Agenda for the May 25. 2006 Call with STAPPA/ALAPCO on the SAFETEA-LU

Conformity Rulemaking

Introductions

Opportunity for questions on the February 14, 2006 interim SAFETEA-LU
conformity guidance

How EPA is planning to address:

Conformity Redeterminations

Frequency

Lapse Grace Period

Conformity SIPs

Horizons

TCM Substitution

Feedback on our plans

General Plans for the Rulemaking

Major Topics of  Discussion During the May 25, 2006 Call with
STAPPA/ALAPCO and Its Members on the SAFETEA-LU Conformity Rulemaking

Participants: EPA, STAPPA/ALAPCO, Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut,
Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, West Virginia, Virginia, North
Carolina, Kentucky, Mecklenberg County, Louisville, South Carolina,
Illinois, Dayton, Texas, Missouri, Colorado, Montana, Nevada, San Diego,
South Coast, San Joaquin, Valley, Clark County, Oregon and Alaska

Major Topics of Discussion:

Overview of the transportation conformity-related Clean Air Act
amendments made by SAFETEA-LU

General plans and timeline for the SAFETEA-LU conformity rulemaking

Questions asked by the participants:

Could the rule be written to require more of a dialogue on elections to
shorten the conformity timeframe?

What types of projects can go forward during a conformity lapse?

Is an MOU required as part of a conformity SIP to implement 40 CFR
93.105, 93.122(a)(4)(ii) and 93.125(c)?

Could a state include more stringent timeframe provisions in its
conformity SIP?

If an area has an approved conformity SIP with the pre-existing
conformity timeframe requirement, does that approved provision continue
to apply?

When are conformity SIPs due?

If we incorporate the federal conformity rule by reference, do we have
to wait until the rule is revised to submit a revised conformity SIP?

Do all TCM substitution requirements have to met in order to make a
substitution?

Will there be another round of stakeholder calls?

General comments:

Air agencies should have a larger role in the conformity process.

Main areas of interest are consultation, conformity SIPs and the
possibility of more stringent conformity SIPs.

