STATE OF COLORADO 

John W. Hickenlooper, Governor 

Christopher E. Urbina, MD, MPH, Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer 

COLORADO AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION 

http://www.cdphe.state.co.us 

4300 Cherry Creek Drive South 

OED-OLRA-A5 

Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 

Phone (303) 692-3100 

Fax (303) 691-7702 

TDD (303) 691-7700 

May 11,2012 

James B. Martin 

Regional Administrator 

US EPA Region VIII 

1595 Wynkoop Street 

Denver, Colorado 80202 

Dear Mr. Martin: 

RECEIVED 

U.S. EPA Region 8 

RA'sOffioe 

MAY 16 2012 

Colorado Department 

of Public Health 

and Environment 

The following action is submitted to EPA for final approval and incorporation into the Colorado 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) pursuant to 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V, 2.l(a). One hard 

copy and a CD of the materials needed for your review of each action are included with this 

letter. 

• Regulation Number 10 and the Procedural Rules- The Commission adopted revisions 

that significantly streamline the process for "routine" conformity determinations by 

allowing the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division (Division) to provide concurrence 

with routine transportation conformity determinations without the need for a public 

hearing before the AQCC. If a conformity determination is non-routine because of 

project size or due to unresolved air quality issues and/or lack of agency agreement 

regarding a conformity determination, the Division or other parties could request that the 

Commission conduct a public hearing and either resolve matters or escalate them to the 

Governor. 

We look forward to your timely review and approval of this request. 

The Office of the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission may submit any additional 

technical support documentation or information that you may need for review directly to the 

EPA 
James B. Martin 

May 28,2012 

Page 2 of2 

Should there be any questions regarding these materials, please contact the Air Quality Control 

Commission Office at 303-692-34 78. 

Thank you. 

Sincerely, 

Christopher E. Urbina, MD, MPH 

Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer 

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 

cc. Martha Rudolph 

Mike Silverstein 

MarkKomp 
Regulation Number 10 and the Procedural Rules 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS 

Copies of the following administrative materials are included in this submittal of revisions to 

Regulation Number 10 and the Procedural Rules. Hearing held on December 15,2011. 

• Hearing Notice and Proposed Language as Published in the CCR and on the 

Commission Website the 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V 2.1 (f) 

• Meeting Agenda where Public Hearing Occurred and Notice published in the Legal 

Ads of the Denver Post 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V 2.1 (f) 

• Procedural Documents of the Commission (this includes the Agenda Item Control 

Sheet, the Memorandum ofNotice, the Economic Impact Analysis) 

• Parties Hearing Documents (this includes a list ofthe parties, the parties prehearing 

statements and rebuttal statements, and any orders by the Commission - - do not 

include all the attachments from the parties) 

• EPA Comments 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V 2.1 (h) 

• Public Comments 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V 2.1 (h) 

• Adopted Statement of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority and Purpose 

• Adopted Language by the Commission (in redline & footer noting adoption date and 

page numbers) 

• Colorado Air Quality Control Commission Meeting Minutes 40 CFR Part 51 

Appendix V 2.1 (g) 

• Legal Opinion of the Colorado State Attorney General 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V 

2.1(c) and (e) 

• Regulation or Regulation Revisions as published in the Colorado Code of Regulations 

(this is the version that is published by Lexis Nexis) 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V 

2.1 (b) 
Hearing Notice and Proposed Language 

as Published in the CCR 

40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V 2.1 (f) 

Regulation Number 10 
STATE OF COLORADO 

John W. Hickenlooper, Governor 

Christopher E. Urbina, MD, MPH, Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer 

Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado 

COLORADO AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION 

http://www.cdphe.state.co.us 

4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, EDO-AQCC-A5 

Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 

Phone (303) 692-3100 

Fax (303) 691-7702 

TDD (303) 691-7700 

Colorado Department 

of Public Health 

and Environment 

NOTICE OF PUBLIC RULEMAKING HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

COLORADO AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION 

Regarding proposed revisions to: 

Regulation Number 10 and the Procedural Rules Regulation 

SUBJECT: 

The Air Quality Control Commission will hold a rulemaking hearing to consider streamlining the 

transportation conformity process by allowing the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division to 

provide concurrence with routine transportation conformity determinations without the need for 

a public hearing before the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission. This change to the 

conformity process is allowed for under federal law and will reduce the burden on the AQCC, 

the Division and transportation planning organizations, while ensuring that air quality 

requirements are met. The Commission will consider proposed revisions to the AQCC's 

Regulation Number 10 and the Procedural Rules, governing conformity determinations in 

Colorado. 

HEARING SCHEDULE: 

DATE: December 15,2011 

TIME: 9:00AM 

PLACE: Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment 

4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Sabin Conference Room 

Denver, Colorado 80246 

The hearing may be continued at such places and time as the Commission may announce. Interested 

parties may contact the Commission Office at 303-692-3476 to confirm meeting dates and times. 

PUBLIC COMMENT: 

The Commission encourages all interested persons to provide their views either orally at the 

hearing or in writing prior to or at the hearing. The Commission especially solicits comments 

and analyses from persons who will incur directly some cost or benefit from the proposed 

revisions. Public testimony will be taken as close to the start of the hearing as possible and 

during the hearing as necessary. Written and/or electronic submissions are requested, but not 

required to be submitted prior to the hearing to allow review prior to presentation at the hearing. 

Written and/or electronic submissions should be mailed to the Commission Office at least 14 

days prior to the hearing. 

Page 1 of3 
PARTY STATUS: 

In order to obtain party status at the hearing, compliance with several requirements as defined in 

the Commissions Procedural Rules is necessary. A petition for party status must be filed by 

electronic mail with the Office of the Air Quality Control Commission no later than close of 

business on October 18, 2011. The petition must: 1) identify the applicant; 2) provide the name, 

address, telephone andfacsimile numbers, and email address of the applicants representative; 

and 3) briefly summarize what, if any, policy, factual, and legal issues the applicant has with the 

proposal(s) as of the time of filing the application. Electronically mailed copies must also be 

received, by this same date, by the Division staff person and the Assistant Attorneys General 

representing the Division and the Commission identified below. 

Any person may petition the Commission to file documents in paper copy format if they are 

unable for any reason to comply with the requirements of 1.3.8(2) of the Commission's 

Procedural Rules. An original and a specified number of paper copies must be filed in the Office 

ofthe Air Quality Control Commission, Colorado Department of Public Health and 

Environment, 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver, Colorado 80246. Individuals may also 

obtain party status through the submittal of an initial alternative rule to the proposed rule. The 

submittal of an alternative proposal must be accompanied by an electronic copy of the initial 

alternative proposed rule and all other associated documents as required by the Commission's 

procedural rules and must be filed by electronic mail with the Office of the Commission by the 

date specified for party status requests. Initial alternative rules must also be filed by electronic 

mail with the Division staff person and with each of the Assistant Attorneys General. 

Theresa L. Martin 

Air Quality Control Commission 

4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, EDO-AQCC-A5 

Denver, CO 80246 

Theresa.Martin@state.co.us 

Attorney for the Commission 

Andrea Gelfuso-Goetz 

Attorney General's Office 

1525 Sherman Street, 7th Floor 

Denver, CO 80203 

Andrea.Goetz@state.co.us 

Lisa Silva 

Air Pollution Control Division 

4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, APCD-B 1 

Denver, CO 80246 

Lisa.Silva@state.co.us 

Attorneys for the Division 

Tom Roan 

Attorney General's Office 

1525 Sherman Street, 7th Floor 

Denver, CO 80203 

Tom.Roan@state.co.us 

Requests received beyond the above stated deadline shall only be considered upon a written 

motion for good cause shown. The Commission reserves the right to deny party status to anyone 

that does not comply with the Commission's procedural rules. 

STATUS CONFERENCE: 

A status conference will be held October 25, 2011 at 1:00 p.m., at the Department of Public 

Health and Environment to ascertain and discuss the issues involved, and to ensure that parties 

are making all necessary efforts to discuss and resolve such issues prior to the submission of 

prehearing statements. Attendance at this status conference is mandatory for anyone who has 

requested party status. 

Page 2 of3 
PREHEARING CONFERENCE/PREHEARING STATEMENTS: 

Attendance at the prehearing conference is mandatory for all parties to this hearing. A 

prehearing conference will be held November 22, 2011 at 1:00 p.m. in the Commission Offices 

at 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver. All parties must submit by electronic mail a 

prehearing statement to the Commission Office by close of business November 15,2011. In 

addition, electronically mailed copies of these documents must be delivered by that date to all 

persons who have requested party status. A copy of the pre hearing statement must also be 

electronically mailed to the Division point of contact and each of the Assistant Attorneys General 

identified above by close of business November 15, 2011. Any revisions to the prehearing 

statement must be submitted to the Administrator of the Commission at the pre hearing 

conference and by electronic mail to the Commission Office on the day of the prehearing 

conference. Any exhibit included in the prehearing statements will be electronically mailed to 

individual Commissioners for review prior to the hearing, provided the party files electronic 

copies of such exhibit. Rebuttals to the prehearing statement may be submitted to the 

Commission Office and all other parties by close of business November 29,2011. 

EXCEPTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: 

The Commission's Procedural Rules provide for an exception to file documents by electronic 

mail. If granted an exception to electronic filing pursuant to the provisions of 1.3.8(3) of the 

Commission's Procedural Rules, the applicant for party status shall file an original and fifteen 

copies of the pre hearing statement in the Office of the Air Quality Control Commission, and 

shall also deliver copies to each other party, applicant for party status, the Assistant Attorneys 

General representing the Commission and Division, and the Division staff person for the 

proceedings, by electronic mail or as otherwise provided by the exception granted under 

Subsection 1.3.8(3), by that same day. 

STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR THE COMMISSION'S ACTIONS: 

The Commission promulgates these regulatory changes pursuant to its authority under Section 

25-7-106(3), C.R.S. to adopt regulations governing procedures before the Commission. 

The Commission promulgates these regulatory changes pursuant to its authority under Section 

25-7-105(l)(a)(l), C.R.S. to adopt a comprehensive state implementation plan that meets the 

requirements of the federal Clean Air Act. 

The rulemaking hearing will be conducted in accordance with Sections 24-4-103 and 25-7-110, 

110.5 and 110.8 C.R.S., as applicable and amended, the Procedural Rules ofthe Commission and 

as otherwise stated in this notice. This list of statutory authority is not intended as an exhaustive 

list of the Commission's statutory authority to act in this matter. 

Dated this 16th day of September 2011 at Denver, Colorado 

Colorado Air Quality Control Commission 

Michael Silverstein, Administrator 

Page 3 of3 

I 

I 

I 

I 

f 

I 

I 

l 

t 

i 
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 

Air Quality Control Commission 

REGULATION NUMBER 10 

CRITERIA FOR ANALYSIS OF TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY 

5 CCR 1001 12 

PART A Determining Conformity of General Federal AGtions to State or Federal 

Implementation Plans 

I. Incorporation of the Federal Rule 

The provisions of Title 40, Part 51, Subpart VV and Title 40, Section 6.303, of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, (July 1, 1994), promulgated by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are hereby 

incorporated by reference by the Air Quality Control Commission and made part of the Colorado Air 

Quality Control Commission Regulations. 

Materials incorporated by reference are those in existence as of the dates indicated and do not include 

later amendments. The material incorporated by reference is available for public inspection during 

regular business hours at the Office of the Commission, located at 4300 Cherry Creek Drive, South, 

Denver, CO 80246 1530, or may be examined at any state publications depository library. Parties 

'.vishing to inspect these materials should contact the Technical Secretary of the Commission, located at 

the Office of the Commission. 

II. Statement of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority and Purpose 

II.A. October 17, 1996 

Part A: General Conformity 

Background 

This statement of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority and Purpose complies with the requirements 

of the Administrative Procedures Act, C.R. S. 1973, Section 24 4 1 03(4) for adopted or modified 

regulation. 

The EPA has promulgated rules to ensure that Federal actions conform to the appropriate State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). Conformity to a SIP is defined in the Clean Air Act as meaning 

conformity to a SIP's purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of 

the National .A.mbient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and achieving expeditious attainment of 

such standards. The Federal agency responsible for the action is required to determine if its 

actions conform to the applicable SIP. Colorado is required, through federal rule, to submit to 

EPA revisions to the SIP establishing conformity criteria and procedures consistent with federal 

fUle,. 

Statutory Authority 

I 

l 

I 
The general authority for this regulation is contained in the Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and 

Control Act, Section 25 7 1 05(1 )(a), Vlhich requires the Commission to promulgate a state 

implementation plan, which will assure attainment and maintenance of the NPAQS. This 

regulation incorporates the federal requirements, and does not go further than the requirements. 

Purpose 

The purpose of the rule is to implement Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act, which requires that all 

federal actions conform to an applicable implementation plan developed pursuant to Section 110 

and Part D of the Act. The Commission is incorporating the EPA rule by reference in order to 

comply 'Nith the federal requirements. 

PART B Conformity to State Implementation Plans of Transportation Plans, Programs, and 

Projects Developed, Funded or Approved Under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act 

h Purpose. applicability and incorporation of material by reference 

I.A. The purpose of this Part B of Regulation Number 10 is to implement a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) governing transportation conformity determinations, including the establishment of state 

specific interagency consultation procedures, and addressing the obtainment and enforceability of 

written commitments to certain transportation control measures and project mitigation and control 

measures, as required by 40 CFR, Section 51.390, as published at 62 Federal Register 158 

(August 15, 1997), and as amended through 73 Federal Register 4439, January 24, 2008. 

I. B. This rule shall have the same applicability as 40 CFR, Part 93, as published at 62 Federal 

Register 158 (P.ugust 15, 1997), and as amended through 73 Federal Register 4439, January 24, 

2008. In general, such federal requirements apply to transportation projects, transportation 

improvement programs, regional transportation plans, and State Implementation Plans. 

I. C. The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the 

provisions of 40 CFR, Part 93, as published at 62 Federal Register 158 (August 15, 1997), and as 

amended through 73 Federal Register 4439, January 24, 2008. Materials incorporated by 

reference are those in existence as of the date of this regulation and do not include later 

amendments. The material incorporated by reference is available for public inspection during 

regular business hours at the Office of the Commission, located at 4300 Cherry Creek Drive 

South, Denver, Colorado 80222, or may be examined at any state publications depository library. 

Parties wishing to inspect these materials should contact the Technical Secretary of the 

Commission, located at the Office of the Commission. 

L-lh---Requirement to comply with the Federal rule 

The purpose of Regulation Number 10 is to fulfill the requirement in 40 CFR 51.390(b) to 

establish a SIP revision that addresses the provisions of sections 40 CFR 93.1 05(a) 

through (e). 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii}, and 40 CFR 93.125(c) of the federal transportation 

conformity rule (see 40 CFR Part 93. Subpart A). Any person making a transportation 

conformity determination or adopting or approving a regionally significant project shall 

comply with the provisions of +itle-40 CFR, Part 93, Subpart A:., which rules are 

incorporated into 101(c) of this regulation by reference, except as follows: __ _ 
It .A. The interagency consultation procedures established in Section-1¥ !!!. of this document 

specify Colorado procedures and shall apply in addition to the consultation procedures 

established in 40 CFR Section 93.105 (a) through (e). 

ti.B. Colorado-specific provisions in Section !V. of this document that require obtainment of 

and fulfillment of written commitments to SIP control measures not included in a 

transportation plan or Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) shall apply, pursuant to 

40 CFR Section 93.122 (a)(4)(ii). 

ti.C. Colorado-specific provisions in Section Vt of this document regarding design concept 

and scope and enforceability of project-level mitigation and control measures shall apply, 

pursuant to 40 CFR Section 93.125 (c). 

lit. Definitions 

In addition to the Federal rule definitions incorporated bv reference, the follo•Ning terms are defined or 

further delineated: 

COOT means the Colorado Department of Transportation. 

Commission means the Air Quality Control Commission as defined in §Section 25-7-103(7), 

C.R.S. 

Division means The Air Pollution Control Division, pursuant to §:Section 25-7-111, C.R.S. 

Hot Spot Analvsis is an estimation of likely future localized criteria CO. PM1 0 and/or PM2.5 

pollutant (or their precursor) concentrations and a comparison of those concentrations to the 

national ambient air quality standards. Federally required hot spot analyses assess impacts of 

pollutants on a scale smaller than the entire nonattainment or maintenance area. including for 

example. congested roadway intersections. highway portions. or transit terminals. using air 

quality dispersion modeling. 

Lead Air Quality Planning Agency (LPA)- is an agency designated by Colorado's Governor. 

which shall be the agency that is charged, together with the Division, with the duty of developing 

the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for any nonattainment or maintenance area. Unless 

otherwise appointed by the Governor, the LPA for the Denver nonattainment area shall be the 

Regional Air Quality Council; the LPA for the Colorado Springs nonattainment area shall be the 

Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments; the LPA for the Ft. Collins, Loveland, and Greeley 

nonattainment areas shall be the North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality Planning 

Council, also known as the North Front Range MPO. Where a nonattainment or maintenance 

area crosses MPO boundaries. more than one agency may serve as an LPA.. E..,.g., the 8-hour 

Ozone Nonattainment area encompassing both the Denver Regional Council of Governments 

and the North Front Range MPO, as well as non-MPO areas from the Upper Front Range 

Transportation Planning Region, is served the Regional Air Quality Council, the North Front 

Range MPO, and the APCD as lead planning agencies. The requirements of this rule shall a1so 

apply to any successors of such LPAs, and to any LPA that is subsequently created for any area, 

or that otherwise assumes the duties and obligations of the LPAs identified in this definition. The 

Division, in consultation with the municipal and county governments within the affected 

nonattainment area, shall perform any duty or obligation assigned to the LPA for the Longmont 

nonattainment area, and for any area for which there is no LPA or for which the LPA is unwilling 

or unable to perform such duty or obligation. 
Metropolitan planning organization (MPO) is that organization designated as being responsible, 

together with the State, for conducting the continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive planning 

process under 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 1607. It is the lead agency for preparing 

transportation plans. TIPs and transportation conformity documents. and it provides a forum for 

cooperative transportation decision-making. 

Project-level Conformitv See: Hot Spot Analvsis 

Regional Transportation Conformity refers to the status of a transportation planning region's 

conformance to relevant State Implementation Plans (SIPs). A conforming region's transportation 

plans and TIPs have passed emissions tests that must indicate they are unlikely to cause. 

contribute to. or increase the severity and frequency of future violations of national ambient air 

quality standards. Regional Conformity is demonstrated using transportation network models and 

air quality models and comparing projected transportation-related pollutant emissions to motor 

vehicle emissions budgets. or where budgets are not established, other emission limits for the 

region. To make a positive Conformity finding for a region. future emissions must not exceed 

certain limits, e.g., emission budgets, and transportation projects. plans and TIPs must not 

interfere with any transportation controle measures required by SIPs. 

Review Team is that group of interagency representatives who consult regarding Transportation 

Conformity assessment and findings, e.g., the Interagency Consultation Group (ICG) +eam 

developed by the Denver Regional Council of Governments. The review team's responsibilities 

are defined in Section IV of this rule. 

Regionally Significant Project means a transportation project (other than an exempt project*) for§. 

facility that serves regional transportation needs. such as access to and from the area outside the 

region, major activity centers in the region. major planned developments such as new retail malls. 

sports complexes. etc .. or transportation terminals as well as most terminals themselves) and 

would 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 and 

alternative to regional highway travel. For the purposes of this rule. regionally significant projects 

include only those located in nonattainment or maintenance aras. *Exempt projects are listed in 

the Federal Regulation at 40 CFR Part 93. 126 and Part 93. 127 and include safety improvements 

and signa/light synchronization. 

Routine Conformitv Determination generally, is one that is made for transportation plans and, 

TIPs and/or their amendments involving: (1) Individual roadway projects adding less than two 

lane miles. with additional miles for all projects equaling <10 lane miles: and /or .(2) Projects with 

revisions to staging years only, and/or (3) Minor transit station plan revisions. Conformity 

Determinations for areas with Limited Maintenance Plans. which do not have emissions budgets. 

as such areas have been in attainment for 20 years or longer. would also generally be considered 

"routine." -Notwithstanding this general definition. the APCD at its discretion may request that any 

Conformity Determination be reviewed by the Commission. 

Transportation Control Measure (TCM) is any measure that is specifically identified and 

committed to in the applicable implementation plan (air quality SIP) through the process 

established in CAA section 176 ( c ) (8). that is either one of the tvpes listed in CAA section 108. 

or any other measure designed to reduce emissions or concentrations of air pollutants from 

transportation sources by reducing vehicle use or changing traffic flow or congestion conditions. 

Vehicle technology-based, fuel-based and maintenance-based measures. e.g., inspection and 

maintenance programs, are not TCM's. 
Transportation Improvement Program (TIPJ-A prioritized program of transportation projects 

funded with federal transportation funds. developed under 23.U.S.C. 134(j) and 23 CFR Parts 

450.324 through 450.330. The TIP must be fiscally constrained. and. in air quality nonattainment 

and maintenance areas. the MPO. as well as FHWA and FTA must determine that the TIP 

achieves Conformity 

Transportation Plan in the context of this regulation means a fiscally constrained plan prepared by 

a Metropolitan Planning Organization or COOT and a local government or governments and/or 

regional planning commission pursuant to 23 U.S. C. 134 and as amplified by 23 CFR part 

450.322 (also referred to as a metropolitan transportation plan. regional transportation plan. or 

long-range transportation plan) for which a regional conformity determination is required. Outside 

of MPO's. the Colorado Department of Transportation. along with local governments. develops 

regional transportation plans. The overall State Transportation Plan incorporates all of the 

regional plans. 

Transportation Planning Region (TPRJ is a geographic area for which the transportation planning 

process required by 23 USC 134 and 135 and Section 8 of the Federal Transit Act must be 

carried out. Per Colorado regulations (CCR 43-1-1102). a TPR is a geographically designated 

area of the state for which a regional transportation plan may be developed pursuant to the 

provisions of 43-1-11 02 and 11 03. CRS. 

I!LV. Interagency Consultation 

W:-!!LA. Roles and Responsibilities for Transportation Conformity Determinations and Related SIP 

Development. 

W:-!!LA.1. This rule sets out the minimum requirements for interagency consultation 

(Federal, State, regional and local) and resolution of conflicts. Representatives 

of the MPOs, local transit agency, the Division, the LPA and COOT shall 

undertake an interagency consultation process in accordance with this section 

with each other and with local or regional offices of EPA, FHWA, and FTA on the 

development of the implementation plan, the list of TCMs in the applicable 

implementation plan, the transportation plan, the TIP, and all conformity 

determinations required by this rule. The MPO shall provide notice of revisions to 

Conformity documents through the normal planning process. The interagency 

consultation process shall be used in developing or noticing shall apply to any 

revisions e.f to the preceding §D.Y_documents that could affect Transportation 

.QGonformity. 

W:-!!LA.2. It shall be the role and responsibility of each agency identified as a lead 

agency to prepare the final document and to ensure the adequacy of the 

interagency consultation process. Designation as a lead agency for any decision 

item shall mean that such agency shall be responsible for making the final 

decision on such decision item, except that any such decision shall be subject to 

the dispute resolution process set out in Section IV. H. 

W:-III.A.3. In each nonattainment area, COOT, the LPA, the Division, the MPO, 

local transit agency, and other agencies, as appropriate, may develop a written 

agreement pursuant to Section IV. G. that outlines the specific roles and 

responsibilities of various participants in the interagency consultation process for 

the preparation of SIPs, transportation plans, TIPs and conformity 

I 

I I 

f 
determinations. In the absence of such a written agreement, in addition to the 

other duties specified in this rule, the specific roles and responsibilities of the 

various participants in the interagency consultation process shall be as follows: 

.WIII.A.3.a. The Division shall be responsible for: (A) emissions inventories; 

(B) air quality modeling and/or quality-assuring air quality modeling that 

is performed by the MPOs or COOT; (C) performing attainment 

demonstrations; (D) assisting the LPA in the development of pollutant 

specific implementation plan revisions; (E) providing technical and policy 

input oo regarding emission factors and emissions budgets; and (F) 

updating motor vehicle emissions factors . 

.W!ll.A.3.b. The LPA, or the Division if there is no LPA, shall: (A) develop 

pollutant-specific state implementation plans for submittal to the 

Commission; and (B) prepare emissions budgets . 

.W!ll.A.3.c. The MPO shall: (A) develop transportation plans and TIPs, and 

shall make conformity determinations on transportation plans and TIPs 

within the applicable area, and shall be the lead agency for the 

development of such plans and TIPs, and for such conformity 

determinations; (B) develop transportation and socioeconomic data and 

planning assumptions and provide such data and planning assumptions 

to the Division for use in air quality analysis; (C) perform transportation 

modeling and documentation of timely implementation of TCMs needed 

for conformity assessments and Sl P development; and (D) monitor 

regionally significant projects, and ensure that all disclosed, or otherwise 

known, regionally significant projects are included in the regional 

emissions analysis. The MPO may: (E) provide technical and policy 

input on emissions budgets; (F) perform air quality modeling for 

transportation conformity purposes: and (G~) evaluate TCM impacts on 

transportation as needed . 

.W!ll.A.3.d. COOT shall: (A) provide technical input on proposed revisions to 

motor vehicle emissions factors, (B) convene air quality technical review 

meetings on specific projects when requested by other agencies or as 

needed, and (C) comment on transportation control measures and other 

aspects of the SIP that may affect the operation, construction or 

maintenance of the transportation system . 

.W!ll.A.3.e. In addition to the duties and responsibilities identified in 

paragraph d. above, for FHWA/FTA projects located outside of 

metropolitan planning areas, COOT shall convene the appropriate 

parties to outline roles and responsibilities and coordinate efforts needed 

to: (A) perform the required conformity evaluation for such projects, and 

shall be identify the lead agency for such evaluations; (B) provide 

technical and policy input on emissions budgets; (C) develop 

socioeconomic data and planning assumptions for use in air quality 

analysis to determine conformity of projects in consultation with the 

affected municipal and county governments and state agencies; and (D) 

perform transportation modeling, regional emissions analyses and 

documentation of timely implementation of TCMs needed for conformity 

assessments. COOT may also conduct air quality modeling pursuant to a 

conformity determination. COOT may via formal agreement, arrange to 
have other organizations, including MPOs perform such conformity 

determination tasks. 

W!!!.A.3.f. The Commission shall be responsible for promulgating revisions 

to the SIP and for determining whether a regional conformity 

determination should be appealed to the Governor. 

Wffi.B. Establishing a forum for Regional Conformity consultation 

Wffi.B.1. Minimum Consultation Requirements. 

WIII.B.1.a. The MPO shall establish and maintain a forum, herein referred to 

as the review team, for regular consultation. The MPO may establish a 

committee, or use existing committees, to perform the tasks assigned to 

the review team, provided the agencies identified in Subparagraph 

IV.B.1.b., below, have an opportunity to participate. Conference calls or 

written correspondence may be used to hold the meetings required by 

this rule upon the concurrence of the Division and any affected LPA. 

The review team shall comply with the minimum requirements set out in 

paragraph c. below, except that, outside of metro planning areas, COOT 

shall perform the functions assigned to the MPO. 

WIII.B.1.b. The review team shall consist, at a minimum, of the MPO as lead 

agency, the local transit agency, the Division, COOT, and the LPA. In 

addition, the review team shall include EPA, FHWA and the FTA for the 

topics identified in Subsection C.1. The agencies on the review team 

may appoint individual staff members, of any organizational level, to 

participate in the review team. 

Will. B.1.c. The review team established pursuant to paragraphs a. and b. 

shall comply with the following minimum requirements: 

lll¥.-.:.B.1.c.(1) The MPO consultation process shall begin early enough 

for the review team to adequately review and provide meaningful 

input on draft transportation plans, TIPs and conformity 

determinations, including supporting documents. 

Wffi. B.1.c.:."(2) A schedule of meetings or a process for providing 

adequate notice of subsequent meetings shall be developed as 

part of the consultation process. The schedule of meetings shall 

be frequent enough to address all significant issues in a timely 

fashion. 

Wffi.B.1.c.(3) The MPO shall establish an agenda for each meeting, 

and shall include in such agenda any issue or item upon the 

request of any member. 

Wffi.B.1.c.(4) Any member may, at any time, request a meeting 

through the consultation process. Upon such a request, the 

MPO should schedule a meeting as soon as practicable. 

I 

I 

I 

I 
t¥.-!lLB.1.c.(5) The MPO shall respond in written form to written 

comments received from any of the members of the review team 

copying all review team members . 

.Will. C. Topics for GConsultation 

.Wffi.C.1. The review team shall address the following topics in the manner 

provided . 

.Wffi.C.1.a. Evaluating and choosing a model (or models) and associated 

methods and assumptions to be used in regional emissions analyses. 

The MPO shall be responsible for selecting the transportation modeling 

procedures to be used within its modeling domain. The Division shall be 

responsible for selecting the emissions or air quality modeling procedures used 

for performing regional emissions analyses for conformity determinations and for 

SIP revisions . 

.Wffi.C.1.b. Determining which minor arterials and other transportation 

projects should be considered "regionally significant" for the purposes of 

regional emissions analysis (in addition to those functionally classified as 

principal arterial or higher or fixed guideway systems or extensions that 

offer an alternative to regional highway travel). and which projects should 

be considered to have a significant change in design concept and scope 

from the transportation plan or TIP. 

t¥.-!lLC.1.b.(1) The review team shall review the transportation network 

and identify minor arterials that serve regional transportation 

needs . 

.Wffi.C.1.b.(2) Review the transportation projects disclosed to the MPO 

pursuant to Section IV. E., and all transportation projects 

otherwise known to the members that may be regionally 

significant projects, and identify as regionally significant those 

projects that are on a facility which serves regional transportation 

needs and that would normally be included in the modeling of the 

metropolitan area's transportation network . 

.Wffi.C.1.b.(3) Identify any significant changes in design concept and 

scope of any project from the transportation plan, TIP, or 

regional emissions analysis supporting the conformity 

determination for a conforming TIP, upon the request of any 

participant in the consultation process, or any recipient of funds 

designated under Title 23 or the Federal Transit Act with 

authority to adopt or approve of the subject regionally significant 

project. 

.WIII.C.1.c. Evaluating whether projects otherwise exempted from meeting 

the requirements of this subpart (see 40 CFR Sections 93.126 and 

93.127) should be treated as non-exempt in cases where potential 

emissions impacts may exist for any reason. 
W!!l.C.1.c.(1) At the request of any participant in the consultation 

process, the review team shall determine whether projects 

otherwise exempt from meeting the requirements of this subpart 

should be treated as non-exempt in cases where potential 

emissions impacts may exist for any reason. 

W!!l.C.1.c.(2) For each non-attainment area that is outside of a 

metropolitan planning area, COOT shall consult with the review 

team to identify categories of exempt projects that should be 

treated as non-exempt for such area. 

WIII.C.1.d. Making a determination. as required by 40 CFR Section 

93.113(c)(1 ). whether past obstacles to implementation of TCMs 

implementation which are behind the schedule established in the 

applicable implementation plan have been identified and are being 

overcome. and whether State and local agencies with influence over 

approvals or funding for TCMs are giving maximum priority to approval or 

funding for TCMs. 

W!!l.C.1.d.(1) The LPA and the Division shall provide the MPO with 

information necessary to develop a list of the TCMs, which are in 

the applicable implementation plan. The LPA may also request 

that the MPO, COOT, the public transit agency, or any other 

agency responsible for implementing SYGh a TCM reaffirm the its 

commitment to implement the applicable~ TCM pursuant to the 

schedule established in the SIP. 

W!!l.C.1.d.(2) The MPO, after consultation with the other participants in 

the consultation process review team. shall determine whether 

past obstacles to implementation of TCMs which are behind the 

schedule established in the applicable implementation plan 

fl.ahave been identified and are being overcome, and whether 

State and local agencies with influence over approvals or funding 

for TCMs are giving maximum priority to approval or funding for 

TCMs. For each such determination, the MPO shall identify the 

past obstacles, the steps taken to overcome SYGh 

obstaclesthem, the State and local agencies with influence over 

approvals or funding, the basis for finding that such agencies are 

giving maximum priority to such approval or funding, and a 

revised schedule for the implementation of the TCM. 

W!!l.C.1.d.(3) The MPO shall report a determination that past 

obstacles to implementation of aany situation in which it 

determines that obstacles to implementing a -TCM which is 

behind schedule have not been identified or are not being 

overcome, or that State and local agencies with influence over 

approvals or funding of such TCMi are not giving maximum 

priority to approval or funding for TCMs. The report shall be 

provided, to the agency sponsoring the TCM, the Division, the 

Commission and the Governor. The Commission may schedule 

the matter for a hearing toregarding enforcement. and/or remove 

GF replacement SIJGR-of TCMs. 

l 

I 

I 
W!!!.C.1.e.-- Notification of transportation plan or TIP revisions or 

amendments. which merely add or delete exempt projects listed in 40 

CFR Section 93.126 or 93.127. 

The MPO shall provide notice through the normal planning process_, prior to 

consideration of any proposed amendment that adds or deletes exempt projects 

listed in 40 CFR Section 93.126 or 93.127 to or from the transportation plan or 

TIP. 

W!!!.C.1.f. Process for providing final documents and supporting 

information to each agency after approval or adoption. 

The MPO shall transmit make available final TIPs and transportation plans to 

participants in the consultation process. 

W!!!.C.1.g._--Choosing conformity tests and methodologies for isolated rural 

nonattainment areas. as required by 40 CFR Section 93.1 09(1). 

The Division and COOT shall choose, in consultation with the members of the 

review team, the requirements and methodologies to be used to comply with 40 

CFR Section 93.109. If the Division and COOT cannot agree, the issue shall be 

referred to the Commission for review at a public meeting pursuant to Section 

W!!!.H. The Commission may escalate the matter to the Governor as provided in 

Section W!!!.H. 

WIII.C.2. The review team shall address the following topics in the manner 

provided. Outside of the metropolitan planning areas, COOT shall perform the 

tasks assigned to the MPO, excepting conformity determination tasks that it 

contracts out to other entities. 

W!!!.C.2.a. Evaluating events which will trigger new conformity 

determinations in addition to those triggering events established in 40 

CFR 93.104. 

W!!!.C.2.a.(1) The MPO may identify events that would trigger new 

conformity determinations in addition to those triggering events 

established in 40 CFR Section 93.104, and the pollutant specific 

SIPs. Alternatively, the Commission may promulgate regulations 

or revise the SIP to identify events in a manner that would trigger 

a new conformity determination. 

W!!!.C.2.a.(2) The MPO will consult with the review team to evaluate 

whether events that may trigger a new conformity determination 

pursuant to 40 CFR Section 93.104 or a pollutant specific SIP 

have occurred. 

W!!!.C.2.b. Consulting on emissions analysis for transportation activities that 

cross the borders of MPOs or nonattainment areas or basins. 

In the event that contiguous MPOs are created within the state, the affected 

MPOs shall, in consultation with the participants in the consultation process, 

establish a consultation procedure for consulting on emissions analyses for 
transportation activities that cross the borders of MPOs or nonattainment areas 

or air basins. 

W!!!.C.2.c. Determining conformity of projects outside the metropolitan area 

and within the nonattainment or maintenance area. 

In the event that a nonattainment or maintenance area is created in the state that 

includes a metropolitan planning area or areas, but such metropolitan planning 

area(s) does not include the entire nonattainment or maintenance area, the 

affected MPOs, in consultation with the participants in the consultation process, 

shall establish a procedure for consulting on emissions analyses for 

transportation activities that cross the borders of MPOs or nonattainment areas 

or air basins. 

W!!!.C.2.d. Process for consulting on the design. schedule. and funding of 

research and data collection efforts and regional transportation model 

development by the MPO. 

The MPO, in consultation with the review team shall determine the design, 

schedule and funding of significant research and data collection efforts and 

regional transportation model development. 

W!!!.C.3. ~ Hot-spot analysis: (1) Evaluating and choosing a model (or models) 

and associated methods and assumptions to be used in hot-spot modeling; and 

(2) identifying. as required by 40 CFR Section 93.123(b), projects located at sites 

in nonattainment or maintenance areas that have vehicle and roadway emission 

and dispersion characteristics essentially identical to those at sites where 

violations have been verified by monitoring. and therefore require quantitative 

pollutant hot-spot analysis. COOT, the APCD, USEPA, and USDOT will: 

WIII.C.3.a. Determine which types of projects should be evaluated for 

localized hot spots. COOT, subject to concurrence by the Division, shall 

identify the projects or categories of projects that shall be evaluated for 

potential hot spots. 

W!!!.C.3.b. Evaluate and choose a model (or models) and associated 

methods and assumptions to be used in hot-spot analyses. COOT shall 

be responsible for selecting the hot spot model to be used for conformity 

determinations. 

W!!!.D. Process for assuming the location and design concept and scope of projects disclosed to 

the MPO as required by paragraph (E) of this section but 'Nhose in cases where sponsors 

have not yet decided these features in sufficient detail to perform the regional emissions 

analysis according to the requirements of 40 CFR Section 93.122. 

W!!!.D.1. The MPO shall contact the sponsor of any project disclosed to the MPO 

pursuant to Section W!!!.E., but whose sponsors have not yet decided these 

features in sufficient detail to perform the regional emissions analysis according 

to the requirements of 40 CFR Section 93.122, and shall request that such 

sponsor develop the location and design concept and scope of the project for the 

purpose of including the project in the regional emissions analysis. 
WIII.D.2. If the sponsor is unwilling or unable to provide these features to the MPO 

in a timely fashion, the MPO shall propose reasonable assumptions about such 

features, and shall provide CDOT, the Division, the LPA, the project sponsor, and 

any recipient of funds designated under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act 

that has the authority to adopt or approve of the project, with a written description 

of the proposed assumptions. Following consultation with such agencies the 

MPO shall make assumptions about the location and design concept and scope 

of the project that are reasonably calculated to estimate the emissions 

associated with such project. Such assumptions shall be based on the 

information and comments about the project received by the MPO. 

Will.E. Process to ensure that plans for construction of regionally significant projects whlGR that 

are not FHWA/FTA projects (including projects for which alternative locations. design 

concept and scope, or the no-build options are still being considered), including those by 

recipients of funds designated under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act. are 

disclosed on a regular basis, and to ensure that any changes to---tRGse such plans are 

immediately disclosed. 

__ ___,_I.:..:.II:..::.E:.:...1.!..!._Prior to conducting a conformity analysis, the MPO shall ensure that COOT and 

each municipality, county and public transit agency within the metropolitan planning area, 

and each special district, improvement authority and regional agency with tAeapproval 

authority to adopt or approve_-effor -transportation projects within the metropolitan 

planning area, -are_§ notified of the requirement to include regionally-significant projects, 

and changes to plans for such projects, in the regional emissions analysis. 

ll!.F. Consultation eProcedures for dDevelopment of State Implementation Plans 

Wll!.F.1. Minimum Consultation Requirements -SIP development and revision. 

In each nonattainment or maintenance area, the LPA or the Division shall establish and 

maintain a review team for regular consultation to ensure that the transportation 

community is involved in the development of the implementation plans. Such review team 

shall also be established to develop and review any SIP revision that includes a new or 

revised mobile source emissions budget, or that requires a new or revised attainment or 

maintenance demonstration. The review team may be part of a larger consultation 

procedure established by the LPA or Division to include all sectors of the community (in 

addition to the transportation community). The consultation procedure shall comply with 

the minimum requirements listed below. If the review team is established by the Division, 

the Division shall perform the tasks assigned to the LPA. 

WIII.F.1.a. The review team shall consist of representatives of the MPO, the 

Division, COOT, the EPA, FHWA, FTA, and the public transit agency. 

Wll!.F.1.b. The LPA shall begin consultation meetings early enough in the 

process for review team members to adequately review the modeling 

used to support the SIP, and to review the proposed control measures. 

The LPA must provide an opportunity to review copies of the draft 

implementation plan, including supporting documents, to the other 

members of the review team, and shall provide at least thirty days for the 

submission of comments on the draft SIP prior to adoption by the LPA. 
W!!!.F.1.c. A schedule of meetings or a process for providing adequate 

notice of subsequent meetings shall be developed as part of the 

consultation process. The schedule of meetings shall be frequent 

enough to address all significant issues in a timely fashion. 

W!!!.F.1.d. The LPA shall establish an agenda for each meeting, and shall 

include in such agenda any issue or item upon the request of any 

participant. 

WIII.F.1.e. Any member may, at any time, request a meeting to consult with 

the LPA and the other participants. Upon such a request the LPA should 

schedule a meeting as soon as practicable. 

W!!!.F.1.f. The LPA shall respond in written form to written comments 

received from any of the participants. 

W!!!.F.1.g. SIPs and SIP revisions proposed by the LPA shall be subject to 

final approval by the Commission following a public hearing. The 

Division shall provide final copies of any SIP or SIP revision to the MPO, 

CDOT, the LPA, the public transit agency, the EPA, the FHWA, and FTA. 

W!!!.F.2. The LPA shall submit a list of TCMs included in the proposed SIP to the 

MPO, CDOT and each affected local agency or other sponsoring agency at least 

thirty days prior to approval of the SIP or SIP revision by the governing board of 

the LPA. 

W!!!.F.3. The SIP development procedures set out in this Section IV. F. shall be in 

addition to any other rules or regulations applicable to SIP development or SIP 

revisions. Nothing in this Section W!!!.F. shall be construed to supersede, alter 

or amend such other rules, or to incorporate such other requirements into the 

SIP. 

W!!!.G. Agreements further describing consultation procedures 

W!!!.G.1. The Division may enter into written agreements with the members of the 

review team to clarify and further develop the procedures for conformity 

determinations described in this Section W!!!. The Division may also enter into 

written agreements with the LPA and members of the committee established 

pursuant to Section W!!!.F. to further clarify or develop the SIP development 

procedures. The members of the review team may, by mutual agreement, 

delegate the tasks assigned to them under this rule to other members. Any 

member of the review team delegating a task shall conduct reasonable oversight 

of the delegated task as necessary to ensure proper performance. 

W!!!.G.2. Nothing in this regulation shall be construed to relieve the parties of the 

obligations set out in agreements entered into prior to the effective date of this 

rule, except to the extent that the provisions of such agreements are inconsistent 

with this rule. The Commission and Division shall continue membership on any 

MPO committee or council as provided in any such agreements. 

W!!!.H. Review of Conformity Determinations by the public. the Air Quality Control Commission, 

and resolution of conflicts. 
WIII.H.1. Per, 40 CFR Section 93.105(e), agencies making conformity 

determinations-i.e .. MPO's or CDOT--must provide for public review and 

comment prior to adopting new or amended transportation plans-and programs. 

W!!!.H.1.a. Agencies making conformity determinations must 

provide reasonable public access to relevant documents, consistent with 

23 CFR Section 450.316(a). Any charges imposed for public inspection 

or copying of documents would be consistent with USDOT regulations at 

49 CFR Section 7.43. 

W!!!.H.1.b. Agencies making conformity determinations must 

specifically address in writing any public comments asserting that a 

regionally significant project is not reflected in the emissions analysis 

supporting a positive conformity finding. 

W!!!.H.1.c Agencies making conformity determinations 

shall provide opportunity for public involvement in conformity 

determinations for projects where otherwise required by law. 

WIII.H.2. The Division shall make a finding regarding which Conformity 

Determinations are routine. per the definition set forth in this regulation. Routine 

Conformity Determinations regarding a TIP or Plan shall be reviewed by the 

Division. For instances in which the Division agrees that a positive Conformity 

Determination has been made, it shall provide notice of concurrence with those 

determinations .. Each conformity determination on a TIP or plan shall be 

presented to the Commission for its review prior to submittal to FHVVA .. The 

Division shall make the determination regarding whether a Conformity 

Determination is routine. If a Conformity Determination is non-routine. it shall be 

brought before the Commission for its review and possible concurrence. The 

Commission intends to conduct public meetings to review non-routine conformity 

determinations in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Air Quality 

Control Commission Procedural Rules, and reserves the right to schedule such 

meetings as permitted by the Commission's schedule and as necessary to 

comply with such procedural rules. However, this paragraph shall not be 

construed to incorporate such procedural rules into the SIP. No violation of such 

procedural rules shall be construed as a violation of the SIP, except where such 

procedural rules otherwise has been incorporated into the SIP. 

W!!!.H.3. Upon request of any member of the review team, a conformity 

determination on an FHWA project located outside of a metropolitan planning 

area shall be presented to the Commission prior to submittal to FHWA if there is 

a conflict that cannot be resolved by the review team. The request for such 

review must be filed as soon as practicable and shall not be filed any later than 

the first regularly scheduled Commission meeting following the final conformity 

determination. 

WIII.H.4. In-accordance with 40 CFR section 93.105(d}, conflicts among State 

agencies or between State agencies and an MPO may be escalated to the 

Governor. Such conflicts would render a Conformity Determination non-routine 

and subject to review by the AQCC. The fourteen calendar-days in which to 

appeal a conflict to the Governor shall commence upon review of a conformity 

determination by the Commission pursuant to this Subsection H., except as 

provided below at Sections (a) and (b). If the State appeals to the Governor, the 
final conformity determination must have the concurrence of the Governor. If the 

Commission does not appeal to the Governor within 14 days, or as provided 

below at Sections (a) and (b), the MPO or CDOT may proceed with the final 

conformity determination. 

W!l!.H.4.a. The Commission may extend the beginning of the time to 

escalate a conflict to the next regularly scheduled Commission meeting if 

the entity making the conformity determination amends such 

determination during the fourteen-day period preceding the Commission 

meeting. 

W!l!.H.4.b. Upon the agreement and concurrence of the entity making the 

conformity determination, the Commission may extend the beginning of 

the time to escalate a conflict as necessary to accommodate further 

consultation among the agencies. 

W!l!.H.4.c. For purposes of project level conformity determinations in 

isolated rural nonattainment and maintenance areas, a "final conformity 

determination" shall be taken to mean COOT's completed conformity 

analysis and recommended finding of conformity to FHWA. 

IV. Emission reduction credit for certain control measures. 

!VA Pursuant to 40 CFR Section 93.122(a)(4), emissions reduction credit from 

implementation plan control measures that are not included in the transportation plan and 

TIP and that do not require a regulatory action in order to be implemented may not be 

included in the emissions analysis unless the conformity determination includes written 

commitments to implementation from the appropriate entities. 

IV. B. Any entity making a written commitment to perform a control measure not included in the 

transportation plan or TIP shall fulfill such written commitment if the control measure is 

used for emissions reduction credit in a regional emissions analysis. 

VJY. Enforceability of design concept and scope and project-level mitigation and control measures. 

VJY.A. Pursuant to 40 CFR Section 93.125 (c), where project-level mitigation is conditional to a 

positive conformity determination, written commitments to such mitigation measures must 

be obtained. Project sponsors shall comply with these commitments. 

VUVI. Statements of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority, and Purpose 

VUVI.A. October 15, 1998 

The change to Regulation Number 10, "Criteria for Analysis of Conformity," Part B, 

"Transportation Conformity" will estabHsh criteria and procedures for making conformity 

determinations on transportation plans, transportation improvement programs (TIPs), FHWA/FTA 

projects, and consultation procedures for major revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). 

Federal Requirements 

Pursuant to 40 CFR Section 51.390, Colorado must submit to the EPA and the U.S. Department 

of Transportation (DOT), a revision to the SIP to establish criteria and procedures for DOT, 
metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and state and local transportation and air quality 

agencies to assess the conformity of transportation plans, programs, and projects, consistent with 

the requirements of 40 CFR, Part 93, Subpart A. 

The states may incorporate the substantive criteria for making conformity determinations set out 

in the federal rule, into the state rule by reference. The rule adopted by the Commission takes 

advantage of this opportunity and incorporates the criteria in 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart A by 

reference. 

The federal rule also requires the states to develop procedures for interagency consultation on 

transportation conformity determinations, and for SIP revisions. The federal rule establishes 

minimum requirements for such consultation procedures, but does not actually establish any 

procedures. Pursuant to 40 CFR Section 51.390 and 93.105, the states must develop and adopt 

such procedures, and submit the procedures to EPA for inclusion in the SIP. The rule adopted by 

the Commission establishes procedures for interagency consultation, and addresses each of the 

topics required by 40 CFR Section 93.105. The consultation procedure established in the rule is 

intended to create a meaningful interagency consultation process that complies with the federal 

requirements, but that provides the flexibility necessary to meet the needs of the Colorado 

Department of Transportation and the various MPOs in the State. The interagency consultation 

requirements track the minimum federal requirements, and are not otherwise more stringent than 

the federal requirements. 

The only provision in the rule that differs from the federal rule is the definition of the term 

"regionally significant project" contained in the state rule. The state rule includes a definition 

applicable to rural nonattainment areas that do not conduct modeling of the area's transportation 

network. The federal rule appears to assume that all nonattainment areas conduct such 

modeling. The specific definition in the rule for rural areas is necessary to reconcile the federal 

rule with the general practice in rural nonattainment areas, but is not more stringent than federal 

requirements. 

Contested Issues 

One MPO urged the Commission to adopt a rule requiring a public meeting to be held prior to 

final action by the MPO. The rule is written to allow flexibility, so that MPOs have the option of 

coming to the Commission either before or after their governing board takes final action on the 

conformity determination. However, the Commission strongly encourages the MPOs to submit a 

draft conformity determination to the AQCC for comment, so that the MPO can take the 

Commission's comments into account as early in the process as possible. 

Statutory Authority 

The transportation conformity rule is adopted under the Commission's general authority to adopt 

a SIP under §Section 25-7-105(1), C.R.S. (1997). 

Findings pursuant to §Section 25-7-110.8 

The portion of the rule incorporating the federal criteria for making conformity determinations is 

exempt from the requirements of §Section 25-7-110.8, C.R.S. (1997). The consultation 

requirements are administrative in nature, and are exempt from the requirements of §Section 25-

7-110.8(1)(b), C.R.S. The interagency consultation requirements establish a procedure for 

ensuring that the federal, state and local air quality agencies charged with protecting human 

health and the environment are consulted during the transportation conformity process. In this 

way, the rule will bring about reductions in risks to human health or the environment that will 
justify the cost of implementation of the rule. The rule adopted by the Commission complies with 

the minimum federal requirements and maximizes the air quality benefits of the regulation in the 

most cost-effective manner. No other party proposed any alternative rule that would accomplish 

this result in a more cost-effective manner. 

VUVI.B. November 20, 2008 

Transportation Conformity Update 

Background 

This Statement of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority and Purpose complies with the requirements 

of the Administrative Procedures Act, Section 24-4-103, C.R.S. and the Colorado Air Pollution 

Prevention and Control Act, Section 25-7-110.5, C.R.S. 

Basis and Purpose 

These revisions to "Part B, "Transportation Conformity," update the Regulation to incorporate by 

reference revisions to the federal rule, and to recognize Colorado-specific practices. 

The incorporations by reference adopt revisions to federal conformity regulations adopted by the 

EPA since 1997. Most of these revisions have streamlined processes and relaxed requirements. 

The revisions add language that addresses 40 CFR Section 93.122(a)(4)(ii) regarding obtaining 

and ensuring the fulfillment of written commitments to SIP control measures needed to achieve or 

maintain national ambient air quality standards that are not included in transportation plans or 

programs. These revisions also add language that addresses Section 93.125(c) regarding 

obtaining and ensuring the fulfillment of written commitments to transportation project mitigation 

measures. These are not new federal provisions, but they are newly required to be "addressed," 

i.e., made explicit in state conformity implementation plans. 

These revisions also make non-substantive changes including correcting citations, clarifying 

language, and striking of unnecessary or confusing language. 

Federal Requirements 

Pursuant to 40 CFR Section 51.390, Colorado must submit to the EPA and the U.S. Department 

of Transportation (DOT), a revision to the SIP to establish criteria and procedures for DOT, 

metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and state and local transportation and air quality 

agencies to assess the conformity of transportation plans, programs, and projects, consistent with 

the requirements of 40 CFR, Part 93, Subpart A. The states may incorporate the substantive 

criteria for making conformity determinations set out in the federal rule, into the state rule by 

reference. The rule adopted by the Commission takes advantage of this opportunity and 

incorporates the criteria in 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart A by reference. 

The federal rule also requires the states to develop procedures for interagency consultation on 

transportation conformity determinations, and for SIP revisions. The federal rule establishes 

minimum requirements for such consultation procedures, and requires States to establish these 

consultation procedures, including consultation with the public and conflict resolution at 40 CFR, 

Sections 93.105 (c) and (d). Pursuant to 40 CFR Sections 51.390 and 93.105, the states must 

develop and adopt such procedures, and submit the procedures to EPA for inclusion in the SIP. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR Sections 93.122(a)(4)(ii) and 93.125(c), States must also address the 
obtainment and enforceability of written commitments to Sl P control measures not included in 

transportation plan as well as transportation project mitigation measures. 

Statutory Authority 

This transportation conformity rule is adopted under the Commission's general authority to adopt 

a SIP under §Section 25-7-105(1), C.R.S. (1997). 

Findings pursuant to §Section 25-7-110.8 

The portion of the rule incorporating the federal criteria for making conformity determinations is 

exempt from the requirements of §Section 25-7-110.8, C.R.S. (1997). The revisions addressing 

public consultation, conflict resolution, written commitments to SIP control measures not 

contained in transportation plans and project-level mitigation conditional to a conformity 

determination track the requirements in federal rules and are mandated by federal law. These 

revisions provide for written commitment to incorporate mitigation measures into project design 

for transportation projects. Mitigation measures are frequently necessary to reduce localized 

emissions associated with transportation project construction, but rarely relied upon for conformity 

determinations. Where such commitments are necessary for a positive conformity determination, 

they must be enforced so as to reduce risks to human health or the environment, which justifies 

the cost of implementation of the rule. The rule adopted by the Commission complies with the 

minimum federal requirements and maximizes the air quality benefits of the regulation in the most 

cost-effective manner. No other party proposed any alternative rule that would accomplish this 

result in a more cost-effective manner. 

VI.C. December 15.2011 

Basis and Purpose 

The purpose of these amendments is to streamline the transportation conformity process by 

allowing the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division to provide concurrence with routine 

transportation conformity determinations without the need for a public hearing before the 

Colorado Air Quality Control Commission. This change to the conformity process is allowed for 

under federal law and will reduce the burden on the AQCC, the Division and transportation 

planning organizations. while ensuring that air quality requirements are met. In addition. the 

amendments include a number of clarifving provisions that will help facilitate the implementation 

of the regulation. 

Specific Statutory Authority 

The Commission promulgates these regulatory changes pursuant to its authority under Section 

25-7-105(1)(a)(l), C.R.S. to adopt a comprehensive state implementation plan that meets the 

requirements of the federal Clean Air Act. 

Findings Pursuant to Section 25-7-110.8 

The revisions to Regulation Number 10 are administrative in nature and are not intended to 

reduce air pollution. Rather. the revisions are intended to streamline the transportation 

conformity process and clarify existing requirements. while maintaining the air quality benefits of 

the existing rule. Accordingly, the requirements of Section 25-7-110.8. C.R.S. do not apply to this 

rulemaking. 
Meeting Agenda where Public Hearing Occurred and 

Notice published in the Legal Ads of the Denver Post 

40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V 2.1 (f) 
STATE OF COLORADO 

John W. Hickenlooper, Governor 

Christopher E. Urbina, MD, MPH, Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer 

COLORADO AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION 

http://www.cdphe.state.co.us 

4300 Cherry Creek Drive South 

OED-OLRA-A5 

Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 

Phone (303) 692-3100 

Fax (303) 691-7702 

TDD (303) 691-7700 

Colorado Department 

of Public Health 

and Environment 

Notice of Meeting and Agenda 

Air Quality Control Commission 

December 15, 2011 

Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment 

4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Sabin Room 

Call to Order: 

Approval of Minutes: 

Public Comment: 

RAQC Review: 

CONSENT AGENDA 

Denver, Colorado 

9:00a.m. 

Determination of a Quorum 

Review/ Approval of the October 20, 2011 meeting minutes of the 

Air Quality Control Commission. 

The public is invited to comment on any air pollution issue not on 

the agenda. The Commission will not take action on issues 

discussed under this item today; however, items may be scheduled 

for further discussion or action. 

Ken Lloyd of the Regional Air Quality Council will brief the 

Commission on updates from the RAQC and items that may be 

scheduled for further discussion. 

The Commission will vote on Item Numbers I through 4 as part of a Consent Agenda. Adoption 

of a Consent Agenda allows the Commission to consolidate voting on agenda items that do not 

need to be discussed individually and for which presentation of additional information is not 

required. 
REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING 

1. Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments (PP ACG) 

The Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments requests February 2012 hearing (or consent 

agenda ruling) regarding Conformity of its 2035 Moving Forward Regional Transportation 

Plan and 2012-2017 Transportation Improvement Program. The PP ACG has made an 

affirmative conformity determination for its Plan and TIP, and seeks AQCC concurrence 

with the findings. 

RULEMAKING HEARINGS 

2. Regulation Number 9: Smoke Management Distribution of Cost Update 

The Commission will consider revisions to Regulation Number 9 regarding a periodic 

update in each permittees recent emissions and permitting activity data. This data is used to 

determine the distribution of the cost of the smoke management program to each permittee. 

3. PM2.5 Interstate Transport SIP 

The Commission will consider a proposed revision to the Interstate Transport State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 2006 PM2.5 standard. This revision is a supplement to 

previously-approved chapters of the Interstate Transport SIP that the Commission approved 

in January 2010 and December 2008, which focused on the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 

standards. 

4. Steamboat Springs PMlO Maintenance Plan 

The Commission will consider a proposed SIP revision to the PM1 0 Maintenance Plan for 

the Steamboat Springs Attainment/Maintenance Area. Approval of the associated 

documents by both the City of Steamboat Springs and Routt County is anticipated by 

December 2011. Additionally, a change to the "Air Quality Standards- Air Quality 

Standards, Designations and Emission Budgets" regulation is proposed to update the PM1 0 

emission budget for the Steamboat Springs area. 

TRADITIONAL AGENDA 

RULEMAKING HEARINGS 

5. Regulation Number 10 and Procedural Rules: Criteria for Conformity 

(20 minutes presentation, 20 minutes discussion) 

The Commission will consider streamlining the transportation conformity process by 

allowing the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division to provide concurrence with routine 

transportation conformity determinations without the need for a public hearing before the 

Colorado Air Quality Control Commission. This change to the conformity process is 

allowed for under federal law and will reduce the burden on the AQCC, the Division and 

transportation planning organizations, while ensuring that air quality requirements are met. 

The Commission will consider proposed revisions to the SIP, AQCC's Regulation Number 

10 and the Procedural Rules. 

2 
BRIEFINGS, DISCUSSIONS AND REPORTS 

6. Rocky Mountain National Park 

(20 minutes presentation, 20 minutes discussion) 

The Air Pollution Control Division, National Park Service, and Environmental Protection 

Agency are working together on the RMNP Initiative, a collaborative effort to reduce 

nitrogen deposition in Rocky Mountain National Park. The agencies will brief the AQCC 

on the progress of the tasks outlined in the Nitrogen Deposition Reduction Plan endorsed by 

the Commission in 2007 and the Contingency Plan adopted in 2010. 

7. Monitoring Briefing 

(30 minutes presentation, 20 minutes discussion) 

The Division will brief the Commission on monitoring sites operated by the Division and 

others. The briefing will address EPA monitoring and siting requirements, why sites are 

located in certain places and not in others, what pollutants are monitored, and possibilities 

for additional monitoring. New monitoring requirements from EPA will also be addressed 

and the Division's current plans to meet those requirements. 

8. HB09-1199: Colorado Healthy Forests and Vibrant Communities Act 

( 40 minutes presentation, 20 minutes discussion) 

As a follow-up to the Commission's request from the March 2011 briefing, the Division will 

provide the Commission a status update regarding implementation of the recommendations 

from the HB09-1199 study. Additionally, the US Forest Service will be presenting a status 

update to the Commission on collaborative efforts with the Colorado Air Pollution Control 

Division regarding changes to the Colorado Smoke Management Program since the March 

17, 2011 Commission hearing. Deputy Regional Forester Brian Ferebee will be the lead 

presenter and will be assisted by several agency technical specialists. 

9. Commissioner Informational Items 

Commissioners will discuss among themselves activities that they have participated in over 

the past month that they believe other Commissioners and/or members of the public may be 

interested in hearing about. 

10. Division Director's Report- Will Allison 

Monthly activities report 

11. Attorney General's Report- Andrea Gelfuso-Goetz 

Update of any recent court actions on air quality issues 

12. Administrator's Report- Mike Silverstein 

• Review February agenda items 

• Review of Action Items from today's Commission meeting 

Adjourn 

3 
The Denver Newspaper Agency 

PUBLISHER'S AFFIDAVIT 

City and County of Denver ) 

State of Colorado ) 

The undersigned _Jean Birch_ 

being first duly sworn under oath, states 

and affirms as follows: 

) 

1. He/she is the legal Advertising Reviewer 

of the Denver Newspaper Agency, publisher 

of The Denver Post and Your Hub. 

2. The Denver Post and Your Hub are 

newspapers of general circulation that 

have been published continuously and 

without interruption for at least 

fifty-two weeks in Denver County 

and meet the legal requisites for a legal 

newspaper under Colo. Rev. Stat. 24-70-103. 

3. The notice that is attached hereto 

is a true copy, published in The Denver Post 

on the following date(s): 

CC.c )/ (4v: L ;.L·),. )iiI( 

,/1 /} 

11..-t:d 1 k · r_;kr t;.4 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this _31 

day of _October_, 2011. 

J Notary Public 

My commission expires _september 14, zou __ 

(SEAL) 

Noffi;eof PuDilclllldRulllm.acfnt ~CIIIIfPubiiC comment ._,.tngl 

PUB1.!$H 10/29/Jl . • , > ... . , . . . . • 

Ttl• Coloi:.OO.Alt;~ Control Co~ will hokltl\e fohowlno rutemal<- mohearlrt~ ' , ' : 

DATE: Oecem!Htrl5,2011 

~~; ~:'doeepartmentofPubllcHealthend&nvlroomen.t 430DC::I!errv creek DriVe Sou1tl -Sabin C:Ontertnce Room 

Cltllver,C080246 . ~~ 
Procedural Documents of the Commission 

- Agenda Item Control Sheet 

- Memorandum ofNotice 

- Economic Impact Analysis (initial and final) 

- Regulations Change List 
COLORADO AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION 

AGENDA ITEM CONTROL SHEET 

Item Title: Public Hearing: Proposed Revisions to AQCC Regulation Number 10, 

Criteria for Analysis of Conformity, and Associated Proposed Revisions to the AQCC 

Procedural Rules 

Meeting Date· December 15, 2011 

NON-HEARING ACTIONS 

Administrative 

_Briefing 

Policy 

Adoption 

_K_Required 

TYPES OF ACTION 

REQUEST FOR HEARING 

_ Public Rulemaking 

_Informational 

RECOMMENDED ACTION 

_x Approval 

MOTION 

Attached 

HEARING 

_K_Public Rulemaking 

_Informational 

Denial 

Not applicable 

~--------------------------------------------------------------~~ 

STATUTORY AUTHORITY 

General 2S_Specific 

EPA SUBMITTAL 

Is this issue considered a SIP revision? 2S_ Yes _No 

Which SIP? AQCC Regulation No. 10, Criteria for Analysis of 

Confurmi~--------------------~-----------------­

Date of EPA submission deadline: June 2012 

Is this an EPA delegated program? _Yes __2S_No 

Public Hearing for Regulation No.10 and Procedural Rules-- December 15, 2011 

Page 1 of 4 
ISSUE STATEMENT: 

The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires Federally supported transportation plans, transportation 

improvement programs, and all regionally significant projects, regardless of funding source, 

to be consistent with, or "conform to" the purpose of state air quality implementation plans. 

Colorado Air Quality Control Commission Regulation Number 10, Criteria for Analysis of 

Conformity, cites the necessity for compliance with Federal rules, and sets out Coloradospecific provisions regarding: 

• Procedures for review of transportation conformity demonstrations; 

• Interagency consultation regarding conformity demonstrations; 

• The fulfillment of commitments to SIP control measures not included in a 

transportation plan or transportation improvement program; and 

• Enforceability of transportation project-level mitigation and control measures. 

The Air Division and consulting agencies are proposing revisions to Regulation Number 10 

that would significantly streamline the process for "routine" Conformity Determinations. 

Proposed language would define a "routine" Conformity Determination as: 

one that is made for transportation plans and TIPs and/or their amendments 

involving: 

(1) Individual roadway projects adding less than two lane miles, with additional 

miles for all projects equaling < 10 lane miles; and lor 

(2) Projects with revisions to staging years only, and/or 

(3) Minor transit station plan revisions. 

Conformity Determinations for areas with Limited Maintenance Plans, which do 

not have emissions budgets, as such areas that have been in attainment for 20 

years or longer, would also generally be considered "routine." Notwithstanding 

this general definition, the APCD at its discretion may request that any 

Conformity Determination be reviewed by the Commission. 

In addition, the Regulation needs to be revised to be brought up to date with current EPA 

regulations and guidance. The addition of several definitions is proposed to facilitate 

understanding of the Regulation and transportation conformity processes and to define the 

term "routine" Conformity Determination. Certain unnecessary provisions are proposed to 

be removed, and clarifying language is proposed in sections throughout the Regulation. 

Streamlining provisions would allow the Division to review and provide official concurrence 

with routine Conformity Determinations, removing the requirement that the Commission 

conduct a hearing for each and every Conformity Determination. It is anticipated that the 

proposed streamlining will reduce the workloads of the Division, the Commission and the 

MPOs. Filings with the Commission and paper usage will be significantly reduced for 

routine Conformity Determinations. 

Public Hearing for Regulation No.10 and Procedural Rules-- December 15, 2011 

Page 2 of 4 
Revised language provides that the Division would make the determination regarding 

whether a Conformity Determination is a routine one. If a Conformity Determination is nonroutine-because of project size or due to unresolved air quality issues and/or lack of 

agency agreement regarding a conformity determination, the APCD (or other parties) could 

request that the Commission conduct a public hearing and either resolve matters or 

escalate them to the Governor. 

Finally, as recommended by EPA, references to General Conformity are removed so that 

Regulation No. 10 concerns itself with Transportation Conformity exclusively, and thus the 

title of the Regulation would so specify. It is proposed that the new title of Regulation No. 

10 become, "Criteria for Analysis of Transportation Conformity." 

The requisite agencies comprising the Transportation Conformity Interagency Consultation 

Group include the Division, the (Denver) Regional Air Quality Council, the USEPA, the 

Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, the (Denver) Regional 

Transportation District, the Denver Regional Council of Governments, the North Front 

Range MPO, and the Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments. These agencies have met 

numerous times in the last year to craft and discuss the revisions, and they are in 

agreement regarding the revisions being proposed. 

The Division recommends that the Commission approve the proposed revisions to 

Regulation No. 10 and to its Procedural Rules. 

(Please see the list of attachments on the next page) 

Public Hearing for Regulation No.1 0 and Procedural Rules-- December 15, 2011 , 

Page 3 of4 
ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Red line-strikeout version of Regulation Number 10 

2. Redline-strikeout version of AQCC Procedural Rules (hardcopy has pp.1-8 only) 

3. List of Proposed Revisions to AQCC Regulation Number 10, Criteria for Analysis of 

Conformity and AQCC Procedural Rules 

4. Final Economic Impact Analysis 

5. Final Statement of Basis and Purpose for proposed revisions to Regulation No. 10 

6. Final Statement of Basis and Purpose for proposed revisions to AQCC Procedural 

Rules 

SIGNATURES: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Preparer - ~isasD I 

Date 

Program Manager- Garrison Kaufman Date 

;< 7 ;(~ ? t' 4--

Division Director - Will Allison Date 

Public Hearing for Regulation No.1 0 and Procedural Rules -- December 15, 2011 

Page 4 of 4 
MEMORANDUM OF NOTICE 

Date: September 15, 2011 

To: Interested Parties 

Subject: Proposed revisions to the Air Quality Control Commission's Regulation 

Number 10, Criteria for Analysis of Conformity, and accordant revisions to 

the Commission's Procedural Rules 

GENERAL DESCRIPTION 

Air Quality Control Commission Regulation Number I 0, Criteria for Analysis of Conformity, 

also referred to by EPA as the State's conformity implementation plan (or SIP), should be 

revised to streamline transportation conformity requirements in Colorado and to be brought up to 

date with Federal EPA requirements and guidance, per CFR, Parts 51 and 93. Proposed revisions 

should be submitted to the Legislature and to EPA next year; thus approval by the Commission is 

requested to occur before January 2012. 

Colorado's transportation conformity regulations are more stringent than federally required, as 

they require Commission hearing for each and every Conformity Determination. Federal rules 

require only that (non-specified) air quality agencies review Conformity Determinations; thus the 

Division may be designated as this agency. The Division and consulting agencies agree that the 

Division could review and provide formal concurrence with "routine" Conformity 

Determinations, and are proposing such revisions to State rules. Proposed revisions state that 

non-routine Conformity Determinations, i.e., those that are made for transportation plans or 

programs containing major projects and any controversial Conformity Determinations would be 

brought before the Commission. 

Additional updates since the last Regulation Number I 0 revisions (in 2008), clarifications, and 

minor corrections are also proposed. 

RULEMAKINGPACKAGE 

Attachments to this memorandum provide details on the proposal as follows: 

• Attachment A: The actual language ofthe proposed revisions to Regulation Number 10, 

Criteria for Analysis of Conformity 

• Attachment B: The actual language ofthe proposed revisions to the Commission's 

Procedural Rules 

Memorandum of Notice- Regulation Number 10 and Procedural Rules- September 15,2011 

Page 1 of4 
• Attachment C. An explanatory list of the main proposed revisions to Regulation Number 

10 and to the AQCC Procedural Rules. 

• Attachment D: An initial economic impact analysis ofthe proposed revisions 

• Attachment E: Draft Statement of Basis and Purpose 

EXPLANATION OF THE PROPOSED RULES 

The proposed revisions to AQCC Regulation Number 10 streamline the process for air quality 

agency review of transportation Conformity Determinations, clarify rule language, and make it 

consistent with federal Conformity regulations and guidance. Corresponding revisions to the 

AQCC Procedural Rules are proposed. 

Materials to be Incorporated by Reference 

There are no materials incorporated by reference. 

Development of Proposed Plans and Rule Revisions 

What is the problem? 

The Division understands from the Commission, from consulting agencies, and from its own 

experience, that the review process for routine Conformity Determinations is more stringent than 

federally required and more resource intensive than necessary. The federal rules require only that 

(unspecified) air quality agencies be consulted by the MPO or other organization making the 

Conformity Determination (93 .1 05(b )( 1 ), and not that a hearing be held by the air quality 

agency(ies). Regulation Number 10 and the Commission's procedural rules currently require 

AQCC public hearing for each and every Conformity Determination. This requirement may have 

been needed in years past when transportation Conformity Determinations were new in 

Colora~o, but today most such determinations are routine. 

Additionally, provisions regarding General Conformity are not pertinent to this regulation and it 

is proposed that they be removed. Regulation Number 10 needs to be clarified in several areas, 

and provided with minor corrections throughout the document. 

Considerable time and resources would be saved at the Commission, Division and MPO levels 

via the proposed streamlining provisions. The documentation necessary to prepare for, request, 

and to hold AQCC hearings could be avoided, and the Commissioners' time could be freed for 

other business. 

Memorandum of Notice- Regulation Number 10 and Procedural Rules- September 15, 2011 

Page 2 of 4 
How were the proposed revisions to Regulation Number 10 and the Procedural Rules developed? 

Streamlining provisions were suggested by several members of the Interagency Consultation 

Group, who recognized that the AQCC and several of the consulting agencies were significantly 

burdened by current requirements even for routine Conformity Determinations. 

Additional proposed revisions would better define the terminology used in Regulation Number 

I 0, and others would clarify rule and process provisions. 

Several meetings, as well as telephone and e-mail correspondence with the agency stakeholders 

were held, which resulted in the suggested revisions included in the proposal. 

How do the proposed rule revisions affect the public, regulated community, and other agencies? 

Overall, revisions to Regulation Number 10 would streamline Commission, Division, and MPO 

workloads. 

The proposed revisions will further protect public health by continuing to require Conformity 

Determination input and review by air quality agencies. Such review will ensure that 

transportation plans and programs are consistent with State air quality implementation plans and 

will not threaten national ambient air quality standards or worsen a nonattainment situation. 

The regulated community in this case consists of air quality and transportation planning agencies 

in nonattainment and attainment/maintenance areas. In Colorado this includes the Air Quality 

Control Commission, the Division, the (Denver) Regional Air Quality Council; the Colorado 

Department ofTransportation, the (Denver) Regional Transportation District, the Denver 

Regional Council of Governments, the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization, 

the Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments, the Upper Front Range Transportation Planning 

Region; Region 8 EPA, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Federal Transit Agency. 

The proposed rule revisions would significantly reduce the workload ofthe AQCC, the Division 

and the MPOs. The Division can easily absorb the one additional duty it would take on-that of 

signing a letter of concurrence to MPOs making routine Conformity Determinations. No 

additional duties for the Division or anyone else are anticipated as a result of this rulemaking. 

Memorandum of Notice- Regulation Number 10 and Procedural Rules- September 15, 2011 

Page 3 of4 
How do the proposed rule revisions relate to federal requirements or adjacent state requirements? 

The proposed revisions to Regulation Number 10 are consistent with the federal regulations and 

with current EPA guidance. Adjacent states must also comply with the federal regulations and 

they will not be affected by Colorado's proposed rule revisions. 

How will the regulatory revisions be implemented? 

The revisions would be implemented by the Division. In general these revisions would eliminate 

numerous tasks and paperwork related to 4-6 AQCC hearings per year. Its only additional duty 

would be to provide the formal concurrence regarding routine Conformity Determinations, i.e., 

to sign the concurrence letter it currently drafts, and to send the letter to the relevant MPO. 

Are there time constraints? 

Expeditious revision to Regulation Number 10 is requested so as to meet deadlines for the 

Secretary of State; for the (2012) Colorado General Assembly for its review; and for submittal to 

the EPA in 2012. 

What if the Air Quality Control Commission does not adopt the proposed Rule revisions? 

If the Commission does not adopt the proposed rule revisions, the State's conformity rule would 

remain more stringent than federal regulations especially in its requirements for Transportation 

Conformity review and public hearings by the Commission. Federal rules require only that (nonspecified) air quality agencies review Conformity Determinations. In addition, several provisions 

in the Regulation are unnecessary, including those that address General Conformity and all 

incorporations by reference. 

PUBLIC MEETINGS 

Over the past 18 months, the Division met with members of the Interagency Consultation Group, 

and the Commission will hold a Rulemaking Hearing on the proposed revisions to the rules. The 

Commission will establish a pre-hearing process as needed to ensure an orderly hearing. Anyone 

may participate in the pre-hearing and hearing process by obtaining party status in accordance 

with the Commission's Procedural Rules. As discussed above, the Division has already met with 

and otherwise discussed proposed rule revisions. Additional meetings may be held outside the 

pre-hearing process if there is sufficient interest from stakeholders. 

CONTACT INFORMATION: 

For more information please contact: Lisa Silva, Air Pollution Control Division, 

4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver, CO 80246-1530 

Phone: (303) 692-3119 Fax: (303) 782-5493 E-mail: Lisa.Silva@state.co.us 

Memorandum of Notice- Regulation Number 10 and Procedural Rules- September 15, 2011 

Page 4 of4 
INITIAL ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Per C.R.S. 25-7-110.5 

September 15, 2011 

The Division is proposing that AQCC Regulation Number 10, Criteria for Analysis of 

Conformity, be revised to streamline it; to make it consistent with federal transportation 

conformity regulations; and to bring clarify and make minor corrections to the 

Regulation. Accordant revisions to the AQCC Procedural Rules are also proposed. 

The proposed new provisions do not add, but rather reduce requirements for 

substantive action and therefore would not add any cost burdens to the agencies 

subject to transportation conformity rules. The streamlining provisions would relax 

requirements for routine Conformity Determinations and could provide substantial 

administrative burden reductions, thereby potentially saving costs in the future. 

Initial Economic Impact Analysis- Regulation Number 10- September 15, 2011 

Page 1 of 1 
FINAL ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Per C.R.S. 25-7-110.5 

December 15, 2011 

The Division is proposing that AQCC Regulation Number 10, Criteria for Analysis of 

Conformity, be revised to streamline it; to make it consistent with federal transportation 

conformity regulations; and to clarify and make minor corrections to the Regulation. 

Accordant revisions to the AQCC Procedural Rules are also proposed. 

The proposed new provisions do not add, but rather'reduce requirements for 

substantive action and therefore would not add any cost burdens to the agencies 

subject to transportation conformity rules. The streamlining provisions would relax 

requirements for routine Conformity Determinations and could provide substantial 

administrative burden reductions, thereby potentially saving costs in the future. 

Final Economic Impact Analysis -Regulation Number 10- December 15, 2011 

Page 1 of 1 
List of proposed changes to Colorado Air Quality Control Commission Regulation 

Number 10, Criteria for Analysis of Conformity, and accordant proposed changes to 

the Commission's Procedural Rules 

Contact: Lisa Silva (303) 692-3119 

Proposed changes to Regulation Number 10 

• Rule Title to be changed to Criteria for Analysis of Transportation Conformity to 

reflect that this regulation is not meant to address General Conformity issues. 

• Part A: (General Conformity) to be stripped out, as this rule/state implementation 

plan element is not required to address General Conformity. 

• Part B There is no need to designate a Part B (or Part A) given the above. 

• The current provisions adopted by reference are problematic in that they date 

material. EPA indicates that the IBR's are not necessary. 

• Requirement to comply with the Federal rule: New introductory language 

introduces Regulation Number 10 providing context and connection to Federal 

requirements. 

• Definitions: The Interagency Consultation Group (Review Team) proposed new 

definitions to aid in understanding of this Regulation and the Transportation 

Conformity process. Several ofthe definitions are directly from the Federal Rule. 

Clarifying language is proposed for certain of the definitions. 

"Routine conformity determination" is a significant added term proposed to assist 

with streamlining Colorado's Transportation Conformity process. It corresponds 

to new language at III.H.2, which proposes to allow for review and concurrence 

with conformity determinations at the Division level when conformity 

determinations are "routine." 

• III. Interagency Consultation: In addition to clarifying language throughout this 

section, language at Subsection (A)(3)(e) is proposed to acknowledge that 

projects outside MPO's may be funded by non-Federal moneys, and that 

organizations other than CDOT may be responsible for making transportation 

conformity determinations. 

• III.(H): Review of Conformity Determinations by the public, the Air Quality 

Control Commission, and resolution of conflicts 

• III. (H) (2): As noted above, new language is proposed here that would allow the 

Division to review and provide official concurrence with routine (or minor) 

List of proposed revisions to Regulation Number lO and to the Procedural Rules -December 15,2011 

Page 1 of2 
conformity determinations. It is anticipated that these provisions will alleviate the 

workload of the Commission, the Division, and the MPO's without reducing the 

quality of Conformity review or its quality assurance. Conformity determinations 

involving major transportation projects or programs, or any controversial 

conformity determinations would be brought before the Commission for a 

hearing. 

• III. (H)(4): New language is proposed here to indicate that (unresolved) conflicts 

among or between agencies would render a conformity determination process 

non-routine, and therefore subject to review by the Commission. 

There are numerous additional minor edits throughout the document. 

Proposed changes to the Commission's Procedural Rules 

It is proposed that Section 1.14.13( 1) be revised to indicate that the Commission will hear 

only non-routine Conformity Determinations, and to clarify that projects outside ofMPO 

areas and regionally significant projects funded with non-Federal moneys may require 

conformity determinations, and that such determinations may be the responsibility of 

parties other than MPOs. 

Additional minor clarifying revisions are proposed. 

List of proposed revisions to Regulation Number 10 and to the Procedural Rules -December 15,2011 

Page 2 of2 
Parties Hearing Documents 

- No Parties 
EPA Comments 

40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V 2.1 (h) 

- None Submitted 
Public Comments 

40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V 2.1 (h) 

- None Submitted 
Adopted Statement of Basis, 

Specific Statutory Authority and Purpose 

Regulation Number 10 
VI.C. Amendments Adopted December 15, 2011 

Basis and Purpose 

The purpose of these amendments is to streamline the transportation conformity process by 

allowing the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division to provide concurrence with routine 

transportation conformity determinations without the need for a public hearing before the 

Colorado Air Quality Control Commission. This change to the conformity process is allowed for 

under federal law and will reduce the burden on the AQCC, the Division and transportation 

planning organizations, while ensuring that air quality requirements are met. In addition, the 

amendments include a number of clarifying provisions that will help facilitate the implementation 

of the regulation. In addition to streamlining the transportation conformity process, these 

amendments include a number of housekeeping changes made at the request of EPA, including 

removing incorporations by reference to federal general conformity regulations. Inclusion of 

these requirements in Regulation Number 10, and the State Implementation Plan is not required 

and is unnecessary to the general conformity process. 

Specific Statutory Authority 

The Commission promulgates these regulatory changes pursuant to its authority under Section 

25-7-105(1)(a)(l), C.R.S. to adopt a comprehensive state implementation plan that meets the 

requirements of the federal Clean Air Act. 

Findings Pursuant to Section 25-7-110.8 

The revisions to Regulation. Number 10 are administrative in nature and are not intended to 

reduce air pollution. Rather, the revisions are intended to streamline the transportation 

conformity process and clarify existing requirements, while maintaining the air quality benefits of 

the existing rule. Accordingly, the requirements of Section 25-7-110.8, C.R.S. do not apply to this 

rulemaking. 
Adopted Language by the Commission 

(in redline & footer noting adoption date and page numbers) 

Regulation Number 1 0 

f 

I 
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 

Air Quality Control Commission 

REGULATION NUMBER 10 

CRITERIA FOR ANALYSIS OF TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY 

5 CCR 1001-12 

PART A Determining Conformity of General Federal AGtions to State or Federal 

Implementation Plans 

I. Incorporation of the Federal Rule 

The provisions of Title 40, Part 51, Subpart VV and Title 40, Section 6.303, of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, (July 1, 1994), promulgated by the US Environmental Protection 1\gency (EPA) are hereby 

incorporated by reference by the Air Quality Control Commission and made part of the Colorado Air 

Quality Control Commission Regulations. 

Materials incorporated by reference are those in existence as of the dates indicated and do not include 

later amendments. The material incorporated by reference is available for public inspection during 

regular business hours at the Office of the Commission, located at 4300 Cherry Creek Drive, South, 

Den\'er, CO 80246 1530, or may be examined at any state publications depository library. Parties 

wishing to inspect these materials should contact the Technical Secretary of the Commission, located at 

the Office of the Commission. 

II. Statement of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority and Purpose 

II.A October 17, 1996 

Part A: General Conformity 

Background 

This statement of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority and Purpose complies with the requirements 

of the Administrative Procedures Act, C.R.S. 1973, Section 24 4 1 03(4) for adopted or modified 

regulation. 

The EPA has promulgated rules to ensure that Federal actions conform to the appropriate State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). Conformity to a SIP is defined in the Clean Air Act as meaning 

conformity to a SIP's purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of 

the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and achieving expeditious attainment of 

such standards. The Federal agency responsible for the action is required to determine if its 

Regulation Number 10 

Adopted: December 15, 2011 Page 1 
actions conform to the applicable SIP. Colorado is required, through federal rule, to submit to 

EPA revisions to the SIP establishing conformity criteria and procedures consistent with federal 

rule:-

Statutory Authority 

The general authority for this regulation is contained in the Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and 

Control Act, Section 25 7 105(1)(a), which requires the Commission to promulgate a state 

implementation plan, which will assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. This 

regulation incorporates the federal requirements, and does not go further than the requirements. 

Purpose 

The purpose of the rule is to implement Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act, which requires that all 

federal actions conform to an applicable implementation plan developed pursuant to Section 110 

and Part D of the Act. The Commission is incorporating the EPA rule by reference in order to 

comply 'Nith the federal requirements. 

PART 8 Conformity to State Implementation Plans of Transportation Plans, Programs, and 

Projects Developed, Funded or Approved Under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act 

hi. Purpose. applicability and incorporation of material by reference 

I.A. The purpose of this Part B of Regulation Number 10 is to implement a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) governing transportation conformity determinations, including the establishment of state 

specific interagency consultation procedures, and addressing the obtainment and enforceability of 

written commitments to certain transportation control measures and project mitigation and control 

measures, as required by 40 CFR, Section 51.390, as published at 62 Federal Register 158 

(August 15, 1997), and as amended through 73 Federal Register 4439, January 24, 2008. 

I.B. This rule shall have the same applicability as 40 CFR, Part 93, as published at 62 Federal 

Register 158 (August 15, 1997), and as amended through 73 Federal Register 4439, January 24, 

2008. In general, such federal requirements apply to transportation projects, transportation 

improvement programs, regional transportation plans, and State Implementation Plans. 

I.C. The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the 

provisions of 40 CFR, Part 93, as published at 62 Federal Register 158 (August 15, 1997), and as 

amended through 73 Federal Register 4439, January 24, 2008. Materials incorporated by 

reference are those in existence as of the date of this regulation and do not include later 

amendments. The material incorporated by reference is available fOr public inspection during 

regular business hours at the Office of the Commission, located at 4300 Cherry Creek Drive 

South, Denver, Colorado 80222, or may be examined at any state publications depository library. 

Parties wishing to inspect these materials should contact the Technical Secretary of the 

Commission, located at the Office of the Commission. 

II. Requirement to ceComply with the Federal Fflule 

The purpose of Regulation Number 10 is to fulfill the requirement in 40 CFR 51.390(b) to 

establish a Sl P revision that addresses the provisions of Ssections 40 CFR 93.1 OS( a) 

Regulation Number 10 

Adopted: December 15, 2011 Page2 
through (e), 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4 )(ii), and 40 CFR 93.125(c) of the federal transportation 

conformity rule (see 40 CFR Part 93. Subpart A). Any person making a transportation 

conformity determination or adopting or approving a regionally significant project shall 

comply with the provisions of +ftle-40 CFR, Part 93, Subpart A:., which rules are 

incorporated into 101 {c) of this regulation by reference, except as follows: __ _ 

ItA The interagency consultation procedures established in Section-Al!!!. of this document 

specify Colorado procedures and shall apply in addition to the consultation procedures 

established in 40 CFR Section 93.105 (a) through (e). 

ti.B. Colorado-specific provisions in Section !V. of this document that require obtainment of 

and fulfillment of written commitments to SIP control measures not included in a 

transportation plan or Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) shall apply, pursuant to 

40 CFR Section 93.122 (a)(4)(ii). 

ti.C. Colorado-specific provisions in Section Vt. of this document regarding design concept 

and scope and enforceability of project-level mitigation and control measures shall apply, 

pursuant to 40 CFR Section 93.125 (c). 

lit Definitions 

In addition to the Federal rule definitions incorporated by reference. the following terms are defined or 

further delineated: 

COOT means the Colorado Department of Transportation. 

Commission means the Air Quality Control Commission as defined in §Section 25-7-103(7), 

C.R.S. 

Division means The Air Pollution Control Division, pursuant to §Section 25-7-111, C.R.S. 

Hot Spot Analysis is an estimation of likely future localized criteria CO. PM10 and/or PM2.5 

pollutant (or their precursor) concentrations and a comparison of those concentrations to the 

national ambient air qualitv standards. Federally required hot spot analyses assess impacts of 

pollutants on a scale smaller than the entire nonattainment or maintenance area. including for 

example. congested roadway intersections. highway portions. or transit terminals. using air 

quality dispersion modeling. 

Lead Air Quality Planning Agency (LPA)- is an agency -designated by Colorado's Governor, 

which shall be the agency that is charged, together with the Division, with the duty of developing 

the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for any nonattainment or maintenance area. Unless 

otherwise appointed by the Governor, the LPA for the Denver nonattainment area shall be the 

Regional Air Quality Council; the LPA for the Colorado Springs nonattainment area shall be the 

Pikes Peak Area Council of GO\•ernments; the LPA for the Ft. Collins, Loveland, and Greeley 

nonattainment areas shall be the North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality Planning 

Council, also known as the North Front Range MPO. VVhere a nonattainment or maintenance 

area crosses MPO boundaries. more than one agency mav serve as an LPA .. E..g., the 8 hour 

Regulation Number 10 

Adopted: December 15,2011 Page3 
Ozone Nonattainment area encompassing both the Denver Regional Council of Governments 

and the North Front Range MPO, as well as non MPO areas from the Upper Front Range 

Transportation Planning Region, is served the Regional Air Quality Council, the North Front 

Range MPO, and the APCD as lead planning agencies. The requirements of this rule shall also 

apply to any successors of such LPAs, and to any LPA that is subsequently created for any area, 

or that othervlise assumes the duties and obligations of the LPAs identified in this definition. The 

Division, in consultation Vt'ith the municipal and county governments within the affected 

nonattainment area, shall perform any duty or obligation assigned to the LPA for the Longmont 

nonattainment area, and for any area for which there is no LPA or for which the LPA is unwilling 

or unable to perform such duty or obligation. 

Metropolitan planning organization (MPO) is that organization designated as being responsible, 

together with the State, for conducting the continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive planning 

process under 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 1607. It is the lead agency for preparing 

transportation plans. TIPs and transportation conformity documents. and it provides a forum for 

cooperative transportation decision-making. 

Project-level Conformity See: Hot Spot Analysis 

Regional Transportation Conformity refers to the status of a transportation planning region's 

conformance to relevant State Implementation Plans (SIPs). A conforming region's transportation 

plans and TIPs have passed emissions tests that must indicate they are unlikely to cause, 

contribute to. or increase the severity and frequency of future violations of national ambient air 

quality standards. Regional Conformity is demonstrated using transportation network models and 

air quality models and comparing projected transportation-related pollutant emissions to motor 

vehicle emissions budgets. or where budgets are not established. other emission limits for the 

region. To make a positive Conformity finding for a region. future emissions must not exceed 

certain limits .. e.g., emission budgets. and transportation projects. plans and TIPs must not 

interfere with any transportation controlo measures required by SIPs. 

Review Team is that group of interagency representatives who consult regarding Transportation 

Conformity assessment and findings. e.g .. the Interagency Consultation Group (ICG) -Team 

developed by the Denver Regional Council of Governments. The review team's responsibilities 

are defined in Section IV of this rule. 

Regionally Significant Project means a transportation project (other than an exempt project*) for.§ 

facility that serves regional transportation needs. such as access to and from the area outside the 

region. major activity centers in the region. major planned developments such as new retail malls, 

sports complexes, etc .. or transportation terminals as well as most terminals themselves) and 

would 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 and 

alternative to regional highway travel. For the purposes of this rule. regionally significant projects 

include only those located in nonattainment or maintenance areas. *Exempt projects are listed in 

the Federal Regulation at 40 CFR Part 93. 126 and Part 93. 127 and include safety improvements. 

Routine Conformity Determination is one that is made for transportation plans and TIPs and/or 

their amendments involving: (1) Individual roadway projects adding less than two lane miles, with 

additional miles for all projects equaling <1 0 lane miles: and /or .(2) Projects with revisions to 

staging years only. and/or (3) Minor transit station plan revisions. Conformity Determinations for 

Regulation Number 10 

Adopted: December 15,2011 Page4 
areas with Limited Maintenance Plans, which do not have emissions budgets, as such areas 

have been in attainment for 20 years or longer, would also generally be considered "routine." 

Notwithstanding this general definition, the APCD at its discretion may request that any 

Conformity Determination be reviewed by the Commission. 

Transportation Control Measure (TCM) is any measure that is specifically identified and 

committed to in the applicable implementation plan (air quality SIP) through the process 

established in CAA sSection 176 (c) (8), that is either one of the types listed in CAA sSection 108, 

or any other measure designed to reduce emissions or concentrations of air pollutants from 

transportation sources by reducing vehicle use or changing traffic flow or congestion conditions. 

Vehicle technology-based, fuel-based and maintenance-based measures, e.g., inspection and 

maintenance programs. are not TCM's. 

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) -A prioritized program of transportation projects 

funded with federal transportation funds, developed under 23.U.S.C. 134(j) and 23 CFR Parts 

450.324 through 450.330. The TIP must be fiscally constrained, and, in air quality nonattainment 

and maintenance areas, the MPO, as well as FHWA and FTA must determine that the TIP 

achieves Conformity 

Transportation Plan in the context of this regulation means a fiscally constrained plan prepared by 

a Metropolitan Planning Organization or COOT and a local government or governments and/or 

regional planning commission pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 134 and as amplified by 23 CFR Ppart 

450.322 (also referred to as a metropolitan transportation plan, regional transportation plan, or 

long-range transportation plan) for which a regional conformity determination is required. Outside 

of MPO's, the Colorado Department of Transportation, along with local governments. develops 

regional transportation plans. The overall State Transportation Plan incorporates all of the 

regional plans. 

Transportation Planning Region (TPR) is a geographic area for which the transportation planning 

process required by 23 USC 134 and 135 and Section 8 of the Federal Transit Act must be 

carried out. Per Colorado regulations (CCR 43-1-11 02), a TPR is a geographically designated 

area of the state for which a regional transportation plan may be developed pursuant to the 

provisions of 43-1-1102 and 1103, CRS. 

_I!LV,. Interagency Consultation 

.J.\l,.JlL.A. Roles and Responsibilities for Transportation Conformity Determinations and Related SIP 

Development. 

.J.\l,.III.A.1. This rule sets out the minimum requirements for interagency consultation 

Regulation Number 10 

Adopted: December 15,2011 

(Federal, State, regional and local) and resolution of conflicts. Representatives 

of the MPOs, local transit agency, the Division, the LPA and COOT shall 

undertake an interagency consultation process in accordance with this section 

with each other and with local or regional offices of EPA, FHWA, and FTA on the 

development of the implementation plan, the list of TCMs in the applicable 

implementation plan, the transportation plan, the TIP, and all conformity 

determinations required by this rule. The MPO shall provide notice of revisions to 

Page 5 
Conformity documents through the normal planning process. The interagency 

consultation process shall be used in developing or noticing shall apply to any 

revisions ef..to the preceding §.D.Y_docume'nts that could affect Transportation 

.Qsonformity . 

.!'lhiii.A.2. It shall be the role and responsibility of each agency identified as a lead 

agency to prepare the final document and to ensure the adequacy of the 

interagency consultation process. Designation as a lead agency for any decision 

item shall mean that such agency shall be responsible for making the final 

decision on such decision item, except that any such decision shall be subject to 

the dispute resolution process set out in Section IV. H . 

.!'lhiii.A.3. In each nonattainment area, COOT, the LPA, the Division, the MPO, 

Regulation Number 10 

Adopted: December 15, 2011 

local transit agency, and other agencies, as appropriate, may develop a written 

agreement pursuant to Section IV. G. that outlines the specific roles and 

responsibilities of various participants in the interagency consultation process for 

the preparation of SIPs, transportation plans, TIPs and conformity 

determinations. In the absence of such a written agreement, in addition to the 

other duties specified in this rule, the specific roles and responsibilities of the 

various participants in the interagency consultation process shall be as follows: 

WIII.A.3.a. The Division shall be responsible for: (A) emissions inventories; 

(B) air quality modeling and/or quality-assuring air quality modeling that 

is performed by the MPOs or COOT; (C) performing attainment 

demonstrations; (D) assisting the LPA in the development of pollutant 

specific implementation plan revisions; (E) providing technical and policy 

input e-n regarding emission factors and emissions budgets; and (F) 

updating motor vehicle emissions factors. 

Will.A.3.b. The LPA, or the Division if there is no LPA, shall: (A) develop 

pollutant-specific state implementation plans for submittal to the 

Commission; and (B) prepare emissions budgets. 

WIII.A.3.c. The MPO shall: (A) develop transportation plans and TIPs, and 

shall make conformity determinations on transportation plans and TIPs 

within the applicable area, and shall be the lead agency for the 

development of such plans and TIPs, and for such conformity 

determinations; (B) develop transportation and socioeconomic data and 

planning assumptions and provide such data and planning assumptions 

to the Division for use in air quality analysis; (C) perform transportation 

modeling and documentation of timely implementation of TCMs needed 

for conformity assessments and SIP development; and (D) monitor 

regionally significant projects, and ensure that all disclosed, or otherwise 

known, regionally significant projects are included in the regional 

emissions analysis. The MPO may: (E) provide technical and policy 

input on emissions budgets; (F) perform air quality modeling for 

transportation conformity purposes: and (Gf-) evaluate TCM impacts on 

transportation as needed. 

Page6 
AI!!!.A.3.d. CDOT shall: (A) provide technical input on proposed revisions to 

motor vehicle emissions factors, (B) convene air quality technical review 

meetings on specific projects when requested by other agencies or as 

needed, and (C) comment on transportation control measures and other 

aspects of the SIP that may affect the operation, construction or 

maintenance of the transportation system. 

W!!!.A.3.e. In addition to the duties and responsibilities identified in 

paragraph d. above, for FHWA/FTA projects located outside of 

metropolitan planning areas, CDOT shall convene the appropriate 

parties to outline roles and responsibilities and coordinate efforts needed 

to: (A) perform the required conformity evaluation for such projects, and 

shall be identify the lead agency for such evaluations; (B) provide 

technical and policy input on emissions budgets; (C) develop 

socioeconomic data and planning assumptions for use in air quality 

analysis to determine conformity of projects in consultation with the 

affected municipal and county governments and state agencies; and (D) 

perform transportation modeling, regional emissions analyses and 

documentation of timely implementation of TCMs needed for conformity 

assessments. CDOT may also conduct air quality modeling pursuant to a 

conformity determination. COOT may via formal agreement, arrange to 

have other organizations, including MPOs perform such conformity 

determination tasks. 

W!!!.A.3. f. The Commission shall be responsible for promulgating revisions 

to the SIP and for determining whether a regional conformity 

determination should be appealed to the Governor. 

Wffi.B. Establishing a fEorum for Regional Conformity s.Qonsultation 

AI!!!. B.1. Minimum Consultation Requirements. 

Regulation Number 10 

Adopted: December 15, 2011 

Will. B.1.a. The MPO shall establish and maintain a forum, herein referred to 

as the review team, for regular consultation. The MPO may establish a 

committee, or use existing committees, to perform the tasks assigned to 

the review team, provided the agencies identified in Subparagraph 

IV. B.1. b., below, have an opportunity to participate. Conference calls or 

written correspondence may be used to hold the meetings required by 

this rule upon the concurrence of the Division and any affected LPA. 

The review team shall comply with the minimum requirements set out in 

paragraph c. below, except that, outside of metro planning areas, CDOT 

shall perform the functions assigned to the MPO. 

WIII.B.1.b. The review team shall consist, at a minimum, of the MPO as lead 

agency, the local transit agency, the Division, COOT, and the LPA. In 

addition, the review team shall include EPA, FHWA and the FTA for the 

topics identified in Subsection C.1. The agencies on the review team 

may appoint individual staff members, of any organizational level, to 

participate in the review team. 

Page 7 
Will. 8.1.c. The review team established pursuant to paragraphs a. and b. 

shall comply with the following minimum requirements: 

1.U¥.-_,_B.1.c.(1) The MPO consultation process shall begin early enough 

for the review team to adequately review and provide meaningful 

input on draft transportation plans, TIPs and conformity 

determinations, including supporting documents. 

W!!!. 8.1.c_,_~(2) A schedule of meetings or a process for providing 

adequate notice of subsequent meetings shall be developed as 

part of the consultation process. The schedule of meetings shall 

be frequent enough to address all significant issues in a timely 

fashion. 

W!!!. B.1.c.(3) The MPO shall establish an agenda for each meeting, 

and shall include in such agenda any issue or item upon the 

request of any member. 

W!!!.B.1.c.(4) Any member may, at any time, request a meeting 

through the consultation process. Upon such a request, the 

MPO should schedule a meeting as soon as practicable. 

~!!!_,_B.1.c.(5) The MPO shall respond in written form to written 

comments received from any of the members of the review team 

copying all review team members. 

Wffi.C. Topics for consultationConsultation 

Wffi.C.1. The review team shall address the following topics in the manner 

Regulation Number 10 

Adopted: December 15,2011 

provided. 

Wffi.C.1.a. Evaluating and choosing a model (or models) and associated 

methods and assumptions to be used in regional emissions analyses. 

The MPO shall be responsible for selecting the transportation modeling 

procedures to be used within its modeling domain. The Division shall be 

responsible for selecting the emissions or air quality modeling procedures used 

for performing regional emissions analyses for conformity determinations and for 

SIP revisions. 

Wffi.C.1.b. Determining which minor arterials and other transportation 

projects should be considered "regionally significant" for the purposes of 

regional emissions analysis (in addition to those functionally classified as 

principal arterial or higher or fixed guideway systems or extensions that 

offer an alternative to regional highway travel), and which projects should 

be considered to have a significant change in design concept and scope 

from the transportation plan or TIP. 

Page8 
Regulation Number 10 

.J¥..!!LC.1.b.(1) The review team shall review the transportation network 

and identify minor arterials that serve regional transportation 

needs. 

Wl!!.C.1.b.(2) Review the transportation projects disclosed to the MPO 

pursuant to Section IV.E., and all transportation projects 

otherwise known to the members that may be regionally 

significant projects, and identify as regionally significant those 

projects that are on a facility which serves regional transportation 

needs and that would normally be included in the modeling of the 

metropolitan area's transportation network. 

W!!!.C.1.b.(3) Identify any significant changes in design concept and 

scope of any project from the transportation plan, TIP, or 

regional emissions analysis supporting the conformity 

determination for a conforming TIP, upon the request of any 

participant in the consultation process, or any recipient of funds 

designated under Title 23 or the Federal Transit Act with 

authority to adopt or approve of the subject regionally significant 

project. 

WIII.C.1.c. Evaluating whether projects otherwise exempted from meeting 

the requirements of this subpart (see 40 CFR Sections 93.126 and 

93.127) should be treated as non-exempt in cases where potential 

emissions impacts may exist for any reason. 

W!!!.C.1.c.(1) At the request of any participant in the consultation 

process, the review team shall determine whether projects 

otherwise exempt from meeting the requirements of this subpart 

should be treated as non-exempt in cases where potential 

emissions impacts may exist for any reason. 

W!!!.C.1.c.(2) For each non-attainment area that is outside of a 

metropolitan planning area, COOT shall consult with the review 

team to identify categories of exempt projects that should be 

treated as non-exempt for such area. 

WIII.C.1.d. Making a determination, as required by 40 CFR Section 

93.113(c)(1 ), whether past obstacles to implementation of TCMs 

implementation which are behind the schedule established in the 

applicable implementation plan have been identified and are being 

overcome, and whether State and local agencies with influence over 

approvals or funding for TCMs are giving maximum priority to approval or 

funding for TCMs. 

W!!!.C.1.d.(1) The LPA and the Division shall provide the MPO with 

information necessary to develop a list of the TCMs, which are in 

the applicable implementation plan. The LPA may also request 

that the MPO, COOT, the public transit agency, or any other 

Adopted: December 15, 2011 Page 9 

I 

l 

I '

( 

t 

f 

f 

I 
Regulation Number 10 

Adopted: December 15, 2011 

agency responsible for implementing SYGil a TCM reaffirm tfle its 

commitment to implement the applicable a TCM pursuant to the 

schedule established in the SIP. 

W!!!.C.1.d.(2) The MPO, after consultation with the other participants in 

the consultation process review team. shall determine whether 

.past obstacles to implementation· of TCMs which are behind the 

schedule established in the applicable implementation plan 

t:lahave been identified and are being overcome, and whether 

State and local agencies with influence over approvals or funding 

for TCMs are giving maximum priority to approval or funding for 

TCMs. For each such determination, the MPO shall identify the 

past obstacles, the steps taken to overcome SYGil 

obstaclesthem, the State and local agencies with influence over 

approvals or funding, the basis for finding that such agencies are 

giving maximum priority to such approval or funding, and a 

revised schedule for the implementation of the TCM. 

W!!!.C.1.d.(3) The MPO shall report a determination that past 

obstacles to implementation of aany situation in which it 

determines that obstacles to implementing a -TCM which is 

behind schedule have not been identified or are not being 

overcome, or that State and local agencies with influence over 

approvals or funding of such TCMs are not giving maximum 

priority to approval or funding for TCMs. The report shall be 

provided, to the agency sponsoring the TCM, the Division, the 

Commission and the Governor. The Commission may schedule 

the matter for a hearing toregarding enforcement. and/or remove 

OF replacement WGA--of TCMs. 

W!!!.C.1.e.--_Notification of transportation plan or TIP revisions or 

amendments, which merely add or delete exempt projects listed in 40 

CFR Section 93.126 or 93.127. 

The MPO shall provide notice through the normal planning process_, prior to 

consideration of any proposed amendment that adds or deletes exempt projects 

listed in 40 CFR Section 93.126 or 93.127 to or from the transportation plan or 

TIP. 

W!!!.C.1.f.--_Process for providing final documents and supporting 

information to each agency after approval or adoption. 

The MPO shall transmit make available final TIPs and transportation plans to 

participants in the consultation process. 

W!!!.C.1.g._--Choosing conformity tests and methodologies for isolated rural 

nonattainment areas, as required by 40 CFR Section 93.1 09(1). 

Page 10 
The Division and COOT shall choose, in consultation with the members of the 

review team, the requirements and methodologies to be used to comply with 40 

CFR Section 93.109. If the Division and COOT cannot agree, the issue shall be 

referred to the Commission for review at a public meeting pursuant to Section 

Will. H. The Commission may escalate the matter to the Governor as provided in 

Section W!!!.H. 

W!!!.C.2. The review team shall address the following topics in the manner 

Regulation Number 10 

Adopted: December 15, 2011 

provided. Outside of the metropolitan planning areas, COOT shall perform the 

tasks assigned to the MPO, excepting conformity determination tasks that it 

contracts out to other entities. 

Wlli.C.2.a. Evaluating events which will trigger new conformity 

determinations in addition to those triggering events established in 40 

CFR 93.104. 

W!!!.C.2.a.(1) The MPO may identify events that would trigger new 

conformity determinations in addition to those triggering events 

established in 40 CFR Section 93. 104, and the pollutant specific 

SIPs. Alternatively, the Commission may promulgate regulations 

or revise the SIP to identify events in a manner that would trigger 

a new conformity determination. 

W!!!.C.2.a.(2) The MPO will consult with the review team to evaluate 

whether events that may trigger a new conformity determination 

pursuant to 40 CFR Section 93.104 or a pollutant specific SIP 

have occurred. 

W!!!.C.2.b. Consulting on emissions analysis for transportation activities that 

cross the borders of MPOs or nonattainment areas or basins. 

In the event that contiguous MPOs are created within the state, the affected 

MPOs shall, in consultation with the participants in the consultation process, 

establish a consultation procedure for consulting on emissions analyses for 

transportation activities that cross the borders of MPOs or nonattainment areas 

or air basins. 

W!!!.C.2.c. Determining conformity of projects outside the metropolitan area 

and within the nonattainment or maintenance area. 

In the event that a nonattainment or maintenance area is created in the state that 

includes a metropolitan planning area or areas, but such metropolitan planning 

area(s) does not include the entire nonattainment or maintenance area, the 

affected MPOs, in consultation with the participants in the consultation process, 

shall establish a procedure for consulting on emissions analyses for 

transportation activities that cross the borders of MPOs or nonattainment areas 

or air basins. 

Page 11 
WIII.C.2.d. Process for consulting on the design, schedule, and funding of 

research and data collection efforts and regional transportation model 

development by the MPO. 

The MPO, in consultation with the review team shall determine the design, 

schedule and funding of significant research and data collection efforts and 

regional transportation model development. 

Wlii.C.3. ~ Hot-s~pot a8nalysis: (1) Evaluating and choosing a model (or 

models) and associated methods and assumptions to be used in hot-spot 

modeling; and (2) identifying, as required by 40 CFR Section 93.123(b), projects 

located at sites in nonattainment or maintenance areas that have vehicle and 

roadway emission and dispersion characteristics essentially identical to those at 

sites where violations have been verified by monitoring, and therefore require 

quantitative pollutant hot-spot analysi§. COOT, the APCD, USEPA, and US DOT 

will: 

WIII.C.3.a. Determine which types of projects should be evaluated for 

localized hot spots. CDOT, subject to concurrence by the Division, shall 

identify the projects or categories of projects that shall be evaluated for 

potential hot spots. 

WIII.C.3.b. Evaluate and choose a model (or models) and associated 

methods and assumptions to be used in hot-spot analyses. COOT shall 

be responsible for selecting the hot spot model to be used for conformity 

determinations. 

Pi!!!. D. Process for assuming the location and design concept and scope of projects disclosed to 

the MPO as required by paragraph (E) of this section but '.Vhose in cases where sponsors 

have not yet decided these features in sufficient detail to perform the regional emissions 

analysis according to the requirements of 40 CFR Section 93.122. 

W!!!.D.1. The MPO shall contact the sponsor of any project disclosed to the MPO 

pursuant to Section W!!!.E., but whose sponsors have not yet decided these 

features in sufficient detail to perform the regional emissions analysis according 

to the requirements of 40 CFR Section 93.122, and shall request that such 

sponsor develop the location and design concept and scope of the project for the 

purpose of including the project in the regional emissions analysis. 

W!!!.D.2. If the sponsor is unwilling or unable to provide these features to the MPO 

Regulation Number 10 

Adopted: December 15, 2011 

in a timely fashion, the MPO shall propose reasonable assumptions about such 

features, and shall provide CDOT, the Division, the LPA, the project sponsor, and 

any recipient of funds designated under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act 

that has the authority to adopt or approve of the project, with ·a written description 

of the proposed assumptions. Following consultation with such agencies the 

MPO shall make assumptions about the location and design concept and scope 

of the project that are reasonably calculated to estimate the emissions 

associated with such project. Such assumptions shall be based on the 

Page 12 
information and comments about the project received by the MPO. 

W!!!.E. Process to ensure that plans for construction of regionally significant projects wJ:HGR that 

are not FHWA/FTA projects (including projects for which alternative locations, design 

concept and scope, or the no-build options are still being considered), including those by 

recipients of funds designated under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act, are 

disclosed on a regular basis, and to ensure that any changes to-tAese such plans are 

immediately disclosed. 

!!!.F. 

=====::.!l!!ll.:.f.E;.. .L1._Prior to conducting a conformity analysis, the MPO shall ensure that 

COOT and each municipality, county and public transit agency within the 

metropolitan planning area, and each special district, improvement authority and 

regional agency with theapproval authority to adopt or approve_-Gffor 

transportation projects within the metropolitan planning area,-aFe is notified of the 

requirement to include regionally-significant projects, and changes to plans for 

such projects, in the regional emissions analysis. 

Consultation procedures for development of State Implementation Plans.:. 

Wffi.F.1. Minimum Consultation Requirements- SIP development and revision. 

In each nonattainment or maintenance area, the LPA or the Division shall establish and 

maintain a review team for regular consultation to ensure that the transportation 

community is involved in the development of the implementation plans. Such review team 

shall also be established to develop and review any SIP revision that includes a new or 

revised mobile source emissions budget, or that requires a new or revise<;! attainment or 

maintenance demonstration. The review team may be part of a larger consultation 

procedure established by the LPA or Division to include all sectors of the community (in 

addition to the transportation community). The consultation procedure shall comply with 

the minimum requirements listed below. If the review team is established by the Division, 

the Division shall perform the tasks assigned to the LPA. 

WIII.F.1.a. The review team shall consist of representatives of the MPO, the 

Division, COOT, the EPA, FHWA, FTA, and the public transit agency. 

W!!!.F.1.b. The LPA shall begin consultation meetings early enough in the 

process for review team members to adequately review the modeling 

used to support the SIP, and to review the proposed control measures. 

The LPA must provide an opportunity to review copies of the draft 

implementation plan, including supporting documents, to the other 

members of the review team, and shall provide at least thirty days for the 

submission of comments on the draft SIP prior to adoption by the LPA. 

WIII.F.1.c. A schedule of meetings or a process for providing adequate 

notice of subsequent meetings shall be developed as part of the 

consultation process. The schedule of meetings shall be frequent 

enough to address all significant issues in a timely fashion. 

Regulation Number 10 

Adopted: December 15, 2011 Page 13 

I 

I i 

i 

~ 

r 
WIII.F.1.d. The LPA shall establish an agenda for each meeting, and shall 

include in such agenda any issue or item upon the request of any 

participant. 

WIII.F.1.e. Any member may, at any time, request a meeting to consult with 

the LPA and the other participants. Upon such a request the LPA should 

schedule a meeting as soon as practicable. 

WIII.F.1.f. The LPA shall respond in written form to written comments 

received from any of the participants. 

Wl!!.F.1.g. SIPs and SIP revisions proposed by the LPA shall be subject to 

final approval by the Commission following a public hearing. The 

Division shall provide final copies of any SIP or SIP revision to the MPO, 

COOT, the LPA, the public transit agency, the EPA, the FHWA, and FTA. 

WIII.F.2. The LPA shall submit a list of TCMs included in the proposed SIP to the 

MPO, COOT and each affected local agency or other sponsoring agency at least 

thirty days prior to approval of the SIP or SIP revision by the governing board of 

the LPA. 

WIII.F.3. The SIP development procedures set out in this Section IV. F. shall be in 

addition to any other rules or regulations applicable to SIP development or SIP 

revisions. Nothing in this Section Wl!!.F. shall be construed to supersede, alter 

or amend such other rules, or to incorporate such other requirements into the 

SIP. 

Will. G. Agreements further describing consultation procedures.:. 

Wl!!.G.1. The Division may enter into written agreements with the members of the 

review team to clarify and further develop the procedures for conformity 

determinations described in this Section Will. The Division may also enter into 

written agreements with the LPA and members of the committee established 

pursuant to Section Wl!!.F. to further clarify or develop the SIP development 

procedures. The members of the review team may, by mutual agreement, 

delegate the tasks assigned to them under this rule to other members. Any 

member of the review team delegating a task shall conduct reasonable oversight 

of the delegated task as necessary to ensure proper performance. 

Wl!!.G.2. Nothing in this regulation shall be construed to relieve the parties of the 

obligations set out in agreements entered into prior to the effective date of this 

rule, except to the extent that the provisions of such agreements are inconsistent 

with this rule. The Commission and Division shall continue membership on any 

MPO committee or council as provided in any such agreements. 

Will. H. Review of Conformity Determinations by the public, the Air Quality Control Commission, 

and resolution of conflicts. 

Regulation Number 10 

Adopted: December 15, 2011 Page 14 
Wffi.H.1. Per, 40 CFR Section 93.105(e), agencies making conformity 

determinations-i.e .. MPO's or CDOT--must provide for public review and 

comment prior to adopting new or amended transportation plans-and programs. 

Wffi.H.1.a. Agencies making conformity determinations must 

provide reasonable public access to relevant documents, consistent with 

23 CFR Section 450.316(a). Any charges imposed for public inspection 

or copying of documents would be consistent with USDOT regulations at 

49 CFR Section 7.43. 

Wffi.H.1.b. Agencies making conformity determinations must 

specifically address in writing any public comments asserting that a 

regionally significant project is not reflected in the emissions analysis 

supporting a positive conformity finding. 

Wffi.H.1.c.:. Agencies making conformity determinations 

shall provide opportunity for public involvement in conformity 

determinations for projects where otherwise required by law. 

Wffi.H.2. The Division shall make a finding regarding which Conformity 

Determinations are routine. per the definition set forth in this regulation. Routine 

Conformity Determinations regarding a TIP or Plan shall be reviewed by the 

Division. For instances in which the Division agrees that a positive Conformity 

Determination has been made. it shall provide notice of concurrence with those 

determinations .. Each conformity determination on a TIP or plan shall be 

presented to the Commission for its revie'N prior to submittal to FHWA.. The 

Division shall make the determination regarding whether a Conformity 

Determination is routine. If a Conformity Determination is non-routine. it shall be 

brought before the Commission for its review and possible concurrence. The 

Commission intends to conduct public meetings to review non-routine conformity 

determinations in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Air Quality 

Control Commission Procedural Rules, and reserves the right to schedule such 

meetings as permitted by the Commission's schedule and as necessary to 

comply with such procedural rules. However, this paragraph shall not be 

construed to incorporate such procedural rules into the SIP. No violation of such 

procedural rules shall be construed as a violation of the SIP, except where such 

procedural rules otherwise has been incorporated into the SIP. 

Wffi. H.3. Upon request of any member of the review team, a conformity 

determination on an FHWA project located outside of a metropolitan planning 

area shall be presented to the Commission prior to submittal to FHWA if there is 

a conflict that cannot be resolved by the review team. The request for such 

review must be filed as soon as practicable and shall not be filed any later than 

the first regularly scheduled Commission meeting following the final conformity 

determination. 

WIII.H.4. ln-_accordance with 40 CFR s§ection 93.105(d), conflicts among State 

Regulation Number 10 

Adopted: December 15, 2011 

agencies or between State agencies and an MPO may be escalated to the 

Governor. Such conflicts would render a Conformity Determination non-routine 

Page 15 

\ 

I 

I 

i 

' f 

[ 

t 
and subject to review by the AQCC. The fourteen calendar-days in which to 

appeal a conflict to the Governor shall commence upon review of a conformity 

determination by the Commission pursuant to this Subsection H., except as 

provided below at Sections (a) and (b). If the State appeals to the Governor, the 

final conformity determination must have the concurrence of the Governor. If the 

Commission does not appeal to the Governor within 14 days, or as provided 

below at Sections (a) and (b), the MPO or COOT may proceed with the final 

conformity determination. 

WIII.H.4.a. The Commission may extend the beginning of the time to 

escalate a conflict to the next regularly scheduled Commission meeting if 

the entity making the conformity determination amends such 

determination during the fourteen-day period preceding the Commission 

meeting. 

WIII.H.4.b. Upon the agreement and concurrence of the entity making the 

conformity determination, the Commission may extend the beginning of 

the time to escalate a conflict as necessary to accommodate further 

consultation among the agencies. 

Will. H.4.c. For purposes of project level conformity determinations in 

isolated rural nonattainment and maintenance areas, a "final conformity 

determination" shall be taken to mean COOT's completed conformity 

analysis and recommended finding of conformity to FHWA. 

!V. Emission reduction credit for certain control measures. 

!V.A. Pursuant to 40 GFR Section 93.122(a)(4), emissions reduction credit from 

implementation plan control measures that are not included in the transportation plan and 

TIP and that do not require a regulatory action in order to be implemented may not be 

included in the emissions analysis unless the conformity determination includes written 

commitments to implementation from the appropriate entities. 

!V.B. Any entity making a written commitment to perform a control measure not included in the 

transportation plan or TIP shall fulfill such written commitment if the control measure is 

used for emissions reduction credit in a regional emissions analysis. 

'J..AY... Enforceability of design concept and scope and project-level mitigation and control measures. 

'J.AY...A. Pursuant to 40 CFR Section 93.125 (c), where project-level mitigation is conditional to a 

positive conformity determination, written commitments to such mitigation measures must 

be obtained. Project sponsors shall comply with these commitments. 

VUVI. Statements of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority, and Purpose 

VUVI.A. Amendments Adopted October 15, 1998 

The change to Regulation Number 10, "Criteria for Analysis of Conformity," Part B, 

"Transportation Conformity" will establish criteria and procedures for making conformity 

Regulation Number 10 

Adopted: December 15,2011 Page 16 
determinations on transportation plans, transportation improvement programs (TIPs), FHWA/FTA 

projects, and consultation procedures for major revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). 

Federal Requirements 

Pursuant to 40 CFR Section 51.390, Colorado must submit to the EPA and the U.S. Department 

of Transportation (DOT), a revision to the SIP to establish criteria and procedures for DOT, 

metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and state and local transportation and air quality 

agencies to assess the conformity of transportation plans, programs, and projects, consistent with 

the requirements of 40 CFR, Part 93, Subpart A 

The states may incorporate the substantive criteria for making conformity determinations set out 

in the federal rule, into the state rule by reference. The rule adopted by the Commission takes 

advantage of this opportunity and incorporates the criteria in 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart A by 

reference. 

The federal rule also requires the states to develop procedures for interagency consultation on 

transportation conformity determinations, and for SIP revisions. The federal rule establishes 

minimum requirements for such consultation procedures, but does not actually establish any 

procedures. Pursuant to 40 CFR Section 51.390 and 93.105, the states must develop and adopt 

such procedures, and submit the procedures to EPA for inclusion in the SIP. The rule adopted by 

the Commission establishes procedures for interagency consultation, and addresses each of the 

topics required by 40 CFR Section 93.105. The consultation procedure established in the rule is 

intended to create a meaningful interagency consultation process that complies with the federal 

requirements, but that provides the flexibility necessary to meet the needs of the Colorado 

Department of Transportation and the various MPOs in the State. The interagency consultation 

requirements track the minimum federal requirements, and are not otherwise more stringent than 

the federal requirements. 

The only provision in the rule that differs from the federal rule is the definition of the term 

"regionally significant project" contained in the state rule. The state rule includes a definition 

applicable to rural nonattainment areas that do not conduct modeling of the area's transportation 

network. The federal rule appears to assume that all nonattainment areas conduct such 

modeling. The specific definition in the rule for rural areas is necessary to reconcile the federal 

rule with the general practice in rural nonattainment areas, but is not more stringent than federal 

requirements. 

Contested Issues 

One MPO urged the Commission to adopt a rule requiring a public meeting to be held prior to 

final action by the MPO. The rule is written to allow flexibility, so that MPOs have the option of 

coming to the Commission either before or after their governing board takes final action on the 

conformity determination. However, the Commission strongly encourages the MPOs to submit a 

draft conformity determination to the AQCC for comment, so that the MPO can take the 

Commission's comments into account as early in the process as possible. 

Statutory Authority 

Regulation Number 10 

Adopted: December 15, 2011 Page 17 
The transportation conformity rule is adopted under the Commission's general authority to adopt 

a SIP under §Section 25-7-105(1), C.R.S. (1997). 

Findings pursuant to §Section 25-7-110.8 

The portion of the rule incorporating the federal criteria for making conformity determinations is 

exempt from the requirements of §Section 25-7-110.8, C.R.S. (1997). The consultation 

requirements are administrative in nature, and are exempt from the requirements of §Section 25-

7-11 0.8( 1 )(b), C. R.S. The interagency consultation requirements establish a procedure for 

ensuring that the federal, state and local air quality agencies charged with protecting human 

health and the environment are consulted during the transportation conformity process. In this 

way, the rule will bring about reductions in risks to human health or the environment that will 

justify the cost of implementation of the rule. The rule adopted by the Commission complies with 

the minimum federal requirements and maximizes the air quality benefits of the regulation in the 

most cost-effective manner. No other party proposed any alternative rule that would accomplish 

this result in a more cost-effective manner. 

:VUVI.B. Amendments Adopted November 20, 2008 

Transportation Conformity Update 

Background 

This Statement of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority and Purpose complies with the requirements 

of the Administrative Procedures Act, Section 24-4-1 03, C. R. S. and the Colorado Air Pollution 

Prevention and Control Act, Section 25-7-110.5, C.R.S. 

Basis and Purpose 

These revisions to "Part B, "Transportation Conformity," update the Regulation to incorporate by 

reference revisions to the federal rule, and to recognize Colorado-specific practices. 

The incorporations by reference adopt revisions to federal conformity regulations adopted by the 

EPA since 1997. Most of these revisions have streamlined processes and relaxed requirements. 

The revisions add language that addresses 40 CFR Section 93.122(a)(4)(ii) regarding obtaining 

and ensuring the fulfillment of written commitments to SIP control measures needed to achieve or 

maintain national ambient air quality standards that are not included in transportation plans or 

programs. These revisions also add language that addresses Section 93.125(c) regarding 

obtaining and ensuring the fulfillment of written commitments to transportation project mitigation 

measures. These are not new federal provisions, but they are newly required to be "addressed," 

i.e., made explicit in state conformity implementation plans. 

These revisions also make non-substantive changes including correcting citations, clarifying 

language, and striking of unnecessary or confusing language. 

Federal Requirements 

Regulation Number 10 

Adopted: December 15,2011 Page 18 
Pursuant to 40 CFR Section 51.390, Colorado must submit to the EPA and the U.S. Department 

of Transportation (DOT), a revision to the SIP to establish criteria and procedures for DOT, 

metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and state and local transportation and air quality 

agencies to assess the conformity of transportation plans, programs, and projects, consistent with 

the requirements of 40 CFR, Part 93, Subpart A. The states may incorporate the substantive 

criteria for making conformity determinations set out in the federal rule, into the state rule by 

reference. The rule adopted by the Commission takes advantage of this opportunity and 

incorporates the criteria in 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart A by reference. 

The federal rule also requires the states to develop procedures for interagency consultation on 

transportation conformity determinations, and for SIP revisions. The federal rule establishes 

minimum requirements for such consultation procedures, and requires States to establish these 

consultation procedures, including consultation with the public and conflict resolution at 40 CFR, 

Sections 93.105 (c) and (d). Pursuant to 40 CFR Sections 51.390 and 93.105, the states must 

develop and adopt such procedures, and submit the procedures to EPA for inclusion in the SIP. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR Sections 93.122(a)(4)(ii) and 93.125(c), States must also address the 

obtainment and enforceability of written commitments to SIP control measures not included in 

transportation plan as well as transportation project mitigation measures. 

Statutory Authority 

This transportation conformity rule is adopted under the Commission's general authority to adopt 

a SIP under §Section 25-7-105(1), C.R.S. (1997). 

Findings pursuant to §Section 25-7-110.8 

The portion of the rule incorporating the federal criteria for making conformity determinations is 

exempt from the requirements of §Section 25-7-110.8, C.R.S. (1997). The revisions addressing 

public consultation, conflict resolution, written commitments to SIP control measures not 

contained in transportation plans and project-level mitigation conditional to a conformity 

determination track the requirements in federal rules and are mandated by federal law. These 

revisions provide for written commitment to incorporate mitigation measures into project design 

for transportation projects. Mitigation measures are frequently necessary to reduce localized 

emissions associated with transportation project construction, but rarely relied upon for conformity 

determinations. Where such commitments are necessary for a positive conformity determination, 

they must be enforced so as to reduce risks to human health or the environment, which justifies 

the cost of implementation of the rule. The rule adopted by the Commission complies with the 

minimum federal requirements and maximizes the air quality benefits of the regulation in the most 

cost-effective manner. No other party proposed any alternative rule that would accomplish this 

result in a more cost-effective manner. 

VI. C. Amendments Adopted December 15. 2011 

Basis and Purpose 

The purpose of these amendments is to streamline the transportation conformity process by 

allowing the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division to provide concurrence with routine 

transportation conformity determinations without the need for a public hearing before the 

Colorado Air Quality Control Commission. This change to the conformity process is allowed for 

Regulation Number 10 

Adopted: December 15,2011 Page 19 
under federal law and will reduce the burden on the AQCC, the Division and transportation 

planning organizations, while ensuring that air quality requirements are met. In addition, the 

amendments include a number of clarifying provisions that will help facilitate the implementation 

of the regulation. In addition to streamlining the transportation conformity process, these 

amendments include a number of housekeeping changes made at the request of EPA, including 

removing incorporations by reference to federal general conformity regulations. Inclusion of 

these requirements in Regulation Number 10, and the State Implementation Plan is not required 

and is unnecessary to the general conformity process. 

Specific Statutory Authority 

The Commission promulgates these regulatory changes pursuant to its authority under Section 

25-7-105(1)(a)(l), C.R.S. to adopt a comprehensive state implementation plan that meets the 

requirements of the federal Clean Air Act. 

Findings Pursuant to Section 25-7-110.8 

The revisions to Regulation Number 10 are administrative in nature and are not intended to 

reduce air pollution. Rather. the revisions are intended to streamline the transportation 

conformity process and clarify existing requirements. while maintaining the air quality benefits of 

the existing rule. Accordingly, the requirements of Section 25-7-110.8. C. R.S. do not apply to this 

rulemaking. 

Regulation Number 10 

Adopted: December 15, 2011 Page 20 
Colorado Air Quality Control Commission 

Meeting Minutes 

40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V 2.1(g) 

I 

I 

I 

l 

I 

f 

l 

I 
STATE OF COLORADO 

John W. Hickenlooper, Governor 

Christopher E. Urbina, MD, MPH, Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer 

COLORADO AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION 

http://www.cdphe.state.co.us 

4300 Cherry Creek Drive South 

OED-OLRA-A5 

Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 

Phone (303) 692-3100 

Fax (303) 691-7702 

TDD (303) 691-7700 

Colorado Department 

of Public Health 

and Environment 

Colorado Air Quality Control Commission 

Location: 

Members Present: 

Members Absent: 

Commission Staff: 

Division Staff: 

December 15,2011 

MEETING MINUTES 

Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment 

4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Sabin Room 

Denver, CO 80246 

Ashley Campsie 

Barbara Roberts 

Robert Arnott 

Mike Silverstein 

Will Allison 

Pat McLaughlin 

Teresa Coons 

Jon Slutsky 

Saeed Barhaghi 

Theresa Martin 

Lisa Silva 

Gordon Pierce 

John Loewy 

Jim Wilson 

Dawn Meyers 

Lisa Clarke 

Attorney General's Office: Andrea Gelfuso-Goetz 

CALL TO ORDER AND DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM 

Chair Roberts called the meeting to order at 9:05 AM and determined that a quorum of 

Commissioners was now present with six Commissioners. 

APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 20, 2011 

Chair Roberts asked the Commission if there were any modifications to the minutes. Roberts had 

one edit changing Traditional Agenda to Regular Agenda. 

Motion: 

Moved: 

Second: 

Discussion: 

Carried: 

To approve the October 20, 2011 Meeting Minutes 

Commissioner Campsie 

Commissioner Coons 

none 

6-0 

;; 

I 

f 

I 

I 

' ( 

( 

i 

f 

( 

t 

I 

f 

I 

[ 

I 

' I 
PUBLIC COMMENT 

Chair Roberts asked if there were any members of the public who wished to make a comment on 

any air pollution issue not on the agenda. There were no public comments. 

CONSENT AGENDA 

REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING 

• Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments (PPACG) Conformity Determination 

RULEMAKING HEARINGS 

• Regulation Number 9: Smoke Management Distribution of Costs as prepared by the 

Division 

• PM2.5 Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan as prepared by the Division 

• Steamboat Springs PMlO Maintenance Plan as prepared by the Division 

Motion: 

Moved: 

Second: 

To adopt the Consent Agenda items 

Commissioner Wilson 

Commissioner Slutsky 

Discussion: none 

Carried: 6-0 

REGULAR AGENDA 

RULEMAKING HEARING 

Regulation Number 10: Criteria for Conformity 

The Commission considered streamlining the transportation conformity process by allowing the 

Colorado Air Pollution Control Division to provide concurrence with routine transportation 

conformity determinations without the need for a public hearing before the Colorado Air Quality 

Control Commission. This change to the conformity process is allowed for under federal law 

and will reduce the burden on the Commission, the Division and transportation planning 

organizations while ensuring that air quality requirements are met. The Commission also 

considered proposed revisions to the SIP, AQCC's Regulation Number 10 and the Procedural 

Rules. The Commission discussed how public concerns would be addressed or brought forward 

to the Commission. Allison noted that this could be discussed during the Director's Report as 

occurrences happened. 

Motion: To adopt the revisions to Regulation Number 10 and the Commission's 

Procedural Rules regarding conformity, as presented by the Division with the 

amended Statement of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority and Purpose for 

Regulation Number 10, and to correct the typographical error identified by 

the Division. In addition, the Commission directs that the Lead Planning 

Agency definition in Regulation Number 10 be revised to eliminate 

confusing language and errors. 

Moved: Commissioner Slutsky 

Second: Commissioner Wilson 

Discussion: none 

Carried: 6-0 

2 
BRIEFINGS, DISCUSSIONS AND REPORTS 

Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) 

The Division, National Park Service, and Environmental Protection Agency have been working 

together on the RMNP Initiative, a collaborative effort to reduce nitrogen deposition in Rocky 

Mountain National Park. Lisa Clarke of the Division introduced Susan Johnson-Policy Analyst 

of the Air Resources Division NPS, Carol McCoy-Chief of the Air Resources Division NPS, Jim 

Cheatham-Biologist for the RMNP, and John Mack-Chief of Natural Resources for the RMNP. 

Clarke and Mack briefed the Commission on the progress of the tasks outlined in the Nitrogen 

Deposition Reduction Plan endorsed by the Commission in 2007 and the Contingency Plan 

adopted in 2010, as well as recent activities of the MOU agencies. Clarke provided a handout to 

the Commission and noted that the attachments helped illustrate the activities of the RMNP 

Agriculture subcommittee. The Commission received public comment from Robert Collier 

representing the Environmental Defense Fund. 

HB09-1199: Colorado Healthy Forests and Vibrant Communities Act 

As a follow-up to the Commission's request from the March 2011 briefing, Pat McLaughlin of 

the Division provided the Commission a status update regarding implementation of the 

recommendations from the HB09-1199 study. McLaughlin described the Division's prescribed 

fire efforts, the innovations and program improvements implemented this past year, and the steps 

going forward. Deputy Regional Forester Brian Ferebee of the Rocky Mountain Region US 

Forest Service lead the USPS's presentation and was assisted by Glenn Casamassa- Forest 

Supervisor for the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest and the Pawnee National Grassland, Paul 

Langowski- regional Branch Chief for Fuels and Fire Ecology, Jeff Sorkin- Air Program 

Manager for this region and the Intermountain Region of the US Forest Service and Cheri Ford 

who serves as a liaison between the Forest Service and Colorado. Casamassa presented a status 

update to the Commission on collaborative efforts with the Division regarding changes to the 

Colorado Smoke Management Program since the March 17, 2011 Commission hearing. 

Casamassa noted that to be successful there was a need to move forward on a more objective and 

transparent permitting process that allows for an appropriate increase in prescribed fire and to 

develop an approach to smoke management that considers both protection of public health and 

the needs of Coloradans for reduced hazardous fuels in our forests. Ferebee noted that they 

would like to provide the Commission with semi-annual updates and some field tours if they're 

interested. 

The Commission conducted business during the lunch hour with a discussion about their 

strategic planning process with LEAN consultant Barbara Shecter and Roz Bedell Operations 

Director for CDPHE. 

REGIONAL AIR QUALITY COUNCIL (RAQC) REVIEW 

Ken Lloyd briefed the Commission regarding the strategy tables that were discussed and 

approved at the RAQC's November meeting. Lloyd noted that even though additional 

mandatory measures as part of a federally-enforceable SIP were not required at this time in the 

Denver/North Front Range nonattainment area, the region still faced a challenge to achieve the 

2008 standard by 2015 and additional short-term actions would be prudent to ensure attainment. 

3 
Lloyd noted that additional measures would likely be needed beyond the 2015-2020 timeframe 

in order to maintain attainment with the current standard and address a possible more stringent 

standard in the future and in light of the need to continue ozone reduction measures in the shortterm, the RAQC asked its various strategy subcommittees to reconvene, review the listed 

strategies already developed, and identify recommended short-term activities and actions. 

Monitoring Briefing 

The Division briefed the Commission on monitoring sites operated by the Division and others. 

The briefing addressed EPA monitoring and siting requirements, why sites are located in certain 

places and not in others, what pollutants are monitored, and possibilities for additional 

monitoring. New monitoring requirements from EPA were also addressed and the Division's 

current plans to meet those requirements. Jannette Whitcomb, Environmental Manager with the 

City of Aspen monitored the briefing via conference call. 

Commissioner Informational Items 

Coons discussed EPA Advisory Committee meeting issues: nutrient standards guidance process 

- Colorado is on the forefront; wildfire and prescribed bums in terms of exceptional events; 

mercury legislation and how it will impact Colorado; formal resolution and concerns about 

ozone setback - what does that do to credibility; interagency collaboration; formal 

resolution/approval agency-wide effort to incorporate environmental impacts; and water 

subcommittee getting briefing regarding fracking. Slutsky toured the JBS Five Rivers Cattle 

Feeding to see how their gasifier turns manure into energy. Basically, the system bums feedlot 

manure to produce heat that is in tum used to produce steam energy 

Division Director's Report- Will Allison 

• Received letter from EPA for nonattainment area and approval of exact boundaries 

proposed 

• EPA moving forward with proposal for oil and gas NSPS - green completions being the 

most important 

• OGCC released fracking rules and must disclose chemicals/chemical families 

• EPA is coming out with new guidance on how to handle S02 

• Rocky Mountain Steel Mill permit finalized 

• WildEarth Guardians seeking EPA nonattainment designations for PM exceptional events 

• EPA to finalize its utility MACT 

Attorney General's Report- Andrea Gelfuso-Goetz 

• CMA CORA- courts have decided that emails are confidential 

• CMA vs. Urbina- brief scheduled for March 

• Climate Change case was won - no public trust in air 

Administrator's Report- Mike Silverstein 

• Review February and March agenda items 

• Review of Action Items from today's Commission meeting 

• Informed Commission that review of the Procedural Rules would begin in March 

• Update on the Commission website redevelopment would occur at the February meeting 

Adjourn at 3:35PM 

4 
Legal Opinion of the Colorado State Attorney General 

40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V 2.1(c) and (e) 

Regulation Number 10 

I 

I 

J 

i 

I 

t 

I 

I 

i 

! 

l 
JOHN W. SUTHERS 

Attorney General 

CYNTHIA H. COFFMAN 

Chief Deputy Attorney General 

DANIEL D. DOMENICO 

Solicitor General 

STATE OF COLORADO 

DEPARTMENT OF LAW 

OFFICE OF THE A TTORNE\' 

GENERAL 

STATE SERVICES BUILDING 

I 525 Sherman Street - 7th Floor 

Denver, Colorado 80203 

Phone(303)~4500 

Fax (303) 866-5691 

Tracking Number: 2011-00669 

OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RENDERED IN 

CONNECTION WITH THE RULES ADOPTED BY THE 

Air Quality Control Commission 

ON 12/1512011 

5 CCR 1001-12 

REGt JLA TION No. 10 CRITERIA FOR ANALYSIS OF CONFORMITY 

The above-referenced rules were submitted to this office on 12/16/2011 as required by section 24-4-103, C.R.S. This office has 

reviewed them and finds no apparent constitutional or legal deficiency in their form or substance. 

Dtcember 22, 2011 l.a:45:32 MST 

JOHN W. SUTHERS 

Attorney General 

by DANIEL D. DOMENICO 

Solicitor General 

I 

t 

t 

I 
Regulation or Regulation Revisions as Published in the 

Colorado Code of Regulations 

(this is the version that is published by Lexis Nexis) 

40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V 2.1 (b) 

Regulation Number 1 0 
I 

l 

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC 

HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 

AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION 

REGULATION NO. 10 

CRITERIA FOR ANALYSIS OF CONFORMITY 

Authority Cited: 

25-7-105(1), C.R.S. 

History and Amendments: 

5 CCR 1001-12 

EDITOR'S NOTES* 

Pp. 1-2 amended 05/11/78, EFFECTIVE 05/31/78, 1 CR 6. Pp. 1-5 adopted 10/17/96, EFFECTIVE 12/30/96, 

19 CR 12. Pp. 1-15 adopted 10/15/98, EFFECTIVE 11/30/98, 21 CR 11. Rule replaced in its entirety, adopted 

11/20/08, EFFECTIVE 12/30/08, 31 CR 12. Rule replaced in its entirety [TN 2011-00669] adopted 12/15/11, 

EFFECTIVE 01130/12,35 CR 1. 

A.G. Opinions: 

I AG 253; 19 AG 382; 21 AG 352; 31 AG Dec 1001-12; 35 AG Jan 1001-12 

Annotations: 

*This Title Page does not constitute an official part of any regulation. Infonnation contained on the Title Page is provided by the Publisher 

from sources deemed reliable and is solely for infonnational and historical purposes. See cautionary note in Introductory Materials, How to 

UsetheCCR. 

© 2012 State of Colorado 

All Rights Reserved. (800) 833-9844 
' 

I© 2012 State of Colorado 

All Rights Reserved 

35 CR 1 and 2, 01-12 Page 1 

I. 

II. 

Requirement to Comply with the Federal Rule 

The purpose of Regulation Number 1 0 is to fulfill the requirement in 40 CFR 

51.390(b) to establish a SIP revision that addresses the provisions of Sections 40 

CFR 93.105(a) through (e), 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii), and 40 CFR 93.125(c) of the 

federal transportation conformity rule (see 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart A). Any person 

making a transportation conformity determination or adopting or approving a 

regionally significant project shall comply with the provisions of 40 CFR, Part 93, 

Subpart A, except as follows: 

I.A. The interagency consultation procedures established in Section Ill. of this document 

specify Colorado procedures and shall apply in addition to the consultation 

procedures established in 40 CFR Section 93.105 (a) through (e). 

I. B. Colorado-specific provisions in Section IV. of this document that require obtainment 

of and fulfillment of written commitments to SIP control measures not included in a 

transportation plan or Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) shall apply, 

pursuant to 40 CFR Section 93.122 (a)(4 )(ii). 

I. C. Colorado-specific provisions in Section V. of this document regarding design concept 

and scope and enforceability of project-level mitigation and control measures shall 

apply, pursuant to 40 CFR Section 93.125 (c). 

Definitions 

CDOT means the Colorado Department of Transportation. 

Commission means the Air Quality Control Commission as defined in Section 25-7-103(7), 

C.R.S. 

Division means The Air Pollution Control Division, pursuant to Section 25-7-111, C.R.S. 

Hot Spot Analvsis is an estimation of likely future localized criteria pollutant (or their 

precursor) concentrations and a comparison of those concentrations to the national ambient 

air quality standards. Federally required hot spot analyses assess impacts of pollutants on a 

scale smaller than the entire nonattainment or maintenance area, including for example, 

congested roadway intersections, highway portions, or transit terminals, using air quality 

dispersion modeling. 

Lead Planning Agency (LPA) is an agency designated by Colorado's Governor that is 

charged, together with the Division, with the duty of developing the State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) for any nonattainment or maintenance area. 

Metropolitan planning omanization (MPO) is that organization designated as being 

responsible, together with the State, for conducting the continuing, cooperative, and . 

comprehensive planning process under 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 1607. It is the lead 

agency for preparing transportation plans, TIPs and transportation conformity documents, 

and it provides a forum for cooperative transportation decision-making. 

Project-level Conformity See: Hot Spot Analysis 

Regional Transporlation Conformity refers to the status of a transportation planning region's 

conformance to relevant State Implementation Plans (SIPs). A conforming region's 

transportation plans and TIPs have passed emissions tests that must indicate they are 

unlikely to cause, contribute to, or increase the severity and frequency of future violations of 

national ambient air quality standards. Regional Conformity is demonstrated using 

CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS 5 CCR 1001-12 

I 

t. 
Page2 

transportation network models and air quality models and comparing projected 

transportation-related pollutant emissions to motor vehicle emissions budgets, or where 

budgets are not established, other emission limits for the region. To make a positive · 

Conformity finding for a region, future emissions must not exceed certain limits, e.g., 

emission budgets, and transportation projects, plans and TIPs must not interfere with any 

transportation control measures required by SIPs. 

Review Team is that group of interagency representatives who consult regarding 

Transportation Conformity assessment and findings, e.g., the Interagency Consultation 

Group (ICG) developed by the Denver Regional Council of Governments. The review team's 

responsibilities are defined in Section IV of this rule. 

Regionally Significant Project means a transportation project (other than an exempt project*) 

for a facility that serves regional transportation needs, such as access to and from the area 

outside the region, major activity centers in the region, major planned developments such as 

new retail malls, sports complexes, etc., or transportation terminals as well as most terminals 

themselves) and would 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 and alternative to regional highway travel. For the purposes of this rule, 

regionally significant projects include only those located in nonattainment or maintenance 

areas. *Exempt projects are listed in the Federal Regulation at 40 CFR Part 93.126 and Part 

93. 127 and include safety improvements. 

Routine Conformity Determination is one that is made for transportation plans and TIPs 

and/or their amendments involving: (1) Individual roadway projects adding less than two lane 

miles, with additional miles for all projects equaling <10 lane miles; and /or .(2) Projects with 

revisions to staging years only, and/or (3) Minor transit station plan revisions. Conformity 

Determinations for areas with Limited Maintenance Plans, which do not have emissions 

budgets, as such areas have been in attainment for 20 years or longer, would also generally 

be considered "routine." Notwithstanding this general definition, the APCD at its discretion 

may request that any Conformity Determination be reviewed by the Commission. 

Transportation Control Measure (TCM) is any measure that is specifically identified and 

committed to in the applicable implementation plan (air quality SIP) through the process 

established in CAA Section 176 (c) (8), that is either one of the types listed in CAA Section 

108, or any other measure designed to reduce emissions or concentrations of air pollutants 

from transportation sources by reducing vehicle use or changing traffic flow or congestion 

conditions. Vehicle technology-based, fuel-based and maintenance-based measures, e.g., 

inspection and maintenance programs, are not TCM's. 

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) A prioritized program of transportation projects 

funded with federal transportation funds, developed under 23.U.S.C. 134U) and 23 CFR Parts 

450.324 through 450.330. The TIP must be fiscally constrained, and, in air quality 

nonattainment and maintenance areas, the MPO, as well as FHWA and FTA must determine 

that the TIP achieves Conformity 

Transportation Plan in the context of this regulation means a fiscally constrained plan 

prepared by a Metropolitan Planning Organization or COOT and a local government or 

governments and/or regional planning commission pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 134 and as 

amplified by 23 CFR Part 450.322 (also referred to as a metropolitan transportation plan, 

regional transportation plan, or long-range transportation plan) for which a regional conformity 

determination is required. Outside of MPO's, the Colorado Department of Transportation, 

along with local governments, develops regional transportation plans. The overall State 

Transportation Plan incorporates all of the regional plans. 

5 CCR 1001-12 CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS 
' 

' 

© 2012 State of Colorado 

All Rights Reserved 

35 CR 1 and 2, 01-12 Page 3 

Ill. 

Transportation Planning Region (TPR) is a geographic area for which the transportation 

planning process required by 23 USC 134 and 135 and Section 8 of the Federal Transit Act 

must be carried out. Per Colorado regulations (CCR 43-1-1102), a TPR is a geographically 

designated area of the state for which a regional transportation plan may be developed 

pursuant to the provisions of 43-1-1102 and 1103, CRS. 

Interagency Consultation 

Ill .A. Roles and Responsibilities for Transportation Conformity Determinations and Related 

SIP Development~ 

III.A.1. This rule sets out the minimum requirements for interagency consultation 

(Federal, State, regional and local) and resolution of conflicts. 

Representatives of the MPOs, local transit agency, the Division, the LPA and 

COOT shall undertake an interagency consultation process in accordance 

with this section with each other and with local or regional offices of EPA, 

FHWA, and FTA on the development of the implementation plan, the list of 

TCMs in the applicable implementation plan, the transportation plan, the TIP, 

and all conformity determinations required by this rule. The MPO shall 

provide notice of revisions to Conformity documents through the normal 

planning process. The interagency consultation process shall be used in 

developing or noticing revisions to any documents that could affect 

Transportation Conformity. 

III.A.2. It shall be the role and responsibility of each agency identified as a lead 

agency to prepare the final document and to ensure the adequacy of the 

interagency consultation process. Designation as a lead agency for any 

decision item shall mean that such agency shall be responsible for making 

the final decision on such decision item, except that any such decision shall 

be subject to the dispute resolution process set out in Section IV.H. 

III.A.3. In each nonattainment area, COOT, the LPA, the Division, the MPO, local 

transit agency, and other agencies, as appropriate, may develop a written 

agreement pursuant to Section IV.G. that outlines the specific roles and 

responsibilities of various participants in the interagency consultation process 

for the preparation of SIPs, transportation plans, TIPs and conformity 

determinations. In the absence of such a written agreement, in addition to the 

other duties specified in this rule, the specific roles and responsibilities of the 

various participants in the interagency consultation process shall be as 

follows: 

III.A.3.a. The Division shall be responsible for: (A) emissions inventories; 

(8) air quality modeling and/or quality-assuring air quality 

modeling that is performed by the MPOs or COOT; (C) 

performing attainment demonstrations; (D) assisting the LPA in 

the development of pollutant specific implementation plan · 

revisions; (E) providing technical and policy input regarding 

emission factors and emissions budgets; and (F) updating motor 

vehicle emissions factors. 

III.A.3.b. The LPA, or the Division if there is no LPA, shall: (A) develop 

pollutant-specific state implementation plans for submittal to the 

Commission; and (8) prepare emissions budgets. 

III.A.3.c. The MPO shall: (A) develop transportation plans and TIPs, and 

shall make conformity determinations on transportation plans 

CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS 5 CCR 1001-12 
Page 4 

5 CCR 1001-12 

and TIPs within the applicable area, and shall be the lead 

agency for the development of such plans and TIPs, and for 

such conformity determinations; (B) develop transportation and 

socioeconomic data and planning assumptions and provide such 

data and planning assumptions to the Division for use in air 

quality analysis; (C) perform transportation modeling and 

documentation of timely implementation of TCMs needed for 

conformity assessments and SIP development; and (D) monitor 

regionally significant projects, and ensure that all disclosed, or 

otherwise known, regionally significant projects are included in 

the regional emissions analysis. The MPO may: (E) provide 

technical and policy input on emissions budgets; (F) perform air 

quality modeling for transportation conformity purposes; and (G) 

evaluate TCM impacts on transportation as needed. 

III.A.3.d. COOT shall: (A) provide technical input on proposed revisions to 

motor vehicle emissions factors, (B) convene air quality technical 

review meetings on specific projects when requested by other 

agencies or as needed, and (C) comment on transportation 

control measures and other aspects of the SIP that may affect 

the operation, construction or maintenance of the transportation 

system. 

III.A.3.e. In addition to the duties and responsibilities identified in 

paragraph d. above, for FHWA/FTA projects located outside of 

metropolitan planning areas, COOT shall convene the 

appropriate parties to outline roles and responsibilities and 

coordinate efforts needed to: (A) perform the required conformity 

evaluation for such projects, and identify the lead agency for 

such evaluations; (B) provide technical and policy input on 

emissions budgets; (C) develop socioeconomic data and 

planning assumptions for use in air quality analysis to determine 

conformity of projects in consultation with the affected municipal 

and county governments and state agencies; and (D) perform 

transportation modeling, regional emissions analyses and 

documentation of timely implementation of TCMs needed for 

conformity assessments. COOT may also conduct air quality 

modeling pursuant to a conformity determination .. 

III.A.3.f. The Commission shall be responsible for promulgating revisions 

to the SIP and for determining whether a regional conformity 

determination should be appealed to the Governor. 

CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS 
c 

© 2012 State of Colorado 

All Rights Reserved 

35 CR 1 and 2, 01-12 Page 5 

111.8. Establishing a Forum for Regional Conformity Consultation 

111.8.1. Minimum Consultation Requirements. 

111.8.1.a. The MPO shall establish and maintain a forum, herein referred to 

as the review team, for regular consultation. The MPO may 

establish a committee, or use existing committees, to perform 

the tasks assigned to the review team, provided the agencies 

identified in Subparagraph IV.8.1.b., below, have an opportunity 

to participate. Conference calls or written correspondence may 

be used to hold the meetings required by this rule upon the 

concurrence of the Division and any affected LPA. The review 

team shall comply with the minimum requirements set out in 

paragraph c. below, except that, outside of metro planning areas, 

COOT shall perform the functions assigned to the MPO. 

111.8.1.b. The review team shall consist, at a minimum, of the MPO as lead 

agency, the local transit agency, the Division, COOT, and the 

LPA. In addition, the review team shall include EPA, FHWA and 

the FTA for the topics identified in Subsection C.1. The agencies 

on the review team may appoint individual staff members, of any 

organizational level, to participate in the review team. 

111.8.1.c. The review team established pursuant to paragraphs a. and b. 

shall comply with the following minimum requirements: 

111.8.1.c.(1) The MPO consultation process shall begin early 

enough for the review team to adequately review and 

provide meaningful input on draft transportation plans, 

TIPs and conformity determinations, including supporting documents. 

111.8.1.c.(2) A schedule of meetings or a process for providing 

adequate notice of subsequent meetings shall be developed as part of the consultation process. The 

schedule of meetings shall be frequent enough to address all significant issues in a timely fashion. 

111.8.1.c.(3) The MPO shall establish an agenda for each meeting, 

and shall include in such agenda any issue or item 

upon the request of any member. 

111.8.1.c.(4) Any member may, at any time, request a meeting 

through the consultation process. Upon such a request, the MPO should schedule a meeting as soon 

as practicable. 

111.8.1.c.(5) The MPO shall respond in written form to written 

comments received from any of the members of the 

review team copying all review team members. 

CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS 5 CCR 1001-12 
Page 6 

III.C. Topics for Consultation 

III.C.1. The review team shall address the following topics in the manner provided. 

III.C.1.a. Evaluating and choosing a model (or models) and associated 

methods and assumptions to be used in regional emissions 

analyses. 

The MPO shall be responsible for selecting the transportation modeling 

procedures to be used within its modeling domain. The Division shall be 

responsible for selecting the emissions or air quality modeling procedures 

used for performing regional emissions analyses for conformity 

determinations and for SIP revisions. 

III.C.1.b. Determining which minor arterials and other transportation 

projects should be considered "regionally significant" for the 

purposes of regional emissions analysis (in addition to those 

functionally classified as principal arterial or higher or fixed 

guideway systems or extensions that offer an alternative to 

regional highway travel), and which projects should be 

considered to have a significant change in design concept and 

scope from the transportation plan or TIP. 

III.C.1.b.(1) The review team shall review the transportation network and identify minor arterials that serve regional 

transportation needs. 

III.C.1.b.(2) Review the transportation projects disclosed to the 

MPO pursuant to Section IV.E., and all transportation 

projects otherwise known to the members that may be 

regionally significant projects, and identify as regionally significant those projects that are on a facility which 

serves regional transportation needs and that would 

normally be included in the modeling of the metropolitan area's transportation network. 

III.C.1.b.(3) Identify any significant changes in design concept and 

scope of any project from the transportation plan, TIP, 

or regional emissions analysis supporting the conformity determination for a conforming TIP, upon therequest of any participant in the consultation process, or 

any recipient of funds designated under Title 23 or the 

Federal Transit Act with authority to adopt or approve 

of the subject regionally significant project. 

III.C.1.c. Evaluating whether projects otherwise exempted from meeting 

the requirements of this subpart (see 40 CFR Sections 93.126 

and 93.127) should be treated as non-exempt in cases where 

potential emissions impacts may exist for any reason. 

5 CCR 1001-12 CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS 
' 

© 2012 State of Colorado 

All Rights Reserved 

35 CR 1 and 2, 01-12 Page 7 

III.C.1.c.(1) At the request of any participant in the consultation 

process, the review team shall determine whether 

projects otherwise exempt from meeting the requirements of this subpart should be treated as nonexempt in cases where potential emissions impacts 

may exist for any reason. 

III.C.1.c.(2) For each non-attainment area that is outside of a metropolitan planning area, COOT shall consult with the 

review team to identify categories of exempt projects 

that should be treated as non-exempt for such area. 

III.C.1.d. Making a determination, as required by 40 CFR Section 

93.113(c}(1 ), whether past obstacles to TCM implementation 

have been identified and are being overcome, and whether State 

and local agencies with influence over approvals or funding for 

TCMs are giving maximum priority to approval or funding for 

TCMs. . 

III.C.1.d.(1) The LPA and the Division shall provide the MPO with 

information necessary to develop a list of the TCMs 

The LPA may also request that the MPO, COOT, the 

public transit agency, or any other agency responsible 

for implementing a TCM reaffirm its commitment to 

implement a TCM pursuant to the schedule established in the SIP. 

III.C.1.d.(2) The MPO, after consultation with the review team, 

shall determine whether obstacles to implementation 

of TCMs have been identified and are being overcome, and whether State and local agencies are giving maximum priority to approval or funding for TCMs. 

For each such determination, the MPO shall identify 

the past obstacles, the steps taken to overcome them, 

the State and local agencies with influence over approvals or funding, the basis for finding that such 

agencies are giving maximum priority to such approval or funding, and a revised schedule for the implementation of the TCM. 

III.C.1.d.(3) The MPO shall report any situation in which it determines that obstacles to implementing a TCM are not 

being overcome, or that State and local agencies with 

influence over approvals or funding are not giving 

maximum priority to approval or funding for TCMs. 

The report shall be provided to the agency sponsoring 

the TCM, the Division, the Commission and the Governor. The Commission may schedule the matter for a 

hearing regarding enforcement, and/or replacement of 

TCMs. 

III.C.1.e. Notification of transportation plan or TIP revisions or 

amendments, which merely add or delete exempt projects listed 

in 40 CFR Section 93.126 or 93.127. 

CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS 5 CCR 1001-12 
Page 8 

5 CCR 1001-12 

The MPO shall provide notice through the normal planning process , prior to 

consideration of any proposed amendment that adds or deletes exempt 

projects listed in 40 CFR Section 93.126 or 93.127 to or from the 

transportation plan or TIP. 

III.C.1.f. Process for providing final documents and supporting information 

to each agency after approval or adoption. 

The MPO shall make available final TIPs and transportation plans to 

participants in the consultation process. 

III.C.1.g. Choosing conformity tests and methodologies for isolated rural 

nonattainment areas, as required by 40 CFR Section 93.109(1). 

The Division and COOT shall choose, in consultation with the members of 

the review team, the requirements and methodologies to be used to comply 

with 40 CFR Section 93.109. If the Division and COOT cannot agree, the 

issue shall be referred to the Commission for review at a public meeting 

pursuant to Section III.H. The Commission may escalate the matter to the 

Governor as provided in Section III.H. 

III.C.2. The review team shall address the following topics in the manner provided. 

Outside of the metropolitan planning areas, COOT shall perform the tasks 

assigned to the MPO, excepting conformity determination tasks that it 

contracts out to other entities. 

III.C.2.a. Evaluating events which will trigger new conformity 

determinations in addition to those triggering events established 

in 40 CFR 93.104. 

III.C.2.a.(1) The MPO may identify events that would trigger new 

conformity determinations in addition to those triggering events established in 40 CFR Section 93.1 04, and 

the pollutant specific SIPs. Alternatively, the Commission may promulgate regulations or revise the SIP in 

a manner that would trigger a new conformity determination. 

III.C.2.a.(2) The MPO will consult with the review team to evaluate 

whether events that may trigger a new conformity determination pursuant to 40 CFR Section 93.104 or a 

pollutant specific SIP have occurred. 

III.C.2.b. Consulting on emissions analysis for transportation activities that 

cross the borders of MPOs or nonattainment areas or basins. 

In the event that contiguous MPOs are created within the state, the affected 

MPOs shall, in consultation with the participants in the consultation process, 

establish a consultation procedure for consulting on emissions analyses for 

transportation activities that cross the borders of MPOs or nonattainment 

areas or air basins. 

CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS 

~· 
© 2012 State of Colorado 

All Rights Reserved 

35 CR 1 and 2, 01-12 Page 9 

III.C.2.c. Determining conformity of projects outside the metropolitan area 

and within the nonattainment or maintenance area. 

In the event that a nonattainment or maintenance area is created in the state 

that includes a metropolitan planning area or areas, but such metropolitan 

planning area(s) does not include the entire nonattainment or maintenance 

area, the affected MPOs, in consultation with the participants in the 

consultation process, shall establish a procedure for consulting on emissions 

analyses for transportation activities that cross the borders of MPOs or 

nonattainment areas or air basins. 

III.C.2.d. Process for consulting on the design, schedule, and funding of 

research and data collection efforts and regional transportation 

model development by the MPO. 

The MPO, in consultation with the review team shall determine the design, 

schedule and funding of significant research and data collection efforts and 

regional transportation model development. 

III.C.3. Hot Spot Analysis: (1) Evaluating and choosing a model (or models) and 

associated methods and assumptions to be used in hot-spot modeling; and 

(2) identifying, as required by 40 CFR Section 93.123(b ), projects located at 

sites in nonattainment or maintenance areas that have vehicle and roadway 

emission and dispersion characteristics essentially identical to those at sites 

where violations have been verified by monitoring, and therefore require 

quantitative pollutant hot-spot analysi.§.. COOT, the APCD, USEPA, and 

USDOTwill: 

III.C.3.a. Determine which types of projects should be evaluated for 

localized hot spots. COOT, subject to concurrence by the 

Division, shall identify the projects or categories of projects that 

shall be evaluated for potential hot spots. 

III.C.3.b. Evaluate and choose a model (or models) and associated 

methods and assumptions to be used in hot-spot analyses. 

COOT shall be responsible for selecting the hot spot model to be 

used for conformity determinations. 

111.0. Process for assuming the location and design concept and scope of projects 

disclosed to the MPO as required by paragraph (E) of this section in cases where 

sponsors have not yet decided these features in sufficient detail to perform the 

regional emissions analysis according to the requirements of 40 CFR Section 93.122. 

111.0.1. The MPO shall contact the sponsor of any project disclosed to the MPO 

pursuant to Section Ill .E., but whose sponsors have not yet decided these 

features in sufficient detail to perform the regional emissions analysis 

according to the requirements of 40 CFR Section 93.122, and shall request 

that such sponsor develop the location and design concept and scope of the 

project for the purpose of including the project in the regional emissions 

analysis. 

111.0.2. If the sponsor is unwilling or unable to provide these features to the MPO in a 

timely fashion, the MPO shall propose reasonable assumptions about such 

features, and shall provide COOT, the Division, the LPA, the project sponsor, 

and any recipient of funds designated under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal 

CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS 5 CCR 1001-12 

I 

l 

i. 

; 

I 

l 

f 

~· I 

I 

f 

f 

I 

~ 

f 

~ 

' ' 

~ 
Page 10 

Transit Act that has the authority to adopt or approve of the project, with a 

written description of the proposed assumptions. Following consultation with 

such agencies the MPO shall make assumptions about the location and 

design concept and scope of the project that are reasonably calculated to 

estimate the emissions associated with such project. Such assumptions shall 

be based on the information and comments about the project received by the 

MPO. 

Ill. E. Process to ensure that plans for construction of regionally significant projects that are 

not FHWAIFTA projects (including projects for which alternative locations, design 

concept and scope, or the no-build options are still being considered), including those 

by recipients of funds designated under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act, are 

disclosed on a regular basis, and that any changes to such plans are immediately 

disclosed. 

III.E.1. Prior to conducting a conformity analysis, the MPO shall ensure that COOT 

and each municipality, county and public transit agency within the 

metropolitan planning area, and each agency with approval authority for 

transportation projects , is notified of the requirement to include regionallysignificant projects, and changes to plans for such projects, in the regional 

emissions analysis. 

Ill. F. Consultation procedures for development of State Implementation Plans. 

III.F.1. Minimum Consultation Requirements- SIP development and revision. 

In each nonattainment or maintenance area, the LPA or the Division shall establish 

and maintain a review team for regular consultation to ensure that the transportation 

community is involved in the development of the implementation plans. Such review 

team shall also be established to develop and review any SIP revision that includes a 

new or revised mobile source emissions budget, or that requires a new or revised 

attainment or maintenance demonstration. The review team may be part of a larger 

consultation procedure established by the LPA or Division to include all sectors of the 

community (in addition to the transportation community). The consultation procedure 

shall comply with the minimum requirements listed below. If the review team is 

established by the Division, the Division shall perform the tasks assigned to the LPA. 

III.F.1.a. The review team shall consist of representatives of the MPO, the 

Division, COOT, the EPA, FHWA, FTA, and the public transit 

agency. 

III.F.1.b. The LPA shall begin consultation meetings early enough in the 

process for review team members to adequately review the 

modeling used to support the SIP, and to review the proposed 

control measures. The LPA must provide an opportunity to 

review copies of the draft implementation plan, including 

supporting documents, to the other members of the review team, 

and shall provide at least thirty days for the submission of 

comments on the draft SIP prior to adoption by the LPA. 

III.F.1.c. A schedule of meetings or a process for providing adequate 

notice of subsequent meetings shall be developed as part of the 

consultation process. The schedule of meetings shall be frequent 

enough to address all significant issues in a timely fashion. 

5 CCR 1001-12 CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS 
© 2012 State of Colorado 

All Rights Reserved 

35 CR 1 and 2, 01-12 Page 11 

III.F.1.d. The LPA shall establish an agenda for each meeting, and shall 

include in such agenda any issue or item upon the request of 

any participant. 

III.F.1.e. Any member may, at any time, request a meeting to consult with 

the LPA and the other participants. Upon such a request the LPA 

should schedule a meeting as soon as practicable. 

III.F.1.f. The LPA shall respond in written form to written comments 

received from any of the participants. 

III.F.1.g. SIPs and SIP revisions proposed by the LPA shall be subject to 

final approval by the Commission following a public hearing. The 

Division shall provide final copies of any SIP or SIP revision to 

the MPO, COOT, the LPA, the public transit agency, the EPA, 

the FHWA, and FTA. 

III.F.2. The LPA shall submit a list of TCMs included in the proposed SIP to the 

MPO, COOT and each affected local agency or other sponsoring agency at 

least thirty days prior to approval of the SIP or SIP revision by the governing 

board of the LPA. 

III.F.3. The SIP development procedures set out in this Section IV. F. shall be in 

addition to any other rules or regulations applicable to SIP development or 

SIP revisions. Nothing in this Section III.F. shall be construed to supersede, 

alter or amend such other rules, or to incorporate such other requirements 

into the SIP. 

Ill. G. Agreements further describing consultation procedures. 

III.G.1. The Division may enter into written agreements with the members of the 

review team to clarify and further develop the procedures for conformity 

determinations described in this Section Ill. The Division may also enter into 

written agreements with the LPA and members of the committee established 

pursuant to Section III.F. to further clarify or develop the SIP development 

procedures. The members of the review team may; by mutual agreement, 

delegate the tasks assigned to them underthis rule to other members. Any 

member of the review team delegating a task shall conduct reasonable 

oversight of the delegated task as necessary to ensure proper performance. 

III.G.2. Nothing in this regulation shall be construed to relieve the parties of the 

obligations set out in agreements entered into prior to the effective date of 

this rule, except to the extent that the provisions of such agreements are 

inconsistent with this rule. The Commission and Division shall continue 

membership on any MPO committee or council as provided in any such 

agreements. 

Ill. H. Review of Conformity Determinations by the public, the Air Quality Control 

Commission, and resolution of conflicts. 

III.H.1. Per, 40 CFR Section 93.105(e), agencies making conformity 

determinations-i.e., MPO's or COOT--must provide for public review and 

comment prior to adopting new or amended transportation plans-and 

programs. 

CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS 5 CCR 1001-12 
Page 12 

III.H.1.a. Agencies making conformity determinations must provide 

reasonable public access to relevant documents, consistent with 

23 CFR Section 450.316(a). Any charges imposed for public 

inspection or copying of documents would be consistent with 

USDOT regulations at 49 CFR Section 7.43. 

III.H.1.b. Agencies making conformity determinations must specifically 

address in writing any public comments asserting that a 

regionally significant project is not reflected in the emissions 

analysis supporting a positive conformity finding. 

III.H.1.c. Agencies making conformity determinations shall provide 

opportunity for public involvement in conformity determinations 

for projects where otherwise required by law. 

III.H.2. The Division shall make a finding regarding which Conformity Determinations 

are routine, per the definition set forth in this regulation. Routine Conformity 

Determinations regarding a TIP or Plan shall be reviewed by the Division. For 

instances in which the Division agrees that a positive Conformity 

Determination has been made, it shall provide notice of concurrence with 

those determinations .. The Division shall make the determination regarding 

whether a Conformity Determination is routine. If a Conformity Determination 

is non-routine, it shall be brought before the Commission for its review and 

possible concurrence. The Commission intends to conduct public meetings 

to review non-routine conformity determinations in accordance with the 

applicable provisions of the Air Quality Control Commission Procedural 

Rules, and reserves the right to schedule such meetings as permitted by the 

Commission's schedule and as necessary to comply with such procedural 

rules. However, this paragraph shall not be construed to incorporate such 

procedural rules into the SIP. No violation of such procedural rules shall be 

construed as a violation of the SIP, except where such procedural rules 

otherwise has been incorporated into the SIP. 

III.H.3. Upon request of any member of the review team, a conformity determination 

on an FHWA project located outside of a metropolitan planning area shall be 

presented to the Commission prior to submittal to FHWA if there is a conflict 

that cannot be resolved by the review team. The request for such review 

must be filed as soon as practicable and shall not be filed any later than the 

first regularly scheduled Commission meeting following the final conformity 

determination. 

III.H.4. In accordance with 40 CFR Section 93.105(d), conflicts among State 

agencies or between State agencies and an MPO may be escalated to the 

Governor. Such conflicts would render a Conformity Determination nonroutine and subject to review by the AQCC. The fourteen calendar-days in 

which to appeal a conflict to the Governor shall commence upon review of a 

conformity determination by the Commission pursuant to this Subsection H., 

except as provided below at Sections (a) and (b). If the State appeals to the 

Governor, the final conformity determination must have the concurrence of 

the Governor. If the Commission does not appeal to the Governor within 14 

days, or as provided below at Sections (a) and (b), the MPO or COOT may 

proceed with the final conformity determination. 

5 CCR 1001-12 CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS 
© 2012 State of Colorado 

All Rights Reserved 

35 CR 1 and 2, 01-12 Page 13 

IV. 

v. 

VI. 

III.H.4.a. The Commission may extend the beginning of the time to 

escalate a conflict to the next regularly scheduled Commission 

meeting if the entity making the conformity determination 

amends such determination during the fourteen-day period 

preceding the Commission meeting. 

III.H.4.b. Upon the agreement and concurrence of the entity making the 

conformity determination, the Commission may extend the 

beginning of the time to escalate a conflict as necessary to 

accommodate further consultation among the agencies. 

III.H.4.c. For purposes of project level conformity determinations in 

isolated rural nonattainment and maintenance areas, a "final 

conformity determination" shall be taken to mean COOT's 

completed conformity analysis and recommended finding of 

conformity to FHWA. 

Emission reduction credit for certain control measures. 

IV.A. Pursuant to 40 CFR Section 93.122(a)(4), emissions reduction credit from 

implementation plan control measures that are not included in the transportation plan 

and TIP and that do not require a regulatory action in order to be implemented may 

not be included in the emissions analysis unless the conformity determination 

includes written commitments to implementation from the appropriate entities. 

IV.B. Any entity making a written commitment to perform a control measure not included in 

the transportation plan or TIP shall fulfill such written commitment if the control 

measure is used for emissions reduction credit in a regional emissions analysis. 

Enforceability of design concept and scope and project-level mitigation and control measures. 

V.A. Pursuant to 40 CFR Section 93.125 (c), where project-level mitigation is conditional 

to a positive conformity determination, written commitments to such mitigation 

measures must be obtained. Project sponsors shall comply with these commitments. 

Statements of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority, and Purpose 

VI .A Amendments Adopted October 15, 1998 

The change to Regulation Number 10, "Criteria for Analysis of Conformity," Part 8, 

"Transportation Conformity" will establish criteria and procedures for making conformity 

determinations on transportation plans, transportation improvement programs (TIPs), 

FHWA/FTA projects, and consultation procedures for major revisions to the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). 

Federal Requirements 

Pursuant to 40 CFR Section 51.390, Colorado must submit to the EPA and the U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT), a revision to the SIP to establish criteria and 

procedures for DOT, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and state and local 

transportation and air quality agencies to assess the conformity of transportation plans, 

programs, and projects, consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR, Part 93, Subpart A. 

The states may incorporate the substantive criteria for making conformity determinations set 

out in the federal rule, into the state rule by reference. The rule adopted by the Commission 

CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS 5 CCR 1001-12 

' 

I 

l 

I 

I 

t 

I 

, 

! 

I 

I 

[ 

I 

J 

I 

I 

( 

i 

f 

f l 

I 
Page 14 

takes advantage of this opportunity and incorporates the criteria in 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart 

A by reference. 

The federal rule also requires the states to develop procedures for interagency consultation 

on transportation conformity determinations, and for SIP revisions. The federal rule. 

establishes minimum requirements for such consultation procedures, but does not actually 

establish any procedures. Pursuant to 40 CFR Section 51.390 and 93.105, the states must 

develop and adopt such procedures, and submit the procedures to EPA for inclusion in the 

SIP. The rule adopted by the Commission establishes procedures for interagency 

consultation, and addresses each of the topics required by 40 CFR Section 93.105. The 

consultation procedure established in the rule is intended to create a meaningful interagency 

consultation process that complies with the federal requirements, but that provides the 

flexibility necessary to meet the needs of the Colorado Department of Transportation and the 

various MPOs in the State. The interagency consultation requirements track the minimum 

federal requirements, and are not otherwise more stringent than the federal requirements. 

The only provision in the rule that differs from the federal rule is the definition of the term 

"regionally significant project" contained in the state rule. The state rule includes a definition 

applicable to rural nonattainment areas that do not conduct modeling of the area's 

transportation network. The federal rule appears to assume that all nonattainment areas 

conduct such modeling. The specific definition in the rule for rural areas is necessary to 

reconcile the federal rule with the general practice in rural nonattainment areas, but is not 

more stringent than federal requirements. 

Contested Issues 

One MPO urged the Commission to adopt a rule requiring a public meeting to be held prior to 

final action by the MPO. The rule is written to allow flexibility, so that MPOs have the option of 

coming to the Commission either before or after their governing board takes final action on 

the conformity determination. However, the Commission strongly encourages the MPOs to 

submit a draft conformity determination to the AQCC for comment, so that the MPO can take 

the Commission's comments into account as early in the process as possible. 

Statutory Authority 

The transportation conformity rule is adopted under the Commission's general authority to 

adopt a SIP under Section 25-7-1 05(1 ), C.R.S. (1997). 

Findings pursuant to Section 25-7-110.8 

The portion of the rule incorporating the federal criteria for making conformity determinations 

is exempt from the requirements of Section 25-7-110.8, C.R.S. (1997). The consultation 

requirements are administrative in nature, and are exempt from the requirements of Section 

25-7-11 0.8(1 )(b }, C.R.S. The interagency consultation requirements establish a procedure for 

ensuring that the federal, state and local air quality agencies charged with protecting human 

health and the environment ar.e consulted during the transportation conformity process. In 

this way, the rule will bring about reductions in risks to human health or the environment that 

will justify the cost of implementation of the rule. The rule adopted by the Commission 

complies with the minimum federal requirements and maximizes the air quality benefits of the 

regulation in the most cost-effective manner. No other party proposed any alternative rule 

that would accomplish this result in a more cost-effective manner. 

5 CCR 1001-12 CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS 
c 

© 2012 State of Colorado 

All Rights Reserved 

35 CR 1 and 2, 01-12 

VI.B. Amendments Adopted November 20, 2008 

Transportation Conformity Update 

Background 

This Statement of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority and Purpose complies with the 

requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act, Section 24-4-103, C.R.S. and the 

Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act, Section 25-7-110.5, C.R.S. 

Basis and Purpose 

Page 15 

These revisions to "Part B, "Transportation Conformity," update the Regulation to incorporate 

by reference revisions to the federal rule, and to recognize Colorado-specific practices. 

The incorporations by reference adopt revisions to federal conformity regulations adopted by 

the EPA since 1997. Most of these revisions have streamlined processes and relaxed 

requirements. 

The revisions add language that addresses 40 CFR Section 93.122(a)(4)(ii) regarding 

obtaining and ensuring the fulfillment of written commitments to SIP control measures 

needed to achieve or maintain national ambient air quality standards that are not included in 

transportation plans or programs. These revisions also add language that addresses Section 

93.125(c) regarding obtaining and ensuring the fulfillment of written commitments to 

transportation project mitigation measures. These are not new federal provisions, but they 

are newly required to be "addressed," i.e., made explicit in state conformity implementation 

plans. 

These revisions also make non-substantive changes including correcting citations, clarifying 

language, and striking of unnecessary or confusing language. 

Federal Requirements 

Pursuant to 40 CFR Section 51.390, Colorado must submit to the EPA and the U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT), a revision to the SIP to establish criteria and 

procedures for DOT, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and state and local 

transportation and air quality agencies to assess the conformity of transportation plans, 

programs, and projects, consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR, Part 93, Subpart A. The 

states may incorporate the substantive criteria for making conformity determinations set out 

in the federal rule, into the state rule by reference. The rule adopted by the Commission takes 

advantage of this opportunity and incorporates the criteria in 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart A by 

reference. 

The federal rule also requires the states to develop procedures for interagency consultation 

on transportation conformity determinations, and for SIP revisions. The federal rule 

establishes minimum requirements for such consultation procedures, and requires States to 

establish these consultation procedures, including consultation with the public and conflict 

resolution at 40 CFR, Sections 93.105 (c) and (d). Pursuant to 40 CFR Sections 51.390 and 

93.1 05, the states must develop and adopt such procedures, and submit the procedures to 

EPA for inclusion in the SIP. Pursuant to 40 CFR Sections 93.122(a)(4)(ii) and 93.125(c), 

States must also address the obtainment and enforceability of written commitments to SIP 

control measures not included in transportation plan as well as transportation project 

mitigation measures. 

CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS 5 CCR 1001-12 

I 

t 
Page 16 

Statutory Authority 

This transportation conformity rule is adopted under the Commission's general authority to 

adopt a SIP under Section 25-7-105(1), C.R.S. (1997). 

Findings pursuant to Section 25-7-110.8 

The portion of the rule incorporating the federal criteria for making conformity determinations 

is exemptfrom the requirements of Section 25-7-110.8, C.R.S. (1997). The revisions 

addressing public consultation, conflict resolution, written commitments to SIP control 

measures not contained in transportation plans and project-level mitigation conditional to a 

conformity determination track the requirements in federal rules and are mandated by federal 

law. These revisions provide for written commitment to incorporate mitigation measures into 

project design for transportation projects. Mitigation measures are frequently necessary to 

reduce localized emissions associated with transportation project construction, but rarely 

relied upon for conformity determinations. Where such commitments are necessary for a 

positive conformity determination, they must be enforced so as to reduce risks to human 

health or the environment, which justifies the cost of implementation of the rule. The rule 

adopted by the Commission complies with the minimum federal requirements and maximizes 

the air quality benefits of the regulation in the most cost-effective manner. No other party 

proposed any alternative rule that would accomplish this result in a more cost-effective 

manner. 

VI.C. Amendments Adopted December 15, 2011 

Basis and Purpose 

The purpose of these amendments is to streamline the transportation conformity process by 

allowing the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division to provide concurrence with routine 

transportation conformity determinations without the need for a public hearing before the 

Colorado Air Quality Control Commission. This change to the conformity process is allowed 

for under federal law and will reduce the burden on the AQCC, the Division and 

transportation planning organizations, while ensuring that air quality requirements are met. In 

addition, the amendments include a number of clarifying provisions that will help facilitate the 

implementation of the regulation. In addition to streamlining the transportation confoJmity 

process, these amendments include a number of housekeeping changes made at the request 

of EPA, including removing incorporations by reference to federal general conformity 

regulations. Inclusion of these requirements in Regulation Number 10, and the State 

Implementation Plan is not required and is unnecessary to the general conformity process. 

Specific Statutory Authority 

The Commission promulgates these regulatory changes pursuant to its authority under 

Section 25-7-1 05(1 )(a)(l), C.R.S. to adopt a comprehensive state implementation plan that 

meets the requirements of the federal Clean Air Act. 

Findings Pursuant to Section 25-7-110.8 

The revisions to Regulation Number 10 are administrative in nature and are not intended to 

reduce air pollution. Rather, the revisions are intended to streamline the transportation 

conformity process and clarify existing requirements, while maintaining the air quality benefits 

of the existing rule. Accordingly, the requirements of Section 25-7-110.8, C.R.S. do not apply 

to this rulemaking. 

5 CCR 1001-12 CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS