 |
|||||
 | |||||
| |||||
All milestone documents may be found at: CAPCO Air Quality News
1.1.3 How the EAC Applies to the A/RR MSA The MSA is designated attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard and continues to monitor attainment of that standard. The region has not exceeded the 1-hour standard since 1985. The MSA has intermittently monitored violations of the 8-hour ozone standard from 1998 through 2002 and is currently in attainment. (In order to comply with the 8-hour standard, each monitor’s three-year average of the annual fourth-highest 8-hour ozone reading must be less than 85 ppb.) As such, the region meets the criteria for participation in an EAC. Elected officials in the MSA entered into the EAC with EPA and TCEQ because monitored exceedances of the 8-hour standard indicate concentrations of ground-level ozone inconsistent with protecting public health and the environment.
1.1.4 Geographic Coverage of the CAAP
1.2 Public Involvement Program The involvement project had two goals: (1) to provide venues for participation by interested parties; and (2) to provide air quality information to the general public. Stakeholder involvement activities included those aspects of the project directly related to gathering input on the emission reduction strategies. Public involvement activities, while also soliciting input, focused on increasing public understanding of air quality issues and the EAC process. The local EAC signatory jurisdictions played a key role. They facilitated public participation by hosting public meetings. They also reviewed and selected CAAP strategies. The Clean Air Coalition, composed of one elected-official representative from each of the local EAC signatory jurisdictions, bore primary responsibility for CAAP development decisions. The EAC Task Force, composed of staff from local signatory jurisdictions, participating agencies, business and environmental groups, developed and recommended the initial CAAP for CAC and signatory consideration. The CAC met at least quarterly throughout the CAAP development process and continues to meet regularly. The EAC Task Force met twice monthly during CAAP development and continues to meet regularly. Both CAC and EAC Task Force meetings are open to the public. Additional information on the CAC and EAC Task Force is found in Appendices 1-4 and 1-5, respectively.
1.2.2 Stakeholder Involvement Activities These work groups continued to meet regularly throughout 2003. Each work group drafted a list of strategies to be considered for inclusion in the CAAP. Their work is the backbone of the plan development. Additional information on stakeholder involvement activities is found in Appendices 1-6 and 1-7.
1.2.3 Public Involvement Activities 1.3 Policy Statements The following statements reflect the positions of the local EAC signatories.
1.3.1 Fair Share
1.3.2 Regional Emission Reduction Measures and Implementation Barriers Typically, one city or county cannot tackle the issue alone. Indeed, "local" in this case covers a five-county region in Texas and 12 local governmental jurisdictions. It is important to note that the latter represent only a handful of the total number of governmental jurisdictions in the region. For example, while the City of Austin and Travis County are the only two EAC signatories from the county, there are more than 20 other municipalities with jurisdiction in Travis County alone. Each has authority over adoption of ordinances and regulations. Note that the State of Texas does not grant ordinance authority to counties. Consequently, it is almost impossible to implement regional emission reduction measures in the absence of state regulations; hence the need for the State Assisted Measures outlined in Chapter 5. The only alternatives to this approach require substantial legislative actions. These have been introduced in past legislative sessions and routinely defeated.
1.3.3 The Role of Transport in the CAAP The 2007 Base Case assumes substantial emission reduction measures will be implemented by federal, state, other local and private entities located outside the five-county A/RR MSA. For example, the model assumes the Houston/Galveston SIP will be successful in 2007 and that the ALCOA Consent Decree will be implemented no later than March 2007. While these assumptions are reasonable and necessary, their validity remains uncertain.
1.3.4 Texas Low Emission Diesel (Tx LED)
1.3.5 Proposed Mitigation Measures
1.3.6 Periodic Review
1.3.7 Modeling of Major New Sources
2.1 Overview Details for the development of the 1999 and 2007 EIs, developed per EPA and EAC guidance, are found in Appendices 2-1 and 2-2.
2.2 Point Sources
2.3 Area Sources These emissions fall below point source reporting levels and are too numerous or too small to identify individually. Emissions-estimate calculations use an established emission factor (emissions per unit of activity) multiplied by the incidence of the relevant activity or activity surrogate. Population is the most common activity surrogate. Others include gasoline sales, employment by industry type and acres of cropland. Bottom-up approaches estimate activity factors from surveys. Top-down approaches use generic activity factors based on national, state or county data. Emission factors can be a category-specific generic estimate or can be developed locally (e.g., based on product usage).
2.4 On-Road Mobile Sources The MSA EI uses EPA’s mobile emissions factor model, MOBILE6. Model inputs simulate vehicle fleet driving and include vehicle speeds by roadway type, vehicle registration by type and age, percentage of vehicles in cold and hot start and stabilized modes, percentage of miles traveled by vehicle type and age, and use of a vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program (I/M), where applicable. Model inputs also include gasoline parameters such as sulfur content and Reid vapor pressure, temperature and humidity. Input parameters reflect local conditions to the extent possible. The MOBILE model emission factors multiplied by VMT estimates complete the emissions estimate. Future VMT estimates use the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) travel demand model for Hays, Travis and William-son Counties. Future VMT estimates for Bastrop and Caldwell Counties use a GIS-based highway performance monitoring system methodology developed by Texas Transportation Institute (TTI). The CAMPO travel model inputs include future population and employment estimates spatially allocated by traffic serial zone. Model inputs also include a roadway network of all regionally significant roads expected to be open and operational in the timeframe modeled. The spatial allocation of the population and employment estimates takes into account all new roads that will be open and operational in the timeframe modeled. This addresses development and induced demand created by new roads. The travel model estimates VMT associated with the transportation system as a whole. Because a change in one part of the transportation system often affects another part of the system (e.g., adding a new road may reduce VMT on another road), a system-wide analysis produces the best estimate of emissions associated with vehicles using existing and new roadways.
2.5 Non-Road Mobile Sources
2.6 Biogenic Sources 2.7 Emissions Summary Sources of man-made NOx for the 1999 base case EI comprise 58% on-road, 20% point, 17% non-road and 5% area. Table 2.7-1. Total daily (weekday) NOx emissions in 1999 from anthropogenic sources in the MSA
Sources of man-made VOC for the 1999 EI comprise 55% area, 30% on-road, 13% non-road and 2% point. Table 2.7-2. Total daily (weekday) VOC emissions in 1999 from anthropogenic sources in the MSA
Sources of man-made NOx for the 2007 base case EI comprise 48% on-road, 21% non-road, 23% point and 8% area. Table 2.7-3. Total daily (weekday) NOx emissions in 2007 from anthropogenic sources in MSA
Sources of man-made VOC for the 2007 base case EI comprise 64% area, 21% on-road, 12% non-road and 3% point. Table 2.7-4. Total daily (weekday) VOC emissions in 2007 from anthropogenic sources in the MSA
3.1 Introduction With near-nonattainment area funding from the Texas legislature, the Capital Area Planning Council (CAPCO) coordinated development of three photochemical model base cases, including a 1999 South and Central Texas high ozone episode. These provide a means of projecting air quality conditions to the year 2007 and test emission reduction measure efficacy in the anticipated attainment year. The year 2007 coincides with the expected attainment dates for Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston. Because ambient ozone levels in the MSA are affected by transport, selecting a date in which emission reduction strategies are in place for other large urban areas is an important modeling consideration. The meteorological model processes meteorological data for each day in the episode. The episode being modeled uses its own, day-specific, EI. The base case comprises the set of meteorological data and the episode’s EI. The photochemical model is run and evaluated. If model performance, as evaluated by comparing model prediction to observed air pollution concentrations, is not acceptable, the meteorological modeling results and the EI are evaluated to determine if these data can be refined. Once the model performance is acceptable, precursor sensitivity modeling can be performed. For future years, the base case emissions are replaced with emissions projections for the future year. The model is rerun with the future emissions to establish the future ozone patterns and to determine adequate emission reduction strategies.
3.2 Episode Selection The conceptual model allowed staff to identify candidate episodes for modeling. The MSA has identified and modeled two episodes, July 7-12, 1995 and September 13-20, 1999. In response to TCEQ and EPA guidance, the CAAP is based on the September 1999 episode. The September 13-20, 1999 modeling episode fulfills the requirements of both EPA draft guidance and the EAC Protocol. The episode is a good example of the predominant type of high ozone episode described in the conceptual model for the Austin area. The episode covers, for both Austin and San Antonio, one cycle for ozone with two initialization days and six high ozone days. The episode includes two weekend days (September 18th and 19th) so emission reduction strategies can be evaluated with different emission characteristics. An important consideration in selecting this episode was the high ozone concentrations observed throughout South and Central Texas. Thus, Austin, San Antonio, Corpus Christi, and Victoria, along with TCEQ, could combine resources to develop a new episode focusing specifically on conditions associated with high ozone in South and Central Texas.
3.3 1999 Meteorological Model Meteorological inputs to the September 1999 episode used the Fifth Generation Pennsylvania State University/National Center for Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Model (MM5). The final MM5 application for the September 13-20,1999, modeling episode, known as Run5g, was the culmination of individual simulations and sensitivity studies performed during 2001-2003. Both Austin and San Antonio use this model for their EAC work. Details may be found in Appendix 3-1.
3.4 1999 Modeling Emissions Inventory
3.5 1999 Base Case Development
3.6 1999 Photochemical Model Base Case and Performance Evaluation Performance for both 1-hour and 8-hour predicted ozone concentrations used the seven monitors in the San Antonio, Austin, San Marcos, and Fayette County networks. Because the monitoring network in Central Texas is not dense, analysts evaluated performance based on data from all stations rather than on monitors grouped by cities. Statistical evaluation of the 1-hour model performance uses the following metrics: unpaired peak accuracy, average paired peak accuracy, bias in peak timing, normalized bias and normalized error. EPA has performance criteria for the unpaired peak accuracy, normalized bias and normalized error statistics. The 1-hour modeling for the seven Central Texas monitors meets all of these criteria. The evaluation of model performance for 8-hour averaged ozone attainment demonstrations is being applied for the first time in many areas and could be subject to future modifications. In recognition of this, analysts used the following three different methodologies in selecting predicted ozone concentrations to compare to observed value:
2. The predicted daily maximum ozone concentration within grid cells ‘near’ a monitor that is closest in magnitude to the observed daily maximum at the monitor; and 3. A bilinear interpolation of predicted daily maximum ozone concentration around the monitor location. EPA recommends that the normalized bias and fractional bias be less than 20% of mean observed 8-hour daily maximum concentrations. Regardless of the approach used to select the predicted maximum concentration, both metrics for the Austin September 13-20 CAMx model fall well within these criteria. 3.7 Future Case Modeling Future Case modeling used projected 2007 emission inventories with the meteorological data and CAMx configuration developed for the successful Base Case. Inputs followed EPA’s Draft Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses in Attainment Demonstrations for the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (1999) and their Protocol for Early Action Compacts (2003). Photochemical modeling is an iterative process. The emissions inventories used in the model are often refined to better predict emissions. The modeling for the future case has been performed with six versions of the 2007 emissions inventory, each with minor modifications or improvements. This modeling provides results that are close to the standard of 85 ppb, but in four cases the design value has been slightly below the standard (84.8 ppb, 84.5 ppb, 84.55 and 84.91 ppb) and in two cases the design value has been slightly above the standard (85.6 ppb and 85.08 ppb). It is likely that the 2007 emissions inventory for the Houston/Galveston area will be modified by TCEQ in the near future, which may affect future case model values. Results of future case modeling are too close to the standard to provide meaningful conclusions about the area’s likelihood of demonstrating attainment by 2007 without local emission reduction measures. 3.8 Calculation Methodology for Relative Reduction Factors and Future Design Values The EPA methodology calls for multiplying "current" year design values by relative reduction factors (RRF) from a photochemical model in order to estimate future design values. The calculation is carried out for each monitor site that measured ozone during the current year. In addition, a screening calculation identifies grid cells with consistently high ozone and estimates scaled design values for these screening cells. The screening cells account for any areas where modeled ozone is consistently high, but not captured by the monitoring network. The attainment test passes if all the future year scaled design values are less than 85 ppb (the results are truncated to the nearest integer). Additional information on the RRF is included in Appendix 3-2. Various sensitivity model runs were made using the 1999 base case. Sensitivity runs for the 2007 future case will be completed in February 2004. These include across-the-board precursor reductions to indicate the sensitivity to reductions of VOC, NOx and combinations of both. Also, zero-out modeling was performed using the 1999 base case. Zero-out runs using the 2007 future case will be completed in February 2004. Zero-out runs remove the anthropogenic emissions from certain source areas to evaluate transport from other areas and to establish the impact of local emissions. The "current" year is determined by comparing two design values; one for the years that straddle the year for which the latest emission inventory was developed (1999) and the other for the year for which attainment of the standard was determined (2002). The current year is the year that has the higher design value. A current year is determined for each monitor site. The current year for the EAC CAAP is 1999 as shown in Table 3.1 Table 3.1 Current Year for Austin EAC
(a.) Design value for 1998, 1999 and 2000 3.9 Base 2007 Model Results As of February 25, 2004, the results for the base 2007 EI for Austin are shown in Table 3.2. For the EAC CAAP the current year was 1999. Table 3.2 Model results for base 2007 modeling with the September 1999 Episode
· Truncate this number to the nearest integer to compare to the standard of 85 ppb. Any design value less than 85 ppb indicates attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. 3.10 Emission Reduction Measure Modeling Results The modeling used various combinations of emission reduction measures or strategies. Each strategy was applied to the base 2007 EI; the resulting EI was modeled. Then the RRF for each control strategy at each monitor site was determined. It was multiplied by the appropriate current year design value to estimate the corresponding design value for 2007. The list of modeled emission reduction measures is in Table 3.3 (see Chapter 5 for a discussion of each measure), the summary of the measures is in Table 3.4 and the modeling results for each measure are shown in Table 3.5. Table 3.3 List of Modeled Emission Reduction Measures in MSA
Table 3.4 List of Emission Reduction Measures Modeled for Each Strategy
Table 3.5 Model Results for Emission Reduction Measures Applied to Base 2007 EI with the September 1999 Episode
The design values for the years that straddle 1999 were used as the "current" year to estimate the design value for 2007. These design values were the highest measured in the Austin area at both monitors. More recent monitoring provides lower design values and the latest design values for the years straddling 2002 do not exceed the standard. Since the worst-case design values were used in this CAAP, it is important to put these values into perspective. An analysis of historical trends of monitoring in the Austin area indicates that a design value of 89 ppb is the highest ever measured. Analysis of potential 8-hour ozone design values in Austin, based on historical monitoring data, indicated that the most likely 2003 design value (i.e., for the years 2002-2004) is 87 ppb. Analysis of the various metrics related to the meteorological conditions indicates that the conditions favorable to formation of high ozone occurred more often than normal during 1999 and less often than normal in 2001. The selection of the "current" year is based on the date of the most recent emissions inventory. If an emissions inventory were prepared for 2002, then the current year would be 2002, which has a maximum design value of 84 ppb.
4.1 Trends in Ozone Monitoring Data in Austin Since the EAC addresses 8-hour ozone concentrations, these analyses will be performed for 8-hour time periods. A number of analysis metrics can be used to evaluate trends in ozone concentrations. Among these are the highest concentration, the second highest concentration, the third highest concentration and the fourth highest concentration. At each monitor the annual 8-hour ozone design value is calculated over three consecutive years. It is the average of the fourth highest daily 8-hour ozone concentration measured over each of the three consecutive years. The area-wide design value is the highest of the design values for all of the monitors in the area. The average for the design value is truncated and if that value is greater than or equal to 85 ppb, the standard is exceeded.
4.2 Analysis of Potential 8-Hour Ozone Design Values for 2003 in Austin Based on Historical Monitoring Data Ozone formation is also correlated with emissions of ozone precursors. It is sensitive to the daily temporal and spatial variation of these emissions. It is not possible to predict the future daily emissions that may cause high ozone. In general, it is appropriate to assume that the average daily emissions for the next year will be similar to those of the previous year, but it is not possible to predict future daily emissions with much precision. Because it is difficult to predict ozone concentrations in future years based on monitored concentrations in past years, we cannot use trend analysis to predict the fourth highest concentration for 2004. However, we can assume that ozone concentrations for 2004 are likely to be similar to those measured in a previous year. In fact, we can ask the question, if 2004 were similar to each year during the 1997 through 2003 period, what would the 2003 design value be? Historical data collected at the Audubon and Murchison monitoring stations during the 1997 through 2003 monitoring period have been used to estimate the 2003 8-hour design value for the Austin area. This analysis assumes that 2004 is equally likely to be similar to any year between the 1997 through 2003 period. At Audubon the 2003 design value is likely to be below the 85 ppb standard and between 80 ppb and 87 ppb. Using the average of the fourth highest values, the design value for 2003 would be 82 ppb. In only one case of the seven cases would the design value exceed 83 ppb. Similarly, at Murchison the 2003 design value is likely to be above the 85 ppb standard and between 83 ppb and 88 ppb. Using the average of the fourth highest values between 1997 and 2003 the design value for 2003 would be 87 ppb. Five of the seven cases would have a design value of 85 or higher. However, the reader is cautioned that this is a rather simplistic analysis guided by the available historical ozone monitoring data. In 2004, the emissions, and/or the large-scale weather patterns that determine the frequency of occurrence of daily local meteorological conditions that favor high ozone concentrations, could be quite different from any previous year.
4.3 Meteorological Conditions for the 1999 Episode On page eight of EPAs "Frequently Asked Questions on Implementing the DRAFT 8-Hour Ozone Modeling Guidance to Support Attainment Demonstrations for Early Action Compact (EAC)" there is a reference to EPA’s "Recommended Approach for Performing Mid-course Review of SIP’s To Meet the 1-Hour NAAQS For Ozone." The referenced document provides guidance on approaches that can be used to evaluate the meteorological conditions that occurred in 2001, 2002 and 2003 compared to those that occurred in the past.
The following metrics that relate to 8-hour ozone measurements were recommended:
· highest daily concentration for each year, · second highest daily concentration for each year, · fourth highest daily concentration for each year and · design value for each three year period. The values for each of these metrics from 1997 to 2003 are shown in Table 4.1 Table 4.1. Values for Meteorological Monitoring Metrics in the Austin Area.
·All monitors The seven-year average for the annual high, second high and fourth high is about 3 ppb higher than the corresponding averages for 2001, 2002 and 2003. The average design value is 87 ppb compared to the 2002 design value of 84 ppb. It is clear from these data that the values for the above metrics for 2001, 2002 and 2003 are lower than normally observed over the period from 1997 to 2003. In 2001 the values for each of these metrics was the lowest during the period from 1997 to 2003, indicating that the meteorology or other conditions this year were not as conducive for ozone formation as for other years during the analysis period. Using a design value including data from the year 2001 may yield an estimated design value for 2007 that would be lower than normally observed in the area. To compensate for this difference in meteorology for 2001, all of these metrics indicate that the 2002 design value of 84 ppb should be increased to 87 ppb for an appropriate design value for estimating the design value for 2007. Furthermore, these data suggest that 1999 was a year when the meteorology was conducive to ozone formation more often than in any of the other years during the analysis period. Thus, it would follow that use of a design value using the data from 1999 would yield an estimated design value for 2007 that would be much higher than normally observed in the area.
4.4 Selection of Current Year for Estimating Future Year Design Values Based upon the EPA guidance and the data shown in figure 4.3, the current year is 1999 with design values at Audubon of 89 ppb and at Murchison of 87 ppb. If Austin were to prepare an emissions inventory for 2002, then the current year would be 2002 with design values at Audubon of 80 ppb and at Murchison of 84 ppb.
4.5 Transport Peak ozone concentrations for the Austin area from the Base Case with the interim 2007 projected emission inventory ranged from 88 ppb to 98 ppb for the 8-hour average. Peak zero-out concentrations ranged from 58 ppb to 72 ppb for the 8-hour average. Similar zero out modeling was performed with the September 13-20, 1999 episode with the 2007 emissions inventory used for the EAC. The peak 8-hour ozone values ranged from 77 ppb to 92 ppb. Peak zero-out concentrations ranged from 70 ppb to 85 ppb for the 8-hour average. Additional similar zero out modeling was performed using a much older 2007 emissions inventory. The episodes modeled were September 5-11, 1993, June 18-22, 1995 and June 30-July 4, 1996. Table 4.2 shows the number of days each area made a significant impact (difference of greater than or equal to 2 ppb) on the Austin area for each of these episodes. This indicates that there is a significant amount of transport from these areas into the Austin area. Table 4.2 Summary of Number of Days that Emissions from Other Areas are Transported into the Austin Area
Another analysis that can be performed with the zero-out modeling is to determine the maximum concentration before the zero-out, and the maximum concentration after the zero-out, of local emissions. This quantifies the difference in maximums that the local emissions make and also provides insight into the magnitude of the ozone in the area that is due to transport. A summary of these data for the September 13-20, 1999 episode is shown in Table 4.3 Table 4.3. Impact of zero-out of Austin anthropogenic emissions on the Austin Area.
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Federal Reduction Strategies Federal Area Source Measures:
Federal On-Road Measures:
Federal Non-Road Measures:
Federal Point Source Measures:
5.3 State and Regional Reduction Strategies State Area Source Measures:
HB2914 - Grandfathered Pipeline Facilities
State On-Road Source Measures:
· 30 TAC 115, Subchapter C, Division 2 Filling Of Gasoline Storage Vessels (Stage I) For Motor Vehicle Fuel Dispensing Facilities State Non-Road Source Measures:
5.4 Local Strategies
5.4.1 Introduction ¹ Per the Early Action Compact document, signed December 18, 2002, "All control measures will be incorporated by the state into the State Implementation Plan and submitted to the EPA for review and approval." Austin/Round Rock MSA Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP)
5.4.2 State Assisted Measures Chart 5.4.2 CAC Approved State Assisted Measures
The CAC approved these recommendations by vote on January 14, 2004. 5.4.2.A1 Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program Program Summary/Explanation NOTE: [This I/M program is designed for use in the MSA’s three urbanized counties (Hays, Travis and William-son). Implementation is contingent upon approval from the commissioners’ court of each county and from the city council of the largest city in each county. The commissioners’ courts in Hays, Travis and William-son Counties, in unanimous votes, have given preliminary approval; the city councils in Austin and Round Rock, in unanimous votes, have given preliminary approval. The City of San Marcos has voted (four to two, with one council member absent) to delete I/M from the draft list of recommended measures. The CAC has requested that the City of San Marcos commit to alternative measures for on-road emissions reductions. These measures would replace the reductions lost to Hays County because of the decision by the San Marcos City Council. The plan will be revised when the alternative measures are finalized. The following summary describes the program as originally intended.] The I/M program requires all subject gasoline vehicles 2 to 24 years old registered and primarily operated in the I/M program counties (Hays, Travis and William-son) to undergo an annual emissions inspection test in conjunction with the annual safety inspection. Emissions inspection tests are conducted at all safety inspection stations. The entire vehicle safety and emissions inspection should be completed in about 20 minutes from the time the vehicle is driven into the inspection bay. If a vehicle fails the emissions inspection test, the items of failure will be indicated on the Vehicle Inspection Report. The vehicle should be repaired and returned to the same inspection station with 15 days for a free re-test. A passing emission inspection test (or test waiver) is required in order to renew vehicle registration or to receive a safety inspection sticker. The program does not apply to motorcycles or slow moving vehicles, as defined by Section 547.001, Transportation Code. Test on resale is required for all vehicles from non-I/M program counties that are sold and registered in the I/M program counties. Per state statute, vehicles belonging to students at public universities, but registered in non- I/M program counties, must participate to receive campus parking privileges. The emissions test fee (set by TCEQ) is expected to be no more than $20 in Hays, Travis and William-son Counties. The safety inspection fee is $12.50, so the combined inspection cost is not expected to exceed $32.50. Testing equipment costs (estimated at $15,000 per station) are recouped through fee. The equipment includes the Two-Speed Idle (TSI), the On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) analyzer testing system, gas cap tester and 2-D Bar Code scanner. The OBDII testing program will be used to test 1996 model year and newer vehicles. All 1996 and newer vehicles less than 14,000 pounds (passenger cars, pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles) are equipped with OBD systems. The OBD system monitors emission performance components to ensure that the vehicle runs as cleanly as possible. The system also assists repair technicians in diagnosing and fixing emission-related problems. If a problem is detected, the OBD system illuminates a "Check Engine" or "Service Engine Soon" warning lamp on the vehicle instrument panel to alert the driver. The system will store information about the detected malfunction so that a repair technician can accurately find and fix the problem Model year 1996 and newer vehicles are required to meet EPA specifications for collection and transfer of emissions control data during each driving cycle. The Diagnostic Link Connector (DLC) cable on the emissions test analyzer is hooked up to the DLC located in the vehicle. When the vehicle’s OBD system has checked the emissions control systems and detected a problem with the vehicle, this information is stored in the vehicle’s on-board computer. The OBD test transmits this data to the analyzer and the vehicle will fail the inspection. The inspection report will indicate which emissions control systems were checked and display the description of the fault codes retrieved from the vehicle. The Two-Speed Idle testing program will be used to test 1995 model year and older vehicles. The TSI test uses a tailpipe probe exhaust gas analyzer to measure VOC and CO while the vehicle is idling at a low and a high rate. The I/M program includes a high emitter program to identify vehicles that are significantly exceeding federal vehicle emission standards. On-road remote sensing equipment will be used to identify high-emitting vehicles in the three I/M program counties or those commuting from contiguous counties. The van-installed on-road testing equipment is strategically placed to capture auto emissions from single-lane traffic in an acceleration mode. Vehicles identified as high emitters must be tested using the age-appropriate OBDII or TSI test within 30 days of notification and be repaired, if necessary. A passing test result (or test waiver) will be needed to renew vehicle registration. The following waivers and extensions will be available to all qualifying vehicle owners through the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS):
Low Mileage Waiver - A Low Mileage Waiver may be issued to a vehicle owner whose vehicle has failed both its initial emissions inspection and the re-inspection, and in which at least $100 in emissions related repairs have been performed. The vehicle should have been driven less than 5,000 miles in the previous inspection cycle and anticipate being driven fewer than 5,000 miles before the next required safety inspection. Parts Availability Time Extension - A Parts Availability Extension may be issued for 30, 60 or 90 days to a vehicle owner whose vehicle fails the initial emission inspection and needs time to locate necessary vehicle emissions control parts. Low Income Time Extension- A Low Income Time Extension may be issued to a vehicle owner whose vehicle has failed its initial inspection and re-inspection, and the applicant’s adjusted gross income is at or below the federal poverty level. Counties that implement a vehicle emissions inspection program may elect to implement the Low Income Repair Assistance, Retrofit, and Accelerated Vehicle Retirement Program (LIRAP). Vehicle owners whose vehicles fail the emissions inspection and who meet eligibility requirements may receive assistance through this program. The assistance can pay for emissions related repairs or be used toward a replacement vehicle if they choose to retire the vehicle. The assistance program is funded through a portion of the emissions inspection fee. The program is administered through a grant contract between TCEQ and each participating county. Only 5% of the grant contract funds may be used for the administrative costs of the program. Assistance is limited to no more than $600 for repairs or $1,000 toward replacement of the vehicle. In order to be eligible for LIRAP, the vehicle owner’s total family income must be less than or equal to twice the amount of the Federal Poverty Guidelines for designated family units. (At this writing, $24,240 for a family of two and $36,800 for a family of four). A vehicle is eligible for repair assistance if it failed the emissions inspection within 30 days of application, is currently registered, and has been registered in the program area for the two years preceding application, and it passes the safety inspection portion of the test. Repairs must be performed at a DPS-recognized repair facility. Vehicle retirement eligibility requirements are the same as for vehicle repairs, except the vehicle must have passed a safety inspection within 15 months of the application. The I/M program will be applied in Travis, Hays and William-son Counties. NOTE: Periodic program evaluations will determine if any revisions or modifications are needed. If the I/M Program, as implemented, does not achieve the desired effects or is determined to be unnecessary, any participating jurisdiction can petition TCEQ to terminate the program.
Implementation Considerations
Program Participants
Expected Reductions
Additional Benefits 5.4.2.A2 Idling Restrictions on Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines
Program Summary/Explanation Exemptions are allowed for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 14,000 pounds or less; that are forced to remain motionless because of traffic conditions over which the operator has no control; are being used as an emergency or law enforcement vehicle; when the engine operation is providing power for a mechanical operation other than propulsion; when engine operation is providing power for multiple passenger heating or air conditioning; when the engine is being operated for maintenance or diagnostic purposes, or when the engine is being operated solely to defrost a windshield. Alternative methods of providing power to the vehicle are currently available. Truck stop electrification allows the vehicle operator to access electricity as a power source. Small generators, which emit less and are commercially available, can be used as auxiliary power sources.
Area of Application
Implementation Considerations
Program Participants
Expected Reductions
Additional Benefits 5.4.2.A3 Commute Emission Reduction Program Program Summary/Explanation The Commute Emission Reduction Program requires every existing or future employer, public or private sector, with 200 or more employees per location to submit a detailed plan to TCEQ or local designee that demonstrates how the employer will reduce the equivalent of their NOx and VOC commute related emissions by 10% within three years. Employers will set interim goals to ensure they reach the 10% goal within the time frame. Employers may choose to reduce commute or any other business related emissions that occur at the location with 200 or more employees as long as the aggregate emissions reductions are equivalent to 10% of their commute related emissions for both NOx and VOC. The plan will include details on how the commute related emissions were calculated, how and when the 10% total emissions reductions (in any combination of VOC and/or NOx) will be achieved, as well as how the reductions will be maintained over time. Alternative plans that detail how the employer will achieve and maintain a verifiable employee commuter average vehicle occupancy (AVO) of 1.2 will be accepted. Verifiable participation in the CLEAN AIR Force’s Clean Air Partners Program at a 10% reduction level will also be accepted. Commute related emissions may be calculated for locations with 200 or more employees using a baseline of the annual average number of employees at that location in 2003, 2004 or the expected annual average number of employees for a new employer location and assuming all employees drove to work alone. For Clean Air Partners, the emissions baseline for new participants is either the year they joined or a baseline that is defined by the Partners program. The annual average number of employees multiplied by the average round trip commute (22.6 miles) equals the number of employee miles traveled. Employee miles traveled multiplied by the MSA’s commute MOBILE6 emission factors for VOC and NOx equals the VOC and NOx commute emissions. The MOBILE6 emission factors may be for the analysis year, 2007 or any other year deemed appropriate by the TCEQ. The MSA average round trip commute mileage may be used or an employer may choose to use employee specific round trip commute mileage. A calculation guidance packet, including emission factors will be developed and made available to employers. All employers with 200 or more employees at a single location will register with TCEQ or local designee by December 31, 2004 or within 60 days of beginning operations for new locations. All plans must be submitted to TCEQ or local designee by March 31, 2005 or within 120 days of beginning operations for new locations. TCEQ or local designee will approve all plans, or inform the employer of any plan deficiencies by July 31, 2005 or within 4 months of plan submittal for new locations. In the event that plan deficiencies occur, employers will have 60 days from the date of notification of such deficiencies to revise and resubmit their plans. TCEQ or local designee will approve or reject the revised plan within 30 days from the date of re-submittal. Plans must be implemented no later than December 31, 2005 or within 1 year from the date of registration for new locations. Employers will report on the plan’s implementation and results semi-annually in conjunction with the MSA’s EAC semi-annual report. Reporting periods are May 1 through October 31 and November 1 through April 30. Copies of the Commute Emission Reduction Program report are due to TCEQ or local designee and CAPCO by November 30th and May 31st respectively. In the event that the semi-annual reports indicate that the planned emission reductions are not being achieved and maintained, TCEQ or local designee may request that the employer revise their plan accordingly. In the event TCEQ designates program responsibility to a local entity, the TCEQ and EPA will make every reasonable effort to provide adequate funding for program administration. Both the Clean Air Partners Program and the CAMPO Commute Solutions Program provide free tools and information that may be useful in complying with this measure. The Commute Solutions Program provides employee transportation coordinator training and Commute Solutions Fairs for alternatives to drive-alone commutes, while Clean Air Partners provides tools, expertise and experiences of member employers. Information on the Commute Solutions and Clean Air Partners programs can be found at Commute Solutions and Clean Air Partners.
Area of Application
Implementation Considerations
Program Participants
Expected Reductions
Additional Benefits 5.4.2.A4 Low Emission Gas Cans
Program Summary/Explanation
Area of Application
Implementation Considerations
Program Participants
Implementation Date
Expected Reductions
Additional Benefits 5.4.2.A5 Stage 1 Vapor Recovery Requirement Change
Program Summary/Explanation
Area of Application
Implementation Considerations
Program Participants
Expected Reductions
Additional Benefits 5.4.2.A6 Degreasing Controls
Program Summary/Explanation
Area of Application
Implementation Considerations
Program Participants
Expected Reductions
Additional Benefits 5.4.2.A7 Autobody Refinishing Controls
Program Summary/Explanation
Area of Application
Implementation Considerations
Program Participants
Expected Reductions
Additional Benefits 5.4.2.A8 Cut Back Asphalt
Program Summary/Explanation The use of conventional cutback asphalt containing VOC solvents for the paving of roadways, driveways, or parking lots is restricted to no more than 7.0% of the total annual volume averaged over a two-year period of asphalt used by or specified by any state, municipal, or county agency who uses or specifies the type of asphalt application. When asphalt emulsion is used or produced, the maximum VOC content shall not exceed 12% by weight or the following limitations, whichever is more stringent:
B. 3.0% by weight for chip seals when dusty or dirty aggregate is used; C. 8.0% by weight for mixing with open graded aggregate with less than 1.0% by weight of dust or clay-like materials adhering to the coarse aggregate fraction (1/4 inch in diameter or greater); and D. 12% by weight for mixing with dense graded agg | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
