Report of the Governor's Air Quality Strategies Task Force: recommended long-term control measures for ozone, carbon monoxide, and PM10.

              REPORT OF THE GOVERNOR'S AIR QUALITY STRATEGIES TASK FORCE RECOMMENDED LONG-TERM CONTROL MEASURES FOR OZONE, CARBON MONOXIDE, AND PM10

December 2, 1996

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section I - Introduction.............................................................................................................................. AWe=ve Got A Problem With Our Air@............................................................................................... A Summary of State and Local Efforts to Clean Up Maricopa County=s Air ................................... The Governor=s Air Quality Strategies Task Force ........................................................................... Consequences of Failure to Attain the NAAQS for Ozone ............................................................... Consequences of Failure to Attain the NAAQS for Carbon Monoxide ............................................ Consequences of Failure to Attain the NAAQS for PM10 ................................................................. Section II - The Sources and Health and Environmental Effects of Air Pollution ................................... Ozone ............................................................................................................................................... Carbon Monoxide............................................................................................................................... PM10 ............................................................................................................................................... Hazardous Air Pollutants ................................................................................................................... IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1 2 2 4 6 7 8 1 1 2 6 9

Section III - Recommended Control Measures ......................................................................................... III- 1 Upgrades to the IM 240 Program....................................................................................................... III- 2 Cleaner Burning Gasoline .................................................................................................................. III-26 Measures to More Effectively Control Emissions from Mobile Sources and Gasoline and Diesel Engines ................................................................................................ III-33 More Effective Control of Point Source Pollution............................................................................. III-61 More Effective Control of Area Source Pollution.............................................................................. III-74 Measures to Encourage the Use of Alternative Fuel Vehicles........................................................... III-93 Measures to Increase Public, Governmental, and Business Awareness of and Participation in Efforts to Reduce Urban Air Pollution.............................................................. III-98 Section IV Air Pollution Control Measures Withdrawn or Rejected By the Air Quality Strategies Task Force or Its Subcommittees..................................................................... IV- 1

Appendix A - Detailed History of Air Quality Issues in the Phoenix Urban Area Appendix B - Members of the CO and PM10 Subcommittees Appendix C - Report of the Task Force=s Aftermarket Device Subcommittee Appendix D - Report of the Task Force=s Maricopa County Nonattainment Area Fuels Subcommittee Appendix E - List of Acronyms

December 2, 1996

ii

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Table of Contents

LIST OF FIGURES
1 2 3 4 5 Maricopa County Nonattainment Area 1996 VOC Emissions ......................................................... II- 3 Maricopa County Nonattainment Area 1996 NOx Emissions ........................................................... II- 4 Maricopa County Nonattainment Area 1995 Carbon Monoxide Emissions..................................... II- 5 Maricopa County Nonattainment Urban PM10 Source Distribution.................................................. II- 7 Maricopa County Nonattainment Rural PM10 Source Distribution................................................... II- 8

December 2, 1996

iii

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Table of Contents

SECTION I INTRODUCTION
This report is about how Arizona can improve its air quality. Many measures in this report are pro-active and are specific to the clean air needs of our nonattainment areas. They reflect Arizona=s desire to implement what is necessary for the health of our residents and visitors and are consistent with the direction already taken in numerous statutory and administrative measures which deal with air quality. The recommendations provided are the result of more than six months of intense work by a group of Arizona professionals, the Air Quality Strategies Task Force, who convened at the request of the Governor to help the State find specific, implementable ways to correct its air quality problems. The Task Force membership is as follows: Mr. Roger Ferland, Chairman Streich Lang, P.A. Mr. Christopher J. Andrews President, Andrews Environmental Management Arizona Association of Industries Ms. Sandy Bahr Legislative Liaison, Arizona Audubon Council Ms. Lindy Bauer Environmental Program Coordinator Maricopa Association of Governments Mr. Charles Bischoff Kane Jordan von Oppenfeld Bischoff & Biskind Representing Arizona Chamber of Commerce Ms. Sandy Black Intel, Valley Forward The Honorable Russell Bowers Arizona House of Representatives Mr. Al Brown Environmental Services Department Director, Maricopa County Mr. Richard Foreman Public Affairs Manager, Southwest Gas The Honorable John Kaites Arizona State Senate Mr. Nils Larson Title IV Issues Manager Salt River Project Ms. Cathy Lauerman Printing Industries Association of Arizona Mr. David M. Martin Deputy Director Arizona Rock Products Association Mr. Chuck Morgan Manager of Environmental Affairs Mobil Oil Corporation Mr. Bill Pfeifer Executive Director American Lung Association of Arizona Mr. Charlie Stevens Stevens & Leibow Representing Western States Petroleum Association Mr. William Wiley Environmental Policy Advisor Arizona Public Service

December 2, 1996

I-1

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Introduction

This report is organized into four sections. Section I, the introduction, is intended to provide the reader a concise overview of the air quality history of the Phoenix urban area and a history of the Air Quality Strategies Task Force, as well as a guide to the rest of the report. A more detailed history of air quality issues is provided in Appendix A. Section II discusses the health and environmental effects of each of the three air pollutants studied in depth by the Task Force (i.e., ozone, carbon monoxide [CO], and particulate matter [PM]). The objective of Section III is to present the recommended control measures, and Section IV lists measures considered but not adopted by the Task Force. The remainder of this introduction will provide a description of the air quality problem, a history of the air quality campaign in Arizona, a description of Task Force activities, and a discussion of the consequences of failing to reduce pollutant concentrations.

AWE=VE GOT A PROBLEM WITH OUR AIR@
That is the slogan of Arizona=s Clean Air CampaignCit is also clearly the belief of our citizens. In a poll conducted by West Group in the spring of this year, only crime was ranked ahead of air quality as the major quality-of-life concern of Valley residents. In a similar vein, a poll by the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce last summer showed that 51 percent of 175 business owners polled rated the Valley=s air quality as poor or very poor. In addition, a poll taken last year of the 50 or so stakeholder groups represented on the Public Advisory Committee of the Arizona Comparative Environmental Risk Project concluded that of the 14 environmental issues facing the State, the only issue felt by the Committee to represent a high risk to the State=s citizens was Aoutdoor air quality.@ Poor air quality is, however, more than a matter of mere perception. In fact, at monitoring locations located throughout the metropolitan area, the ozone standard was exceeded 26 times during the 1995 ozone season (i.e., summer) and seven times during the 1996 ozone season1. In addition, in 1995 the CO standard was exceeded four times and the annual standard for PM was exceeded at two different monitors. A primary source of air quality problems is urban traffic. Nearly 60 million miles are driven in Phoenix every work day, and Phoenix traffic increases about three percent annually with resulting increases in vehicle emissions of about 2.7 percent. The consequences of poor air quality are grave. The American Lung Association of Arizona estimates that nearly one million people are impacted by unhealthful air in the Valley. At-risk groups include people with asthma and chronic lung disease, children under 12, and adults over 65. The total includes approximately 40,000 children and 70,000 adults with asthma; 120,000 people who suffer from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; 470,000 children under 12; and 300,000 adults over 65.

A SUMMARY OF STATE AND LOCAL EFFORTS TO CLEAN UP MARICOPA COUNTY=S AIR
In Appendix A to this report, the Task Force has provided a detailed history of Arizona=s struggle to achieve cleaner air in its urban areas. This section summarizes that historical analysis.

It should be noted that not all exceedances constitute violations of the ozone standards, nor were all exceedances measured at federally recognized sites.

1

December 2, 1996

I-2

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Introduction

The federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) was the first major piece of national regulatory legislation that was spawned by the environmental movement of the late 1960s. Since its enactment in 1970, the CAA has been amended on two occasions, in 1977 and 1990. In both instances, substantial changes to the CAA were necessary because the Act=s deadlines were found to be unrealistic and the means to meet those deadlines were either insufficient or inappropriate. However, the basic structure of the Act has remained the sameCthe Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopts nationwide standards for safe levels of the pollutants that most of us breatheCthe National Ambient Air Quality Standards or the NAAQS. The states are tasked with developing plans to attain and maintain those standards. Beginning in 1972 the State began submitting or amending a series of State Implementation Plans or SIPS that described the methods which state and local officials in Maricopa County would use to achieve or maintain the NAAQS for ozone, CO, and what were then called total suspended particulates (TSP). As the CAA was amended to create new deadlines for attaining the NAAQS, new means were required for NAAQS attainment and the NAAQS were revised to reflect new scientific information, the SIP was amended accordingly. With each significant amendment to the SIP and EPA=s action (or inaction) on the amendment, there was a judicial challenge by one or more environmental groups, usually lead by the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, to the State=s alleged lack of timeliness in submitting SIP amendments, EPA=s decision to approve the SIP amendments when submitted or a perceived state and local unwillingness to carry out the measures in the SIP. In some cases these challenges were upheld by the courts. In other cases the challenges were rejected. This pattern of federal mandate, State action in response to the mandate, challenge to the adequacy of State action, and federal or State response to the challenge, should not obscure the genuine progress toward cleaner urban air that the State has achieved since 1972. Indeed, Arizona has been a leader in its adoption not only of measures to deal with urban air problems, particularly those caused by mobile sources, but also in implementing programs that are discovering the causes of those problems. # Arizona was one of the first two states to institute a centralized vehicle emissions inspection program. # Arizona was one of the states that has pioneered the use of oxygenated gasoline to reduce CO emissions during the winter months and a reduction in the maximum allowable volatility of gasoline to reduce ozone-producing VOC emissions during the summer ozone season. # Arizona has one of the most comprehensive trip reduction ordinances in the country. # Arizona leads the nation in its adoption of sophisticated and accurate vehicle emissions testing and maintenance measuresCthe inspection and maintenance (IM) 240 and remote sensing programs. # Arizona was one of the first states to undertake a study to determine the exact cause of what the citizens of Maricopa County refer to as Athe Brown Cloud.@ # Arizona has implemented a micro-scale study to identify the specific activities and land uses that contribute to elevated levels of PM10 (particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or smaller) in Maricopa County. While several of the measures and studies described above were undertaken after prodding from the federal government or in response to judicial decisions, most of the initiatives were the result of a proactive stance by

December 2, 1996

I-3

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Introduction

State and local leaders based on the belief that the choice of the means to achieve cleaner air is best left to the citizens most affected by that choice. As rapid growth threatens to offset much of the progress that has been made toward cleaner urban air, State and local organizations like Maricopa County, Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), and Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) are in the process of developing the new strategies that will be necessary to address air quality problems in Maricopa County. The creation of this Air Quality Strategies Task Force is but one component of what must be a sustained and increased effort to achieve cleaner air.

THE GOVERNOR=S AIR QUALITY STRATEGIES TASK FORCE
On May 24, 1996 Governor Fife Symington issued Executive Order 96-6 creating a Task Force charged with developing (1) recommended measures to avoid violations of ozone standards during the 1996 summer ozone season, and (2) strategies for implementing those measures. Because of the need for immediate action, the Task Force=s initial report was submitted to the Governor on July 1, 1996. The actions that were proposed were limited to those that could be implemented within 30 to 45 days of the issuance of the report. Thus, the report relied primarily on voluntary measures. In addition to its July 1, 1996 deadline for recommending immediate ozone control measures, the Task Force was required by November 15, 1996 to recommend longer term measures to reduce the formation of ozone. On July 16, 1996 Executive Order 96-6 was revised to broaden the mandate of the Task Force. The newly named Air Quality Strategies Task Force was asked to identify long-term strategies to reduce not only violations of the ambient air quality standards for ozone but also CO and PM10. Throughout August, September, and October, the Task Force considered long-term measures that would reduce the formation of ozone. During that period, the Task Force considered literally hundreds of suggestions by the general public, private businesses, and governmental entities. In addition, the Task Force collected a compendium of dozens of ozone control measures adopted by jurisdictions in every area of the country. In response to the expansion of its mandate, the Task Force created four subcommittees: # A Maricopa County Nonattainment Area Fuels Subcommittee to evaluate and report to the Task Force on the benefits, costs, and other issues raised by alternative gasoline formulations intended to reduce the emissions of VOCs and other ozone precursors from gasoline-powered vehicles and equipment. # A Carbon Monoxide Subcommittee to evaluate and recommend measures to reduce CO emissions. # A PM10 Subcommittee to evaluate and recommend measures to reduce the emissions of inhalable particulate matter. # An After Market Consumer Products for Mobile Sources Subcommittee to evaluate the feasibility of having the State endorse particular commercial products or general categories of commercial products believed to reduce emissions from mobile sources. The members of the CO and PM10 subcommittees are listed in Appendix B. All subcommittees but the Fuels Subcommittee were to report the results of their work to the Task Force by November 1. Because of the technical complexity of the issues being considered by the Fuels Subcommittee,
December 2, 1996 Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Introduction

I-4

that Subcommittee was given until mid-November to complete its work and the deadline for the final report from the Task Force was consequently postponed until December 2. In its consideration of pollution control measures by the subcommittees, the Task Force was faced with limitations on the kinds of measures it could propose. The primary constraint was an unwillingness to recommend measures that could not be implemented during the so-called compliance periods dictated by the CAA. One of the flaws of the CAA is the fact that it penalizes states and localities that adopt solutions to their air quality problems that take over five years to implement. Specifically, by automatically downgrading nonattainment areas that fail to achieve and maintain national ambient air quality standards within the three- to six-year compliance periods prescribed by the CAA, states and localities are discouraged from adopting pollution control measures that take longer than that period to become fully effective, even when those measures offer the most reliable, practicable, and cost-effective means of solving a particular locality=s air quality problems. Thus, in their consideration of measures, the Task Force was faced with endorsing methods for the control of air pollution that emphasized changes in technology (which can be implemented within a relatively short period of time) rather than measures intended to produce changes in lifestyle (which typically take years to effectuate if they can be effectuated at all). Since a primary cause of the ozone, CO and PM10 problems in Maricopa County is mobile sources, the Task Force=s emphasis on technology has generally meant the recommendation of measures that lower the quantity of pollutants that vehicles emit per mile, rather than calling for the implementation of measures that decrease miles traveled. The Task Force=s embrace of a technology-based approach to air quality problems is consistent with the strategy for controlling mobile source emissions that has dominated the State=s thinking for over 20 years. During that period, Arizona has been generally successful in reducing the number of violations of the ambient air quality standards for automobile-related pollutants, particularly CO, in Maricopa County as well as the severity of those violations. As a general matter, these results have been achieved by enhancing the beneficial effects of lesspolluting vehicles with an increasingly sophisticated vehicle emissions inspection program and substantially lesspolluting fuels. Were Maricopa County an area with ordinary growth, the technological fixes the State has heretofore relied upon would probably be enough in the long run to reduce air pollution to a satisfactory level. Maricopa County is not such an area. Although cleaner vehicle strategies when combined with technological advances over the next several years may achieve our clean air goals, there is room for doubt. The reality is that vehicle miles traveled, both on an overall and per vehicle basis, continue to increase and these increases have the potential to overwhelm all of the technological strategies that are currently being implemented or that have been proposed in this report. The decision whether to drive, how far to drive, and when to use the automobile is ultimately a decision of personal choice that is intertwined with other lifestyle decisions, including our choice of where we live, shop, and go to church. The Task Force has proposed measures to influence those decisions through, among other things, public outreach and employment-based trip reduction programs. These voluntary and quasi-voluntary approaches have demonstrated some measure of success. Not considered by the Task Force, however, was the desirability of long-term measures that attempt to affect lifestyle decisions by more direct and less voluntary means. Specifically these include vigorous regional land use planning decisions; and increasing mass transit options and other measures to reduce urban sprawl, even including direct control of limits on growth. While consideration of these kinds of measures was outside the mandate of the Task Force, several members have expressed the strong belief that the only way we will be able

December 2, 1996

I-5

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Introduction

to effectively reduce air pollution in the coming years is for the State and local government to more pro-actively deal with growth and its adverse consequences by the adoption of integrated, regional land use and transportation planning and urban growth boundaries. Others on the Task Force, while agreeing that lifestyle changes may ultimately be required to effectively reduce urban air pollution, are uncomfortable with a greater role for government in what has heretofore been individual and market-based decision-making. From whatever perspective the problem is approached, however, there was consensus among the Task Force members that the State and local leadership must treat as a greater priority the ongoing consideration by a wide range of entities of how our political, social, and economic institutions should plan for growth. Land use and transportation planning are all elements of this consideration, but the underlying concerns must be whether the southwest lifestyle we all cherish is reconcilable with the direction that economic growth is taking us. If the two cannot be reconciled, what must changeCour lifestyle or our attitude toward growth? A second, related constraint on the nature of the pollution control measures the Task Force considered is the practical inability to implement certain measures that require a significantly enhanced mass transit system. For example, a number of citizens urged the Task Force to adopt measures that limit parking in the downtown areas or areas of significant employment to discourage the use of single occupancy vehicles (SOVs). Other individuals suggested even more drastic measures to curb the use of SOVs including limiting the use of such vehicles on certain days of the week or during certain periods when pollution reaches unhealthy levels. These proposals raise significant issues. The reality is, however, that limits on private vehicle usage, whether indirectly implemented through parking restrictions or more directly implemented through prohibitions or limitations on driving, are simply unworkable without an alternative to the private vehicle as a means of getting to work, to leisure activities, or to other destinations. The experience of Mexico City, in which a direct limitation on vehicle usage was attempted, bears out this conclusion. Thus, whatever the merit (or lack of merit) of increased mass transit as a stand alone means of decreasing vehicle usage (an issue considered by the Governor=s Transportation Strategies Task Force), the failure to enhance the existing, limited mass transit system precludes the implementation of many measures that may be effective in reducing vehicle miles traveled.

CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO ATTAIN THE NAAQS FOR OZONE
As a Amoderate@ nonattainment area, Phoenix was required to meet the ozone standard by November 15, 1996, i.e., no violations in 1994, 1995, or 1996. However, multiple violations occurred in 1995, and there has been no official determination of the number of violations during 1996. The area has implemented all EPA recommended measures, but unfortunately the full benefits of the measures take time to be realized. Phoenix is in danger of being reclassified as a Aserious@ nonattainment area, which carries significant regulatory and economic burdens. As an example, smaller industrial sources would become subject to much more stringent permitting requirements, making attraction of new business and expansion or retention of existing businesses more difficult. In addition, ADEQ would be required to submit a plan by September of 1998 showing the following: A 3% per year reduction in emissions of ozone-forming chemicals A forecast of traffic levels with annual updates for each year prior to attainment New contingency measures to offset unanticipated growth in traffic Any additional controls needed to demonstrate attainment no later than November 15, 1999 (i.e., no violations in 1997, 1998, and 1999) These requirements present a dilemma. Disproportionate pollution control burden would fall on major industrial sources, which are not the controlling source of ozone pollution. In fact, mobile sources are the dominant # # # #
December 2, 1996

I-6

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Introduction

contributor to ozone pollution. Second, the area would have to avoid violations during the year before the new plan would be due (while the plan was still being prepared). As early as late 1995, ADEQ and EPA began discussing alternatives to reclassification. Because Arizona has acted in good faith and represents a model of how to implement a successful enhanced vehicle emissions inspection program, EPA has been willing to work with the State on an alternative to reclassification. Arizona proposed an alternative to this reclassification through the development of a Voluntary Early Ozone Plan (VEOP). The VEOP will provide emission reductions above and beyond those currently planned, and bring Maricopa County into attainment within the ozone standard before the November 15, 1999 attainment date. Further, it will provide these emissions reductions without imposing the burdensome CAA requirements for serious areas. The plan provides for all of the safeguards contained in a SIP revision, including a modeling demonstration that will show how the emissions reductions will improve air quality, as well as guarantees of enforceability of the control programs. Wherever possible the control measures are performance-based, and rely on market mechanisms to create incentives for emissions reductions. The ozone reduction measures recommended by this report are consistent with and are intended to increase the effectiveness of the VEOP.

CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO ATTAIN THE NAAQS FOR CARBON MONOXIDE
As noted previously, the one pollutant for which there has been a consistent record of improvement has been CO. Nevertheless, the Phoenix nonattainment area did not attain the CO NAAQS by the applicable date in the CAA for moderate CO areas, December 31, 1995. As a result, on August 28, 1996 the EPA reclassified the Phoenix nonattainment area from moderate to serious. The effect of the reclassification is to allow the State, per the provisions of the 1990 federal CAA Amendments, until February 27, 1998, or 18 months from August 28, 1996, to submit a new SIP. The SIP must demonstrate attainment of the CO NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable but no later than December 31, 2000. The SIP will be prepared through the cooperative effort of ADEQ, Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), Maricopa County, and MAG. The new SIP must include the following: # Forecast of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for each year before the attainment year and provisions for annual updates of these forecasts # Adopted contingency measures # Adopted transportation control measures and strategies to offset any growth in CO emissions from growth of VMT or number of vehicle trips In addition, contingency measures in the moderate area plan for the Phoenix area must be implemented. Should the State fail to meet the CO standard by December 31, 2000, the State then must submit a plan with a program of incentives that, in concert with other plan elements, will reduce the total tonnage of CO emissions by at least five percent annually after plan approval and before attainment of the CO standard. Failure to submit an approvable plan in a timely manner or failure to comply with its plan, under Section 179 (b) of the CAA, EPA would impose sanctions on the State which include two-for-one emission offsets for industry and the loss of federal highway funds. According to ADOT, Arizona receives approximately $257 million annually from the federal government for highway use. The CO control measures recommended in this report will
December 2, 1996

I-7

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Introduction

be incorporated in the SIP and will make a significant contribution toward attaining the NAAQS for CO by the December 31, 2000 attainment date.

CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO ATTAIN THE NAAQS FOR PM10
On June 7, 1995, EPA proposed to find that the Phoenix nonattainment area did not attain the PM10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994, the applicable date in the CAA for moderate PM10 areas. The State requested a one-year extension of the attainment date; however, due to a PM10 violation in 1995, an extension was not granted by EPA. EPA reclassified the Phoenix nonattainment area on May 10, 1996, effective June 10, 1996. As a result of the Phoenix area reclassification to serious, SIP revisions must be submitted to EPA by December 10, 1997. The SIP revisions must: # Provide for the implementation of best available control measures (BACM) no later than four years from the date of reclassification. # Contain a demonstration that the implementation of BACM will provide for attainment of the PM10 NAAQS no later than December 31, 2001. As with CO, if the State fails to submit an approvable plan, or plan element, under section 179 (b) of the CAA, the State could be subject to federal sanctions which include two-for-one offsets for industry and the loss of federal highway funds. According to ADOT, Arizona receives approximately $257 million annually from the federal government for highway use.

December 2, 1996

I-8

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Introduction

SECTION II THE SOURCES AND HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF AIR POLLUTION
The purpose of Section II is to explain in more detail the three pollutants that were studied in depth by the Task Force (i.e., ozone, CO, and PM10). Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) were not specifically within the Task Force=s mandate, but HAP emissions are reduced by many of the control measures recommended by the Task Force and where appropriate the fact has been noted in the analysis.

OZONE
Ozone is a summertime air pollution problem in Phoenix, and is typically a problem from May through September. Ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but is formed when gases called VOCs and nitrogen oxide (NOx) react with oxygen in the air in the presence of strong sunlight, heat, and relatively light winds. When NOx and VOCs are released and have time to Abake,@ ozone forms and builds to unhealthful levels. Elevated levels of ozone can cause chest pain, coughing, nausea, throat irritation, and congestion. Ozone can damage the lungs, and worsen bronchitis, heart disease, emphysema, and asthma. Elevated ozone levels have been correlated with increased numbers of hospital admissions and visits to emergency rooms for asthma and other respiratory problems, but otherwise healthy individuals are likely to suffer too. In one study of non-smoking adults living in the Los Angeles basin (an extreme nonattainment area for ozone), the subjects had experienced as much impairment in breathing capacity as that suffered by pack-aday smokers. When normal, healthy people exercising at a moderate level are exposed to ozone, they experience significantly reduced lung function and inflammation (often with such symptoms as chest pain, congestion, and coughing). In addition, ground-level ozone may interfere with the production and storage of starches in plants, reducing their growth rates. It also reduces the quality and yield of crops. A 1995 study forecasted that production of lettuce and other leafy vegetables in central Arizona would drop 28 percent during the next several years unless ozone levels are reduced. Ozone reduces the ability of trees and plants to fight disease, and has been shown to damage various tree seedlings. Researchers also have estimated that nationally, ozone damages automobile tires at a cost of $14 million per year. Ozone reacts with rubber, damaging it and reducing the life of tires by up to 25 percent. Stratospheric, high-altitude ozone forms a protective layer (the Aozone layer@) 10 to 35 miles above the earth to shield us from the sun=s harmful ultraviolet (UV) rays. This same substance can be harmful to people and other living things when it is produced at ground-level, where we may be exposed to high levels of it. VOC emissions in the Valley stem from a wide range of industrial and consumer sources and products. VOCs are found in gasoline, household cleaners, grease dissolvers and polishes, workshop and garden chemicals,
December 2, 1996

II-1

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report The Sources of Health and Environmental Effects of Air Pollution

lighter fluid, and paint. Petroleum distillates, highly aromatic solvents, terpene, aliphatic hydrocarbons, glycols, and benzene are all VOCs and all contribute to the formaton of ozone pollution in the summer in Phoenix. Highly reactive VOCs are also produced by certain types of vegetation. Approximately one-third of the VOC emissions in the Valley comes from vehicles. Figure 1 is a pie chart depicting the sources of VOC emissions in the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area in 1996. NOx emissions in the Phoenix metropolitan area come primarily from the exhaust of combustion sources such as large industrial boilers, generators, gas-powered mowers and blowers, and of course, motor vehicles. In fact about half of the NOx emissions generated in the Phoenix metropolitan area come from cars and trucksCvehicle traffic. Figure 2 is a pie chart depicting the sources of NOx emissions for the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area in 1996.

CARBON MONOXIDE
CO is emitted primarily from the burning of fossil fuels. The sources of CO include motor vehicle exhaust (81.5 percent); aircraft, locomotives, construction equipment, and lawn and garden equipment (17.2 percent); and area and point sources such as fireplaces, wood stoves, open burning, industry, manufacturing, and electrical power generation (1.3 percent). Figure 3 is a pie chart depicting the sources of CO emissions for the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area in 1995. At the time this report was published, 1996 data were not available; however, the new data are not expected to be substantially different. The federal standard for CO is an eight-hour average of 9.0 parts per million (ppm). Allowing for rounding of fractional readings, an eight-hour average of 9.5 ppm or greater is considered to represent an exceedance of the CO standard. In traffic-congested cities such as the Phoenix metropolitan area, CO concentrations may exceed 13.2 ppm as a one-hour average, and higher levels often occur along major traffic corridors. Inhaled, CO does no appreciable harm to the lungs; the impact is on oxygenation of the entire body. CO combines chemically with hemoglobin, the oxygen-transporting element of the blood, to form carboxyhemoglobin, which cannot carry oxygen to the brain, heart, and other vital organs. In fact, carboxy-hemoglobin binds to hemoglobin with 220 times the tenacity of oxygen itself. For the otherwise healthy, exposure to high levels of ambient CO may mean flagging mental and physical energy, with diminished capacity to perform, as various organs and tissues are denied an adequate supply of oxygen. But for a number of specific population groups, including but not limited to those with certain chronic illnesses, even such nonlethal exposure to CO can have critical impact on their ability to perform daily tasks. Pregnancy poses special hazards. Deprivation of oxygen, by any means, can cause harm to the developing fetus and also has been linked to low birth weight and prematurity. Exposure of a pregnant woman to CO creates an oxygen deprivation situation. It is therefore sensible to be concerned about the possibility of high CO levels having adverse prenatal impact. Oxygen deprivation can be perilous to the elderly as well. Many elderly people suffer from such chronic ills as heart disease. CO exposure and accompanying oxygen deprivation compound these difficulties.

December 2, 1996

II-2

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report The Sources of Health and Environmental Effects of Air Pollution

II-3 Data for August 10, 1996 Sensitivity Test
Notes: 1. All percentages may not add up to 100 because of rounding 2. This graph represents emissions over a full 24-hour period. Urban airshed modeling takes the time of day and relative ozone reactivity of these emissions into account, which may change the relative contribution to ozone formation for each source category. Source: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

MARICOPA COUNTY NONATTAINMENT AREA 1996 VOC EMISSIONS
Figure 1

II-4 Data for August 10, 1996 Sensitivity Test
Note: 1. All percentages may not add up to 100 because of rounding Source: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

MARICOPA COUNTY NONATTAINMENT AREA 1996 NOX EMISSIONS

Figure 2

II-5
Note: 1. All percentages may not add up to 100 because of rounding Source: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

MARICOPA COUNTY NONATTAINMENT AREA 1995 CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS
Figure 3

PM10
Particulate matter emissions are generated from numerous human activities including the following: # # # # # Travel on paved, unpaved, and industrial road surfaces Construction site preparation and other earth-moving activities Agricultural tilling Residential wood and other combustion activities Non-road and on-road vehicle exhaust using both diesel fuel and gasoline

Windblown particulate matter emissions can also be significant over open disturbed areas. Figures 4 and 5 are pie charts showing the distribution of PM 10 sources in urban and rural Maricopa County, respectively. These pie charts were prepared for the 1992 Brown Cloud Study mentioned in Part I. New source data are being prepared for the new Microscale Field Study, and the new data will be much more site specific than the data presented here. The more regional data presented on the pie charts will not be invalidated, rather they will be supplemented by the Microscale Field Study. To measure particulate matter levels to which the public is exposed, a network of monitors is situated throughout Maricopa County. Particulate matter concentrations are measured on a 24-hour and annual basis. The 24-hour health standard is based on a daily average of 150 micrograms per cubic meter (Fg/m3). The annual health standard is based on an annual average of 50 Fg/m3. If a monitor records particulate levels exceeding the health standard, a violation is recorded2. PM can be in two formsCprimary or secondary. Primary particles are those directly emitted to the atmosphere in particulate form, while secondary PM is formed in the atmosphere. Secondary particles typically form from condensation of vapors and as a result of chemical reactions involving gases like sulfur dioxide. This secondary PM can either form new particles or add to existing particles. According to the EPA document, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter (May 1996), Amany epidemiologic studies have shown statistically significant associations of ambient PM levels with a variety of human health endpoints, including mortality, hospital admissions, respiratory symptoms and illness measured in community surveys, and changes in pulmonary mechanical function. Associations of both short-term (usually days) and longterm (usually years) PM exposure with most of these endpoints have been consistently observed. The general internal consistency of the epidemiologic data base enhances the confidence accorded the reported results and has contributed to increasing public health concern. However, there remains uncertainty regarding the shapes of PM exposure-response relationships; the magnitude and variability of risk estimates for PM; the ability to attribute observed health effects to specific PM constituents; the time intervals over which PM health effects (e.g. shortening of life) are manifested; the extent to which findings in one location can be generalized to other locations; and the nature and magnitude of the overall public health risk imposed by ambient PM exposure. While the epidemiology data provide support for the associations mentioned above, understanding of underlying biologic mechanisms has not yet emerged."

Most PM10 monitors are operated every sixth day. Therefore, statistically one exceedence of the 24-hour PM10 standard represents six theoretical exceedences when only one per year is measured.
December 2, 1996 Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report The Sources of Health and

2

II-6
Environmental Effects of Air Pollution

II-7 `8N'
Note: 1. All percentages may not add up to 100 because of rounding Source: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

MARICOPA COUNTY NONATTAINMENT AREA URBAN PM10 SOURCE DISTRIBUTION

Figure 4

II-8
Note: 1. All percentages may not Source: Arizona Department add up to 100 because of rounding Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

MARICOPA COUNTY NONATTAINMENT AREA RURAL PM10 SOURCE DISTRIBUTION

Figure

Additionally, EPA summarized the health effects of PM exposure that included the following key points excerpted from Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter (May 1996): # Epidemiologic studies show consistent positive associations of exposure to ambient PM with health effects, including mortality and morbidity. The observed associations of ambient PM exposure with health effects must be adjusted for the effects of other environmental or demographic factors, depending on whether the effects are acute or chronic, in order to quantitatively assess the role that may be attributed to PM exposure. Estimates of PM health effects have shown reasonable quantitative consistency in different studies, with only modest sensitivity to different methods of analysis. However, a clear understanding of specific biologic mechanisms remains to be established. # Individuals with cardiovascular or pulmonary disease, especially if they are elderly, are more likely to suffer severe health effects (mortality or hospitalization) related to PM exposure than are healthy young adults. Children and asthmatics are also susceptible to certain PM effects, e.g., increased respiratory symptoms and decreased lung function. Smokers also constitute a population group at increased risk for ambient PM exposure effects. # Development of a comprehensive biologically based exposure-dose-response model to aid health risk assessment requires further data characterizing differences in inhalability, airway geometry, and clearance rates among species. Information is also required on mechanism(s) of action, pathological processes affecting deposition and clearance of particles, and factors which influence the response(s) of respiratory tract tissues to particle burden. # Epidemiological studies indicate increased health risks associated with exposure to PM, alone or in combination with other air pollutants. PM-related increases in individual health risks are small, but likely significant from an overall public health perspective because of the large numbers of individuals in susceptible risk groups that are exposed to ambient PM. PM10 and indicators of fine particles are more consistently associated with health risks than indicators of coarse particles.

HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
HAPs are substances (gases or particles) in the air that pose a direct threat to human health through inhalation or other exposure routes. Excluded from this definition are those air pollutants for which NAAQS have been establishedCsulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, CO, PM10, and lead. HAPs are emitted into the air from a wide variety of sources. The principal sources are combustion of fuels in engines and for heating, and uses of solvents and other chemicals. The emissions arise from motor vehicles, industries, businesses, and common household activities. An example of a less obvious source of HAPs is from evaporation of chlorinated swimming pool and domestic water. Also, dust from soils and rocks can contain naturally occurring, small amounts of some HAPs. Exposures of people to HAPs depend on where they live, what HAPs are present in the air in that area, and how long they live there. HAPs can enter the body directly through breathing. Additionally, HAPs in particles settle out of the air and onto the soil.

December 2, 1996

II-9

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report The Sources of Health and Environmental Effects of Air Pollution

Effects from HAPs on human health can be acute, meaning that a brief exposure of minutes or hours can cause an effect, such as respiratory dysfunction. They can also be chronic, in which case effects occur after many years or a lifetime of exposure, an example being contracting cancer.

December 2, 1996

II-10

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report The Sources of Health and Environmental Effects of Air Pollution

SECTION III RECOMMENDED CONTROL MEASURES
The recommended control measures fall into seven categories: # Upgrades to the IM 240 Program # Cleaner Burning Gasoline # Measures to More Effectively Control Emissions from Mobile Sources as well as Gasoline and Diesel Engines # More Effective Control of Point Source Pollution # More Effective Control of Area Source Pollution # Measures to Encourage the Use of Alternative Fuel Vehicles # Measures to Increase Public, Governmental, and Business Awareness of and Participation in Efforts to Reduce Urban Air Pollution This section includes a description of each of these categories as well as each of the corresponding control measures. At the beginning of the description of each measure is a box that identifies the pollutants to which that measure applies. Each measure contains a discussion of cost effectiveness. The estimated cost effectiveness of a measure depends on a number of factors, including the type of pollutant, source of pollutant, number of affected parties, etc. Accordingly, the Task Force does not intend, and the measures described in this section should not be read to imply, that the cost effectiveness of a particular measure can be applied generally to other sources.

December 2, 1996

III-1

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Recommended Control Measures

UPGRADES TO THE IM 240 PROGRAM
Mandatory vehicle emissions inspection has been in place in the Maricopa Nonattainment Area since 1976. The program is considered a model for the nation due to continued improvements in effectiveness, while minimizing motorist inconvenience and cost. In 1995, Arizona began Enhanced Emissions Inspection for 1981 and newer model year vehicles registered or used to commute into the Maricopa Nonattainment Area. Enhanced Emissions Inspection includes the following components: # IM 240 is a transient, loaded-mode emissions test. Total vehicle emissions are measured during a simulated urban driving cycle, while the vehicle is operated at varying loads on a dynamometer, in a test procedure that is up to 240 seconds in length. # Evaporative emissions from vehicle fuels systems are also checked. Arizona uses a pressure test to check for leaks in the fuel system from the gas cap through the gas tank to the evaporative emissions canister, which traps gasoline vapors from the tank. A visual inspection looks for defects in the fuel system from the tank to the engine. Arizona adopted Enhanced Emissions Inspection as part of its efforts to reduce CO and ozone pollution. # This form of a test is better able to accurately fail problem cars and pass clean cars, improving vehicle emissions. Idle and simple loaded tests, like those performed on 1980 and older vehicles, are adequate for those vehicle types, which are typically equipped with carburetors and lack computer controls. The simpler tests typically reveal problems related to air/fuel mixture, timing, and other readily identified defects. Today=s cars, with sensors and computers, are much more complex, and need to be tested in a variety of driving modes, including acceleration and deceleration, in order to detect excessive emissions occurring in actual on-road use. Enhanced Emissions Inspection is a high tech test for today=s high tech cars, and is a shorter version of the test used by manufacturers to demonstrate that new vehicles meet tailpipe standards. # Leaky fuel systems account for up to two thirds of total vehicle emissions of VOCs, which contribute to ozone pollution. Enhanced Emissions Inspection makes the testing of these systems possible. Because Enhanced Emissions Inspection is highly accurate, the causes of emissions failure must be properly repaired in order for a failing vehicle to pass a subsequent test. With idle and simple loaded tests, it is possible to fix a car to pass the test, while not addressing the true cause of high emissions. # Thorough repairs of vehicle malfunctions identified by Enhanced Inspection allow the test to be run every other year (i.e., biennially), reducing hassles for motorists. # Enhanced Inspection is extremely cost effective. Nationally it is estimated that the cost of reducing both CO and VOC/hydrocarbon emissions through implementation of an Enhanced Inspection Program is $1,600/ton. # Enhanced Inspection was found to be the single most effective measure to reduce CO and ozone pollution in the development of the 1993 Plans for those pollutants.

December 2, 1996

III-2

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Recommended Control Measures

Based on these factors, the Task Force supports the five measures presented on the following pages to both maintain the program and further improve its effectiveness. # # # # # Making Vehicle Emissions Programs Self-Supporting MVD Registration Enforcement and Mandatory Insurance Tracking Tougher Emissions Test Pass/Fail Standards IM 240 Testing of Constant Four-Wheel Drive Vehicles Study Expansion of Area A Boundaries

December 2, 1996

III-3

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Recommended Control Measures

MAKING VEHICLE EMISSIONS PROGRAMS SELF-SUPPORTING
THIS MEASURE APPLIES TO THE
FOLLOWING POLLUTANTS:

VOCS, NOX, CO, PM10, HAPS

Background and Description of Measure The vehicle emissions programs lack adequate future funding in the following areas: # The current statute caps the annual emissions inspection fee at $10 per year. While this cap currently covers the costs of emissions testing in Pima County and for pre-1980 model year vehicles in Maricopa County, it is not sufficient to support the full cost of the IM 240 Program for 1981 and newer vehicles in Maricopa County. The actual cost of an IM 240 test today is $24.30, and is estimated at $24.50 for calendar year 1997. Continued increases in inspection costs are anticipated for future years. This creates the need to cover the gap between the actual costs of testing and the limit on how much can be collected in fees for testing. # This statutory cap on annual emissions inspection fees also requires that almost all emissions tests required as a result of Remote Sensing must be paid for by the State rather than by vehicle owners in the affected areas. # The Vehicle Emission Program charges for the issuance of waivers, certificates of exemption, and certificates of inspection. However, the $5 statutory cap on waiver fees falls far short of supporting the Waiver Program (with an estimated cost of $27 per waiver or for vehicles which actually pass while requesting a waiver in Maricopa County). The actual cost of waiver actions in Pima County is $17). # The Vehicle Emissions Program supports a number of activities for which there are no dedicated funding sources. These include the need to buy-down contractor costs for IM 240, remote sensing-generated emissions tests fees, customer assistance activities, the repair grant program for Food Stamp recipients, repair industry outreach and training, the Remote Sensing Program, and oversight of the emission inspection contract. These activities are currently supported by annual appropriations from the General Fund. The Task Force believes that the owners of vehicles in areas affected by vehicle-caused pollution should bear the full costs of combating that pollution. The Task Force has two alternative recommendations to address this issue. # Option 1: Amend Arizona Revised Statute (ARS) ' 49-543 to raise the statutory cap on emissions inspection fees in Maricopa County to $17.50 annually. This will allow test fees to cover the actual cost of testing for the immediately foreseeable future. The statute would also be amended to raise the

December 2, 1996

III-4

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Recommended Control Measures

cap on the waiver fee from $5 to $10 in Maricopa County and to $8 in Pima County.1 The Task Force would propose to establish a new fee added to the vehicle license tax to support the currently unfunded programs described above as well as the other vehicle-related air pollution programs listed on the attached spreadsheet and described in this Report.2 The new fee should not exceed $5.00 annually in Maricopa County and should not exceed 504 in Pima County. # Option 2: The Task Force would recommend retaining the current system of statutory caps and fund the difference between the test fee and cost of testing by a new vehicle registration fee estimated at less than $10.00 annually for Maricopa County and less than $1.50 in Pima County. This will complement anticipated efforts in the 1997 Regular Legislative Session to reduce the vehicle license tax by 25-30%. Spreadsheets summarizing these two options are provided on pages III-7 through III-10.

Implementation Mechanism Implementation of this measure entails enactment of amendments to ARS Section ' 49-543.

Period Required for Implementation The Task Force recommends adoption of these changes to current State law for the 1997 session of State Legislature.

Barriers to Implementation Some motorists and their representatives may resist additional fees. Establishing a new registration fee in the absence of offsetting reductions in the existing system of registration fees is likely to require a two-thirds vote in each house of the State Legislature.

The Task Force recognizes that the recommended waiver fees fall far short of the actual cost of administering that program (e.g. $27/waiver or waiver pass in Maricopa County and $17 in Pima County). In making its recommendations, the Task Force has taken into account the fact that motorists receiving waivers are generally believed to have low incomes and raising the fee to entirely cover the cost of service may be a hardship As noted later in this report, the Task Force has recommended adoption of a number of new measures in the Maricopa Nonattainment Area to upgrade Vehicle Emissions Programs, more effectively control emission from mobile sources, and increase awareness of and participation in efforts to reduce urban air pollution. These measures are as follows: MVD Registration Enforcement and Mandatory Insurance Tracking, Tougher Pass-Fail Standards, Upgraded Smoking Vehicle Program, Vehicle Retrofit Program, Voluntary Vehicle Retirement Program, Lawnmower Replacement Program, Expanded Clean Air Campaign, Improvements in Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Forecasting, and Remote Sensing Public Information. Of the additional registration fee, about $4.01 will be used to fund these programs.
December 2, 1996 Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Recommended Control Measures
2

1

III-5

Effectiveness of Measure This measure is designed to make all programs to control vehicle emissions in the Maricopa and Pima Motor Vehicle Emissions Control Areas self-sufficient, thus ensuring uninterrupted operation of these programs. Vehicles contribute over 80% of CO emissions, 25% of ozone forming volatile organic chemical emissions, and 85% of PM (annual average) emissions in the Maricopa Nonattainment Area. As noted at the outset of this section, the Enhanced Inspection Program is one of the most cost-effective means of reducing these emissions.

Accuracy of Effectiveness Determination Not applicable.

Cost of Measure See pages III-7 through III-10.

Affected Parties # # # # # Motorists in Maricopa and Pima counties Arizona Legislature ADEQ Motor Vehicle Department (MVD) Emissions inspection and remote sensing contractors

December 2, 1996

III-6

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Recommended Control Measures

A

III-7

H A

III-8

III-9

III-10

MVD REGISTRATION ENFORCEMENT AND MANDATORY INSURANCE TRACKING
THIS MEASURE APPLIES TO THE
FOLLOWING POLLUTANTS:

VOCS, NOX, CO, HAPS

Background and Description of Measure MVD Registration Enforcement and Mandatory Insurance Tracking Ensuring that vehicles operating in the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area for ozone and CO are properly registered is important to assure that they comply with vehicle emissions inspection requirements. Failure to register and meet emissions standards creates needless air pollution and deprives the State of Vehicle License Tax revenue. MVD of ADOT estimates that at least 10.4% of VMT in the Maricopa Area are associated with vehicles not covered by the Vehicle Emissions Inspection. There are four categories of vehicles that are not registered properly. # Vehicles that are registered in an attainment area, but should be registered in a nonattainment area because either the owner and vehicle reside in nonattainment area or the owner commutes on a regular basis from an attainment area to a nonattainment area. # Vehicles that have expired registrations. # Vehicles that are not properly registered in Arizona or another state. # Vehicles that are registered in another state, but should be registered in Arizona. MVD has instituted a comprehensive program to enforce the registration laws and expects that the initial registration compliance rate will go up dramatically as that program is fully implemented. MVD started its new registration enforcement initiative approximately a year ago and it has already produced dramatic results. The Task Force recognizes the importance of improving motorist compliance with registration and vehicle emissions inspection requirements. For this reason the Task Force endorses continued implementation of existing and planned enhancements to enforcement efforts, a new initiative using insurance data to identify improperly registered vehicles, and a study by ADEQ and MVD on potential new enforcement methods. The first part of this measure is to endorse the three-part enhanced vehicle registration enforcement program described below. 1. Registration Enforcement Team The Registration Enforcement Team is a group of MVD employees whose job it is to enforce Arizona=s registration laws. The Team takes leads and pursues them to make sure that the vehicles in question are registered properly. Leads are generated in the following ways.
December 2, 1996 Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Recommended Control Measures

III-11

# Citizens will call, mail in, or walk in a complaint that they viewed a vehicle that may be in violation of Arizona=s registration laws. Based on the information obtained, a letter is sent out to the violator. # MVD will send out enforcement personnel to a location to look for any of the four types of registration violations. # MVD issues public service announcements to inform the public that these enforcement efforts are taking place. 2. Registration Enforcement Tracking System This is a tracking system that will allow the Registration Enforcement Team to monitor the potential violations more closely and improve follow up activities. It will contain complete policy and procedures for Registration Enforcement activities, to ensure consistency and equity. The system will automatically generate letters, contain a tickler file to ensure that cases are actively pursued, and provide complete and accurate reports to measure effectiveness. 3. New Resident Tracking MVD will purchase the names of new residents and then track those customers to see if they have registered their vehicles properly. One source of names is the US WEST database of customers who have disconnected their service in another state and connect new service in Arizona. If the new customer has an Arizona Driver=s License but has not registered their vehicle after a month, a Afriendly reminder@ letter will be sent to inform the customer of Arizona=s registration laws. If the customer has not registered their vehicle after five months, the Alead@ will be turned over to the Registration Enforcement Team. MVD Registration Enforcement

Implementation Mechanism The Registration Enforcement Program has already been implemented and its initial cost is in the ADOT budget. The design of the Registration Enforcement Tracking System has been completed and construction of application has started. Design of the New Resident Tracking component has been completed, the construction of the application has started, and a contract is in the procurement process. Period Required for Implementation The Registration Enforcement Team currently exists. Both the Registration Enforcement Tracking System and the New Resident Tracking will be completed by January 1997.

December 2, 1996

III-12

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Recommended Control Measures

Barriers to Implementation None.

Effectiveness of Measure It is estimated that 41,000 additional vehicles in Maricopa County will be emission tested as a result of implementing these components of this measure. Associated emission reductions are estimated at 6.51 tons/day of CO, 0.43 tons/day of VOCs, and 0.20 tons/day of NOx in the Maricopa Nonattainment Area. Additionally, implementation of this measure is anticipated to bring in revenue from the additional registration fees as follows: 1. Registration Enforcement Team $12,000,000.00 (annual benefit)

70,000 additional vehicle registrations at an average of $170 = $12,000,000.00. Actual data from 1995 1996 registration statistics. 2. Registration Enforcement Tracking System Benefits from this measure already counted in other measures. This program is a tool to make the registration enforcement effort more efficient and effective. 3. New Resident Tracking $1,224,000.00 (annual benefit)

MVD will receive 3000 names a month or 36,000 a year. Projections are that this will translate to 20% increase in registration compliance for the 36,000 customers or 7,200 additional registrations. The average registration is approximately $150.00. 7,200 customers3 at $170.00 per customer = $1,224,000.

Accuracy of Effectiveness Determination The estimated increase in vehicle registration within the nonattainment area along with the estimated additional revenue has been provided by MVD. The estimated reduction in air pollutant emissions was calculated by ADEQ utilizing MOBILE5 emissions factors.

Cost of Measure 1. Registration Enforcement Team 2. Registration Enforcement Tracking System 3. New Resident Tracking Affected Parties $270,000.00 (annual cost) $23,450.00 $13,450.00

3

80% of Arizona vehicles are registered in nonattainment areas.
Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Recommended Control Measures

December 2, 1996

III-13

# New residents # Noncomplying residents Mandatory Insurance Tracking The second part of this measure is to support a new initiative to utilize insurance information to better enforce registration and emissions inspection requirements. Arizona currently receives insurance information on Arizona residents under existing mandatory insurance requirements. Currently, insurance policies that do not match up with a registered vehicle are dropped after 60 days. Under this initiative, MVD will track the names of people who have insurance policies in Arizona, but whose vehicles are not registered in Arizona. These vehicles will become Aleads@ to the Registration Enforcement Team.

Implementation Mechanism MVD would implement the measure by integrating this program into its current vehicle registration enforcement program.

Period Required for Implementation MVD anticipates implementation of this program within eight months after funding is appropriated.

Barriers to Implementation This measure would require additional funding for the startup of the program. Once the program is established it will be self-sufficient due to the collection of registration fees.

Effectiveness of Measure It is estimated that 54,000 additional vehicles in Maricopa County will be emission tested as a result of implementing this measure. Emission reductions in CO, VOCs, and NOx are anticipated from the additional vehicles that are emissions tested. The estimated reduction in air pollutants for the Maricopa County nonattainment area due to the implementation of this measure is 8.40 tons per day of CO, 0.55 ton per day of VOCs, and 0.26 tons per day of NOx. Additionally, implementation of this measure is anticipated to bring in revenue from the additional registration fees. Annually, MVD receives information on 1,000,000 insurance policies which do not match up with registered vehicles. Projections are that this will translate to a 10% increase in registration compliance for the 1,000,000 customers or 100,000 additional registrations State-wide. Sixty percent of Arizona vehicles are registered in the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area. The average registration is approximately $170.00. Therefore, 60,000 customers at $170.00 per customer = $10,200,000. Accuracy of Effectiveness Determination

December 2, 1996

III-14

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Recommended Control Measures

The estimated increase in vehicle registration within the nonattainment area along with the estimated additional revenue has been provided by MVD. The estimated reduction in air pollutant emissions was calculated by ADEQ utilizing MOBILE5 emissions factors.

Cost of Measure The entire insurance tracking program will cost approximately $320,000 for its initial startup. Due to the start-up cost of the program, the initial cost of the emission reductions anticipated from this control measure is $38,100 per ton CO. However, once the program is established, the program will pay for itself through the vehicle registration fees that are generated, thus earning money for each ton of pollutant reduced. In other words, there will be no cost associated with the reduction in emissions in the future. The Task Force recommends that this measure be funded by the new vehicle registration fee described in the measure entitled AMaking Vehicle Emissions Programs Self-Supporting.@

Affected Parties # New residents # Non-complying residents MVD New Resident Tracking The third part of this measure would endorse a joint study by ADEQ and MVD on the feasibility and potential benefits of requiring earlier emissions testing of vehicles brought into the Maricopa Area. As discussed earlier, under current State law, the requirement for a motor vehicle to undergo emissions inspection is tied to the requirement to register the vehicle here. The registration requirement is triggered by the vehicle owner becoming a Aresident@ of the State. The statutory definition of a resident prescribed in ARS Section 28-102 is structured so that a vehicle can be operated in Arizona for up to seven months prior to being required to be registered. This creates the opportunity for malfunctioning, high-emitting vehicles to operate in the Maricopa Nonattainment Area through an entire ozone or CO season. The purpose of this measure is to advance the time when vehicles are required to be emissions tested by determining the effectiveness of new legislation to provide that the requirement for emissions inspection be triggered by the earlier of the following: # The owner of the vehicle becomes a resident, as defined under ARS Section 28-102. # The vehicle is available for operation in Area A for 60 or more days. The legislation would have to include a sanction for failure to have the vehicle emission tested.

December 2, 1996

III-15

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Recommended Control Measures

Implementation Mechanism The successful implementation of this measure is dependent upon implementation of other components described earlier the Registration Tracking Program and the Mandatory Insurance Tracking Program. Also necessary to support this measure is implementation of electronic data sharing connectivity between the State=s emissions testing contractor and MVD. Under this approach, MVD could notify motorists with new phone hook ups or insurance policies of the requirement to have emissions inspection within 60 days of bringing a vehicle into the State. MVD could authorize the emissions testing contractor to sell to motorists receiving these tests a $0.25 Air Quality Compliance Sticker to be affixed near the rear license plate. The emissions testing contractor would electronically advise MVD of the identity of vehicles being tested under this program. At 120 days after the initial letter had been sent by MVD, and no record of an emissions test, that vehicle=s plate could be flagged by MVD for enforcement by local law enforcement personnel. Vehicles that received a Compliance Sticker could be monitored by MVD, in order to enforce registration requirements, assuming the vehicle has remained in the State for seven months or more.

Period Required for Implementation ADEQ and MVD would need to revise existing rules, requiring 6 to 12 months after enactment. The Registration Tracking Program will be implemented in January 1997. The Insurance Tracking Program will be implemented within eight months of funding. Assuming funding is made available at the start of Fiscal Year 1998, which begins July 1, 1997, the Insurance Tracking Component can be on line in March 1998. New emissions testing requirements could be made effective anytime after that date.

Barriers to Implementation Several issues make implementation of this measure difficult. While improvements in MVD programs will assist in enforcement, it may still be difficult to identify vehicles and enforce the requirements. The measure may be perceived as discouraging tourism and winter visitors, which contribute significantly to the local economy. If winter visitors actually drive newer vehicles, the effectiveness of this measure may be lessened. Equity issues arise in the context of requiring emissions testing here for vehicles that may be required to be tested in their home state.

Effectiveness of Measure ADEQ estimates that approximately 10.4% of vehicles operating in Area A are outside the Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program. This estimate includes pro rata vehicles, improper registrations, winter visitors, and through traffic. No data exist to further define the vehicles operating here for more than 60 days. The Task Force has a number of reservations concerning this proposal but given its significant potential, it is worthy of additional analysis.

Accuracy of Effectiveness Determination Poor.
December 2, 1996 Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Recommended Control Measures

III-16

Cost of Measure MVD estimates the cost developing an electronic link to pass emissions information from MVD to the emissions testing contractor, and vice versa, at approximately $134,000.

Affected Parties # # # # ADEQ Emissions contractor MVD Visitors and persons relocating to the Phoenix metro area

December 2, 1996

III-17

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Recommended Control Measures

TOUGHER EMISSIONS TEST PASS/FAIL STANDARDS
THIS MEASURE APPLIES TO THE
FOLLOWING POLLUTANTS:

VOCS, NOX, CO, HAPS Background and Description of Measure Pursuant to Arizona Administrative Code (AAC), R18-2-1006, more stringent IM 240 pass/fail standards (final standards) are mandated to be effective on January 1, 1997. Adoption of final standards would increase the effectiveness of IM 240 by increasing the identification of vehicles with high emissions. Studies conducted in the Arizona emissions testing lanes during 1995 and 1996 demonstrated, however, that without adequate preconditioning 50% or more of the vehicles failing under final standards will be false failures. A false failure rate of such magnitude would quickly erode public and repair industry confidence in the program. Consequently, the Task Force agrees with ADEQ that implementation of final standards must be postponed until an adequate preconditioning routine can be determined and incorporated within the test protocol. Postponement of final standards pending resolution of the preconditioning issue is supported by emissions testing contractor, EPA, and automobile manufacturers. Postponement of implementation of the final standards will result in a shortfall in emissions reduction credits for the IM 240 Program.

Implementation Mechanism Implementation of an alternative test protocol will require amendment of AAC R18-2-1006, and modification of the inspection service contract with the emissions inspection contractor. Before revisions can be made, additional research is needed to fully identify and validate an effective alternative transient loaded emissions test protocol that will substantially reduce false failure rates. Initial research conducted by Sierra Research (sponsored by American Automobile Manufacturers Association and EPA) indicates that an alternative test protocol (back-toback IM 240 second phases) appears to be effective in resolving false failures caused by inadequate preconditioning, but confirmation of this determination required additional research. Key to the quick implementation of new standards is the ability of ADEQ to rapidly revise its rules after acceptable test procedures and pass/fail standards are identified. This measure should include a request that the Legislature enact session law authorizing ADEQ to amend rules regarding the IM 240 test procedure and pass/fail standards through accelerated rulemaking.

Period Required for Implementation Necessary research to validate an alternative test protocol will take from six months to one year. Revision and adoption of enabling rules will require a minimum of one year. If rules can be adopted through an accelerated rulemaking procedure, the adoption schedule can be accelerated to three to six months. Modification and beta testing of software could be completed by the contractor within 30 days in advance of rule adoption. Implementation would begin on the first work day of the month following the rule's effective date.

December 2, 1996

III-18

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Recommended Control Measures

Barriers to Implementation Time and expense associated with thoroughly researching an alternative test protocol are the primary barriers. Consolidation of preconditioning within the test protocol will result in a longer test and reduced throughput (number of tests performed/hour). During 1995, and again in 1996, IM 240 test demand exceeded the respective year's projected volume. IM 240 volumes experienced in 1995 and 1996 are at the year 2001 projections. The existing network of 10 stations and 48 lanes was designed to provide adequate capacity to meet demand (at projected levels), while keeping average waits to less than 15 minutes through the term of the contract (December 31, 2001). Continued area growth and a significantly improved new car market (the number of vehicles tested greatly exceeding projection) will result in test demand that greatly exceeds the design capacity well before the term of the existing contract. Provisions passed in Senate Bill 1002 (Forty-second Legislature, Seventh Special Session, 1996), clean screen remote sensing (ARS ' 49-542.01.D.), and voluntary opt out for new motor vehicles (ARS ' 49-543.C.) will reduce demand for IM 240 testing. The number of vehicles to be excused from testing is yet to be determined, but annual demand is expected to be above the projected level in any given year as new vehicles subject to testing are expected to exceed the number excused by the SB 1002 measures and natural attrition. Continued demand that exceeds optimal levels and a considerably longer test (reduced throughput), will greatly erode customer convenience and public acceptance of the program. Network expansion or additional reductions in demand (moving all gasoline vehicles to biennial testing under a more stringent and more effective test - IM 240 type) will be necessary to maintain acceptable service to motorists.

Effectiveness of Measure Failure rate of the emissions portion of the IM 240 test under final standards is expected to increase between 20 to 25% from the 11 to 12% rate experienced in 1995 and 1996 to a failure rate of 13 to 15%. This increase in identification of excess emissions will reduce emissions of CO, hydrocarbons, and NOx. However, the amount of the reduction cannot currently be determined. This measure will also allow full credit for the emissions portion of IM 240 in the SIP.

Accuracy of Effectiveness Determination Cost estimates are based on procurement of similar consulting research contracted by the Department. The estimate for software revision was provided by the emissions inspection contractor. The cost of test station network expansion is unknown. Estimates of increased failure rates are based on studies conducted in Arizona during 1995 and 1996 where final IM 240 pass/fail standards were employed. More precise estimation of anticipated failure rates would be possible during validation research as would an accurate determination of expected emissions reductions.

December 2, 1996

III-19

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Recommended Control Measures

Cost of Measure The cost for implementation of this measure would be for research to determine an effective alternative test protocol, software modification and beta testing, and necessary test network expansion. The cost of additional research is estimated at $100,000. The cost for software modification and beta testing is estimated at $20,000. The cost of network expansion cannot be estimated until future demand can be reasonably projected (impacts of SB 1002 measures quantified) and not until an effective alternative test protocol is available and the resulting average test time can be calculated. In 1992, EPA estimated a cost effectiveness of $1,600 per ton of pollutant reduced for the implementation of a high-tech IM program. The cost effectiveness for the Maricopa County IM 240 program is likely to be somewhat higher than the EPA estimate; however, the cost effectiveness rate for IM 240 compares very favorably to that of other measures. The Task Force recommends that this measure be funded by the new vehicle registration fee described in the measure entitled AMaking Vehicle Emission Programs SelfSupporting.@

Affected Parties Approximately 1.4 million motorists in the Maricopa Motor Vehicle Emissions Control Area whose vehicles are subject to the IM 240 test biennially.

December 2, 1996

III-20

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Recommended Control Measures

IM 240 TESTING OF CONSTANT FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE VEHICLES
THIS MEASURE APPLIES TO THE
FOLLOWING POLLUTANTS:

VOCS, NOX, CO PM10, HAPS Background and Description of Measure This measure will require that full-time four-wheel drive vehicles and vehicles equipped with traction control receive the transient loaded emissions test (i.e., IM 240). Implementation of this measure will require the installation of dual-axle dynamometers in several locations throughout the inspection station network in metropolitan Phoenix. National estimates comparing the effectiveness of idle and IM 240 tests show that IM 240 is about three times as effective in reducing vehicle emissions as the idle test.

Implementation Mechanism ADEQ and the emissions testing contractor would amend the existing contract to require installation of these dynamometers and administration of this test to the classes of vehicles described above. The emissions testing contractor would be responsible for the installation of dual-axle dynamometers in selected sites. Several more heavily utilized facilities would be selected, in coordination with ADEQ, as opposed to installing the dynamometers at each of the 10 facilities, as a cost saving initiative. Once the equipment was in place, the emissions testing contractor training of staff in the operation of vehicles on the special equipment would begin. Concurrently, ADEQ and the emissions testing contractor would begin a public education campaign to guide owners of the subject vehicles to the appropriate test locations. In addition, ADEQ would be required to amend rules to add full-time four-wheel drive vehicles and those with traction control to the vehicles required to received transient loaded mode testing.

Period Required for Implementation A formal rule revision and contract amendment would be required. A simple amendment to the existing rules could be processed in approximately six months. Following that, implementation would be completed in approximately six months.

Barriers to Implementation There are few physical barriers to implementation. Equipment is available for the purpose. Effectiveness of Measure This measure would allow the transient testing of that portion of the fleet which cannot now be tested under load. Transient loaded testing has proved to be superior to either steady state loaded or unloaded (idle) testing in the ability to identify problematic conditions in a vehicle in as used situations. The population of constant
December 2, 1996 Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Recommended Control Measures

III-21

four-wheel drive vehicles and those with traction control, which are currently tested at idle, is 4% but is expected to grow significantly during upcoming years. The actual level of emissions reductions achievable by implementing this measure cannot be estimated until additional test data are available.

Accuracy of Effectiveness Determination There is no assessment of the effectiveness of the measure other than determining the impact on the fleet.

Cost of Measure The cost of implementing this measure has been estimated by the emissions testing contractor at approximately 15 cents per vehicle, based on the total fleet. Through a contract amendment, the direct cost of installing the necessary equipment will be borne by the contractor. The cost transfer to the program, and ultimately to the vehicle owner, will be through the increased test fees.

Affected Parties # # # # ADEQ Commercial light duty fleets Emissions testing contractor Motorists owning full-time four-wheel drive vehicles and those with traction control

December 2, 1996

III-22

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Recommended Control Measures

STUDY EXPANSION OF AREA A BOUNDARIES
THIS MEASURE APPLIES TO THE
FOLLOWING POLLUTANTS:

VOCS, NOX, CO, PM10, HAPS

Background and Description of Measure While the Nonattainment Area boundary for particulates was revised in 1987, the nonattainment area boundaries for ozone and CO have not changed since 1978. Since then, parts of Maricopa County outside these boundaries have experienced explosive growth. The boundaries for several of the most effective air pollution control programs for CO and ozone are confined by Arizona statute and local ordinance to the metropolitan Phoenix area within Maricopa County or what State law calls AArea A@. Programs with coverage limited to Area A include the Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program, cleaner gasoline standards, winter-time fireplace use restrictions, and the Trip Reduction Program (TRP). The boundary of Area A is currently defined as the boundary of the Maricopa County ozone and CO nonattainment areas. While a designation as Anonattainment area@ automatically imposes certain legal requirements through the CAA, Area A need not be defined coextensively with the nonattainment area boundaries. The Task Force recommends that the benefits and costs of expanding Area A without expanding the nonattainment area boundaries be evaluated by the State. Considerable population growth has occurred or is planned for several areas outside of Area A. These include the following: # # # # The Pinal County portion of Apache Junction, including the Gold Canyon Ranch area New River Rio Verde and the areas north and east of Fountain Hills Developing areas in Pinal County south of Chandler Heights

The purpose of this measure is to further examine potential air quality benefits in the metropolitan area from the application of the air pollution control programs noted above in these areas outside of the current program boundaries. Emissions from these areas can potentially be transported into the Maricopa County nonattainment area and affect efforts to demonstrate attainment of the CO and ozone standard within Maricopa County. Vehicles from outside the boundary are also likely to have higher per vehicle emissions, because they are not subject to emissions testing, and are likely to be operated, at least some of the time, within the nonattainment area.

Implementation Mechanism The Task Force recommends that the State, utilizing new data to be developed by ADEQ and other agencies, study the potential benefits of expanding Area A. This study could be conducted either by the Joint Legislative
December 2, 1996 Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Recommended Control Measures

III-23

Study Committee on Air Quality Measures or by appropriate legislative committees during the next regular legislative session.

Period Required for Implementation To be determined by the Legislature.

Barriers to Implementation Local political leaders in the potentially affected areas have expressed strong opposition to imposing additional air pollution control measures in those areas, which they characterize as generally rural in nature. Those officials also claim that they do not experience violations of the standards in those areas. In addition, in order to improve the accuracy of the study, examination of 1995 census tract data are needed for all areas, except for Apache Junction to secure accurate population data. Also needed for this study are data on the contribution of vehicles from these areas to traffic in the Nonattainment Area. Surveys would likely be needed to secure this information.

Effectiveness of Measure ADEQ estimates that expanding the Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program to these areas would reduce vehicular emissions of CO in the entire metropolitan area by 0.8% and 1.1% in 1999 and 2010, respectively. Estimated reductions in vehicle emissions of volatile organic chemicals are 0.4% and 0.7% for 1999 and 2010. Additional benefits may be realized by applying other pollution control measures that are currently in effect in Area A.

Accuracy of Effectiveness Determination Until census tract population data and traffic surveys are available, the accuracy of this estimate cannot be determined.

Cost of Measure Unknown.

Affected Parties # # # # # # Arizona Legislature ADEQ Maricopa and Pinal counties Individuals Business Local governments located in the expanded boundary areas

December 2, 1996

III-24

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Recommended Control Measures

# EPA # MAG # Central Arizona Association of Governments

December 2, 1996

III-25

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Recommended Control Measures

CLEANER BURNING GASOLINE
It has been recognized for a decade that modifying gasoline and diesel fuel formulations has the potential to reduce emissions. The CAA Amendments of 1990 provide several such controls, including requiring oxygenated fuels in CO nonattainment areas, reformulated gasoline in certain ozone nonattainment areas, and national standards for diesel fuel. Since 1988, Arizona has modified gasoline formulations in Maricopa County to address both ozone and CO pollution by controlling gasoline volatility during both summer and winter seasons, and requiring the addition of oxygenates during the winter. However, emissions can be further reduced through additional changes in fuels. The Task Force recommends the following measures to address these issues: # Opt into the Federal Reformulated Gasoline Program Beginning in the 1997 Ozone Season # Select a Fuel for Long-Term Use (by 1999) Which Will Attain a Minimum of 12 Tons Per day of VOC Reduction # Conduct a Study of the Feasibility of Providing Cleaner Burning Gasoline During the Wintertime

December 2, 1996

III-26

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Recommended Control Measures

OPT INTO THE FEDERAL REFORMULATED GASOLINE PROGRAM BEGINNING IN THE 1997 OZONE SEASON
THIS MEASURE APPLIES TO THE
FOLLOWING POLLUTANTS:

VOCS, NOX, CO, HAPS

Background and Description of Measure Motor vehicles are a major source of VOC emissions which contribute to the summertime ozone problem in Maricopa County. These emissions can be markedly reduced with the use of reformulated gasolines. The Task Force recommends the adoption of federal reformulated gasoline (RFG) specifications effective June 1, 1997 for Area A with a waiver for a limitation on volatility at a maximum of 7.0 psi for the summer ozone season. This measure will substantially reduce HAPs and CO emissions along with ozone. A summary of the federal RFG standards is shown in Exhibit 1.1 to the Assessment of Fuel Formulation Options for Maricopa County (MathPro, 1996).

Implementation Mechanism The Governor would submit a letter to the EPA Administrator requesting opt-in under the CAA Amendments of 1990. The Governor=s Air Pollution Emergency Proclamation would be amended to mandate federal RFG Phase I with a 7.0 psi fuel volatility effective June 1, 1997 as an interim measure until the federal RFG program takes effect through EPA approval of the opt-in. If EPA approval has not been obtained prior to June 1, the State would be required to assume enforcement of the federal RFG Phase I specifications.

Period Required for Implementation The Assessment of Fuel Formulation Options for Maricopa County (MathPro 1996), indicated that most refiners could likely produce federal RFG Phase I for the 1997 ozone season. However, refiners representing 28% of current supply may have to make at least modest capital investments to produce federal RFG Phase I. This Aoffthe-shelf@ gasoline program should be able to be quickly implemented and will include either automatic federal or state enforcement, and continuation of Arizona=s current Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) enforcement program.

Barriers to Implementation As noted earlier, individual refiners may be faced with additional costs and delays in supplying the cleaner fuel and will have to develop systems to comply with the federal RFG Phase I enforcement requirements.

December 2, 1996

III-27

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Recommended Control Measures

Effectiveness of the Measure Federal RFG Phase I with 7.0 psi volatility represents the strongest combination of VOC, CO, and HAP emissions reductions that can be implemented for the 1997 ozone season. Federal RFG Phase I will reduce VOC emissions by 9.8 tons/day, NOx emissions by 0.7 tons/day, and CO emissions by 119 tons/day. Accuracy of Effectiveness Determination The benefits and costs were determined in the MathPro report cited earlier.

Cost of Measure According to the consultant report cited earlier, the total incremental refinery cost is 3.84/gal. Loss of fuel economy due to the use of federal RFG could be as much as 3.74/gal. Thus, the total incremental cost including the fuel economy penalty is 7.54/gal. However, data from other parts of the United States where this fuel is used show that federal RFG Phase I sells for 34/gal. more than conventional gasoline in existing fuel markets. As noted in the MathPro report, there is little correlation between incremental refining costs and price at the pump. The consultant has estimated the cost effectiveness for VOCs at $25,000 per ton.

Affected Parties # # # # EPA ADEQ and Arizona Department of Weights and Measures (ADWM) Petroleum refiners, marketers, and pipeline operators Owners of gasoline powered engines

December 2, 1996

III-28

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Recommended Control Measures

SELECT A FUEL FOR LONG-TERM USE (BY 1999) WHICH WILL ATTAIN A MINIMUM OF 12 TONS PER DAY OF VOC REDUCTION
THIS MEASURE APPLIES TO THE FOLLOWING POLLUTANTS: VOCS, NOX, CO, PM10, HAPS

Background and Description of Measure The Task Force=s Fuels Subcommittee, on the basis of the Assessment of Fuel Formulation Options for Maricopa County (MathPro, 1996), recommended three long-term fuel formulations which can reduce VOCs by at least 12 tons per day (based on the emissions inventory referenced in that report): California Air Resources Board (CARB) RFG Phase 2, federal RFG Phase II, and a 10% VOC reduction performance standard. Because the choice of fuel requires data and analysis not available to the Task Force at the time of this report, it was the conclusion that the choice of a fuel from among the three options be left to legislative or gubernatorial action. That choice must, however, be made within the next six months to be implementable by 1999. Since ozone concentrations are also affected by VOC, NOx, and CO interactions, it is critical that concentrations of these pollutants also be evaluated to ensure a cost-effective, long-term fuel formulation. Other formulations should also be evaluated using Urban Airshed modeling to select the most cost-effective summer fuel for the Maricopa Nonattainment Area. Moreover, the cost of emissions reductions from fuels will need to be compared with the cost of other potential control measures. Feasibility (timing and legal issues), implementation and enforcement issues, and impacts outside of the air attainment area also should be considered.

Implementation Mechanism Will require either legislative or gubernatorial action in the case of federal RFG Phase II. CARB RFG Phase 2 and the 10% VOC reduction performance measure will require a rule making process to define record keeping requirements, and compliance and enforcement procedures.

Period Required for Implementation The target for implementation of this measure is the summer of 1999.

Barriers to Implementation Choice of a fuel will require use of Urban Airshed modeling for the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area to assess estimated impacts on ozone concentrations. The choice will need to be described in the VEOP which is due to EPA by April 1997. Choosing a fuel other than federal RFG Phase II may require compliance with the fuel opt-out procedures prescribed by federal law.

December 2, 1996

III-29

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Recommended Control Measures

Effectiveness of Measure This is the single most effective VOC reduction measure proposed in this report. It should reduce VOC emissions by 12 or more tons per day (TPD). Unlike other measures which target only vehicles registered in Area A, this measure will affect anyone purchasing fuel in the nonattainment area, e.g., visitors and owners of unregistered vehicles. All of these reformulations reduce not only VOC and CO emissions but also PM10 and HAP emissions.

Accuracy of Effectiveness Determination Emission reductions were estimated using EPA approved models. Details are contained in Assessment of Fuel Formulation Options for Maricopa County.

Cost of Measure Costs depend on the fuel options selected. The estimated costs and cost effectiveness of these fuels are: Mileage Reduction Cost (4/gallon)
2.1 4.2 5.8

Fuel Option

Production Cost (4/gallon)
4.6 5.1 11.5

Total Cost to Produce (4/gallon)
6.7 9.3 17.3

Maricopa County Cost ($/day)
$223,000 $307,000 $571,000

CostEffectiveness ($/ton VOCs)
16,000 23,000 37,000

10 % VOC Reduction Federal Phase II RFG CARB Phase 2 RFG

Source: Assessment of Fuel Formulation Options for Maricopa County (MathPro, 1996)

These figures do not represent potential impacts on retail prices of gasoline, which are affected by a variety of other market influences and may or may not rise to the level of the cost to produce.

Affected Parties All Maricopa County Nonattainment Area motorists. If additional tankage is not built by 1999 that will allow complete segregation of Maricopa County fuels from those provided to the balance of the State, these fuels will not be confined to the County, which may impose additional costs for motorists outside of the nonattainment area for fuel segregation expenses.

December 2, 1996

III-30

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Recommended Control Measures

CONDUCT A STUDY OF THE FEASIBILITY OF PROVIDING CLEANER BURNING GASOLINE DURING THE WINTERTIME
THIS MEASURE APPLIES TO THE
FOLLOWING POLLUTANTS:

VOCS, NOX, CO, PM10, HAPS Background and Description of Measure The report, Assessment of Fuel Formulation Options for Maricopa County, demonstrated that reformulated gasolines can provide significant reductions in CO emissions. The Task Force recommends that alternative gasoline formulations be analyzed to determine their potential for reducing CO emissions during the winter months.

Implementation Mechanism ADEQ has entered into a one year contract with MathPro, Inc., which expires on August 8, 1997. A contract amendment has been drafted to implement this measure (see Attachment 3 of the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area Fuels Subcommittee Report), and could be executed with MathPro once funding for this study becomes available. The current contract can be amended to expire on August 8, 1999. A General Fund appropriation is the anticipated funding mechanism. To implement the study, data on gasoline properties will be collected from refiners in order to establish a baseline for current emissions characteristics and for estimation of additional costs associated with each reformulation option. Such data will be protected as confidential business information by ADEQ. In addition, ADEQ should convene a group of stakeholders to provide input on and oversight for the preparation of the report.

Period Required for Implementation Assuming funding is appropriated for the 1998 fiscal year, which begins on July 1, 1997, the study can commence by August 1, 1997 and be completed by November 1, 1997.

Barriers to Implementation A dedicated funding source is not currently available to conduct this study.

Effectiveness of the Measure Not applicable. This measure calls for a feasibility study.
December 2, 1996 Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Recommended Control Measures

III-31

Accuracy of Effectiveness Determination Not applicable.

Cost of Measure $45,000 to $50,000 will be necessary to conduct the study. These funds should be made available as a General Fund appropriation to ADEQ.

Affected Parties # # # # # # ADEQ ADWM Petroleum refiners and marketers Pipeline operators Motorists General public

December 2, 1996

III-32

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Recommended Control Measures

MEASURES TO MORE EFFECTIVELY CONTROL EMISSIONS FROM MOBILE SOURCES, AND GASOLINE AND DIESEL ENGINES
The role of vehicles in urban air pollution has been well-documented. In the Maricopa Nonattainment Area, vehicles contribute approximately 80% of CO emissions, 25% of ozone forming VOC emissions from on-road mobile sources and a comparable amount from off-road mobile sources, and 80% of PM10 emissions (including reintrainment). Malfunctioning vehicles routinely emit over five times the emissions of properly functioning vehicles. Pre-1980 vehicles account for about one-half of the emissions in the Maricopa Nonattainment Area, but are less than a third of the vehicle population and account for less than a fifth of the miles traveled in the area. Clearly, reducing the vehicular contribution to all three pollution problems will be key to improving air quality here. Prior to the 1990s, relatively little was known about the contribution of off-road engines. Today, we realize that this machinery makes a significant contribution. For example, mowing a lawn for an hour creates as much total pollution as driving a well-maintained 1993 model year car 2,000 miles. In addition to enhancements to the IM 240 Program previously described, the Task Force recommends the nine measures presented on the following pages to assist in reducing emissions from these sources. Enhanced Smoking Vehicle Program Adoption of California Off-Road Vehicle and Engine Standards Voluntary Passenger-Vehicle Retrofit Program Voluntary Vehicle Retirement (VVR) Voluntary Lawn Mower Replacement Program Tax Credits to Increase the Effectiveness of the Trip Reduction Program Study the Use of Heavier Gasoline Delivery Trucks Within Arizona; Recommend that State be Authorized to Allow Such Trucks # Retrofit Existing Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles with a Gross Vehicle Weight of 8,500 Pounds or More for Government-Owned Fleets Granted a Waiver to the Alternative Fuels Fleet Conversion Requirements # Study During the PM SIP Development Process of Upgrading Diesel Fuel Specifications # # # # # # #

December 2, 1996

III-33

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Recommended Control Measures

ENHANCED SMOKING VEHICLE PROGRAM
THIS MEASURE APPLIES TO THE FOLLOWING POLLUTANTS: PM10 Background and Description of Measure Enhance the existing Smoking Vehicle Program by improving public education and awareness and by improving the reporting system for complaint activity to increase the number of vehicles notified. The goal is to make reporting easier and response time faster.

Implementation Mechanism Enhance the existing program to increase public awareness, provide the ability to notify more owners of smoking vehicles, and to protect motorists from harassment which might result from misuse of this program. Maricopa County would receive and log the telephone calls and provide ADEQ with the license plate numbers. ADEQ would process the follow-up letters to vehicle owners. These are the steps that would be followed in an enhanced Smoking Vehicle Program: 1. Arizona license plate numbers of smoking vehicles would be reported to the Maricopa County Complaints Response Line between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. (after hours: voice mail/ existing line). License plate number, date, time, and citizen=s name will be recorded. Maricopa County will provide ADEQ with the license plate numbers. 2. ADEQ will send, on a weekly basis, a list of license plate numbers to MVD to determine vehicle owner=s address. 3. ADEQ will send a form letter to the registered owner. This letter, which is designed to educate and inform the motorist, will incorporate information on how the vehicle was identified and will explain the law regulating smoking vehicles.

Cost and Effectiveness of Measure As shown below, total first year costs for enhancing this program are estimated at approximately $132,900, plus the costs of electronic communication features with MVD, estimated at $134,000. (Funding for electronic communication has been recommended under the measure entitled AMVD Registration Enforcement and Mandatory Insurance Tracking@. Recurring annual costs are estimated at $120,500. Experience has shown that where the program is heavily promoted, such as in Pima County, there is strong public support. Other air quality control districts, such as the Bay Area Quality Management District, report that peaks in complaint calls are often associated with periods when the greatest amount of advertising and public outreach occurs. The Task Force recommends that this measure be funded under the new vehicle registration fee described in the measure entitled AMaking Vehicle Emissions Program Self-Supporting@.
December 2, 1996 Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Recommended Control Measures

III-34

Resource Need
Database programming to replace existing text file New hardware platform Hire two Clerk Typists II, including salary, benefits, overhead, computers and cubicles (includes $12,400 in on-time costs) Establish electronic communication with MVD, including on-going line charges, charges for data runs, etc. Annual payment to contractor to convert call-in data to Smoking Vehicle Notifications Advertising/public relations (Use existing Maricopa County resources)

Estimated Cost
$20,000 10,000 52,900 134,000 50,000 0

December 2, 1996

III-35

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Recommended Control Measures

ADOPTION OF CALIFORNIA OFF-ROAD VEHICLE AND ENGINE STANDARDS
THIS MEASURE APPLIES TO THE
FOLLOWING POLLUTANTS:

VOCS, CO, PM10, HAPS Background and Description of Measure Adopt California air pollutant emission standards for off-road vehicles and engines marketed in Arizona beginning in 1999. Emissions of VOCs, NOx, and CO from off-road vehicles and engines are a significant source of air pollutants in Maricopa County. The contribution of emissions from off-road vehicles to the total emissions in Maricopa County is: # 17% CO # 1.5% NOx # 18% VOC Additionally, emissions from these sources are increasing linearly with population growth. The implementation of this measure will create potentially large reductions in CO and combined NOx and VOC emissions. Minor reductions in PM are also anticipated as a result of this proposed measure. In the absence of the more stringent California standards, federal standards would apply in Arizona. This measure will require that engine manufacturers meet more stringent emissions standards at an earlier date than required by the federal standards. Additionally, some of the California standards are more stringent than the federal standards. It is believed that meeting the California emissions standards will be feasible due to the twoyear phase in time for the standards to become effective and Arizona=s close proximity to the California market. In addition, several manufacturers of engines meeting the California standards are located in Arizona. Engines and vehicles with more stringent California emission standards include the following: # # # # # # Heavy-duty diesel vehicles (HDDV) rated at 175-750 horsepower (hp) Small utility and lawn and garden equipment engines rated less than 25 hp Recreational vehicles rated less than 25 hp Specialty engines and go-karts, greater than 25 hp Off-road motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles Golf carts (implemented in Maricopa County only) 5

The emission standards for each of the above engine categories are attached in Tables 1, 2, and 3. Implementation Mechanism
5

The California emission standards for golf carts are applicable in ozone nonattainment areas only.
Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Recommended Control Measures

December 2, 1996

III-36

ADEQ would have to notify EPA of its intent to implement the California standards. State legislative approval would be required for ADEQ or Maricopa County to implement a program to enforce the standards. ADEQ or Maricopa County would need to conduct a formal rulemaking process including public meetings and hearings to address concerns of interested parties and incorporate the new standards.

Period Required For Implementation According to the CAA, the standards must be adopted at least two years before commencement of such model year. Therefore, if the State Legislature mandated the California standards in early 1997, the model year that the new standards would be applicable to is 1999. The standards may not take effect until model year 2000.

Barriers To Implementation Standards may have to be imposed Statewide (except the standards for golf carts). Based on review of CARB documents, the following issues may exist concerning the promulgation of the California standards: # There may be concerns associated with the increased use of batteries and the need for battery recycling as a result of the zero emission requirement for golf carts. # The CARB documents indicated an increase in NOx of 6% for the new off-road recreational vehicles and engines standards. # The technology for 2-stroke engines may not be available to meet some of the CARB standards; therefore, engine manufacturers may have to utilize 4-stroke engines to meet the standards. # CARB found that the adoption of the heavy-duty off-road diesel engine standards may have a significant impact on small businesses who produce earthmoving, agricultural, forestry, and mining equipment. Additionally, it was indicated that there may be a potential cost impact on private persons or businesses.

Effectiveness of Measure Estimated emission reductions for the year 1999 are: # 240 tons per year hydrocarbons (HC)+NOx # 2,540 tons per year CO # 5 tons per year PM

December 2, 1996

III-37

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Recommended Control Measures

The calculations of the annual air pollutant emission reductions are shown in Table 4 for each engine category. These calculations provide an estimate of the emission reductions for the years 1999, 2001, 2010, and 2025. The following assumptions were used in the emission calculations: # The equipment/engine turnover rate is 4% per year with complete turnover after 25 years. # Emission reductions for the first year the standard is effective have been divided by two to account for the impact evaluated for July 1999, the beginning of the ozone season. # To project future base emissions in 1999, the number of vehicles and annual emissions have been multiplied by a factor of 1.29 to reflect a population increase from 1992 to 1999, assuming numbers of engines and vehicles are based upon population. # Numbers of diesel small utility engines and associated emissions are not currently available; therefore, the emission reductions for small utility engines represents reductions from gasoline engines only.

Accuracy of Effectiveness Determination The emissions calculated in the Nonroad Engine Emission Inventories for CO and ozone are for the current nonattainment area. Actual emission reductions may be different than those presented in Table 4 if the emission inventory or the nonattainment area boundaries change.

Cost of Measure The CARB calculated the cost effectiveness for each of the engine/vehicle categories. A summary of the costs estimated by CARB for the year 1999 is included in Table 5.

Affected Parties # Manufacturers of off-road vehicles and engines for which there are applicable standards # Commercial purchasers of affected off-road vehicles and engines # ADEQ

References Nonroad Engine Emission Inventories for CO and Ozone Nonattainment Boundaries Phoenix Area, Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc., Arlington Virginia, August 1992. State of California Air Resources Board, Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of Regulations Regarding the California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for New 1996 and Later Heavy-Duty Off-Road Diesel Cycle Engines and Equipment Engines, November 22, 1991.

December 2, 1996

III-38

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Recommended Control Measures

State of California Air Resources Board, Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of Regulations Regarding California Exhaust Standards and Test Procedures for Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles and Engines, January 13, 1994. State of California Air Resources Board, Public Hearing to Consider Regulations Regarding the California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 1994 and Subsequent Model Year Utility and Lawn and Garden Equipment Engines, October 22, 1990. State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAPPA)/Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (ALAPCO), Controlling Particulate Matter Under the Clean Air Act: A Menu of Options, July 1996.
TABLE 1: California Off-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Standards for Model Year 2001 and Later Net Power (hp)/ Year HC 175 - 750 hp 2001 and later
1

Emission Standards (g/bhp-hr)

Opacity Standard A/L/P (%) 1 PM 0.16 20/15/35

CO 8.5

NOx 5.8

1.0

Smoke opacity standards are reported in percent opacity during an acceleration mode, a lug mode, and the peak opacity on either the acceleration or lug modes. Source: STAPPA/ALAPCO, July 1996.

TABLE 2: California Standards for Model Year 1999 and Later Utility and Lawn and Garden Equipment Engines Emission Standards (g/bhp-hr) Year HC and NOx Small Utility Engines - Non-Handheld Equipment 1999 and later 3.2 100 0.25 CO PM

Small Utility Engines - Handheld Equipment HC 1999 and later 50 CO 130 NOx 4.0 PM 0.25

Source: STAPPA/ALAPCO, July 1996.

December 2, 1996

III-39

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Recommended Control Measures

TABLE 3: California Standards for Model Year 1997 and Later Diesel Recreational Vehicles and Engines Emission Standards (g/bhp-hr) Year HC and NOx Specialty Vehicle Engines Less Than 25 Horsepower 1999 and later 3.2 100 0.25 CO PM

Specialty Engines and Go-Karts (>25 hp) 1997 and later 3.2 100 0.25

Off-Road Motorcycles and All-Terrain Vehicles 1999 and later Golf Carts 1997 and later zero zero zero 1.2 (HC) 15.0 --

Source: STAPPA/ALAPCO, July 1996 and CARB, 1994.

December 2, 1996

III-40

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Recommended Control Measures

III-41

III-42

VOLUNTARY PASSENGER-VEHICLE RETROFIT PROGRAM
THIS MEASURE APPLIES TO THE
FOLLOWING POLLUTANTS:

VOCS, NOX, CO, HAPS Background and Description of Measure This measure would provide subsidies for the installation of an emission upgrade kit (catalyst) designed to reduce the exhaust emissions from automobiles. The emission upgrade kits would be available on a voluntary basis to the Aworst polluting@ vehicles failing the inspection/maintenance test. This program provides an alternative to owners of older vehicles that simply cannot afford a new vehicle, and have a vehicle in sufficiently good condition to be subject to retrofit unlikely to benefit from a voluntary vehicle retirement program. A similar measure has been underway in San Diego County, California since May 1996. The initial results of this program have been positive.

Implementation Mechanism The San Diego program issues a request for proposal every year for Aemission reduction projects@. Once the contract is awarded, the contractor is responsible for implementation of the program with minimal oversight by district personnel. A similar Arizona program would require statutory authority for ADEQ, after competitive bidding, to enter into a contract with a retrofit provider who would subcontract with repair facilities to perform tune-ups, repair exhaust systems, and install emissions upgrade kits. One criteria of the competitive bidding would be demonstration that the proposed retrofit system complied with the EPA Aftermarket Retrofit Device Evaluation Program requirements. The same legislation providing program authority would also need to include a provision that defeating or removing the retrofit system would be considered to be tampering under State law. The Task Force recommends that this measure be funded by the new vehicle registration fee described in the measure entitled AMaking Vehicle Emissions Programs Self-Supporting@.

Period Required for Implementation Six months to one year for program development after legislative action.

Barriers to Implementation Lack of authority and funding.

December 2, 1996

III-43

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Recommended Control Measures

Effectiveness of Measure The measure was selected for cost-effectiveness, low administration cost, and high vehicle owner satisfaction. Federal Test Procedure (FTP) laboratory measurements of 13 vehicles indicate emission reductions of 80% hydrocarbons, 81% CO and 69% nitrogen oxides after retrofit. The same testing procedure indicated an emission reduction of 32% hydrocarbons, 49% CO, and 17% NOx for vehicles receiving a tune-up only. The goal in San Diego is to retrofit 1,200 vehicles over a three-year period. The Task Force proposes a similar goal although the program could be expanded if results warrant it. According to emission reductions shown in California, and assuming an annual vehicle mileage of 10,000 miles per year, the annual emission reductions from retrofitting 400 vehicles annually would be: # 9 tons HC # 170 tons CO # 6 tons NOx Accuracy of Effectiveness Determination The projected emissions reductions are provided. However, information regarding actual emission reductions from the retrofit of the vehicles in San Diego are not yet available.

Cost of Measure The cost of retrofitting older vehicles is estimated at approximately $500/vehicle. In addition to the cost of the vehicle retrofit, the vehicle may need a tune-up and exhaust system repairs, costing the vehicle owner approximately $225. In San Diego, the county pays for the retrofit of the vehicles and the vehicle owner is responsible for the cost of the tune-up and exhaust system repairs, if required. The Task Force recommends the same division of responsibility for the Arizona program. The cost of the program will be $600,000 annually. San Diego estimates $13,369 per ton reduction of VOCs and NOx. The estimated cost for the reduction in CO is $1,706 per ton, based upon 400 vehicles at $725/vehicle.

Affected Parties # # # # Owners of older high-polluting vehicles ADEQ to administer the program Contractor Repair facilities installing retrofit kits

December 2, 1996

III-44

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Recommended Control Measures

VOLUNTARY VEHICLE RETIREMENT (VVR)
THIS MEASURE APPLIES TO THE
FOLLOWING POLLUTANTS:

VOCS, NOX, CO, PM10, HAPS Background and Description of Measure Numerous studies, including a recent 1994 CARB pilot study, conclude that a relatively small number of vehicles have a disproportionate impact on air quality. These vehicles are principally either older model year vehicles or vehicles that are not well maintained. The older vehicles, which can be defined as being 12 or more years older than current model year vehicles, are especially prevalent in Arizona because the State has one of the oldest vehicle fleets in the country. A voluntary vehicle retirement (VVR) program in Maricopa County would provide vehicle owners with the voluntary option of replacing high- or gross-emitting older vehicles with newer technology, better maintained vehicles. This would accelerate the turnover of the existing vehicle fleet and reduce the total on-road CO emissions inventory. Because of the larger number of older vehicles in Arizona, a VVR program is likely to be more effective in improving air quality in Arizona than in other states.

Implementation Mechanism A VVR program would require the approval of the Arizona Legislature as a SIP measure. It should be designed in light of experience gained from California=s successful VVR program. The Arizona program would have to ensure that the vehicles retired had actually been titled, registered, and operable in the nonattainment area for a reasonable period of time, say the prior 24 months. It should also be designed to address concerns voiced in the pastCby making it completely voluntary, excluding listed classic cars, salvaging parts, and only retiring vehicles that cannot be retrofitted with emission control systems.

Period Required for Implementation A VVR program could be operational within a year following legislative approval, and would last about 10 years.

Barriers to Implementation The major barriers are cost and acceptability to affected vehicle owners and the groups that represent them, as well as groups that rely on the contribution of older vehicles as a form of fund raising.

December 2, 1996

III-45

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Recommended Control Measures

Effectiveness of Measure Sierra Research Inc. estimated the possible emission reduction benefits in an April 1996 study report for the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA). The report estimates that as much as 2% of the mobile source CO emissions inventory could be eliminated with a 10 year, 10,000 vehicle per year VVR program that targets high-emitting vehicles. Since the mobile source CO inventory exceeds 500 TPD, the emissions reduction benefits could be greater than 10 TPD for this specific program. Emissions of VOCs, which contribute to ozone formation, would be reduced as well. A more modest, 4,000 vehicle per year, targeted VVR program could reduce emissions of CO by 4 TPD, VOCs by 0.4 TPD, and NOx by 0.1 TPD. Accuracy of Effectiveness Determination Effectiveness was determined by studies conducted by outside parties. The Task Force relied upon these reports but the conclusions contained in the reports could not be independently verified.

Cost of Measure A 4,000 vehicle per year program will cost $4 million annually. Sierra Research Inc. computed the cost effectiveness of this targeted program to be $3,400 to $4,500 per ton of CO emissions eliminated and $25,200 to $27,700 per ton of VOC emissions. This is likely to be significantly more cost effective than most other CO emission reduction measures. The Task Force recommends that the program be funded by a new vehicle registration fee described in the measure titled AMaking Vehicle Emissions Programs Self-Supporting.@

Affected Parties # Vehicle owners with vehicles more than 12 years older than the current model year. # Groups that rely on the contribution of older vehicles as a form of fund raising.

December 2, 1996

III-46

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Recommended Control Measures

VOLUNTARY LAWN MOWER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
THIS MEASURE APPLIES TO THE
FOLLOWING POLLUTANTS:

VOCS, NOX, CO, PM10, HAPS Background and Description of Measure Lawn mowers have virtually no emission control equipment for any criteria air pollutants. In California, CARB implemented Tier I emission controls for CO, total hydrocarbons, and NOX. These controls commenced with 1995 model year mowers and will be even more stringent when Tier II controls are effective in 1999. CO emissions will be reduced by as much as 65 to 70%. In another measure the Task Force urges adoption of the CARB standards for lawn mowers but until those standards become effective, which could be as long as six to eight years in the future, something must be done with existing lawn mowers. Commercial businesses, cities, and municipalities operate lawn mowers and other landscape equipment as much as 40 to 60 hours per week. Residential users operate lawn mowers and other landscape equipment as much as 1 to 2 hours per week. Although a lawn mower replacement program could be applied to both commercial and residential sectors, the commercially focused component of the program is expected to yield the greatest benefits.

Implementation Mechanism Recent lawn mower replacement pilot programs by the Salt River Project and WSPA indicate that a full program could be implemented successfully. Such a program would require the approval of the Arizona Legislature as a SIP measure. It could be administered through local lawn mower retailers, with oversight and coordination provided by ADEQ or another governmental agency.

Period Required for Implementation This program could be operational within months following the Legislature=s approval, depending upon the availability of program funding sources.

Barriers to Implementation Cost and making the availability of the program known to the affected population.

Effectiveness of Measure EPA, CARB, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) have all completed testing programs to quantify the emissions of lawn mowers with virtually no emission controls. Based on these

December 2, 1996

III-47

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Recommended Control Measures

programs, CO emission reductions could be very significant. Off-road mobile CO emissions in Maricopa County have previously been estimated in 1995 at 108 TPD, and may be understated. Lawn mowers are believed to be a significant portion of off-road mobile emissions. Sierra Research has estimated that a 2,000 lawn mower per year program, based on EPA=s estimated emission factors, could reduce emissions of CO by .66 TPD and VOCs by 2.86 TPD. Expansion of the program to include more commercial lawn mowers, or even residential lawn mowers, could further reduce emissions. The program could last for five years, extending past the year 1999 when Maricopa County is required to attain the federal ozone standard and the tighter CARB Tier II controls take effect.

Accuracy of Effectiveness Determination Effectiveness was determined by studies conducted by outside parties. The Task Force relied upon these reports but the conclusions contained in the reports could not be independently verified.

Cost of Measure A small five-year program could replace 2,000 small commercial lawn mowers each year at an annual cost of about $500,000. Depending upon the emission reduction methodology used, the cost effectiveness for such a program could be as much as $3,964 per ton of CO emissions eliminated and $1,227 per ton of VOC emissions. This is very likely to be significantly more cost effective than most other CO and VOC emission reduction candidate measures. Expansion of the program to include more commercial, or even residential, lawn mowers would increase the program cost and likely reduce its cost effectiveness. The Task Force recommends that the program be funded by the new vehicle registration fee described in the measure titled AMaking Vehicle Emissions Programs Self-Supporting.@

Affected Parties Owners of domestic and commercial lawn mowers.

December 2, 1996

III-48

Air Quality Strategies Task Force Report Recommended Control Measures

TAX CREDITS TO INCREASE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE TRIP REDUCTION PROGRAM
THIS MEASURE APPLIES TO THE
FOLLOWING POLLUTANTS:

VOCS, NOX, CO, PM10, HAPS Background and Description of Measure This measure would allow employers participating in TRPs in Areas A and B a 50% tax credit of actual costs or up to $100,000 for subsidizing employees= public transit fares, vanpool, and carpool expenses. This would be available to corporations, partnerships, single proprietorships, and shareholders of a Subchapter S corporation. The credit may not exceed the amount of taxes otherwise due; however, the taxpayer may carry forward any credit up to five years. To q