ISSUES, COMMENTS & RESPONSES

A public consultation meeting to discuss proposed amendments to Rule 2202 and Rule

2202 Guidelines was held on September 3, 1998 at the South Coast Air Quality

Management District. This addendum summarizes the key comments discussed at the

public consultation meeting, issues identified in written comments received during the

public comment period, and staffs responses to those comments.

RULE LANGUAGE

Issue: Parking Cash-Out

Comment #1: A critical deficiency in AB 2109 (Katz) has been a lack of quidpro-quo requirements for Parking-Cash Out. That is, if an

employee receives cash in exchange for his/her parking space, is

that money actually being used for a trip reduction alternative or

just another parking space elsewhere? There should be a

requirement or monitoring mechanism to ensure that the recipients

are regularly engaged in commute trip reduction activities.

Response: Health and Safety Code Section 43845 does not authorize AQMD

to spec~fy guidelines regarding implementation ofemployer CashOut Programs. Insteaa~ it allows employers to establish their own

guidelinesfor implementation. The California Air Resources

Board is the implementing agencyfor this law. Parkingprograms

implemented as part ofRule 2202 compliance are subject to staff

reviewfor consistency and applicability to Rule 2202 programs.

Issue: Rule 2202 Exemptions

Comment #2: There seems to be a sentence error in the last portion of paragraph

(l)(1). Shouldn’t the sentence read: “Employers must submit a

registration form not later than 90 days after they know or should

have known that they no longer qualify for this exemption.”

Response: There is no error in this sentence. Employers that no longer

qualifyfor the exemption spec(fied in paragraph (l)(1) must submit

a registrationform within 90 days ofbecoming subject to the rule.

Comment #3: Your Exemption Registration Forms require employers to

document actual head counts at the worksite for the past six

months. With large employers who have multiple departments at a

single worksite, each of which maintain their own attendance
records, this is a near-impossible task, particularly if one

department moves out or is disbanded. In lieu ofthis requirement,

is it not sufficient to have a certification by the “Highest Ranking

Official” that the regulated worksite has now dropped below the

250 employee threshold, subject to audit by the AQMD?

Response: Employers are encouraged to use payroll records to determine the

exact number ofemployees at each worksite. However, other

forms oflegitimate documentation will be reviewedfor

consideration.

Comment #4: Shouldn’t the AQMD make it mandatory for employers under Rule

2202 to offer rideshare incentives to their employees?

Response: The AQMD cannot mandate that any employer offer rideshare

incentives to their employees. Rule 2202 provides a variety of

emission reduction strategies and options that employers may

implement according to what may work bestfor their individual

business type, size and location.

RULE 2202 IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES

Issue: Emission Reduction Target Tables

Comment #5: Shouldn’t the Emission Years 1995, 1996 and 1997 be deleted

from the charts on pages 17, 18, 19 and 21, since we are now

making a 1998 update to the Rule?

Response: Emissionfactorsfor years 1995-1997 will remain in the guidelines

for reference purposes.

EMPLOYEE COMMUTE REDUCTION PROGRAM GUIDELINES

Issue: Single Site Triennial Program

Comment #6: In reference to the second bullet of Section I(E)(1), ifthe

Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETC) or On site

Coordinator (OSC) has not changed and the District already has a

certificate on file, why is it necessary to submit copies of these

same certificates again with the Triennial Plans? It is suggested

that there be a one-time certificate filing unless the ETC or OSC

has changed.
Response: Our currentpolicy is consistent with your suggestion and is

spec~/ied in Section 1(F) (third bullet). However, staffhas added

language to reference this policy in Section 1(E)] (second bullet)

as welL

Issue: Program Review

Comment #7: In reference to the fourth bullet of Section 11(A), there is no

mention of what happens ifthe AQMD fails to communicate with

the employer in a timely manner after plan submittal or re

submittal. To be consistent with other wording in this section, it is

suggested that a last sentence be added to read: “IfAQMD fails to

notify the employer of approval or disapproval of a Triennial,

Revised or Amended Plan within 90 days of filing, said Plan shall

be deemed approved.”

Response: The suggested wording is consistent with our current policy.

However~ for clar~cation purposes, afourth bullet would be

added to read asfollows: Ifa program is not approved or

disapproved within 90 days, or iIAQMD has not requested

additional review time, the program shall be deemed approved.

Issue: AVR Credits

Comment #8: The last paragraph of Section II(B)(2) calls for a sunset date of

December 31, 1999 to apply credits for use of alternative fuel

vehicles. By taking away the extra credits within the next 15

months, we will discourage the purchase, lease and use of lowerpolluting vehicles and eliminate an emission-reduction tool.

Therefore, it is suggested that the words “...but not later than

December 31, 1999...” be deleted.

Response: The sunset clause was inserted in response to concerns that were

raised by the Caflfornia Air Resources Board (CARB). CARB was

concerned about the potential ofdouble counting vehicles already

receiving credit in the State Implementation Plan. The sunset

clause was included as an assurance that the issuance ofthe credit

for those types ofvehicles would not continue indefinitely, thereby

minimizing ARB ‘s concernfor double counting.

Issue: Section 11(C): AVR Data Collection Methods

Comment #9: Ifthere are no substantive changes in the survey form from one

year to the next, why is it necessary to certify the survey annually?

This is unnecessarily time-consuming for both employers and
AQMD staff, and should be a one-time-unless-changed

certification requirement.

Response: The annual certWcation ofthe alternative survey method is

necessary due to potential AQMD policy changes, as well as

changes at the employer worksite which may affect the survey

process.

Issue: College Student Workers and AVR

Comment #10: The concern relates to student employees being included in the

AVR population for residential colleges/schools. By including

residential student employees in the AVR, we are inappropriately

accounting for a portion ofthe general population which has never

been a part of the air quality problem. Student workers at

residential colleges are not part of the daily, work-bound,

commuting public. Most of these students are housed on campus.

It is therefore suggested that the term ‘employee’ be redefined to

exclude student workers who reside on the campus ofthe

college/school at which they are employed and enrolled.

Response: Staffwill study the potentialfeasibility to exempt residential

student employees and/or all categories ofstudent employees as a

future rule amendment. Such an action would require sign~icant

data and information gatheringfrom colleges and universities

currently subject to Rule 2202.

ft should be noted however; that including these students in the

A VR benefits the regulated site. Claiming A VR creditfor the tr4i

reduction activities ofstudent employees is no different than other

employers claiming A VR creditfor the tr4, reduction activities of

their employees, even though some ofthem may have already been

particlpating in alternative modes oftransportation.

Issue: Citywide Employees and AVR

Comment #11: Our city is a full-service city that has several different worksites

and locations, namely City Hall, Police Station, Senior Citizens

center, Community Center and City Library. Because of the

necessity to stagger the City’s work force, there are never more

than 250 employees at any worksite at any given time. Ifthe target

of the Employee Commute Reduction Program is the reduction of

vehicles during a specific window, in this case 6 to 10 a.m.,

Monday through Friday, it makes more sense when counting the

number of employees at a worksite to limit that count to those
employees actually reporting to work during this time period.

Including employees who report to work at different times and

days actually provides a false picture of employee AVR.

Response: Rule 2202 applies to all worksites with 250 or more employees

regardless oftheir reporting time. However, the A VR is calculated

using the number ofemployees who arrive during the 6—10 a. m.

window and the total number ofvehicles that arrive at the

workplace during the same timeframe.

Issue: Survey Response Rate

Comment #12: In reference to the requirement that the survey response rate must

be at least sixty percent (60%), commute trip surveying is not a

popularity or election poil, which has to be representative of the

employee population ±3%. As long as the condition remains that

each non-respondent is counted as a “drive-alone”, it is not

necessary to mandate any minimum percentage response. It is to

the employer’s advantage to get as many responses as possible

simply on the chance that the non-respondent is engaged in trip

reduction activity. Our past experience shows that ridesharers are

usually proud of what they are doing and return the surveys

anyway. It is the drive-alones that do not return their surveys.

It is suggested that either the 60% requirement be eliminated

altogether, or allow employers (e.g., with a total of 400 or more

employees) to be exempt from the 60% rule.

Response: Survey data must be representative ofthe employer ‘s window

population in order to estimate the employer ‘s A VR with some

reliability. The condition that requires employers to count each

non-respondent as a drive-alone can introduce potential bias in

the survey and does not ensure a representative sample, especially

~fthe proportion ofnon-respondents is high (e.g., above 40%).

Further, assuming that all non-respondents drive alone does not

reveal anything about the true driving behavior ofthis particular

group and how it changes over time.

Staffagrees that counting the non-respondents as drive-alones

encourages an employer to attain a high response rate in the A VR

survey. The AQMD, however, does not know ofany research data

showing that the non-respondent group is made entirely ofdrive

alones.

The current 60% survey response requirement was established in

1995 (seepage 104 ofthe December 8, 1995 boardpackage),
prior to which the survey response rate was 75%. Further

lowering or eliminating the response rate couldpotentially affect

the quality ofRule 2202 data which is included in the AQMP to

reflect mode splitfor the entire basin. Finally, non-responses have

been excludedfrom key studies and analyses conducted with the

Rule 2202 data precisely to avoid the potential bias they can

introduce (i.e. SB 836 and SB 432 analyses). Consequently, staff

cannot support this recommendation.

Issue: Aggregating AVR for Multi-Site Employers

Comment #13: I suggest a minor clarifying word change in the first sentence of

Section 11(D) to read: “...for all regulated worksites that belong to

a multi-site employer.” It should be pointed out that many

employers have worksites that have fewer than 250 employees as

well as worksites with more than 250. A literal interpretation of

the proposed wording would require our city for example, to file a

Multi-site Plan for over 500 worksites, rather than the 30 regulated

ones it currently has.

Response: Staffsupports this recommended language change.

Issue: Who is Involved?

Comment #14: To be consistent, the first paragraph, second sentence of Section

111(1) should read: “This person should rnii,~I successfully

complete a one-time...”

Response: Staffsupports this recommended language change.

Issue: Multi-Site Employers and Employee Transportation

Coordinators

Comment #15: Is a multi-site employer required to have an Employee

Transportation Coordinator (ETC) at each worksite?

Response: Yes. As specified in Section 111(A) 2 & 4, multi-site employers are

required to have an ETC at each worksite, unless the multi-site

employerfiles a multi-site plan and chooses to have on-site

coordinators or implements a centralized rideshare service center.

Comment #16: Is a multi-site employer one that has sites that are more than 3

miles apart?

Response: A multi-site employer is an employer which has more than one

worksite.
Issue: Trained ETCs

Comment #17: Does an employee transportation coordinator have to be trained in

the South Coast Air Basin before he/she can be recognized as a

certified ETC by AQMD?

Response: Yes. Since Emission ReductioWTrip Reduction programs and rules

differfrom state to state andfrom one air basin to another, local

training cert~/Ication is necessary.

Issue: Record Retention Requirements

Comment #18: Are Multi-Site employers required to keep copies of their approved

employee commute reduction plans or registrations at each oftheir

sites? If so, why?

Response: Each worksite is required to maintain a copy ofits currently

approvedplan at the site, unless it has an approved Centralized

Rideshare Center (as specffied in Section IV(A). The availability

ofrecords at each worksite enables AQMD staffto maximize the

efficiency ofRule 2202 compliance inspections.

Issue: Time for a Change

Comment #19: Concerns about AQMD Transportation Specialists exceeding their

authority can be avoided in the future by adding the following

wording to Section V: “Amendment requests may be approved if

the employer demonstrates that the new strategy will result in an

AVR which is equal to or better than the strategy it is replacing.”

Response: The proposed language reflects AQMD ‘s long-standingpolicy

regarding the consideration ofemployer amendment requests. To

clarify this policy, we will add language to the Guidelines as

follows: “Amendment requests may be approved tfthe employer

demonstrates, to the satisfaction ofthe Executive Officer, that the

new strategy will result in an A VR which is equal to or better than

the strategy it is replacing.”

Issue: Legality of ECRP Guidelines

Comment #20: Rule 2202 makes reference to the Employee Commute Reduction

Program Guidelines. These Guidelines are not included in the

Rule Language. However the Guidelines are used extensively by

employers. Is there not a legal problem having employers use
guidelines that have not been subject to public hearing nor

approved by the AQMD Board?

Response: The Guidelines are incorporated into Rule 2202 by reference, are

reviewed duringpublic consultations/workshops, and are

approved by the AQMD Board duringpublic hearingprocesses.

Comment #21: Why are the Guidelines not made part of the Rule?

Response: Historically, guidelines were part ofthe Rule. However,

employers complained that the inclusion ofguidelines in the Rule

made the rule package overwhelming, unwieldy and confusing.

Separation ofthe rule and the adoption offormal Guidelines was

in direct response to employer requests.

Issue: Summary of Contents

Comment #22: Add the attached summary of contents to the Guidelines.

Response: The proposed summary ofcontents is very thorough. However, the

addition ofthese additionalfourpages to the Guidelines would

make the Guideline packet somewhat repetitive. This summary

may be more appropriately given to new ETCs at their initial

training sessions.

Issue: Definitions, Abbreviations and Acronyms

Comment #23: Add defmitions of planning strategies, abbreviations and acronyms

to the tool box section of the Guidelines.

Response: The proposed strategy definitions have been incorporated as

recommended. Since the proposed abbreviations and acronyms

are not related to the Rule/Guidelines, staffwillforgo their

inclusion.

SENATE BILLS 836 and 432 ISSUES

Issue: $1.5 Million from the SCAQMD

Comment #24: What happens to the $1.5 million that will be returned to the

AQMD as a result of SB 432?

Response: Under SB 432 (Lewis), the AQMD is no longer required to give

$1.5 million annually to the Regional Transportation Agencies

Coalition. As apoint ofclar~fication, the $1.5 million payments
given by the AQMD in 1997 and 1998 are not required to be

returned Previous annual $1.5 million contributions came from

the Air Quality Assistance Funa’~ a small business loanfund~ which

has now been substantially reduced

Issue: Emissions Shortfall and Emission Factors

Comment #25: What was the 1997 emissions reduction shortfall based on?

Response: The 1997 shortfall was based on the emission reductions that

would have been achieved by the deregulated employers (worksites

with between 100-250 employees) had they remained under Rule

2202.

Comment #26: In calculating future shortfalls, will the AQMD take into

consideration the technological developments that have occurred in

the automobile industry in recent years that have reduced the

emissions per trip for newer vehicles?

Response: AQMD convened a Rule 2202 Emissions Equivalency Task Force

on September 3, 1998 to ident~i5i emission reduction strategies and

sources that could cover emission gaps resultingfrom smaller

employers being exemptedfrom the rule. A status report on the

efforts ofthis Task Force will be presented to the AQMD

Governing Board in October and December ofthis year. This

issue will be considered by the taskforce and the board

Comment #27: Is there a reason why the AQMD is not using the most current

ARB emission factors to calculate the shortfall?

Response: Rule 2202 is not an isolated rule, in that it references compliance

with Regulation XVIRules as an optionfor employers to meet their

Rule 2202 emission reduction targets. Thus, it is critical that the

emissionfactors that are used in these rules are consistent. The

Rule 2202 emissionfactors will be updated upon finalizing

changes to Rule 1610 and according to inputfrom the Rule 2202

Emissions Equivalency Task Force.

Comment #28: For companies that have vehicle fleets that are relatively new, the

emission factors would be quite favorable and would therefore

reflect positively on their AVR. Does the AQMD have any

guidelines regarding how these credits should be calculated?

Response: The minimum data required to calculate the emission reduction

credits include the employers survey data, ARB emission factors,

Original Engine Manufactured (OEM) data, and the number and
type ofvehicles considered. As there have been minimal requests

for this type ofassistance, formal guidelines are not available.

However, AQMD staffis available to provide technical assistance

to employers to calculate the emission creditsfor theirparticular

fleets.

Issue: Rule 2202 Emissions Equivalency Task Force Membership

Comment #29: Who are the members ofthis Task Force and how were they

selected?

Response: The Task Force members are representatives ofgovernment

agencies such as EPA, andARB, County Transportation

Commissions, employers, special interest and community groups

that the AQMD believes can effectively contribute to the efforts of

the Task Force. We have also invited other individuals involved

with clean and alternative fuels who are in a position to bring

feasible ideas and strategies to the discussion table.

REGISTRATION FEES

Issue: Registration Fees

Comment #30: What are the current Rule 2202 filing fees and is the AQMD

considering any fee changes in the foreseeable future?

Response: Currentfilingfees are outlined in Rule 308 — Transportation Plan

Fees. The AQMD is not considering any additionalfee changes at

this time, but is currently undergoing afee study by an expert

consultant which may affect this issue.

10