Now you see it, now you don't.

Former New York City Mayor John Lindsay once quipped that he didn't "trust air he couldn't see." Now, people in urban areas across the nation can see their air and are anything but sanguine about it.

Since passage of the original 1970 Clean Air Act and its 1977 amendments, significant progress has been made in reducing pollutants from factories and motor vehicles. But economic development and its attendant pollution are threatening to outpace the air quality gains. Technology has made automobiles cleaner than ever--but today Americans are buying more cars and driving more miles. The result? Poor air quality that leads many to ask, "Where has all the money gone?"

New Federal Mandates

Congress attempted to put the brakes on escalating air pollution with passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA). Although only three years old, the act is proving to be a costly and politically contentious piece of environmental legislation. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated the costs of implementing the CAAA in 1990 to be $25 billion per year through 2005 (an average of 25 cents per person per day). The new estimate has been reduced to $20 billion annually. Although these costs appear to be high, they actually represent a savings--although a difficult one to quantify--compared to the estimated health costs of air pollution--$40 billion to $100 billion annually.

The clean air amendments attempt to create a balanced approach to battling smog. The federal government, the states, industry and private citizens are expected to form a close partnership to manage programs and meet deadlines. The act affects every polluter from automobile owners and corner dry cleaners to high-polluting industrial sources. Two parts of the act that place the greatest responsibilities on state and local governments concern "nonattainment areas" and control of "mobile sources."

"Nonattainment areas" are simply cities that fail to some degree to comply with federal air quality standards. Levels of pollution are divided into six increasingly serious categories for ozone and two for carbon monoxide. Ozone is urban smog caused by the chemical reaction of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides ([NO.sub.x]) in the presence of sunlight. Carbon monoxide (CO) from motor vehicle emissions may be more dangerous--it's the stuff Mayor Lindsay couldn't see--and restricts the ability of blood to carry oxygen to parts of the body.

Ninety-six areas violate the ozone standards; 41 fail to comply with the CO regulations. Each city has a strict time limit in which to meet the federal standards, ranging from three to 20 years for ozone and from five to 10 years for CO. What a state must do depends on its category. States must meet many requirements for nonattainment deadlines including updating motor vehicle inspection and maintenance programs, adding transportation controls to offset vehicle growth and reducing commuting.

"Mobile source controls" require more stringent tailpipe emission standards, which will be phased in with the 1994-1996 models. EPA will study the effects of these standards and may impose stricter ones on the auto industry beginning in 2004. The clean air amendments include a California pilot program to introduce vehicles that run on clean fuel such as electricity, ethanol, methanol and compressed natural gas. In 1996, California will be required by both state and federal law to sell 150,000 clean-fuel cars, increasing to 300,000 per year by 1999. Requirements are also imposed on the content of gasoline sold in many nonattainment areas.

Caving In or Cleaning Air?

The most contentious issue facing state and local governments is the federal act's stringent automobile inspection and maintenance (I/M) provisions. Such programs have been required in highly polluted areas since the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments, but the new rules are stricter. Now, the feds have requirements for two kinds of inspection and maintenance programs--basic and enhanced.

The basic program is required in areas that have not achieved ozone standards and are classified as "moderate" or "marginal" (three to six years to comply). Under the basic program, stations can continue to conduct both emission testing and repair work as they have since the 1977 amendments. Changes in enforcement requirements and compliance elements may require legislative action, but will not greatly alter the existing arrangements.

Requirements for the enhanced test are much less flexible than those for the basic tests. The test station cannot also perform the repair work under the enhanced guideline. EPA alleges a significant amount of fraud due to the potential conflict of interest in stations that conduct both testing and repair. Stations have been accused of unnecessary repairs and also of passing vehicles on re-tests that have not been correctly repaired. California Senator Newton Russell disagrees: "In our state we've uncovered very little fraud in stations that do both testing and repair--only about 7 percent of the work appears to be dishonest." He questions EPA's evidence to support the more stringent testing program, which requires costly equipment at a limited number of sites. He says the enhanced testing program has not been proven to cut pollution as EPA claims.

The enhanced test uses a high-tech testing procedure called the IM240. Newer automobiles (post-1981) have electronic sensors and computers that continuously adjust the automobile operation systems. These systems need to be tested more efficiently in order to identify a car's true emissions output. The IM240 test measures emissions while the vehicle goes through two full drive cycles (acceleration and deceleration) on a treadmill. This tests the entire exhaust stream and measures the total mass of emission.

One common misconception about the enhanced program is that the testing facilities must be centralized. Enhanced inspection networks can be centralized (operated by the state or a private contractor) or decentralized (run by independent operators). Legislators have expressed concern that the limited number of contractors that manufacture the new IM240 test equipment will take control away from the states, since the contractors may refuse to sell equipment unless the state allows them to run the program. Additionally, the high cost of the testing equipment will limit the number of facilities available for use by automobile owners--fewer test sites may mean longer drives and waiting lines for consumers.

Many lawmakers are concerned that the separation of testing and repair functions will put smaller operations out of business because they could lose half their current income. EPA counters that the new inspection program will actually create jobs in the auto repair industry. Fewer testing jobs will be needed in some areas, but additional repair jobs may offset the losses.

Why will there be more repairs? The law requires motorists to show that their emission repair costs exceed $450 before they qualify for a waiver exempting them from the emission requirements. Most states currently set waivers at between $100 and $150.

The enhanced test may be the most effective pollution abatement technique a state can use. Emissions could be reduced nearly 28 percent, a huge number compared to new tailpipe emission standards--a 4 percent decrease--and reformulated gasoline--a 15 percent cut. The new requirements call for biennial instead of annual testing, a benefit to consumers. EPA estimates that the new testing program could save 15 million barrels of oil a year.

Representative Paul Schauer sponsored inspection and maintenance legislation in Colorado this year that passed only after a long and fractious debate. Fellow lawmakers and citizens protest that the costly federal mandate will eliminate a majority of the small businesses that currently test emissions in the state. What troubles Schauer is how "the health benefits of clean air get lost in the debate over whether to accede to EPA rules or say to the agency, |enough.'" He points out that Colorado ranks high in national statistics for respiratory and heart disease, ailments exacerbated by air pollution.

John Beale, director of the Office of Policy Analysis and Review in EPA's air quality program, acknowledges that the new federal testing program will be costly to states, but points out several areas of flexibility. "States can determine the cutoff date for motor vehicles that must be tested, whether the tests will be conducted annually or every two years and whether the testing facilities will be centralized or decentralized," he says.

Program guidelines are due to EPA by Nov. 15-just a month away. Can states wait until the 1994 session to enact necessary legislation? EPA, has indicated that as long as a state shows a good faith effort to comply with federal requirements, it will be given some leeway. That "some" needs a big, qualification. If a state fails to pass legislation this year or next, the feds will undoubtedly pull its Department of Transportation highway funds. If legislation is in place but regulations lag behind, such sanctions could be delayed.

Still, many states are down to the wire on deadlines. In Delaware, the governor has called a special session of the legislature this fall to deal specifically with inspection legislation. Representative Roger Roy sums up the mood of legislators dealing with any federal mandate: "Everybody knows we have to go back into session and pass legislation to meet EPA mandates, but no one wants to be forced."

California is struggling to integrate its existing state laws with the federal requirements. Originally threatened with immediate sanctions if it did not show an effort to comply with federal laws by November, the state was recently given an extension. EPA Administrator Carol Browner now says California has several more months to pass a program. Although EPA vows that it will still yank the state's highway funds if it does not respond, it may be tough to get the California Legislature to pass a program that many experts consider technically flawed. EPA's shift may trigger other states to revisit the auto emission testing systems they passed to meet EPA guidelines.

New Standards for Cars

California is way ahead of most states because it passed a clean air law in 1988 that was more stringent than the federal statute. James Boyd, executive officer of the California Air Resources Board, notes that the reasons for the more protective measures are obvious. "The Los Angeles basin has the worst air quality in the nation and a full 75 percent of the national exposure to ozone is found in California." In addition, the peak ozone levels in California are three times the federal standard.

To combat this problem, the Air Resources Board adopted mobile source emission standards in 1990 that are the toughest in the nation. Applicable to 1993 and later model vehicles, the standards begin at 0.25 grams per mile (gpm) for hydrocarbons, 0.4 gpm for [NO.sub.x] and 3.4 gpm for CO. They get progressively tougher for increasingly cleaner vehicles, low emission vehicles, ultra-low emission vehicles and zero-emission vehicles, which must make up an increasing percentage of the automobiles sold in the state beginning with the 1996, 1997 and 1998 model years.

California's low-emission vehicle program is more stringent than federal standards and was written into the federal law as one option for states to meet nonattainment deadlines. States can choose to implement the federal standards or those of California. Any law passed that does not meet one of these two standards would force automakers to build a "third vehicle," and this was expressly forbidden in the law.

California law regulates both the vehicle emission levels and the composition of fuels sold in the state. New York became the first state to adopt the California emission standards, but did not require local oil refiners to change the content of gasoline. The American Automobile Manufacturers Association, representing, the Detroit automakers, brought suit against New York, arguing that the higher sulfur content in New York fuel would impede the effectiveness of car engines, force the automakers to redesign the exhaust system and thereby lead to creation of the "third vehicle" banned by the clean air amendments.

Federal Judge Thomas J. McAvoy ruled in January that the New York standard did, in fact, violate the "third vehicle" prohibition, and that states adopting the California clean vehicle program must also enact the fuel content regulations. In July, however, McAvoy changed his mind and announced that he was wrong to rule on the issue without a trial. The emissions program will continue as planned in New York.

This case has broad implications for the northeastern states. Massachusetts, Maine and New Jersey already have adopted the California requirements that mirror New York's law. In addition, seven states--Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, New Hampshire and Connecticut--have agreed, in principle, to enact the California clean vehicle program. All states had stalled legislative and regulatory action while the case was in court. New York officials consider the latest ruling to be a green light for their program, which they say is imperative for clean air in the Northeast.

More Oxygen, Cleaner Fuel

In addition to establishing a tough inspection program, the law attempts to reduce motor vehicle emissions through a clean, fuels program. One objective of the act is to use oxygenated fuels to cut emissions in CO nonattainment areas. The oxygenated fuel provisions in the act apply to 41 areas with CO emissions greater than 9.5 parts per million. This represents one-third of the nation's population and includes small cities (Grants Pass, Ore.; Chico, Calif.; and Spokane, Wash.), as well as large urban centers (Los Angeles, New York and Boston).

The amendments to the Clean Air Act set the minimum oxygen content of winter gasoline at 2.7 percent (gasoline burns less efficiently during cold starts; a higher oxygen content promotes more complete combustion). The most likely gasoline additives to achieve this blend are ethanol and MTBE. The oxygenated fuels program aims to reduce CO emissions by 15 percent to 20 percent at a cost of a few cents per gallon more at the pump.

Colorado initiated the first oxygenated fuels program in 1988. Ted Hollman of the state health department's Air Pollution Control Division notes that "it has exceeded the federal targets, resulting in a 23 percent reduction in CO tailpipe emissions during the past winter." The prescribed oxygen level was 1.5 percent five years ago, rising to 2.6 percent before enactment of the CAAA. Hollman says Colorado and other southwestern states "served as a model for the federal program."

As Always, Tradeoffs

The human body takes in 10,000 to 20,000 liters of air per day (compared to one to two liters of water per day) making air our greatest source of exposure to toxic pollutants. The potential results of clean-air laws are tangible--a decrease in heart and lung ailments, increased visibility and healthier air to breathe. The costs are high, not only to state and local governments for administration, but directly to industry and, eventually, consumers.

As Representative Schauer observes, "The problem becomes one of convincing constituents that the long-term health benefits are real, and that they outweigh the immediate costs incurred."

Why Cars Are Still Dirty

Although today's cars produce 60 to A80 percent less pollution than cars in the 1960s, they still dirty up the air. In fact, they are responsible for as much as half the smog-forming compounds and up to 90 percent of the carbon monoxide found in urban air.

Part of the reason is that more people are driving more cars more miles. Part is that although cars have been cleaned up, fuel hasn't. As octane-boosting lead has been phased out of gasoline formulas (it will all be gone by Jan. 1, 1996), refiners have added various other compounds that increase the toxic emissions from burning fuel, especially benzene, a hazardous air pollutant that causes cancer and other diseases.

Content levels can be changed to make a cleaner burning gasoline, but it costs money. The addition of oxygen makes fuel burn more efficiently and thus reduces carbon monoxide release. Detergents prevent buildup of engine deposits and keep engines working smoothly and burning fuel cleanly 

Refineries produce mainly high emission gasoline because it is cheaper to refine and it is better for cars created with this formula in mind.