Air Pollution: Delays in Motor Vehicle Inspection Programs Jeopardize Attainment of the Ozone Standard
Released: 1998-06-30T00:00:00

Letter

Background

EPA determined that 23 states needed enhanced I&M programs in order to meet national air quality standards. Figure 1 shows the 23 states that are required to implement enhanced I&M programs.

Because the ozone levels in many areas exceeded the national ozone standard, the Congress recognized that reducing ozone levels would be a long-term effort for some states and established interim goals and milestones in title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Areas that exceeded the national ozone standard were classified as “nonattainment areas,” and according to the severity of their ozone problems, states were given future dates ranging from 3 to 20 years to attain the ozone standard. Title I required most ozone nonattainment areas to develop plans for EPA’s approval that showed which control measures they would need to achieve a 15-percent reduction in VOC emissions by November 1996. Furthermore, the states with serious to extreme nonattainment areas were required to prepare plans showing how they would achieve additional VOC reductions beyond 1996.

Enhanced I&M programs are designed to measure the pollution that vehicles release when they are operated under simulated driving conditions. EPA issued an enhanced I&M regulation in November 1992 that required the states to meet or exceed a stated performance standard based on a model program that included IM-240 testing equipment. Although the amendments required the states to implement their enhanced I&M programs by November 1992, EPA’s regulation postponed the required start date to January 1995 and required full implementation of the program by January 1996. Appendix II describes the statutory and regulatory requirements for the enhanced I&M program.

In August 1996, EPA recognized that the states’ delays in implementing their enhanced I&M programs would prevent many of them from achieving the 15-percent reduction in VOC emissions. Subsequently, in February 1997, EPA issued guidance to allow the states that revised their enhanced I&M programs under the September 1995 revised enhanced I&M regulation or the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-59, Nov. 28, 1995) to have more flexibility in developing and implementing their programs. In order for the states to operate under the relaxed requirement, they had to demonstrate that their 15-percent reduction in VOC emissions would be achieved as soon as possible after November 1996, but no later than November 1999. The guidance allowed states to resubmit their VOC reduction plans to show that they would achieve the required reductions from the implementation of their enhanced I&M programs by November 1999. According to EPA, the states that had not implemented their enhanced I&M programs as of November 1997 may be unable to demonstrate how they will achieve required VOC reductions.

Many States Have Not Implemented Enhanced I&M Programs

None of the 23 states met the November 1992 statutory date for implementing their enhanced I&M programs, and only 2 had begun testing vehicles by EPA’s January 1995 deadline for starting their programs. In total, 12 states had begun testing vehicles under enhanced I&M programs by April 1998. A number of factors account for the delays in implementing enhanced I&M programs, including opposition to the stringent requirements of EPA’s enhanced I&M regulation, the reluctance of some state legislatures to provide authority and funding for the programs, and difficulties in obtaining test equipment and software support.

The 12 states that are testing vehicles account for 43 percent of the 52 million vehicles subject to the enhanced I&M testing. Furthermore, several of the other 11 states are scheduled to start testing vehicles within the next few months. For example, California and Georgia, which have 9.4 million vehicles that will be subject to enhanced I&M testing, are scheduled to start testing in June 1998 and July 1998, respectively. Appendix III shows the implementation and approval status and the number of vehicles subject to enhanced I&M testing for each of the 23 states.

States Have Encountered Difficulties in Implementing Programs

According to EPA, states opposed EPA’s enhanced I&M regulation because the regulation did not allow them enough flexibility in designing and implementing their programs. The 1992 regulation required all enhanced I&M programs to meet or exceed a performance standard based on a model program that used computer-controlled test equipment and centralized “test-only” inspection centers. Some states believed that centralized programs resulted in fewer inspection centers, often making the testing programs less convenient for vehicle owners and potentially resulting in longer delays than previous I&M programs. Furthermore, the states believed that consumers would be inconvenienced by the 1992 enhanced I&M regulation because of the test-only feature of the model program, which required the owner of any vehicle that failed the inspection to go elsewhere to have repairs made and to return to the same inspection center for retesting. While the 1992 enhanced I&M regulation permitted the states to implement decentralized programs that allowed inspection centers to test and then repair vehicles, EPA determined that these programs were less effective in identifying and repairing vehicles with excessive emissions.

Because of the opposition to the stringency of the 1992 regulation, EPA issued a revised enhanced I&M regulation in September 1995, and the Congress enacted the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995, which gave the states more flexibility to develop and implement their programs. For example, the revised regulation allowed the states to implement less stringent enhanced I&M programs if they could demonstrate emission reductions from other sources. The regulation also allowed the states more leeway in inspecting and repairing failed vehicles. Eight of the 23 states took advantage of the flexibility allowed by the revised regulation by implementing less stringent enhanced programs. Additionally, the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995—which prohibited EPA from requiring the states to have centralized IM-240 enhanced I&M programs—allowed the states to revise their programs to include decentralized testing and provided an 18-month interim approval period for them to demonstrate that their revised programs could achieve the needed emissions reductions. Eight of the 23 states have implemented or plan to implement the more flexible enhanced I&M programs under the act.

Even though the revised enhanced I&M regulation and the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 allowed more flexibility, nine states indicated in response to our survey that difficulties in obtaining legislative authority delayed the implementation of their enhanced I&M programs. For example, Massachusetts had planned to start inspecting vehicles under an enhanced I&M program in July 1997. However, as of November 1997, the date to which Massachusetts had committed to begin program operations, the state legislature had not enacted the needed legal authority for an enhanced I&M program, and vehicle testing had not begun. In December 1997, EPA notified Massachusetts that its enhanced I&M program was disapproved. Currently, Massachusetts is planning to begin testing vehicles in May 1999. Similarly, the Maryland legislature attempted to make the enhanced I&M program voluntary instead of mandatory, as required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, and this attempt delayed the implementation of the state’s program. However, the governor’s veto of this legislation paved the way for Maryland to start testing vehicles under its enhanced I&M program in the fall of 1997.

In response to our survey, 13 states indicated that they have experienced problems with obtaining needed testing equipment or software support from vendors, which have delayed the implementation of their programs. These problems were especially apparent in late 1997 and early 1998, when several states were scheduled to start testing vehicles. According to EPA officials, only a limited number of vendors supply the testing equipment and the computer software needed for enhanced I&M inspection centers. With the high demand for the equipment in recent months, vendors have been unable to fill all orders. For example, Georgia had planned to have 300 inspection centers operating under an enhanced I&M program by July 1997. However, because of the vendor’s problem with delivering the equipment and providing software support, Georgia now plans to start testing vehicles in July 1998—a year later than originally planned.

Overall, our survey of the 23 states identified a number of factors that delayed the states’ efforts to implement enhanced I&M programs. These included opposition to the stringent requirements of EPA’s initial program, difficulties in obtaining testing equipment, delays by EPA in issuing the initial regulation, difficulties in obtaining authority from state legislatures, and difficulties in certifying inspection centers and technicians. Figure 2 shows the factors cited by states as reasons for their delays.

Public Acceptance of Enhanced I&M Programs Is Important

The states recognize the importance of informing the public about the reasons for enhanced I&M programs. In fact, 14 states said that it was very or extremely important to educate the public about their enhanced I&M programs. Furthermore, seven said that they tried to educate the general public to a great or very great extent about the frequency of testing, the costs of tests, testing locations, and other pertinent information about the program. Seven states also said that they tried to educate the general public to a great or very great extent about the reasons for implementing enhanced I&M programs.

For example, in implementing an enhanced I&M program, Georgia contracted with an advertising agency to develop and disseminate information through television and radio spots and distributed printed materials through community groups and organizations. A recent survey of the effectiveness of Georgia’s public information campaign for its I&M program showed that consumers believe that cars are the largest contributing factor to air pollution. The study also showed that 88 percent of Georgia’s consumers were aware of the current I&M program, and 76 percent believed that the program was doing a good job.

In contrast, Maine initially tried to implement an enhanced I&M program in 1994 with little or no public relations efforts. After very strong public opposition to the program, the governor cancelled it. According to EPA, the opposition to the program was caused, in part, by the perception that the enhanced I&M program was being implemented as an alternative to imposing control measures on certain stationary sources. As of April 1998, Maine’s enhanced I&M program had been disapproved because the state’s revised plan for it did not meet all of EPA’s requirements. Even though some states have been more successful than others in overcoming public opposition and other obstacles to implementing their enhanced I&M programs, EPA has made only a limited effort to identify the practices these successful states have used and to share them with other states that are in the early stages of developing and implementing their programs.

Delays in Implementing Enhanced I&M Programs Have Slowed Efforts to Reduce Ozone Levels

Because of delays in implementing enhanced I&M programs, 19 of the 23 states are in jeopardy of not meeting deadlines for attaining the national ozone standard. The 19 states are relying on the enhanced I&M programs to reduce VOC emissions. In August 1996, EPA recognized that the states could not achieve a significant portion of their 15-percent VOC reductions by November 1996 because of delays in implementing enhanced I&M programs. It therefore examined other available control measures for reducing VOC emissions. EPA required the states to demonstrate in their VOC reduction plans that enhanced I&M programs were the most practical way for them to achieve the 15-percent reduction in VOC emissions. EPA then allowed the states to revise their enhanced I&M programs to claim credit for the emissions reductions that are based on the future implementation of their programs, provided they demonstrated that the required VOC reductions would be achieved as soon as possible after November 1996 but no later than November 1999. EPA also allowed the states to resubmit their VOC reduction plans to show that they would achieve the required VOC reductions from implementing their enhanced I&M programs by November 1999. EPA encouraged the states to customize their revised VOC reduction plans to include other control measures that would be the most practical for their areas to implement in achieving the required reduction in VOC emissions.

Even with the relaxed requirement, 11 of the 19 states are at risk of not meeting the required VOC reductions specified under title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 because they had not started testing vehicles as of April 1998. According to EPA, the states that had not implemented their enhanced I&M programs as of November 1997 may be unable to demonstrate how they will achieve required VOC reductions, and are at risk of having their VOC reduction plans disapproved because of the anticipated shortfall in VOC reductions. For example:

EPA’s conditional interim approval of New Jersey’s enhanced I&M program, which accounts for 26 percent of the state’s planned reductions in VOC emissions, required the program to begin by November 15, 1997, in order for all vehicles to be tested by November 1999 and for the state to receive full credit for the VOC reductions from the program. New Jersey officials advised EPA that they would not select a contractor to operate the program until April 1998. In December 1997, EPA notified New Jersey that its 15-percent reduction plan was disapproved because the state failed to meet the required November 1997 start date for its enhanced I&M program. According to a New Jersey official, it is unclear how the state will make up the shortfall in VOC reductions caused by its failure to implement an enhanced I&M program.

The District of Columbia is required to reduce VOC emissions by 133 tons per day to attain the ozone standard by November 1999. Even though the District is relying heavily upon its enhanced I&M program to provide 48 percent of the overall VOC reductions, it does not plan to start inspecting vehicles under an enhanced I&M program until April 1999. While control measures are available to the District for reducing VOC emissions from other mobile and stationary sources, many of these measures have already been implemented, and, according to EPA officials, imposing further controls on these sources will not produce the reductions that the District is expecting to achieve with an enhanced I&M program.

Many of the states that are required to implement enhanced I&M programs must achieve the required VOC reductions by November 1999 but still do not have final approval for their VOC reduction plans. Table 1 shows the approval status of the states’ VOC reduction plans as of April 1998.

Even though most of the states are planning to have their enhanced I&M programs account for a significant amount of the required reductions in VOC emissions, EPA and the states will not know how much of the needed VOC reductions will be met by enhanced I&M programs until each program is fully approved and operational. Thus, further delays by the states in implementing enhanced I&M programs jeopardize their efforts to achieve the required VOC reductions.

While the states can use mobile and stationary sources in conjunction with the mandated enhanced I&M programs to attain the ozone standard these sources, especially stationary sources, have already made significant reductions in their VOC emissions, and, according to EPA, further reductions from them will be costly and take some time to achieve. In 1992, EPA estimated that the cost to reduce VOC emissions with an enhanced I&M program was $879 per ton compared with $5,000 per ton from stationary sources. According to EPA officials, with the less stringent requirements of many of the current programs, the cost per ton of VOC reductions from the enhanced I&M programs is probably higher, but not as high as further reductions from other mobile sources or stationary sources. However, EPA is not aware of any data that show current costs.

Conclusions

While enhanced I&M programs are an integral part of the effort to significantly reduce emissions from motor vehicles, states’ efforts to implement their programs have been slow and troubled by numerous delays. Recognizing that states have encountered a variety of challenges in implementing enhanced I&M programs, we believe that EPA could expand its efforts at helping some of the states that are experiencing the most significant problems by sharing the best practices, such as public relations campaigns, adopted by the states with approved and/or operating programs.

Furthermore, because of delays in implementing enhanced I&M programs, states have not realized the reductions in VOC emissions that they were statutorily required to achieve by 1996, nor are they likely to achieve additional reductions that EPA is now requiring by November 1999 to enable them to attain the national ozone standard. Therefore, states will have to look to other mobile sources as well as stationary sources to meet their goals for reducing VOC emissions. However, obtaining the required reductions from other sources will be difficult because many of them, especially stationary sources, have already made major reductions in their VOC emissions, and any further reductions may be costly and take some time to achieve.

Recommendation

In view of the pivotal role that enhanced I&M programs play in reducing VOC emissions and the delays experienced to date in implementing these programs, as well as the possibility of future delays, we recommend that the Administrator of EPA compile information on the more successful practices, such as public relations campaigns, used by the states that have implemented their enhanced I&M programs and share the information with those states that are in the early stages of developing and implementing their programs.

Agency Comments

We provided copies of a draft of this report to EPA for review and comment. In commenting for the agency, the Director of the Office of Mobile Sources agreed with the information presented and suggested a few editorial changes to clarify points but did not comment on the recommendation. We included EPA’s comments as appropriate.

Scope and Methodology

We gathered data on the enhanced I&M programs in the 23 states required to implement the programs under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Data were obtained through the use of a survey mailed to the environmental offices in each of the 23 states. The survey was pretested by officials from the states of Georgia, Maryland, and Washington, and subsequently mailed in late January 1998. Completed surveys were returned by all 23 states. A copy of the survey is in appendix I. In addition to our analyses of the data gathered from the survey, we asked EPA to update the data for some questions.

We also reviewed notices in the Federal Register that provided information on the status of the states’ enhanced I&M programs as well as other pertinent documentation. Additionally, we visited EPA’s regional offices in Boston, Massachusetts; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Atlanta, Georgia to obtain background information on issues concerning the enhanced I&M programs. We also visited EPA’s Office of Mobile Sources in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards in Durham, North Carolina, and interviewed officials about the enhanced I&M program as well as issues concerning attaining the ozone standard. We met with officials in Massachusetts and Georgia to discuss the implementation of their enhanced I&M programs. We measured progress in terms of the states with operating programs that were testing vehicles as of April 1998. We did not use EPA’s approval status to measure progress because a state’s approval status is subject to change.

We performed our work from July 1997 through May 1998 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

As arranged with your office, unless you announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 15 days from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate congressional committees; the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. We will also make copies available to others on request.

Please call me at (202) 512-6111 if you or your staff have any questions. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV.

Survey

Changes in Requirements for the Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program

This appendix describes the statutory and regulatory changes leading to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) current requirements for enhanced inspection and maintenance (I&M) programs.

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (P.L. 101-549—Nov. 15, 1990) required the 23 states with the most serious ozone and carbon monoxide problems to implement enhanced I&M programs. Specifically, the states with serious, severe, or extreme ozone nonattainment areas with 1980 urban populations of 200,000 or more; serious and certain moderate carbon monoxide nonattainment areas with urban populations of 200,000 or more; and areas with a population of 100,000 or more in the Ozone Transport Region, regardless of their attainment status; were required to implement enhanced I&M programs. The enhanced I&M programs were required to have centralized inspection centers and perform annual inspections unless the state demonstrated to EPA that a decentralized or biennial program would be equally effective. Title I also required EPA to issue regulations for the enhanced I&M program by November 15, 1991, and the states to implement their enhanced I&M programs by November 15, 1992.

Title I divided all of the ozone nonattainment areas into five categories—marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme—and set time frames for each category to reach attainment. The attainment dates ranged from 3 years (marginal) to 20 years (extreme) after the act was enacted. Title I also required the states to demonstrate how they would reduce volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions—one of the major pollutants that contribute to the formation of ozone. The states with moderate to extreme ozone nonattainment areas were required to prepare implementation plans by November 1993 that showed how they would reduce VOC emissions by 15 percent within 6 years after enactment. The states with serious to extreme nonattainment areas also had to prepare plans showing how they would achieve additional VOC reductions. The plans to reduce VOC emissions after 1996 were due by November 1994 and were to show how the states planned to achieve 3-percent VOC reductions annually until the nonattainment areas reach attainment.

Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program Regulation

EPA issued its regulation for the enhanced I&M program on November 5, 1992. The regulation required the states with areas switching from test-and-repair to test-only requirements to implement programs that would begin testing 30 percent of all vehicles that were subject to enhanced I&M in the nonattainment areas in January 1, 1995, and all areas to begin testing all vehicles by January 1, 1996. The regulation also required the states to meet or exceed a performance standard that was based on a model program for an annual, centralized enhanced I&M program that included IM-240 test equipment, or an equivalent test protocol approved by EPA, and covered all 1968 and later model cars and light-duty trucks. The states that elected to implement decentralized programs or a program consisting of centralized and decentralized inspection facilities were to have their emission reduction credits discounted by approximately 50 percent for the decentralized portion of their programs, unless they could demonstrate that their programs were as effective as a centralized program. The regulation also included the requirement under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 that a minimum expenditure of $450 for emission-related repairs was required for vehicles to qualify for a waiver of further repairs. According to EPA, a typical urban area adopting the model program established by the regulation would, by 2000, reduce the levels of air pollutants more than they would have reduced them without an enhanced I&M program: for carbon monoxide, the additional reduction would be 31 percent, for VOCs, 28 percent, and for nitrogen oxides, 9 percent.

Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Flexibility Regulation

In response to strong public opposition to its initial enhanced I&M regulation, EPA issued a regulation known as the Inspection/Maintenance Flexibility Amendments on September 18, 1995. This regulation created a less stringent enhanced I&M program by allowing certain states more flexibility in implementing their programs. Specifically, the revised regulation allowed the states that can meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 for VOC reductions and attainment without an enhanced I&M program as effective as the one adopted by EPA in the 1992 regulation to meet a less stringent low enhanced performance standard. The new standard, referred to as the low enhanced standard, did not include the IM-240 test as part of its model program. The regulation also modified other requirements of the 1992 regulation, such as extending the implementation of the minimum expenditure of $450 until January 1998.

National Highway System Designation Act of 1995

The National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 (P. L. 104-59, Nov. 28, 1995) also responded to public opposition to the 1992 enhanced I&M regulations. Specifically, the act prohibited EPA from requiring a centralized, IM-240 enhanced I&M program and stopped EPA’s use of the 50-percent discount rate for decentralized or hybrid programs. Additionally, the act allowed states to submit, within 120 days after enactment, revisions to their enhanced I&M programs by proposing interim enhanced I&M programs. The act required EPA to approve enhanced I&M programs on an interim basis if the proposed credits for each element of the program reflected good-faith estimates and the revised programs complied with the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The act further provided an 18-month period for the states to demonstrate that the credits they had proposed were appropriate, with no opportunity to extend the 18-month period.

Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Ozone Transport Region Flexibility Amendments Regulation

On July 25, 1996, EPA issued the Inspection and Maintenance Ozone Transport Region Flexibility Amendments regulation. The regulation created a special low-enhanced standard for areas within the Ozone Transport Region that would be exempt from I&M requirements if they were not located in the region. These areas included attainment areas, marginal ozone nonattainment areas, and certain moderate nonattainment areas with populations under 200,000 within the 12-state Ozone Transport Region. Emission reduction goals in these areas were lower than those required for low enhanced I&M and basic I&M programs. The regulation provided flexibility to certain Ozone Transport Region states to implement a broader range of I&M programs than allowed under earlier regulations. Elements of the program include performing annual tests of 1968 and newer vehicles, checking on-board computer equipment for 1996 and newer vehicles, conducting remote sensing tests of 1968 through 1995 model year vehicles, and visual inspection of various control components on 1968 and newer vehicles.

States’ Progress in Performing Mandatory Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Testing, as of April 1998

Number of vehicles (in millions)

These states had begun testing vehicles under an enhanced I&M program.

While some of these states are testing vehicles under an I&M program, their testing does not meet all of the requirements to qualify as testing under an enhanced I&M program.

Major Contributors to This Report

Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division Washington, D.C.

William F. McGee, Assistant Director Harry C. Everett, Evaluator-in-Charge Joseph L. Turlington, Senior Evaluator Lynn M. Musser, Technical Advisor Kellie O. Schachle, Evaluator The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.

U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.