Plan Would OK Employer Certification of Car-Pooling : Environment: County pollution-control officials seek to reduce paperwork and cost associated with anti-smog requirements.

Besieged by complaints from business leaders, Ventura County’s Air Pollution Control District has proposed streamlining the paperwork needed to meet requirements aimed at reducing commuter smog.

Employers will be given the option of simply certifying that they are meeting car-pooling targets instead of submitting sometimes massive documentation each year detailing plans to reduce the number of solo drivers who commute to work, pollution-control officials said Friday.

And companies would also be able to pool their efforts to reduce road trips with other businesses, lowering costs, if the revisions win approval.

The changes are being proposed to make it easier for businesses to comply with the county’s rules to meet trip-reduction goals, said Keith Duval, manager of the pollution control district’s rule development section.

“We are trying to make these kinder and gentler rules to follow,” Duval said.

But county officials are also proposing that larger employers, those with at least 100 workers, submit plans next year showing how they will increase car-pooling even more by 1997.

The latter proposal has drawn widespread criticism from business leaders. Under current rules, companies have an additional three years to devise plans to reach the new goal of 1.5 employees per car, or nine people for every six cars. That mandate is spelled out in federal law, so it can’t be changed, Duval said.

The revisions will be brought before the pollution control district’s advisory committee for approval on Feb. 23, Duval said. Final approval by the Board of Supervisors could come as early as April, he said.

Pollution-control officials have held three workshops in the past year to solicit comments on the air pollution rules. Business leaders have complained bitterly about the paperwork and expense involved in compliance since the rules were implemented in 1991. The amendments being recommended by the district’s staff seek to address many of those concerns, Duval said.

“We’ve been able to narrow down the big areas of difference.”

Most business leaders contacted Friday said they are happy with the proposed changes, particularly paperwork reduction.

Under current rules, companies must submit a detailed plan each year outlining how they will lure employees from their cars to either bike, walk or ride-share to work.

Marcia Brandt, employee transportation coordinator for Newbury Park-based Amgen Inc., said she spent 500 hours preparing the company’s plan in 1990. The following year, the biotechnology firm, which employs about 2,000 workers, hired a consultant to do the job, she said.

“It’s like writing an essay paper for college,” Brandt said. “They want every detail and it just killed an enormous amount of time.”

Under the proposed amendments, companies need only submit a document certifying that they are meeting car-pool targets and a statement that they will continue to do so. If a company fails to meet its target, however, it must submit a complete plan.

“It is certainly a change for the better,” Brandt said. “It will save hours.”

To ease the financial burden of complying with anti-smog rules, the amendments would allow two or more companies to share the costs of car-pooling incentives. The businesses would average the number of employees who car-pool, bike or walk to work to calculate whether they are meeting ridership goals, Duval said.

This revision will mainly benefit smaller companies that have a harder time meeting the requirements, Duval said. About 336 companies and government agencies in Ventura County have 50 or more employees and must comply with the trip-reduction rules.

Not everyone in the business community is happy with the proposed changes. Although the amendments are heading in the right direction, they don’t go far enough, said Steven Rubenstein, executive director of the Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce.

His members would like to see the burden of cleaning the air distributed more equitably. Businesses must formulate the plans and finance the incentives, but employees don’t have to go along, he said.

“Why shouldn’t employees contribute equally?” Rubenstein asked. “It’s everybody’s duty to clear the environment and the air. It is because of this kind of over-regulation that corporations are leaving the state in droves.”

But Shirley McNeil, who coordinates the program for 350 employees at Rockwell International Science Center in Thousand Oaks, said she has had a change of heart about the anti-smog regulations.

“It was just a pain when it started,” she said. “But now, I am beginning to appreciate the need for them. This is something we can and should do.”

BACKGROUND

As part of its plan to reduce smog, the county Air Pollution Control District in 1991 required companies with 50 or more employees to submit plans showing how they will reduce the number of commuters driving to work alone. The district’s rules also set deadlines for businesses to meet ridership goals. Since then, companies have complained about the time and expense involved in complying with the rules. Proposed amendments to those rules are designed to lighten the paperwork load and ease the financial burden on some businesses.