HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 1847- ~F •-~
• A Resolu~~
gEgpt,ITrION NO. 1
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT WORTH,
TEXAS, SUPPORTING THE NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL OF
GOVERNMENTS' POSITION, AS RECOMMENDED BY ITS AIR QUALITY
ADVISORY COMMITTEE, FOR THE CONTINUATION OF A DECENTRALIZED
INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE VEHICLE EMISSIONS PROGRAM FOR THE
REGION; SPECIFICALLY, TARRANT, DALLAS, COLLIN AND DENTON
COUNTIES
WHEREAS, the Fort Worth-Dallas ozone non-attainment area consists of Tarrant,
Dallas, Collin, and Denton counties; and
WHEREAS, the existing "basic" inspection and maintenance (I&M) program in Tarrant
and Dallas counties has a high rate of non-participation from car owriets
and needs better enforcement to be effective; and
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Worth supports cooperative, cost-effective approaches to
air quality programs; and
WHEREAS, other options proposed by the Texas Air Control Board have merit but do
not include a commitment to enhance the current I&M program for greater
effectiveness through a more stringent enforcement program; and
WHEREAS, A December 1991 publication by the National Research Council entitled
"Rethinking the Ozone Problem in Urban and Regional Air Pollution"
reconfirmed the Texas Air Control Board staffs conclusion that the
technical basis for the national ozone program is seriously flawed; and
WHEREAS, this study further demonstrated that substantial resources will be needed
to produce reliable data on which to base ozone control strategies; and
WHEREAS, the Dallas-Fort Worth ozone non-attainment area, which includes Collin
and Denton counties, is not required, at this time, by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (as directed by the Clean Air Act
.,.-y Amendments) to implement the more stringent 1&M program
;; ~; °, ~, ~ ' `recommended by Texas Air Control Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE [T RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF FORT WORTH
THAT: .~
, - ..-15G~.«.
„'_'~,Section 1. "`The City of Fort Worth supports the North Central Texas Council of
Governments consensus position that the Fort Worth-Dallas region pursue the option of
Collin and Denton counties implementing a decentralized inspection and maintenance
CITY OF FORT WORTH
vehicle emissions program.. Copies of the .North Texas Council of Governments
Resolution approving said consensus position, as_well as its statement of the consensus
position, are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and "B," respectively.
Section 2. The City of Fort Worth supports the North Central Texas Council of
Governments in its endeavors to enhance the decentralized inspection and maintenance
program in the Fort Worth-Dallas area through a 5-Point Action Plan focusing on
enforcement and oiher strategies. Copies of this "5-Point Action Plan" and its supporting
statement are attached hereto as Exhibits "C" and "D," respectively.
Section 3. A copy of this resolution will be forwarded to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Regional Office, the Texas Air Control Board, and this region's-State
and U.S. Legislative Representatives.
Section 4. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and
approval.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE FORT WORTH CITY COUNCIL this
day of September, 1992.
Mayor, City of Fort Worth, Texas
ATTEST:
City Secretary
City of Fort Worth, Texas
CITY COUNCIL.
SEP 1 1992
CitC~ ~aL3,y
Y. of Fort 54ortli, Yeua
two op poar woara
s
EXBIBIT 'A'
RESOLUTION APPROVING ` ~ `"'" ' "' "''
POLICY POSITION ON VEHICLE INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Oallas-For! Worth ozone non-attainment area consists of Collin, Denton, Dallas and
Tarrant Counties; and
WHEREAS, Collin and Denton Counties must implement at least a 'basic' auto inspection and
maintenance program by 7994 to meet Clean Air Act requirements; and
WHEREAS, the existing 'basic' inspection and maintenance program in Dallas & Tarrant Counties has
a high rate of non-participation from car owners and needs better entorcemeni to be effective; and
WHEREAS, the North Central Texas Council of Governments supports cooperative, cost-effective
approaches to air quality programs; and
WHEREAS, other options proposed by the Texas Air Control Board have merit but do not include a
commitment to enhance the current program for greater effectiveness; and
WHEREAS, the Dallas-Fort Worth ozone non-attainment area is not required at this time to implement
the other more stringent options recommended by the Texas Air Control Board.
NOW, THEREFORE,. BE R HEREBY RESOLVED:
SECTION t That the North Central Texas Council of Governments adopts the Consensus Position
(see attachment 1) developed by the Air Quality Advisory Committee
SECTION 2 That the Executive Director and staff o! the North Central Texas Council of Governments
is authorized to actively pursue the Action Plan (see attachment 2) to enhance the
inspection & maintenance program in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex.
3 That this resolution shall be in effect immediately upon its adoption.
~ pruill, President
N h Central Texas Council of Governments
Mayor, City o1 Addison
1 hereby certify that this resolution was adopted by the Executive Board o1 the North Texas Councl of
Governments on July 23, 1992. _
o Central Texas'Council of Governments
• ayor, City of Aichardson
BXBIBIT `B'
North Central Texas Couneil o/ Governments
Air Ouality Advisory Committee
CONSENSUS POSITION
AUTO INSPECTION b .MAINTENANCE PROGRAM •
DALLAS/FORT WORTH METROPI.EX
June 10, 1992
0 This region supports a cooperative, cost-effective approach to reach air quality goals.
o The selection of an UM program should be undertaken in conjunction with other control strategies, as
part of a comprehensive State Implementaion Plan development process. Cost effectiveness of UM
program should be developed.
o Under the Clean Air Act, moderate non-ariainment areas, such as the 4-county Oallas•Fort WoAh area,
are not required to implement centralized 'high-tech' programs at this time.
o Test operators now using the 2•speed test 'Bar 90' technology in Dallas and Tarrant Counties need an
opportunity to recoup their .investment over the next 3-4 years.
o Decentralized programs can significantly improve emissions reductions if enforcement compliance
reaches 90 percent. .
o Current timetable is proposed by TACB, based upon TACB'8 Department of Public Safety preference •
for centralized system in the Dallas/Fort Worth area.
o TACB should consider funding and developing a more effective enforcement program to support the
current .decentral¢ed network, instead of switching now in favor of new technology. Nearly 520 millbn
a year is returned to the general fund from test fees in our area, only a small portion of which is now
allocated in return to enforcement of the test program.
o TACB should await published guidance from EPA and evaluate the effectiveness of other centralaed
'high-tech systems before recommending such programs in Dallas/Fort Worth. In addition, MOBILE 5.0
software is forthcoming, with effectiveness to be quantified with its use.
o Existing options reduce the incentives for anine-county integrated program.
o The effectiveness of the Tigh•tech' test has not been demonstrated (i.e. would more vehiGes fail this
particular test?)
o Some options would require up to four nips: safety check, initial emissions inspection, repair if needed,
and completed inspection. This would result in great inconvenience to car owners.
o The TACB options propose confusing systems based on model years and various bcations. A •
contusing system would hurt the credibility o1 the program.
o There is no clear guidance from State at this time whether the Gallas-Fort Worth area needs to focus on
..
NOx testing and control strategy. This issue maybe clarified in the next 12-18 months.
o There is no demonstrated effectiveness for the pressure test. N the test is indeed necessary, options
other than testing as part of a centralized emissions test could be considered, for example, by asking
car manufacturers and dealers to conduct the pressure lest.
o National data lrom EPA indicate that 10 percent of vehicles produce nearly 50 percent of mobile source
emissions. A cost effective program should target these gross polluters.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Texas Legislature should provide sufficient resources & powers to the Texas Air Control Board to fund
aggressive enfarcement of the decentralized program through the Department of Public Salety and local
air pollution control programs.
2. The Gallas/Fort Worth region should pursue the option of Collin and Denton Counties implementing a
decentralized inspection and maintenance program.
3. The perimeter counties of the Dallas•Forlh metropolitan region (i.e., Parker, Rockwall, Johnson, Ellis,
Kaufman) should be asked to consider opting for some corm of a basic I/M program.
4. TACB should consider implementation of a deceniral"u.ed computer system, with real-time enforcement
capability, to reduce/remove the discrepancy with centralized networks. If the TACB needs additional
funding to implement the computer system, then the TACB should seek funding from the Legislature
•
EXHIBIT 'C' ~'
North Central Texas Council of Governments
S-POINT ACTION PLAN
TO CARRY OUT REGIONAL NEEDS FOR
AUTO INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
June 10, 1992
t. Request Priority Attention to Enforcement of Auto 1/M program. The current decentralized basic UM
program could meet EPA effectiveness requirements if the participation rate from target cars could be
raised from 65%. Current enforcement resources are not adequate to provide the necessary compliance
level. Emssions test fees collected by the State are not fully allocated to the Inspection & Maintenance
program needs. NCTCOG should contact the Governor's Office, State Legislators and the Texas Air
Control Board and request adequate resources and powers be made available to the Department of
Public Safety and local air pollution control programs to provide necessary enforcement.
C~
2. Solicit State Commitment to a Decentralized Inspection b Maintenance Program in the D/FW area.
Our region believes that centralized programs are premature al this time. On the other hand, we seek
a commitment to improve/enhance the existing decentralized program. NCTCOG should solicit support
from the State regarding this position.
S. Enhancements to a Decentralized Inspection b Maintenance Program. Request the Texas Air Control
Board to examine improvements in the existing Inspection program by, for example, moving up the •
implementation dates of Denton and Collin County inspections, adding other vehicle systems to the
testing procedure and reviewing the existing method o1 the current gas analyzer test.
4. Explore Full Range of UM Options through SIP Process. The Dallas/Fort Worth is on a (ast•track
schedule to develop, under TACB guidance, our share o1 the State Implementation Plan over the next
12.18 months. In this effort, NCTCOG should fully explore the various options available to our region,
and evaluate cost-effectiveness.
S. Inspection Testing for New Cars. federal law currently prohibits emission testing on new cars
although some evidence exists that not all of the emission control systems on vehicles are fusty
operational when purchased. Pursue with federal authorities the cost and effectiveness of changes in
this position.
a
•
~- EXBIBIT 'D"
NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERIJMENTS
Reasons why a centralized inspection/maintenance program
cannot be supported at this time
• This region is committed to cost-effective programs that witl work towards attainment of the
ozone standard by 1996. We feel that this goal can be achieved. A centralized program should
not be adopted simply because it may be necessary. if the region does not reach attainment by
1996,
Enforcement of an UM program is critical to its success. The current program in Oallas and
Tarrant Counties has a compliance rate of 63 percent. Therefore, over one-third of the vehicles
required to participate in the program are avoiding it. Furthermore, the Texas Legislature has
apparently decommissioned the Department of Public Safety officers previously responsible for
enforcing the I/M program. It is our understanding that the program currently operating in Dallas
and Tarrant Counties is not being properly enforced. A centralized program does not address
this immediate problem.
A more effective solution than centralized IIM may be to expand the decentralized program into
Collin, Denton and other perimeter counties, implement vehicle registration denial for
noncompliant vehicles, conduct covert audits, and include purge and pressure tests, for example.
It may be possible to begin this type of program in 1993, one year earlier. However, the
decentralized program parameters that prove equivalency of the Basic I/M standard must be
available to do this
• Mobile source emissions in Collin and Denton Counties comprise about t 1 percent of the mobile
source emissions in the DFW nonattainment area. A centralized I/M program in these two
counties, no matter how effective, will not significantly decrease emissions. In addition, ten
• .percent of the worst emitting vehicles represent approximately 45 percent of the inventory, and
are likely absent from the current program.
The prevailing wind direction in this region is from south to north. Therefore, implementing a
centralized I/M program in Collin and Denson Counties may have little or no impact on monitored
ozone levels in those counties because it is quite possible shat pollutants originating in Dallas
and Tarrant Counties are causing the ozone problems to the north. The TACB's Urban Airshed
Model should provide more detailed information in this area and should be queried before TACB
endorsement.
• The nine counties in the DFW CMSA have been committed to regional cooperation to solve the
air quality problem. A reasonable amount of doubt exists as to whether the surrounding counties
will voluntarily adopt a centralized program.
• The region should explore other options that may offer more cost-effective solutions than a
centralized I/M program. These programs could possibly include Cash for Clunkers, alternative
fuels, travel demand management, California new car standards, reformulated gasoline, lower
Reid Vapor Pressure gasoline, real time ozone alert travel days and inspection of new vehicles.
• A centralized I/M program that requires the consumer to visit different locations for an emissions
test, saleiy inspection, and vehicle repair is difficult to describe as convenient.
NCiCOG slaH working paper, 7727!92