BOARD MEETING DATE: October 3, 2003
AGENDA NO. 27

Mobile Source Committee

SYNOPSIS:

The Mobile Source Committee met Friday, September 26, 2003. Following is a summary of that meeting.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Receive and file.

S. Roy Wilson, Ed.D., Chair
Mobile Source Committee

Attendance

The meeting started at 9:05 a.m. Present: Committee Chair Roy Wilson, Vice Chair Jane Carney, and Committee Members Fred Aguiar and William Craycraft. Absent: Committee Members Ron Loveridge and Jim Silva.

ACTION ITEM:
 

1)

Issuance of Program Announcement for Production of up to 5,000 Units of Electric Lawn Mowers for AQMD’s Lawn Mower Incentive Shashi Singeetham, Air Quality Specialist, Science & Technology Advancement, gave the presentation. To follow-up on the successful Lawn Mower Exchange Programs held in the spring of 2003, staff proposes to offer a similar incentive in the spring of 2004 to generate cost-effective emission reductions. This program announcement is to solicit competitive bids to manufacture cordless electric lawn mowers which can meet specifications for the incentive program in sufficient quantities and at the lowest possible price. Committee Member Fred Aguiar moved to recommend approval of this item to the Governing Board and Committee Member Jane Carney seconded. The motion was passed unanimously

INFORMATION ITEMS:
 

2)	Update on 2003 AQMP – State and Federal Strategy Elaine Chang, Deputy Executive Officer, Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources, provided an update on the 2003 AQMP which was adopted by AQMD's Board on August 1, 2003 and subsequently submitted to CARB for approval. In addition to their short-term control measures, CARB is proposing to accept the AQMD’s long-term commitment of 31 tpd of VOC and move all U.S. EPA’s reductions to long-term (i.e., "black box"). CARB is proposing that the black box reductions will be achieved through a multi-agency effort to identify specific control measures by 2007. As far as recent activities, in partnership with environmental organizations, industry representatives and local governments, staff has conducted several meetings with CARB's technical and executive staff in order to identify additional control strategies for CARB’s consideration. To this end, AQMD has prepared a position paper on CARB’s proposed State and Federal Strategy component of the 2003 State Implementation Plan for the South Coast Air Basin. Specifically, the AQMD is recommending the following revisions to CARB’s strategy: 1) commit to the high-end of the emission reduction range for their short-term measures (23 tpd of VOC and 10 tpd of NOx); 2) commit to additional short-term reductions (94 tpd and 115 tpd of VOC and NOx, respectively); 3) adopt an Action Plan to adopt and implement long-term measures (117 tpd of VOC and 56 tpd of NOx); and 4) adopt an explicit agency assignment for each agency’s share of the long-term reductions. CARB’s public hearing on the 2003 AQMP is scheduled for October 23, 2003 at AQMD’s Auditorium. Dr. Barry Wallerstein, Executive Officer, also mentioned that the Bay Area AQMD has adopted a resolution supporting AQMD’s position on CARB’s proposed strategy and that CAPCOA has also expressed their support.
3)	Update on Recommendation to Implement FY 2002-03 Environmental Justice Enhancement I-4 – Continue to Develop Localized Significance Thresholds for Subregions of Air District as Another Indicator of CEQA Significance Steve Smith, Program Supervisor, Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources, gave a presentation on recent activities for the Environmental Justice Enhancement related to development of Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) as another indicator of significance for CEQA. This item was originally scheduled for the Board’s consideration in July, but was postponed until October to allow more time for outreach. Staff has done extensive outreach to the general public, the building and construction industries, and local government representatives. There are 3 key issues that have been expressed in the last 3 months – infill projects, mitigation measures, and impacts on local government and contractors. With respect to infill projects, there is an existing exemption in CEQA for infill projects that meet certain criteria. If a project is already exempt, the LSTs would not be applicable. In addition, the LSTs are voluntary, so local agencies can determine if and when they would be used. There have been requests for additional information on mitigation measures. The current CEQA Handbook already contains a robust list, especially for PM10, which is the LST most likely to be triggered. The list of mitigation measures will be updated in the future as new information becomes available. Staff has added information to the Methodology document that clarifies where this information can be obtained. To address concerns that some projects could trigger LSTs and therefore require additional emission calculations, mitigation measures or a more extensive CEQA review process, staff has developed sample scenarios and calculations. These can be used by lead agencies for similar projects that use the same assumptions such as number of construction equipment, number of workers, etc., without having to perform additional calculations. Alternatively, lead agencies can use only those sample calculations applicable to the proposed project. Dr. Barry Wallerstein, Executive Officer, added that AQMD staff recommends a phased approach for an orderly transition. The LSTs would not be considered for projects already underway. He reiterated that use of the LSTs is voluntary. Elaine Chang, Deputy Executive Officer, Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources, added that most projects will not exceed the LSTs using the scenarios analyzed by staff. Additional scenarios and calculations may be added upon request. There were several questions from committee members regarding the issues described above, the scenarios and how they can be used, mitigation measures, and the relationship between LSTs and existing rule requirements, such as Rule 403 for fugitive dust. Michael Lewis from the Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition commented that LSTs would trigger additional mitigation measures and a more comprehensive CEQA process, which would add to project costs. The information is complex, and additional mitigation measures would be helpful. Project proponents of small projects would have additional burdens. He stated that it would be difficult to enforce mitigation measures. Mr. Lewis suggested a pilot program for a few cities to better understand the implications of using the LSTs. He also requested the opportunity to review changes to the CEQA handbook. Ms. Gretchen Hardison from the City of Los Angeles offered to share information from their tracking of CEQA actions and suggested keeping the working group in place as the program is implemented.
4)	Proposed Amendments to Rule 2202 Kathryn Higgins, Program Supervisor, Transportation Programs, presented this item as a follow up to the August 22, 2003 presentation to the Committee on the current proposed amendments to Rule 2202. The key items presented today were on 1) the legal requirements related to Rule 2202, and 2) the cost impact of various employer compliance scenarios associated with the proposed amendments. Current legal interpretation of the Clean Air Act calls for substitution of employer average vehicle occupancy (AVO) requirements with alternative programs that achieve equivalent emission reductions. Employers must meet the equivalent of 25% AVR increase over the 1994 regional baseline AVR of 1.13. Those reductions could be achieved through AVR increases or through equivalent emission reductions. Staff presented four employer compliance scenarios in order to depict the cost impact to employers of the proposed rule amendments. The first scenario profiled an employer complying with the emission reduction strategy option and showed that the cost impact of using emission factors from the most current emissions model, EMFAC 2002, would result in a worksite cost ranging from approximately $7,000 - $13,000. The other three scenarios profiled employers of various sizes, locations, and AVRs(average vehicle ridership) complying with the proposed mandatory AVR requirement in 2005. The three scenarios also showed the cost impacts to those same employers if the mandatory AVR requirement was delayed to 2007 as a milestone, and full compliance achieved in 2010. Ms. Higgins also gave an indication of the range of compliance cost to Rule 2202 worksites based on the cost to employers paying into AQIP to make up the shortfall in their AVR requirement. The next steps for staff include finalizing socioeconomic analyses, and evaluating additional compliance credit options such as credit for unregulated worksites and atypical compressed work week schedules. Staff responded to several questions from Committee Members Fred Aguiar and Jane Carney to clarify the scope of the current proposal relative to the proposed mandatory AVR requirement versus the current good faith effort element of the Employee Commute Reduction Program. Four members from the public voiced their opposition primarily to the mandatory AVR component of the rule amendment proposal. Staff reiterated the success of the performance-based component of the current rule in meeting and often exceeding the emissions reductions requirements of the rule.
5)	Rule 2202 Activity Report Rule 2202 Summary Status Report submitted, no comments.
6)	Monthly Report on Environmental Justice Initiatives Item #4 – CEQA Commenting: a. CEQA Document Commenting Update: Written report submitted, no comments.
7)	Other Business None.
8)	Public Comment None.

The meeting adjourned at 10:40 a.m.

Attachment

Attendance Roster

SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
MOBILE SOURCE COMMITTEE

SEPTEMBER 26, 2003

ATTENDANCE ROSTER
 

/ / /