I see that the 2003 LI #532 is still being applied as a requirement to v2009 projects.  We are applying for the Exemplary Performance using the Comprehensive Transportation Management Plan.  The Preliminary review comment back was that "At least three of the SSc4 suite credits have not been earned, as required. Provide the requested clarifications for the SSc4 suite credits, and demonstrate that at least three of these credits have been earned."

Searching this site I see that others have experienced this same issue.  I'm a bit surprised that it is still happening.  I foresee myself taking this up the chain of command at GBCI when the Reviewer rejects it again.  Below is the reasoning I am applying to this ruling.

In the preface to the Reference Guide for NC v2009, under Updates and Addenda it states, “USGBC
cannot be held liable for any criteria set forth herein that may not be applicable to later version of LEED
rating systems, and GBCI reserves the right to modify its policies from time to time. Updates and
addenda will be accumulated between revisions and will be formally incorporated in major revisions.”

NC v2009 was a major revision over v2.1. It is commonly referred to as v3. The entire scoring and value
system of LEED was updated in v2009 when it went to the 100-point scale. The Reference Guide states
that all accumulated updates will be incorporated in major revisions and that criteria may not be
applicable to later versions of LEED. Updates and addenda will be accumulated “between” revisions.
This 2003 interpretation was years “before” v2009 and was not formally incorporated into the major
revision what was v2009.

Years ago, the USGBC website had an “applicability tab” for how strongly certain interpretations were
applied to various versions of LEED. #532 applied to v2 credits such that “the ruling was written for
projects using this rating system and must be applied based on the project’s registration date.” But for
v2009 credits the applicability only indicated that “project teams and reviewers may refer to the ruling for
projects using this rating system, if reasonable and appropriate.” This interpretation #532 was never
applied as a “must” for v2009 projects, only a “may if appropriate”. This project team is not applying that
v2 interpretation to this v2009 project.