### ISSUES, COMMENTS & RESPONSES

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

### 2202 Guidelines was held on September 3, 

### 1998 atthe 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 ofquidpro-quo requirements for Parking-Cash Out. That is, ifan 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 CaliforniaAir Resources Board is the implementing agencyfor this law. Parkingprograms implementedaspart 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 ofparagraph

(l)(1). Shouldn’t the sentence read: “Employers must submit a registration form not laterthan 90 days afterthey know or should have known thatthey no longer qualify forthis exemption.” Response: There is no error in this sentence. Employers that no longer

qualifyfor the exemption spec(fied inparagraph (l)(1) must submit a registrationform within 90 days ofbecomingsubject to the rule. Comment #3: Your Exemption Registration Forms require employers to

document actual head counts at the worksite forthe past six months. With large employers who have multiple departments at a single worksite, each ofwhich maintain their own attendancerecords, this is a near-impossible task, particularly ifone department moves out or is disbanded. In lieu ofthis requirement, is it not sufficientto have a certification by the “Highest Ranking Official” that the regulated worksite has now dropped belowthe 250 employee threshold, subjectto audit by the AQMD? Response: Employers are encouraged to usepayroll records to determine the

exact number ofemployees at each worksite. However, other forms oflegitimate documentation will be reviewedfor consideration. Comment #4: Shouldn’tthe AQMD make it mandatory for employers under Rule

2202 to offer rideshare incentives to their employees? Response: TheAQMD cannot mandate that any employer offer rideshare

incentives to their employees. Rule 2202provides a variety of emission reduction strategies and options that employers may implement according to what mayworkbestfor their individual business type, size and location.

RULE 2202 IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES Issue: Emission Reduction Target Tables Comment #5: Shouldn’tthe 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: Emissionfactorsforyears 1995-1997will 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 ofSection 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 ofthese 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 consistentwithyoursuggestion and is spec~/ied in Section 1(F) (third bullet). However, staffhas added language to reference thispolicy in Section 1(E)] (second bullet) as welL Issue: Program Review Comment #7: In reference to the fourth bullet ofSection 11(A), there is no

mention ofwhat happens ifthe AQMD fails to communicate with the employer in a timely manner after plan submittal or re submittal. To be consistentwith otherwording in this section, it is suggested that a last sentence be added to read: “IfAQMD fails to notifythe employer ofapproval or disapproval ofa Triennial, Revised orAmended Plan within 90 days offiling, said Plan shall be deemed approved.” Response: The suggestedwording is consistentwith our currentpolicy.

However~for clar~cation purposes, afourth bullet would be added to read asfollows: Ifaprogram is not approved or disapprovedwithin 90 days, or iIAQMD has not requested additional review time, theprogram 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 ofalternative fuel vehicles. By taking away the extra credits within the next 15 months, we will discourage the purchase, lease and use oflowerpolluting vehicles and eliminate an emission-reduction tool. Therefore, it is suggested thatthe words “...but not later than December 31, 1999...” be deleted. Response: The sunset clause was inserted in response to concerns thatwere

raised by the CaflforniaAir Resources Board (CARB). CARB was concerned about thepotential 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 minimizingARB ‘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 necessaryto certify the survey annually? This is unnecessarily time-consuming for both employers andAQMD staff, and should be a one-time-unless-changed certification requirement. Response: The annual certWcation ofthe alternative survey method is

necessary due topotentialAQMDpolicy changes, as well as changes atthe 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 ofthe air quality problem. Student workers at residential colleges are not part ofthe daily, work-bound, commuting public. Most ofthese students are housed on campus. It is therefore suggested thatthe 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 thepotentialfeasibility 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. ftshould be noted however; that including these students in the AVR benefits the regulatedsite. ClaimingAVR creditfor the tr4i reduction activities ofstudent employees is no different than other employers claimingAVR 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 ofthe necessity to staggerthe City’s work force, there are never more than 250 employees at any worksite at any given time. Ifthe target ofthe 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 ofemployees at aworksite to limit that countto thoseemployees actually reporting to work during this time period. Including employees who report to work at different times and days actually provides a false picture ofemployee AVR. Response: Rule 2202 applies to all worksites with 250 or more employees

regardless oftheir reporting time. However, the AVR is calculated using the number ofemployees who arrive during the 6—10 a.m. window andthe total number ofvehicles that arrive atthe workplace during the same timeframe. Issue: Survey Response Rate Comment #12: In reference to the requirementthatthe 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 ofthe 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 ofwhat they are doing and return the surveys anyway. It is the drive-alones that do not return their surveys. It is suggested that eitherthe 60% requirement be eliminated altogether, or allow employers (e.g., with a total of400 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‘sAVR with some reliability. The condition that requires employers to count each non-respondentas a drive-alone can introducepotential bias in the survey and does not ensure a representative sample, especially 

## ~ftheproportion 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 ofthisparticular 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 AVR survey. The AQMD, however, does not know ofany research data showing that the non-respondentgroup is made entirely ofdrive alones. The current 60% survey response requirementwas established in 1995 (seepage 104 ofthe December 8, 1995 boardpackage),priorto 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 keystudies and analyses conductedwith the Rule 2202 dataprecisely to avoidthepotential bias they can introduce (i.e. SB 836 andSB 432 analyses). Consequently, staff cannotsupport 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 fewerthan 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, ratherthan 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 oftheir approved

employee commute reduction plans or registrations at each oftheir sites? Ifso, why? Response: Each worksite is required to maintain a copy ofits currently

approvedplan atthe site, unless it has an approved Centralized Rideshare Center (as specffied in Section IV(A). The availability ofrecords at each worksite enablesAQMD 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 betterthan the strategy it is replacing.” Response: Theproposed language reflectsAQMD ‘s long-standingpolicy

regarding the consideration ofemployer amendment requests. To clarify thispolicy, 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 strategywill result in an AVR 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. Howeverthe Guidelines are used extensively by employers. Is there not a legal problem having employers useguidelines 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 theAQMD Board duringpublic hearingprocesses. Comment #21: Why are the Guidelines not made part ofthe Rule? Response: Historically, guidelines werepart ofthe Rule. However,

employers complained that the inclusion ofguidelines in the Rule made the rulepackage overwhelming, unwieldy and confusing. Separation ofthe rule and the adoption offormal Guidelines was in direct response to employer requests. Issue: Summary ofContents Comment #22: Add the attached summary ofcontents to the Guidelines. Response: The proposedsummary ofcontents is very thorough. However, the

addition ofthese additionalfourpages to the Guidelines would make the Guidelinepacketsomewhat 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 ofplanning strategies, abbreviations and acronyms

to the tool box section ofthe Guidelines. Response: The proposedstrategy definitions have been incorporated as

recommended. Since theproposedabbreviations and acronyms are not relatedto 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 ofSB 432? Response: Under SB 432 (Lewis), the AQMD is no longer requiredto give

$1.5 million annually to the Regional Transportation Agencies Coalition. As apoint ofclar~fication, the $1.5 million paymentsgiven by the AQMD in 1997 and 1998 are not required to be returned Previous annual $1.5 million contributions camefrom the Air QualityAssistance 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 1997shortfall was basedon 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 pertrip for newervehicles? Response: AQMD convened a Rule 2202 Emissions Equivalency TaskForce

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 TaskForce will bepresentedto the AQMD Governing Board in October and December ofthisyear. This issue will be considered by the taskforce and the board Comment #27: Is there a reason whythe 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 RegulationXVIRules 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 uponfinalizing changes to Rule 1610 and according to inputfrom the Rule 2202 Emissions Equivalency TaskForce. 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 theirAVR. Does the AQMD have any guidelines regarding howthese credits should be calculated? Response: The minimum data required to calculate the emission reduction

credits include the employers survey data, ARB emissionfactors, Original Engine Manufactured (OEM) data, andthe number andtype ofvehicles considered. As there have been minimal requests for this type ofassistance, formal guidelines are not available. However, AQMD staffis available toprovide 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 communitygroups that the AQMD believes can effectively contribute to the efforts of the TaskForce. We have also invited other individuals involved with clean and alternativefuels who are in aposition to bring feasible ideas andstrategies 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 consultantwhich may affect this issue.

10