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.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 65
State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions 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.

OCR for page 65
State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions 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

OCR for page 65
State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions 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

OCR for page 65
State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions 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]).

OCR for page 65
State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions 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:

OCR for page 65
State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions 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-

OCR for page 65
State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions 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

OCR for page 65
State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions 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

OCR for page 65
State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions 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

OCR for page 65
State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions 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

OCR for page 65
State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions 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

OCR for page 65
State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions 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.

OCR for page 65
State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions 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.

OCR for page 65
State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions • 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.

OCR for page 65
State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions 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.

OCR for page 65
State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions 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

OCR for page 65
State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions 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

OCR for page 65
State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions 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.

OCR for page 65
State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions 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

OCR for page 65
State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions 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.

OCR for page 65
State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions 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,

OCR for page 65
State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions 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.