Alaska IM Program

[akdsmer]

Contrary to public testimony the I/M program DOES reduce CO. Arguements that the standard is too stringent is irrelevant, as scientists have determined that rate and the government uses that as their standard. That won't change. Also, the fuel cap story that was told is not only unlikely, but such a vagrant charge should have been brought up to the I/M program office, but it simply wasn't. I would believe this event did not happen, although the lack of a oil filler cap COULD be as nobody wants oil blowing out the filler as the test is done, and then be blamed on the I/M technician. I would require the cap to be on, just as I would require the oil level to be correct. Common sense. The program has never been about failing replacement parts, only performance and uncertified parts. I get tire of that particular discussion though, so I'll let that one go.

The I/M program does allow for better fuel economy and cleaner tailpipe emissions because it makes the vehicle owner get off their wallet, which would not happen in many cases without an enforcement procedure, in this case, a registration denial if the test has not been completed.

Here is how it works and how it currently is proceeding:

It would be best to know that when an area exceeds the federal limits for a pollutant, in our case Carbon Monoxide (CO), the federal government requires by law (the Clean Air Act) that the area formulate an attainment plan that addresses the pollutant and how it will be mitigated. In the State of AK case, many studies found that automobiles were not only a large percentage of the CO, but the cost per ton to remove it was also the lowest. The state gave control of the programs to the local government to implement and manage. The FNSB has now been in attainment (which means we have managed not to have any CO concentrations that reached over the federal limit of 9ppm over an 8 hour average.) for the last 6 years and I believe that it was finally in 2005 that the EPA finally classified us a an attainment area, which allowed us to redesign a plan that shows that we will continue to be in compliance with the air quality standard without the I/M program. This is due to many reasons, such as the increase in newer, cleaner vehicles, the removal of older (dirtier) vehicle and the implementation of lower sulfur fuel which will keep O2 sensors and Catalyst working properly longer.

To submit an attainment plan is no simple act, and actually takes a very complex modeling strategy to prove it out. The FNSB has currently been dealing directly with DEC and the EPA as we have finished our attainment plan, have had it approved (last week) by the local pollution control commision, and now goes to the Borough Assembly for approval in October. Next the plan goes to DEC in Anchorage for public review and comment, DEC then validates the data (which we are currently helping them do so that the process moves forward quickly) and then approves it and forwards the plan to EPA for final approval. EPA has 18 months to send it out for comment and review. We have gotten EPA to speed this up to 14 months as we keep them in the loop as we designed our plan.

What does all this mean? An maintenance plan has been developed that removes the I/M component. We are waiting for approval from multiple government agencies which will likely run into the middle of 2009. We believe the I/M program will most likely be done by the end of 2009.

Now does leaving an I/M program even if we are in atainment seem like a valid idea? Sure, the cost of the test is low, averaging about the cost of filling up one fuel tank each year (for a 12 gallon tank). Do we have better air to breath and are we saving some fuel? Yep. But most people do not like requirements like I/M testing being forced upon them. If you could single out each person and make everyone ELSE do it, most would probably say yes. But when you make THEM be required to participate, then it's just beaurocratic hogwash.

While the I/M program get's little credit by the public, the program has done much for the public, outside of better air and some potential fuel savings, the program has provided lots of training for local technicians, that they can use to fix driveability and check engine light issues quicker and more efficiently than before. They have been given high tech labscopes to verify complex computer issues using FEDERAL grants. The I/M program has been available for repair information to the general public. I would suspect that removal of the program along with natural attrition of these technicians will drop the quality of repairs a bit over the long term, especially with the current level of training available locally for techs. Also, many repair shops like to say ignore the light. The I/M program is a great tool in requiring those shops to correct problems, especially at the dealer level where warranties can fix the car for only a few years.

The I/M program, especially in the 80's and up into the 90's was a HUGE contributor to the reduction of CO from our air. We went from having around 100 days each year of non-attainment to only a few in the end of the 90's. Now the program ensures that the technology that is available to maintain low emissions is kept in operating order. We all know what happens when the light goes on, and it isn't run to the dealer...to think that it hasn't helped is just debating removing the program.

The program is going away. Stay tuned.