ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
October 18, 1989
IN THE
MATTER
OF:
APPLICATION
OF CALIFORNIA
)
R89-17
MOTOR VEHICLE CONTROL PROGRAN
)
IN ILLINOIS
)
Inquiry Hearing.
ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J. Theodore Meyer):
This matter is before the Board on its own motion. Much
attention has been focused on the continuing problem of air
pollution, and the Chicago and Metro East ozone non—attainment
areas have been the subject of much of that attention. In January
1989, a federal district judge ordered the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to promulgate a federal
implementation plan (FIP) for ozone in the Chicago metropolitan
area (both Illinois and Indiana), based upon USEPA~s disapproval
of the state implementation plan (SIP) submitted by Illinois.
Wisconsin v. Reilly, No. 87—C-0395 (E.D. Wis.). The parties to
that lawsuit have reached a proposed settlement of the dispute,
although to date the district court has not approved that
settlement. The hot summer of 1988 resulted in high levels of
ozone in the Chicago and Metro East areas. Although much progress
has been made in reducing air pollution in the past twenty years,
it is obvious that more reductions are necessary in order to attain
compliance with the health-based federal air quality standards.
The Board has acted upon all of the reasonably available
control technology (PACT) rules for industry proposed by the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agc?ncy), and has recently
opened a docket (R89—16) to consider revisions to those RACT rules,
which are intended to remedy deficiencies identified by USEPA. It
is clear, however, that some new control measures must be imposed
upon mobile sources, such as motor vehicles. Mobile sources are
the largest source of carbon monoxide (CO) emissions and of
hydrocarbon (HC) emissions and a significant source of nitrogen
oxide (NOx) emissions, all of which contribute to the formation of
ozone. The Board has taken the first step in that direction by
proposing new reductions in the volatility of gasoline. See Limits
to the Volatility of Gasoline, P88—30(A) & (B), September 13, 1989.
Another strategy to further reduce emissions from motor vehicles
might be to adopt the California motor vehicle control program in
Illinois. Today the Board will open a docket for an inquiry
hearing on this subject.
1fl4—581
2
California has historically had stricter emission controls for
mobile sources than the rest of the country. The other 49 states
are all subject to the same federal standard; in fact, the Clean
Air Act (CAA) preempts the states from setting emission standards
for new motor vehicles. 42 USC 7543(a). The CAA also allows a
waiver of that preemption for California’s motor vehicle emissions
standards, however, and allows other states to adopt the identical
California standards. 42 USC 7507 and 7543(b). In other words,
a state may choose between the federal standards and the California
standards: no state can adopt a third standard. The test in
deciding whether adoption of a proposed new standard complies with
the CAA is whether auto manufacturers would be burdened with
additional hardware requirements beyond the federal and California
standards, i.e. whether a third vehicle would have to be
manufactured in order to comply with the proposed standard. The
eight states which belong to the Northeast States for Coordinated
Air Use Management (NESCAUN) recently announced that they ~ould
seek to have the California standards adopted by their states. No
state other than California has actually adopted California’s
emissions standards to date.
In early 1989 NESCAUN commissioned Sierra Research Inc. to
assist in an analysis of the feasibility, the air quality benefits,
and the costs of adopting the California motor vehicle control
program in the northeast states. The report issued by Sierra
concludes that the northeast could reduce motor vehicle emissions
of HC by 16, NOx by 27, and CO by 39 by the year 2010, when the
current generation of vehicles controlled at the lower federal
standards is replaced by lower emitting vehicles. The Sierra
report found that the cost of these reductions would be about $150
per vehi ol e, or ~ihout.$6O( per ton of
f~C
an~1NO~ reTnoveci, A çjrapb
preparcu ier Lee Je~cricaii Luny Assecia ~i.on shows thut Lec1uction~
in Illinois for mobile sources could be approximately 27 for HC,
25 for CO, an~39 for NOx.
It should be noted that California is currently proposing
revisions to its control program. Because of the requirements of
the CAA discussed above, any adoption by Illinois of the California
standards would have to be made identical to the California
standards which are in effect at the time of adoption. The current
federal and California standards, and the proposed California
standards, are summarized below:
The eight states which belong to NESCAUN are Connecticut,
Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode
Island, and Vermont.
1fl4•-5~~
3
HC
CO
NOx
Federal
0.41 T*
3.4
1.0
California
0.39 N**
7.0
0.4
Proposed Cal.
0.25 N**
34
0.4
*T means total hydrocarbons.
**N means non—methane hydrocarbons only.
The Cailfornia program also includes other provisions relating to
production line testing, certification of conformity,
nonconformance penalties, tampering, useful life, inspection and
maintenance testing, on—board diagnostics, and recall. It is not
clear exactly how many of these enforcement provisions would have
to be adopted by another state adopting the California program.
The Board notes that a United States House of Representatives
subcommittee recently voted to apply the California emission
standards to all 50 states, with the standards to be phased in over
the 1994—1996 model years. Although that provision may well be
passed by the full House and by the Senate, and be signed into law
by the President, the federal adoption of the California standards
is not certain.
The Board will hold at least one inquiry hearing on the
possibility of adopting the California program in Illinois. A
hearing has been scheduled for mid-December 1989, in Chicago; a
hearing officer order will give further details. The Board
particularly asks for testimony on the following:
1. What emission reductions could be achieved in Illinois
by imposing the California standards?
2. What are the costs to impose the California program in
Illinois? The Board seeks information on all aspects of
the economics of the program, including but not limited
to the cost to purchasers of new cars, the costs of any
enhanced enforcement measures such as those in place in
California, and the cost of the measures in terms of
the cost per ton of reduction of CO, HC, and NOx.
3. How many of the California measures, beyond the emission
standards, would have to be adopted to have the standards
approved as a SIP revision pursuant to the CAA? Which
California measures, such as on—board diagnostics,
inspection and maintenance programs, and recalls, should
be adopted by Illinois?
4. What is the status of the proposed revisions to the
California standards?
1fl4 ~fl3
4
5. What is the status of the bill seeking federal adoption
of the California program? Exactly how much of the
California program, in addition to the emission
standards, does the federal proposal seek to adopt?
6. What is the status of the NESCAUM states’ adoption of
the California standards? How much of the California
program do those states seek to adopt?
The Board will also accept written public comments, either in
addition to or instead of participation at hearing, through January
5, 1990. Specific proposals, including regulatory language and
supporting technical and economic information, are particularly
solicited from potential proponents. In addition to participation
from all interested persons, the Board specifically seeks
participation from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
the Department of Energy and Natural Resources, and USEPA.
The Board emphasizes that it does not today propose to adopt
the California motor vehicle control program; rather, it seeks to
obtain information on that possibility. After analysis of the
information received at hearing and in comments, the Board will
determine what further action may be appropriate.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Order was adopted on the ~
day of
~~--/~
~,
1989, by a vote of
____________
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
11)4 ~S4