Inside EPA and Mobile Source Report present...
Improving The
Clean Air Act:
The Mobile Source
Issues
June 20-21, 1995
Stouffer Renaissance Hotel
Arlington, Virginia
-------
Conference Schedule
-------
Tuesday, June 20,1995
9:00 a.m. Keynote Presentation -- The Mobile Source Issues
Morgo T. Oge. Director, Office of Mobile Sources, Office of Air & Radiation, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
9:30 a.m. Reshaping the Glean Air Act --1
Charles L. Ingebretson. General Counsel, Committee on Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives;
Mardi K. John. Founder and Director, Center for Alternative Energy & Propulsion Systems,
George Mason University.
10:30 a.m. Refreshment Break
10:45 a.m. Reshaping the Clean Air Act - II
William D. Fay. President and Chief Executive Officer, Highway Users Federation;
Paul G. Billings. Director, State Government Relations, American Lung Association.
11:45 a.m. The New Engelhard Catalyst Technology
William G. Rosenberg. Founder and President, E3 Ventures, and former Assistant Administrator for Air &
Radiation, U.S. EPA.
12:15 p.m. Luncheon. States' Rights
Hon. Becky Norton Dunlop. Secretary of Natural Resources, Commonwealth of Virginia.
1:45 p.m. Inspection/Maintenance
DavidSosnowski. Environmental Protection Specialist, National Vehicle & Fuel Emissions
Laboratory, Office of Mobile Sources, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
MichaelJ. O'Toole. Environmental Protection Specialist, Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment;
Gary A. Bishop. Research Engineer, University of Denver;
Leo M. Carroll. Vice President, Marketing, Systems Control, Inc.
3:45 p.m. Refreshment Break
4:00 p.m. Creating Sound Emission Standards
James Markev. Environmental Protection Specialist, National Vehicle & Fuel Emissions
Laboratory, Office of Mobile Sources, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;-
Glenn F. Keller. Executive Director, Engine Manufacturers Association.
5:00 p.m. Cocktail Reception
-------
Wednesday, June 21,1995
9:00 a.m. Keynote Presentation ซ Employee Commute Options
Hon. Donald Manzullo. Republican of Illinois, U.S. House of Representatives.
9:30 a.m. Employer Trip Reduction - Benefit or Burden?
Constance H. Ruth. Environmental Protection Specialist, National Vehicle & Fuel Emissions
Laboratory, Office of Mobile Sources, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
C. Kenneth Orski. Founder and President, Urban Mobility Corp.
10:30 a.m. Refreshment Break
10:45 a.m. Low-Emission Vehicles -- OTC-LEV and the 49-State Car
Robert D. Brenner. Director, Office of Air Policy, Office of Air & Radiation, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency;
Bruce S. Carhart. Executive Director, Ozone Transport Commission;
RichardL. Klimisch, Vice President, Engineering Affairs Division, American Automobile
Manufacturers Association;
David W. Raney. Manager of Environmental and Safety Affairs, American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
12:45 p.m. Luncheon. Resolving the ZEV Mandate Tangle
Hon. Trudy Coxe. Secretary of Environmental Affairs, Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
2:15 p.m. Nonroad Engines and Vehicles
Deborah S. Dalton. Deputy Director, Consensus & Dispute Resolution Program, Office of Policy,
Planning & Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
GaryH. Baise. Partner, Gabeler, Raise & Miller, and Washington Environmental Counsel, Equipment
Manufacturers Institute;
William M. Guerry. Jr.. Partner, Collier, Shannon, Rill & Scott, and Counsel to the Outdoor Power
Equipment Institute;
Gary E. Cross. Partner, Dunaway & Cross, and Counsel to the Portable Power Equipment
Manufacturers Association.
4:00 p.m. Conference Adjourns
-------
Conference Participants
-------
Keynote Presentation - The Mobile Source Issues
Margo T. Oge. Director, Office of Mobile Sources, Office of Air & Radiation, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
-------
MARGO T. OGE
Margo T. Oge is Director of the Office of Mobile Sources at U.S. EPA and is the national manager of the
agency's programs dealing with transportation, motor vehicles and engines, and motor fuels. Prior to this
position, she was Director of the Office of Radiation & Indoor Air from 1991 to 1994. Ms. Oge has been
with EPA since 1980, specializing in policy and regulatory development. She was Director of the Radon
Division, Office of Radiation Programs, from 1988 to 1991. Before that, she was Deputy Division Director of
the Economics & Technology Division under the Office of Toxic Substances. From 1985 to 1986, Ms. Oge
was Legislative Aide to Senator John Chafee of Rhode Island. Her first position with EPA (1980-1982) was
as a chemical engineer in the Regulatory Impacts Branch under the Office of Toxic Substances. She earned
her MSc from Lowell University.
-------
Reshaping the Clean Air Act --1
Charles L Ingebretson. General Counsel, Committee on Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives;
Mardi K. John. Founder and Director, Center for Alternative Energy & Propulsion Systems,
George Mason University.
-------
CHARLES L. INGEBRETSON
Charles L. Ingebretson currently serves as General Counsel to the Committee on Commerce, U.S. House
of Representatives. From August 1990 to January 1995, he was Minority Counsel to the committee, advising
Republican members on environmental issues and focusing on those within the jurisdiction of the
Subcommittee on Health & The Environment. Before joining the committee staff, he practiced environmental
law with Hunton & Williams in Richmond, VA. Prior to attending law school, Mr. Ingebretson was
Legislative Director for former Congressman Dan Coats, a Republican from Indiana. Mr. Ingebretson received
his undergraduate degree from Duke University and his law degree from the University of Notre Dame.
MARDI K. JOHN
Mardi K. John is Founder and Director of the Center for Alternative Energy & Propulsion Systems at
George Mason University. She is also a member of the university's physics faculty. The Center is intended to
educate students and the public and to be an impartial source of information and analysis. Prior to founding
the Center four years ago, Ms. John worked for Bensto doing energy-conservation work for the private sector.
She earlier taught at Southeastern University, Northern Virginia Community College, and American
University - where she was awarded her PhD in physics.
-------
Perspective of various viewhoiders over changes and choices favoring or opposing CAAA.
Background
The current efforts to review and revise various laws and mandates that affect the
american public, and inspect their effectiveness and applicability is indeed a praiseworthy
endeavor. It is indeed what all citizens who are concerned with taxes, health care, crime,
education, government expenditures and so forth want to see at this time. Citizens of this
country like most people on earth want to live in peace, and have the opportunity to reach their
goals and dreams.
In response to the demands of the public, various agencies, programs and regulations
must be reviewed for usefulness and productivity. This is a good practice. Like many other
regulations involving the practices of various United States government agencies that concern
themselves with food and drug safety and quality, clean water, pollution reduction regulations
in industries and in trade, the act know as the Clean Air Act Amendment (CAAA) which
concerns itself with the quality of air is being revisited.
As the director of a university center dedicated to energy and propulsion, I am privileged
to hear and observe the reactions of various executives, administrators, directors, overseers,
activists, environmentalist as well as ordinary citizens who have been affected by the CAAA in
various capacities and settings. As an impartial educational entity, the George Mason
University's Center for Alternative Energy & Propulsion Systems (CAEPS) is an unbiased
platform for information and opinion exchange. Given that our university is located in the
northern Virginia suburb of Washington DC, the hesitance and resistance of the state of Virginia
to accommodate the prescriptions of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as it has been
-------
trying to apply the CAAA has afforded an even greater opportunity and privilege of observing
the debate over the implications of enforcing the CAAA.
The conclusion that has been reached is that there is a tremendous 'disconnect' between
the various perspectives and viewpoints over the act itself, the strengths of the act, the
shortcomings of this act, and most importantly, the way lawmakers need to go about improving
this act. Finding a middle ground and a methodology that would suit the majority of the affected
and interested parties might prove to be quite illusive. Short of a despotic declaration by one set
of interested parties to impose their will on other sets of interested parties, it would not be
possible to settle these very diverging viewpoints.
From a purely academic and dispassionate point of observation, it seems clear that if the
opponents of CAAA in business and industry eliminate this act today, many main line business
and industry groups will come back tomorrow with another version of it. If one set of consumer
groups who are opposed to CAAA request its delay or elimination because of its effects on
increased costs to transportation users, then other consumer groups will come forward in support
of this act based on life-cycle, externality and health-affect costs to consumers. It will be a very
difficulty task to find consensus, unanimity, compromise and a middle ground above and beyond
what we currently have. This disconnect and discord among the various viewholders on this law
will make it very difficult to "improve" the CAAA because all parties define the term
"improvement" their own way and tilt its effects on the future according to their own specific
interest.
Embedded in all dialogue related to air pollution and more specifically the need for waste
reduction from mobile sources that pollute the air are the data and scientific studies that have
looked at atmospheric gaseous contents. While models for global climatic changes might be in
-------
dispute and subject of great contention, much of the information that has already been gathered
about the atmosphere and the effects of energy utilization modes in the past is not. It can be said
that what is in dispute is what society should do about atmospheric pollutants. The Clean Air
Act Amendment was congress' way of answering that. Now, the current surge of interest in
changing the Clean Air Act is this country's attempt to wrestle with this very question again.
The fascinating point is that all the parties who have an interest in this issue, in the solutions
Congress selected, and in the methodology that was chosen to achieve changes in waste
generation are in an adversarial and contentious modes.
It is possible that the lawmakers who passed the bill into the law that is now referred to
as CAAA wanted exactly this sort of discourse, debate and adversarial dialogue. However, the
argumentative posturing that may characterize the debate over the shortcomings of CAAA could
very well illuminate the point that it is just not possible to come up with a better or more
agreeable act of congress that would accomplish the long list of items that the society wants to
get done.
Introductory data
The information gathered from Greenhouse Gas monitoring stations in this country, in
Antarctica, and around the globe since the 40's and 50's along with data from ice core samples
have provided valuable, accurate, thought provoking and intriguing profiles of the effects of
human activity on the atmosphere. Various representatives from the Bush Administration and
congress in early 1990s were fond of saying that we cannot get away from the waste that we
generate.
Automobiles are an indispensable necessity for most american. However, automobiles
are also the leading cause of smog, and an important contributors to total emissions in this
-------
country. Smog contents are typically, C02, NOx, CO, 03, Reactive as well as Non-Reactive
organic gases, SO4 and NO3. The state of California as well as the federal government have used
the data on various pollutants and have enacted their mandates and laws on the basis of capping
these emissions. The I & M programs (inspection & maintenance), higher standards of tailpipe
emissions and AFV (alternative fueled vehicles) use programs are three strategies to achieve the
goals of pollution reduction of 0.25 g/mi or hydrocarbons, 3.4g/mi of CO, 0.4 g/mi of NOx,
2 g/test of Volatile hydrocarbons, 0.20 g/mi of paniculate and 0.015 g/mi of formaldehyde for
all cars in the 49 states not including California, which has somewhat tougher standards that the
ones listed, by 19981 .
The logic of the CAAA is that since these pollutant levels have exceeded every collective
amount that the planet has seen since time immemorial with recorded global atmospheric
fluctuations being very small and beguiling, and given that we really do not have any sort of a
sound scientific knowledge of the behavioral model of the atmosphere with the myriad of ways
that paniculate and pollutants in the air can interact to reduce the quality of the air, it is not
prudent to pollute the atmosphere any more than the current amount.
CAAA is a broad brushstroke ruling that is based on the end results of this society's
collective activity. Its goals are to limit the amount of atmospheric pollutants. It does not target
any specific industry, sector, technology or activity for pollution reduction. If it did, the blame
of waste generation would unfairly affect one segment of the total pollution picture. Therefore,
by setting pollution caps all segments of the society be they public, private, commercial,
industrial, collective or individual would have to be involved over the course of 3 or more
decades to shift from current modalities of energy use to whatever alternatives that will reduce
increases in air pollution levels.
-------
So, even though various sectors of the society run on crossed purposes in their habits and
modes of energy use, all individuals, companies, organizations, corporations, counties, cities and
states can and do agree on the need to eliminate increases in atmospheric pollutants. This one
point of agreement is the glue that indeed held the CAAA and allowed its ratification and
adoption.
Views and perspectives
CAAA does not identify sources of pollution that have to be changed or eliminated. This
is good and bad. The good part is that no specific sector, industry, activity or technology is
made to be blamed for the problem and be eliminated. The bad part is that in the absence^of
direct specifics from the law, businesses, technologies and activities have to be identified and
then targeted for change by combinations of public and private groups, and this identification
will require dialogue, discourse, agreement and even consensus among groups whose functions;
interests and goals intersect and collide with the mission of cleaning the air.
Thus, CAAA has been designed to set a stage where various parties with very diverging
perspectives must battle to continue generating revenues, funds and profits the way it has done
in the past from a society that is trying to reduce its use of polluting fossil fuels and its related
technologies. The showdown between various interested parties is inevitable and necessary.,
As private citizens, americans want to have clean air, clean water, clean land, plenty of
food, fuel and affordable shelter. However, the human activities of americans are not compatible
with the aforementioned. Thus, outside of our roles as consumers and ordinary citizens,
american enterprises will suffer increased cost, restrictions in commercial and industrial activities
targeting the reduction of pollutants, changes in business practices and various other modes of
-------
change in meeting the goals of clean air. These changes will be resisted. The clash between the
needs of americans as individuals and americans as the backbone of a system that is very
entrenched in its fossil fuel based operational modes is inevitable. The battle between various
perspectives in the society is inevitable. The tug and pull of various interests in changing the
goals, the targets and the timetable of CAVA is inevitable. However, just like safe foods, safe
drugs, elimination of (alcohol) prohibition, plentiful and cheap gasoline, TV, Vcr and even
recycling, the perceived medium of what americans want will indeed be reached.
Conclusions
Here at CAEPS, most business, government, industry and even consumer sectors have
been observed to be resistant to the CAAA. However, none of them can agree on what needs
to be done. Most lawmakers agree with citizens that the shift from current fuels, infrastructure
and vehicles used in transportation will be a tremendous expense and burden. With this law only
the "air" will win and everyone else will have added cost, added disruption and added
responsibility. However, given that we all rely on and need clean air, the logic is that we will
all benefit in the end from preserving this resource and setting a milestone of resistance against
other peoples and nations from further polluting the air. We can certainly delay or even
eliminate this law. However, If a law is to replace CAAA, it will go through the same battles
and fights and, will produce no winners in business, industry or even with taxpayers.
REFERENCES
1. Aubrecht, G. J. Energy. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Prentice-Hall publishers, 1994.
2. Botkin, D., and Keller, E. Environmental Science: Earth as a living Planet. New York.
John wiley & Sons, 1994.
3. Graedel, T.E., and Allenby, B.R. Industrial Ecology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Prentice
Hall, 1995.
-------
Reshaping the Clean Air Act II
William D. Fay. President and Chief Executive Officer, Highway Users Federation;
Paul G. Billings. Director, State Government Relations, American Lung Association.
-------
WILLIAM D. FAY
William D. Fay is President and Chief Executive Officer of the Highway Users Federation, the nation's
largest, most diverse coalition of individuals and businesses dedicated to continued mobility and personal
freedom of choice in transportation. From 1990 to 1994, he served as Executive Director, chief lobbyist, and
spokesman of the Product Liability Coordinating Committee. Prior to this, he was Vice President for
Congressional Affairs for the National Coal Association. Between 1987 and 1990, Mr. Fay also served as
Administrator of the Clean Air Working Group. He has 16 years of experience in Washington, DC. He is a
graduate of the University of Idaho, with degrees in accounting and political science.
PAUL G. BILLINGS
Paul G. Billings is Director, State Government Relations, for the American Lung Association He works
with the Lung Associations in all 50 states on developing and implementing their public-policy agendas,
primarily on the issues of air pollution and tobacco control. Before assuming his current position, he lobbied
for the Lung Association in Maryland on the California low-emission vehicle legislation. Mr. Billings
previously directed grassroots activities for the National Clean Air Coalition and he was an associate with the
FMR Group in Washington, DC. A graduate of Bates College in Maine, he also attended Trinity College in
Dublin, Ireland.
-------
The New Engelhard Catalyst Technology
William G. Rosenberg. Founder and President, E3 Ventures, and former Assistant Administrator for Air &
Radiation, U.S. EPA.
-------
WILLIAM G. ROSENBERG
William G. Rosenberg is Founder and President of E3 Ventures, Inc., which establishes innovative
relationships with companies to go beyond mere compliance with the Clean Air Act to take advantage of
market-based ways to increase revenues, fund new business opportunities, and demonstrate environmental
leadership. Appointed by President Bush in 1989 as U.S. EPA Assistant Administrator for Air& Radiation,
Mr. Rosenberg was the leading force in enacting and implementing the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
He pioneered a creative set of policies to develop and implement environmental strategies, emphasizing
market-based initiatives, regulatory negotiations, and reaching consensus with environmentalists, industry, and
state officials. Initiatives included acid-rain controls, reformulated gasoline, cleaner cars, phase-out of CFCs,
enhanced compliance, and federal permitting. Previously, Mr. Rosenberg was Chairman of the Michigan
Public Service Commission, Assistant Administrator of the Federal Energy Administration, and Executive
Director of the Michigan State Housing Development Authority. He holds an MBA and JD from Columbia
University and a BA from Syracuse University.
-------
ENGtLHARD CORPORATION
"JVC* JE?ฃfA4lf^P 101 WOOD AVENUE
ISfUN. NEW If RSf V MflM-0770
ซ8 205-5000
PromAIr Catalyst Systems
Fact Sheet
Summary
Engelhard Corporation has developed revolutionary clean air catalyst
systems, called PremAir, that have the potential to significantly reduce ground-level
ozone (the main constituent of smog) and carbon monoxide throughout the world.
In the United States, the new catalyst systems should help attain federal clean air
standards.
Application development work has, so far, been focused on motor ve'hlcles.
However, PremAIr catalyst systems also could be used with stationary equipment,
such as air-conditioning units. Initial studies of the PnmAlr catalyst systems on
motor vehicles were conducted in Los Angeles, California. These studies indicate
that if the catalyst systems are employed on ell vehicles they can reduce more
ozone and carbon monoxide than other clean air programs such as the electric car,
program certain California reformulated fuels end employee commute options, The
new systems are expected to be cost-effective, require little vehicle redesign and
cause no inconvenience to drivers.
Engelhard will work closely with the automotive industry and other
interested organizations to commercialize PremAir catalyst systems for motor
vehicles as a market-based alternative within current clean air laws. The Company
also will pursue a range of other applications for the new technology.
Destroying pollutants already in the air
PremAir catalyst systems destroy ozone and carbon monoxide that are'
already in the air. By contrast, automotive catalytic converters and stationary-
source pollution control systems destroy pollutants before they are emitted [mo
the atmosphere. For example, the modern three-way catalyst used on cars Jwhich
Engelhard invented) destroys over 90% of volatile organic compounds
-------
radiator and condenser, the catalysts will convert ozone Into oxygen, and carbon
monoxide into carbon dioxide.
The effectiveness of the catalysts In destroying ozone cep.be enhanced by
modifying the car's radiator fan to run even when the car is parked: Because
ozone reaches Its peek levels during the honest, sunniest part of the day,, by
running the radiator fan for some portion of this time ozone-laden air can-be drawn
over the catalysts and the ozone destroyed.
The PremAir catalyst systems are based on proprietary Engelhard
technology. One of the main components of the system is platinum. This is\e
new application for the metal which is widely used in automotive emission-control
systems because of its superior catalytic activity. The amount of platinum used In
the systems is expected to match or exceed the amount used in automotive
catalytic converters.
Testing shows significant reductions
Engelhard retained Sierra Research, an independent research organization
familiar with EPA testing procedures, to conduct field tests in Los Angeles.
Systems Applications International (SAD, an independent company specializing in
atmospheric modeling was retained to assess the potential benefits to air quality
using the appropriate modeling procedures.
Initial laboratory and on-road testing in Los Angeles indicates the catalyst
systems will convert up to 90 percent of the ozone and carbon monoxide they
contact. The potential volume of air that could be processed by motor vehicles is
large. If the nine million vehicles, traveling 266 million miles per day in Los
Angeles were equipped with the PremAIr catalyst systems the air flowing through
their radiators is equivalent to all the air across the Los Angeles area up to a (height
of about 15 feet. If the radiator fans are in operation during the period of highest
ozone concentrations the potential volume of air processed would increase tenfold.
According to the SAI models, the PremAIr catalyst systems, if installed on all
vehicles and equipped with modified radiator fans, have the potential to reduc
peak levels of ozone by 4.5 parts per billion in Los Angeles. PremAir catalyst
systems also have the potential to reduce carbon monoxide levels In ambientjair by
over 12%.
Potential reductions compare favorably with other dean air programs
This potential total ozone reduction is larger than that achieved with other
clean air programs, such as the electric car program, certain California reformulated
fuels and the employee commute option. The potential total carbon monoxide
reduction Is larger than from all of these alternatives combined.
Engelhard also compared the potential per vehicle reductions with the per
vehicle reductions anticipated from the other programs. The SAI analysis'showed
that if a low emission vehicle (LEV) Is equipped with a PremAIr catalyst system and
a modified radiator fan, it would provide the same ozone reduction as an< electric
car. Three LEVs with PremAir catalyst systems could provide the samefcarbon
monoxide reduction as one electric car. Low emission vehicles are to be
-------
introduced in California next year.
The tests also indicate that one LEV with a PremAIr catalyst system with the
same adjustment to the radiator fan would reduce ozone more than three ultra-low
emissions vehicles (ULEV), another emissions modification mandated-for
automobiles sold in the upcoming years In California. Two LEVs with PremAIr
catalysts systems could provide the same carbon monoxide benefit as one ULEV.
SAI also determined that the PremAIr catalyst systems could achieve more
reductions In air pollutants when compered to anticipated benefits of the employee
commute options. The PremAIr catalyst systems would achieve those benefits
without imposing any of the driver Inconvenience anticipated In the employee
commute options.
PremAIr catalyst systems can provide a cost-effective alternative
Although the new systems heve not been commercialized and pricing has
not been determined, preliminary cost estimates indicate that PremAIr catalyst
systems can be cost-effective in achieving clean air goals.
Preliminary estimates are that PremAir catalysts systems may add $500 to
$1,000 to the price of a car. Therefore, the estimated cost per ton of emissions
reduced is $6,400 to $12,800. This compares favorably to published cost per ton
estimates for other clean air programs. These cost per ton estimates are: $26,100
per ton for employee commute option programs; $12,700 to $24,900 for the
Incremental benefit of ULEVs over LEVs; $10,700 to $166,200 for the Incremental
benefit of electric cars over ULEVs; and $13,500 for CARB-2 gasoline (a California-
mandated reformulated fuel) over federally mandated reformulated gasoline.
Next steps
Engelhard continues to optimize the PremAIr catalyst systems, but expects
no obstacles in doing this based on .the Company's vast experience with catalytic
technology. The Company also Is working with the automotive Industry to
conduct demonstration programs during 1995.
Concurrently, Engelhard Is meeting with federal and state regulators to
determine how best to employ the new technology under current clean air laws.
The PremAIr catalyst systems build on Engelhard's leadership In three-way
catalytic converter technology for automotive emissions and the direct catalytic
conversion of stratospheric ozone Into oxygen for aircraft cabin air. The three-way
automotive catalyst, which Engelhard Invented, reduces pollutants In automobile
emissions by more than 90 percent (CO - 96 percent; VOCs - 97 percent; NOx- 90
percent) over the approximately 100,000 mile life of a car.
Engelhard Corporation Is a world-leading provider of specialty chemical
products, engineered materials and precious metals management services. The
Company supplies a variety of products and technologies for air-pollution control,
Including automotive emissions control systems, systems to-cut CO, VOC and NOx
pollution from power-generating and Industrial facilities, and catalysts to.reduce
ozone In aircraft cabins.
-------
Luncheon. States' Rights
Hon. Becky Norton Dunlop. Secretary of Natural Resources, Commonwealth of Virginia.
-------
BECKY NORTON DUNLOP
Becky Norton Dunlop is Secretary of Natural Resources for the Commonwealth of Virginia. She is the
principal environmental-policy official for Virginia and oversees eight state agencies, including the
Departments of Environmental Quality, Conservation & Recreation, Game & Inland Fisheries, Historic
Resources, the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, and the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance
Department. Secretary Dunlop has been appointed to serve as Co-Chair on the Governor's Advisory Council
on Self-Determination & Federalism. Prior to being named as a member of his Cabinet by Gov. George
Allen, Mrs. Dunlop was Managing Director of the Enough is Enough! campaign, a national grassroots
movement to reduce sexual violence and eliminate child pornography and remove hard-core and illegal
pornography from the marketplace. During the 1980s, Mrs. Dunlop was a senior policy official in the Reagan
Administration. In 1977, she founded Century Communications, Inc., a management consultant firm. Mrs.
Dunlop is a graduate of Miami University, Oxford, OH.
-------
Inspection/Maintenance
DavidSosnowski. Environmental Protection Specialist, National Vehicle & Fuel Emissions
Laboratory, Office of Mobile Sources, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
MichaelJ. O'Toole. Environmental Protection Specialist, Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment;
Gary A. Bishop. Research Engineer, University of Denver;
Leo M. Carroll. Vice President, Marketing, Systems Control, Inc.
-------
DAVID SOSNOWSKI
David Sosnowski is an Environmental Protection Specialist at U.S. EPA's National Vehicle & Fuel
Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, MI, specializing in motor-vehicle inspection and maintenance programs.
He works in the 1/M Section of the Emission Planning & Strategies Division. He helped draft the proposed
and final version of the November 1992 I/M rule as well as the recently proposed I/M Flexibility
Amendments. He joined EPA's Office of Mobile Sources in 1988, moving to Ann Arbor two years later. Mr.
Sosnowski taught English composition and creative writing at the Universities of Alaska, Michigan, Detroit,
and Wayne Stale. He is a poet and published fiction writer. Mr. Sosnowski graduated from the University of
Michigan with a Bachelors in English literature and from the University of Alaska with a Masters in creative
writing.
MICHAEL J. O'TOOLE
Michael J. O'Toole is an Environmental Protection Specialist with the Colorado Department of Public
Health & Environment, facilitating operating inspection and maintenance programs for gasoline and diesel-
ftieled vehicles. His specific responsibilities are to implement the state's enhanced and basic I/M programs.
He is a 15-year member of the Society of Automotive Engineers and is associated with the National Center
for Vehicle Emissions Control & Safety at Colorado State University. He has a BS in industrial sciences and
transportation and has completed graduate studies in socio-technical programs
GARY A. BISHOP
Gary A. Bishop is a Research Engineer at the University of Denver, with duties including the
development and refinement of hardware and software for the University's remote-sensing equipment for
automobile exhaust emissions. He has participated in numerous field studies and has published extensively in
various journals, detailing studies of automobile emissions and the efficacy of programs designed to control or
reduce them. Dr. Bishop received a BS in chemistry from Berry College and an MS and PhD in biophysical
chemistry from the University of Colorado.
LEO M. CARROLL
Leo M. Carroll is Vice President of Marketing for Systems Control, Inc., a leading contractor in the
design, construction, and operation of centralized vehicle-emissions testing programs. The company has
inspection/maintenance contracts in Washington state, Maine, Texas, Michigan, and Indiana. Prior to his
present position, he was the General Manager of Vehicle Test Technology, Inc. During the 1980s, Mr. Carroll
was the I/M Program Administrator for the Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska, where was responsible for the
startup and operation of a decentralized program. Before that, he was the automotive training coordinator for
the Colorado Department of Health. Mr. Carroll began his career with the National Center for Vehicle
Emissions Control & Safety at Colorado State University.
-------
FLEXIBILITY TAKES MANY FORMS
ป New credit guidance issued February 27,1995
I/M Flexibility Amendments proposed April 28,1995
ป Alternative test procedures
ป Re-evaluating test-and-repair discount based on local
data
-------
NEW I/M CREDITS
ป Technician training and certification
ป ASM2
ป Age-based hybrids
ป Repair-and-retest based hybrids
ป ASM1 and RSD (in development)
-------
FLEX RULE: WAIVER CHANGES
ป Phase-in of basic and enhanced waivers until
January 1998 allowed
ป Repairs done 60 days prior to test counted
ป Parts costs on owner-performed repairs of
primary emission controls counted
ป Hardship exemptions not limited to once per
vehicle lifetime
ป Comment requested on how to adjust waiver limit
for inflation
-------
FLEX RULE: NEW, "LOW" STANDARD
ป OK if full credit not needed for 15%, attainment
ป Standard equals basic with...
3 % waivers and 96 % compliance
Visual checks for EGR and PCV added
Light trucks to 8,500 Ibs. GVWR added
ป Can be met by biennial, test-and-repair program
ป Does not require dynamometers
ป Gets slightly less than one-third the reductions of
the origmaf standard
-------
FLEX RULE: ETC.
ป Requests comments on whether the population
cutoff for basic I/M should be changed from
50,000 to 200,000
ป Does not require I/M automatically in
redesignated areas that experience a violation
ป Does not change SIP or implementation deadlines
ป Public comments are currently being summarized
and addressed
ป Final rule is scheduled to be published by August
24,1995.
-------
ALTERNATIVE TESTS
ป California pilot study determined ASM to achieve
reductions comparable to the IM240
ป 2-mode ASM credits included in February 27,1995
guidance; 1-mode ASM credits being developed
ป EPA has approved in concept the ESP-proposed
helium tracer gas purge test and the through-the-gas-
cap pressure test
ป EPA is conducting a pilot study of these alternative
evap tests in its test lanes in Illinois
ป I/M Test Committee is in the process of developing
test procedures and equipment specifications for
ASM and alternative evaporative tests
-------
DISCOUNT FLEXIBILITY
ป EPA is working with Utah and Virginia to determine
if existing, local data can be used to objectively
quantify a local test-and-repair discount
ป EPA hopes to refine and build on a method developed
by Sherman Engineering for using before- and after-
repair idle data as a surrogate for transient emissions
scores
ป Once a workable protocol has been developed and
presented for stakeholder comment, it will be made
available to other states
-------
STATE OF COLORADO
Roy Romcr, Governor
Patti Shwayder, Acting Executive Director
Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado
4300 Cherry Creek Dr S Laboratory Building
Denver, Colorado 80222-1530 4210 E 11th Avenue
Phone (303) 692-2000 Denver, Colorado 80220-371 d
(303) 691 -1700 Colorado Department
of Public Health
and Environment
COLORADO'S A.I.R. PROGRAMS
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Metropolitan area in nonattainment for carbon monoxide and
transitional attainment for ozone. Various areas throughout
the state also exceed PMIO (and visibility) standard
July 1981 introduced traditional decentralized I/M program
- change of ownership
- sticker enforced
- light-duty passenger vehicles and most trucks
- low emissions tune-up
- E.G.S.I. M/Y 1975 and newer
program covered eight-county metro area
program coverage expanded to encompass additional vehicles and
add additional (partial) county, metro Greeley, Weld County.
ENHANCED AND IMPROVED BASIC I/M
' Authorized (reluctantly) by the Colorado General Assembly
(HB'93-1340) May 1993 with implementation 01 January 1995
Federal Mandate ys high-tech testing procedures compatible
with vehicle technology
Regulations, S.I.P.'s and R.F.P. developed, submitted,
implemented (many thanks to those states who exchanged
info./draft RFP's)
RFP published Aug '93 with contractual agreement signed 22 Feb
'94
and we're off ...
-------
PROGRAM DESIGN AND STRUCTURE
Both improved basic and enhanced programs implemented at the
same time
Basic program traditional in structure and based upon
"Colorado '94" TAS which is tied to program host system and
registration data base real-time
Enhanced program would be considered of hybrid design:
(see fact sheets)
'- program is split principally by technology in that
newer (1982 and newer) model year vehicles are
tested through a contractor operated network of
dedicated, multi-lane centers
- Pre-'82 model year may be inspected at
decentralized inspection-only facilities operated
by independent owner/operator (motorists owning
such vehicles may pursue services from contractor
or independent)
- Inspection procedures:
I/M 240 for light-duty passenger vehicles
and trucks of model year 1982 and newer
idle short tests for older vehicles and
heavy-duty trucks
ECSI, all 1975 and newer
smoke and CFC assessment
- Inspection Fees:
newer vehicles $24.25
idle test $15.00 (max.)
free retest within ten (10) days (min.)
- Inspection Cycles: (system wide)
1982 and newer = biennial
. pre-'82 and "fleets" = annual
4 year "new" vehicle exemption
change of ownership
-------
IMPLEMENTATION EXPERIENCES - comments
You/your staff will become intimately involved with County
Commissions, Planning Commissions, municipal governments, and
certainly neighborhood groups
Consider options for locating contractor operated centers
other than strictly demographics:
- census / State Demographer / COG
- growth projections
- county vs population
- set capacity based upon future data
Would strongly recommend initial phase-in of 2-3 months,
voluntary participation
Insist on formal, comprehensive Acceptance Testing Procedures
for all lanes and facilities
It is not likely that you could have too much motorist
outreach or public education activity and there could never be
too much training for lane inspectors
Beware!
- "fast pass", avoid tying to network capacity or
throughput calculations
- phase-in emissions limits - no matter what, you're
bound to be criticized
- AWD/4WD/traction control and ABS equipped vehicles
(see manual)
- EPA inertia weight and H.P. tables
- the media in general, but certainly talk-show hosts
- V.I.N.A. program - vehicle class determination
Be absolutely certain that contractor selection criteria and
procedures are prescriptive, understood, and that the process
is understood by all and well documented
Do Not ...
- implement program in an election year
- implement with less than one year of "construction"
time
- implement while legislature is in session
-------
- implement the program without the involvement
public/industry committee ... Repair Training and
Diagnostic Advisory Committees
IN CLOSING:
Colorado's Enhanced and improved Basic I/M program was
introduced 02 Jan '95 with eight (8) of thirteen (13) stations
available. Three additional stations were on-line within the
month. More facilities are in process for 01 July '95
implementation in Boulder County.
While the introduction of enhanced I/M was a bit rocky,< the
program improves with every day of operation. The repair industry
in general is responding well, we're seeing good repairs and the
demand for training is strong. We will find ourselves challenged
with the repair of vehicles previously unidentified (E0) such as the
Escort. We continue to believe I/M 240 technology is strong but
recognize the long-term fix for this problem we all face is
reducing VMT, reducing society's reliance on the automobile.
We look forward to the further investigation of other evovlving
technologies such as remote sensing with the annual survey targeted
for this fall and the Greeley Pilot/Feasibility Study due in 1996.
Thank you for this opportunity ... Good Luck!
95-119T.MJO
6/6/95
-------
COLORADO'S ENHANCED I/M PROGRAM
Inspection program begins January 2, 1995 with Boulder
County, July 1995
Program area includes Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Douglas,
Jefferson and the City and County of Denver
Inspection requirements linked to vehicle registration
and valid windshield certificate display, with motorist
notification by County Clerk
Inspection Cycles
- Model years 1-4 = exempt
- Model year 1982 and newer, but greater than 4
model years = biennial
- Pre-1982 = annual
- Each change of ownership
Strategically located, multi-lane, high volume contractor
operated inspection centers
- Inspection services for all non-diesel vehicles
- Hours: 8:30 am - 7:30 pm M-F, 8:00 am - 1:00 pm
Sat.
- Pre-1982 vehicles may be inspected at
independent inspection-only facilities
Tests Required
- 1982 and newer = I/M-240 dynamometer test
- Pre-1982 and heavy-duty = idle short tests
- 1975 and newer = inspection of emissions
control systems
- Air conditioning leak check for
chlorofluorocarbons
- Visible smoke and recall verification
Motorist Assistance
- Comprehensive diagnostic information
. - Repair assistance
- Motorist outreach and consumer hotline programs
Emissions Related Repair Waiver Limits
1968 and newer = $450
- Pre-1968 = $75
- Repairs to emissions control systems and
correction of visible smoke do not apply
Small Business/Technical Assistance Program
- Technical information and training
- Marketing and business development
- Train-the-trainer
94-025T.mjo
-------
STATE OF COLORADO
Roy Romer, Governor
Patti Shwayder, Acting Executive Director
Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people &ฃ(>lorado
4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S. laboratory Building
Denver, Colorado 80222-1530 4210 E. Uth Avenue
Phone (303) 692-2000 Denver, Colorado 80220-3716
OOJ) 691 -4700 Colorado Department
of Public Health
and Environment
I/M 240 FACT SHEET
I. WHY COLORADO NEEDS AN EMISSIONS TESTING PROGRAM:
Colorado, especially the Denver-metro area, has a significant air pollution problem.
During the past fifteen years Denver has been in violation of the federal health
standards for carbon monoxide (CO) on numerous occasions.
Air quality will become an even greater concern with the growth expected in the
state.
In order to preserve the quality of life and health of Colorado residents, $n effective
air pollution program must be in place.
Colorado's I/M 240 test is expected to reduce CO emissions by 31%., Already
preliminary data is showing this to be true.
The previous program did an effective job of diagnosing older cars with emissions
problems, but the old tailpipe test does not effectively determine newer madel year
vehicles that are gross polluters. The science proves this fact.
II. COLORADO'S I/M 240 PROGRAM IS BEGINNING TO WORK.
Preliminary Data Shows:
The average vehicle identified in March as failing the test emitted moreXthan 81
grams of CO per mile.
Upon repair and retest, the average vehicle emitted less than 33 grams of CO per
mile. This represents an average reduction of CO emissions of 59%.
This new test is identifying gross polluters that were not identified previously. For
example, the new test has been able to detect a dirtier class of cars.
Data Available on The Old Idle Test Shows:
50% of all excess CO emissions.
38% of the tests were conducted incorrectly.
Reduction in CO emissions of 13%.
HI. RESULTS OF I/M 240 STUDIES:
Scientific and real-world tests have proven the I/M 240 to be the most effective
technology available to catch gross polluting vehicles and significantly redi^ce CO
emissions.
A Recent Study by Sierra Research on California's I/M 240 Technology Detected:
99.1% of all excess CO emissions.
99.6% of all excess HC (hydrocarbon) emissions.
100% of all excess NOx (nitrogen oxide) emissions.
False failure rate of 4% of all vehicles in the study.
-------
I/M 240 Fact Sheet, Page two
In the Same Study, Remote Sensing Detected:
10.4% of all excess CO emissions.
10.8% of all excess HC emissions.
8.9% of all excess NOx emissions.
False failure rate of 58%.
Conclusion:
I/M 240 test produced an average CO emission reduction of 32% in all Chicles
inspected.
I/M 240 identified 99% of vehicles' that exceeded allowable levels of CO en^ssions.
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE CURRENT PROGRAM:
There are several options available to reduce carbon monoxide emissions. However,
those alternatives may be more costly to implement and have far greater lifestyle
effects on the public. None of these alternatives are able to achieve thjl large
reductions in emissions that the I/M 240 can. The I/M 240 is designed t
-------
Air Pollution Control Division Fact Sheet, February 1994
This is the first issue of the APCD Fact Sheet.
It is hoped this sheet will work as a reference
tool to help you answer some of the public's
more frequently asked questions.
Call Fred Quartarone at x3108 with any cor-
rections, updates or comments.
GENERAL TRENDS:
Colorado air quality trends;
a good news, bad news story
Colorado's .air quality has improved markedly in
the past two decades, however growth and increased
vehicle usage axe threatening those improvements.
On the good news side of the major pollutant
categories monitored in Colorado all but the visibility
category have improved in the last two decades.
The number of days on which federal CO stan-
dards were exc seeded in the Denver-metro area
dropped from 125 in 1972 to two days in 1993.
Ground-level ozone standards have not been
violated anywhere in Colorado since 1989.
Lead, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide stan-
dards have been met.
Over the last 20 years paniculate matter levels
have fallen off dramatically, however population and
industrial growth could threaten the improvements if
new reduction strategies aren't utilized.
On the bad news side - la$t year's air quality
declined noticeably in several categories. Coupled
with predictions of increased growth and more traffic,
the future of the state's air quality is uncertain.
The Denver area is not expected to meet carbon
monoxide attainment standards by 1995-96.
The Denver Region Council of Governments
predicts that the amount of miles driven each day in
the Denver area will double by the year 2015. The
increase is sure to impact all facets of Denver's air
quality.
Currently Denver-area motorists travel about 40
million miles daily, burning approximately 2.5 million
gallons of gasoline.
Denver's "Brown Cloud" is not improving, rather
it's worsening, if anything.
VIotor vehicles and air quality
For every 10,000 miles driven, a typical
vehicle in Colorado emits approximately:
586 Ibs. of Carbon Monoxide
2 Ibs. of Benzene
0.3 Ibs. of 1,3-Butadiene
11b. of Formaldehyde
Benzene, 1,3-Butadiene and Formaldehyde
are hazardous air pollutants that can cause
cancer and other health problems depending on
an individual's exposure to them.
Currently Denver-area motorists travelabout 40
million miles daily, burning approximately
2.5 million gallons of gasoline.
There are more than 1.9 million automo-
biles in the Denver area.
Denver-area Carbon Monoxide
1990 Denver Area
Carbon Monoxide Sources
(Total Production = approximately 1700 Tons/Day)
Non-Road
Mobile Emission?
9*
Stationary Sources
4*
Vehicle Emissions
I6X
1995 DenverArea
Carbon Monoxide Sources
(Total Production = approximatery 1400 Tons/Day)
Non-Road
Mobile Emiji ionl
14*
Stationary Sourcei
4*
Vehicle F mis * ion j
121
-------
Fact Sheet
POLLUTANT
SOURCES
NON-
ATTAIN-
MENT
AREAS
EVENTS
1992
STANDARD
February 1994
HEALTH EFFECTS
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO) is a
colorless odorless
gas. It occurs
naturally in the air
as the result of
incomplete
combustion
processes, such as
forest fires, the
oxidation of
methane and other
natural processes.
Urban CO is
produced
mainly from
automotive
sources.
Urban
atmospheres
contain about
100 times as
much CO as
any other
pollutant.
'StfvyK'&szrzK'.'tKys
f;i^?"'y^~;t<^.'~.A----v
SVS*f fS, <:> **. n.->,-',;>:.
*SKSซiaปf?r*.ซy!ซ-?'
}rocess|3ources
\"ฃ,*i.,A$fc.
from
-.....asasfc "
x)weR
^b1rffiblacj(_
3&om|autom6^S
Ozone (O3) is
a highly reactive
form of oxygen.
Ozone is not
emitted directly
from a source, but
forms when
reactive hydrocar-
bons and nitrogen
oxides chemically
react with each
other in sunlight.
The reactive j
hydrocarbons?or
percursors that
form ozone are
emitted from
automobile
exhaust; gaso-
line and oil
storage and
transfer facili-
ties; industrial
usage of paint
solvents and
degreasing
agents.
Denver metro
area (including
Boulder)
Fort Collins
Greeley
Colorado
Springs
Longmont
' Denver metro
area (includ
ing Boulder)
Denver metro
area (including
Boulder) = 1
exceedance
events
All other areas
= zero
9ppm/8 hours
35 ppm / 1 hour
ST-.'*,:. ;;' '-'. ftfc*ซtฃ;;s-.
*;Denver.metrorir
-]^l|oifae^area%fe
erb
Statewide = zero
0.12ppm/l
hour
CO affects the central nervous
system by depriving the body
of oxygen. Tests of automobile
drivers show exposure to CO
can impair a driver's judgment
and ability to respond rapidly
in traffic. It can especially
affect pregnant women, fetuses,
anemic individuals and persons
with cardiovascular diseases.
'*.
Particulate;matte
".
.
respiratoncon
ซv-^ป3Jซa?^
mayปincrease;
*--:*^-!'*>"**3**!Si
Snort term exposure to ozone
may impair mechanical
functions of the lungs and
may induce respiratory and
related symptoms in sensitive
individuals.
-------
Fact Sheet
February 1994
POLLUTANT
Sulfur Diox-
ide (SO2) is a
colorless gas with
a pungent odor. It
is highly soluble in
water, resulting in
the formation of
sulfurous acid,
which can easily
be converted to
sulfuric acid which
is the major acidic
component of
"acid rain."
SOURCES
ulfur dioxide
s emitted
mainly from
ources that
bum fossil fuels
coal, oil) such
as power plants
and refineries,
and from the
iroduction of
materials from
ulfur-bearing
jres, such as
copper smelt-
ng.
,iJS^#iฃwSS',s';ฃ*><ซ f,
le^reaonu^??;
Vfeซ^^ฅ?8w3fer!
lantesoiumpfcSEgi
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(N02) is a
reddish-orange-
brown gas with a
characteristic
pungent odor that
forms during high-
temperature com-
bustion to form
oxides of nitrogen
(NOx), which then
can combine with
oxygen and form
nitric dioxide, the
oxide of nitrogen
with the biggest
health hazard.
ienci
tซt*'i'ซ3ฃ!ig
ivetucless
^5ปK-S^ปS^tJ1Mgซft~ '
tiat^unjaeMei
iasbliheflcis^J;
About 44 percent
of the nitrogen
dioxide emis-
sions in the
Denver area
come from large
combustion
sources such as
power plants, 33
percent from
motor vehicles,
15 percent from
space heating, 3
percent from
aircraft and 5
percent from
miscellaneous
off-road vehicle:
NON-
ATTAIN-
MENT
AREAS
None
None
EVENTS
1992
None
STANDARD
i.03 ppm / yearly
Ll4ppm/24 hours
L5 ppm / 3 hours
None
0.053 ppm /
yearly
HEALTH EFFECTS
Sulfur dioxide can aggravate an
ndividual's respiratory tract,
impair pulmonary functions
and increase the risk of asthma
attacks.
Nitrogen dioxide can increase
respiratory problems, cause
mild symptomatic effects in
asthmatic individuals and
increase susceptibility to
respiratory infections.
-------
,-Fact Sheet
PM10 Sources
Average Annual PM10 Source Apportionments
Denver-Metro Area
MoljieEncsiom 10.0%
Streets and 45.0X
Stationary Sources 15.0%
Wfaodburning 10.0%
Otter 20.0%
Acid rain
Acid rain is the general term to describe the
rainfall removal of acidic pollutants from the atmo-
sphere. However, acids can be contained in other
forms of precipitation such as snow or fog. The term
acid deposition is used to include all the possible
forms of acid pollutant removal from the atmosphere,
but acid rain remains the popular term.
The majority of the deposited acids are nitnc acid
(HNO3) and sulfuric acid (H2SO4). These are formed
when nitrates and sulfates in the air mix with water
vapor. Coal-fired power plants and motor vehicles
are the major sources of acid pollutants in Colo-
rado.
The effects of acid deposition are the subject of
continuing controversy. The northeast section of the
United States has experienced the worst reportable
impacts in this country. Lossesjaf and changes to
aquatic life, such as fish populations, have been
attributed to acid deposition. Crop and forest growth
may be reduced by acid deposition or a combination
of acid deposition and other environmental factors.
The most sensitive systems to acid deposition are
poorly buffered lakes and streams. Buffering capacity
refers to the availability of alkaline minerals from soil
or rock to neutralize the acids.
To date, there is no firm evidence of ecological
changes caused by acid deposition in Colorado. A
survey of Colorado lakes found no lakes that have
been acidified by acid deposition. However, short
lived "acid pulses" from melting snow may be ad-
versely affecting the aquatic life of alpine lakes,
February 1994
although the water's pH is not permanently lowered.
Many areas in Colorado's Rocky Mountains are
highly sensitive, with little buffering capacity, and are
at risk of being harmed by acid deposition.
Visibility
The cause of visibility impairment is most often
fine particles in the 0.1 to 2.5 micrometer size range
(1 micrometer is a millionth of a meter). Light passing
from a vista to an observer is either scattered away
from the sight path or absorbed by the atmospheric
fine particulates. Sulfate, nitrate, elemental carbon and
organic carbon are the most effective particulates at
scattering and/or absorbing light. The man/woman-
made sources of these particulates include wood
burning, electric power generation, industrial combus-
tion of coal or oil and emissions from cars, trucks and
buses.
A visibility standard exists for the Denver area.
The standard is 0.76 per kilometer of atmospheric
extinction, which means that 7.6 percent of the light in
a kilometer of air is blocked. The level must be ex-
ceeded, averaged over four hours, for a violation to
occur. It applies during the core daylight hours from 8
a.m. to 4 p.m.
Denver's "Brown Cloud"
Visibility factors combined with meteorology are
responsible for the creation of the Brown Cloud.
When pollutants emitted from the urban environment
are trapped by a temperature Aversion, a Brown
Cloud is often created. Below is a pie chart showing
the type and amounts of pollutants found in a typical
"Brown Cloud:"
Average Visibility Apportionment
For Brown Cloud Episodes'
Nitrogen Dioiide**
Background
MobDc S ourcc*
It*
Sourc* = 1987-88 Do/iver Brown
Cloud Study
-------
Dr. Gary A. Bishop
Department of Chemistry
University of Denver
Denver, CO. 80208
voice: (303) 871-2584
fax: (303) 871-2587
email: gbishop@du.edu
Presented at "Improving The Clean Air Act: The Mobile Source Issues"
June 20-21, 1995
Stouffer Renaissance Hotel
Arlington, Virginia
-------
INTRODUCTION
Urban air quality does not meet the federal standards in many cities. Violations of the ozone
standard arise from photochemical transformation of oxides of nitrogen (NO,) and
hydrocarbons (HC). Carbon monoxide (CO) standards are primarily violated as a result of
direct emission of the gas. Mobile sources are a major factor in all urban emissions
inventories for carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and oxides of nitrogen.
Air pollution control measures to mitigate mobile source emissions in non-attainment areas
include inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs, oxygenated fuel mandates, and
transportation control measures. Nonetheless, many areas remained in non-attainment past the
1987 deadline for compliance with federal standards, and some are projected to remain in
non-attainment for many more years despite the measures currently undertaken.
In 1987, with support from the Colorado Office of Energy Conservation, the University of
Denver developed an infra-red (IR) remote monitoring system for automobile carbon
monoxide (CO) exhaust emissions. Significant fuel economy improvements result if rich-
burning (high CO and HC emissions) or misfiring (high HC emissions) vehicles are tuned to
a more stoichiometric and efficient air/fuel (A/F) ratio. Therefore, the University of Denver
CO/HC remote sensor is named Fuel Efficiency Automobile Test (FEAT). The initial
instrument was successfully demonstrated in the summer of 1987. Revised instrumentation
capable of video capture of vehicle license plates and the capability to measure exhaust
hydrocarbon emissions was demonstrated in the summer of 1990. Additional enhancements
have been added and demonstrated since then which enable the measurement of exhaust, NO
emissions, exhaust opacity, speed and acceleration, dual lane vehicle measurements and(the
capability for determining the operating temperature of a passing vehicles catalysts.
Theory of Operation
The FEAT instrument was designed to emulate the results one would obtain using a
conventional non-dispersive infra-red (NDIR) exhaust gas analyzer. Thus, FEAT is also)
based on NDIR and non-dispersive ultraviolet (UV) absorption principles. An IR and UV
source sends a horizontal beam of radiation across a single traffic lane, approximately 10
inches above the road surface. This beam is directed into the detectors on the opposite side
and divided between four individual IR detectors; CO, CO2, HC, and reference and one UV
detector; NO and reference. An optical filter that transmits IR or UV light of a wavelength
known to be uniquely absorbed by the molecule of interest is placed in front of each detector,
determining its specificity. Reduction in the signal caused by absorption of light by the
molecules of interest reduces the voltage'output. One way of conceptualizing the instrument
is to imagine a typical garage-type NDIR instrument in which the separation of the IR source
and detector is increased from 10 cm, as found in the sample cell, to 20-40 feet. Instead of
pumping exhaust gas through a flow cell, a car now drives between the source and the
detector. Because the effective plume path length and amount of plume seen depends on
turbulence and wind, the FEAT can only directly measure ratios of CO, HC or NO to CO2.
These ratios are constant for a given exhaust plume. With a fundamental knowledge^ of
combustion chemistry, we can determine many parameters of the yem'cleXpperating
-------
characteristics, including the instantaneous air/fuel ratio, grams of CO, HC or NO emitted per
gallon of gasoline burned, and the %CO, %HC or %NO in the exhaust gas.
Field Experience
The FEAT is effective across traffic lanes of up to 50 feet in width. It can be operated across
double lanes of traffic with additional video hardware; however, the normal operating mode is
on single lane traffic. The FEAT operates most effectively on dry pavement, as rain, snow, ,
and very wet pavement scatter the beams. These interferences cause the frequency of invalid
readings to increase, ultimately to the point that all data are rejected as being contaminated by
too much "noise". At suitable locations we have monitored exhaust from over two thousand
vehicles per hour.
The FEAT has been used to measure the emissions of more than 2,000,000 vehicles in 20
different countries and most metropolitan areas in the United States. The FEAT has been
shown to give accurate readings for CO, HC and NO in double-blind and open studies of
vehicles both on the road and on dynamometers. Reported accuracies for CO are better than
ฑ 5%, ฑ 15% for HC and ฑ 30% for NO.
Not all cars have equal emissions. Data from our measurements show that, a small fraction
of the passing vehicles are responsible for half or more of the emissions in any given area.
In Denver half the emissions come from only seven percent of the vehicles. In Kathmandu
half the emissions come from 25% of the vehicles. The few vehicles emitting half of the CO
and HC are referred to as "gross polluters". For automobile emissions the old adage that the
"tail wags the dog" holds true.
The overall characteristics of these fleets are very similar regardless of age, location, or the
presence or absence of I/M programs and can be mathematically described by a gamma
distribution. Most U.S. vehicles show mean emissions of 1% CO and 0.1% HC (as propane)
or less in the exhaust. The newer the fleet the more skewed the emissions. This is because
more of the vehicles have near zero emissions and thus, a smaller number of gross polluters
dominates the total emissions.
The good news is that for the U.S. fleet the lowest emitting 50% of the vehicles produce only
-4% of the CO emissions and -16% of HC using current gasoline formulas as fuel. Not all
gross polluters are old vehicles (only about 25% of pre 1975 vehicles in the U.S.). In fact,
the majority of even precatalyst vehicles are relatively low emitting. There is a strong
correlation between fleet age and fleet emissions, however, this correlation has less to do with
emissions control technology than it does with vehicle maintenance. Any well maintained
vehicle regardless of age can be relatively low emitting. All of our studies point to the fact
that new vehicles have negligible emissions when first purchased, thus emphasizing the need
for proper maintenance.
INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS AND REMOTE SENSING
Recent attempts to "enhance" current I/M programs in the United States~have-kindled a debate
-------
as to why the programs have been ineffective at reducing measurable on-road vehicle
emissions and what can be done to improve them. Current programs in the United States
have a number of notable weaknesses which likely contribute to their overall ineffectiveness.
1) Emphasize vehicle testing over vehicle maintenance.
A) Compare programs contract costs for testing versus the amount spent on mechanic
training.
B) Only emission repairs and not emission testing directly impacts air quality.
2) Assume all failed vehicles get repaired.
A) Current and enhanced program protocols and repair cost waivers encourage
owners to have vehicles tested multiple times before initiating repairs.
3) Assume vehicle emissions invariant.
A) Vehicles are tested infrequently.
B) All programs use a single pass/fail cutpoints
4) Provide no year round deterrence against emissions component tampering.
A) Tests are scheduled and at the owners consent.
5) Fairness issues limit effectiveness.
A) Often fleets are allowed to be self inspected
B) Some model years exempted from testing
C) Vehicles driven 100,000 miles/yr tested at same rate as vehicles driven 10,000
miles/yr.
The capability to now monitor vehicle emissions unobtrusively from the roadside enables
these issues to be directly dealt with from a fresh perspective. Vehicle emissions should be
monitored on a continual basis with more emphasis placed on educating the public about the
need for regular vehicle maintenance, not just when their vehicle fails an I/M test. A
continual monitoring presence can be used to deter emissions systems tampering, much in the
same way that the IRS audit's a small fraction of tax returns to encourage compliance, as
well as providing a means for evaluating the effectiveness of the I/M program. We must
remember that I/M programs are meant to reduce on-road vehicle emissions, not just
demonstrate our ability to successfully implement complicated and expensive programs. As
popular as command and control programs from government entities have been in the past all
of these programs will stand or fall on the basis of the public cooperation and acceptance. A
key underpinning of this support is whether or not the programs accomplish their goals,
namely for I/M programs cleaner air.
-------
Suggested reading:
"On-Road Vehicle Emissions: Regulations, Costs, and Benefits", Stuart P. Beaton, Gary A.
Bishop, Yi Zhang, Lowell L. Ashbaugh, Douglas R. Lawson and Donald H. Stedman, Science
268: 991-993, 1995.
"A Cost-Effectiveness Study of Carbon Monoxide Emissions Reduction Utilizing Remote
Sensing", Gary A. Bishop, Donald H. Stedman, James E. Peterson, Theresa J. Hosick and
Paul L. Guenther, J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 43:978-988. 1993.
"IR Long-Path Photometry, A Remote Sensing Tool For Automobile Emissions", Gary A.
Bishop, John R. Starkey, Anne Ihlenfeldt, Walter J. Williams, and Donald H. Stedman, Anal.
Chem. 61: 671A-677A, 1989.
D.R. Lawson, "'Passing the Test' - Human Behavior and California's Smog Check Program,",
J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc.. 43:1567, 1993.
D.R. Lawson, P.J. Groblicki, D.H. Stedman, G.A. Bishop and P.L. Guenther, "Emissions from
In-use Motor Vehicles in Los Angeles: A Pilot Study of Remote Sensing and the Inspection
and Maintenance Program", J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc.. 40(8): 1096, 1990.
J.G. Calvert, J.B. Heywood, R.F. Sawyer, J.H. Seinfeld, "Achieving Acceptable Air Quality:
Some Reflections on Controlling Vehicle Emissions," Science. 261, 37, 1993.
-------
View Graphs
-------
CO and HC Remote Sensing
Computer.
Calibration
IR Source
ERSITY of DENVER
A schematic diagram of the University of Denver on-road emissions monitor. It is
capable of monitoring emissions at vehicle speeds between 2.5 and 150 mph in under one
second per vehicle.
-------
Remote Sensing Accuracy
CO better than ฑ 5%
HC better than ฑ15%
Both measured blind
NO about ฑ 30%
Opacity about ฑ 30%
Neither blind
Speed and acceleration
0.1 mph; 0.1 mph/s
Hot/Cold car detector
-------
Denver, CO. 1992
100
90
80
70
"3 60
8 50
(D
PU 40
30
20
10
0
Vehicle Fleet
Total CO Emissions
L I, I. I. I
1 .
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Percent CO Category
-------
Katmandu, Nepal 1993
100
90
80
70
fi 6ฐ
0)
O 50
IH
0
PU 40
30
20
10
0
Vehicle Fleet
Total CO Emissions
.1 il II ll ll h 1.1....
^i^^ ^i^^^T"^i^^"T"^il^^*""^i^^""r^i^^""ir"^nf
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ll 12 13 14 15
Percent CO Category
-------
California 1991 / Goteborg, Sweden 1990
c.o
2.0
O
0 1.5
a
cd
,2 i.o
^25
0.5
n n
"
i
f-
Goteborg, Sweden
California
~
II
lilinl
II I il il II ll
76 78 80
82 84 86 88 90 92
Model Year
-------
Inspection and Maintenance Program
Weaknesses
Emphasizes testing over maintenance
Assume all failed vehicles get repaired
Assume vehicle emissions are invariant
Provide no year-round deterrence against emissions
component tampering
Fairness
-------
12
10
8
6
0
0
1988 Mercedes - 2.6L PFI
100 200 300 400 500
Time in Seconds
600
700
%CO data collected with a 4 gas analyzer from a 1988 Mercedes Benz 190E over a road course of stop-and-go/freeway driving. Low
emissions are observed when presumably the oxygen sensor was functioning properly.
-------
3UU
1, 250
^M
^j
^^^
Xj
^^^
^T 200
-H
3
oT 15ฐ
|
bfl 10ฐ
*^
O
^ 50
n
x
x
O
ซ\y
X
X
5 ฐ
M X
8
0
X X
X X
O
0 g 0 Q
e o
8 ซ a
o *i
*u
tr
r^m
c*
30 ^
>^
QfCJ
P
B
20 v^
5
^^
t_
CD
N^.
10 ^
^
n
345
Vehicle
6
FTP data for CO and HC emissions from seven 1986 and newer model year high emitters. Four (or 5) separate tests on the same fuel
are plotted for each vehicle for CO (x) and HC (o).
-------
Creating Sound Emission Standards
James Markey. Environmental Protection Specialist, National Vehicle & Fuel Emissions
Laboratory, Office of Mobile Sources, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
Glenn F. Keller, Executive Director, Engine Manufacturers Association.
-------
JAMES MARKEY
James Markey is an Environmental Protection Specialist in the Certification Division of U.S. EPA's
Office of Mobile Sources. He has been with EPA since 1990 and his work has been focused on a review of
and revisions to the Federal Test Procedure, which serves as the regulatory cornerstone of exhaust-emissions
control. Prior to joining EPA, Jim was an economist with the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of
Labor.
GLENN F. KELLER
Glenn F. Keller is Executive Director of the Engine Manufacturers Association, a not-for-profit group
consisting of worldwide manufacturers of internal-combustion engines used in all applications except
passenger cars and aircraft. He frequently acts as the main spokesman for the industry and is responsible for
ensuring that the interests of the engine manufacturers are appropriately represented in proposed legislation
and emissions regulations around the world. He joined EMA in 1987. Mr. Keller began his career with the
Ford Motor Co., spending 10 years on various projects of engine design, emissions-control development, and
car product planning. He was also a product-development consultant with L.B. Knight & Associates, where he
developed applications and processes for advanced materials. He received his BS in mechanical engineering
from the Illinois Institute of Technology and an MBA in marketing and finance from the University of
Michigan.
-------
WILLIAM M. GUERRY, JR.
Outline of Speech on Utility Engines
June 21,1995
I. CALIFORNIA REGULATIONS
n. TEXAS OPT-IN
III. FEDERAL PHASE I REGULATION
A. Effective Date
B. Stockpiling Restriction on Equipment Manufacturers, But No Separate
Effective Date
C. Elevated CO Standard
D. Two-Stroke Lawnmower Exemption
ฃ. Two-Stroke Snowthrower Exemption
F. No Mandatory In-Use Testing Program
G. Equipment Manufacturers' Responsibilities
H. No Cap on Noise
IV. REGULATORY-NEGOTIATION
A. Technology/Standards
1. Technology
2. New Engine Standards
3. In-Use Standards
4. In-Use Testing
B. Enforcement Remedies
C. Evaporative Controls
D. Voluntary Programs
1. Spillage
2. Noise Labeling
-------
FnnDuNlclIc
Depart Uenstgutif Quieter
-------
ABACUS TECHNOLOGY CORP.
Kathryn E. Derr, Seriior Associate
AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE^A'SSOCIATION
Bill Berman, Director^
AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION (AAMA)
Gerald A. Esper, Director, VED
AP PARTS INTERNATIONAL
David A. Miller, Product "Manager
AUTOMOTIVE DIAGNOSTICS
Cliff Grove, Product Manager
BP OIL COMPANY
Ken Alfred, Coordinator, Cleari^Fuels
BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
Jeffrey Williams, Project Engineer
COALITION FOR SAFER, CLEANER VEHICLES
Russell A. Hinz, President
COMSIS CORP.
Lori Diggins, Director
CROWN CENTRAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION
Jeff Folks, Manager of Government Affairs
DELAWARE DIV. OF MOTOR VEHICLES
Ronald T. Guliana, Clean Air Administrator
DELAWARE DOT OFFICE OF REGULATORY AFFAIRS
Elizabeth Sproul
ENVIRONMENTAL FUELS TECH T/.LC
Charles Wickstrom, President
ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS PRODUCTS
Bill Watson, Consultant
ENVIRO-TEST SYSTEMS CORP.
Lawrence H. Taylor, Vice President
ENVIROTEST TECHNOLOGIES
Jeff Earth, Program Manager
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION & CONSTRUCTION (MASS)
Robert M. Ruzzo, Deputy Secretary
FEDERAL HIGHWAY WORKS ADMINISTRATION
Michael Koontz, Planner
FORD MOTOR COMPANY
Thomas Falahee, Staff Attorney
GAS RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Louis A. Lautman, Senior Product Manager, NGV Products
-------
GEORGIA DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
William L. Johnson, Transportation Planner
GREATER ST. LOUIS AUTOMOTIVE ASSOCIATION
David Crafton, Executive Assistant
GREENGAS OF AMERICA
Gilbert E. Martin, Senior Consultant
HOUSTON-GALVESTON AREA COUNCIL
Mark Matteson, Transportation Planner
LIQUID CARBONIC
George Rhoades, Senior Principal Engineer
MARTA TECHNOLOGIES
Jon Wright, I/M Program Development
MARYLAND DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
David Moss, Planning Manager
MARYLAND DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
Howard Simons
MASSACHUSETTS DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Hank Southworth, Director, Division of Enhanced I/M
MASSACHUSETTS DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
John Walser, Environmental Analyst
MASSACHUSETTS REGISTRY OF MOTOR VEHICLES
John E. Houghton, Deputy Registrar
MITSUBISHI MOTORS AMERICA
Steve Sinkez, Assistant Vice President
MOBIL OIL CORP.
Sandra A. Uphill, Counsel
MOTORVAC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Neil Davis, National Accounts Manager
NATIONAL PRIVATE TRUCK COUNCIL
Earl Eisenhart, Vice President, Policy & Government Affairs
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
Raid Benfield
NEBRASKA ETHANOL BOARD
Gary Goldberg, Board Member
NEVADA DEPT. OF MOTOR VEHICLES
Pete Bellis, Emission Control Engineer
NEW JERSEY DEPT. OF MOTOR VEHICLES
Steve Robbins
NEW YORK CITY DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
David J. Ellis, Chief, ECO Program
-------
NEW YORK STATE DEPTV OF MOTOR VEHICLES
Michael P. Maher, Director, Technical Services Bureau
NEW YORK STATE DEPT. "OF MOTOR VEHICLES
J. Richard Cahill, MV Program Manager
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, ]^NC.
Eiji Makino, Manager, Technical Affairs .
ORANGE COUNTY BUSINESS COUNCIL
Julie Froeberg Puentes, Public Affairs Director
OWATONNA TOOL COMPANY
James Wanberg, Product Manager
OWATONNA TOOL COMPANY
John Nordman, Senior Product Development Specialist
PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Arleen Shulman, Section Chief
PIKES PEAK AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
Maurice H. Rahimi, Executive Director
PILLSBURY MADISON & SUTRO
Ted Stevens,, Jr., Esquire
PROTECTAIR
Ross Jenkins, I/M Manager
RADIAN CORPORATION
John Williams, Client Sectjor Manager, EPA Programs
RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEX&S
Maria Louisa Flores, Intergovernmental Relations Director
SENSORS, INC.
Rob Wilson, Vice President, Marketing and Sales
SHELL OIL COMPANY
Robert Slott
SIERR2 CLUB
Marian Rose, Energy Chair
TARRANT COUNTY
Marti VanRavenswaay, Commissioner
TARRANT COUNTY
Jon Weist, Precinct 2 Administrator
TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION
John Steib, Division Director
TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Catherine Collins, Program Administrator
TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATE SERVICES
Gus Tirado, Government Affairs
-------
TOYOTA TECHNICAL CENTER
Ed Brune, General Manager
TOYOTA TECHNICAL CENTER
Matt Kevnick, Manager
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Paul Wentworth, Environmental Protection Specialist
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Roxanne Johnson, EPA Specialist
U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
DeAndrea Michelle Leach
U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
James R. Beusse, Senior Evaluatpr
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
Jim Bloom, Engineer
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
Matt Branam, Manager of Corporate Public Affairs
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
William T. Johnstone, Chief Counsel, State and Local Policies
VERMONT AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Elizabeth McLain, Deputy Secretary
WASHINGTON GAS
Patricia Coe, Consultant
WESTCHESTER COUNTY DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
Virginia Johnson, Principal Planner
WISCONSIN DOT DIVISION OF PLANNING
Lynne B. Judd, Chief, Environmental Strategies
-------
Creating Sound
Emission Standards
I'{'
James P. Markey
National Vehicle and Fuel
Emissions Laboratory
Office of Mobile Sources, U.S. EPA
The Mobile Source Issues Conference
June 20, 1995
-------
The FTP Review Project:
A Case Study
I. Steps to a sound regulation
II. Cooperative research: lessons learned
III. Inventory-regulatory feedback
-------
I. Steps to a Sound Regulation
Identifying the problem
Understanding the problem
Solving the problem
-------
Identifying Problems with the
Federal Test Procedure
CAAA required EPA to:
"review and revise as necessary...to insure that
vehicles are tested under circumstances which reflect
actual current driving conditions..."
Complete work in 18 months
-------
Identifying the Problem...
What We Thought was Wrong
Potential concerns
- Speeds and accels
Road grade (none)
Air conditioning
- Vehicle loading
Start/soak
-------
is!
Ill
Illil;
Pitfalls of Making the Quick Call
Off-cycle Enrichment
250
^
Dooley's Aphorism:
"It wasn't what we didn't
know that hurt us, it's
what we knew for sure
that turned out to be
wrong."
Acceleration test
considered as a quick fix
iHC^COHNOx
Time is a key ingredient of sound science
-------
Understanding the Problem...
O
Non-FTP Operation and Emissions
In-use Driving Surveys
- Four U.S. cities employing two survey techniques
- Air-conditioning usage study
Emission Test Programs
- EPA and ARB testing
- AAMA/AIAM sponsored multiple test programs by in
cooperation with EPA and ARB
-------
* C i 1
'! ป**+-,
Solving the Problem...
Considerations in Revising the FTP
Test Procedures
- Representing the real world in a test cell
- External constraints (CAFE)
Standard setting
- Evaluating benefits and costs
Implementation
- Lead time considerations
-------
% V ' -. 's
Solving the Problem...
o
Proposed Revisions to the FTP
Aggressive Driving
- Taking into account differences in vehicles and drivers
Air Conditioning
- What is a "good" simulation?
- Creating incentives for in-use control
Intermediate Soaks
- Balancing getting control today against expected control
(Tier II) in the future
-------
II. Cooperative Research
PRO:
Leverage human and
financial resources
Coordinate agencies1
regulatory actions
Minimize conflicts by
working with common
database
CON:
Differing agendas and
priorities
Limiting the scope of
research
-------
III. The Importance of the
Feedback System
INVENTORY
ACTION
(REGULATION)
-------
The Mobile Source
Emission Inventory...
Purpose:
- Tells us what we have
- Where it comes from
- Starting point for modeling future inventories
Uses:
- Identifies areas of concerns
- Tool for evaluating regulatory impact
- Critical input to SIP/FIP
-------
*. f \
Inventory Improvement Efforts
Ongoing revisions to MOBILE model
- MOBILESb to be released this summer
* Incorporates effects of recent rules
Major review/revision due in early FY97
Emission Inventory Improvement Program
- Partnership with STAPPA/ALAPCO
Improve inventory guidance
NARSTO
T^EnJiance^anderstanding of ozone formation
- Develop tools for future inventory models
-------
In Summary...
Sound regulations demand sound science
Resources for sound science through
partnering research with stakeholders
Ongoing need to enhance inventory feedback system
-------
Conference on Improving the Clean Air
Act: The Mobile Source Issues
Arlington, VA June 20-21, 1995
Creating High Performance
Regulations
GLENN F. KELLER
6 DTI 3, Engine Manufacturers Association
-------
Regulatory Environment
Regulation Pervasive Throughout
Industry
Integral Facet of Product Design
Clean-Sheet Approaches
-------
Scope of Regulation
Emission Standards
Certification Procedures
Production Audit Testing
In-Use Compliance
-------
Re-Invention of Regulation
Clean-Sheet Approaches
Foster A Partnership Relationship With
Industry
-------
Attributes of a Partnership
Mutual Objectives
Mutual Cooperation
Mutual Trust
-------
Partnership: OBJECTIVES
Cost-Effective Control Measures
Incentivize Advanced Technology
-------
Partnership: COOPERATION
Feasibility > Leadtime > Stability
Uniformity of Regulation
-------
Uniformity of Regulation
Same Requirements in Every State
Broad Interpretation of Preemption
Worldwide Harmonization
-------
Partnership: TRUST
Reduce Overkill Approaches
Mutual Responsibility for Enforcement
-------
Mutual Responsibility for
Enforcement
Manufacturer Self-Certification
Quality of Production Audit
Cooperatively Monitor In-Use Compliance
-------
Closing Points
Reasonableness
Foster Mutual Trust
Eliminate "What If" Safeguards
-------
Keynote Presentation - Employee Commute Options
Hon. Donald Manzullo, Republican of Illinois, U.S. House of Representatives.
-------
HON. DONALD MANZULLO
Hon. Donald Manzullo is the Republican Representative of the 16th Congressional District of Illinois. He
was first elected to the 103rd Congress and was re-elected in November 1994 with 71% of the vote. As a
ranking member of the House Small Business Committee, Congressman Manzullo is Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Procurement, Exports & Business Opportunities. He is Vice Chairman of the Subcommittee
on International Economic Policy, Trade & The Environment of the International Relations Committee. He
also leads the Subcommittee on Asia Narcotics Working Group and serves on the Joint Economic Committee.
He received a BA from American University and a JD from Marquette University.
-------
"Pursuing Reasonable Alternatives to Car Pool Mandates"
by
U.S. Representative Don Manzullo
Illinois - 16th District
The U.S. House of Representatives is moving closer to resolving a problem facing
the people of Chicago and its rural collar counties. The Employer Trip Reduction
requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act, also known as the Employee Commute Option, has
been under fire from businesses, state and local governments for some time. The law would
require any employer, including municipal and state governments, school districts, retailers,
health care facilities, and manufacturers with 100 or more people working in severe or
extreme nonattainment areas to file plans with the states demonstrating a twenty-five percent
decrease in the number of people driving to work. This mandate currently affects eleven
states and fourteen metropolitan areas. For the past year and a half, my office has been
working with the EPA on this issue. However, we have gone as far as we can in pursuit of
an administrative rule change. Now we must pursue a legislative alternative.
We all want clean air. There is absolutely no disagreement on that issue. As part of
the goal to guarantee clean, healthy air for ourselves and our children, we must also keep in
mind that the federal government has a responsibility to apply solutions that work and
eliminate those programs that are ineffective and/or stand to cripple local economic
development. The Employee Commute Option (ECO) will cost Chicago area employers
$200 million annually. Unfortunately, even if the mandate is fulfilled to the letter of the
law, air quality improvement would be less than one percent - an improvement Assistant
EPA Administrator for Air and Radiation Mary Nichols has called "minuscule."
We must realize that ECO mandates have never worked. In California, where car
pooling mandates have been in place for some time, the South Coast Air Quality
-------
Management District is currently trying to find a way to eliminate their ECO requirements
because they haven't worked.
There are also many systematic problems with^oar pooling laws. For example, under
the ECO, a high school student will be able to drive to school wMle perhaps his mother or
father can't drive to work. A student will be able to drive while his teachers can't.
Nothing about the ECO makes sense; nor has it been effective.
So what this leaves us with is a costly, paper-pushing exercise for area employers
who are already meeting trip reduction goals and an impossible mandate for rural employers
to meet. In this country, government has a history of passing regulations, albeit with the
best of intentions, and then doing nothing to change them when they are proven to be
ineffectual.
At the moment, the U.S. House of Representatives is considering legislation that I
have introduced to truly make employee commuting an option. My legislation will allow
states to decide if they want car pooling to be part of their clean air plan. This does not
change the goals or standards of the Clean Air Act, but would allow states to develop
clean air controls that are bust suited to their circumstances.
In February, 1994, the results of an ECO demonstration project was released by
Chicago Area Transportation Survey (CATS) that showed where good alternatives to driving
were already in place, like Chicago's extensive public transportation system, tremendous trip
reduction has already been established. Out in McHenry County, however, participants
failed to meet the ECO standards even though they aggressively pursued van pooling and car
pooling programs.
-------
In April, 1995, the EPA held ECO forking group meetings in Washington and
Chicago. At these meetings, panelist heard fro'nv/many employers including the Sears and
the City of Chicago who exemplify the proper way~fcu>ursue trip reductions on a voluntary
basis. For employers who have the resources to provide trip reaijclng>ซalternatives and can
educate their employees as to the benefits of trip reduction, ECO has a practical and positive
application. Recently, the State of Illinois introduced a proactive, voluntary program
(Partners For Clean Air) designed to educate and assist businesses in finding ways to reduce
the number of single passenger trips. This is exactly the type of approach that we should be
pursuing.
The Clean Air Act was passed to monitor trends in air quality, primarily around
large U.S. metropolitan areas. The Employee Commute Option should be a tool used to
facilitate reaching national air quality goals. It should not be a club that unfairly mandates
costly paperwork and places unnecessary hardships on rural employers. Remember, the
most successful environmental program in the United States - recycling - has no federal
mandate.
- END -
U.S. Representative Don Manzullo (R-Egan) represents the 16th District of Illinois.
Congressman Manzullo serves as Chairman of the House Small Business Subcommittee on
Procurement, Exports, and Business Opportunities. He also serves as Vice Chairman^ of
the House International Relations Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and
Trade and the Subcommittee on Asia. Rep. Manzullo is a member of the Joint Economic
Committee.
-------
104TH CONGRESS
IST SESSION
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 uv ozone non-
attainment areas designated as severe, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES^
JANUARY 4,1995
Mr. MANZULLO (for himself, Mr. ARCHER, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr.
CRANE, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, Mr. FAWELL, Mr. HASTERT, Mr. HOERSTRA,
Mr. HUNTER, Mr. HYDE, Mr. KLINK, Mr. KNOLLENBERG, Mr. SAXTON,
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. WALKER, Mr.
WELDON of Pennsylvania, Mr. WILSON, and Mr. ROHRABACHER) intro-
duced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Com-
merce
A BILL
To amend the Clean Air Act to provide for an optional
provision for the reduction of work-related vehicleltrips
and miles travelled in ozone nonattainment areas; des-
ignated as severe, and for other purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. OPTIONAL EMPLOYER MANDATED TRIP RE-
4 DUCTION.
5 Section 182(d)(l)(b) of the Clean Air Act is amended
6 by to read as follows:
-------
2
1 "(B) The State may also, in its discretion, sub-
2 mit a revision at any time requiring employers in
3 such area to implement programs to reduce work-re-
4 lated vehicle trips and miles traveled by employees.
5 Such revision shall be developed in accordance with
6 guidance issued by the Administrator pursuant to
7 section 108(f) and may require that employers in
8 such area increase average passenger occupancy per
9 vehicle in commuting trips between home and the
10 workplace during peak travel periods. The guidance
11 of the Administrator may specify average vehicle oc-
12 cupancy rates which vary for locations within a non-
13 attainment area (suburban, center city, business dis-
14 trict) or among nonattamment areas reflecting exist-
15 ing occupancy rates and the availability of high oc-
16 cupancy modes. The revision may require employers
17 subject to a vehicle occupancy requirement to submit
18 a compliance plan to demonstrate compliance with
19 the requirements of this paragraph.".
O
HR S2S IH
-------
Employer Trip Reduction -- Benefit or Burden?
Constance H. Ruth. Environmental Protection Specialist, National Vehicle & Fuel Emissions
Laboratory, Office of Mobile Sources, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
C. Kenneth Orski, Founder and President, Urban Mobility Corp.
-------
CONSTANCE H. RUTH
Constance H. Ruth is an Environmental Protection Specialist with U.S. EPA's National Vehicle & Fuel
Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, MI. She has been working with EPA since 1990, focusing on the
employee commute options (ECO) program since its inception. Before joining EPA, she worked at the
University of Michigan. Ms. Ruth has a BS and MS in natural resources from the School of Natural
Resources & Environment at the University of Michigan.
C. KENNETH ORSKI
C. Kenneth Orski is Founder and President of the Urban Mobility Corporation, a Washington, DC-based
consulting firm specializing in transportation management. He heads the Mobility Coalition for Clean Air, an
alliance of employers, business organizations, and transportation-management associations coordinating a
nationwide campaign to seek repeal of the mandatory employee commute option (ECO) requirement of the
Clean Air Act. In 1993, he was appointed to the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rule ISO I
Task Force that overhauled southern California's ECO regulation. Mr. Orski served as Associate
Administrator of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration in the Nixon and Ford Administrations and,
prior to that, as Director of Urban Affairs & Transportation at the Paris-based OECD. He currently serves as a
member of the Maryland DOT Transportation Advisory Committee, Vice Chairman of the Institute of
Transportation Engineers' Travel Demand Management Council, and a member of the Technical Council of
the Intelligent Transportation Society of America. He is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law
School.
-------
The Employee Commute Options (ECO) Program
What is the Employee Commute Options (ECO) Program?
The ECO program is an innovative effort to get large employers (of 100 or more
employees at a single work site) in the areas around the U.S. with the worst air pollution to
find ways to reduce the number of their employees who drive to work alone.
What is the Object of ECO?
The program's purpose is to reduce solo-driving and promote alternative transportation
modes in order to reduce air pollution. Congress included the program in the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 as a way to improve air quality, mitigate the buildup of greenhouse
gases, and respond to increasing congestion. The ECO program represents an important first
step in the long-term role trip reduction can play in addressing these problems.
Why Does this Program Focus on Reducing Trips?
Cars and light trucks are a major source of the pollutants that form ozone, the major
component of smog. Smog has proven to be the most intractable urban area air pollution
problem. In addition, cars emit greenhouse gases and pollutants that are directly hazardous to
human health. Most reductions in vehicle emissions since 1970 have come from tailpipe
standards that have required auto-makers to produce cleaner vehicles. As new cars have
replaced older, dirtier models, the average vehicle's tailpipe emissions per mile have
decreased. However, growth in the total number of miles driven is now outpacing these
improvements in emission control technology. The ECO program addresses this trend of ever
increasing vehicles miles travelled.
How Does the Program Work?
The Clean Air Act requires that States (and Air Districts in California) develop and
implement ECO programs. These programs must require large employers to develop and
implement a plan that encourages employees to commute to work without driving alone.
Employers can select the appropriate strategies for each worksite to reduce commuting trips
and increase vehicle occupancy.
Some of the incentives an employer may consider as a means of increasing vehicle
occupancy include: promoting and subsidizing carpooling, vanpooling, transit, walking and
bicycling to work; permitting telecommuting from home and compressed work weeks;
providing preferential parking for carpools and vanpools; and offering the cash equivalent of
employer paid parking.
Where is ECO Required?
ECO is required in severe and extreme ozone nonattainment areas and serious carbon
monoxide nonattainment areas. Currently, ECO is required in the following areas:
- Baltimore - Chicago
- Houston/Galveston/Brazoria - Los Angeles
- Milwaukee - NY/NJ/CT metro area
- Philadelphia/WilmingtonyTrenton - Mohave Desert, CA
- Ventura County, CA
to. ปป ci \w\Mcm\icwoM.m
-------
UNITED STATES CODE
1988 EDITION
SUPPLEMENT IV
CONTAINING THE GENERAL AND PERMANENT LAWS OF
THE UNITED STATES, ENACTED DURING THE
CONGRESS AND 102ป CONGRESS
Pnpvtd ud published under authority of Title 2. U.S. Coda. Section 285b,
by the Office of the Law Berinon Counsel of the Houte of Bapraemuivei
JANUARY 3, 1989, TO JANUARY 4, 1993
VOLUME SIX
TITLE 42THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
ง5 1-9800
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT FEINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON . 1993
-------
TITLE 42-THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
STSlla
State should ensure adequate access to down-
town, other commercial, and residential areas
and should avoid measures that increase or
relocate emissions and congestion rattier than
reduce them.
r.BMVithm 2 years after November 15. 1990.
I ine State shall submit a revision requiring
I employers in such area to implement pro-
I grams co reduce work-related vehicle trips
I and miles traveled by employees. Such revi-
I sion shall be developed in accordance with
/ guidance issued by the Administrator pursu-
I ant to section 7408(1) of this title and shall, at
( a minimum, require that each employer of
I 100 or more persons in such area increase av-
I erage passenger occupancy per vehicle in
commuting trips between home and the work-
place during peak travel penods by not less
I than 25 percent above the average vehicle oc-
I cupancy for all such tnps in the area at the
I tune the revision is submitted. The guidance
I of the Administrator may specify average ve-
I hide occupancy rates which vary for loca-
| tions within a nonattainment area (suburban.
renter city, business district) or among nonat-
tainment areas reflecting existing occupancy
I rates and the availability of high occupancy
I modes. The revision shall provide that each
I employer subject to a vehicle occupancy re-
I quirement shall submit a- compliance plan
I within 2 years after the date the revision is
| .submitted which shall convincingly demon-
strate compliance with the requirements of
this paragraph not later than 4 years after
such date.
1
of this sectiop (relating to de minimus rule and
modification 61 sources;, and the provisions of
clause (11) of subsection (bXIKA) of this section
'relating to reductions of less than 15 percent)
shall not apply in trie case of an Extreme Area.
For any Extreme Aป*. the terms 'major
source' and "major stationary source" includes
'in addition to the sources described in section
7502 of this title) any stationan^source or
group of sources located within a contiguous
area and under common control that emitsXor
has the potential to emit, at least 10 tons ftr
year of volatile organic compounds.
11 > OfTMl requirement
For purposes of satisfying the offset re-
quirements pursuant to this part, the ratio of
total emission reductions of VOCs to total in-
creased emissions of such air pollutant shall
be at least 1.5 to 1. except that if the State
plan requires all existing major sources in the
nonattauunent area to use best available con-
trol technology (as defined in section 7479(3)
of this title) for the control of volatile organic
compounds, the ratio shall be at least 1.2 to 1.
12) Modification*
Any change of this title, except that for
purposes of complying with the offset re-
quirement pursuant to section 7503(a)U) of
this title, any such increase shall not be con-
sidered a modification if the owner or opera-
tor of the source elects to offset the increase
by a greater reduction in emissions of the air
pollutant concerned from other discrete oper-
ations, units, or activities within the source at
an internal offset ratio of at least 1.3 to l.
The offset requirements of this part shall not
be applicable in Extreme Areas to a modifica-
tion of an existing source if such modification
consists of installation of equipment required
to comply with the applicable implementa-
tion plan, permit, or this chapter.
(3) Use of eleu fiichi or advanced control tech-
nology
For Extreme Areas, a plan revision shall be
submitted within 3 yean after November 15.
I960, to require, effective 8 yean after No-
vember IS. 1990. that each new. modified, and
existing electric utility and industrial and
commercial boiler which emits more than 25
tons per year of oxides of nitrogen
(A) bum as its primary fuel natural gas.
methanol. or ethanol (or a comparably low
polluting fuel), or
(B) use advanced control technology
(such as catalytic control technology or
other comparably effective control meth-
ods) for reduction of emissions of oxides of
nitrogen.
So In omiiui. Fraottty tnwgrGe -pmwnwnf".
-------
ECO Status Sheet
(For the latest status, contact each state or air district directly)
AREA/
DISTRICT
HON&TTAIHKKHT PROPOSED
SIP
LXAD
PROGRAM
CA
CA
CA
CT
DE
IN
IL
MO
NJ
NY
PA
TX
Wl
Los Angelas
Ventura Co.
S. East Desert
NY/NJ
Philadelphia
Chicago
Chicago
Bait/Phil.
NY/Phil.
NY/NJ
Philadelphia
Houston
Milwaukee
Extreme for Ozone
Serious for CO
Severe for Ozone
Severe for Ozone
Severe for Ozone
Severe for Ozone
Severe for Ozone
Severe for Ozone
Severe for Ozone
Severe for Ozone
Severe for Ozone
Severe for Ozone
Severe for Ozone
Severe tor Ozone
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
SCAQMD
VCAPCD
MDAQMD
Conn DOT
Del DOT
IDEM
(DOT
MDE
NJDOT
NY DOT
PADER
TNRCC
WIS DNR
Plan review
1) Plan review or 2)
Performance standard
Plan review
Plan review
Plan review with
performance standard
Plan review
Intended to have seasonal
program with 4/1/95
notification
Plan review with
performance standard
Plan review with
performance standard.
Plan review
Performance standard
Performance standard
Plan review
HOUSESTA.EXL 5/9/95
-------
Employee Commute Options (ECO)
Questions and Answers
What is the Employee Commute Options (ECO) Program?
- The Clean Air Act requires employers with 100+ employees at a worksite in 9 regions
of the country to implement programs to reduce solo driving among their employees'.
The program is sometimes referred to as the Employer Trip Reduction (ETR) Program.
What is the object of this program?
- The intent of the provision is to reduce solo driving and promote alternative modes of
transportation in order to reduce pollutants in the air that affect people's health. The
provision will help reduce traffic congestion as well.
Why was this provision included in the Clean Air Act?
- Congress included the ECO provision in the Clean Air Act because even as cars are
getting cleaner, people are driving more. As a result, the benefits achieved through
technological improvements are being undermined by growth in total vehicle miles
travelled. Congress felt that there was a need to address how people travel as part of the
solution to cleaning the air and reducing traffic congestion.
Where is ECO required?
- ECO is required in severe and extreme ozone nonattainment areas and serious CO
nonattainment areas.
Baltimore Los Angeles
Houston/Galveston/Brazoria Milwaukee
NY/NJ/CT metro area Chicago
Phila./Wilmington/Trenton . Ventura County
S.E. Desert Modified AQMA (Mohave)
11 States are affected:
California Indiana Pennsylvania
Connecticut . Maryland Texas
Delaware New Jersey Wisconsin
Illinois New York
i42USC7Slla(d)(l)(B)
C:\WP\DATA\QAMARYS.WPDprint: June IS, 1995
-------
How many employers and employees are affected by the ECO program?
- Approximately 25,000 employers
- Roughly 9 million employees
What is required of employers?
- Employers subject to the provision will need to determine their Average Passenger
Occupancy (APO) by surveying their employees over a week-long period to determine
how they report to work between 6am and 10am2.
- In most areas, employers will submit detailed compliance plans for review by the State
that are designed to meet the target Average Passenger Occupancy (APO) determined by
the State (or Air District in California). Potential strategies include: promoting and
subsidizing carpooling, vanpooling, transit, walking and bicycle riding to work; allowing
for telecommuting from home and compressed work weeks; providing preferential
parking for carpools & vanpools; guaranteed ride home programs; and parking cash out3.
- A state may choose to increase the flexibility of its program by adopting a regional
approach that would allow the state to submit one compliance plan on behalf of all
employers. In this situation individual employers would not necessarily have to survey
their employees. It is state regulation that will determine what is required of employers
in each state. The employer obligation will depend on what the state regulation requires.
EPA has given States tremendous flexibility and latitude to implement the ECO program
in a flexible and common sense manner.
What is the target APO?
- The target Average Passenger Occupancy (APO) is 25% above the Average Vehicle
Occupancy (AVO) for the nonattainment area.4 If a nonattainment area is divided into
zones, then the target is a 25% increase above the AVO for each zone.
2The APO is determined by dividing the number of employees reporting to the worksite during the
morning commute by the number of vehicles in which they arrive. A carpooler's vehicle count is proportional to the
number of riders in the carpool (1/2,1/3,1/4 etc.) Employees who walk, bicycle, ride transit or telecommute from
home count as arriving in zero vehicles.
sAn employer offers to provide a cash allowance to an employee equivalent to the parking subsidy that the
employer would otherwise pay to provide the employee with a parking space.
ซThe baseline AVO is calculated by dividing all commuters in the nonattainment area during the 6-10 am
peak period by the number vehicles in which they commute.
C:\WP\DATA\QAMARYS.WPD print: June IS, 1995
-------
- A few States have a larger than 25% increase required of some employers and a less
than 25% increase required of others such that the overall 25% increase for the
nonattainment area is met.
- Most areas have a program that requires employers to submit compliance plans for
approval that are designed to meet the target APO. An employer that fails to meet the
target APO should not receive a penalty if the compliance plan was submitted, approved,
and implemented on schedule.
- Some areas have adopted a performance standard approach requiring employers to meet
the target APO. Areas that have this approach have a good faith effort policy such that
employers who do not meet the target may demonstrate a good faith effort to reach the
target and thereby not be penalized for failing to meet the target.
Will an employer already at or above the target APO need to increase any further?
No, except in Maryland where an upper level cap protects employers with high APOs.
What approaches are States using in their ECO programs?
EPA Guidance outlined four options that States could use for their ECO programs. Areas
adopting the approach are indicated.5
- The "intensive plan review" approach is based on a plan-by-plan review that ensures
each plan will "convincingly demonstrate" that the target will be met. (Ventura County,
L.A., WI, IL, IN, NY, CT, DE, MD)
- The "set of minimum measures" approach lays out a set of strategies required for
employers. (No states opted for this approach.)
- The contingency plan approach requires each employer that fails to meet the target to
implement a stringent set of strategies. (No states opted for this approach.)
- The performance standard approach requires employers to meet the target APO or be
subject to penalties. The areas adopting this approach have a good faith effort policy.
(TX, NJ, PA, DE, MD, & Ventura County)
sin some areas employers may choose between two approaches.
C:\WP\DATA\QAMARYS.WPD print: June 1S, 1995 3
-------
When will employers begin the program?
- Many of the states have already received or will begin to receive compliance plans from
employers during 1995. Some will begin implementation later. Contact each state
directly for its implementation schedule.
What is the status of the ECO program?
- Over 16,000 employer plans have been submitted.
- All 13 ECO State Implementation Plans (SIPS) due to EPA have been submitted and
found complete by EPA.
- EPA has approved 4 SIPs. (IN, TX, WI, and the Greater Los Angeles area) Three
proposals to approve SIPs have been made by EPA. (CT, IL, & NJ) .
- Some states have suspended their programs for a time. These include IL, PA, MD and
TX.) By working together with states in a problem-solving mode, EPA is optimistic that
the issues that have led to controversy in some areas can be resolved through a
constructive dialogue.
What agencies are implementing this program?
- 9 State Air agencies (or Air Districts in California) (Ventura, L.A., Southeast Desert,
TX,WI,IN,MD&PA)
- 5 State DOTs (IL, NJ, CT, NY & DE)
What will be the impact of the ECO program on employees?
- Employees will be provided options by employers such as subsidies for transit (where it
is available); ride-matching services for carpooling; opportunities to telecommute or to
work a compressed work week; guaranteed rides home in the case of emergency,
preferential parking for carpools and vanpools and cash as an option in the place of
parking provided by the employer as a benefit. Employees may elect to participate or not
participate in any program offered by employers.
What is the best way to know what is happening in each State or area regarding ECO?
- Officials in each State or Air District should be contacted directly to obtain the latest
information regarding the ECO program.
C:\WP\DATA\QAMMIYS.NPD print- June IS, 1995
-------
The Employee Commute Options (ECO) Program in Practice
ECO - Part of a national effort to clean the air
The Clean Air Act calls on many industries and sectors of society to contribute to cleaning
the air across America. As a result of these contributions, the United States is making progress
toward the fundamental goal of the Act - clean and healthy air for all Americans.
One of the main reasons for continuing urban air pollution problems is a rapid increase in
the number of miles being traveled by cars and light trucks. These increases threaten to overwhelm
progress toward clean air that is occurring as older, dirtier vehicles are replaced by newer, cleaner
ones.
As an important first step toward slowing the increase in miles driven, Congress created the
Employee Commute Options (ECO) program in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. In the
metropolitan areas with the worst ozone or carbon monoxide pollution, large employers are required
to implement programs that encourage their employees to commute by methods other than driving
alone. Requirements apply only to employers that have 100 or more employees at a work site.
Currently, nine metropolitan areas are affected:
Baltimore " Los Angeles
Houston/Galveston/Brazoria NY/NJ/CT metro area
Milwaukee Ventura County, CA
Philadelphia/Wilmington/Trenton Chicago
Mohave Desert, CA
Employer programs must be designed to achieve a target ridership level. Generally, plans
must be designed to increase the average number of riders in vehicles driven to work by 25% over
the average for their area prior to ECO. Employers are free to use any trip reduction incentives they
choose, and to tailor those incentives to their particular work site. Examples of incentives include
compressed work schedules, the option of cash rather than a free parking space, transit pass
subsidies, ride-matching services for carpooling, and guaranteed rides home for carpoolers in case
of emergency.
As part of its Climate Change Action Plan, the Clinton Administration is promoting
"parking cash-out" legislation that would eliminate the need for employers to pay taxes on cash
provided to employees in place of employer-paid parking. Some employers may find that this
strategy - offering employees the option of cash rather than a free parking space ~ would allow
them to meet their ECO requirements with little if any additional expense.
ECO - Reducing air pollution and traffic congestion
The ECO program will:
Reduce traffic congestion. Traffic congestion wastes time that commuters could spend on
the job or with their families, and decreases worker productivity by increasing their levels of
C \WFVPACKEI\EOOJFG WFD Miy 9.1999
-------
stress and fatigue.
Cut motor vehicle emissions, reducing health threats from smog and carbon monoxide.
Ozone can cause reduced lung function and other respiratory problems and may lead to
chronic lung diseases. Low levels of carbon monoxide can aggravate angina pectoris, a
cardiovascular disease, and may hinder prenatal mental and physical development.
Cut emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming.
Promote use of public transit and provide incentives for employers and transportation
agencies to work together on regional solutions to transportation problems.
ECO is being implemented
The states are actively implementing the program. All thirteen of the required ECO
regulations are in place. (Some of the nine metropolitan areas subject to ECO are in more than one
political jurisdiction.) In most areas, employers either submitted plans in 1994 or will submit them
in 1995. Many employers already are implementing their ECO plans.
ECO is flexible
EPA is committed to flexible implementation of the ECO program. The Agency has worked
closely with state and local air and transportation officials to fashion the program with mat principle
in mind. As a result, state and local agencies have substantial discretion to design and implement
their ECO programs, and employers have many options for achieving ECO's goals. For example:
States can set differing ridership targets for employers in different parts of a nonattainment
area - for example, downtown and suburban areas. New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas
have taken advantage of this flexibility.
States can allow employers to reach ECO ridership targets by averaging among different
work sites, or by obtaining credits from other employers who achieve greater-than-required
trip reductions.
State ECO programs can protect employers from receiving penalties if they fail to meet trip
reduction goals when a good-faith effort has been demonstrated. Employers who fail to
meet the ridership goal may be required to take additional steps to encourage alternatives to
solo driving.
States may allow credit for employees arriving in clean-fuel vehicles.
Recently, EPA has adopted other policies that add to the program's flexibility. For example:
A state may establish a regional trip-reduction program as a means of meeting the ECO
requirement. A state may demonstrate that the regional program would produce trip
reductions equivalent to those from a successful ECO program, and employers would not be
C \WP\PAdOBneCOSPO WTO M^9,1995 *
-------
required to submit individual plans. An example of such a program would be parking cash-
out on a regional level. At little or no additional cost to employers, employees would be
offered the option of cash rather than employer-paid parking.
States may approve employer plans that include subsidies to employees ป for example,
subsidies for transit or ridesharing - that are applied"only during the season of high
pollution levels. As a result, employers may focus a significant portion of their ECO
resources on the time of year when air pollution levels most warrant trip reduction efforts.
States may allow employers credit for reducing delivery and other work-related trips during
the peak commuting period.
States may allow credit for employees who travel to a satellite work center rather than a
main worksite located farther from home.
States may accept credit for children dropped off at daycare. For example, an employee
who drops two children off at daycare en route to a worksite will be counted as arriving in
1/3 of a vehicle.
Commute option incentives - Working for employers
Some employers are implementing trip reduction strategies solely because it makes good
business sense. For example:
A large oil company in Houston for a decade has used commute options incentives as a way
to recruit and retain employees. The company has succeeded in getting 87 percent of its
1,500 employees to find alternatives to solo driving. The company provides transportation
subsidies and parking-cost reductions for carpoolers.
In Atlantic County, NJ, one employer investigated telecommuting as a means of meeting
ECO requirements. The company subsequently found it was not subject to ECO
requirements, but decided to implement telecommuting anyway for business reasons.
Commute options incentives sometimes offer the opportunity for firms to save money. For
example, a California employer was able to avoid building a $1 million parking garage by
implementing trip reduction measures instead.
Commute option incentives - Working for employees
ECO can benefit employees by providing them with new commute options and incentives.
Many of these incentives such as compressed work weeks, transit pass subsidies, or parking cost
reductions for carpoolers constitute benefits to employees. ECO will encourage some employers
to offer employees greater flexibility in their work schedules.
Employees remain free to accept or reject these incentives. There is nothing in the Clean
Air Act that would force an employee to change commuting habits.
C\WPVACXET\ECOiK}.Wn> MiyJ.1995
-------
ECO commuting options will give some workers - especially-those in multi-car families -
the choice of selling a car used primarily for commuting. The result could be a savings of up to
$6,000 a year in auto ownership and operating costs.
Commuting options also can help workers reconcile the demands of work and family.
Connecticut officials report that many employers are exploring telecommuting and compressed
work-week programs to solve work/family challenges and commuting problems.
Employer-based programs - ECO works for employers
The following examples of employer trip reduction programs are cited by a contractor study
for the Federal Highway Administration1:
At GEICO headquarters in Friendship Heights, Md., 20 percent of employees rideshgre, 31
percent use transit, and only 40 percent drive alone. The site is a few blocks from a regional
subway station. GEICO's travel demand management plan included restricted on-sitf
parking (1,020 spaces for 2,500 employees) and parking fees ($10 or $60) for off-site;
parking. The plan also included free parking and reserved spaces for carpools and vanpools,
a subsidized vanpool program, and transit subsidies.
The Ventura County Government Center in California, which has 2,700 employees at its
suburban headquarters site, achieved a 13 percent decrease in vehicle trips in a five-month
period. The site is not well served by public transit and abundant free parking is available.
In response to a local air quality regulation, the county offered a cash incentive to employees
based on the number of days they do not drive alone to work annually. Employees receive
$300 annually if they use alternatives to solo driving an average of three days per week,
$200 if they average two days per week. To support the program, the county offers a
guaranteed ride home program, preferential parking, and bike-walk facilities.
At Bellevue City Hall in Bellevue, Wash., transit service at the site is limited, making access
dependent upon private vehicles. Yet nearly 50 percent of the employees use carpools,
vanpools, transit, or other alternatives to solo driving. This represents 25 percent fewer
vehicle trips than other sites in the region. The city's plan includes a $30-per-month parking
charge. Free, priority parking is available to employees who carpool or vanpool at least 60
percent of the time. Employees who use commute alternatives at least 80 percent of the v
time receive a subsidy of $15 to $25 per month. Because parking fees are used to subsidize
alternative modes, the net cost of the program to the city is zero.
ECO - Promoting public-private solutions to transportation problems
In die Chicago suburbs, a transportation management association, made up of local
employers, has worked jointly with local government to promote ridesharing for employees and the
public at large. Computer kiosks for ride-matching were installed at little cost to participating
"A Gukfance Manual for In^feniai^ Effects Eo^^ Demand Management Programs.", NwemBBrJ993, Federal Highway
Administration number DOT-T-94-05.
CWWACKEnECOJKXWrD Mqrป. 199J 4
-------
employers using federal highway funds allocated to^congestion mitigation and air quality
improvement projects. Within a few months, seven vanpools and 28 carpools have been
established, enabling participating employees to save thousands of dollars. The ECO program was a
significant impetus for this effort.
c\wp\pA(XEneoasro wn> M* 9, IMS
-------
Update on the
Employee Commute Options (ECO) Program
On March 15,1995, Assistant Administrator Mary Nichols asked the Clean Air Act
Advisory Committee (CAAAC) to form a working group to explore ways that EPA could
provide additional flexibility to states implementing Employee Commute Options (ECO)
programs and to recommend a range of model ECO programs that could be adapted to local
areas. The CAAAC was established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA) in 1990 to advise EPA on implementation of the Clean Air Act.
The ECO Flexibilities Work Group met in person on two occasions, once in Washington,
DC, and once in Chicago, and once via a conference call. One-half of the Chicago meeting was
dedicated to hearing from major employers and from states or regions subject to the program.
Based on these discussions, the Work Group released a draft report of its recommendations for
flexibility, along with several concept papers describing alternative ECO program options, on
April 26,1995.
After discussing the Work Group's draft report at its meeting on June 1, the CAAAG's
Subcommittee on Linking Energy, Transportation and Air Quality passed on to the full
Committee a resolution containing its recommendations from the report. The full Committee
adopted that resolution on June 2 and submitted it to EPA. The CAAAC's five recommendations
are attached.
EPA is evaluating the CAAAC's recommendations, and is preparing a response thatHve
hope to release soon. We expect to be able to offer states and employers additional flexibilities
as a result of the Committee's work.
We believe that these new flexibilities, combined with those we have already identified,
will provide a wide range of options that will address the concerns raised about ECO and ease its
implementation. Regional programs, for example, allow states to replace individual employer
requirements with regional approaches, such that employers are relieved of any potential
liability. We believe that this option and the other flexibilities that are available will enable
states to implement their ECO programs smoothly within the requirements of the Act.
As the only specifically required measure to address the growth in automobile travel,
which threatens to overwhelm the emission reductions this country is achieving through cleaner
vehicles and fuels, the ECO program is an important first step in bringing attention to this
growing source of emissions and in building an infrastructure for efforts that will be useful for
achieving and maintaining air quality over the long-term.
EPA continues to be committed to seeking flexibilities in the ECO program in
cooperation with states. As a result of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee's work, we believe
that we will be even better able to identify ways that we can more effectively assist states in
crafting ECO programs that respond to their local situations, minimize the burdens, on both states
and employers, and set the foundation for trip reduction efforts that will continue to provide
benefits for air quality into the future.
C:\WP\DATA\MBLESRCE.WPD June 14, 1995
-------
08/05/85 MON 14:31 FAI 20228090S5 >AR I 0
Adopted by the full Clean Air Act Advisory Committee
on June 2, 1995 and Submitted to EPA
RESOLUTION OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE
r.TNKINO EHEROY. TRANSPORTATION AKD AIR QUALITY
This Subcommittee recommends adoption of the following five
recommendations from the Report of the ECO Flexibilities Work
Group, dated April 26, 1995.
1. State or Regional Plans. Allow states or regions to
assume some or all of an employer's responsibility under
the ECO program by implementing a state or regional trip
reduction program.
2. Emissions gauivalance. Allow employers to substitute
equivalent emissions reductions in lieu of submitting a
plan to increase vehicle ridership.
3. Good Faith Efforts. Retain the ability of individual
states to define and recognize good faith efforts as, a
measure of compliance with the program,
4. cr^it for AH Trip Reductions. Allow full credit for
the reduction of any trips, whether work-related or not,
and for the parti nipatio* nf any group including driving-
age students.
5. Seasonal Plans. Allow states, regions, or employers to
implement seasonal plans.
Further, we state that EPA has the authority under thซ
existing Clean Air Act to implement these recommendations.
2022609055 06-05-95 02:29PM P002 ป13
R-96X
-------
Bulletin Board Access to the ECO Flexibilities Work Group Draft Report
The draft report of the ECO Flexibilities Working Group is available through the USEPA
Office of Air Quality Standards and Technology Transfer Network (TTN) in North Carolina.
First time users need to follow an initial registration process. If you need help with using the
TTN you can have voice contact with the TTN at (919) 541-5384. The modem access number
is: (919) 541-5742. The six steps in the access path are:
1) Gateway to TTN Technical Areas 4)<8> Transportation Rulemaking Areas
2) OMS - Mobile Source information 5)File area #3... Employee Commute Options
3) Rulemaking & Reporting 6)FLEXREPT.ZIP
On March 15,1995, EPA Assistant Administrator Mary Nichols asked a work group of
the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) to examine program design options available
to states under current law for the Employee Commute Options (ECO) program as indicated by
the Clean Air Act. The CAAAC was established hi accordance with the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA) in 1990 to advise EPA on implementation of the Clean Air Act.
Specifically, Assistant Administrator Nichols asked that the ECO Flexibilities Work Group
review the flexibility EPA has currently provided to states and employers implementing ECO
and to recommend any additional flexibility that can be granted under existing law. The Work
Group's draft report addresses the concerns of employers and the states regarding the program,
what EPA policy currently provides and a discussion of recommendations.
The Work Group draft report does not represent a final recommendation of the Clean Air
Act Advisory Committee or its Subcommittee on Linking Transportation, Energy and Air
Quality (the "Subcommittee"). In accordance with FACA requirements, the Work Group report
will be forwarded to the Subcommittee at its next publicly noticed meeting on June 1,1995. If
the Subcommittee approves the report, it will forward it to the full Clean Air Act Advisory
Committee for consideration at its next publicly noticed meeting on June 2,1995. At that time
the Committee will decide whether to endorse the report and submit it to EPA for formal
consideration. The draft report does not constitute EPA policy.
The Work Group members were drawn from the CAAAC Subcommittee Linking
Transportation, Energy and Air Quality and others who represent a broad range of interests
including employers, state and local government, transportation planners and environmental
interest groups. The Work Group met in person on two occasions, once in Washington, DC, and
once in Chicago and held one conference call. One-half of the Chicago meeting was dedicated to
hearing informal testimony from major employers and from states or regions subject to ECO.
June 15. 199SC.\HP\DATA\BBSBLORB.3origin4/21/>5
-------
State and EPA Contacts for ECO Programs
| Agency/Contact
Phone Fax
U.S. EPA Office of Mobile Sources
Natalie Dobie
California
U.S. EPA Region IX
Debbie Schecter
313/741-7812 668-4531
415/744-1227 744-1076
CA Air Resources Board
Elizabeth Miller
Los Angeles - South
SCAQMD
Laki Tisopulos
Southeast Desert
MDAQMD
Cynthia Specht
Ventura County
VCAPCD
Pam Couch
Connecticut
U.S. EPA Region 1
Damien Houlihan
CTDOT
Dennis Jolly
Michael Sanders
916/445-6243 322-3646
Coast Air Basin
909/396-3123 396-3306
619/245-1661 245-2022
805/645-1423 645-1444
617/565-3266 565-4939
203/594-2844 594-3445
203/594-2830 594-3445
Agency /Contact
Delaware
U.S. EPA Region III
Larry Budney
DelDOT
Elizabeth Sprout
Illinois
U.S. EPA Region V
Jessica Radolf
IDOT
Susan Stitt
Indiana
U.S. EPA Region V
Jessica Radolf
IDEM
Michael Worrell
Maryland
U.S. EPA Region III
Paul Wentworth
MDE
Mary Jane Rutowski
New Jersey
U.S. EPA Region II
Jeff Butensky
NJDOT
Moreen Cardinal!
Judith Parrish
Phone
215/597-7661
302/577-6620
312/886-3198
217/782-2863
312/886-3198
317/232-8218
215/597-7661
410/631-3270
212/637-4227
609/292-9780
609/292-9750
Fax
580-201 1
577-6624
886-5824
785-0468
886-5824
233-5967
580-201 1
631-3202
637-3958
292-4599
292-4599
Agency/Contact
New York
U.S. EPA Region II
Linda Kareff
NY DOT
Robert Ancar
Pennsylvania
U.S. EPA Region III
Larry Budney
PADER
J. Wick Havens, Jr.
Texas
U.S. EPA Region VI
Hal Brown
TNRCC
Hazel Barbour
John Gillen
Wisconsin
U.S. EPA Region V
John Mooney
W/S DNR
John Duffe
Dale Darrow
Phone
212/637-3352
518/457-2064
215/597-7661
717/787-4310
214/655-7248
512/239-1440
713/666-4964
312/886-6043
608/267-0806
414/263-8659
Fax
637-4249
457-7960
580-2011
772-2303
665-7263
239-2050
666-4978
886-0617
267-0560
263-8716
CONTACT XLS 5/11/95
-------
Mobility Coalition for Clean Air
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE APRIL 21, 1995
CONTACT: KENNETH ORSKI, 202/775-0311
Coalition Hails Recommendations
of an EPA Working Group
To Allow Further Flexibilities in ECO Implementation
WASHINGTON, DC -- The Mobility Coalition for Clean Air today hailed the recommendations
of a working group of EPA's Clean Air Act Advisory Committee to allow further flexibilities in the
implementation of the employee trip reduction (also known as Employee Commute Options or ECO)
provision of the Clean Air Act. The group, known as the "ECO Flexibilities Working Group," was
convened at the request of EPA Assistant Administrator Mary Nichols to evaluate the current
operation of the ECO program, to identify any additional flexibilities that can be granted under
existing law, and to recommend whether and how the statute should be amended.
"We commend the Working Group and its co-chairs, Bob Wyman and Cecilia Estolano, for
reaching a consensus on a set of significant conclusions," said the Coalition's spokesman,
C. Kenneth Orski. "The Group's recommendations respond to many of the Coalition's earlier
demands, and go a long way toward relieving the concerns of our members. We hope that the full
Advisory Comittee will endorse the Group's report and that the EPA will proceed to implement
them promptly. However, we still believe that a legislative change making ECO voluntary is needed
to remove any potential threats of court challenges and employer liability, and we shall continue to
press for Congressional action."
The ECO Working Group has recommended that EPA should revise its policy and expressly
allow states to demonstrate "equivalent efforts of performance" measured by vehicle emissions.
This approach, long advocated by the Coalition and recently adopted by Southern California's
South Coast Air Quality Management District in its overhaul of Rule 1501 (Regulation XV), would
allow employers to substitute alternative emissions reductions measures for the currently required
trip reduction programs. Among such measures - all of which are thought to be more cost-
effective and less burdensome than ECO programs - are fleet conversion to clean fuels, use of
remote sensing to identify and repair gross polluting vehicles, and scrappage of older, high-polluting
cars. In a significant departure from EPA's charge to the Group not to consider legislative changes,
the report recommends that "an amendment that clarified EPA's authority to approve equivalent
state programs, based either on trip or emissions equivalency, would be desirable." The report
notes that, while an amendment is probably not absolutely necessary, "it is always preferable for
Congress to articulate its intention when EPA is faced with a circumstance demanding such an
1133 15th Street Suite 1200 Washington DC 20005
202/775-0311 Fax: 202/775-4867
-------
expansive reading of a statutory provision." Earlier EP& directives warned California and Texas
officials that any proposals involving equivalent emissions reductions measures, such as vehicle
scrappage programs, would be unacceptable under current la"wr
The Working Group also has recommended that states be allowed to take over employers'
responsibilities under ECO by implementing regional trip reduction programs. While states would
still have to "convincingly demonstrate" the required trip or equivalent emissions reductions, they
could receive credit for the reduction of any trips, whether work-related or not. and arising from
continuous as well as seasonal and episodic programs. Regionwide trip reduction programs in lieu
of worksite-based programs are already being contemplated by Texas and Maryland.
The report states that the Group was divided on the question of whether it should recom-
mend a statutory change to make ECO programs voluntary. In support of a voluntary program, the
report notes, some members cited long standing efforts by the business community to promote
commute options and reduce traffic congestion on a voluntary basis.
The Mobility Coalition for Clean Air, an alliance of employers, business organizations and
transportation management associations in non-attainment areas, is coordinating a nationwide
campaign to make the employee trip reduction programs voluntary. The Coalition is working closely
with the National Association of Manufacturers, the Highway Users Federation and other groups
dedicated to regulatory reform, continued mobility and freedom of choice in transportation.
-------
Employee Commute Options (ECO) Requirement
1. Even if fully implemented, the ECO requirement will only yield insignificant emission reduction
benefits. According to an independent study by the Institute of Transportation Engineers,
ECO programs will result at most in a one to two percent reduction in mobile source
emissions. This conclusion has been confirmed by a Joint DOT/EPA Report to Congress,
Clean Air Through Transportation (August 1993). EPA Assistant Administrator Mary Nichols,
herself has admitted that emissions reductions from ECO programs would be "miniscule."
2. The cost of achieving these modest reductions promises to be extremely high. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has estimated the cost of implementing the ECO program at
$1.2 to $1.4 billion annually. Data from Southern California, where a similar requirement has
been in effect since 1988, indicates annual implementation costs of over $ 100 per employee
and $3,000 per each vehicle taken off the road. (Ernst & Young, Regulation XV Cost Survey.
November 1992). This does not include the unfunded costs incurred by states in adminis-
tering and enforcing the regulation.
3. Southern California's experience with employee trip reduction regulations has been widely
acknowledged to be a failure. Despite an agressively promoted employee trip reduction
program promulgated by Regulation XV, now in its seventh year of operation, the vehicle
occupancy ratio has increased only marginally from 1.13 to 1.31 persons per car and
there are more Angelenos driving to work alone now than there were two years ago: the
drive-alone rate has increased from 77.2% in 1992 to 80.6% in 1994.
4. The goal of a uniform 25 percent increase in average vehicle occupancy bears no relation to
the air quality attainment objectives of the Clean Air Act. A single national target requires
every affected non-attainment area to make the same effort regardless of actual air quality
conditions and regardless of past efforts to promote transit usage and ridesharing. What is
more, only 10-15 percent of cars on the road are serious polluters. To penalize all commuters
for pollution caused only by a small fraction of vehicles is to practice a one-size-fits-all
approach to regulation that even the EPA has condemned as inappropriate.
5. Driving restrictions are only one of many potential approaches to reducing mobile source
emissions. Other methods include conversion of company fleets to clean fuel, detecting and
repairing high emitters, and the so-called "cash-for-clunkers" programs that offer incentives
to scrap older, highly polluting cars. The choice of control strategies should be influenced by
criteria of cost and effectiveness not by a misguided desire to reduce automobile depen-
dency or modify commuters' driving behavior.
6. At the very least, states should have the option to enforce trip reduction requirements on an
episodic basis. Continuous driving restrictions are a regulatory overkill they are not needed
to meet the attainment goals of the Clean Air Act. Even during the summer months, most
non-attainment areas register only a few isolated episodes of pollution exceedances, which
could be prevented through emergency driving restrictions during "ozone alerts." Occasional
restrictions would not require fundamental changes in commuting habits and thus would be
more likely to elicit public cooperation.
7. Opposition to the ECO requirement is widespread. Seven of the ten states with affected non-
attainment jurisdictions have suspended their ECO programs, calling them "a costly federal
mandate that, by the federal government's own admission, produces little environmental
benefit." The business community in the affected jurisdictions is unanimous in its opposition.
Both houses of Congress have approved a rider to the FY 1995 rescissions bill that denies
funds to the EPA to "impose or enforce" the ECO requirements.
-------
INNOVATION BRIEFS
Urban Mobility Corporation
Volume 6, Number 3
Clean Air Act Implementation
June 1995
Transportation and the Changing Political Landscape III
The aftershocks of the political realignment in Congress and state capitals continue to reverberate
across the transportation sector. INNOVATION BRIEFS continues its coverage of the changing
transportation/clean air scene with a report covering events since March 1995. This Brief draws
in part on interviews with Congressional staff, senior federal and state agency officials and
executives of trade associations and interest groups.
DOT Reorganization Proposal
States Proclaim ECO Program "Inoperative"
EPA Shows Further Signs of Accommodation
Plans for "Corrections Days" Advance
"New Partners" Initiative Suffers a Further Setback
Three States Seek Alternatives to Current ETR Programs
In Other Congressional Developments...
DOT's Reorganization Proposal Submitted to Congress
On April 6, Transportation Secretary Frederico Pena un-
veiled a legislative proposal to restructure US DOT's
organization and programs. As previously reported (see,
"Transportation and the Changing Political Landscape
II," Innovation Briefs, April 1995) the proposal would
consolidate eight operating modal administrations into a
single Intermodal Transportation Administration. The
Federal Aviation Administration and the Coast Guard
would retain their current autonomy. The reorganization
proposal confirms the Administration's previously an-
nounced intention to merge 30 existing grant programs
into three, and to finance all surface transportation and
maritime programs out of a Surface Transportation Ac-
count funded with Highway Trust Fund revenues. Many
issues, notably distribution formulas for funding, are yet
to be decided.
Consolidation proposals eliminating modal baronies
have been made as far back as the early 1970s when
William T. Coleman, President Ford's Transportation
Secretary first proposed merging DOT's modal adminis-
trations and creating a single Surface Transportation
Administration. These proposals inevitably have met
with polite indifference from Congressional committees
and interest groups, bent on preserving their respective
spheres of influence. This time around, the outcome is
even more uncertain because of the Administration's
related proposal to finance all surface transportation
programs including some not currently eligible to
receive highway fundsout of the Highway Trust Fund.
That is something that Rep. BudShuster, chairman of the
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has
already vowed he will not allow, "over his dead body."
Establishing a single surface transportation admin-
istration while maintaining separately funded modal pro-
grams, each subject to different rules and eligibility crite-
ria, would go only part way toward the goal espoused by the
Administration that of creating a truly "seamless"
multi-modal surface transportation system.
Innovation Briefs are published by
URBAN MOBILITY CORPORATION
C Kenneth Orski, Editor
1133 Fifteenth Street, NW Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005
Tel. 202/775-0311 Fax: 202/775-4867 ISSN 1071-393X
-------
States Proclaim ECO Program "Inoperative"
Responding to growing pressures from the public and
facing mounting signs of Congressional restiveness (see
below), seven of the ten states with affected non-attain-
ment jurisdictions have suspended their employee trip
reduction (also known as employee commute options, or
ECO) programs. The seven jurisdictions are:
Illinois, where Governor Jim Edgar has announced
that he was suspending implementation of the ECO pro-
gram, calling it "a costly federal mandate that, by the
federal government's own admission, produces little
environmental benefit." In a related development, the
Illinois EPA has just launched a voluntary program to
reduce polluting activities on summer days when high
ozone levels are forecast (see below).
Pennsylvania, where Governor Tom Ridge, acting
pursuant to a mandate of the state legislature, has likewise
suspended the implementation and enforcement of the
ECO program "until further notice."
New Jersey, whose Department of Transportation has
announced that it was disbanding the Enforcement and
Compliance Unit of its Employer Trip Reduction Program
and shifting its emphasis to cooperation and voluntary
compliance.
Texas, whose legislature has voted to suspend imple-
mentation of the ETR program for 180 days in order to
give the Natural Resources Conservation Commission
(TNRCC) a chance to revise the current program into one
that encourages voluntary employer participation (see
below).
California, where the Board of the South Coast Air
Quality Management District approved sweeping changes
in its Rule 1501 (Regulation XV) to allow employers to
substitute emission reduction measures for the traditional
trip reduction programs. The Board's 9-1 vote culminated
a 15-month process that began when the Board created a
task force of business and community leaders to find ways
to revamp the widely unpopular requirement.
Maryland, where a proposal to suspend the ECO
program and substitute a voluntary regional commute
assistance program is under active consideration (see
below).
Delaware, whose Department of Transportation has
convened a working group of state and county officials,
transportation management association representatives
and chambers of commerce to identify areas where
"flexibility should be exercised."
This does not mean that states are openly defying the
law. Rather, they are putting SCO's implementation on
hold, hoping that the cumulative effect of a public outcry,
Congressional pressure, lack of support from main'
stream environmental organizations, and EPA's own
growing self-doubts about the policy and its political fall-
out, will lead to ECO's modification either through
administrative or Congresional action. In the meantime,
states are shifting emphasis to voluntary compliance. As
one senior state environmental agency official put it to
us, "let's face it, mandating behavior when it comes to
personal auto use isn 't good politics... I know ofnoone in
my agency who still believes it is worth fighting for."
... as Congress Strips EPA Budget of Funds to Imple-
ment ECO
In the meantime, both the House and Senate versions of the
Fiscal Year 1995 rescissions bill include a rider denying
funds to the EPA to "impose or enforce" employee trip
reduction requirements.
The Congressional prohibition applies only to the cur-
rent fiscal year, ending September 30,1995, and hence
its practical effect is negligible. However, the action,
even though largely symbolic, sends a clear message that
Congress has the votes to overturn the ECO mandate.
EPA Shows Further Signs of Accommodation
Faced with mounting Congressional pressure and with
evidence of a massive disaffection and defection
among state officials, the Environmental Protection
Agency is showing further signs of accommodation. A
special working group of EPA's Clean Air Act Advisory
Committee, convened at the request of Assistant Admin-
istrator Mary Nichols, has concluded that there is, indeed,
a need for further flexibilities in the implementation of the
ECO requirement. On April 21, the Group has submitted
a set of recommendations to EPA, following a day-long
meeting in Chicago on April 11. The working group
reached a consensus on two major recommendations:
1. "Equivalent Emissions Reductions" Programs.
EPA should revise its policy and expressly allow states to
demonstrate "equivalent efforts of performance" mea-
sured by reductions in vehicle emissions. This approach,
recently adopted by Southern California's South Coast Air
Quality Management District in its overhaul of Rule 1501
(Regulation XV), would allow employers to substitute
emissions reductions measures for the currently required
trip reduction programs. The most widely mentioned such
measures considered to be less costly and more effec-
tive than ECO programs are fleet conversion to clean
fuels, use of remote sensing to identify and repair gross
emitters, and scrappage of older, high-polluting cars.
"These efforts will advance air quality objectives and
deserve active EPA encouragement and approval," says
the Working Group's report.
2. State-Administered Regionwide Programs. States
should be allowed to take over employers' responsibilities
under ECO by implementing regional trip reduction pro-
grams. While states would still have to "convincingly
-------
demonstrate" the required trip or equivalent emissions
reductions, they could receive credit for the reduction of
any trips, whether work-related or not, and arising from
continuous as well as seasonal and episodic programs (the
latter as a supplement to a basic program). Regionwide
trip reduction programs that will rely on voluntary rather
than mandatory employer participation are actively being
considered by Texas and Maryland (see below).
In a significant departure from EPA's charge not to
consider legislative changes, the Working Group's report
recommends that "an amendment that clarified EPA's
authority to approve equivalent stale programs... would be
desirable." The report notes that, while an amendment is
probably not absolutely necessary, "it is always preferable
for Congress to articulate its intention when EPA is faced
with a circumstance demanding such an expansive reading
of a statutory provision." Earlier EPA directives warned
California and Texas officials that any proposals involv-
ing equivalent emissions reductions measures, such as
vehicle scrappage programs, do not meet the stated objec-
tives of the ECO program of reducing vehicle trips and
thus are unacceptable under current law. It remains to be
seen whether EPA will accept the Group's recommenda-
tion and seek a clarifying amendment to the Clean Air Act,
or decide to re-interpret the current law as permitting such
programs.
And what about making ECO programs voluntary, as
proposed in bills now pending in Congress? Members of
the Working Group were divided on the question of
whether they should recommend a statutory change to
that effect. However, that option is still open to EPA
leadership, which may well conclude, along with state
officials, that ECO is no longer "worth fighting for."
That would eliminate once and for all an issue that, some
White House officials privately acknowledge, may be-
come a political liability to the Democrats in the presi-
dential election year.
Plans for "Corrections Days" Advance
A Congressional plan to hold "Corrections Days" to repeal
or modify existing rules and statutes deemed especially
burdensome and unpopular is moving forward. Under the
Correction Days concept, "corrections" bills would be
dealt with under a procedure patterned after the existing
suspension calendar. Items could be brought up for floor
consideration bypassing the normal committee approval
process. The Speaker and committee chairmen would be
allowed to place items on the corrections calendar, with
the Speaker making the final decision on when a measure
goes to the floor. House backers of the proposal plan to
urge the Senate to adopt a similar procedure.
Aside from the Clean Air Act-related inspection/mainte-
nance and ECO requirements it is not clear whether any
Washington State's "New Partners"
The Washington state legislature approved a bill that
would kill a proposed privately-financed widening of
State Route 522, one of the five "New Partners" initiative
projects. This action follows in the wake of a January 1995
cancellation of another private toll road project, the exten-
sion and widening of State Route 18 (see, "Opposition to
Tolls Threatens Private Road Projects, Innovation Briefs,
April 1995).
The state legislation would subject the four remaining
projects to corridor-specific public referenda. Whether
these projects will garner sufficient local support to sur-
vive the political process remains an open question. While
the initiative clearly responds to the public's desire for
congestion relief, it also introduces the notion of paying
for road use in a region that has never known toll roads
before. The issue is complicated by Seatle's geography
that often precludes offering residents the alternative of a
other transportation-related rules are on the House
leadership's "hit list." One possible candidate, pushed by
some interest groups, is the so-called "Section 13(c)"
labor protection provision of the Federal Transit Act.
That provision gives transit unions an effective veto
power over any labor-saving arrangements (such as
contracting for service with private operators) in feder-
ally-funded transit programs. While the Section I3(c)
provision has long been opposed by the transit industry
and its repeal has the active support of Rep. Frank Wolf,
the influential chairman of the Transportation Subcom-
mittee of the House Committee on Appropriations, any
move to get rid of the provision may be expected to
provoke vehement opposition from organized labor.
Initiative Suffers a Further Setback
parallel "free" road, and thus raises a potentially conten-
tious question of equity: is it fair to charge residents for the
use of roads that may provide the only access to their
homes?
The defeat of the private toll road proposals in the
State of Washington coincides with a significant shift to
the right in the political balance of power in the State
legislature. How does one reconcile the negative votes
with the conservatives' avowed predilection for "privat-
ization " and public-private infrastructure partnerships ?
In all probability, the legislature's action had more to do
with the strong anti-highway sentiments of their con-
stituents than with any bias against privately financed toll
roads. Also contributing to the defeat was a rising mood of
fiscal conservatism, as evidenced by the defeat (by a vote
of S3 to 47 percent) of another Puget Sound infrastructure
project a $6.7 billion regional light rail system.
-------
Texas, Maryland and Illinois Seek Alternatives to Current ETR Programs
Three states Texas, Maryland and Illinois are
actively pursuing alternatives to the mandatory trip reduc-
tion programs that would relieve employers of many of the
burdens imposed under the current ECO mandate.
Under an approach considered by Texas and Maryland,
the burden of program implementation will be shifted
from individual employers to public agencies and the
program will be implemented on a regionwide rather than
individual worksite basis. Emphasis will be placed on
public education, targeted at employers, commuters and
the general public. The program will offer facilitation of
ridesharing through regionwide ridematching services,
and through commuter support services such as vanpool
programs, shuttle services and guaranteed ride home pro-
grams. Support services will be offered to employers and
Transportation Management Associations in the form of
worksite surveys, trip reduction plan development and
program monitoring.
The Illinois EPA is following another approach. It has just
launched an "Ozone Action Days" program a voluntary
effort by Chicago businesses, governmental agencies and
the media to reduce polluting activities including
driving to work on summer days when high ozone
levels are forecast. The Illinois authorities expect 10 to IS
Ozone Action Days each summer, when people will be
asked to. carpool, take transit, bike or work from home.
Chicago is the latest jurisdiction to have embraced this
approach to maintaining federal ozone standards. At least
eight other non-attainment areas have episodic control
programs currently in operation (Baltimore, Denver, De-
troit, Dallas/Fort Worth, Richmond, San Francisco, Tulsa
and the State of Maine see, "Episodic Emission Control
Programs During High Ozone Days," Innovation Briefs,
October 1994)
The Texas, Maryland and Illinois initiatives serve as pos-
sible prototypes for future vehicle emission reduction pro-
grams, and are being watched with interest by other affected
non-attainment jurisdictions. All three initiatives are still in
early stages of development. They will be described in
greater detail in a future issue of Innovation Briefs.
In Other Congressional Developments...
The National Highway System (NHS) legislation, once a gress. The former do not want to see a reduction in the size
top Administration and Congressional priority, continues of the budget pool from which future budget cuts must be
to languish, caught up in complicated Congressional made, while the appropriators do not want to lose jurisdic-
maneuvering. tion over transportation spending.
Passage of the NHS bill is of crucial importance to the
states, for without an official Congressional NHS designa-
tion in place by October 1, there can be no FY 1996
apportionment of the $6.5 billion in federal aid highway
funds. A bill (S. 440) has been introduced by Senator
Warner (R-VA) in the Senate, but on the House side there
is no discernible movement. Some observers believe that
Rep. Bud Shuster (R-PA), chairman of the House Trans-
portation & Infrastructure Committee, intends to hold the
NHS bill hostage until some action is taken on his proposal
to take the highway trust fund "off budget." That initiative
(HR 842) has garnered 190 co-sponsors and, reportedly,
has the tacit approval of Speaker Newt Gingrich, but is
being opposed by the powerful chairmen of the Budget
and Appropriation committees in both houses of Con-
The outcome of these maneuvers is uncertain. While
highway supporters would like to see the highway trust
fund revenue protected and have mounted an aggressive
campaign to promote their cause, any movement to
shelter the highway trust fund could snowball into an
avalanche of requests for similar treatment of other
federal trust funds. This could result in excluding about
one-third of all federal spending from the budget, ac-
cording to OMB director, Alice Rivlin. Removing trust
funds from the general budget also has an impact on the
budget deficit, which must be offset by other revenue or
program savings. Most observers believe that the efforts
to take transportation spending off budget will failas
they have in the past. As for the NHS bill, the consensus
is that it will pass before the October 1 deadline.
-------
Low-Emission Vehicles - OTC-LEV and the 49-State Gar
Robert D. Brenner. Director, Office of Air Policy, Office of Air & Radiation, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency;
Bruce S. Carhari. Executive Director, Ozone Transport Commission;
RichardL. Klimisch, Vice President, Engineering Affairs Division, American Automobile
Manufacturers Association;
David W. Raney. Manager of Environmental and Safety Affairs, American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
-------
ROBERT D. BRENNER
Robert D. Brenner is Director of U.S. EPA's Air Policy Office, playing a key role in the development
and review of air regulations and policies - especially relating to the Clean Air Act. In addition, he serves on
the agency's Steering Committee, which manages the development of all EPA regulations. Rob's previous
positions at EPA include staff director of the agency's effort to "reauthorize the Clean Air Act, and senior
policy analyst on electric-utility issues. Before joining EPA in 1979, he worked at Princeton University's
Center for International Studies. At Princeton, he worked for the Department of Energy, the university's
Fusion Energy Laboratory, and the National Academy of Public Administration. Rob holds Bachelor's and
Master's degrees in economics and public policy from Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public &
International Affairs.
BRUCE S. CARHART
Bruce S. Carhart is the Executive Director of the Ozone Transport Commission, the organization of 12
states and the District of Columbia created by Congress in 1990 to assess and coordinate the control of
regional ground-level ozone in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states. He has been responsible for managing
and implementing OTC policy initiatives in motor-vehicle pollution control (including the OTC Low-
Emission Vehicle program), the development of interstate market-based air-pollution control programs, and
the control of nitrogen oxides from both stationary and mobile sources. In addition, Mr. Carhart has chaired
the ROMNET Management Review Committee, coordinating regional ozone modeling. Prior to joining OTC,
Mr. Carhart had over 20 years of experience in state, federal, and international air-quality planning, as well as
air-quality impact studies for both government and industry. He received an MSc in environmental systems
engineering from Cornell University and a BSc in Engineering in chemical engineering from Princeton
University.
RICHARD L. KLIMISCH
Richard L. Klimisch is Vice President of the Engineering Affairs Division, American Automobile
Manufacturers Association, which represents Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors. He oversees joint research
and policy development on pollution, safety, noise, intelligent vehicle highway systems, OSHA, fuels, and
lubricants. He also represents the industry in a variety of media and government forums. From 1983 to 1993,
Dr. Klimisch was Executive Director of the General Motors Environmental Activities Staff and was the GM
spokesman on recycling, fuel economy, and alternative fuels. He was one of the founders of the Vehicle
Recycling Partnership. From 197S to 1983, he was head of the Environmental Science Department of GM
Research Laboratories, which he joined in 1967 as the company's first resident expert on catalysis. After
receiving his PhD in chemistry under Nobel laureate H.C. Brown at Purdue University, Dr. Klimisch was
employed as a Research Chemist for the DuPont Co. He received his BS in chemistry from Loras College,
Dubuque, IA.
DAVID W. RANEY
David W. Raney is Manager of Environmental and Safety Affairs at American Honda Motor Co., Inc.,
responsible for regulatory development and engineering liaison on emissions and regulatory matters with the
company's overseas factory and R&D staff as well as the U.S. Honda R&D facility. He has been with Honda
for almost two years and prior to this spent 10 years working with Saab in the same capacity as at Honda.
Mr. Raney received a BSME from the University of Oklahoma.
-------
OTC/LEV Process Summary
June 15, 1995
The Ozone Transport Commission and its petition process were authorized by the 1990
Amendments. The OTC provisions originated from a bi-partisan group of Northeastern
Governors and air quality administrators and were supported by members of Congress
representing the region.
The OTC Low Emission Vehicle Program (OTC/LEV), which would impose the
California Low Emission Vehicle standards in the northeast was initiated by the OTC member
states as a means of controlling air pollution in the region. A majority of the OTC member
states supported sending the OTC/LEV petition to EPA (9 to 4 vote). On December 19,
1994, EPA approved the OTC/LEV petition but the Agency suggested a more cost-effective
alternative. EPA has encouraged the states and the auto makers to voluntarily agree to a 49-
state low emission vehicle alternative.
The 49-state alternative could result in equivalent emission reductions and would have
significant advantages compared to OTC/LEV. The 49-state program would provide for
earlier introduction of TLEVs in the NE than would be required under the OTC program. In
addition, 2001 and later model year vehicles that are originally purchased outside the OTR
and then move into the region will be cleaner than current new cars. By requiring vehicles to
meet the same standard in the rest of the country manufacturing costs will be reduced and
other efficiencies will result. The program will provide both air quality attainment and health
benefits for the rest of the country. There are more than 50 nonattainment areas besides the
Northeast and California 50 million people breathing dirty air that will benefit from the
program.
Discussions between the states and auto makers on a voluntary 49-state program
continue and are progressing. The parties are drafting a comprehensive Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) and EPA intends to publish a NPRM detailing the 49-state program by
mid-summer. The litigation by the auto makers against the states of Mass, and NY
concerning the ZEV sales mandates is still pending and is subject to the discussion between
the states and auto* companies. The Advanced Technology Vehicle (ATV) Component of the
agreement would not be subject to EPA rule making.
A voluntary 49-state program would be unprecedented and will result in needed
reductions of automobile emissions. Support from Governors outside the region for the 49-
state alternative is significant and wide spread. In an era when there is a desire for more
flexibility in the regulatory process, the 49-state Low Emission Vehicle Program could be a
harbinger of the inclusive and cooperative process which states, the regulated community and
the public all desire.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAY 221995
OFFICE OF
AIR AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the Subcommittee on Mobile Source Emissions and Air Quality in
the Northeastern States, Clean Air Act Advisory Committee
Members of the Clean Air /\ct Advisory Committee
FROM: Mary Nichols /^/
Assistant Adminisfrafor~fbr Air and Reflation"
RE: Voluntary National Low Emission Vehicle Program
EPA is considering proposing regulations that would establish the National
Low Emission Vehicle Program (National LEV) anu is seeking the advice of the Clean Air
Act Advisory Committee on the elements :hat should be included in such a program.
Attached is a description of possible elements to be included in such a
program. They were developed to aid in focussing discussion at the May 25th meeting of the
Subcommittee on Mobile Source Emission and Air Quality in the Northeastern States and the
June 2nd meeting of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee.
Any Subcommittee members that wish to present comments in writing for the
Committee's consideration should ensure that EPA receives those comments no later than
May 31. (Comments should be sent to Mike Shields, Office of Mobile Sources, US EPA,
Mail Code 6401, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington,.D.C., 20460 (fax: 202-260-6011).)
EPA will thenj>rovide these comments to the Com v iicie members when thc.y arrive for the
June 2nd meeting. EPA requests that any Written comments from"Committee members be
received by June 9, 1995.
EPA will not decide what to include in the proposal on the National LEV
program until after it has met with the Subcommittee and Committee and has reviewed any
comments received from the Committee members. The Agency intends then to propose a
National LEV rule and follow normal notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings.
In addition to seeking advice on the National LEV proposal, the May 25th
meeting will also include updates on issues that had been discussed by Subcommittee working
groups. At the May 25th meeting, there will be available a brief update on the primary
topics addressed by the Subcommittee working groups last fall and a description of the
advanced technology program being discussed by the auto manufacturers and the OTC States.
Prmtad en Recycled Paper
-------
VOLUNTARY .NATIONAL LOW -EMISSIONS -VEHICLE-PROGRAM
EPA seeks the advice of the Clean'Air Act Advisory Committee and its Subcommittee on
Mobile Source Emissions and Air Quality in the Northeastern States on possible elements to
be included in proposed regulations establishing a voluntary national low emissions vehicle
program (National LEV). This program could only be implemented after normal notice-and-
comment procedures.
CONTEXT
National LEV is intended to provide an acceptable alternative to OTC LEV.
4 In December 1994, EPA approved the Northeast Ozone Transport Commission
(OTC) petition and issued a SIP call, requiring the OTC States to adopt OTC LEV
(the OTC's California car program) by February 15, 1996. Under EPA's decision,
the OTC States were allowed, but not required, to adopt zero emission vehicle (ZEV)
mandates.
EPA's decision was based on the determination that new motor vehicle emissions
reductions are necessary in OTC States to mitigate air pollution transport and to
demonstrate attainment (including maintenance) of ozone NAAQS by the applicable
deadline.
* EPA stated that, in lieu of adopting OTC LEV, the SIP inadequacy could be
cured by establishment of an acceptable alternative new motor vehicle program.
The OTC States and auto manufacturers have been negotiating an agreement on a
voluntary motor vehicle emissions control program for light-duty vehicles and light-duty
trucks that is intended to establish an acceptable alternative to OTC LEV. The
negotiations contemplate a 49-state car program that would include the following elements:
A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by the OTC States, the auto
manufacturers and EPA setting forth the agreement and the proposed elements of a
new nationwide motor vehicle program.
An EPA regulation establishing the National LEV program, under which the auto
manufacturers would make binding commitments to meet tighter emission standards
nationwide. The regulation would be promulgated pursuant to normal notice-and-
comment rulemaking procedures.
An agreement between auto manufacturers and the OTC States to establish a
program to introduce advanced technology vehicles in the OTC States. (A description
of this agreement will be provided by the ai-to manufacturers and the OTC States at
the Subcommittee and Committee meetings on May 25 and June 2, respectively.)
Other legal documents as necessary to implement the agreements made by the
parties.
-------
OVERVIEW.OF NATIONAL LEV PROGRAM^A
Following is a description of possible elements to be included in an EPA regulation that
would establish the National LEV program.
Emission Standards
National LEV program vehicles would be required to meet California exhaust
emissions standards for NMOG, CO, NOx, PM, and formaldehyde (for TLEVs, LEVs,
ULEVs, and ZEVs).
Manufacturers would meet a fleet average NMOG standard that would become
increasingly stringent ovei* vime.
In the OTR, the standard would achieve NMOG emissions reductions equivalent
to:
40% TLEVs for model years 1997-2000
30% LEVs for model year 1999
60% LEVs, for model year 2000
100% LEVs for model year 2001 :md later
In the rest of the United States, except California, the standard would achieve
NMOG emissions reductions equivalent to:
100% LEVs for model years 2001 and later
To meet the fleet average NMOG standard, manufacturers could use an
averaging, banking and trading program comparable to that allowed under the
California LEV program.
ป Two regions would be established for purposes of meeting the fleet average
~ the Ozone Transport Region and 'he remainder of the country (except
California).
To protect NOx reductions in the OTR, an industry-wide cap of 5% would be set
on the total annual sales of Tier 1 and TLEV vehicles in the OTR after model year
2000.
ป If the industry-wide cap was exceeded, each individual manufacturer would
be responsible for its TLEV and LEV sales over 5%, taking into account any
credits the'manufacturer had obtained.
-------
Certain purchases of .advanced ^technology veWcles in the OTR (such as
government purchases under^the-advanceditechnology vehicle program under
discussion by the OTC States and the-auto manufacturers) are intended to supplement
emissions reductions from the National LEV program. Therefore, such purchases
would not generate credits to meet the fleet average standard, provided appropriate
tracking mechanisms are available.
Low volume manufacturers would not need to meet tbVNMOG average until MY
2001.
* Low volume manufacturers would be defined the same as in California --
manufacturers with sales of 3000 vehicles in California. In addition, a nationwide cap
of 25,000 to 40,000 vehicle sales annually is being considered.
Harmonization of Other Standards
National LEVs would also be required to comply with other federal motor vehicle
requirements, but EPA would work with the California Air Resources Board to
harmonize comparable federal and California standards where practicable.
This would reduce regulatory burdens by allowing manufacturers to consolidate
testing for California and federal motor vehicle programs without compromising
emissions control.
Following is a list of the standards and harmonization status:
> Federal Test Procedure: EPA and CARS are working together to revise
the conventional FTP and anticipate that both agencies will adopt identical
changes. Both agencies are working together to adopt new "off-cycle"
standards; neither CARB nor EPA anticipate adopting these standards prior to
fmalization of a National LEV regulation. The auto manufacturers have
agreed to meet the federal Tier 1 standards, and have agreed that, if CARB
adopts- more stringent standards for LEVs and ULEVs, EPA could change the
National LEV regulations to require that the CARB "off-cycle" standards be
met instead.' California Phase II reformulated gasoline (RFC) would be used
as the certification test fuel.
> On-Board Diagnostics: National LEVs would use systems complying with
California requirements.
-------
, > Evaporative Emissions: EPA is currently working with-GARB and the
auto manufacturers to harmonize these standards andjest procedures. -The
auto manufacturers would like California Phase n RFC to be used as the test
fuel and recognize that this might require changes to the test procedure to
ensure the same level of control. EPA is reviewing this issue.
* On-Board Refueling Vapor Recovery: CARS is expected to adopt the
federal standards and test procedures. The auto manufacturers would like
California Phase II RFC to be used as the test fuel and recognize that this
might require changes to the test procedure to ensure the same level of
control. EPA is reviewing this issue.
> Cold Temperature CO: These standards and test procedures are
harmonized. Federal certification fuel would be used.'
> Certification Short Test: Federal standards, test procedures and test fuel
would be required. (California's test does not meet the minimum Clean Air
Act requirements for national certification.)
> High Altitude Testing: EPA is reviewing California's high altitude
requirements to determine whether California or federal requirements should
be used.
The following federal requirements would apply: certification requirements,
Selective Enforcement Audits, recall, warranty, and other federal enforcement
provisions. Some changes in these programs may be required to account for the need
to conduct certain emission tests using California Phase 2 RFC.
Structural Provisions
Manufacturers would have the opportunity to voluntarily opt into the National LEV
program.
Once a manufacturer opted in, the emission standards would be enforced in the same
manner as mandatory federal motor vehicle standards.
-------
Once a manufacturer opted in, it would be able to opt out only in certain limited
circumstances. The offramps under discussion are:
* failure of an OTC State to make an agreed-upon commitment regarding adoption
of the CAL LEV program under ง 177 of the Clean Air Act. The form of state
commitment is still under discussion, but might include:
ป state implementation plan revision,
ป letter from state attorney general,
* executive order,
> legislative action, and
ป consent decree.
* failure of an OTC State to meet any commitment it might make (as part of the 49-
state car agreement) regarding adoption of the CAL LEV program under ง 177 of the
Clean Air Act. These commitments are still under discussion, but might include:
ป agreeing to allow National LEV as a compliance alternative to the NMOG
fleet average portion of an existing or future LEV program, and
ป agreeing to a linkage between National LEV and the ZEV mandate portion
of an existing or future LEV program.
EPA modification of specified standards over manufacturer objection.
ป Minor, technical changes or changes that harmonize federal standards with
California's standards would not give -nanufacturers the right to opt out of the
program.
> It has been suggested that other changes to some or all of the following
standards or requirements, which are still under discussion, would give auto
manufacturers the ability to opt out:
-ป the tighter tailpipe emission standards required under National LEV;
-* fleet average NMOG standard;
-ป California on-board diagnostic II requirements;
-ป California RFG Phase II for certification test fuel for tailpipe
standards and possibly others;
5
-------
-* averaging, banking and trading provisions;
-* revised conventional federal test procedure as adopted by EPA in its
current rulemaking;
-ป revised "off-cycle" federal test procedures and standards;
-* evaporative emissions standards and test procedures;
-ป on-board refueling vapor recovery standards and test procedures;
and
-ป cold CO standards and test procedures.
If a manufacturer opts out, its vehicles will be subject to the emissions standards that
would otherwise apply.
4 In states that have adopted California emissions standards pursuant to ง 177
programs, those state standards would apply.
* In all other states, federal standaros would apply.
The duration of the program is still under discussion. Following are two options
being considered:
* Option 1:
> If there are not Tier II standards at least as stringent as the National LEV
program, then the program would terminate effective with the start of MY
2004.
> If there are Tier II standards at least as stringent as National LEV, adopted
pri.u to January 1, 200i, and c:r.,mencing in MY 2004, 2005 or 2006, the
National LEV program will terminate as of the effective date of such Tier II
standards. OTC States' commitments with respect to adoption of the CAL
LEV program would extend until MY 2006.
f Option 2:
ป The National LEV program would remain in effect until the first applicable
model year for new, mandatory federal standards that are at least as stringent
as the National LEV standards. OTC States' commitments with respeci to
adoption of the CAL LEV program would extend'until MY"200X (as agreed
upon by OTC States and auto manufacturers).
-------
ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM
Based on the following criteria, EPA would find that the National "LEV program is an
acceptable alternative to OTC LEV, which would relieve the OTC States of their obligation
to adopt OTC LEV:
Emissions reductions in the OTR must be equivalent.
4 Cleaner vehicles will be introduced into OTR earlier under National LE\T
program (MY 1997) than under OTC LEV program (MY 1999).
Because cleaner vehicles will be introduced nationwide beginning in MY 200^,
.he OTR will realize emissions benefits due to the reduced migration of dirtier Tier l
cars into the OTR from 2001 on.
According to EPA's preliminary analyst National LEV would produce
equivalent or better emissions reductions in the OTR as would OTC LEV (with or
without state ZEV mandates). This analysis was discussed by the Subcommittee ati
length last fall and appears in the Federal Register at 59 F.R. 53401 (Oct. 24, 199&).
The program must be enforceable.
EPA has authority to establish the National LEV standards under section 202,
which gives EPA broad authority to set motor vehicle emission standards.
> The prohibition on modifying Tier 1 standards precludes EPA from
establishing mandatory standards prior to model year 2004, but does not
preclude establishment of voluntary standards.
4 EPA could enforce National LEV standards in the same manner as the Agency
enforces mandatory federal standards.
EPA would need to find that the program is stable (i.e., that opportunities for
manufacturers to opt out are limited and unlikely).
EPA must determine that the program is in effect.
If all manufacturers opt in within 60 days of the Final Rule, EPA will find
National LEV is "in effect," satisfying the OTC LEV SIP call.
The OTC States and auto manufacturers would also agree to a program for the
introduction of advanced technology vehicles into the OTR. This would meet an
important policy concern of the OTC States and EPA, but is1 h6%lef9Dy*e'omgeIled A
description of this program will be distributed at the./May 25th and June 2nd
Subcommittee and Committee meetings.
-------
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
CONCERNING MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS
REDUCTION PROGRAM FOR THE OTC
PRESENTED TO:
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS
AND AIR QUALITY IN TTE NORTHEAST STATES
MAY 25, 1995
-------
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
STRUCTURE AND CONTENT
_ .
CHARACTER OF DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN OTC AND MOTOR
VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS
TRUST REACHED ENABLED IN-DEPTH DISCUSSION OF ALL ISSUES
ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION OF A MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING (MOU)
UNDERSTANDING OF OPPOSING VIEWS NOTED ON TOPICS WHERE
AGREEMENT HAS NOT BEEN REACHED
RESOLUTION OF UNRESOLVED ISSUES AND OTHER OPEN ITEMS '
.COULD BE ATTEMPTED BY CONTINUATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP
-------
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
STRUCTURE AND CONTENT
PURPOSE OF THE MOU
TO TARGET EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM NEW MOTOR VEHICLES
IN THE OTR EQUIVALENT TO, OR GREATER THAN, AVAILABLE
FROM THE OTC LEV PROGRAM
TO PROVIDE CLEANER AIR NATIONWIDE BY REDUCING NEW
MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS
TO INTRODUCE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES (ATVs) IN THE
OTR IN A COST EFFECTIVE MANNER
-------
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
STRUCTURE AND CONTENT
STRUCTURE OF THE MOU
ESTABLISHES PURPOSE
IDENTIFIES PARTIES
INDICATES COMMITMENT FOR A 49 STATE LOW EMISSIONS
VEHICLE (49 SLEV) REGULATION TO BE DRAFFED BY EPA
INDICATES COMMITMENT TO SUPPORT INTRODUCTION OF ATVS
VIA A UNIQUE AGREEMENT BETWEEN OTC STATES AND MOTOR
VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS
-------
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
STRUCTURE AND CONTENT
PARTIES TO THE MOU
OTC STATES - CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, MAINE, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, NEW
HAMPSHIRE, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, PENNSYLVANIA, RHODE ISLAND,
VERMONT, VIRGINIA, AND THE DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA
MANUFACTURERS - AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.; AMERICAN SUZUKI
MOTOR CORP.; BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC ; CHRYSLER
CORPORATION; FIAT AUTO USA, INC.; FORD MOTOR COMPANY;
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION; HYUNDIA MOTOR AMERICA;
Isuzu MOTORS AMERICA INC.; KLA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.;
LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, INC.; MAZDA MOTOR OF
AMERICA, INC.; MERCEDES BENZ; MITSUBISHI MOTOR SALES OF
AMERICA, INC.; NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; PORSCHE CARS
NORTH AMERICA, INC.; ROLLS-ROYCE MOTOR CARS INC.;
SAAB CARS USA, INC.; SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC.; TOYOTA
MOTOR SALES USA, INC.; VOLKSWAGON OF AMERICA, INC.;
AND VOLVO NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)
-------
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
STRUCTURE AND CONTENT
49 STATE LEV PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
THE 49 SLEV REGULATION SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO PROVIDE A
SOLID BASE FOR OTC STATES TO REACH EMISSIONS REDUCTION
GOALS AND TO PROVIDE REDUCED EMISSIONS FOR THE COUNTRY
THE MOU IDENTIFIES PARAMETERS FOR A 49 SLEV REGULATION
EPA WILL WRITE THE REGULATION
MANUFACTURERS WILL ELECT TO COMPLY WITH THE
REGULATION
THE INTENT OF THE PARTIES IS FOR EMISSIONS PERFORMANCE AND SIP CREDIT
TO BE EQUIVALENT TO THE OTC LEV PROGRAM
-------
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
STRUCTURE AND CONTENT
UNRESOLVED ISSUES
MANDATES - ELECTRIC VEHICLE MANDATES IN MASSACHUSETTS AND
NEW YORK AND POTENTIAL FOR ADOPTION BY OTHER
STATES IN THE OTR
OTC STATES HAVE DECLARED THAT SOVEREIGN RIGHTS TO ADOPT PROGRAMS
IN THEIR INTEREST CANNOT BY LIMITED BY THIS AGREEMENT.
MANUFACTURERS HAVE DECLARED THAT THE MOU WILL NOT BE SIGNED
UNLESS THfc MANDATE ISSUES ARt ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED
COMMITMENT - COMMITMENT BY ALL PARTIES MUST BE MEASURABLE AND
ASSURE STABILITY FOR THE TERM OF THE AGREEMENT
OTC STATES HAVE c; ?ERED COMMITMENT VTA SIP PROVISIONS AND
ENFORCEMENT BY THE EPA.
MANUFACTURERS FEEL THAT SIP PROVISIONS CANNOT BK COMPARED TO THK
RIGIDITY OF EPA ENFORCEMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION REGULATIONS.
-------
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
STRUCTURE AND CONTENT
ADDRESSING FUEL (GASOLINE)
THE 49 SLEV PROGRAM DOES NOT CALL ON STATES TO USE ANY
PARTICULAR GASOLINE
GASOLINE THAT MAY BE USED IN THE OTR IS THE SAME AS WOULD BE
EXPECTED FOR THE OTC LEV PROGRAM
-------
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
STRUCTURE AND CONTENT
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLE COMPONENT
THE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLE (ATV) COMPONENT*
IDENTIFIES A PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN GOVERNMENT, MOT($R
VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES TO
INTRODUCE ATVs
ATV COMPONENT IS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE OTC STATUES
AND THE MANUFACTURERS FOR INTRODUCTION OF ATVs INTฎ
THEOTR
OTC STATES AND MANUFACTURERS ARE EACH ACCOUNTABLE
FOR MEETING COMMITMENTS AND WILL JOINTLY ANNOUNCE
SALES ESTIMATES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE ENFORCEABLE AGAINST ANY OF THE1
PARTIES
MANUFACTURERS ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO SALE OF SPECIFIC
NUMBERS OR MARKET PERCENTAGES OF ANY SPECIFIC
TECHNOLOGY
THE ATV COMPONENT WILL NOT BE A PART OF THE EPA 49 S\EV
REGULATION
-------
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
ATV COMPONENT
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLE - DEFINITION
VEHICLES CERTIFIED FOR SALE IN CALIFORNIA THAT ARE:
ULEV OF ILEV CERTIFIED USING ANY FUEL
OR
ELECTRIC VEHICLES, EITHER DEDICATED OF HYBRID
OR
OTHER ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES AND DEFINED BY EPACI
(CERTIFICATION LEVEL AND TIMING NOT RESOLVED)
-------
MEMORANDUM OR UNDENTANDING
ATV COMPONENT
COOPERATIVE WORKING RELATIONSHIP
SHARED RESPONSIBILITY BETWEEN ALL PARTIES INTERESTED IN
INTRODUCTION OF ATVs
OTC STATES AND MAJOR MOTOR VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS
OTHER STATES OUTSIDE OF THE OTR
EPA AND DOE
FUEL PROVIDERS
CONVERTERS, FLEET OPERATORS
OTHER MANUFACTURERS OF SPECIALTY MOTOR VEHICLES
-------
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
ATV COMPONENT
PROCESS CREATED TO INTRODUCE ATVs
MOU ATTACHMENT OUTLINES A PROCESS TO ORCHESTRATE INTRODUCTION
OF ATVs
JOINT IDENTIFICATION OF VEHICLE SALES ESTIMATES
INTEGRATE DEVELOPMENT AND EXECUTION OF NECESSARY
TASKS
MEASURE AND REPORT PERFORMANCE
-------
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
ATV COMPONENT
SUGGESTED TIMELINE
1996 - 1998 INVOLVE FEDERAL, STATE AND FUEL PROVIDER FLEETS
MARKET ATVs TO FLEETS
BEGLNN DEVELOPMENT OF REFUELING
INFRASTRUCTURE
SURVEY POTENTIAL DEMAND FOR 1999 - 2001
1999 - 2001 ADD MUNICIPAL AND PRIVATE FLEETS
EXPAND PRODUCT OFFERINGS AND INFRASTRUCTURE
EXPAND INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
SURVEY POTENTIAL DEMAND FOR 2002 - 2004
IDENTIFY CRITERIA NEEDED TO SUSTAIN RETAIL
SALES
2002 - 2004 ADD RETAIL COSTUMER OFFERINGS
-------
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
ATV COMPONENT
ATV MONITORING GROUP STRUCTURE
OTC STATES AND MOTOR VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS PRINCIPALS
ANNUAL MEETING TO ASSESS PROGRESS AND AGREE TO
OBJECTIVES
PUBLIC PORTION OF ANNUAL MEETING TO SEEK ADVICE OF
INTERESTED PARTIES
EXECUTIVE SESSION AVAILABLE
STANDING WORKING GROUP
COMPILE INFORMATION FOR ANNUAL MEETING OF PRINCIPALS
DESIGN ANNUAL MEETING STRUCTURE
MEET AS NEEDED TO EVALUATE PROGRESS, OUTLINE ISSUES AND
SUGGEST SOLUTIONS
-------
Luncheon. Resolving the ZEV Mandate Tangle
Hon. Truejv Coxe. Secretary of Environmental Affairs, Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
-------
TRUDY COXE
Trudy Coxe is Environmental Affairs Secretary for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and one of
America's foremost environmental advocates. She combines the experience of more than 17 years of
leadership as an environmental activist in the nonprofit sector with state and federal environmental-
management posts. She served 11 years as Executive Director of Rhode Island's Save The Bay, turning it into
one of New England's citizen-action organizations. Before being appointed to her present position in 1993,
Ms. Coxe served in the Bush Administration as Director of Ocean & Coastal Resource Management at
NOAA. She currently leads five key Massachusetts agencies - the Departments of Environmental Protection;
Environmental Management; Fisheries, Wildlife & Environmental Law Enforcement; Food & Agriculture; and
the Metropolitan District Commission. She also chairs the board of the Massachusetts Water Resources
Authority, the agency charged with cleaning up Boston Harbor.
-------
Nonroad Engines and Vehicles
Deborah S. Daltonr Deputy Director, Consensus & Dispute Resolution Program, Office of Policy,
Planning & Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
GaryH, ffais?, Partner, Gabeler, Baise & Miller, and Washington Environmental Counsel, Equipment
Manufacturers Institute;
William M. Guerry. Jr.. Partner, Collier, Shannon, Rill & Scott, and Counsel to the Outdoor Power
Equipment Institute;
Gary E. Cross. Partner, Dunaway & Cross, and Counsel to the Portable Power Equipment
Manufacturers Association.
-------
DEBORAH S. DALTON
Deborah S. Dalton is Deputy Director of the Consensus & Dispute Resolution Program (formerly the
Regulatory Negotiation Project) in the Office of Policy, Planning & Evaluation, at U.S. EPA. She advises
EPA program office and regional office management on the selection and implementation of various
consultation, consensus-building, and dispute-resolution procedures for use in developing rules, implementing
policy, and prosecuting enforcement actions. She is co-author/co-editor of the primary reference book on
regulatory negotiation, Sourcebook on Negotiated Rulemakmg, published by the Administrative Conference of
the United States in 1990. Ms. Dalton has been with EPA since 1976, first in pesticides and toxic-substances
enforcement and then in Superfund enforcement. She holds a BS in psychology/biology from the College of
William & Mary, an MS in biology from the University of Virginia, and has done advanced graduate work in
environmental toxicology at the University of Maryland.
GARY H. BAISE
Gary H. Baise is a Partner with Gabeler, Baise & Miller. Between 1992 and 1994, he was a Partner with
Jenner & Block, responsible for developing the law firm's regulatory and litigation environmental practice.
Representative clients included the pulp and paper industry, industrial trade associations, pesticide
manufacturers, and pollution-control companies. Prior to this, he was a corporate officer and Vice President,
External Affairs, with Browning-Ferris Industries, responsible for addressing the corporation's potential
criminal liabilities. Previous positions include Founder and Partner, Beveridge & Diamond; Acting Deputy
Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice; and Executive Assistant to the Acting Director of the FBI. Mr.
Baise is admitted to the Indiana State and District of Columbia Bars, the U.S. Supreme Court, and various
U.S. District and Circuit Courts. He received a BS from Western Illinois University and a JD from Indiana
University.
WILLIAM M. GUERRY, JR.
William M. Guerry, Jr. is a Partner with Collier, Shannon, Rill & Scott in its Washington, DC office. He
counsels and represents trade associations and corporate clients on all aspects of environmental law, including
the Clean Air Act, RCRA, the Clean Water Act, CERCLA, and the Emergency Planning & Community
Right-to-Know Act. He is an industry spokesman at the U.S. EPA Regulatory Negotiation charged with
developing mobile-source emission standards for outdoor power equipment. He prepares comments and
provides counsel on strategies to mitigate the impact of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Mr. Guerry
is admitted to the Virginia and District of Columbia Bars. He received a BA, magna cum laude, and a JD
from the University of Virginia and attended Wolfson College of Cambridge University, England.
GARY E. CROSS
Gary E. Cross is a founding Partner of the law firm Dunaway & Cross and practices principally in the
areas of administrative law, civil litigation, appellate advocacy, and trade association counseling. He has
represented corporations and associations in numerous federal rulemaking matters, including judicial review of
agency regulations, throughout his legal career. Mr. Cross received a BA in government from the College of
William and Mary and a law degree from Georgetown University Law Center.
-------
f^ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ^9
Improving the Clean Air Act
The Mobile Source Issues
June 21,1995
Office of Mobile Sources
-------
Mission Statement
Ucฃhe Office of Mobile Sources
seef(s to protect pu6Cic health
and the environment 6y
minimizing the harmful effects
of pollution from mobile
sources.
n
Office of Mobile Sources
-------
Ozone and Health
caused by HC and NOx combining in
sunlight
summer problem
reduced lung function
impaired respiratory immune response
and increased infection
accelerated lung aging
stunted lung growth in children
57 million live in unhealthy areas
-------
CO and Health
colorless, odorless, poisonous gas
winter problem
impairs exercise ability, visual perception,
manual dexterity
impairs learning ability
affects infants, elderly, those with respiratory
problems
22 million live in unhealthy areas
Office of Mobile Sources
-------
ฃ. One State's HC Problems ฃ.
Area
Onroad
Nonroad
Industrial
Office of Mobile Sources
-------
State Options
rely on federal emission standards
opt-in to California emission standards
encourage alternative technologies
institute no-mow days
ban products
encourage alternative landscaping
Office of Mobile Sources
-------
Clean Air Act
set technology-based standards
- first consider on-highway stringency
- then consider cost, leadtime, noise, energy and
safety
utilize useful life standards
require earliest possible effective date
apply current on-highway enforcement
requirements
- allows administrative discretion in modifying
regulations
Office of Mobile Sources
-------
SL So Much To Do, So Little Time
EPA Staff
Office of Mobile Sources
-------
Sierra Club Suit
Large Compression-Ignition Engines
Small Gasoline Engines -- Phase I
Marine Engines
Small Gasoline Engines -- Phase II
Large Gas/Small Cl Schedule
May, 1994
May, 1995
No v, 1995
May, 1997
Nov, 1996
Office of Mobile Sources
-------
Nonroad Rules
Complete or Underway
Small Spark-Ignition Engines (2 phases)
Large Compression-Ignition Engines
Marine Engines
Locomotive Engines
Office of Mobile Sources
-------
Potential Future
Nonroad Rules
Recreational Vehicles
Large Spark-Ignition Engines
Small Compression-Ignition Engines
Office of Mobile Sources
-------
Nonroad Program Principles S
Educate
Listen
Focus on Interests
Be Flexible
Keep It Simple
Office of Mobile Sources
-------
EPA's Interests
protect public health
achieve greatest reduction at lowest
cost to society
promote clean, durable engine
technology
promote market-based incentives
encourage competition and
technological innovation
construct legally defensible program
Office of Mobile Sources
-------
Large Diesels
rule finalized June 17,1994
new nonroad compression-ignition
engines
37 kilowatts (50 horsepower) and
above
HC, CO, NOx, PM, smoke
certification, production line audit,
recall
effective date depends on engine size
standards depend on engine size
Office of Mobile Sources
-------
& Small Gasoline Engines ^
rule finalized May 30,1995
new nonroad spark-ignition engines
19 kilowatts (25 horsepower) and
below
HC, CO, NOx
certification, production line audit; no
recall
model year 1997 effective date
standards depend on engine size and
equipment type
Office of Mobile Sources
-------
ฃL Small Engine HC Sources
Spillage
15%
Evap
26%
Exhaust
59%
Office of Mobile Sources
-------
What Phase 1 Does
gets early benefits for public and states
looks like California, except for
- CO levels
-two-stroke walk-behind lawnmowers
- snowthrowers
- effective date
-engine classification
-production line auditing
-streamlined certification
' ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^IH^H^
Office of Mobile Sources
-------
Benefits and Costs
big diesel
- 37% NOx decrease
-$188 per ton
small gas phase 1
- 32% HC decrease
- $280 per ton
Office of Mobile Sources
-------
r\ Only These Sources Exceed *\
**" Nonroad Contribution "***
VOC
-light-duty highway vehicles
- solvent evaporation
CO
-light-duty highway vehicles
- residential fuel use
NOx
- electric power generation
Office of Mobile Sources
-------
Phase 2: Reg Neg
Office of Mobile Sources
-------
EPA's Role
balance
CBI conduit
catalyst for
consensus
translation
analysis
Office of Mobile Sources
-------
Consensus
Office of Mobile Sources
-------
Common Ground
no recall
in-use noncompliance remedies
test procedure
manufacturer-based production line
testing
fleet and/or bench-aged in-use testing
gas can spillage control
evaporative emission control
Office of Mobile Sources
-------
Law Offices
GABBLER, BAISE & MILLER, P.C.
Lane R Gabeler* 1320 Old Chain Bridge Road, Suite 200 Washington, D C Office
Gary H. Baise" McLean, Virginia 22101 Washington Square, Suite 1200
Marshall Lee Miller41 (703) 790-3456 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N W
Raymond D. Battocchi* Fax (703) 790-5862 Washington. D.C 20036
Norman Earl Gnggs (202) 861-1650
Charles Davenport* Fax (202) 861-1645
Don G Scroggin0
Steven F Huschฐ
Robm L Robb+ Clean Air Act: The Mobile Source Issues or counsel
John R Powell Regulation of Nonroad Vehicles and Engines Guy Vander Jagt
Lance W. High 6 6
+Admitted also mthtDiitnci of Columbu Gary H. BfliSC
Admitted only in die District of Columbia
Statutory Provisions
States and localities are prohibited from adopting or enforcing any standard or other
requirement relating to the control of emissions from new nonroad engines, smaller than 175
horsepower, used in farm or construction equipment. CAA ง 209(e)(l).
EPA may authorize California to adopt emission standards for nonroad engines and vehicles
other than those covered by the Section 209(e)(l) prohibition. CAA ง 209(e)(2).
Other States may then adopt the California standards. CAA ง 209(e)(2)(B).
EPA must study emissions from nonroad engines and vehicles to determine if such emissions
cause, or significantly contribute to, air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare. EPA then determines, based on this study, whether
emissions of CO, NOx, and VOCs from new and existing nonroad engines and vehicles are
"significant contributors" to ozone or CO concentrations in more than one nonattainment area.
If EPA makes a determination that nonroad engines and vehicles are such "significant
contributors," then it must regulate emissions from those classes or categories of new nonroad
engines and vehicles that cause, or contribute to, this air pollution. These emissions standards
must achieve the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable, based on technology that
will be available, giving appropriate consideration to the cost, noise, energy, and safety factors
associated with that technology. CAA ง 213(a).
EPA Rulemaking
In its recent rulemakings on nonroad engines and vehicles, EPA dramatically limited the
statutory provisions. See 59 Fed. Reg. 36,969 (July 20, 1994) (Section 209) and 59 Fed. Reg.
31,306 (June 17, 1994) (Section 213).
EPA drastically narrowed the definition of "new." Under the EPA regulations, "new" means
only until title passes to the ultimate purchaser or until the engine, vehicle, or equipment is
placed into service, whichever occurs first.
-------
EPA's regulations would narrow the scope of the preemption intended by Section 209(e)(2) to
cover only "new" nonroad engines or vehicles not covered by Section 209(e)(l). This limits
the preemption of regulation by States other than California to only "new" engines or
vehicles. As a practical matter, EPA's regulations allow States to impose a patchwork of
different in-use standards on nonroad sources.
EPA determined that federal preemption does not apply to engines manufactured prior to the
effective date of the nonroad engine definition, July 18, 1994.
EPA described broadly the scope of permissible State "in-use" regulation of nonroad sources.
EPA developed a "primary use test" to determine whether equipment qualifies as farm or
construction equipment. EPA's regulations define farm and construction equipment to include
only equipment used 51 percent or more for construction or the commercial production,
harvesting, or processing of food.
EPA determined that nonroad sources are significant contributors to total NOx emissions
nationwide.
Petitioners' View
The Clean Air Act prohibits States and localities from adopting emission standards for farm
and construction engines or equipment built after November 15, 1990. CAA ง 209(e). The
statutory preemption for "new" nonroad sources must be distinguished from then-existing
sources. The scope of preemption must be read broadly, including "other requirements", not
only numerical emissions standards, that relate to the control of emissions. The effective date
of this preemption is the date of enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,
November 15, 1990, not the effective date of the nonroad engine definition, July 18, 1994.
The Clean Air Act prohibits the imposition by States of emission regulations on new nonroad
sources, except to the extent specific "in-use" regulations do not constitute attempts to adopt
State emission standards. CAA ง 209(e)(l). The Clean Air Act prohibits the imposition by
States of any regulation of nonroad sources identified in Section 209(e)(2), without federal
authorization. CAA ง 209(e)(2).
The Equipment Manufacturers Institute has suggested using the purpose for which equipment
was designed as a test of whether it is farm and construction equipment or not. The "primary
use test" impermissibly narrows the preemption provided by the Clean Air Act, and may
subject many classes of equipment to State and local regulation, rather than only to federal
control.
The Clean Air Act requires a determination that nonroad sources are a significant contributor
to ozone noncompliance. CAA ง 213(a). EPA used the wrong basis for this determination.
NOx emissions do not; necessarily translate into ozone noncompliance in the area of
emissions.
-2-
------- |