Comments on the I/M Program

I’ve now lived in Anchorage for over 20 years. During that period, I have had only one failure and that was the result of a bad computer chip. On that one failure I had the vehicle in for repair of the “engine light” failure; it just happened to be the same time that my vehicle was due for license renewal. So, before they completed the repair for the “engine light,” they first conducted the IM test and the vehicle failed. Subsequently, after the new computer chip was replaced the vehicle passed.

Over 20 years, I have had over 10 vehicles in the household…the testing program is not needed in my opinion based on the experience I have had. Please do not maintain the program only because it generates income for the city. If a program is required, then it should be a “statewide” program and not locally implemented.

Also, the program should not be restructured for safety…if such a program is required then it should be implemented “statewide.”

Thank You

Ronald Berkenbush August 26, 2007

I bought a new car in 1997 and have paid around $68 every two years for IM testing. My car has never failed the test and I feel this is a huge waste of money for a test that takes less than five minutes and little expertise to complete.

I believe that only older vehicles (+ 10 years or over 100,000 miles) should be tested, as the newer models are designed to pass IM tests. I see a quite a few large commercial trucks along the roads spewing some awful fumes, and I often wonder how they get away with it. The IM testing program should be re-worked to target the vehicles that pollute.

I would favor continuing the program in its current form only if testing costs can be reduced to around $20. Your website states that the test can be done for as little as $15.95, but I have yet to find anyplace in Anchorage that will perform the test for under $50. Perhaps the fee can be capped at $15.95 instead of $50. And the $18 processing fee to MOA should be reduced.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Janice Zilko August 25, 2007

I think the I/M program should be discontinued. Today's cars are much cleaner running vehicles than those of the past. I know some people worry that a few owners would disable pollution controls if the I/M program were not in force but today's cars have pollution control systems that are integrated into the vehicles not just added on. In the old days if you took the catalytic converter off your 1976 Chevy it ran better and got better gas mileage. If you take the converter off your 2000 Chevy the system will get incorrect information about what is going on in the engine and it will run bad and the gas mileage will go down. Please don't add any other programs (such as safety inspections) in place of the I/M program either. If you feel the I/M program must remain please make it less expensive and all that should be required is the tail pipe gas check. A visual inspection shouldn't be required. After all, all that matters is what comes out the tailpipe. Bottom line: The program has outlived its usefulness and should be discontinued.

Charles Link August 24, 2007

Should the I/M Program be Changed? After reading the current public comments I noted that the folks that want the whole program shut down don't realize their comments adds to the voice of change. Along with the folks that want every personal self best interest to be addressed in this forum. So the folks that don't want any changes, including power broadening of the DHSS will be ignored right off. No Change? No Way... is the echo that comes back.

After $696,876 of public money was spent on SR2007-01-01, a fifteen page report that announces. "The key findings of this study are entirely consistent with I/M program analyses that Sierra has conducted in communities across the country for the past 20 years." Which was run for 6 months on 205 vehicles. Who's vehicles I don't know. Thus, Validates the public money MAY have been well spent since the Assembly Members could not figure this out on their own. Clue, Anchorage has not busted the Federal Air Standards since Anchorage has been running the program.

Back to the folks that want Change! Too Mark Begich's credit. Lets say goodbye to the folks that say shutdown the program their voices aren't need any more because SR2007-01-01 says our IM Program. I quote, "The cost-effectiveness of the program for CO is $3,000/ton, which compares well with other CO control programs that are being implemented in Alaska" (Fairbanks). I don't think the $696,876 is included?

Now all the precious, special folks that want all eye sore, rust buckets making to much noise on the same highway with their Lexus, Mercedes or other over priced head trip vehicles banished! I guess the later group expects the rust bucketeers to take the bus? And "let them eat cake".

Bottom line, The IM Program Task Force (sounds so militaristic) will add some "much needed" burdens to the rust buccaneers lives and broaden DHSS enforcement powers. Everybody will get something new to complain about. Success Anchorage Assembly style!

Bill Reiner August 24, 2007

After reading the Muni website, the press releases, and the Sierra research, it is obvious that you guys have already reached a conclusion and are using this

2 medium as political cover to continue or expand the I-M program.

Thats too bad. Democrats (like myself) howl when Others won't accept the findings of science as a measure of a public policies effectiveness; yet here is an opportunity for Anchorage to help the air, helps its citizens, and help the cities reputation yet the Mayor doesn't want anything to do with it. Why the hypocracy?

Anchorage residents suffer on several counts from the perpetuation of this program: 1. Millions of dollars wasted each year on I-M's and busywork repairs. 2. Between 325,000 and 700,000 wasted man hours per year attempting to come into compliance. 3. Wasted tax dollars administering and staffing the program 4. Non productive time of private sector "support" business.

Let me say from the outset that if the powers that be won't scrap the I-M program that I would reluctantly support a modified I-M program: but the science and facts point to one inescapeable fact: EPA standards for cars have done the lions share of the improvement in Anchorage air; addtionally changes in gasoline blends (mandated by federal law) have helped considerably. Lets not forget that The National Academy of Science found that the EPA used flawed models that were used as a basis to justify EPA mandates to establish IM programs. NAS found that the models were so bad that the actual effectiveness of IM programs was as bad as 0%.

Having said that, this first phase of the I-M program (coupled with the junk car haul-off program) did retire a lot of the junkers that were in Anchorage. There are some simple tweaks that would make this program more logical. Here are a few: first, a "tailpipe only" test that simulates driving conditions like the ones in place in California, Michigan (and others in the lower 48) and Europe. This testing regimine would encourage people to replace engines and components with ones that ran cleaner and create a market and regulatory incentive for people to be in compliance. Second, exempt cars that are older than 25 years old, this seems to be the most effective way to help both low income drivers and automobile hobbiests (subsidies: HA, theres a waste of time and money for you). Third start testing diesels, the largest source of airbourne particulates (the major source of respitory illness among adults and adolescents) in Anchorage; exempting diesels is one of the elements that makes the current I/M program seem biased and pointless. Fourth, exempt new cars 5 years (they are typically under warranty during this time), this exemption would encourage the replacement of older cars with new cars, and moves older cars to lower income residents faster (see the Japanese model for why this is so effective).

3 Obviously there are other modifications that would help, (move I-M office into DMV...) but the above are all science based solutions based on facts and supported by the experience of other jurisdictions. This would keep the I-M in place, keep the money flowing, but reduce unnecessary Idiocracy, encouge rational effective, (not busywork) repairs, and take a small step in restoring Los Anchorages reputation as a place that embraces rational, practical, and effective solutions to its problems, rather than choosing the easiest mark for revenue and regulation, or hiding behind a task force or yet another expensive "Outside" consultant for political cover... Most importantly, changes of this nature would improve relations between Anchorage and its citizens, who have been under siege of late with high property taxes, and wasteful, unnecessary programs and municipal mismanagement that makes the Keystone cops look like a Marine drill team.

Anchorage is quickly getting a reputation as being hostile to the average Joe, here is a small oportunity to reverse that perception.

David D’Amato August 24, 2007

Thank you for the opportunity to offer comment on the existing IM program.

Three years ago I went to an IM specialty shop in the Old Seward/36th Ave area. After an hour wait in line and almost an hour with a "trained IM technician", the tech announced that my van would fail the IM test. The tech explained that he was not able to complete the test as my van needed a new computer access point. Turns out he had spent the entire time attempting to hook up his computer testing equipment to my van's under dash trailer brake control. I was unable to convince him that the trailer brake control was not the computer access point, nor would he allow me to show him the correct location.

At that point, my late model van was counted as one of the few IM "failures". I was told that the problem could be corrected, but of course it would be quite expensive.

My van easily passed its IM at another location, where the appropriate computer access was already known. I imagine that IM records show my formerly "failed" vehicle was now "fixed", and is counted as an IM Program "success".

I returned to the original "IM specialty shop" to talk to the manager, hoping to prevent such incidents in the future. The manager replied - and I quote - "What do you want me to do? Take him out back and beat him up?"

After my initial shock, I realized that this incident was a metaphor for this needless program. An unnecessary "public service" that costs residents valuable time and money; another "hidden tax" to bolster Muni coffers; vehicle "IM failures" that have nothing to do with emissions; and competence and common sense erratic or sadly absent.

Yet I have little faith that this task force will rightly terminate this source of revenue. I personally know that any percentage of vehicle "failures" is suspect, as not only will emission and motor improvements or modifications cause "failures"; so will "certified IM technician" incompetence, where entire businesses are committed to this subterfuge. I also know that the successful free market, where consumers demanded efficiency, has already solved the original situation.

4 Instead, though, I fully expect the result will be an expanded program with increased fees, the ultimate goal of most blue ribbon commissions and task forces.

In today's rule, common sense plays little role, and community input given lip service only, with results predetermined. I hope I am wrong.

KT Nolan August 24, 2007

Let’s get rid of this expensive, unneeded program.

Matt Sommer August 23, 2007

thank you for your work.

I implore you to consider expanding the IM program to protect us from NOISE POLLUTION. Currently there appears to be near-zero enforcement of Muni regs about noise. I live on Ingra St. one block from the Seward Hwy. With 50,000+ vehicles per day, me and my family are exposed to too much noise.

Noise is often dismissed as a mere annoyance. That view is unfounded. Brand-new research by the World Health Organization confirms common sense; noise is a real danger to human health. Chronic noise, at levels way below measured levels in my neighborhood, has been linked to increased incidence of heart disease. Please review the brief article pasted in below, taken from today's Wall Street Journal.

This means that Anchorage's failure to protect its citizens from noise is a failure to protect the health of its citizens. I would argue that this is every bit as important as air quality from emissions, and every bit as important as dangers from secondhand smoke.

Far too many trucks, motorcycles, etc. have illegal modified exhausts that serve no purpose other than amplifying their noise. Modified car stereos shake the windows of my house. Truckers using their jake brakes rattle me out of bed.

Please, I urge you to recommend drastic steps to clamp down on noise in our town.

As a secondary comment, there are way too many unsafe modified vehicles on our streets. Wildly jacked-up trucks, cars with darkened side windows, etc., all increase the dangers to other drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists. The IM program should be expanded to stop dangerous vehicle modifications. Please recommend increased enforcement of existing regs on this topic, and expansion of regs where necessary. thank you respectfully yours

Thomas Van Pelt August 23, 2007

5 http://blogs.wsj.com/informedreader/2007/08/22/that-noisy-racket-is-literally-hurting-you/

The Wall Street Journal Home Page

That Noisy Racket Is (Literally) Hurting You

22nd August 2007 @ 18:02 In Global |

Loud noise is often dismissed as an irritating but inevitable part of life. Now, a study by the World Health Organization concludes that excessive rackets pose dangerous health risks, reports [1] the New Scientist. Preliminary findings by WHO researchers say long-term exposure to noise creates chronic stress that over time can contribute to heart disease. Noise from daytime traffic could be a factor in some deaths from heart attacks and strokes, the study suggests. “Until now, noise has been the Cinderella form of pollution and people haven’t been aware that it has an impact on their health,” says Deepak Prasher, professor of audiology at University College London, and one of the scientists who helped assemble data for the WHO report. The WHO investigation, which focused on Europe, comes as complaints of noise pollution have been on the rise.

Researchers behind the WHO report hope the findings will spur governments to take action against excessive noise. In the U.S., where noise regulation falls to states and cities, New York introduced laws last month to combat noise pollution. Arline Bronzaft, who heads the noise committee of the New York mayor’s Council on the Environment, says antinoise efforts aimed at things like loud stereos and car alarms have been gaining momentum. For antinoise campaigners, the hope is that eventually loud noise will become as socially unacceptable as smoking. — Amy Reilly

Article printed from The Informed Reader - WSJ.com: http://blogs.wsj.com/informedreader

URL to article: http://blogs.wsj.com/informedreader/2007/08/22/that-noisy-racket-is-literally-hurting-you/

URLs in this post: [1] the New Scientist: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19526186.500-dying-for-some-quiet-the-truth- about-noise-pollution.html

Every 1 to 2 years, a review of the proportion of cars that fail emissions testing, by model year, should be made. Using these results, make adjustments to the list of model years excluded from IM testing. A two year exemption from emissions testing seems too short for modern vehicles.

Any decision to start or continue safety or noise inspections should be made independently from decisions on whether to continue emissions testing.

Michael J. Rehberg August 16, 2007

6 I can see this test being somewhat beneficial, but Wasilla isn't required to have an IM done...along with many other towns...I believe we are one of the few places left that actually require an IM test be done...I think it's somewhat of an irritant, and it's a costly test. Many people drive around town with blue and black smoke shooting out of their tail pipes and I'm unsure how they are able to get around town without any consequences when I just had to pay 200 plus dollars to be legal! Thanks so much!

Desteny Ayers August 16, 2007

I think the Municipality should let go of the I/M program.

Oleana Dirks August 16, 2007

I accessed the web site and it looked good. Keep in mind I have an ancient computer as do many MOA citizens. A phone line modem and windows 98. But when I tried to access June 5 "Responses to I/M Task force questions from meeting 1." My computer locked up so bad I had to do a manual disconnect on the phone modem. The June 21st "Responses...... " showed a blank white page with "DONE" then locked up. The only stuff I could access without problem was "Agenda" page. Very sad.

Absolutely useless in gauging the letter I should input to the task force.....

1. So Competence is an issue of "The Program". Based on the web site. 2. Then Begich Union Busting Program. (i.e.; Museum.) brings question to the timing of the question of the validity of the I/M Program. 3. The Behavior of the Department of health and Humans Services. i.e.; Parking lot raids on private business leasing State property. Looking for employees (FEDEX) of the tenant for vehicles not currently I/M certified. (Obsession Beyond NAZISM or just a desperate act to justify THE I/M PROGRAM?) 4. Value added to community or another tool of oppression that DHSS kicks around on triple shots of caffeine on duty. Then triple shots of Rum off duty?

My opinion is that a simple tailpipe check (sniff check) would normally be reasonable for vehicles operated in the winter. But your not going to fine DHSS doing parking lot RAIDS in the winter time. DHSS is not going to RAID it's own employee Parking lots or any other government employee parking lot. Like the Federal Building or the military bases. or the IBEW's...... NO NO NO that would be a bad thing. So Begich stirs only a small sector of its citizens to be able to say "YES the PUBLIC had ample opportunity to comment. (During the meat of fishing and outside building season!) Basically taking public opinion out of the picture.

I SAY, Shutdown The I/M program No...... Give DHSS more POWERS of harassment NO......

William Reiner August 16, 2007

Scrapit!!!!!!!

Hector Ortiz August 23, 2007

As the former legislator who sponsored the state law that instituted biannual IM testing I have an extensive background regarding the IM program. The biannual testing change took three years of work and extensive negotiations with the Federal government.

I support the elimination of the IM program at this time, because its goal has been achieved. Anchorage is no longer a non-attainment area and should not continue this program. In the alternative, I recommend going to a once every six years testing including no testing of new motor vehicles for six years. Any extended period between testing should be in even year increments to coordinate with the state's biannual motor vehicle licensing. Additionally there should be no annual fee collected, only a much reduced once every six years fee. I strongly oppose turning the IM program into a safety inspection program. Individual police enforcement of vehicle requirements is more cost effective and will save law abiding citizens the time and cost of unnecessary inspections.

Dave Donley former State Senator August 22, 2007

The limits on CO emissions haven't been exceeded since 1996. The reason stems from the fact that newer cars run better than the older models. As the old models leave the highways, I would expect there to be less of a chance that the limits will be exceeded. This at a time when diesel powered vehicles aren't even included in the testing. The program has become a money-grab and a pain in the neck for the driving public.

To truly reduce air pollution from cars, the city will have to provide a workable public transportation system. Traffic reduction is the only way that better air quality can be assured. The Muni should promote the use of the AK Railroad to bring commuters to Anchorage from the Valley and Chugiak-Eagle River. Have the People Mover and other buses meet the commuters at the downtown station, and road/rail intersections across the city to take them to their destinations.

Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

Tom Austin August 22, 2007

This program has never been equitable. Every day thousands of autos are driven to and from Anchorage from the valley and other towns outside the testing area to jobs in Anchorage. At lunch time and after work these folks drive all over town contributing greatly to our pollution without ever suffering the inconvenience and expense of an IM testing program. While the folks who live within the city probably drive a few miles a day commuting and shopping for years have had to quietly and unfairly suffer through this program. I have had to pay every year for a classic car waiver for a vehicle that is only driven a few months during the summer…..and it is an expense and inconvenience that I abhor!! This should either become a statewide program or it

8 should be scrapped!!! We all breathe the same Alaskan air…..because someone lives a few air miles away they should be exempt is ludicrous. Thank you for considering my opinion.

Joan Clare Nigh August 22, 2007 I believe the program should be ended becasue it is no longer needed with todays vehicles. Knowing that ending the program is extremely unlikely due to the special interests of all those who make their living in various ways from the program and the city's desire to maintain an income stream from the program, I suggest the program be changed such that a test is required only after a vehicle is 5 years old, and then only every three years.

Matt Scully PE August 22, 2007

After living in Alaska for 15 years, I've never had a vehicle fail an emissions test, nor did I perform any maintenance prior to the testing. My vehicles are 6, 13, & 14 years old respectively. The 14 year old vehicle just passed last month with flying. I personally find it hard to believe that IM testing has helped air quality in the Anchorage.

Charles Hunt August 22, 2007

Clean air is essential. I question, though, the value of the IM program. There is not a current pollution problem and new cars are made to a higher standard than ever before.

Meanwhile, the cost of compliance with the IM program is excessive. Every 24 months I have to take several hours of my time and spend up to $60 to get a little sticker on my windshield. This seems primarily a way to earn income for the Muni and to prop up an industry of test centers.

I would suggest the program be abolished. Or, if that is not possible, it could be administered like Washington State's, where the tests are administered by a government test center at a very low and uniform fee.

Thanks, Jason Armstrong August 22, 2007

Keep the program. If you do away with it, vehicles will not stay within "safe" range, owners will not self enforce their vehicles, and eventually the program would be re-instated at an inflated start up cost.

Virginia & Tom Distasio August 22, 2007

The IM program has served the mission statement. The program needs to be retired. Like the rationing program of WW II, it was abandoned after the war. During one inspection, I had an employee rifle through the car glove box and help himself.

9 Another time, an IM station wanted to do unwarranted work on the car. Diesel vehicles need a sticker and they cannot be adjusted ! Now, some IM personnel may claim that the program cannot be "shut down" overnight ! The folks working the program need time to get a new job. A simple solution to that issue: Phase the program out: Vehicles 2007-2002, no longer need inspections. Vehicles 2001-1990, need one inspection by Dec. 2008, and the program is over.

Alvin Carlson August 22, 2007

Hello my name is David Smith. I’ve spent about 20 years in retail auto industry. I do believe we need the IM program, and it needs to be modified, every other renewal. Once in 4 years? All used cars sold by dealers. All cars 5 years old brought into the city, titled for the first time, especially the older cars as the cars get older 10 or so years should be tested as the current program is… Thank you for reading my thought.

David Smith August 22, 2007

My opinion is to drop the program. the financial burden upon the consumer and muni to keep it running are higher then any perceived benefits. To carry this program because we may be out of compliance a few days per year is not wise. Those days of when we exceed the fed standards are weather related and we should not be punished for this.

Rather, an indepth look at traffic and signal light patterns to minimize idleing at intersections should be launched, as well as alternative routes to give people more options of travel. I believe that our 'pollution' problem is due to poor traffic flow, not emissions.

We should also launch a task force to discuss an east Anchorage bypass, as was proposed in the 80's, to expedite traffic flow to mid- town and south anchorage.

Dale Burke August 21, 2007

I’ve got a 15 year old car with 174000 miles on it and it aced the test last year (it did better than some new cars: I had the mechanics all standing around my car asking me about what I do for upkeep. The answer is, not that much). I don’t think you should quit the program. I like the program, I like the air clean, and the cost to me is not that much compared to what I’ve paid elsewhere. Less than a half-hour and less than $50 once every two years is not a sacrifice. That and it’s like a regular physical for my car: if my emissions levels change significantly from one test to the next, it’s a clue to me that there’s a problem with my engine and I need to get it taken care of. I’m happy about that.

Here’s some related thoughts in no particular order:

10 Are commercial vehicles exempted from this testing? If so, why? I live off of C St and see a lot of dump truck construction traffic going by and all of those trucks appear to be pouring huge amounts of nasty exhaust. Way more in one day than my car probably puts off in a year. Why aren’t we doing something about those?

Is there some way of easing the frustration by offering incentives? I just read in a magazine that Salt Lake City allows hybrid cars to be parked for free at city parking meters. (Now I lived in SLC for 5 years and don’t recall seeing any city meters, but I suppose that’s a different matter.) For people who get a certain percentage better than the base emission requirements, they get a sticker for the car window that allows them to park at city meters for free for say, a 6 month span, subject to normal metered parking requirements. (2 hr limit, etc). While I resent the city’s apparent downtown-centric bias (doesn’t give equal rewards to those of us who don’t work or live downtown), I do occasionally drive and park down there and would be happy to have an incentive program like this.

I tend to agree with those views I’ve heard expressed about the problems of dumping the program. While I don’t believe in continuing programs just to keep people employed, I’m not convinced that if we quit the program we won’t have to reinstate it. Shortly. I’ve seen nothing in human nature or Anchorage inversion patterns to indicate that breathability standards will be maintained from here on out if we stop requiring cars to be tested.

Wish we had some sort of city ordinance that made exhaust problems a secondary offense on a moving violation ticket… Those cars coming in from areas outside Anchorage that don’t have emissions standards that commute daily and emit clouds of blue smoke. It would be lovely to be able to enforce that on cars that are in Anchorage daily but not otherwise subject to Anchorage emissions standards. But I haven’t yet figured out how that could possibly be done.

And really, what about the safety check? Missing or non-functional lights, illegal lights (those awful blue things), things obscuring windows, lack of mudflaps on higher profile vehicles, worn tires, non-functioning seatbelts, etc. Safety tests can be relatively inexpensive (a check list that doesn’t require equipment or skills other than a pen and a ruler and the ability to turn on a car) and for me: having driven behind far too many pickups in Anchorage without mudflaps—I’m tired of getting all those dings in my hood and windshield—it’s a test I’m also very willing to pay for. I think in Salt Lake City that one was about $10.

That’s my thoughts on the subject. If you have any need to contact me, please feel free to do so. 250-5700.

Arlene Schmuland August 21, 2007

This IM program has wasted my time and money for many years. Having said that I think suspending the program for 5 years would be in order. Then if no major issues arise then remove the IM program from the books.

Ronald Jordan August 21, 2007

Get rid of it if. Why should the public continue to carry the burden of the cost of inspection if it is unnecessary. We do not need a safety inspection program or anything else to replace it.

Regards, Mike August 20, 2007

Modern vehicles have come along way in reducing pollution.

20 Years ago when the IM program was began a new car was using 1987 technology. That means that old cars operating back then were using 1960 and 1970’s technology. In other words almost no pollution controls at all.

I think the program should be ended. I think current Federal emission requirements solved the problems not the IM. As the program is now it is simply another way of taxing the people of Anchorage and job justification for the Municipality.

Marvin Lee August 20, 2007

It seems absurd to me that some would suggest the I/M program be abolished because it has already "accomplished its mission." Good air quality is not a permanent state; it must be maintained. While statistics show that the vast majority of cars pass the I/M test on the first try, this does not mean that such an effective means to protect the air we breathe should be cast aside. However, maintaining good air quality is and should continue to be an ongoing process that adapts to the realities of the time. Should the municipality determine that I/M testing in its current form is not the most efficient and effective way to protect air quality and to serve the citizens of Anchorage, then I urge it to put into place other regulations that will assure us clean air.

Jennifer Haines August 20, 2007

My comments will be brief and to the point. The IM Program has outlived its usefulness. The air quality has not been below requirements since 1996. Also in 1996, vehicles were required to have OBD2 (on board diagnostic version 2). This by itself creates better efficiency in vehicles. I have heard that there is a concern that if air quality goes bad because of not having the IM Program that it will be difficult to reinstate. That being the case, suspend the IM Program until the air quality indicates that it is again necessary to have an inspection. Expanding the program to include a safety program seems unnecessary. Most accidents are not caused by unsafe vehicles but unsafe or untrained drivers. Creating a safety program could cause some to become outlaws by not performing the work identified in the safety inspection. And the reason the work may not have been done is because they needed gas to get to work or dollars to pay the doctor because their child was ill. There is no reason to continue the program and certainly no reason to expand it into a safety inspection program.

Frank Lentfer August 20, 2007

The Anchorage IM program has solved the problem that it was designed to attack, namely auto emissions; therefore it is time to dissolve that program. Please do not substitute some "made up" collateral issues, just to perpetuate a governmental program that has outlived the problem it was created to solve.

It is time to eliminate fully the Anchorage IM program.

Thank you. James A. Farr August 20, 2007

As a business owner, a program such as the I/M Inspections would have marginal payoff. Has air quality improved in Anchorage? Do the 10,000 to 12,000 cars from the valley each day affect air quality? If the program is not uniformly administered (Including all vehicles in south central) then it seems a waste.

Jeffrey C. Schowen, CRM August 20, 2007

It seems like every time we take progressive steps forward, the "frontier mentality" folks want to send us back to the last century. For example, it took 10 years to get a good sign ordinance and clean up the roadside clutter. Then the assembly wants to make is less "intrusive" and less effective.

The I/M program has worked. Yes, newer cars and those properly maintained, pollute less, but we still have an abundance of beaters on the road, as well as those with numerous safety problems.

Please keep the program on the books, even if portions are suspended for a period of time. Should our air quality diminish, it would be near impossible to get the program restarted, particularly with the current attitudes of several assembly members.

Thank you.

Heather Flynn August 20, 2007

Double the time between tests and redirect efforts to keep the environment clean. Every parking lot in Anchorage is stained by oil and other automotive fluids, which eventually end up in our lakes and streams. So, make fluid leak inspections and repairs mandatory for the years in which IM tests would otherwise have been required.

Art Timm August 20, 2007

Please continue the IM testing program and expand it to include noise emission controls.

The program in its current form has been effective in keeping pollution levels down and assuring that the majority of vehicles in Anchorage meet a minimal threshold for safety. In the very near future our aging fleets of the larger SUVs and pickups will become more and more of a safety concern as the used vehicles will undoubtedly be owned by those least able or willing to foot the bills required to maintain these vehicles. With the growing disparity in vehicle weight and size, poorly regulated maintenance on the larger vehicles will present an unnecessary risk to the Anchorage population.

13 Please expand the program to include testing for noise pollution. We need to own up to the fact that noise is a serious problem in Anchorage. Many people are modifying vehicle exhaust system to make more noise. Why do we allow this? The IM testing would be a good tool to make sure vehicle noise emissions are kept at acceptable factory levels.

Brad Persson August 20, 2007

This program should be ending. I wish the whole truth was told about this program. What is the cost of program, including the waste of everyone time each year. Has I/M testing really had any impact, or did new vehicles with fuel injection,etc. make all the difference. How did program grow from just newer vehicles to every vehicle. What were the original tests compared to today. If this is the real answer why not test all the government's vehicles also. If we have extremely cold weather with air inversions, would I/M testing make any difference? I reminder the last time we had a dirty air alert was on a New Years Day, which in my opinion has the least auto traffic. Of course all science or common sense makes no difference, as this is about big government, citizen control, and government employees.

Gary Masog August 20, 2007

I would like to add to the myriad of comments in support of eliminating the program.

Vehicles have evolved so much w/ the OBD2 systems, greatly reducing the emissions. Since they were mandatory in ’96 Anchorage hasn’t violated the air quality as you well know. To keep the I/M program operational because there MIGHT be a problem in the future seems absurd. IF or when there is a problem, then we can re-establish a program that is will likely be relevant with the then current technology. I attended some of the meeting on 8/16 and some topics arose that I would like to respond to:

Many comments seemed to go from the stand point that it would be too difficult to re- establish the program so we should modify or keep the existing program. If you were to have the program be only for when cars are bought/sold, this would greatly reduce the frequency of the I/M and would eventually raise the cost as the cost to purchase/maintain the testing equipment would be spread among fewer tests.

A comment was made about how to keep pay for the ongoing air monitoring costs I think ~$1.2Million. Seems like over kill to tax everyone $8.4Million for the I/M program to justify a cost of $1.2Million for air monitoring. I was very surprised also to learn where some of the tests were conducted – in the parking lot of a elementary school during pick up and drop off times? Why? To get the highest reading possible twice a day for 30 minutes? The question was ask should we measure the air quality where there weren’t any vehicles – obviously not. But how about a reasonable place where people are and you could get a reasonable assessment of the air quality. Not an inflated reading to justify the program. It is interesting that even though it would appear that some of these locations are “cherry picked” Anchorage still hasn’t violated the air quality standard. As for how to pay for the $1.2 million in air testing, I don’t have a specific recommendation, but I would suggest a more limited scope of testing to monitor the air quality

14 only when it would be appropriate (ie smoke, windy dusty days, or cold days) Why track air quality when its obviously not an issue? How to pay for it? I am sure we can come up w/ $1 million in the budget quite easily.

There was comments about monitoring the sound of vehicles – stating there is currently a municipal ordinance against modifying original exhaust (but no reference to the ordinance) If its already against the law, don’t create a new law or bureaucracy to enforce it. If a vehicle is violating that or a noise ordinance, then they should be ticketed, fined, arrested whatever it calls for. Don’t transfer the enforcement of current laws to service facilities

The program could be expanded for safety checks. Sounds great. But be real careful – I think there would be some huge unintended consequences. Define a safe vehicle. Tires above 2/32. Brakes in working condition with all measurements above manufacture specifications, no dings in windshields, brake lights working. What is defined as safety? One comment which I don’t know if it was true or not, but it seemed accurate was that only a small portion of accidents are caused by mechanical failure. So here we go again – Government going to make us all safer…. Well, I think if you are going to have a set of safety guidelines for vehicles, you are going to have to make sure they are at a minimum within manufacture specs. What if the front end has a loose component, would it fail the inspection? Or only if it was “Really” loose – how would you define that? Tires below 2/32 are no longer “safe” yet hundreds if not thousands of vehicles have tires below those specs. Also this would hurt lower income people the worst. Imagine you come in for your “Annual Safety Check” your told that you 1997 Ford explorer needs tires, new brakes (including rotors because they are below specs) and your windshield is cracked. You get an estimate for $1500+ to get it fixed and you don’t have the money. So you are either going to drive the vehicle without a sticker, or not drive the vehicle. If you drive w/o this sticker, then you get a ticket and you have to pay an additional $250 fine (or whatever the penalty is) Good luck getting a head now…Perhaps this would be a way to make it too expensive to own a vehicle for many and get more people on public transportation??? Also the safety inspection would only be a snap shot in time. Could be fine and then two weeks later its not. How much would it cost? First, the inspection would likely cost $100 or more for a shop to administer, plus the certification fee. Which would need to be high enough to cover the cost of “auditing” the new program. Why even consider this? Because we can’t close down one office in the city? I am quite certain all the fine folks in the I/M program would be able to find other city or private jobs. Don’t be afraid to close the program down.

Also, why stop with safety – why not make sure the vehicle has insurance and the driver has a valid driver’s licenses with no warrants and is current with his/her child support?

Lastly, with all due respect to the hard working task force members, I question the diversity of the group. (I wouldn’t have the time or patients to do all that’s necessary to participate) The one meeting I attended consisted of 3 people representing environmental groups/interests, a shop owner that by the introduction is one of the largest I/M Service Centers in the city, Ed Peace from UAA and a gentleman from BP. With the exception of Ed Peace and the Gentleman from BP, the other committee members would seem to have a very strong motivation to keep the program. Despite the stated neutrality of the group, it would seem that there wasn’t anyone representing the average citizen or consumer group. Perhaps that’s the gentleman from BP’s role and I also have tremndouse respect for Ed Peace’s expertise.

As a side note, it think it is important for me to note that I am involved in the aftermarket repair of vehicles and in all likelihood would benefit from a required “safety check”, but I can’t support bigger government solving a non-existent problem.

So my input would be to end the program. If not end it, have testing only when a vehicle is sold. And DO NOT put a safety check requirement to register your vehicles.

Thank you for your time and dedication in taking this matter up.

Cheers -

Jeff Lentfer August 20, 2007

Unfortunately I'll be out of town on the 30th. The present state of clean air in Anchorage is the result of the IM program. Any attempt to repeal or weaken the program will allow a return of dirty air and we'll again be in a catch up position.

Science is on the side of CLEAN AIR : Keep Anchorage's air clean by retaining the IM program just as it is. This is critical for the HEALTH of the community.

George L Stewart, MD August 20, 2007

I would just like to say that I think we should continue I/M testing requirements. The fact that it has worked so well lets us know that it should be continued. There are still a lot of people driving older cars that, were it not for I/M testing, would continue to pollute the air. I have asthma, and while I don’t like too much government interference in my life, and want to save money when I can, the health implications are more important to me. Please continue to require I/M testing. Thanks, Kathy Stewart August 20, 2007

Ending the IM program is long overdue. Anchorage has not exceeded target air quality levels in years. The program has done its job.

As a side note, I expect there will be strong opposition from the operators of IM test stations. This program is a cash cow for them. I remember when testing was required every year, rather than every two years as it is now. Then, the tests cost somewhere between $15 and $20. If you were lucky, you could get a test for $10. When the program went to testing every 2 years, the operators immediately doubled the cost of the test. I doubt the labor required for the biennial test is twice that of the annual test. It's a racket.

Kent Kohlhase August 19, 2007

We have been residents of Anchorage for 26 years. During this period we have benefited from continually improving air quality in the Anchorage Bowl. It is our belief that the continued improvement has resulted to a significant degree from a combination of the following: A) Improved emission controls on autos and trucks as mandated by the Federal Clean Air Act and its amendments; B) Implementation of the I/M program in Anchorage; C) Oversight of Anchorage's air quality by the Municipal Office of Air Quality under the able direction of Steve Morris;

Given the historical success of the I/M Program and the related health benefits to the residents of Anchorage, we believe that it would be foolish to terminate the program. We strongly support its continuation and urge that it be expanded to include noise pollution from motorcycles, autos and trucks with noisy exhaust systems, particularly those exhaust systems which are specifically

16 designed to increase loudness.

In support of our position we note the following: A) The argument is made that the I/M test is expensive and a financial burden to the residents of Anchorage. If it is assumed that and average auto is driven 10,000 miles per year and that cost of the I/M program to the owner is $58 for 2 years, then the cost per mile for the I/M program is $0.0029 per mile. In 2006, the IRS allowed $0.445 per mile as a deduction for business expenses. Thus, at 10,000 miles per year, the I/M program cost represents just over 1/2 of 1% (0.65%) of the cost of driving. These figures refute the argument that the I/M program represents a financial burden to the residents. Stated differently, if a resident feels that $58 every two years is a significant financial burden, then that resident cannot afford the privilege of driving with its associated costs for the car, fuel, maintenance, tires, insurance, etc. which, in total, represent more than 99% of the real cost of driving. B) Human nature is to take the easy and less expensive path in life. If residents are not required to participate in an I/M program, they will not do so. The direct result of this is that there will be an increase in auto related pollution in the Anchorage Bowl with subsequent health and welfare effects. This will surely be detrimental to Anchorage residents, particularly to the weak and infirm members of our community.

Respectfully submitted

David C. and Frances M. Junge August 19, 2007

I support the continuation of the IM program or at least something like it. Having been born here and living in the city on and off for the last forty years has given me a long term perspective of the relationship between citizens, their cars and the effects on the community. I will be honest, I was not an initial fan of the IM program. But as time went on I noticed subtle things about cars on the roads - the percentage of "one eye" (burned out headlight) cars dropped to near zero. The number of "smokers" (oil burning cars) did the same thing. Diesels are usually the only cars that are noticeable for smell as a rule now with the case being rare that a car burning way too rich is noticed. I think back on the days when they all ran rich and I never noticed. It was part of the "nosescape". Could the "system" use some tweaking? Sure, consider the following:

Sound Pollution The "Noisy vehicle" syndrome has really gotten out of hand and is, in it's own way causing as much pollution in the sound arena as the CO, HC and CO2 was in the gas pollution. We already have some code on the books to deal with defective or missing mufflers but that process depends on the having all the planets line up to result in an APD citation. From the increasing scope of the noise issue we as a community are losing ground. Not only do I hear the rice rockets racing on Dimond, I also get to hear the clown down the street roar out on his Harley at all hours of the day, night and worst, early morning. Some folks seem to have a greater need to make a lot of racket than consider the sensibilities of their neighbors. Every kid and his dog seems to think that his pickum up truck is not complete unless it has no less than two exhaust pipes making enough racket for a whole fleet of trucks.

Light Pollution Another area is the seeming need for increasing numbers of cars to have "Driving/Fog Lights" adding to the normal headlight equipment. Patently absurd in the city as most streets are

17 lit well enough that some folks don't realize that they have forgotten to turn on any lights at all. Again, code is in place but citations for those Deathstar types with the jillion candlepower worth of lights coming at us are rare. Some folks are victims of the factory lunacy that includes bright secondary lights as part of the OEM package and are not bright enough to either realize they can be turned off, don't realize how blinding they are or are just dim bulbs in their own right. Take your pick.

So yes, I think the IM program or something like it should be continued as I think it helps regulate a commodity (vehicles) that has such a pervasive impact in our community. A once every couple of years reality check is not a bad idea. Absent that, I think the "chip" cheats would go nuts and we would be heading back to the pre IM days and be reinventing the wheel again. The Hawaiians have something along the same lines only they call it a "safety check". Not to say that program didn't have it's issues as well but it kept a lot of rolling wrecks off the roads.

Jeff Schmitz August 19, 2007

Please scrap the IM program and do not replace it with a safety inspection or other burdensome regulation. In addition to being an unnecessary imposition on South Central Alaska motorists, it is unlikely that a safety inspection program can be promulgated under the Alaska statute which created the IM program as the gist of that statute gave ADEC authority to administer an emissions testing and control program only and certainly did not extend to non-emission items such as safety inspections. Most of the regulations requiring a plethora of inspections to be passed prior to the actual tailpipe test imposed additional cost with little to no benefit to air quality. If the IM program was truly about air quality, many of these extraneous requirements would not have been prerequisites for the actual emissions test. The cost of this program is borne most heavily by the poor, who do not have the money to purchase late model cars and often have to do the maintenance themselves. Thus if the program is no longer required to meet air quality targets, it should be scrapped as its cost is rather high to the individuals least able to afford it.

Thank you for your time Dan Ottenbreit August 19, 2007

Please abolish the IM program. It is unnecessary and expensive. If, in a few years Co2 levels rise past acceptable levels, then reinstate it.

We have too many regulations and to restrictive a government. If the IM program is not done away with, at least make the im test good for two or three years at No extra cost.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Stuart Yatsko August 19, 2007

18 Yesterday morning those beautiful peaks of Denali and Foraker could be seen on the horizon. If the I/M program were not in place, smog and other pollutants would obscure that awesome view even more often. Is the program perfect? No, but it continues to do what it was designed to do: reduce pollution. But why stop there? This effective program should be expanded to include safety features such as brakes & shocks as well to deal with the problem of noisy mufflers.

New vehicles are exempted from testing for four years, but after that period of time, it's reasonable to test them to make sure they work right and are safe. I sure didn't enjoy spending nearly $500 recently to bring my vehicle back into specs, but without the testing program it might have been months or even years before the problem was discovered.

Yes, the I/M is effective and needed, but it should be improved. The program should catch vehicles with broken and poorly aimed lights, bad shocks, and unsafe brakes as well as obnoxious, loud mufflers on automobiles and motorcycles. Expand the program, not drop it. Driving is a responsibility, and driving a non-polluting, safe, and quiet vehicle is part of that responsibility.

Sincerely,

Nathan O. Baily August 18, 2007

I believe the IM Testing allows drivers to; keep their cars/trucks in good mechanical condition. In other words; w/o IM Tests', drivers will be conditioned to let the engines in their cars/trucks to deteriorate, to a point of non-compliant, pollutant spewing, gas guzzling rates that were never thought of before. It is in the best interest, of this community, to continue IM Testing.

On another note. Motorcycles need to have mufflers. I am amazed that this city would allow H.D. motorcycles to run around with the excessive noise they generate. I do not see or hear any other brand of motorcycle with; 'straight pipes'. (I am a former; day sleeper. I can remember getting woke-up, by these bikes & wanting to rid them of their; loudness! I do thank the H.D. riders-who do have mufflers installed)!

Frank Sheppard Locomotive Engineer August 18, 2007

I do not feel we need the program to continue. When it started it was every year at $25. We then went to biennial and instead of being the $25 it increased to $50. Is this really about clean air or about another way to tax people without them being aware of it or being able to write it off taxes? Another problem with the IM program is that it has always checked the newer cars without any problems and the older ones with problems are exempt. Now, is it really about clean air or is it about extorting money from the taxpayer?

Barb and Mike McIntire August 18, 2007

To end the I/M Program would be short sited and simply bad for the residents of this city.

I see that some people believe that because this program is inconvenient or requires a certain amount of money spent to maintain your vehicle to certain emissions standards or just because is a government program, that this is a bad program and should be discontinued.

Every day I step out my door, I am reminded of how lucky I am to live in the most beautiful place in the world. As a born and raised Alaskan, I am extremely proud of our incredible city and state. The emissions program enables us to breath some of the cleanest air that cities around the world can offer. This is a result of programs like our I/M testing program.

We need to think of our children and grand-children when making decisions that effect the air we breath. It is our responsibility as adults, driving adults, to keep our vehicles operating cleanly. Though some of us may do that on our own, others do not and will not without being required to do so.

Clean air is not free. Keep the I/M requirements and even enhance them, we all benefit.

I and my family support the I/M program and enhancements that keep this a clean place to live.

Tammie Stoops-Petersen August 18, 2007

End the IM program unless it’s statewide, BUT- if you do keep it, also inspect for excessive noise at the same time (louder than factory).

Here’s why…

The rest of the state isn’t required to have an IM. So, many people who live and/or work in Anchorage have their cars registered somewhere else. I know people who have their cars registered to places you can’t even drive to (Barrow, etc.). Stop singling out Anchorage and end the program. Failing that, the proliferation of excessively loud, offensive, purposely altered exhaust systems requires increased enforcement. IF we keep the IM program, the vehicle should not pass if the exhaust is one of those that can be heard from blocks away. I’m tired of being startled and having my kids cry after some jerk in a store parking lot hammers the gas and disturbs the peace just to show off. Thanks

Rober Fischer August 18, 2007

Hello, I am in support of keeping the I M Program in place. These days we no longer have to suffer by cars that spew smoke from their tail pipes! It's so much better than it was several years ago.

I also firmly believe that valley commuters should also pay for IM inspections considering the thousands of them that come into Anchorage

20 daily.

June McNeil Anchorage Resident/Motorist August 17, 2007

I would like to express my opinion on the current IM program. No doubt several years ago when the program was started there was a very real need however it appears from the last 11 years of testing the air the problem has been ceased to exist. More than likely the improvement in the air conditions during the winter are due to the facts that (1) Government requirements for more effective vehicle emission control systems have greatly reduced emissions and (2) most of the older vehicles that had none or inadequate emissions control systems have been retired from the road.

This is a very expensive program for the citizens and has clearly outlived its usefulness. Continuation at this time is just not warranted or justified. Should conditions deteriorate over the next few years then we can re-establish the program.

Wilfred L. Kelly August 17, 2007

I recommend that you discontinue the Emissions Inspection program. Look at the cost of administrating this program. Look at the ridiculous price for the cost of a piece of paper or certificate. For what? It has nothing to do with clean air but everything to do with increase bureaucracy. It makes me ill that it is such a huge rip off.

My own personal experience with it is having an official testing site telling me my vehicle failed and will need hundreds of dollars of repairs. Only to take it to another station where the vehicle passes inspection. This program legitamizes the Auto Repair industry to stick it to the consumer financially by asking for a frivalous hook up to a gold mine piece of equipment to prove our vehicle is within range. The municipality approves of this rip off. I dont believe it is doing anything for the environment because there are ways to get the inspection pass by going to a disreputable inspection site. It only serves to line the pockets of the businesses who buy into this rip off. I would think that random inspections would suffice. It is easy to tell a vehicle is gong to fail by watching the blue smoke come out of the tail pipe. You dont need a 4000 dollar instrument to tell you that.

William Gallanger August 17, 2007

I would like to go on record as saying that I feel the I M Program should be canceled. When it was first begun, cars did give off a lot of bad emissions. The federal government implemented new guidelines over the past 20 years that has reduced these harmful emissions. Also, most of the older cars that were giving off the really harmful emissions have been retired and are not being driven anymore, so of course the emissions levels are not being broken now. There is no need for the emissions testing to be done at all, but if you feel it must be continued, at least exempt cars for the first 6 years. New cars should all meet the criteria for not needing any work done in order to pass the

21 emissions testing, and this is just an undue expense and wasted time on the part of the new car owners. I really feel this whole program needs to be abolished.

Thank you, Sharie Van Ness August 17, 2007

It is time to make it go away. Rick Romero August 17, 2007

I would like to see the program continue and add on the following checks;

• complete check of exhaust system including sound limit (after market are louder that manufacture systems.) • complete check of all lights, tail, turn signals, jhigh and low etc • tinted windows with in limits • a general check to make sure the vehicle is safe to drive on public roads.

Thank you, Mike Christenson August 17, 2007

Continue the IM program. Start testing later when the vehicle is 5-6 years old rather than earlier. I have seen some terrible cars being driven so we cannot do away with the program.

Wini Chikigak August 17, 2007

I am in favor of eliminating the IM program. In my opinion Anchorage has done so much in the years since the inception of IM with regard to better roads, one way travel and other improvements limiting idle time that a large portion of potential pollution has disappeared. At the same time, the auto industry is continually producing cleaner vehicles while the older ones are leaving the roadways.

Glen Nicolai CPA August 17, 2007

Please keep the IM program. The reason we have clean air in Anchorage is that the IM program has been in place for a while. Responsible motorists should be willing to spend $50 every two years to assure that their vehicles are not contributing to foul air problems. If you eliminate the IM program, you might as well eliminate all the vaccination programs for children, including the one for polio vaccine, because there are no current cases of polio in Anchorage. We need these programs. Anyone who grew up in a city with air

22 pollution, as I did, truly appreciates the clean air and should feel a responsibility to help keep it clean. I live in Knik and work in Anchorage. I just had an IM test on my truck and would do so every year regardless of whether it was required or not. It's part of being Alaskan to help keep our state healthy and beautiful

Margie Bauman August 17, 2007

I think that the current IM testing program should be changed . When a private party sells a vehicle to be driven year round to another private party the seller should at the least be required to get an inspection that verifies that all the IM components are still attached to the vehicle. Dealers are or should be required to sell only current IM'd vehicles. This would insure some sort of compliance. Fines should be levied for tampering. Vehicles bought outside the city shall be the Anchorage resident's responsibility for obtaining the proper paperwork before registration. If feasible the Muni. could hire inspectors and the cost defrayed by fees paid by the interested party much like we do today.

Thanks for your time

George E. Worley August 17, 2007

I think the time has come to stop the I/M testing program. Cars run cleaner and even older cars typically fly through the tailpipe emissions. I believe that more cars fail due to a physical issue then actual fuel emissions. If we are concerned about air quality we should change the program to measure tailpipe emissions and quit worrying about whether the check engine light works or the vehicle has a different engine. What comes out of the tailpipe should be the concern. If we take a look at what gets a I/M tech in trouble with a documented vehicle it is not whether the tailpipe emissions are within tolerances, it is whether someone has removed a hose or altered the vehicle. In my opinion what we have now is a every 2 year vehicle tax and a requirement to pay a private company $$$ to say I can drive my car. We have created an entire industry around this program with I/M stations, I/M enforcement, and I/M training schools, and I/M techs. The entire purpose of which is to test vehicles of which, based on my limited review, over 95% pass without even being close. We are spending millions of dollars a year to support an industry that no longer serves a purpose. The question now is "Are we able to turn off the industry?" Do we have the political will power to say enough is enough or will the special interests override common sense?

Kenneth Dodson August 17th, 2007

My husband and I could not believe that you may consider canceling the requirement for I/M Inspections. We both feel it would be totally foolish to cancel the requirement. We live in the Valley and feel it should be required here as well. Why else have the air quality reported so well? Of course - because of the I/M inspections. It would be foolish to discontinue the program. Thank you for allowing us to comment.

Gidget M. Wensel August 17, 2007

The IM program has served its purpose and is no longer needed. Do not expand or modify it, just discontinue it.

C. Homan August 17, 2007

This program never achieved its goal. Replacement of vehicles did. Having to IM a vehicle less than 6 years old is strictly a tax. Until it is a statewide program including safety and noise inspection it should be removed from the laws. Girdwood is part of the municipality for those who don’t know. Stop this bureaucratic nightmare NOW!

Marty Keef August 17, 2007

With the design of cleaner burning cars this program is no longer needed. In other areas of this state and other states that have no such program vehicle owners maintain their vehicles in order to get good fuel mileage.

If it MUST continue the monitoring should be for a set emissions standard for a specific year model. The amount of trouble one must tolerate if a vehicle has a new motor installed has nothing to do with clean air. The waste of taxpayer money spent on the mass air tester then limiting it to only test stock engines demonstrates how little this program has to do with clean air and actually has evolved into just another way to control a citizen’s choice.

Steve Million August 17, 2007

Would like to add my comments to the others that have already commented. I have one word for the IM Program, "TERMINATE". Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

Richard Brewer August 17, 2007

I beleive the I/M Program should be continued in a modified form. The program has been a success in that the air quality of the MOA has improved. However, much of that improvement appears to come from the cleaner exhaust systems installed on newer vehicles. This is also borne out by the fact that the majority of vehicles failing the I/M test are older vehicles.

Therefore, I think the program should be modified to concentrate on catching the vehicles most likely to be out of compliance, namely older vehicles. Currently, vehicles that have been on the road two years or less do not need to be tested. That exemption should be lengthened to 5 years or even 7 years. Thereafter, if a vehicle fails an inspection, it would have to be tested every year. But if a vehicle passes an inspection, then the interval should be to inspect it every two years. These modifications would uphold the purposes of the program, catch the vehicles most likely to be out of compliance, and maintain a stream of income to the MOA to maintain its clean air programs.

Jon Woodman August 17, 2007

The evidence presented regarding current automobile emissions and air quality in Anchorage as well as testimony from those who serve to profit from IM regulation has helped me understand why I should SUPPORT the DISCONTINUATION of this program. If the city decides to continue this program, it will only be to profit off of our inconvenience and to further the idiocracy of government oversight and bureaucracy. I represent a household of 2 adults who would support an administration which decides to end this program and allocate human resources and financial resources to some other means of serving our citizens.

Becky Hauser August 17, 2007

I think that they should do away with the I/M system for 5 years and then if needed re-instate it at that time or in the event that there is no problems then with high co pollution then revisit every 5 years or so to see if the program is needed at all.

Mary Novotny August 17, 2007

It's served it's purpose. Time to stop the IM Testing completely. No modified program.

Roy Brock August 17, 2007

I appreciate what the IM program has done to the air quality in this city and I would like to see the program continue to monitor the air quality in Anchorage. As an auto owner, bike commuter and outdoor recreationist I definitely appreciate and have chosen Anchorage for its air quality, among other things.

It would seem that requiring vehicles to pass the test every third year would ease come concerns of expense for those who have mentioned that.

Thank you.

Tomas Jensen August 17, 2007

The current IM program was established to improve the air quality in Anchorage. For the past 8- 10 years, Anchorage has met or exceeded air quality standards established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The vehicles manufactured in the past 20 years have produced a significant decrease in bio-carbon discharge compared to 1970’s – 1980’s generation cars.

The miniscule failure rate of vehicles in Anchorage today does NOT justify the cost and inconvenience to the general public. This program should be abolished.

25 The impression I have of the current IM program is nothing more than a money grab ($1.8M) by the Municipality of Anchorage. When a government program meets its stated goals, WHY can’t the program be abolished so residents can keep more of OUR money in OUR pockets.

James Huffman August 17, 2007

I believe the program should end. Let me give you an example of how the program negatively effects me. I have a 1982 Chevy K-10 pickup truck. It was a BP slope truck. Because of artic weather conditions, BP modified the truck. What this means is, the truck will not pass the visual I/M inspection, but it will pass the tail pipe sniff test. I also have a 1972 Chevy Blazer which is also subject to the I/M program. California, which is the toughest state for I/M inspections, exempts 1972 and older vehicles. So why doesn't Anchorage? The program is old, antiquated, and rigid. There is no longer a need for the program and should be eliminated. Thank you for taking the time to read my e-mail.

Sincerely, William Carlton August 17, 2007

I believe the I/M testing program needs revising at the very least. It has too many complications as well as expensive restrictions.

I own and maintain a fleet of over a hundred cars. I am required to license these vehicles as commercial vehicle because they are put on leases. If I buy a vehicle from anyone that is registered as a private vehicle or non-commercial vehicle I am required to I/M it if it has not been I/M within 90 days. If there is a current I/M when I do this I must leave the old I/M windshield in place even though the new I/M extends much longer. If I want an updated one, I must go downtown to the Muni on "L Street" and fill out a form and have the Muni apply a new one to the windshield with the updated date. This takes more time and money to do than the original I/M.

It is nearly impossible to replace an engine in a vehicle unless it is an exact replacement. This creates all sorts of problems dealing in our local market that may have limited parts supplies.

I own several vintage vehicles that are used on rare occasions on the public road system. One of them is 1970, fully restored vehicle that either has to have the seasonal waver or a current I/M. Vehicles over 20 years old should be exempted at the very least.

The newer vehicles are built to much higher standards and have eliminated the need for I/M testing. The isolated areas that require I/M testing have a very limited effect on the air quality and the older, vintage vehicles have almost no effect on the system. The system is cumbersome and expensive and has out lived any positive effects that it may have had in the past years.

Tom Prunty August 17, 2007

I think the I/M program should be abolished. If you're not going to abolish it, it should be modified so late model vehicles that consistently pass their I/M tests are not required to be tested. For example - how many vehicles that are less than ten years old have failed an I/M test? I've never had a vehicle

26 fail an I/M test (including the ones that were > ten years old) and I don't think I know of anyone else who has had a failure. Seems like a lot of time and money wasted on unnecessary testing.

Kathy Spaulding August 17, 2007

I may be in the minority with this opinion, however, I do not think the emissions standards are strict enough now. I, for one, would not like to see the skies above Alaska turn brown and thick -- -as we all know is the case in so much of the rest of the United States; and world. Please, do not take the State backwards in emissions standards. In fact, let's lead the way back to clean air, after all--don't we all want our grandchildren's grandchildren to have breathable air? We, as a society, need to see beyond our own pocketbooks and our own short lifespans and start thinking in terms of quality of life for future generations. Make the I/M Standards MORE strict ----not less. Thank you.

Sincerely, Susan Bonham August 17, 2007

I feel the I/M program is unnecessary as most of the vehicles on the road today are newer and already meet stringent air quality standards, In 1996 all vehicles were required to be what is call OBD2 which is “On Board Diagnostic (version 2) that has made the vehicles much more efficient. Making the air much cleaner..

The vehicle safety check will hurt the lower income people the most. The “Safety Check” this will really hurt lower income people – they are the ones that drive the vehicles that will need the most work.

The program costs $8.2 Million of which $1.2 Million goes to air monitoring. I am quite certain the city doesn’t need to tax its citizens $8.2 Million to support a $1.2 Million cost of air monitoring.

Please DO NOT KEEP the current I/M system - it is NOT NECESSARY!!!! Save us some money BIG GOVERNMENT!!

Clint Lentfer August 17, 2007

Please don’t end this program! I believe that if you do, chances are we will once again see an increase in pollution. If folks have questionable problems with their vehicles and can get away with not having to “fix” those problems, you can bet those vehicles will operate on the roads of Anchorage with impunity. I strongly believe that EVERY vehicle that operates in Anchorage needs to have an I/M test. I still notice at least one car daily on the streets of the city that pour black obnoxious pollutants into the air when they accelerate. I always wonder HOW they can possibly pass an I/M test. Or are those vehicles not being tested at all because they are licensed outside of Anchorage? Just imagine how many people will feel like they are “getting away with something” if they can drive problem vehicles around town knowing there are no more I/M tests to worry about. If this program ends, then the city will just have to put up with all the unnecessary

27 pollution that will be generated by these problem vehicles; and once again begin to worry about the future of our air.

Judy Hanna August 17, 2007

Quote from the Anchorage Daily News- “When the city launched the I/M program, Anchorage routinely exceeded federal pollution standards, said Steve Morris, air quality program manager for the city. Over the past 20 years, pollution levels have plummeted, according to the city. Anchorage hasn't broken the federal pollution limit since 1996, Morris said.” People are not always aware that there car is running poorly and the I/M program monitors this. If you car is producing more pollutants than it should, you need to fix it- to reduce emissions and to prevent it from stalling in the middle of a busy intersection. So why the heck would the Muni get rid of a program that is working? Seatbelts have saved many lives and we are not getting rid of the click it or ticket! The idea of disposing of a program that is pushing emission levels below our set goal shows that people are interested in doing the minimum to fix a problem and not maintaining a solution for long periods of time. Keep the I/M program- people will not voluntarily ensure that there car is running properly!

Jeff Jessen August 17, 2007

I support keeping the IM program in some form.

We have a lot of old noisey polluting trucks in this town with modified exhaust systems. They need to be regulated.

Also, many people will modify their vehicles, if we don’t have IM enforcement.

IM gets old unsafe vehicles off the road, and protects consumers from buying junk.

I would change the IM program, and make exceptions for 4 cylinder vehicles.

I have asthma and am very sensitive to vehicle emissions. It’s a major health problem for me as an individual

Steve Howze August 17, 2007

If the IM program has their hands tide, and cannot enforce noise pollution then scrap the program. But keep the vehicle fees and add it to Anchorage Police Department to add officers allowing them the personnel to enforce noise violations. It is obvious that those who chose not to have their vehicles pass IM still manage to get around town with their tailpipe dangling, and muffler fallen off. Combined with dumb luck that they haven’t been pulled over yet, and APD often overwhelmed with other work and understaffing, Its no wonder that people can get away with driving around in a vehicle that would obviously not pass a visual inspection. In case many of the people of Anchorage are driving to and from work half asleep, they need only sit at any stop light or intersection for 10 minutes and listen to the vehicle passing by that sound like they belong at a monster truck rally or a drag strip. There are thousands of Imports with loud modified exhaust and pickups and suv’s with straight pipes wreaking havoc on our city. And don’t get me started on motorcycles with heavily modified

28 exhaust systems. But then again maybe many of these vehicles would pass some sort of mandatory noise testing, its just the idiots that shift from 1st to 2nd gear only after their vehicles tachometer hits the redline, and then repeats the process at every stop light and stop sign. I think the real solution is to provide enough police officers with enough time to crack down on these offenders.

Thanks, Ross Bergman August 17, 2007

I support keeping the I/M program because it’s working. I support waivers for newer vehicles for a few years, since they’re unlikely to be the smoke-belchers. Please keep the program. Thank you.

Linda Davis August 17, 2007

Jeff Jessen August 17, 2007

I just moved to Anchorage and I am very happy to comply with the IM program. Sitting in traffic, I understand why it is needed. I also agreee that there should be safety and noise checks.

We live in a beautiful state, let's keep it that way.

Dimitra Lavrakas August 17, 2007

It's time to abolish this program. It's more of an inconvenience to vehicle owners. It will also eliminate another layer of bureaucracy within the city government.. If I may reiterate my view--- eliminate or scrap it totally.

Ernie Mangrobang August 17, 2007

29 Evidence appears to document that the program is no longer necessary and at this point in time only imposes an additional tax burden on Anchorage residents as well as those from Mat-su who commute to jobs in Anchorage. It is time to eliminate the program.

Jeanette Brooks August 17, 2007

I am a strong supporter of the I/M program and would not only like to see it continue but would like to see it enhanced. Yes, Anchorage has been successful in keeping good air quality over the past several years but one only needs to look at some of the cars on the road today to realize how quickly that could change if the I/M program was eliminated. There are some cars/trucks that I have seen on the Anchorage roads which emit so much "junk" (for lack of a better word) that it's frankly disgusting to travel behind or around them.

I understand how some individuals could feel that their own experience with the I/M program makes little to no difference in the air quality of Anchorage. However, imagine what would happen if everyone stopped complying. Anchorage's air quality would quickly take a downturn - especially on cold winter days. Then the city would be forced to reinstate the program which may prove more difficult than simply continuing it.

As a college student I traveled out of state to go to school in Washington D.C. Almost immediately upon arrival, I developed asthma. Until I returned to Alaska, I was on daily medication to allow me to breathe. My need for this assistance has decreased dramatically over the past several years - indeed an immediate difference was found upon my return to my home town. Without continuing I/M control I fear for not only my own health but for the health of others who experience conditions far worse than my own. (Not to mention the health of our children.) Anchorage has spent a great deal of time and money eliminating air pollution indoors. Why, on earth, would we backtrack towards allowing greater air pollution outdoors?

Alaska is a wonderful place with a great deal of divergent thinkers. People who like to live their lives their own way. Unfortunately, this often means driving vehicles that are rather antiquated in terms of their technology. Keeping these cars of the roads could be seen as removing part of the Alaskan spirit. (In the past few weeks I have seen numerous VW buses that have probably been around since the 60's, a Gremlin, and several trucks that could only be described as rust buckets.) In my opinion, trying to get these cars off the road may be impossible until they completely become unsalvageable. Thus, it is imperative that the I/M program continue to make this part of Alaskan life safer for those of us who share the air.

Again, I would love to see the I/M program enhanced to continue to improve the air quality in Anchorage. However, at the very least, it should be continued in its current format. Continuation, as money allows, of the engine block heater program would also be wonderful.

Thank you for allowing me to submit my comments.

Kind regards, Erika Wolter August 17, 2007

I was reading today’s article on the IM testing. If we get rid of it what will happen in five years? We will have all that smog back, the air quality will be awful and more people will become ill or those who are already sick could be sicker. It is harder to bring it back once it is stopped than to make the program better than it already is. Make the program so that cars built after 2005 have 5- 10 years before being tested but that if a cop sees a problem he can stop them and cite them

30 without another reason. Cars older than 1990 should be tested yearly, 1991-2005 should be test every other year. We do also need safety inspections. There are a lot of people with windshields that have many cracks and look like a spider web. I see people who carry their kids or dogs in their lap while driving. I see kids in other places in the car not in a seat belt or car seat. I see cars with so much damage to the body they should not be allowed on the road. Come on ALASKA take pride in your state. Do not get rid of the program. Make motorists take pride in their vehicles and think SAFETY FIRST.

Barbara Haar

It’s a waste of money------get rid of it!!!!!

Nancee Jensen Atkins August 17, 2007

I just purchased a 2008 Hybrid vehicle, I see no reason for I/M testing on this vehicle.

Chuck O’Connell August 17, 2007

Most modern cars are very efficient so to have to go through the IM process every so often seems a little silly. Especially when deisel vehicles don't even have to test, when they are the ones that really should be singled out and made to be cleaner.

I believe the IM should go away.

Thank you,

Michael Holtz August 17, 2007

TO the I/M Task Force, The I/M program needs to be cancelled. Over 80% of the vehicles on the road are 1996 or newer. These vehicles are built with OBDII software and monitor their own emissions. Users receive notification as a check engine light if a sensor detects a problem. The program is a back handed tax to drivers in the Anchorage area. Originally it was formed as a Big Brother inspection to interfere with private ownership and force compliance with an arbitrary air quality standard. The focus of the air quality standard was to comply with EPA air quality regulations. We have not exceeded the air quality thresholds since the advent of OBDII(1996). So apparently OBDII works not this program. The I/M program has become a self-fulfilling program. It brings in money from inspections to continue funding the program for future inspections. However it has never been consistent. Programs in more green areas at least provided a rolling exempt date, realizing that “classic” cars make up a very small percentage of vehicles on the road. As such their impact is small. Every year the classic car date increases by one, but this defunct program never acknowledged that fact.

Travis Holmes

31 August 17, 2007

Why should folks who own vehicles that are not even in AK, let alone Anchorage, have to pay the same $18 for a waiver? This is just another "loop hole" to give more "General fund" money to Anchorage. If I lived outside of Anchorage I would not need an IM. However, because I live in Anchorage I have to pay an additional $18 to license my vehicle that in physically in the lower 48. I vote do away with this abused program that has accomplished its purpose.

August 17, 2007

My 2002 pickup truck I own, I've had to have it emission tested twice since I purchased it new. I keep the mileage very low, currently it has less than 35,000 miles on it. These newer vehicles, being computer controlled, are for the most part, maintenance-free. If there's an emissions problem, the CHECK ENGINE light will turn on. My vehicle has ran perfectly since the day I bought it, and both emissions tests came back good. Needless to say, I am very angry about having to spend over 50 dollars for a simple procedure which takes just a few minutes. They check under the hood for any obvious discrepancies, then start the engine and verify the CHECK ENGINE light comes on and then extinguishes. That is it. Not even a sniffer check from the exhaust pipe. In my opinion, that is not necessary on a newer vehicle that has such low mileage. I say eliminate these emission checks on vehicles. At least those with less than 100,000 miles. Our modern vehicles today run cleaner than anything that's ever been produced. The few vehicles that do produce higher emissions are not worth going after. They are typically owned by folks who don't earn a ton of money, and emission repairs are WAY too expensive. If they could afford a new vehicle, I'm sure most would have one. But how can you justify spending a minimum of 15,000 dollars on the cheapest chunk of tin on the lot these days? So, they keep their old cars, and I say good. I say let it go. Or here's an idea, go after all the diesel truck operators who are in construction and line haul, things like that. No one can tell me those trucks don't stink and grossly pollute the air. Just because they are "providing a valuable service" doesn't mean they have the right to belch tons of black smoke into our air.

Thank you for the opportunity to present my opinions, and thank you for reading mine. Greg Snoke August 16, 2007

I think the original purpose of the program has been served and that the city/state should consider updating current pollution laws (to include excessive muffler noise) that applies to the whole state not just Anchorage. Currently people living outside the Anchorage bowl do not have to follow the IM rules unless they work in Anchorage.

Mary LeBeau August 16, 2007

The only people who benefit from this program are the businesses selling the IM Inspections and the State coffers. PLEASE KILL THIS PROGRAM.

Thank you, Christopher Constant August 16, 2007

To whom it may concern~

I was rather disturbed at the news story I saw about the IM program, the thought of terminating the program based on the fact that it has worked for the past 17 years is ridiculous. Even today there are some cars on the road that should probably not be there, this program is helping Anchorage in all its rapid growth maintain good air quality. With the issues of global warming I am very upset to hear the program may be done away with. I urge you to keep it going, because in the end it is worth the fifty bucks. Thank you,

Kristen Perry August 16, 2007

The program has served its purpose and is no longer needed therefore close the program out.

Connie Boquist August 16, 2007

I think the program should be discontinued. The problem has been addressed and solved. It's time to move on. Way to go Anchorage!

Zack Armstrong August 16, 2007

In my view the need for the program is over. Being on limited income I find that my costs for testing greatly exceed the normal fifty dollar mark. At times it has run over $500! For a vehicle that is used for less than 1000 miles per year that seems to be excessive. This does not take into account time away from the office, transportation costs, etc.

The IM testing facilities generally like the program (as I have been told) as it drives extra business their way. Overall, dump the program as it no longer has a useful purpose.

Jim August 16, 2007

I believe the program is outdated. Vehicles are running cleaner and aren't as old - if it's determined that the need exists at a later date - then bring it back but tailor it to the specific need.

Denise and Jenny August 16, 2007

I M tests should be just for making sure a car meets pollution standards.Just because a car has a fan belt on little bit off is not a reason to fail or try to fail some one on a I M test like what happened to me.The tests should be ONLY to make sure a car doesn't pollute.The test should be simple and to the point not some bureaucrats nightmare which it now is.If I put a different year or size motor in a car and it doesn't pollute what difference does it make?,but no you cant do that and not have to go to a ref station.The Muni has gone way to far on I M testing. Mike Nolan August 16, 2007

NO IM PROGRAM

Leonard Lamb August 16, 2007

I vote no to IM testing. The only people that are profiting are the garages that administer the tests. I think that the extra money they don't spend on monitoring this program can be given to APD Police Officers to patrol the streets for the obvious vehicles on the municipal streets that are emitting excess smoke!!!

Thank you!

Margie Tidwell August 16, 2007

Keep it! I'm very proud to live in a city that requires it! It says a lot about the community and their efforts to keep the city's sky/air clean. If they were polluted....why would we live here? I wouldn't.

Heidi Gugisberg August 16, 2007

I am pleased to hear that the city's I/M program has now fulfilled its mission of improving air quality in the Anchorage Bowl for 11 years running. Given that the program objectives were met over a decade ago, I think the time is overdue that the I/M program be discontinued.

I recognize that canceling this program will cause some economic hardship to the businesses that provide inspection services, however I am confident that these entrepreneurs will find new business opportunities, just as they did 22 years ago when this market niche was created. The ongoing economic benefit to the community of eliminating these costly inspections vastly outweighs any short-term hardship to the few.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments regarding the continuation of this program.

Sincerely,

Joel Groves August 16, 2007

I feel that there is no longer a need for the vehicle emission testing program.

The results of the program, "CO pollution levels have been cut by two-thirds" is more likely the result of the attrition of the notoriously polluting 80's vehicles equipped with inadequate emmission controls from the factory - especially when put to use in cold climates.

34 Given that the majority of cars on the road today are fuel injected, which tend to either run cleanly or not at all, there is no longer a need for emmission testing. And the percentage of clean running fuel injected, alternative fuel vehicles, and even electric vehicles will only be increasing in the future given the price of gas. The testing program has served its purpose but is no longer needed.

Daniel Hertrich August 16, 2007

One of the most anoying government programs. I have lived here for over 20 years, I have two cars, and never have I had a car not pass. If it must be kept use it only for "after market modifed cars" or cars over 20 years old that might not have appropriate emission controls originally installed.

When registering the owner signs indicating the car has not undergone any aftermarket engine or exhaust modifications. The most anoying thing are the people that fail to properly muffle their vehicles. And that isn't even checked for.

It is just a tax on drivers. If we really need the tax just charge me the tax and don't make me waste my time taking my car into a place where a bunch of kids mess with it.

Twice after IM tests at oil change places like QuickLube my car has been returned to me having been broken as part of the process. Once the guys failed to put the air filter back in, and once they broke one of the emission valves. The car passed, but ran poorly requiring a visit to the dealer that clearly showed someone had fingerprints on the valve. Once reinstalled the car ran fine.

Richard Poage August 16, 2007

I strongly urge you to eliminate the IM program. It has been stated that there have been no air quality violations for nine years. The vehicles are much cleaner than they were when this program was initiated and it has been obsolete for some time. It has become an unnecessary source of revenue for the municipality and auto repair shops at the car owner’s expense. I also strongly urge you not to try to convert this into some kind of safety inspection program for the same reasons stated above.

Sincerely Rolland Grosdidier August 16, 2007

As a single parent facing the high cost of living here in Anchorage I would be in favor of scaling back or eliminating the IM program.

I had some difficulty with getting a vehicle IM'd and DMV only authorizes a one-way trip permit to a repair station. After my repair was made, the repair shop told me it would need to be driven for around 50 miles to reset the computer. So I had to drive without a permit to do so. Which was stressful to say the least!

If the program is continued and scaled back, allowances should be made to accomodate the mileage needed to reset the sensors, the trip back to get the IM completed and the trip back to DMV.

Thanks for your consideration of my opinion.

Marcy Pilcher August 16, 2007

It has outlived its usefulness and is no longer necessary.

Mike & Marie Gieryic August 16, 2007

Kill the IM program. It's not needed anymore, and is a complete waste of money.

James P Strutz August 16, 2007

The IM test is not working and should be taken off of the books. Half of the people that work in Anchorage come from Eagle River, Palmer and the Valley and most of these outer cities do not require IM testing. So the only people that are being forced to expended this amount are the residence of Anchorage itself, and they are only about half of the drivers in the City, what good exactly is this testing doing, besides putting a nice chunck of change in the Municipality's pocket, and keeping several businesses in business with charging high fees for IM testing. It is almost as wasteful as being charged $10.00 for actually going into DMV and using the employees that we are already paying for. This really does not make any sense except for financially.

Jerry Bolivar August 16, 2007

Well my opinion on the subject is that our state should still keep that program running and if it is not for every two years make it for every three years. It is very important for our community to have that enforce, because the smell of exhaust from some cars and trucks are very bad. It is polluting the air we're inhaling each day. I don't know about you but I sure don't like the smell. Also it gives everybody the chance to have their car check, to see if there is something wrong with it. It is important to keep that enforce, and our safety always comes first.

Thanks, Miriama Lakisa August 16, 2007

Kill it, just one more expense Anchorage citizens can do without. Air quality in Anchorage is most at risk from Mother Nature. Particulate emmissions from vehicles pale in comparison to our dirty air from dust on any windy day. Plant allergens we are subject to from Spring to Freezeup are far more harmful than any other air quality issues we face.

E A Hamm Jr August 16, 2007

In general I have no complaints with respect to a biennial IM inspection. As numbers of cars on the road increases, it makes sense to require they be tuned to a minimum standard to save gas and reduce emissions. The businesses where my vehicles are inspected overall have been prompt and professional not trying to sell unnecessary service or parts.

My only real concern has to do with pollution of a different sort that being the incessant drone and bellowing emitted from the modified tail pipes of the high testosterone crowd. I am sure I am not the only resident who would like to see testing for excessive noise emissions incorporated into the current IM standards.

Doug Swartout August 16, 2007

I think its time to put the IM program to bed forever. I can't see where it helps with the new emssions that carshave today compaired to 20 years ago. Also the city can't really enforce it... people still find ways around having their car IM or they just don't renew their tags. If you looked you can find 2 or 3 cars everyday with expired plates. Yes lets do away with the IM program.

Michael Downs August 16, 2007

I am VERY MUCH AGAINST keeping the IM program. I am VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED to expanding it.

And, if you really want to know what the "people" think, as opposed to zealots and advocates against anything other than bike riding or everyone moving away from Alaska, why not ask? Let us vote on it.

J.E. Grimes August 16, 2007

I think this program should be discontinued!

Nancy Sawyer August 16, 2007

The IM Program is a scam to rid individual tax payers of their money. The program should be scraped, the division overseeing it disbanded, and the employees working it retired or reassigned to meaningful jobs.

Tim Formo August 17, 2007

The program has outlived it's usefulness and is just another way of taxing residents of Anchorage, while valley people who put on more miles in the Municipality are exempt.

End the prorgam and save all of the local residents some money for a change.

Craig Clemens August 16, 2007

The IM program in Anchorage should be ended. The vast majority of cars on the road today are of new enough manufacture that they readily pass the inspection. Those that don't are likely demonstrating their need of attention by running poorly and will receive needed maintenance for that reason. By virtue of repair and tuneup work, most of them will be brought back into smog compliance. The percentage of older cars, in poor repair, in the overall pool of cars operating in the compliance area is growing smaller each year. The IM program, created when automobiles were built to less stringent environmental standards, has outlived its usefulness. Now, for the most part, the program constitutes merely a "tax" on automobile ownership. It is a cost of automobile ownership that serves no broad public purpose and hits the lower income bracket dispropotionately. Granted, the shops that provide the service will experience a brief hit in revenue-producing, relatively simple, work. But there is plenty of real repair work out there to keep them busy. End the program. Thanks for inviting public comments and for making it easy to file them via email. Jack Phelps August 16, 2007

Other than the jobs that depend on IM testing in the few areas of the state that require it, I see no benefits. I do believe the majority of vehicles on the local roads are either new enough to be efficient - or are from the valley which does not require testing. I wonder if the revenue collected manages to do much more than pay the salaries of the technicians performing the tests - and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it is a losing venture, overall.

I say scrap the idea.

Joe Pagliero August 16, 2007

The question is, whether it is actually effective at all as to its purpose. I have been told that studies have shown that this process has little or no impact on environmental pollution and that it is perceived as only a revenue source. If that is true it should have been discontinued long ago.

Ed Gregory August 16, 2007

The environmental impact of gas guzzling cars is of bigger concern that emissions. Most cars that get fewer than 22 MPG are more inefficient and likely also have emissions issues. The cost and

38 inconvenience of the IM program alone is prohibitive, add to that the high gas costs and SUVs and there's no way to win.

Carmel Nelson August 16, 2007

I live in Anchorage. I moved here in the Fall of 2003. I bought a used vehicle and in just over a year, the I/M expired. This proved to be a problem since I had purchased a Ford. Often times, with Ford vehicles the Check Engine light comes on for no reason at all. In order to pass the emissions test, the Check Engine light cannot be on. How is a problem supposed to be fixed if there is none only a faulty check engine light, but automatically fails an emissions test because of one little bulb? One year later I purchased a new vehicle and emissions tests are not required on vehicles 2 years old or less. Which is great, but what's the difference? If an emissions requirement is to be in place, include all vehicles whether new or old. Another thing to consider, is this actually helping the environment? Or is it just another ticket for the police to give out, another income for local auto shops, and another reason for people to complain? The odds needs to be weighed against each other. Maybe there is too much effort for something that is not really making a difference. No matter how many emissions regulations there are in place, there will always be a certain percentage of the population that rides around in beater cars and don't get busted for not having that fancy little green sticker on their window. Maybe it's a great idea, but maybe it's also just a huge hassle. I realize it's supposed to be better for the environment, but if it's going to be a requirement maybe it shouldn't cost so much or maybe the regulations shouldn't be so sticky. Or, maybe the tests should be good for 3 or 4 years even. Most people don't even keep their vehicles that long anyway. Or maybe you can get an emissions test done when you first purchase your vehicle and it's not required again until you sell it. These are just some suggestions. I have always followed the law, and I always will. Even if it means paying $70 for a sticker.

Pros and cons to both sides.

Janissa Johnson August 16, 2007

I recommend we stop IM testing for now and if air quality suffers at a later time, we can always start the program up again.

Its quite a bit of money we spend on this and it hurts the economy to tie up these monies as we do. thanks

Wm Harvey August 16, 2007

After all these years of 'correcting' the auto emissions here in the Anchorage area, we have pretty much gotten rid of the old, aging polluting vehicles that were giving us serious air quality problems. And, the older polluting vehicles that enter into Anchorage are usually from 'outlying and uncontrolled' areas that don't require IM testing'. All we're doing is sticking the Anchorage public with more expenses when it's not needed by them. Single family and low income families DON'T NEED THOSE EXPENSES, along with the other rising cost of living increases.

DUMP THE IM PROGRAM!!

Roy Dalthorp August 16, 2007

I want the I/M program discontinued.

Michael Penisten August 16, 2007

I think the IM program should be eliminated NOW! It doesn't do any good, we haven't exceeded air quality limits in about ten years. Valley residents don't have inspections anyway and there is no man power available for enforcement. The program can't be monitered and enforced fairly, all it does is cost taxpayers money.

Jerry August 16, 2007

I think that it's important to continue the IM program in the Municipality of Anchorage. Air quality and emissions controls are important to the health and safety of people in Anchorage, as well as to the environment. I would like to see the IM program expanded to include the entire state of Alaska. However, I would like to see a reduced cost to consumers for the testing and certification. Perhaps the testing could be required after four years instead of two years. There should also be a period of time in which newer vehicles are except from the program, since automobile makers are already subject to vehicle emissions requirements. Also, I think the IM Program should be enforced to ensure that drivers from the Mat-Su Borough who drive to the Anchorage Municipality for employment are required to participate in the program.

Sheri Mattson August 16, 2007

I think that program should just be stopped. The average vehicle is made to where it is not such a problem. I own two 12 year old vehicles that both have original exhaust systems and they have always passed and do not cause excessive pollution. I can think of far better things to spend the money on rather than IM testing… Continuing the program is just another way that the city of Anchorage tries to grub every last penny it can from it’s citizens and gives them little in return. Cut the unecessary fees and while we are at it cut spending in general in this city.

Kim Ruona August 16, 2007

Let me start off with saying I think that having an IM program in Anchorage that makes sense is important. Our program does not make sense, heck it misses that target completely. It seems that the goal of the program should be to have a vehicle meet a set point of emmissions. However, there are some extremely rediculous cavets to this. Why should it matter if the vehicle does not "look" stock under the hood? Test it and if it passes, the IM Program should be happy. The program should not care if a vehicle has an engine in it that was not offered from the factory if the end result is that the vehicle passes. It should not matter what has been done to the car, shove the probe up the tailpipe and check it, if it passes great! Right now, the IM program looks to the average citizen, like just a way for the city to grab some more cash from the people of

40 Anchorage, oh but disguised like we are being good stewerds of our environment. Either change the program to something that makes sense, or get rid of it all together. As it stands now, the IM program is just a reminder on every windsheild how creative public officials can be at grabbing your money.

Heath Franklin August 16, 2007

What discourages me about the IM program is the dates for the automobiles still require 1968 and newer vehicles to be I/M tested. I believe California has raised their cutoff date to 1970. Why hasn't the MOA considered this? I'm not sure the I/M program has impacted those vehicles which are licensed outside the MOA yet travel into the area daily.

Bill Demming August 16, 2007

I believe that the program should probably be scrapped. I think that most of the vehicles that were causing the polution problems back when the program was introduced are no longer on the roads causing problems. And the new fuel blends have probably also decreased the amount of pollutants. I would think that most of the vehicles now pass the test. I just had my 1991 Toyota 4-runner (that's 16 years old) tested last month. Passed with flying colors. There aren't a lot of vehicles that old or older still on the roads.

And, I believe the program any more is just a revenue generator. Both for the Muni at $18 or so for the certificate and I think it was $40 or so for the test by the shop.

I think someone should review (or do a sample from some shops) the testing data from the various shops around town and see what the pass/fail percentage is to see if the problem still exists.

Ralph Lee August 16, 2007

My experience with the IM program is that it has outlived its usefulness. When a vehicle does not pass the IM test I feel like I am being held hostage by the repair shop that completed the IM test. It seems the repair shops often do not really know why the vehicle didn't pass the test and then the owner is forced to make costly, often needless repairs just to pass the test.

After our 1999 Ford Winstar's check engine light came on we paid two different repair shops to diagnose the problem so the vehicle would pass the IM test. We paid nearly $1,000 dollars to have this work done only to have the check engine light come back on within a few days of the repairs being completed. We then participated in the program through the MOA that paid for the repairs so the vehicle would pass the IM test. Again the results were the same. Within a few days of the repair, the check engine light came back on and is still on over a year later. We will wait until 2008 when the IM test must be passed again before we take back to a repair shop for more unnecessary repairs. Please discontinue the IM program!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank You Steve Bolan

41 August 16, 2007

The IM Program is obsolete and needs to be phased out. It was a necessary program a decade ago, but today's vehicles are cleaner and more efficient. The primary cause of pollutants was carbureted engines. Today, it is difficult to find a vehicle that does not have fuel-injection and electronic ignition. This alone has cleaned up emissions immensely.

The Program is a Jurassic Dinosaur. It is a bureaucratic nightmare, and not justified. The expense is burdensome. And each year, those carburetors are fewer. I feel that it has become an entrenched bureaucratic revenue-stream, and certainly not justified anymore.

Steve Williamson August 16, 2007

I am not against I/M testing, however I feel it is only fair that "ALL" vehicles should be I/M tested or "NONE"!! Every single morning the Glen highway and or Seward highway is bumper to bumper with vehicles coming from the "Valley" or "Girdwood" area's bringing their non I/M tested modes of transportation into Anchorage. So what does that accomplish? One cancels out the other. All or none. If you don't live on an island somewhere and you can drive to Anchorage I sure would think that that vehicle needs to be I/M tested. Totally unjust to Anchorage residents that must suffer the consequences of non I/M tested vehicles. Which will eventually spread to area's that caused the pollution in the first place. Anchorage residents should not be the only ones that must pay out of their pockets to prevent (LOL) pollution when we are not the cause. Fix it now. Thanks

M.E. Arnout August 16, 2007

I am in favor of shutting down the IM program completely. And why are there so many people on your committee who have a conflict of interest? Anyone whose personal finances could be affected if the program went away has no business being on this commission. I'm talking to you, mechanic shops and you, IM employees!

Roxane Brown August 16, 2007

The IM program should be discontinued. Its is just one more burden on the tax payers of this city, if continued, it should be at least modified to exempt vehicles 30yrs and older.

The state of Arizona with 100 times the vehicles as Alaska doesn’t have any IM program, and they get along just fine.

Brad Tischer August 16, 2007

Eliminate the IM Program now.

Arthur Hobbs

42 August 16, 2007

Yes, end this I/M program now. There is not much more that I can add to what Mr. Ricks and Mr. Mullins have already stated. They are quite correct, and have hit the high points. These are the only comments? Only two? Hard to believe. Is someone holding out on us? The short blurb in the newspaper today, 8-15-07, did not give us much time to comment, the meeting is tomorrow, 8-16-07. I looked at a bit of the info on the Muni site. It is pretty long winded to say the least. Looks like the Muni has been spending/wasting a big bunch of our tax dollars on this. Just like much of my time and money was wasted when I was once sent to the 'Referee Facility' only because the vehicle's engine had been replaced. Spent a lot of time there at the 'Referee Facility', and they still got it wrong. There was nothing wrong with my vehicle. The guy did not know what he was looking at, said it failed. He refused properly inspect it. I had to get yet another I/M test, that I passed with flying colors. No surprise to me.. The Ivan Moore survey, that didn't come cheap. Nor did the studies and reports done or paid for by the Muni itself, or paid to the outside firm of Sierra Research Inc of Sacramento California. "I/M Evaluation Executive Summary", "I/M Evaluation Report", on and on. For what? "Anchorage has been in compliance with the federal standard since 1996."

The Ivan Moore survey claims that 74.1% of those polled say the program is beneficial. I don't much much faith in these numbers. Those that I talk to say otherwise. It is hard to argue that it was not once beneficial, but that time has long passed. How much extra pollution are we adding to the air just to make trips back and forth to get tested, along with the 15-20 minutes that the vehicle is sitting and running in the testing bay? Is our time worth nothing?

As I understand it, the people that are running this 'task force' & supplying much the info are the same people that administer and run the I/M program. Naturally, they want to keep their jobs.

$8.7 million annual cost to the public?! Enough is enough! Our air will continue get cleaner without wasting more our time and money here in Anchorage. Don't waste one more of our tax dollars on this with more expensive studies, meetings, or surveys. Get rid of it now.

Tom Snyder August 16, 2007

Right now I cannot modify my vehicle to REDUCE Emissions and pass I M test. This needs to be changed so better technology can be installed on vehicles so that the older vehicles and even the new ones can be modified to get better; cleaner emissions without being penalized. It needs to read that if it passes the current emissions it passes. No visual test required.

Thank You: Vernon E. Robinson August 15, 2007

As one who has been drivng an electric vehicle for over a year now I always saw getting an exemption from the I/M inspection an incentive to drive a zero emissions vehicle. I realize the

43 power company makes emissions on my behalf but they are only about 10% to 15% of what my car would have made with the gasoline engine. And their emissions are regulated to a stricter standard and they are in a fixed location and easy to monitor. I think instead of paying personnel to admister a vehicle inspection program the municipality should spend a smaller portion directly to individuals as an incentive if they drive more efficient ULEV, SULEV, or ZEV vehicles. Paying an incentive equal to say, the cost of the I/M inspection every two years, would have the effect of reducing emissions on a voluntary basis below even the current levels. Offering group or fleet incentives for industry and business could bring about a big shift in the numbers of cleaner vehicles on the road today. Having nice clean air to breath is a good thing, but paying to inspect cars that for the most part are operating to the standards we have set is really a waste of our money. We could spend less money and have a meaningful incentive program for driving certifiably cleaner vehicles that would take very little to operate. On the other hand, if the I/M program is abolished altogether I could put my 1978 Pinto back on the road "as is" and not have to continue its conversion to electric.

Mike Willmon August 15th, 2007

I feel the I/M testing is a wonderful program that insures all Anchorage residents will have healthier air to breathe. I am especially concerned that we continue to improve our air quality as I suffer with Environmental Illness, also known as Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS). My life depends on healthy air quality.

I cannot ride the bus, as diesel fumes and car exhaust are extremely toxic to me. Therefore, I also depend on my private vehicle to be able to get out and around the community, to my doctors, etc.

Because of my illness, I am living on Social Security Disability and Adult Public Assistance at below the poverty level. It costs me about 25% of my income to maintain my own car, including insurance. The costs of the I/M tests and paperwork are a serious expense to me, and to all who live on low incomes. I am forced to do without other essentials when the I/M test is due, and yet, I support this important program.

My suggestion is that I would like to see the city offer an I/M test voucher to all those in our city who draw from any of the financial programs that the Health and Human Services Department offers. All who obtain one of these programs are certified with documentation of some type, and already in the data files. I feel that those who qualify for one of the public or Native housing programs should also be offered this voucher, whether or not they obtain food stamps, Adult Public Assistance or just barely get by on their other income, as they also must provide necessary financial paperwork to obtain this type of housing.

The I/M program is worth our support, and it should be city policy to encourage all those who operate a vehicle to comply with the testing necessary to protect the air quality of our community, regardless of income. Thank you for your assistance with this matter.

August 15, 2007

Dear Task Force members,

I have read with interest the information on the Muni website concerning your task and I have the following observations to make.

44 Firstly, I have lived in south Anchorage since before the I/M Program was instituted in 1985 and, in fact, I testified against it at the Assembly hearings held before the program was adopted. Like many I saw it as yet another tax on the motorist to support a bloated, yet to be established, government department. From a financial point of view, the information provided to the Task Force has not changed my mind since the $1.6 million collected in fees (tax?) clearly supports more than the administration of the program that we were led to believe it would only be used for.

From the I/M Evaluation Report Executive Summary, it is clear that the air quality in the Anchorage bowl, particularly in wintertime, has improved since the introduction of the I/M program, and this is certainly a good thing. However, from the report it is not clear to me whether the most recent benefits are because of the program’s mandatory requirements (testing/repairs) or because of the technological improvements in vehicle engine managements systems that have occurred in the last 10 years or so. Clearly these electronic monitoring systems that adjust engine-operating conditions to improve economy and reduce emissions have contributed significantly to our air quality. Further, as the vehicle fleet in Anchorage ages, and newer vehicles replace those not economical to repair, more and more vehicles on our roads will have these systems. This would suggest that the interval between testing perhaps could be extended.

Again, from the I/M Evaluation Report Executive Summary, I question the validity of Figure E1. When I look at the horizontal axis (Mileage/Time) I wonder whether or not the author’s have used lower 48 statistics to come up with their 2-year 30K mileage figure. In Anchorage our commute driving distances are much less than those in cities in the lower 48 and I believe these translate to lower figures than Figure E1 would suggest. My own experience over more than 20 years of living in Anchorage shows an annual mileage of 7.5K. Perhaps this suggests that mileage should figure in the requirement for I/M testing and not simply an elapsed time like 2-years?

In looking at the current regulation I note that vehicles produced prior to 1968 are exempt from the I/M program. I believe that this date was established when the program was begun (1985) on the basis that these vehicles would soon be replaced and that those remaining would be enthusiast or specialty vehicles whose owners would likely maintain them in good working order – thus their contribution to air pollution would be minimal and only in summer months. This date has not been changed in over 20 years, and I believe that it is time that it was. Perhaps it would be better to establish a vehicle age, say 20 or 25 years, rather than set a fix a specific date?

Another exemption is for seasonal use vehicles, i.e. those only operated between April 1st and October 31st of a given year. This is a reasonable exemption given that Anchorage only ever exceeded emission standards in the winter months. However, the exemption procedure is cumbersome and unnecessarily expensive. When the I/M program began, a certificate cost $10. When we went to biennial testing the certificate cost was increased to $18, why? It costs no more to issue a certificate for two years than it does for one. Similarly, issuing a seasonal waiver for two years costs no more than issuing it for one. In addition, why do applicants for a seasonal waiver have to have their application notarized or appear in person at the permit clerk’s customer service counter, of the Department of Health and Human Services, at 825 L Street to obtain their waiver? One should be able to do this on-line or by the mail using the same procedure that the State does for affirmation of compliance with State insurance regulations. In addition, when the program began, testing cost less than $20 but now costs between $40 and $50 – is this because it is biennial – even though the testing for the modern fleet of vehicles is virtually automated, i.e. OBD II testing?

Finally, it has been suggested that the I/M program incorporate some kind of safety check. As your own presentation states, studies have shown that mechanical defects cause very few accidents (<1%), and safety inspections are ineffective at identifying defects. Thus to add this to the program would simply increase the cost of compliance to motorists without any additional benefit.

45 In conclusion, although the I/M program has contributed to an increase in air quality in the Anchorage bowl, I am not convinced that it has been the sole contributor – technological improvements to vehicles have probably done as much if not more. However, scraping the program entirely might prove to be a headache in the future and so it would probably be better to adjust it to reduce fees (taxes?), exempt specialty/enthusiast vehicles over a certain age, eliminate unnecessary procedures to obtain seasonal exemptions, reduce the frequency of testing to say 3 years, cap station test fees at a reasonable $25-30, but not add a safety test program.

Sincerely,

David Catchpole August 15, 2007

I heard a nice lady on the radio today asking the people of Anchorage to give their opinion of the IM program. Here is my opinion. Stop this waste of money, and please do not morph it into something else. Just do away with it altogether. It is unneeded, and has simply become a cash cow for the city and the service shops around town.

Steve Brown August 15, 2007

I feel the required I/M testing in Anchorage has made its point and is really no longer necessary. At one time you had trouble driving there because of the black clouds of exhaust from both school buses and those huge trucks. Seems that everyone has cleaned up their acts. The air is clear and clean. Owners of private vehicles find it a real trial to go through the I/M tests for both the time and the money spent. Strictly my opinion, Ilene Schick August 15, 2007

I fail to see the need for continuing the IM Program. If we have met the original purpose of reducing the air pollution to acceptable limits and have not violated the standards in 11 years it's time to stop the program.

There seems to be no reason to expand the inspection program since we are now and have been meeting the goal. Define the requirement. Is it to save Muni jobs and local businesses or is it to serve the public?

Eliminate the IM Program.

B Pillion August 15, 2007

46 I live in Wasilla and commute to Anchorage every day for my job. I have complied with the Anchorage municipality and upheld my part of being a responsible citizen to help improve our air. The problem still remains – that many, many local citizens who are commuters DO NOT!

I am also tired of commuting with a road full of “beaters” that do not meet clean air standards. They especially do not meet safety standards. Most states enforce a safety inspection first and then an emissions program and proof of insurance coverage before a license tag is ever issued to a driver.

All drivers must do their part if they wish to share the highways and stay safe. Once again, the few people that follow the rules, pay for all the others that do not.

Also, too many large commercial vehicles (dump trucks’ gravel trucks, etc.) do NOT cover their loads and dust and debri go everywhere. I have replaced two car windshields because of gravel trucks. I would think that SAFETY issues should go hand-in-hand with the I/M program. I fully support the I/M program, but with some additional requirements for all drivers to follow.

I am tired of this inefficient way to grab the dollars from a select group of responsible people.

Ruthie Way August 15, 2007

Thank you for an opportunity to give our comments on this important issue.

I believe the I M program should remain in place with some at least one minor adjustment. The alternative, as suggested by someone in my office, would be for Alaska to adopt a statewide program similar to that of California, where no vehicle can be sold through a dealership that does not have proper equipment to restrict harmful emissions. I believe such a program would bring much more cost to Alaskans consumers. It would provide no enforcement on vehicles sold between individuals unless they are required to provide proof of passing an IM test to transfer title and registration.

I like the two year testing as opposed to the one year testing, simply for convenience it gives us in having our vehicles tested, and I believe it helps keep down the overall cost of the program.

The fact that it took 11 years for Anchorage to reach the point of no violations is a clear indication of the length of time required to bring our air up to clean standards in the winter months. I believe if the IM program is not continued and strictly enforced in conjunction with tags and registrations, we will very quickly revert back to multiple poor air violations all winter each winter. Should that occur we would once again be forced to implement a program and could spend potentially another 10+ years cleaning our air. Why not maintain it the good clean air we now enjoy?

Failing to meet federal clean air regulations create a health issue for the residents of the City of Anchorage, young and old and many in between. People with respiratory problems cannot leave their homes on days that our city violate's federal standards. While this impacts overall health and standard of living, it impacts Anchorage’s work-force productivity, costing employers and consumers in the end.

The program provides a waiver for summer use only vehicles, such as motor homes, motorcycles, and sports cars that are driven only on dry roads during non-winter months. This is a good provision and should be kept in place.

The only adjustment I believe is warranted would be to waive the test on new cars for the first 3-6 years, or as long as they are under a full manufacturer’s warranty and can provide proof of regular maintenance if asked to do so. A special sticker could be provided to dealerships in place

47 of the I M sticker for a time period. There is no reason to IM a new car as it is going to pass and I believe here the city unjustly profits as do the companies implimenting the tests. This would not allow for catching violating modifications, but those are not common and would have to be changed back to comply after 3-6 years. These modifications are usually somewhat costly and I don’t believe people would make them for just a few years only to have to pay to return the engine and exhaust to its original condition.

Some people rile against this program and call it unjust taxation, but once again the government was forced to step in to force residents to do the right thing and clean up the air we car-driving adults and our children have to breathe. Too many people simply cannot be trusted to spend the time and money to keep their vehicles clean running without the aid of the City’s I M Program.

Please keep it in place for everyone’s best interests. Thank you.

Keri Lindly August 15, 2007

This program should be abolished. Its past its time. there will be a united effort to keep it by all the auto repair shops and its a good source of revenue for them but the cost comes right out of the citizen's pockets

The need for it is past

I recently had my Audi IM. I went to one of the chain stores and was told my car would not pass as there was a leak in the fuel line and it was leaking on a spark plug and its was very dangerous. When the mechanic tried to show me the problem, he was seeing stain from a previous disassembly for other maintenance a couple years back. He aborted the IM test for a leak that did not exist.

Then I took the car to my regular mechanic who said there was no problem and gave me the IM paperwork. Was this a scam in the first place? Maybe so.

It took time and money to finish this unnecessary chore.My car , as do most of today's cars always pass with flying colors.

Lets dump this program.

Keith Wilhelm August 15, 2007

I believe IM inspections are in effect a punishment to the poor. Those least able to afford new "clean" cars are also those who can't afford to have their older cars repaired to bring them into compliance. For many people it's a choice of getting their car fixed or buying food, clothes, rent, etc. Many have to opt for a seasonal waiver which puts them at the mercy of public transportation, which can be an ugly option. The city buses do not make frequent enough rounds so if you miss the bus you may have to wait in the cold for another hour, then if the bus is full they just drive on by and make you wait another hour. Those who work non-standard hours do not even have the option of catching a bus when you have to be at work 1 or 2 hours before the buses start running. These are people who have to break the law in order to get to work by taking their non-compliant car. I have read the report on IM inspection goals, it's quite Machiavellian in it's method to take older cars off the road regardless of the consequences to the less affluent of Anchorage.\

James Fitzpatrick

48 August 15, 2007

The three vehicle owners/taxpayers in my household want the IM program to be eliminated. Some of the requirements made little sense from the get go Ex: New cars after two or so years required to be IM'd BUT after an vehicle gets to a certain age the IM is no longer required. That backwards! New or newer cars pollute very little where as older vehicles tend to be the largest polluters.

We also DO NOT want the existing program converted or changed to some other type of program such as a safety inspection program. Any new programs should be justified on their own merits NOT a spin off from some other program.

The employee positions that specifically administer and service the IM program should be eliminated.

Eliminate the IM program as soon as possible. This is a no brainer, why do we need a task force to make this decision, JUST ELIMINATE IT !!!

M Ebnet M A Ebnet A Ebnet

I believe that the I/M program should be modified to a safety inspection.

The things that should be checked are tires, brakes, exhaust system for mufflers and leaking, lights and signals, horn, windshield wipers, insurance and seat belts.

A cursory inspection of the window glass and for broken windshield, excessive tinting of windows and exhaust emission ( excessive smoking ) should also be done.

I believe the present system is excessive and un-necessary now and I believe a date should be set for when it will be discontinued.

What has already been done has removed most, if not all, of the junk cars off the street and this should carry Anchorage into the hybrid auto period.

Thank you for considering my suggestions;

I remain sincerely yours,

John K. Neill August 15, 2007

Thank you for going on the radio and requesting public input regarding the IM Program. That was/is the honorable thing to do as a public employee/servant of our fine city. I respect you for doing so. Now, my input: I have been here since the beginning of this program. If you go back and check the record as I remember it we only exceeded emissions levels a few times before we thought we needed the Federal Money that we would receive or lose if we did not start this program. If you computed what waste this industry has become ( especially for the poor) and no scientific data ( with the newer better cars) that there is any evidence that we need this program , You will call it redundant and wasteful and close it immediately. If we are threatened by the Feds

49 that we will lose funding, let's lose it! The air can still be checked by a contractor and however unlikely, we could always bring back the program. If the Mayor wants to go up in the public's view, He should lead the way in getting rid of this program. If this ends up on a ballot or petition, it is History (obsolete). Thank You for reading my mini-novel. I am not hopeful, not because of your efforts, but it would be extremely rare for a governmental agency to administratively rid themselves of their own jobs. I apologize for not addressing you by name but missed it on the radio. Congratulations on your new job ( I realize that this is simply one program under your watch and that your particular job is not going away).

Sincerely, David Beeman August 15, 2007

This program has outlived any usefulness it might’ve had. It’s an unnecessary hassle which is also discriminatory.

Valley vehicles (as well as others) travel in and around Anchorage as much as Anchorage vehicles do; yet they are not subject to any inspections. So for now, this program should be discontinued.

Betty Forsyth August 15, 2007

Emissions are a concern to the air quality of our community and should continue to be monitored. However, it is unfortunate that there are so many exemptions for older trucks that pollute the air. If anything, newer more efficient cars should be test LESS frequently, if at all. If older trucks can't pass emissions tests - get them OFF the road.

Heather Ireland Gary Snyder August 15, 2007

The IM program has done its job. The push-back from people who do not want to end the program gives credence to the often stated concern that once a government program or tax is started it never ends.

We should be celebrating the end of this program as a reduction in the cost of local government as well as a success story in cleaning the air.

When it come to taxes – less is more.

Reed Christensen August 15, 2007

I support discontuning the I/M testing program completely. Modern technology has reduced auto emissions dramatically so the time & finanical burden for the testing is no longer necessary. Many cities & states stopped I/M testing years ago. Thank You Jim Cikanek

50 August 15, 2007

I would like to see the IM test made mandatory only for gasoline powered vehicle over 6 years old. I think the bigger problem is the pollution produced by diesel vehicles. Many of these vehicles are poorly maintained and literally pour black smoke. The particulates in diesel exhaust are known carcinogens. Standards should be developed for diesel vehicles, particularly commercial trucks, and semi annual inspections should be required.

Russ Oates August 15, 2007

I'm writing in regards to Anchorage's I/M program and the model years associated with tailpipe only emissions tests and no emissions tests. I am the owner of a 1970 Ford F-250 4x4 truck that I am restoring. This is not my primary vehicle but I get to have an emissions test on it every two years. I have had no issues with my truck passing, but it is an unwelcome task getting it retested every two years. It seems odd to me that if I were to live in Fairbanks, I would be exempt from testing. At minimum, I would highly recommend a 30 year rolling average for exempting vehicles. As the number of vehicles on the road that are the same age as mine is extremely small, it seems that testing these vehicles makes little sense. Also, the air quality in Anchorage has drastically increased because of more and more newer vehicles being driven with stricter factory emissions controls which leads me to believe that the I/M program has performed its intended service and should be retired.

Joel Brandt August 15, 2007

I am a resident of Anchorage and would like to make the following comments about the I/M Program:

I think that the I/M Program should include a check to see if vehicles exceed existing noise level laws that may be on the books for Anchorage. I believe that the noise level within the urban environment is getting louder and louder and that it is becoming a quality of life issue for a great number of residence such as myself. I live in a residential neighborhood in South Anchorage and while the speed limit is modest for the residential streets in my neighborhood the vehicle noise seems excessive due to vehicles that have mufflers that need repair and modified pickup truck exhausts.

It seems that local Anchorage police are not concerned about enforcing the vehicle noise laws that exist since they are concerned about more serious infractions. The I/M Program would be an effective means to check each vehicle for noise violations and would help greatly in reducing the noise impacts in our residential neighborhoods.

Sincerely, Michael R Anderson August 15, 2007

Vehicles 6 years old or newer should not have to get an IM except for noise audio tests from their exhaust.

All vehicles older then 10 years old should have to be safety tested for brakes, tires etc...

51 All after market shops should not be able to make vehicles louder then factory settings.

All patrol officers should have noise level testers in their patrol cars.

Noise from motorcycles are destroying the quiet of this city! All motorcycles should have to be tested for noise level emissions.

Diesel pickups and trucks should not get carte blanc to pollute this city. They should be restricted as to their emissions of particulate matter. It is out of control in this city.

Thank you

Charles Springer August 15, 2007

We vote for scrapping the I/M program altogether. Thanks, Linda Schroeder August 15, 2007

Concerning the IM Program in the Municipality of Anchorage, may I comment on two of the conclusions cited on page 23 of the IM Report “MOA I/M Program Evaluation Study” (SE 2007- 01-01) which appears on the MOA Website.

Conclusions 1. In 2010, the program is estimated to reduce vehicle CO emissions by 9.7%. A potential additional reduction of 2.4% is estimated to result from pre-inspection repairs and seasonal waivers. The aggregate CO reduction from I/M is estimated to be 12.1%. The study data and analysis show that the program is achieving the level of reductions anticipated.

Comments: I would challenge the conclusion that only a “program” reduces future vehicle emissions. I would submit that improved vehicle emission technology will reduce CO emissions much more than this or any other “program”.

2. The OBD test is effective at identifying vehicles with high emissions. This benefit comes with a higher rate of false failures because of the design conditions placed on OBD II systems.

Comment: I agree that the program identifies high emission vehicles. However, this assumes that a vehicle is subject to the test. As you know the failure and/or inability to create an Air Quality District that encompasses the entire vehicle population has exempted numerous vehicles.

Also, I feel that this program is a significant generator of revenues for the government and those who sell emission testing services. Please consider the “tax” that this imposes on residents. Also, this State has laws that prohibit operation of cars in obvious poor mechanical condition. Enforce these laws and depend on vehicle technology to provide adequate air quality.

Lynn Willis August 15, 2007

The IM program has long ago out lived its purpose. It is now just a costly un-needed expense and should no longer be required or kept in place by the municipality in any shape or form.

Ken and Brenda Weimer August 15, 2007

There is no need for continuing the IM Program. As natural attrition occurs, the local fleet is gradually replaced with newer and cleaner late model vehicles. This is evidenced by the fact that Anchorage has not exceeded air quality standards in years, and the declining number of vehicle inspection failures.

The EPA's Clean Air Act of 1990 has created cleaner emissions for these vehicles, including trucks and SUV's. Since 2004, the national pollution standards has included the popular Trucks and SUV's into the same standards as passenger vehicles. Emissions from these vehicles are nearly 90 percent cleaner and more efficient than the emissions from the 1970's vehicles that were in use prior to the implementation of the Anchorage I/M Program. In addition the Clean Air Act of 1990 has resulted in cleaner, very low sulfur gasoline and diesel fuel, which is necessary for the newer, more sophisticated emission control devices to effectively control pollution.

The I/M program is a time consuming burden and an unnecessary expense, that should not be continued. Nor is there any reason to expand the program to an inspection program due to technolical advances and federal mandates in the automotive industry.

Steve Bryant

August 15, 2007

I’d like to see the MOA’s IM standards at least maintained at the current level and preferably increased to further reduce air pollution.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Connie Quinley August 15, 2007

If possible, I believe the I/M certification should include an Engine Block Heater check-up. Something as simple as making sure the engine block heater cord is conducting electricity. Studies show using an engine block heater when the temperature drops to 20F or cooler plugging in can reduce carbon monoxide emissions up to 60%. Last year we here at Green Star Inc. conducted an engine block heater check in collaboration with UAA Automotive Technology dept. 70% of participants knew they had an engine block heater but weren't sure if it worked.

Thanks-you for your time and consideration.

53 Sincerely,

Jessica Strolle August 14, 2007

will not be able to attend the upcoming public hearing because I will be out of town. I am a large supporter of the IM program. I understand it was instituted when Anchorage was out of compliance with national air quality standards. The IM test as well as the integration of newer, cleaner cars has brought Anchorage back into compliance. Why end a successful program when we can just harness it to meet other city goals? I think the IM program could be bolstered as an educational tool. Annual (yes, I think bi-annual is too infrequent) testing could become the platform where technicians provide advice about weatherizing cars, plugging vehicles in the winter, explaining the fuel efficiency benefits of pumped tires, and providing endless other tips to help save gas, improve air quality, and save money for the consumer. Additional revenue obtained from IM fees would pay for educational tools and free accessories that are adored like extension cords, engine block heater timers, discounts on heater installation, free tire pressure gauges, etc. I also think diesel vehicles should be included in the inspection process. Their exclusion is a disservice to those suffering from cardio vascular disease and asthma. Lastly, all vehicles, regardless of whether they’re registered in the Municipality of Anchorage, should have an I/M inspection. If a vehicle is going to be commuting in the Anchorage bowl (from Wasilla, Palmer, Eagle River), then they need a sticker. No additional enforcement would be needed. If an officer pulls over a vehicle for expired tags, they would note the lack of IM sticker too. The cost of the ticket can be deducted from the cost of inspection. Thank you for your time. Kim Wetzel August 14, 2007

Unless the valley vehicles are included in this tax based initiative -- scrap it!

Katherine West August 14, 2007

I would love to be at your meeting Thursday but another committment has me. I believe the I/M Program should be abolished the way it is. We have many vehicles that are either living outside the Anchorage area, and before 20% of work force out of state plates,so only those living in Anchorage would follow this program. Most newer vehicle have great pollution controls in effect.

John Michalski, Jr August 13, 2007

As you know from my comments made in person to the Task Force, I am urging that vehicle noise reduction be made part of I/M inspections in whatever form they may take.

54 Modified exhaust systems are illegal in Anchorage (AMC 15.70.090). The noise created by those who ignore the law disturbs the peace and degrades the quality of life in this city.

The degree of enforcement by APD is negligible. If vehicle registration were made contingent on vehicles having legal exhaust systems that would go a long way toward solving the problem. In addition, shops that modify exhaust systems should be subject to penalty if they continue to conduct such illegal work.

We respectfully urge that you make this part of the I/M program.

George & Pat Herben August 13, 2007

There is no need for continuing the IM Program. The original purpose was to help reduce air pollution to a point within acceptable limits. That has been done as evidenced by the numerous years the Muni area has not exceeded those limits. There is no reason to expand the program to inspect other aspects of vehicle operation, other than to save Muni jobs and the jobs of local inspection businesses – at the expense of the driving public. After all, the Muni employees and the vehicle inspection locations are here to serve the public, not the other way around. Eliminate the IM Program.

J Ricks August 1, 2007

I strongly believe that this program should be abolished immediately. Anchorage has not exceeded air quality standards in years, so there is no need for such a program. Yet the residents of Anchorage are still saddled with a de facto tax, and the lost time associated with getting smog testing done.

My two vehicles have NEVER even come close to not passing their smog check. In terms of emissions and compliance, 100% of the time and money that I have spent complying with the program has been a complete waste, and has made absolutely zero difference in local air quality. I have been deemed guilty, and been forced to repeatedly prove my innocence.

Most of the improvement (that the I/M program claims credit for) is in fact due to the lower tailpipe emissions as the local fleet is gradually replaced with newer and cleaner late model vehicles. The improvement has absolutely nothing to do with a local bureaucratic boondoggle and ugly little windshield stickers.

Worse yet, a few years ago the program was extended from one year to two years, cutting the workload exactly in half. Yet the fees remained the same. That further proves that the I/M program is about taxing us, not about air quality.

Any discussion of expanding the I/M program into a "safety inspection" is merely a thinly disguised attempt at expanding an unnecessary program at great expense to the taxpayers. Safety inspections are NOT needed, and would be a further affront to the motorist.

- Earl Mullins July 27, 2007

Comments Received by Phone

These comments are paraphrased from phone calls and messages.

Please do not eliminate the I/M Program.

Jerry Phillips

The I/M Program has done its job. It should be modified to include safety issues. If it’s not modified it should be abolished or only required at the time of sale.

Rosanne Gilfillan

Eliminate the program.

Gary Rude

Modify the program. Cars from 1974 and earlier should be exempt.

Nat Gardner

I appreciate breathing clean air, but do not like to pay for it. Keep the program, but make commuters from the Valley also be required to pass the I/M Test.

Cynthia Spencer

The program should be ended.

Michael Keniston

Cars are meeting emissions standards and I/M testing should be stopped.

Diana Kukowski

The program is necessary to a point, but it should be updated to include newer technologies. The program should be required every three years instead of two.

Rita Schoewenworth