Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                    104-387
_______________________________________________________________________


 
                    EMPLOYER TRIP REDUCTION PROGRAMS

                                _______


December 6, 1995.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


  Mr. Bliley, from the Committee on Commerce, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 325]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 325) to amend the Clean Air Act to provide for an 
optional provision for the reduction of work-related vehicle 
trips and miles travelled in ozone nonattainment areas 
designated as severe, and for other purposes, having considered 
the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and 
recommend that the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
The amendment....................................................     1
Purpose and summary..............................................     2
Background and need for legislation..............................     2
Hearings.........................................................     7
Committee consideration..........................................     7
Rollcall votes...................................................     7
Committee oversight findings.....................................     7
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.....................     8
New budget authority and tax expenditures........................     8
Committee cost estimate..........................................     8
Congressional Budget Office estimate.............................     8
Inflationary impact statement....................................     9
Advisory committee statement.....................................     9
Section-by-section analysis of legislation.......................     9
Changes in existing law made by the bill, as reported............    11

    The amendment is as follows:
    Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:

SECTION 1. OPTIONAL EMPLOYER MANDATED TRIP REDUCTION.

    Section 182(d)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act is amended to read as 
follows:
          ``(B) The State may also, in its discretion, submit a 
        revision at any time requiring employers in such area to 
        implement programs to reduce work-related vehicle trips and 
        miles traveled by employees. Such revision shall be developed 
        in accordance with guidance issued by the Administrator 
        pursuant to section 108(f) and may require that employers in 
        such area increase average passenger occupancy per vehicle in 
        commuting trips between home and the workplace during peak 
        travel periods. The guidance of the Administrator may specify 
        average vehicle occupancy rates which vary for locations within 
        a nonattainment area (suburban, center city, business district) 
        or among nonattainment areas reflecting existing occupancy 
        rates and the availability of high occupancy modes. Any State 
        required to submit a revision under this subparagraph (as in 
        effect before the date of enactment of this sentence) 
        containing provisions requiring employers to reduce work-
        related vehicle trips and miles travelled by employees may, in 
        accordance with State law, remove such provisions from the 
        implementation plan, or withdraw its submission, if the State 
        notifies the Administrator, in writing, that the State has 
        undertaken, or will undertake, one or more alternative methods 
        that will achieve emission reductions equivalent to those to be 
        achieved by the removed or withdrawn provisions.''.

                          Purpose and Summary

    The purpose of the bill is to make the Employer Trip 
Reduction (ETR) program, established in 1990 by Section 
182(d)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7511a-(d)(1)(B)), 
a voluntary measure to be implemented only at the discretion of 
individual States. The bill amends Section 182(d)(1)(B) in its 
entirety and adds additional statutory language to allow States 
to remove ETR requirements from their State Implementation Plan 
(SIP), or to withdraw their ETR SIP submission from 
consideration for approval by the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) without submitting a SIP revision. The bill 
requires States that remove or withdraw ETR requirements to 
have undertaken or to undertake alternative methods to achieve 
equivalent emission reductions.

                  Background and Need for Legislation

                           general background

    Car pooling and other transportation control measures are 
hardly new ideas. Prior to the enactment of the 1990 Clean Air 
Act Amendments, many localities undertook efforts to reduce the 
number of vehicles on the road. California, in particular, has 
mandated employer trip reduction programs since 1988.
    During consideration of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, 
however, efforts to reduce commuter traffic took on new 
importance due, in part, to projections that increasing vehicle 
miles traveled (VMT) might work to offset the reduction in 
emissions obtained through new automotive tailpipe standards.
    The House-approved version of the 1990 Clean Air Act 
Amendments (H.R. 3030) did not specifically include an employer 
trip reduction program. Section 182(c)(5) of the House bill did 
include a requirement for States with serious ozone 
nonattainment to submit plan revisions including ``measures to 
reduce congestion, including passenger mile trips and miles 
traveled per trip'' as part of transportation control measures 
to be implemented if overall vehicle emissions and congestion 
levels were not consistent with those previously projected. 
However, the specific provisions of the ETR (Section 
182(d)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990) were 
added through conference with the Senate.
    In general, ETR is based on the theory that a reduction in 
the number of employee trips to and from work (expressed in the 
statute as an increase in average vehicle occupancy, or 
``AVO'') will result in reduced air emissions from mobile 
sources. It was assumed that this reduction in air emissions 
would, in turn, assist the nation's most polluted areas in 
complying with national ambient air quality standards.
    Under present law, ETR applies only in ``severe'' ozone 
nonattainment areas and serious carbon monoxide nonattainment 
areas. Specifically, ETR is presently a required State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) submission in the following States 
and metropolitan areas:
          California: Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, Mohave 
        Desert Air Quality District, Sacramento, Ventura 
        County.
          New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey: New York-
        Northern New Jersey-Long Island.
          Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware: Philadelphia-
        Wilmington-Trenton.
          Illinois and Indiana: Chicago-Gary Lake County.
          Maryland: Baltimore and Philadelphia-Wilmington-
        Trenton.
          Texas: Houston-Galveston-Brazoria.
          Wisconsin: Milwaukee-Racine.

                   recent federal and state activity

    On January 27, 1995, in a letter to Representative Donald 
A. Manzullo, Assistant EPA Administrator for Air and Radiation 
Mary Nichols indicated that ``EPA has emphasized that it is the 
State's role to determine the appropriateness of an employer's 
(ECO) plan and to define and determine what constitutes a good 
faith effort * * * it is not EPA's intent to enforce against 
individual employers, as this is the State's responsibility, or 
to look over the shoulder of states as they implement the 
program. Failure to meet trip reduction goals will not trigger 
actions against the states * * * the program merely requires a 
good faith effort.'' \1\
    \1\ In referring to the ETR program, EPA has also utilized the term 
``Employee Commute Options'' or ``ECO''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During 1995, several States subject to ETR requirements 
took action to suspend their State ETR programs or otherwise 
took alternative measures regarding ETR. For example, on March 
13, 1995, Governor Jim Edgar of Illinois announced suspension 
of mandatory employer trip reduction. This followed action by 
the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources to 
similarly suspend implementation and enforcement of ETR on 
February 27, 1995, and action by the New Jersey DOT to disband 
its Enforcement and Compliance Unit for ETR. In Texas, the 
Natural Resources Conservation Commission decided during 1995 
to convert ETR into a market-based system of incentives and 
work on a revised ETR SIP submission. The State of Maryland 
acted, in the early summer of 1995, to suspend its ETR program 
due to take effect in the fall of 1995. In California, 
legislation was signed into law on October 12, 1995, which 
would prohibit air management districts from mandating employer 
trip reduction programs ``unless the program is expressly 
required by federal law.'' The California state measure, SB 
437, has an effective date of January 1, 1996.
    Against this background of State action on ETR and in 
response to a hearing held by the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations on March 16, 1995, EPA organized a special ``ECO 
Flexibilities Work Group'' to assess the ETR program. This 
group met twice and then issued a report to the Clean Air Act 
Advisory Committee (CAAAC) on April 21, 1995. This report was 
largely accepted by the CAAAC and then referred to EPA for 
action. The report called for several efforts to increase the 
``flexibility'' of the ETR program but specifically avoided the 
issue of legislative changes to the Clean Air Act.
    On July 11, 1995, EPA announced its implementation of the 
CAAAC recommendations. EPA agreed to allow ``regionalization'' 
of the program at the behest of a State, to only require good 
faith efforts for compliance, to allow more flexible credits, 
and to allow seasonal rather than full year ECO plans. 
Additionally, EPA accepted an ``emission equivalency'' proposal 
based on Project XL, an effort by EPA to allow ``alternative 
strategies that will replace or modify specific regulatory 
requirements on the condition that they produce greater 
environmental benefits.'' (60 Fed. Reg. 27282).
    Subsequent Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 
correspondence with EPA, however, determined that it was 
questionable whether the statutory provisions of Clean Air Act 
respecting ETR would allow ``emission equivalent'' programs to 
be implemented in place of ETR requirements. In a November 14, 
1995, letter from EPA Assistant Administrator Mary Nichols to 
Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Joe Barton, 
Assistant Administrator Nichols noted that, ``We considered 
whether EPA would be able to approve ECO State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) submittals that allow emissions reductions in lieu 
of trip reductions. We did not find sufficient legal authority 
in the statute to support this option, due to the ECO 
provision's clear focus on reducing trips.''
    Additionally, in the same letter, Assistant Administrator 
Nichols indicated that even if a ``Project XL'' emission 
equivalent proposal was accepted as a substitute for ETR in a 
particular State, ``in any state with an approved ECO SIP, the 
requirements of that SIP still apply even if EPA approves a 
Project XL proposal * * *. The existence of a Final Project 
Agreement for an emissions equivalence XL project does not 
necessitate or authorize a SIP revision.'' The letter also 
indicated that ``selection of a Project XL proposal for 
emission equivalence or the signing of a Final Project 
Agreement will not obviate any section 304 liability for 
affected employers.''
    Previously, under questioning at the March 16th Oversight 
and Investigations Subcommittee hearing, Assistant 
Administrator Nichols also indicated that EPA could not approve 
purely ``voluntary'' ETR programs. On page 228 of Serial No. 
104-5, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations, the following exchange was recorded between 
Chairman Joe Barton and Assistant Administrator Nichols:

          Mr. Barton. * * * Are you telling me that you can 
        approve a state implementation plan that only requires 
        voluntary compliance with this section of the act?
          Ms. Nichols. I want to try and be careful to 
        distinguish between what is voluntary and what is 
        enforceable. I don't believe a plan which simply said 
        every employer who is subject to this should try and do 
        something would be an enforceable provision.

                          need for legislation

    Many States and employers which have attempted to implement 
ETR consider the program to be overly prescriptive and of 
questionable value in terms of improving overall air quality. 
Critics contend that the ETR results in limited air quality 
gains at excessive cost and that the program--which affects an 
estimated 28,000 employers and 12,000,000 employees 
nationwide--is overly intrusive.
    In this regard, EPA has estimated that ETR has a net social 
cost of $1.2 to $1.4 billion/year (``Employee Commute Options 
Guidance,'' December 1992, p. 20) while the Congressional 
Research Service (CRS) has indicated that yearly reductions in 
volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) emissions attributable to a 
fully operable ETR program would only represent 0.5 to 0.8 
percent of current emissions and that probable nitrous oxides 
(NOX) reductions would amount to only 0.7 to 1.1 percent 
of current emissions (``Air Quality: Impacts of Trip Reduction 
Program on States and Affected Employers,'' 8/18/93, p. 4).
    More recently, EPA Assistant Administrator Nichols has been 
quoted as saying that emission reductions from ECO are 
``minuscule'' (Chicago Tribune, January 21, 1995) and EPA 
Director of the Office of Mobile Sources Margo Oge has been 
quoted as saying, ``With a 20% reduction in trips--that's 
basically what the ECO requires--we don't get significant 
emission reductions'' (air daily, September 29, 1995).
    At the March 16, 1995, hearing of the Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations, it was noted that the changing 
American workforce and the many responsibilities that employees 
bear with respect to their families can make car pooling or van 
pooling options very difficult to implement. For example, June 
B. Barry, Vice President of Human Resources at Betz 
Laboratories in Trevose, Pennsylvania, testified that:

          Many of our workforce are members of dual career 
        families. A significant percentage of our workforce 
        goes to school at night to pursue graduate education 
        and undergraduate degrees. Are we responsible in 
        emergency situations dealing with child care and elder 
        care and education and the variety of other problems 
        that people encounter to get the employee to their 
        family when car pools don't work? Since our business is 
        worldwide, the majority of the professional workforce 
        cannot leave at a preappointed time, mainly due to 
        customer calls and servicing the customer. What does 
        forcing people into car pools really mean? It means 
        that regardless of whether you have a family 
        obligation, church obligation, night school, or a 
        variety of other things that you do to and from work, 
        the Federal Government is going to tell you when you 
        can go to work and when you can leave; that you have to 
        hop into a van pool or a car pool despite your 
        individual needs or obligations * * *

    Other witnesses at the March 16th hearing found little 
employee acceptance of their attempts to implement an ETR 
program. Robert T. Moore, Manager of Facility Planning, 
Engineering, and Regulatory Operations at Compaq Computer 
Corporation in Houston, Texas, testified:

          We have taken measures to proactively comply with the 
        trip reduction program, including surveying our 
        employees and achieving a 97 percent response rate, 
        hiring an employee transportation coordinator, working 
        with the local Metropolitan Transit Authority to 
        provide limited bus service to our facilities, and 
        establishing an electronic ride share bulletin board 
        for those employees who wish to find a car pool 
        partner. We implemented a telecommuting pilot project, 
        which allows employees to work from their homes and not 
        drive to work. We maintain on-site food, dry cleaning 
        and banking services. We are installing bike racks and 
        maintaining showers and lockers for cyclists. All of 
        the above have cost Compaq significant resources in 
        time, money and effort. Unfortunately, these programs 
        combined have increased our average vehicle occupancy 
        by about 1 percent * * *

    Moreover, by focusing on trips to and from a worksite, the 
existing statutory language of Section 182(d)(1)(B) does not 
guarantee that overall emissions will be reduced in a linear 
relationship to the reduction in single occupancy vehicle (SOV) 
commuting trips. The need for employees to travel to a mass 
transit location or car pool meeting area, for example, will 
offset at least some of the reduction in emissions gained 
through increasing the occupancy level of the vehicle which 
actually travels to and from the worksite.
    Finally, as referenced above, the present statutory 
language of the ETR provision is prescriptive. Under the 
existing Section 182(d)(1)(B), a State ``shall'' submit an ETR 
SIP revision and such revision ``shall provide that each 
employer subject to a vehicle occupancy requirement shall 
submit a compliance plan within 2 years after the date the 
revision is submitted which shall convincingly demonstrate 
compliance with the requirements of this paragraph not later 
than 4 years after such date.'' Hearings held by the Oversight 
and Investigations Subcommittee and subsequent correspondence 
from the Subcommittee to EPA seriously questioned whether EPA 
has present legal authority to ``waive'' or ignore such 
statutory requirements or whether States and employers subject 
to the ETR requirement could engage in other activities 
designed to reduce air pollution as an ``emission equivalent'' 
substitute to the statutory requirement without being subjected 
to the possibility of future enforcement actions or civil 
lawsuits under Section 304 of the Clean Air Act.
    On September 7, 1995, the Speaker's Advisory Group on 
Corrections, a bipartisan task force, recommended to the 
Speaker that H.R. 325 be placed on the House Corrections 
Calendar.

                                Hearings

    The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held an 
oversight hearing regarding the Employer Trip Reduction program 
on March 16, 1995. Witnesses at this hearing were as follows: 
June B. Barry, Vice President, Human Resources, Betz 
Laboratories, Inc.; Robert T. Moore, Manager, Facility 
Planning, Engineering, and Regulatory Operations, Compaq 
Computer Corp.; Daniel R. McMullen, Corporate Executive 
Director, Human Resources, Precision Twist Drill Co.; Carla 
Berroyer, Bureau Chief, Bureau of Urban Program Planning, 
Illinois Department of Transportation; Robert A. Wyman, 
Partner, Latham and Watkins; Colin F. McNeil, President, 
PENJERDEL Council; Dee Angell, President, Association for 
Commuter Transportation; C. Kenneth Orski, President, Urban 
Mobility Corporation; and Mary D. Nichols, Assistant 
Administrator, Air and Radiation, Environmental Protection 
Agency.

                        Committee Consideration

    On November 16, 1995, the Subcommittee on Health and 
Environment met in open markup session and approved H.R. 325 
for Full Committee consideration, without amendment, by a voice 
vote. On November 29, 1995, the Full Committee met in open 
markup session and ordered H.R. 325 reported to the House, as 
amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being present.

                             Rollcall Votes

    Clause 2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI of the Rules of the House 
requires the Committee to list the recorded votes on the motion 
to report legislation and amendments thereto. There were no 
recorded votes taken in connection with ordering H.R. 325 
reported or in adopting the amendment. The voice votes taken in 
Committee are as follows:

   committee on commerce--104th congress voice votes (Nov. 29, 1995)

    Bill: H.R. 325, Employee Trip Reduction Programs.
    Amendment: Amendment by Mr. Hastert re: strike language 
which allowed for employer compliance plans as part of an ETR 
SIP revision and inserted language which allowed States to 
withdraw ETR SIP revisions or ETR SIP requirements without 
filing a SIP revision if the State notifies the Administrator 
the State has undertaken or will undertake alternative 
measures.
    Disposition: Agreed to, by a voice vote.
    Motion: Motion by Mr. Bliley to order H.R. 325, as amended, 
reported to the House.
    Disposition: Agreed to, by a voice vote.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    Pursuant to clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee has held an 
oversight hearing on this legislation and made findings which 
are reflected in this report.

              Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

    Pursuant to clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, no oversight findings have been 
submitted to the Committee by the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(B) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee states 
that H.R. 325 would result in no new or increased budget 
authority or tax expenditures or revenues.

                        Committee Cost Estimate

    The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared 
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to 
section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                  Congressional Budget Office Estimate

    Pursuant to clause 2(l)(3)(C) of rule XI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, following is the cost estimate 
provided by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 
403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:
                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                  Washington, DC, December 6, 1995.
Hon. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
reviewed H.R. 325, a bill to amend the Clean Air Act to provide 
for an optional provision for the reduction of work-related 
vehicle trips and miles traveled in ozone nonattainment areas 
designated as severe, and for other purposes. H.R. 325 was 
ordered reported by the House Committee on Commerce on November 
29, 1995. We estimate that enacting this bill would result in 
no significant cost or savings to the federal government, 
because it would have a negligible effect on the workload of 
the implementing agency, the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA). The bill would not affect direct spending or receipts; 
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply.
    H.R. 325 would eliminate the Clean Air Act's requirement 
that certain states with ozone nonattainment areas submit plans 
for requiring employers in such areas to implement programs to 
reduce the amount of work-related miles traveled by employees. 
Affected states (now numbering eleven) could substitute other 
programs that are equally as effective in reducing emissions. 
CBO believes that this flexibility would result in lower costs 
to state and local governments in high-pollution areas. 
However, because EPA has already taken administrative actions 
to provide states with some flexibility, savings resulting from 
the enactment of this bill are unlikely to be large.
    States would incur lower administrative costs to the extent 
that substitute programs require less monitoring than current 
programs. Based on information from state air pollution 
officials, CBO believes that these savings to state governments 
would not be significant. Two states cover their administrative 
costs completely with federal grant money and four states have 
temporarily suspended their programs. Several other states 
indicated that they have taken advantage of the flexibility 
allowed by EPA and therefore would not significantly alter 
their programs if the bill were to become law.
    State and local agencies that are now subject to trip-
reduction requirements could also face lower compliance costs 
under substitute programs. Based on recent studies of the cost 
per employee of current programs, CBO estimates that state and 
local governments are now paying less than $50 million per year 
to comply with trip-reduction requirements. The additional 
flexibility that would be provided by this bill would result in 
a savings of some portion of this cost.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Kim Cawley, 
and for state and local impacts, Pepper Santalucia.
            Sincerely,
                                              James L. Blum
                                   (For June E. O'Neill, Director).

                     Inflationary Impact Statement

    Pursuant to clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds that H.R. 325 
would have no inflationary impact.

                      Advisory Committee Statement

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(6) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act are created by this 
legislation.

             Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation

    The legislation repeals the present mandatory requirements 
of Section 182(d)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act which require 
States to submit acceptable and complete ETR SIP revisions and 
which require employers of over 100 employees to file 
compliance plans which convincingly demonstrate compliance with 
a 25% increase in AVO and other requirements of a State ETR SIP 
and the statutory language of Section 182(d)(1)(B). The 
legislation makes ETR a voluntary element of the Clean Air Act, 
to be undertaken only if a State decides, on its own volition, 
to include such a program as part of its State Implementation 
Plan.
    The legislation provides that States may, at their 
discretion, submit a SIP revision at any time to require 
employers to implement programs to reduce work-related vehicle 
trips and miles traveled by their employees. Such programs must 
be developed in accordance with EPA guidance but no mandatory 
elements are specified for such guidance other than the 
guidance be developed pursuant to Section 108(f) of the Clean 
Air Act.
    Although any program developed by a State pursuant to this 
legislation may be part of a SIP designed to achieve attainment 
or to meet other obligations under the Clean Air Act (including 
requirements for a 15% reduction in volatile organic emissions 
or any other SIP revision) there will not be no Federal 
requirement that any State or any individual employer design, 
submit or implement any ETR SIP revision or any alternative 
program to reduce vehicular emissions associated with trips to 
and from an employer's worksite.
    The legislation further provides that if a State which was 
previously required to implement the ETR program under Section 
182(d)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act now wishes to make changes to 
its State Implementation Plan or SIP submissions affecting ETR, 
the State must designate alternative methods to achieve 
emission reductions equivalent to those to be achieved by the 
removed or withdrawn provisions. This provision ensures that 
the bill will be emission-neutral and will not weaken the Clean 
Air Act. The procedure for making these changes is simple and 
straightforward. To remove provisions from a SIP or withdraw a 
SIP submission, a State will only be required to specify, in 
writing, what actions it has undertaken, or will undertake, to 
achieve emission reductions equivalent to those contemplated 
under the previous ETR program.
    In either removing ETR provisions from a SIP or withdrawing 
an ETR SIP submission, a State may designate an existing non-
mandatory program contained in its current SIP submittals or 
State Implementation Plan as an equivalent emissions program. A 
State may also designate a future non-mandatory program as an 
emission equivalent program. In order to remove or withdraw ETR 
provisions from a SIP or SIP submittal, all that is required is 
that the State identify efforts which provide the same or 
greater level of emission reductions as were contained in the 
State's current implementation plan or its ETR SIP submittal.
    For example, if a State previously indicated in its SIP or 
SIP submittal that ETR would reduce emissions by 2 tons per 
day, it will only be required under this legislation to 
designate alternative methods which have already been 
undertaken or will be undertaken to reduce emissions by 2 tons 
per day. Previous requirements contained in Section 
182(d)(1)(B) to achieve a 25% increase in average vehicle 
occupancy (AVO) are repealed by this legislation and any 
determination of ``emission equivalency'' is specifically not 
to be based on a calculation of emission reductions which might 
theoretically result from a 25% increase in AVO in any State.
    Since the legislation provides a procedure by which a State 
can, on its own volition, remove an ETR SIP revision from its 
State Implementation Plan or withdraw its ETR submission from 
EPA, no State will be required to file a formal SIP revision. 
Instead, as outlined above, a State can terminate all present 
obligations under ETR and the previous statutory language of 
section 182(d)(1)(B) if it notifies EPA, in writing, what the 
State has done or will do to achieve emission reductions that 
are equivalent or greater than those expected under its 
previous ETR program. Nothing in this legislation is intended 
to change the underlying Clean Air Act requirements, if any, 
applicable to the alternative emission reduction so designated 
by the State.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change 
is proposed is shown in roman):

                    SECTION 182 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT

SEC. 182. PLAN SUBMISSIONS AND REQUIREMENTS.

    (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (d) Severe Areas.--Each State in which all or part of a 
Severe Area is located shall, with respect to the Severe Area, 
make the submissions described under subsection (c) (relating 
to Serious Areas), and shall also submit the revisions to the 
applicable implementation plan (including the plan items) 
described under this subsection. For any Severe Area, the terms 
``major source'' and ``major stationary source'' include (in 
addition to the sources described in section 302) any 
stationary source or group of sources located with-in a 
contiguous area and under common control that emits, or has the 
potential to emit, at least 25 tons per year of volatile 
organic compounds.
          (1) Vehicle miles traveled.--(A) * * *
          [(B) Within 2 years after the date of enactment of 
        the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the State shall 
        submit a revision requiring employers in such area to 
        implement programs to reduce work-related vehicle trips 
        and miles traveled by employees. Such revision shall be 
        developed in accordance with guidance issued by the 
        Administrator pursuant to section 108(f) and shall, at 
        a minimum, require that each employer of 100 or more 
        persons in such area increase average passenger 
        occupancy per vehicle in commuting trips between home 
        and the workplace during peak travel periods by not 
        less than 25 percent above the average vehicle 
        occupancy for all such trips in the area at the time 
        the revision is submitted. The guidance of the 
        Administrator may specify average vehicle occupancy 
        rate which vary for locations within a nonattainment 
        area (suburban, center city, business district) or 
        among nonattainment areas reflecting existing occupancy 
        rates and the availability of high occupancy modes. The 
        revision shall provide that each employer subject to a 
        vehicle occupancy requirement shall submit a compliance 
        plan within 2 years after the date the revision is 
        submitted which shall convincingly demonstrate 
        compliance with the requirements of this paragraph not 
        later than 4 years after such date.]
          (B) The State may also, in its discretion, submit a 
        revision at any time requiring employers in such area 
        to implement programs to reduce work-related vehicle 
        trips and miles traveled by employees. Such revision 
        shall be developed in accordance with guidance issued 
        by the Administrator pursuant to section 108(f) and may 
        require that employers in such area increase average 
        passenger occupancy per vehicle in commuting trips 
        between home and the workplace during peak travel 
        periods. The guidance of the Administrator may specify 
        average vehicle occupancy rates which vary for 
        locations within a nonattainment area (suburban, center 
        city, business district) or among nonattainment areas 
        reflecting existing occupancy rates and the 
        availability of high occupancy modes. Any State 
        required to submit a revision under this subparagraph 
        (as in effect before the date of enactment of this 
        sentence) containing provisions requiring employers to 
        reduce work-related vehicle trips and miles travelled 
        by employees may, in accordance with State law, remove 
        such provisions from the implementation plan, or 
        withdraw its submission, if the State notifies the 
        Administrator, in writing, that the State has 
        undertaken, or will undertake, one or more alternative 
        methods that will achieve emission reductions 
        equivalent to those to be achieved by the removed or 
        withdrawn provisions.
          * * * * * * *