Back

REPORT:

Mobile Source Committee

SYNOPSIS:

The Mobile Source Committee met on Thursday, December 17, 1998. Presentations were made on the following items: Options for Providing Technical Assistance for Local Jurisdictions Utilizing AB 2766 Subvention Funds; AB 2766 Subvention Fund Legal Parameters; Transportation Control Measures Project Replacement; Rule 2202 Updates, Issue RFP for PM10 Efficient Street Sweeper Testing; Execute Contracts for CEQA Documentation Support; Monthly Report on Environmental Justice Initiatives Item #4 – CEQA Commenting Update; CEQA Handbook Revision; Monthly Report on Environmental Justice Initiatives: Item #2 – Ambient Monitoring of Air Toxics; Item #7 – Cleanup Incentives for Diesel; and Update on the Mobile Source Measures in the SIP. The next meeting is January 15, 1999, at 9:30 a.m. in Conference Room CC-8.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Receive and file this report.

Roy Wilson, Vice Chair
Mobile Source Committee

ATTENDANCE: Present: Committee Member Norma Glover. Also present was Committee Vice Chair Roy Wilson from the teleconference center in Indio. Absent: Committee Members Jon Mikels, Ronald Loveridge, and Mee Hae Lee. The attachment is an attendance roster.

MOBILE SOURCE COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ITEMS

1. Options for Providing Technical Assistance for Local Jurisdictions Utilizing AB 2766 Subvention Funds Staff’s presentation to the Committee was made in response to the October 16, 1998 meeting where Committee members: 1) asked about the feasibility of internalizing the technical assistance function associated with the AB 2766 subvention fund effort provided to local jurisdictions; and 2) directed staff to revise the RFP to focus on more technical related matters with regard to emission reductions and cost effectiveness. The revised RFP was included in the committee's agenda packet.

With regard to internalizing the technical assistance function, staff provided a comparison with the existing Rule 2202 technical assistance effort to demonstrate the similarities and differences between these two programs. Staff emphasized that the primary mission of the technical assistance offered by District staff under AB 2766 would be to work with local jurisdictions in quantifying emissions from the most cost effective projects.

Additionally, staff mentioned that the Governing Board members have received a copy of the Draft AB 2766 Subvention Fund Program Resource Guide that was included in the Committee agenda packet. Staff had solicited Local Government and Small Business Assistance Advisory Group review and comment at their next meeting. Staff would thereafter bring it back to the Mobile Source Committee with their comments.

Staff also mentioned that there is an interest expressed by the subregional Councils of Government (COGs) for this AB 2766 support and that staff will be investigating the possibility for conducting future joint partnerships and reporting back to the committee opportunities to pursue these efforts.

Committee member Glover expressed support for AQMD staff to perform the AB 2766 technical assistance to local jurisdictions. She also asked about the possibility of using some of the $100,000 RFP money for holding workshops with the COGs.

Vice Chair Wilson asked that AQMD staff report back at the next Mobile Source Committee meeting on the COGs, level of interest in forming partnerships, and to provide details on how AQMD staff is being trained to assist local jurisdictions in implementing projects under AB 2766.

2. AB 2766 Follow-Up Discussion Regarding Legal Parameters
AQMD legal staff explained the District’s authority in the distribution of the AB 2766 subvention funds to local jurisdictions. In particular, local governments receiving funds are subject to AQMD auditing every two years. This review is to determine whether revenues spent are consistent with the legislative requirements. Only if projects do not result in any emission reductions from motor vehicles can the District disqualify projects. The audit is limited to a determination of the propriety of the expenditures, not their degree of efficacy in reducing air pollution.

The AQMD’s role under the AB 2766 funding process is as follows:

The AQMD may not veto projects approved by local governments or restrict funds unless audit criteria shows noncompliance;

• The AQMD shall provide technical assistance and guidance in selecting the appropriate projects;
• The AQMD may request, but may not require, local governments to provide information for quantification of emission reductions and SIP credit,
• The AQMD may provide financial incentives for the most cost-effective or best type of projects (e.g., through MSRC’s Local Government Subvention Program); and
• AQMD may establish a voluntary "pre-approval" program for local government projects

Committee Member Glover commented that negotiation between local governments and the AQMD is key to making the funding process a success.

3. Recommendation to Award Contract to Provide Outreach Assistance to Basin Cities Regarding Low-Emission, Clean Fuel Vehicle Technologies
Staff requested that this item be continued to the next Mobile Source Committee meeting on January 15, 1999.

4. Report on Availability of Funds for Heavy-Duty Diesel Emission Reductions
Staff recommended deferring this item to the December 17, 1998 Technology Committee meeting.

5. Transportation Control Measures, Project Replacement
(Reference: 1997 AQMP Appendix IV-B, Transportation Control Measures; TCM-01 Transportation Improvements) Staff described the impacts on the 1998 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and 1994 State Implementation Plan ( SIP) stemming from the November 3, 1998 passage of Proposition "A" in Los Angeles County. Proposition "A" prohibits the use of local tax funds for construction of subways. With respect to the 1998 RTP there will be no adverse impact because the RTP is transit corridor specific and not project specific. Also, there will be no impact because the transit corridor strategies are based on combined modes of transit (i.e. rail, bus, smart shuttles). Neither will there be impacts to the 1994 SIP because it is category specific and not project specific. Further, emission reduction strategies are based on combined categories of TCM-01 (i.e., rail, bus, HOV lanes). As a result, staff indicated that neither the SIP, nor the RTP would be required to be revised, and a conformity redetermination would not be necessary.

However, as an outcome of the proposition's passage, Southern California's responsible metropolitan planning organization (MPO), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), must prepare a technical document to demonstrate and highlight necessary replacements for TCM-01. The replacement measures identified in the technical document (i.e., bus, smart shuttles) as combined strategies must achieve equal or greater emission reductions and must be implemented in the same time frame. Staff reported that SCAG is presently performing the modeling of the projects other than rail to determine if the emission reductions will be equal to or greater than the rail projects. Also, once the analysis is completed it will be presented to the Transportation Conformity Working Group.

6. Rule 2202 Activity Report
a. Rule 2202 Emission Equivalency Task Force: Staff presented an overview and status update of what is occurring with respect to the Task Force. The Task Force is currently evaluating the emissions shortfall and developing a range based on the AQMP and SB 836 methodologies. The group is examining a number of potential emission reduction sources to make up the shortfall. These sources include:

• MSRC Program. Project emission reductions (NOx) that are not quantified and remain unaccounted for in demonstrating SIP attainment.
• AQIP Bank. Excess emission reductions from surplus AQIP funds.
• ARB LEV II Program. CO emissions reductions that are available in future years, only after AQMD makes attainment demonstration.
• Donation of emission reductions from stationary source industries that have excess, time specific emissions available that are not being utilized.

Two other sources of emission reductions that are currently being studied are from the Carl Moyer Fund and potential revisions to Rule 2202. The Carl Moyer Fund provides a one-time allocation of $25 million for heavy-duty vehicles which the ARB distributes among air districts based on nonattainment status and population. The AQMD’s share is approximately $8-12 ½ million. The emission reductions that result from this program could also be claimed for the shortfall because they will not be used for demonstrating SIP attainment.

Committee member Norma Glover questioned the low amount of funds expected to be received by the AQMD from the Carl Moyer Fund. Ms. Glover commented that staff needs to work with ARB to receive a greater funding amount than what is expected. Executive Officer Barry Wallerstein indicated that he had written a letter to the executive officer of ARB requesting that we receive 50% of the available money. Mr. Wallerstein mentioned that he will also provide a personal follow-up on this matter. Ms. Glover commented that she is not in agreement with this 8-12 ½ million-dollar figure, based on our extreme non-attainment status in the basin. Ms. Glover also suggested that some official action from the Board on this matter might be appropriate as soon as possible.

With respect to the revisions to Rule 2202, the "good faith effort" may be further defined so that "drive-alones" are not inadvertently allowed to be favored over those who utilize rideshare modes so that further emissions can be gained from Employee Commute Reduction Programs. Additionally, a subcommittee on parking cash-out has been formed and is presently discussing the issues on this subject. Recommendations resulting from this group will be forwarded to the AQMP Working Group to determine whether they can be developed into a control measure.

AQMD staff indicated that the next meeting of the Equivalency Emissions Task Force would be in January. The purpose of this meeting will be to finalize the recommendations and to evaluate the shortfall ranges. Ultimately, the final recommendations will be taken to the Board.

b. Employer-Employee Survey and Rule 2202 Information Session: Staff presented a status report on the data collection efforts related to SB 432. The purpose of the survey is to identify the emissions shortfall this year that can be expected as a result of employers with fewer than 250 employees at their worksites being exempt from Rule 2202. The data collection will be conducted by a consultant who will utilize both an employer and employee survey to collect the needed information. The purpose of the employer survey is to determine which employers continue to implement the Employee Commute Reduction Program, Emission Reduction Strategies, and Air Quality Investment Program (AQIP) on a voluntary basis; while the purpose of the employee survey is to determine whether employees at these deregulated worksites continue to rideshare. Both surveys are being conducted on a strictly voluntary basis, meaning there is no requirement for either the employers or employees to participate. Also, there is no financial incentive offered by the AQMD to encourage their participation to provide this information to the consultant.

The consultant’s final report on the results of the survey is scheduled for submittal to the AQMD in late January 1999. Progress reports from this effort have been submitted to the Rule 2202 Emission Equivalency Task Force on a monthly basis.

c. Rule 2202 Summary Status Report: Written report submitted, no comments.

7. Amend Rule 1610 – Old-Vehicle Scrapping
Staff recommended deferring this item to the December 17, 1998 Technology Committee meeting.

8. Issue RFP for PM10 Efficient Street Sweeper Testing
Staff summarized the action of the Board at the November 13, 1998 hearing where the Board amended Rule 1186 to delay the procurement of PM10-efficient sweepers to the year 2000. This action was made to give AQMD staff additional time to complete a test protocol that has been developed with the sweeper manufacturers to assess the efficiency of the sweepers in terms of attaining PM10. Staff has since completed the development of the testing protocol and is ready to field test it, and to establish the certification standards. The RFP will require a contractor to accomplish two essential tasks – test the protocol on actual street conditions and also conduct the testing which will allow AQMD to establish the certification standards. The work identified in the RFP is to be completed by the third quarter of 1999.

Vice Chair Wilson asked that the record show that the Mobile Source Committee has reviewed this item and is forwarding it to the Board.

9. Execute Contracts for CEQA Documentation Support
In September 1998 the Board approved seeking consulting services for CEQA documentation support via an RFP. The RFP process provided 11 proposals that qualified for further evaluation. Staff is recommending that the Board approve a contract with the top three scoring consultants. The top three consultant services were: 1- AVES 2- Ultra Systems, and 3- Environmental Audit.

Vice Chair Wilson asked that the record show that the Mobile Source Committee has reviewed this item and is forwarding it to the Board.

10. Monthly Report on Environmental Justice Initiatives:
Item #4 – CEQA Commenting:

a. CEQA Document Commenting Update: Staff indicated that a typographical error occurred in the report where the total number of CEQA documents reviewed during this period is 51 documents and not 44.

b. CEQA Handbook Revision: Staff reported that the CEQA Handbook Revision Working Group focused on determining localized impact significance; treatment of diesel emissions as a toxic air contaminant; and calculation of emissions baseline for CEQA analysis. The CEQA Handbook recognizes the actions that ARB had taken in listing diesel particulates as a toxic air contaminant.

Staff discussed the difference between CEQA and Title VI. Under the existing state of the law, it is unclear whether the CEQA analysis takes into consideration potential environmental justice impacts. CEQA addresses significant adverse impacts on the environment; it does not identify whether these impacts occurred on minority or non-minority communities. Title VI, however, looks at impacts on minority communities. Under CEQA, each local agency establishes its own significance threshold, whereas under Title VI the ultimate decision is with the federal agency that administers the program and funding. Although a CEQA analysis may determine that there were no significant impacts this does not preclude the federal agencies from finding that there were actually significant impacts. Unless U.S. EPA provides additional further specific guidance on environmental justice, a local government could consider environmental justice impacts under CEQA but there is no guarantee that the considerations would be accepted by the federal agencies.

11. Monthly Report on Environmental Justice Initiatives:
Item #2 – Ambient Monitoring of Air Toxics: Written report submitted, no comments.

Item #7 – Cleanup Incentives for Diesel: Written report submitted, no comments.

12. Update on the Mobile Source Measures in the SIP
Written report submitted, no comments.

13. Other Business
None.

14. Public Comment
None.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 a.m. The next Mobile Source Committee meeting is January 15, 1999.

Attachment
Attendance Roster

ATTACHMENT

SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

MOBILE SOURCE COMMITTEE

December 17, 1998

ATTENDANCE ROSTER

/ / /