### COLORADO AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM CONTROL SHEET item Title Regulation No. 11 : "Governing the Control of Air Contaminant Emissions from Motor Vehicles" . Colorado's Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program Meeting date 18 Feb. '99

NON-HEARINGACTIONS 

### _Administrative

_ Briefing _Policy x_Adoption


## _x_ Required
General __ _ TYPES OF ACTION REQUESTFOR HEARING



### _ Public Rulemaking

_ Informational
RECOMMENDED ACTION _Approval MOTION Attached STATUTORYAUTHORITY · . r= 

## FEB 04 

## 1999

HEARING 

### x_ Public Rulemaking _Informational

_Denial

_ Not applicable Specific**-~x** 

### EPA SUBMITTAL Is this issue considered a SIP revision? Yes 

## X**-~-** 

### No



### --- Which SIP? l/M**-~'-----** 

### Date of EPA submission deadline: NIA ----'--'-'--'.--:-BACKGROUND "Clean Screening" is a means of improving motorist convenience and potentially reducing costs associate'"' with periodic compliance with an inspection and maintenance (1/M) program. As an alternative to traditional vehii emissions inspection and maintenance for all eligible vehicles, Clean Screening in this case utilizing "remotv sensing" technology, identifies those vehicles that would not benefit from participation in a traditional emissions inspection program i.e., they are clean and would have passed . Measures such as clean screening improve the l/M programs' cost effectiveness. DISCUSSION When remote sensing technology was introduced, the application ofthe technology was directed at the identification ofdirty/failing vehicles and not clean vehicles. Various entities to include the Division have conducted separate studies all ofwhich concluded that remote emissions sensing results for dirty vehicles were too variable and often falsely failed clean vehicles. It has been determined that remote sensing technology can be a reliable tool in the identification of clean vehicles. Revisions to Regulation 11 implement the provisions of S.S. '98-182. Implementation ofa formal, operational clean screen program as proposed would be the first program of its kind in the nation. Revisions to the original proposal make provision for non-program area motorists, having vehicles registered in Larimer County and Weld County, to comply with periodic inspection requirements utilizing Clean Screen procedures. Also, the emissions limits for carbon monoxide (CO) has been revised from 1 % to 0.8%, further focusing on the cleaner cars. Additionally, ·revisions to the regulation codify the provisions of S.B.'98-046 which further clarifies ti responsibility of compliance with emissions inspection requirements for vehicles in the process of being sold , especially as it may pertain to vehicles that are inoperable or otherwise untestable as defined in rules adopted by the Department of Revenue. The program is in place at this time. Regulation 11 would be consistent with statutory provisions. CONCLUSION Clean Screening procedures improve the cost effectiveness oftraditional vehicle emissions inspection and maintenance programs such as Colorado's AIR Program. Motorists participating in this program who operate clean vehicles are rewarded for their efforts and are exempt from inspection for an inspection cycle. The statutory directives of S.B.'98-182 and S.B.'98-046 would be satisfied. RECOMMENDATION The Division requests the Commission to adopt the revisions to Regulation 11 as proposed February 18, 1999.

98-151 s.mjo

### ISSUE STATEMENT: (enclosed) ATIACHMENTS: 1 . Economic Impact Analyses 2. Proposed Revisions to Reg . 11. Parts 

### A. B. C. D. F. and the Statement of Basis. Specific Statutory Authority and Purpose (Part G. IV.) 3. Fact Sheet 4. Comparison of Initial vs Final PropOsal SIGN 1 . 

### Date 1 . 

### Date 1 . 

### Program Manager Date

# ~~~ Date ·

98_151s.mjo 

### 12/28/98

### INTRODUCTION: 

# REVISED FINAL ECONOMIC IMPACTANALYSIS for 

# AQCC REGULATION N0.11: Inspection and Maintenance per 

### C.R.S. 25-7-110.5 

### (4)(1) Cost Effectiveness Economic ImpactAnalysis 

## 2/1/99

The purpose 

## of this APCD proposal is to incorporate, into Regulation No. 11, the actions taken 

### by the 1998 

### State Legislature to 1) 

### to establish a Clean Screen Program for the Front Range as directed in Senate Bill 98-182; 

### and 2) 

### to establish procedures for written notice regarding vehicle emissions certification as directed in Senate Bill 98-046. 

### This proposal merely codifies AQCC Regulation No.11 with Senate Bill 98-046 

### legislative directives, as such, changes pursuant to 98-046 

## will not be analyzed. Under Senate Bill 98-182 

### (Clean Screen Program) significant policy making authority is granted to theAQCC, as such, a formal EIA

## will be performed for this bill. IDENTIFICATION OF THE CUMULATIVE COSTS OFANY PROPOSED CONTROLS/REGULATIONS WITH WHICH AFFECTED BUSINESSESARE TO COMPLY &IDENTIFICATION OF THE DIRECT COSTS TO BE INCURRED BY AFFECTEDMEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO COMPLYWITH PROVISIONS OF THIS PROPOSAL: Per Clean Screen Program directives, the APCD is to establish in Weld and Larimer Counties (and potentially El Paso County) abid process for the purposes ofentering into a contract(s) to provide, to the citizens ofthese counties, instrumentation, collection and reporting data for the purposes ofestablishing a Clean Screen Program. Such a program is designed to detect, by remote sensing, cars that are within emissions standards (clean screened) and thus

## will not have to be tested at an basic emissions program I&M facJity. The AQCC is also directed to establish, through the rulemaking process, the technical nature ofthe program, which includes enforcement, quality assurance, number ofvehicles tested, emissions test cut points, etc.

1As envisioned, this program will eliminate certain vehicles from needing a basic emissions test, currently performed for a fee of $15.00. Instead of having an emissions test performed for $15.00, the motorist

## will be clean screened and pay a contractor up to $15.00 for the service. Because contractorprices are not yet set, it is possible that the motorists may experience a cost savings associated with the clean screen program, ifthe contractor is able to perform the clean screen service under the statutory cap of $15.00. 

### As the contractor

## will be absorbing part of the basic emissions certification market in these counties, the testing facilities will experience reduced revenues (a multiplication of the $15.00 testing fee). As per current predictions, it is assumed that 35% of the cars tested in Weld and Larimer Counties

## will pass the clean screen and be removed from the necessity to be facility tested. In absolute numbers, this translates to an estimated 12,000 vehicles in Weld County and 35,000 vehicles in Larimer County. Thus the overall decreased testing facility revenues 

## will approximate $180,000 for Weld and $525,000 for Larimer Countybasic emissions testing facilities. The provisions of SB 182 do, however, extend the inspection program into the future. It is further estimated that a decrease in the demand for testing

## will decrease the demand for persons licensed to provide emissions tests in Weld and Larimer Counties. This decreased mechanics demand reduces bothjobs for and costs to the testing facilities as well as reduces licensing revenues to the StateAIRAccount. If mechanics demand decreases, the State

## will not collect the $10/mechanic annual renewal fee for each mechanicjob lost. No estimate for aggregate losses can be estimated at this time because the relationship between current worker productivity and the 35% decreased periodic emissions tests is unknown. In addition, the reductions addressed in this paragraph are targeted for Weld County and Larimer Counties, 

## ifEl Paso County opts in to the program, additional impacts

## will be realized. These estimates are preliminary. AIR POLLUTION REDUCTIONS CAUSED BYTHE PROPOSAL and COST PER UNIT OFAIR POLLUTION REDUCTIONS CAUSED: This proposal

## will result in an aggregate decrease of4% excess carbon monoxide and 7% excess hydrocarbon emissions ofthe overall I&M benefits, based on the assumption that 35% of I&Meligible vehicles are exempted form a. periodic emissions inspection. COST FORTHE DIVISION TO IMPLEMENT THE PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSAL: Costs to theAPCD were appraised in the legislative process. Costs borne 

### by the APCD are assumed, at this point, to be absorbable within existing program resources.


### 2

## -FACTSHEET- "CLEAN SCREEN PROGRAM"
Clean Screening is an alternative inspection and maintenance (I/M) test.

,.. Clean Screening is a cost effective means to identify clean vehicles, potentially reducing motorist costs. Vehicles identified as "clean'', would be exempt from one inspection cycle. As proposed, Clean Screening procedures will utilize Remote Sensing Technology. As specified by statute, Clean Screening will be introduced inthe Larimer County and Weld County AIRProgram areas. Other areas mayparticipateupon request bytheirLead Air QualityPlanningAgency. Individual motorist participation is voluntary. Implementing aremote emissions sensing Clean ScreenProgram does notpreclude research/investigation into other forms ofemissions profiling especially as itwould pertainto confirmatoryprocedures forremote sensing.

RULE11.WPD

## -Regulation 

## No. 11- Revisions to Clean Screen Proposal Submitted November 19, 1998

• Division staffhave made revisions throughout the original proposal to correct document formatting, improve sentence structure without altering its meaning, correct spelling errors, revisions to correct/improve statutory and regulatory sites and improve the consistency ofterminology. These revisions have beenhighlighted for your review. These same revisions include comments/requests ofthe Attorney Generals Office.
• Part A (IV)(C)(2) : At the request ofthe parties to this hearing, additional text was provided to expand the applicability ofthe motorists having·vehicles registered inrespective program counties that operate their vehicles regularly in the program area, as defined.
• PartF (VI)(A) : The emission limit for carbon monoxide (CO) was revised from 1% CO to 0.8% CO, and for hydrocarbons (HC), 500 

### p.p.m. to 400 p.p.m.

99-0012z.mjo