United States
Environmenta1 Protection
Agency
Office Of The Administrator
(A-101F6)
EPA101/F-91/045
January 1991
v>EPA
Improving
Federal Facility Compliance
With Regulation 15:
Strategy For EPA Action
#90-1502
•=r -= - - » IT 'N
==•?£:• § :,.-EET-
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
IMPROVING FEDERAL FACILITY COMPLIANCE WITH
REGULATION XV: A STRATEGY FOR EPA ACTION
Cindy B. Jacobs
NNEMS Fellow
U.S. EPA, Region IX
Air and Toxics Division
August 1990
5.
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report was furnished to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency by the student identified on the cover page, under a National
Network for Environmental Management Studies fellowship.
The contents are essentially as received from the author. The
opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are those of the author
and not necessarily those of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Mention, if any, of company, process, or product names is
not to be considered as an endorsement by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
' *'M^ ;• --,
!.: ' n:
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The South Coast Air Quality Management District's Regulation XV
requires agencies which employ 100 or more people to reduce the
number of commute trips to their facilities. This paper dis-
cusses the problems involved in federal facility compliance with
Regulation XV and proposes a strategy for solving them. Improved
communication, willing and enthusiastic participation by federal
facility managers, and legislative changes will remove many of
the obstacles to compliance. This paper recommends that EPA un-
dertake the following actions to achieve these goals:
o Produce and distribute a fact sheet for federal
facility employee transportation coordinators;
o Arrange a meeting of federal facility managers and
transportation coordinators;
o Spur creation of a federal agency transportation
management organization;
o Spur development of a model federal facility trip
reduction plan;
o Propose and support legislative changes; and
o Encourage the South Coast Air Quality Management Dis-
trict and ridematching services to improve their
response time and public relations efforts with respect
to Regulation XV.
Where this strategy is not effective, EPA should be prepared to
use its enforcement capabilities to bring recalcitrant federal
facilities into full compliance with Regulation XV.
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. BACKGROUND
A. Framework
1. Regulation XV 1
(a) What Regulation XV Requires 1
(b) Ridematching Services 2
(c) The Benefits of Regulation XV 3
2. The Problem: Federal Facility
Non-Compliance 4
B. EPA's Role
1. EPA Involvement In Regulation XV To Date 5
2. Remedies Available To EPA 6
III. MAJOR ISSUES
A. Inability To Provide Subsidies 7
B. Options For Reducing Commute Trips 8
1. Ridesharing 8
2. Parking Management 8
3. Encouraging Use Of Public Transit 10
4. Telecommuting 10
5. Alternative Work Schedules 11
6. Guaranteed Ride Home 11
C. Additional Issues 12
IV. SOLUTIONS
A. Innovative Approaches
1. Fee Parking and Mass Transit Incentives -
The NRC Example 13
2. Employee-Run Vanpools 15
3. Creative Incentives 15
4. Aggressive Marketing 16
B. What EPA Can Do 16
V. CONCLUSION 19
APPENDICES
A: Survey Used in Calculating Average Vehicle Ridership
B: Survey Used for Matching Potential Ridesharers
C: Federal Buildings and Agencies with 100 or more Employees
D: Letter from EPA to IRS Clarifying Obligation to Comply
E: Letter to Senator Mikulski from Transportation Action
Partnership
F: Letter to EPA from Martin Gelband, Assistant Transportation
Coordinator, MCAS El Toro
G: Press Release and Legislation Introduced by Senator Mikulski
-------
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
This paper discusses the problems involved in federal facility
compliance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District's
(District) Regulation XV — ranging from hostility of federal
agency staff to regulatory barriers — and proposes a strategy
for solving them. Regulation XV requires agencies which employ
100 or more people to reduce the number of commute trips to their
facilities. The research and analysis contained in this paper
suggest that many of the problems with compliance can be resolved
by increasing communication between federal facility employee
transportation coordinators (ETCs) in the South Coast Air Basin
(South Coast) and District staff, as well as among the ETCs them-
selves. Equally important is the need to bring federal facility
managers into the process as willing and enthusiastic par-
ticipants. At the same time, efforts to enact legislative
changes will raise awareness of the issues and hopefully remove
some of the stumbling blocks. EPA has an important role to play
in achievement of these goals.
Under court order, EPA issued a proposed Federal Implementation
Plan (FIP) to achieve federal air quality standards for the South
Coast Air Basin on July 31, 1990. EPA did not include a federal
facility trip reduction rule in the FIP "because of concerns that
it would duplicate the District's efforts under Regulation XV,
and might interfere with implementation and evolution of Regula-
tion XV. Rather than layering its own regulation on top of the
District's rule, EPA feels that its resources can better be spent
on helping to bring federal agencies into full compliance with
Regulation XV".1 The policy analysis contained below is intended
to provide a framework for this effort.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Framework
1. Regulation XV
(a) What Regulation XV Requires
Regulation XV requires every employer with 100 or more employees
to designate an employee transportation coordinator, conduct a
survey of all employees who arrive between 6 and 10 am (the
employer must attain a 75% response rate and non-responses are
counted as SOVs; see Appendix A), and submit a trip reduction
1. South Coast Proposed Federal Implementation Plan for Ozone and
CO, signed by the EPA Administrator on July 31, 1990, Section
VII.B.7.
-------
plan to the District. The survey allows the employer to calcu-
late the current Average Vehicle Ridership (AYR) level, which is
in essence a ratio of vehicles to employees.2 The plan must list
the options which the employer has chosen to achieve a target AVR
level of 1.3, 1.5, or 1.75, depending on location. For example,
the employer may increase AVR through ridesharing and public
transit incentives, parking management, alternative work hours,
telecommuting, a guaranteed ride home program, and/or van and
buspools. The ETC then estimates the reduction in number of
vehicles anticipated from each aspect of the employer's trip
reduction program and computes the expected AVR, which must meet
or surpass the area target level. The agency must include with
its plan a letter of management commitment to the trip reduction
program. Every year after initial compliance, the agency submits
an updated plan to the District.
Employers that fail to submit plans to the District may be served
with a notice of violation and be fined thousands of dollars for
each day they are in non-compliance. At this time, the District
does not fine employers for not meeting their AVR goal, but does
require that they change their trip reduction plans to achieve
the target AVR in the future.
(b) Ridematching Services
ETCs generally distribute a ridematching form along with the sur-
vey used to calculate AVR (see Appendix B), requesting employee
information for use in a car and vanpool matching database.
South Coast employers located in Los Angeles, Riverside, and San
Bernardino Counties give their forms to Commuter Transportation
Services (CTS, previously called Commuter Computer), while those
in Orange County use the Orange County Transportation District
Commuter Network. Each organization enters employee information
into a database, matches potential ridesharers by home, office
location, and schedule, and mails a printout of the matches to
the employee within two to three weeks. According to CTS, ap-
proximately forty to fifty percent of all employees respond to
their survey. Of those, about thirty percent eventually use the
ridematching service.3
CTS will install a terminal at an agency site, from which the
agency ETC can access the ridesharing data base. The ETC can
then enter and manipulate his or her agency's employee informa-
tion and find matches instantly. This service may be par-
ticularly useful in sustaining the ridesharing programs of large
2. Credit is given for telecommuters, compressed work week and
use of 'Clean Fuel' vehicles.
3. Telephone conversation with Dominick Menton, Commuter
Transportation Services, August 17, 1990.
-------
employers who experience a constant rate of turnover. UCLA has
four such terminals on its campus. CTS charges $4000 in initial
fees and hardware, and $100 per month thereafter for the off-site
terminals.4
(c) The Benefits of Regulation XV
Regulation XV was passed by the District's Governing Board on
December 11, 1987. It represents an ambitious and laudable ef-
fort by the District to reduce air pollution — in particular,
carbon monoxide — by reducing the number of vehicles traveling
during rush hour. Planners have long recognized the links be-
tween transportation and air quality. Emission control devices
such as the catalytic converter have been very effective in
lowering the average emissions per car, and new technology, in-
cluding alternative fuels and electric vehicles, promises even
further reductions. Still, the approach of controlling each
source individually has limited efficacy if the number of cars
and miles driven continue to increase. Efforts to manage the
quantity and flow of cars, especially in urban areas, must be un-
dertaken. Emissions are highest and obviously most concentrated
when traffic is congested, as it often is in urbanized Southern
California. Increasing highway capacity may result in short-term
improvements, but experience has proved that the demand simply
expands to meet — and strain — the supply.
Several areas of the country have instituted trip reduction or-
dinances (TROs) or other regulatory remedies to address this
problem, with varying levels of success. What makes Regulation
XV unique is that it requires employers to develop plans which
can be reasonably expected to meet AVR, or average vehicle rider-
ship, goals. Many of the early TROs are voluntary or specify
certain actions without requiring a demonstration of their suc-
cess.
Air quality in the South Coast is, by far, the worst in the na-
tion. Motor vehicles bear major responsibility for air pollution
problems in the South Coast, accounting for roughly half of the
emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC, a precursor to
ozone), two-thirds of the emissions of nitrogen oxides, and 90
percent of carbon monoxide emissions. The levels of all three
pollutants exceed the health-based national ambient air quality
standards. Every effort to decrease the number of vehicular
trips and thereby decrease vehicular emissions is clearly criti-
cal in the South Coast. It is not enough to simply ask that
employers institute programs to reduce commute trips. Instead,
there must be a mechanism in place which ensures that each
employer does its part.
4. Ibid.
-------
A glance at Southern California's congested freeways during rush
hour reveals the hundreds of thousands of cars, all inching along
in the same direction, each occupied by one person. Regulation
XV, by shifting the people now in single occupant vehicles (SOVs)
into carpools, vanpools, buses, trains, bicycles, walking and
telecommuting will reduce air pollutant emissions. In addition,
fewer cars mean less congestion, energy use, automobile wear and
tear, strain on the transportation infrastructure, and anxiety.
The employee saves on transportation expenses, avoids the anxiety
caused by spending hours in bumper-to-bumper traffic, and has
more leisure time. The employer gains a potentially more produc-
tive and healthier work force and improved community relations.
Everyone enjoys better air quality. The Metropolitan Washington
(DC) Council of Government has found that the benefits of its
Ride Finders program far outweigh the costs.5 In the South
Coast, where residents are exposed to the poorest air quality in
the nation and the freeways are perpetually clogged, the invest-
ment needed to make Regulation XV work will pay off many times
over.
EPA feels that federal facilities should set the pace and serve
as role models for other public agency and private sector efforts
to reduce commute trips. Over 110,000 federal employees commute
daily to and from the military bases and numerous federal offices
in the South Coast (see Appendix C). Each work day, these
employees drive a total of approximately 1.9 million miles, their
cars emitting 52 tons of carbon monoxide.6 Clearly, federal
facility compliance is essential to the success of Regulation XV.
2. The Problem: Federal Facility Non-Compliance
Despite the need for reducing commute trips, many federal
facilities have challenged or ignored the District's requirement
that they develop trip reduction plans. Until recently, many
believed that, as federal agencies, they were exempt from rules
promulgated by the District even if such rules (such as Regula-
tion XV) make explicit reference to government agencies. While
federal agencies may invoke sovereign immunity to exempt them-
selves from local regulations in some instances, they are not im-
mune from the obligation to comply with Regulation XV.
5. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, "1989 Survey
and Evaluation of Ride Finders Ridesharing Network," January
1990, p. 16.
6. Based on the following assumptions: 1.13 AVR, 20 mile round
trip average, and 26.7 * 10"6 tons of CO emitted per vehicle.
See K.T. Analytics, Inc., "Analysis of Transportation Control
Measures in the South Coast Air Basin," January 8, 1989.
-------
Section 118 (a) of the Clean Air Act (as amended in 1977),
"Control of Pollution from Federal Facilities," deals explicitly
with this issue: "Each department, agency, and instrumentality
of executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal
Government . . . shall be subject to, and comply with, all
Federal, State, interstate, and local requirements, administra-
tive authority, and process and sanctions respecting the control
and abatement of air pollution in the same manner, and to the
same extent as any nongovernmental entity." Regulation XV cer-
tainly fits this description.
Furthermore, Executive Order 12088 (October 13, 1978, 43 FR
47707) states that "the head of each Executive Agency is respon-
sible for compliance with applicable pollution control standards,
including . . . [the] Clean Air Act," and that "[e]ach Executive
agency shall cooperate with the Administrator of the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency . . . and State, interstate, and local
agencies in the prevention, control, and abatement of environmen-
tal pollution."
The author of this paper met with several federal facility ETCs
in the South Coast during July, 1990. One meeting included fif-
teen ETCs from Department of Defense (DOD) installations in Los
Angeles and Orange Counties. Most of these ETCs have submitted
plans to the District which ostensibly meet the Regulation XV
goals (although most have not yet been approved). But none of
the ETCs seemed to expect their plans to be fully implemented or
successful. When asked how they were able to develop plans,
given the obstacles they claimed to face, they talked about
'creative writing', and openly admitted throwing in any and
everything they could without being confident of management ap-
proval .
The problems most often cited by these ETCs stem from what they
perceive as a lack of or counter-productive interaction with Dis-
trict staff. They feel they are not getting the information they
need from the District and are extremely frustrated. The Dis-
trict, on the other hand, is frustrated by the federal agencies'
hostility and recalcitrance when dealing with a 'local' agency.
Bringing these people together, with the understanding that
federal facilities must comply with Regulation XV and the goal of
finding innovative solutions, would go a long way towards achiev-
ing full compliance.
B. EPA'S Role
1. EPA Involvement In Regulation XV To Date
EPA has supported Regulation XV since its inception and testified
before the District Board in favor of its passage. In 1988, in
response to a request from the District, EPA sent a letter to
federal facility managers in the South Coast clarifying their
-------
obligation to comply with Regulation XV. More recently, EPA
provided a fellowship to a public policy graduate student to work
exclusively on developing a strategy for improving federal
facility compliance with Regulation XV. This paper represents
the results of that work, and is intended to lay the foundation
for future efforts in this area.
EPA's ability to respond to violations of Regulation XV by
federal facilities is constrained by the federal approval process
for state and local air quality regulations. EPA cannot use its
resources to enforce Regulation XV until the regulation is ap-
proved by EPA as part of the State Implementation Plan (SIP).
Unfortunately, the SIP submittal and approval processes are
lengthy. The District submitted Regulation XV to EPA as part of
a SIP submittal on February 7, 1989. Based on preliminary
review, EPA staff is hopeful that Regulation XV will be approved
in its current form.
Until that time, EPA's enforcement options are limited. EPA sent
an update of the 1988 letter to the FHWA and IRS in response to
requests (see Appendix D). EPA will continue to inform federal
agencies of their obligation to comply with Regulation XV as ap-
propriate. More importantly, EPA hopes to pursue some or all of
the 'facilitation' options suggested below. In fact, these
strategies seem to be most appropriate as steps to be exhausted
before formal enforcement begins. They should not be delayed
pending approval of Regulation XV into the California SIP.
There is a risk involved in EPA's undertaking the role of
facilitator. Federal agency staff may feel that EPA is their
ally in what they perceive is a battle against the District.
Therefore, EPA must strive to make its position very clear.
Staff should stress that EPA has always and will continue to sup-
port the District's efforts and expects federal facilities to be
role models for other agencies subject to Regulation XV. Fur-
ther, EPA should be prepared to use its enforcement capabilities
to bring recalcitrant federal facilities into compliance.
2. Remedies Available To EPA
Federal agencies must comply with Regulation XV, and are subject
to sanctions by the District if they fail to do so. They may
also be subject to action by EPA once Regulation XV becomes part
of the SIP. However, EPA's enforcement capability against
federal agencies is limited to negotiation of compliance agree-
ments and consent orders. EPA issues a notice of violation, and
attempts to negotiate a compliance agreement or consent order
with the violating agency. If these efforts prove unsuccessful,
EPA will first issue a proposed order or proposed compliance
agreement and may then escalate the action through a dispute
resolution process. Eventually, if no agreement is reached, the
Office of Management and Budget or Department Of Justice (DOJ)
-------
may become involved. EPA cannot itself bring suit against Execu-
tive Branch agencies or assess civil penalties against other
federal agencies.7
III. MAJOR ISSUES
A. Inability To Provide Subsidies
While stressing that federal facilities do have to comply with
Regulation XV, EPA recognizes that federal agencies face
regulatory constraints in the types of programs they can offer to
reduce employee commute trips. The most intractable is the
prohibition against subsidizing employees' home-to-work travel.
Title 5 of the U.S. Code, Section 5536, "Extra Pay for Extra
Services Provided," states that government employees may not
receive additional pay for 'services', "unless specifically
authorized by law." In any case, expenses incurred in the home-
to-work commute are considered personal and the responsibility of
the employee. In Comptroller General decisions of 1936 (16 Comp
Gen 64) and 1947 (27 Comp Gen 1), pay allowance for such expenses
is explicitly denied. A 1981 decision (60 Comp Gen 420) cites
this precedent in stating that "[t]he settled rule is that
employees must bear the cost of transportation between their
residence and official duty locations." That case concerned
reimbursement of employees' claims for motor vehicle damages in-
curred as they commuted to work during a transit strike. The
General Accounting Office's legal research staff could not find
any more recent decisions on point. A request for an updated
Comptroller General opinion on the use of subsidies in limited
circumstances may be worthwhile, although this would probably be
a tough precedent to change. At the same time, legislative
changes can be pursued which would permit federal agencies to of-
fer certain types of subsidies, such as discounts on public tran-
sit passes.
The subsidy restriction poses a difficult problem for federal
agency ETCs. It means they cannot provide the strongest incen-
tive available to other employers — cash — to encourage
ridesharing and public transit use. It surfaces in almost every
aspect of trip reduction planning. Federal agencies cannot give
money to those who rideshare, as many private sector agencies do.
They cannot subsidize transit passes, nor purchase or otherwise
fund van and buspools. They cannot offer a guaranteed ride home
program in which the agency reimburses ridesharers for the cost
of a taxi in case of emergency. For these reasons, it is crucial
that federal agencies develop more innovative plans to achieve
their AVR goals.
7. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities,
Federal Facilities Compliance Strategy. November 1988.
-------
B. Options For Reducing Commute Trips
This section describes the options available to federal facility
ETCs, and the corresponding constraints, if any.
1. Ridesharing
Federal agencies not only can, but are required to promote
ridesharing. In 1980, President Carter signed Executive Order
12191 (45 FR 7997), mandating that federal agencies develop
ridesharing plans. Ridesharing was touted as "a means to con-
serve petroleum, reduce congestion, improve air quality, and
provide an economical way for Federal employees to commute to
work." Given the events of the time, the need to conserve energy
was undoubtedly the primary impetus for the order. Unfor-
tunately, the order seems to never have been effectively imple-
mented .
The General Services Administration (GSA) is the agency respon-
sible for administering the ridesharing regulation designed to
carry out Carter's policy initiative (41 CFR 101-6.3). Agencies
are supposed to submit a "Ridesharing Report" to GSA by June 1 of
each year. The regulation requires that "[e]xecutive agencies
shall actively promote the use of ridesharing at all Federal
facilities" with 100 or more employees, and encourages agencies
to "implement parking incentives which promote ridesharing and
the efficient use of federally controlled parking areas." The
regulation does not specify what these incentives can or should
look like, but does state that agencies "should consider provid-
ing for flexibility in employee working hours." Also, it calls
for establishment of a nationwide network of federal agency ETCs.
This provision is important — federal agencies in the South
Coast have complained that they cannot create the position of
employee transportation coordinator without direction from head-
quarters and appropriated funds.
Federal agencies should in theory have been promoting ridesharing
long before Regulation XV went into effect. Some do seem to have
had minimal pre-existing programs, such as ride boards and on-
site public transit information. On the whole, though, federal
agencies in the South Coast have never made it their policy to
promote ridesharing and have strongly resisted District efforts
to implement Regulation XV.
2. Parking Management
Proper management of parking spaces can be a very effective way
to discourage single drivers. Presumably, if market rates are
charged, the proper economic incentives will operate. In
downtown Los Angeles, for example, market rates for a parking
space run as high as $250 per month. Carpoolers save at least
half the expense (plus savings on gasoline and automobile wear
-------
and tear). Another, complementary, form of parking management is
setting aside of the spaces closest to the work site for car,
bus, or vanpoolers. This is especially attractive if spaces are
limited.
There are a few problems with implementing these strategies at
federal facilities. One is that many federal agencies do not
have any parking spaces for employees (although if lots in the
area charge market rates, the proper incentives are theoretically
already at work). On the other hand, some have enough that
preferential parking is an empty incentive. Some facility ETCs
claim that charging for parking would be unfeasible, because of
concerns about employee resistance, low pay of employees, ad-
ministrative requirements, and the availability of free parking
nearby. This does not mean it cannot be done.
Most federal agencies lease office space from GSA which the
federal government owns or itself leases. Exceptions are DOD
agencies, the Post Office, and Veterans Administration medical
centers, which handle their own facilities. Each agency also
rents parking spaces from GSA on site or nearby, if included in
the lease. GSA is directed to charge agencies rates which
"approximate commercial charges" (40 USC 490). In 1979, Presi-
dent Carter tried to force federal agencies to in turn charge
their employees market rates for parking. OMB issued Circular
No. A-118, setting forth Carter's policy, and GSA published a
temporary regulation to implement it. The policy withstood a
legal challenge by the AFL-CIO, only to be withdrawn by President
Reagan in 1982. That year, OMB issued a memo stating that Cir-
cular No. A-118 was rescinded and no longer represented Ad-
ministration policy. Paradoxically, federal agencies are free to
subsidize parking and thereby encourage employees to commute
alone, but prevented from subsidizing more environmentally
beneficial modes of transit. Though not prevented from doing so,
none of the federal facilities contacted by the author which
leases parking spaces from GSA charges its employees for parking.
Federal facilities are at a disadvantage in trying to implement
fee parking. Private companies are able to funnel the money paid
by employees for parking into their trip reduction programs — in
effect, redistributing money from single drivers to ridesharers
and public transit users. In contrast, the Federal Property
Management Regulations (41 CFR 101-20.104-1) mandate that any
money received from lease or rental of space be returned to the
US Treasury. This restriction may limit a federal agency's en-
thusiasm for running a fee parking program.
Preferential parking seems to be the easiest form of parking
management available to many federal employers. The Federal
Property Management Regulations describe the way in which federal
agencies may allocate parking spaces. Spaces must first be set
aside for fleet vehicles and for other official uses. Those left
-------
over may be assigned in the following order of priority: hand-
icapped employees; executive personnel and those working unusual
hours; vanpool/carpool vehicles; privately owned vehicles of
employees. These guidelines make several references to the
ridesharing regulation. In particular, "agencies are encouraged
to make available as many parking spaces as possible for the use
of vanpools/carpools." It also provides that GSA may conduct
surveys and implement parking incentives to promote ridesharing,
but does not describe such incentives.
3. Encouraging Use Of Public Transit
Federal agencies can provide their employees with information on
public transit and can allow transit passes to be sold onsite.
However, as explained in section III.A., they cannot subsidize
employees' use of public transit in commuting to and from work.
In addition, public transit options in the South Coast are
limited. With operation of most of the Long Beach-Downtown Los
Angeles light rail line and scheduled completion of the
Metrorial, public transit should become a more viable option.
4. Telecommuting
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is currently in the
demonstration phase of its Flexiplace program. Under the
program, employees work part-time at home or in satellite of-
fices. Many federal agencies, including the Air Force, Army,
Department of Transportation, and Department of Housing and Urban
Development have established Flexiplace programs. In a speech
before the California Chamber of Commerce, President Bush voice
his support for telecommuting: "Flexible workplace policies will
allow you to find and keep the best talent. And one of the most
promising ... is telecommuting: taking advantage of new tech-
nology to enable your people to work at home one or two days a
week . . . [T]elecommuting means saving energy, improving air
quality, and quality of life. Not a bad deal." There are no
major regulatory barriers to federal facility establishment of
telecommuting programs.
Federal agency managers may be concerned that civil servants are
not available to respond to inquiries and requests from the
public when they are telecommuting, or that employees will abuse
a Flexiplace program. OPM's Flexiplace guidelines offer advice
to managers for structuring programs which address these concerns
and avoid the potential pitfalls.
One obstacle to establishing successful work-at-home programs is
another form of the subsidy problem. The federal government can-
not, under current regulations, pay for installation of phone
lines in employee's homes. This limits employees' ability to tie
into office computer and other communications systems. An amend-
10
-------
ment to the Appropriations Bill before Congress would remove this
obstacle. Even if this legislative effort fails, the telecommut-
ing option is still a good one for federal facility ETCs.
5. Alternative Work Schedules
As with telecommuting, many federal agencies already have alter-
native work schedule programs. The most common seems to be the
9/80 schedule, in which employees work eighty hours within nine
days, taking the tenth off. The EPA currently has such a program
in effect. Other options include four ten hour days per week,
with the fifth off. There are regulations which explicitly allow
federal agencies to implement flexible work hour programs.
However, there may be agency-specific constraints (perhaps for
the Postal Service and some DOD agencies). If employees par-
ticipate in alternative work schedule programs — in which work-
ing hours are set and the same day is regularly taken off — the
number of vehicle trips driven will be reduced and the level of
ridesharing may increase.
The ridesharing regulation mentions "flexibility in employee
working hours" as one way to promote ridesharing. Until
recently, any type of flexibility in work schedules was thought
to increase the level of ridesharing. However, if employees are
encouraged to arrive at work and leave when they like (say
anytime from 6:00 to 10:00 am, which can change each day),
ridesharing may become more difficult for many employees. Also,
this type of flexibility will not necessarily lead to a reduction
in vehicle trips driven.
6. Guaranteed Ride Home
The goal of a guaranteed ride home program is to guarantee
employees a ride home in case of emergency or if they must work
overtime. For example, a mother whose young children may require
her to leave work during the workday will probably be unwilling
to rideshare unless she is offered a fallback method of getting
home without extra expense. Regulation XV encourages and many
employers provide a guaranteed ride home program. This may take
the form of reimbursing ridesharers for the cost of a taxi ride,
having a fleet vehicle and driver on call, or allowing employees
to drive fleet vehicles between work and home.
Federal agencies face regulatory constraints to implementing a
guaranteed ride home program. First, they cannot reimburse
employees for taxi fare, as this would constitute subsidizing
personal expenses of employees (see section III.A. above).
Second, federal government fleet vehicles cannot typically be
used for employees' personal travel. Subpart 101-6.4 of the
Federal Property Management Regulations (41 CFR), "Official Use
of Government Passenger Carriers between Residence and Place of
Employment," allows such use only in the case of "(1) A clear and
11
-------
present danger; (2) An emergency; or (3) a compelling operational
consideration." An 'emergency' is clearly defined as "an im-
mediate, unforseeable, temporary need to provide home-to-work
transportation for those employees who are necessary to the unin-
terrupted performance of the agency's mission." This would seem
to exclude most uses of the typical guaranteed ride home program.
However, "compelling operational considerations" include "those
circumstances where the provision of home-to-work transportation
. . . would substantially increase a Federal agency's efficiency
and economy." Perhaps a guaranteed ride home program involving
use of fleet vehicles could be justified under this provision of
the regulation. A Comptroller General opinion may provide the
necessary guidance.
c. Additional Issues
Describing the constraints and unique circumstances facing each
federal agency would be a nearly impossible task and an ineffi-
cient use of EPA's resources. For example, the ETC for the
federal prison on Terminal Island in Los Angeles cannot display
maps of the region, because of concerns that inmates will use
them to plan escape routes; ETCs for DOD installations complain
that military personnel of different ranks refuse to commute
together; naval installation ETCs do not know what commute mode
to assign to the many personnel living on shipboard. Further-
more, many agencies have strong unions which may have to approve
the agencies' proposed trip reduction measures.
As District staff contend, every agency — private, local and
state government, large and small — claims to have unique opera-
tional or regulatory considerations which render it unable to
develop viable trip reduction plans. Yet, when facing stiff
fines for non-compliance, these agencies have by and large found
ways to approach their AVR goals. By the same token, federal
agencies can develop successful trip reductions plans. In fact,
since many of these agencies employ large numbers of people —
500 or more — they have an advantage in establishing ridesharing
programs.
The greatest obstacle that each agency shares is the subsidy
restriction. Beyond that, the agencies can generally be broken
down into those with GSA administered facilities, DOD agencies,
and the Post Office.8 Each branch of the military has its own
set of regulations, which might affect its ability to provide
certain incentives or programs.
8. The Federal Reserve Bank seems to operate more like a private
agency than the others, and has adopted an inclusive and ex-
emplary plan.
12
-------
The Post Office, in particular, seems to face the greatest chal-
lenge in developing successful plans. They have approximately
150 facilities in the area with 100 or more employees, and must
bargain with their employees union before enacting any programs
affecting employees. Nevertheless, they have submitted plans to
the District which presumably indicate that they have come up
with some way to meet the requirements of Regulation XV. Details
of their plans are confidential until management has bargained
with the union.
One issue which has been raised by several of the DOD agency ETCs
is confidentiality of employee information. Employees may be un-
willing to fill out the survey used for matching prospective car,
van, and buspoolers, which necessarily asks for names and ad-
dresses. ETCs have addressed this problem by including on the
survey forms a statement which describes the authority for and
purpose of the survey; and that while response is voluntary,
those who do not return the survey will not be able to par-
ticipate in the ridematching program (see Appendix B).
IV. SOLUTIONS
This section describes the ways in which federal facility ETCs
can reach their AVR goals.
A. Innovative Approaches
1. Fee Parking And Mass Transit Incentives - The NRC Example
Despite the obstacles, federal agencies do have several options
available to them to increase their AVR. The first, and probably
most controversial, is to charge market rates for parking (or any
rate high enough to induce mode shift away from SOVs). While it
is true that President Carter's attempt to require market rates
failed, there are no regulations restricting an agency's ability
to charge its employees for parking. In fact, 40 USC 490(k)
states that an agency "which provides to anyone space and serv-
ices [furnished by GSA] ... is authorized to charge the oc-
cupant for such space and services at rates approved by the Ad-
ministrator" of GSA.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), located in Montgomery
County, Maryland, has used this provision to develop a fee park-
ing program. They separate out the cost of their parking spaces
from the total rent charged by GSA, and then charge employees at
rates designed to cover that rental charge. Because GSA does not
break down the charges in this way, the NRC had to estimate the
cost themselves and negotiate with GSA. They estimated the
market rate to be $60 per month, and negotiated a price of $45
per month with GSA. They now run a self-sustaining program which
provides the proper economic incentives for employees.
13
-------
A private contractor operates the parking lot and collects the
money. The contractor keeps $15 per parking space per month and
gives the remaining $45 to the NRC. The money is put into escrow
and allowed to accumulate until GSA's rent comes due. If
recovered charges do not cover the rent, the remainder is made up
with appropriated funds. With this program in place, NRC can
then set aside preferential spaces for ridesharers. More impor-
tantly, NRC can use the unexpended appropriated funds — which
come out of a larger pot of money earmarked for administrative
expenses — to fund ridesharing programs, such as their 'walk-up'
computer terminal (see section IV.A.4 below).
When NRC adopted its plan, it had just been consolidated from
several sites which did not have parking facilities — employees
were used to paying for parking. Undoubtedly, a change from free
to fee parking would encounter formidable opposition from
employees (as Carter's attempt to force charging of market rates
did). Also, many facilities in the South Coast do not have park-
ing and therefore do not have this option (although the economic
incentive should therefore already exist). Some federal agency
ETCs contend that many of their agency's employees earn so little
that charging for parking would be unfair. But if these
employees take advantage of the options for ridesharing or tran-
sit use, and the incentives are structured correctly, they may be
placed in a better position relative to those driving alone.
The NRC program contains other innovative features. NRC manage-
ment convinced the federal credit union, which has an office on
site, to sell transit passes to employees. Moreover, the NRC is
able to offer passes to employees at reduced rates. A memo of
understanding between the Montgomery County Department of
Transportation and the NRC provides that the County will sub-
sidize transit passes for NRC employees, as long as NRC meets and
maintains the goal of 50% alternative mode transportation, sets
aside parking spaces for ridesharers, and supplies other serv-
ices.
NRC and several other federal agencies are members of TAP, the
Transportation Action Partnership, Inc., a transportation manage-
ment organization (TMA) for employers in a region of Maryland
(see Appendix E). The federal agencies pay dues to TAP and par-
ticipate in its activities. NRC's association with TAP helped to
promote development of the agency's trip reduction program.
South Coast federal agency participation in local TMAs may help
federal ETCs develop their Regulation XV plans. For example, a
downtown Los Angeles TMA could purchase an on-site ridematching
computer terminal and coordinate car, van, and buspool matching
for all employees working downtown (see section II.A.l.(b)).
9. Telephone conversation with Mike Springer of NRC, August 15,
1990.
14
-------
2. Employee-Run Vanpools
While federal employers cannot purchase or operate vans,
employees can do so privately. Vanpool companies such as VPSI
lease seven and twelve person vans for a package price which in-
cludes insurance and maintenance. VPSI requires that one person
be designated as the driver and sign the lease. He or she must
have a checking account, and one convenient way to structure the
arrangement is through a federal credit union account. For a
twelve person van traveling 80 miles round trip, the cost per
person, excluding the driver and plus gas, is approximately $90
per month.10 For those driving this distance, leasing a van may
be worthwhile. The Orange County Commuter Network runs a vanpool
demonstration program called Quickstart. It operates just like
the private vanpool companies, but offers 90 day leases to en-
courage vanpool formation by those who are interested but afraid
of making a longer commitment. It may be difficult to arrange
and sustain vanpools with seven or more people. Also, vanpools
may only be economically beneficial for those who live forty or
more miles from work.
ETCs can help bring prospective vanpoolers together by aggres-
sively seeking matches among their own employees — especially if
the agency is large — as well as those from nearby (federal or
other) offices. They can also publicize this option during a
rideshare fair, which may involve several agencies in a par-
ticular area, or have a vanpool display in the office (the leas-
ing companies would probably be happy to provide time and
materials). Employers can make this option even more attractive
by offering vanpool riders special incentives, such as preferen-
tial parking, reduced parking rates, special privileges, and the
like (see sections IV.A.I and IV.A.3).
3. Creative Incentives
Federal employers can offer a range of non-cash incentives.
These might include awards,11 free food in the office cafeteria
(if part of an awards ceremony), special privileges (which may be
especially attractive at military bases), and possibly ad-
ministrative time off for ridesharers. The regulations governing
absence and leave of federal government employees include a
provision for allowing employees to arrive up to one hour late
10. Telephone conversation with a VPSI marketing representative,
August 13, 1990.
11. In fact, federal agencies can offer cash awards — the
facility manager must interpret the relevant regulations in
structuring such programs; but even then, the awards could prob-
ably not be given out on a routine basis, for all ridesharers.
15
-------
(per pay period) without penalty: "If an employee is unavoidably
or necessarily absent for less than one hour, or tardy, the
agency, for adequate reason, may excuse him without charge to
leave" (5 CFR 630.206). This may, some federal agencies believe,
be interpreted to mean that federal employers can grant up to one
hour of administrative leave per pay period to ridesharers and
have included it as an incentive in their Regulation XV plans. A
Comptroller General decision on this issue may be useful if
agencies are reluctant to offer the incentive.
4. Aggressive Marketing
One of the easiest things federal ETCs can do is to aggressively
push whatever program they adopt, even if it means simply making
sure that ridematching services are used to their fullest. They
can develop promotional materials, speak at employee and
managers' meetings, organize internal committees to promote their
programs, find ways to sell transit passes on site, and push
management to adopt the more creative and perhaps riskier op-
tions. By installing a ridematching terminal in their offices,
ETCs can immediately match interested employees with potential
ridesharers. The NRC developed a 'walk-up' computer program
which employees can directly access. Employees can learn about
ridesharing by interacting with the program, and can sign up for
ridesharing on the spot. NRC funds this program, at least in
part, with money not spent on rental or parking spaces (see sec-
tion IV.A.I).
In evaluating their successful Ride Finders Ridesharing Network,
the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments noted the link
between the Network's response time and pool formation:
"Applicants receiving matching information within three days had
a pool formation rate of 34 percent. If it took longer than two
weeks, however, the formation rate dropped to 18 percent".12 The
number of people forming car, van, and buspools in the South
Coast might increase by almost 100% if response time can be
shortened to three days or less. This may be accomplished by
changing the ridematching services' procedures or giving ETCs and
employees direct access to the databases.
B. What EPA Can Do
There are several things which EPA can do to improve federal
facility compliance with Regulation XV. These include using the
threat of EPA enforcement to urge recalcitrant facilities to do
their part. However, as described in Section IV.B.2, EPA is
limited in its ability to force compliance. Other options envi-
sion more of a 'facilitation' role for EPA. By virtue of its
12. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, p. 37.
16
-------
role as the federal agency responsible for clean air, EPA has the
right credentials to mount this effort. In particular, EPA
should:
(1) Produce and distribute much of the information con-
tained in this document in a question-and-answer or fact sheet
format. The document will seek to dispel any myths about what
federal facility ETCs can and cannot do, and to encourage ETCs
and managers to support Regulation XV; comply with the relevant
laws, regulations, and executive orders; contribute to a solution
of the South Coast's air quality problem; and provide the
benefits of ridesharing to their agencies and employees.
(2) Help arrange a federal facility managers and ETC meet-
ing, to be held at the offices of the Federal Executive Board
(FEE) in Los Angeles in late October or early November. The
morning agenda might consist of presentations by the Chairman of
the Los Angeles FEE, an NRC, Montgomery County, Maryland Depart-
ment of Transportation, and/or Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments manager, a District manager and staff, EPA staff, and
possibly a DOJ representative. This session would primarily be
designed to appeal to federal facility management.
The afternoon session would be an information exchange for
ETCs, with presentations and discussion by EPA staff, District
staff, possibly Commuter Transportation Services and Orange
County Transit District staff, vanpool services, etc. Possibly
one or two ETCs will also speak. The document described in (1)
above will be distributed to the ETCs.
(3) Those ETCs and managers attending the meeting could be
encouraged to form a federal agency transportation management or-
ganization (TMO). An ETC could volunteer or be chosen at that
meeting to head the TMO. There should not be a separate TMO for
DOD agencies, as this may foster 'rebellion' against the District
(see Appendix F); instead, subcommittees can be created after the
TMO has met. A federal facility TMO will allow the ETCs to share
problems and creative solutions, and hopefully coordinate efforts
(for example, inter-agency carpools and vanpools). Perhaps a
District staff member should meet with the TMO, to answer ques-
tions and improve relations with the ETCs.
(4) EPA could, in consultation with the District, select a
large federal facility (or group of facilities) whose trip reduc-
tion plan can be developed as a model for other federal agencies,
in the way that the NRC facility is a model. The federal agency
manager would have to be very supportive of Regulation XV and
willing to take risks. Since GSA is the agency responsible for
carrying out the federal ridesharing regulation, it could be en-
couraged to take the lead in developing the model agency plan (or
pay for its development). However, the author has not identified
any GSA employee in the South Coast field offices or San Fran-
17
-------
cisco regional office who could be expected to take on this
responsibility. The best approach may be to hire a consultant to
develop the plan. The plan could then be 'marketed' to other
agencies.
(5) Propose and support advantageous legislative changes.
On August 3, 1990, Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland intro-
duced legislation to allow federal agencies to subsidize transit
passes (see Appendix G) ,13 EPA headquarters should support this
legislation. EPA could also work with legislators to encourage
introduction of bills to allow other types of subsidies and re-
quire better parking management practices.
GSA's National Capital regional office, in the Washington DC
area, has organized a committee of federal agency representatives
to develop a strategy for improving the federal government's
ability to reduce employee commute trips, including proposal of
legislation. GSA has tried to involve EPA headquarters in the
effort, but has thus far been unsuccessful.
(6) Encourage the District and ridesharing services to im-
prove their response time and public relations activities. This
may involve analysis of the District's process of plan review,
and possibly recommendation of changes to Regulation XV. Com-
muter Transportation Services and Orange County Commuter Network
should be encouraged to mail match lists to interested employees
within one week.
Where this strategy is not effective, EPA should be prepared to
use its enforcement capabilities to bring recalcitrant federal
facilities into full compliance with Regulation XV.
13. This provision would only apply where the State or local
government has an existing program to encourage use of public
transit.
18
-------
V. CONCLUSION
EPA has an important role to play in improving federal facility
compliance with Regulation XV. While the strategy outlined above
will not guarantee full federal compliance, it will remove many
of the obstacles identified during the research phase of this
analysis.
When EPA released its proposed Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)
for the South Coast on July 31, 1990, the agency was criticized
for not including tough control measures for federal facilities.
The strategy recommended in this paper may be considered part of
a pro-active response to that criticism. A more direct way to
insure that federal facilities in the South Coast reduce employee
commute trips would be to include a rule similar to Regulation XV
in the final FIP.
The cost to EPA of implementing the recommendations should be
minimal. It would involve limited staff time of one or two EPA
Region IX and one EPA headquarters staff members. In addition,
recommendations one and two will require printing and travel ex-
penditures .
19
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
SURVEY USED IN CALCULATING AVERAGE VEHICLE RIDERSHIP
-------
-------
TRIP RECORD FOR AVERAGE VEHICLE RIDERSHIP (AVR)
EMPLOYER: NAVAL STATION #1619-001
NAME
FIRST
HOME ZIP CODE
IAST
DATE
PLEASE USE INK
1. What time did you report to and leave from work each day last week? (Circle am or pm.) If you were on leave
utilize previous week's work schedule. Leave box blank only if you did not work on a particular day.
Monday
Tuesday Wednesday Thursday
Friday
Saturday Sunday
Reported
to work
i
Left from
work
2. How did
AM
.
"
PM
AM
*
PM
AM
"
PM
AM
•
PM
AM
"
PM
AM
•
PM
AM
.
'
PM
AM
•
PM
AM
.
"
PM
AM
•
PM
AM
"
PM
AM
«
PM
AM
*
PM
AM
-
PM
-
you travel to work each day last week? (Please write the appropriate letter in the box for each day.)
If you were on leave utilize previous
week's work schedule. Leave box blank only
particular day,
Monday
Tuesday
n *
I_J c
Wednesday Q
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
n f
D S
I I '
n JK
= Drove alone
= Carpooled -
= Carpooled
if you did not work on a
Driver (Traveling with one or more people, including family members.)
- Rider (Traveling with one or more people, including family members.)
= Vanpooled -
= Vanpooled -
Driver (A group of commuter sharing a ride in a van.)
Rider (A group of commuter sharing a ride in a van.)
= Rode Public Bus (Transit)
= Buspooled
= Motorcycled
= Walked
(A group of commuters sharing a ride
in a private bus.)
= Bicycled
= Other (Please soecifv):
3. Where did you begin work each day last week? "If you did not start work between
particular day, please put in the letter
day.)
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
S,nd*v
n
n *
D c
U o
n }
u °
n
"G
" for that day.
6:00 am and 10:00 on any
(Please write the appropriate letter in the box for each
= Regular Work Location
= Satellite Work Center
= Home (Worked from home, telecommuted)
= Another Company or Branch
Office
= Day Off for 9/80, 4/40, or Other Type or Modified Work Schedule
= Did Not Work (e.g. Day Off, Sick)
= Other (Please specify):
,-/•>»«/. rrrc Ts^wconcr/srjoiv^fpy/CfS:. flVC
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
SURVEY USED FOR MATCHING POTENTIAL RIDESHARERS
-------
-------
1619-001
Commuter Transportation Service;, /nc
Commuter Computer
COMMUTER SURVEY
NAVAL STATION
Please complete this form in ink and sign it at the bottom.
Your address is kept confidential.
Have you ever applied to a Commuter Computer ridesharing program before? Yes Q No
JL l l l l l l l l l l l l l
First Name
I I I I I I I i i I i I I I I
Last Name
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
Home Address or Nearest Intersection
i i i
Zip Code
i l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
City
NAVAL STATION, LONG BEACH
13 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
Work Address
/ i i i i i i i i i i i i i
Rank, Rate, Ship Or Bldg. and Dept
KKIVAITAII MAItlVltNl
This information is solicited under the authority of 5 USC 301 and Executive Order 12191 and will be furnish*
for preparation of rosters (rideshare matchlists) in order to assist Naval Station Long Beach in the devc.u^mcin. wi <• nvniwic
program for its employees. Registration is voluntary. Failure to provide the requested information results in the inability to
ruimrinata inttiA nmnrjim
preparation ot rosters (rideshare matchlists) in ore
program for its employees. Registration is voluntary
participate in the program.
8 Work
Phone i l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l I
Area Telephone Extension
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
ISC 301 and Executive Order 12191 and will be furnished to Commuter Computer
order to assist Naval Station Long Beach in the developement of a rideshare
Home
Phone I''' i i i i ' l ' '
Area
Telephone
•I f\ Icanbestbe H)DHome - - Whatareyour , , , : , , , A> DAM
J. U reached at.. w>r-]Work 11 norma, hours? StartTime p,r-jpM "^^f^
12
Which best describes your schedule?
13
What days do you commute? L_j Monday through Friday
OR
14
D)
C)
V)
p)
Signature
R)
F)
V)
^] My schedule is about the same everyday.
^j My schedule may vary up to 1/2 hour.
^] My hours vary daily from week to week.
Check all days that apply
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
n n n an na
U M T W R F S
How do you normally com mute? JL O 1 would like to receive a matchlist
(check one only) (If yes, please check one only) 1 — 1 1 1
_j Drive Alone
^ Vanpool
~~j Public Bus
,
1 — i R) II 1 would consider ridesharing on a regular basis.
j=J ™ C) | 1 1 would consider ridesharing on an occasional basis
I ) [_J Bicycle
W) ~~\ Walk
B) ~j Private Bus
For Office Use
"1 /? i* i r>* i oo
-------
-------
APPENDIX C
FEDERAL BUILDINGS AND AGENCIES WITH 100 OR MORE EMPLOYEES
-------
-------
LIST OF FEDERAL BUILDINGS AND AGENCIES WITH 100 OR MORE EMPLOYEES
IN THE SOUTH COAST
From GSA Master Space Assignment List. Does not include military
installations, Postal Service facilities, VA hospitals, federal
prison, or Fed Reserve Bank.
Building
Agency
LOS ANGELES
Federal Building
IRS
Corp of Eng
Secret Svc
Terminal Island FB
Customs
Fed Bldg USPO
FBI
[Postal Svc]
Dept Vets Benefits
Van Nuys FB & PO
Def Logistics Agcy
IRS
6726 Sunset Blvd
SSA
21200 Roscoe Blvd
SSA
5757 Wilshire Blvd
SEC
11500 W Olympic Blvd
IRS
5051-5061 Rodeo Road
Mil Enlist Prog
6340 Variel Ave
IRS
15350 Sherman Way Blvd
Census
Address
Poo A
Pop B
300 N Los Angeles St
300 S Ferry St
11000 Wilshire Blvd
6230 Van Nuys Blvd
6726 Sunset Blvd
21200 Roscoe Blvd
5757 Wilshire Blvd
11500 W Olympic Blvd
5051-5061 Rodeo Road
6340 Variel Ave
15350 Sherman Way Blvd
2178
894
114
358
690
[138]
788
249
301
116
103
118
371
292
160
103
3720
474
2182
643
116
103
118
371
481
160
103
-------
US Courthouse 312 N Spring Street 960
US Dst Courts 288
Referees in Bankruptcy 101
Off US Attys 214
US Marshals Srv 112
Federal Building 1340 W 6th Street 231
DOI Minerals Mgs Service 231
Wilshire-Coronado Bldg 3660 Wilshire Blvd 495
EEOC 162
IRS 214
World Trade Center 350 S Figueroa St 532
DBA 270
GAO 178
3250 Wishire Blvd 3250 Wilshire Blvd 174
SSA 174
845 S Figueroa 834 S Figueroa 405
SSA 181
1615 W Olympic (listed as 1625 W Olympic) 376
HUD OFF Secty 336
360 E 2nd Street 360 E 2nd Street 208
Corps of Engineers 196
BELL
Bldg 6, Fed Svc Ctr 5600 Rickenbacker Rd 162
MONTEREY PARK
2 Cupania Circle 2 Cupania Circle 243
IRS 243
PASADENA
Fed Bldg/Court House 125 S Grand Ave 243
US Court of Appeals 161
CARSON
16941 Keegan Ave 16941 Keegan Ave 353
IRS 353
EL MONTE
9100 E Flair Dr 9100 E Flair Dr 553
IRS 553
-------
GLENDALE
425 E Colorado St
SSA
225 W Broadway
IRS
EL SEGUNDO
222 N Sepulveda Blvd
Def Logistics Agcy
LONG BEACH
400 Oceangate
Coast Guard
100 Broadway
SSA
One World Trade Ctr
Customs
GAROENA
1149 W 190th Street
HAWTHORNE
Hawthorne Fed Bldg
FAA
IRS
SANTA ANA
Federal Building
HUD Off Secty
Def Logistics Agcy
IRS
301 S Harbor Blvd
IRS
901 Civic Center Dr
LAGUNA NIGUEL
Chet Holifield FB
IRS
Nat Archives Ctr
INS
425 E Colorado St
222 N Sepulveda Blvd
400 Oceangate
100 Broadway
One World Trade Ctr
1149 W 190th St
15000 Aviation Blvd
34 Civic Center Dr
301 S Harbor Blvd
901 Civic Center Dr
24000 Avila Road
110
436
110
436
1529
1387
339
100
109
421
100
109
130
1176
959
109
1098
107
206
455
241
241
183
2097
1244
250
467
-------
RIVERSIDE
1000 Iowa Ave
IRS
SAN BERNARDINO
699 N Arrowhead
1824-1828 Commerce Cir
Forest Service
1000 Iowa Ave
240
240
699 N Arrowhead
1824-1828 Commerce Cir
102
107
107
SUB-TOTAL:
SCAQMD estimate for military installations:
Federal Reserve Bank
Postal Service
Prison
VA Hospitals
17911
53205
758
30714
285
7020
TOTAL:
109,893
-------
APPENDIX D
LETTER FROM EPA TO IRS CLARIFYING OBLIGATION TO COMPLY
-------
-------
y .
.-.i° -'•••
*v -fe
y
I- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 9
1235 MISSION STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103
August 8, 1990
Maryanne Cossentine
Internal Revenue Service
300 N. Los Angeles Street
Room 1101
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Dear Ms, Cossentine:
Pursuant to your recent discussion with Cindy Jacobs of my
staff, I am writing to clarify the obligation of federal
employers under the South Coast Air Quality Management District's
(SCAQMD) Regulation XV. The SCAQMD Board adopted Regulation XV,
Trip Reduction/Indirect Source (Rule 1502) in December 1987.
This regulation requires all South Coast employers who employ
more than 100 persons at any worksite to promote employee par-
ticipation in ridesharing programs.
Some federal agencies have questioned whether they are
obligated to comply with Regulation XV, despite the fact that the
definition of employer stated in the regulation includes any
"government agency . . . which employs 100 or more people at a
single worksite." Section 118(a) of the Clean Air Act clearly
states that federal agencies are not exempt from local air
quality regulations such as Regulation XV: "governmental
agencies shall be subject to, and comply with, all Federal,
State, interstate, and local requirements respecting the control
and abatement of air pollution to the same extent as any non-
governmental entity."
Residents of the South Coast Air Basin are exposed to the
worst air quality, by far, in the nation. The intent of Regula-
tion XV is to reduce the emissions of air pollutants from
vehicles used for commuting between home and the worksite. Motor
vehicles bear major responsibility for air pollution problems in
California's South Coast, accounting for roughly half of the
emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC), two-thirds of the
emissions of nitrogen oxides, and 90 percent of carbon monoxide
emissions. VOC and nitrogen oxides combine in the presence of
sunlight to form ozone. Peak ozone concentrations reach almost
three times the national standard set to protect public health.
Every effort to decrease the number of vehicular trips and
thereby decrease vehicular emissions is clearly critical in the
South Coast.
-------
Full compliance by federal agencies is essential to achiev-
ing the air quality goals of Regulation XV as well as in setting
an example for other government agencies and the private sector
to follow. I look forward to your participation in informing
federal agencies located in the South Coast of their obligation
to comply with Regulation XV. If you have any questions on this
or related issues, please call Cindy Jacobs at (FTS) 556-0250.
Sincerely,
David P. Howekamp
Director
Air and Toxics Division
-------
APPENDIX E
LETTER TO SENATOR MIKULSKI FROM
TRANSPORTATION ACTION PARTNERSHIP
-------
-------
of NORTH BETHESDA AND ROCKVILL£. INC
August 2,1990
The Honorable Barbara Mikulski
United Slates Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Mikulski,
I understand that you are considering introducing legislation that would allow federal
agencies to offer financial incentives to their employees who use public transit to commute.
The Transportation Action Partnership, Inc. (TAP) strongly supports this idea as a means
to reduce traffic congestion and air pollution in the Washington area and to help commuters
in the North Bcihcsda and Rockville area.
TAP is a transportation management association serving North Bethcsda and Rockville.
Our members see that traffic congestion could reduce the attractiveness of North Bethcsda
and Rockville as a growing commercial center. It is becoming more difficult to recruit and
retain employees, and traffic congestion is reducing the quality of life for everyone who
works, lives, and shops in the area.
Offering financial incentives to encourage employees to share the commute trip by
ridcsharing or using transit has been shown to be very effective. Many private employers
in North Bethcsda and Rockville do provide transit and ridcsharing incentives to their
employees, but federal agencies are prohibited from doing so.
approxir
Health, t
Administration, Bethcs3a Naval Medical Center, Health and Human Services and several
other smaller offices. Several of these agencies have good access to transit. Permitting
federal agencies to offer transit subsidies would be likely to spark increased use of these
existing services, improving the services' efficiency and reducing traffic congestion in the
area.
-------
Honorable Barbara Mikulski, page 2
TAP's members have made a commitment to help improve traffic conditions in North
Bethesda and Rockvjlle by joining TAP and promoting use of transit and ridcsharing
among their employees, we appreciate the support you have shown for past commuter
legislation. Please continue your support for legislation that would make TAP's efforts and
the efforts of our members more effective.
Sincerely,
Lori Diggins
Executive Director
cc Honorable Paul Sarbanes
Honorable Constance Morella
Mike Springer, USNRC
Juanita Mildenberg, NIH
-------
APPENDIX F
LETTER TO EPA FROM MARTIN GELBAND, ASSISTANT
TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR, MCAS EL TORO
-------
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
PNAV 5216/144A (R«v. 8-«1)
!/N 0107-LF-O62-2320
UtrAHIMCNI W IMt NAVT
Memorandum
>ATE: 6 August 1990
=ROM: Martin Gelband, Assistant Transportation Coordinator, MCAS El Toro, CA
"O: Cindy Jacobs, NNEMS Fellow
!UBJ: YOUR LETTER 3 AUGUST 1990
Thank you for your letter of 3 August. We are all looking foward to
receiving a copy of -your final report.
Vie especially look foward to your proposal for sponsoring a forum for
federal agencys ETCs to share information and ideas. Further, and since
I was the person who originally suggested the concept of the Department
of Defense establishing a Council within that branch of government to be
the "spokesperson" in meetings with AQMD. In other words, those DOD facilities
within the SCAQMD have very unique and special needs that must be addressed
by us and must be understood by AQMD. There have been times when our "pleas"
have gone unheeded or have been misunderstood. A DOD council chairperson
might be able to get the "ear" of the powers that be at AQMD since that
chairperson would represent a very sizable number of employees. In numbers
there is strength. If that doesn't work, then someday we might need a DOD
counsel !
We appreciate the work you are doing and look foward to your comments and
those of your superiors on the above.
Thank you for your concern.
Martin Gelband
-------
-------
APPENDIX G
PRESS RELEASE AND LEGISLATION INTRODUCED BY SENATOR MIKULSKI
-------
-------
Senator
Barbara A. Mikutski
of
Maryland
RELEASE: IMMEDIATE
August 3, 1990
CONTACT: Linda Marson
(202) 224-4654
MIKDLSKI IMTRODUCES LEGISLATION fn AT.T/TW AGENCIES TO OFFER
DISCOUHTED TRANSIT PASSES TO FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
LEGISLATION MODELED AFTER MONTGOMERY COUMTY "FARE SHARE" PROGRAM
Washington, D.C. — Senator Barbara Mikulski today introduced
legislation to allow federal agencies to encourage their employees to
use public transportation — through discounted transit passes.
"As our urban and surburban streets become increasingly congested
and our air becomes increasingly polluted, federal, state and local
governments, along with the private sector, have got to find ways to
get people out of their cars and into trains, trolleys, buses, van-
pools, and other forms of mass transit — that's just good common
sense," said Mikulski.
The idea for this legislation originated with the government of
Montgomery County, Maryland, which operates an innovative and highly
successful program to encourage employees to ride public transporta-
tion, instead of driving to work.
Under Montgomery County's FARE SHARE program, the County and
private employers cooperate to reduce the cost to workers of buying
transit fares. For example, under the FARE SHARE program, the County
purchases a $21 Metrorail subway farecard, which it then sells to the
employer for $15. The employer sells the farecard to the employee for
just $10 — cutting the employee's cost of taking public tranportation
in half.
(MORE)
-------
-2-
Montgomery County has sought to expand this program to include
federal employees, but federal law prohibits federal workers whose pay
is fixed by?statute from receiving additional benefits unless specifi-
cally authorized by law — an obstacle which Mikulski's legislation
would eliminate.
"This is the kind of common-sense program that the federal
government should encourage and participate in," said Mikulski.
"Getting employees out of their cars and onto public transporation is
good public policy."
-30-
-------
S 12170
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
August &, 1990
ue can from the wreckage of the S&L
industry and to do it in a fair and hon-
orable way.
This bill says to all those sharp oper-
ators who have taken us to the clean-
ers once—we won't be fooled again.
Mr. President. I ask unanimous con-
sent that the text of the bill be print-
ed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the bill
was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
S. 2977
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the Vnited States of
America in Congress assembled,
SEC10X 1. LIMITATION ON RTC ASSET SALES.
Section 21A(b)(12) of the Federal Home
Loan Bant Act (12 U.S.C. H41a(bK12)> is
amended by adding at the end the follow-
ing.
\G) CERTAIH SALES PROHIBITED.—Notwith-
standing any other provision of law. the
Corporation shall prescribe regulations to
prohibit the sale of assets of a failed institu-
tion by the Corporation to any person
v-ho-
"(iXI) defaulted on an obligation or obli-
gations In excess of $1.000.000 to a failed in-
stitution or was a member of a partnership
,or an officer or director of a corporation
'which defaulted on an obligation or obliga-
tions in excess of $1.000.000 to a failed insti-
tution, and (II) proposes to purchase the
iisiet or assets in question in whole or in
part through the use of the proceeds of a
loan or advance of credit from the Corpora-
tion or from an insured institution subject
to the jurisdiction of the Corporation pursu-
ant to paragraph OKA).
"iii) was an officer or director of the failed
institution or of any affiliate thereof who
participated in a material way in transac-
tions that resulted in a substantial loss to
the failed institution or affiliate.
">::ij has been removed from, or prohibit-
ed from participating in the affairs of. any
insured depository Institution pursuant to
ar.y final enforcement action by any appro-
priate Federal banking agency, or
"i sv i demonstrated a pattern or practice of
dedication regarding obligations to insured
expository institutions.
For the purpose of this subparagreph—
" of the Bank
Ho'.C-.ig Company Act of 19b€.".
/ By Ms. MIKULSKI:
S 2978. A bill to provide that Feder-
al employees may participate in State
and local government programs en-
couraging the use of public transporta-
tion, to the Committee '.m Governmen-
tal Affairs.
ENCOURAGING THE IIJ.K OF PUBLIC
TS/LNSPOPT/TION
e f.:> MIKL'LSKI. Mr. President, I
rise today to introduce legislation to
!ei Federal agencies-and thtir em-
r-'-J^ts—r-".rU'.-.'pate ir- State and local
t-v. •_• nment programs t-f.co'jrapir.t the
L±~ c! public transportation.
As our urban and suburban streets
rx-or-me increasingly corses'.cd and our
air c-ecomes increasingly polluted. Fed-
eral. State and local governments.
along with the private sector, have got
to put our li?ads together. We've got
to find ways to get people out of their
cars and into trains, trolleys, buses.
vanpools. and other forms of mass
transit. That's just pood common
sense.
This legislation opens the door to
that kind of cooperation by letting
Federal agencies participate in transit
incentive programs to which a signifi-
cant local commitment exists. I hope it
will inspire local communities across
the country to seek creative commut-
ing alternatives.
Mr. President, I identify with the
frustrations of commuters, because I
am one myself. Every day. I travel
back and forth along the Baltimore-
Washington Parkway from my home
in Fells Point. Baltimore, to Capitol
Hill. And let me tell you, it is stressful.
Backups, accidents, road construction
delays—it's no wonder that families in
my State ask me for help to make that
commute easier. I want to help. I
think tills legislation will begin to
help.
The idea for this legislation originat-
ed with a local government in my
State—the government of Montgom-
ery County. MD—which operates an
innovative and highly successful pro-
grain to encourage employees to ride
public transportation, instead of driv-
ing to work.
Under Montgomery County's "Fare
Share" program, the County and pri-
vate employers cooperate to reduce
the cost to workers of buying transit
fares. For example, under the Fare
Share program, the County purchases
a $21. Metrorail subway farecard.
which It then sells to the employer for
$15. The employer sells the farecard to
the employee for just $10—cutting the
employee's cost of taking public trans-
portation in half.
The Fare Share program celebrated
its 100th participating compary in the
fall of 1989. Some 3.000 employees re-
ceive discounted Mettorail, Metrobus.
•local "Ride-on" bus. and Marc train
passes under the program. Half of
these are new transit riders.
Montgomery County has sought to
expand this program to include Feder-
al Government employees; but has run
up against an obstacle: Federal law
prohibits Federal employees whose
pay is fixed by statute or regulation
from receiving additional pay or bene-
fits unless specific?.lly authorized by
law.
That's why my bill specifically au-
thorizes agencies to participate in any
program established by a State $K*
loca! govennent that encourages em-
ployees to use public transportation,.
through discounted transit passel^f T
other iiwuiveE
This is t.^.e kind of common-sense
procrnni that the Federal Government
should encourage and participate in.
Getting employees out of their cars
and onto public transportation is good
public policy.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- •
sent that the text of the bill be insert-
ed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the bill
was ordered to - be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
S. 2978
Be it enacted by the Sfnale and House of
Representatives of the United States of
Amencc in Congress assrr.ibltd.
SECTION I. F£I>ER\L PARTICIPATION IN STATE
AM) l«X'AL PROGRAMS TO ENt'OlTt
AGE riBI.IC TRANSPORTATIOS.
3<&S1 of1
vaste in land;.i is. Th- NRC suggests
that such State laws are not compati-
ble with the NRC policy and thus may
be preempted. Such preemption is un-
acceptab'e.
------- |