Performance audit, Department of Environmental Quality vehicle emissions inspection and maintenance program

              PERFORMANCE AUDIT
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
VEHICLE EMISSIONS INSPECTION AND
MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
Report to the Arizona Legislature
By the Auditor General
December 1988
88- 11
DOUGLAS R. NORTON, CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OFTH&
AUDITOR GENERAL
December 13, 1988
Members of the Arizona L e g i s l a t u r e
The Honorable Rose Mofford, Governor
Ronald L. M i l l e r , Ph. O.
Acting Director
Arizona Department o f Environmental Quality
Transmitted herewith i s a report of the Auditor General, A Performance
Audit of the Department of Environmental Q u a l i t y , Vehicle Emissions
lnspection and Maintenance Program. This report i s i n response to
Chapter 266, Section 13 of the 1985 Session Laws.
We found that the b e n e f i t s of the Vehicle Emissions Inspection and
Maintenance Program have been overestimated. As we predicted i n our
1983 report, the S t a t e ' s heavy reliance on t h i s Program has f a i l e d to
b r i n g the State i n t o compliance w i t h national ambient a i r q u a l i t y
standards. As a r e s u l t , a d d i t i o n a l clean a i r measures are needed i f
Arizona i s to achieve compliance w i t h a i r q u a l i t y standards.
My s t a f f and I w i l l be pleased to discuss or c l a r i f y items i n the
r e p o r t .
Sincerely,
0 o u U s R . ort ton-
Auditor General
DRN: lmn
LINDAJ. BLESSING, CPA
IIC PUTY AUDITOR GENERAL
STAFF: William Thomson
Peter N. Francis
Barbara Nienstedt
Nancy Lovell Moore
Anthony J. Guarino
Cynthia A . Kappler
Thomas F. Komaniecki
270(! NORTH CENTRAL AVE SIjlSk ? I10 @ PilOENIX ARIZONA 85004 9 ( 602) 255 4385
SUWARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of the
Department of Environmental Q u a l i t y , Vehicle Emissions lnspection and
Maintenance Program. This performance audit was conducted i n response to
Chapter 266, Section 13 of the 1985 Session Laws.
The Benefits of the Vehicle Emissions lnspection and Maintenance
Program Have Been Overestimated ( see pages 9 through 19)
The impact of the Vehicle Emissions lnspection and Maintenance Program
( VEIP) on a i r q u a l i t y has been overestimated. Results of a time series
analysis, and an analysis of the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA)
computer simulation model ( MOBILE3) used to project program b e n e f i t s , both
indicated VEIP benefits have been overestimated. As a r e s u l t , Arizona
w i l l need to adopt additional measures to meet clean a i r standards.
Further, t h i s finding i s not new. In 1983, we reported that the VEI
program had not been e f f e c t i v e i n reducing carbon monoxide levels. A t
that time we stated . . . Arizona needs to develop a l t e r n a t i v e s to the
VEI Program for reducing automobile p o l l u t a n t s . "
Several studies, including a time series analysis performed by our O f f i c e ,
could not substantiate the large benefits a t t r i b u t e d to the program by the
Environmental Protection Agency. The time series analysis, covering the
fourteen- year period between 1974 through 1987, found that VEIP did not
have an overall e f f e c t on ambient carbon monoxide ( CO) levels i n Phoenix
and Tucson.
We believe the computer simulation model used by the EPA to project the
e f f e c t s of VEIP overestimates the program's b e n e f i t s . Using MOBILE3, EPA
has consistently credited VEIP with a 25 percent reduction i n CO and
hydrocarbons. However, an analysis of MOBILE3 uncovered several problems
with the emission reductions calculated for Arizona. For example:
a MOBILE3 r e l i e s upon a l i m i t e d database which appears to underestimate
f l e e t emissions and overestimate VEIP benefits.
a MOBILE3 overestimates the b e n e f i t s o f r e p a i r s . The model assumes
vehicles f a i l i n g the VElP t e s t w i l l receive appropriate r e p a i r s that
s i g n i f i c a n t l y decrease emission l e v e l s . This assumption may be
i n c o r r e c t . F i r s t , proper r e p a i r and maintenance i s not as e f f e c t i v e
as MOBILE3 assumes. Second, several studies i n d i c a t e t h a t many
mechanics are not able t o properly diagnose and repair
emission- related problems. Third, circumvention o f the program may
s t i l l be a s i g n i f i c a n t problem.
a MOBILE3 may be overestimating the number of high e m i t t i n g , post 1980
vehicles i d e n t i f i e d by the VElP t e s t and subsequently repaired.
Federal law requires Arizona to operate an emissions inspection program.
However, the State needs to recognize that the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of VElP has
been overestimated and take steps to ensure that a d d i t i o n a l measures are
implemented to achieve compliance w i t h Federal a i r q u a l i t y standards.
A d d i t i o n a l Clean A i r Measures Are Needed To Assure
That Arizona Achieves Ai r Qua1 i ty Standards ( see pages 21 through 27)
Since VElP i s not having the predicted impact, a d d i t i o n a l clean a i r
measures w i l l be needed i f Arizona i s to achieve Federal a i r q u a l i t y
standards. The State continues to assume f u l l b e n e f i t s f o r VEIP.
Consequently, Arizona's State Implementation Plan underestimated the
emission reductions needed to achieve compliance w i t h Federal standards.
I t i s u n l i k e l y , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e S t a t e w i l l achieve compliance by 1991.
I n a d d i t i o n , evidence suggests t h a t p r o j e c t i o n s regarding the impact of
oxygenated f u e l s on a i r q u a l i t y may be o p t i m i s t i c . Although Colorado
o f f i c i a l s have judged the Denver area's oxygenated f u e l s program to be a
success, t h i s success i s based on EPA p r o j e c t i o n s and MOBILE3 estimates,
not the program's actual impact on a i r q u a l i t y .
Moreover, b e n e f i t s from present and future emission c o n t r o l s t r a t e g i e s
w i l l l i k e l y be o f f s e t by continued increases i n t r a f f i c growth. High
growth rates i n Phoenix and Tucson c o n t i n u a l l y impede emission c o n t r o l
s t r a t e g i e s from achieving t h e i r desired e f f e c t . T r a f f i c growth i n Phoenix
i s expected to increase by approximately 57 percent between 1987 and 1995.
S i m i l a r l y , v e h i c l e m i l e s traveled i n Tucson i s projected to increase by
about 48 percent for the same period.
Our analysis shows that t r a f f i c control measures, p r i m a r i l y those which
reduce vehicle miles driven, w i l l need to be promoted more aggressively to
a t t a i n clean a i r standards. Public commitment must increase, however, i f
these types o f s t r a t e g i e s are to work. T r a f f i c c o n t r o l s t r a t e g i e s also
must be well coordinated to be implemented e f f e c t i v e l y .
Administrative Control Problems Cited During Our
Last Review Have Been Corrected ( see pages 29 through 30)
Administrative control problems c i t e d during a 1983 performance review of
VElP have been corrected. Periodic f i e l d audits are necessary to assure
that equipment used for emissions t e s t i n g i s accurate and r e l i a b l e .
During the l a s t review, we found t h a t n e i t h e r the Bureau o f Vehicle
Emissions Inspections, now the Vehicle Emissions Section, nor Hamilton
Test Systems conducted the number of f i e l d audits r e q u i r e d d u r i n g f i s c a l
year 1981- 82. These d e f i c i e n c i e s have since been addressed. A review of
inspection f i l e s showed both the Vehicle Emissions S- ection and Hamilton
Test Systems are now meeting audi t requi rements.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTIONANDBACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
FINDING I: THE BENEFITS OF THE VEHICLE EMISSIONS INSPECTION AND
UAINTENANCE PROGRAM HAVE BEEN OVERESTIMATED . . . . . . . . . . 9
Two Approaches for Assessing VEIP's Effects . . . . . . . . . . 10
Several Studies, Including a Recent Time Series Analysis
Conducted by the Office of the Auditor General, Did Not
Substantiate the Large Benefits Attributed to VElP by EPA . . . 11
The Computer Model Used By EPA to Project the Effects of VElP
Appears to Overestimate the Program's Benefits. . . . . . . . . 13
More Realistic Assumptions About the Impact of VElP W i l l
Require Arizona to Use Additional Measures to
Meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards . . . . . . . . 18
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
FINDING II: ADDITIONAL CLEAN AIR MEASURES ARE NEEDED TO ASSURE
THAT ARIZONA ACHIEVES AIR QUALITY STANDARDS . . . . . . . . . . 21
Emission Control Strategies Cannot Be Relied Upon
ToBringAbout Compliance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Increased Emphasis on T r a f f i c Control Measures Are
Needed to Insure That Arizona Attains Air Quality Standards . . 25
Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
FINDING Ill: ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL PROBLEMS CITED DURING OUR
LAST REVIEW HAVE BEEN CORRECTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Need for Ongoing Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
AGENCYRESPONSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
l NTRODUCT l ON AND BACKGROUND
The O f f i c e of the Auditor General has conducted a performance a u d i t of
the Department of Environmental Q u a l i t y , Vehicle Emissions lnspection and
Maintenance Program. This performance a u d i t was conducted i n response to
Chapter 266, Section 13 of the 1985 Session Laws.
History of the Vehicle Emissions Inspection and Maintenance Program
The Vehicle Emissions l nspect ion and Maintenance Program ( V E I P ) was
developed as a s t r a t e g y to i d e n t i f y vehicles e m i t t i n g excess amounts of
hydrocarbons ( HC) and carbon monoxide ( CO) and to provide i n c e n t i v e f o r
proper maintenance by v e h i c l e owners. New car emission standards
resulted i n a 90 percent reduction i n emissions by 1981. However,
according to the Ar i zona Department of Envi ronmental Qual i t y ( ADEQ) ,
" . . inadequate maintenance of engine and exhaust c o n t r o l systems
s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduce the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of manufacturer i n s t a l l e d
p o l l u t i o n c o n t r o l devices. 11 ( 1 )
Arizona established a voluntary VEI program i n 1976, one year b e f o r e t h e
Federal government mandated i t do so. I n 1977 vehicles less than 14
years o l d and located w i t h i n the nonattainment areas") were required
to be inspected as a p a r t o f v e h i c l e r e g i s t r a t i o n . Since the program's
inception, i t has undergone several changes making i t a more
comprehensive and s t r i n g e n t program.
O r i g i n a l l y , VEIP was under the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the Department of Health
Services. But w i t h i t s c r e a t i o n i n 1987, the Arizona Department of
Environmental Q u a l i t y became responsible for the program. ADEQ contracts
w i t h Hamilton Test Systems ( HTS) to perform the inspections. HTS has
operated VElP from i t s inception i n Arizona and presently i s i n i t s t h i r d
year of a five- year c o n t r a c t . HTS operates 11 f a c i l i t i e s ( e i g h t i n
Maricopa County and three i n Pima County) and conducted approximately 1.9
m i l l i o n tests i n 1987.
( ) The Arizona Department of Environmental Qual i t y , " The Arizona Vehi cul at- Inspection
& Maintenance Program: An A i r Q u a l i t y Strategy," January 1988.
( * ) A nonattainment area i s an area which does not meet a i r q u a l i t y standards f o r a
given p o l l u t a n t . ( See also Arizona Revised Statutes $ 49- 541.14.)
EPA considers Arizona's VEI program as one of the best i n the n a t i o n .
The program consists of both an emissions t e s t and a tampering check.
A l l 1967 and later- model- year vehicles registered i n nonattainment areas
or vehicles commuting i n t o a nonattainment area must be t e s t e d a n n u a l l y .
The t e s t measures the CO and HC concentrat ions emitted from a vehicle
while i n the i d l e mode. Allowable emissions vary depending on the age of
the v e h i c l e .
The visual tampering t e s t ensures that i n d i v i d u a l s have not removed or
tampered w i t h emission c o n t r o l devices. I t i s a f o u r p o i n t t e s t t h a t
includes a v i s u a l check of the c a t a l y t i c converter and the a i r pump to
ensure they are i n place, a v i s u a l inspection of the fuel i n l e t to ensure
that i t has not been tampered w i t h and a t a i l p i p e t e s t to check for lead
which i n d i c a t e s m i s f u e l i n g .
The program allows waivers for owners who are unsuccessful i n achieving
appropriate emission reductions i f r e p a i r c o s t s exceed the f o l l o w i n g
I i m i t s :
1967 through 1974 $ 50
1975 through 1979 $ 200
1980 and newer $ 300
a l l heavy duty d i e s e l s $ 300
However, the waivers cannot be given for tampering v i o l a t i o n s and
r e s u l t i n g r e p a i r costs. Three percent of the vehicles t e s t e d a r e never
able to pass the t e s t and eventually receive a waiver.
Also as p a r t of VEIP, ADEQ t r a i n s and c e r t i f i e s f l e e t inspectors and
mechanics. These i n d i v i d u a l s are able to conduct emission inspections on
vehicle f l e e t s . ADEQ reports t h a t i n 1987 120,000 inspections were
performed by licensed automobile dealers and 30,000 by commercial and
governmental f I e e t operators ."'
( ' ) Arizona s t a t u t e s a l l o w governmental e n t i t i e s w i t h f l e e t s o f 100 or more vehicles
and owners o f f l e e t s w i t h a t l e a s t 25 vehicles t o e s t a b l i s h t h e i r own emission
inspection programs. A f l e e t emissions i n s p e c t i o n p e r m i t r e q u i r e s t h e f a c i l i t y t o
have approved equipment and employ licensed personnel.
Vehicle Emissions and Inspection's Role i n the State Implementation Plan
The Clean A i r Act amendments of 1970 required EPA t o e s t a b l i s h standards
to p r o t e c t p u b l i c h e a l t h from a i r p o l l u t i o n . Amendments passed i n 1977
c a l l e d f o r states to a t t a i n national a i r q u a l i t y standards for carbon
monoxide and ozone - two p o l l u t a n t s caused p r i m a r i l y by automobile
emissions - no l a t e r than December 31, 1982. States were required to
develop and implement State Implementation Plans ( SIPS) which detai led
how the national standards would be a t t a i n e d .
Because the Phoenix and Tucson areas could not meet the Federal standards
by December 1982, the SIP had t o c o n t a i n plans for a VEI program. I t
also had to demonstrate attainment by the end of 1987. The SIP r e l i e d
heavily on VEIP and Federal emission requirements for new motor
vehicles. ADEQ reports " . . . 99 percent of the c u r r e n t l e v e l of
control comes from these programs. rr( 1)
However, even w i t h implementing the SIPS, Arizona d i d not meet the
national a i r qua1 i t y standards by December 31, 1987. The U. S. Congress
granted an extension u n t i l August 1988 and then EPA a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l y
granted a t h i r d extension to December 31, 1991. ADEQ r e p o r t s t h a t Tucson
i s close to attainment, but for Phoenix the a i r q u a l i t y outlook i s
bleak. " V i o l a t i o n s of CO, ozone and p a r t i c u l a t e s continue at [ an]
u n s e t t l i n g rate . . . The [ c u r r e n t ] nonattainment area plans f a i l to
ensure attainment of Federal standards i n the foreseeable f u t u r e . I, ( 2)
The current SIP continues to focus on minimizing per- mile emissions
rather than vehicle mi l e s t r a v e l e d ( VMTs). To reach attainment by 1991,
EPA estimates a 24 percent reduction i n CO emissions i s needed. The
approved SIP c r e d i t s four percent of the reduction to changing the
inspection from an i d l e mode test to a loaded mode t e s t . ( 3' The
remaining reduct ions are a t t r i b u t e d to the oxygenated fuels program ( 16
( 1) The Arizona Department of Envi ronmental Qua1 i t y , " The Arizona V e h i c u l a r I n s p e c t i o n
& Maintenance Program: An A i r Q u a l i t y Strategy," January 1988.
( 2) I b i d .
( 3 An i d l e t e s t measures a v e h i c l e ' s emissions while a t i d l e . A loaded t e s t simulates
highway c o n d i t i o n s . The v e h i c l e ' s wheels are placed on r o l l e r s which allows the
car t o " d r i v e " a t 30 m i l e s p e r hour. The emissions a r e t e s t e d while i n t h i s mode.
percent) and a t r a v e l reduction program and other measures such as short
range t r a n s i t improvements, increased b i c y c l e use, and a l t e r n a t i v e work
hours ( four percent).
Program Budget
The VEI program i s p r i n c i p a l l y funded by inspection fees and General Fund
monies. Inspection fees pay for the HTS contract to operate the
inspection s t a t i o n s . According to ADEQ budget s t a f f , HTS received $ 9.2
m i I I ion i n f i scal year 1986- 87. I n f i sca I year 1987- 88 HTS received
$ 1 1.6 m i I I ion . ( ' )
General Fund monies are appropriated to ADEQ t o fund and s t a f f i t s
Vehicle Emissions Section. The Section also uses revolving fund monies
from waiver, c e r t i f i c a t e and exemption fees. The Vehicle Emissions
Section performs qua1 i t y assurance t e s t s o f equipment at the State
inspection s t a t i o n s , f l e e t f a c i l i t i e s and registered analyzer
faci l i t i e s . They also t r a i n and c e r t i f y mechanics i n order for f l e e t and
mechanic shops to have registered analyzers. In a d d i t i o n , the Section
operates the waiver lane, resolves complaints and processes waivers,
exemptions and c e r t i f i c a t e s . During f i s c a l year 198748 the Section was
appropriated $ 537,776 from General Fund monies. I t had 15 FTE p o s i t i o n s
funded from the General Fund and another 12 FTE p o s i t i o n s funded by the
revolving fund.
Adv i so ry Pane l
An advisory panel was selected to a s s i s t the Auditor General's s t a f f i n
developing an appropriate methodology and reviewing r e s u l t s and
conclusions based on audit work. The panel consisted of four members:
Dr. Lee Sechrest, U n i v e r s i t y o f Arizona
Dr. Sechrest i s head of the Psychology Department a t the U n i v e r s i t y of
Arizona and has had extensive experience i n evaluation research p r o j e c t s
i n t h i s country and overseas. He has w r i t t e n fourteen books and
Beginning January 1988, HTS began c o l l e c t i n g inspection fees d i r e c t l y . ( See Other
P e r t i n e n t Information, page 31 .)
monographs and over 150 s c i e n t i f i c a r t i c l e s . Dr. Sechrest i s c u r r e n t l y
consulting with the National Center for Health Services Research,
National Heart, Lung and Blood I n s t i t u t e , American Psychological
Association, Veterans Administration, New York Board of Regents, U. S.
General Accounting O f f i c e , National Futures Association and the Human
Services Research I n s t i t u t e . Dr. Sechrest has been awarded the Myrdal
P r i z e f o r Excellence i n Evaluation Practice by the American Evaluation
Association.
Dr. Carol Weiss, Harvard U n i v e r s i t y
Dr. Weiss i s an i n t e r n a t i o n a l expert on evaluation research and has
pub1 ished seven books i n that area. Among her many a c t i v i t i e s and
honors, Dr. Weiss has also been a senior f e l l o w f o r the U. S. Department
of Education, v i s i t i n g scholar for the U. S. General Accounting O f f i c e ,
guest scholar at the Brookings I n s t i t u t i o n , a Goldwater V i s i t i n g
Professor of American I n s t i t u t i o n s at Arizona State U n i v e r s i t y , President
of the P o l i c y Studies Organization, Fellow of the American Association
for the Advancement of Science and an i n t e r n a t i o n a l consultant on
evaluation research. Dr. Weiss has been awarded the Myrdal Prize for
Excellence i n Science by the American Evaluation Association.
Margaret K. Singh, Argonne National Laboratory
Ms. Singh i s the Transportation Systems Planner i n the Energy and
Environmental Systems D i v i s i o n of Argonne National Laboratory. Ms. Singh
i s responsible for a v a r i e t y o f studies assessing envi ronmental concerns
related to t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . One of her s p e c i a l t y areas i s a l t e r n a t i v e
f u e l s . She has worked on several t r a n s p o r t a t i o n research studies i n
f u e l s . She has also worked on several t r a n s p o r t a t i o n research studies i n
Chicago, including p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t a t i o n analyses. Ms. Singh was awarded
the Richard King Mellon Fellowship i n Urban Planning from the U n i v e r s i t y
of I l l i n o i s . In a d d i t i o n , she has published a r t i c l e s and reports i n
numerous technical and p r o f e s s i o n a l j o u r n a l s on the subjects of emission
c o n t r o l s , environmental concerns, a l t e r n a t i v e f u e l s , mass t r a n s i t and
f u t u r e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n outlooks.
John C. Elston, New Jersey Department of Environmental P r o t e c t i o n
Mr. Elston d i r e c t s the Bureau o f A i r Quality Planning and Evaluation, the
Bureau of A i r Monitoring and the Bureau of Transportation Control of the
New Jersey Department o f Environmental P r o t e c t i o n . He has served as a
consultant t o the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the World
Health Organization i n Korea and China. He has had numerous papers
published by the Society of Automotive Engineers, the A i r P o l l u t i o n
Control Association, the Instrument Society of America and the North
American Motor Vehicle Emission Conference. Mr. Elston has also
published a seminal work on v e h i c l e emission inspection programs i n the
United States.
The panel and Auditor General s t a f f convened i n June 1988 to develop a
methodology. The panel recommended a time s e r i e s a n a l y s i s be done as
follow- up to the analysis done for the 1983 Auditor General Vehicle
Emissions and lnspection Program r e p o r t . They also recommended we
perform surveys of the p u b l i c and mechanics t~ address questions
regarding p u b l i c behavior related to the VEI program, appropriateness and
adequacy of r e p a i r s , and circumvention. ( See Appendices for a
description of the time series methodology and the p u b l i c and mechanic
surveys.) In a d d i t i o n , they suggested p e r t i n e n t areas for audit work
such as review of EPA's p r e d i c t i v e t o o l f o r VEIP's effectiveness and
additional s t r a t e g i e s needed to improve a i r q u a l i t y .
The panel and s t a f f reconvened i n October 1988 to discuss conclusions of
the audit work. Upon completion of d r a f t i n g a u d i t f i n d i n g s , panel
members reviewed the d r a f t s and provided comments. The f i n a l audit
report r e f l e c t s t h e i r suggestions and recommendations to the extent we
were able to incorporate them.
Audit Scope
This audit was conducted to evaluate the Vehicle Emissions lnspection and
Maintenance Program i n c l u d i n g the duties performed by Hamilton Test
Systems and county assessors and focused on the f o l l o w i n g areas:
r The effectiveness of the Vehicle Emissions lnspection and Maintenance
Program i n a t t a i n i n g national a i r q u a l i t y standards.
0 The need f o r a d d i t i o n a l measures to a t t a i n national a i r q u a l i t y
standards.
0 The frequency of Hamilton Test Systems and ADEQ equipment a u d i t s at
vehicle emissions t e s t s t a t i o n s .
This report also contains Other Pertinent Information regarding the r o l e
of the county assessors' o f f i c e s i n the Vehicle Emissions Inspection and
Maintenance Program and ADEQ's evaluation e f f o r t s .
This audit was conducted i n accordance w i t h generally accepted government
a u d i t i n g standards.
The Auditor General and s t a f f express appreciation to the D i r e c t o r and
s t a f f of the Department o f Environmental Quality and to Hamilton Test
Systems for t h e i r cooperation and assistance during the a u d i t .
FINDING I
THE BENEFITS OF
THE VEHICLE EMISSIONS INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
HAVE BEEN OVERESTIMATED
The b e n e f i t s of the Vehicle Emissions Inspection and Maintenance Program
( VEIP) have been overestimated. As a r e s u l t , the State of Arizona must
adopt a d d i t i o n a l measures i f i t i s t o come i n t o compliance w i t h the
National Ambient A i r Qual i t y Standards ( NAAQS). Several s t u d i e s ,
i n c l u d i n g a recent time s e r i e s a n a l y s i s performed by the O f f i c e o f the
Auditor General, d i d not s u b s t a n t i a t e the large b e n e f i t s a t t r i b u t e d t o
VEIP by the Uni t e d S t a t e s Envi ronmental Protect ion Agency ( EPA) . These
studies vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y from EPA's p r o j e c t i o n s of program e f f e c t s , but
i t appears that the computer model ( MOBILE31 used by EPA to p r o j e c t the
e f f e c t s of VEIP overestimates the program's b e n e f i t s . The model appears
to both underestimate t o t a l v e h i c l e emissions and overestimate t h e
b e n e f i t s achieved by VEIP. Because VEIP i s a major strategy f o r
achieving clean a i r , adopting more r e a l i s t i c assumptions about the
program's impact w i l l require the S t a t e t o use a d d i t i o n a l measures to
meet the NAAQS.
VEIP was one of three Federally mandated programs included i n a l l State
Implementation Plans ( SIP) f o r s t a t e s requesting an extension of the 1982
deadline f o r compliance w i t h the NAAQS. To a s s i s t i n evaluating the
e f f e c t s of the program, EPA developed MOBILE3. EPA requires s t a t e s t o
use MOBILE3 to p r e d i c t f u t u r e emission l e v e l s under v a r i e d c o n d i t i o n s .
Using the model and assumptions of the e f f e c t s of VEIP,'" EPA
estimated that a VEI program implemented by December 1982 could reduce
carbon monoxide ( CO) and hydrocarbon ( HC) emissions by 25 percent ( 2 )
by December 1987. With t h i s goal i n mind, EPA established a new date f o r
( ' 1 Assumptions were based on the performance of the New Jersey VEIP which was i n
operati on.
(') Based on updated computer modeling, EPA l a t e r changed i t s estimate of VEIP b e n e f i t s
t o a 25 percent reduction f o r HC and 35 percent reduction f o r CO.
compliance of December 31, 1987. However, the Auditor General's 1983
VElP report concluded t h a t r e l i a n c e on VElP would not b r i n g Arizona i n t o
compliance by t h a t d a t e .
Although EPA estimated t h a t many areas would achieve a 25 percent
reduction i n emissions due t o VEIP, as of December 31, 1987, none of the
areas that implemented VEIP have submitted o f f i c i a l documentation
demonstrating compliance w i t h NAAQS.
Two Approaches for Assessing VEIP's Effects
Two approaches for assessing the e f f e c t s of VElP are time s e r i e s analysis
and computer simulation modeling. Time series methods assume t h a t the
appropriate i n d i c a t o r of the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of VElP i s the actual a i r
q u a l i t y . Conversely, computer simulation modeling methods do not
d i r e c t l y consider ambient a i r concentrations, b u t r a t h e r use v e h i c l e
t a i l p i p e emissions as the primary i n d i c a t o r of VElP e f f e c t i v e n e s s . Both
approaches have t h e i r m e r i t s and t h e i r drawbacks.
Time series analysis has been used to model the e f f e c t s o f VEIP on
ambient a i r q u a l i t y . T r a d i t i o n a l s t a t i s t i c a l methods are n o t s u i t e d for
use w i t h VElP data "' because they are not able to deal w i t h some of
the inherent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of those data. For example, environmental
data are highly seasonal. I n the case of GO, concentrations tend to peak
w i t h r e g u l a r i t y during w i n t e r months. A d d i t i o n a l l y , any a n a l y s i s of
data over time can be confounded by trends such as increasing
populat ion. These trends can give the appearance of growth ( or decay) i n
the data that may then be f a l s e l y a t t r i b u t e d t o the i n t e r v e n t i o n ( i . e . ,
VEIP). Time series analysis enables the user to account for seasonality
and for trends. A study o f New Jersey CO data concluded, " . . . time
series models represent useful t o o l s f o r short term p r e d i c t i o n o f a i r
qua1 i ty data."(*'
( 1 ) G. E. P. Box and G. C. Tiao, " I n t e r v e n t i o n Analysis w i t h Applications t o Economic and
Environmental Problems ." 1975.
( 2 ) Ledolter et a l . , " S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis of M u l t i p l e Time Series Associated With A i r
Q u a l i t y Data: New Jersey CO. Data." June 1978.
Computer simulation models have been used t o p r e d i c t the e f f e c t s of VEIP
on t a i l p i p e emissions. EPA i s c u r r e n t l y using the f o u r t h version of i t s
computer modeling system, MOBILE3. MOBILE3 p r e d i c t s emission levels
under various c o n d i t i o n s . In p a r t i c u l a r , the model has been used
extensively to determine the reduction i n emissions due to VEIP.
A d d i t i o n a l l y , the outputs of the model are used to p r e d i c t f u t u r e f l e e t
emissions which are then used as a baseline for determining the amount of
reduct ion needed to meet the NAAQS. MOBILE3 analyses are also used to
predict the b e n e f i t s of various clean a i r s t r a t e g i e s i n c l u d i n g the
oxygenated fuels program.
Although these two methods are commonly used to evaluate VEIP, both have
weaknesses and n e i t h e r i s able to analyze the f u l l range o f variables and
t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s which impact a i r q u a l i t y . A time series analysis
requires a r e l a t i v e l y long data series and specialized software and
t r a i n i n g , which are not always a v a i l a b l e . Time s e r i e s methodology
analyzes the inputs and outputs of a system but i s unable t o answer the
quest ion why a system does or does not work. ( See Appendix A f o r a more
complete d e s c r i p t i o n of time s e r i e s a n a l y s i s . ) Like time series
analysis, computer modeling has weaknesses. F i r s t , i t does not d i r e c t l y
address actual a i r q u a l i t y . I t assumes that test r e s u l t s showing lowered
t a i l p i p e emissions w i l l also s i g n i f y cleaner a i r . However, i t does not
account for other f a c t o r s such as waivers that may weaken or lessen the
r e l a t i o n s h i p between t e s t r e s u l t s and actual a i r q u a l i t y . Second, a
computer model must r e l y upon the assumptions o f the methodology to
predict future behavior. I f the data used i n the model are outdated, the
assumptions based on the data w i l l consequently be v i o l a t e d and the
model's p r e d i c t i o n s w i l l be i n c o r r e c t .
Several Studies, Including a Recent Time Series Analysis Conducted by
the Office of the Auditor General, Did Not Substantiate the Large
Benefits Attributed to VEIP by EPA
Several studies, i n c l u d i n g a recent time s e r i e s a n a l y s i s conducted by the
O f f i c e o f the Auditor General, d i d not substantiate the large b e n e f i t s
a t t r i b u t e d to VEIP by the EPA. The Auditor General's O f f i c e contracted
for a time series analysis that was completed i n 1983. The 1983 study
analyzed' four di f ferent measures of carbon monoxide over an eight- year
period. The study concluded that VEIP had not had a s t a t i s t i c a l l y
s i g n i f i c a n t impact on ambient CO l e v e l s .
11
The time s e r i e s a n a l y s i s was updated i n 1988. Due to changes i n data
monitoring techniques, only two d i f f e r e n t CO measures were analyzed.
However, the observation period was increased to fourteen years from 1974
t o 1987. As i n the 1983 study, some of the c o n t r i b u t i n g factors such as
t r a f f i c growth and changes i n meteorological conditions were accounted
for w i t h i n the time series models. Again, the time series found no
o v e r a l l e f f e c t of VElP on ambient CO l e v e l s . MOBILE3, however, credited
the program w i t h a 30 percent reduction of CO and a 15 percent reduction
of HC.
These updated f i n d i n g s are consistent w i t h the r e s u l t s of other a i r
q u a l i t y studies that show a much smaller reduction than predicted by
EPA. Tiao et a l . conducted an analysis i n Arizona i n 1984.'" Tiao's
models, l i k e the Auditor General's, accounted for the e f f e c t s of t r a f f i c
volume and meteorological changes. The largest decrease he found was 3.6
percent per year at one monitor. Tiao then incorporated estimates of the
Federal emission standards and EPA's model estimates of the e f f e c t s of
VElP i n t o h i s r e s u l t s and compared these models for the impact o f VEIP.
Based on t h i s comparison, he concluded, " Provided that the emission
factors are accurate, there i s then some evidence . . to support the
hypothesis that VElP has had a p o s i t i v e impact on ambient CO levels."
However, f u r t h e r study i n 1988 by the Auditor General indicates that the
emission factors given by MOBILE3 and used by Tiao may not be accurate.
( See pages 13 through 1 8 . )
S i m i l a r l y , several a d d i t i o n a l s t u d i e s of VElP do not appear to have shown
the large b e n e f i t s a t t r i b u t e d to the program by EPA. A time series
analysis of the Oregon VElP concluded that the average b e n e f i t from the
program was only between 6 and 12 percent. "' In a d d i t i o n , a study
conducted by the Society o f Automotive Engineers ( 3) used two
d i f f e r e n t s t a t i s t i c a l techniques, one of which was time s e r i e s , to
( ' 1 George Tiao, " Final Report on S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis of Aerometric Data t o Assess the
E f f e c t of the Arizona I/ M Program on Ambient CO A i r Q u a l i t y i n Phoenix, Arizona."
September 1984.
(*) George Tiao, " Final Report on S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis of the E f f e c t of Inspection and
Maintenance on Carbon Monoxide A i r Q u a l i t y i n Portland, Oregon." May 1981.
( 3) Kay H. Jones and James F. Walsh, " The Past and F u t u r e B e n e f i t s of Automobile
Inspection and Maintenance Programs." August 1983.
evaluate the effectiveness of several VElP programs, i n c l u d i n g Phoenix.
The paper reported t h a t , aside from the New Jersey program,'" there
was l i t t l e a i r q u a l i t y related evidence to support the c o n t e n t i o n t h a t
VElP was c o n t r i b u t i n g to improving a i r q u a l i t y CO l e v e l s . A d d i t i o n a l l y ,
the report s t a t e d t h a t future ambient a i r trend data are even more
u n l i k e l y t o show any s i g n i f i c a n t CO reduction trends due to VElP being
implemented.
The Computer Model Used by EPA to P r o j e c t
the E f f e c t s o f VEIP Appears to Overestimate
the Program's Benefits
The computer model, MOBILE3, used by EPA to p r o j e c t the e f f e c t s o f VElP
appears to overestimate the b e n e f i t s of the program. Although several
studies have been unable to a t t r i b u t e a l a r g e improvement i n ambient a i r
q u a l i t y to VEIP, MOBILE3 has c o n s i s t e n t l y c r e d i t e d the program w i t h a 25
percent reduction i n CO and HC. Based on a d e t a i l e d analysis of the
model, i t appears that MOBILE3 underestimates t o t a l vehicle emissions.
I n a d d i t i o n , the model appears t o overestimate the b e n e f i t s of VEIP.
This i s due to several factors i n c l u d i n g : use of a s m a l l , outdated data
base; o v e r c r e d i t i n g r e p a i r b e n e f i t s due to VEIP; and o v e r c r e d i t i n g VElP
for emission reduction of post- 1980 vehicles.
How MOBILE3 works - MOBILE3 i s a computer program that i s used as a
planning tool to estimate t o t a l f l e e t emissions and reductions based on
various clean a i r s t r a t e g i e s . One purpose o f the model i s t o p r e d i c t the
e f f e c t of VEI programs. MOBILE3 incorporates data from EPA vehicle
samples i n t o various equations t o p r e d i c t the average emission level of a
vehicle f l e e t at a given point i n time. MOBILE3 assumes that as a
( ) The New Jersey program was evaluated u s i n g p o p u l a t i o n exposure trends and MOBILE2.5
predictions of f u t u r e emission rates. A second study i n New Jersey found a 28
percent reduction i n CO due to the Federal new car standards, the e f f e c t s o f the
o i l and energy c r i s i s , and VEIP. However, the e f f e c t s of VEIP could not be
i s o l a t e d from t h e o t h e r v a r i a b l e s . Led01 t e r e t a l . , " S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis of
M u l t i p l e Time Series Associated With A i r O u a l i t y Data: New Jersey CO Data." June
1978.
vehicle accumulates m i leage i t s emission level wi I I increase. I n
a d d i t i o n , the modei assumes t h a t the emission level of some vehicles w i l l
increase at a much faster r a t e than normal. These v e h i c l e s , r e f e r r e d to
as " high e m i t t e r s , " are the ones t h a t should be i d e n t i f i e d by the VElP
t e s t . MOBILE3' s f i n a l output i s t h e p r e d i c t e d average emission level of
a vehicle f l e e t for a s p e c i f i e d calendar year. The average vehicle
emission, m u l t i p l i e d by estimated v e h i c l e m i l e s t r a v e l e d , i s the t o t a l
estimated emissions of a f l e e t .
In a VElP area, MOBILE3 assumes t h a t some of the h i g h e m i t t e r s w i I l be
i d e n t i f i e d . I t then assumes t h a t the high e m i t t e r s w i l l receive
maintenance and repair that w i l l reduce t h e i r emission l e v e l s . Thus, the
predicted f l e e t emission level i n a VElP area w i l l be lower than i n a
non- VEiP area. The percent d i f f e r e n c e between the predicted emission
IeveI i n each area i s the reduction i n emissions due to VEIP. I n
Arizona, MOBILE3 c u r r e n t l y p r e d i c t s a CO reduction o f 30 percent and a HC
reduction of 15 percent.
MOBILE3 appears t o underestimate actual f l e e t emissions - I t appears
that MOBILE3 underestimates f u t u r e emission l e v e l s . According t o an EPA
o f f i c i a l , the data that are incorporated i n t o MOBILE3 to c a l c u l a t e f u t u r e
emission levels are obtained under h i g h l y c o n t r o l l e d circumstances that
attempt to simulate r e a l - l i f e d r i v i n g c o n d i t i o n s . Actual in- use
emissions under a v a r i e t y o f conditions can vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y .
Likewise, the sample data used i n MOBILE3 are derived from low mileage
vehicles. Thus, MOBILE3 p r e d i c t i o n s f o r emission l e v e l s of high mileage
vehicles are nothing more than assumptions of how emission c o n t r o l s w i l l
d e t e r i o r a t e over time. A study i n exa as'') using mass balance
technique(') concluded t h a t actual CO emission l e v e l s obtained from
Michael Hlavinka and Jerry B u l l i n , " Val i d a t i o n of Mobile Source Emission Estimates
Using Mass Balance Techniques." August 1988.
( 2 ) The mass balance technique i s designed as a t o o l f o r p r e d i c t i n g emission factors
from an experimental data base. It i s based on the p r i n c i p l e t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n c e
i n the amount of a p a r t i c u l a r p o l l u t a n t flowing past a downward v e r t i c a l plane and
an upward v e r t i c a l plane i s due t o the t r a f f i c on the roadway.
in- use vehicles were 1.5 to 2.2 times greater than those predicted by
MOBILE3. I f these data are c o r r e c t , MOBILE3 i s g r e a t l y underestimating
actual vehicle emissions.
Another factor that may cause MOBILE3 to underestimate actual emission
levels i s that the model does not account for high e m i t t i n g v e h i c l e s t h a t
are issued a waiver. The model assumes t h a t a l l pre- 1981 vehicles and a
percentage of high e m i t t i n g , post- 1980 v e h i c l e s t h a t are i d e n t i f i e d by
the VElP t e s t obtain s i g n i f i c a n t emission reductions due t o r e p a i r . I n
a c t u a l i t y , 15 percent of the vehicles t h a t f a i l the VElP t e s t i n Arizona
are never able to pass the t e s t and eventually receive a waiver.
MOBILE3' s limited data base appears to result in underestimates of fleet
emissions and overestimates of VElP benefits - MOBILE3' s l i m i t e d
database appears to underestimate f l e e t emissions and overestimate VElP
b e n e f i t s . MOBILE3 uses two data bases, one f o r pre- 1981 vehicles and one
for post- 1980 v e h i c l e s , t o p r e d i c t average emission l e v e l s . Both samples
are based on a small number of vehicles and may not accurately r e f l e c t
the e f f e c t s o f a VEI program. For example, the sample of pre- 1981
vehicles was based on low- mileage cars r e q u i r i n g the model to use
assumptions as to how vehicles w i l l d e t e r i o r a t e over time. I n a d d i t i o n ,
the samples used t o p r e d i c t post- 1980 f a c t o r s may not be representative
of the actual population because p a r t i c i p a n t s were selected through
d i r e c t mail and telephone s o l i c i t a t i o n and o f f e r e d incentives to
p a r t i c i p a t e . According to one researcher, " I f there i s any r e l a t i o n s h i p
between response t o those incentives and owner maintenance or d r i v i n g
h a b i t s then a major source of e r r o r e x i s t s . ""' For example, people
who maintain t h e i r vehicles on a regular basis may be more l i k e l y to
agree t o p a r t i c i p a t e than those who do not perform regular maintenance.
Thus, EPA may have tested v e h i c l e s t h a t tend to be b e t t e r maintained and
running cleaner than the average v e h i c l e .
( 1 John El ston, " Motor V e h i c l e Inspection/ Mai ntenance Program: A C r i t i c a l Review."
1981.
MOBILE3 overestimates the effectiveness of repai rs - MOB1 LE3
overestimates the b e n e f i t s of repai r s . MOBILE3 assumes that once a high
e m i t t i n g v e h i c l e has been i d e n t i f i e d ( i . e . , i t f a i l s the VElP t e s t ) , i t
w i l l receive appropriate repair and maintenance that w i l l s i g n i f i c a n t l y
decrease i t s emission l e v e l . This assumption may be i n c o r r e c t for three
major reasons.
F i r s t proper repair and maintenance for post- 1980 vehicles i s not as - 9
e f f e c t i v e as MOBILE3 assumes. EPA o r i g i n a l l y believed that correct
repair of these v e h i c l e s r e s u l t e d i n a s i g n i f i c a n t emission reduction.
However, f u r t h e r study indicates that even the a p p r o p r i a t e r e p a i r i s not
nearly as b e n e f i c i a l as EPA thought.(" Thus, MOBILE3 i s
overestimating the effectiveness o f proper r e p a i r .
Second, several s t u d i e s i n d i c a t e t h a t many commercial mechanics are not
able t o diagnose properly and repair emission related problems:
a A 1980 EPA report concluded, i n p a r t , ". . the commercial repair
industry does not c u r r e n t l y adjust i d l e mixture and speed p r o p e r l y . .
. A lack of t r a i n i n g and proper equipment ( tachometers and exhaust
analyzers) i s apparent i n the performance o f t h i s type of
maintenance . I' ( 2 )
a A 1987 C a l i f o r n i a study concluded t h a t o n l y 46 percent of the 1980
and l a t e r vehicles w i t h obvious defects were e f f e c t i v e l y
repai red. ( 3)
a An Auditor General survey of Arizona mechanics( 4) found t h a t o f
those surveyed, 40 percent d i d not follow the proper procedures for
repairing a v e h i c l e w i t h high HC emissions and 92 percent d i d not
follow the proper procedures for r e p a i r i n g a v e h i c l e w i t h high CO
emissions.
a An e a r l i e r study i n Phoenix reported, " The average effectiveness of
repairs for each group of f a c i l i t i e s was much less than that judged
s a t i s f a c t o r y . Only 15 percent of a l l repairs were s a t i s f a c t o r y or
better . I t ( 5)
EPA Handout a t MOBILE4 Workshop, received September 1988.
( 2 ) John C. Shelton, " E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f I d l e Adjustment on L i g h t Duty Trucks of
Commercial Repair F a c i l i t i e s . " June 1980.
( 3 ) The C a l i f o r n i a I/ M Review Committee, " Evaluation o f the C a l i f o r n i a Smog Check
Program." Apri 1 1987.
( 4) The O f f i c e o f t h e A u d i t o r General contracted w i t h Behavior Research to conduct a
survey o f 201 mechanics. ( See Appendix 0.)
( 5 ) R. Bruce Michael, " Analysis o f I d l e Adjustments by Commercial Repai r F a c i l i t i e s i n
Phoenix. "
Third, some people circumvent the VElP t e s t . Ninety- four percent of the
mechanics surveyed said they have been asked to readjust a v e h i c l e a f t e r
i t has passed the VElP t e s t . Seventy- eight percent o f them said t h i s i s
somewhat or very common. A d d i t i o n a l l y , e i g h t percent of the people
surveyed i n the p u b l i c survey admit that they had t h e i r vehicle
readjusted a f t e r passing the VElP t e s t . This means that MOBILE3 may be
giving some vehicles c r e d i t for long term repair b e n e f i t s when i n r e a l i t y
the benefits may be extremely short term.
S i m i l a r l y , 93 percent of the mechanics said they have been asked to
adjust a vehicle to " pass the emission t e s t " rather than conduct the
appropriate and needed emission related maintenance and r e p a i r .
Eighty- eight percent o f them said t h i s i s somewhat o r very common.
According to an EPA o f f i c i a l , i t i s possible to a d j u s t a vehicle so that
i t w i l l pass the t e s t but f u l l emission reduction b e n e f i t s , as c r e d i t e d
by MOBILE3, are not achieved.
MOBILE3 may give too much c r e d i t for i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f high emitting,
post- 1980 vehicles - MOBILE3 may be overestimating the number of high
e m i t t i n g , post- 1980 vehicles that are i d e n t i f i e d by . the VEIP t e s t and
l a t e r receive emission reduct ions due t o r e p a i r . MOBILE3 assumes that a
percentage of the post- 1980 f a i lures w i I I be high emitters that w i 1 1
receive appropriate r e p a i r s . An Auditor General review of MOBILE3' s
equations for VElP c r e d i t and the actual vehicle f a i l u r e rates w i t h i n the
Arizona program indicates that MOBILE3 may be overestimating the number
of h i g h e m i t t e r s t h a t a r e i d e n t i f i e d and repaired. Thus, MOBILE3 may be
overestimating the e f f e c t s of VEIP!"
The only way f o r an area t o determine if the MOBILE3 c r e d i t and t h e v e h i c l e
f a i l u r e s are comparable i s to t e s t vehicles u s i n g t h e Federal Test Procedure
( FTP). The FTP involves c o l l e c t i o n of a d i l u t e d exhaust gas sample i n a small
p l a s t i c bag by means o f a constant volume sampler. The t e s t can take up t o 48
hours and can cost up t o $ 3,000 p e r v e h i c l e . Arizona has r e c e n t l y set up an FTP
l a b o r a t o r y and intends t o t e s t f o r the actual number o f high emitters t h a t f a i l the
VEIP t e s t . ( See Other P e r t i n e n t I n f o r ~ n a t i o n , pages 28 and 29 f o r f u r t h e r
discussion of FTP research.)
Benefits o f VElP a r e o v e r s t a t e d - MOBILE3 appears to overestimate the
b e n e f i t s of VEIP.") Exactly how much i t overestimates the program's
b e n e f i t s i s not known. However, a recent study conducted for
C a l i f ~ r n i a ' ~ ' suggests that VEIP b e n e f i t s are considerably
overestimated. The study used the Federal Test Procedure to test
v e h i c l e s t h a t were l i k e l y to f a i l the C a l i f o r n i a VElP t e s t . The study
monitored the number of vehicles that a c t u a l l y f a i l e d , and then retested
f a i l e d vehicles a f t e r they received emission reducing r e p a i r s . Thus, the
researchers were able to determine actual emission reductions due to
r e p a i r . The study concluded that the C a l i f o r n i a VElP resulted i n a 9.8
percent reduction i n CO and an 11 percent reduction i n HC. I n c o n t r a s t ,
EPA estimates that VEIP w i l l r e s u l t i n an emission reduction of 25
percent, more than twice the reduction found i n the C a l i f o r n i a study.
More R e a l i s t i c Assumptions about the Impact o f VElP W i l l
Requi re Arizona t o Use Addi t ional Measures to Meet
the National Ambient Air Q u a l i t v Standards
VElP i s a major strategy for achieving clean a i r i n Arizona. Both the
time s e r i e s a n a l y s i s and the analysis of MOBILE3' s operations indicate
the b e n e f i t s of the program have been overestimated. Consistent w i t h our
1983 r e p o r t , Arizona w i l l need to implement a d d i t i o n a l measures to meet
NAAQS by using more r e a l i s t i c assumptions about the impact o f VEIP. I f ,
indeed, the model i s underestimating the actual emissions of a f l e e t ,
then the base that EPA uses to determine how much emission reduction must
occur to meet the NAAQS i s f a u l t y . This problem, compounded w i t h the
p o s s i b i l i t y that MOBILE3 overestimates the b e n e f i t s of VEIP and other
programs, places states i n a precarious s i t u a t i o n . Not only are they
underestimating the problem that e x i s t s , but also they are overestimating
the b e n e f i t s they are achieving i n t r y i n g to solve the problem.
( 1 ) EPA i s c u r r e n t l y c r e a t i n g an updated version of MOBILE3 t h a t w i l l be called
MOBILE4. However, i t i s possible t h a t MOBILE4 w i l l have many of the same problems
as MOBICE3. No changes have been made t o the pre- 1981 data base and EPA t e s t i n g of
post- 1980 vehicles i s decl i ni ng.
( 2 ) C a l i f o r n i a I/ M Review Committee, " Eva1 uation of the C a l i f o r n i a Smog Check Program."
A p r i l 1987.
The State Implementation Plan i s based upon the estimated reductions t h a t '
must occur i n future years and the estimated b e n e f i t of each program.
These estimates are based on MOBILE3 p r e d i c t ions. The Arizona Department
of Environmental Q u a l i t y ( ADEQ) recognized that MOBILE3' s p r e d i c t i o n s may
not be accurate. Thus, ADEQ attempted to adjust MOBILE3' s f i g u r e s t o
more accurately represent real world occurrences. Based on t h i s
adjustment, ADEQ determined that Arizona would need an a d d i t i o n a l 18.5
percent reduction i n emissions to comply w i t h the NAAQS by 1995.
However, EPA would not accept the Arizona adjustments and, r e l y i n g on
MOBILE3 outputs, concluded that Arizona would only need a 7.8 percent
reduction to comply by 1995. To meet the 1995 standards, EPA w i l l
require Arizona to commit to clean a i r programs p r e d i c t e d to r e s u l t i n an
emission reduction of only 7.8 percent rather than 18.5 percent. I f
Arizona i s going to achieve clean a i r , a d d i t i o n a l measures beyond those
adopted i n the SIP w i l l be needed.
Recomnendations
1. The L e g i s l a t u r e and the Department of Environmental Q u a l i t y should
recognize that the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of VEiP has been overestimated and
take steps to ensure t h a t a d d i t i o n a l measures are implemented to
b r i n g the State i n t o compliance w i t h the NAAQS.
2. The Department of Environmental Q u a l i t y should proceed w i t h i t s plan
to conduct i t s own e v a l u a t i o n , using FTP equipment, of the accuracy
of predicted VElP emission reductions.
FINDING II
ADDITIONAL CLEAN AIR MEASURES ARE NEEDED
TO ASSURE THAT ARIZONA ACHIEVES AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
As noted i n Finding I , the Vehicle Emissions Inspection and Maintenance
Program ( VEIP) i s not having the predicted impact. As a r e s u l t ,
additional measures are needed i f Arizona i s to achieve Federal a i r
q u a l i t y standards. Emission control s t r a t e g i e s , such as VElP and
oxygenated f u e l s , cannot be r e l i e d upon t o b r i n g about compliance.
Consequently, increased emphasis on t r a f f i c c o n t r o l measures, p r i m a r i l y
those that reduce vehicles miles t r a v e l e d , a r e needed to assure
compliance w i t h a i r q u a l i t y standards.
Arizona's f e d e r a l l y approved State Implementation Plan ( SIP) p r o j e c t s
that a 24 percent reduction i n a i r p o l l u t i o n w i l l be needed for the State
to achieve compliance w i t h ambient a i r q u a l i t y standards by 1991. The
plan r e l i e s heavily on VElP improvements and oxygenated fuels to meet
t h i s goal. These two emission control programs account for approximately
92 percent of the a n t i c i p a t e d reductions. The remaining 8 percent
reduction comes from t r a f f i c control measures, pr imari l y those designed
to reduce vehicle miles t r a v e l e d . Moreover, the needed 24 percent
reduction was calculated based on the assumption that VElP has already
reduced em i ss i ons by 25 percent .
Emission Control Strategies Cannot
Be Relied Upon To B r i n g About Compliance
Emission control s t r a t e g i e s cannot be re1 ied upon to achieve a i r qua1 i t y
standards. VElP b e n e f i t s are overestimated and the actual impact of
Arizona's oxygenated fuels program i s not yet c e r t a i n . Moreover,
benefits from these, and f u t u r e emission control s t r a t e g i e s w i l l l i k e l y
be o f f s e t by continued increases i n t r a f f i c growth.
VElP - As noted i n Finding I , VEIP's impact on a i r pol l u t i o n i s less
than was expected. When the program was f i r s t implemented i t was widely
believed that i t would lead to compliance w i t h the a i r q u a l i t y standards.
However, t h i s has not been the case. Despi te be i ng c red i ted by the EPA
w i t h having one of the best VEI programs i n the n a t i o n , Arizona i s s t i l l
unable to comply w i t h Federal standards.
Moreover, by continuing to assume f u l l b e n e f i t s for VEIP, Arizona's
current State Implementation Plan underestimates the emission reductions
needed t o achieve compliance w i t h a i r q u a l i t y standards. As a r e s u l t , i t
i s u n l i k e l y that the State w i l l achieve compliance by 1991.
Oxygenated fuels - While enactment of an oxygenated f u e l s program i s a
p o s i t i v e step, p r o j e c t i o n s regarding t h e impact o f Arizona's program on
a i r q u a l i t y may be overestimated as w e l l . To confirm reductions
projected for Arizona, ADEQ plans to t e s t t h e a c t u a l e f f e c t s of
oxygenated fuels on a i r q u a l i t y .
There are two reasons why the impact of Arizona's axygenated fuels
program may be too o p t i m i s t i c . F i r s t , the methodology used i n
c a l c u l a t i n g emission reductions r e s u l t i n g from oxygenated f u e l s may be
flawed. The estimated reductions used by EPA f o r oxygenated f u e l s come
from a r e l a t i v e l y small sample of 346 cars. F u r t h e r , the cars i n t h i s
sample were not a l l tested w i t h the same f u e l , but rather w i t h d i f f e r e n t
fuels grouped together by oxygen content. The EPA used the r e s u l t s o f
t h i s l i m i t e d study t o make nationwide p r e d i c t i o n s . Second, emission
reductions calculated for oxygenated f u e l s depend on adjustments made to
MOBILE3. Since MOBILE3 d a t a a r e i n v a l i d ( see Finding I ) , a n t i c i p a t e d
reductions from the program may not be enough t o b r i n g about compliance.
There are no data a v a i l a b l e nationwide to evaluate the actual e f f e c t an
oxygenated fuels program w i l l have on a i r q u a l i t y . Denver i s the only
area other than Arizona t h a t has implemented an oxygenated fuels
program. The actual impact of Denver's oxygenated fuels program on a i r
q u a l i t y i s s t i l l not f u l l y c e r t a i n . Colorado o f f i c i a l s have s t a t e d they
are pleased w i t h t h e i r program's r e s u l t s . O f f i c i a l s there s t a t e Denver's
oxygenated fuels program reduced CO levels by 8 t o 11 percent i n c e r t a i n
areas of the s t a t e . However, these reductions are estimates based on
p r o j e c t i o n s and MOBILE3 estimates and are not d i r e c t measures. As noted
above, these p r o j e c t i o n s may not be v a l i d .
ADEQ claims i t may be possible to increase the oxygen content i f program
benefits are overestimated. However, some a u t h o r i t i e s have stated that
the oxygen content of Arizona's program cannot be increased much beyond
i t s present maximum l e v e l . Further increases i n oxygen content could
decrease a v e h i c l e ' s d r i v a b i l i t y and increase the emissions of other
harmful p o l l u t a n t s .
ADEQ plans to t e s t the e f f e c t s of oxygenated fuels to c o n f i r m p r o j e c t e d
reductions i n emissions. ADEQ recently purchased t e s t equipment needed
to calculate a c t u a l , as opposed to estimated, b e n e f i t s . The department
has reported i t w i l l use i t s new t e s t equipment for t h i s purpose. An
ADEQ o f f i c i a l stated the agency w i l l use the r e s u l t s of these and other
outside studies to determine i f increasing oxygen content i s b e n e f i c i a l
and/ or feasible.
I f anticipated gains from the oxygenated fuels program are not f u l l y
realized, attainment of a i r q u a l i t y standards by 1991 w i l l be f u r t h e r
impeded. Emission reductions from oxygenated fuels account for 74
percent of the reductions needed to reach attainment.
Emission control strategies and the impact of traffic growth - Other
options for lowering emissions may become a v a i l a b l e . New emission
reduction s t r a t e g i e s would help compensate for the problems w i t h current
emission programs. However, b e n e f i t s from these as well the b e n e f i t s
from the programs discussed e a r l i e r w i l l l i k e l y be o f f s e t by continued
t r a f f i c growth.
A committee of environmental experts, consisting o f o f f i c i a l s from eleven
environmental p r o t e c t i o n agencies, recently reported on the status of the
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program. This group, c a l l e d the Northeast
States for Coordinated A i r Use Management ( NESCAUM) Mobile Source
Committee, published i t s report i n July 1988. Two of our panel members
recommended t h i s report because of i t s thorough review o f clean a i r
issues. According to the July 1988 r e p o r t s , numerous proposals have been
suggested to f u r t h e r lower emissions. I n a d d i t i o n t o t i g h t e r emission
standards, the NESCAUM report c i t e s other emission reduction proposals
which would:
a Require f l e e t operators to make increasing use of low p o l l u t i n g ,
a l t e r n a t i v e fueled v e h i c l e s ;
a Ban lead i n gasoline beginning i n 1990;
e P r o h i b i t the manufacture and sale of emission c o n t r o l defeat devices;
a Extend the useful l i f e for the auto standards t o apply for the f u l l
vehicle l i f e [ I 0 years or 100,000 mi l e s l rather than the current h a l f
l i fe [ 5 years or 50,000 mi l e s l .
In a d d i t i o n , ADEQ has noted that reducing fuel v o l a t i l i t y " may r e s u l t i n
dramatic CO emissions reductions. ""' Fuel v o l a t i l i t y r e f e r s t o the
extent which fuel evaporates i n t o the atmosphere. Energy and
Environmental Analysis, I n c . , a consultant to ADEQ reported current
research indicates that reducing fuel v o l a t i l i t y may reduce CO, but
cautioned, " The scope of i n d i v i d u a l research i s o f t e n l i m i t e d and show a
wide range of r e s u l t s . In f a c t , i n some cases carbon monoxide a c t u a l l y
increased . . ." One of our panel members, a planner for the Energy
and Environmental Systems D i v i s i o n of Argonne National Laboratory,
concurs w i t h t h i s assessment.
U l t i m a t e l y , b e n e f i t s from emission control s t r a t e g i e s w i l I l i k e l y be
o f f s e t by continued increases i n v e h i c l e m i l e s t r a v e l e d by m o t o r i s t s .
The NESCAUM July 1988 report concluded:
" Whatever success i s achieved i n reducing per mile emissions from
vehicles can eventually be eroded by continued high growth rates i n
the number and use of v e h i c l e s . . . .
I t i s now c l e a r t h a t technological s o l u t i o n s to the motor vehicle
p o l l u t i o n problem are increasingly o f f s e t by growth i n the vehicle
population. Therefore, long term s o l u t i o n of the nonattainment
problem i s dependent on cpming to g r i p s w i t h the o v e r a l l growth
i ssue .
( ' I Arizona Department of Environmental Qua1 i t y , Memorandum t o the O f f i c e o f the
A u d i t o r General's O f f i c e , November 30, 1988.
The high growth rates i n Phoenix and Tucson, t h e r e f o r e , c o n t i n u a l l y
impede emission c o n t r o l s t r a t e g i e s from achieving t h e i r desired e f f e c t .
Between 1980 and 1987, Phoenix had a vehicle miles traveled increase of
approximately 25 percent, while Tucson had an increase of approximately
18 percent. These high growth rates are expected to continue. T r a f f i c
growth i n Phoenix i s expected to increase by approximately 57 percent
between 1987 and 1995. S i m i l a r l y , v e h i c l e m i l e s t r a v e l e d i n Tucson i s
projected to increase by about 48 percent for the same period.
Increased Emphasis on Traffic Control Measures Are Needed to
Insure that Arizona Attains Air Quality Standards
Our analysis shows that t r a f f i c control measures, primari l y those which
reduce the vehicle miles driven by m o t o r i s t s , w i l l need to be promoted
more aggressively to a t t a i n current clean a i r standards. The level of
public commitment to reducing the number o f m i l e s d r i v e n , however, must
increase i f these types of s t r a t e g i e s a r e t o work. T r a f f i c control
s t r a t e g i e s also must be well coordinated to be implemented e f f e c t i v e l y .
Level of comnitment must increase - The l e v e l o f commitment to t r a f f i c
control s t r a t e g i e s , s p e c i f i c a l l y those designed to reduce v e h i c l e miles
driven, must increase t o insure attainment w i t h a i r q u a l i t y standards.
Arizona's current State Implementation Plan contains a v a r i e t y of t r a f f i c
control s t r a t e g i e s . The Plan includes short range t r a n s i t improvements,
a t r a v e l reduct ion program, p r o v i s i o n s f o r high- occupancy- vehi c l e lanes,
and an expanded r e g i o n a l r i d e s h a r i n g program. Some p a r t s of the Plan
have already been acted upon. For example, recent l e g i s l a t i o n enacted a
mandatory employer- based t r i p reduction program. However, these t r a f f i c
control s t r a t e g i e s , designed p r i m a r i l y to reduce the v e h i c l e m i l e s driven
by motorists, represent less than 10 percent of the S t a t e ' s Plan to
reduce emissions and improve a i r q u a l i t y .
The commitment t o implement these types of programs i s s t i l l r e l a t i v e l y
weak. For example, the Arizona Center For Law i n the P u b l i c I n t e r e s t
( ACLPI) c r i t i c i z e d the S t a t e ' s current clean a i r plans for f a i l i n g to
" commit actual implementation of needed control measures." According to
the ACLPI, the language i n current plans lacks c l e a r commitment e i t h e r i n
resource a l l o c a t i o n s or enforcement provisions. Current proposals do i n
fact use ambiguous language such as:
e Encourage a l t e r n a t i v e workdays such as a four- day work week.
a Encourage the use of park and r i d e l o t s and provide a d d i t i o n a l park
and r i d e capacity where appropriate, e s p e c i a l l y along new freeways.
[ Emphas i s added I
As a resul t , past measures designed to reduce vehicle mi les traveled have
not proven successful . Although Phoenix has implemented pub1 i c t ransi t
improvements, the C i t y ' s bus system i s rated l a s t among comparable c i t i e s
i n miles o f t r a n s i t per c a p i t a .
A survey conducted for our Off ice by the Behavior Research Center [ BRCI
indicates that the p u b l i c may be ready to reduce miles driven. I n a 1986
public opinion survey conducted by BRC for the C i t y o f Phoenix, motorists
did not strongly support clean a i r s t r a t e g i e s designed to keep them from
d r i v i n g . However, a survey performed by BRC f o r our O f f i c e showed
greater support for programs designed to reduce v e h i c l e m i l e s t r a v e l e d .
For example, 66 percent of the respondents stated that a f i r s t rate
t r a n s i t system was an important clean a i r s t r a t e g y .
A coordinated e f f o r t i s necessary - I f s t r a t e g i e s f o r reducing vehicle
miles traveled a r e t o be e f f e c t i v e , they must be coordinated and
implemented i n concert w i t h each other. According to a 1986 report
prepared by Cambridge Systematics, I n c . , i t i s widely accepted that
implementing several t r a n s p o r t a t i o n measures at the same time
s i g n i f i c a n t l y enhances each's i n d i v i d u a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s . ( I ) A t r i p
reduction ordinance, for example, w i l l be more e f f e c t i v e i f i t features a
mixture of incentives and d i s i n c e n t i v e s . The f o l l o w i n g case examples
i l l u s t r a t e how programs have been successfully implemented i n other
communities:
( ' 1 Cambridge Systematics, I n c . , " Improved A i r Qua1 i t y I n Mari copa and Pima Counties -
The A p p l i c a b i l i t y o f Transportation Measures," Cambridge, Massachusetts, November
1986.
a A company i n Los Angeles i n s t i t u t e d a carpool ing program where the
number of single occupant vehicles dropped from 42 percent to 8
percent. This program worked because parking fees of over $ 50 per
month were phased i n for solo d r i v e r s while they remained free for
carpoolers.
a A high occupancy v e h i c l e lane on the North Freeway i n Houston was
successful because i t was implemented i n conjunction w i t h improved,
more frequent express bus services, a vanpool promotion and matching
program, new park and r i d e l o t s , and marketing promotion.
RECOWENDATION
1. The Legislature and the Department of Environmental Q u a l i t y should
take the lead r o l e i n emphasizing s t r a t e g i e s that control t r a f f i c and
reduce vehicle miles t r a v e l e d . These s t r a t e g i e s should:
r Be coordinated to increase e f f e c t i v e n e s s ,
r Require stronger commitment of resources for implementation arid
enforcement, and
r Be evaluated for t h e i r impact.
FINDING Ill
ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL PROBLEMS CITED DURING OUR LAST REVIEW
HAVE BEEN CORRECTED
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o n t r o l problems c i t e d d u r i n g a 1983 performance review of
the Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program have been corrected. In
contrast to our l a s t review, the Arizona Department of Environmental
Qual i t y ( ADEQ) and Hami l ton Test Systems ( HTS) now take adequate steps to
insure accurate and r e l i a b l e emissions t e s t i n g .
Administrative control problems corrected - Periodic f i e l d a u d i t s are
necessary to assure that equipment used for emissions t e s t i n g i s accurate
and r e l i a b l e . A f i e l d audit i s an inspection which uses a blend of gases
of known proportions to t e s t the a b i l i t y of equipment to sample and
analyze emissions a c c u r a t e l y . The i n t e n t of the audit i s to approximate
actual emissions t e s t c o n d i t i o n s . Audits are performed by both the
Department and HTS.
During the last review, we found that the Bureau of Vehicle Emissions
Inspection, now c a l l e d the Vehicle Emissions Section, d i d not conduct the
number of f i e l d audits r e q u i r e d d u r i n g f i s c a l year 1981- 82. The Bureau
conducted only 56 percent of the required f i e l d audits of HTS s t a t i o n s
that year. In a d d i t i o n , the Bureau did not conduct timely inspections of
f l e e t and registered equipment used by p r i v a t e faci l i t i e s .
These d e f i c i e n c i e s have since been addressed by the Department. A review
of inspection f i l e s from January 1988 through the f i r s t week of May 1988
showed a l l audits of HTS s t a t i o n s were completed during the s p e c i f i e d
timeframe. Moreover, a f i l e review of the i n s p e c t i o n t i m e l i n e s s of 78
randomly selected registered analyzers revealed that ADEQ conducts 93
percent of these a u d i t s w i t h i n the s p e c i f i e d n i n e t y days. Allowing for a
five- day grace period, ADEQ conducts 99 percent of these a u d i t s w i t h i n
the s p e c i f i e d timeframe.
HTS, l i k e ADEQ, has corrected control problems c i t e d during the l a s t
a u d i t . HTS conducted only 53 percent of the f i e l d audits required by i t s
i n t e r n a l company p o l i c i e s i n f i s c a l year 1981- 82. A review of HTS
inspect ion f i les from J u l y 1987 through September 1988 showed the company
now meets and exceeds i t s current p o l i c y of performing semi- monthly
i nspec t ions.
I n a d d i t i o n , a f i l e review showed continued good performance by HTS i n
other q u a l i t y c o n t r o l areas as w e l l . For example, t e s t equipment used by
HTS i s p e r i o d i c a l l y c a l i b r a t e d to ensure accurate recordings of gas
concentrations. During the l a s t a u d i t , a f i l e review showed the
contractor i n compliance w i t h c a l i b r a t i o n requirements. During the
current a u d i t , a three- month review o f c a l i b r a t i o n checks sh~ wed
continued compliance. I n a d d i t i o n , we found evidence t h a t preventive
maintenance a c t i v i t i e s important to a w e l l - r u n o p e r a t i o n a r e r o u t i n e l y
performed by HTS.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
During the audit we developed other p e r t i n e n t information regarding the
County Assessor's r o l e i n the Vehicle Emissions lnspection and Maintenance
Program and the need for ongoing evaluation of the program and other clean
a i r s t r a t e g i e s .
The County Assessor's Role
In Session Laws 1985, Chapter 266, Section 13 the L e g i s l a t u r e d i r e c t e d the
Auditor General's O f f i c e to review the county assessor's duties r e l a t e d t o
the Vehicle Emissions lnspection and Maintenance Program.
The Maricopa County Assessor's O f f i c e and the Arizona Department of
Transportation, Motor Vehicle D i v i s i o n ( MVD) i n Pima County are no longer
responsible for c o l l e c t i n g emission inspection fees f o r t e s t s conducted
a f t e r January 1 , 1988. To improve cost- effectiveness the contract was
amended to allow the contractor to c o l l e c t fees at the time of
inspection. However, the County Assessor's O f f i c e and MVD i n Pima County
s t i l l c o l l e c t monies for t e s t s conducted before January 1988.
Before January 1, 1988, the Maricopa County Assessor's Off ice and MVD i n
Pima County c o l l e c t e d the monies due f o r v e h i c l e emissions t e s t s . An
individual would have his/ her vehicle tested as a requirement of
r e g i s t e r i n g i t . A t the time of r e g i s t r a t i o n the m o t o r i s t would pay the
t e s t i n g fee along w i t h the r e g i s t r a t i o n fee. The County forwarded these
monies to the State. The State then paid Hamilton Test Systems ( HTS) for
conducting the inspection.
In an attempt t o improve cost- effectiveness, the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality ( ADEQ) i n i t i a t e d changing the method of c o l l e c t i n g
inspection fees. C o l l e c t i n g and t r a n s f e r r i n g inspection monies created
a d d i t i o n a l tasks for the Assessor's O f f i c e , MVD and ADEQ. In a d d i t i o n ,
HTS was d i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h the lag time between the time of inspection and
the time i t received payment. HTS also f e l t i t may not have been
receiving payment f o r some t e s t s i t conducted . ( " Furthermore, ADEQ was
concerned t h e i n s p e c t i o n fee would have to be increased to compensate for
the unpaid t e s t s .
Because of these problems, ADEQ and HTS agreed to amend the contract to
change the payment procedure. '" Beginning January 1, 1988, the
vehicle owner i s required to pay HTS d i r e c t l y a t the time of inspection.
HTS must report monthly to ADEQ the number of inspections performed and
the amount of fees c o l l e c t e d . I n a d d i t i o n , HTS must reimburse ADEQ $ 8,100
q u a r t e r l y for ". . . earned i n t e r e s t on the funds not a v a i l a b l e to the
Department r e s u l t i n g from the Contractor c o l l e c t i n g and r e t a i n i n g such
fees ."
The Assessor's O f f i c e and MVD f e e l t h a t the change has been advantageous
for t h e i r o f f i c e s . I t has reduced t h e i r workload. However, the County
Assessor's O f f i c e and MVD continue to c o l l e c t any emission fees that were
due and payable to Hamilton Test Systems before 1988. For example, a
vehicle tested and due to be r e g i s t e r e d i n November 1987 b u t n o t
registered u n t i l February 1988 would s t i l l be required to pay the
inspection fee a t the time of r e g i s t r a t i o n . Again, the County and MVD
forward t h i s money to the State. From January through September 1988, the
Mar i copa County Assessor has co l lected $ 283,942 and MVD has co l lected
$ 51,352 for t e s t s done before 1988. The amount col lected each month i s
s t e a d i l y d e c l i n i n g . Maricopa c o l l e c t e d $ 210,154 i n January but i n
September i t c o l l e c t e d only $ 602.
Need for Ongoing Evaluation
I n response to a L e g i s l a t i v e request, our O f f i c e reviewed and was
c r i t i c a l of the ADEQ's January 1988 in- house evaluation of the Vehicle
Emissions and Inspection and Maintenance Program ( VEIP). The
Department's e v a l u a t i o n , required by the Omnibus Air Q u a l i t y B i l l of
1987, concluded that VEIP i s responsible for a 30 percent improvement
No payment would be made when a v e h i c l e f a i l e d the emissions t e s t and the owner
chose not t o r e g i s t e r the vehicle. Because c o l l e c t i o n was a t t h e time of
r e g i s t r a t i o n , no money would be c o l l e c t e d . Consequently, HTS would not be paid f o r
a t e s t performed.
( 2 ) A. R. S. 549- 543. C allows f o r the contractor t o c o l l e c t t h e f e e at t h e time of
inspection or the County Assessor's O f f i c e t o c o l l e c t it a t the time of
r e g i s t r a t i o n . The s t a t u t e s were amended i n 1985 t o a l l o w t h e c o n t r a c t o r t o c o l l e c t
fees .
32
i n ambient a i r q u a l i t y . Our O f f i c e questioned ADEQ's reliance on
computer simulation models t o assess the program's success, as well as
the Department's assumption that emission reductions have a one- to- one
r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h carbon monoxide concentration. These concerns were
affirmed by the work conducted for t h i s report and presented i n Findings
1 and l l .
Actions taken by the Department since t h a t e v a l u a t i o n , however, i n d i c a t e
a commitment to more rigorous research a c t i v i t i e s . The A i r Quality Fund,
for example, was established i n 1987 to allow the Department to conduct
a i r q u a l i t y research and begin programs needed to improve a i r qua1 i t y i n
the State. Monies for the Fund are generated from a fee c o l l e c t e d when
motor vehicles are registered. ADEQ used monies from the Fund t o
purchase t e s t equipment needed to c a l c u l a t e the actual as opposed to
estimated emission b e n e f i t s r e a l i z e d through VEIP and the a l t e r n a t i v e
fuels program.
ADEQ's response to new l e g i s l a t i o n and agency comments a t t e s t that i t
w i l l attempt to evaluate the a c t u a l b e n e f i t s o f emission control
s t r a t e g i e s . House B i l l 2206, an Act mandating numerous clean a i r
s t r a t e g i e s , requires the Department to report on a v a r i e t y o f a i r q u a l i t y
issues, including the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of VElP and the a l t e r n a t i v e f u e l s
program i n reducing carbon monoxide and other forms o f p o l l u t i o n . In an
October 1988 report to the L e g i s l a t u r e , ADEQ o u t l i n e d , i n response to
House B i l l 2206, i t w i l l use i t s new t e s t equipment to assess the impact
o f a l t e r n a t i v e fuels under conditions representative of the Arizona
environment. In a d d i t i o n , once t h i s p r o j e c t i s complete, the agency
plans to use the equipment t o c a l c u l a t e actual VElP b e n e f i t s as w e l l .
These, as well as other a i r q u a l i t y issues addressed by ADEQ i n i t s
response to House B i l l 2206, i n d i c a t e the Department recognizes and i s
a c t i n g on the need for ongoing evaluation of clean a i r s t r a t e g i e s .
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
e Rose Mofford, Governor
Ronald Mi 1 ler, Acting Director
December 14, 1988
Douglas R. Norton
Auditor General
2700 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, Az. 85004
Dear Mr. Ncrton:
This letter documents comments of the Department of Environmental Quality
on the Revised Performance Audit Report on the Vehicle Emission Inspection
Program ( VEIP) . Those comments are enclosed.
In reviewing these comments, please note that the Department does not disagree
with the Findings and Recommendations contained in the Revised Report.
These comments reflect concerns over methodology and the context in which
statements are made. They also raise questions on matters of interpretation
as well as fact.
We appreciate the opportunity to review the Revised Report. Please contact
Nancy Wrona at 257- 2308 if you have questions on these comments.
Acting Director '
Enclosure
The Deparrrnent qf' Environmental Qualiti' is An Equal Opporrunity Aijirmative Action E~ nplo~, er
@ Central Palm Plaza Building 2005 North Central Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Comments of the Department of Environmental Quality
Revised Performance Audit Report
Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program
December 14, 1988
Summary
For the cursory reader, the Summary should state that, like all other
states, Arizona is required by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
( U. S. EPA) to utilize the MOBILE 3 computer simulation model in developing
revisions to the State Implementation Plan ( SIP) . Likewise, the Depart-ment's
past acknowledgments of the limitations of MOBILE 3 results and
adjustments to MOBILE 3 to improve accuracy should be acknowledged in this
section.
Introduction and Background
Approximately 1.5, not 1.9, million tests were conducted by the program
contractor in 1987 ( page 1).
The discussion of the waiver component of the program fails to note that
in order to qualify for a waiver, a vehicle must undergo a low emissions
tune up. While the Report is correct in assuming that waived vehicles
do not receive all necessary repairs, the low emissions tune up does reduce
tailpipe emissions. We point out again that during the first nine months
of 1988, 41% of all vehicles receiving waivers did pass at the time that
the waiver was granted, although the Department did not change their status
from " fail" to " pass" at the time of waiver issuance. Based on these data
it may be more accurate to state that 3% of vehicles tested receive a waiver
and 1.8% of vehicles tested are never able to pass the test. The Department
adjusted MOBILE 3 to reflect the waiver provision of the Program: this
correction has been accepted by U. S. EPA ( page 2).
In light of the measures enacted in HB 2206 this year, we do not concur
that ". . . for Phoenix, the air quality outlook is bleak", particularly
as related to carbon monoxide pollution. In fact, the air quality trend
for carbon monoxide in the Phoenix metropolitan area has improved greatly
in recent years. The Department and U. S. EPA project significant further
improvement as a result of measures included in HB 2206. Statements by
the Department cited to support this conclusion reached by your office
were made prior to the enactment of HB 2206 ( page 3).
Projected emission reduction targets and benefits of each component of
the SIP are not reported correctly. With passage of SB 1360 in 1987 and
incorporation of these measures and local plans into the SIP, the U. S.
EPA estimated that an additional 22% reduction in emissions was necessary
for the Phoenix area to demonstrate attainment of the carbon monoxide
standard. The projected 24% reduction discussed in the Report was not
identified by U. S. EPA or the Department as an emission reduction goal.
The U. S. EPA credited HB 2206 with achieving a 24% reduction in carbon
monoxide emissions, which was 2% greater than the target identified by
U. S. EPA. The travel reduction program instituted under HB 2206 was
attributed by U. S. EPA with an approximate 2% emissions reduction ( pages
3 & 4).
It is more precise to state that in Fiscal Year 1987 - 88, the Program
contractor received/ col lected $ 1 1.6 mi 11 ion ( page 4)
During FY 1987- 88, the Vehicle Emissions Section had fourteen, not fifteen,
positions funded from the General Fund ( page 4).
Finding I
The introduction to this Chapter is not contemporary, as it fails to acknow-ledge
that Arizona has adopted measures beyond VEIP, and is evaluating
other potenti a1 measures ( page 9).
The Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977, set out a deadline of December 31,
1982, for all areas to meet federal clean air standards. In that same
Act, Congress, not the U. S. EPA, provided an ultimate compliance deadline
of December 31, 1987, for areas which could qualify for an extension from
the earlier date ( pages 9- 10).
While it is correct to state that MOBILE 3 does not consider ambient air
concentrations in assessing the effects of VEIP, this discussion does not
acknowledge that projected ambient air quality is considered through the
use of the Urban Airshed Model ( UAM). MOBILE 3 results are used as input
to the UAM in order to project ambient conditions on the design day and
/ through time ( page 10). I The body of the Report should explicitly acknowledge that all computer
models, simulation or statistical, must rely on assumptions of the method-ology
to predict future behavior. In the case of MOBILE 3, assumptions
are made regarding in- use emissions and other factors. Time series analysis 1 also relies on assumptions, such as the reliability of indicator variables
\ and theoretical constructs which underlie the use of these indicators ( page
'. 11).
"\
The Report should cite the communication in which a U. S. EPA official
stated that because emission levels used in MOBILE 3 are developed under
highly controlled conditions, actual in- use emissions can vary significantly
( page 14).
While MOBILE 3 itself does not account for vehicles which receive a waiver,
Arizona does adjust MOBILE 3 results to reflect the waiver provisions.
These adjustments have been accepted by U. S. EPA and should be acknow-ledged
( page 15). The discussion in this section of waiver rates and the
pass/ fail status of waived vehicles should reflect the Department's comments
on these issues, as discussed in the previous section.
The mechanics survey performed for the Office of the Auditor General
revealed that mechanics frequently failed to follow proper procedures for
repairing vehicles with high carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions;
however, failure to follow proper procedures does not equate to a failure
to make proper repairs ( page 16).
Similarly, the discussion of mechanics who have been asked to adjust a
vehicle to pass rather than to perform all appropriate repairs may be mis-leading.
The survey did not attempt to quantify the number of mechanics
who, when asked to adjust a vehicle to pass, explained that this was not
possible without making a1 1 necessary repairs ( page 16).
The discussion on page 19 o f the r o l e o f MOBILE 3 i n SIP development i s
confusing, as t h e r e a r e no c i t a t i o n s p o i n t i n g out when these p r o j e c t i o n s
were developed. If these estimates are being represented as contemporary,
they are i n c o r r e c t . The U. S. EPA c u r r e n t l y p r o j e c t s t h a t the Phoenix area
0: w i l l meet the ambient carbon monoxide standard i n 1991, w i t h o u t t h e
adoption o f a d d i t i o n a l measures. Because t h e S t a t e recognizes the optimism
o f the MOBILE 3 estimates, the Department has been d i r e c t e d by the L e g i s l a -
t u r e t o study a v a r i e t y o f a d d i t i o n a l measures t o reduce carbon monoxide
pol 1 u t i o n . These i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s should be addressed ( page 19).
Finding - I1
With enactment o f SB 1360 i n 1987 and adoption o f the Nonattainment Area
Plan prepared by the Maricopa Association o f Governments, the U. S. EPA
p r o j e c t e d b e f o r e enactment of HB 2206, t h a t a 22% r e d u c t i o n i n carbon
monoxide emissions was needed t o a t t a i n the standard i n 1991 ( page 21).
The r e p o r t does not acknowledge t h a t while emission c o n t r o l s t r a t e g i e s
alone may not b r i n g about attainment, t h e y a r e extremely r e l i a b l e i n
reducing emissions every t i m e a v e h i c l e i s operated. While measures t o
reduce t r a f f i c f l o w can have s i g n i f i c a n t long- term b e n e f i t s , t h e y a r e
i n h e r e n t l y less r e l i a b l e than emission c o n t r o l s i n t h a t they r e s t on
personal choice and o f t e n r e q u i r e changes i n behavior ( page 21 ) .
Again the Department p o i n t s o u t t h a t the SIP, as approved by U. S. EPA,
does not take f u l l c r e d i t f o r VEIP b e n e f i t s . As noted elsewhere, the
Department modifies MOBILE 3 o u t p u t s t o account f o r c e r t a i n i d e n t i f i a b l e
optimisms i n MOBILE 3. This f a c t should be acknowledged ( page 22).
Statements by a u t h o r i t i e s t h a t the oxygen content o f Arizona's f u e l s program
cannot be increased much beyond t h e c u r r e n t maximum should be c i t e d ( page
23). S i m i l a r l y , statements by Department o f f i c i a l s on t h i s issue should
also be c i t e d ( page 23).
The sources of p r o j e c t i o n s o f v e h i c l e m i l e s t r a v e l e d should be noted ( page
25).
The Revised Report does not discuss how t r a f f i c c o n t r o l measures were
selected as having greatest p o t e n t i a l a i r q u a l i t y benefits, t o the exclusion
o f other methods such as t r a f f i c f l o w improvements ( page 25).
Statements by the Arizona Center f o r Law i n t h e P u b l i c I n t e r e s t and the
p u b l i c opinion survey conducted f o r the C i t y o f Phoenix should be c i t e d
( pages 25- 26).
Appendix - A
The Department does not concur w i t h the conclusions t h a t the t i m e s e r i e s
models developed by the Auditor General i n d i c a t e d t h a t VEIP has no impact
on ambient carbon monoxide l e v e l s , or t h a t the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f the program
i s h i g h l y overrated. Given the i n f o r m a t i o n presented i n pages 9 through
13, and Appendix A o f the Report, it may be more reasonably deduced t h a t
the results of the time series analyses are inconclusive. The authors
admit that " the effects of VEIP could not be isolated from other variables"
in one study that was used as a model by the Auditor General ( footnote
1 on page 13), and the Department agrees that this is a more appropriate
conclusion. First, the indicator variables used in the time series models
were surrogate measures. Though the correlation between these surrogates
and the more preferred measures may be strong, the surrogate measures are
not precise. Gasoline sales only explain 53% of the variability in vehicle
miles traveled ( VMT), and the precision of relative humidity as a surrogate
for temperature inversions may not be much better. Thus, it is likely,
not merely possible, that the results of the models could be inconclusive
because of measurement error ( see the last paragraph on page A- 4).
Finally, how the federal new- automobile emissions standards could be
isolated from VEIP was not explained. Both programs were: 1) being
implemented simultaneously; 2) expected to have gradual rather than
immediate impacts; and 3) modified several times during their implemen-tation.
Without having a control city where no VEIP was implemented,
isolating one from the other could only be accomplished by proposing and
testing explicit hypotheses as to what impact each program would have on
ambient carbon monoxide concentrations. These weaknesses in the time series
analyses performed by the Auditor General render verification of the conclu-sions
that either the impact of VEIP is grossly overstated, or it has no
measurable effect on ambient carbon monoxide concentrations, impossible.
NCW: 1 a
TIME SERIES ANALYSIS OF
THE VEHICLE EMISSIONS INSPECTION PROGRAM
The 1983 Auditor General study of the effectiveness of VElP on clean a i r
s t a t e d t h a t no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t improvements i n clean a i r could
be a t t r i b u t e d to the VEI program. The study came to that conclusion by
using a methodology that was considered e s p e c i a l l y appropriate for use
w i t h environmental data and t e s t i n g for impacts over the course of the
year that VElP was implemented i n 1977 and a l s o f o r impacts due to
t i g h t e n i n g of emissions standards i n Arizona i n 1979. A reanalysis of
the e f f e c t of the program by Tiao et a l . , i n 1984 took the time series
methodology a step f u r t h e r and incorporated information about the
magnitude of the expected e f f e c t s o f Federal emission standards. He also
categorized the time periods i n t o winter and summer components. Despite
the addition of those changes, Tiao d i d not f i n d s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t
r e s u l t s i n terms of reduct ions i n carbon monoxide ( CO) due t o the VElP
than d i d the 1983 Auditor General study and n e i t h e r study detected the
large benefits of a 25 percent reduction claimed by EPA.
The time series methodology used by both Piao and the Auditor General i s
the AutoRegress ive l ntegrated Moving Average ( ARIMA) stochastic process
model i ng developed by Box and Jenkins ( 1976). "' These mode I s analyze
inputs into a system and outputs from i t . ARIMA models are bui I t from
r e l a t i v e l y long data series which are d i s c r e t e observations of a
process. In t h i s case, the data are CO measurements taken from ambient
a i r i n Phoenix and Tucson. In 1983, the Auditor General study used four
d i s t i n c t conceptual i n d i c a t o r s of those measurements. In 1988, due to
changes in reporting and missing data, a l l four series were not used.
The series which were able to be used are the highest monthly eight- hour
readings and the monthly average of the highest d a i l y eight- hour
read i ngs .
Empirical models are bui I t around the three ARIMA process components ( the
autoregressive, integrated and moving average). The f i r s t component to
be considered i s the integrated component which i s closely r e l a t e d to the
( 1 ) G. E. P. Box and G. M. Jenkins, Time Series A n a l v s i s : Forecasting and Control, 2nd
Revised E d i t i o n . San Francisco: Holden- Day 1976.
concept of trend. Trend i s defined as any systematic change i n the level
of a time s e r i e s . Trend must be removed from the data series before
assessing whether an i n t e r v e n t i o n can be credited w i t h a s i g n i f i c a n t
e f f e c t , e i t h e r p o s i t i v e or negative. F a i l u r e to do so would give an
intervention program f a l s e c r e d i t or blame for a trend which was apparent
well before the program's inception. I n t h i s s i t u a t i o n , for example,
there i s a downward trend i n CO concentrations due to s t r i c t e r federal
emission standards w e l l before the VEIP was implemented. The e f f e c t s o f
t h i s downward trend must be removed before assessing the impact of VEIP.
This i s done by incorporating an integrated component i n t o the time
series model.
The autoregression and moving average components which are modeled next
e x h i b i t d i f f e r e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s to be factored i n t o the process and are
i d e n t i f i e d by p a t t e r n s e x h i b i t e d i n t h e i r a u t o c o r r e l a t i o n functions
( ACFs). To f u r t h e r complicate matters, seasonality i s e s p e c i a l l y evident
i n environmental data and must be accounted for by incorporating seasonal
components i n the u n i v a r i a t e ARIMA model.
Each ARlMA model i s custom- built to f i t a p a r t i c u l a r time s e r i e s . I n our
study, we b u i l t models for monthly measurements o f CO i n the a i r from
1974 through 1987. This i s our dependent time s e r i e s . We also b u i l t
mode Is for two independent time series which have been found to have
major impacts on CO i n the a i r . These are r e l a t i v e humidity ( as a
surrogate for temperature inversion) and gas sales which are
representative of v e h i c l e m i l e s t r a v e l e d . R e l a t i v e humidity has been
used by Tiao i n past studies ( 1981, 1984) since data are not avai lable
for temperature inversions and i t s use has been commonly accepted.
Although gas sales has been used as representing v e h i c l e miles traveled,
i t does have some weaknesses. For example, b e t t e r fuel economy means
more miles driven per gallon ~ f gas. While t h i s i n d i c a t o r i s not a
p e r f e c t c o n s t r u c t , i t nevertheless has been used i n other types o f
research both i n t h i s State and i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y , and has been considered
an acceptable surrogate f o r v e h i c l e mi les t r a v e l e d . ' " Moreover, gas
( ' I See research done by the S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis Center o f Arizona Department o f
P u b l i c Safety and H. L. Ross' work D e t e r r i n a the Drunk D r i v e r : Leaal P o l i c v and
S o c i a l C o n t r o l . Lexington, Massachusetts: D. C. Heath: 1982
sales showed a strong c o r r e l a t i o n (. 73) with estimates of vehicle mi les
traveled i n Phoenix. Other factors such as seasonality and trends which
may impact ambient CO are accounted for through mathematical patterns
exhibited by the data. I t would obviously be b e t t e r t o have actual data
to represent these factors, but such data are not available i n comparable
time series, i f at a l l .
The model- building strategy follows a standard procedure as outlined by
McCleary and ~ a~ "' which involves:
a I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the ACF to i t s expected pattern;
e Estimation of the parameters and incorporation of them into the model
i f they are s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t and l i e w i t h i n the bounds of
s t a t i o n a r i t y / i n v e r t i b i l i t y ;
a Diagnosis of the model's residuals as white noise. This i s judged by
two c r i t e r i a : no s i g n i f i c a n t spikes at key lags and an i n s i g n i f i c a n t
Q - s t a t i s t i c ;
a Metadiagnosis which prescribes a model may be used for impact
assessment, f o r forecasting and/ or for causal analysis.
Impact assessment l o g i c follows t h a t o f theories of causality i n that the
temporal ordering of causation re1 ies on the assumption that i f there i s
a change i n a process at the same time ( or a t h e o r e t i c a l l y plausible time
a f t e r ) a program begins, one can test for that change and ( w i t h c o n t r o l s
for r i v a l hypotheses and w i t h i n c e r t a i n confidence l i m i t s ) a t t r i b u t e the
r e s u l t s t o that program.
To conduct our impact assessment, separate models were b u i l t for data
from the Phoenix Central monitor and the Tucson monitor at 22nd Street
and Alvernon, using the two CO indicators mentioned above. Two
interventions were tested - one for the 1977 inception of the VEIP
( ' ) Richard McCleary and Richard Hay, A ~ ~ l i eTdim e S e r i e s A n a l y s i s f o r the Social
Sciences: Beverly H i l l s and London: Sage 1980.
mandatory inspection and maintenance and one for 1979, the year when
f a i l u r e s were d r a m a t i c a l l y increased. Univariate models for CO, r e l a t i v e
humidity and gas sales were b u i l t f i r s t . Next, impact components for the
interventions i n 1977 and 1979 were added to these u n i v a r i a t e models.
F i n a l l y , the u n i v a r i a t e models were combined i n t o a m u l t i v a r i a t e model
and impact components were then added. The r e s u l t i s a process model of
ambient CO which mathematically incorporates and accounts for changes i n
CO due to c e r t a i n f a c t o r s i n each c i t y and for each i n d i c a t o r o f CO.
These factors include s t r i c t e r Federal standards for emissions from new
cars, t r a f f i c growth, meteorology, seasonal e f f e c t s , the inception of the
VElP and the p o l i c y change i n VElP which resulted i n higher emission
standards for automobiles.
A l l u n i v a r i a t e , impact and m u l t i v a r i a t e models met the diagnostic
c r i t e r i a necessary for acceptance. That i s , parameter estimates were
s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t and lay w i t h i n the bounds o f s t a t i o n a r i t y or
i n v e r t i b i l i t y ; there were no s i g n i f i c a n t spikes at key lags; residuals
were diagnosed as white noise as evidenced by the a u t o c o r r e l a t i o n
functions and the Q - s t a t i s t i c . As shown i n Table 1, r e s u l t s of the
analyses indicate t h a t , taken as a group, the models could not a t t r i b u t e
any overall s i g n i f i c a n t decrease i n CO due to the 1977 implementation of
VElP or the 1979 increase i n f a i l u r e rates. Whi Ie there were two of
eight m u l t i v a r i a t e models which showed s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s ,
one was an increase i n CO readings ( Phoenix highest eight- hour CO for
the 1977 i n t e r v e n t i o n ) and one was a decrease ( Tucson highest eight- hour
CO for the 1979 i n t e r v e n t i o n ) . Given the lack of a c l e a r p a t t e r n , the
conclusion the time s e r i e s models presents i s that there i s no e f f e c t due
to the program.
As i n a l l research, t h e r e a r e l i m i t a t i o n s and caveats t o t h i s analysis as
w e l l . It may be p o s s i b l e t h a t the imprecision of the i n d i c a t o r s i s
p o t e n t i a l l y l i m i t i n g our a b i l i t y to f i n d an e f f e c t . We were not able to
factor i n actual temperature inversions but had to use r e l a t i v e humidity
instead. Although t h i s has been used i n past research by other a n a l y s t s ,
i t i s not as precise as inversion data. Further, we had no s i t e - s p e c i f i c
t r a f f i c data. Estimates of gas sales were used since they represented
actual not estimated data and because they were a v a i l a b l e i n comparable
TABLE 1
PARAMETER ESTIMATES AND T- VALUES
FOR
1977 AND 1979 l NTERVENT I ONS
1977 lntervention
Parameter Value T- Va l ue
PHOEN l X
8- Hour Highest
Mo. Average .234 - 82
8- Hour Highest
Mo. Reading . I29 2 . OO
TUCSON
8- Hou r Hi ghes t
Mo . Average .068
8- Hour Highest
Mo, Reading . I30
1979 lntervention
Parameter Value T- Value
time series. A d d i t i o n a l l y , the lack of a control c i t y l i m i t s the
research in that quasi- experimental logic could present a stronger
argument for the results i f , for instance, the control c i t y experienced
similar results despite having no VEIP or i f i t experienced decreases in
CO without such a program.
Notwithstanding these caveats, we have no hesitation i n s t a t i n g that the
VEIP, by i t s e l f , i s not enough to bring Phoenix and Tucson into
compliance with EPA standards for clean a i r . Alternatives must be
considered; moreover, attention must be paid to the c o l l e c t i o n of
appropriate indicators and t o future evaluations of these a l t e r n a t i v e s .
Researchers representing d i f f e r e n t perspectives need to collaborate in
advance on the design and methods necessary to perform d e f i n i t i v e
evaluations of future a l t e r n a t i v e s .
VEHICLE EMISSIONS INSPECTION PROGRAM STUDY
Volume I - S u n n a r y A n a l y s i s
p r e p a r e d f o r
O f f i c e o f t h e A u d i t o r G e n e r a l
S t a t e o f A r i z o n a
p r e p a r e d by
B e h a v i o r R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c .
1117 N o r t h T h i r d S t r e e t
P h o e n i x , A r i z o n a
( 6 0 2 ) 258- 4554
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 OVERVIEW
3.0 SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS - GENERAL PUBLIC SURVEY
3.1 A t t i t u d e s A b o u t A i r Q u a l i t y
3.2 R e a c t i o n To E m i s s i o n s I n s p e c t i o n and O t h e r
A i r Q u a l i t y I m p r o v e m e n t A l t e r n a t i v e s
3.3 I m p a c t O f E m i s s i o n s I n s p e c t i o n Program On
V e h i c l e M a i n t e n a n c e and R e p a i r
3.4 The P u b l i c ' s M o s t R e c e n t E x p e r i e n c e W i t h
The E m i s s i o n s I n s p e c t i o n P r o g r a m
3.5 Program C i r c u m v e n t i o n
4.0 SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS - AUTO MECHANICS SURVEY
4.1 Q u a l i t y O f Work P e r f o r m e d
4.2 P r o g r a m C i r c u m v e n t i o n
4.3 The I m p a c t O f P r o p e r E m i s s i o n s T u n i n g
On V e h i c l e P e r f o r m a n c e
4.4 I m p a c t O f E m i s s i o n P r o g r a m On A i r Q u a l i t y
I n A r i z o n a
5.0 APPENDIX
5.1 M e t h ~ d o l o g y - G e n e r a l P u b l i c S u r v e y
5.2 M e t h o d o l o g y - A u t o M e c h a n i c S u r v e y
5.3 S t u d y Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s
page
1
behavior research center phoenix, arizona
LISTING OF TABLES
GENERAL PUBLIC SURVEY
TABLE 1: PERCEIVED SERIOUSNESS OF AIR POLLUTION
PROBLEM
TABLE 2: PERCEIVED SERIOUSNESS OF AIR POLLUTION
PROBLEM ( DETAIL - NON- ATTAINMENT)
TABLE 3: PERCEIVED SOURCES OF AIR POLLUTION
TABLE 4: IMPACT OF EMISSIONS INSPECTION ON AIR
QUALITY IN METROPOLITAN ARIZONA
TABLE 5: IMPACT OF EMISSIONS INSPECTION ( DETAIL)
TABLE 6: IMPACT OF OTHER AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
ALTERNATIVES ON AIR QUALITY IN METROPOLITAN
ARIZONA
TABLE 7: FREQUENCY OF TUNE- UPS
TABLE 8: MAINTENANCE PERFORMED OVER PAST YEAR
TABLE 9: DOLLAR AMOUNTS SPENT ON MAINTENANCE
TABLE 10: I/ M PROGRAM'S IMPACT ON TUNE- UP FREQUENCY
TABLE 11: I/ M PROGRAM'S IMPACT ON VEHICLE PURCHASING
BEHAVIOR
TABLE 12: STEPS TAKEN PRIOR TO LAST EMISSION TEST
TABLE 13: TEST FAILURE EXPERIENCE
TABLE 14: CIRCUMVENTION PATTERNS
TABLE 15: CIRCUMVENTION WORK PERFORMED
TABLE 16: CIRCUMVENTION S T E P S T A K E N
AUTO MECHANIC SURVEY
TABLE 17: HC EVALUATION
TABLE 18: HC EVALUATION - DETAIL
TABLE 19: CO EVALUATION
( CONT. )
page
L
behavior research center phoenix, arizona
( C O N T . ) L I S T I N G OF T A B L E S
T A B L E 2 0 : CO E V A L U A T I O N - D E T A I L
T A B L E 2 1 : COMPUTERIZED V E H I C L E E V A L U A T I O N
page
T A B L E 2 2 : COMPUTERIZED V E H I C L E E V A L U A T I O N - D E T A I L 3 3
T A B L E 2 3 : P R E - T E S T C I R C U M V E N T I O N 3 5
T A B L E 2 4 : P R E - T E S T C I R C U M V E N T I O N FREQUENCY 3 5
T A B L E 2 5 : P O S T - T E S T C I R C U M V E N T I O N
T A B L E 2 6 : P O S T - T E S T C I R C U M V E N T I O N FREQUENCY
w
T A B L E 2 7 : I M P A C T OF PROPER E M I S S I O N S T U N I N G ON
V E H I C L E PERFORMANCE
D
8
I,
I 1
I t
T A B L E 2 8 : I M P A C T OF E M I S S I O N PROGRAM ON A I R Q U A L I T Y
I N A R I Z O N A 3 8
behawor research center phoenix, arlzona
1.0 INTRODUCTION
T h i s s t u d y was c o m m i s s i o n e d by t h e O f f i c e o f t h e A u d i t o r
G e n e r a l as one component o f t h e A u d i t o r G e n e r a l ' s p e r f o r m a n c e
a u d i t of t h e A r i z o n a V e h i c l e E m i s s i o n s I n s p e c t i o n ( I / M ) Program.
The o v e r a l l o b j e c t i v e o f t h i s s t u d y was t o g a t h e r i n p u t f r o m t h e
g e n e r a l pub1 i c ( a u t o m o b i l e o w n e r s ) and a u t o m o t i v e m e c h a n i c s r e -
g a r d i n g : ( A ) t h e i m p a c t t h e V e h i c l e E m i s s i o n I n s p e c t i o n Program
has on v e h i c l e r e p a i r and m a i n t e n a n c e ; ( B ) t h e q u a l i t y o f e m i s -
s i o n s - r e l a t e d m a i n t e n a n c e and r e p a i r w o r k p e r f o r m e d b y a u t o
m e c h a n i c s and m o t o r i s t s ; and ( C ) t h e p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e Program
h e l d by t h e p u b l i c and t h e a u t o m o b i l e s e r v i c e i n d u s t r y . The s p e -
c i f i c p u r p o s e s o f t h i s s t u d y were t o d e t e r m i n e t h e f o l l o w i n g :
G e n e r a l Pub1 i c Survey
o If t h e I / M P r o g r a m h a s i m p a c t e d t h e m a i n t e n a n c e and r e -
p a i r b e h a v i o r o f v e h i c l e owners whose v e h i c l e s m u s t b e
t e s t e d a n n u a l l y .
o I f t h e r e a r e d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e f r e q u e n c y , t y p e and
c o s t o f m a i n t e n a n c e / r e p a i r work p e r f o r m e d by r e s i d e n t s
p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h e I / M Program and r e s i d e n t s n o t p a r -
t i c i p a t i n g i n t h e I / M P r o g r a m .
o I f r e s i d e n t s p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h e I / M Program t u n e t h e i r
v e h i c l e s e s p e c i a l l y i n p r e p a r a t i o n f o r t a k i n g t h e e m i s -
s i o n s t e s t .
o How many v e h i c l e owners r e p a i r t h e i r own v e h i c l e s when
t h e y f a i l t h e v e h i c l e e m i s s i o n s t e s t and what i s t h e
q u a l i t y of t h e m a i n t e n a n c e / r e p a i r work t h e n p e r f o r m e d .
o I f r e s i d e n t s p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h e IJM Program a t t e m p t t o
c i r c u m v e n t t h e t e s t p r o c e s s by a d j u s t i n g t h e i r e n g i n e s
t o pass t h e e m i s s i o n s t e s t and t h e n r e - a d j u s t i n g them
a f t e r s u c c e s s f u l l y c o m p l e t i n g t h e t e s t .
behav~ orr esearch center phoenix, arlzona
o If t h e presence of an I/ M Program has a f f e c t e d auto pur-chase
d e c i s i o n made by v e h i c l e owners.
o If r e s i d e n t s p a r t i c i p a t i n g in t h e I/ M Program b e l i e v e
t u n i n g v e h i c l e s t o pass t h e emissions t e s t n e g a t i v e l y
a f f e c t s v e h i c l e performance.
o I f r e s i d e n t s p a r t i c i p a t i n g in t h e I/ M Program p e r c e i v e
t h e Program t o be a worthwhile method f o r improving a i r
q u a l i t y .
o I f r e s i d e n t s f a v o r o t h e r a i r q u a l i t y a l t e r n a t i v e s ,
( i . e . , c a r p o o l s , mass t r a n s i t , e t c . ) in a d d i t i o n t o or
i n s t e a d of t h e I/ M Program.
I Auto Mechanic Survey l
o I f mechanics know how t o p r o p e r l y d i a g n o s e s p e c i f i c
emission problems.
o I f mechanics know how t o c o r r e c t s p e c i f i c emission prob-
1 ems.
o If mechanics know how t o perform r e p a i r work ~ n v e h i c l e s
engineered with computer technology.
o I f mechanics aid t h e i r customers in circumventing t h e
I/ M Program.
o I f demographic d i f f e r e n c e s among s e r v i c e shops impact
t h e kinds of v e h i c l e emission maintenance performed.
o I f d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e l e v e l of t r a i n i n g among mechanics
impact t h e type of work performed f o r v e h i c l e emission
repai r s .
o I f auto mechanics b e l i e v e t u n i n g v e h i c l e s t o pass the
emissions t e s t n e g a t i v e l y a f f e c t s v e h i c l e performance.
o If auto mechanics p e r c e i v e t h e Program t o be a worth-while
means f o r improving a i r q u a l i t y .
The i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d in t h i s r e p o r t i s based on 899 i n -
t e r v i e w s conducted w i t h a u t o m o b i l e owners r e s i d i n g i n t h e metro-p
o l i t a n a r e a s of Phoenix, Tucson and Yuma, and 201 i n t e r v i e w s
w i t h a u t o m o t i v e mechanics in m e t r o p o l i t a n Phoenix and Tucson.
R63/# 22 / a
behavior research center phoenix, arizona
The p u r p o s e of t h i s r e p o r t i s t o p r e s e n t a b r o a d o v e r v i e w o f
t h e i n f o r m a t i o n c o l l e c t e d and t o a d d r e s s t h e p r i m a r y s t u d y o b j e c -
t i v e s . T h i s r e p o r t i s n o t d e s i g n e d t o p r e s e n t a t h o r o u g h a n a l y -
s i s o f e v e r y s t u d y v a r i a b l e . S u c h a n a l y s i s i s l e f t t o ADEQ
a n a l y s t s w i t h s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n a l needs u t i l i z i n g t h e d e t a i l e d
t a b l e s and d a t a t a p e s g e n e r a t e d by t h i s p r o j e c t .
The i n f o r m a t i o n g e n e r a t e d f r o m t h i s s t u d y i s p r e s e n t e d i n
t w o v o l u m e s . Volume - A n a l y s i s p r e s e n t s a w r i t t e n a n a l y s i s o f
t h e f i n d i n g s and i s d i v i d e d i n t o t h r e e g e n e r a l s e c t i o n s . The
f i r s t s e c t i o n , OVERVIEW, p r e s e n t s t h e p r i m a r y f i n d i n g s o f t h e
s u r v e y s i n a b r i e f summary f o r m a t . The second s e c t i o n , SUMMARY
OF THE FINDINGS, r e v i e w s each s u r v e y i n d e t a i l . The f i n a l s e c -
t i o n , APPENDIX, d e t a i l s t h e s t u d y m e t h d o l o g y and c o n t a i n s c o p i e s
o f t h e s u r v e y q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
V o l u m e I 1 - D e t a i l e d T a b l e s p r e s e n t s c o m p u t e r - g e n e r a t e d
t a b l e s w h i c h a n a l y z e a l l s t u d y q u e s t i o n s by a v a r i e t y of s o c i o -
d e m o g r a p h i c v a r i a b l e s .
behavlor research center phoenix, arizona
B E H A V I O R R E S E A R C H C E N T E R
behav~ orr esearch center phoenix, arizona
I 2.0 OVERVIEW
2.1 G e n e r a l P u b l i c S u r v e v
o N e a r l y s i x o u t of t e n n o n - a t t a i n m e n t a r e a r e s i d e n t s
( 5 8 % ) b e l i e v e a i r p o l l u t i o n i s a m a j o r p r o b l e m i n t h e i r
a r e a . T h i s f i g u r e i s 19 p e r c e n t h i g h e r t h a n a s i m i l a r
r e a d i n g t a k e n i n 1982 ( 3 9 % ) and more t h a n t h r e e t i m e s
h i g h e r t h a n t h e r e a d i n g r e c o r d e d i n t h e i n t h e a t t a i n -
ment a r e a ( 1 7 % ) .
o S e v e n t y - o n e p e r c e n t of m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a r e s i d e n t s b e -
l i e v e t h a t t h e a u t o m o b i l e i s t h e " m a j o r " s o u r c e of a i r
p o l l u t i o n i n t h e i r a r e a , up f r o m a 57 p e r c e n t r e a d i n g
i n 1982. W i n d b l o w n d u s t i s v i e w e d as t h e m a j o r s o u r c e
of a i r p o l l u t i o n among a t t a i n m e n t a r e a r e s i d e n t s ( 5 5 % ) .
o N e a r l y e i g h t o u t of t e n m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a r e s i d e n t s
b e l i e v e t h e v e h i c l e e m i s s i o n s t e s t i n g p r o g r a m has
h e l p e d keep t h e a i r c l e a n i n t h e Tucson and P h o e n i x
a r e a s . T w e n t y - t w o p e r c e n t b e 1 i e v e t h e p r o g r a m h a s
h e l p e d " a l o t " and 56 p e r c e n t t h i n k i t has h e l p e d " a
l i t t l e . "
o B u i l d i n g a f i r s t - r a t e p u b l i c t r a n s i t s y s t e m i s v i e w e d
as t h e most e f f e c t i v e a l t e r n a t i v e a i r p o l l u t i o n r e d u c -
t i o n measure by P h o e n i x and Tucson a r e a r e s i d e n t s .
o N o n - a t t a i n m e n t a r e a r e s i d e n t s t e n d t o t a k e b e t t e r c a r e
of t h e i r v e h i c l e s f r o m a m a i n t e n a n c e s t a n d p o i n t t h a n do
a t t a i n m e n t a r e a r e s i d e n t s . F o r example, t h e y t u n e up
t h e i r v e h i c l e s more o f t e n p e r y e a r ( 1 . 6 t i m e s vs. 1 . 4 ) ,
p e r f ~ r mm ore s p e c i f i c a d j u s t m e n t s p e r y e a r ( 8 . 9 o u t o f
11 p r o c e d u r e s v s . 8 . 6 ) a n d spend more money p e r y e a r on
m a i n t e n a n c e ( $ 1 0 7 p e r v e h i c l e vs. $ 104) t h a n do a t t a i n -
ment a r e a r e s i d e n t s .
o Di s c o n t i n u a t i on o f t h e e m i s s i o n s p r o g r a m i n t h e non-a
t t a i n m e n t a r e a w o u l d have a m i n i m a l , a l b e i t n e g a t i v e ,
i m p a c t on v e h i c l e m a i n t e n a n c e p a t t e r n s . However,
i n t r o d u c t i o n o f t h e p r o g r a m i n t o t h e a t t a i n m e n t a r e a
w o u l d p o s s i b l y r e s u l t i n a s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e i n ve-h
i c l e m a i n t e n a n c e .
o N i n e p e r c e n t o f n o n - a t t a i n m e n t a r e a r e s i d e n t s i n d i c a t e
t h e e m i s s i o n s p r o g r a m has i n f l u e n c e d a v e h i c l e p u r c h a s e
d e c i s i o n t h e y have made.
o O n l y a b o u t f o u r o u t of t e n n o n - a t t a i n m e n t a r e a r e s i -
d e n t s ( 3 9 % ) d i d a n y t h i n g t o t h e i r v e h i c l e p r i o r t o
t a k i n g t h e i r l a s t e m i s s i o n s t e s t . T h i s f i g u r e i s a
s i g n i f i c a n t t e n p e r c e n t below t h e p e r c e n t a g e r e c o r d e d
- behavior research center phoenix, arizona
i n 1982. The most common s t e p s . r e s i d e n t s t o o k p r i o r t o
t e s t i n g w e r e h a v i n g t h e i r v e h i c l e t u n e d ( 3 0 % ) and
c h e c k i n g t o make s u r e t h e a i r p o l l u t i o n d e v i c e s o f t h e
e n g i n e w e r e h o o k e d u p and w o r k i n g ( 2 5 % ) .
o Very few r e s i d e n t s who f a i l t h e e m i s s i o n s t e s t a c t u a l l y
p e r f o r m t h e n e e d e d r e p a i r s t h e m s e l v e s . O f t h e 297
s t u d y r e s p o n d e n t s who f a i l e d t h e t e s t , o n l y 31 o r 10.4
p e r c e n t p e r s o n a l l y p e r f o r m e d any r e p a i r s o r m a i n t e n a n c e
t h e m s e l v e s . The b u l k o f r e s i d e n t s who f a i l t h e t e s t
( 7 0 . 4 % ) t a k e t h e i r v e h i c l e t o a p r o f e s s i o n a l a u t o
r e p a i r shop.
o Based on a c a s e - b y - c a s e e v a l u a t i o n c o n d u c t e d by ADEQ,
r e s i d e n t s who f l u n k t h e t e s t and p e r f o r m t h e i r own r e -
p a i r s g e n e r a l l y do an i n a d e q u a t e j o b . I n f a c t , i n o n l y
t h r e e c a s e s ( among t h e 25 w h e r e an e v a l u t i o n was
p o s s i ' b l e ) d i d t h e p e r s o n p e r f o r m i n g t h e r e p a i r s do what
was deemed an a d e q u a t e j o b . The main r e a s o n s r e s i d e n t s
do n o t do an a d e q u a t e j o b a r e t w o - f o l d :
- F i r s t , i n s t e a d o f p e r f o r m i n g e a c h o f t h e t a s k s
c a l l e d f o r on t h e V e h i c l e E m i s s i o n s R e p o r t , most
r e s i d e n t s s i m p l y p e r f o r m one o r t w o t a s k s such as
a d j u s t i n g t h e a i r f u e l m i x t u r e o r r e p l a c i n g t h e
a i r c l e a n e r .
- S e c o n d , v e r y few r e s i d e n t s h a v e t h e n e c e s s a r y
e q u i p m e n t and t o o l s t o c o n d u c t t h e n e c e s s a r y r e -
p a i r s .
o F i f t e e n p e r c e n t o f m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a r e s i d e n t s i n d i c a t e
t h a t even t h o u g h t h e i r e n g i n e can be a d j u s t e d t o pass
t h e e m i s s i o n s t e s t , i t d o e s n o t r u n as w e l l as i t
s h o u l d when so a d j u s t e d . F u r t h e r , e i g h t p e r c e n t o f a l l
t h e r e s i d e n t s s u r v e y e d say t h e y r e - a d j u s t e d t h e i r ve-h
i c l e ' s e n g i n e a f t e r t h e i r l a s t e m i s s i o n s t e s t so t h a t
i t w o u l d r u n t h e way t h e y l i k e i t t o . Each of t h e s e
f i g u r e s i s l o w e r t h a n t h e c o m p a r a b l e f i g u r e s w h i c h were
r e c o r d e d i n 1982.
2.2 A u t o Mechanics S u r v e y
o A m a j o r i t y of m e c h a n i c s s c o r e f a i r l y w e l l i n t e r m s of
t h e m a n n e r i n w h i c h t h e y a d d r e s s h i g h HC e m i s s i o n s
p r o b l e m s . T h u s , we f i n d r o u g h l y s e v e n o u t o f t e n
m e c h a n i c s r e c e i v i n g p a s s i n g e v a l u a t i o n s when i t comes
t o d i a g n o s i s ( 6 7 % ) , c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n ( 7 1 % ) and e q u i p -
m e n t u t i l i z a t i o n ( 6 9 % ) . From an o v e r a l l p e r s p e c t i v e ,
60 p e r c e n t o f a l l m e c h a n i c s r e c e i v e p a s s i n g g r a d e s f r o m
ADEQ i n t h e i r h a n d l i n g o f h i g h HC e m i s s i o n s p r o b l e m s .
behavior research center phoenix, arizona
o S p e c i a l i z e d t u n e - u p shops s u c h as Tune- up M a s t e r s and
Econo Lube N ' Tune, r e c e i v e t h e h i g h e s t o v e r a l l e v a l -
u a t i o n ( 7 5 % ) among t h e f o u r t y p e s o f a u t o m o t i v e f a c i l -
i t i e s t e s t e d . Gas s t a t i o n s r e c e i v e t h e p o o r e s t g r a d e s
w i t h an o v e r a l l e v a l u a t i o n o f o n l y 49 p e r c e n t .
o W h i l e m e c h a n i c s do a f a i r l y good j o b o f h a n d l i n g h i g h
HC e m i s s i o n s p r o b l e m s t h e y f a i l m i s e r a b l y i n t h e i r
h a n d l i n g o f h i g h CO p r o b l e m s . The r e a s o n f o r t h i s i s
v e r y c l e a r -- i m p r o p e r e q u i p m e n t u t i l i z a t i o n . Thus, we
f i n d t h a t w h i l e m e c h a n i c s know f o r t h e m o s t p a r t how t o
d i a g n o s e h i g h CO p r o b l e m s ( 7 4 % c o r r e c t ) a n d w h a t c o r -
r e c t i v e a c t i o n s t o f o l l o w ( 6 3 % ) , o n l y a b o u t e i g h t p e r -
c e n t u t i l i z e t h e p r o p e r e q u i p m e n t when d e a l i n g w i t h
such p r o b l e m s .
o Once a g a i n we f i n d m e c h a n i c s f r o m s p e c i a l i z e d t u n e - u p
s h o p s s c o r i n g w e l l a b o v e o t h e r t y p e s o f m e c h a n i c s .
N o n e t h e l e s s , o n l y 29 p e r c e n t o f m e c h a n i c s f o r s p e c i a l -
i z e d t u n e - u p shops a p p e a r a b l e t o p r o p e r l y h a n d l e h i g h
CO e m i s s i o n s p r o b l e m s .
o M e c h a n i c s s c o r e q u i t e w e l l when asked t o i n d i c a t e t h e
t y p e o f e q u i p m e n t t h e y use t o check t h e o x y g e n s e n s o r s
on c o m p u t e r i z e d v e h i c l e s w i t h 87 p e r c e n t r e s p o n d i n g
c o r r e c t l y t o t h e i n q u i r y .
o A c c o r d i n g t o a u t o m e c h a n i c s , c i r c u m v e n t i o n o f t h e
e m i s s i o n s t e s t i n g p r o g r a m i s v e r y commonplace among ve-h
i c l e owners i n t h e n o n - a t t a i n m e n t a r e a s . C o n s i d e r f o r
a moment t h e f o l l o w i n g :
- N i n e t y - t h r e e p e r c e n t o f a l l m e c h a n i c s i n d i c a t e
t h e y have been a s k e d by c u s t o m e r s t o s i m p l y a d j u s t
t h e i r v e h i c l e t o p a s s t h e e m i s s i o n t e s t , r a t h e r
t h a n c o n d u c t t h e a p p r o p r i a t e and needed e m i s s i o n s -
r e l a t e d m a i n t e n a n c e a n d r e p a i r s . E i g h t y - e i g h t
p e r c e n t say s u c h r e q u e s t s by c u s t o m e r s a r e e i t h e r
v e r y o r somewhat commonplace i n t h e i n d u s t r y .
- N i n e t y - f o u r p e r c e n t o f a l l m e c h a n i c s a1 so i n d i c a t e
t h a t t h e y h a v e b e e n a s k e d by c u s t o m e r s t o r e -
a d j u s t t h e i r v e h i c l e s a f t e r i t h a s p a s s e d t h e
e m i s s i o n s t e s t so t h a t i t w i l l r u n b e t t e r .
S e v e n t y - e i g h t p e r c e n t say such r e q u e s t s by c u s t o m -
e r s a r e e i t h e r v e r y o r somewhat commonplace i n t h e
i n d u s t r y .
o A m a j o r i t y of a u t o m e c h a n i c s ( 5 2 % ) b e l i e v e t h a t i f a
v e h i c l e i s a d j u s t ' e d t o pass t h e e m i s s i o n s t e s t s u c h
a d j u s t m e n t s w i l l have a p o s i t i v e e f f e c t on t h e p e r f o r -
mance o f t h e v e h i c l e . I n c o m p a r i s o n , o n l y 18 p e r c e n t
b e l i e v e i t w o u l d have a n e g a t i v e e f f e c t on p e r f o r m a n c e
w h i l e 12 p e r c e n t b e l i e v e i t w o u l d n o t have any e f f e c t .
R63/# 22
behav~ orr esearch center phoenix, arizona
8 -
o B e t t e r than eight o u t of ten auto mechanics ( 83%) feel
t h e vehicle emissions t e s t i n g program has he1 ped keep
t h e a i r clean in the Phoenix and Tucson a r e a s . Forty-nine
percent feel the program has helped " a l o t " and 38
percent believe i t has helped " a l i t t l e . " This 49 per-cent
" a l o t " reading i s more than double t h e 22 percent
" a l o t " reading recorded in the general public segment
of t h i s study.
I
0
( I
( I
( I
( I
( I
R63/# 22
( I
4
a
behavior research center phoenix, arlzona
3.0 SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS - GENERAL PUBLIC SURVEY
3 . 1 A t t i t u d e s About A i r Q u a l i t y
N e a r l y s i x o u t of t e n n o n - a t t a i n m e n t a r e a r e s i d e n t s
( 5 8 % ) b e l i e v e a i r p o l l u t i o n i s a m a j o r p r o b l e m i n t h e i r
a r e a . T h i s f i g u r e i s 19 p e r c e n t h i g h e r t h a n a s i m i l a r r e a d -
i n g t a k e n i n 1982 ( 3 9 % ) and more t h a n t h r e e t i m e s h i g h e r
t h a n t h e r e a d i n g r e c o r d e d i n t h e a t t a i n m e n t a r e a ( 1 7 % ) . It
i s c l e a r f r o m t h e s e r e a d i n g s t h a t m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a r e s i -
d e n t s have s e r i o u s c o n c e r n s a b o u t t h e q u a l i t y of t h e a i r
t h e y b r e a t h e .
TABLE 1: PERCEIVED SERIOUSNESS OF
AIR POLLUTION PROBLEM
" Would you say t h a t a i r p o l l u t i o n i s a m a j o r p r o b -
l e m , a m i n o r p r o b l e m , o r n o t a p r o b l e m i n y o u r
a r e a ? "
N o n - A t t a i n m e n t
T o t a l Tuc- A t t a i n -
1982 1988 P h o e n i x son ment
M a j o r p r o b l e m 39% 58% 61% 52% 17%
M i n o r p r o b l e m 44 3 2 29 39 44
Not a p r o b l e m 15 8 9 6 3 7
Not s u r e 2 2 1 3 2
W i t h i n no d e m o g r a p h i c s u b - g r o u p o f r e s i d e n t s i n t h e
m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a s o f t h e s t a t e does t h e b e l i e f t h a t a i r
p o l l u t i o n i s a m a j o r p r o b l e m d i p b e l o w 50 p e r c e n t .
C
8
R63/# 22 DL
behavior research center phoenix, arizona
TABLE 2: PERCEIVED SERIOUSNESS OF A I R POLLUTION
PROBLEM ( DETAIL - NON- ATTAINMENT)
M a j o r M i n o r Not A Not
P r o b l e m P r o b l e m P r o b l e m S u r e
T o t a l - 1988
Gender
Ma1 e
Female
9s
Under 35
35 t o 54
55 o r o v e r
R e s i d e n c y
5 y e a r s o r l e s s
6 t o 10 y e a r s
11 y e a r s o r more
I n i t i a l T e s t
Passed
F a i l e d
S e v e n t y - o n e p e r c e n t of m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a r e s i d e n t s be-l
i e v e t h a t t h e a u t o m o b i l e i s t h e " m a j o r " s o u r c e o f a i r
p o l l u t i o n i n t h e i r a r e a , up f r o m a 57 p e r c e n t r e a d i n g i n
1982. W i n d b l o w d u s t i s v i e w e d as t h e m a j o r s o u r c e o f a i r
p o l l u t i o n among a t t a i n m e n t a r e a r e s i d e n t s ( 5 5 % ) .
Automobi l e s
C o m m e r c i a l v e h i c l e s
( b u s s e s and t r u c k s )
Windblown d u s t
B u s i n e s s e s and i n d u s t r y
Mine s m e l t e r s '
Automobi l es
C o m m e r c i a l v e h i c l e s
Windblown d u s t
B u s i n e s s e s and i n d u s t r y
Mine s m e l t e r s
0
a
e
a
af 1 l7
TABLE 3: PERCEIVED SOURCES OF A I R POLLUTION
" W o u l d y o u s a y t h a t e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g i s a
m a j o r s o u r c e , a m i n o r s o u r c e , o r n o t a s o u r c e o f
a i r p o l l u t i o n i n y o u r a r e a ? "
N o n - A t t a i