ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
January
23, 1986
IN THE MATTER OF:
STANDARDS FOR THE EMISSION OF
)
R85-25
HYDROCARBONS
AND CARBON MONOXIDE
FROM GASOLINE POWERED MOTOR
)
VEHICLES
(I/M Rules)
)
PROPOSAL FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
PROPOSED OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J.D.
Dumelle):
This matter
comes before
the Board upon an October
11,
1985
proposal filed on behalf of the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (Agency)
for
the adoption of regulations
to establish
standards
for
the emission of hydrocarbons
and carbon monoxide
from gasoline powered
vehicles.
Those regulations were proposed
pursuant
to
Section 13A—l05
of the Illinois Vehicle Emission
Inspection Law,
Ill.
Rev.
Stat.,
ch.
95
1/2,
par.
l3A—105,
et
seq.
and amend
35
Ill.
l~dm. Code
240:
Mobile Sources.
Hearings
were held on December
2,
1985
in Chicago and on December
11,
1985
in Springfield.
The Agency offered
an amendment to
the proposal
at the December
11,
1985 hearing which was
filed
with the Board
on December
12, 1985.
A comment was
filed
by the Chicago
Department of Consumer Services
(Chicago)
on January 6,
1986
which offered alternative amendments.
This proceeding arises pursuant
to P.A. 83—1477,
the Vehicle
Emissions Inspections Law.
Under
that legislation
the Board was
given 90 days from the
date
of filing of
an Agency
Inspection
and
Maintenance
(I/M) proposal
to adopt
rules which
are no more restrictive
than necessary
to achieve
the reductions
in vehicle hydrocarbon and carbon
monoxide emissions,
as determined by the applicable
vehicle emissions estimation model
and guidelines
developed
by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, which
are necessary for
compliance with the Clean Air Act.
The emission
standards established
by the Board
for vehicles
of
model year 1981
or
later promulgated shall
be
identical
in substance
to the emissions standards
promulgated by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency
in connection with the emission
performance warranty eligibility under Section
207(b)
of the Clean Air Act.
Section
13A—l05(a)
Under
this provision final Board rulemaking should
have been
completed
by January
8, 1986.
That date,
however, has
not been
met despite expeditious handling,
but the Agency has stated that
the Board’s failure
to meet the statutory deadline should not
have any effect
on
the date
the program commences.
(R. 34_35).*
67-573
—2—
Under
the Vehicle Emissions Inspections Law the Agency
is
required
to establish an I/M program in specified portions
of
the
Chicago and East St. Louis metropolitan areas.
(R. 11).
The
I/t’
program consists of mandatory annual exhaust emission inspections
of most motor vehicles
in those
areas from 1986 through 1991.
(R. 11—12).
The inspections will take place
at
18 inspections
stations set
up and
operated
by Systems Control,
Inc.
(R.
12—
13).
The Agency has adopted
rules setting
forth the overall
program procedures
at
35 Ill.
Adm. Code 276.
Prior
to the
commencement
of inspections
(mandated
to
be
no later
than July,
1986)
each owner
of
an affected vehicle will
be sent
an emissions
inspection sticker which will specify
a date
by which
the vehicle
must be
inspected in order
to obtain a renewal sticker.
(R.
13).
The inspection will consist
of determining
the hydrocarbon
and carbon monoxide emissions of the vehicle
to determine
compliance with emissions standards for
those pollutants.
(R.
14).
The establishment
of those standards is the central concern
of this proceeding.
If the vehicle’s emissions meet those
standards,
the owner will obtain
a 1—year
renewal sticker.
(R.
15).
The owner
of
a vehicle which does not meet
the standards
will
be given a copy
of the test results and
a form
to
be
completed by
a repairman,
and the vehicle must then be
retested
at
a
later date.
(R. 15).
If the vehicle again fails
to meet
the standards the owner may request
a state
inspector to
issue
a
waiver for the vehicle which will
be
issued
if all manufacturer’s
emissions warranty repairs have been made,
there
has been
a
proper low emissions tuneup,
and for
1975 and later model year
vehicles
a catalytic converter and fuel inlet restrictor must be
properly installed and
functioning.
(R.
16—17).
If
a waiver
is
not granted,
the decision can be appealed
to
the Board or the
owner may seek
to remedy the problem and take
a second retest.
(R.
17).
No further
tests will
be allowed
thereafter.
(R.
17).
Anyone failing
to comply with the inspection law may result
in suspension
of the owner’s driving privileges
or his vehicle
registration,
or both.
(R.
18).
Section 240.102
Proposed amendments
to Section
240.102
include the addition
of definitions
for
“Idle Mode,”
“Heavy Duty Vehicle,” “High
Idle,”
“Light Duty Truck,”
“Light Duty Vehicle,”
“Model Year,”
and “Two—Speed Idle Test.”
No question was
raised concerning the
definitions of
“Idle Mode,”
“High Idle,”
“Model Year,”
or “Two-
Speed Idle Test.”
However,
some question did arise regarding the
classification definitions
of “Heavy Duty Vehicle,” “Light Duty
Truck,” and
“Light Duty Vehicle.”
67-574
—3--
James Matheny,
an environmental specialist with the Agency’s
vehicle inspection and maintenance program stated that “the
intent
of
these definitions was
to maintain consistency between
the Illinois Vehicle Code and
the definitions of passenger cars,
first division vehicles and second division vehicles, and then
with USEPA definitions for
the establishment of passenger car
versus truck emission standards.”
(R.
63—64).
The proposed
definitions are
as follows:
“Heavy Duty Vehicle”:
a motor vehicle
rated
at more
than 8000 pounds gross vehicle weight, which
is
designed for carrying more than ten persons
or
designed for the transportation of property,
freight
or cargo.
“Light Duty Truck”:
a motor vehicle rated
at 8000
pounds gross vehicle weight
or
less, which
is
designed
for carrying more than
10 persons
or
designed for the transportation of property,
freight or cargo,
or
is
a derivative of such
a
vehicle.
“Light Duty Vehicle”: passenger cars designed
to
carry no more than 10 persons.
A question arose as
to the necessity,
or effect,
of the language
“designed for the transportation of property, freight or
cargo”
in the definition of Heavy Duty Vehicle.
At one point Mr.
Matheny was asked which classification would be appropriate for
a
vehicle which
is not designed
to carry more than ten persons but
weighs more than 8000 pounds.
The response was:
“then
it
is
a
heavy duty vehicle.
Or
it should
be
a heavy duty vehicle.”
(R.
63).
However, when asked why the classification
is not simply by
weight,
he stated that there
are certain vehicles
“that do weigh
more than 8000 pounds
that are registered
or
are certified
to
meet passenger car emission standards,
registered
as passenger
cars.”
(R.
65).
This certification
is apparently by USEPA.
(R.
65).
The USEPA definition of Heavy Duty Vehicle
is simply based
on
a gross vehicle weight
of greater than 8500 pounds.*
(40 CFR
86.082—2).
The definition of Light Duty Truck is
a vehicle
of
less than that weight which
is designed
to carry more than
12
passengers
or
for
the transportation of property
or
is available
with features allowing off—street use.
(id.).
A Light Duty
vehicle
is defined
as
a passenger car for
fewer
than 12 people.
(Id.).
Under the Illinois Vehicle Code
(IVC)
vehicles
are
*
No explanation
is given for
the weight limit
under the USEPA
definition
(8500 pounds)
and the proposed limit
(8000 pounds).
However,
the Board presumes that
the emission reduction analysis
is premised
on the 8000 pound
limitation and will retain
the
figure.
67-575
—4—
divided
into two divisions.
First Division vehicles
are those
motor vehicles designed for carrying
10 or
fewer persons,
and
Second Division vehicles are those designed
for carrying more
than
10 persons,
those designed for use as
living quarters or for
carrying property,
freight or cargo,
and school buses.
(Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1985,
ch.
95 1/2, par. 1—217).
Both the USEPA and IVC systems appear
to clearly classify
all types
of vehicles whereas the Agency’s proposal, which
combines elements of both,
does not.
Furthermore, complete
consistency with both sets
of definitions
is clearly
impossible.
In order
to provide clarity,
and without making
the
definitions any more inconsistent than they presently are,
the
Board proposes
to amend
the definition
of Heavy Duty Vehicle
by
deleting everything after
the word “weight,”
thus making all
vehicles
of greater
than 8000 pounds fall under this
classification.
Vehicles of under
that weight would then be
subdivided
as Light Duty Vehicles
or Light Duty Trucks based upon
use.
The Board does not expect this change
to significantly
affect
the emissions reductions
under the program and believes
that what may be
lost
in that regard
is more than offset by the
enhanced clarity and enforceability of
the rule as modified.
Section 240.104
The Agency has proposed
to delete existing Section 240.104
in
its entirety and
to substitute new language since
the present
language
is “meaningless and unenforceable,
...
and
is
a
throwback
to
a regulation of the now defunct Illinois Air
Pollution Control Board.”
(RII.
6).
The new language simply
states
that vehicles subject
to inspection shall meet the
emission standards
of Section
240.l24.*
The Board agrees with
the Agency that the existing language
is inappropriate
in that
it refers
to
a program which has never
been adopted and could
cause confusion with the presently
proposed I/M program.
Some question was raised by Chicago
as
to
whether deletion of
this provision would result
in the deletion
of substantive provisions regarding tempering and opacity.
However,
the Board also agrees with the Agency that the deletion
of this provision in no way
impairs the prohibitions against air
pollution control equipment tampering
or against
the presence of
visible emissions from motor vehicle exhaust pipes.
These
prohibitions remain
in
35
Ill. Mm.
Code 240.103 and 240.121.
(Rh.
5—7).
The Board,
therefore, proposes
to amend Section
240.124
as proposed by the Agency.
*
The proposal contains
a typographical error
and refers
to
Section 204.124.
67-576
—5—
Section 240.105
The Agency originally proposed the deletion
of Section
240.105 regarding penalties
in
its entirety.
However,
at the
December 11,
1985 hearing
the Agency proposed substitute
language.
The language which
is proposed
to be deleted simply
states
that violations of the mobile source
rules shall
be
subject
to
the penalty provisions
of Section
42
of
the
Environmental Protection Act (Act).
However, penalties imposed
pursuant to the Vehicle Emissions Inspection Law,
are subject
to
the provisions of Sections 13A—ll2 and l3A—ll3
of Chapter
95 1/2
of the Illinois Revised Statutes.
Existing provisions
remain
constrained
by Section 42 of
the Act.
Given
that different
provisions of Part 240 are subject
to differing penalty
provisions,
the Board finds
that it
is appropriate
to include a
section
as proposed by the Agency in
its Petition
to Amend which
sets out these differing provisions.
Section 240.106
Present Section 240.106 sets out the requirements for
determining violations
of the opacity standards and equipment
requirements.
The Agency has proposed amendments which would add
requirements
for
the determination
of violations
of
the exhaust
emissions standards for carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons.
The
substance
of this proposed amendment was not questioned.
However,
as proposed,
the new requirements would
be contained
in
a “hanging paragraph,” which the Board attempts
to avoid
for
purposes of ease of
reference and clarity.
At hearing the Board
suggested that the new provision be denominated
as subsection
(c).
The Agency did not agree with that suggestion since
subsection
(c) does not fall appropriately under
the introductory
language of the section.
The Board agrees.
However,
the Board
proposes
the amendment
of this Section
in such
a way that both
concerns are met.
The substance, however,
is intended to remain
unchanged.
Section 240.124
Section 240.124
is at the heart of this proceeding and
is
also the most contested provision.
This section establishes
the
vehicle exhaust emissions limitations for carbon monoxide and
hydrocarbon
for the various classifications
of vehicles subject
to the I/M program.
USEPA requires that all federally mandated
I/N programs
be designed
at
a minimum
to meet Reasonably
Available Control Technology
(RACT)
standards.
(R. 44).
The
Vehicle Emissions Inspections Law further requires
that “emission
standards be set no more restrictive than necessary to achieve
the reductions
...
necessary for compliance with the Clean Air
Act.”
(R.
44—45).
Thus,
the Board
is constrained
to adopt
standards equivalent
to RACT which has been determined
to
represent an emission reduction
of 25
of hydrocarbons and 35
of
carbon monoxide.
(R.
45—46).
67-577
—6—
In order
to meet those goals the Agency first had
to
determine what sort of testing should be used for 1981
and later
vehicles.
If
an idle test waschosen,
RACT would
require
a 30
failure
rate for older
vehicles.
(R.
48).
Using
a two—speed
test
allows
a 20
failure rate to be
used for older vehicles,
resulting in overall program cost savings.
(R.
50).
The Agency
chose
the two—speed
test.
(id).
Next,
as required
by statute,
the Agency proposed the
federal warranty standards as
the
emission standards for
1981 and later
vehicles.
All that there
remained was
for the Agency
to propose standards which would
produce
a
20
failure rate
for pre—1981 vehicles
(and all heavy—
duty trucks)
using the USEPA Mobile motor vehicle emission
projection model.
(R.
47).
The Agency attempted
to do this in
such
a way that each vehicle classification for which
an emission
standard was established would have a 20
failure rate
(i.e.
to
establish uniform and equitable failure rates
for
all model
years).
(R.
51).
To do
so the Agency used data from other
states I/N programs which were felt to be similar
to the Illinois
proposal
(Wisconsin and Kentucky).
(R.
54).
Heavy—duty truck
standards were based
on Oregon data, however,
since neither
Wisconsin nor Kentucky tested such vehicles.
(R.
56).
Using
this data
the Agency then established “cutpoints”
or emissions
standards necessary to meet the required failure rate as proposed
in this section.
USEPA and Agency witnesses contend that the standards
proposed meet the statutory requirements,
i.e.
they are as
stringent as necessary,
but no more so,
to meet federal
demands.
The record
is,
further, devoid
of any evidence
to the
contrary.
The only substantial issues
are raised
by the Chicago
Department of Consumer Services.
Joseph Seliber, P.E.,
on
its
behalf,
argues, essentially,
that the proposal
is not stringent
enough and
that the program should
include anti—tampering
requirements.
Mr.
Seliber stated that the “cutpoints
for 1979
and older cars detailed in Section 240.124 should
be tightened
up, particularly the carbon monoxide standard.”
(R.
83).
He
further
stated that “it
is desirable
to provide more than the
minimum emission reduction requirement,
if
it can be done
at
little extra cost” and that
if Chicago’s proposal
“results
in air
which
is cleaner than necessary,
it will give
us the opportunity
to absorb more industrial growth.”
(R.
9).
Instead of basing
the proposed standards on
a determination
of what level would
result
in the necessary failure rate,
Chicago based
its standards
“on the basis
of knowledge of engine combustion principles,
and
the practical experience of
supervising
thousands of carburetor
adjustments” during the City’s voluntary inspection program in
the late 1970’s.
(R.
104).
Mr. Seliber also believes that the I/N program ought
to
include
a
tampering inspection.
In order
to accomplish
this the
Department recommends
a two—tier standard:
those vehicles which
meet the strictest standard would automatically
get a
67-578
—7—
certification sticker, regardless
of whether
the car had been
tampered with;
those which
fail
to meet the more lenient standard
would not get
a sticker regardless
of
tampering,
and those
in the
middle would
be inspected for tampering and would get a sticker
only
if
there were
no evidence
of tampering.
A tampering
inspection would allegedly take
a minute
or
less, would
significantly reduce emissions beyond the Agency’s proposal
and
thereby result
in quicker attainment
of the NAAQS.
Chicago believes that
its proposal
is consistent with the
legislative mandate.
The basis
for
that position
is
that “the
requirements which
the Illinois EPA is
trying
to follow are
predicated on many assumptions which are difficult for them to
prove” and that in determining the establishment
of minimum
standards
(i.e.
“no more restrictive than necessary”
under
the
Vehicle Emissions Inspection Law), minimum standard should be
defined
as
“that standard which
is likely to achieve the
goal at
no significant extra cost.”
(R.
106).
In short, Chicago urges
that
a safety factor be
included
in establishing the emissions
standards and
by
including an anti—tampering inspection.
However,
the Board
finds that the legislation does not allow
the Board
to adopt anti—tampering rules
or more stringent
standards
in this proceeding.
The I/N, fast—track,
legislation
appears
to be
clearly limited
to establishing emission standards
and not tampering prohibitions.
Furthermore, I/M contracts have
been signed which do not
include inspections
for tampering
and
such
a change would undoubtedly set back the program which
is
already falling behind schedule.
Thus,
while
there
is
considerable merit to this proposal,
the legal
and practical
impediments
are too great to
be overcome
in this proceeding.
Any
such action would require
a
new rulemaking.
The Board,
therefore, proposes Section 240.124
as proposed
by the Agency.
Section 240.125
Section 240.125 simply requires
that compliance with the
emission limitations shall
be determined using the
idle mode for
all vehicles
and that 1981 and later
light duty vehicles and
light duty trucks
shall also be
tested
at high idle.
The
emission limitations of Section 240.124 are dependent upon the
use
of this testing mechanism and no one has questioned
the
propriety of
the
rule.
The Board,
therefore,
proposes
this
section
as proposed by the Agency.
Public Comment
As noted
above,
the Vehicle Emissions Inspection Law exempts
this proceeding from the usual rulemaking requirements under
the
Environmental Protection Act and the Administrative Procedure
Act.
Therefore,
the Board
could simply adopt
these rules
at this
time.
However, since
the Board has made some modifications
to
the proposal and since
typographical or other errors are always
possible,
the Board will allow a public comment period until
67-579
—8--
February 20, 1986.
Final adoption
is anticipated
on February 26,
1986.
ORDER
The Board hereby proposed the following amendments
to
35
Ill. Adm.
Code,
Subtitle
B:
Air Pollution, Chapter
1, Pollution
Control Board, Part 240: Mobile Sources.
(New language is
underlined.
Deleted language
is lined
through.)
Section 240.102 Definitions:
All
terms which appear
in this Part have
the definitions
specified
in this Part and
35 Ill. Mm. Code 201 and 211.
“Idle Mode”:
that portion of
a vehicle emission test
procedure conducted with the engine disconnected from an
external
load and operating at minimum throttle.
“Heavy Duty Vehicle”:
a motor vehicle
rated
at more than
8000 pounds gross vehicle weight.
“High Idle”:
that portion of
a two—speed
idle test conducted
with
the engine
operating at
a ~peed of approximately 2500
RPM.
“Light Duty Truck”:
a motor
vehicle rated
at 8000 pounds
gross vehicle weight or less,
which
is designed for carrying
more than 10 persons or designed for
the transportation of
property, freight or cargo,
or
is
a derivative of such
a
vehicle.
“Light Duty Vehicle”: passenger
cars designed
to carry not
more
than
10
persons.
“Model Year”:
the year
of manufacture
of
a motor
vehicle
based upon
the annual production period
as designated
by
the
manufacturer and indicated on the title
and registration
of
the vehicle.
If the manufacturer does
not designate
a
production period
for
the vehicle,
then
“model year” means
the calendar year
of manufacture.
“Two—Speed Idle Test”:
a vehicle emission test procedure
consisting
of the measurements of exhaust emission
in high
idle and idle modes.
Section
240.104 Inspection:
a+
whert ~he Bea~has iss~e~
~e~es ar~~eg~a~4~efts
fe~4~r~g
~he Ma
~ei~a~ee
0?
?ea~~es
Of
e~4pme~4~r~
Of
Oft
mo~efveh~e~es
?Of
‘ehe pt~pesee?
0Oft~fO~~ft~
OM~5S~0ftS
~hefe?feffi7
ftO
MO~0f
veh~e3~eshall be ~ss~eê
Oft
±ftspee~efts~4~e1~ef
as ~
p
st~ar~~e
5
ll~i~
A~m- ?oêei~S~b~4~e
87
?hap~ef ~ +Ghap~ef*7~ft~essall
seeh ~eqtu~~e~?ea~~es
Of
~
have
beeft
spee~e~
67-580
—9—
~riaeee~~a~ee
w4~h~he s~ar~af~s7
~es~i~g ~eehft~t~es
Oft~
tfts~fae~±efts
?~frt±she~
by ~he Beaf~
Oft~
has
beeft
?et~i~
~O
rftee~those
S~Oft~Of~5~
b~
Me~efveh4e~eeft~ftes7hav4i~g~he maftt~?ae~efefs~
O~f
pellu~efteefttfe~eys~e~s~s~alle~7
shall eomp~yw~h
Bee~4on24O-~23+a+~
e)-
Me~Ofveh~e~e
eftg4ftes7
fte~ hav±~g
~he
maft~?ae~t~fefs~
e±f
pellU~Oft
eeft~fe~
systeMs
~fts~alle~7
shall be
~
~o
eemp~y w~h
Bee~4eft
24O7~~+a+-
All motor vehicles subject
to inspection pursuant to Section
13A—104
of
the Illinois Vehicle Emissions Inspection Law
(Ill.
Rev. Stat..
1985,
Ch.
95
1/2,
par. l3A—l04)
shall comply with the
exhaust emission standards for carbon monoxide
and hydrocarbons
set forth
at Section 240.124 of this Part.
Section
240.105 Penalties:
a)
Any violations
of any provisions
of ~h~s Ghap~ef
Sections 240.103, 240.121, 240.122,
and 240.123 shall
be
subject
to the penalties as set
forth
in Section
42
of
the Act
(Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
~
ch.
111 1/2, par.
1042
(1985)).
b)
Any violations
of any provisions
of Sections 240.104
and 240.124 shall
be
subject
to the penalties
as
set
forth
in Sections l3A—1l2
and l3A—1l3
of the Vehicle
Emissions Inspection Law
(Ill.
Rev.
Stat.,
ch.
95
1/2,
par. 13A—ll2, l3A—113
(1985)).
Section 240.106 Determination of Violation:
a)
Any violation
of a~ypfev4s±ertsSections 204.103,
240.121,
240,122,
and 240.123
of
this Part shall
be
determined: ~
Bby visual observationt
,
or b+ B~ya
test procedure employing
an opacity measurement
system
as qualified by
35
Ill. Adm. Code 201, Subpart J.
b)
Any violations of Section 240.124 shall
be determined
in accordance with test procedures adopted by the
Agency.
67-581
—10—
Section 240.124 Vehicle Exhaust Emission Standards:
a)
Exhaust emissions from light duty vehicles shall
not
—
exceed
the
following limitations:
Hydrocarbons
as
Model Year
Carbon Monoxide
()
Hexane
(ppm)
1968
—
1971
9.0
900
1972
—
1974
8.0
800
1975
—
1977
7.0
700
1978
—
1979
6.0
600
1980
3.0
300
1981
and later
1.2
220
b)
Exhaust emission from light duty trucks
shall
not
—
exceed
the following limitations:
Hydrocarbons
as
Model Year
Carbon Monoxide
()
Hexane
(ppm)
1968
—
1971
9.0
900
1972
—
1974
8.0
800
1975
—
1978
7.0
700
1979
—
1980
6.0
600
1981
—
1983
3.0
300
1984
and later
1.2
220
C)
Exhaust emissions from heavy duty vehicles shall not
—
exceed
the following limitations:
Hydrocarbons
as
Model Year
Carbon Monoxide
()
Hexane
(ppm)
1968
—
1971
9.5
1500
1972
—
1978
9.0
900
1979
—
1984
7.0
700
1985 and later
3.0
300
Section 240.125 Compliance Determination:
For purposes of determining compliance with Section 240.124
of
this Part,
all vehicles shall
be inspected while
operating in
the idle mode,
and all
1981 and later model
year
light duty vehicles and light duty trucks shall
be
inspected
at high
idle during
a two—speed
idle test.
IT
IS
SO ORDERED.
Board Member
J. Theodore Meyer dissented.
67-582
—11—
I, Dorothy
M. Gunn,
Clerk
of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify
that the above O,pinion and Order was
adopted
on the
~-~-
day of
~
,
1986
by
a vote
of
_____________.
Dorothy
M.
Gur~n,Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
67-583
