San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District – 2007 Ozone Plan – Appendix C – Local Controls: Conformity and RACM (TPD705029)

This page intentionally blank.

Appendix C: Conformity and RACM

C.1     DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LOCAL REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL MEASURE (RACM) STRATEGY

December 5, 2006

The Clean Air Act (Section 172 (c)(1)) requires State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to contain Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) to provide for attainment of the air quality standard as expeditiously as practicable. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) has requested that the Valley Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) draft a RACM approach for the 8-hour Ozone State SIP. The final SIP is due for adoption by the SJVAPCD in Spring 2007, and submittal to EPA by June 15, 2007.

On October 4, 2006, the MPO Directors were presented several options for developing a local RACM strategy as part of the 8-hour Ozone SIP. The Directors recommended pursuing implementation of Option 2, which would include only the minimum number of RACM commitments required by law. In order to show a commitment to improved air quality, Option 2 also includes a recommendation to exceed the minimum RACM requirements by voluntarily adopting a Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) policy to fund cost-effective emission reduction projects.

The MPOs propose to apply EPA’s final rule to implement the 8-hour ozone standard for identifying the RACM commitments. If it appears that the combined RACM could not advance the attainment date by at least one year, then those additional measures are not deemed “reasonably available” under EPA policy and would not need to be included in the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Based on analyses in other areas, it is unlikely enough viable RACM measures will be identified that can show such reductions, and thus advance attainment by a year.

The purpose of the CMAQ program is to fund transportation projects or programs that will contribute to attainment or maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM). While all CMAQ funding must go to transportation-related projects that demonstrate an air quality benefit, the eight SJV MPOs currently have different criteria and processes for allocating funding to eligible agencies. There is currently no minimum cost- effectiveness established for the CMAQ program, and according to recent studies, the numbers vary widely across the country. The SJV MPOs propose to develop a standardized process across the Valley for distributing a percentage of the CMAQ funds to projects that meet a minimum cost-effectiveness. This policy will focus on achieving the most cost-effective emission reductions, while maintaining flexibility to meet local needs.

The attached papers provide the proposed approach for implementation of Option 2:

(1) evaluation of potential RACM for advancing attainment date, and (2) adoption of a cost-effective CMAQ policy.

C.2     DRAFT EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL MEASURES (RACM) FOR THE 8-HOUR OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

December 5, 2006

Summary

The San Joaquin Valley Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) will apply EPA’s final rule to implement the 8-hour ozone standard for identifying the RACM commitments (FR, Vol. 70, No. 228/November 29, 2005, pp 71659-71661). The EPA rule reinforces earlier RACM guidance providing for a limited RACM analysis of available measures, an estimate of emission reductions, and examination of the time needed to implement the measures.

If it appears that the combined RACM could not advance the attainment date by at least one year, then those measures are not deemed “reasonably available” under EPA policy and would not need to be included in the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Further guidance in implementing RACM is provided in EPA’s proposed PM2.5 SIP development guidance (FR, Vol. 70, No. 210/November 1, 2005, pp. 66027-66029).

Assumptions

Several key decisions must be made to conduct the RACM analysis. Based on projected ozone precursor emissions described in the current draft SIP, it would appear that the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) may need to ask the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to request that the San Joaquin Valley be “bumped up” to a Severe-15, Severe-17, or Extreme classification, which would change the attainment date from 2013 to 2019, 2021 or 2024.

While the statutory attainment dates range from 2013 to 2024, the corresponding attainment demonstration and control measure analysis must be conducted for the previous year (e.g., 2012 and 2023). Therefore, it is recommended that the analysis on whether a RACM can advance the attainment date by one year be conducted for both 2012 and 2023 analysis years. If RACM cannot be demonstrated to advance either attainment date, it is assumed that the same holds true for any attainment date between 2013 and 2024.

The SJVAPCD Draft 2007 Ozone Plan, dated October 17, 2006, indicates that an estimated additional 300 tons per day of combined VOC and NOx emissions are necessary to demonstrate attainment in 2012, and approximately 100 tons per day to demonstrate attainment in 2023. These estimates are based upon the difference between the carrying capacity of the San Joaquin Valley and the currently identified control measures for the attainment analysis years.

There are a few possible ways to perform the RACM analysis. One method would be to identify how much each measure had reduced the Valley’s total emissions by the attainment analysis year. The estimated emission reductions from possible RACM measures would need to yield more than 300 tons per day of combined VOC and NOx emissions in 2012, or 100 tons per day in 2023 to advance attainment. An alternative demonstration would be to assume that possible RACM measures have equal emission reductions in each of the years between SIP development (2007) and the attainment analysis year (i.e., the “straight-line approach”). As a result, the estimated emission reductions would need to be greater than 60 tons per day in EACH year to advance the 2012 attainment date or 6 tons per day in EACH year to advance the 2023 attainment date.

These examples demonstrate the magnitude of the emission reductions that must be found from a combination of RACM to qualify as “reasonably available” control measures. It is unlikely enough viable RACM measures will be identified that can show such reductions, and thus advance attainment by a year.

For comparison, EPA analyzed four one-hour ozone SIPs in the Eastern U.S. to determine if the combination of Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) in each area would advance attainment by one year. The maximum potential emissions reduction (VOC + NOx) in any one of those areas was 28 tons/day in Atlanta, which still only accounted for 11% of Atlanta’s 255 ton per day needed NOx reduction in the attainment analysis year. Thus, the TCMs were not deemed “reasonably available.” This area has a larger and more urbanized population than the San Joaquin Valley, and we would expect RACM/TCMs in the Valley to have fewer emissions reductions.

The EPA guidance allows implementing agencies to reject measures due to technological or economical infeasibility or supporting documentation that the measures are otherwise unreasonable.   Those measures that are being considered for RACM must demonstrate that they are not likely to require an extensive and costly effort for numerous small area sources and that they can be fully implemented within the time frame of the relevant attainment date.

Approach

The following section outlines the SJV MPO proposed approach to conduct a local RACM analysis. Again, this analysis would be performed for both the 2012 and 2023 analysis years.

1. Develop a list of control measures for possible consideration.     List will be developed from previous San Joaquin Valley RACM processes, more recent

guidance materials, applicable SIPs, and measures suggested by the public during the SJVAPCD Town Hall meetings.

1. Apply the “economically or technologically feasible” test to eliminate measures for possible consideration. Examine the potential measures for partial implementation, geographical appropriateness, social acceptability, etc.
2. Estimate emission reductions for those measures that passed the tests in #1
   1. Several guides are available to assign emission reductions to specific measures. These include EPA’s RACM analysis for four serious 1-hour ozone areas in the East (October 12, 2000); CARB’s CMAQ Methodology; and findings of Transportation Research Board’s Special Report 264, CMAQ – Assessing 10 Years of Experience. Additional sources of information on calculating emission reductions from TCMs will also be consulted as necessary. It is important to note that due to the use of EMFAC in California, use of national or other state calculators may be limited.
   2. Total the VOC and NOx daily emissions from all measures that were analyzed in #2 to determine if they collectively advance attainment by a full year.
      1. If the emissions analysis determines that the combination of RACMs will advance attainment by a full year, then the SJV MPOs would work with their member jurisdictions to develop legally enforceable commitments to implement the identified RACMs.
      2. If the emissions analysis determines that the combination of RACMs will not advance attainment by a full year, then the analysis would be documented as part of the SIP record, but no further requirements to adopt local commitments for the SIP would be necessary.

C.3     DRAFT COMMITMENT TO IMPLEMENT LOCAL CMAQ POLICY

December 5, 2006

Summary

The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program funds transportation projects or programs that will contribute to attainment or maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards. While all CMAQ funding must go to transportation-related projects that demonstrate an air quality benefit, the eight San Joaquin Valley (SJV) Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) currently have different criteria and processes for allocating funding to eligible agencies. There is currently no minimum cost-effectiveness established for the CMAQ program, and according to recent studies, the numbers vary widely across the country. The SJV MPOs propose to develop a standardized process across the Valley for distributing 20% of the CMAQ funds to projects that meet a minimum cost-effectiveness. This policy will focus on achieving the most cost-effective emission reductions, while maintaining flexibility to meet local needs.

Background

The CMAQ program was created under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991, continued under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), and reauthorized by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). Over $8.6 billion is authorized over the five-year program (2005-2009), with annual authorization amounts increasing each year during this period. The San Joaquin Valley Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) currently receive approximately $40 million per year, subject to state and federal formulas. These amounts are updated annually based on available funds.

New CMAQ guidance based on SAFETEA-LU was released by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on October 31, 2006. The new legislation and guidance clarifies project eligibility, including advanced truck stop electrification systems and the purchase of diesel retrofits. SAFETEA-LU directs States and MPOs to give priority to diesel retrofits and to cost-effective congestion mitigation activities that provide air quality benefits. Though SAFETEA-LU establishes these investment priorities, it also retains State and local agencies’ authority in project selection, meaning that changes to local procedures are not required by the SAFETEA-LU.

Federal legislation gives local agencies discretion on how to distribute CMAQ funds. While all CMAQ funding must go to transportation-related projects that demonstrate an air quality benefit, the eight SJV MPOs currently have different criteria and processes for allocating funding to eligible agencies.

Policy Recommendations

Even though (1) SAFETEA-LU does not mandate program changes and (2) local Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) may not advance attainment and would therefore not be required, the San Joaquin Valley MPOs are voluntarily committing to improving the CMAQ process through this policy to assist in the clean air efforts. The San Joaquin Valley MPOs propose to adopt the following CMAQ policy through Policy Board Resolutions, possibly as part of the 2007 RTP, to be implemented beginning in FY 2011.

The policy is scheduled to be implemented in FY 2011 because the current federally approved 2007 Federal Transportation Improvement Programs (FTIPs) have committed CMAQ funds through FY 2009 and in some cases, regional commitments through FY 2010. In addition, the current CMAQ programming assists in implementing approved local RACM (Amended 2003 PM-10 Plan) that are currently committed through 2010.

Cost-effectiveness is a key component of providing funding to improve air quality and reduce congestion. Policies that focus on cost-effectiveness will result in the largest emission reductions for the lowest cost. In the state of California, the Air Resources Board (ARB) provides funding for air quality improvement projects through the Carl Moyer Program, which requires that heavy-duty vehicle projects meet a cost- effectiveness of $14,300 per ton. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) also uses cost-effectiveness thresholds for projects funded through the REMOVE II and Heavy-Duty Incentive Programs. However, there is currently no minimum cost-effectiveness established for the CMAQ program, and according to recent studies, the numbers vary widely across the country and by project type. Attachment 1 provides a summary of cost-effectiveness of various types of CMAQ projects, as indicated in the most recent FHWA guidance.

The SJV MPOs propose to develop a standardized process across the Valley for distributing 20% of the CMAQ annual apportionments for each MPO to projects that must meet a minimum cost-effectiveness. This percentage will be converted to a dollar amount as part of periodic reviews and updates to the CMAQ policy. The process will focus on achieving the most cost-effective emission reductions, while maintaining flexibility to meet local needs.

CMAQ projects must demonstrate an air quality benefit, and the expected emissions reductions will continue to be estimated with the ARB “Methods to Find the Cost- Effectiveness of Funding Air Quality Projects”. Tracking of the CMAQ policy will be achieved through several methods. Each MPO must submit annual reports to Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) that specify how CMAQ funds have been spent and the expected air quality benefits. This report is due by the first day of February following the end of the previous Federal fiscal year (September 30) and covers all CMAQ obligations for that fiscal year. As has been the practice of several MPOs, a copy of the CMAQ annual report will also be submitted to the Air District for information purposes. Each MPO will also post information related to the implementation of the CMAQ policy on its website.

The Caltrans CMAQ web-page has annual reports provided for 2002-2003 and earlier. For the San Joaquin Valley, approximately $19.5 million of CMAQ dollars was allocated which resulted in approximately 0.26 tons/day reduction in reactive organic gases (ROG) and 0.37 tons/day reduction in nitrogen oxides (NOx). For 2001-2002, approximately $38.6 million of CMAQ dollars was allocated resulting in approximately 0.35 tons/day reduction in ROG and 0.42 tons/day reduction in NOx. It is important to note that the entire project cost is not provided and the estimated emission reduction is for the life of the project.

Due to changes in project costs and technology over time, the MPOs will revisit the minimum cost-effectiveness standard, as well as policy feasibility, with each new Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), excluding amendments. RTP updates are required by SAFETEA-LU every four years. A periodic review of the policy is necessary due to potential changes in federal transportation legislation, apportionments, and project eligibility. This policy will only affect federal CMAQ funds, and does not imply changes to other funding programs. Should future transportation legislation not include CMAQ funding, this policy will no longer be in effect.

Additional Considerations

As the specifics of the CMAQ policy are developed, the MPOs and interagency consultation partners will need to discuss several additional issues. These include such items as:

(1)   How to address unspent CMAQ funds that are part of the 20% policy

(a)   The SJVAPCD air quality grant incentive programs provide a possible program that MPOs could contribute to and still meet their cost- effectiveness threshold.

(2)   Priority for Leveraging Air District Funds

(a)   To provide an added incentive for funding cost-effective expenditures of CMAQ funds, the SJVAPCD should consider giving priority for matching funds for cost-effective CMAQ projects.

(3)   Providing Incentives for Early Completion of Commitment

(a)   The policy could allow MPOs to accrue credit for exceeding their base commitment of cost-effective CMAQ expenditure. The credit would allow an MPO to complete its annual average cost effective expenditure goal prior to the attainment date. For example, if the CMAQ policy covers a 10 year period and the expenditure goal is a minimum of 20 percent, agencies could program 100% of their CMAQ for the first 2 years and have fulfilled their 10-year commitment.   This would provide an incentive to MPOs to achieve air quality improvements as early as possible.

Table C-1 Cost-Effectiveness of Selected CMAQ Projects

Source: TRB Special Report 264—The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience, Chapter 4.

C.4       RESPONSE TO INTERAGENCY COMMENTS ON DRAFT RACM APPROACH

January 16, 2007

The local RACM approach for the 8-hour Ozone Plan was transmitted for interagency consultation on December 5, 2006.

It is important to note that no other verbal or written comments were received from the public or inter-agency consultation partners, including: the California Department of Transportation and Federal Transit Administration.

COMMENT FROM BOB O’LOUGHLIN, FHWA

(via e-mail, dated December 5, 2006)

Comment: The RACM approach looks good. On the Local CMAQ Policy, is it possible to present an estimate of how much CMAQ funds each of the SJV MPOs will have in FY 2011? It’s difficult to ascertain whether 20% of each MPO’s CMAQ funds (assuming they do not pool their CMAQ funds), even with potential match funds, will be sufficient to fully fund some of the cost-effectiveness CMAQ projects that would meet the minimum cost-effectiveness threshold.

Response: CMAQ funding for FY2011 will be provided by future transportation legislation; therefore, neither federal apportionments nor Caltrans estimates are not available at this time. In addition, CMAQ funding is based on the severity of the ozone and carbon monoxide classifications, which may change over time. It is important to note that funding is distributed through Caltrans by formula to the MPOs, and is not pooled across jurisdictions.

Cost-effectiveness is based on the CMAQ funds contributed to the projects. Even the MPOs that receive the smallest allocation of funding are able to complete cost-effective projects. CMAQ funds typically require a minimum 11.47% local match, so fully funding projects with federal CMAQ funds is not possible. If necessary, an MPO could require a higher matching percentage to meet the cost-effectiveness threshold, or the project sponsor could increase the amount of matching funds.

COMMENT FROM KARINA O’CONNOR, EPA

(via e-mail, dated December 12, 2006)

Comment: EPA is concerned that the focus of the approach seems to be on ensuring that no measures, even cumulatively, will qualify as advancing the attainment year – thus no measures (including TCMs) will qualify as RACM and be included in the SIP. Due to this focus, the approach does not seem to propose to develop an extensive list of control measures for consideration.

Response: The Part 1 approach does not state that there is a bias toward finding no qualified RACMs. The proposed analysis will examine all potential available control

measures and determine their cumulative emissions impact on accelerating the attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard in the SJV. The analysis will be documented and provided for interagency consultation.

Comment: The intention of RACM is to prepare a list of all available control measures for consideration. The draft approach seems to be focused on rejecting measures. The approach explains why no measures will work before you’ve explained what measures you will be considering. At a minimum, the approach should describe more extensively, which measures will be considered. The analysis must be able to demonstrate due diligence in identifying potential RACM.

Response:      All available control measures identified in Part 1 of the RACM analysis will be examined. The draft approach does not focus on rejecting measures; rather, the EPA criteria for determining RACMs, including the economically and technically feasible tests will be applied.

Comment: By limiting the initial compilation of measure to “previous San Joaquin Valley RACM processes, more recent guidance materials, applicable SIPs, and measures suggested by the public during the SJVAPCD Town Hall meetings,” the draft approach doesn’t seem to go very far to compile a list of potential measures for an area that needs significant measures to reach attainment. We have seen litigation in other areas (e.g. Houston) a few years ago charging that the area did not consider certain measures that were actually being implemented in other areas. To counter the possibility of litigation, the RACM analysis needs to do a really good job describing the process used to identify the potential RACMs. For example, will you gather and incorporate info from outside expertise, literature reviews, workshops, public forums, professional associations, etc. to compile a list of measures? Only consideration of public comments gathered at town hall meetings is not enough.

Response: During our 2002 SIP development, there were well over one hundred potential RACM were identified as a result of an extensive outreach program with local jurisdictions in response to EPA’s direction that every possible RACM be included. The proposed RACM identification effort uses the existing list of potential RACM as the starting point and then identifies additional potential RACM. The proposed approach clearly indicates that the RACM identified in other SIPs will be reviewed for inclusion. Presumably, this approach will include additional information from “outside expertise, literature reviews, workshops, public forums, professional associations, etc.” that was part of that RACM process. The proposed approach in no way implies that “Only consideration of public comments gathered at town hall meetings” will be included. The proposed approach merely confirms that the public comments already received on the draft SJV Ozone Plan would be included and addressed in the new local RACM process.

Comment: The draft approach relies upon – using the ‘advancing the attainment year’ test to reject measures based on the high level of reductions needed for the area. We agree that you can use this test to reject measures from those that must be

implemented. However, because potential RACMs won’t advance the attainment date, that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be implemented. Nothing in EPA’s RACM policy prevents an area from implementing controls that are not identified as RACM.

Response: It is agreed that controls that are not identified as RACM may be implemented. The proposed implementation would not prevent an implementing entity from adopting a local control measure that does not meet the RACM criteria.

Comment: Note that given the litigation on previous San Joaquin Valley plans, these comments were drafted to identify any potential problems upfront, especially since problems with the RACM approach could lead to problems with our budget adequacy findings, and which could lead to a conformity lockdown problem in SJV. Your best defense on RACM issues is to put together a robust, inclusive process for identifying potential RACMs. As you’ve mentioned in your approach, any measures suggested by the public (not just in the town hall meetings), must be included in the RACM analysis. Completion of a comprehensive analysis including all potential measures in the initial analysis will less likely result in additional measure being suggested by the public and delays in the final SIP submittal or problems with budget adequacy.

Response: As documented in the proposed implementation approach, the SJV MPOs are committed to perform a comprehensive, robust analysis of identifying potential RACMs. The interagency consultation process will be used to provide our partners the opportunity to review and comment on the local RACM analysis as it is developed.

COMMENT FROM LAUREN DAWSON, SJV AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

(via e-mail, dated December 13, 2006)

Comment: Section 1. In “Approach” – RACM related litigation, summarized in Eisinger & Niemeier (2004),¹ suggests that a thorough review of candidate measures is a prudent course of action. The District recommends an expanded search be conducted for control measures beyond the Town Hall Meetings to include comments from our October 17, 2006 workshop, prior comments submitted to the District in 2004, other districts’ plans (e.g., South Coast and Sacramento), other states, the California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley Strategic Action Plan (Air Quality Work Group and Transportation Work Group) (e.g., Appendix J in the draft 2007 Ozone Plan), and other sources. The District has received about 94 comments following our Town Hall Meetings and the October 17, 2006 workshop that dealt with the general types of topics that could be addressed by local agency RACM; topics included personal transportation choices, bike lanes, public transit, vehicle characteristics and use, lower highway speeds, highway fees, drive throughs, local governments and land use, local governments and other transportation issues, Indirect Source Review Rule, and interagency cooperation/COGs.

¹ Eisinger, D. and D. Niemeier, Transportation Control Measures, (TCMs): Guidance for Conformity and State Implementation Plan Development, UC Davis, Final Report, August 18, 2004.

Response:   As documented in the proposed approach, all available control measures will be examined in the RACM analysis under Part 1. This will include outside expertise, literature reviews, workshops, public forums, professional associations, etc. In accordance with EPA guidance, the analysis focuses on measures that meet the EPA- directed criteria for RACMs, including the economically and technically feasible tests.

Comment: Section 3. In “Approach” – Add text that clarifies what will be done. Even is RACM is not required, measures to reduce emissions by changing vehicle use could still be implemented. These could be added as a new section 4 (under “Approach”) and consist of text from the CMAQ Policy White Paper.

Response: The proposed implementation would not prevent an implementing entity from adopting a local control measure that does not meet the RACM criteria.

Comment: Section 3. “Assumption” section – the data on VOC and NOx emissions reductions needed should be updated as new releases become available.

Response: The analysis will use the most recent data available at that time.

Comment: Section 3. “Additional Considerations” under Commitment to Implement CMAQ Policy – It may not be feasible to give priority for District matching funds for cost- effective CMAQ projects.

Response: It is understood that the priority funding from the Air District might not be possible; however, it is expected that the Air District would at least consider such a request. Additional information will be provided in future discussions.

Comment: Section 3. “Additional Considerations” under Commitment to Implement CMAQ Policy – A commitment to a specific cost-effectiveness threshold should be made (e.g., Carl Moyer $14,300/ton)

Response:     As with Carl Moyer and other programs that require a minimum threshold, it is expected that these numbers will change over time. The MPOs will determine an appropriate threshold in the coming years, which will be reevaluated on a regular basis (as indicated in the proposal).

Comment: Section 3. “Additional Considerations” under Commitment to Implement CMAQ Policy – The District believes that the commitment to direct only 20% of the CMAQ funds to cost-effective projects will not help produce early reductions that are needed for attainment of the NAAQS. The District encourages that a greater percentage of the CMAQ funds be dedicated to cost-effective projects that would provide maximum air quality benefits.

Response: The CMAQ (Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality) program serves a broader purpose than early reductions; the program is also designed to provide congestion relief through improved traffic flow and travel times. All CMAQ projects are required to show an air quality benefit, and MPOs strive to fund projects for both the short- and long-term benefits of the region. While projects to relieve congestion also improve air quality, it might not be feasible to have such congestion relief projects meet a stringent cost-effectiveness threshold, such as established for diesel retrofit projects. Although many MPOs use cost-effectiveness to evaluate eligible projects, there are currently no federal standards for minimum CMAQ cost-effectiveness in place. This CMAQ policy to dedicate 20% of the funding could be considered progressive, and also does not prohibit individual MPOs from exceeding this percentage.

Comment: As the fleet gets cleaner, (especially true for the time frame addressed by this Plan) measures to reduce VMT will provide fewer reductions, and will consequently become less cost effective. The process should assign higher priority to measures that reduce vehicle starts or trips vs. measures that reduce VMT. Measures targeting gross polluters would also be of benefit.

Response: SAFETEA-LU includes changes to project eligibility for the CMAQ program. In general, eligible project or programs need to contribute to attainment of the NAAQS though reductions in vehicle miles traveled, fuel consumption or through other factors. The new legislation includes eligibility for advanced truck stop electrification systems and the purchase of diesel retrofits. In addition, SAFETEA-LU states that MPOs shall give priority in distributing funds received to (1) diesel retrofits, and (2) cost-effective congestion mitigation activities.

The process is designed to focus a percentage of the program on cost-effective projects. The intent is to allow flexibility for each MPO to implement the program in a manner that best addresses the issues in that region. These issues may vary by county or even city. While it is possible to fund projects that target trip reduction or gross polluters, staff does not think that prioritizing or mandating project types is beneficial

Comment: The District recommends that the process include a provision for assigning priority to NOx vs. VOC reductions as a function of the year of implementation. VOC reductions may be more useful in the near term, with NOx providing greater benefits overall. More details will be provided in the January 2007 draft version of the plan.

Response: The CMAQ program considers emission reductions for NOx, VOC, and particulate matter. Due to funding constraints, issues associated with transportation programming, and project delivery, it may not be feasible to implement a process that prioritizes projects based on the associated emissions reductions by pollutant.

Comment: As noted in Chapter 5 of the 2007 Ozone Plan, the District intends to issue annual reports on the progress in implementing ozone and PM plan commitments. These reports would be presented to the District Governing Board in April of each year,

beginning in 2008. These reports will not only give the status of District measures, but also the status of state and local government measures. The MPO annual reports, which are due in February of each year to Caltrans and FHWA, will fit into the District reporting schedule; however, the MPO reports will be on a federal fiscal year basis and the District’s reports will be on a calendar year basis. The “Commitment to Implement Local CMAQ Policy” should address this possible discrepancy in reporting periods. Is it possible to produce the CMAQ data on a calendar year basis?

Response:    The proposed implementation clearly indicates that the CMAQ policy will not be included in the 2007 Ozone Plan. As a result, no projects implemented through the policy will be included in the District annual reports.   However, any other local control measures commitments that are included in the 2007 Ozone Plan could be included in the annual reports. It is assumed that the District will request the reporting information directly from the implementing entities.

Comment: The District recommends that the ongoing work of the SJV Regional Blueprint Project and the potential emission reductions that will be available in the future be discussed as an activity that could provide future emissions reductions. While not meriting emission reduction credit at this point, the potential exists for land use planning to affect VMT growth rates, as well as reducing the number of starts and trips.

Response: The SJV MPOs have provided draft documentation regarding the Blueprint process in response to the District’s request in November 2006. The information should be included in the next version of the 2007 Ozone Plan released for public review.

COMMENT FROM JEFF LINDBERG, ARB

(via e-mail, dated January 5, 2007)

Comment: Because of the magnitude of the emission reductions needed in the San Joaquin Valley, it is appropriate that the local planning agencies are looking beyond the

U.S. EPA guidance on Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM), to identify a local commitment commensurate with the emission reductions needed.

The Valley planning agencies are taking an important step by explicitly committing to fund cost effective emission reduction projects through the targeted usage of 20 percent of the Valley’s Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) funds, and should be applauded.

Response: Thank you for your comment.

Comment: In order to ensure that the CMAQ funds being committed by the local planning agencies achieve the maximum benefits, ARB staff suggests that those CMAQ dollars go explicitly to cost effective, transportation related engine replacement and/or retrofit projects. This is important since congestion mitigation projects alone, often have small benefits on air quality, relative to their cost. This clearly meets the first priority established for CMAQ funds in federal law – to fund projects with air quality and health

benefits. In your effort to determine an appropriate cost effectiveness threshold, as well as in your efforts to identify appropriate projects, we encourage you to work closely with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District staff, which has in place an effective air pollution incentive program.

Response: While the SAFETEA-LU changes to project eligibility for the CMAQ program include advanced truck stop electrification systems and the purchase of diesel retrofits, the program is also designed to improve air quality through the implementation of other projects. The proposed policy is designed to focus a percentage of the program on cost-effective projects, not to specify project type. A mandate for the 20% of CMAQ dollars to fund engine replacement and/or retrofit projects would eliminate the necessary flexibility for each MPO to implement the program in a manner that best addresses the issues in that region. These issues may vary by county or even city. Some cities might have already implemented an aggressive replacement and retrofit program, and have less of a need for engine replacement at this time; the MPOs do not intend to limit the implementation of innovative and cost-effective emission reduction strategies.

Please be assured that the interagency consultation process will be used to provide our partners the opportunity to review and comment on the implementation details of the CMAQ policy as they are developed.

C.5     DOCUMENTATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF LIST OF CONTROL MEASURES FOR POSSIBLE CONSIDERATION

Approach

Develop a list of control measures for possible consideration. List will be developed from previous San Joaquin Valley RACM processes, more recent guidance materials, applicable SIPs, and measures suggested by the public during the SJVAPCD Town Hall meetings.

Documentation

Step 1: Previous SJV RACM (ozone precursors)

List contains the original Local Government Control Measure (LGCM) template organized by Section 108(f) category. It is important to note that some of the measures were not considered by the MPOs for the Suggested List. Either reasoned justification was provided and subsequently approved by EPA or the measures were recommended for regional implementation by another agency, such as the Air District, Caltrans, etc.

The Suggested Lists by MPO were cross-referenced with the LGCM template. ”Extra” measures suggested during MPO public process and considered for implementation were added.

References:

The Severe Area Ozone Plan, April 2002 RTPA Ozone RACM Submittal included the following:

• Existing Local Government Control Measures in the San Joaquin Valley
  • 1994 CA ozone SIP which includes the 1994 San Joaquin Valley Ozone Attainment Plan and the Revised Post 1996 ROP Plan, according to Federal Register 62FR1150
  • Example List of Local Government Control Measures in Other Ozone Nonattainment Areas
    • collating lists of local government control measures considered, and in some cases adopted, in other nonattainment areas
    • areas included: Phoenix, Bay Area, California Planning, and Dallas
    • Suggested List of Measures for the Severe Area Ozone Plan (by County/MPO)
    • Measures were organized by category using the specific transportation control measures listed in Section 108(f) of the Clean Air Act
      • Commitments / reasoned justification for non-implementation by jurisdiction (generally through 2005)
      • The public process was conducted from 2001 – 2001 and included individual MPO committee process and six SJVAPCD workshops

The Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan, March 2004 RTPA Ozone RACM Submittal included the following:

• Severe Ozone Plan Commitments / reasoned justification
  • Strengthen existing commitments (generally through 2010)
  • Update reasoned justification
  • New commitments
  • Note: one new ozone plan was released and reviewed for potential new measures to consider; none were identified.
  • The public process was conducted from 2003 – 2005 and included individual MPO committee process and three SJVAPCD workshops

Step 2: Review of Control Measures Suggested During Public Process for 8-Hour SIP Development

Six town hall meetings were conducted by the SJV APC from July 26 – 28, 2006 throughout the valley. In addition, the District conducted a workshop on the Draft Plan in October 2006. Local measures that were suggested by the public during

these meetings were cross-referenced against the list of possible measures compiled under Step 1.

• If local onroad measure already included on RACM list, added “Town Hall Meetings” to Source column
• If local onroad measure NOT already included, then added under appropriate category (Extras)

References:

The Draft 2007 Ozone Plan includes the following:

• Appendix G: Town Hall Meeting Suggestions
• Appendix L: Comments and Response

NOTE: According to EPA’s Conformity Rule, the definition of a TCM is as follows: “A transportation control measure (TCM) is any measure that is specifically identified and committed to in the applicable implementation plan that is either one of the types listed in section 108 of the CAA, or any other measure for the purpose of reducing emissions or concentrations of air pollutants from transportation sources by reducing vehicle use or changing traffic flow or congestion conditions. Notwithstanding the first sentence of this definition, vehicle technology-based, fuel-based, and maintenance-based measures which control the emissions from vehicles under fixed traffic conditions are not TCMs”

In accordance with this definition, vehicle technology-based, fuel-based, and maintenance-based measures which control the emissions from vehicles under fixed traffic conditions were not included in the local RACM list during the cross-referencing process in Step 2 above or the Steps that follow.

Step 3: Review of EPA Proposed PM2.5 Implementation Rule, November 1, 2005.

The EPA Proposed PM2.5 Implementation Rule, dated November 1, 2005 was reviewed and local onroad control measures were cross-referenced against the list of possible measures compiled under Step 1.

• If local onroad measure already included on RACM list, added “EPA” to Source column
• If local onroad measure NOT already included, then added under appropriate category (Extras)
• NOTE: Diesel idling programs for trucks, locomotive, and other mobile sources excluded due to State rule requirements.

References:

EPA Proposed PM2.5 Implementation Rule, November 1, 2005 includes the following:

• Clean School Bus USA Program
• EPA’s voluntary diesel retrofit program
• EPA’s voluntary diesel retrofit program
• EPA’s website on transportation control measures

Step 4: Review of EPA Draft Final PM2.5 Implementation Rule, reference to http://www.epa.gov/pm/measures.html

This website contains links to sources of information on control measures. The California SB 656 program link was reviewed, but does not contain any local onroad measures for consideration. In addition, the CARB Goods Movement emission reduction plan link was reviewed, but does not contain any local onroad measures for consideration.

However, the Lake Michigan Directors Consortium (LADCO) / Midwest Regional Planning Organization technical reports link provides numerous references for the evaluation of candidate control measures. The report “Evaluation of Candidate Mobile Source Control Measures” was reviewed and local onroad control measures were cross-referenced against the list of possible measures compiled under Step 1.

• If local onroad measure already included on RACM list, added “LADCO” to Source column
• If local onroad measure NOT already included, then added under appropriate category (Extras)

References:

Evaluation of Candidate Mobile Source Control Measures includes the following:

• AACOG. 2003. “1st Biannual Report: The Early Action Compact for the San Antonio Metropolitan Statistical Area,” Report to Texas Commission of Environmental Quality, Alamo Area Council of Governments, San Antonio, TX, June 2003.
• CARB. 2003. “Proposal to Reduce Idling from New 2007+ Heavy-Duty Diesel Trucks,” Presentation by Daniel Hawelti to a June 4, 2003 Public Workshop, California Air Resources Board, June 4, 2003.
• CMAQ. 1999. “Summary Review of Costs and Emissions Information for 24 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program Projects,” Final Report to the Office of Policy, Environmental Protection Agency, Hagler Bailey Services, Inc., Arlington, VA, September 28, 1999.
  • ENVIRON. 2003a. “Workplan for the Winchester-Frederick and Berkeley- Jefferson Counties Ozone Early Action Plan (EAP) Projects,” Memorandum to Wilbur-Smith Associates, ENVIRON International Corporation, September 24, 2003.
  • ENVIRON. 2000a. “Evaluation of Attainment Control Strategies for the Dallas- Fort Worth State Implementation Plan,” Report to the North Central Texas Council of Governments, ENVIRON International Corporation, March 2000.
  • ENVIRON. 2000b. “Initial Evaluation of Emissions Reduction Potential of Candidate Measures to Obtain NOx Reductions in the Houston-Galveston Area – Draft Report.” Prepared for the Houston-Galveston Area Council. July 25.
  • MWAQC. 2003. “Plan to Improve Air Quality in the Washington, DC-MD-VA Region, State Implementation Plan (SIP) “Severe Area SIP”, Demonstration Rate of Progress for 2002 and 2005; Revision to 1990 Base Year Emissions; and Severe Area Attainment Demonstration for the Washington DC-MD-VA Nonattainment Area,” District of Columbia Department of Health, Maryland Department of the Environment, and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Metropolitan Washington Committee, August 4, 2003.
  • NETAC. 2003. “Identification of Potential Emission Reduction Strategies for the Northeast Texas Early Action Compact,” Final Report to the East Texas Council of Governments, Northeast Texas Air Care (with Contribution from ENVIRON International Corporation), June 11, 2003.
  • Oklahoma. 2003. “Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality’s Draft List of Potential Control Strategies for the Oklahoma Early Action Compacts,” Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, Oklahoma, April 9, 2003.
  • OTC. 2003. “Draft Model Rule Overview: Solvent Cleaning Operations; Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing; Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings, and Portable Fuel Container Spillage Control,” Ozone Transport Commission (http://www.otcair.org/), Washington, DC, 2003.
  • TCEQ. 2000. “Revision to the State Implementation Plan for the Control of Ozone Air Pollution: Requirements for Gasoline Volatility in East and Central Texas & Federal Clean Air Act 221(c)(4)(C) Waiver Request,” Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, April 5, 2000.
  • SMAQMD. 2003. “Clean Air Plan Update for Sacramento Air Quality Management Districts,” Sacramento Air Quality Management District, Sacramento, CA, May 21, 2003
  • Tennessee. 2003. “Emission Inventories and Potential Emission Control Strategies for Ozone Early Action Compact Areas in Tennessee,” Draft Report to Division of Transportation Planning, Tennessee Department of Transportation, and Division of Air Pollution Control, Tennessee Department of Environmental and Conservation, Department of Civic and Environmental Engineering, University of Tennessee, April 2003.
  • Triad. 2003. “Triad Early Action Compact: Potential Local and Regional Ozone Emission Reduction Strategies for Attainment of 8 Hour Ozone Standard,” Triad, North Carolina, 2003.
  • SBDC. 2001. “Environmental Assistance to Small Businesses: An Ex-Post Evaluation of SBDC Pilot Projects,” Final Report to Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, Industrial Economics, Inc., Cambridge, MA, and Robert L. Kerr & Associates, Inc., Reston, VA, January 12, 2001.
    • ENVIRON. 2003a. “Evaluation Of Emission Control Strategies Under Consideration For The Berkeley-Jefferson Counties Early Action Plan,” Memorandum to Wilbur-Smith Associates, ENVIRON International Corporation, December 12, 2003.
    • Metropolitan Washington DC, VA, MD AQ Committee – 2005 Ozone SIP Doc
    • San Joaquin Valley 2004 SIP
    • Mid-American Regional Council – Kansas City Region Control Measures: Clean Air Action Plan 2004
    • Bay Area Control Measures (Tri Valley Clean Air Plan)
      • Compiled list of local measures submitted by EAC areas as part of the State Implementation Plan required for the December 31, 2004 Milestone (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/eac/#EACsummary)

Step 5: Review of EPA List of Potential Control Measures for PM2.5 and Precursors, Draft dated 12/20/06

The EPA List of Potential Control Measures for PM2.5 and Precursors, Draft dated 12/20/06 was reviewed and local onroad NOX and VOC control measures were cross- referenced against the list of possible measures compiled under Step 1.

• If local onroad measure already included on RACM list, added “EPA” to Source column
• If local onroad measure NOT already included, then added under appropriate category (Extras)

References:

EPA List of Potential Control Measures for PM2.5 and Precursors, Draft dated 12/20/06 includes the following:

• California Air Resources Board, “Currently Verified Diesel Emission Control Technologies,” as of September 6, 2006 http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/verifiedtechnologies/cvt.htm
• California Air Resources Board, “ARB Programs,” updated May 4, 2006 http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/programs.htm
• ENVIRON International Corporation, “Evaluation of Candidate Mobile Source Control Measures”, Final Report, prepared for Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium, 2250 E. Devon Ave., #250, Des Plaines, IL 60018, February 28, http://www.ladco.org/reports/rpo/Regional%20Air%20Quality/LADCO%20Control

%20Report_Final.pdf

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, “Phase II Reformulated Gasoline: The Next Major Step Toward Cleaner Air”, EPA420- http://www.epa.gov/OMSWWW/rfg/f99042.pdf
• Guidance for Quantifying and Using Long Duration Truck Idling Emission Reductions In State Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity, EPA420-B-04-001, January 2004. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/policy/truckidlingguidance.pdf
• Draft list of potential RACT and RACM from PM rule preamble (see EPA websites on verified retrofit technologies) http://www.epa.gov/otaq/retrofit/retroverifiedlist.htm
• Guidance for Quantifying and Using Emissions Reductions from Best Workplaces for Commuter Programs in State Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity Determinations, EPA420-B-05-016, October 2005, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/policy/transp/commuter/420b05016.pdf
• Diesel Retrofits: Quantifying and Using Their Benefits in SIPs and Conformity, EPA420-B-06-005, June 2006. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/policy/420b06005.pdf
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, “Diesel Retrofit Technology, An Analysis of the Cost-Effectiveness of Reducing Particulate Matter Emissions from Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines Through Retrofits”, EPA420-S-06-002, March 2006. http://www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/documents/420s06002.pdf
  • EPA Staff Communication: “Mobile Source Control Measures in PM NAAQS RIA”, EPA, 2006
  • NJDEP Diesel Initiatives Workgroup, “A Collaborative Report Presenting Air Quality Strategies for Further Consideration by the State of New Jersey,” October 31, 2005. http://www.nj.gov/dep/airworkgroups/docs/final_di_workgroup_report.pdf
  • NJDEP Gasoline Cars & Trucks Workgroup, “A Collaborative Report Presenting Air Quality Strategies for Further Consideration by the State of New Jersey,” October 31, 2005. http://www.state.nj.us/dep/airworkgroups/docs/final_gct_report.pdf
    • Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) “Candidate Control Measures.” http://www.otcair.org/projects_details.asp?FID=93&fview=stationary
    • E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., “AirControlNET, Version 4.1 Control Measure Documentation Report,” Draft Report, prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, Pechan Report No. 06.05.003/9011.002, May 2006. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html
    • San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (UAPCD). Final BACM Technological and Economic Feasibility Analysis, prepared by Sierra Research, March 21, 2003. http://www.soiltac.com/PDF/Final_BACM_Chapter 20 – Fugitive Dust 287Feasibility_Analysis.pdf
    • The State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials, “Controlling Fine Particulate Matter Under the Clean Air Act: A Menu of Options, ” March 2006 http://www.4cleanair.org/PM25Menu-Final.pdf
      • Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Texas Air Quality Control Measures, as of September 2006 http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/implementation/air/sip/sipstrategies.html#mobile
      • Regulatory Impact Analysis: 2006 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particle Pollution. October 6, 2006.
      • Clean Ports USA, “Emission Reduction Strategies by Application, Trucks,” as of September 2006 http://www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/ports/stratapp.htm#highway