EPA-AA-IMS/81-15
    COMPILATION OF INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE
              FACTS AND FIGURES
                  June 1981
               Jane Armstrong
               Eugene  Tierney
         Inspection/Maintenance  Staff
     Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
     Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
     U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
                                           Revised July 1981

-------
                               INTRODUCTION

Since the  passage  of the  1977  Amendments to  the  Clean Air Act,  a great
deal of information has been  assembled  about  vehicle inspection and main-
tenance (l/M)  programs.   Laboratory studies,  surveys,  and investigations
of operating  I/M programs  have been conducted to quantify  the  costs and
benefits and to project the impact of these programs on air quality.

This  report  compiles  and  summarizes   the  latest   technical  information
available from these  studies  for the use of policy makers  and planners.
The  facts  and figures in  this  report  have been  gathered from  the tech-
nical reports  referenced  at  the end of  the  document.   Interested readers
are encouraged to obtain these reports for additional information.

-------
                               AIR POLLUTION
                              Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide  (CO)  is  a colorless, odorless, poisonous  gas  produced by
the incomplete burning of fuels.  The  primary  source of  CO  emissions is
motor vehicles.

Carbon monoxide  combines with hemoglobin  and thereby reduces  the amount
of oxygen  normally carried in  the  blood.  This  condition is  called hy-
poxia.   Hypoxia  can  cause  cardiovascular diseases,  fetal abnormalities,
and central  nervous system disorders which  affect sleep,  alertness, and
muscle coordination.[1]

In 1977, 62  of 105 urban areas  with population over  200,000  exceeded the
health-related ambient  air  quality  standard  for  carbon  monoxide.   The
most  recent   State  Implementation   Plan   (SIP)   revisions,   which  were
submitted  to  EPA  in 1979,  indicate  that   39 major  urban  areas  will
continue to exceed  the CO standard beyond 1982.
                 AREAS PROJECTED TO EXCEED THE AIR QUALITY
                  STANDARD FOR CARBON MONOXIDE  BEYOND  1982-
STANDARD
9 s*/.3
BridgeportCT
Los Angeles


Albuquerque
Chicago
Cleveland
Denver
Fresno
New York
Phoenix
Pittsburgh


Atlanta
Charlotte
La 3 Vegai
Louisville
San
Francisco


Boise
Colorado
Springs
Fort Collins
Tucson


Boston
Creeley CO
Hartford CT
Portland OR
Sacramento
Seattle
Springfield
WashinctonDC


Balcinore
Milwaukee
Nashville
Philadelphia
Salt Lake

-
Detroit
Xenphis
Providence
San Diego
Worcester
St. Louis

35-33 27-23 23-21 21-19 19-17 17-15.5 15.5-13
mg/a3
      DATA  COLLECTED  FROM AIR  QUALITY MONITORING  SITES during  the
      period  1975  to  1977 were  used by  the States to  project  when
      air  quality  standards  would  be  attained.   The  urban  areas
      shown above  had monitored ambient  CO values ranging  from  one
      and  a  half to  four  times the  standard and  are  projected  to
      continue to exceed the standard beyond 1982.

-------
                                AIR POLLUTION
                                    Ozone
Ozone  (03),  the  main constituent  of  smog,  is  formed  by  the  reaction  of
hydrocarbons  and oxides  of nitrogen  in  the  presence  of  sunlight.   Ozone
precursors are emitted by both stationary  and mobile  sources.

Exposure  to  ozone can cause  coughing, chest discomfort,  and irritation  of
the  nose  and throat.  Ozone  can also  damage  the cells  that  line  the  lung
walls  and  protect  them  from  harmful bacteria.   This  can  increase  the
chances of contracting  an infectious  lung  disease.[1]  These  harmful  ef-
fects  are  especially pronounced in  children,  the aged  and those with  res-
piratory ailments.

In  1977,   103  of  105 major  urban  areas  exceeded  the  health-related  air
quality standard  for ozone (0.08 parts per million).  When the  standard was
relaxed to 0.12  ppm  in 1979,  the. number of areas exceeding the  standard be-
came  93.   The  1979  SIP revisions  indicate that  36 urban areas with  over
200,000 population will  continue to  exceed the  ozone  standard  beyond 1982.
                  AREAS PROJECTED TO EXCEED THE AIR QUALITY
                        STANDARD  FOR OZONE  BEYOND  1982
STANDARD
0.12 ppn
Los Angele'f


Chicago
Cleveland
Detroit
Houston
Milwaukee
Sew York


Cincinnati
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
San Diego
Trenton
Wilmington
DE


Allentown/
Bethlehem
Louisville
St. Louis
Ventura CA
Washington
DC


Baltimore
Fresno
Providence
Sacramento
San
Francisco


Boston
Denver
Nashville
Portland OR
Salt Lake
Springfield

-
Bridgeport
hartford
New Haven
Phoenix
Worcester

         .51
                .32-. 23
                           .22
                                   .21-T.191
                                            .190-. 181
                                                     .180-. 16
                                                               .15-.13
       DATA COLLECTED  FROM AIR  QUALITY MONITORING  SITES  during  the
       period  1975 to  1977 were used  by the  States  to  project  when
       air  quality  standards  would  be attained.   The  urban  areas
       shown  above  had monitored  ambient  ozone  values  ranging  from
       slightly  above  to  over  four  times  the  standard  and  are
       projected to  continue to exceed the  standard beyond 1982.

-------
                   THE NEED FOR INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
In  an  urban  area,  motor vehicles  typically  contribute  90%  of  the  carbon
monoxide and  50%  of the hydrocarbons;  the latter combine  with other pollu-
tants to form ozone.

The Federal  Motor Vehicle  Control  Program  (FMVCP)  has operated  since. 1968
to  assure  that cars  are designed  and built  for lower emissions.   Increa-
singly  stringent  emission standards  for  new cars have  resulted in vehicles
which are  capable of emitting  less than  10%  of  the emissions  of an uncon-
trolled, mid-1960's model.   But the ability of the  new car strategies (pro-
totype  certification,   assembly  line  testing,   and  recall  of  defective
designs) to reduce  emissions depends on proper use  and maintenance by vehi-
cle owners once the new cars .are put on the road.

Tests of  thousands of  typical  vehicles,  borrowed  from their  owners,  show
that much of  this emission reduction potential is being lost  because of in-
adequate or improper maintenance.
                    PERCENT OF CARS ON THE ROAD WHICH FAIL
                          TO MEET EMISSION STANDARDS
                    e/i
                    Q
                    H
                    CO
                    o
                    2
                    M
                    g
                    W
                    o
                    X
                    W
                    W
                    CJ
                    t*J,
                    W
                    PH
                                                    CO

                                                    HC
               60-701 of five year old
               cars exceed standards
-30  40-501 of one year old
    cars exceed standards

.20


-10
                                      AGE


                    NEARLY HALF OF THE ONE  YEAR OLD CARS
                    on the  road  exceed  federal emission
                    standards   and  this  increases  with
                    the car's  age.   Most  of  the  cars
                    fail   to meet  standards  because  of
                    improper maintenance  and  adjustments
                    by owners  and  mechanics   after  the
                    cars  leave  the factory.[2]

-------
                   THE NEED  FOR INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
                                  (continued)

Due  to  the   poor   emission  performance   of  vehicles   on  the  road,  the
significant  downward trend  in emissions  from motor  vehicles expected  as a
result  of  the  FMVCP has  not  been fully  realized.   Inspection/Maintenance
(l/M) is a strategy which attempts to  solve this  problem by  providing the
incentive  for  proper maintenance by car owners.
                    NATIONAL  EMISSIONS OF CARBON MONOXIDE
                     AND HYDROCARBONS FROM MOTOR VEHICLES
                HYDROCARBONS
CARBON MONOXIDE

      Actual  emissions
                     Actual  emissions
               emissions
               if all cars  \
                 net
                standards.
  missions
 if all cars
    net
  standards.
               1970
                        1975
                                19SO
                                            1970
                                                     1975
                                                             1980
               THE EMISSION  REDUCTION POTENTIAL  OF THE  FEDE-
               RAL MOTOR VEHICLE  CONTROL PROGRAM IS NOT  BEING
               FULLY  REALIZED.    These  graphs  compare  actual
               on the  road emissions  (solid  lines)  with  the
               hypothetical  emissions   (dashed   lines)  which
               would have  resulted had  all  cars met  federal
               emission  standards.    The  area  between  the
               curves  represents  the  emission reductions  not
               realized.[3]

-------
                   THE INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE PROCESS
Motor vehicles undergo an  annual  emissions  inspection,  normally as a prere-
quisite to  annual registration,  sometimes  in conjunction with  an existing
safety inspection.  The inspection may  be performed  at  a licensed garage or
at facilities operated by the state or  local government.
           EMISSIONS TEST
       PASS
The car is tested  by sampling the
exhaust  emissions  while the  car
is  idling.   High  levels of  mea-
sured pollution  indicate  the  need
for maintenance.
70-80% of the cars
  pass the test.
                                    FAIL
                    20 to  30  percent of  the  cars fail
                    the test.  Car  owners are provided
                    with  test  results  and  diagnoses
                    which  can help  the  mechanic  per-
                    form more efficient repairs.
                                   REPAIR
                    Normal,  inexpensive  repairs  such
                    as  a  simple carburetor  adjustment
                    are all that are  usually necessary
                    to  achieve  lower  emission  levels
                    and improved fuel economy.
                                   RETEST
                    The inspection is  repeated  to ver-
                    ify that the  repairs  have  resulted
                    in lower emission levels.

-------
                        EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM I/M
EPA has undertaken a study of  the  Portland,  Oregon I/M program to determine
the costs and benefits associated with an operating program.

The  study  showed  that  the  idle  test used  in most  I/M  programs  properly
identifies vehicles with  excessive emissions.   A  comparison  using  the com-
plex Federal Test Procedure  shows  emissions  from  cars  failing the idle test
at the  state  operated  inspection lanes are  two to three  times  higher than
from those passing the test.

In the  Portland study,  those  cars failing  the state  inspection  test were
taken  by  their  owners  to  private  repair   facilities  where  corrective
maintenance was performed.  The  maintenance resulted  in each  car passing
the state reinspection test  and  produced  an  emission reduction of over 40%,
bringing emissions close  to  the  federal standards to  which  these cars were
originally certified.           ....
             EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM CARS RECEIVING MAINTENANCE
                           IN EPA'S PORTLAND STUDY
                   HYDROCARBONS
                           42%
                            reduction
 CARBON MONOXIDE
         reduction
                                  stan-
                                   dard
                  BEFORE   AFTER
BEFORE   AFTER
           ENGINE  MAINTENANCE by  Portland area  mechanics to
           vehicles  failing the state  inspection resulted in
           a 42% reduction  in hydrocarbon emissions  and a 47%
           reduction in carbon monoxide emissions  .[4]

-------
                       EMISSION  REDUCTIONS  FROM I/M
                                (continued)

The Portland Study also followed a  sample of  cars  throughout a full year to
determine  whether  the  emission   reductions   following  maintenance  last.
Although   emissions   deteriorated   following   maintenance,   the   average
emissions of the Portland  fleet were  20  percent lower for HC and 36 percent
lower for CO when  compared to a  similar fleet  of  vehicles  in a nearby city
which does not have an I/M program.
                    AVERAGE EMISSION LEVELS OVER A YEAR
                  PERIOD FOR SIMILAR FLEETS OF VEHICLES IN
                        PORTLAND AND EUGENE,  OREGON
               HYDROCARBONS
                                               CARBON MONOXIDE
  vi a
  Zr-l
    e
  CO --- .
  CO tfi
  i-* E
    ei
NON-J/H  CflSE
NON-I/M  CBSE

    36%
 reduction
                   ONE YEA!.
                                                       ONE YEAR
     EMISSION  REDUCTIONS FROM I/M LAST  for much of the  following  year.
     The  top curve shows  the  emissions,  in grams per  mile,  of a  fleet
     of  1975 to  1977  model year vehicles in Eugene., Oregon a  city  which
     does  not  require I/M.  The curve  shows  the typical trend of  emis-
     sions increasing with  age (in  this case,  one  year).   The bottom
     curve presents  the emissions  of  a  similar fleet  of  vehicles  in
     Portland,  Oregon,  which requires I/M.  The  sharp  drop in  emissions
     at  the beginning  of  the one year  period reflects  the maintenance
     received  by the approximately  30%  of the vehicles  that  failed  the
     inspection  test.  The emission  levels  over the following year  in-
     crease, but  not sufficiently  to  reach  the levels  of  the Eugene
     cars.   Over the  one  year  following inspection,   Portland vehicles
     averaged  20%  lower HC  and 36%  lower CO  emissions.   The  initial
     "gap" between the Eugene and Portland cars  is attributed  to a pre-
     vious inspection and repair cycle  undergone a year before by some
     of  the older Portland vehicles.   Note that these curves  represent
     the  entire  fleet,  including the  70% of  vehicles that  passed  the
     inspection  and received  no repair.[4]

-------
                        AIR QUALITY BENEFITS OF I/M
By  reducing  emissions from  motor vehicles,   ambient  levels  of  pollution
should  also   be  reduced.   Supporting  evidence  comes  from  a  variety  of
sources.
                              Carbon Monoxide

The relationship between  reductions  in carbon monoxide (CO)  emissions  from
motor vehicles and improved ambient air  quality  for  CO is well established.
In 1981, a statistical analysis  of  CO air quality data from  Portland,  Ore-
gon quantified the effect of  the  I/M  program on ambient  CO levels.  The re-
searchers  found  that  the I/M  program  produced reductions  in ambient  CO
levels  which  compared  well  with  the  predicted  improvements  based  on
reductions in tailpipe emissions.
                    AMBIENT CO AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
                      DUE TO  I/M  IN PORTLAND, OREGON
                 IMPROVEMENT
                    8-15%
                   10-19%
     COMMENT
Observed ambient improve-
ment in 1976 and 1978

Adjusted to annual
inspection frequency
             AMBIENT  CO LEVELS  IN PORTLAND,  OREGON showed
             an 8 to  15  percent  improvement  over what would
             have  occurred  had   there  been  no  inspection
             program.   These improvements were  observed  in
             1976 and 1978,  the  years when about 70% of the
             fleet  were  inspected  in  Portland's  biennial
             program.[5]   Adjusting these  data  to  reflect
             an annual  inspection  program  results  in  a  10
             to 19 percent  improvement  in ambient CO levels
             due to I/M.

-------
                         AIR QUALITY BENEFITS OF I/M

                                    Ozone

Ozone is  produced  in the  presence of  sunlight  through the  interaction of
non-methane  hydrocarbons  (HC),  oxides of  nitrogen  and  oxygen.   Research
smog chamber  studies  have demonstrated that HC emission  reductions  reduce
ambient ozone  levels.   Air  quality data from  California show  both  hydro-
carbon and ozone reductions  occurring  simultaneously.   This  link between HC
reductions and lower ozone  levels,  along  with data (such as  from the Port-
land  Study)  indicating  I/M's  ability to  reduce   HC  emissions  from motor
vehicles,  provides strong  evidence that I/M will  be  effective in improving
air quality for ozone.
                     HYDROCARBON-AND OZONE REDUCTIONS
                      San Francisco (1967-1976)
                            HC reduced           25%
                            Ozone reduced        25%
                      Los Angeles (1967-1974)
                            HC reduced           18%
                     	Ozone reduced	19%

                    ANALYSES OF  AIR QUALITY and emis-
                    sion  trends   in California  indi-
                    cate  that  changes  in hydrocarbon
                    emissions  are   consistent   with
                    changes   in   ambient   levels   of
                    ozone.[6,7]

-------
                          AN  I/M  PROGRAM  TO  SAVE FUEL

The  same  corrective  maintenance  which  lowers  tailpipe  emissions  can  also
result in  improved fuel  economy.   Studies  show that  the repair  of  1981  and
later model year cars which have  computer failures can result  in  fuel economy
improvements averaging  15 percent ($135 fuel savings per year).   However,  the
Portland study  showed  that  the repair  industry  in Oregon does not  achieve  a
net fuel economy improvement from the  pre-1981 failed  cars.

The key to  achieving fuel  economy  improvements  is properly  performed mainte-
nance.  When  Portland  area mechanics  were  trained  in  proper diagnosis  and
repair of high  emitting vehicles, they were  able  to  improve the  fuel economy
of the pre-1981 failed cars.

Large fuel economy improvements can  also  come from proper  tire  inflation.  The
average tire  is  1.8  pounds  per  square  inch (psi) underinflated.   Fleetwide
fuel  economy  can be  improved 1.1  percent  if all tires are inflated  to  the
vehicle manufacturer's  "soft-ride"  specification  (28  psi);   a  3  percent -fuel
economy improvement can occur if  tires  are  inflated to  the  tire manufacturer's
limit of 32 psi.  An inspection program provides a good opportunity to achieve
this potential benefit.
               ANNUAL FUEL ECONOMY BENEFITS PER INSPECTED VEHICLE
                          FROM THE OPTIMAL I/M PROGRAM
      PROGRAM COMPONENTS
DOLLAR        GAS      NATIONWIDE GAS
SAVINGS     SAVINGS       SAVINGS
                       (million gallons)
Basic I/M Program
More Effective Test
Mechanic Training
Tire Pressure Checks
$2.74
$1.11
$4.18
$14.88
0.29%
0.12%
0.46%
1.59%
83.6
33.8
130.2
453.8
      OPTIMAL PROGRAM: TOTAL   $22.91
             2.46%
701.4
An  optimal  I/M program  would incorporate  the  most effective  exhaust test
(identifying  a  greater number of 1981 and  newer  vehicles with computerized
fuel  system  failures),  mechanics  training,  and  tire  pressure   checks  to
achieve the greatest  fuel  savings for the  entire  fleet.   It is interesting
to  note that  a  $14  fuel  savings  (61% of  the maximum  possible savings) will
exactly offset the total cost of the I/M  program.[8]

-------
                        COST TO THE AUTOMOBILE OWNER
There are two costs to  the  auto owner associated with  I/M:   the inspection
fee and the repair cost.  Each  owner will  pay an annual fee for inspection;
only those  failing the  inspection will incur  repair  costs.   These repair
costs can  be partially  to  completely . offset by fuel  economy improvements
resulting from the maintenance performed.

Fees

Inspection  fees  in currently  operating  programs range from  $2.50  to $17.
The  fee  is  set  to make  the  program  self-supporting  by covering  both the
fixed and  operating costs  of  the  program including  facilities,  equipment
and  administration.  Fees for I/M programs beginning  in 1983 are estimated
to be $8.00 to $10.
                      OPERATING PROGRAM INSPECTION FEES

                          Arizona          $5.75
                          California       $11.00
                          Nevada           $11-17*
                          New Jersey       $2.50
                          Oregon           $5.00
                          Rhode Island     $4.00

                      * Includes mandatory adjustment
                      00 Includes safety  inspection
Repair Costs 

Between  15%  and 30%  of  pre-1981 vehicles will  fail an  inspection and  re-
quire repairs.   The  most common maintenance includes repair, replacement  or
adjustment of  the  carburetor,  spark plugs, timing, choke, dwell,  idle  speed
or  air  filter.  Average  repair costs reported  from operating I/M  programs
range from $17  to  $30.

-------
                        COST TO THE AUTOMOBILE OWNER
                                 (continued)
                  DISTRIBUTION OF REPAIR COSTS FOR FAILED
                        CARS IN EPA'S PORTLAND STUDY
CO
pi
w

o .
PERCENT
60
_50
.40
30

.20

















-





1 1
                   <$5    $5-25    $26-50    $51-75     >$75
         THE MAJORITY OF CARS in  the  Portland  Study required  only
         minor  tune-up  work to  pass  the  state inspection  test.
         The distribution  of  costs is  skewed  heavily to  the  low-
         end with 50% of the sampled  1972-1977  vehicles  incurring
         costs  of  $14  or  less.   A small number of  cars  incurred
         high maintenance  costs,  bringing up the mean of  the  sam-
         ple to $29, but 90% of the cars were  repaired for $70 or
         less.  Many I/M programs  will  limit the cost of  required
         repairs to under $75.  [4]
Some  1981  and  later model  year  cars  will also  require  repair  of  ignition
problems, vacuum  leaks,  and tampering  of some emission control components
with older cars.  In addition, some  of the newer cars will  require repairs
of  their computer  controlled  fuel metering  systems.   These repairs  will
range from simply reconnecting a  wire  to a sensor or actuator  to replacing
a  sensor,  an  actuator,  or  the  computer.  Preliminary  data from  computer
controlled cars participating in  California's  I/M program  indicate  that the
average repair cost is likely to be approximately $30.[9]

-------
                         COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF I/M

The cost-effectiveness of  an air pollution control  strategy  is  the measure
of that strategy's cost relative  to  its  ability  to remove a particular pol-
lutant from the atmosphere.   Cost-effectiveness  estimates allow  air quality
planners  to  evaluate  and compare  various  strategies which might  be imple-
mented to  attain  air quality  standards.   The cost-effectiveness  of I/M is
estimated to be $581 per ton of hydrocarbons  and $53 per ton of  carbon'mon-
oxide reduced.  This  compares favorably with that  of  other  stationary and
mobile source strategies for reducing emissions.[9]
               I/M  COST-EFFECTIVENESS  OVER  A FIVE  YEAR  PERIOD
                                (1983-1987)

                         ALLOCATED       MASS REMOVED        COST-
        POLLUTANT        I/M COST           BY I/M       EFFECTIVENESS
      	(million dol-lars) 	(tons)	(dollars/ton)

      Hydrocarbons        27.05             46,500            581

      Carbon monoxide     27.05            512,600             53
     I/M COST-EFFECTIVENESS  WAS  MODELED by having an  example  fleet of
     one million vehicles  participate  for  five years in a hypothetical
     I/M program starting  in 1983.   The design of the hypothetical I/M
     program  was   typical  of  programs now  being implemented.   Total
     costs were determined by  adding together repair costs and inspec-
     tion  costs  for  the  five   year   period,   then   subtracting  fuel
     savings  attributable to  the program.   Emission  reductions  were
     obtained  using  MOBILE2  (EPA's  model  for  predicting  the emission
     behavior  of  a fleet  of vehicles  with and  without  I/M).  Because
     most areas which  are implementing I/M require reductions for both
     hydrocarbons  and  carbon monoxide,  the  costs of  the  program have
     been allocated equally  to both  pollutants.[9]
Minimum  fuel  savings attributable  to  a basic  I/M program are  included in
the cost  effectiveness  estimates given above.  By enhancing  the program to
achieve  the  greatest fuel economy  improvement  from the  fleet  of inspected
vehicles, it is possible  to  entirely offset the inspection and repair costs
and to realize a net savings.[8,9]

Planners  must  exercise  caution  in  comparing cost-effectiveness  values  for
different control  measures.   The  presence of  air pollution  control stra-
tegies with greater  or  lesser cost-effectiveness  estimates than other stra-
tegies does not mean that there  is  a cut-off cost-effectiveness above which
no strategy  is  implemented.   The size  of  the  emission reductions available
from  a  strategy must also be  considered.  Although a strategy may  have a
low  cost-effectiveness  estimate,  it  may  not  produce  sufficient  emission
reductions to allow  attainment of  air quality standards.  I/M produces  sub-
stantial  emission  reductions which  contribute  to  expeditious  attainment of
ambient air quality  standards.

-------
                         PUBLIC  OPINION  ON  AIR POLLUTION
Prior to  1970  and Earth Day, little  public  polling was  done  on environmental
issues.   The number  of  public polls  then  increased  until the early seventies,
when they became a regular  occurrence.   These  polls  have become very sophisti-
cated over  the years, requiring  individuals  to make  choices  between environ-
mental protection  and higher  prices, more taxes,  lower economic  growth,  and
higher unemployment.
                PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARD ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
                "How serious ,is  the  air  pollution  problem?"
                                  80%
                  Not serious1  Somewhat serious or very serious

                Do  you  considejr  yourself, active,  sympathetic,
                neutral  or  unsympathetic  to  the  environmental
                movement?"     i	
                             4%'
62%
                  Unsympathetic   Active or sympathetic

                THE  LATEST  NATIONAL  SURVEY  conducted  by  Re-
                sources  For  The  Future  for  the  President's
                Council  on  Environmental  Quality  demonstrates
                that  environmental  protection  enjoys  continued
                strong  public  backing.  1,576 adults were  in-
                terviewed  in person  between January  and  April
                1980. [10]
A  survey  conducted in New  York by Social  Data  Analysts for  Hamilton Test
Systems  suggests  that urban  area  residents understand  the  connection bet-
ween  automobiles   and air  pollution,  and  are  willing  to  participate  in
clean-up  efforts.   500  New York  City area  residents  were  interviewed  by
telephone in December 1980.
       RESPONSE  OF  NEW YORK RESIDENTS  TO QUESTIONS  ON POLLUTION CONTROL

         "What do  you  think are  the major causes of air pollution
         in the New York metropolitan area?"
                         Auto emissions            86%
                         Factories,light co.       56%
                         Trucks, buses, taxis      45%

         "Do you think there  should be  laws making it illegal for
         both  business  and individual  citizens  to pollute  the
         air?"
                         Yes                       71%
                         No                        14%
                         Business only             2%

-------
                           PUBLIC OPINION ON I/M

Several public polls  have been  conducted  in areas where  I/M programs  are
either planned or  operating.   The  results  of some of  these polls are  pre-
sented below.

                                  ARIZONA
       (Arizona State University, Telephone survey N*=600,  May 1979)
"Arizona has  had an  emission  inspection  program  for  cars  and  trucks  for
about three years  now.   Do you personally  feel  the  program should be  kept
or repealed?"
                           Keep            58%
                           Repeal          42%
                                CALIFORNIA
        (Gannet News Service, Telephone survey N=824,  October 1980)
"California  voters  support  the  -idea  -of smog  and safety  inspections  for
their cars."
                           For             58%
                           Against         42%
                                NEW JERSEY
(New Jersey Motor Vehicle Inspection Study Commision,  N=3245,  February 1978)
"In the past,  for  economic  reasons  there have been recommendations  to  eli-
minate our mandatory vehicle inspection program.   Do you agree or disagree?"
                           Keep            83%
                           Eliminate       16%
                                 NEW YORK
       (Social Data Analysts, Telephone survey N=500,  December 1980)
"Starting in January 1981, cars will have to be  inspected  to  find out  whet-
her they are safe  and  if  they  are  polluting the  air too much.   The  cost  of
the inspection will  go up from $6 to  $12.   Do you think  that  this  program
is a good idea?"
                           Yes             82%
                           No              17%
                                   OHIO
      (Cleveland  Plain  Dealer, Telephone survey N=5256, November 1980)
"Do you  favor  the  proposal to require mandatory  inspection of the  exhaust
systems of all cars to curb pollution?"
                           Yes             52%
                           No              31%
                               RHODE  ISLAND
    (Rhode Island Lung Association, Telephone survey N=300,  April 1979)
"Do you think that exhaust emission tests on automobiles are important?"
                           Yes             87%
                           No              8%
* N is the sample size

-------
                           I/M AND NEW TECHNOLOGY

Stringent new car  emission standards for 1981  along  with the need  for  bet-
ter fuel economy have  brought about revolutionary changes in  automobile en-
gine technologies.   An issue  that  has  been the  subject of much  discussion
is the need for and  effectiveness  of I/M for the  1981 and later  fleet.
               "NEW TECHNOLOGY" ENGINES AND EMISSION CONTROLS
Many new cars  will employ a  small
computer   that  receives  signals
from  a variety  of  sensors   which
monitor key  engine variables  such
as  coolant  temperature,   throttle
position,  engine  speed,  and  air/
fuel  ratio.    Then,   the   computer
automatically  adjusts engine  fun-
ctions  bringing  the  engine  into
optimal  working   condition.    The
automatic  adjustment  also  allows
the  new catalysts  to most  effec-
tively  convert all  three automo-
bile  pollutants  to  harmless  by-
products.
          -ELECTRONIC-
           CARBURETOR. H
  Tin
Vcw*n Switch
    Ct'bon Onilt.r
Data from  California where new technology vehicles were  introduced" in small
numbers  as early as  1977  and then introduced  fleetwide beginning  in 1980,
reveal  two important findings.  First,  the  rate of emission  control system
failure  is low for  the  vehicles  tested to  date.   Second,  failures  that  do
occur result  in emission  levels up  to ten  times  the emission  standard  for
those cars.
               FRACTION OF NEW TECHNOLOGY FLEETWIDE EMISSIONS
              CONTRIBUTED BY CARS WITH CONTROL SYSTEM FAILURES
                  CARBON MONOXIDE
          HYDROCARBONS
         BEFORE  THEY ARE  ONE YEAR  OLD,  3  of  every  100  vehicles
         will  have   a   computer  control  failure,   and  these  3
         vehicles  will  account for one half of  the  new technology
         fleetwide CO emissions  and  one third  of the HC emissions.

-------
                       I/M AND NEW TECHNOLOGY
                            (continued)

I/M short tests  are  capable of identifying  a  significant  portion of
the excess emissions  from computer controlled fleets.  On  the basis
of limited data,  repair of vehicles  with computer  problems  results
in large emission reductions.  Substantial  fuel  economy improvements
(15% on the average)  are  also associated with repair  of  failed com-
puter systems.

Traditional problems  such  as  improper maintenance,  misfueling, tam-
pering, and ignition  related  malfunctions will also be  occurring in
the 1981  and  later fleet.  It  is estimated that  from 5%  to  10% of
the fleet will  fail  an  I/M test  each year due  to either  the tra-
ditional causes or a computer failure.[11]

-------
                                REFERENCES
1.    "Health  effects  of  carbon monoxide  and  ozone,"  U.S.  Environmental
     Protection Agency,  May 1981,  EPA-AA-IMS/81-8A.

2.    Cackette, Thomas, "The need for inspection and maintenance  for  current
     and future motor vehicles," Society of Automotive Engineers, 790782.

3.    Walsh,  Michael  P. ,  "Future  trends in  the  control  of emissions  from
     motor vehicles," Society of Automotive Engineers, 801359.

4.    Rutherford, James  A.,  "Update  on EPA's  study   of  the Oregon  inspec-
     tion/maintenance program," Presented  at  the  73rd annual  APCA meeting,
     June 24,  1980,  APCA 80-1.2.

5.    Tiao,  G.C.,  "Statistical  analysis of  'the  effect  of  inspection  and
     maintenance on  carbon monoxide  air  quality  in  Portland,  Oregon."
     May 15, 1981,  EPA-460/3-81-016.

6.    "Environmental  Quality  -  1977,"   The  eighth   annual  report  of  the
     Council on Environmental Quality,  December 1977.

7.    Trijonis, John,  "Oxidant and  precursor trends  in the  metropolitan Los
     Angeles region," Atmospheric Environment,  Volume 12,  pages 1413-1420,
     December, 1977.
8.   Michael, R. Bruce,  "Update  on the fuel economy benefits  of inspection
     and  maintenance  programs,"  U.S.  Environmental   Protection  Agency,  '
     April 1981, EPA-AA-IMS/81-10.

9.   Darlington, Tom,  "Update  on  the  cost-effectiveness  of inspection  and
     maintenance,"   U.S.   Environmental   Protection  Agency,  April   1981,
     EPA-AA-IMS-81-9.

10.  "Environmental  Quality  -  1980,"  the  eleventh annual report  of  the
     Council on Environmental Quality,  December 1980.

11.  Hughes, David W., "Inspection and maintenance  for  1981 and  later  model
     year passenger cars," Society of Automotive Engineers,  810830.

-------