Administration, June 2003.NCHRP 8

- 36(28) ICF C ONSULTING

R URAL C ONFORMITY : A S URVEY OF P RACTICE F INAL REPORT

– O CTOBER 31, 2003

34 

## A PPENDIX 

## A: I NTER VIEW 

## G UIDE Introductory Questions: Can you briefly summarize the situation in your state regarding existing rural nonattainment or maintenance areas? Can you summarize the changes in attainment status that you anticipate for rural areas once the new 8

- hour ozone and PM 2.5 requirements have taken effect? Interview Questions for Existing Nonattainment / Maintenance Areas: 1) Describe your experience with rural transportation conformity. 

###  How many conformity analyses have been conducted over the past 5 years? 

###  What was the role of the State DOT, the regional FHWA and EPA offices, the air quality planning agency, rural counties, and other agencies? 

###  [For those who have been involved in conformity analysis] Have you experienced difficulties in demonstrating conformity that resulted in the area not being able to implement/approve a new transportation project? If yes, for how long w as this project delayed? 

###  What have state and local agencies done to resolve any transportation planning, air quality planning, or conformity challenges related to specific projects? 2) For particular rural isolated areas: 

###  What federal actions/measures (e.g. , federal vehicle emissions controls; fleet turnover) are helping the area attain or maintain the air quality standard(s)? 

###  What are the projected population and VMT growth rates in this isolated rural area? 3) Describe the technical issues involved in estab lishing conformity in isolated rural areas? 

###  How did you prepare the necessary baseline data and projections for the conformity analysis? 

###  What were the sources for VMT, speed, lane

- miles, and emissions data? Which agency provided such information? At what scale was it available? What data was easily obtained, what data was difficult to obtain, and why? 

###  What methods are available to estimate regional emissions in rural areas? 

###  Do you have the ability to assess localized impacts for CO and PM? How? 

###  How did y ou define projects that were still under development well enough to determine emissions? 4) Describe the interagency consultation process. How did interagency coordination occur? Which agency took the lead in interagency consultation? 

###  What opportunities or p rocesses are in place to encourage coordination between state transportation officials, local transportation officials, and air quality officials? 

###  How often did you meet with state environmental agencies, FHWA and EPA division staff? 5) What agencies are inv olved in the approval process for conformity plans in rural areas?NCHRP 8

- 36(28) ICF C ONSULTING

R URAL C ONFORMITY : A S URVEY OF P RACTICE F INAL REPORT

– O CTOBER 31, 2003

35 6) How do you currently engage with the SIP process? 

###  What was the nature of your participation in development of the last SIP? What, if any, are the barriers to your involvement? How did c onformity change the role of the State DOT or local government in SIP planning? 

###  What information is available to decision

- makers in determining the most practical distribution of emissions reduction targets? 

###  What is currently known about the sources of cri teria pollutants that are responsible for nonattainment? Is the role of on

- road mobile sources well understood? If not, are there efforts underway to gather this information? 7) Did the conformity process change ways that you do air quality and long

- term transportation planning in rural areas? 8) Describe how members of the public and other stakeholders were involved in the process. 9) If you were to provide guidance to other rural areas that will need to address conformity due to the new ozone and PM2.5 standa rds, what kind of advice or recommendations would you give them? Interview Questions for Expected New Nonattainment Areas: 1) What are you currently doing to prepare for nonattainment status in rural areas? 

###  Do you have any training in doing conformity? 

###  Wh at are your technical capabilities in transportation and emissions planning and modeling? 

###  Have you defined what the role of the state DOT, air agency, and/or local planning agency will have when conformity applies? 

###  Who will be the lead agency for project c onformity determinations and analyses? 

###  What is the current role of the State DOT? 

###  What is the current role of the State air agency? 

###  Have you discussed what VMT, speed, and emissions data will be used in the event that a project requires NEPA approval and a conformity determination? 2) Based on existing information, what are the primary sources of pollution in your area? 3) How many projects have you approved in the last 5 years? 4) Do you anticipate having any projects that require NEPA approvals in the next 5 years? 5) What additional assistance would be most valuable in helping you prepare to meet conformity requirements? Have you heard of any steps in the state that sound like they are good examples of preparatory measures (e.g., training, data compilation, a gency coordination and agreements)?NCHRP 8

- 36(28) ICF C ONSULTING

R URAL C ONFORMITY : A S URVEY OF P RACTICE F INAL REPORT

– O CTOBER 31, 2003

36 

## A PPENDIX 

## B: C ONT ACT 

## I NFORMA

TION This section will include a list of people that were interviewed for this study. State Contacts Colorado Jerry Piffer, Environmental Programs Colorado DOT Mike Silverstein Col orado Air Pollution Control District Department of Public Health and Environment Kentucky Lynn Soporowski Division of Multimodal Programs Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Jesse Mayes Division of Multimodal Programs Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Charle s Schaub Division of Multimodal Programs Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Barry House Division of Multimodal Programs Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Jo hn Gowins Program Planning and Administration Branch Kentucky Division for Air Quality Maine Lori Brann Bureau of Planning Maine DOT Duane Scott Bureau of Planning Maine DOT Melissa Morrill Air Bureau Maine Department of Environmental Protection Donald Cooke (brief questions) Region 1 U.S. EPANCHRP 8

- 36(28) ICF C ONSULTING

R URAL C ONFORMITY : A S URVEY OF P RACTICE F INAL REPORT

– O CTOBER 31, 2003

37 State Contacts North Carolina* David Hyder Office of Human Environment North Carolina DOT Edward Dancausse Program Planning and Development FHWA, North Carolina Division Ohio Dave Moore Office of Urban and Corridor Planning Ohio DOT Bill Spires Division of Air Pollution Control Ohio Environmental Protections Agency Oreg on Vince Carrow Environmental Services Oregon DOT David Nordberg Air Quality Division Oregon Department of Environmental Quality David Collier Air Quality Division Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Ralph Johnston Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority Pennsylvania Michael Baker Air Quality Section Pennsylvania DOT Arleen Shulman Mobile Sources Division Pennsylvania Department of Environmental ProtectionNCHRP 8

- 36(28) ICF C ONSULTING

R URAL C ONFORMITY : A S URVEY OF P RACTICE F INAL REPORT

– O CTOBER 31, 2003

38 State Contacts South Carolina Jo hn Gardner Office of Planning South Carolina DOT Henry Phillips Bureau of Air Quality South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Mike Roberts Resource Center FHWA *Note: Interviews were conducted in North Carolina as a test of the interview protocol. Findings were not highlighted in this report because North Carolina does not contain any isolated rural areas; it does, however, contain a number of rural donut areas.