National Academies Press: OpenBook

State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions (2006)

Chapter: 3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources

« Previous: 2 Air Quality, Emissions, and Health Impacts Overview
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

3
Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources

The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) makes state and the federal governments partners in regulating air pollution. The CAA explicitly requires that control of air pollution be primarily the responsibility of states and local governments (CAA § 101(a)(3) [1990], 42 USC § 7401(a)(3) [2005]). To that end, section 116 of the act affirms the general authority of states to adopt or enforce (1) any standard or limitation of air pollutant emissions or (2) any requirement related to the control or abatement of air pollution. An exception to the presumption in favor of state authority to meet federal standards in section 116 is for state regulation of emissions from new1 mobile sources. Thus, in contrast to federally mandated state control over stationary sources, regulation of new mobile-source emissions has been principally a federal project (Engine Mfrs. Ass’n v. EPA, 88 F.3d 1075, 1079 [D.C. Cir. 1996]). There is one important exception—the ability of California to set separate standards. This chapter describes how the federal government and California set emissions standards for new mobile sources and how the emissions reductions from those standards are incorporated into air quality management.

1  

The term “new mobile sources” is used throughout the report to refer to newly manufactured sources not yet in use by the consumer.

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

THE EVOLUTION OF THE EXISTING STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act of 1965

Congress first addressed the need for emissions controls for motor vehicles in the Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act of 1965 (Pub. L. No. 89-272, § 202(a), 79 Stat. 992, [1965]). This act includes section 202 that authorized the federal government to set “standards, applicable to the emission of any kind of substance, from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines.” Congress delegated this new standard-setting authority to the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW). (The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] would not be established until 1970, 5 years later). Congress’s provision for national emissions standards was based primarily on testimony by the assistant secretary of HEW about the potential problems that would be created for vehicle manufacturers by divergent state standards:

The problem of automobile exhaust cannot be solved on a local or State basis. I would think, if I were in the automobile manufacturing business, that is absolutely the last thing I would hope to see happen where Delaware would pass this kind of legislation, and the District of Columbia this, and Maryland that, and Pennsylvania something else. You would go out of your mind, if you were trying to design devices or engines to meet these varying standards (Hearings before the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution of the Senate Comm. on Public Works, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 33 [1965]; testimony of James M. Quigley, Assistant Secretary of HEW.)

Clean Air Act of 1967

Congress revisited the issue 2 years later in 1967. In congressional hearings, evidence was presented that California had adopted its own state vehicle emissions standards and that several other states were in the process of following California’s lead and preparing to adopt their own state standards (Air Pollution—1967 [Automotive Air Pollution]: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution of the Senate Comm. on Public Works, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. 395-399 [1967]; NCAPC

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

1967; Currie 1970). Motor vehicle manufacturers argued that the nature of their manufacturing required a single national standard to eliminate undue economic strain on the automobile industry (S. Rep. No. 403, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. 33 [1967]). HEW testified that divergent state standards would ultimately result in confusion and called upon Congress to explicitly preempt state vehicle emissions standards (Air Pollution—1967 [Automotive Air Pollution]: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution of the Senate Comm. on Public Works, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. 107 [1967]; testimony of Dean Coston, Deputy Undersecretary of HEW). Both chambers of Congress concurred. The Senate found that divergent state standards would result in economic disruption and increased costs to consumers (S. Rep. No. 403, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. 33 [1967]). The House elaborated that the nature of motor vehicle manufacturing required the consistency and certainty that could only be provided by uniform federal standards:

The manufacture of automobiles is a complex matter, requiring decisions to be made far in advance of their actual execution. The ability of those engaged in the manufacture of automobiles to obtain clear and consistent answers concerning emission controls and standards is of considerable importance so as to permit economies in production (H.R. Rep. No. 728, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. 21 [1967]).

On the basis of these findings, Congress explicitly preempted states from adopting or enforcing new motor vehicle emission standards in the CAA of 1967 (Pub. L. No. 90-148, § 208, 81 Stat. 485, 501 [1967]). This preemption provision remains in effect today as section 209(a) of the CAA, which provides the following:

No State or any political subdivision thereof shall adopt or attempt to enforce any standard relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines subject to this part (42 USC § 7543(a)[2003]).

Appendix D provides the complete text of section 209.

Although the initial congressional discussions in 1967 favored preempting new motor vehicle emissions standards in all 50 states, the California congressional delegation successfully persuaded their House and Senate colleagues to make a special exception for California because of

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

its pollution problems and pioneering efforts in regulating vehicle emissions. Congress concluded that “although the situation may change, in the 15 years that auto emission standards have been debated and discussed, only the State of California has demonstrated compelling and extraordinary circumstances sufficiently different from the Nation as a whole to justify standards on automobile emissions which may, from time to time, need to be more stringent than national standards” (S. Rep. No. 403, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. 33 [1967]). Moreover, California had begun regulating emissions from motor vehicles in 1957, almost a decade before the federal government began developing a national program. House of Representative John E. Moss stated that continuation of those “pioneering” efforts “offer a unique laboratory, with all the resources necessary, to develop effective control devices which can become a part of the resources of this Nation …” (113 Cong. Rec. 30975 [1967]).

The legislation eventually adopted by Congress in 1967 included a compromise provision that directed the secretary of HEW to waive the preemption of state standards, provided the conditions specified in section 209(b) of the statute are met (discussed below), for “any State which has adopted standards (other than crankcase emission standards) for the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines prior to March 30, 1966” (Pub. L. No. 90-148, § 208(b), 81 Stat. 501). California was the only state to have adopted in final form such standards by March 30, 1966, thus being the only state to have the preemption exclusion purposely applied. Congress noted that the conditional exception for California was an acceptable compromise that maintains “that State's right to set more stringent standards to meet peculiar local conditions,” while “the industry, confronted with only one potential variation, will be able to minimize economic disruption and therefore provide emission control systems at lower costs to the people of the Nation” (S. Rep. No. 403 at 33 [1969]). Moreover, according to Senator George Murphy, this compromise would permit California to “act as a testing agent for various types of control and the country as a whole will be a beneficiary of this research” (113 Cong. Rec. 32478 [1967]). Thus, as described by the nation’s second highest court, Congress intended California to “act as a kind of laboratory for innovation” for mobile-source emissions control (Motor & Eqpt. Mfrs. Assn v. EPA, 627 F.2d 1095 [D.C. Cir. 1979]).

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977

In 1970, Congress enacted the basic framework of today’s CAA and kept in place the preemption of state motor vehicle emissions standards adopted in 1967 and the conditional exemption of California. Although the 1970 amendments enacted some tough new emissions standards for light-duty vehicles, which will be discussed in other sections in the report, it did not alter the preemption requirements. In 1977, when Congress next revisited the CAA it again retained the general structure of preempting state standards and reaffirmed the special exemption for California. As Congress explained, “California was afforded special status due to that State’s pioneering role in regulating automobile-related emissions, which pre-dated the Federal effort. In addition, California’s air pollution problem was then, and still appears to be, among the most pervasive and acute in the Nation” (H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 301 [1977]).

Protectiveness Requirements

Congress made two important changes in 1977 in the mobile-source preemption scheme. First, Congress revised the criteria for a federal waiver of vehicle emissions standards for California, which were now administered by EPA, to require that the California standards be at least as protective as the applicable federal standards in the aggregate. In the original version of the waiver provisions adopted in 1967, Congress had required every California standard to be at least as protective as the equivalent federal standard. By 1977, however, Congress recognized that there were trade-offs in regulating emissions of different pollutants and that more stringent standards for one pollutant could necessitate less stringent standards for another pollutant (H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 302 [1977]). Requiring the protectiveness of the California standards to be evaluated as a package permitted California “to weigh the degree of health hazards from various pollutants and the degree of emission reduction achievable for various pollutants with various emission control technologies and standards” (H.R. Rep. No. 294, 23 [1977]).

The revised waiver criteria, as amended in 1977, are now codified in section 209(b) of the CAA and provide the following:

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

The Administrator shall, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, waive application of this section to any State which has adopted standards (other than crankcase emission standards) for the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines prior to March 30, 1966, if the State determines that the State standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards. No such waiver shall be granted if the Administrator finds that—

(A) the determination of the State is arbitrary and capricious,

(B) such State does not need such State standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, or

(C) such state standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 202(a) of this part.

The House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce that drafted this amendment relaxing the California waiver criteria stated that the amendment was “intended to ratify and strengthen the California waiver provision and to affirm the underlying intent of that provision, i.e., to afford California the broadest possible discretion in selecting the best means to protect the health of its citizens and the public welfare” (H.R. Rep. No. 294, 301-302 [1977]). The House committee also made clear that EPA was to be highly deferential in reviewing California’s waiver requests:

The Administrator … is not to overturn California’s judgment lightly. Nor is he to substitute his judgment for that of the State. There must be clear and compelling evidence that the State acted unreasonably in evaluating the relative risks of various pollutants in light of the air quality, topography, photochemistry, and climate in that State, before EPA may deny a waiver (H.R. Rep. No. 294, 302 [1977]).

Adoption of California Standards by Other States

An even more fundamental change adopted by Congress in 1977 was a decision to allow other states to adopt the California standards. This amendment was one of several adopted by Congress in 1977 to pro-

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

vide a greater role and greater assistance for state and local governments in the administration of the CAA. Many states were having difficulty coming into compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by the statutory deadlines and called upon Congress to give them greater flexibility to reduce emissions to meet the ambient standards, including the right to adopt the cleaner California vehicle emissions standards (H.R. Rep. No. 294, 309-310 [1977]). Congress expressed concern that the preemption provisions of section 209(a) were unduly restricting the capability of non-California states to obtain emissions reductions from new motor vehicles, which contributed to their inability to meet the NAAQS. As the House committee stated in 1977,

The Committee is concerned that this preemption (section 209(a) of the Act) now interferes with legitimate policy powers of States, prevents effective protection of public health, limits economic growth and employment opportunities in nonattainment areas for automotive pollutants, and unduly stifles enforcement of present federal emission standards (H.R. Rep. No. 294, 309 [1977]).

Congress responded by enacting section 177 of the CAA 1977 amendments, which provided the following:

Notwithstanding section 209(a), any State which has plan provisions approved under this part may adopt and enforce for any model year standards relating to control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines and take such other actions as are referred to in section 209(a) respecting such vehicles if—

(1) such standards are identical to the California standards for which a waiver has been granted for such model year, and

(2) California and such state adopt such standards at least two years before commencement of such model year (as determined by regulations of the Administrator).

Appendix D provides the complete text of section 177.

Although Congress gave states new authority to adopt and enforce the California standards, it emphasized that the concerns that motivated

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

the general preemption of state vehicle emissions standards remained valid. Thus, the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, which originally drafted and proposed the language that became section 177, stated,

In 1967 amendments to the Clean Air Act, Congress preempted States other than California from establishing or enforcing new motor vehicle emission standards or test procedures. Congress' concern at that time was that vehicle manufacturers not be subject to 50 different sets of requirements relating to emission controls which would unduly burden interstate commerce. In the Committee's view, that concern remains a valid one today (H.R. Rep. No. 294 309 [1977]).

Similarly, in the Senate, the chief sponsor of the 1977 amendments to the CAA, Senator Edmund Muskie, stated,

Congress recognized in 1965 that, as a national industry, automobiles required national emission regulation. Except for California, which is unique both from a product distribution and an air pollution point of view, the argument in 1967 for preemptive national standards was defensible. The underlying principle of national emission standards was, and should continue to be, that those national standards would be adequate to achieve health-related air quality standards in the areas with the most difficult problems. Statutory standards established in 1970 reflected that policy. This legislation continues that policy (Senate Debate on S. 252 [June 8, 1977] reprinted in 1977 Legis. Hist., 741).

To avoid imposing undue burdens on vehicle manufacturers, Congress imposed “strict limits” on the authority of states to adopt the California new motor vehicle emissions standards under section 177 (H.R. Rep. No. 294, 310 [1977]). The most important of the restrictions was that the California standards adopted by states must be “identical” to the California standards, a point repeatedly emphasized in the legislative history (Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference, reprinted in 1977 Legis. Hist., 536; H.R. Rep. No. 294, 310 [1977]). By ensuring that other states adopted and enforced only standards identical to California’s, Congress concluded that the new state authority under

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

section 177 “should not place an undue burden on vehicle manufacturers who will be required, in any event, to produce vehicles meeting the California standards for sale in California” (H.R. Rep. No. 294, 310 [1977]).

Congress also specified that the use of the new state authority under section 177 was discretionary and that the states were not obligated to use this authority, nor could EPA mandate that a state exercise its section 177 authority to adopt the California standards. Thus, the House committee specified that it “intends these provisions as grants of authority to the States. They are not intended as requirements” (H.R. Rep. No. 294, 311 [1977]). The committee also prohibited EPA from requiring states to adopt California standards under section 177 (H.R. Rep. No. 294, 311 [1977]).

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

Third-Vehicle Prohibition

The most recent comprehensive amendments to the CAA were in 1990. Although the basic preemption framework of section 177 was retained, some conditions for adoption of California emission standards were added. Section 177 was amended by adding the following provision to its existing language:

Nothing in this section or in title II of this Act shall be construed as authorizing any such State to prohibit or limit, directly or indirectly, the manufacture or sale of a new motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine that is certified in California as meeting California standards, or to take any action of any kind to create, or have the effect of creating, a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine different than a motor vehicle or engine certified in California under California standards (a ‘third vehicle’) or otherwise create such a ‘third vehicle’ (Pub. L. No. 101-549, § 232, 104 Stat. 2399, 2529 [1990]).

This provision was added by the Conference Committee late in the process and was not included in the original bills passed by the House or Senate, nor was it considered or explained by either the relevant House or Senate committees. The conference committee explained that it was adopting additional restrictions in section 177 “to make plain that States

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

exercising this section 177 option may not, in such adoption and enforcement, create a ‘third vehicle’ that is not a California vehicle or a 49-state Federal vehicle, because of the burden it would place on the motor vehicle manufacturers” (H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 952, 101st Sess., 2d Sess. 337 [1990]).

Nonroad Preemptions

In the 1990 amendments, Congress also enacted a revised section 209(e), which addresses state preemption of emissions regulations for nonroad engines. Before the 1990 amendments, nonroad engines were largely unregulated by EPA or the states (42 USC § 7543(e) [2003]). The 1990 amendments require EPA to study emissions from nonroad vehicles and, if certain statutory criteria are met, to proceed with promulgating emissions standards for such sources (42 USC § 7547 [2003]). Congress also enacted a new preemption provision in section 209(e) for nonroad engines that differs in important ways from the preemption of on-road mobile sources in section 209(a). For example, in section 209(e)(1), Congress explicitly preempts states, including California, from regulating emissions from two specific categories of nonroad sources: engines smaller than 175 horsepower (hp) used in construction or agriculture and new engines used in locomotives. For other nonroad sources, section 209(e)(2) implicitly preempts state emissions standards by requiring EPA to provide a preemption waiver for California standards and other emissions requirements similar to the waiver provided for motor vehicle emissions standards under section 209(b). Legislation was passed in 2003 that explicitly preempts states except California from adopting separate emissions standards for spark-ignition engines smaller than 50 hp, such as those used in lawn and garden equipment. California maintains its ability to set standards for these engines, but other states may not adopt California’s standards. The complete text of this legislation is provided in Appendix D.

Another difference is that section 209(a) preempts “standards relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles,” section 209(e) preempts any state or local “standard or other requirement relating to the control of emissions from non-road sources” (emphasis added) (42 USC § 7543(e)(2) [2003]). Just as section 177 permits non-California states to adopt new motor vehicle emissions standards “identical” to California’s, section 209(e)(2)(B) allows other states to adopt and enforce California

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

regulations for nonroad emissions but with two differences. First, although the “identicality” (identical-standard) requirement of section 177 applies only to standards, implementation, and enforcement are explicitly required to be identical to California’s for nonroad emissions (42 USC § 7543(e)(2)(B)(i) [2003]). Second, unlike section 177, a state choosing to adopt California’s standards for nonroad sources must notify the EPA administrator of its decision, although EPA still has no approval role in the adoption of the state standards (42 USC § 7543(e)(2)(B) [2003]).

ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS

Congress is the ultimate decision maker on the preemption of state standards and, as discussed above, has enacted and fine-tuned the federal framework for preemption of state mobile-source emissions standards. Over the years, Congress has not directly addressed several issues that have arisen about the scope and limits of the federal preemption. EPA, the federal agency charged by Congress to administer the CAA, and the federal courts have had to resolve those issues based on their interpretation of congressional intent. Some of the more important of these administrative and judicial rulings are summarized below.

The Scope of Preemption under Section 209(a) of the 1990 CAA Amendment

The preemption of state mobile-source emissions in section 209(a) has been described by the courts as the cornerstone of the CAA’s regulation of mobile-source emissions (Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. NY Dept. Envtl. Conservation, 17 F.3d 521, 526 [2d Cir. 1994]; Engine Mfrs. Ass’n v. EPA, 88 F.3d 1075, 1079 [D.C. Cir. 1996]). Consistent with that understanding, the courts have generally construed the scope of the preemption in section 209(a) broadly. However, the courts have also recognized that the federal preemption provisions detailed in sections 177 and 209 represent an attempt by Congress to balance the interests of states to attain healthful air and the interests of vehicle manufacturers and their customers from being unduly burdened by a patchwork of divergent state and local standards. According to the District Court Circuit, “Rather than being faced with 51 different standards, as they had feared, or with only one as they had sought, manufacturers must cope with two regulatory

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

standards under the legislative compromise embodied in section 209(a)” (Engine Mfrs. Ass’n v. EPA, 88 F.3d 1075, 1080 [D.C. Cir. 1996]). Finally, the First Circuit Court of Appeals likewise noted “Both the statutory language and the legislative history suggest that section 177 was the result of a compromise between the competing interests of the states and the automakers, giving states greater flexibility in dealing with the control of emissions without overburdening automakers with too many separate emissions-control standards” (American Auto. Mfrs. Ass’n v. Mass. Dept. Envtl. Protection [1st Cir. 1998]).

Is the Zero Emissions Vehicle Mandate an Emissions Standard?

One major dispute in applying the preemption provisions is whether state regulations that require a percentage of a given manufacturer’s sales fleet to meet specified emissions levels are “standards relating to the control of emissions” that are preempted by section 209(a). Examples include the California zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate, which requires a specified percentage of a manufacturer’s fleet to be certified to the ZEV standard, and the California nonmethane organic gas (NMOG) fleet average, which requires a manufacturer’s total volume of vehicles sold in the state in a given year to meet an overall and declining average hydrocarbon emission concentration. EPA initially took the position in 1993 that the ZEV mandate was not a standard under sections 209 and 177, because it did not directly limit emissions but rather limited the “flexibility otherwise accorded manufacturers to choose the mix of vehicles produced to meet the NMOG fleet average requirement” (Reilly 1993). One year later, EPA changed its position on the basis of its findings that the ZEV mandate directly resulted in some reductions of evaporative emissions and nitrogen oxides (NOx) that were not accounted for by the NMOG fleet average (59 Fed. Reg. 48664, 48691 [1994]). In 1999, EPA advanced a firm position that the ZEV mandate was a standard under sections 209 and 177. In a letter explaining its views at the request of the First Circuit Court of Appeals, EPA stated that a standard under section 209(a) is a “requirement to produce a certain number or percentage of vehicles (‘production requirement’) to meet a numerical emissions limitation,” and that this “requirement to produce vehicles is in fact part of the emission standard” (Guzy and Perciasepe 1999).

The courts have also concluded that a ZEV mandate is a standard. As the Second Circuit Court of Appeals explained,

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

We view ‘standards relating to the control of emissions’ as describing regulatory measures intended to lower the level for auto emissions, while ‘enforcement mechanisms’ describe regulatory devices intended to ensure that the ‘standards’ are effective. For example, the LEV [low-emission vehicle] program is clearly a ‘standard,’ whereas periodic testing and maintenance requirements are ‘enforcement mechanisms.’ Although this distinction, like the distinction between substance and procedure, can be less than a bright line in some cases, we find it of relatively easy application in [the case of the ZEV sales mandate]…. The ZEV sales requirement is, therefore, in the nature of a command having a different effect on the level of emissions, rather than in the nature of a means of enforcing, or testing the effectiveness of, a command (American Auto Mfrs. Ass’n v. Cahill, 152 F.3d 196, 200 [2d Cir. 1998]).

The First Circuit has likewise concurred that the ZEV mandate is a “standard” (Ass’n of Int’l Auto. Mfrrs. V. Commissioner, Mass, DEP, 208 F.3d 1 [2000]).

Are Other Mandates Considered Emissions Standards?

In 2003, the United States Solicitor General, in a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of EPA, suggested perhaps an even broader definition of “standard” under CAA section 209(a) by arguing that “section 209(a)’s reference to ‘any standard’ is constrained primarily by context and embraces both quantitative and non-quantitative emission criteria that new vehicles and engines are required to meet” (Amicus Curiae Brief of the United States at 15 [2003]).

In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the definition of a “standard” preempted under section 209 in the Engine Manufacturers Association v. South Coast Air Quality Management District case (EMA 2004). The case involved regulations adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, a local government agency responsible for air pollution control in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. The regulations required local public and private fleet operators to purchase or lease alternative-fueled vehicles or other categories of vehicles on the basis of their emissions performance. In finding that these regulations were stan-

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

dards preempted by section 209, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a narrow definition of a standard that applied only to regulations that compel manufacturers to meet specified emissions limits (541 U.S. 1761 [2004]). The court also rejected the argument that section 209 standards included only mandates imposed on manufacturers and not those imposed on purchasers of vehicles. The court held that “a command, accompanied by sanctions, that certain purchasers may buy only vehicles with particular emission characteristics is as much an ‘attempt to enforce’ a ‘standard’ as a command, accompanied by sanctions, that a certain percentage of a manufacturer’s sales volume must consist of such vehicles” (541 U.S. 1763 [2004]).

Several disputes have occurred over whether other types of mobile-source emissions-related regulations are preempted by CAA section 209(a). Consistent with the broad preemptive meaning noted above, EPA and the courts have generally held that such regulations are preempted. EPA’s regulation defining the scope of preemption under section 209(a) is written broadly as follows: “These standards or other requirements which are preempted include, but are not limited to, the following: emission standards, mandatory fleet average standards, certification requirements, after market equipment requirements, and non federal in-use testing requirements” (40 CFR § 85.1603 [2003]). The First Circuit Court held that section 209(a) preempts all state regulations, “the purpose and effect of [which] is to affect a quantitative reduction in emissions” (Ass’n Int’l Auto. Mfrs. v. Commissioner, 208 F.3d 1, 7 [1st Cir. 2000]). Likewise, the Second Circuit ruled that any state regulatory “command having a direct effect on the level of emissions” is preempted by section 209(a) (American Auto. Mfrs. Ass’n v. Cahill, 152 F.3d 196, 200 [2d Cir. 1998]).

California Waiver Proceedings under Section 209(b) of the 1990 CAA Amendments

As discussed above, Congress required EPA to review California’s emissions standards and, provided they meet certain statutory criteria, to waive federal preemption of those standards. Examples of waivers for on-road vehicles include the waiver for the California LEV standards (58 Fed. Reg. 4166 [1993]). This waiver covered the LEV program’s 1996 to 1998 model-year passenger cars, light-duty trucks, medium-duty vehicles, and heavy-duty vehicles and engines. The waiver for the LEV pro-

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

gram considered various issues, including the burden of proof needed to grant the waiver, the protectiveness for public health and welfare, the consistency with sections 202 and 209 of the CAA, and the technological feasibility. The waivers for the California LEV II program considered some of the same issues in a more abbreviated manner (68 Fed. Reg. 19811 [2003]). An example of a waiver for California nonroad emissions standards is EPA’s authorization for California to enforce regulations for exhaust emissions standards and test procedures for small engines (less than 25 hp) used in lawn and garden equipment (60 Fed. Reg. 37440 [1995]). As with the waivers for on-road sources, the nonroad-source waiver considered various issues, including the burden of proof needed to grant the waiver, the protectiveness for public health and welfare, the consistency with sections 202 and 209 of the CAA amendments, and the technological feasibility.

Waiver Criteria for On-Road Standards

Pursuant to section 209(b), California must first find that its proposed standards for motor vehicles are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards. EPA then reviews California's “protectiveness” finding and must deny a waiver if it determines that California’s finding was “arbitrary and capricious.” Section 209(b) also requires EPA to deny the waiver if it finds that California does not need its standards to meet “compelling and extraordinary” air quality conditions or if it finds that the California standards are not consistent with the requirements of section 202(a) of the CAA, which requires that the standards be feasible. As applied by EPA, the “feasibility” requirement means that a waiver may be issued only if EPA finds that “adequate technology exists with which to meet the California standards” and that “adequate lead time is available in which to implement that technology” (40 Fed. Reg. 23, 102 [1975]; 42 Fed. Reg. 2337, 2340 [1977]). Alternatively, EPA may grant the waiver if it finds that “technology does not exist but there is, or appears to be, adequate lead time to permit the development and application of the requisite technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within that time frame” (41 Fed. Reg. 44209 [1976]). EPA must also deny a waiver if it finds that the costs of the California standards will be “excessive” (43 Fed. Reg. 15490, 15492 [1978]). Even though EPA considers technological feasibility, lead time, and cost in deciding whether

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

California emissions standards are consistent with section 202(a), it generally only considers test-procedure consistency in determining whether a California enforcement procedure is consistent with section 202(a) (Motor & Eqpt. Mfrs. Ass’n v. EPA, 627 F.2d 1095 [D.C. Cir. 1979]).

Waiver Criteria for Nonroad Standards

A similar waiver procedure is provided for California standards for nonroad engines and vehicles in section 209(e)(2)(A). EPA must make the same three findings relating to the protectiveness, need, and feasibility of the California standards as it does under section 209(b) for on-road vehicle standards. In addition, EPA’s regulations governing section 209(e) waiver decisions require that EPA also make findings that the California nonroad standards are consistent with section 209(e)(1), which preempts all states including California from regulating certain categories of nonroad sources, and section 209(a), the motor vehicle preemption provisions (40 CFR §§ 85.1601–85.1606 [2004]).

Waiver Practices

Over the more than 30 years of EPA waiver practice, EPA has granted federal preemption waivers for most of the requests submitted by California. The courts have made clear that California’s standards “are presumed to satisfy the waiver requirement and that the burden of proving otherwise is on whoever attacks them” (Motor & Eqpt. Mfrs. Ass’n v. EPA, 627 F.2d 1095 [D.C. Cir. 1979]). In a few cases, particularly in the first few years in which waivers were considered in the early 1970s, EPA denied California’s waiver requests in whole or in part for failure to meet the statutory criteria (36 Fed. Reg. 8172 [1971]; 37 Fed. Reg. 8128 [1972]; 38 Fed. Reg. 10317, 10319 [1973]; 40 Fed. Reg. 30311 [1975]). In a few other cases, EPA issued a conditional preemption waiver in which the waiver would apply only to the extent California limited its program as specified by EPA (36 Fed. Reg. 17458, 17459 [1971]); 42 Fed. Reg. 31639, 31641 [1977]). In several other cases, California modified its regulations while the waiver request was pending in response to criticisms by commentators or EPA during the waiver proceeding (42 Fed. Reg. 1503, 1504, 3192, 3193 [1977]; 43 Fed. Reg. 9344, 9346 [1978]). These examples represent the exception rather than the rule,

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

however, as most waiver requests are routinely approved by EPA as submitted by California. EPA has stated that “Congress intended that the standard of EPA review of the [California] decision be a narrow one” (49 Fed. Reg. 18887 [1984]).

Although not explicitly stated in the statute, EPA has over the years adopted a truncated waiver review procedure for two types of requests: a waiver request for an “enforcement procedure” rather than a “standard,” and a waiver request that is “within the scope” of a preexisting waiver granted by EPA. An enforcement procedure is a regulatory requirement that does not directly reduce emissions but rather assists or reinforces a standard that directly reduces emissions. EPA usually considers modifications of an existing standard or incremental changes in emissions regulations that do not substantially affect its prior “protectiveness” finding to be within the scope of a previous waiver.

Issues Related to Waiver Implementation

An issue that arose during EPA’s consideration of California’s waiver request for its 1990 LEV standards was whether EPA could consider in its waiver decision the impact and implications of other states adopting the California standards under CAA section 177. EPA concluded that section 209(b) does not authorize the agency to consider the impacts of actions or potential actions taken by other states under section 177 in reviewing a waiver request (58 Fed. Reg. 4166 [Jan. 13, 1993]).

One shared concern of California, states seeking to adopt California standards under section 177, and manufacturers subject to such standards is that the EPA approval process for California preemption waiver requests takes too long. EPA often does not approve a California waiver until shortly before or, in some cases, even after the applicable regulations take effect. For example, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted its waiver request for new onboard diagnostic system regulations for 1994 and subsequent model-year vehicles in August 1990, but EPA did not approve the waiver until October 1996, well after the regulations were in effect (61 Fed. Reg. 55371 [1996]). Similarly, California requested a waiver in December 1990 for its exhaust emissions standards and test procedures for utility and lawn and garden equipment engines for 1994 and subsequent calendar years, but EPA did not provide a final waiver approval of those regulations until July 1995 (60 Fed. Reg. 37440 [1995]). In October 1991, California submitted its

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

waiver request for new emissions standards for low-emission medium-duty vehicles beginning in model-year 1998, but that waiver was not approved until April 1998 when the 1998 model year was already well under way (63 Fed. Reg. 18403 [1998]). EPA issued a waiver decision for California motor vehicle evaporative emissions standards for 1996 to 1998 model-year vehicles on August 5, 1999, well after the applicable model years were over (64 Fed. Reg. 42689 [1999]). EPA asked for public comment on December 31, 2003, on a “within the scope” waiver request for California heavy-duty diesel engine certification requirements and procedures that took effect 8 years earlier in model-year 1995 (68 Fed. Reg. 75500 [2003]).

Because neither California nor other states under section 177 can enforce California standards until they have received a federal waiver, the substantial delays in the waiver process can adversely affect states, as well as cause uncertainty for manufacturers. The delays in issuing a waiver decision are due to several factors. EPA must undertake a substantial technical analysis of the feasibility of the California standards for which a waiver is sought, even when waiver requests are relatively noncontroversial. EPA must also provide an opportunity for public comment and a public hearing and fully analyze and consider all comments and testimony submitted in those processes. The California standards are often amended or otherwise revised while the waiver request is pending; that requires EPA to redirect its analysis and, in some cases, to provide an additional opportunity for public comment. California also sometimes takes a long period of time before submitting a waiver request to EPA. Finally, the resources that EPA devotes to waiver requests might not be adequate.

EPA may be permitted to pursue more expedited waiver decisions under the existing statutory provision. Section 209(b) requires EPA to issue a waiver after “notice and opportunity for public hearing,” but EPA has consistently held that its waiver decisions are not “rules” under the Administrative Procedure Act. As such, waiver decisions are not subject to many of the administrative formalities that apply to other regulatory actions such as the adoption of standards. Thus, under the existing statutory authority, EPA could probably adopt an expedited approval process by which it would quickly and provisionally approve those California waiver requests that appear to be noncontroversial, and such waivers would go into effect unless any party objects or requests a public hearing. For example, out of the past eight full waiver requests submitted by California, four received no important adverse comments, thus being the

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

type of noncontroversial waiver that could be approved through an expedited process (59 Fed. Reg. 46978 [1994]; 69 Fed. Reg. 60995 [2004]; 70 Fed. Reg. 50322 [2005]; 71 Fed. Res. 335 [2006]). This process would be similar to direct final-rule-making, in which an agency publishes a rule without undergoing prior notice and comment and declares that the rule will take effect automatically unless the agency receives an objection within 30 days (Levin 1995). Using such a process to expedite the noncontroversial waiver requests would allow EPA to focus its resources on the waiver requests that raise more serious issues.

One possible disadvantage to such an approach is that any objection to the direct final waiver might be viewed by EPA’s Office of General Counsel as potentially substantive because a court might find it substantive in any subsequent litigation. Upon receipt of an adverse comment, the Office of General Counsel would require that the full waiver process be performed and the resulting time lost could be substantial. However, as noted above, many past waivers received no important comments, and the agency is under no obligation to respond to frivolous or otherwise minor comments.

State Adoption of California Standards under Section 177 of the CAA Amendments

In contrast to section 209(b) in which Congress explicitly assigned EPA the role of approving waivers of federal preemption for California standards, in section 177, Congress did not assign EPA any role in approving adoption of California standards by other states. As EPA itself stated, “language requiring that other States request and receive authorization from EPA is noticeably absent. Indeed, the statutory text reads as authorizing States to adopt California standards on their own volition” (59 Fed. Reg. 36969, 36983 [1994]); Reilly 1993). Given the absence of EPA review, the courts have generally held that under section 177, states may enforce only California standards that have received a waiver.

Issues Related to Enforcement

The issue of whether section 177 states may adopt enforcement procedures that differ from California’s has been controversial. In a 1991

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

letter to Congressman John Dingell, then the chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, EPA stated its position as follows:

It is clear that states may not adopt additional new vehicle certification testing or enforcement procedures since such testing and enforcement procedures will be conducted under Federal and California laws. For example, a state may not establish a unique test procedure. Nor may it establish additional enforcement procedures for new vehicles. EPA believes, however, that a state may implement its own enforcement program which differs from California’s enforcement program provided there is no undue burden imposed on manufacturers (Reilly 1991).

On the same issue, the Second Circuit Court stated that “although the ‘piggyback’ provision in section 177 requires states to adopt standards identical to those in place in California to avoid preemption, there is no such identicality requirement for the mechanism employed to enforce those standards” (MVMA v. NYDEC, 79 F.3d 1298, 1305 [2d Cir. 1996]).

Issues Related to the Identicality Requirement

Another issue litigated under section 177 is whether a state that adopts the California emissions standards must also adopt the California fuel requirements that may be associated with the vehicle standards in California. EPA and the courts agreed that a section 177 state had no duty to adopt California fuel requirements to satisfy the identicality requirement or third-vehicle prohibition of section 177 (59 Fed. Reg. 48664, 48690 [1994]). A key part of the reasoning in that determination is that a section 177 state is permitted to adopt only California emissions requirements that have been issued a federal preemption waiver by EPA, and California’s fuel requirements are not included in its waiver requests under section 209(b) (59 Fed. Reg. 48664, 48690 [1994]).

EPA and the courts have rejected all claims by manufacturers that different conditions in a section 177 state (that is, different fuels than California that allegedly adversely affect emission-control equipment or cold temperatures that allegedly affect performance of battery-powered electric vehicles) will result in a prohibited “third vehicle.” Two primary

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

reasons are given for this rejection. First, EPA and the courts have concluded that any decision by a manufacturer to alter its vehicles for a state that adopts California standards are not compelled by that state but rather is a “marketing choice” voluntarily undertaken by that manufacturer (59 Fed. Reg. 48664, 48691 [1994]; MVMA v. NYSDEC, 79 F.3d 1298, 1307 [2d Cir. 1996]). Second, EPA and the courts held that not all changes in a vehicle would constitute a third vehicle, but that vehicle changes that imposed an “undue burden” on manufacturers would constitute a third vehicle (59 Fed. Reg. 48664, 48691 [1994]; MVMA v. NYSDEC, 79 F.3d 1298, 1308 [2d Cir. 1996]). EPA and the courts relied on floor statements by several senators in the debates on the 1990 CAA amendments to argue that the legislative history confirms that the third-vehicle prohibition does not require “physical identicality” of vehicles in the section 177 state with vehicles in California (59 Fed. Reg. 48664, 48691 [1994]; MVMA v. NYSDEC, 79 F.3d 1298, 1308 [2d Cir. 1996]). Thus, the Second Circuit Court opined that “a state can never violate the third vehicle prohibition so long as it satisfies the identicality requirement and ‘does not administer or enforce the California emission standard in a more burdensome manner than what occurs in California’” (MVMA v. NYSDEC, 79 F.3d 1298, 1308 [2d Cir. 1996]).

Another issue is whether a state exercising its authority under section 177 must adopt all of California’s motor vehicle emissions standards, or whether it can choose to adopt only a subset of the California standards. EPA has taken the position that a state need not adopt all of the California standards. For example, EPA determined that a state adopting California’s LEV standards in the 1990s was not required to adopt California’s ZEV mandate, which had been enacted as part of the LEV standards by California (59 Fed. Reg. 48664, 48667 [1994]). EPA initially based that determination on its 1993 determination that the ZEV mandate was not an emission standard under sections 209 and 177, as discussed previously in this chapter (Reilly 1993). Although EPA subsequently changed its position and concluded that the ZEV mandate was indeed a standard, the agency maintained its position that a section 177 state was not required to adopt the ZEV mandate. EPA stated that “adoption of the California LEV program does not require adoption of the California heavy-duty engine program,” and similarly “section 177 does not require a state to promulgate standards that are clearly segregable from one another” (59 Fed. Reg. 48664, 48692 [1994]). EPA then concluded that the ZEV sales requirement is clearly segregable from the other parts of the LEV program (59 Fed. Reg. 48664, 48692 [1994]).

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

In contrast, EPA has suggested that the NMOG fleet-average requirement is not segregable from the LEV program and, in contrast to its evolving position on the status of the ZEV mandate, has always maintained that the NMOG fleet average is a standard under sections 209 and 177 (Reilly 1993). Although EPA has not officially ruled that a section 177 state adopting California standards must adopt and enforce an NMOG fleet average requirement that is identical to California’s, it has strongly hinted that is its position. For example, in 1994, EPA stated that “the NMOG fleet average requirement is the heart of the California LEV program and is the central mechanism for ensuring reductions from the program, and any State implementing the LEV program should, and is probably compelled to, include enforceable NMOG fleet average requirements” (59 Fed. Reg. 21720, 21736 [1994]). EPA subsequently noted “the NMOG fleet average is the central provision of the LEV program to require manufacture of the low emission vehicles in the program and to obtain enforceable emission reductions from such vehicles” (59 Fed. Reg. 48664, 48692 [1994]). EPA suggested, however, that it might be appropriate for several adjacent northeastern states “to enforce the NMOG fleet average provisions through a region-wide averaging system” (59 Fed. Reg. 48664, 48693 [1994]). Some states adopting the NMOG fleet-average requirement (including Massachusetts and New York) announced that they would not initially enforce the NMOG fleet average. EPA was aware of, and did not disapprove of, this practice (Wilson 1992).

Issues Related to Lead Time

Finally, there is the issue of whether a state that is already implementing California standards is subject to the 2-year lead-time requirement again when it adopts revised California standards. The Second Circuit Court held that when California revises its regulations for which a waiver has been granted, section 177 requires a state that adopted California standards to revise its regulations to maintain the identicality requirement (American Auto. Mfrs. Ass’n v. Cahill, 152 F.3d 196, 200-01 [2d Cir. 1998]). In such circumstances, EPA has taken the position that the two-year lead time applies to each new set of California standards but not to minor revisions of the California standards that are within the scope of an existing waiver (Reilly 1993). A final timing issue is whether a section 177 state must wait for the California standards to receive a

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

federal preemption waiver before adopting such standards, given that section 177 only permits a state to adopt and enforce California standards for which a waiver has been granted. EPA and the courts have consistently taken the position that a non-California state may adopt California standards that have not received a preemption waiver but that it cannot enforce such standards until EPA grants a preemption waiver (Reilly 1993).

FEDERAL (EPA) PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING MOBILE-SOURCE EMISSIONS STANDARDS

EPA is the agency responsible for developing federal mobile source emissions standards. Standards-setting activities are ultimately initiated by Congress through the CAA legislation. The 1990 CAA amendments direct EPA to conduct several types of activities. In some cases, Congress directs the agency to adopt numerical standards, such as the Tier 1 standards for motor vehicle emissions, or to study an issue such as the issue of nonroad engines and develop the standards (EPA 1991). For Tier 2 light-duty vehicle standards, Congress directed EPA to assess the adequacy of CAA numerical values for default Tier 2 standards and to provide alternatives if the agency deems such a course necessary.

The regulatory process for issuing standards is directed by a series of federal statues (Table 3-1) and executive orders (Table 3-2) that dictate how federal regulations are promulgated. In particular, all emission standard rules must be promulgated according to the procedures laid out in Section 307 of the CAA and, because of their important impacts, must be assessed and reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under EO 12866. Under Section 307, EPA must follow a notice and comment process that is similar to the procedure detailed in the Administrative Procedures Act. This process begins with a publication of a proposed rule in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which is published in the Federal Register. The NPRM calls for comments on the proposed rule to be provided to EPA over a specified time. Major rules often involve multiple public hearings to facilitate the collection of comments. Many major emissions standards also involve an earlier step, the publication of an advanced notice of proposed rule-making (ANPRM), to solicit early input from the public and key stakeholders. This step can add several months to the process. The whole process generally takes a

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

TABLE 3-1 Federal Legislation Controlling Regulation Development

• Administrative Procedures Act - Governs public notice and comment process

• Congressional Review Act - Before a rule may take effect, agencies need to submit the rule and other information to Congress

• National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act - Directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards (e.g., ISO) where practical

• Paperwork Reduction Act - When information is required to be collected from the public, agencies must submit for OMB approval an Information Collection Request

• Regulatory Flexibility Act/SBREFA - Consider economic impacts on small entities

• Unfunded Mandates Reform Act - Addresses imposition of unfunded federal mandates on state and local governments

Source: France 2005.

TABLE 3-2 Executive Orders Controlling Regulation Development

• Regulatory Planning and Review (EO 12866) - Governs procedures for OMB review of “significant” federal rules

• Children’s Health (EO 13045) - Addresses whether rule has a disproportionate effect on children

• Energy (EO 13211) - Addresses effects on the supply, distribution and use of energy

• Environmental Justice (EO 12898) - Addresses disproportionate health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations

• Federalism (EO 13132) - Ensures input by state and local governments for rules that have substantial direct effects on states

• Tribal Governments (EO 13175) - Addresses implications on tribal governments

Source: France 2005.

year to develop the NPRM and a year to finish the final rule-making (France 2005).

Because regulations for emissions standards are typically deemed to be important, OMB has a major role in EPA’s rule-making process. OMB’s role includes a review of both the proposed and the final rules under EO 12866. OMB also issues directives and guidance, in the form of memoranda and circulars, on the types of regulatory analysis required. EPA is required under EO 12866 to prepare a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) of the proposed standards, which includes the agency’s estimates

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

of the likely costs, benefits, and impacts on industry. The RIA for EPA’s Tier 2/gasoline sulfur proposal for light-duty vehicles, discussed in detail in Chapter 6, is typical of a RIA for a major rule. This RIA includes a discussion of health and welfare concerns about motor vehicle emissions; the impacts of the proposal on emissions, air quality, and vehicle and gasoline costs; the cost effectiveness and the cost and benefits of the proposal; and the impacts of the proposal on small businesses.

CALIFORNIA’S HISTORY AND PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING MOBILE-SOURCE EMISSIONS STANDARDS

California has played a central role in the control of emissions from mobile sources, especially the automobile. Environmental and human factors converged because California was susceptible to severe atmospheric inversions, population growth was rapid, and automobile use was greatly expanding. Before the discussion on the development of California’s mobile-source emissions standards, a brief historical perspective is presented on California’s role in mobile-source emissions controls. Aplet and Meade (1997) contains a more complete discussion of the history of mobile-source emissions regulation in California.

California’s Pioneering Role in Light-Duty-Vehicle Emissions Control

Programs to address air pollution in the United States originated in the first half of the twentieth century in industrialized urban areas, such as Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Chattanooga, Tennessee; and Saint Louis, Missouri. World War II brought industrialization to Los Angeles to support the war effort; that was followed by a post-war population boom that resulted in a significant deterioration in air quality. The Los Angeles Times railed about the problem in the mid-1940s and sponsored a study led by Raymond R. Tucker in 1946. As shown in Figure 3-1, the results of Tucker’s study were headline news in the January 19, 1947 edition of the Los Angeles Times. Among its conclusions was the finding that widespread collaboration was needed to address the growing air pollution problem. The state adopted the California Air Pollution Control Act in 1947, authorizing the creation of Air Pollution Control Districts by each county. Los Angeles, with its burgeoning air pollution problem, moved ahead of other counties by establishing the Los Angeles Air Pollution

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

FIGURE 3-1 Los Angeles Times sponsored a study by Raymond R. Tucker in 1946. Source: Los Angeles Times 1947.

Control District, the first such air pollution control district in the country and the forerunner to the current South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The Los Angeles district began programs to ban backyard incineration, to set smoke-stack standards, and to fund research into the cause of smog.

A critical issue was the characteristics of the air quality problem in Los Angeles. Through independent research, Dr. Arie J. Haagen-Smit, of the California Institute of Technology, determined the nature and causes of photochemical smog. Dr. Haagen-Smit and collaborators determined the atmospheric processes that led to the formation of ozone, the key component of smog, and implicated the automobile as a key source of the problem (Haagen-Smit and Fox 1954). The federal government took its first action to address air pollution in 1955 in the Federal Air Pollution Control Act, which provided funding to state and local governments to “protect the primary responsibilities and rights of the state and local governments in controlling air pollution….” In that same year, the Los Angeles County Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Laboratory was established. By 1959, California legislation directed the state Department of Public Health to establish air quality standards and necessary controls for motor vehicle emissions. Following California’s lead, the federal government acted in 1960 directed the Surgeon General to study the “various substances discharged from the exhausts of motor vehicles….” (Public Law 86-493).

The decade of the 1960s proved to be a seminal time in the identification of the automobile as a significant source of urban air pollution and the establishment of some of the initial light-duty-vehicle control requirements. The pattern throughout the decade was consistent; California authorities would establish control requirements and the U.S. govern-

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

ment would follow a few years later. For example, California required the control of crankcase emissions (now controlled with the positive crankcase ventilation [PCV] valve) in 1961. California acted again in 1964 by setting the first hydrocarbon (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions regulations in the nation, which applied to model-year 1966 vehicles. The federal government followed suit in the Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act of 1965 when it adopted both the California crankcase and tailpipe emissions standards for 1968 model-year vehicles. In 1970, Congress moved ahead of California and the federal government process by amending the CAA to require the establishment of regulations to reduce motor vehicle emissions by 90% for model-years 1975 and 1976 vehicles. However, throughout most of the 1970s and the 1980s, California outpaced the federal regulatory process, for example, setting evaporative emissions standards for model-year 1970 vehicles and the first nitrogen oxide (NOx) emission standards for model-year 1972 vehicles. In general, the federal process has continued to lag behind the California process by 1 or more years. Table 3-3 shows the chronology of federal and California exhaust emissions standards for new passenger vehicles.

California continued in the 1980s to set even stricter emissions standards years ahead of the federal government. Near the end of the 1980s, California took another pioneering step as it attempted to influence the fuels used in motor vehicles. That step led to work on methanol as a potential fuel in 1987, establishment of a ZEV mandate in 1990, and replacement of diesel fuel with natural gas. These pioneering efforts have not always had the anticipated results or been successful; however, the actions stimulated ancillary actions. For example, the Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) produced and advertised a cleaner burning gasoline to match methanol performance. General Motors launched an electric vehicle program followed by other manufacturers, and Honda and others produced experimental vehicles that burned gasoline but produced near-zero emissions. The current popular hybrid vehicle technology has benefited from the early electric vehicle work and the later near-zero-emission vehicle innovations.

California continued to outpace the federal government by establishing emissions limits for a broad range of vehicles and other mobile sources. It set standards for small off-road and utility engines in 1995, again before the federal government. It also set emissions standards for recreational marine engines. Table 3-4 compares the California vehicle regulatory initiatives with the federal vehicle regulatory process for light-

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

TABLE 3-3 California and Federal Exhaust Emissions Standards for Passenger Vehicles (grams/mile)a

Model Year

Federal

California

HC

CO

NOx

HC

CO

NOx

Uncontrolled

8.7

90

3.4

8.7

90

3.4

1966

 

 

 

4.3

44

 

1967

 

 

 

4.3

44

 

1968

4.1

34

 

4.3

44

 

1969

4.1

34

 

4.3

44

 

1970

4.1

34

 

2.2

23

 

1971

4.1

34

 

2.2

23

 

1972

3.0

28

 

1.5

23

3.0

1973

3.0

28

3.1

1.5

23

3.0

1974

3.0

28

3.1

1.5

23

2.0

1975

1.5

15

3.1

0.9

9

2.0

1976

1.5

15

3.1

0.9

9

2.0

1977

1.5

15

2.0

0.41

9

1.5

1978

1.5

15

2.0

0.41

9

1.5

1979

1.5

15

2.0

0.41

9

1.5

1980

0.41

7.0

2.0

0.41

9

1.0

1981

0.41

3.4

1.0

0.41

7

1.0

1982

0.41

3.4

1.0

0.41

7

0.4

1983

0.41

3.4

1.0

0.41

7

0.4

1984

0.41

3.4

1.0

0.41

7

0.4

1985

0.41

3.4

1.0

0.41

7

0.4

1986

0.41

3.4

1.0

0.41

7

0.4

1987

0.41

3.4

1.0

0.41

7

0.4

1988

0.41

3.4

1.0

0.41

7

0.4

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

1989

0.41

3.4

1.0

0.41

7

0.4

1990

0.41

3.4

1.0

0.41

7

0.4

1991

0.41

3.4

1.0

0.41

7

0.4

1992

0.41

3.4

1.0

0.41

7

0.4

1993

0.41

3.4

1.0

0.41

7

0.4

1994

0.41

3.4

0.4

0.25 b

1.7-3.4 c

0.2-0.4 c

1995

0.41

3.4

0.4

0.231 b

1.7-3.4

0.2-0.4

1996

0.41

3.4

0.4

0.225 b

1.7-3.4

0.2-0.4

1997

0.41

3.4

0.4

0.202 b

1.7-3.4

0.2-0.4

1998

0.41

3.4

0.4

0.157 b

1.7-3.4

0.2-0.4

1999

0.41

3.4

0.4

0.113 b

1.7-3.4

0.2-0.4

2000

0.41

3.4

0.4

0.073 b

1.7-3.4

0.2-0.4

2001

0.075 b

1.7-3.4 c

0.2-0.4 c

0.07 b

1.7-3.4

0.2-0.4

2002

0.075 b

1.7-3.4

0.2- 0.4

0.068 b

1.7-3.4

0.2-0.4

2003

0.075 b

1.7-3.4

0.2- 0.4

0.062 b

1.7-3.4

0.2-0.4

a There are subtle differences in the California and federal standards that cannot be presented in a table format. These differences involve certification methods and fleet averaging.

b Fleet average of nonmethane organic gases.

c Emissions standard varies depending on certification levels (for example, low- emission and ultralow- emission vehicles). Source: Sperling et al. 2004a. Reprinted with permission by the authors; copyright 2004, University of California, Davis.

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

TABLE 3-4 Comparison of California with Federal Regulatory Initiatives for Light- and Medium-Duty On-Road Vehicles

Model Year

California Requirement

Result

HEW/EPA

Model Year

Comparison with California

1963

Reduced crankcase emissions

Reduced VOC emissions

1968

Adopt similar requirements (5 yr later)

1966

First VOC and CO exhaust emission standards

Leaner carburetors, air pumps, and retarded timing controls

1968

Adopt similar requirements (2 yr later)

1970

First evaporative emission standard

Reduced VOC emissions usingcarbon canisters

1971

Adopt similar requirements (1 yr later)

1974

NOx exhaust emission standard set at 2.0 g/mi

Increased use of exhaust gas recirculation (EGR)

1977

Adopt similar requirement (3 yr later)

1975

VOC exhaust standard tightened by 72%, CO ex haust standard tightened by 77%

Use of oxidation catalysts

1975

VOC exhaust standard reduced by 56%, CO exhaust standard reduced by 62% (EPA action concurrent to CARB but standards reduced to lesser extent)

1977

VOC and NOx exhaust standard tightened by 34%

Use of on- board computers and improved catalysts; some 3- way catalysts begin to appear

1980

Adopt similar requirements (3 yr later)

1980

Evaporative standard tightened by 67%

Reduced VOC emissions using larger carbon canisters

1981

Adopt similar requirement (1 yr later)

1980

NOx standard tightened by 33%

Use of 3- way catalysts on all models

1981

Adopt similar requirement (1 yr later)

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

1982

NOx standard tightened by 30%

Use of improved 3-way catalysts; fuel injection on some models, more durable vehicles

Did not adopt

1987

Alternative fuels strategy

Attempts to shift vehicle fleet to methanol fuel

Did not adopt

1988

First on-board diagnostic (OBD) systems

Alerted driver to failing emissions component

Did not adopt but some manufactures choose to sell CA OBD nationwide

1989

NOx standard tightened by 43%

Universal use of electronic fuel injection systems

1994

Adopted similar requirement (5 yr later)

1990

ZEV requirement

Battery-powered vehicles

Did not adopt

1994

First LEV program

 

1999

Available in New England states in 1999 and nationwide in 2001 (6 yr later)

1994

Second-generation OBD systems

Alerted drivers to need for maintenance; also used as emissions inspection technology in inspector and maintenance (I/M) programs

1996

Adopted similar requirements but not applicable to medium-duty vehicles until 2004 (2-10 yr later)

1995

Real-time evaporative testing and standards

Improved control of fuel-vapor losses and lower fuel-vapor permeation materials

1996

Adopted similar requirement with additional test procedure (1 yr later)

1998-2005

ZEV mandate

Modified requirements in light of low consumer demand and ultralow-emitting vehicles

Did not adopt

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

Model Year

California Requirement

Result

HEW/EPA

Model Year

Comparison with California

1999

Formation of California Fuel Cell Partnership

Public-privateventure to demonstrate fuel-cell vehicles in California

No action

2004

Second LEV program

Required sport-utility vehicles and pickup trucks to meet same emissions limits as cars

2004

Adopted similar requirements but phased in more slowly with some higher emissions standards. Included heavier SUVs and light duty trucks within the standards. No advanced technology requirements.

2009

Greenhouse-gas emission standards

Projected to reduce greenhouse- gas emissions by 27% in 2030 (see Chapter 6)

Did not adopt

 

Source: Adapted from CARB, unpublished material, 2005.

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

duty vehicles over the past 40 years. Tables comparing California and federal standards for the full range of vehicles and nonroad engines are contained in Appendix C.

Process for Setting Mobile-Source Emissions Standards

The combination of the federal legislation and regulations and the California statutes establishes the general framework for air quality management in California. The process is derived from three critical pieces of legislation, the federal CAA, the California CAA, and the California Environmental Quality Act. The federal CAA and subsequent EPA policies control the setting of national priorities. These policies require California to develop a program to meet nationally determined air quality standards within specified times through state implementation plans, as discussed in the next major section. Since the 1950s, California has also adopted air quality legislation. One of the important amendments to the clean air laws was the California CAA of 1988, which introduced the low-emissions vehicle (LEV) program (Assembly Bill 2595, Sher). In addition, the California Environmental Quality Act adopted initially in the 1970s has an important role in setting requirements for the adoption of regulations in California.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB), which is a department within the California Environmental Protection Agency, is responsible for managing air quality in California. CARB bases its regulatory program on the combination of requirements specified in the federal and state statutes. It also adopts its own policies and procedures for adopting rules through board and executive officer directives. Additionally, California has 35 air pollution control districts or air quality management districts with authority to regulate stationary, indirect, and area sources of air pollution within a given county or region.

The California Clean Air Act

The California CAA provides a framework for air quality planning and regulation in the state. It provides air quality goals, planning mechanisms, regulatory strategies, and standards of progress. The California CAA requires attainment of state ambient air quality standards by the earliest practicable date. It also requires the development of air quality management plans for air districts in violation of the state ozone, CO,

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

TABLE 3-5 Important Features of the California CAA of 1988

• Air quality management is overseen by the CARB board of 11 members appointed by the governor and approved by the Senate (H&S39500,39510).

• CARB must classify California nonattainment areas into one of four classifications (moderate, serious, severe, extreme) (H&S40921.5).

• CARB must adopt mobile source emissions control to significantly reduce mobile source emissions by year 2001.

• Air quality management plans to achieve and maintain California ambient air quality standards must be developed in 1990 and revised at 3-year intervals thereafter (requirements for the South Coast Air Quality Management District) (H&S40911).

• Air quality management plans are required to

—Apply every “feasible emission reduction method” or at a minimum meet a 5% annual reduction in emissions (H&S40914).

—Consider the “cost effectiveness of their air quality programs, rules, regulations, and enforcement practices” and “strive to achieve the most efficient methods of air pollution control” (H&S40910).

• Air quality management plans must be considered at public meetings by the relevant local board followed by a public review by the state Air Board.

sulfur dioxide (SO2), or nitrogen dioxide (NO2) standards. Some highlights of the act are listed in Table 3-5.

The California Environmental Quality Act

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was designed to force evaluation of the overall impact of projects on the environment. The evaluations must include consideration of air pollution, water pollution, solid waste, biodiversity, fire safety, and other environmentally related issues. Major rules are considered projects by subsequent court interpretations, and all agencies in California who adopt rules are required to meet the CEQA requirements for their important rules.

A government agency can design its rule-making process to inherently meet CEQA requirements so that a separate specific CEQA document is not required. CARB and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) are examples of California agencies that have designed processes that are deemed to be equivalent to CEQA. Extensive information on CEQA can be found at the website http://ceres.ca.gov.

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
CARB’s Governing Board and Resources

Created in 1967, CARB is overseen by an independent governing board made up of a full-time chairperson as one of 11 members who appoint an executive officer to direct the day-to-day activities of the CARB staff. All regulations produced by CARB must be approved by the governing board. The members of the CARB governing board are appointed by the governor and approved by the California Senate. The governor must ensure that the governing board makeup meets the specifications given in Table 3-6.

The governor selects one of the board members to be the chairperson of the board. The governing board typically meets once a month or more. In 2000 through 2004, the governing board met 77 times for some or all of a day, an average of 15.4 meetings per year. The budget for CARB in the 2004-2005 fiscal year was $130 million, the SCAQMD budget for that period was $102 million (SCAQMD 2004), the Bay Area Air Quality Management District budget was $52 million, and the other 33 smaller California districts budgets averaged about $8 million per district. Thus, California annually spends about $550 million on government activities related to air quality management. As a comparison, the EPA air program budget is about $660 million (EPA 2005f).

TABLE 3-6 Composition of 11-Member CARB Governing Board

One member from each of the governing boards of the following districts:

• San Diego Air Pollution Control District

• Bay Area Air Pollution Control District (San Francisco region)

• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

• South Coast Air Quality Management District (Los Angeles region)

• Any additional air quality management district in the state

One member having expertise in each of the following fields:

• Automotive engineering or a closely related field

• Agriculture, science, or law

• Medicine or health effects

• Air pollution control or an area similar to that indicated above

Two members having no special expertise may be selected from the public at large.

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

TABLE 3-7 Estimates of Emissions-Carrying Capacity Needed for Attainment of Ozone Standards

Area

Population (millions)

Carrying Capacity (VOCs + NOx)

Tons per Day

Pounds per Person per Year

South Coast Basin

16.9

840

36

San Joaquin Valley

4.1

630

69

Houston

5.5

1360

181

Source: Witherspoon 2004.

Air Quality Management Planning and Subsequent Regulatory Processes

The basis for the development of air quality regulations in California is the need to meet state ambient air quality standards. CARB first issued ambient air quality standards for California in 1969 for total suspended particulates, photochemical oxidants, SO2, NO2, and CO. Since the passage of the California CAA in 1988, nonattainment areas are required to address the steps needed to attain air quality standards through an air quality management plan (AQMP). In effect, the air quality management plan is the same type of plan needed to meet federal air quality standards described in the state implementation plan (SIP). However, the state AQMPs are designed to meet the state air quality standards (frequently more stringent) but do not contain mandatory attainment deadlines. Local air quality management districts develop AQMPs, which are sent to CARB for review. CARB may submit the plans to EPA if a SIP is required by federal rules.

The South Coast Air Basin (the region around Los Angeles) has traditionally had the worst air quality in the state and nation, although the San Joaquin Valley region of California is becoming an area of greater concern. Table 3-7 shows the emissions carrying capacity for the South Coast Air Basin and compares it with those of San Joaquin Valley and Houston, Texas. The carrying capacity refers to the upper limit of emissions in a region consistent with achieving air quality standards. This table shows how per capita emissions need to be much lower in the Los Angeles area compared with the other locations. In addition to its air quality problems, the South Coast Air Basin and environs houses about 17 million persons. This is 40% of the population of California and represents about 5% of Americans (more populous than 41 states). Thus,

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

the South Coast Air Basin tends to drive regulatory decisions relative to both stationary and mobile sources in California and will be used as an example to discuss the California regulatory process.

At the beginning of a traditional planning cycle, SCAQMD and CARB officials ideally discuss reduction requirements and the appropriate emissions reductions to be obtained from stationary sources versus mobile sources and from consumer products for the next planning cycle. The SCAQMD is responsible for reducing the emissions associated with stationary sources in its jurisdiction, and CARB is responsible for reducing mobile-source and consumer-product-related emissions statewide. In addition to the local and state regulatory air agencies, the metropolitan planning organization in the area—the Southern California Association of Governments—participates in the AQMP development because of its responsibility for transportation control measures (TCMs) and for determining that the regional transportation plan (RTP) conforms to the AQMP. From the beginning, CARB and the SCAQMD have had to commit to achieving the highest emissions reductions possible from all source categories of under their jurisdiction to meet federal clean air goals. Keeping in mind the emission-reduction commitments, each agency begins the process of identifying cost, safety, and other factors that are part of the control options at its disposal for its area of responsibility. Federally preempted source-category rules are also added to this mix of strategies from state and local agencies to demonstrate attainment of the standards.

The discussions between the SCAQMD and CARB can be difficult and normally revolve around the relative cost effectiveness associated with various control approaches. Over the past decade, the regulatory responsibilities of the two agencies have become increasingly blurred. The AQMP produced by the SCAQMD also may not be consistent with the goals or views of CARB.

Development of California Emissions Standards

As part of the state regulatory activities undertaken to attain air quality standards, California uses stringent emissions standards for motor vehicles. The initiating activities can be by legislative directives or by CARB. For example, the California CAA mandated that CARB take whatever actions were necessary, cost effective, and feasible to achieve a 55% emission reduction of HCs and a 15% emission reduction of NOx

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

from 1987 baseline motor vehicle emissions by 2001 (section 43018(b) California Health and Safety Code). As a result, CARB developed the LEV program (discussed in Chapter 6). The California legislature in 2002 passed the Pavley bill, which compelled CARB to issue motor vehicle greenhouse-gas standards. In many other cases, however, CARB has used its authority to regulate on-road and nonroad emissions source-sin the absence of directions from the California legislature. Table 3-8 shows the steps in the CARB standards development process.

CARB and EPA exchange relevant information to the extent possible during their respective regulatory processes, and the efforts made after rule implementation are coordinated with EPA (for example, testing to determine whether a noncompliance determination and a recall are appropriate). In the end, the CARB regulation development process follows the same overall procedures as the EPA process, the exception being that the CARB final rule adoption process is a public process review by an independent board. As discussed later in Chapter 6 in reference to the ZEV mandate, CARB seems to be able to adjust its rules more often to meet changing technological developments than the federal process has demonstrated to date.

MOBILE-SOURCE REGULATION IN THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

State Implementation Planning Process

SIPs2 are the formally adopted air quality attainment plans required by the CAA. The SIP describes the combination of local, state, and federal actions and emissions controls that will be undertaken for an area to comply with and maintain compliance with the NAAQS. The SIP provides the basic link between state and local regulations, EPA oversight of state actions and enforcement, and federal contributions to controls. These plans are designed by the states that have NAAQS nonattainment areas and must submit attainment plans to EPA for approval. A SIP must

2  

Individual states have a single SIP that describes the state’s plans for coming into attainment with all NAAQS. That SIP is amended as regulations related to NAAQSs are modified. An amendment, such as describing how a location will come into attainment with the new 8-hr ozone standard, is typically referred to as a SIP (the 8-hr ozone SIP), when in fact, it is a SIP amendment. In this report, we continue to refer to each SIP amendment as a SIP.

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

demonstrate how the state will attain and maintain the standard for each pollutant in the time lines established in the CAA. The SIP for each pollutant typically contains the elements listed in Table 3-9.

The emissions reductions outlined in a SIP may contain reductions achieved through federal, state, and local (municipal, county, and district) regulatory actions. In the case of state and local actions, the SIP must demonstrate that the state has the legal authority for the actions that they propose and that the proposed actions will achieve the needed reductions. The attainment demonstrations must use approaches and models accepted by the EPA. In some instances, EPA has accepted nonregulatory actions for small (2-4%) portions of needed emissions reductions in nonattainment areas. Due to the difficulty of achieving air quality standards in many locations, successive amendments to the CAA have extended attainment deadlines. Table 3-10 indicates the design values3 and attainment deadlines for the 1-hr ozone NAAQS associated with successive CAA amendments and standard promulgation. Though the implementation schedule for the new 8-hr ozone standard and transition from the 1-hr ozone standard is still being developed, attainment dates vary from 3 years for marginal areas to 20 years for extreme areas after an area’s status has been designated by EPA.

Considerable technical and policy debate is typically associated with the first seven SIP elements described in Table 3-9. EPA attempts to minimize the debate by establishing in advance the requirements for developing emissions inventories, the acceptable emissions and ambient air quality models, and the acceptable emission reductions for some key types of control measures, such as vehicle I/M. Even with those safeguards, many issues and inconsistencies evolve. For example, in the early 1980s, during the development of the 1987 SIPs, EPA produced a new mobile-source emissions model. Some states preferred the older emissions model that predicted greater emissions reductions and argued that the timing of the process did not allow use of the newer model. EPA reacted by allowing the use of both models, creating an inconsistency in the predictions in various SIPs that had used different models.

3  

The design value is the monitored reading used by EPA to determine an area's air quality status; e.g., for the 1-hour ozone standard, the fourth highest reading measured over the most recent three years is the design value.

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

TABLE 3-8 Steps in CARB Standards Development

Assessment of potential emissions reductions from specific source category typically involve the following:

 

Review of technical papers.

Discussions with control technology developers.

Identification of one or more technologies and reformulation of a fuel or solvent.

Technology assessment or approach further identified

 

More thorough evaluation of its potential to reduce emissions.

Preliminary assessment of cost and other impacts.

If management decides to proceed with regulatory proposal, staff may

 

Undertake testing to demonstrate viability and safety.

Meet with companies that might be affected by the proposed regulation.

Public workshops held to gather information from a broader set of stakeholders, including users of engines or equipment.

Staff develops proposed regulation, including stringency of a standard, lead time, compliance and enforcement provisions.

 

Regulatory requirements to assess flexibility, safety issues, cost of the regulation, impact on businesses

Continued information gathering through expert consultants, additional workshops, and peer review by the University of California

Action by CARB Governing Board

 

Regulatory proposal is published at least 45 days before hearing.

Governing board meets to hear the staff’s proposal and testimony from concerned persons.

Governing board discusses the proposal and the testimony and votes on whether to adopt the regulation.

Governing board may make changes to the regulation or postpone adoption.

If new information is needed, the hearing may be continued for a month or more.

Frequently the governing board directs staff to provide periodic updates, which are presented at subsequent public hearing.

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

Completion of regulatory process

 

additional public comment period on any changes made by the governing board.

written response to all comments made in written or oral testimony.

review by the State Office of Administrative Law.

Additional review prior to and during implementation that can include the following:

 

Formal periodic reviews for governing board.

Additional testing.

Modifications to the adopted regulations.

TABLE 3–9 Elements of State Implementation Plans

• An initiation of an emissions inventory for all sources of each pollutant under consideration.

• A projection of emissions on the attainment date for all sources of each pollutant under consideration assuming no control intervention and expected population growth.

• A description of the control programs that the state will use emission for each pollution source under consideration and an indication that the authority exists for the state to achieve the indicated control intervention—the description of control problems includes those carried out by the federal government independent of the state.

• A commitment to adopt the indicated state control interventions and a schedule of adoption.

• A projection of emissions on the attainment date that includes the anticipated reductions achieved by the implementation of the control interventions superimposed over anticipated growth.

• A calculation of ambient air quality based on the projected reduced emissions using the approved model.

• A set of contingency measures that will be applied if the committed control interventions do not achieve the desired emission reductions.

• A public review process allowing stakeholders the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed plans.

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

TABLE 3-10 Attainment Years Set in Various CAA Amendments for the 1- hr Ozone Standarda

CAA Amendments

Attainment Year by Severity of the Problem

Marginal Area (design value = 0. 121-0.138 ppm)

Moderate Area (design value = 0. 138-0.160 ppm)

Serious Area (design value = 0.160-0.180 ppm)

Severe Area (design value = 0.180-0.280 ppm)

Extreme Area (design value = 0.280 ppm and above)

1970

1975 (all areas)

 

 

 

 

1977

1982 (all areas)

 

1987a

 

 

1990

1993

1996

1999

2005

2010

a The terms marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme did not come into use until the 1990 CAA amendments. The 1977 CAA amendments required attainment in 1982 but allowed an extension to 1987 for those areas that could demonstrate that it was not possible to meet the 1982 date, which had the effect of giving serious, severe, and extreme areas an additional 5 years. This classification scheme was devised before EPA promulgated a new 8- hr standard and, thus, is related to the old 1- hr form of the standards.

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

Evaluation of California Standards as a Potential SIP Control Measure

The decision to adopt California emissions standards is best based on a comprehensive technical evaluation of emissions reductions needed, as well as an evaluation and comparison of alternative control measures. A comprehensive analysis includes the following components:

  • Estimation of emissions reductions needed by pollutant. For example, in an ozone nonattainment area, performing air quality modeling to see what percent reductions in NOx and HC emissions would be required to bring the area into attainment.

  • Emissions inventory evaluation to assess the relative contributions of source categories to the pollutants of interest.

  • Comprehensive evaluation of a broad range of control measures in all source categories (stationary point, area, on-road, and off-road). Such an evaluation would include estimating emissions reductions from specific control measures, costs for implementation of control measures, cost-effectiveness, and implementation issues.

  • Modeling the effects of evaluated control measures individually or as a group.

Many nonattainment areas follow the comprehensive approach described above. For example, control-measure evaluations have been conducted in ozone nonattainment and near-nonattainment areas in Texas (for example, Coulter-Burke et al. 2002; ENVIRON 2000) and are continuing; Sacramento, California (SMAQMD 2004), the Upper Midwest States (MACTEC 2005) and are continuing; and Tennessee (University of Tennessee 2003). However, such an analysis is resource-intensive and might be prohibitively expensive for some air quality planning agencies, who may rely in part on analyses performed by other agencies. For example, NESCAUM’s analyses of the California LEV program have been used by several states to justify adoption of the program.

Example of a State Implementation Plan

SIPs contain an array of emissions-reduction strategies for mobile, area, and stationary sources. Table 3-11 lists the controls and emission reduction estimates projected in the 1-hr ozone attainment SIP using

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

TABLE 3-11 SIP Control Strategies for NOx for the Dallas-Fort Worth Area

EPA-issued Rules

Estimated NOx Reductions in 2007 (tons per day)

Federal on- road measures:

93

Federal phase II reformulated gasoline (RFG)

Tier 2 vehicle emission standards and federal low- sulfur gasoline

National low emissions vehicle program

Heavy- duty diesel standards

Federal off- road measures:

48

Lawn and garden equipment

Tier 3 heavy- duty diesel equipment

Locomotives

Compression ignition standards for vehicles and equipment

Spark ignition standards for vehicles and equipment

Recreational marine standards

Texas Council Environmental Quality– issued Rules

Estimated NOx Reductions in 2007 (tons per day)

Major point source NO x reductions in four counties

129

Light-duty-vehicle I/M

54

Senate Bill 5 Voluntary Incentive Program

16

Airport ground service equipment electrification in four counties

6

Heavy-equipment fleets—gasoline in nine counties

2

Gas-fired water heaters, small boilers, and process heaters (statewide rule)

1

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

Other State measures: Energy efficiencies

1

Dallas-Fort Worth Local Initiatives

Estimated NOx Reductions in 2007 (tons per day)

Speed limit reduction in nine counties

5

Voluntary mobile emissions reduction program (VMEP) in nine counties

2 - 5

Transportation control measures (TCM) in four counties

5

Source: TCEQ 2004.

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

federal, state, and local initiatives in the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) area. This plan relies heavily on NOx controls. Reductions in mobile-source emissions in the plan come from tightening emissions standards for on-road and nonroad sources, as well as reducing in-use emissions through motor vehicle emissions I/M. As seen in the table, the DFW area relies heavily on federal mobile-source emissions standards to reduce emissions. Box 3-1 discusses issues related to using I/M programs versus federal emissions standards to control motor vehicle emissions.

Box 3-1 New Vehicle Emissions Standards and Controls on In-Use High-Emitting Vehicles

Motor vehicle emissions standards are part of the array of programs designed to reduce emissions and improve air quality. Air quality programs at the state and local level are typically a mix of programs as described in the adjoining section on the state implementation plan for the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) area. A prominent method for reducing motor vehicle emissions is by inspecting vehicles and requiring repairs when they fail emissions testing. Emissions from vehicles with malfunctioning emission-control equipment, referred to as high emitters, contribute disproportionately to overall emissions. An earlier NRC report (2001) discussing vehicle emissions inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs quoted estimates that typically less than 10% of vehicles typically contributed over 50% of total light-duty-vehicle pollutant emissions for any given pollutant. Given the significant fraction of emissions that comes from such vehicles, it is prudent to question whether strategies designed to reduce the emissions from high emitters would be more effective than tightening new emissions standards. The committee concludes that new vehicle emissions standards contribute to reducing motor vehicle emissions in ways not matched by in-use emissions controls. Specifically, new vehicle emissions standards have driven continual improvements in the ability to monitor and control in-use emissions and in the durability of emission-control equipment.

By the early 1980s many elements of modern emission-control equipment, including the automobile catalyst and onboard computers, were introduced. The further tightening of vehicle standards over the past 2 decades has inspired significant refinements in catalyst design and materials. These standards have also resulted in the introduction of sophisticated onboard diagnostic equipment to improve the emissions performance and to alert motorists and repair technicians to problems with emission-control equipment. Other

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

standards have resulted in systems to reduce evaporative emissions and in improvements in the durability of emission-control systems.

Improvements in emission-control technologies have had a positive impact on in-use emissions, including emissions from high emitters. As shown in Chapter 2, on-road emissions of CO have greatly decreased since 1970, most of that reduction coming from light-duty vehicles. Pokharel et al. (2003) discussed how improvements in emission-control technologies have affected the fraction of vehicles defined as gross emitters of CO. Gross emitters are defined in their analysis as those highest emitting vehicles that together cause half of the total light-duty vehicle on-road CO emissions. Using remote-sensing emissions measurements of on-road vehicles in Denver, Colorado, described in Bishop and Stedman (1990) and Pokharel et al. (2002), Pokharel et al. (2003) showed that over the 1989-2001 time period the fraction of vehicles considered gross emitters and the average emissions from these vehicles had declined. Pokharel et al. (2003) also found that new vehicles manufactured in 2000 emitted less CO, HC, and NOx than new vehicles manufactured in 1998, even while standards for new vehicles remained constant, a result the authors attributed to continual improvements made by manufacturers to meet standards and improve durability. The trend for new vehicles to show decreasing emissions during successive years of measurements are shown for CO in Figure 3-2. This finding has been observed in other remote-sensing emissions data obtained in Chicago, Illinois (Bishop et al. 2003). Improvements in emission-control technologies might also have caused a slowing in emissions deterioration, the increase in emissions that occurs as vehicles age (Wenzel et al. 1997). Thus, improvements in emission-control technologies spurred by emissions standards have affected in-use emissions, including emissions from high emitters.

Finally, previous efforts to decrease contributions from high-emitting vehicles have been problematic. I/M programs are the most prominent method of controlling in-use emissions from vehicles with malfunctioning emission-control equipment, including high emitters. The NRC report (2001) on I/M programs recommended more focused efforts be given to high emitters. However, the report noted some of the difficulties in reducing the number of high emitters that have been encountered in I/M programs. Studies California and elsewhere have shown that many vehicles on the road have failed I/M programs and have not been retested and others have never shown up for initial screening (Ando et al. 2000; Wenzel 2001). Temporary repairs, tampering, and other possible methods of avoiding program requirement have also been used (Lawson 1993; Stedman et al. 1998). Solving some of these persistent problems is a continuing issue with I/M programs.

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

FIGURE 3-2 Decreasing CO emissions from new vehicles. The natural log of grams CO emissions per kilogram of fuel used is plotted by year of measurement for vehicles aged 1-4 years measured between 1989 and 2001 in Denver. Age of vehicle is calculated by subtracting model year from measurement year. Regression lines for each age are drawn and R2 values are included. Source: Pokharel et al. 2003. Reprinted with permission; copyright 2004, American Chemical Society.

It is also clear from this SIP that federal emissions standards are only part of the emission-control strategies. Various state initiatives are implemented in the DFW SIP to increase total reductions. One major source of reduction is point-source NOX reduction. This method alone accounts for 35% of the NOx reductions. I/M of light-duty vehicles contributes 15% to NOX reductions. Local initiatives also include transportation control measures, which are designed to achieve on-road mobile-source emissions reductions and are included as control measures in the SIP. Examples in the DFW area include intersection improvements, signal improvements, high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) lanes, freeway corridor management, park and ride lots, pedestrian and bike facilities, rail,

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×

and van pools. The DFW SIP also includes controls on small-engine equipment, such as gas-fired water heaters, small boilers, and process heaters, and relies on regulating smaller equipment to contribute to total NOX emissions reductions. Table 3-11 includes a proposal for speed limit reductions, which were not adopted by the state legislature.

CONCLUSIONS

Regulation of mobile-source emissions through standards on new vehicles and engines is an important component of air quality management. The CAA gave the state of California the authority to set mobile-source emissions standards that differ from the federal standards as long as they are as protective in the aggregate as federal standards. Later amendments to the CAA allowed other states to adopt California standards. The history of California mobile-source emissions standards is told through a succession of scientific findings, legislative actions, and administrative and judicial interpretations that are summarized in this chapter. Several conclusions come from this examination.

  • Over the history of mobile-source regulation to date, California has typically led EPA in tightening emissions standards on light-duty vehicles and become a laboratory for emission-control innovations. CARB’s regulatory process is supportive of this laboratory role in that California emissions standards can be amended rapidly in the face of changing market and technological conditions.

  • Each time CARB sets or substantially revises a California mobile-source emission standard, it must seek a waiver from EPA. The waiver review process can take several years and significant EPA resources to complete, even for relatively straightforward and uncontroversial waivers. In some cases, waivers have been approved after vehicles and engines that meet the standards are in the market. This process creates uncertainty for California, other states considering adopting California standards, and manufacturers.

  • States first began using their authority under section 177 of the CAA in the early 1990s when New York and Massachusetts adopted California emissions standards for new light-duty vehicles. The primary reason that these states adopted California emissions standards was to obtain additional emissions reductions to help attain and maintain the NAAQS.

Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 98
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"3 Regulation of Emissions from New Mobile Sources." National Research Council. 2006. State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11586.
×
Page 113
Next: 4 Co-evolution of Technology and Emissions Standards »
State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $75.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Emissions from mobile sources contribute significantly to air pollution in the United States. Such sources include cars and light- and heavy-duty trucks; diesel-powered cranes, bulldozers, and tractors; and equipment such as lawnmowers that run on small gasoline engines. The role of state versus federal government in establishing mobile-source emissions standards is an important environmental management issue. With this in mind, Congress called on EPA to arrange an independent study of the practices and procedures by which California develops separate emissions standards from the federal government and other states choose to adopt the California standards. The report provides an assessment of the scientific and technical procedures used by states to develop or adopt different emissions standards and a comparison of those policies and practices with those used by EPA. It also considers the impacts of state emissions standards on various factors including compliance costs and emissions. The report concludes that, despite the substantial progress in reducing emissions from mobile sources nationwide, more needs to be done to attain federal air-quality standards in many parts of the country. Additionally, California should continue its pioneering role in setting emissions standards for cars, trucks, and off-road equipment.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!