Transportation Planning Capacity Building Program

- Peer Exchange Report -

Peer-to-Peer Exchange on the Upcoming Transition to the New 8-Hour Ozone Air Quality Standard

I. SUMMARY

The following report summarizes the results of a Peer Exchange supported by the Transportation Planning Capacity Building (TPCB) Program, which is jointly sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC) hosted the two-day Exchange to discuss the upcoming transition to the new 8-hour ozone standard proposed by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Exchange was held December 3rd and 4th, 2003 in Houston, Texas.

This Peer Exchange was conducted as an open-ended discussion among participants from Atlanta, Georgia and Houston-Galveston, Dallas-Ft. Worth, and Beaumont-Port Arthur, Texas. Local, state, and Federal representatives from these areas discussed their approaches to preparing for the transition to the 8-hour standard and also shared strategies for reducing emissions and improving air quality analysis. Participants of the Peer Exchange included the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), EPA Region 6, FHWA Georgia and Texas Division Office, Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), H-GAC, North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG), South East Texas Regional Planning Commission (SETRPC), Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), and Texas DOT (TxDOT). The Peer Exchange focused on a wide range of issues that affect air quality planning and operations. All participants were able to share successful practices and lessons learned in achieving an effective and compliant outcome.

II. BACKGROUND

H-GAC serves as the Council of Governments for the 13-county Gulf Coast Planning Region, an area of 12,500 square miles with over 5 million residents, and is the metropolitan planning organization (MPO)¹ for an 8-county region within this area. H-GAC and the 132 local governments it represents recognize air quality as a critical element that affects the health and safety of its citizens. This MPO and other agencies nationwide are beginning to prepare for the implementation of the EPA’s 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This new 8-hour standard, planned to replace the current 1-hour standard in 2004-2005, is a more stringent measure aimed to better protect public health by measuring ground-level ozone over an 8-hour time frame rather than only focusing on measurements for a peak one hour period. The new standard will bring with it a change in both emissions budgets and new modeling procedures.

At the beginning of the Exchange, participants agreed that their objectives during the two-day meeting were to achieve the following:

1. Understand the general concept behind the 8-hour standard.
2. Understand the options for the 1-hour to 8-hour transition.
3. Identify solutions to potential implementation problems.
4. Develop relationships among participants to share practices and lessons learned.

The topics covered in the Exchange are described below.

¹A Regional policy body, required in urbanized areas with populations over 50,000, and designated by local officials and the governor of the state. Responsible in cooperation with the state and other transportation providers for carrying out the metropolitan transportation planning requirements of federal highway and transit legislation. (TPCB Online Glossary)

III. THE TRANSITION TO THE 8-HOUR STANDARD AND RELATED ISSUES

On June 2, 2003, the EPA Office of Air and Radiation proposed frameworks for the implementation of the new 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In this notice of proposed rulemaking, the EPA states that this rule is presented “so that States may know which statutory requirements apply for purposes of developing State Implementation Plans (SIPs) under the Clean Air Act.” In response to comments on the proposal, the EPA re-opened the comment period in October 2003 for the purpose of accepting additional comments on suggested approaches used for classification of non-attainment areas. Comments were due November 5, 2003.

On November 5, 2003, EPA also published a proposed rule that would amend the transportation conformity regulations to include criteria and procedures for the new 8-hour ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. Specifically, the proposal describes the general requirements for conducting conformity determinations for the new NAAQS, such as the conformity test(s) that would apply. These comments were due December 22, 2003. Below are participants’ responses to the current rulemaking and other issues related to air quality conformity.

A. Proposed EPA Guidance and MPO Comments

• Option #1: Complete both the build-less-than-no-build and less-than-baseline year tests.
• Option #2: Complete the build-less-than-no-build or less-than-baseline-year test.
• Option #3: Require that only one of these tests be met and eliminate the second test as an option altogether.

For non-attainment areas that are expanding under the 8-hour ozone standard, the EPA is proposing that the interim emission test(s) be used for the entire 8-hour area (using whichever Option listed above that is included in the final conformity rule) or that the 1-hour budget be used for the 1-hour area and the interim test(s) be used for the remaining 8-hour area. EPA has also provided the option to submit emissions budgets early that demonstrate a significant level of emission reduction. Although some boundaries of non-attainment areas are expected to change after the implementation of the 8-hour standard, the EPA proposal has provided two options for areas that will remain with the same boundaries as the 1-hour standard. The area’s regional conformity tests can either (1) use the interim emissions test, depending on the area’s classification or designation, or (2) apply the budget test by using existing adequate or approved 1-hour ozone SIP budgets.

• Legality- What if one test passes, but the other does not?
• Cost and Resource Implications- With new standards comes the need for new budgets. This requires additional analysis and research. For the most accurate data, air chemistry models should be reevaluated. These all require additional funding and time.
• Flexibility- Without flexibility, regions are forced to meet regulatory requirements using only dictated methods. Flexibility allows the region to apply the best-fitting methods, given an area’s resource, time, and budget constraints, to achieve a compliant results.

General comments from the MPOs during the open discussion, focusing on some or all of the EPA options and issues stated above, include:

B. State Guidance and Recommendations

TCEQ intends to submit air quality SIPs two to three years prior to the proposed EPA deadline. While the transition from the 1-hour to 8-hour standard requires long-term maintenance, TCEQ plans include 1-hour and 8-hour demonstrations in their April 2004 SIP submittals for the Beaumont-Port Arthur and Dallas-Fort Worth non-attainment areas. Transportation networks for 2010 will be available in January 2004. One concern shared by both TCEQ and H-GAC is that during the transition so many uncertainties still remain: TCEQ cannot solely address 1-hour controls in SIPs because the standard may not exist after transitioning occurs; however, these controls may not be the same emission reduction strategies for the 8-hour standard. Conversely, if the SIP were to only include the 8-hour standard, its controls may be difficult to implement if regulations are still pending or have changed. Concerns were raised that a non-attainment area may have difficulty reaching attainment under the 8-hour standard with only local control strategies in place. A multi-state air quality management approach is recommended that looks further than the designated non-attainment area through consideration of transport emissions from other regions. Those regions would then be required to implement emission reduction control measures to assist the designated non-attainment area in reducing background pollutant levels.

ARC and GDOT also have similar legal concerns. While these agencies plan to keep the 1-hour standard in their plans, they fully support the revoking of the 1-hour standard to avoid legal complications in the future. In addition, they agree that the anti-backsliding clause should still remain.²

² Clean Air Act's (CAA) antibacksliding clause states that "Under section 193 of the CAA, no control requirement in effect, or required to be adopted by an order in effect before the date of enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendment in any non-attainment area may be modified in any manner unless the modification insures equivalent or greater emission reductions."

C. MPO Timing Issues with Conformity

The issue of timing for when a conformity analysis is required or “triggered” is a critical element when addressing conformity issues. This is one of many issues being addressed through the reauthorization of TEA-21. The FHWA Texas Division Office believes that regardless of the time frame for Metropolitan Transportation Plan updates, new conformity analyses and determinations are often made on almost a yearly basis to incorporate newly selected/funded projects into the Transportation Improvement Program, or adequately reflect program and project modifications. This allows the focus to be on streamlining efforts that reduce conformity triggers rather than lengthen the planning cycle.

The ARC, GDOT, Georgia Environmental Protection Division, and Georgia Regional Transportation Agency proposed in comments provided on TEA-21 reauthorization that a three-year time frame for conformity, with a parallel three-year SIP update cycle, is the optimal practice. H-GAC, on the other hand, believes that the extension of time frames to four to five years is also a practical move. By combining the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) with the planning process, the plan would not need to be amended in any way that would violate conformity. Instead, both can be developed with the other in mind. H-GAC is concerned, however, about the timing needed to complete the SIP and the time required for the 8-hour standard to be analyzed. With the vast number of uncertainties and data changes that will occur during the transition, H-GAC acknowledges that the timing of technical work is difficult to predict. The implementation of the 8-hour standard brings with it the risk of having higher motor vehicle emission budgets. They also fear that projects may be stalled, not because of conformity practice, but because of delay sparked by EPA and the transition from the 1-hour to 8-hour standard.

MOBILE6 Budgets and Conformity

Travel demand models were originally intended as transportation planning tools. Over the past decade, as a result of the conformity process, travel models have become increasingly perceived as design tools. This has created a situation in which changes in project scope (even very minor changes) after a project is included in a model evaluation and transportation plan may unnecessarily trigger a new conformity analysis. The ARC is pursuing a process with Federal and state planning partners that will define exactly when a change in a project’s limits will prompt a new conformity analysis. Similarly, interagency partners in Texas are looking into the feasibility of using a regional emissions analysis-based screening process to determine whether project changes would trigger the need for a new conformity determination. This would relieve months of planning resources from a bottom-up conformity analysis to focus on other planning activities or air quality operations, the critical element that will ensure attainment of the ozone standard. The ARC is also pursuing a process with Federal and state planning partners that will define exactly when a project change will prompt a new conformity analysis.

The FHWA Texas Division Office believes that a streamlined process can be a useful tool in addressing such conformity issues. The Texas interagency partners currently have a pre-analysis consensus process that occurs during the beginning of the conformity process. The partners will meet months in advance of the beginning of the process to discuss analysis factors and assumptions that will be used in the bottom-up analysis. By meeting early in the process, buy-in can occur earlier and all questions can be addressed in advance to prevent unnecessary delays in the interagency consultation process. This interagency cooperation can improve the conformity process. The FHWA Georgia Division Office also is successful in achieving interagency cooperation, especially at the local level. However, the Division Office notes that because the Atlanta area is such a vulnerable air quality area, they must be prepared to receive outside input that may influence their own conformity determination.

The participating MPOs are beginning to prepare for the transition to the 8-hour standard, but still acknowledge the need for 1-hour conformity analyses in the short term. The ARC expressed concern that the latest available MOBILE6 budgets established in the Severe Rate of Progress (ROP) SIP may not be able to be used for the upcoming 1-hour ozone conformity analysis. This is because the Georgia Environmental Protection Division is submitting the Severe attainment demonstration with MOBILE5 budgets (attainment budgets always supersede ROP budgets for conformity purposes). They emphasized that there needs to be consistency between the budgets used in developing the SIP and those used in transportation conformity. Even with the challenges stemming from these models, the ARC has taken a pro-active approach in addressing conformity. With 2010 assumed to be the 8-hour attainment year and the first year of the conformity analysis for the next transportation plan, ARC has proposed a dual conformity analysis for both the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone standards at the same time. This will be completed for their 2030 Regional Transportation Plan during 2004.

Like ARC, H-GAC budgets use ROP methodologies and will include both the 1-hour standard and 8-hour standards until the transition is complete. H-GAC’s current SIP includes both ROP and attainment demonstration budgets, and does not solely rely on the ROP methodologies. They state that all the issues behind MOBILE6 have not yet been resolved, and users should not assume that it is functioning correctly. In response to this and other concerns, the TCEQ plans to submit modeling comments to the EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The comments will include acknowledging diesel’s sensitivity to humidity and temperature. NCTCOG agrees that there is a need for more sensitivity data like this, and that data should also include vehicle registration data, mileage accumulation, and more. Implementing the proper control strategies for a non-attainment area is also problematic because monitors only show where ozone is forming and not where pollutants originate. In order to develop more accurate control measures, ozone needs to be analyzed at a larger scale that excludes boundaries. TCEQ has adopted an air shed approach to address this problem on a regional scale. It was also noted that EPA Region 4, which includes several southeastern states, has been working to address this same issue even though current models used in SIPs were developed to designate small non-attainment areas. A larger air quality management plan approach may be a successful tool in addressing these concerns.

Creating Conformity Reports

Conformity reports are detailed documents that require a variety of analyses and information. MPOs develop these reports in a variety of ways. The ARC uses a conformity checklist provided by the FHWA Georgia Division Office. The ARC sites the specific section numbers with each requirement given on the checklist. In order to limit the length of the reports, ARC lists the emission factors in the report, but includes the detailed analysis on a publicly available website. In Texas, a pre-analysis consensus plan is developed by the MPO and forwarded through the consultation process in advance of running emission inventories to prevent unnecessary work. The Texas conformity process also has a defined documentation structure for all MPOs to follow. This will aid in expediting the consultation review. Also, a checklist, similar to ARC’s, is used as a quick reference guide for the consultation-reviewing partners to quickly find sections of interest within the document. Lastly, a consultation review structure has been developed which documents the steps through the process from when the MPO submits the analysis to the consultation partners to when a signed DOT conformity determination occurs. As it stands, the process is to take no longer than 90 days from MPO submittal. However, the consultation partners can expedite their review as necessary. As one way to improve the accuracy and timeliness of the analysis, the FHWA Texas Division Office suggests that roadway listings be reviewed for appropriate changes during the verification of the model.

IV. EFFECTIVENESS OF TRANSPORTATION EMISSION REDUCTION STRATEGIES

Through modeling applications, unique funding approaches, and strategies to prioritize projects, the participating MPOs were able to detail which projects and strategies have been successful in reducing emissions. The discussion also described common challenges that must be overcome, including modeling inconsistencies and legal ramifications. Finally, public involvement practices were also touched upon because their role in communicating emission-reducing programs and regional performance is essential for further buy-in and to achieve progress.

A. Modeling and the Transition from MOBILE5 to MOBILE6

MPOs use a variety of modeling techniques in their conformity analyses. For example, H-GAC uses a suite of programs from the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI), including POLFAC6, to get MOBILE6 emission factors, and uses the Emme/2 model for travel demand modeling. However, H-GAC has no one on staff that is able to address issues related to TTI programs. ARC, on the other hand, uses the program TP+.

TTI uses both TranPlan and TransCad, but is transitioning over to TransCad for all applicable analyses. TTI’s operations affect many agencies because they run many of the regional travel demand models. Historically, 23 of the 25 Texas MPOs used TranPlan models, while the Dallas and Houston MPOs, NCTCOG and H-GAC, respectively, used their own regional models. These 23 MPOs are now in the process of switching over to TransCad. The MPO, SETRPC, on the other hand, does not do its own modeling in-house due to its small size and limited staff. TTI is responsible for running the travel and emissions factor models for the Beaumont, Texas area.

While transitioning from MOBILE5 to MOBILE6, H-GAC witnessed drastic changes to the emissions inventories because of changing assumption factors. During the transition to MOBILE6, the budget in the current SIP was used, but included results from an earlier round of modeling which used a different exceedence episode in the photochemical model. Although TCEQ had been working with the current episode day prior to the switch to MOBILE6, the same network speeds were used between the latest MOBILE5 runs and the initial MOBILE6 runs, with only the episode day changing. Other elements affected during the transition include change in: seasonal activity adjustment factors, growth (demographics indicated more people than expected), heavy-duty diesel vehicle miles traveled (VMT) mix, and the Highway Performance Monitoring System factor.

In August and September 2000, a national team of researchers in coordination with the TCEQ conducted one of its largest comprehensive research projects, Texas Air Quality Study 2000, designed to shed new light on the complicated issues associated with air quality in the eastern half of the state, with particular emphasis on the Houston-Galveston area. The study revealed that while NOx emissions from industrial sources were generally correctly accounted for, industrial VOC emissions were likely significantly understated in earlier emissions inventories. The study also showed that surface monitors were insufficient in capturing the phenomenon of ozone plumes downwind of industrial facilities. On four separate days, aircraft instruments recorded ozone levels exceeding 125 ppb that were initially missed by surface monitoring equipment. The study, which took place during a drought, also has its inaccuracies due to environmental effects and the drought’s influence on certain measurements. The findings from the study are constantly evolving and have raised questions about the formation of high ozone in the Houston-Galveston area.

B. Funding Allocations for Clean Air Projects

H-GAC’s Programs

H-GAC, with assistance from Environ Consulting, has instituted a 23-ton Voluntary Mobile Emissions Reduction Program (VMEP) to improve air quality. Although VMEP is not an EPA mandated program, TCEQ includes it in H-GAC’s SIP and thus requires that H-GAC institute specified reductions. The reduction strategies, individually created by H-GAC, aim to eliminate 10.4 tons of on-road emissions and 12.6 tons of off-road emissions. At a regional level, the VMTs continue to increase in the area due to increases in population, employment, and other factors. While light-duty vehicles make up a large percentage of the VMTs, only 48% of on-road emissions stem from light-duty vehicles. In order to reduce the NOx emissions, a main concern of H-GAC’s, they focused their attention on heavy-duty diesel trucks (HDDT).

H-GAC has developed several cost-effective programs to reduce emission tons. The challenge with implementing emission reduction programs is that the models used to predict results perform macro-level analysis, while H-GAC operates at the micro level. H-GAC programs designed to address emission reduction include:

• Clean Vehicles
• Commute Solutions
• Regional Computerized Traffic Signal System (RCTSS)
• Grade Separations

H-GAC discovered challenges within the Commute Solutions Program with finding a way to encourage public participation in its program. This commuter-choice program had difficulty in measuring successful alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles for several reasons, including a lack of cooperation by the private sector to report its commuter behavior and the difficulty of accounting for carpools that do not use designated lanes. Vanpools have been easier to track in this program because distance and passengers can be accounted for. While the RCTSS program pre-dates the ³MOSER’s Handbook , it has a similar methodology. Houston’s current signaling system is outdated and contains no new technology. In order to successfully implement RCTSS, H-GAC suggests that Houston first update their field network and intelligence. A lack of staff to implement and operate the system, however, may hinder their effectiveness and delivery. Upon hearing about H-GAC’s RCTSS Program, the ARC voiced interest in receiving more information on how to implement this effort. In recent months, the Governor of Georgia has issued an agenda focusing on signal optimization.

³The MOSERS handbook is the Texas standardized transportation control measure calculation manual and is available at http://moser.tamu.edu/. It provides guidance and ensures consistency when calculating emission benefits. This document was developed through a collaboration between all the interagency consultation partners, statewide MPOs and the Texas Transportation Institute.

Houston’s Clean Cities/Clean Air Initiative

In addition to H-GAC’s emission reduction programs, the H-GAC has implemented a Clean Cities/Clean Vehicles Initiative, which includes a Diesel-Emissions Calculator to estimate both emission reductions and cost-effectiveness associated with diesel engine replacement or retrofit. Another example of an emissions reduction program is the Sacramento Emergency Clean Air and Transportation (SECAT) program. This Program was created for truck owners and fleet operators to learn how to reduce their vehicles' emissions in a business-friendly manner.

EPA’s Adopt-A-School Bus Program

This program, first piloted in Dallas and Houston, serves as a clearinghouse for schools to clean up their fleets. The most cost-efficient approach found by this program is to introduce cleaner diesel to the fleets. The program has $5 million in funding, $300,000 of which was given to Houston. EPA’s goal for this program is to control particulate matter (PM) from buses by retrofitting or adapting the fleets otherwise; however, in the case of Houston, the city’s main concern was to control NOx, which the retrofitting only marginally addresses.

Atlanta’s Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Projects

For the Atlanta non-attainment region, the ARC was historically the primary receiver of CMAQ funds for the state because it was the only non-attainment area. Thus, GDOT would receive approximately $35-40 million in new CMAQ funds per year, which would all be given to ARC to implement their own emission-reduction program. However, additional non-attainment areas will exist in the state after implementation of the 8-hour ozone standard, which may eventually lead to a more competitive process. The state of Texas, with nearly three times the population of Georgia, receives $115 to $120 million in CMAQ funds. TxDOT allocates CMAQ funding to MPOs based on their population and air quality, i.e., the CMAQ formula. Houston, for example, received $50 million of combined CMAQ and Surface Transportation Program - Metro Mobility (STP-MM) funds through 2007 (STP-MM funds are designated to urbanized areas over 200,000).

NCTCOG’s CMAQ Projects

The NCTCOG has been taking the approach that traditional emission reduction control strategies will not generate enough emission reductions for both 1-hour and 8-hour standards. Their focus is to reduce emissions from outlier sources. The Regional Transportation Council, the transportation policy body in North Central Texas, has committed $10 million to identify and reduce emissions from these commonly overlooked pollution sources. They include high emitting vehicles, excessive idling, diesel engines, engine cold starts, hard accelerations, high speeds associated with trucks, and low speeds due to poor signal progression or non-recurring congestion. By developing programs to directly target these overlooked pollution sources, the NCTCOG believes attainment is achievable by complementing other efforts.

C. Prioritizing Projects

The ARC and H-GAC described different methods for allocating their CMAQ funds to particular project areas. ARC used a CMAQ matrix as one tool in prioritizing their projects, which lists emission control measures and includes a variety of broad programs or initiatives that can be implemented to reduce mobile source emissions of NOx and VOC in the Atlanta region. ARC believes that the matrix successfully serves as a qualitative tool for prioritizing projects, and is shared with all potential project sponsors to effectively communicate the MPO’s objectives. The matrix accounts for a variety of emission-reducing strategies and initiatives. The matrix ranks project types by the emission benefits and cost-effectiveness of the program relative to five control categories (e.g., fleet turnover to cleaner vehicles, public outreach, etc.).

Similar to ARC’s matrix, NCTCOG maintains a list of air quality program descriptions, which include a variety of State initiatives and describes whether the program is being implemented, is in planning, or is being introduced as an idea. NCTCOG plans to enhance this listing and consider a matrix approach once photochemical modeling for the 8-hour SIP is complete. In terms of methodology, GDOT and ARC choose to calculate the emissions reductions only for projects that have been approved for funding in the draft TIP. H-GAC, on the other hand, calculates all emission reductions upon receipt of project applications. They use the results of this analysis to help prioritize their own projects.

The FHWA Texas Division Office encourages MPOs to prioritize projects based on air quality cost-benefit analysis. The H-GAC and ARC, however, agree that it is difficult to separate air quality analysis from congestion mitigation because the analytical tools for emissions modeling are weak. They seek studies that have evidence of the environmental benefit of congestion mitigation beyond what the MOBILE6 model provides. MOBILE6 generalizations only serve as an aggregate instead of accounting for all behaviors such as stopping and/or slowing down for tollbooths, etc. A new model, MEASURE, is being developed by Georgia Tech, which includes these behaviors in a speed/acceleration model and can be used as a possible new tool for future analysis.

While ARC and H-GAC have developed complex methodologies for addressing emission-reductions strategies and programs, SETRPC, an MPO much smaller in scale than both ARC and H-GAC, is implementing projects to meet conformity. As a smaller MPO, SETRPC is surrounded by oil and timber industries and is looking to reductions in heavy-duty vehicle idling at truck stops as a means to reduce emissions. Based on TTI’s study on speed limits, which shows that by reducing top speeds by 1 to 2 miles per hour, the SETRPC will also apply speed enforcement measures to reduce enough emissions to receive credit. While they have enough justification to implement this speed-limit enforcement measure, they are also working with TxDOT to implement speed detector loops and collect data on average speeds in their area. The FHWA Texas Division office believes that the average speed is most often lower than the speed limit, but the major concern instead is how to address the outliers found in the data. Currently, SETRPC is unable to locate current and accurate speed data, especially data that includes when speeding occurs to determine what time of day it should be enforced. ARC has also considered speed enforcement as a control measure. Due to a limited police force, the ARC has discussed the implementation of higher speeding fines to both slow down drivers and increase revenue. No policies have been pursued at this point in time.

D. Avoiding Potential Legal Pitfalls and Lessons Learned

As technical and legal coordination among MPOs becomes more and more essential, program specialists are encouraged to learn about the legal issues related to their projects. This preparation can help MPOs to avoid legal challenges, especially when prioritizing projects. Specifically, MPOs often feel pressure from the public to fund bicycle-pedestrian projects and encounter legal challenges that address these projects. ARC sees this as a challenge, especially as little air quality benefit is drawn from these projects. NCTCOG has adopted the practice of not funding additional bicycle-pedestrian projects until the results of existing projects have proven beneficial. H-GAC recognizes bicycle-pedestrian projects as transportation control measures (TCMs). These projects were put into their SIP as TCMs, but have been challenged by civil lawsuits for H-GAC’s failure to implement them.

In addition, it is important to keep in mind that any TCM included in the SIP must meet the criteria for conformity (timely implementation) and also be independently enforceable through the SIP. In response to the conflicts with these projects, H-GAC has named a new bicycle-pedestrian coordinator who will develop standards and work with policy and technical staff to achieve a beneficial outcome. The Atlanta Region no longer includes TCMs in their SIP due to the regulatory burdens involved. There is one outstanding TCM – a brownfield redevelopment, Atlantic Station -- that was included in the previous attainment demonstration, but no emissions credit was taken for it, and thus was not reflected in the conformity process. When asked why it was included in the SIP if they do not take credit for it, ARC explained that it was a matter of timely implementation. It could only proceed as a TCM during their lapse. H-GAC’s lead counsel suggests that when dealing with the public on any project the following must be determined in advance:

• Is there any legal vulnerability?
• Are there reasonable points that argue this?

Preparing for the 8-hour transition also brings with it legal challenges. The question of whether legal challenges will prevent the repealing of the 1-hour standard still remains. The risk of leaving items in the SIP vulnerable to legal challenges will remain until this issue is finalized. Although many MPOs are planning on only accounting for the 8-hour standard, the anti-backsliding rule makes control measures permanent, which can affect existing emissions budgets. In addition, MPOs’ lists of priority projects may be called into question once new data from the 8-hour standard becomes the norm.

E. Public Involvement

In order to avoid litigation and improve relationships with stakeholders, NCTCOG communicates with environmental groups and uses this outreach opportunity to receive comments on any project plans. This coordination allows for both partners to address any issues at hand prior to development.

The H-GAC includes environmental groups in designing the scope of a project and aims to create a strong working environment with these groups that is focused on a particular project with unlikely legal consequences. To fully communicate possible transportation mobility measures (TMMs), H-GAC has developed a memo that identifies seven TMMs under review for implementation, including commute solutions enhancements, mileage-based vehicle insurance programs, and congestion pricing and toll options. The TMM Study stems from mediation, which determined issues important to environmental groups. These options have been well received by environmental groups because they aim to reduce congestion and VMT, which can result in improved air quality and efficiency. Environmental organizations are working with H-GAC to explore the above measures and determine potential benefits. This study itself is one method of H-GAC’s outreach effort.

ARC has had an extensive public involvement process for the past two years. This improved approach includes outreach via website surveys, minority advisory councils, English and non-English focus groups, and many other activities. This public involvement has led ARC to receive both new ideas, and more importantly, reinforce current ideas. ARC has one full-time staff person dedicated to public involvement planning. This individual maintains a database with a complete log of public comments. These comments are addressed by ARC and then forwarded to their partners. They also send evaluations to those who have commented in order to assess if progress has been made. Although ARC has made great strides in their public involvement efforts, they note that it is often hard to convince MPO board members of their success. Although public meetings can sometimes attract a limited audience, which appears as a failed meeting, there are still a large amount of meetings that successfully communicate ARC’s work to the public.

The NCTCOG has an internal policy to have a series of public meetings every three months. With all the policies, programs, and projects being implemented in the region, there is never a difficulty of finding topics. Prior to each series of public meetings held in North Central Texas, the Regional Transportation Council holds press briefings at least one week in advance. This presents an opportunity for representatives from the media/press to hear descriptions of topics to be presented at the upcoming public meetings, and print those topics in local papers. NCTCOG feels that whether it is positive or negative news, this outreach to the public is beneficial because it communicates the issues to their constituents.

V. LESSONS LEARNED/RECOMMENDATIONS

In addition to the discussion topics presented above, Peer Exchange participants articulated several other elements that contribute to how air quality conformity is addressed by MPOs. Participants agreed that delineated boundaries are often misleading because emissions often become a larger regional or national issue. The idea of multi-state coalitions was presented to further address conformity issues and improvements. By having states join efforts, multi-state control measures can be created and urban regions that share state borders can introduce a more cooperative approach.

Several remaining challenges focus on the legal basis of the transition and the need for improved budgets. Participants stated that they still lack a clear legal basis for common sense changes. Regulating agencies such as the EPA and FHWA need to address this concern and offer guidance to local and state agencies that are trying to prepare for any issues that may arise. Having the proper modeling tools and budgets is one way to ensure accuracy and clearly communicate results. However, MPOs suggest that the conformity process will improve if the budgets are updated before the planning cycles occur. This will avoid having outdated SIPs that are not based on the same data/planning assumptions as the MTP.

To address the issues described during the Peer Exchange, several action items were agreed upon by the participants. These serve as “Next Steps” in leading to a smooth transition from the 1-hour to 8-hour standard, and as tools to providing clear communication about effective air quality practices. Participants serving as the lead contact for these action items are included.

• Share rough draft of transportation conformity rule-making comments between all participants (M. Morris)
• Use the participants as a forum for legislation, and to develop specific provisions to put in the transportation bill reauthorization (M. Morris)
• Develop a protocol to determine what does/does not trigger a conformity analysis (M. Morris)
• Share Atlanta process that is being developed to define what project design change does/does not trigger a new conformity analysis (T. Clymer)
• Institute quality assurance/quality control on data that drives models - share and compare data amongst regions (M. Morris)
• Ask regions to compile a list of emissions reductions projects they are working on for the purpose of sharing with other regions, especially for those newly designated non-attainment areas (C. Klaus)

VI. For More Information

VII. Participants List

B. Agenda

DRAFT AGENDA
For
PEER WORKSHOP ON UPCOMING TRANSITION FROM THE ONE-HOUR TO THE EIGHT-HOUR
AIR QUALITY TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY ANALYSIS
December 3 and 4, 2003, beginning 9:00 AM
At Houston-Galveston Area Council
3555 Timmons Lane, Suite 120, Houston, TX 77027

1. Welcome - Ashby Johnson, H-GAC
2. Introductions - Jose Campos, FHWA
3. Transitioning from the one-hour to the eight-hour standard
   1. EPA Guidance - Jose Campos, FHWA
      1. Eight hour conformity proposed options - pro's/con's
      2. Conformity /Implementation Plan/ TIP Timelines
      3. PM 2.5 issues
      4. Comments on proposed rulemaking
   2. State air agency guidance/recommendations - Kelly Keel, TCEQ & Atlanta staff
      1. Reclassification from one-hour to eight-hour
      2. Non-attainment boundary recommendations
      3. Transport issue & reauthorization - Chris Klaus, NCTCOG
   3. MPO timing dilemmas - Jose Campos, FHWA
      1. MOBILE6 Budgets one-hour & eight-hour
      2. Conformity - Attainment demonstration budgets
         - Rate of progress budget
      3. Requirement for adopting new transportation plans
      4. Streamlining inter-agency consultation process

December 4, 2003---

4. Avoiding potential legal pitfalls - Bill Zeis, Fulbright & Jaworski LLP
   1. Applicable lessons learned from previous SIPs
      1. Atlanta experience
      2. Dallas experience
      3. Houston experience
      4. Beaumont experience
   2. Environmentalists issues
      1. National
      2. Local
   3. Public involvement process - Shelley Whitworth, H-GAC
      1. Strategies for interacting with activists groups
         1. Atlanta
         2. Beaumont
         3. Dallas
         4. Houston
      2. Obtaining local buy in and involvement
5. Effectiveness of transportation emission reduction strategies
   1. MOBILE6 experience - Karl Pepple, H-GAC
      1. One-hour
      2. Eight-hour
   2. Method of determining amount of funding to allocate to clean air projects - Shelley Whitworth, H-GAC
      1. Atlanta
      2. Beaumont
      3. Dallas
      4. Houston
   3. Method of prioritizing projects - Atlanta staff
      1. Cost effectiveness
      2. Weighing emission reductions against congestion mitigation
      3. Documenting reductions
         1. Process of standardization - Chris Klaus, NCTCOG & Atlanta staff
         2. Voluntary Mobile Emissions documentation -teleworking, carpooling, etc. - Shelley Whitworth, H-GAC
6. Wrap up - Jose Campos/Ashby Johnson

C. Useful Links

To find out more about what these MPOs are doing about air quality, visit their websites:

ARC http://www.atlreg.com/

H-GAC http://www.h-gac.com/HGAC/home/Default.htm

NCTCOG http://www.nctcog.dst.tx.us/

SETRPC http://www.setrpc.org/