R-01-04-02-3A - 4/2/2001R- 01- 04 -02 -3A
Consider a resolution approving the
development of a memorandum of agreement
leading toward the formulation of an 03 Flex
Plan for Central Texas.
4/2/01
RESOLUTION NO. R- O1- 04 -02- 3A
WHEREAS, the local governments within the Metropolitan
Statistical Area of Central Texas, including the geographical counties
of Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays, Travis and Williamson, recognize that we
are in near - violation of the 1 -hour National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, and
WHEREAS, the EPA, Region 6 has proposed a 0 Flex Plan option
that would assist local governments who are pro - actively seeking a
means to remain in attainment with the NAAQS, and
WHEREAS, such a Plan would achieve air quality and public health
benefits by voluntarily implementing early pollution control measures
for ozone tailored to local conditions before air quality standard
violations occur or before Federal measures are mandated, and
WHEREAS, the 0 Flex Plan is a voluntary local approach to ozone
attainment whose purpose is to encourage early emission reductions that
will keep the area in attainment of the 1 -hour standard, while also
starting to provide benefits envisioned under the 8 -hour ozone
standard, and
WHEREAS, the 0 Flex Plan is implemented through an
intergovernmental agreement between EPA, the State of Texas and the
local governments, and
WHEREAS, by developing and signing such an agreement the area
would remain designated attainment for the 1 -hour ozone standard for a
period of years as long as the agreement is maintained, even if the
violation of the 1 -hour standard occurs, and
0.\HPDOCS \RESOLUTI \O3PLAN.NPO /eC
WHEREAS, it is the understanding of the signatory local
governments that EPA will allow all available options, incentives and
other flexibilities pertaining to the 8 -hour ozone standard if it
becomes applicable, and
WHEREAS, to the extent possible emission control measures
voluntarily taken under an 0 Flex Plan would be creditable to any
future requirements to comply with the 1 -hour standard, as well as the
8 -hour standard, Now Therefore
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROUND ROCK, TEXAS,
That City of Round Rock intends to develop, in coordination with
other local governments, EPA and TNRCC, a memorandum of agreement
leading toward the formulation of an 0 Flex Plan for Central Texas.
The City Council hereby finds and declares that written notice of
the date, hour, place and subject of the meeting at which this
Resolution was adopted was posted and that such meeting was open to the
public as required by law at all times during which this Resolution and
the subject matter hereof were discussed, considered and formally acted
upon, all as required by the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Texas
Government Code, as amended, and the Act.
RESOLVED this 2nd day of April
EST:
1
JII ' iA. /.
E LAND, City Secretary
2
RI ' A. STLUKA, J., Mayor
City of Round Roc , Texas
TO: Elected Officials of the Central Texas Region
FROM: Central Texas Clean Air Coalition - Technical Advisory Committee
DATE: February 21, 2001
RE: Ozone Flex Plan: A Briefing
As you know, regional air quality and its impact on public health continue to be a concern in the Central
Texas Region. The region is in violation of EPA's contested eight -hour ozone standard and close to
violating the one -hour ozone standard. The Supreme Court is expected to announce its decision on the
eight -hour standard in Spring or Summer 2001. If the eight -hour standard is upheld, nonattainment
designations would likely occur shortly thereafter. If the court strikes down the eight -hour standard, the
region will remain under the one -hour standard. Given the growth the region is experiencing it is likely
only a matter of time before the one -hour standard is violated as well.
Needless to say, the poor air quality associated with a nonattainment designation is detrimental to our
citizen's health and the region's economic well -being It is in the best interest of the region to minimize
these negative impacts to the greatest extent possible. One way to minimize these impacts is to enter into
an Ozone (0 Flex Plan with the EPA and the TNRCC.
03 Flex Plan
The 0 Flex Plan is an agreement between the EPA and the TNRCC and the local areas. The local areas
will commit to accelerated implementation of air quality improvement measures that are selected by the
local areas. In exchange for accelerated implementation of these measures, the local areas would not be
designated as non - attainment under the one -hour standard (even if a violation occurs for the term of the
agreement) and the local area may be • ranted sigmficanfflexibil i under The ei • ht-
app 'cable.
The purpose of the 03 Flex Plan is to allow local areas to develop and implement alternatives to federally
mandated traditional nonattainment procedures for attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
This program makes it possible to design common sense strategies that account for the meteorology,
mobile emission sources, industry/business activity and the region's economy in the creation of an
emissions control plan. The objective of the plan is to achieve air quality and public health benefits now
by implementing early voluntary pollution control measures before federal measures are mandated.
The 0 Plan requires a more accelerated timeline for local areas to commit to voluntary actions
accompanied with state and federal programs to help keep the region attaining the one and eight -hour
ozone standard. Localities that would like to expedite control efforts under the ozone standard would also
be allowed all available options, incentives and other flexibility under the current eight -hour standard (if
applicable) for these efforts at a later date when State Implementation Plans (SIPS) are submitted to the
EPA and TNRCC for review and approval.
03 Flex Plan Benefits
• The Central Texas Region will not be designated as non - attainment under the one -hour standard as
long as the agreement is maintained even if a violation of the one -hour standard occurs
• EPA may give the region significant flexibility upon implementation of the eight -hour standard, such
as availability of an applicable alternate classification scheme.
• The Plan will sustain the public health of the region by providing the continued attainment of the one -
hour standard and attainment of the eight -hour standard using accelerated and reasonable control
measures developed at the regional level.
Ozone Flex Plan Costs and Alternative Measures
The costs associated with the 0 Flex Plan will be contingent upon the local and regional pollution
reduction strategies opted by the signatory governing body. The costs are not anticipated to be more than
those associated with the traditional non - attainment process.
The magnitude and types of alternative measures needed to prevent exceedances of the one and eight -
hour standards will primarily be determined by the results of the photochemical model. Based on this
information the local areas may have the flexibility to develop and implement the measures that work best
for their communities. These measures may differ by county; not all counties may be required to execute
all control measures.
Examples of potential control measures include, but are not limited to:
Reduce commute vehicle miles traveled through employer programs such as telecommuting,
compressed work week and carpooling
• Expanded use of altemative fuel or low emitting vehicles
• Contract specifications /incentives requiring emission control procedures
• Transportation control measures that reduce emissions such as intersection improvements,
bicycle/pedestrian facilities and other congestion reduction measures
• Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program that requires annual emissions testing and repair
Ozone Flex Plan Process
The requirements of the plan are the following:
1. Joint Resolution of Intent adopted by the five- counties and their largest city within the county to be
sent to the TNRCC and EPA
2. Secure stakeholder participation -
The formation of a local air quality committee consists of representatives from Local government,
industry and other interested parties. Additional stakeholders may need to be added as control
measures are identified.
3. Coordinate with stakeholders the emissions reduction plan development
Activity
Date
Technical Committee makes a recommendation for
the adoption of the 0 Flex Program by the
Executive Committee
February 2001
Five counties and largest cities sign a resolution to ,
support the program •
March - April 2001
Send in the Joint Resolution of Intent to the EPA
and TNRCC
April 2001
Development and coordination of MOA with
stakeholders
May 2001 - August 2001
MOA signed by counties and cities, TNRCC and
EPA
October 2001
Have meetings or conference calls with the TNRCC and EPA to discuss specific portions of the draft
proposal before the final draft is submitted for review
4. Develop Emissions Reduction Plan in the form of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The MOA
must contain measures sufficient to prevent exceedances of the one and eight -hour standards.
An Estimated Timeline of Deliverables
TRANSPORTATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JOSEPH P. GIESELMAN, EXECUTIVE MANAGER
411 West 13th Street
Executive Office Building
P.O. Box 1748
Austin, Texas 78767
(512) 473 -9383
FAX (512) 473 -9436
March 16, 2001
Agenda Item #12
March 20, 2001
MEMORANDUM
TO: Samuel T. Biscoe, County Judge
FROM: Joseph P. Gieseiman, Executive Manager
SUBJECT: Implications of U.S. Supreme Court's Ruling on 8 -Hour Standard
Proposed Motion: Discuss implications for Travis County of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in
Whitman, Administrator of EPA v. American Trucking Association, Inc. regarding the validity and
implementation of Clean Air Act National Ambient Air Quality Standards."
Summary: On February 27, 2001 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the EPA's National Ambient
Air Quality standards for ground -level ozone (smog) and particulate matter (soot). In effect, the
Court upheld EPA's position that Congress requires the standards to be based solely upon health,
not upon costs. With regard to implementation of those standards, however, the Court ruled
against EPA. The Court confirmed that EPA has a certain amount of discretion to establish its own
implementation requirements because, overall, the Clean Air Act is ambiguous regarding
implementation. However, the Court ruled that EPA must establish new implementation
requirements because the rules EPA had previously established went beyond that discretion by
ignoring certain express implementation provisions that Congress had specifically included in the
Clean Act Act.
Officials at EPA say that the new 8 -hour standard will be implemented, but only after the new
details of how to implement them are worked out. If the agency chooses, EPA may make their 8-
hour designations in June. However, EPA may take as long or longer than one -year. Meanwhile,
EPA's Region 6 Office considers the 03 Flex Plan concept to he still valid. Liree Cooke. the
Region 6 Administrator, is encouraging the region to move forward in developing its 03 Flex Plata.
Our deadline for gettmg local commitment is sometime in April. The Clean Air Coalition of Central
Yexas has drafted a resolution that is being considered for adoption by commissioners courts in the
5 Metropolitan Statistical Area as well as the city councils in the most populous cities in
thos a costnties.
Background:
U.S Supreme Court Decision
The lawsuit, filed by the American Trucking Association, made claims that EPA's setting of a new,
stricter standard for ozone and particular matter should have balanced compliance costs with the
health benefits of clean air. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld EPA's position that Congress requires
the standards to be based solely upon health, not upon costs. The justices also ruled against
industry arguments that the EPA took too much lawmaking power from Congress when it adopted
those tougher standards for ozone and soot in 1997. But the court ordered the EPA to reconsider
the standards it set for ozone, saying that EPA's policy for implementing the standard was unlawful.
The primary issue underlying this part of the ruling is whether the 8 -hour ozone NAAQS should be
implemented under Title 1, Part D, Subpart 1 or Part D, Subpart 2 of the CAA. Part D, Subpart 1
contains general provisions for non - attainment areas, while Part D, Subpart 2 contains specific
provisions for ozone non - attainment areas (primarily directed at 1 -hour ozone NAAQS non-
attainment areas). The Court noted that Congress had intended for ozone non - attainment areas to
comply with the provisions of Part D, Subpart 2, which are more prescriptive and limits EPA's
flexibility.
Parts of the Clean Air Act, a law that was first enacted in 1970, have been challenged by industry
and business groups for many years. This most recent challenge was lead by The American
Trucking Associations, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers
and three states -- Michigan, Ohio and West Virginia. This case was viewed as the most significant
environmental lawsuit in years. Business groups that are obliged to comply with the clean-air law
argued that the EPA was setting standards without clear criteria and without considering the
financial costs of complying with them.
A federal appeals court had ruled that the EPA went too far in adopting new standards in 1997 to
reduce smog and soot. The court said the government interpreted the federal law so loosely that it
usurped Congress' authority. However, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia rejected industry's argument that the government must weigh financial costs against
health benefits. It relied on a 1980 appeals court ruling that barred the EPA from considering costs
when it set air -quality standards. The Supreme Court decided the appeals court was right in ruling
the EPA could not consider costs in setting air -quality standards, but wrong in saying the agency
unlawfiilly usurped Congress' authority.
The court remanded the case to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and left it up to EPA to develop a
reasonable and lawful implementation policy after final disposition of the case. It is expected that as
a result of the decision, there will be a delay in the implementation of the 8 -hour standard and an
implementation process that gives more weight to the specific provisions of Part D, subpart 2.
We can speculate that there are at least 4 policy alternatives EPA can consider and they are the
following:
1) Proceed with designation, then work on these implementation issues
2) Designate with a delayed effective date to accomplish #1
3) Postpone designation until implementation process is worked out
4) Go back to Congress and get them to fix Subpart 2
2
These implementation policy issues must be decided before putting a new standard into effect. First
the details must be worked out at a lower court level and then ultimately worked out by a new EPA
administration. Because of this, putting the 8 -hour standard into effect will be delayed (no one
knows the timing) while EPA, the DC Circuit Court, and other interested parties work out the
details.
Exhibits:
Supreme Court decision Whitman. Administrator of EPA v. American Trucking Association, Inc
Files, TNR
3
DATE: March 30, 2001
SUBJECT: Special Called City Council Meeting - April 2, 2001
ITEM: Consider a resolution approving the development, in coordination with local
governments, EPA and TNRCC, a memorandum of agreement leading towards
the formulation of an 03 Flex Plan for Central Texas, and further, (City /County)
agrees to implement voluntary pollution controls measures appropriate to its
jurisdiction that would help to maintain the 1 -hour National Ambient Air Quality
Standard for ozone within the Central Texas Area.
Resource: Bob Bennett, City Manager
History:
Funding: N/A
Cost:
Source of Funds:
Outside Resources:
ImpactBenefit:
Public Comment: N/A
Sponsor: N/A
The region is in violation of EPA's contested eight -hour ozone
standard and close to violating the one -hour standard.
The cost associated with the 03 Flex Plan will be contingent upon the
local and regional pollution reduction strategies opted by the signatory
governing body. The cost are not anticipated to be more than those
associated with the traditional non - attainment process.
N/A
TNRCC and EPA
The 03 Flex Plan is an agreement between the EPA and the local areas.
The local areas will commit to accelerated implementation of air
quality improvement measure that are selected by local areas.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * ** -COMM. JOURNAL- * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** * ** DATE APR -05 -2001 * * * ** TIME 12:57 * ** P.01
MODE = MEMORY TRANSMISSION
FILE NO.= 096
STN NO. COM ABBR NO. STATION NAME /TEL.NO. PAGES DURATION
001 OK s 94427E10 003/00300:00'53"
-CITY OF ROUND ROCK
**** **ak** * *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** ** *** - 5122187097
DATE: 1 -/— S— v/
TOTAL PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET):
ATTENTION:
DEPARTMENT:
COMPANY: //JJ//,,
FAX #: %47. ` 7X9/)
FROM:
DEPARTMENT: DEPT. PHONE #:
COMPANY: CITY OF ROUND ROCK
COMMENTS:
AEI; r?
CITY OF ROUND ROCK
221 EAST MAIN STREET
ROUND ROCK, TEXAS 78664
(512) 218 -5400
FAX CODER SHEET
STRRT =APR -05 12:50 END =APR -05 12:57
- * * * ** - 5122187097 ***** * * **