Representatives of auto emission system manufacturers met with officials of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Feb. 13 concerning the agency's December proposed rule tightening ozone air emission standards.
Any lowering of allowable emission levels would force cities and counties that suddenly fall into the ozone "non-attainment" category because of tighter restrictions on hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide emissions to improve inspection and maintenance programs for autos. Transportation sources are the major causes of ground-level ozone, otherwise known as smog. Changes in the standard, last tightened in 2008, could also affect the availability of some types of reformulated gasoline.
The top executives from the Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA) and the Advanced Engine Systems Institute (AESI), Joe Kubsh and Chris Miller, respectively, were at the meeting, with some company reps joining the meeting via teleconference. Those participants included Greg Garr from Umicore, David Cetola, from Johnson Matthey Catalysts and Paul Busch from NGK Automotive Ceramics.
Kubsh says the meeting on ozone came at the end of a three-day meeting on other topics with EPA officials at Research Triangle Park in North Carolina.
"We were just trying to understand where there are opportunities in the mobile sources sector to do more," he says. "That would be in the areas of off-road and heavy-duty truck diesel engines."
Kubsh points out that the final rule the EPA issued in 2014 on Tier 3 emission standards already addresses direct-from-tailpipe emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOC), direct particulate matter (PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO) and air toxics. Tighter ozone standards would target many of those same pollutants, and force cities to adopt local policies. New standards would not directly affect auto manufacturers.
The meeting with the emissions executives followed by two weeks three meetings the EPA held around the country to get public input into the proposed rule, which would lower the current primary standard for ozone from .075 parts per million to between .065 to .070 ppm. The primary standard is meant to prevent lung disease and asthma. There is a secondary standard, too, which aims to mitigate any environmental damage to plants and animals. The EPA wants to revise the secondary standard, now the same as the primary standard, to a complicated formula based on something called a W126 index values. The EPA has not decided on exact numbers for either standard yet.
At the hearings in Washington, Giedrius Ambrozaitis, director of environmental affairs at the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said, "Given that dramatic reductions in ozone and improvements to air quality will continue to occur, new EPA regulations to further lower the ozone standard are not necessary to improve air quality."
Unhealthy ozone levels are a problem across the United States, with nearly 100 cities exceeding the EPA National Ambient Air Quality Standard. Non-attainment geographic areas are classified in five iterations, from marginal to severe. Those rated moderate and above must establish I/M programs.
The EPA forces the most polluted to adopt "enhanced" I/M programs, of which there are four basic "model programs." Once the EPA designates which of the four, the locality has some leeway in terms of the means for achieving the specified results.
Estimates from various sources are that a more protective ozone standard such as what the EPA is considering would result in non-attainment areas somewhere between 200-350, a doubling or tripling of the current non-attainment areas. As required by the Clean Air Act, EPA would make attainment/nonattainment designations for any revised standards by October 2017; those designations likely would be based on 2014-2016 air quality data. States with nonattainment areas would have until 2020 to late 2037 to meet the proposed health standard, with attainment dates varying based on the ozone level in the area.
Republicans in Congress will be expected to react negatively to any final standard between .065 to .070 ppm. Top GOP members on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee sent a letter to the EPA in February questioning the validity of the agency's cost-benefit analysis accompanying the proposed rule.
Subscribe to Aftermarket Business World and receive articles like this every month….absolutely free. Click here.
