A SURVEY OF OPERATING
INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE
PROGRAMS
Final Report
-------
DCN 80-230-146-09
A SURVEY OF.OPERATING
INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE
PROGRAMS
Final. Report
Prepared by:
R.F. Klausmeier
O.K. Kirk
Radian Corporation
Austin, Texas
for the
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Inspection/Maintenance Staff
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
EPA Contract 68-02-2538
17 April 1980
8500 Shoal Creek Blvd. / P.O. Box 9948 / Austin, Texas 78766 / (512)454-4797
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors of this report would like to take this opportunity to
acknowledge the assistance of certain individuals whose interest in and
involvement with inspection/maintenance contributed much to this study.
Included in this list are: Don White, the EPA Project Officer; Carl
Ripaldi of EPA Region I; Paul Truchan of EPA Region II; and Phil Bobel,
Rich Hennecke, and Dave Jesson of EPA Region IX. Technical and supervisory
personnel in the various operating areas were very generous in making them-
selves available to us for discussions about their respective programs and
providing extensive comments on the strengths and weaknesses of each program.
We would also like to thank Dr. E. P. Hamilton III, P.E., and Dr. David C.
Jones of Radian Corporation, for their advice on the organization and
content of the report. Finally, we would like to thank Ms. Barbara Hall
for her skill and patience in preparing this report.
-------
FOREWORD
This study was conducted for the Inspection/Maintenance Staff of the
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency per EPA Contract 68-02-2538, Task 4.
The main intent of the study was to provide state agency administrators and
technical personnel with information which will aid them in the implementa-
tion of an inspection/maintenance program.
The report is divided into two sections: The first is a narrative
discussion of the results of the survey, and all tables and figures within
are referenced by a numeral 1 followed by the table number. Section two
contains tables that summarize the different aspects of an inspection/
maintenance program. These tables are referenced by a numeral 2 followed
by the table number.
n
-------
A SURVEY OF OPERATING INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowl edgetnents
Foreword i i
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 General Description of the Operating Inspection/Maintenance 2
Programs
2.1 Type of Program and Coverage 2
2.2 Enforcement 6
2.3 Inspection Costs 8
3.0 Operational Aspects of the Programs 12
3.1 Inspection Procedure 12
3.2 Tampering Inspections 16
3.3 Fleet Inspection 19
3.4 Failure Rate, Repair Costs, Refailure Rates, and Waivers 20
3.5 Personnel Requirements 25
3.6 Equipment Requirements . 29
3.7 Land & Building Requirements 31
3.8 Summary of Incremental Costs 33
3.8.1 Operating Cost 33
3.8.2 Capital Cost 33
-------
Page
4.0 Selection of Cut Points 38
4.1 Initial Selection of Cut Points 38
4.2 Revising the Cut Points 39
5.0 Data Collection and Analysis 42
5.1 Methodology and Reports 42
5.2 Hardware and Software Requirements 48
6.0 Quality Assurance 49
7.0 Training Programs 58
7.1 Inspector Training 58
7.2 Station Investigator Training 60
7.3 Mechanic Training 60
8.0 Public Information 64
8.1 Description of Programs 64
8.2 Public Response 69
9.0 Air Quality Improvements 72
-------
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES IN SECTION ONE
TABLE TITLE
1.1 Description of Operating I/M Programs
1.2 Tampering Inspections
1.3 Failure Rate and Repair Costs
1.4 Emission Analyzers and Other Test Equipment
1.5 Data Collection
1.6 Data Analysis
1.7 Quality Assurance Programs
1.8 Training Programs
1.9 Public Information
PAGE
4
18
22
30
44
45
50
59
65
FIGURE TITLE
1.1 Inspection Cost to Motorist
1.2 Incremental Operating Cost
1.3 Capital Costs
1.4 New Jersey Ambient Carbon Monoxide Air Quality
and Motor Vehicle Gasoline Consumption
1.5 Composite Violations of 0.12 ppm Ozone Ambient
Air Quality Standard for Bayonne Trailer, Camden
Trailer, Ancora, Asbury Park, Somerville
PAGE
9
34
35
73
74
-------
SECTION TWO - SUMMARY TABLES
TABLE TITLE PAGE
2.0 Description of Operating I/M Programs 77
2.1 Vehicle Coverage 78
2.2.1 Personnel Requirements for New Jersey 79
2.2.2 Personnel Requirements for Cincinnati and Norwood 80
2.2.3 Personnel Requirements for Oregon 81
2.2.4 Personnel Requirements for Arizona 82
2.2.5 Personnel Requirements for California 83
2.2.6 Personnel Requirements for Nevada 84
2.2.7 Personnel Requirements for Rhode Island 85
2.3 Failure Rate and Repair Costs 86
2.4 Operating Costs 87
2.5 Capital Costs 88
2.6 Emission Analyzers and Other Test Equipment 89
2.7 Quality Assurance Programs 90
2.8 Training Programs 91
2.9.1 Training Details for New Jersey 92
2.9.2 Training Details for Oregon 93
2.9.3 Training Details for Arizona 94
2.9.4 Training Details for California 95
2.9.5 Training Details for Rhode Island 96
2.10 Data Collection 97
2.11 Data Analysis 98
2.12 Public Information 99
2.13 Tampering Inspections 100
2.14 Staff Contacts 101
-------
APPENDIX TITLE PAGE
Compilation of Emission Standards for
I/M Programs A-l
Arizona Appendix Material B-l
California Appendix Material C-l
Cincinnati & Norwood Appendix Material D-l
Nevada Appendix Material E-l
New Jersey Appendix Material F-l
Oregon Appendix Material G-l
Rhode Island Appendix Material H-l
References R-l
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The United States Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that
28 states and the District of Columbia will need to implement vehicle
Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) programs in order to comply with the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1977. The Amendments require that each state provide a
State Implementation Plan (SIP) to show how it will meet the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). I/M has been included in many SIP's
because it is a viable method of reducing hydrocarbon (HC) and carbon
monoxide (CO) emissions. In addition, several areas already have programs.
Mandatory I/M has been implemented in New Jersey, Ohio (Cincinnati and
Norwood), Arizona (Pima and Maricopa counties), Oregon (metropolitan
Portland), Nevada (Clark and Washoe counties), Rhode Island, and
California (the South Coast Air Basin).
Each I/M program is unique. Its design is strongly influenced by the
local economic and political factors and less so by the technical factors.
However, in planning for an I/M program, there are basic issues that need
to be addressed: What type of test should be implemented? What are the
personnel requirements? What types of public information programs need to
be set up? It is useful to study the existing I/M programs and see how
these and other issues have been addressed. Such an interchange of infor-
mation allows I/M program planners to employ to a maximum extent those
approaches which have been found to be successful in other programs.
-------
2.0 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE OPERATING I/M PROGRAMS
Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) is an air pollution control strategy that
involves measuring the tailpipe emission levels of vehicles and requiring
the repair of vehicles that exceed certain levels. The main purpose of an
I/M program is to identify and repair vehicles that are violating the
Federal emissions standards. Since the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) takes
considerable time and requires the use of complex equipment, the identifi-
cation of these vehicles is currently accomplished through testing while
the engine is idling (idle test), with additional testing using other
engine operating modes being performed in some programs. Although idle
mode emissions do not correlate well with FTP emissions, the idle test has
been shown to be effective in identifying those vehicles that are grossly
violating the Federal emissions standards. Since these are the vehicles
that contribute the most to pollution from mobile sources, I/M has been
effective in reducing vehicular emissions.
2.1 Type of Program and Coverage
There are three basic types of I/M programs: centralized state-operated,
centralized contractor-operated and decentralized. In centralized programs
the tests are conducted in centrally located lanes, while in decentralized
programs the inspections are conducted in licensed private garages. New
Jersey's program is a centralized state program operated by the Department
of Motor Vehicles and the Department of Environmental Protection. The
emission inspection was added to a pre-existing safety inspection program
at the state stations and about 3,800,000 vehicles are covered. The emis-
sions inspection was also added to an existing safety inspection in
Cincinnati, a centralized program run by the city that inspects about
150,000 vehicles per year. Oregon's program is a centralized, state-
operated program, although it is confined to metropolitan Portland and does
not involve a concurrent safety inspection. About 500,000 vehicles are
-------
covered by the Oregon program. The programs in Arizona and California are
centralized programs administered by the state but operated by a contractor
(Hamilton Test Systems in both cases). Each covers about 1.2 million
vehicles. The Nevada and Rhode Island systems are decentralized; that is,
they are administered by the state but conducted by private garages through-
out the administered area. Rhode Island's involves about 500,000 vehicles
and Nevada's, about 330,000. The Rhode Island program was added to a
pre-existing safety inspection at the garages. A description of the oper-
ating I/M programs is presented in Table 1.1.
The geographic area of an I/M program usually encompasses all the
nonattainment areas for oxidants (and/or possibly carbon monoxide), as
defined by EPA under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977. A nonattainment
area is a region with proven violations of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for a given pollutant or pollutants. In some programs,
this is only a portion of the state's boundaries (Portland, Oregon, and the
current programs in Arizona and Nevada are examples.) In others, most of
the state is classified nonattainment (New Jersey and Rhode Island.)
Although other nonattainment areas exist in California, California chose to
implement I/M first in the Los Angeles area (South Coast Air Basin) because
of the severity of the air pollution problem there. Cincinnati (including
Norwood) instigated an I/M program in 1975 as a result of an EPA recom-
mendation following the rejection of Ohio's State Implementation Plan
(SIP). (The exact geographical coverage of each of the existing I/M pro-
grams is presented in Table 1.1.)
All of the programs inspect light-duty vehicles (passenger cars and
pickup trucks) and some inspect heavy-duty vehicles as well. (See
Tables 1.1 and 2.1.) Arizona is the only program which covers all types
of vehicles (heavy-duty gasoline and diesel vehicles, regardless of weight,
and motorcycles) except for those over 13 years old. New Jersey,
Cincinnati, Nevada, Rhode Island, and California exclude all diesels;
-------
TABLE 1.1 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATING I/M PROGRAMS
ITEM
Geographic Location
Date of Inspection
Mandatory
Voluntary
Coverage
(LDV-Light Duty Vehicle)
Exemptions
Type of Program
Administrating Agency
Number of Inspection
Stations
Can Fleets Self
Inspect?
Inspection Frequency
Inspection Modes
Idle HC & CO
2500 RFM HC & CO
Loaded HC & CO
N0x
Exhaust Dilution
(C02)
Idle Speed
Diagnostics or other
Engine Parameters
Smoke
Tampering
Safety
En f o re eraen t/ F ine s
Reinspection
Hours of Station
Operation
Waiting Times
(Max, Avg.)
Queing Lengths
Inspection Time
NEW JERSEY
Entire State
Feb. 1, 1974
July 5, 1972
All LOVs less
than 6000 Ibs
GVW
Diesels.
vehicles less
than 50 cu.
in., pre 68 2
stroke Saabs,
new cars for
first 2 years.
Centralized-
State Oper.
DMV/
N.J.D.E.P.
38 stations
68 lanes
4736 rein-
No
Annual
Pass/Fail
Planned
Pass/Fail
Pass /Fall
Sticker &
Registration
$100 max.
At lanes or
Licensed
Private
Stations
8-5 M-F some
Saturday and
nights
Avg-6 rain.
Max-15 Min.
-
5-10 min.
emissions
$2.50 (incl.
safety)
$1.00 for
reinspection
at private
garages
CINCINNATI
Cincinnati &
Norwood, Ohio
Jan. 1, 1975
All LDVs less
than 6000 Ibs
160,000 vehicle
Diesels (emis-
sions only) .
Motorcycles,
Historical veh1
(over 25 years,
collectors
item)
Central ized-
City Oper.
Clnn. Dept.
of Sewers
Cine. - 1 Sta-
tion, 4 lanes
Norwood - 1 sta
tion, 1 lane
No
Annual
Pass /Fa 11
Pass /Fail
Pass/Fail
Sticker
Cine. $11-35
Norwood $15
At Lanes
8-7 M-F
Usually no
wait
3-5 mlo. ; 45
emissions.
$3.75 (incl.
retests
OREGON
Portland
July 1, 1975
All vehicles
500,000
vehicles
HDV diesels
over 8500 Ibs
farm plated
vehicles, fixed
& restricted
load vehicles.
Interstate vhls
Centrallzed-
State Oper.
Ore. D.E.Q.
7 stations
14 lanes
(1 state
owned,
6 leased)
Yes
50 stations
Biennial-LDV's
Annual-HDV's
Pass /Fail
Condition Veh/
Data Collection
Pass/Fail (82)
Pass /Fail
Pass/Fall
Pass /Fail
Registration
$100 max
At Lanes
8-6 Tues - Sat
Avg- 10 min
(varies greatly
thru year)
Max - 10 min
3-5 min.
$5.00
ARIZONA
Pima and
Miracopa Cty.
Jan. 1, 1977
Mandatory repairs
Jan. 1, 1976
Mandatory Inspec
Voluntary repairs
All vehicles
1,200,000
vehicles
Vehicles over
13 years old.
vehicles
(Interstate
vehicles)
Centrallzed-
Oper.
Bur. of Veh.
Emission Inspec.
Oiv. of Environ.
Health Services
12 stations
36 lanes
1 mobile
facility
Yes
300 stations
Annual
Pass/Fail1
Condition Veh/
Data Collection
Pass/Fail(4.5;;)
Pass/Fall (HD
diesel only)
Registration
$8 late regis.
At Lanes
Metro
8 - 3:30 - MWF
8 - 7:00 - T-Th
Avg- 10 min
Max - 1 fir.,
Wait info.
,ivAllablP hv Pht
5 min
$5.00 incl.
retest
NEVADA
Clark and
Was hoe Cty.
Ch. of Owner
7-1-74 + New
Regis. Owner
7-1-77 Annual
(Clark Only)
Jan. 1. 80
All LDV's less
than 6000 Ibs
GVW. 330,000
vehicles
65 and over
13 years old.
Prorated
vehicles
(Interstate
vehicles)
Decentralized
Garage
D.M.V.
90 in Wasnoe,
165 garaces
in Clark
Yes
(Incl. above)
Change of
Owner/Annual
(Clark Cty Onl
Pass/Fail
Condition Veh/
)ata Collection
Check &
Adjust
Check &
Adjust
Pass/Fail
Pass/Fall
Registration
Up to 6 mo.
and $500
Vehicle
Adjusted
when
inspected
962 pass
Garages
Customer
usually
ne
RHODE ISLAND
Entire State
Jan. 1, 1979
Nov. 1, 1977
All LDVs less
than 8000 Ibs
GVW. 500,000
vehicles
Diesels, new
vehicles for
12 months or
12,000 miles.
Farm vehicles
over 25 years
old, motorcycles
Decentralized
Garage
R.I.D.O.T.
Licensed 900
private garages
Yes
(Incl. above)
Annual
)
Pass/Fall
Pass/Fail
Pass/Fail
Sticker -
Road Checks
$15
At Garages
garages. Chal-
lenge station
open 7:30 -
3:30 M-F
Customer usually
-
20 min 30-60 min.
! including
: safety
I
$12. 50 - :
17.00
$4.00 including
safety
CALIFORNIA
South Coast Air
Basin (LA Area)
Mar. 19, 1979
All LDV's less
than 8500 Ibs
GVW- 1,200,000
vehicles
Diesels, motor-
cycles , dual fuel
or complete fuel
conversions
Centralized-
Contractor
Bur. Auto Repair/
Air Res. Board
15 permanent
2 mobile
46 lanes
Yes
799 stations
Change of Owner/
New registered
owner
Pass/Fail
Collection Veh/
Data Collection
Planned
Planned
Pass/Fail(4.5X)
Pass/Fail
Pass/Fail
Pass/Fail
Registration
finable offense
(variable)
At Lanes
Flexible - usually
8-4:30 T - F
8-7:00 M
Avg-LO-15 min.
Max - 1 hr +
Wait info.
avail, by phone
7 car rain.
6 min
$11.00
$7.00 rein-
spection
'Transmission in Orive (neutral on manual transmission)
-------
Oregon excludes diesels over 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW)
although all heavy-duty gasoline-fueled vehicles are tested. Other
specific exceptions are listed in the table.
Usually, inspections are required of vehicle owners each year. Oregon
does this for heavy-duty vehicles, but is unusual in requiring a biennial
inspection for light-duty vehicles (beginning after two years of registra-
tion).* New Jersey also does not require an inspection for the first two
years of registration, but requires an annual inspection thereafter. In
addition to its annual inspection requirement, Arizona also requires an
inspection whenever the title to a vehicle changes hands, except for auc-
tions and sales between private individuals. Washoe County, Nevada re-
quires tests only when the vehicle is being registered for the first time;
however, Clark County requires an annual test as of January 1, 1980.
California has not yet gone to an annual inspection requirement. Cur-
rently, tests are required only with a change of owner or with a new owner:
registration.
Five of the existing programs allow for inspection of vehicle fleets
by the fleet owner. Of these, Oregon is the most strict on minimum fleet
size requirements (requires the largest number of vehicles to be defined as
a fleet). A minimum of 100 vehicles is required for non-governmental
fleets and 50 vehicles for governmental fleets. Resale fleets (i.e., car
dealerships) are not permitted to conduct their own inspections. Cali-
fornia plans to tighten its fleet inspection allowances when its program
goes to an annual inspection format. The section on Operational Aspects
contains more details on fleet inspections.
All of the programs enforce carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrocarbons (HC)
in an idle mode (this is accomplished by inserting a probe into the vehi-
cle's exhaust pipe while the engine is idling (600-1200 rpm)). However,
*In Oregon, heavy-duty vehicles have annual registration while light-duty
vehicles are biennial.
-------
some programs feature other test modes as well. Oregon, Nevada, and Cali-
fornia measure the pollutants at a high idle mode (approximately 2500 rpm)
for data collection purposes and to condition the vehicle for the idle
test. Arizona uses dynamometers to test vehicles in a loaded mode (both
low and high cruise tests) for vehicle conditioning and data collection.
The loaded test also has the potential for measuring oxides of nitrogen
(NO ) emissions. California plans to begin loaded-mode testing at a future
\
time for this reason.
Oregon, Arizona, and California monitor carbon dioxide (C0») levels
during the test to check for excessive exhaust dilution. Excessive dilu-
tion occurs when the probe is improperly inserted or the vehicle has ex-
haust leaks. New Jersey plans to add this feature to its test in the
future. Oregon and California also monitor idle speed and will fail vehi-
cles if this is excessive. Nevada includes a check and adjustment of the
following vehicle parameters: idle speed, dwell, and timing. The idle and
2500 rpm emission levels are recorded both before and after the adjust-
ments.
All of the programs have a visual smoke test as part of the inspec-
tion. (Arizona's smoke test is only for heavy duty diesel vehicles.)
Visual inspections, to determine if tampering with the emission control
devices has occurred (tampering inspection), are performed in Oregon,
Nevada, and California. When California begins a loaded mode test with
measurement of NO , it plans to discontinue its visual inspection because
A.
tampering failures will be distinguished by the emissions test.
2.2 Enforcement
Enforcement for the I/M programs is usually through issuance of wind-
shield stickers or vehicle registrations, which then can be monitored by
-------
the local or state police. The exact type used by each existing program
and the maximum fine for non-compliance or expired inspection is listed in
Table 1.1. In all of the areas except Cincinnati and Rhode Island, com-
pliance with the emission standards is a prerequisite for motor vehicle
registration. Non-compliance in Oregon is a Class C misdemeanor and is
subject to fines of up to $100.00. Nevada also classes violation as a
misdemeanor, subject to a $500.00 maximum fine and up to six months in
jail. However, in Arizona motorists who do not receive a certificate of
compliance and thus are denied registration are subject only to an $8.00
late registration fee. Violators in California are also subject to a fine.
In New Jersey the registration card is only valid with the inspection stamp
and a sticker is issued for compliance. Violators can be fined $100.00 for
the first offense and $200.00 for the second. Stickers are also used by
the Cincinnati program. Within the Cincinnati city limits, the fines for
violation range between $11.00 and $35.00. In Norwood, they are set at
$15.00. Stickers are issued in Rhode Island and roadside checks are some-
times used as additional deterents against violations. Two classes of
penalties have been established, depending on the degree of non-compliance.
Minor violations are cited with a minor defect offense (for safety or
emissions). For this the fine is set at $15.00. Major violations are
classed as operation of an unsafe vehicle and can result in sentences up to
one year in jail.
Enforcement problems predictably vary considerably from one area to
another. No significant problems have been reported in either New Jersey
or Rhode Island. The only problem reported in Oregon is the influx of
vehicles from Vancouver, Washington, where inspection/maintenance is not
currently required. Some thought has been given to the idea of requiring
Washington motorists who work in Portland to comply with the requirements
of Oregon's I/M program (and vice versa, when the State of Washington
enacts an I/M program), but this now seems an unlikely prospect.
-------
Cincinnati and Norwood have always had significant enforcement prob-
lems and have historically had a compliance rate of less than 50 percent.
This was true even before the emissi.on test was added to the safety test.
To make matters worse, the State of Ohio has changed the registration such
that there is no way of distinguishing vehicles of Hamilton County (which
contains these cities) from the rest of the Ohio vehicles. Furthermore,
the Cincinnati police force has been cut back drastically in personnel. As
a result of these events, compliance in Cincinnati this year is down 35
percent from 1976 levels. This low compliance rate is creating serious
cash flow problems which is endangering the inspection program in these two
cities. Cincinnati and Norwood are currently making attempts to improve
this situation and may begin to require an inspection sticker on vehicles
that use city parking lots.
Arizona officials report some non-compliance -- people driving unregis-
tered vehicles. Possibly the low penalty for late registration is part of
the problem. Nevada's annual program in Clark County has not been active
long enough to judge how well people will comply with it. However, there
does seem to be a widespread notion among drivers there that they do not
need to have their vehicles inspected in order to be registered. Nevada
did not report problems from the change of owner and new registered owner
programs. California has not reported any significant enforcement
problems, but then the program there has not yet reached the annual regis-
tration phase.
2.3 Inspection Cost
As shown in Figure 1.1, costs for the existing I/M programs vary
considerably, from a low of $2.50 in New Jersey to a high of $12.50 to
$17.50 in Nevada. Nevada's fee includes the inspection and correct read-
justment of certain engine parameters, when necessary. New Jersey's fee is
collected as part of the registration fee and includes the safety inspec-
tion as well. If retests are conducted at licensed private garages, there
-------
12
11
10
Administrating Agency's Fee
Contractor's Fee
Private Garage Fee
$5.00 $5.00
cfl
CJ
$3.75'
$2.50
$12.50-17.50
$11.00
B
$4.00
N.J. CINC. ORE. ARIZ.
A - Includes Safety
B - $7.00 fee for retests
C - Includes parameter adjustment
CALIF. NEV. R.I.
FIGURE 1-1 INSPECTION COST TO MOTORIST
-------
is an additional fee of $1.00. Cincinnati and Oregon are also inexpensive
and allow unlimited free retests. Arizona allows one free retest. The
contractor collects the $5.00 inspection fee at the Arizona stations and
forwards all the funds to the state. The state then pays the contractor
$4.75 per paid test. The fee in Nevada is collected by the private garages
which then pay the state $2.00 per test. Rhode Island's $4.00 fee is
collected at the private garages and, like the New Jersey inspection,
includes safety as well. Rhode Island's garages pay the state a fee of
$1.00 per test. California's contractor system is relatively expensive at
$11.00 for the initial test and $7.00 for each retest and, like Arizona,
the fees are collected by the contractor. The contractor's portion of the
fee is between $4.49 and $6.70 per test, depending on how many emission
tests are conducted. It should be noted that the lowest fees were in areas
that had existing safety programs.
In all the programs except for Rhode Island and Cincinnati the admini-
strating agencies' fees are sufficient to cover their expenses, and some of
the programs actually generate additional revenue for the state. New
Jersey collects $12,800,000 from vehicle inspections while the annual
operating expense (including safety) is $10,500,000. The funds are placed
in the New Jersey State treasury and operating expenses must be funded
through appropriations. In California the contractor is currently paid the
maximum fee of $6.70 per car. Of the remaining $4.30, one-half is used to
cover the expenses for the program and the other half is used as payments
for a loan that was secured to build pilot test facilities. Initially
retests were free, however, the $7.00 retest fee was implemented to provide
the state with adequate operating funds since in California the contractor
is paid for each test (whether it is the initial or retest).
Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon use the fees of the administrating
agencies as sources of operating revenue and as reserves to cover the
expenses during periods when the revenues are reduced. For example, in the
early years of the program Arizona's portion of the fee was considerably
10
-------
more than it is now, and in those years the state built up a surplus for
vehicle inspections.* In 1980 Arizona expects to draw on this surplus to
cover its expenses since the current fee of $.25 will not provide suf-
ficient funds. Arizona plans to raise the inspection fee to provide the
necessary revenue for future operations.
As mentioned, in Rhode Island and Cincinnati (including Norwood) the
fees of the administrating agencies are not sufficient to cover the operat-
ing expenses. As a result these areas need additional funding to operate
their programs. In Rhode Island the annual inspection fees, which total
around $500,000, are deposited in the State General Fund and the $1,000,000
operating expenses are taken from the fund. In 1980, Cincinnati and
Norwood are slated to receive $160,000 from EPA to provide necessary operat-
ing revenue. However, this funding is temporary, and in the future these
programs hope to obtain the necessary revenues through improved enforcement
and/or the state of Ohio.
*In Arizona and California the contractor's fee is tied to an escalation
clause. The contractor will receive a fee increase if the local cost of
living exceeds 8 percent per year.
11
-------
3.0 OPERATIONAL ASPECTS OF THE PROGRAMS
3.1 Inspection Procedure
Many of the programs conduct the actual inspection in a similar fashion.
California's procedure will serve as an example. When a motorist drives
into an inspection center, at the first position pertinent vehicle data
such as vehicle identification number and engine size are obtained by the
inspector and entered into a computer. The computer provides the inspector
with information regarding the emission control or retrofit devices which
should be present on any particular vehicle.* The inspector uses this
information to perform an underhood tampering inspection to check for
missing or disconnected emission control devices. (Details on tampering
inspections are presented in the next section.) The results of the inspec-
tion are entered by the inspector into the computer. About two minutes are
required for this phase.
At the second position, a probe is inserted into the vehicle's tailpipe
to test the exhaust emissions at idle, high idle (2500 rpm), and idle again.
(In California, the high idle check is usually only used if the vehicle
exceeds the standards on the low idle test.) These data are automatically
entered into the computer as the test is conducted and compared with the
standards for that category of vehicle. The lower of the two idle readings
are used for compliance. In addition, the inspector performs a visual
smoke check at this point. About two minutes is required for this step.
The vehicle then advances to the third position where the computer printout
of the inspection report and the certificate (if the vehicle has success-
fully passed the inspection) are received. If the vehicle failed the
inspection, the computer will also furnish, on the inspection report, test
*Some cases require more detailed vehicle identification factors to deter-
mine the necessary emission control devices. Therefore, each test site
has a manual that lists the control systems for each engine.
12
-------
and diagnostic information to aid in vehicle repair. This phase of the
inspection procedure requires about one minute.
If a vehicle fails the emission test, three options are available to
the owner. He or she can:
1. Repair the vehicle.
2. Bring the vehicle to a Qualified Mechanic for repair.
3. Bring the vehicle to a Qualified Mechanic who is also a
licensed Motor Vehicle Pollution Control (MVPC) Mechanic.*
In either of the first two cases, the vehicle must be repaired until it
passes inspection. If the third option is selected, the Qualified MVPC
Mechanic will certify, by signing the back of the inspection form, either
that the recommended repairs, including a low-emissions tune-up, were
performed or that the recommended repairs would exceed the appropriate
repair cost limits. (These are discussed in more detail in the section
following on repair costs and waivers.) If the vehicle fails the retest the
motorist would then qualify for a Certificate of Waiver.
In test organization and the handling of data, Arizona's program is
very similar to the California inspection. However, Arizona does not use
an initial underhood tampering inspection and it performs a loaded-mode
test (run on dynamometers) instead of a high idle test. Also, Arizona's
low idle test is conducted in Drive, as opposed to Neutral in California.
Like the high idle test, the loaded test helps to condition the vehicle for
the idle test and provide additional diagnostic information for repair
purposes. Both low and high cruise tests are usually run, although a
customer may elect to have only the idle test performed. Failed vehicles
^Legally, all paid emission adjustments and repairs must be performed by
Qualified or Qualified MVPC mechanics. Other non-certified mechanics
are not allowed to make these repairs for compensation.
13
-------
go to private mechanics for service (no licensed mechanics are available,
unlike California) and then return to the inspection stations for retests.
The first retest in Arizona is free of charge and follows the same pro-
cedure as the initial emission inspection. Vehicles which fail the first
retest are frequently given waivers (see section 3.4 for details). The
amount of time required for Arizona's inspection is about five minutes.
In test philosophy, Oregon's inspection is also similar to the California
program. Oregon, however, uses an entirely manual data collection and
handling system. Thus, vehicle identification data and tampering problems
must be verbally transmitted from the inspector doing the hands-on vehicle
inspection to the inspector who is operating the analyzer and transcribing
data "from it. Data from the analyzer must also be manually compared to the
particular standards for that vehicle type by the same person. Consequently,
there is the potential for errors in more steps of the inspection process
than in the California and Arizona test protocols, especially during rush
periods. The total time required for the inspection.is only three to five
minutes.
Inspectors in Oregon are instructed not to give diagnostic advice to,
motorists (usually there is no time for this, nor are inspectors trained
with this in mind). The inspection forms have diagnostic suggestions
printed on the back, but basically the burden for correcting emission
problems falls completely on the mechanic. Failed vehicles go for mainte-
nance to private garages or dealerships and then are brought back to the
inspection stations for reinspection. The same procedure is followed for
the initial inspection and all subsequent ones. Retests are free -- a
possible problem in the view of some local observers because it is per-
ceived that this tends to encourage simple screwdriver adjustments by
backyard owner-mechanics who hope to pass the test and then readjust the
vehicle afterwards. Without free retests these owners might instead take
their vehicles to a repair garage that has better equipment and bett.er-
14
-------
trained mechanics; these owners could, of course, still readjust the
vehicle afterwards.
In the Nevada program, idle and 2500 rpm emission levels are checked
and recorded initially. Then the vehicle is adjusted to specifications,
including adjustment of the following vehicle parameters: idle speed,
dwell, and timing. A tampering inspection is included and most of the
garages also adjust the idle air/fuel mixture if the vehicle fails the
standards. The vehicle is then probed again. If at this point the vehicle
does not pass the inspection, further repairs may be required before it is
given a waiver. Usually about 20 minutes is required for this procedure.
The inspectors at the garages fill out the inspection forms manually as the
tests proceed. Approximately every month state officials visit the garages
to check analyzer calibration, etc. At this time they collect the forms
and take them back to the Department offices where the data are keypunched
and input to the computer. A formal description of the inspection pro-
cedure is presented in the Appendix, page E-6.
The I/M programs in New Jersey, Cincinnati, and Rhode Island differ
most widely from the other programs described above because their emission
tests were added to existing safety inspections and from a time standpoint
the safety aspects still dominate. In New Jersey, when a vehicle comes in
for the emission/safety inspection, the emission test is conducted first.
The inspector obtains the vehicle model year from the registration and
enters it into the analyzer. Then, when the vehicle is probed, a bulb on
the analyzer will light up if the standards for that model year are exceeded.
The test itself consists only of an idle check and a visual smoke inspection.
However, a check on the level of CO- (to detect excessive exhaust dilution)
is planned in New Jersey. Total time for the test is 5-10 minutes, with
the emissions inspection consuming only about one minute of that.
15
-------
Failed vehicles in New Jersey may either go to private facilities for
repair and then for retests, return to the state lanes, or they may go to
licensed private reinspection stations. At the state lanes, extra analyzers
are located at the end of the regular lanes to handle reinspections. The
private reinspection station program was established to reduce the load at
the state lanes. Under this program, a motorist whose car fails the test
has the option of having the car repaired and reinspected at a licensed
reinspection station. About 55 percent of the motorists whose cars fail
the initial test elect this option. Another program change to reduce the
reinspection load at state lanes was the elimination of certain non-critical
safety rejections (such as license plate lights) and instead, merely advis-
ing the motorists of the problems.
Cincinnati's procedure is similar to that of New Jersey but is more
basic. There is no bulb to indicate failures and all retests are at the
lanes (i.e. no reinspection stations).
Because Rhode Island's program is conducted by private garages without
direct state supervision, there is no standardization of operating proced-
ures and very little data are available on such topics as failure rate and
amount of repair costs. The basic test is a safety inspection with an idle
emission test, and normally, any repairs necessary to bring the vehicle
into compliance are conducted at the time of the inspection. Total time
for the test is usually between 30 and 60 minutes.
3.2 Inspection for Tampering .
Proper operation of the emission controls is usually necessary for
good drivability with low FTP emissions. In addition, some of the controls
need to be operating in order to reduce NO emissions which are not de-
tected by any of the existing tests. Inspection for tampering helps to
16
-------
insure that the emissions controls are operative. As mentioned, Cali-
fornia, Nevada, and Oregon inspect vehicles for tampering. The items
inspected are summarized on Table 1.2.
California performs a thorough tampering inspection as part of the
MVIP. Inspectors look for disconnected or missing pollution control de-
vices. In addition, a functional check is made on the exhaust gas recircu-
lation (EGR) system by increasing the engine speed and looking for movement
on the EGR valve stem. However this method is not totally reliable since
some vehicles have mechanisms that disable the EGR systems during unloaded
modes and other vehicles have valve stems which are not readily visible. A
large percentage of vehicles are failed as a result of tampering and in
some periods the tampering rejection rate is greater than the emissions
rejection rate. (See Appendix, page C-ll for details.)
In Nevada, as part of the parameter inspection and adjustment, garages
are required to make a tampering inspection to check that all of the re-
quired emission control devices are connected. Under some circumstances a
motorist may be given a certificate of compliance if idle emissions meet
the standards despite missing or inoperative pollution control devices
(except for catalytic converters).
Oregon performs a tampering inspection while the hood is open to
connect the sensors for the tachometer. The inspectors look for discon-
nected hoses and pulleys and/or missing controls, including the catalytic
converter and fuel inlet restricter on vehicles for which they are re-
quired. Results indicate that thermostatic air cleaners are the most
common items that are disconnected. Proper operation of the thermostatic
air cleaner is helpful for smooth warm-up operation if the carburetor is
tuned to manufacturer's specifications. The overall failure rate due to
tampering is usually five percent or less.
17
-------
TABLE 1.2 TAMPERING INSPECTIONS
oo
Components Inspected
(V-Visual Check, F-Functional Check)
Catalytic Converter
EGR Valve
Air Injection System
PCV Valve
Thermos tat ic Air Cleaner
Oxygen Sensor
Fuel Fillerneck
Limiter Caps
Exhaust System Modifications
Engine Modifications
Inspector Training
OREGON
V
V
V
V
V
V (Plug
on site)
V
V
Covered in a
one week train-
ing program
CALIFORNIA
V
F
V
V
V
V (unless locked)
V
Contractor
trained inspec-
tors. Fleet
inspection
stations must
employ a quali-
fied mechanic.
NEVADA
V
V
V
V
V
-
Has to meet
specs for
model year
None
-------
3.3 Fleet Inspection
The existing programs differ widely in their treatment of fleets. New
Jersey takes the most restrictive approach — no fleets are allowed from
the standpoint of the emission inspection (there are allowances for heavy-
duty fleets for the safety inspection). Cincinnati is another area that
does not permit a fleet inspection.
The remaining programs provide for fleet inspection by the owner. In
Arizona, registered owners and licensed automobile dealers with 25 or more
vehicles may inspect their own vehicles, provided that they have a licensed
inspector and a registered analyzer. The State conducts training sessions
for the licensing and relicensing of fleet inspectors.
*
Oregon is more stringent on fleet size, requiring at least 100
vehicles for non-governmental fleets and 50 vehicles for governmental
fleets. In addition, Oregon does not permit fleet inspection on resale
fleets. Fleet inspection stations are routinely inspected by Oregon DEQ
officials (once a month for analyzer calibration) and fleet inspectors must
attend the DEQ inspector training program.
Nevada allows the fleet owners to inspect their vehicles in the same
manner that the private garages inspect public vehicles. Fleet owners must
meet the same licensing requirements as the licensed private garage inspec-
tion stations.
In Rhode Island, 10 or more vehicles qualify as a fleet. In order for
them to be allowed to conduct self-inspections, fleet inspectors must meet
the same qualifications as private garage inspectors. This has been a
source of complaints by many of the fleets since they feel that they do not
need the required training (see section 7.0).
19
-------
California allows two types of fleet certification. The first type
(MVIP fleet) allows owners (governments, public utilities, or private
business) of fleets of 10 or more vehicles affected by the state inspection
program to conduct their own inspections and issue certificates, subject to
State surveillance. In addition, an MVIP fleet facility may inspect and
test, not only its own resale fleet, but that of other dealers as well
(providing that they maintain a stock of at least 10 vehicles at all times
and obtain appropriate authorization from the Department). These other
fleets are called Member fleets. The licensing of car dealers as MVIP
fleets is expected to terminate when the annual inspection program begins.
California's MVIP fleets must meet strict equipment and personnel
requirements. For instance, a mechanic must be employed who has been
certified by the state as a Class "A" Motor Vehicle Pollution Control
installer and as Vehicle Inspection Program "Qualified.1! State certif-
icates of compliance must be purchased for issue to the inspected vehicles.
An official description of the fleet requirements appears in the Appendix,
pages C-39 to C-42.
3.4 Failure Rates, Refailure Rates, Repair Costs, and Waivers
The reported failure rates among the seven programs ranged from a high
of 47 percent in California to a low of 18 percent in New Jersey and
Cincinnati. New Jersey finds that approximately 12 percent of the vehicles
inspected, or 1/3 of the failed vehicles, fail only for emissions (New
Jersey also has a safety inspection). The failure rate in California for
emission failures only was 27 percent; the 20 percent differences accounts
for tampering and miscellaneous other causes. Oregon had a 40 percent
initial failure rate. Nevada reported a 32 percent initial failure rate
decreasing to 4 percent after minor adjustments had been made. Arizona had
a 25 percent initial failure rate. Rhode Island data are problematic.
20
-------
Although no official data exist, EPA obtained a figure of 21 percent for
1978. However, a study performed in September 1979 for EPA Region I
included a survey of motor vehicle owners and only 4.5 percent of them
reported that their vehicles had failed the emission inspection. Although
the exact explanation for this discrepancy is not known, in part it may be
due to garages making unreported repairs on the vehicles dur.ing the inspec-
tion. See Table 1.3 for a summary of the data presented in this section.
Refailure rates, interestingly, are much more uniform. Arizona re-
ported the highest refailure rate, 34 percent, and Oregon the lowest, 23
percent. (Oregon does not keep track of retests; therefore, its refailure
rate is based on random surveys.) California had 28 percent refailures and
New Jersey had 29 percent. Nevada, because of the nature of its program,
had no refailures. It seems that a fairly constant percentage of vehicles
will be refailures, regardless of how an inspection program is designed or
what standards are selected. This observation may be useful to those
contemplating establishment or adjustment of waiver or retest provisions.
Repair costs also show considerable uniformity between the programs
with some reports indicating that between 67 (New Jersey) and 80 (Oregon)
percent of all necessary repairs cost less than $30.00. California re-
ported the highest average repair cost ($32.00) and New Jersey the lowest
($18.71). However, in some of the private garage systems, minor repairs
(e.g., air/fuel adjustments) are performed free of charge (this was re-
ported in Rhode Island and Nevada, particularly).
In 1979 the Oregon DEQ performed monthly surveys of repair costs for
failed vehicles. Most frequently (one-third to one-half of the time), the
air/fuel mixture required adjustment. Other repairs or adjustments with
significantly high rates of occurrence were: idle speed (10 to 15 percent),
carburetor rebuild (usually about 10 percent), air cleaner replacement (5
to 10 percent), dwell/timing (5 to 10 percent), and spark plugs (5 to 10
percent). The surveys also indicated about half of the vehicles were
21
-------
TABLE 1.3 FAILURE RATE AND REPAIR COSTS
Failure Rate
Refailure' Rate
Repair. Cost'
Median
Average
Repair Cost After
Refailure
Median
Average
Waivers
Available?
Time Period
Stipulations
Number (%)
NEW JERSEY
18% (1979)
29% (1979)
(1979)
$17
$18.71 (2/3
below $28)
Not Available
Yes
1 Year
Motorist must
document that a
good faith effort
was made to pass
test.
Approx. 10/yr.
41 since the start
of the program
CINCINNATI
18% (1979)
Not Available
Not Available
Not available
No
OREGON
40% (1979)
23% (1979)
80% of repairs
under $30
Not avail-
able
No
ARIZONA
25% (1979)
34%(1979)
(1979)
$30
Not avail-
able
Yes
1 Year
Repair proce-
dure, cost
ceilings $25-
67, $75 - 68-
up
Approx. 80,000
yr. (30% of
failed veh)
CALIFORNIA
47% (1979)
27% Emissions
28% (1979)
(1979)
$32
Not available
Yes
-
Repair performed
by MVPC roech.
cost ceilings.
$50 (No ECS modif
Greater if veh.
is modif.)
Approx. 30.000/
yr (10% of
failed veh.)
NEVADA
32%(1978) - B
4%(1978) - A
Not Available
(1979)
$20.45
Not avail-
able
Yes
1 Year
$25 parts
ceiling, $75
parts & labor,
(Not including
catalytic con-
verters) No
missing con-
verters
Approx. 5000
per year (2%)
RHODE ISLAND
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
Yes
1 Year
Motorist must make
reasonable effort
to pass - no visua]
tampering , param-
eters checked
None
ro
ro
A - After Adjustment
B - Before Adjustment
-------
repaired for under $10.00. Oregon does not currently perform these surveys.
In several states, maximum repair costs and the availability of wai-
vers are linked. Nevada, for instance, imposes a $25.00 ceiling on parts,
and a $75.00 ceiling on parts and labor together (this does not include
missing or defective catalytic converters). Vehicles which would exceed
these limits are usually waived (reportedly about 2 percent of the vehicles
examined).
Arizona also has cost limits: $25.00 for pre-1968 vehicles, and
$75.00 for the more recent ones. Approximately 30 percent of the initial
vehicle.failures in Arizona received waivers in 1979 (80,000). Arizona
also has a special provision for vehicles that fail only for CO. If a
vehicle fails only for CO and is then repaired by a facility with a regis-
tered emissions analyzer, a retest is not necessary. The owner need only
return the properly completed inspection form and the Certificate of Waiver
is then mailed to him. Arizona issues about 2,000 such certificates per
year.
Because of their mechanic training and certification program, Cali-
fornia has a rather more complicated procedure for obtaining a waiver. If
the customer elects to repair the vehicle himself or to bring it to a
"Qualified Mechanic" for repair, it must be repaired and retested until it
passes the emission inspection, regardless of how much time and money is
involved. However, as an incentive for customers to use qualified "Motor
Vehicle Pollution Control" mechanics, waivers may be obtained if one of
these licensed mechanics certifies that the necessary repairs would exceed
the appropriate cost limits and that the vehicle has received a low emis-
sion tune-up. (These are $50.00 for most failures; or in the case of
modified, missing, or inoperative emisson control devices, $85.00 for
1955-65 vehicles, $150.00 for 1966-74 vehicles, or $250.00 for 1975 and
later vehicles, each in addition to the normal $50.00 for routine repairs
23
-------
or a low emission tune-up.) These cost limits do not present a large
barrier to the achievement of cleaner air, however. Studies have shown
that 90 percent of the vehicles which initially failed the emission test
and returned for a retest had been repaired within the cost limits. The
other 10 percent (approximately 30,000 vehicles in 1979) were given wai-
vers.
One particular type of waiver in California, an "ECS waiver," requires
state approval. A motorist may receive an "ECS waiver" if a qualified MVPC
mechanic certifies that the replacement of the necessary emission control
devices will exceed the cost limits. However, to provide a check on the
system, California requires that the mechanics phone in and obtain verbal
approval from the State for all "ECS waivers." When the mechanics call the
State and describe the missing equipment, the State determines what equip-
ment should be replaced and tells the mechanics the code numbers that need
to be entered into the inspection report. (See Appendix, page C-5). At
times a state official will inspect the vehicle before approving a waiver.
Additionally, the mechanics are required to send the State a copy of the
inspection report. Approximately five percent of the waivers in California
are "ECS waivers."
In New Jersey, waivers are available if the motorist can document that
he has done all he can to try and pass the emission test despite the cost.
The Department of Motor Vehicles (with the advice of the Department of
Environmental Protection) grants about ten one-year waivers per year.
These are almost always for high HC and are usually for exotic vehicles
such as Ferraris.
Similarly in Rhode Island, the Director of the Department of Transpor-
tation may grant waivers after concluding that a reasonable effort was made
to try to pass the emission inspection and if all emission control devices
are connected. However, no waivers have been requested and there is no
standard procedure for requesting them.
24
-------
Two locations do not give waivers at all: Cincinnati and Oregon.
Oregon officials, in fact, have gone to considerable lengths to demonstrate
that their individual model type standards are reasonable. Rarely a ques-
tion will arise involving an exotic car (e.g., a Ferrari) whose owner may
be having difficulty meeting the standards, but experience has shown that
if proper maintenance procedures and manufacturer-recommended emission
control technology is followed, compliance is possible. However, there was
one case of after-market turbocharging which was run through a Federal Test
Procedure to qualify the equipment.
Problems can be foreseen for the policy of linking repair cost ceil-
ings to the availability of waivers. First, because of the current in-
flationary state of our economy, repair costs are increasing faster than
revisions in cost allowances. Furthermore, repair costs on the new emis-
sion control components are dramatically higher than for previous systems.
For example, replacement of oxygen sensors costs a minimum of $28.00 plus
labor, and adjustment of fixed carburetor settings costs $45.00 (in Arizona).
The conclusion to be drawn seems to be that areas which are contemplating
the establishment of an I/M program should allow for cost flexibility if
waivers and costs are to be linked.
3.5 Personnel Requirements
The most significant costs in the program areas are usually for per-
sonnel, with the annual costs for personnel usually exceeding the total
capital investments. Administrative personnel are needed in the different
areas to manage the programs, handle complaints and other public informa-
tion tasks, provide clerical and secretarial support, and perform other
tasks such as planning. Technical personnel are used in many of the areas
to perform training, provide diagnostic assistance, maintain and calibrate
equipment, analyze data and evaluate the program. Enforcement personnel
25
-------
are needed to enforce the emission standards (i.e., inspectors) or perform
surveillance on the test facilities. Personnel requirements including a
breakdown of the different job classifications are summarized on Tables
2.2.1 through 2.2.7.
New Jersey already had an existing safety inspection run by the De-
partment of Motor Vehicles (DMV). When the emission test was added to the
safety test, the DMV continued to administer the inspection program and
enforce the standards. However, the implementation of the emission test
did result in a one range upward reclassification of all inspection jobs
because of the increased technical content. The technical responsibilities
of the I/M program were taken up by the newly created New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection (DEP). The DEP evaluates the program, cali-
brates the analyzers, and performs research and development functions such
as setting or changing the emission standards. Later, the implementation
of the private garage-operated reinspection program created the need for
additional enforcement responsibilities which again were given to the DMV.
DMV personnel were required to survey these stations and confirm that they
were performing the inspections in accordance with the law. The DEP de-
veloped procedures that described how the reinspection stations should
perform the calibrations and testing. In addition, the DEP developed the
standards for the emission analyzers.
Despite the fact that Arizona is a contractor-operated system, there
are significant manpower requirements to the State. Arizona did not have
an existing safety inspection; therefore, there was not an existing organ-
ization to administer the I/M program. As a result, Arizona formed a new
division in the Arizona Department of Health, the Vehicular Emissions
Inspection Division which assumed most of the administrative, technical,
and enforcement responsibilities. (The contractor, by the nature of the
contract, is the prime enforcer of the emission standards.) The Vehicular
Emissions Inspection Division performs a thorough overview of the program,
auditing the contractor's charges to the state while providing other
26
-------
administrative services such as complaint handling. In addition, the
division provides technical assistance (training for mechanics and the
general public), vehicle diagnosis, data analysis, research and develop-
ment, as well as enforcement. The division inspects government vehicles
and it also surveys the fleet and contractor test facilities.
California is another contractor-operated system, but unlike Arizona
it did not need to develop an organization to administer and enforce the
program. California added the Motor Vehicle Inspection Program (MVIP) to
the Bureau of Auto Repair (BAR) division of the Department of Consumer
Affairs. Because of its involvement in California's decentralized tam-
pering inspections (the Blue Shield program), the BAR was already familiar
with some I/M-related programs. For several years the BAR has employed
instructors, engineers, planners, and clerical and management personnel.
However, the MVIP requires additional BAR personnel to survey the contrac-
tor and fleet operations, handle complaints, and provide regional mana-
gerial, clerical, and technical support. Considerable technical support is
also provided by a separate organization, the California Air Resources
Board (ARB). The ARB is responsible for setting standards, analyzing test
data, and investigating I/M-related complaints that pertain to the automo-
bile manufacturers.
The Oregon program is operated by the Oregon Department of Environmen-
tal Quality (DEQ). Although Oregon did not have an existing safety inspec-
tion, it chose to implement and operate a centralized state-run system.
Consequently, there are considerable personnel requirements in the enforce-
ment area where a large number of inspectors are needed. Because of Oregon's
biennial inspection requirements, and the fact that in 1976 nearly all
vehicles on the road started their two-year cycle at the same time, more
inspectors are required in the even years than in the odd ones. (Of course,
this situation will eventually even out as future registrations spread over
the years, or if the program goes to annual inspections.) Therefore,
27
-------
inspectors are currently hired on a temporary basis in the heavy years and
released, as needed, in the light years. Administrative personnel such as
the station and general supervisors, are permanent DEQ employees. The DEQ
also has engineers that perform technical tasks such as calibrating and
repairing analyzers, collecting and analyzing data, writing reports, prepar-
ing materials and conducting training sessions, providing technical advice
to the public, and making decisions about possible changes to the emission
standards. DEQ personnel also perform random surveillance of the fleet
stations.
The personnel who administer and enforce Nevada's I/M program are
located in the DMVs offices in Reno and Las Vegas. Administrative and
clerical personnel are needed to run the inspection offices, keypunch data
from the forms, and provide assistance to people with complaints or problems.
Enforcement personnel are mainly responsible for garage surveillance and
investigations. Although the DMVs inspection departments do not have
formal technical responsibilities, the program supervisors and the garage
investigators provide diagnostic and other technical assistance. In addi-
tion, personnel at the DMVs headquarters in Carson City provide data
processing as well as accounting assistance.
Since 1959 Rhode Island has had a decentralized safety inspection that
was administered and enforced by the Rhode Island Department of Transporta-
tion (RIDOT). The addition of I/M did not greatly increase the personnel
requirements for the RIDOT; the administrative and enforcement program
aspects were already in place and few technical tasks are performed. At
times, personnel in Rhode Island's Department of Environmental Management
(DEM) will technically evaluate the program and make recommendations for
improvements. However, the DEM has no legal authority to implement these
recommendati ons.
28
-------
Cincinnati and Norwood added the I/M test to their existing safety
test. As a result, additional personnel were needed at the inspection
lanes which are under the jurisdiction of the Cincinnati and Norwood Depart-
ments of Public Works. Hamilton County's air pollution control division is
also involved with the program and provides public information assistance.
Few technical functions are performed by the organizations involved.
3.6 Equipment Requirements
Agencies in the different areas had to purchase equipment for their
I/M programs. In the state or city-operated systems, emissions analyzers
were purchased to enforce the standards. (The private garages and the
contractor purchased their own analyzers subject to approval by the admini-
strating agencies.) In addition, portable analyzers were sometimes pur-
chased for surveillance operations. The programs also acquired hoses and
accessories, calibration gases, and different types of analytical equipment
for equipment calibration. In some areas, automatic data processing and
diagnostic equipment were purchased. A summary of the equipment in the
different I/M programs is presented on Table 1.4. Pages E-10, F-15, and
H-14 in the Appendix contain a list of the requirements for the analyzers
in some of the fleets and private garages.
In all the programs, the HC and CO emissions are detected with infra-
red analyzers. However, there are considerable differences in the types of
equipment. The simplest equipment are in Rhode Island and Nevada where
portable analyzers are used to measure the emissions. The readings are
usually shown on a meter. Cincinnati's equipment is almost as basic except
that the standards are shown on the meters. New Jersey analyzers include
pass/fail lights to indicate the failures. (The inspector must input the
appropriate vehicle model year into the analyzer.) Oregon has stationary
analyzers with digital readouts for HC, CO, CO-, as well as engine rpm.
29
-------
TABLE 1.4 EMISSION ANALYZERS AND OTHER TEST EQUIPMENT
Emissions Analyzer
Type of Analyzer
Make /Mo del
Stock or Modified
Display
Measures
HC, CO
C02
Automatic or Manual
Data Recording
Number On-Line
Number of Spares
Cost
Tachometer
Make /Model
Pick-Up
Display
Cost
Calibration Equipment
(Cost)
Hoses & Accessories
Gases
Other Equipment
Opacity Equipment
(Cost)
Type
Enforcement Equipment
Portable Analyzer
• Type
Number
Total Cost
Other
Automatic Data Pro-
cessing Equipment
Type
Number
What is Recorded?
Cost
Other Equipment
NEW JERSEY
(New Analyzers)
Infra-red
Sun 3021
Modified
Digital
X
X
Manual (can be
used with aux
printout)
106
19
$4,656 (1980)
X ($10,000)
X ($75,000/yr)
Visual
Chrysler Til
20
$40,000
Paper tape
Printout
5
Test data
stds, test
readings
Sun 2001 for
diagnostic
work
CINCINNATI
Sun 9101
Modified
Dial
X
Manual
5
4
$1,400
OREGON
Sun OEA-75
Modified
Digital
X
X
Manual
18
11 (1-2
spares per
station)
$7,500
Part of above
analyzers
Clip to plug
wire
Digital
X
X ($10,000/yr)
Analyzer
Photographic
film to deter-
mine visual
levels
ARIZONA
Infra-red
UTS
Modified
Print-out
X
X
Auto
1 per lane
(37 total)
0
Not available
X
X
Horiba Ana-
lyzer PIR
2000
Beckman 6800
A.Q. Chromato-
graph (20,000)
Visual
(Smoke school)
Clayton
dynamometers
CALIFORNIA
HTS
Modified
Print-out
X
X
Auto
1 per lane
(45 total)
0
Not available
Part of
analyzers
Clipped to
plug wire
Printout
X
X
Visual
Plan to in-
stall Clayton
Dyno ' s for
loaded testing
NEVADA
garage to
garage
Not available
X
X ($3,000/yr)
Visual
Laboratory
diagnostics
Sun 2001
($20,000)
also used
for Chal-
lenge checks
RHODE ISLAND
to garage
Range S900-S7000
Avg. $2,149
X
X
Master analyzer at
Challenge Station
Horiba D400 - also
used for challenge
checks
Visual
0
2
Not Available
Master Analyzer
30
-------
The CO- is monitored to check for excess exhaust dilution. Arizona and
California use computer-operated analyzers that automatically determine the
HC and CO levels after they have stabilized. As in Oregon, CO- is moni-
tored to help the computer determine the validity of the test.
New Jersey is in the process of purchasing replacement analyzers which
will perform additional functions such as determining the CO- levels.
However, New Jersey is running into considerable delay in obtaining delivery
of these analyzers, which were to be onstream by the end of 1979. Initially,
the manufacturer was late in delivering a prototype. Meanwhile, the state-
of-the-art of the analytical bench changed and the manufacturer requested
an increase in the costs for the analyzers. This created a delay because
the State requires that the order be awarded to the low bidder. However,
these problems have been resolved and New Jersey expects to have the new
analyzers onstream by mid-1980.
3.7 Land and Building Requirements
Most of the I/M programs have moderate land and building requirements.
This is primarily because these areas either have existing safety test
facilities or the tests are performed by private garages or a contractor.
Oregon is an exception, but as will be discussed, it minimized its land and
building costs by leasing most of its facilities and using mobile testing
equipment. Some of the program areas have laboratories or challenge sta-
tions to handle complaints and aid in researching the programs. The chal-
lenge stations are an especially important entity in the private garage
programs.
The implementation of I/M in New Jersey and Cincinnati did not require
any additional land or buildings. These areas use the existing safety test
facilities and office space. The New Jersey DEP leases laboratory space
31
-------
from another government agency, and Cincinnati does not maintain a labora-
tory. It should be noted that New Jersey and Cincinnati did have to pro-
vide electrical hook-ups and storage facilities for the emissions analyzers.
Since Arizona and California use a contractor-operated system, there
were no requirements to these states for inspection facilities. However,
Arizona did spend $99,000 to purchase land and $270,000 to construct office
and laboratory facilities. In California, the Bureau of Auto Repair (which
runs the program) uses the Air Resources Board's existing laboratory faci-
lities and leases office space. This office has a garage which is sometimes
used for research.
The private garage programs have similar land and building requirements,
although costs vary considerably. Both Rhode Island and Nevada utilize
existing office space for the I/M programs. However, Nevada spent $42,000
for a challenge station whereas Rhode Island performs its challenge checks
in an old public-works garage that was converted for a cost of $750,000.
It should be noted that this garage is mainly used for safety inspections
of public vehicles and is rarely used for emission-related challenges.
Considerable creativity was demonstrated by the Oregon DEQ in providing
serviceable yet inexpensive facilities for the inspections. Only one of
the stations used in the Oregon program is a permanent facility. It was
built on state land at a cost of $80,000 (1975) and includes two dynamom-
eters for use if loaded-mode testing were to be established in the future.
The other seven stations are located on leased sites in various parts of
the city. Some of them in fact are mobile units (one in a former drive-in
theatre) and others were selected because of the ease with which they could
be converted to inspection facilities (one in a former RV service shop,
another in a former service station). The administrative offices are in a
downtown office building and are leased.
32
-------
3.8 Summary of the Costs to Implement I/M
3.8.1 Operating Costs
The per car operating costs are shown on Figure 1.2. With the excep-
tion of Rhode Island, these costs are the incremental costs to the admin-
istrating agencies to implement I/M, and therefore do not reflect the costs
for contractor or private garage personnel. Rhode Island's costs are for
both the safety and the emissions inspections. The highest costs are in
Oregon, but this would be expected since that area had no existing organi-
zation to enforce the program. California and Rhode Island are next highest.
California's relatively large operating cost reflects its considerable
personnel requirements (see Table 2.2.5), while Rhode Island's high costs
are mainly due to the safety inspection. The incremental operating costs •
in the rest of the programs are considerably lower.
Although the operating costs vary considerably, there is some consis-
tency between the programs. As shown on Figure 1.2, in all the programs
except for Arizona, a sizable portion of the operating costs are for enforce-
ment personnel. In addition, technical functions on the whole account for
less of the incremental cost than do administrative functions. New Jersey
is an exception here, but it already had a large administrative organization.
However, there still are unique expenses such as the large expenditure in
Oregon for leases. Greater detail on the breakdown of the operating costs
is shown on Table 2.4.
3.8.2 Capital Costs
The per car capital costs to implement I/M are indicated on Figure
1.3. These are the costs to the administrating agencies and do not reflect
the contractors' or private garage costs, or the costs for existing buildings
33
-------
Incremental Cost/Car
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
($2.QOOK)
($2,200K)
:X:J Administrative Personnel
Technical Personnel
Enforcement Personnel
Leases
I Other Operating Costs
($2,400K)
($1,012K)
($50K)
($492K)
($249K)
N.J. ORE.
CINC. ARIZ. CALIF. NEV.
( ) Total Incremental Cost
R.I.
FIGURE 1.2 INCREMENTAL OPERATING COST
34
-------
Capital Cost/
Car
2.00
($834K)
1.00
($300K)
($707K)
($519K)
($13K)
($300K)
($68K)
N.J. ORE. CINC. ARIZ. CALIF. NEV.
( ) Total Capital Cost
FIGURE 1.3 CAPITAL COSTS ' "'
R.I.
35
-------
and equipment. As shown, there are considerable differences among the
programs. At $1.67 per car, Rhode Island appears to have the highest
capital costs, but these costs are misleading since they are mainly for
safety inspection facilities that were built at the time that I/M started.
The capital cost directly for I/M in Rhode Island should be more like
Nevada's cost of $0.20 per car. The per car capital costs were lowest in
New Jersey and Cincinnati, where central safety inspection lanes already
existed.
Among the programs, the only capital expenses that consistently showed
up were for the analyzers in the state- and city-run programs. There was
little consistency in the breakdown of the remaining capital costs. Approx-
imately one-third of New Jersey's capital costs were for motor vehicles,
while these costs were minimal in other areas. Likewise, California reported
that most of its capital expenditures were for data processing software,
while Arizona reported that most of its costs were for laboratory and
office space. The inconsistency in the different capital expenditures
derives from the fact that each program was specifically designed for the
local conditions. Table 2.5 presents a breakdown of the capital costs in
the different areas.
The creativity that the Oregon DEQ demonstrated when it set up the
Oregon program is graphically illustrated by its capital costs. Since
Oregon was the only program that had to set up and run the inspection
program (i.e., there were no existing facilities), one might expect that
its capital costs per car would be much greater than the rest of the pro-
grams. However, as Figure 1-3 shows this is not the case. This cost
effectiveness is also reflected in Oregon's $5 fee with unlimited retests.
Recent centralized contractor-run systems cost considerably more. It is
possible that complying with the requirements of a contract (e.g. land-
scaping) can create capital-related charges which will outweigh the poten-
tial savings that a contractor may incur through its greater bargaining
36
-------
capacity for facilities and labor. However, it is difficult to investigate
this possibility since contractors are reluctant to release information
on their capital costs.
37
-------
4.0 Selection of Cut Points
4.1 Initial Selection of Cut Points
Different approaches were used to select the cut points for the emis-
sions tests. Some areas used an empirical approach which involved sampling
vehicles and then determining the cut points that would result in the
desired stringency level. Another approach that was used expands on the
empirical approach. In this method,, termed air quality cost benefit, the
emission reductions and costs are evaluated for different cut points and
the most cost effective standards are chosen. Cut points were also deter-
mined by conducting engineering evaluations of different vehicles and their
control systems. In addition, some areas just used the cut points devel-
oped by other I/M prograns. Tables of cut points from the different areas
appear in the Appendix, pages A-2 through A-14;
New Jersey and Arizona used an empirical approach to cut point selec-
tion. New Jersey sampled vehicles for a year in a voluntary inspection
program. The test data were then grouped by model year (pre-68, 68-69,
70-74, 75+) and cumulative distributions of HC and CO emissions set up.
From these distributions, the cut points for a 35 percent stringency factor
were determined. New Jersey then set up three phases to arrive at this
stringency: Phase I had a stringency factor of 10 percent, Phase II was 20
percent, and Phase III was the 35 percent stringency factor. New Jersey is
currently in Phase II and is experiencing a failure rate of around 18
percent. (The Phase I failure rate was 12 percent.)
Arizona also sampled vehicles for a year in a mandatory inspection and
voluntary maintenance program. It then set up cut points that would provide
for a 20 percent stringency factor among groupings of model years and
number of cylinders (pre-68, 68-71, 72-74, 75+; 4 or fewer cylinders, 5 or
more cylinders). The actual failure rate turned out to be around 16 percent.
38
-------
California initially selected its cut points to maximize the air
quality cost-benefits. It sampled 1500 vehicles in a voluntary program and
then evaluated the effect of different cut points on Federal Test Procedure
(FTP) emissions, repair costs, and fuel economy. From this, California
determined the cut points for the optimum cost effectiveness. However, the
standards were opposed by the automobile manufacturers as being too stringent
for all vehicles and therefore resulting in unacceptable (3 percent) errors
of commission. An error of commission is when a vehicle fails the I/M test
but passes the FTP test - the test it was designed to pass. As a result of
the objections, California re-evaluated the cut points and relaxed them
considerably.
Oregon arrived at its cut points by engineering analysis. Data were
collected in a year-long voluntary program prior to the start of the offi-
cial I/M program. Based on these data and a consideration of manufacturer
recommendations concerning vehicle design performance and real-world main-
tenance, engineering evaluations for each model type were conducted. From
this Oregon developed standards for each individual model. Pollutant criteria
ranked CO reductions higher in priority than HC.
Nevada, Rhode Island, and Cincinnati used cut points that were developed
in other I/M areas. Nevada used New Jersey's Phase III standards for its
pre-1975 vehicles and its Phase II standards for 1975 and later vehicles.
Rhode Island used New Jersey's Phase I standards for pre-1975 vehicles and
Phase II standards for 1975 and later vehicles. Cincinnati used standards
that were developed in a voluntary I/M program in Chicago.
4.2 Revising The Cut Points
As the programs evolve, in many cases it is necessary to adjust the
cut points. Air quality considerations play an important role in this
revision, thus standards have been changed to increase the emission
39
-------
reductions of single or multiple pollutants. Equity is another considera-
tion in the adjustment of stringency. Cut points have been revised for a
particular model or model year if test data indicates that there are ab-
normal failure rates for these vehicles. Also, like the initial selection
of cut points, cut points have been revised to maximize the cost effective-
ness of the programs.
Air quality was the main consideration when New Jersey changed from
Phase I to its Phase II standards. The 10 percent stringency of Phase I
was considered to be too low to have a noticeable effect on air quality.
Currently the Department of Motor Vehicles objects to the implementation of
Phase III standards without proof that there will be a corresponding im-
provement in air quality. New Jersey is considering the revision of some
of the individual model year standards to equalize the failure rate. For
instance, vehicles of model year 1970 are currently exhibiting a high
failure rate. To lower this rate, officials may group 1970 vehicles with
those of 1968 and 1969, instead of 1971-1974, as is done now.
In 1979 Arizona tightened its CO standards in order to improve the
ambient CO levels. Using test data from 1978, Arizona increased the
stringency to 30 percent while aiming for a 25 percent failure rate at the
lanes. The 30 percent level was based on pre-program 1976 data where no
maintenance was required, whereas the 25 percent level was based on 1978
data.
In January 1980 California started conducting hearings on revising the
standards for the MVIP. Like the original cut point selection, the main
consideration for the revisions was optimizing the cost effectiveness.
However, to consider different emissions characteristics and diagnostic
needs, separate standards were promulgated for the following post-1975
vehicles: 1) oxidation catalyst with air injection, 2) oxidation catalyst
without air injection, and 3) three-way catalyst-equipped vehicles.
40
-------
Because of the nature of the standards in Oregon, data reviews and
subsequent revisions of the standards have been done on a per model type
basis. Officials in the Oregon program feel that these individual stan-
dards are justified more for the earlier control technology than for cur-
rent and future emission control systems. The differences between model
types are less well defined now and thus the standards will probably become
more uniform.
Nevada, Rhode Island, and Cincinnati do not intend to change
their cut points in the near future.
41
-------
5.0 Data Collection and Analysis
5.1 Methodology and Reports
In most cases, the collection of data is closely tied to the method of
inspection. As tests become more automated, data collection becomes more
sophisticated. The following are some of the items that are collected and
processed in the different areas:
o Year and make of vehicle
o Vehicle identification number
o Engine size and/or style of car
•
o Mileage
o HC and CO readings
o Disconnected pollution devices (if tampering inspection included)
o Pollutant readings at speeds and loads other than idle
o Engine parameters (e.g. idle speed)
Both the handling and processing of data can be manual, semi-automatic,
fully automatic, or combinations thereof. Manual processing is just that:
data are recorded manually and any tabulation and analysis is also performed
manually. In a semi-automatic system, the data are either recorded manually
onto forms and then keypunched for data processing or they are manually
entered into terminals at the lanes. Automatic systems feature equipment
which record the data from tests directly onto magnetic tape. These data
42
-------
are then immediately available in machine-readable format for further
analysis and/or report production. Tables 1.5 and 1.6 itemize of the
features of each program.
New Jersey manually collects pass/fail data (for the initial test and
any retests) along with the make and model of the vehicle. Reports issued
monthly tabulate the pass/fail results. In addition, the garage investiga-
tors collect data describing the repairs at the reinspection stations.
Other sources of data are the surveys that the New Jersey DEP conducts.
The DEP independently samples 12,000 to 15,000 vehicles per year at the
state lanes in order to obtain additional information such as idle HC and
CO levels. This information is keypunched and then converted to tape.
When analysis is required, the tape is converted to temporary disc storage
which is then processed by a computer.
Oregon uses a more complex text procedure and collects more data at
the lanes. For each vehicle tested, the following information is obtained:
year and make of vehicle; engine size; 2500 rpm CO, HC, and CO- readings;
before-2500 rpm and after-2500 rpm idle CO, HC, and CO-; and any discon-
nected pollution control devices. These data are collected from the in-
spection sites and manually tabulated. Oregon has unlimited free retests
«
and consequently has no special mechanism to keep track of reinspections;
therefore, refailure rate data are based on a survey of the inspections.
Maintenance data are also collected from occasional customer surveys
(mail-ins). From these tabulations, a Monthly Activity Report is compiled
which lists the number of vehicles tested per station; the percent passing
the test; the percent failing for CO, HC, both CO and HC, equipment dis-
connects, or other causes (smoke, dilution, excessive idle rpm); the number
of pre-catalyst vehicles; and the number of 1975 and newer vehicles. A
survey of customer waiting times (sampled every 2 or 3 days) also appears
monthly. Oregon DEQ officials feel that this sampling approach to data
collection and analysis provides good statistical accuracy and is easy to
implement in the absence of data processing equipment.
43
-------
TABLE 1.5 DATA COLLECTION
Data Collected
(A » All Inspected
vehicles)
(R - Roadside Checks)
(S - Survey or Sample)
Pass/Fail (Initial)
Pass /Fail (re-exam)
Idle HC and CO
Before Repair
After Repair
2500 RPM HC and CO
Before Repair
After Repair-
Loaded Mode HC and CO
Before Repair
After Repair
Tampering Results
Smoke Test
Engine Parameters
V.I.D.
Make & Year of Vehicle
Engine Size/Family
Repair Costs
Odometer
Method of Collecting
Data
Method of Storing
Data
NEW JERSEY
A
A
S
S
S
S
S
S
Lane data -
manual ; sur-
vey data
semi-auto-
matic
Cards •* Tape
Tape •* Disk
CINCINNATI
•
A
A
A
A
A
OREGON
A
S
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
S
Collected
Manually
Hard-copy
ARIZONA
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
S
A
Test data.
automatic,
Vehicle
Info, semi-
automatic
Tape
CALIFORNIA
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Test data
automatic.
Other data
manual &
semi-auto .
Tape
NEVADA
A
A
A
A
A
v
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Manual &
semi-
automatic
Forms •*
Tape
RHODE
ISLAND
A
R(biased
for safety)
R
A & R
A & R
A
Collected
Manually
Currently
hard-copy
developing
programming
44
-------
TABLE 1.6 DATA ANALYSIS
Analysis and Reports
(A = All inspected
vehicles)
(R - Roadside checks)
(S - Survey or Sample)
No. of Inspections
Failure Rate
Overall
By Inspection Sta.
By Pollutant
By Model Year
By Make & Model Year
Re-Exam Failure Rates
Overall
By Inspection Sta.
By Pollutant
By Model Year
By Make & Model Year
Average Idle HC and CO
Before Repair
Overall
By Model Year
After Repair
Overall
By Model Year
Average 2500 RPM HC & CO ,
Before Repair
Overall
By Model Year
After Repair
Overall
By Model Year
Average Loaded HC & CO
Before Repair
Overall
By Model Year
After Repair
Overall
By Model Year
Repair Costs
Other Analysis
NEW JERSEY
t
A
A
A
S
S
S
A
A
S
S
S
Data base
maintained
on survey
data and
accessed
as needed.
Waiting
time
survey
CINCINNATI
A
A
A
OREGON
A
A
A
A
A
S
S
S
Type of
repair,
waiting
time
ARIZONA
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
S
Additional
analysis
(e.g., CO
failure
rate data
for '79 GM
vehicles)
CALIFORNIA
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Cost effec-
tiveness
using actual
FTP results
for certain
cut points.
Repair data
by Mech &
repair
facility.
NEVADA
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
S
Data base
maintained
on test
data and
accessed
as needed
RHODE
ISLAND
R
R
R
R
45
-------
In Arizona, emission data is automatically recorded on magnetic tape
as it is measured (and printed out for the customer). Hamilton Test Systems
provides this tape each month to the State of Arizona, which then converts
it for their automatic data processing system and make a copy for storage.
A report is issued monthly which tabulates, per test station, the number of
tests, financial information, the number of retests, and emission test data
broken down for vehicles of each model year. This consists of CO and HC
data at idle, in the' low cruise mode, and in the high cruise mode. In
addition to this tabulation, data on repair costs are collected manually
from waiver surveillance.
California has the most extensive data collection and reporting system
of all the current I/M programs. As in Arizona, a magnetic tape automati-
cally records the results of each emission test. Every two weeks, Hamilton
Test Systems furnishes these tapes to the Bureau of Automotive Repair in
Sacramento. The Bureau processes the tapes and tabulates the data and then
sends it to the Air Resources Board. The Board also compiles a variety of
reports from the data. One is a tabulation of failure rates (for excessive
emissions, failure of device, smoke, or excessive rpm) by vehicle category
(classed as to model year, number of cylinders, and emission control system).
Another lists the number of vehicles in each category that had malfunctioning
emission control devices and indicates which device(s) were responsible for
the failure. Repair data is also tabulated semi-automatically on a report
which lists all repair facilities in a given area, the number of repairs
made at each facility, the percent passing retest, and the average repair
cost. In addition, an Activity Report is prepared manually which lists the
number of fleet applications and inspections, customer inquiries and com-
plaints, data about mechanic seminars and qualification certificates,
waivers, and quality assurance activities.
The California Air Resources Board also prepares and releases reports
relating to the operation of the program. Board personnel conduct surveil-
46
-------
lance testing independently of the inspection program and compile cost/effec-
tiveness analyses at various selected idle HC/CO cut points. These analyses
include estimates of fuel economy improvements resulting from the maintenance,
and the average repair cost necessitated by the maintenance.
In Nevada the vehicle and emission data are recorded on the inspection
forms and then entered by computer terminal into the data processing system
in Carson City. Periodic computer reports are prepared, listing the before
and after maintenance CO and HC emissions at idle and 2250 rpm, the average
emission reduction for each pollutant, the average cost of inspection, and
the average cost of maintenance for vehicles of various model year classes.
Data collection in Rhode Island has been a problem because garages
sometimes simply make adjustments and do not record failures. In 1979, no
pass/fail data were collected from the garages. New forms have been de-
signed for 1980 to try and correct this situation. Currently, the garage
receipts are collected and processed manually. State inspectors also
conduct roadside checks of vehicles for safety and emissions compliance.
(Usually, the checks are biased towards candidates for the safety inspec-
tion.) A total of 1,000 vehicles were checked for emissions in 1978, 5,000
in 1979. On the other hand, in 1979, the state conducted 26,000 roadside
checks for safety. Before-repair idle HC and CO data are collected during
these roadside inspections and averages of this data for classes of model
years is summarized in the Vehicle Safety and Emission Inspection Program
annual reports.
Cincinnati manually collects pass/fail data on the initial inspections
and every month these data are tabulated. Although the inspection forms
indicate idle HC and CO levels as well as vehicle data, these data are not
analyzed.
47
-------
5.2 Computer Hardware and Software Requirements
Except for purchasing data-entry terminals and keypunch equipment,
hardware requirements for I/M have been minimal. And because most of the
programs were absorbed into existing agencies, there are few details on
specific software requirements. New Jersey estimates that it developed the
software necessary to handle the data produced by the independent DEP
survey for about $20,000, and its annual computer costs are estimated to be
about $5,000. In addition, some data analysis in New Jersey is performed
by outside organizations; for instance, Rutgers University has performed a
repair cost analysis. Oregon does not use computerized data processing for
inspection/maintenance data, although the DEQ does have the capability.
Arizona uses existing hardware and their annual data processing costs are
estimated to be about $35,000. Nevada also uses existing hardware at the
Department of Motor Vehicles, but added two terminals for inputting inspec-
tion data. Currently Rhode Island manually tabulates its data, but it is
developing software with the aid of a $54,000 EPA grant.
Of all the programs, California performs the most extensive data
processing and, accordingly, it incurs the greatest costs. California
developed its software for approximately $260,000 and its annual computer
charges are around $25,000. In addition, the I/M portion of California's
data processing system requires the full-time services of an engineer and a
data analyst. Because the contractor takes care of most of the data col-
lection, there are minimal hardware requirements for the state. The Bureau
of Auto Repair does lease terminals to enter and extract repair data.
California has good documentation of its data processing hardware and
software; therefore, additional details are presented in the Appendix, page
C-2. The Appendix also contains copies of data forms and reports from all
of the programs.
48
-------
6.0 Quality Assurance
Different types of quality assurance (Q.A.) tasks help to insure that
a program is operating effectively and that motorists receive fair treat-
ment. In every program, analyzers are regularly checked with calibration
gas. In addition, on some of the analyzers the span and zero are periodi-
cally set. Other Q.A. tasks include independent sampling of vehicles,
roadside checks, and surveillance of the inspection stations. This last
task is especially important if the inspections are not performed by the
administrating agency. In the private garage programs, challenge stations
are useful in verifying the performance of a particular garage. Also, the
performance of the overall program or of the individual inspection stations
and repair facilities can be determined by analyzing test data. The dif-
ferent Q.A. tasks are summarized on Table 1.7.
Each month, state officials in New Jersey calibrate the analyzers at
the state inspection lanes. In addition, New Jersey officials visit each
certified reinspection station at least once every'2 months in order to
verify the accuracy of the analyzers and to inspect records. The officials
look at both the recorded emission levels and the charges to the customer
in order to determine if proper repairs are being performed. In some cases
the officials will reinspect vehicles with unusual or questionable repairs.
New Jersey also independently surveys about 12,000 vehicles to gather addi-
tional data about the program. Some of these data can be used for Q.A.
analysis. To aid in the quality of inspections and repairs, New Jersey
also provides garages with specifications for portable analyzers as well as
a list of analyzers which comply with these requirements.
New Jersey feels that, on the whole, the state lanes adequately inspect
the vehicles. However, areas of concern do exist. Analysis of data from
the state-operated lanes has pointed out large fluctuations in the failure
49
-------
TABLE 1.7 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAMS
Analyzer Calibration
Frequency
Responsibility
Span- gas -checked
for Traceabllity
Documented
Procedures
Set Span and Zero
of Analyzer
Station Inspection
Frequency
Announced or
Responsibility
'
Function
Check Analyzer
Check Records
Collect Forms
Others
Std. Inspection
Procedures
Use of Challenge
Station or
Laboratory
Data Analysis
Spot and Roadside.
Checks
Other Q.A. Tasks
NEW JERSEY
1/mo min - 1.5/mo
average
State officials
(DEP)
Yes
Yes
Twice/day, new
analyzers will be
set automatically
(Reinspection Sta.)
1/2 mo.
Unannounced
State officials
(DMV) 1/100 sta.
X
X (Calibration)
X
..No
Used for mainte-
nance & repair of
analyzers (Major
repairs are per-
formed by Mfr.)
Failure rates at
analyzed
Look at reinspection
records & check
vehicles with un-
usual repairs
Approve analyzers
for repair , inde-
of vehicles.
CINCINNATI
1/mo.
Service Contract
with Manuf. ($32 per
analyzer per month)
No
No
Hourly
No
Comparison checks
made on analyzers
OREGON
5/day
Lead inspector
Yes
Yes
As needed, at least
5/day
(Fleets)
Monthly
Both
State Official
(DEQ) 1/50 sta.
X
X (Calibration)
X
No
Master analyzer
used for gas
checks
Failure rate per
No
Unannounced monthly
calibration run.
ing of analyzers
from different sta.
ARIZONA
Contractor Fleet
Weekly Mfr ' s Recomm.
Contractor Fleets
Yes Yea
No No
Auto Per Mfr's
recomm.
2 /mo. Every 90 days
Unannounced Unannounced
State State Official
Official 1/150 sta.
X X
X (Calib.)
X
X (House-
keeping)
No ~
Use for quality control
<;f calibration gases.
Mainly used to verify
Waiver surveillance.
About 50Z of waiver cases
are critically reviewed -
mechanics get notification
at times
t
Certify analyzers
CALIFORNIA
Contractor Fleet
Weekly Weekly
Contractor Fleets
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Auto
2/mo. Every 60 days
Unannounced Unannounced
State Offi- State Offi-
ials 1/10 cials 1/40
lanes stations
X X
X X
X
X (Data X Repair
recording procedures &
equipment) diagnostic
systeti It'ak ability
check
Yes
Repair data used to check
and/or mechanics
Yes - Selected certified
vehicles are re ins pec ted
at fleets
NEVADA
No requirements.
Will get analyzer
calibrated by Mfr.
If red tagged
Before each test
Monthly
Unannounced
DMV Officers
1/75 sta.
X
X
X
Look for repair
books
Used to check
complaint & al I
v\ i-.'or vehicles
Approx. 20 com-
plaints/month
Yes - Officials
submit tampered
inspect ions
Invest (gate
garages as a
result of
complaints
RHODE ISLAND
Weekly
Garage Personnel
If offsets are found at
the ja rages
No
Monthly
Unannounced
DOT Officials
1/30 sta.
Calibration Demos.
X (Calibration)
X (callb.)
X
No
Used to check accu-
racy of inspection.
Not well publicized.
20 vehicles checked in 1979
(6 passed)
Yes - Safety checks
with some emls< ions
complying vehicles .must
be repaired or possibility
of fine.
Investigate garages
as a rosult of
Chal lengL1 sta. visits.
-------
rate from station to station. Also data from New Jersey's independent
survey of vehicles has shown that the overall failure rate at the state
lanes is lower than the standards would indicate. New Jersey officials
attribute these discrepancies to irregularities in the skill of the inspec-
tors, to differing lane lay-outs, and to demographics in the different
areas.
New Jersey feels that the private garage-operated reinspection program
is effective, but again there are areas of concern. Each year, New Jersey's
garage investigations result in the suspension of licenses for approximately
60 reinspection stations. In 1979, garages were suspended as a result of
the following violations:
45 for certifying vehicles without making repairs (both safety
and emissions)
7 for certifying vehicles with analyzer out-of-order
7 for unsatisfactory inspection personnel
2 for failing to properly secure stickers
In addition, each month, New Jersey officials red-tag (put out of service)
approximately 18 percent of the analyzers at the reinspection stations.
Arizona performs several types of quality assurance tasks. Test data
are analyzed to verify the contractor's charges to the state. Officials
also survey the stations and verify the accuracy of the analyzers used at
the inspection lanes at least once every two weeks. The contractor cali-
brates the equipment on a weekly basis. Officials verify analyzer accuracy
at the fleet inspection stations at least once every 90 days. In addition,
in Arizona a repair facility may voluntarily register an emission analyzer
with the state. These registered analyzers are checked for accuracy initi-
ally upon registration and at least once each 90 days thereafter.
51
-------
Arizona reports that there are few quality assurance problems with the
contractor. However, there have been a few problems with the fleet stations.
As of the end of 1979, two fleets have had their licenses suspended—one
for 30 days and the other for 60 days. The suspensions were made because
these fleets were either conducting inspections with non-licensed inspec-
tors or not inspecting vehicles at all. The latter case was determined by
noticing that the filter in the analyzer was not dirty and had not recently
been changed.
Another concern in Arizona is that waivers have been granted for about
30 percent of the failed vehicles. Therefore in 1979, Arizona started
performing an additional Q.A. task aimed at reducing the number of vehicles
which get waivers when proper repairs would have put them into compliance.
In this program (termed Waiver Surveillance), a state official critically
reviews each waiver case. The officials might look at the records of
reported repairs and examine the vehicles to determine if the repairs were
correctly performed. In some cases the repair facility is actually con-
tacted in the presence of the customer. This program has been effective in
identifying potential candidates for the state's mechanic training programs
and getting vehicles repaired (to compliance) which normally would have
been waived without compliance. Approximately 50 percent of the waiver
cases are reviewed in this manner, the rest receiving almost automatic
approval by the contractor. At times the contractor will withhold a waiver
if it is obvious (from the emission results) that repairs were not per-
formed. To consolidate the system for granting waivers with the Waiver
Surveillance program, Arizona expects to change the contract to eliminate
the automatic granting of waivers.
Like Arizona, California also performs surveillance of the contractor
and fleet testing facilities. The contractor stations are inspected every
2 weeks for analyzer and inspection accuracy as well as for proper house-
keeping. In addition, other equipment such as the report printers, data
52
-------
entry terminals, and ambient carbon monoxide monitors are checked for
calibration and correct system operation. A leak check of the entire
sampling system is also conducted. Fleets are inspected every two months
for analyzer accuracy and proper completion of forms. In addition, the
fleets may be asked to demonstrate certain repair and diagnostic proce-
dures. California also submits selected inspected vehicles for reinspec-
tion at the fleet stations. The contractor and the fleets are required to
calibrate the analyzers weekly.
As of October 1979, the quality control checks performed by California
have shown the emissions inspections by the contractor to be over 99 percent
accurate. The contractor's performance on underhood inspections has also
been encouraging. "This portion of the program was not clearly spelled out
in the contract and was the cause of some complaints at the start of the
program. Improvements in the skills of the inspectors have resulted in an
increase in the underhood inspection failure rate from approximately 16
percent, experienced during the first five weeks of the program, to 31
percent, found during the last twelve weeks of the program. (MVIP Annual
Report, October 1979).
California suspends approximately two fleets each month as a result of
surveillance activities. As of December 1979, California had conducted
2,201 fleet investigations which resulted in the following violations:
Required tools missing or required
equipment out of order 396
No qualified MVPC mechanic employed 85
Records maintained improperly 54
Fleet licensing criteria 29
Other violations (i.e., failure to follow
inspection or repair procedures, etc.) 134
Total number of violations found in 798
fleet stations over 2,201 inspections 698
53
-------
California also carefully monitors the performance of the qualified
mechanics by keeping track of pass, fail, and waiver rates for vehicles
repaired by each mechanic and each repair facility. As mentioned earlier,
all paid repairs are required to be performed by one of these mechanics.
The retest failure rate of vehicles repaired by each mechanic is recorded,
and a "conformance score" is calculated according to how accurately the
mechanic followed the diagnostic instructions on the computerized vehicle
inspection report for each vehicle. Since this information is useful to
the owner of a failed vehicle who is seeking a reliable mechanic, Cali-
fornia makes available at each test center a list of participating repair
stations located near that test center. This list shows the number of
vehicles repaired by the repair facility, the percent of repaired vehicles
passing their first retest, the "conformance score" of the mechanic at the
facility, and the average repair cost for all the I/M repairs performed at
the particular garage. This list permits motorists to make informed de-
cisions about where to get their vehicles repaired and encourages competi-
tion in the service industry (MVIP Annual Report, October 1979). Analysis
of retest data has shown that the qualified mechanics perform adequate
repairs and that only 10 percent of the initially failed vehicles obtain
waivers.
Nevada also devotes considerable time to quality assurance. Officials
visit each inspection station at least once per month in order to verify
the accuracy of the emission analyzer and to collect records. Some of the
records are then examined in order to determine the reasonableness of the
charges and repairs. During the visits, the officials check to see that
the station has current service manuals with correct tune-up specifica-
tions. Nevada also performs spot checks on some of the inspection sta-
tions. An unidentified person will have an inspection performed on an
incorrectly operating car, such as a vehicle with a spark plug wire re-
moved. Garages will usually be investigated in this manner as a result of
complaints or challenge station checks, although Nevada tries to spotcheck
54
-------
each garage at least twice a year. Additionally, Nevada requires that all
waiver cases first be checked by an official at the challenge station
before approval. Like Arizona's waiver surveillance program, this require-
ment helps to identify garages that need to be investigated.
As of the end of 1979, Nevada had revoked the licenses of 6 stations
because of failure to perform the inspections correctly. In addition, 15
to 20 percent of the analyzers were red-tagged each month. When an analyzer
is red-tagged, the state confiscates the forms and the analyzer must be
repaired (or calibrated) before the station may resume inspections. (To
overcome the possibility of not being able to conduct inspections, many
garages have more than one analyzer). On the whole, Nevada officials feel
that the garages are doing a good job.
Oregon has always been concerned about good quality assurance. For
the first few years of the program, analyzers were calibrated hourly and
the stations were visited frequently by DEQ inspectors. Now the lead
inspector calibrates the analyzers hourly during the morning when they are
warming up and then every three hours after that, or more frequently if
they seem to require it (a minumum of five times per day). It was reported
though, that the analyzers hold calibration very well. Each station has at
least one extra analyzer if difficulty arises. All stations are visited at
least once a week by a DEQ engineer/supervisor and the 50 fleet inspection
stations are visited at least once a month. In addition, an unannounced
calibration visit is made to the stations monthly, featuring cross reference
testing of analyzers from different stations. As a result of these pre-
cautions, Oregon has had very few quality assurance problems at the lanes.
However, Oregon officials are still concerned over the quality of the
repairs and feel that the program may benefit from closer control of the
retests. (Oregon has unlimited retests.)
55
-------
Rhode Island officials make monthly visits to the licensed garages and
have the station personnel demonstrate a calibration of the analyzers.
While they are at the garages, they check the calibration records and
collect the emission test reporting forms. (The garages must calibrate the
analyzers weekly.) In addition, some state vehicles are equipped with
emission analyzers which can be used in the roadside safety checks. In
1979 emissions were checked in approximately 5,000 of the 26,000 roadside
checks.
In 1979 Rhode Island suspended the licenses of 13 garages for violat-
ing the inspection requirements. However, all of these suspensions were
for improper safety inspections and not specifically emission inspections.
Officials in Rhode Island's inspection department report few emission
related problems, although there is little accurate data on the emission
failure rate. However in the monthly garage inspections officials note
that 14 percent of the analyzers are initially out of calibration. After
the garages demonstrate a calibration about three percent of the analyzers
are still out of specification (plus or minus 5 percent).
In Cincinnati, the analyzers are calibrated every month as part of a
service agreement with the manufacturer. Cincinnati performs few addi-
tional quality assurance tasks and has experienced problems with large
fluctuations in failure rates. However, these problems are minor in com-
parison with the enforcement problems in Cincinnati.
In addition to the preceding tasks, most of the programs try to assure
the quality of their calibration gases. This is usually accomplished by
purchasing gases of a known concentration and then using these gases to
name or cross-reference the gases used in the field. Some programs also
use master analyzers to verify the content of the gases. One state
(Arizona) plans to use a gas chromatograph to check its calibration gases.
56
-------
The equipment used to assure the quality of the calibration gas is summa-
rized on Table 1.4.
There are several areas of concern regarding quality assurance in the
different program areas. Accurate data on failure rates, and accordingly,
on the effectiveness of the program, has been sparse in the private garage
programs. The high percentage (up to 20%) of analyzers that are found to
be out of order in the private garages and fleets indicates that analyzer
accuracy is of special concern in the decentralized programs (including
fleets). Analyzer calibration and inspector skills are also potential
problems in the centralized programs. Data analysis has shown that in some
centralized programs there are often large fluctuations in the failure rate
from station to station. Concerns have also been expressed over the ade-
quacy of the repairs made on the failed vehicles. However, the adminis-
trating agencies are addressing these issues and continue to respond to the
needs of the programs by adding or changing the quality assurance efforts.
Arizona's waiver surveillance program is one such example.
57
-------
7.0 TRAINING PROGRAMS
The successful implementation of an I/M program requires that certain
people undergo training. Consequently, the administrating agencies have
developed programs to train inspectors, station investigators, and mechanics.
These programs are summarized on Table 1.8.
7.1 Inspector Training
In most of the I/M programs, training is conducted for the inspectors.
The training mainly addresses the background of the I/M program, the opera-
tion and maintenance of the emission analyzers, and the proper completion
of forms. Where tampering inspections are made, training is sometimes
conducted on the locations and functions of different emission control
devices as well as on the different types of hood releases. (The hoods
need to be opened for a tampering inspection.) In some cases, training
also addresses the causes of different types of emission failures as well
as specific diagnostic procedures. However, officials in many of the
program areas feel that the inspectors could use additional training.
Of all the inspector training programs, the one conducted by Oregon is
the most extensive. It is a formal, one week-long training program for
state inspectors which uses slides accompanied by a tape recording and a
procedures manual. Topics covered include: the background of the program,
air pollution causes and controls, how to release hoods on different vehi-
cles, and clerical skills and handwriting. Between 20 and 50 people are
trained per year in the program, which has been accredited by Clackamas
Community College. In addition, Oregon offers a 2^-day training program
for fleet inspectors. This program is similar to the state inspector
training program except that there is less emphasis on the background of
the program and on the personnel aspects. Details on these and other
programs are shown on Tables 2.9.2 through 2.9.5.
58
-------
TABLE 1.8 TRAINING PROGRAMS
TYPE OF TRAINING
Mechanic Training
Train Instructors
Conduct Seminars
On-Site Instruction
Sponsor Vocational
Training
License/Certify
Mechanics
Number (%) Certified by
NIASE (Entire state)*
Z of Mechanics Trained
Inspector Training
Supervisor Training
Training for Station
Inspectors or Quality
Auditors
NEW JERSEY
X (in past)
X (In past)
2,982 (16%)
At- beginning of
I/M, N.J held sev-
eral. 1 day ses-
sions on use and
maintenance of
analyzers
DEE personnel
trained in test
procedures and the
calib. & oper. of
the analyzers .
Investigators
trained in cali-
bration procedures
CINCINNATI
X (in past)
-
Sun Electric
Corp. trained
-personnel in
operation of
analyzer
OREGON
X
X
1,136 (20%)
One week
training
program with
tape and
slides
None (except
for continual;
ARIZONA
X (in past)
X
X
964 (20%)
Contractor
trains per-r
sonnel .
Fleet inspecr
tors trained
by. state. 7
hr course
CALIFORNIA
X
X
X
X
7,176 (15Z)
Contractor
trains per-
sonnel. Fleets-
Class A mech.
plus 2.5 hr in-
spector train.
None (except
for continual)
Trained for
approx. 1
month by work-
ing with
other inspector
NEVADA
239 (20%)
No formal
training ;
however test
req'd & vo-
tech train.
to be cert.
:
RHODE ISLAND
312 (13Z)
15 hr course
4 hrs on emis-
sions analyzers
20 Hr. in-house
program
20 Hr. in-house
program - mostly
safety oriented
*Source; NIASE
-------
7.2 Training for Station Investigators
In most of the programs, station investigators already have an auto-
motive and enforcement background, or they are trained by working with
experienced investigators. However, in some of the programs training is
conducted for the investigators. When New Jersey implemented its private
garage reinspection program, about 45 former safety inspectors were trained
in calibration procedures, rules and regulations, and investigation tech-
niques. In Rhode Island garage investigators, along with other personnel
in the administrating agency's inspection department (RIDOT), are required
to take a training program. Although the major emphasis in this training
is on safety, the training also addresses analyzer calibration procedures
and problems as well as the causes of high HC and CO emissions. Details on
these training programs are shown on Tables 2.9.1 and 2.9.5. In addition
to these programs, many of the administrating agencies offer continual
education programs on technical subjects and management techniques.
7.3 Mechanic Training
Emission-related work is new to the service industry, and consequently
it is important that the mechanics undergo some training. Currently,
Oregon, Arizona, and California sponsor some form of mechanic training. In
the past, New Jersey trained instructors in vocational schools to use an
educational package developed by Colorado State University. Although
Nevada does not sponsor mechanic training programs, a person must pass a
written and hands-on test as well as show proof of completion of an auto-
mobile mechanic's training course in order to become a certified inspector.
Nevada also requires that the certified garages own an oscilloscope in
order to be able to diagnose some of the more difficult repairs.
Arizona has approached mechanic training in several ways. Like New
Jersey, in the past Arizona conducted workshops to train vocational
60
-------
education instructors. Currently, Arizona conducts training seminars for
both mechanics and the general public. In addition, Arizona conducts a
special training program aimed at correcting the high number of carburetor
maladjustments made by tune-up mechanics. Performed at the repair facili-
ties, this program demonstrates the propane enrichment technique for car-
buretor adjustments. The waiver surveillance program discussed earlier
serves as a tool to identify candidates for this program. Arizona offi-
cials also make about four contacts a day with individuals and repair
facilities concerning specific maintenance problems or procedures. Details
on Arizona's mechanic training programs are shown on Table 2.9.3.
The Oregon DEQ sponsors a mechanic training course which uses the
Colorado State University curriculum. The DEQ also interfaces with voca-
tional schools and community colleges in the area. As a result of these
activities, the DEQ has an excellent rapport with schools as far away as in
eastern Oregon. No formal licensing is required of mechanics. This is a
problem because it diminishes their incentive to attend the courses. Also,
there is sometimes a problem getting the mechanics who particularly need
the training to attend the courses. (Other areas have expressed similar
concerns over the lack of licensing.) Details on Oregon's mechanic train-
ing programs are shown on Table 2.9.2. There are no refresher requirements
but subsequent courses are available.
Nearly a year before the start of the I/M program, California con-
ducted seminars to familiarize automotive mechanics with the requirements
of the program. This was done to ensure that there would be a sufficient
number of qualified persons available to perform repairs on the failed
vehicles. The seminars were conducted throughout southern California in
each of the six counties. Topics covered in the seminars included emission
control system diagnostic techniques and repair procedures and low emission
tune-up procedures. A written examination on the topics covered was given
61
-------
to mechanics who attended the seminar, and only mechanics who passed the
test received Certificates of Qualification (which are valid for three
years).
Since the start of the I/M program, California has continued to conduct
the qualification seminars. Mechanics who fail the examination may obtain
additional training at various educational institutions. An official
training package approved by the State Department of Education and comprised
of visual aids, narrative, and demonstrations is available at 23 educational
institutions in southern California, including community colleges, adult
education programs, private schools, and regional occupations programs.
(MVIP annual report, October 1979.)
One area of confusion to the public is that California has two types
of licenses: Qualified and Qualified MVPC. A mechanic is "Qualified" if he
or she has passed the exam and received a Certificate of Qualification.
The test requirements for a Qualified MVPC are similar, but these mechanics
also receive additional instruction in the background of the program. All
paid repairs must be done by either of these classes of mechanics, but
waivers will be granted only if repairs are performed by a Qualified MVPC
mechanic. California is considering simplifying the procedure and only
licensing one class of mechanic. Additional details on California's
mechanic training program are shown on Table 2.9.4.
Several of the program areas promote voluntary mechanic certification
through the National Institute for Automotive Service Excellence (NIASE).
NIASE is a non-profit organization that administers tests to certify
mechanics and has been endorsed by most of the automobile manufacturers.
Although NIASE certification is not primarily directed at I/M-related
repairs, its engine tune-up examinations do address the diagnosis of emis-
sion control system problems. A possible disadvantage of NIASE is that
there is no hands-on test and therefore it does not demonstrate the dex-
terity of the mechanic.
62
-------
Also, oil and automobile companies have sponsored their own in-house
training programs. Some of the oil company programs have been particularly
praised by the I/M officials. In addition to the service industry, com-
munity colleges and vocational schools have established their own training
programs. However, there are doubts that there will be enough adequately
trained mechanics to handle the repairs associated with the more sophisti-
cated emission control systems.
63
-------
8.0 PUBLIC INFORMATION
8.1 Description of Programs
The success of an I/M program greatly depends upon the cooperation of
the public. Consequently, administrating agencies have devoted fairly
substantial efforts to public information, especially in the period before
and immediately after the initiation of the programs. These efforts have
varied from distributing pamphlets about the emission tests to prime time
television public service announcements. Introductory periods with volun-
tary maintenance have been especially useful in informing the public about
the emission test. Also, change of ownership programs have provided a
means of acquainting the public with I/M and have helped to familiarize the
administrating agencies with potential sources of complaints. Diagnostic
assistance to motorists that continue to fail the test is another form of
public information that has been used. All of the programs provide ques-
tion and answer assistance over the telephone. See Table 1.9 for summary
of the Public Information programs.
New Jersey has used several different approaches to public information.
Although the m-year voluntary phase that preceded the mandatory program
was mainly intended for data collection, it also helped to educate the
public about emission inspections. At the start of the program, the New
Jersey inspection stations made available a list of repair facilities with
approved analyzers. The stations currently distribute pamphlets and bro-
chures (developed by EPA) which describe the need for and key points of the
emission inspection. New Jersey offers telephone assistance to answer
motorists' questions and refer them to the laboratory, which is open to the
public on appointment. The two technicians at the laboratory are in-
structed to offer diagnostic assistance to motorists whose vehicles re-
peatedly fail the emission test. The service occupies as much as 15 hours
weekly per technician. In addition, New Jersey makes use of press releases
and public van demonstrations to keep up public awareness of the program.
64
-------
TABLE 1.9 PUBLIC INFORMATION
1 TYPE OF PROGRAM
Preliminary/
Voluntary Test
Programs
Pamphlets
Use of Challenge
Station or
Laboratory
Telephone Assis-
tance (Consumer
Hot-Lines)
Radio & Television
Ads or Public Ser-
vice Announcements
Other Programs
Manpower
Requirements
NEW JERSEY
1-1/2 year program
Mandatory inspection
Voluntary Maintenance
Developed by EPA
and state
Laboratory is
open by
appointment
DEP Personnel
Answer questions
and refer people
to the labora-
tory
Press releases,
Public van
demonstrations. Pro-
vide customer with
list of repair
facilities
15 hours/week
for diagnostic
technician
CINCINNATI
Distribute EPA
handbook at
first. Cur-
rently distribut
their own
pamphlet
City and County
personnel in-
volved will
answer
questions
Press releases
to improve
relations
None
OREGON
1 year voluntary
program
Developed by
state & EPA.
Reminder with
: registration
forms.
Public may call
DEQ. No formal
hot line
Press coverage,
DEQ bulletins,
bumper stickers
Less than 1
person
ARIZONA
1 year mancl.
inspection/
voluntary
maintenance
Developed by
state, EPA,
& contractor
Approx. 10
veh/day have
diagnostics
performed at
laboratory
Contractor
maintains toll
free It (watts)
Customers can
call state.
Contractor
placed prime
time ads
(advise to
avoid end of
month)
Press releases,
opinion sur-
veys
1 person -
fulltime for
diagnostic
technician
CALIFORNIA
Phase I volun-
tary program.
50,000 vehicles
tested
Distribute pam-
phlet describ-
ing program &
repair facil.
Do not encourage
do it yourself
repair
Challenges made
at lanes
Contractor main-
tains toll free
t (watts). Cus-
tomers can also
call B.A.R.
Contractor placed
prime time ads at
beginning of pro-
gram
Press releases,
opinion surveys
ARB - 1 person,
BAR- 9 people
to handle
complaints
NEVADA
Voluntary test-
ing sponsored
by Lung Assoc.
and DMV
Notices dev't by
DMV. Distribute
EPA pamphlet
Complaints ,
diagnosis
DMV number is
well publicized
DMV & county
officials appear
on talk shows
Set-up booth at
county fair
1 person full-
time in labor.
(not all P.I.
work)
RHODE ISLAND
1 year mand.
inspection/
voluntary main-
tenance
Lung Associa-
tion developed
pamphlets with
EPA grant.
Customer may have
vehicle checked
for free after
garage inspection.
(rarely used)
May call DOT. No
formal DDT hot .line
Lung Assoc. has
hot line (rarely
used)
Chief appeared on
question & answer
shows
Attempts to im-
prove press rela-
tions. Attitidi-
nal survey spon-
sored by EPA Re-
gion 1
1 person in DEM
coordinates public
education programs.
Other responsibilitJ
cn
01
-------
Oregon used its voluntary program extensively for public relations.
Certificates and bumper stickers were given to motorists whose cars passed
the emission test. Free promotional press coverage and news spots were
used to publicize the inspection program. Currently, Oregon distributes
pamphlets (some of which were developed by the,Oregon DEQ plus those pub-
lished by the EPA) to motorists at the inspection lanes which discuss the
emission test, what to do when a vehicle fails the test, and how the inspec-
tion can help to improve fuel economy. (The pamphlets cost about 3 to 5
cents each to publish and distribute.) Oregon is considering placing
information displays in the inspection stations which would make available
a wide range of pamphlets and brochures. The Oregon Department of Motor
Vehicles inserts a notice about the inspection program with each reminder
sent to the public about expiring license plates. The DEQ offers telephone
assistance (part of the time commitment for one of the staff engineers) to
motorists with problems. There is also a 24 hour telephone service with a
tape-recorded message giving inspection station locations and hours of
operation. In addition the Oregon DEQ publishes an Information Bulletin, a
fact sheet for the service industry, which has over 1400 recipients.
The majority of the public relations work in Arizona has been per-
formed by the contractor. Arizona's I/M program was implemented as a five
year program with maintenance being voluntary in the first year. This
helped to provide publicity about the program. However, the program was
not free and many motorists objected to the mandatory inspection. Later,
when a proposition threatened to repeal the emission test, the contractor
spent approximately $200,000 on public relations. The campaign included
several television spots, in addition to radio and newspaper announcements.
The contractor also garnered the support of local labor and health associa-
tions. State wide, the proposition was defeated by a six percent margin.
Currently, the contractor and the state split the public relations cost
roughly 60 percent and 40 percent, respectively. The contractor places
prime time advertisements advising the public to avoid waiting to the end
66
-------
of a month for their inspection. The contractor maintains a toll-free WATS
line to handle questions and complaints, and customers can also call the
state. The contractor issues press releases and opinion surveys about the
program. To handle problems, the state operates a laboratory which per-
forms diagnostic examinations on approximately 10 vehicles per day. This
requires the full-time service of one diagnostic technician. The con-
tractor also dispenses pamphlets and brochures developed by the state, the
EPA, and themselves about the I/M program.
The voluntary testing program sponsored by the Nevada Lung Association
and the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles functions as a public relations
effort, much as the preliminary phases in the other state programs did.
Also, the two county change-of-ownership inspection program in Clark and
Washoe counties can be considered as a preliminary public relations program
for the upcoming phase, which will require that all vehicles in the two
counties undergo an annual inspection. By first requiring emission in-
spections for all new registered owners, Nevada could be avoiding a con-
siderable number of complaints when compliance is required for all light-
duty vehicles. (On January 1, 1980, the Clark County program became
mandatory.) Other efforts include notices developed by the Department of
Motor Vehicles and EPA pamphlets on I/M which are distributed to customers.
There is no formal telephone "hot-line" but the Department of Motor
Vehicles number is well publicized. The laboratory is available to diag-
nose problems.-- one full-time person is required for this although his
time is not all spent in public relations work. In addition, Department of
Motor Vehicles personnel and county officials have made appearances on talk
shows and set up booths at county fairs to provide visible support for the
program and answer questions.
California's Phase I program was a voluntary effort in which 50,000
vehicles were tested. When Phase II of the MVIP began, the contractor
placed prime time advertisements. Now, pamphlets are distributed describing
67
-------
the program and the available repair facilities. Do-it-yourself repair is
discouraged. The contractor maintains a toll-free WATS line and customers
can also call the Bureau of Auto Repair, which maintains a staff of 9
people to handle telephone calls. Some of these telephone calls are for
the approval of waivers. A separate Challenge Station is not used but
complaints can be investigated at the testing lanes. In addition, the
change-of-ownership inspection functions as a sort of public information
program, as in Nevada.
Like some of the other areas Rhode Island first implemented a manda-
tory inspection with voluntary maintenance (for the emission failures).
When the maintenance became mandatory, the chief of inspection appeared on
a panel discussion that solicited telephone input. Later, the local lung
association received an EPA grant to develop pamphlets that are currently
being distributed, along with EPA pamphlets, to customers of the licensed
garages. One person in the Department of Environmental Management, whose
responsibility it is to coordinate public education programs, devotes some
time to promoting I/M for the state. Customers with problems may call the
Department of Transportation. Also, the challenge station will check a
customer's vehicle free of charge after'the garage inspection. (A problem
reported was that this service and, in fact, the existence of the challenge
station has not received as much public attention as it should.)
Cincinnati offers telephone assistance to motorists but does not
maintain a formal "hot-line" for them. Public relations in Cincinnati have
improved during the program's operation. When the emission tests first
began, the newspapers published several accounts of repair "horror stories.1
After a period of time, the press changed its view and began to support the
program, including such feature coverage as showing former astronaut Neil
Armstrong getting his car inspected.
68
-------
8.2 Public Response
Generally the response of the public to I/M programs has been quite
favorable. This is especially true after the initial implementation period
is over and everyone has had a chance to get used to the program — so that
such obvious public annoyances as long waiting lines have been reduced.
In 1977, New Jersey commissioned a study of public response by the
firm of Booz, Allen, and Hamilton. It showed that two-thirds of the public
felt that the emissions inspection was fair. Thirty-two percent preferred
less stringent standards; however, ten percent favored more stringent
standards. Only thirteen percent felt that the program should be eliminated.
The service industry also has responded well and responsibly to the demands
of the program. This was aided by the good liaison between the state and
the vocational programs that train auto service and repair technicians.
Oregon officials feel that the public has become much more accepting
of the program there. In the beginning, there were a large number of minor
customer hassles. These have virtually ceased now and significant numbers
of customers seem to feel that their participation promotes not only better
air quality but also better vehicle maintenance as well. The service
industry has responded well and responsibly to the program; however, it was
noted that mechanics could respond in greater numbers to the training
sessions.
Between December 1977 and May 1979, three public response surveys were
conducted in Arizona about the I/M program there. Support for the program
has risen steadily throughout the period, with 58 percent of the people
expressing an opinion now supporting it. Interestingly, support cuts
across normal demographic lines. "Middle-aged, middle-income people who
work with their hands are least supportive although even these groups are
about equally divided in their support or opposition. On the other hand,
69
-------
groups most favorable are younger, college-educated people and newer arri-
vals in the state. Females tend to be slightly more supportive than men."
(from the attitudinal study by Dr. Bruce Merrill)
From February 23 to March 4, 1979, a similar study was conducted by
the same public opinion surveyors for the State of California. This study
showed strong support among all sectors of the public for annual emissions
inspections of motor vehicles, with two-thirds in favor and 20 percent
opposed. There was also a strong correlation between those who felt that
the problem of smog was significant (77 percent) and those who felt that
cars should be inspected (72 percent of the above). Many people were
concerned about the way the inspection program was set up and run. Twice
as many people favored the use of state stations instead of private garages
for the inspections. (54 to 26 percent). (Credit is given to Dr. Bruce
Merrill for these results.)
Unfortunately, Nevada's I/M program has received largely negative
response from both the press and the customers. In January, 1980 the
county commissioners were considering eliminating the program and voted to
cancel a $30,000 EPA-funded publicity campaign which was intended to im-
prove its image. Among the criticisms leveled were that the state Depart-
ment of Motor Vehicles should have taken responsibility for the program
instead of using private garages and that it should have been enacted
state-wide instead of on a county basis.
Subsequently, realizing that these moves put the survival of the
program in grave jeopardy, the commissioners reconsidered and voted 6-1
to keep it. The EPA publicity campaign was also accepted and so the sit-
uation seems to have been given new hope. In any new program, the public
must feel that the officials responsible for instituting it are firmly in
support of it. As an editorial in the Las Vegas Sun remarked at the time,
"The commissioners should either back it or scrap it. After all, it's
theirs."
70
-------
The EPA of Region I commissioned a public opinion survey of customers
and service industry personnel about the I/M program in Rhode Island. An
overwhelming majority of motorists felt the program was necessary (87.5%)
and a significant majority had a preference for the private garage system
(68.5%) and interesting contrast to the opinions reported above from Cali-
fornia and Nevada. Most had the inspections performed by a garage where
they had other maintenance routinely done (69.4%) and almost all felt that
the service personnel were competent. However, the majority (71%) were
unaware of the existance of the state-run Challenge Station and, of those
who were, 45% found its hours of operation inconvenient. Not surprisingly,
a majority of the service industry personnel conducting the inspections
(69%) were in favor of retaining the private garage approach to I/M.
Seventy-six percent of them thought the $4 fee was too low (the average
amount suggested was $8.40), and 52% thought that the low fee encouraged
shortened and more cursory inspections.
71
-------
9.0 AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS
Air quality improvements have been attributed to I/M. New Jersey has
reported an 8 percent per year monitored improvement in CO levels with I/M
versus an estimated 5 percent improvement per year without it (see Figure
1.4). Oxidant reductions are less well quantified but many fewer violations
of the 0.12 ppm ozone ambient air standard have been noted since the incep-
tion of the program (see Figure 1.5). Oxidant reductions are difficult to
quantify since they can travel a long distance from their source before
they disperse; therefore, New Jersey could be greatly affected by the HC
emissions of neighboring states. Tailpipe HC emissions in 1979 are esti-
mated to be 15 percent lower than without I/M. Estimated tailpipe CO
emissions are 26 percent lower than without it. (These reductions were
derived by Mobile I, EPA's program for estimating tailpipe emission as a
function of failure rate and other parameters.)
Oregon estimates that CO levels have been reduced 20 percent from 1974
levels and HC by 15 percent, although the situation with monitoring is
complex. These data indicate that Oregon will probably achieve compliance
with the national air quality standard for CO five years earlier because of
the I/M program than would have been possible without it. Tailpipe reduc-
tions for CO and HC are estimated to be 25 percent and 8 percent, respec-
tively (from 1976 levels).
In Arizona, a 25 percent CO improvement has been quantified, corrected
for the increase in vehicle miles traveled (5-7 percent per year); how-
ever, no improvement in ambient HC has been quantified. Based on test
data, tailpipe CO concentrations have been reduced about 36 percent from
1976 levels. HC reductions are 56.3 percent at idle, 51.2 percent for the
low speed cruise mode, and 47.5 percent for the high speed cruise mode.
72
-------
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT- OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
NEW JERSEY AMBIENT CARBON MONOXIDE AIR QUALITY
AND
MOTOR VEHICLE GASOLINE CONSUMPTION
1974
1976
CALENDAR YEAR
1978
1979
1963
AMBIENT CARBON MONOXIDE
GASOLINE CONSUMPTION
PHASES I AND II I/H IMPLEMENTATION
» 12-MONTH MOVING AVERAGE
FIGURE 1.4
73
-------
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
BUREAU OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
Composite Violations of 0.12 ppm Ozone Ambient Air Quality Standard for
Bayonne Trailer, Camden Trailer, Ancora, Asbury Park, Somerville
0)
§ 50
N
O
(U
Oi
(0
a) DJ
£j a 4o
CN
rH •
M 0
O C
ffi (0
% 30
,G 0)
-P -P
•H (0
Is: (1)
H
W O
>,
(0 C on
P 0 2()
-H
O ffl
i_l 1 1
QJ C
XI Q)
g o
2 £ in
& o •"•"
U
-P
•H
CO
O
0 n
u u
I
-
-
.
- i
-
Ill
/
/
T*
/
/
/
'
'
^
/
/
7
/
'
/
V
^x
J
x
.
/
X
7
/
1974
__
,
7
r
/
j
7
/
/
,
/
/
j
'
'
'
'
'
/
^
/
'
/
'
/
^
/
'
X
'
X
^
r
J
'
^ , Ll t ,
y
X
J
1975
= 47 T =
58
/
X
x1
'
y
/
/
X
X
/
/
^
x
/
'
/
X
'
^
>
;
^
X
^
X
^
r
^
/
X
/
X
X
^
r
X
•^
y
y
x
X
^
y
j
X
^/
x
^
X
y
/
X
7
/
X
>*
^
X
1976
. > 1 • nn
7
r
'
'
-
-
7
X
X
'
.
X
/
X
x
X
f
X
X
-
R
^
7 y
71 /'/
V y
^ P
L..I... J^.
1977 1978
T = 101 T =
43 T = 29
FIGURE 1.5
*T = Annual Total
Number of Days
-------
Since the program has recently been implemented, California has not
yet measured an improvement from monitoring data. However, tailpipe reduc-
tions noted in the change-of-ownership program (measured via FTP on in-
spected vehicles) are: 11 percent for HC, 15 percent for CO, and 2 percent
for NO .
X
Nevada has also not quantified any improvements from monitoring data.
However, tailpipe emissions are down 39 percent for CO and 33 percent for
HC at idle, 27 percent for CO and 30 percent for HC at 2250 rpm from the
pre-inspection levels.
75
-------
SECTION TWO
SUMMARY TABLES
76
-------
TABLE 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATING I/M PROGRAMS
ITEM
Geographic Location
Date of Inspection
Mandatory
Voluntary
Coverage
(LDV-Light Duty Vehicle)
Exemptions
Type of Program
Administrating Agency
Number of Inspection
Stations
Can Fleets Self
Inspect?
Inspection Frequency
Inspection Modes
Idle HC & CO
2500 RPM HC & CO
toaded HC & CO
MX
Exhaust Dilution
(C02)
Idle Speed
Engine Parameters
Smoke
Tampering
Safety
En f o r cement/ F ine s
Re inspect Ion
Operation
Waiting Times
(Max, Avg.)
Queing Lengths
Inspection Time
Inspection Cost
NEW JERSEY
Entire State
Feb. 1, 1974
July 5, 1972
All LDVa less
than 6000 Ibs
GVW
Diesels,
vehicles less
than 50 cu.
in . * pre 68 2
stroke Saabs,
new cars for
first 2 years.
Centrallzed-
DMV/
N.J.D.E.P.
38 stations
68 lane a
473£ rein-
spectlon sta.
No
Annual
Pass /Fail
Planned
Pass/Fall
Pass /Fail
Sticker &
Registration
S100 max.
At lanes or
Licensed
Private
Reinspection
Stations
Saturday and
nights
Avg-6 min.
Max- 15 Min.
-
5-10 min.
1 min for
emissions
$2.50 (Incl.
safety)
SI. 00 for
re Inspection
at private
garages
CINCINNATI
Cincinnati &
Norwood, Ohio
Jan. 1, 1975
All LDVs less
than 6000 Ibs
160.000 vehicle
Diesels (emis-
sions only) .
Motorcycles,
Historical veh'
(over 25 years,
collectors
item)
Centralized-
City Oper.
Cinn. Dept.
of Sewers
Cine. - 1 Sta-
tion, 4 lanes
Norwood - 1 sta
tion, 1 lane
No
Annual
Pass/Fail
Pass/Fall
Pass /Fall
Sticker
Cine. $11-35
Norwood S15
At Lanes
Usually no
wait
3-5 rain. ; 45
seconds for
emissions.
S3- 75 (incl.
safety) Free
retests
OREGON
Portland
July 1, 1975
All vehicles
500.000
vehicles
HDV diesels
over 8500 Ibs
GVW, motorcycle
farm plated .
vehicles, fixed
& restricted
load vehicles.
Interstate vhls
Central! zed-
ore. D.E.Q.
7 stations
14 lanes
(1 state
owned,
6 leased)
Yes
50 stations
Biennial-LDV's
Annual-HDV ' s
Pass/Fall
Condition Veh/
Pass/Fail (3%)
Pass /Fail
Pass/Fall
Pass /Fail
Registration
$100 max
At Lanes
Avg- 10 min
thru year)
Max - 10 min
-
3-5 min.
$5.00
Free retests
ARIZONA
Plma and
Miracopa Cty.
Jan. 1, 1977
Mandatory repairs
Jan. 1, 1976
Mandatory Inspec.
Voluntary repairs
All vehicles
1,200,000
vehicles
Vehicles over
13 years old.
Prorated
vehicles
(Interstate
vehicles)
Centralized-
Oper.
Bur. of Veh.
Emission Inspec.
Div. of Environ.
Health Services
12 stations
36 lanes
1 mobile
facility
Yes
300 stations
Annual
Pass/Fall1
Condition Veh/
Data Collection
Pass/Fail (4. 5rj
Pass /Fail (HD
dlesel only)
Registration
$8 late regls.
At Lanes
8 - 3:30 - MWF
8 - 7:00 - T-Th
Avg- 10 min
Wait info.
available hv Ph[
-
5 min
S5.00 incl.
one free
retest
NEVADA
Clark and
Was hoe Cty.
Ch. of Owner
7-1-74 + New
Regis. Owner
7-1-77 Annual
(Clark Only)
Jan, 1. 80
All LDV's less
than 6000 Ibs
GVW. 330,000
vehicles
65 and over
13 years old.
Prorated
vehicles
(Interstate
vehicles)
Decentralized
Garage
D.M.V.
90 in Washoe,
165 garages
in Clark
Yes
(Incl. above)
Change of
Owner /Annual
(Clark Cty Onl
Pass/Fall
Condition Veh/
Check &
Adjust
Adjust
Pass/Fall
Pass/Fail
Registration
Up to 6 mo.
and $500
Vehicle
Adjusted
when
inspected
96 Z 'pass
Garages
Customer
leaves car
ne
-
20 min
$12.50 -
17.00
RHODE ISLAND
Entire State
Jan. 1, 1979
Nov. 1, 1977
All LDVs less
than 8000 Ibs
CVU. 500,000
vehicles
Diesels, new
vehicles for
12 months or
12,000 miles.
Farm vehicles
over 25 years
old, motorcycles
Decentralized
Garage
R.I.D.O.T.
Licensed 900
private garages
Yes
(Incl. above)
Annual
)
Pass/Fall
Pass/Fall
Pass/Fall
Sticker -
Road Checks
S15
At Garages
garages. Chal-
lenge station
open 7:30 -
3:30 M-F
Customer usually
leaves car
-
30-60 min.
including
safety
$4.00 including
safety
CALIFORNIA
South Coast Air
Basin (LA Area)
Mar. 19, 1979
All LDV's less
than 8500 Ibs
GVW- 1,200,000
vehicles
Diesels, motor-
cycles, dual fuel
or complete fuel
conversions
Central ized-
Bur. Auto Repair/
Air Res . Board
15 permanent
2 mobile
46 lanea
Yes
799 stations
Change of Owner/
New registered
owner
Pass/Fall
Collection Veh/
Planned
Planned
Pass/Fall (4. 51)
Pass/Fail
Pass/Fall
Pass/Fall
Registration
finable offense
(variable)
At Lanes
8-4:30 T - F
8-7:00 M
Avg-10-15 min.
Wait Info.
avail, by phone
7 car min.
6 min
$11.00
$7.00 rein-
spection
Transmission in Orlve (neutral on manual transmission) / /
-------
TABLE 2.1 VEHICLE COVERAGE
Light Duty Vehicle
and Trucks (•" or No.)
GVW Limit
Gasoline (///year)
Diesel (///year)
Total LDVs and LDTs
Heavy Duty Trucks
Gasoline (It/year)
Diesel (it/year)
Total
Motorcycles (///year)
Total Number of
Vehicles Tested
NEW JERSEY
6,000 Ibs
3,800,000
3,800,000
Planned
Not covered
3,800,000
CINCINNATI
6,000 Ibs
145,000
145,000
Not covered
Not covered
145,000
OREGON
8,500 Ibs
475,000
475,000
25,000
(No GVW limit)
Not covered
25,000
Not covered
500,000
ARIZONA
6,000 Ibs
1,067,000
1,067,000
140,000 (est)
(No GVW limit)
140,000
Incl. w/LDV's
1,200,000 (est.)
CALIFORNIA
8,500 Ibs
1,200,000 est.
1,200,000 est
Not Covered
(Covered under
decentralized
Blue Shield Pro.)
Not covered
1,200,000 est
NEVADA
6,000 Ibs
Washoe Cty.
(Ch. of owner)
30,000
Clark Cty.
(annual)
300,000
330,000
Not Covered
Not covered
330,000
RHODE ISLAND
8,000 Ibs
500,000
Not covered
for emissions
Not covered
500,000
00
-------
TABLE 2.2.1 PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW JERSEY
ADMINISTRATIVE
General Supervisors
Station Supervisors
Assistant Supervisors
Chief
Clerical & Secretarial
TECHNICAL
Supervisor
Analysts
Trainers
Field Technicians
Laboratory Technicians
Engineers
Clerical f. Secretarial
ENFORCEMENT
Examiners
Slate & Local Pol Ice
Garage Investigators
Senior Investigators
Siipri'v 1 nor , Cara^p.
invest If.ators
DEPARTMENT
DMV
DHV
I)MV
DMV
DMV
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DHV
Police
DMV
miv .
DMV
NUMBER
4
38
51
1
B
1
1
2
5
2
3
1
520
45
5
I
SALARY RANGE <$/YR)
$26,000
16,000
14,000
26,000
11,000
$28,000
19,000
$13,000 - 15,000
10,000 - 17,000
10,000 - 15,000
15,000 - 28,000
n.ooo
12,000
15,000
16,000
20,000
COMMENTS
Safety also
Safety also
Safety also
Safety also
Emissions inventories and
data analyses
Also diagnostic and P.I.
Assistance
Data collection, analyzer
calibration
RSD, analyzer repair, FTP
Manager functions, regulatory
policy, liaison w/other agencies,
special studies and projects.
stds eval.
Safety also
-------
TABLE 2.2.2 PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS FOR CINCINNATI AND NORWOOD
oo
o
ADMINISTRATIVE
Chief Inspector
Cashier
Superintendent
Clerical &
Secretarial
TECHNICAL
Maintenance
ENFORCEMENT
Inspectors
(Full Time)
Inspectors
(Half Time)
DEPARTMENT
Cincinnati Dept.
of Public Works,
Norwood Dept. of
Public Safety
ti
ti
ii
ii
"
ii
NUMBER
CINCINNATI/NORWOOD
2/1-1/2
3/2
1/1
0/1
1/0
32/22
0/4
SALARY RANGE
CINCINNATI /NORWOOD
15,967/15,059
13,589/11,939
21,478/19,202
0 /13.229
16,597/0
13,226/14,165
0 /6,386
COMMENTS
Safety Also
Safety Also
Safety Also
Safety Also
Safety Also
Safety Also
Safety Also
-------
TABLE 2.2.3 PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS FOR OREGON
ADMINISTRATIVE
Station Supervisors
General Supervisors
Director
Clerical &
Secretarial
TECHNICAL
Analysts
Trainers
Technicians
Engineers
Public Relations
Clerical &
Secretarial
ENFORCEMENT
Examiners
Fleet Investigators
DEPARTMENT
DEQ
DEQ
DEQ
DEQ
DEQ
DEQ
DEQ
NUMBER
9
7
1
1
2
1
48 (during even yrs,
about 24 in odd yrs)
1
SALARY RANGE ($/YR)
$12,200 - 15,600
$16,400 - 21,060
$23,100 - 29,400
$ 8,900 - 11,200
$16,400 - 23,100
$20,700 - 26,700
$11,200 - 14,100
$18,10'0 - 23.100
COMMENTS
Environmental Tech. II (Lead Inspec.)
Program Operations Manager A & b
(Field Supervisors)
Public Health Engineer/Supervisor
Environmental Engineer
Senior Environmental Engineer
.Environmental Technicians (Inspectors)
Fleet and Maintenance Supervisor
(also analyzer maintenance)
00
-------
TABLE 2.2.4 PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS FOR ARIZONA
co
ro
ADMINISTRATIVE
Program & Project
Specialist
I/M Mannger (Chief)
Asst. Chief
Clerical &
Secretarial
TECHNICAL
Statistician
Trainers
Technicians (field
& diagnostic)
Envir. Health Spec.
Engineers
ENFORCEMENT
Examiners
r.lt'ft & Contractor
Invest 1 gators
DEPARTMENT
Vehicular Emissions
Inspection - Arizona
Dept. of Health
it ii
ii ii
,.
M fl
II If
II II
M It
..
i* M
II M
NUMBER
1
1
1
6
1
4
7
3
1
3
-
SALARY RANRE ($/YR)
$1.6,300 - 21,500
$25,200 - 34,300
$23,000 - 31,000
$ 7,900 - 12,700
$1.5,200 - 19,900
$14,000 - 18,500
$14,000 - 18,500
$15,200 - 19,900
$21,000 - 28,000
$14,000 - 18,500
COMMENTS
Administrative Officer
Engineering Background, also
performs technical management
Engineer, also provides
technical advise
Includes accounting clerk
Laboratory diagnostics, fleet 4
contractor inspection, waiver
surveillance
Master gas analysis, inst.
repair
Q.A. manager (note 2 engineers
have admin, functions)
Inspection of government
vehicles
Above Technicians
-------
TABLE 2.2.5 PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS FOR CALIFORNIA
oo
oo
ADMINISTRATIVE
Asst. Cli:l.e f.
Admin. Officer
Prog. Coordinator
Regional Manager
Clerical & Secretarial
Clerical
Complaint Handling
Telephone Screening
TECHNICAL
Technical Director
Engineers
Trainers
Engineer /Analyst
Field Kepresentative
ENFORCEMENT
Supervisor Contractor
Investigation
Contractor investigators
Supervisor Fleet
investigators
Fleet Investigators
DEPARTMENT-
BAR
BAR
BAR
BAR
BAR
ARB
BAR
BAR
BAR
BAR
BAR
ARB
ARB
BAR
BAR
BAR
BAR
NUMBER
1
1
1
1
11
1/2
5
4
1
4
4
1
1/2
1
6
3
17
SALARY RANGE ($/YK)
31,200
23,000
28,000
26,000 - 32,000
9,000 - 14,000
11,000 - 13,220
16,600 - 20,412
9,650 - 11,500
29,000
28.000
19,000 - 23,000
16,700 - 20,500
20,800 - 25,200
18,200 - 23,000
18,600 - 20,400
17,000 - 18,600
COMMENTS
Sacramento (BAR lldqtrs) 1/2 MVIP
Sacramento
Sacramento
Senior Engineer (mainly admin.)
4 in Sacramento
Answer technical questions
Sacramento
Sacramento
Coordinate training In S.C.A.B.*
(not strictly MVIP)
Cost benefit analysis
Investigate I/M related
complaints
These people also conduct mechanic
qualification seminars
it ii
*South Coast Air Basin
-------
TABLE 2.2.6 PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS FOR NEVADA
oo
ADMINISTRATIVE
Program Supervisors
Office Management
Keypunch
TECHNICAL
ENFORCEMENT
Emission Control
Officers
Emission Control
Investigators
DEPARTMENT
DMV
DMV
DMV
-
DMV
DMV
NUMBER
Clark Cty/Uaslioe Cty
1 / 1
1 / 1
2 / 1
4 / 2
4 / 1
SALARY RANGE ($/YR)
16,000 - 20,000
10,400 - 14,300
9,500 - 12,900
12,900 - 17,500
12,900 - 17,500
COMMENTS
Automotive Background
Run office
Data entry
Garage Q.A. inspectors, also
diagnostic & waiver check
Investigate complaints,
develop court cases against
stations
-------
TABLE 2.2.7 PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS FOR RHODE ISLAND
00
CJl
ADMINISTRATIVE
Station Supervisors
General Supervisors
Chief
Asst. Chief
Clerical & -
Secretarial '
TECHNICAL
ENFORCEMENT
Inspectors
State and Local
Police
Garage Investigators
DEPARTMENT
DOT
DOT
DOT
DOT
DOT
DOT
Police
DOT
NUMBER
4
1
1
1
8
6
31
SALARY RANGE ($/YR)
$11.346 - 13,082
12,657 - 14,787
17,000 - 19,000
14,000 - 16,000
8,000 - 10,000
10,930 - 12,601
10,560 - 12,069
COMMENTS
Senior auto and emission control
Inspectors
At Challenge Station
Bus and Truck Safety at
Challenge Station
Auto and Emission Control
Inspectors
-------
TABLE 2.3 FAILURE RATE AND REPAIR COSTS
Failure Rate
Re failure* Raue
Repair Cost
Median
Average
Repair Cost After.
Refailure
Median
Average
Waivers
Available?
Time Period
Stipulations
Number (%)
NEW JERSEY
18% (1979)
29% (1979)
(1979)
$17
$18.71 (2/3
below $28)
Not Available
Yes
1 Year
Motorist must
document that a
good faith effort
was made to pass
test.
Approx. 10/yr.
41 since the start
of the program
CINCINNATI
18% (1979)
Not Available
Not Available
Not available
No
OREGON
40% (1979)
23% (1979)
80% of repairs
under $30
Not avail-
able
No
ARIZONA
25% (1979)
34%(1979)
(1979)
$30
Not avail-
able
Yes
1 Year
Repair proce-
dure, cost
ceilings $25-
67, $75 - 68-
up
Approx. 80,000
yr. (30% of
failed veh)
CALIFORNIA
47% (1979)
27% Emissions
28% (1979)
(1979)
$32
Not available
Yes
-
Repair performed
by MVPC mech.
cost ceilings.
$50 (No ECS modif
Greater if veh.
is modif.)
Approx. 30.000/
yr (10% of
failed veh.)
NEVADA
32%(1978) - B
4%(1978) - A
Not Available
(1979)
$20.45
Not avail-
able
Yes
1 Year
$25 parts
ceiling, $75
parts & labor,
(Not including
catalytic con-
verters) No
missing con-
verters
Approx. 5000
per year (2%)
RHODE ISLAND
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
Yes
1 Year
Motorist must make
reasonable effort
to pass - no visual
tampering, param-
eters checked
None
CD
cn
A - After Adjustment
B - Before Adjustment
-------
TABLE 2.4 OPERATING COSTS
Vehicle Inspectors
Salaries
Other Salaries
(Supervisor, Q.A. ,
Trainers , etc. )
Maintenance & Office
Supplies
Travel
Data Processing
l.p.isf :;
Mi scellaneous
TOTAL
(Per Car)
NEW JERSEY
(Incremental
for I/M)
$600,000 (reclas-
Bificatlou to
Include 1/H)
1,100,000
75,000
120,000
5,000
$2,200,000
(-58)
CINCINNATI
(Incremental
for I/M)
$50,000
$50,000
(.33)
OREGON*
(Incremental
for I/M)
$950,000
330,000
10,000
10,000
300,000
400,000
(payroll, acctg,
word processing
and other general
DEO charges)
$2,000,000
(4.00)
ARIZONA
(Incremental
for I/M)
0
389,000
33,000
0
24,000
35,000
25,000
6,000
$492,500
(.41)
CALIFORNIA
(Incremental
for I/M)
$1,500,000
Incl. w/mlsc
75,000
65,000
Incl. w/mlsc
760,000
$2,400,000
(2.00)
NEVADA
(Incremental
for I/M)
$201,000
$35,000 (15,000
for printing)
7,500
$5,000 prep.
of documented
vehicles for
enforcement
$24^000
RHODE ISLAND
Total for I/M
and Safety
$200,000
760,000
0
52,000
0
$1.012,000
(2.oi)
CO
*Blennlal
-------
TABLE 2.5 CAPITAL COSTS
Land
Test Facilities
Analyzers & Cnlib.
Materials
Office Space/
Supplies
Laboratory /Challenge
Station
Laboratory Equipment
f.al ibrat ion
K«inlpnictit
Oatn Processing
F.qulpment (Soft-
ware development etc)
Vehicles
Enforcement
Kqn Ipmcnt
Public Information
Material
TOTAL
(Per Car)
NEW JERSEY
$250,000 (1972)
582,000 (1980)
100,000
10,000
20,000
287,000
40,000
$707,000
1,039,000 (1980)
(.19)
CINCINNATI
$12,600
$12,600
(.08)
OREGON
$80,000
217,500
$297,500
(.60)
ARIZONA
$99,000
1 270,000
150,000
$519,000
(.43)
CALIFORNIA
1
10,000
260,000
30,000
$300,000
(.25)
NEVADA
42,000
20,000
6,000
$68,000
(.20)
RHODE ISLAND
$750,000 bldg. improve-
ments for safety test of
public vehicles.
0 - Use safety facilities
10,000
54 ,000
20,000 (EPA funded)
$834,000
(1.67)
00
CO
-------
TABLE 2.6 EMISSION ANALYSERS AND OTHER TEST EQUIPMENT
Emissions Analyzer
Type of Analyzer
Make/Model
Stock or Modified
Display
Measures
HC, CO
C02
Automatic or Manual
Data Recording
Number On- Line
Number of Spares
Cost
Tachometer
Make/Model .
Pick-Up
Display
Cost *
Calibration Equipment
(Cost)
Hoses & Accessories
Gases
Other Equipment
Opacity Equipment
(Cost)
Type
Enforcement Equipment
Portable Analyzer
• Type
Number
Total Cost
Other
Automatic Data Pro-
cessing Equipment
Type
Number
What is Recorded?
Cost
Other Equipment
NEW JERSEY
(Mew Analyzers)
Infra-red
Sun 3021
Modified
Digital
X
X
Manual (can be
used with aux
printout)
106
19
$4,656 (1980)
X ($10,000)
X ($75,000/yr)
Visual
Chrysler til
20
$40,000
Paper tape
Printout
5
Test data
stds, test
readings
Sun 2001 for
diagnostic
work
CINCINNATI
Sun 9101
Modified
Dial
X
Manual
5
It
$1,400
OREGON
Sun OEA-75
Modified
Digital
X
X
Manual
18
11 (1-2
spares per
station)
57,500
Part of above
analyzers
Clip to plug
wire
Digital
X
X (S10,000/yr)
Analyzer
Photographic
film to deter-
mine visual
levels
ARIZONA
HIS
Modified
Print -out
X
X
Auto
1 per lane
(37 total)
0
Not available
X
X
Horiba Ana-
lyzer PIR
20TO
Sectarian 6800
A.q. Chromato-
graph (20,000)
Visual
(Smoke school)
Clayton
Dynamometers
CALIFORNIA
Infra-red
HTS
Modified
Print-out
X
X
Auto
1 per lane
(45 total)
0
Not available
Part of
analyzers
Clipped to
plug wire
Printout
X
X
Visual
Plan to in-
stall Clayton
Dyno's for
loaded testing
NEVADA
Varies from
garage to
garage
Not available
X
X ($3,000/yr)
Visual
Laboratory
diagnostics
Sun 2001
(S20.000)
also used
for Chal-
lenge checks
RHODE ISLAND
Varies from garage
to garage
Range S900-S7000
Avg. 32,149
X
X
Master analyzer at
Challenge Station
Horiba D400 - also
used for challenge
checks
Visual
0
2
Not Available
Master Analyzer
89
-------
TABLE 2.7 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAMS
Analyzer Calibration
Frequency
,-
ubponb ty
Span- gas -checked
for Traceability
Documented
Procedures
of Analyzer
Station Inspection
Frequency
Announced or
Unannounced
Responsibility
Function
Check Analyzer
Check Records
Collect Forms
Others
Std. Inspection
Procedures
Station or
Laboratory
Data Analysis
Spot and Roadside-
Checks
Other Q.A. Tasks
NEW JERSEY
1/mo min - 1.5/oo
average
State officials
(DEP)
Yes
Yes
analyzers will be
set automatically
(Relnspection Sta.)
1/2 mo.
Unannounced
State officials
(DMV) 1/100 sta.
X
X (Calibration)
X
No
nance & repair of
analyzers (Major
repairs are per-
formed by Mfr.)
Failure rates at
the stations are
analyzed
hook at reinspectlon
records & check
vehicles with un-
usual repairs
Approve analyzers
for repair , inde-
of vehicles.
CINCINNATI
1/mo.
'
with Hanuf. ($32 per
analyzer per month)
No
No
Hourly
No
Comparison checks
made on analyzers
OREGON
5/day
nspector
ARIZONA
Contractor Fleet
Weekly Mfr's Rucomm.
CAL1FCKN1A
Contractor Fleet
Weekly Weekly
1
i
Yes i yes Yes
Yes
S/day
(Fleets)
Monthly
Both
State Official
(DEQ) 1/50 sta.
X
X (Calibration)
X
No
used for gas
checks
Failure rate per
station
No
Unannounced monthly
ca 1 ib ra t i on run .
ing of analyzers
from different sta.
No No
,
recomm.
--
2/mo. Every 90 days
Unannounced Unannounced
State State Official
Official 1/150 sta.
X X
X (Calib. )
X
X (House-
keeping)
No
o f cal i brat Ion gases .
Mainly used to verify
charges
Waiver surveillance.
About 501 of waiver cases
are critically reviewed -
mechanics get notification
at tines
Certify analyzers
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Auto
2/mo. Every 60 days
Unannounced Unannounced
State Offi- State Offi-
ials 1/10 cials 1/40
lanes stations
X X
X X
X
X (Data X ' Repair
recording procedures &
equipment) diagnostic
ay st?.t i leak ability
check
Yes
Repair data used to check
performance of garages
and/or mechanics
Yes - Selected certified
vehicles are reins|>ected
at fleets
NEVADA
No requirements.
Will get analyzer
calibrated by Mfr.
tagge
Monthly
Unannounced
DMV Officers
1/75 sta.
X
X
X
Look for repair
books
Used to check
complaint & all
w.-iivor vehicles
Approx. 20 com-
plaints/month
Yes - Officials
submit tampered
cars for
inspections
Investigate
garages as a
result of
complaints
RHODE ISLAND
Weekly
(
arage
If offsets are found at
the jarages
No
set before each test.
Monthly
Unannounced
DOT Officials
I/'JO sta.
Calibration Dumos.
X (Calibration)
X n-
complying vehicles must
be repaired or possibility
of fine.
Investigate garages
as a result of
Chal len^e sta. visl is.
-------
TABLE 2.8 TRAINING PROGRAMS
TYPE OF TRAINING
Mechanic Training
Train Instructors
Conduct Seminars
On-Site Instruction
Sponsor Vocational
Training
License/Certify
Mechanics
Number (%) Certified by
NIASE (Entire state)*
% of Mechanics Trained
Inspector Training
Supervisor Training
Training for Station
Inspectors or Quality
Auditors
NEW JERSEY
X (in past)
X (in past)
2,982 (16%)
At beginning of
I/M, N.J held sev-
eral -1 day ses-
sions on use and
maintenance of
analyzers
DEP, personnel
trained in test
procedures and the
calib. & oper. of
the analyzers .
Investigators
trained in cali-
bration procedures
CINCINNATI
X (In past)
-
Sun Electric
Corp. trained
-personnel in
operation of
analyzer
OREGON
X
X
1,136 (20%)
One week
training
program with
tape and
slides
None (except
for continual]
ARIZONA
X (in past)
X
X
964 (20%)
Contractor
sonnel.
Fleet inspec-r
tors trained
by. state. 7
hr course
CALIFORNIA
X
X
X
X
7,176 (15%)
Contractor
trains per-
sonnel. Fleets-
Class A mech.
plus 2.5 hr in-
spector train.
None (except
for continual)
Trained for
approx. 1
ing with
other inspector
NEVADA
239 (20%)
No formal
training;
however test
req'd & vo-
tech train.
to be cert.
i
RHODE ISLAND
312 (13%)
15 hr course
4 hrs on emis-
sions analyzers
20 Hr. in-house
program
20 Hr. in-house
program - mostly
safety oriented
*Source; NIASE
-------
TABLE 2.9.1 TRAINING DETAILS FOR NEW JERSEY
GARAGE INVESTIGATORS
Source of Curriculum
Course Length
Topics Covered (% of
time devoted to each)
Training Method
(% of time)
Number Trained
Manpower Requirements to
Administrating Agency
Certification Procedures/
Requirements
Refresher Requirements
In-House
2 Weeks
Calibration procedures; Regulations;
Investigation techniques
Classroom
45 (Former examiners prior to I/M)
1 man-month (one shot effort) .
New employees get on the job
training
92
-------
TABLE 2.9.2 TRAINING DETAILS FOR OREGON
STATE INSPECTORS
FLEET INSPECTORS
MECHANICS
Source of Curriculum
Course Length
Topics Covered (% of
time devoted to each)
Training Method
(% of time)
Number Trained
Manpower Reqirements
to Administrating
Agency
Certification Pro-
cedures/Requirements
Refresher Requirements
In-House
One week
1. Program background
2. Air pollution causes
and controls
3. Releasing loads
4. Clerical skills &
handwriting
Formal course with slides
and tape recording. Pro-
cedures Manual available.
Some hands-on instruction
20-50/year
Program has been accredited
by Clackamas Junior Col-
lege. 6-12 manweeks per
year DEQ requirement
In-House
2-1/2 days
1. Air pollution causes and
controls
2. Inspector skills
3. Forms
Formal course with slides &
tape recording. Some hands-on
instruction
30/year
15 mandays per year DEQ
requirements
C.S.U. Program
Variable
DEQ interfaces with com-
munity colleges and voca-
tional schools (1/2 person)
No licensing required
a drawback
Subsequent courses
available
-------
TABLE 2.9.3 TRAINING DETAILS FOR ARIZONA
Source of Curriculum
Course Length
Topics Covered ($ of
time devoted to each)
Training Method
(7, of time)
Number Trained
Manpower Keqirements to
Administrating Agency
Certification Procedures/
Kequlrementu
Kefreaher Requirements
MECHANIC TRAINING
SEMINAR
In-tlouse
A Hours
Mainly carburetor
adjustment by propane
enrichment. Some
ignition diagnostics
Classroom - 1 hour
Hands-on - 3 hours
Approx. 250/year
3 people -
None
None
ON-SITE
INSTRUCTION
In-llouse
Varies, usually
2 hours
Propane enrichment
Hands-on
Approx. 550/year
Full Time
None
None
FLEET INSPECTOR
In-House
7 hours
Rules and Regulations,
Engine diagnostics,
Analyzer operation and
calibration
Classroom - 5 hours
Hands-on - 2 hours
896
1 person - full time
Exam.
Yearly recertif ication
A hour course and e;:aiii
SMOKE SCHOOL
In-llouse
4 hours
Opacity Determination
Classroom/
Demonstration
BO
4 man hrs/month
None
None
-------
TABLE 2.9.4 TRAINING DETAILS FOR CALIFORNIA
MECHANICS
(Qualified & Qualified MVPC)
FLEET INSPECTORS
Source of Curriculum
Course Length
Topics Covered (% of time
devoted to each)
Training Method
-------
TABLE 2.9.5 TRAINING'DETAILS FOR RHODE ISLAND
INSPECTORS
(Private Garages)
GARAGE
INVESTIGATORS
Source of Curriculum
Course Length
Topics Covered
(%of time
devoted to each)
Training Method
(% of time)
Number Trained
Manpower Require-
ments to Administrat-
ing Agency
Certification
Procedures
Refresher
Requirements
In-House
15 Hours
Safety - 11 hours,
Emissions testing -
4 hours (1 hour to
forms, 1 hour to basic
understanding of
analyzers)
Emissions only -
60% classroom
40% hands-on
Over 3,000
2 DOT personnel @
first 15 hours/
week. Now 15 his/
month
Complete course
None
State
20 Hours
Safety (16 hours), Emis-
sion Analyzers Calibra-
tion problems. Causes
of high HC and CO
Classroom
53 - all DOT inspection
personnel
None. Conducted by
R.I. Trade School
None
None
96
-------
TABLE 2.10 DATA COLLECTION
Data Collected
(A • All Inspected
vehicles)
(R - Roadside Checks)
(S = Survey or Sample)
Pass/Fail (Initial)
Pass/Fall (re-exam)
Idle HC and CO
Before Repair
After Repair
2500 RPM HC and CO
Before Repair
After Repair
Loaded Mode HC and CO
Before Repair
After Repair
Tampering Results
Smoke Test
Engine Parameters
V.I.D.
Make & Year of Vehicle
Engine Size/Family
Repair Costs
Odometer
Method of Collecting
Data
Method of Storing
Data
NEW JERSEY
A
A
S
S
S
S
S
S
Lane data -
manual; sur-
vey data
semi-auto-
matic
Cards •* Tape
Tape •* Disk
CINCINNATI
4
A
A
A
A
OREGON
A
S
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
S
Collected
Manually
Hard-copy
ARIZONA
A
A
; ' A
A
A
I
A
A
A
A
A
Test data.
automatic,
Vehicle
Info, semi-
automatic
Tape
CALIFORNIA
A
A
A
A
A
A
A ..
A
A
A
A
A
A
Test data
automatic,
Other data
manual &
semi-auto.
Tape
NEVADA
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Manual &
semi-
automatic
Forms *
Tape
RHODE
ISLAND
A
R (biased
for safety)
R
A & R
A & R
A
Collected
Manually
Currently
hard-copy
developing
programming
97
-------
TABLE 2.11 ' DATA ANALYSIS
Analysis and Reports
(A - All inspected
vehicles)
(R - Roadside checks)
(S - Survey or Sample)
No. of Inspections
Failure Rate
Overall
By Inspection Sta.
By Pollutant
By Model Year
By Make & Model Year
Re-Exam Failure Rates
Overall
By Inspection Sta.
By Pollutant
By Model Year
By Make & Model Year
Average Idle HC and CO
Before Repair
Overall
By Model Year
After Repair
Overall
By Model Year
Average 2500 RPM HC & CO
Before Repair
Overall
By Model Year
After Repair
Overall
By Model Year
Average Loaded HC & CO
Before Repair
Overall
By Model Year
After Repair
Overall
By Model Year
Repair Costs
Other Analysis
NEW JERSEY
A
A
A
S
S
S
A
A
S
S
S
Data base
maintained
on survey
data and
accessed
as needed.
Waiting
time
survey
CINCINNATI
A
A
A
OREGON
A
A
A
A
A
S
S
S
Type of
repair,
waiting
time
ARIZONA
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
S
Additional
analysis
(e.g., CO
failure
rate data
for '79 GM
vehicles)
CALIFORNIA
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Cost effec-
tiveness
using actual
FTP results
for certain
cut points.
Repair data
by Mech 4
repair
facility.
NEVADA
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
S
Data base
maintained
on test
data and
accessed
as needed
RHODE
ISLAND
R
R
R
R
98
-------
TABLE 2.12 PUBLIC INFORMATION
TYPE OF PROGRAM
Preliminary/
Voluntary Test
Programs
Pamphlets
Use of Challenge
Station or
Laboratory
Telephone Assis-
tance (Consumer
Hot-Lines)
Radio & Television
Ads or Public Ser-
vice Announcements
Other Programs
Manpower
Requirements
NEW JERSEY
1-1/2 year program
Mandatory inspection
Voluntary Maintenance
Developed by EPA
and state
'
Laboratory is
open by
appointment
DEP Personnel
Answer questions
and refer people
to the labora-
tory
Press releases,
Public van
demonstrations. Pro-
vide customer with
list of repair
facilities
15 hours/week
for diagnostic
technician
CINCINNATI
Distribute EPA
handbook at
first. Cur-
rently distribut
their own
pamphlet
City and County
personnel in-
volved will
answer
questions
Press releases
to improve
relations
None
OREGON
1 year voluntary
program
Developed by
state & EPA.
Reminder with
> registration
forms.
Public may call
DEQ. No formal
hot line
Press coverage,
DEQ bulletins,
bumper stickers
Less than 1
person
ARIZONA
1 year mand.
inspection/
voluntary
maintenance
Developed by
state, EPA,
& contractor
Approx. 10
veh/day have
diagnostics
performed at
laboratory
Contractor
maintains toll
free It (watts)
Customers can
call state.
Contractor
placed prime
time ads
(advise to
avoid end of
month)
Press releases ,
opinion sur-
veys
1 person -
fulltime for
diagnostic
technician
CALIFORNIA
Phase I volun-
tary program.
50,000 vehicles
tested
Distribute pam-
phlet describ-
ing program &
repair facll.
Do not encourage
do it yourself
repair
Challenges made
at lanes
Contractor main-
tains toll free
it (watts). Cus-
tomers can also
call B.A.R.
Contractor placed
prime time ads at
beginning of pro-
gram
Press releases,
opinion surveys
ARE - 1 person,
BAR- 9 people
to handle
complaints
NEVADA
Voluntary test-
ing sponsored
by Lung Assoc.
and DMV
Notices dev't by
DMV. Distribute
EPA pamphlet
Complaints ,
diagnosis
DMV number is
well publicized
DMV & county
officials appear
on talk shows
Set-up booth at
county fair
1 person full-
time in labor.
(not all P.I.
work)
RHODE ISLAND
1 year mand.
inspection/
voluntary main-
tenance
Lung Associa-
tion developed
pamphlets with
EPA grant.
Customer may have
vehicle checked
for free after
garage inspection.
(rarely used)
May call DOT. No
formal DDT hot .line
Lung Assoc. has
hot line (rarely
used)
Chief appeared on
question & answer
shows
Attempts to im-
prove press rela-
tions. Attitidi-
nal survey spon-
sored by EPA Re-
gion 1
1 person in DEM
coordinates public
education programs.
Other responsibility
-------
TABLE 2.13 TAMPERING INSPECTIONS
Components Inspected
(V-Visual Check, F-Functional Check)
Catalytic Converter
EGR Valve
Air Injection System
PCV Valve
Thermostatic Air Cleaner
Oxygen Sensor
Fuel Fillerneck
Limiter Caps
Exhaust System Modifications
Engine Modifications
Inspector Training
OREGON
V
V
V
V
V
v (plug
on site)
V
V
Covered in a
one week train-
ing program
CALIFORNIA
V
F
V
V
V
V (unless locked)
V
Contractor
trained inspec-
tors. Fleet
inspection
stations must
employ a quali-
fied mechanic.
NEVADA
V
V
V
V
V
Has to meet
specs for
model year
None
o
o
-------
TABLE 2.14 STAFF CONTACTS
New Jersey
Cincinnati
Norwood
Oregon
Arizona
California
Nevada
Las Vegas
Reno
Rhode Island
CONTACT
Daniel Cowperthwait
R. W. McMinn
Deputy Director
Joseph Rockford
Eugene Ermenc
Martin A. Ferris
Ron Householder
Fred lacobelli
Chief
John R. Wallauch
Regional Director
John Urkov
Field Representative
Hon Crane
Ken Boyer
Al Massarone
Tom Getz
ADDRESS
New Jersey State Dept. of
Environmental Protection
Labor and Industry Bldg.
Room 1108
John Fitch Plaza
Trenton, NJ 08625
State of New Jersey
Division of Motor Vehicles
28 S. Montgomery St.
Trenton, NJ 08666
Cincinnati Dept. of Public
Works
S.W. Ohio Air Pollution
Control Agency
Norwood City Hall
Elm & Montgomery Streets
Norwood, Ohio 45212
Dept . of Environmental
Quality Vehicle Inspection
Program
522 S.W. Fifth Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97401
Arizona Dept. of Health
Services, Bureau of Vehicular
Emissions Inspection
• 1740 W. Adams Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Dept. of Consumer Affairs
Bureau of Automotive Repair
3415 Fletcher Ave, Suite 2
El Monte, CA 91731
Air Resources Board
Haagen-Smit Laboratory
9528 Telstar Avenue
El Monte, CA 91731
Dept. of Motor Vehicles
2701 E. Sahara Blvd.
Las Vegas , Nevada
Dept. of Motor Vehicles
Emission Control Section
305 Galletti Way
Reno, Nevada !89512
R.I. DOT, State House, Room
Providence, RI 02906 101
Dept. of Environmental
Management
Health Bldg.
Davis St.
Providence, RI 02906
PHONE
(609) 292-6714
(609) 292-4593
(513) 352-3719
(513) 352-4880
(513) 631-2700
(503) 229-6200
(602) 255-1149
(213) 575-7005
(213) 575-6798
(702) 386-5356
(702) 784-4776
(401) 277-2983
(401) 277-2808
101
-------
APPENDIX A
COMPILATION OF EMISSION STANDARDS FOR I/M PROGRAMS
Page
Arizona A-2
California A-3
Nevada A-3
New Jersey A-4
Rhode Island A-4
Oregon A-5
Cincinnati A-14
A-l
-------
COMPILATION OF EMISSION STANDARDS FOR I/M PROGRAMS
ARIZONA
TYPE
MOST
PASSENGER
VEHICLES
TRUCKS
& VANS,
OVER
6000 GVW
NUMBER
CYLINDERS
4 or less
6-8
6-8
YEAR
1975 and newer
1972-74
1968-71
1967 and older
1975 and newer
1972-74
1968-71
1967 and older
1975 and newer
1972-74
1968-71
1967 and older
DIAGNOSTIC
50 MPH (Approx)
HC
100
380
450
1000
100
300
380
700
300
300
380
700
ppm C0%
0.90
3.00
3.75
5.00
0.90
2.50
3.00
4.25
2.50
2.50
3.00
4.25
IN FORM AT
30 MPH
ION
(Approx)
HC ppm C0%
120
380
450
1000
120
300
380
700
300
300
380
700
1.00
3.50
4.25
6.00
1.00
3.00
3.50
5.25
3.00
3.00
3.50
5.25
PASS/FAIL
INFORMATION
IDLE
HC ppm
250
450
800
1800
250
400
750
1200
350
400
750
1200
CO%
2.5
b.O
6.5
7.5
2.2
5.5
6.5
7.5
5.0
5.5
6.5
7.5
-------
COMPILATION OF EMISSION STANDARDS FOR I/M PROGRAMS
CALIFORNIA
Acceptable Emissions Levels
Model
Years
1955-65
1966-70
1966-70
1971-74
1971-74
1955-67
1968-70
1968-70
1971-74
1971-74
1975-79
1975-79
Emission
Control System
with air injection
without air injection
with air injection
without air injection
with air injection
without air injection
with air injection
without air injection
catalyst
non-catalyst
Number of
Cylinders
5 or
5 or
5 or
5 or
5 or
4 or
4 or
4 or
4 or
4> or
All
All
more
more
more
more
more
less
less
less
less
less
Standards
HC
(ppm)
1100
350
500
150
350
1750
400
900
250
400
150
250
To these standards, a tolerance of 100 ppm HC and .5% CO has
been added until more data have been collected.
NEVADA
Acceptable Emissions1Levels
Model Year HC ppm
1967 and earlier 1200
1968-69 600
1970-74 400
1975 and later 300
C0%
7.5
5.0
4.0
3.0
A-3
-------
COMPILATION OF EMISSION STANDARDS FOR I/M PROGRAMS
NEW JERSEY
Acceptable Emissions Levels
Year HC ppm C0%
1967 and
earlier
1968-69
1970-74
1975 and .-.
later
14-00
700
500
300
8.5
7.0
5.0
3.0
Stiffer standards have been proposed but not adopted,
RHODE ISLAND
Acceptable Emissions Levels
Model Year HC (ppm) CO (%)
1967 or 16 0$ 10.0:
earlier
1968-69 - 800 8.0:
1970-74 ' 600' 6.01
1975-after 300 3.0;
A-4
-------
COMPILATION OF EMISSION STANDARDS FOR I/M PROGRAMS
OREGON
LIGHT DUTY MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION CONTROL IDLE EMISSION STANDARDS
(1) Carbon monoxide idle emission values not to be exceeded:
Base Standard
ALFA ROMEO
1978
1975 through 1977
1971 through 1974
1968 through 1970
pre-1968
0.5
1.5
3.0
4.0
6.0
Enforcement to Tolerance
Through June, 1979
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.5
0.5
AMERICAN MOTORS CORPORATION
1975 through 1978 Non-Catalyst 1.5
1975 through 1978 Catalyst Equipped 0.5
1972 through 1974 2.0
1970 through 1971 3.5
1968 through 1969 5.0
pre-1968 6.0
Above 6000 GVWR, 1974 through 1978 2.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
ARROW/ Plymouth - see COLT, Dodge
AUDI
1975 through 197.8
1971 through 1974
1968 through 1970
pre-1968
1.5
2.5
4.0
6.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
AUSTIN - see BRITISH LEYLAND
BMW
1975 through 1978
1974, 6 cyl.
1974, 4 cyl.
1971 through 1973
1968 through 1970
pre- 1968
1.5
2.5
2.0
3.0
4.0
6.0
0.5
1.
1,
1,
1,
0
0
0
0
0.5
A-5
-------
OREGON (Continued)
BRITISH LEYLAND
Austin, Austin Healey, Morris, and Marina
1975 2,0 0.5
1973 through 1974 2.5 1.0
1971 through 1972 4.0 1.0
1968 through 1970 5.0 1.0
pre-1968 6.5 0.5
Jaguar
1975 through 1978 0.5 0.5
1972 through 1974 3.0 1.0
1968 through 1971 4.0 1.0
pre-1968 6.0 0.5
MG
1976 and 1978 MG 0.5 0.5
1975 MG, MG Midget and 1976
MG Midget 2.0 0.5
1973 through 1974 MGB, MGBGT, MGC 3.0 1.0
1971 through 1974 Midget 3.0 1.0
1972 MGBf MGC 4.0 1.0
1968 through 1971, except 1971
Midget 5.0 1.0
pre-1968 6.5 0,5
Rover
1971 through 1974 4.0 1.0
1968 through 1970 5.0 0.5
pre-1968 6.0 0.5
Triumph
1978 . 0,5 0,5
1975 through 1977 2.0 0.5
1971 through 1974 3.5 1.0
1968 through 1970 4.0 1.0
pre-1968 6,5 0.5
BUICK - see GENERAL MOTORS
CADILLAC - see GENERAL MOTORS
CAPRI - see FORD MOTOR COMPANY
A-6
-------
OREGON (Continued)
CHECKER
1975 through 1978 Catalyst Equipped 0.5 0.5
1973 through 1974 1.0 1.0
1970 through 1972 2.5 1.0
1968 through 1969 3.5 1.0
pre-1968 6.0 0.5
CHEVROLET - see GENERAL MOTORS
CHEVROLET L.U.V. - see L.U.V., Chevrolet
CHRYSLER - see CHRYSLER CORPORATION
CHRYSLER CORPORATION (Plymouth, Dodge, Chrysler)
1975 through 1978 Non-Catalyst 1.0 0.5
19.75 through 1978 Catalyst Equipped 0.5 0.5
1973 through 1974 1.0 1.5
1970 through 1972 1.5 1.5
1968 through 1969 2.0 2.5
pre-1968 6.0 0.5
Above 6000 GVWR, 1968 through 1971 4.0 I'.O
Above 6000 GVWR, 1972 through 1978 2.0 1.0
CITROEN
1971 through 1974 3.0 1.0
1968 through 1970 4.0 1.0
pre-1968 6.0 0.5
COLT, Dodge
1978 0.5 0.5
1975 through 1977 3.0 0.5
1971 through 1974 5.0 1.0
pre-1971 6.0 0.5
COURIER, Ford
1975 through 1978 1.5 0.5
1973 through 1974 2.0 1.0
pre-1973 4.0 1.0
A-7
-------
OREGON (Continued)
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER
1975 through 1978 2.5 0.5
1972 through 1974 3.0 1.0
1970 through/1971 4.0 1.0
1968 through,1969 5.0 1.0
pre-1968 6.0 0.5
JAGUAR - see BRITISH:LEYLAND
JEEP - see AMERICAN MOTORS
JENSEN-HEALEY
1973 and ,1974 4.5 1.0
JENSEN INTERCEPTER & CONVERTIBLE - see CHRYSLER CORPORATION
LAND ROVER - see BRITISH LEYLAND, Rover
LINCOLN - see FORD MOTOR COMPANY
L.U.:V., Chevrolet
1974 through 1978 1.5 1.0
pre-1974 3.0 1.0
MAZDA
1378 Catalyst Equipped 0.5 0.5
1975 through 1918 Non-Catalyst 1.5 0.5
1968 through 1974, Piston Engines 4.0 1.0
1974, Rotary Engines 2.0 0.5
1970 through 1973, Rotary Engines 3.0 0.5
MERCURY - see FORD MOTOR COMPANY
A-8
-------
OREGON (Continued)
MERCEDES-BENZ
1975 through 1977 Non-Catalyst,
4-cyl. 1-0 0.5
1975 through 1978, all other 0.5 0.5
1973 through 1974 2.0 1.0
1972 4.0 1.0
1968 through 1971 5.0 1.0
pre-1968 6.0 0.5
Diesel Engines (all years) 1.0 0.5
MG - see BRITISH LEYLAND
OLDSMOBILE - see GENERAL MOTORS
OPEL
1975 through 1978 1.5 0.5
1973 through 1974 2.5 1.0
1970 through 1972 3.0 1.0
1968 through 1969 3.0 1.0
pre-1968 6.0 0.5
PANTERA - see FORD MOTOR COMPANY
PEUGEOT
1975 through 1978 1.5 0.5
1971 through 1974 3.0 1.0
1968 through 1970 4.0 1.0
pre-1965- 6.0 0.5
Diesel Engines (all years) 1.0 0.5
PLYMOUTH - see CHRYSLER CORPORATION
PLYMOUTH CRICKET - see CRICKET, Plymouth
PONTIAC - see GENERAL MOTORS
A-9
-------
OREGON (Continued)
PORSCHE
1978 Catalyst Equipped 0.5 0.5
1975 through 1978 Non-Catalyst 2.5 0.5
1972 through 1974 3.0 1.0
1974 Fuel Injection 1.8 liter (914) 5.0 1.0
1968 through 1971 5.0 1.0
pre-1968 6.5 0.5
RENAULT
1977 through 1978 1.5 0.5
1976.Carbureted 1.5 0.5
1975 and .1976 Fuel Injection 1.5 0.5
1975 Carbureted 0.5 0.5
1971 through 1974 3.0 1.0
1968 through 1970 5.0 1.0
pEe-fl968 6.0 0.5
ROLLS-ROYCE and BENTEEY
1975 through 1978 0.5 0.5
1971 through 1974 3.0 1.0
1968 through 1970 4.0 1.0
pre-1968 6.0 0.5
ROVER - see BRITISH LEYLAND
SAAB
1975 through 1978 1.5 0.5
1968 through 1974, except 1972
99 1.85 liter 3.0 1*0
1972 99 l.:85 liter 4.0 1.0
pre-1968 (two-stroke cycle) 3.0 3.5
SAPPORO, Plymouth - see COLT, Dodge
SDBARU
1975 through 1978 1.5 0.5
1972 through 1974 3.0 1.0
1968 through 1971, except 360's 4.0 1.0
pre-1968 and all 360's 6.0 0.5
A-10
-------
OREGON (Continued)
TOYOTA
1975 through 1978 Catalyst Equipped 0.5 0.5
1975 through 1978, 4 cyl. 2.0 0.5
1975 through 1978, 6 cyl. 1.0 0.5
1968 through 1974, 6 cyl. 3.0 1.0
1968 through 1974, 4 cyl. 4.0 1.0
pre-1968 6.0 0.5
TRIUMPH - see BRITISH LEYLAND
VOLKSWAGEN
1977 and 1978 Rabbit and Scirocco 2.0 0.5
i.-)76 Rabbit and Scirocco 0.5 0.5
1976 through 1978 All Others 2.5 0.5
1975 Rabbit/ Scirocco, and Dasher 0.5 0.5
1975 All Others 2.5 0.5
1974 Type 4 Fuel Injection 1.8 liter 5.0 0.5
1972 through 1974, except Dasher 3.0 1.0
1972 through 1974 Dasher 2.5 1.0
1968 through 1971 3.5 1.0
pre-1968 6.0 0.5
Diesel Engines (all years) 1.0 0.5
VOLVO
1978 0.5 0.5
1975 through 1977, 6 cyl. 1.0 0.5
1975 through 1977, 4 cyl. 2.0 0.5
1972 through 1974 3.0 1.0
1968 through. 1971 4.0 1.0
pre-1968 6.5 0.5
NON-COMPLYING IMPORTED VEHICLES
All 6.5 0.5
DIESEL POWERED VEHICLES
All 1.0 0.5
A-ll
-------
OREGON (Continued)
ALL VEHICLES NOT LISTED AND VEHICLES FOR WHICH NO VALUES ENTERED
1975 through 1978 Non-Catalyst,
4 cyl.
1975 through 1978 Non-Catalyst,
all except 4 cyl.
1975 Catalyst Equipped
1972 through 1974
1970 through 1971
1968 through 1969
pre-1968 and those engines less
than 820 cc (50 cu. in.)
2,.0
1.0
0.5
3*0
4.0
5.0
6.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
(2) Hydrocarbon idle end.ssion values not to be exceeded:
PPM
No HC Check
1500
Enforcement Tolerance
Through June 1979
100
1200
800
600
500
400
300
200
125
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
All two-stroke cycle engines and diesel
ignition
Pre-1968 4 or less cylinder engines,, 4 or
less cylindered non-complying imports, and
those engines less than 820 cc (50 cu<. in.
displacement
Pre-1968 with more than 4 cylinder engines
and non-complying imports with more than
4 cylinder engines
1968 through 1969, 4 cylinder
All other 1968 through 1969
All 1970 through 1971
All 1972 through 1974, 4 cylinder
All other 1972 through 1974
1975 through 1978 without catalyst
1975 through 1978 with catalyst
A-12
-------
OREGON (Continued)
(3) There shall be no visible emission during the steady-state unloaded
and raised rpm engine idle portion of the emission test from either the
vehicle's exhaust system or the engine crankcase. In the case of diesel
engines and two-stroke cycle engines, the allowable visible emission shall
be no greater than 20% opacity.
(4) The Director may establish specific separate standards, differing
from those listed in subsections (1), (2), and (3), for vehicle classes
which are determined to present prohibitive inspection problems using the
listed standards.
HEAVY DUTY GASOLINE MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION CONTROL EMISSION STANDARDS
(1) Carbon Monoxide idle emission values not to be exceeded:
Base Standard
ALL VEHICLES
Pre-1970
1970 through 1973
1974 through 1978
6.0
4.0
3.0
Enforcement Tolerance
Through June, 1979
0.5
1.0
1.0
(2) Carbon monoxide nominal 2,500 RPM emission values not be be exceeded:
Base Standard
ALL VEHICLES
Pre-1970
1970 through 1978
Fuel Injected
3.0
2.0
No Check
Enforcement Tolerance
Through June, 1979
1.0
1.0
(3) Hydrocarbon idle emission values not to be exceeded:
ALL VEHICLES
Pre-1970
1970 through 1973
1974 through 1978
Base Standard
PPM
700
500
300
A-13
Enforcement Tolerance
Through June, 1979
200
200
200
-------
COMPILATION OF EMISSION STANDARDS FOR I/M PROGRAMS
CINCINNATI AND NORWOOD
Acceptable Emissions Levels
Cincinnati and Norwood
Model Year HC ppm CO %
Pre 1968 1000 6
1968-69 600 5
1970-74 500 4
1975-newer 250 1.5
A-14
-------
APPENDIX B
LIST OF ARIZONA APPENDIX MATERIAL
Page
Vehicle Inspection Report B-2
Inspection Report Supplement B-4
Failure Rate Summary B-6
Volume and Failure Rates for Each Location B-7
Failure Rates and Averages for Each Model Year B-8
Average Emissions for Gasoline Fueled Vehicles
in the First Six Months of 1979 Tested at Idle
Mode for Carbon Monoxidie (%) and Hydrocarbons (PPM) 8-9
Average Emissions for Gasoline Fueled Vehicles
in 1978 at Idle Mode for Carbon Monoxide (%)
and Hydrocarbons (PPM) B-10
Average Emissions for Gasoline Fueled Vehicles
in 1977 at Idle Mode for Carbon Monoxide (%)
and Hydrocarbons (PPM) B-ll
Repair Data B-12
3-1
-------
STATE OF ARIZONA
0000000
VEHICLE INSPECTION REPORT
CERTIFICATE BELOW NEEDED FOR REGISTRATION
(CANNOT BE REPLACED IF LOST OR STOLEN)
Your vehicle's test results are shown below. If it uses gasoline, it was tested for hydrocarbons 1
(HC) and carbon monoxide (CO); pass or fail is based on the idle portion of the test. If it uses
diesel fuel, it was tested for smoke emissions. If your vehicle failed, you are entitled to one free retest
after repairs or adjustments have been made. To get the free retest, you must return within 60 days*
with this report, signed on the reverse side, signifying that emission-related repairs or adjustments
have been made.
•IMPORTANT: The free retest period does not change your registration deadline. An $8 late j
registration fee is charged If registration Is processed after deadline. For registration Instructions, see !
j
'STATION NO. I LANE NO. > TEST MODE! TEST NO. I DATE
TIME
VEHICLE INFORMATION
•-ICENSC "LATE
VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NO.
1 STVI.E IFI.EL
LOADED TEST EMISSION RESULTS
HIGH CRUISE LOW CRUISE
f
HC ("PMI CO i'i! HC IPPVI ! CO ' ">>
MAXIMUM i
ALLOWABLE j
TEST '
READING < i • :
x- >
PASS/FAIL EMISSION RESULTS "~| f FINAL RESULT "S
IDLE DIESEL SMOKE
HC IPPMI | CO "il OPACITY
i MAXIMUM 1
] ALLOWABLE |
i TEST |
HEADING 1 j !
V J V
PI I0| ] P
•' - --•••'-• -
«»l I H' hssl ixi -i i «i i- '•«•» ;
?l
ARIZONA VEHICULAR EMISSION INSPECTION CERTIFICATE
The above vehicle was emission inspected at station
.and .
. the emission
standards as established by regulation.
This certificate may only be used for registration purposes when
either the word COMPLIANCE or
WAIVER is printed in this block. »i i
If the word TEST appears, see inspection report supplement.
THIS CERTIFICATE CANNOT 5E REPLACED IF LOST OR
STOLEN AND IS VOID WHEN ALTERED.
IF THE WORD COMPLIANCE OR WAIVER
APPEARS IN THE BLUE SLOCK ON THE
CERTIFICATE. TEAR ALONG THE
PERFORATED LINES AND TAKE IT OR MAIL
IT WITH YOUR REGISTRATION CARD TO
THE COUNTY ASSESSOR. KEEP TOP PART
CONTAINING THE TEST RESULTS UNTIL
YOU RECEIVE LICENSE TAGS.
IF THE WORD TEST APPEARS. THE
VEHICLE DESCRIBED HAS FAILED THE
INSPECTION AND MUST 3E REPAIRED
ACCORDING TO INSTRUCTIONS ON THE
REVERSE OF THIS FORM.
0000000
B-2
-------
ARIZONA INSPECTION REPORT -- REVERSE
IF YOUR VEHICLE FAILS THE INITIAL EMISSIONS INSPECTION. YOU MUST HAVE IT REPAIRED AND
EITHER PASS REINSPECTION OR QUALIFY FOR A WAIVER AS SPECIFIED BELOW. IN EITHER CASE.
TO QUALIFY FOR A REINSPECTION OR BE GRANTED A WAIVER. REPAIR INFORMATION MUST BE
PROVIDED BELOW:
TO BE FILLED OUT BY REPAIR FACILITY OR VEHICLE OWNER (Please Print)
Person or Facility Performing Repairs-
Address
.Phone No..
REPAIR REQUIREMENTS
REPAIRED.'
ADJUSTED REPLACED
Emission Related
Reoair Cost
C. 1
Set dwell ana timing to mtgr. soec.
Check air cleaner - reoiace if airtv
Check cnoke for proper operation - repair if necessary
Check PCV valve - replace if faulty
CMeck vacuum noses for orooer routing ana >eaKs -
repair ;f necessary
Set air fuel mixture to mfgr. soec.
Adiust iaie soeeo to mtgr. spec.
Cneck olug wires - replace •( necessary
Check spark plugs - reoiace if necessary
Check distributor ccmconents • vacuum advance.
distnputpr cap. rotor, soims • replace if necessary
C-eck float setting, power valve, needles, seat, lets:
resair. replace as reauirea.
Date of Repair.
I I
Official Use
Only
If an NOIR analyzer was
used during the repairs
recora tne following: ,——
ANALYZER REG. NO. ' °
HC IPPMl
initial Reading
(As Received)
Final Reading
(After Afljust-
ment/Repairsl
I i
NOTE:
If venicle is 1967 or older moael: or if a registered emissions analyzer is used and both HC and CO readings do not exceed
j maximum allowaoie on vehicle inspection repon: or if venicle is 1963-1971 Deconstructed, only A ;s reaured.
j Other 1968 ana newer models: If test results indicate CO failure only: complete items A 4 C. If test results indicate HC
failure onlv or ootn HC ano CO failure: complete items A i 3.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE REPAIRS REQUIRED ABOVE WERE PERFORMED ON THIS VEHICLE AND IF
THE VEHICLE FAILS REINSPECTION. A WAIVER IS REQUESTED.
NAME:.
ORINT SIGNATURE
REPAIR COST LIMITS: Owners of '967 and earlier models need not spend more than S25 on trie repair
procedures listed above: for 1968 and later model vehicles, the maximum cost is 575. Exceptions to these repair
limits are listed on the back of the yellow supplement.
IMPORTANT
INSPECTORS ARE PROHIBITED BY
REGULATION FROM MAKING ANY
RECOMMENDATIONS OR ESTIMATES
RELATIVE TO REPAIRS.
FOR REPAIR INSTRUCTIONS REFER
TO THE INSPECTION REPORT
SUPPLEMENT.
FOR REGISTRATION INFORMATION
SEE REVERSE SIDE.
'CO FAILURES ONLY: IF YOUR VEHICLE FAILED CARBON
MONOXIDE (CO) MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE ONLY AND HAS BEEN
REPAIRED BY A FACILITY WITH A REGISTERED EMISSIONS
ANALYZER. YOU MAY BYPASS THE FREE RETE3T FILL IN THE
SNFORMATION ABOVE AND BELOW AND SEND THE ENTIRE
REPORT TO THE BUREAU OF VEHICLUAR EMISSIONS INSPEC-
TION. 600 NORTH 4QTH STREET. PHCENSX. AZ 35008. OR TO
4040 EA.ST 29TH STREET. TUCSON. AZ 35711. ENCLOSE 51
iCHECKS PAYABLE TO THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH SERVICES). A CERTIFICATE OF WAIVER WILL 3E
RETURNED TO YOU BY MAIL. WHICH YOU MUST THEN SEND
WITH THE REGISTRATION FEES TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR.
Vehicle Owner.
Address
City. State. Zip .
-------
INSPECTION REPORT SUPPLEMENT
Provided by
Bureau of Vehicular Emissions Inspection
Arizona Department of Health Services
For repair and waiver information, contact trie- Bureau of Vehicular Emissions Inspection at
600 North 40th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85008 (telephone 255-1149), or 4040 East 29th Street
Tucson, AZ, 85711 (telephone 882-5395). - , - ?'v
IF YOUR VEHICLE FAILED its first inspection, it must be repaired and1:
retested before registration (see repair requirements on back of Vehicje-
inspection Report). Reinspection. is free within 60 days of first inspection, if
you return with your Vehicle Inspection; Report completed and signed on the
pack, THE; FREE RETEST•, PERIOD DOES NOT AFFECT REGISTRATION
DEADLINES. '
CO FAILURE OPTION: If your vehicle failed carbon monoxide (CO) ONLY
and. has been repaired by a facility with a registered emissions analyzer,
you may bypass the free retest. Complete and sign the back of your Vehicle
Inspection Report and send the entire report to the Bureau of Vehicular
Emissions Inspection, 600, North ;40th-Street, Phoenix, AZ 85008, or
,404Q., East 29th Street, Tucson, AZ' 8571 t.i.Enclose st (checks payable
to the; Arizona Department of Health Services). Certificate of Waiver will be
returned to you by mail, and should be sent with your registration and fees
to the County Assessor _,
CAUSES FOR FAILURE: In general, a CO failure indicates a carburetion
'problem; an HC failure indicates an ignition problem (plugs, points, wires-,;,
etc.). For details, see back of this supplement.
NOTICE: STATE PERSONNEL MAY CHECK YOUR VEHICLE AND ASK FOR RECEIPTS IN
THE EVENT YOUR VEHICLE FAILS THE RETEST.; IF THE NECESSARY REPAIRS OR
ADJUSTMENT HAVE NOT BEEN MADE.. YOU WILL NOT RECEIVE A WAIVER.
Experience has shown that with vehicles tuned ~& manufacturer's specifications, 98% of the'
vehicles can meet the state maximum allowable emissions-- within the cost limits. (See Vehicle
Inspection Reportior cost limits.^ , r ~ „ •>_
-j-
B-4
-------
ARIZONA INSPECTION REPORT SUPPLEMENT -- REVERSE
POSSIBLE CAUSES FOR EXCESSIVE EMISSIONS
:- NOTE: Repairs Required for Waiver are given in the Inspection Report . .
GENERAL: 1. A restricted or dirty air cleaner will cause high CO. ... . .
,,..; 2.'Malfunctioning choke will cause high CO. . v. ":v-.- ' •.'''.. .•-•••'•: ''•'•'."
. •• . • ' .=3. Disconnected or inoperative emissions control devices may cause high CO and/or high HC.
Particularly in fate model cars. '.*•'. • •
e —
1 (Carbo
onoxide
0
Hydrocarbon). •'...
O
X."
IF EMISSION REAOINQ IS
1 .. High at idle only, or ' ;
2. High at idle and low cruise
1 . High at low cruise only/or !
2. High at high cruise only, or
3. High at low and high cruise
1 . High at idle and high cruise, or .
2. High at idle, low and high cruise- .
• ' ' ' •- ''. ' " ' " ••'
.."'', J . ' . •' • "
V. High at idle only, or
2. High at idle and low cruise
• . 1 . High at low cruise only, or
2. High at high cruise only, or
3. High at low and high cruise, or "
4. High at idle and high cruise, or
5. High at idle, low and high cruise
•• . :.\ . PROBABLE CAUSES ARE ..-'-.'
.:; Improper carburetor idle speed and/or .;~ ,.; ..
". ~.: air/fuel mfxture adjustment :•"'
X Carburetor main system malfunction . ...
;•: NOTE: This problem cannot be corrected V . " .!•""'
• '-:• by idle adjustment only. - •-.'•'••" :
A combination of. malfunctioning carburetor main
; • system and a maladjusted idle/air fuel ratio.
1. Idle speed adjustment (usually too low)
•.'•'- - 2. Excessively high CO at idle can cause . . *
moderately high HC at idle .. . •'„;
•'.'• .;' 3. Idle circuits on 2- and 4-barrel carburetors highly - '
- imbalanced or adjusted improperly
4. Improper basic ignition timing
,5. Excessively lean idle mixture or vacuum leaks in the intake
; manifold causing subsequent misfire in some cylinders.
< 6. Compression leak through one or more valves
Ignition misfire ;"-.:.•• •.£ . . •"
•V,'J
;f,(j
:-,S
•1
EXCEPTIONS TO MAXIMUM REPAIR COST
VEHICLE
"uMTr*
VEHICLE
REPAIR
LIMIT
AMERICAN MOTORS
1968-All except Jeep - $43
1969 - All except Jeep 58
CHRYSLER
1968 Imperial/Chrvsler/Dodge/Plymouth 42
1969 Imperial/Chrysler/Dodge/Plymouth 56
GENERAL MOTORS
1968 Cnevrolet/Buick/Oldsmcbile/Pontiac 53
1969Chevrolet/Buick/Oldsmobile/Pontiac 71
1968 Cadillac.. 62
FORD • .
1968 Ford/Mercury . 54
1969 Ford/Mercury ~>2
1968 Lincoln .. . 57
AUSTIN- • •• - _ •—
1968 .W.;v.;; . . 25
1969 ......... . . 30
1970 ..:. .; 40
1971 •;';;.;....-; . 54
DATSUN
1968 ......... . 48
1969 ......... 61
FIAT ."• . .
1968 ......... 4T
1969 ......... 63
FORD CORTINA : V. -
1968 ....;.......;.-.....'...:.-.v...'..S28
1969 :...... ...^..:. ^ 40 .
1970 :...;.-ii.V. 5Ti-
OPEL . ; . •...' '--v^-'-" •-... •-. '. -.;:•'
1968 ..;; :...;;..:.:.V..... 38
1969 .':. •; :..;_;..... ;...;. 50
1970 .:.. .....v.;..................;...67
RENAULT ;.;. •'.,. •-'-.•-•-.-
1968 .:•.:....-.' :":"..^'-...;.':::.-•.-..l.v;-.....-. 45-
1969 ..." ;...•..: .;.-.:;•..-...."'.-.- •.... 5*
ROVER l .:j~ ::.'•'.:? :-'^':':^:' ....,-^--. "'•
1968 /;;...V...V?...-..".v-.v;.'...'-..v.l...V. 58
SIMCA-- ~; '•;:> '-•** ''-. • -v.-..-., .. .-:';" -. "•
1968 ...'..:...'*?:•-'.< ..-iv.-;...-.-.-;.iiV.-.^:.3S.-
1969 ..;.-.'..^.'.lv......^.;c-.^...:.:^'..ui 45.
SUNBEAM ••••'. - . . '- ~^~"". : ••• •.".''.- •' ."
1969 ;:.;:;—..;..,.. ;;.;.v..i.;^.::^'25;
TOYOTA . •. . -V.. •• • . '•-.-.• .;• :•'• :?;-'••••':-i- :- • •
1968 ;..::,........;.....-....;V... ..L.-58
RECONSTRUCTED VEHICLES ••:->:'.. • • • -
1968-1970 ..;;«:...;.^.' 30-
1971 ....; :...:....;...:..v;;-u.....;.... so
1972 ; ..;^.^;..: 70.
,. .*' v ;.~^
B-5
-------
I
CT.
V)
U)
UJ
.V
3o
10
15
.—-. M A R i c o r
o—1> p r r-i A
RE TEST
FAILURE
RATE
•T F
A r\ J J
o 14 u J F M A r-\ J 3 A S O H O .1 F tt A n 3 3 A S o N D
1177
C178
-------
A i. r<
FAIL U R t
EACH
LOG
T I 0 N
W
I
LOCATION
ANf-
•ilATlCiN
I1GJ
MnS
HOS
I-I07
lir.a
I1«R1CGPA
p('!>
P03
P04
P I HA
MOBILE
TOTALS
T OTAl
127-1 /
1C11B5
9069
13-104
1 377?
V805
1263
533
73770
702O
9771
B107
265
25971
515
105264
INITIAL
Tf.'iii:
IO31O
15194
7451
11 101
1 1 -3.1- 1
79O6
1C 14
438
64775
6 1 39
77£°
"'206
fjpsci i
373
P A
INT
BYP
ooooo-oo—
o
0
o
o
0
0
1
1 D
h.IT?>
i
2
1
0
5
0
0
0
9
1
0
0
1
2
0
1 1
T t G T
NL-HBEH
Dl I.I.ED
I O3 1 1
1 5 1 96
7452
11101
1 1 3i6
79O7
1014
43B
64705
6140
7760
6-176
207
373
C.5741
5
TOTAL
AMOUNT
*708I3. 36
•I 34 726 32
* 51 730 66
* 52965 56
*36B46. 62
f r:04 1 '. OB
*3616I~. 60
i 30 173 16
*964 62
»95916 78
*1738 18
H3'V9b'J3. 06
ri i'i h •-
FUCK
P.IH TL5TS
2D39
2733
1 531
£?2£
Vbl'7
249
95
1 3305
1 6Q3
1991
1613
58
5345
50
1 f) I'M;
r- A i i/
OTHFR
TE!,1S
L'56
36
97
ni
O
G
\r,
O
',2
ii; 3
TESTS
NUMBER
NOT CHARGED
2436
2989
1617
2303
2406
1893
249
13993
1600
2011
1631
50
53BO
142
19523
FAILURE
TESTS
NUMBER PERCENT
i'SSO 24. 73
3149 2O. 73
1668 22 39
2467 22 40
2526 22. 23
2026 25 63
27B 27. 42
"114 26 03
14790 22 85
1081 30 64
2050" 26 52
1725 26 64
64 31.07
. _572B 27. 63
81 21 72
20607 24. 04
~-*~~ *~ *~~
f< A T E i
RETEiiT
NUhBEH fH"RCL.UT
B3<, 30). 74
754 27. 51/
47-7 3] 29
ti'O J-'o l'l
6fiO 29. 3-1
652 35. SB
91 36 :.•;;
26 27 37
4143 31. 14
705 4 1 . ti9
731 36. 72
530 32. 06
31 53 45
1997 37 36
22 44. 00
6162 32 9L;
-------
i-i G n
Y e A
tSI
O
a
I
O3
,v;ii- . t.r
IllJlJfcl
YF.AI.'
:'f-Fi i A.I.
i-hr - -'..I
i--^i
i >:•.:,;:
1 V.;.':
1964
19,1.-,
i 966
i •:•».;•'
•1,1- '.i?
1 9/ 0
t'li.-l
I97v
1 57 1
-.-.L; • -71
1 '. 7.?
1 •", " ' .
J;-/:i
i v •' 5
\ •',:•-,
\ •"• v .'
1 770
1979
i •ythi"
1 7:'.|
[•n-.-.i • v-i
i'i.iT/.i.
ii.:iTini. iur;i-t>: v K.iii
NiihlJF.l! NUflEKR I'AIl UCl:
I'C:, II- IJ I-'AI !(-'!) I(,V|T
l.-:Gl 1 -ij- i 1 u2
:• 1 20 GO
i ' o ' »•;•)
3 i 'j'j :>3
o r. <-.;•>
0 O CO
5 1 20. 00
263O 76O 28. 90
:-'07l 771 ?':. 96
'-.f-10 1536 27 EiE
;:4':.i9;i ;.r.'9 ;."i -19
HH30 151 1 17: 13
I r,71 ,;, 'U.f> 9 9?
J4 0 00
••.:"•"-• 1 1 . 7.V..14 21. h'7
b'../2'/ ;:Oi,OV 24. O-i
[>c ii.;i.--.L l IDl.!..
lil)lini-'.r< IHIn.lF.H KAILOUE
r-r'(L 31 1: i; '"AH ED uAif:
llil ?.:, iv Ht.
0 (". GO
0 O OO
''. t'. l',t'..
'j O 00
O 0 OO
L'tf.l 192 27. 83
;.f:l ;.'! 1 >j ••/i.l
1371 403 29 59
1009 396 39. 25
1 1 tO 397 34 4 i
1 1 JO 373 ' 3r- 72
1171 ' r)7ii 32. ;:D
4472 l'J44 34. 53
]?•?? ?,'_'^ 37 t1!
'li'T/' S3!:i V;. 7V
5&''::: ,:0c.'i 3n 39
1201 ';eo 3^.0'.'
lf.l>7 S8'> 1)4. 91
;-oi 7 <-.-,'? ^-.-i r, i
1424 327 22 96
i <-.;•• r- ir>r 24 -.2
o .-, . oo
-07.4 r:i:!5 :-.w. 'iil
; icr;oo c, i*,;.1 :,;' vs
A'.'tlhi-Gt... i-uR
ll'iLK TEV.T 1101)1
Ci'i'V.i HC (M'11) MUhljl l<
OO '; O
2 70 201"! 4
-1 72 2ir. l
7 OS IHG 1
0(> ('* 0
. 00 0 0
2. h3 275 2
4 05 392 2426
4 04 rivo ;:-./i;.'
4. 05 395 5062
3. 32 316 3176
3 2!) 264 4209
3 01 ' 249 ' '4639
2 94 24:5 50;,9
3. 1 1 264 17093
2 A! 20O t^i't'J
2 e-:.- l-.-f; 7 7 •'/;•-.
2. 4t> 164 i.A.'iti
i: F-'> 107 ;M2;v-l
=/-., 99 J720
. QO Ga S7D3
ft 9 u3 71 1 ;_'
55 72 7311
41 (:-"7 l;11^*-.
00 i'4 '27
i -I.-. io;/ i
. £6 70 29245
2. 02 176 72;. 2H
GASuLl Nil -FUELED LIGHT f
LOU CRUISE none
COC/. > HC(PPM) NVhCEH
.00 0 0
97 93 3
. oo o o
2 05 OO 1
. 00 0 0
. oo o o
112 1BO 1
3. 05 260 1B02
3 19 257 194B
3. 12 258 3752
2. 16 215 23V5
1 96 1E15 3257
i: 57 167 3797
i. 52 163 4152
1. 75 179 13601
1 27 131 6161
1 42 13.5 6945
1. 52 128 5731
1. 40 131 , 18637
. 74 6:j 3331
S'j 61 5314
.39 57 6572
. 36 60 6799
. 29 4D 4900
.02 10 26
.14 14O 1
.44 50 26933
1.17 117 63126
_ .. . _„ . ,„ ,,
UTY VI:HJ cut's
HIGH CRUISE Ml.u;i£
CO(7.) HC(PPH) H'JI'iliL'l''.
OO O O
1 , t.2 1 70 4
4 33 140 l
2. 68 150 1
. 00 0 O
. OO 0 O
2. 16 12O 1
3 Ol 271 191 &
2. 91 21 7 2C94
2. 96 ' 243 ' 4012
2. IB 190 259:,
95 164 34 SI
' '. 58 150 " "4006
. 52 135 4435
.75 156 1451ii
. 29 122 6;.;,".'4
Ci-i 109 701 i
32 117 5132H
32 116, 19O:;M
. 77 60 33 -76
53 56 5444
. 4" 56 4i7P7
' ". 57 67 6969
34 43 50.?0
. 20 22 .'?£,
.14 7O 1
53 50 :-:75fi.'J
1. IB 108 651 UO
,;:., £
'.; H
- w
-;. , CO
o
>
w
CO
o
w
o
-------
£ M 1-9 S JON '->
IM TtfiT ,-A'JC.T ST
-re L£:
IT 'I Ti^'F
L.
Ur-
H CA
HCVs
1171
1175
tf-71
£.5-4
4, (I
3.33
3.14 -2.42
1^323
33 66
334^3
1 ife
• 4.2.3
3.63
3.31
3-H
-i-61
2-73
406
VjO
II H
14.46
4..I2.
3.40
T-6T4
425-3
'73
li'1 7732
131 116b"
1.5;
Ml
43316 I-72 • Ho
301
^73
13(3
48,714
33,300
47/67
73
5
M (/ M (3 £ f?
66-71
2.43
a.
j ^ iL
', 2 '
111
2.35"
346.31
3-9
-------
AT JDL£
AND HVDR.O'
f""' o i >, \
1 1 > i"
,'-^->
;.-., 2
Kit-?
K.-IO
!Vi!
1111
\f\Ti
1174
Kris'
K7"
11 "
' , •!> U'tj '• K.C. C j
a .7 4 4*4 3<53Z^ .
4-70 ••I'b "365"J9 '
3., A ,o, 4-M1V
wi rii . 6ocil
^1 ^1 ^'^
"? - ^ ^- T.T.^ #C"7 £» /^"
*^-^~l l*^"^i ?^C(^1
1.«* /70 «J^3,
1.^5 /5Z -79Z9,
1-06 31 . 5"6 ;?4
0-31 ^ ^174
0.31 11 tfit.ff
' U . 7-> J. i • i • 1
Heavu -^ ,... ^el.,clf5
4-60 433 1441.
4'"" '" "'^V
•MA 3AA . 1913
4.10 3o4 " ^-^Z. li^^O
3.,? ns «t3i
1..3V n 6 ?6i"4
^.^l /'tT6 1.3 444
l.T.\ '."il Hill
^-^•"r-""c;^_-f-
4.1? 44T
V.10 4W
3-3G 301.
3-31 .. A!3_
3-53 . 152.
3.4^ 131
3-H n tT
1 ."7 1 73
i.7i ;?6
1.30 15*
I. II §6
(.38 93
3|,1 it,
. 32)^7
. f^'7
6^/00
61,160
72,syo
I6,4co
!o6jo7C
•3^, '-'1 13
G^,^I6
9fe,110
If, 210
/^G6^-G
ft (, r, ftr^,AT £ CoC%)
ii'-Tfe . 3.10 ^
'.f-TI . 1-82 ^ .
06 -77 2.21^
Cf-"-" ' 3>-3B •/
6t-?r ^.Ti^-
nTED D^TA
H C 'PPM) NuMfte R
117. ^ .
-------
AT
(4 7J u
M S C?P
\e\11.
1^73
111 4
-2\
C .
4.1 j. :-, 7
1^- 0'
4.72 31 ."it
17.0
(,-'-1-1
\i
B-ll
-------
ARIZONA REPAIR DATA
Type Of
Repa i r Fac i 1 i ty j
Dealers " i
Service Stations ;
Independent Garages \
Merchandisers
Tune-up Special i s ts
M i sc . Repd i r Fac i 1 i t i as
Individuals ", Colleges
Do- 1 t-Yoursel fers
Unknown (left blank) 1
:
TOTAL POPULATION
Uncoded 1573: j
Total Count 1973: H337
Total Count 1577: 13134
Number
Same led
1233
2173
3033
570.
621
373
HO
4012
102
12323
20H
„ ' 3 7 8 nc
Percentage Of
Industry
10.0
17.7
25.1
4. 6
5.0
3.1
I . '•
32.6
.3
100.0
H.O
Averaee Cost
Average Cost
Average
Cost
S 41.32
21 .63
32.55
?0.63
33.32
41 .29
48.23
27.43
23.39
2?.,-?
-
I97S: S2J.?9
1977: 525.4^
3-12
-------
APPENDIX C
LIST OF CALIFORNIA APPENDIX MATERIAL
PAGE
Data Processing in California's I/M Program C-2
Vehicle Inspection Report C-4
Fleet Inspection Checklist C-6
Fleet Analyzer Accuracy Check C-7
Contractor Lane Inspection Report C-8
V.I.P. Inspection Center Report C-9
Fleet Inspection Report C-10
Selected Tables from the MVIP Annual Report C-11
Report on Repair Facilities C-27
Regional Office Activity Report for the Period
of December 3 thru December 28, 1979 C-28
Outline of Low Emission Mechanic Training Program C-35
Fleet License Application C-37
Fleet Inspection Form C-38
Fleet Information Letter C-39
Vehicle Inspection Program Centers C-43
Mandatory Vehicle Inspection Area C-44
Request for Initial Inspection C-45
Notice for Qualifying Mechanics C-46
C-l
-------
DATA PROCESSING IN CALIFORNIA'S I/M
PROGRAM
The prime contractor in California's I/M program is Hamilton Test
Systems of Santa Anna, California. Their data collection and manipulation
system is organized as follows:
Each of the 17 test centers is equipped with a minicomputer (a POP
1104, manufactured by Digital). During the daytime testing hours, the mini-
computer operates in a testing mode (comparing data produced by the tests to
the respective vehicle standards, printing out the test result forms, and
storing the data from the tests). At night, the minicomputers are switched
to the communications mode and their stored data is transmitted via telephone
connection (at 1200 baud) to the district stations.
There are 5 district stations, each of which is responsible for 2
to 5 inspection centers. Each district station is equipped with a POP 1134
minicomputer that collects and sorts the data transmitted to it from the
individual inspection centers. These data are then transmitted to the main
office in Santa Anna via telephone (at 1200 baud).
The main office uses a POP 1170 minicomputer to collect, sort, and
transfer the data from all stations onto magnetic tape. Every two weeks
these magnetic tapes are mailed to the Bureau of Automotive Repair in Sacra-
mento. The Bureau has two IBM 370/168 computers and an Amdahl V7. These
computers perform the analyses on all of the data, using COBOL software for
counting tests and tabulating failure rates, and PL/I for analysis and
report production. Among the things the PL/I system is capable of doing are:
Dynamic analysis of failure rates, including comparison
of several hypothetical sets of standards with the actual
ones to predict potential failure rates.
c-2
-------
Plotting graphs of the distribution of emissions
measured in the tests.
Calculating the average cost of repairs.
Tabulating the reduction of emissions after repairs.
Scoring the effectiveness of mechanics in the vicinity
of each inspection station, e.g., average cost of repairs
tabulated by type by shop, conformance score that delineates
how well the mechanic conformed with the recommended test
procedure.
-------
VEHICLE INSPECTION RiiPUKT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA / Q- "'""-"I
OFFICIAL VEHICLE INSPECTION CENTER
vouf .enicte s test results are snown oeiow if the Final Jesuit oo* reaos FAIL or REJECT, tne ECS Cooes, me EMISSION TEST
cAiltiR6 Cooes, or tne REJECT REASON areas o* tms reoort give me reason for failure or flection. An indication of this crooaoie
;ause of failure can oe 'ouna on tne BacK cf tms reoort. The most common aojustments and repairs hkety to oe requtrea \n oraer 'or
.our '.eriicie to pass remspection can oe found in tne Consumers Hanaooo* puftusnea cy tne Department or Consumer AKairs. The
ueranec procedures are contained :n tne '"Qualified" Mecnantcs wanaooo* ouonsned oy tne Deoartmeni o* Consumer Affairs.
EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS (ECS)
FAILURE CODES
PIRST CHARACTER
9 *ir Iniect-on Syslen
SECOND CHARACTER
Moo idea Device or
System not AHS-soo'Cvea
Oisconnecteo/3y-oassea
Missing
EMISSION TEST
FAILURE COOES
: Excessive Smone
2 P^rtcrm LOW Emission
j "lie SPM Eicessive
•J :"!? Atr Puet Muture 3i
5 M.sl.re ji la:»
J Retrofit NOX Control
( FINAL RESULTS
J
ECS FAILURE COOES
EMISSION TEST FAILURE CODE
REJECT REASON
if Final Result is REJECT, me vehicle could not be tested for the following reason(s).
Notea condition must be corrected before tne vehicle can be tested for certification.
QUEUE NO. (STATION NO. I LANE NO. TEST MODE I TEST NO. i DATE
TIME
VEHICLE INFORMATION
VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NO
; WT : MILEAGE j AI/CAT
'• ! ,000 !
EMISSION INSPECTION INFORMATION
1ST IDLE
li
co I''1 !' OFFICIAL
2500 RPM
STATE
STANDARD
USE
ONLY
HC jppml j CO |"i) !. OFFICIAL !
EMISSION
HEADINGS
I IDLE
HC (ppmi ;
STATE
STANDARD
OFFICIAL
USE
EMISSION
READINGS
USE
ONLY
AMMT-
C-4
-------
CALIFORNIA INSPECTION REPORT -- REVERSE
tf me ftruN nm4t boi on (ft* front side ot this sheet reads "FAIL." the most probable causa o' the failure can be found as follows:
i! jnt*-- if? in. .-.-,'.:•'-'-ure Cooes inown .n tne "ECS Failure Codes" boi tr<* cause ot tatiuie is indicated 3v tne second diqitot tr.ecode
i1 in Emission Tesl Failure Code ol "2" -s snown. a tow-emission !'jn*tup must ne oerformrtd to tie soecif'canons o' tne Department of
Consumer Altairs This funeup consists •;' cVjuistments ol Jwefl tirr.mg idle flPM and carouretor air/foe) mixture
3 DronaDie causes ana 'ecommenaec 'eoairs ^or >ne remaining Emission mscection Coaes are snown sn tne tacte oelow
COPE PROBABLE CAUSE OF FAILURE RECQMMENOED BEPAIB *
See item 2! .ioo"ve
incorrect 'de aaiustnent
in.:orreci 'de -
Otrty air 'liter
ci Lean cr u^Datancsa idle .-Tmtufe
ci ^dcuum i*a«s
a) Diagnose and reoair cause as reauirea
0! ^eo'ace afoxen or *Qtn Dans as reouir*
ai
i to manufacturer's s
at Adjust to manufacturers soecmcations
0) Replace Miter.
O fleoair cnoKe.
jt Reoair/reo'ace PCv system
4) Diagnose and repair or replace 'auUv cans.
01 A<3|usi to manufacturers scecif:r^t"'.-^s
o Peotace or reoa-r .icrecuve p^rts
<1) Diagnose and repair as ~ecessaiY-
IF YOUR VEHICLE FAILS THE EMISSION INSPECTION. YOU MUST HAVE IT REPAIRED TO PASS RE-INSPECTION OR QUALIFY
FOR A WAIVER. IN EITHER CASE. TO OUALlFY FOR RE-INSPECTION. OR BE GRANTED A WAIVER. THIS FORM MUST BE RE-
TURNED TO THE INSPECTION CENTER AND THE REPAIR INFORMATION AND SIGNATURE(S) MUST 3E PROVIDED BELOW.
TO BE FILLED OUT 3Y THE REPAIR FACILITY OR VEHICLE OWNER.
MISCELLANEOUS SYSTEMS
i_jw emission funeua
CafS'.J'elor ?,je) ;r>te'::njn
:3r> I'On SvSieff'
Cic.er
PARTS Cost
LABOR Coal
CHECK OFF ITEMS REPA
REQUIRED VOLUNTARY
T .!,
1= ,1A
.17 .",A
Oi '0
1. ,->
•_> u
:Q 'T
? 5
5 3
After repair/adjustments idle emissions readings:
i.-.^D OR REPLACED
EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS
C(3r;ncjse Control
A,/ ir-iection
w«aied Air IIIAI
Ignition Soar1* Control
E.tnaust Gas Pecir-.:uiation
E^riaust Convener
.ffuet gvaooracon
=*iro!i' Device
H^ ppm rn
REQUIRED VOLUNTARY
o«; -K
,, iq
'13 3 1
,- lfi
i- ij*
MOTORIST OR MECHANIC (AS APPROPRIATE) COMPLETE AND SIGN ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:
MOTORIST REPAIR STATEMENT
I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT NO COMPENSATION WAS PAID FOR THE REPAIRS
PERFORMED ON THE VEHICLE IDENTIFIED I
QUALIFIED MECHANICS REPAIR STATEMENT
TO 8E COMPLETED 9Y A QUALIFIED MECHANIC IN A NON-MVPC REGISTERED REPAIR FACILITY
I CERTIFY THAT THE RECOMMENDED REPAIRS WERE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS AND PROCEDURES ESTABLISHED
8Y THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS. PURSUANT TO SECTION 989960 OF THE BUSINESS 4 PROFESSIONS CODE.
ARO REGISTRATION NUMBER
QUALIFIED MECHANICS NUMBER
MVPC REPAIR STATEMENT
TO Be COMPLETED SV A QUALIFIED LICENSED MECHANIC [INSTALLER! IN AN MVPC STATION
i CERTIFY THAT:
ZjALL RECOMMENDED REPAIRS WERE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE QUALIFIED MECHANICS HANDBOOK
,_;THIS VEHICLE IS IN NEED OF FURTHER REPAIRS THAT WOULD EXCEED THE COST LIMITATION AND HAS RECEIVED A LCW-EMISSION TUNE-UP
ADDITIONAL REPAIRS NEED"
Estimated Cost Si
MVPC'STATION NUMBER"
LICENSED INSTALLER S NUMBER "
"00 NOT USE QUALIFIED MECHANIC NUMBER
C-5
-------
CALIFORNIA FLEET
INSPECTION CHECKLIST
BUSINESS NAME
BUSINESS ADDRESS
BUSINESS PHONE
MVPC STATION LICENSE NO..
CONTACT PERSON
FLEET CENTER ! FLEET MEMBER
OWN 10 OR MORE VEHICLES OWN 10 OR MORE VEHICLES
CURRENT ARD (IF APPLICABLE) MUST CONTRACT WITH DEALER
CURRENT MVPC STATION FLEET CENTER
REQUIRED EQUIPMENT PROVIDE ACCESS
•BAR APPROVED EXHAUST ANA. BOTH FLEET CENTER 4 FLEET
•OSCILLOSCOPE-IGN. ANA. MEMBER NEW/USED CAR DEALER
•AMMETER
•OHMMETER
•VOLTMETER
•TACHOMETER
•VACUUM/PRESSURE GAUGE
•DWELL METER
• IGNITION TIMING LIGHT
•COMPRESSION TESTER
•DISTRIBUTOR ADV. TESTER SCHEDULED INSPECTION
•REFERENCE MATERIAL
•HANDBOOKS (VIP & MVPC) DATE
ADOEQUATE FACILITIES 4 PROVIDE
ACCESS TIME
MAINTAIN RECORDS 4 FOLLOW REGS.
EMPLOY "QUALIFIED" CLASS "A" MECH.
PROVIDE TIME FOR TRAINING-
COMMENTS
INSPECTION ASSIGNED TO.
INSPECTION ASSIGNED BY
DATE INSPECTION ASSIGNED
-------
FLEET ANALYZER ACCURACY CHECK
SRAND I/R ANALYZER
SERIAL NUMBER
CORRECTION FACTOR
GAc BOTTLE VALVES
CO
CORRECTED VALUES VERIFICATION READINGS
HC CO I HC CO
SIGIIATUHS
C-7
-------
CALIFORNIA -- CONTRACTOR LANE INSPECTION REPORT
I NSF-EGT I OM
•.ENTER «.
ANALYZERS-
.. LANE t*
HC/CO-1 ...
«««*«**4««4**
FUNCTIONAL CHECKS
DATE . . . /. .
C02— O-. ..
TIME
M
IN3P
EMISSION DATA ENTRY PANEL
TEST CUE PANEL
EXHAUST SYSTEM LOUVERS
VEHICLE I DENT. TERMINAL
CERTIFICATE PRINTER
V. I. R. PRINTER
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
CO MONITOR-IS. . . . ASST
#**««««««-» •»•»««»*•»«•»•»•» •»«•»•!)••»
ACCURACY CHECKS
R P M TACHOMETER:
ACCURACY
c o MONITOR:
CONC
*•» •*•»**
READING
CALIBRATION GAS SET tt . 2
GAS/CYL. A 7779. .... A9516
FLOW.RATE 3 CFH HEXANE:PROPANE »
. . A.l.4.42.7. . MH2152 . 21.-8097. . XA9309 . . »
CONC 100 2.E6 673 907 2045 3.336. . . ,
cQUIV CONC •»
READING *
*
DELTA »
*
DELTA 'I. *
>
STANDARDS. . r9?° 5^° 5?° . . . . *
*
CONC 0.50 1.49 2-.S4 5.70 - . . 6-.60 8.89- - *
READING *
*
DELTA »
*
DELTA •'. *
•»
STANDARDS. . . 20% 20% 8% 5% 5% 5%- • • *
C-AS/CYL. A6333. A360° *
CONC 17° 506 *
4-
READING *
DELTA *
4
DELTA y. *
*
STANDARDS ' *
SECS
LEAK CHECK
MAX INCHES Hg
3 INCH DROP
C-C
-------
V/. I . P.
DATE . . . /. . . /. . .
TIME . . . : ..... M
INSPECTION CENTER # .
INSPECTION
INSPECTOR ......
ASSISTANT .....
LOCATION:
ENTER REPORT
INSPECTION: SCHEDULED
CALL SACK
NO. LANES INSP
4
4
*
4
4
*
4
4
4
4
*
44
4
4
4
4
4
*
44
4
4
4
4
APPEARANCE
LANDSCAPING/EXTERNAL
PUBLIC AREAS:
HALLS
RESTROOMS
OFFICE
TESTING AREAS. . . .
PUBLIC INTERFACE
EMPLOYEE APPEARANCE
EMPLOYEE COURTESY
PAMPHLETS ?! LITERATURE
REPAIR FACILITY STATISTICS . .
PUBLIC SAFETY
SLIPPERY FLOORS
STRAY TOOLS, ETC
SAFETY SIGNS
OTHER HAZARDS
FACILITY EQUIPMENT
VEHICLE MOVER
COMPUTER HARDUARF
t4
*
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
*
)-4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
(••*
4
*
4
4
4
*
!•*
4
4
4
4
QUEUING
# OF VEHICLES IN QUEUE
* OF VEHICLES IN STREET
QUEUE TIME (MIN)
CUSTOMER TIME (MTN)
I NSPECT I ON PROCEDURES
POSITION 1 DUTIES. . .-
POSITION 2 DUTIES
POSITION 3 DUTIES
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
•»4*-» •»•»**•» •»**•»•»**•»**•*•»•»**•» •»**4*44*4*-»-*-»
EMPLOYEE SAFETY 4
GAS BOTTLE STORAGE 4
SAFETY DEVICES IN USE 4
EXCESSIVE NOISE 4
OTHER HAZARDS
SYSTEM SOFTWARE
APPROVED VERSION >
MEDIA VERIFICATION. . . .
4
4
»44444
4
4 CALIBRATION/SPAN GAS * MAINTENANCE FILE CHECK 4
4 * 4
444444444444*44»*«******»**4-»444«4*444-»*'4-»*-44-»-*»44#»*44-»*44444444-*444444-*-»44
4 RECORD KEEPING *
4 MorMTPMaNrp i Fnnps r OF M i~ LHI~ 4
4
4
CONSOLE PRINTER LGi~
FORMS CONTROL LOG
f4
STATE ASSISTED
INSPECTOR. . •. BY H. T. 3
PROCEDURE MANUALS
DATE. . . /.
4
4
4
t-44444
. /. . .
C-9
-------
CALIFORNIA -- FLEET INSPECTION REPORT
M.V.I.P. INSPECTION REPORT
TYPE INSPECTION
1 i INITIAL
CU FOLLOW UP
'_! PERIODIC
Q COMMERCIAL FL5ET
O DEALER FLEET
i 1 COLLECTIVE FLEET
I_J QUALIFIES
i '
_^""
ANALYZER CALIBRATION INFORMATION
CORRECTED CAL GAS VALUES
-*• if)0 PPU *crFPT*fl'.l= SANOE __ ,
ANALYZER ACCURACY
METER READINGS
HC THRU CAL, PORT ., , , BQM
nr THPIJ PPQ3F . ., . _ PP«
CO THflu PROBE . *
TQ
CHECK
PPU HF.X
PPM
fn anTT, c VA, ,lf ..
+• i-
ACCEPTABLE
R
d
YES i ! NO
YES i ! NO
YES ! ! NO
YES LJ NO •
REMARKS I-R ANALYZER ONLY
GENERAL INSPECTION ITEMS
jYHSl NO i
YSS; NO
1. OFFICIAL SIGN DISPLAYED
I. CURRENT STA. LIC.' REG POSTED
]. CURRENT EMPLOYED LIC. INST./AOS.
J. CURRENT EMP. INST./ ADS. LIC. li> DISPLAYED
S. PRICES POSTED
t. INSPECTION PROCEDURES POSTED
7. SEC. INSPECTION STEPS FOLLOWED
8. CERTIFICATES ISSUED CORRECTLY
j j 9. RECORD OP N0» STICKER MAINTAINED
j 1 10. RECORD OF CERT/ WORK ORDERS MAINTAINED
j 11. REO. TOOLS i EOUIP. AVAIL. 4 SERVICEABLE
1 | U. 3AR BULLETINS. MECH. HANDBOOK CURRENT
1 1 13. TUNE UP SPECS. & SERV. DATA CURRENT
! I
i 1 U. HAVE RECEIVED FLEET TRAINING
1 1
i 15.
i i6-
;
i
COMMENTS:
73M-J7 11,79 I
c-in
-------
Table A-2 - Idle Emission Test
Standards and Failure Rates for each Vehicle Category
CALIFORNIA - SE1
for the First 22 Weeks of the Program E
Standards with
Category
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
1)
12
U
14
Vehicles
Inspected
34.764
15.663
63.217
26*. 546
46.633
15.137
4.U46
15.468
13,650
40,711
23,870
19.137
67.124
24
3Q6.790
Model -Year
1955-1965
1966-1970
1966-1970
1971-1974
1971-1974
1955-1967
1968-1970
1968-1970
1971-1974
1971-1974
1975-1979
1975-1979
1975-1979
1975-1979
Cylinders
5 or more
5 or more
5 or more
5 or more
5 or more
4 or less
4 or less
4 or less
4 or less
4 or less
All
All
All
All
Emission
Control System
-
W/AI
w/o Al
w/Al
w/o Al
-
w/Al
w/o Al
w/Al
w/o A I
Ho cat
Cat w/o Al
X
Cat w/Al
3-way cat
Tolerance
RC
1200
450
600
250
450
1850
500
1000
350
500
350
250
250
250
CO
9.0
3.0
7.0
2.2
6.0
8.0
3.0
7.0
2.25
6.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Emission
Failure Rates
21.43X
42.14X
30.95X
35. BOX
30.77X
26.43X
40.69X
30.21X
42.42X
28.99X
23.26*
34.77X
10.37X
4.17X
27.05X
Device
Failure Rates
40.07X
54.57X
46.53X
22.96X
24.39X
21.77X
48.39X
42. 1U
17.63X
17.03X
9.70X
10.40X
10.84X
4.17X
26.4BX
Smoke and RPH
Failure Rates
10.43X
2.71X
2.19X
1.68X
1.26X
31.76X
19.67X
17.90X
11.331
13.401
3.481
2.4)1
2.7BX
4.17X
6. SOX
Overall
Failure Rates
55.34X
70.23X
61.53X
48.48X
46.23X
60.181
71.32X
62.24X
54.65X
45.40X
30.IOX
41.04X
20.66X
8.33X
46.74X
o
H
O
H
tfl
t-1
M
CO
3
0
3
H
ffi
M
S
M
T)
^
•2
CJ
t-1
s
o
H
-------
O
I
o
O
£
Table A-3
I
Emission Control Device Failures I
for t'eeks 11 through 22 by Vehicle Category
Catugory Category
Number Population
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-o -
3 8
9
10
11
12
13
14
18,552
B.608
34,216
14,216
25.244
11,121
2.687
8,1(16
7. MB
21.6B4
11,935
10,041
37.263
IS
Crankcase
Ventilation
2.577
(13.91)
811
( 9.8%)
2,727
( 8.0%)
62!
( 1.4%)
1,306
( 5.2%)
7fl7
( 9.4%)
231
( 8.6%)
7B8
( 9.6%)
198
( 2.61)
825
( 3.81)
194
( 1-61)
150
( 1.51)
573
( 1.51)
0
(OM
Heated Air
Injection
-
1.721
(20.01)
_
-
B33
( 5.91)
-
20
( 0.21)
503
(18.71)
-
584
( 7. 81)
-
278
( 2.31)
-
610
( 1.61)
0
(o •
Engine Air
Modification Cleaner
-
161
(1.91)
337
(1.01)
99
(0.71)
179
(0.71)
-
23
(0.91)
213
(2.61)
53
(0.71)
282
(1.31)
55
(0.51)
10
(0.11)
40
(0.11)
. 0
(01)
-
-
754
(8.81)
5.300
(15.51)
1.958
(13.81)
4,857
(19.21)
-
110
( 4.11)
1.653
(20,21)
787
(10.51)
2,851
(13.21)
855
( 7.2X)
466
( 4.61)
2.073
( 5.61)
0
(or)
Innl tlon
Spark
-
180
( 2.11)
1.784
( 5.21)
639
(4.51)
1.499
(5.91)
-
14
(0.51)
47
(0.61)
153
(2.01)
611
(2.81)
115
(1.01)
92
(0.91)
256
(0.71)
0
(or,)
Fuel
EGR Evap. Catalyst
-
_
_
1.446
(10.21)
1.304
( 5.21)
-
-
-
232
( 3.11)
519
( 2.41)
419
( 3.51)
628
( 6.3%)
1.905
( 5.11)
1
(6.7T.)
-
30
(0.41)
450
(1.31)
B16
(6.01)
1.577
(6.31)
-
64
(2.4%)
261
(3.21)
302
(1.01)
1 .284
(5.91)
255
(2.11)
150 313
(1.51) (3.11)
723 786
(1.91) (2.11)
0 0
(or,) (oi)
Retrofit
Exhaust
7.812
(42.31)
2
(0.021)
7
(0.021)
_
-
_
-
142
(1.71)
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Retrofit Vehicles
NOx Failing
-
4.738
(55.01)
15.745
(46.01)
-
-
1.377
(16.51)
1.252
(46.61)
' 3.25T
(39.8S)
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.726
(47.0D
5.465
(63.51)
18.463
(54.01)
1,073
(28.71)
7.377
(29.21)
2.054
(24.41)
1,516
(56.41)
4,003
(49.01)
1,631
(21.81)
4.664
(21.51)
1.171
(12.31)
1 3VB
(13.71)
5.137
(13.8,)
1
(6.7r.)
3
1 — 1
^
23
d
£
po
M
O
H
--- - - -
-------
CALIFORNIA -- MVIP ANNUAL REPORT
Table A-4 - Cost/Effectiveness Analysis- at Various Idle HC/CO
Cut Points Using the Emissions and Cost Data from
the 1976 Riverside Surveillance Study
Category 1 (1955-1965, 5 or more cylinders)
A. Cut point HC (ppm)/CO(S) 1000/7.0(3)1050/7.5 1000/8.0 1100/8.5(2) 1200/9.0(1)
8. Failure Rate of MVIP 36.8 33.0 31.0 26.8 21.3
Centers (%)(4)
C. Average Emission Reduc- HC 4.08 4.08 4.08 4.23 5.96
tion per Repaired Veh- CO 22.84 22.84 22.84 23.31 24.26
icle (g/mi)(5) N0x "0-17 "°-17 ~°'17 ~°'06 "°-07
0. Weighted Annual Emis- HC 9.43 8.46 7.95 7.12 7.98
sion Reduction per CO 72.08 64.64 60.72 53.54 44.32
Inspected Vehicle NOx -0.68 -0.61 -0.57 -0.19 -0.17
(Ibs/year)
E. Per Cent Emission HC 10.0 8.9 8.4 7.5 8.4
Reduction Heetwide CO 8.7 7.8 7.3 6.5 5.3
• at this Cut Point (%) NOx -2.4 -2.2 -2.0 -0.7 -0.6
F. Average Fuel Consumption- 4.22 4.22 4.22 3.86 3.59
Improvement (Gal./lOOO
Miles)
G. Average Repair Cost 26.95 26.95 26.95 25.29 27.88
per Failed Vehicle (S)
H. Total Weighted Cost 14.90' 14.29 13.97 13.22 13.13
per Vehicle {$) (6)
I. Cost/Effectiveness HC 1.58 1.69 1.76 1.86 1.65
At Each Cut Point CO 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.25 0.30
(S/lbs) HC+NOx 1.70 1.82 1.89 1.91 1.68
(1) Standards and tolerances of 100 ppm HC and 0.5% CO in effect from March 19, 1979
to present
(2) Standards without tolerances as adopted March 15, 1979.
(3) Optimum Cutpoints.
(4) Total exhaust emissions failure rate; may include other types of failures.
(5) Negative sign indicates an increase in pollutants.
(6) Costs include those for repairs, inspection and fuel economy benefits.
C-13
-------
CALIFORNIA -- MVIP ANNUAL REPORT
Table A-5 - Cost/Effectiveness Analysis at Various Idle HC/CO
Cut Points Using the Emissions and Cost Data from
the 1976 Riverside Surveillance Study
Category 2 (1966-1970 W/AI, 5 or more cylinders)
600/3.5 550/4.0 600/4
37.6 35.7 34.9
9.4 9.4 9.4
26.01 26.01 26.01
-0.13 -0.13 -0.13
29.89 28.38 27.74
112.76 107.06 104.66
-0.74 -0.71 -0.69
20.0 19.0 18.6
12.3 11.7 11.4
-1.4 -1.3 -1.3
6.06 6.06 6.06
33.97 33.97 33.97
11.91 11.76 11.70
0.40 0.41 0.42
0.11 0.11 0.11
0.41 0.43 0.43
(1) Standards and tolerances of 100 pprc HC and 0.5% CO in effect from March 19, 19/3
to present
(2) Standards without tolerances as adopted March 15, 1979.
(3) Optimum cutpoints
(4) Total exhaust emissions failure rats; nay include other types of failures
(5) Negative sign indicates an increase in pollutants.
(6) Costs include those for repairs, Inspection and fuel economy benefits.
A22.
A.
B.
C.
0.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
Cut Point HC (ppm)/CO(S)
Failure Rate of MVIP
Centers (3!r
Average Emission
Reduction HC
per Repaired CO
Vehicle (g/mi)(5) N0x
Weighted Annual
Emission HC
Reduction per CO
Inspected Vehicle NOx
(Ibs/year)
Per Cent Emission HC
Reduction Fleetwide CO
at this Cut Point ' NOx
Average Fuel Consumption.
Improvement (Gal/1000 Mile)
Average Repair Cost
per Failed Vehicle
(S)
Total Weighted Cost
per Vehicle ($) (6)
Cost/Effectiveness HC
At Each Cut Point CO
(S/lbs) HC+NOx
350/2. 5(2.'
54.2
8.10
21.55
-0.03
37.10
134.65
0.23
24.9
14.6
0.4
5.53
37.94
16.35
0.45
0.13
0.45
450/3.0<1>(3>
41:3
9.4
26.01
-0.13
32.83
123.86
-0.82
22.0
13.5
-1.5
6.06
33.97
12.19
0.37
0.10
0.38
C-14
-------
CALIFORNIA -- MVIP ANNUAL REPORT
Table A-6 - Cost/Effectiveness Analysis at Various Idle
HC/CO Cut Points Using the Emissions and
Cost Data from the 1976 Riverside Surveillance Study
Category 3 0966-1970 w/o AI, 5 or more cylinders)
A.
B.
C.
0.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
Cut Point HC (ppm)/CO(X)
Failure Rate of MVIP
Centers (X){4)
Average Emissions
Reductions HC
per repaired /qi CO
Vehicle (g/mi)l3J NOx
Weighted Annual
Emission HC
Reduction per CO
Inspected Vehicle NOx
(Ibs/year)
Per Cent Emission HC
Reduction Fleet- CO
wide at this NOx
Cut Point (%}
Average Fuel Consumption
Improvement (Gal/1000 miles)
Averaae Repair Cost
per Failed Vehicle ($)
Total Weighted Cost
per Vehicle ($)(6)
Cost/Effectiveness HC
At Each Cut Point CO
(S/lbs) HC+NOx
550/6.0
39.6
3.08
27.10
.20
10.28
123.71
1.20
9.8
11.4
2.6
2.54
20.26
13.93
1.36
0.11
1.21
500/6
37.8
3.44
28.84
0.16
10.50
120.03
0.86
10.0
11.0
1.9-
2.93
21.18
13.10
1.25
0.11
1.15
600/6.25 650/6.25 600/7.0
(1)
36.1
3.24
27.80
0.13
9.80
114.41
0.66
9.3
10.6
1.5
2.39
20.85
13.01
1.33
o.n
1.24
35.7
3.24
27.80
0.13
10.37
121.13
0.70
9.8
11.2
1.6
2.89
20.85
13.24
1.28
0.11
1.20
30.8
3.84
29.26
0.04
10.0
103.90
0.18
4.5
9.6
0.4
2.58
22.25
13.39
1.34
0.13
1.31
(1) Standards and tolerances of 100 ppm HC and 0.5% CO in effect from March 19,
1979 to present.
(2) Standards without tolerances as adopted March 15, 1979.
(3) Optimum cutpoints.
(4) Total exhaust emissions failure rate; may include other types of failures.
(5) Negative sign indicates an increase in pollutants.
(6) Costs include those for repairs, inspection and fuel economy benefits.
A237
C-15
-------
CALIFORNIA -- MVIP ANNUAL REPORT
Table A-7 - Cost/Effectiveness Analysis at Various Idle
HC/CO Cut Points Using the Emission and Cost
Data from the ARB LDVSP II and III
Category 4 (1971-1974 w/ AI, 5 or more cylinders)
A. Cut Point HC(ppra)/CO(S) 150/1.75^2"3) 300/2.0 250/2.25^ 250/2.5 300/2.5
B. Failure Rate of MVIP
c.
D.
E.
Centers (S)(4)
Average Emission
Reduction
per Repaired /,-•,
Vehicle (g/mir
Weighted Annual
Emission
Reduction per
Inspected Vehicle
(Ibs/year)
Per Cent Emission
Reduction Fleet-
wide at this
HC
CO
NOx
HC
CO
NOx
HC
CO
NOx
52.8
2.49
26.42
0.37
15.85
229.55
4.60
18.8
24.4
7.1
43.4
2.7
27.07
0.4
14.14
193.25
4.09
16.8
20.5
6.3
35.1
3.3
27.63
0.64
13.97
159.53
5.29
16.6
17.0
8.1
33.8
3.3
27.63
0.64
13.45
153.62
5.09
16.0
16.3
7.7
33.1
3.3
27.63
0.59
13.18
150.44
4.60
15.6
16.0
7.1
Cut Point (%)
F. Average Fuel Consumption -3.73 -4.48 -5.59 -5.99 -5.99
Improvement (Gal/1000 miles)
G. Average Repair Cost
per Failed Vehicles 34.54 39.16 46.37 46.38 46.52
H. Total Weighted Cost
oer Vehicle (S)^6' 44.83 42.91 42.97 41.65 37.73
I. Cost/Effectiveness HC 2.83 3.05 3.08 3.10 2.86
At Each Cut Point CO 0.24 0.25 0.27 0.27 0.25
(S/lbs) HC+NOx 2.19 2.35 2.23 2.25 • 2.12
(1) Standards and tolerances of 100 ppm HC and 0.5% CO in effect from March 19,
1979 to present.
(2) Standards without tolerances as adopted March 15, 1979.
(3) Optimum cutpoints.
(.4) Total exhaust emissions failure rate; may include other types of failures.
(5) Negative sign indicates an increase in pollutants.
(6) Costs include those for repairs, inspection and fuel economy benefits.
A24.
C-16
-------
CALIFORNIA -- MVIP ANNUAL REPORT
Table A-8 - Cost/Effectiveness Analysis at Various Idle
HC/CO Cut Points Using the Emissions and
Cost Data from the ARB LDVSP II and III.
Category 5 (1971-1974 w/o AI, 5 or more cylinders)
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
Cut Point HC(ppm)/CO(S) 350/5.5
Failure Rate of MVIP
Centers (*)' ' 38.8
(2)
400/5.5 450/5.5
(3)
450/5.75 450/6.0
(D
36.7
34.6
Average Fuel Consumption 0.93
Improvement (Gal/1000 miles)
Average Repair Cost
per Failed Veh- 22.95
icle (S)
Total Weighted Cost
per Vehicle (S)'6' 20.77
Cost/Effectiveness HC 0.95
At Each Cut Point CO 0.06
(S/lbs) HC+NOx 0.99
0.93
22.95
16.89
0.82
0.05
0.85
0.93
22.95
16.03
0.82
0.05
0.85
32.6
0.54
23.91
17.27
0.83
0.06
0.86
30.4
Average Emission
Reduction
per Repaired /(.\
Vehicle (g/mi)k3;
Weighted Annual
Emission
Reduction per
Vehicle (Ibs/year)
Per Cent Emission
Reduction Fleet-
wide at this Cut
Point (%}
HC
CO
NOx
HC
CO
NOx
HC
CO
NOx
4.68
52.08
-0.09
21.90
332.39
-0.83
19.5
40.7
-1.8
4.68
52.08
-0.09
20.72
314.40
-0.78
18.5
38.5
-1.7
4.58
52.08
-0.09
19.53
296.41
-0.74
17.5
36.3
-1.6
5.30
52.95
-0.09
20.84
283.94
-0.69
18.6
34.8
-1.5
5.74
56.08
-0.07
21.05
280.43
-0.50
18.8
34.4
-1.0
0.43
25.62
17,49
0.83
0.06
0.85
(1) Standards and tolerances of 100 ppm HC and 0.5% CO in effect from March 19,
1979 to present.
(2) Standards without tolerances as adopted March 15, 1979.
(3) Optimum cutpoints.
(4) Total exhaust emissions failure rate; may include other types of failures.
(5) Negative sign indicates an increase in pollutants.
(6) Costs include those for repairs, inspection and fuel economy benefits.
C-17
-------
CALIFORNIA -- MVIP ANNUAL REPORT
I.
Table A-9 - Cost/Effectiveness Analysis at Various
Idle HC/CO Cut Points Using the Emissions
and Cost Data from the 1976 Riverside
Surveillance Study
Category 6 (1955-1967, 4 or less cylinders)
Cut Point HC(ppm)/COU)
Failure Rate of MVIP
Centers (%)W
A.
3.
C.
0.
E.
F. Avenge Fuel Consumption
Iirorovement (Gal/1000 miles)
G. Average Repair Cost
per Failed Vehicle (S)
H. Total Weighted Cost
(3)
1600/7.5 1650/7.5 1750/7.5
(2)
1700/8.0 1850/8.0
(1)
35.2
34.1
32.3
29.3
26.7
Average Emission
Reducti on
per Repaired ,r\
Vehicle (g/mi)^J
Weighted Annual
Emission
Reduction per
inspected Vehicle
(Ibs/year)
Per Cent Emission
Reduction Fleet-
wiae at this Cut
Point (%)
HC
CO
NOx
HC
CO
NOx
.HC
CO
NOx
3.05
15.92
-0.16
7.36
52.50
-0.70
7.2
7.7
-3.8
3.05
15.92
-0.16
7.13
50.85
-0.67
7.0
7.5
-3.7
3.05
15.92
-0.16
S.78
48.18
-0.64
6.6
7.1
-3.5
3.05
15.92
-0.16
6.13
43.70
-0.58
6.0
6.4
-3.2
3.05
15.92
-0.16
5.59
39.81
-0.53
5.5
5.8
-2.9
per Vehicle (S)
(6)
Cost/Effectiveness
At Each Cut Point
(S/lbs)
HC
CO
HC+NCx
0.20
34.11
22.64
3.07
0.43
3.39
0.20
34.11
22.21
3.11
0.44
3.44
0.20
34.11
21.51
3.18
0.45
3.52
0.20
34.11
20.35
3.32
0.47
3.67
0.20
34.11
19.34
3.46
0.49
3 S2
(1) Standards and tolerances of 100 ppm HC and 0.55 CO in effect from March 19,
1979 to present.
(2) Standards ••••rithout tolerances as adopted March 15, 1979.
(3) Optimum outpoints.
(4) Tfital exhaust emissions failure rate; may include other types of failures.
.(5) Negative sion indicates an increase in pollutants.
(6) Cost; include those for reoalrs, inspection and fuel economy benefits.
A26.
C-13
-------
CALIFORNIA -- MVIP ANNUAL REPORT
Table A-10 - Cost/Effectiveness Analysis at Various
Idle HC/CO Cut Points Using the Emissions
and Cost Data from the 1976 Riverside
Surveillance Study
Category 7 (1968-1970 w/AI 4 or less cylinders)
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
Cut Point HC (ppm)/CO(S)
Failure Rate of MVIP
Centers (S}(4)
Average Emission
Reduction HC
per Repaired /,\ CO
Vehicle (g/mir3' NOx
Weighted Annual
Emission HC
Reduction per CO
Inspected Vehicle NOx
(Ibs/year)
Per Cent Emission HC
Reduction Fleet- CO
wide at This Cut NOx
Point (%)
Average Fuel Consumption
Improvement (Gal/1000 miles)
Average Repair Cost
per Failed Vehicle
Total Weighted Cost
per Vehicle ($)
Cost/Effectiveness HC
At Each Cut Point CO
(S/lbs) HC+NOx
400/2.5<2><3>
47.9
2.33
17.22
0.42
9.71
98.05
3.06
17.8
12.8
7.0
3.30
22.15
13.72
1.41
.14
1.07
300/2
40.9
2.33
17.22
0.42
8.29
83.72
2.61
15.2
11.0
5.8
3.30
22.15
13.03
1.57
.16
1.19
500/3.0(1)450/4.0 550/4.5
39.5 35.7 33.0
2.33 1.32 1.32
17.22 7.89 7.89
0.42 0.78 0.78
8.00 4.12 3.81
80.35 33.48 30.94
2.52 4.26 3.94
14.3 7.6 14.0
10.6 4.4 - 8.2
5.6 9.6 15.8
3.30 3.01 3.01
22.15 25.56 25.56
12.89 14.30 13.90
1.61 3.47 3.65
0.16 0.43 0.45
1.72 1.71 1.79
(1) Standards and tolerances of 100 ppm HC and 0.5% CO in effect from March 19,
1979 to present.
(2) Standards without tolerances as adopted March 15, 1979.
(3) Optimum cutpoints.
(4) Total exhaust emissions failure rate; may include other types of failures.
(5) Negative sign indicates an increase i.n pollutants.
(6) Costs include those for repairs; inspection and fueleconomy benefits.
A27.
C-19
-------
CALIFORNIA -- MVIP ANNUAL REPORT
Table A-11 - Cost/Effectiveness Analysis at Various
Idle HC/CO Cut Points Using the Emissions
and Cost Data from the 1976 Riverside
Surveillance Study
Category 8 (1968-1970 W/o AI 4 or less cylinders)
A. Cut Point HC(ppm)/CO(S)
8. Failure Rate of MVIP
Centers (?)(4)
C. Average Emission
Reduction
per Repaired /,«
Vehicle (g/mi)^'
D. Weighted Annual
Emission
Reduction per
Inspected Vehicle
(Ibs/year)
E. Per Cent Emission
Reduction Fleet-
wide at This
Cut Point (%)
F. Average Fuel Consumption
Improvement (Gal/1000 miles)
G. Average Repair Cost
per Failed Vehicle ($)
H. Total Weighted Cost
I.
900/6.5
36.7
per Vehicle (S)
(6)
Cost/Effectiveness H.C
At Each Cut Point
(S/lbs) HC+NOx
7.48
32.43
3.10
0.95
0.05
1.07
1050/6.0 900/7.0 950/7.0 1000/7.0
34.1
32.6
31.5
(D
7.48
32.43
8.17
1.03
0.06
1.16
7.48
32.43
8.20
1.08
0.06
1.22
7.48
32.43
8.23
1.13
0.06
1.27
30.3
HC
CO
NOx
HC
CO
NOx
HC
CO
NOx
2.66
36.29
-0.17
8.50
158.26
-0.94
10.6
16.2
-2.9
2.66
36.29
-0.17
7.90
147.02
-0.87
9.8
15.0 •
-2.7
2.66
36.29
-0.17
7.56
140.58
-0.83
9.4
14.4
-2.6
2.66
36.29
-0.17
7.30
135.84
.80
9.2
13.9
-2.5
2.66
36.29
-0.17
7.03
130.66
-0.77
8.3
13.4
-2.4
7.48
32.43
8.26
1.18
0.06
1.32
(1) Standards and tolerances of 100 opm HC and 0.5!? CO in effect from March 19,
1979 to present.
(2) Standards without tolerances as adopted March 15, 1979.
(3) Optimum cutpoints.
(4} Total exhaust emissions failure rate; nay include other types of failures.
(5) Negative sign indicates an increase in pollutants.
(£) Costs include those for repairs, inspection and fuel economy benefits.
A28.
C-20
-------
CALIFORNIA -- MVIP ANNUAL REPORT
c.
o.
E.
Table A-12 - Cost/Effectiveness Analysis at Various
Idle HC/CO Cut Points Using the Emissions
and Cost Data from the ARB LDVSP II and III
Category 9 (1971-1974 W/AI, 4 or less cylinders)
A.
Cut Point HC (ppm)/CO(S)
Failure Rate of /.<.
MVIP Centers (%r*'
Average Emission
Reduction HC
per Repaired CO
Vehicle (g/tni) NOx
Weighted Annual
Emission HC
Reduction per CO
Inspected Vehicle NOx
(Ibs/year)
Per Cent Emission HC
Reduction Fleet- CO
wide at this Cut NOx
Point (5)
Average Fuel Consumption
Improvement (Gal/1000 miles)
Average Repair Cost
per Failed Vehicle ($)
Total Weighted Cost
per Vehicle ($)(6)
Cost/Effectiveness HC
At Each Cut Point CO
(S/lbs) HC+NOx
250/1.75^'
52.4
1.43
4.91
0.38
9.04
42.32
4.69
9.0
7.3
9.4
-0.77
25.53
28.26
3.13
0.67
2.06
350/2. 25(2)
41.4
2.15
7.7
0.57
10.74
52.44
5.56
10.6
9.0
11.2
-0.43
33.18
26. 33
2.45
0.50
1.62
250/3.0
40.3
2.15
7.7
0.57
10.45
51.04
5.41
10.3
8.8
11.0
-0.43
33.44
25.87
2.48
0.51
1.63
350/3.0
37.5
2.15
7.7
0.57
9.73
47.50
5.03
9.6
8.1
10.2
-0.43
33.18
24.59
2.54
0.52
1.67
400/3. 5(3)
34.1
2.89
10.16
0.69
11.88
56.99
5.54
11.7
9.3
11.2
-1.17
37.65
26.69
2.25
0.47
1.53
(1) Standards and tolerances of 100 ppm HC and 0.5% CO in effect from March 19,
1979 to present.
(2) Standards without tolerances as adopted March 15, 1979.
(3) Optimum outpoints.
(4) Total exhaust emissions failure rate; may include other types of failures.
(5) Negative sign indicates an increase in pollutants.
(6) Costs include those for repairs, inspection and fuel economy benefits.
A29.
C-21
-------
CALIFORNIA -- MVIP ANNUAL REPORT
Table A-13 - Cost/Effectiveness Analysis at Various Idle
HC/CO Cut Points Using the Emissions and Cost
Data from the ARB LDVSP II and III
Category 10 (1971/1974 W/o AI, 4 or less cylinders)
A. Cut Point HC(ppm)/CO(S) 400/5.5^^ 450/5.5 350/6.0 450/6.0 500/6.
8. Failure Rate of MVIP
Center (S)(4) 36.1 34.8 34.6 30.3 28.5
C. Average Emission
Reduction HC 3.22 2.84 2.90 2.90 2.90
per Repaired ,,. CO 37.30 34.41 34.31 34.31 34.31
Vehicle (g/mi)13' NOx -0.27 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2
0. Weighted Annual
Emission HC 14.02 11.92 12.10 10.60 9.97
Reduction per CO 221.49 196.97 195.27 171.0 160.85
Inspected Vehicle NOx -2.29 -1.64 -1.63 -0.15 -0.13
(Ibs/year)
E. Per Cent Emission HC 13.2 11.2 11.4 10.0 9.4
Reduction Fleet- . CO 20.7 13.4 18.3 16.0 15.0
wide at This Cut ' NOx -5.48 -3.6 -3.6 -0.3 -0.3
Point (5)
F. Average Fuel Consumption 0.60 0.51 1/24 1.24 1.24
Improvement (Gal/1000 miles)
G. Average Repair Cost
per Failed Vehicle (S) 23.20 21.60 22.70 22.70 22.70
H. Total Weighted Cost
per Vehicle ($)(6) ' 17.74 17.10 15.55 14.74 14.40
I. Cost/Effectiveness HC 1.27 1.43 1.29 1.39 1.44
At Each Cut Point CO 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.09
(S/lbs) HONOx 1.51 1.66 1.49 1.41 1.46
(1) Standards and tolerances of 100 ppm HC and 0.5* CO in effect from March 19,
1979 to present.
(2) Standards without tolerances as adopted March 15, 1979.
(2} Optimum outpoints.
(4) Total exhaust emissions failure rate; may include other types of failures.
(5) Negative sign indicates an increase in pollutants.
(6) Costs include those for repairs, inspection and fuel economy benefits.
A30.
C-22
-------
CALIFORNIA -- MVIP ANNUAL REPORT
Table A-14 - Cost/Effectiveness Analysis at Various
Idle HC/CO Cut Points Using the Emissions
and Cost Data from the ARB LDVSP II and III.
Category 11 (1975-1979 No Cat, All cylinders)
A. Cut Point HC(ppm)/CO(S) 100/2.5(3)200/2.5 250/2.5(2) 300/3.0 350/3.0(1)
B. Failure Rate of
MVIP Centers (*)(4) 40'9 30'7 28'8 23'5 ZZA
C. Average Emission
Reduction HC 0.86 0.83 0.86 0.88 0.88
per Repaired /-, CO 16.36 15.57 14.51 16.44 16.44
Vehicle (g/mi)^; NOx 0.16 0.16 0.23 0.26 0.26
0. Weighted Annual
Emission HC 6.10 4.42 4.29 3.59 3.37
Reduction per CO 158.22 113.02 98.81 91.35 85.91
Inspected Vehicle NOx 1.80 1.67 2.24 2.07 1.95
(Ibs/year)
£. Per Cent Emission HC 16.0 11.3 11.0 9.1 8.6
Reduction Fleet- CO 33.8 24.1 21.1 19.5 18.3
wide at This Cut NOx 3.4 3.1 4.1 3.8 3.69
Point (%)
f. Average Fuel Consumption -0.34 -0.63 -0.34 -0.56 -0.41
Improvement (Gal/1000 miles)
G. Average Repair Cost
per Failed Vehicle ($) 29.20 27.93 29.20 29.44 30.15
H. Total Weighted Cost
per Vehicle ($)(6^ 24.66 21.36 20.03 • 18.25 17.86
I. Cost/Effectiveness HC 4.04 4.83 4.67 5.08 5.30
At Each Cut Point CO 0.16 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.21
(S/lbs) HC+NOx 3.12 3.51 3.07 3.22 3.35
(1) Standards and tolerances of 100 ppm HC and 0.5% CO in effect from March 19, 1979
to present.
(2) Standards without tolerances as adopted March 15, 1979.
(3) Optimum cutpoints.
(4) Total exhaust emissions failure rate; may include other types of failures.
(5) Negative sign indicates an increase in pollutants.
(6) Costs include those for repairs, inspection and fuel economy benefits.
A31.
C-23
-------
CALIFORNIA -- MVIP ANNUAL REPORT
Table A-15 - Cost/Effectiveness Analysis at Various
Idle HC/CO Cut Points Using the Emissions
and Cost Data from the ARB LDVSP II and III.
Category 12 (1975-1979 Cat. w/o AI, All cylinders)
A.
B.
C.
0.
E.
F.
G.
K.
I.
Cut Point HC (ppm)/CO(S)
Failure Rate of MVIP
Centers (%r
Average Emission
Reduction HC
per Repaired /c\ CO
Vehicle (g/mir ' NOx
Weighted Annual
Emission HC
Reduction per CO
Inspected Vehicle NOx
(Ibs/year)
Per Cent Emission HC
Reduction Fleet- CO
wide at This Cut HOx
Point (%}
Average Fuel Consumption
Improvement (Gal/1000 miles)
Average Repair Cost
per failed Vehicle ($)
Total Weighted Cost •
par Vehicle ($r
Cost/Effectiveness HC
At Each Cut Point CO
(S/lbs) HC+NOx
150/1. 5U)I
46.5
1.01
31.53
-0.11
8.14
346.57
-1.73
16.9
50.7
-3.02
0.06
25.79
23.23
2.85
0.07
3.62
>J; 200/2. '25
37.3
0.96
31.10
-0.31
6.21
274.29
-3.91
12.9
40.1
-6.32
0.09 !
22.74
19.19
3.09
0.07
8.34
200/2.5
36.5
0.96
31.10
-0.31
6.08
267.53
-3.80
12.6
39.1
-6.7
0.09
22.74
18.97
3.12
C.07
8.32
250/2. Ou;
34.7
0.97
31.37
-0.34
5.84
257.39
-3.S9
12.1
37.6
-7.1
-0.02
22.78
19.54
3.35
O.C8
10.50
300/3.0
30.4
0.93
28.32
-0.30
4.90
203.57
-3.09
10.2
29.8
-5.2
-0.12
22.21
17.81
3.63
0.09
9.34
(1.) Standards and tolerances of 100 pom HC and 0.5% CO in effect from March 19,
1979 to present.
(2) Standards without tolerances as adopted March 15, 1979.
(3) Optimum outpoints.
(4) Total exhaust emissions failure rate; may include other typss of failures.
(5) Negative sign indicates an increase in pollutants.
(6) Costs include those for repairs, inspection and fusl economy benefits.
A32.
C-24
-------
CALIFORNIA -- MVIP ANNUAL REPORT
Table A-16 - Cost/Effectiveness Analysis at Various Idle
HC/CO Cut Points Using the Emissions and Cost
Data from the ARB LDVSP II and III.
Category 13 (1975-1979 Cat w/AI, All cylinders)
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Cut Point HC(ppm)/CO(S)
Failure Rate of MVIP
Centers (2)(4)
Average Emission
Reduction
per Repaired
Vehicle (g/mi)
Weighted Annual
Emission
Reduction
per Inspected
Vehicle (Ibs/yearl
Per Cent Emission
Reduction Fleet-
wide at This Cut
Point (%}
HC
CO
NOx
HC
CO
NOx
HC
CO
NOx
100/1.0
25.7
2.04
12.16
0.48
9.08
54.19
2.38
26.2
19.8
4.4
100/1. 25(3) 150/1. 5(2'
24.2
2.10
12.57
0.50
8.80
52.75
2.48
25.4
17.7
4.5
18
2.32
12.24
0.53
7.24
38.20
1.86
20.9
12.8
2.4
250/2. 0(1'
10.2
2.5
14.17
0.57
4.63
25.85
1.18
13.4
8.7
2.1
1 300/2.0
9.9
2.3
14.15
0.59
3.94
23.43
1.13
11.4
7.8
2.0
F. Average Fuel Consumption 2.04 2.33 1.98 2.54 3.19
Improvement (Gal/1000 miles)
G. Average Repair Cost
per Failed Vehicle (5) 21.35 20.55 21.63 21.42 22.28
H. Total Weighted Cost
per Vehicle ($)^6' 10.28 . 9.21 10.04 9.56 8.36
I. Cost/Effectiveness HC 1.13 1.05 1.39 2.11 2.12
At Each Cut Point CO 0.19 0.17 0.26 0.38 0.34
($/lbs) HC+NOx 0.90 0.82 1.10 1.65 1.59
(1) Standards and tolerances of 100 ppm HC and 0.5* CO in effect from March 19,
1979 to present.
(2) Standards without tolerances as adopted March 15, 1979.
(3). Optimum cutpoints.
(4) Total exhaust emissions failure rate; may include other types of failures.
(5) Negative sign indicates an increase in pollutants.
(6) Costs include those for repairs, inspection and fuel economy benefits.
A33.
C-25
-------
o
I
NJ
ON
Table A-19 - Cost-Effectiveness of Various Pass/Fail Criteria
Average Annual Emission
Reduction per Fleet
Vehicle (Ib/yr)
Per Cent Emission Reduction
Fleetwide
Overall Failure Rate
Total Ueighted Cost
Fleetwide ($)
Overall Cost/Effectiveness
IIC
CO
NOx
IIC
CO
NOx
Scenario( 1 )
Current
Overall[2]
Failures
With
Tolerance
10.92
132.77
1.02
11.39
14.94
2.13
Scenario (2)
All Exhaust
Standards[l]
With
Tolerance
10.43
119.90
0.53
10.89
13.49
1.12
Scenario (3)
All Exhaust
Standards[ 1]
Without
Tolerance
12.08
150.71
0.62
12.61
16.96
1.30
Scenario (4)
All Exhaust
Standards[l]
With
Tolerance
Plus All
NOx Device
10.44
122.28
1.07
10.90
13.76
2.25
Scenario (5)
Optimized[l]
Exhaust
Cut-Points
12.29
154.18
0.64
12.83
17.35
1.34
Scenario(6)
Optimized
Exhaust[l]
Cut-Points
Plus All
NOx Devices
12.30
156.56
1.18
12.84
17.62
2.47
IIC
CO
HC+NOx
44.07
19.54
1.79
0.15
1.63
27
16.41
1.57
0.14
1.49
35
17.86
1.48
0.12
1.41
36.8
18.58
1.78
0.15
1.61
36.5
17.47
1.42
0.11
1.35
45.7
19.64
1.60
0.13
1.46
O
>
r1
M
"TJ
o
[1] Vehicles failing these standards may also have other types of failures.
[2] Overall does not Include rpm nor smoke failures because not enough data are available on such failures to penult
determination of mass emission reductions.
-------
o
lilAlE OF CALIFORNIA
RII'IIKT IPAUOJ-U2 RUN UN 12/18/79
DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS
BUREAU OF AUTOM01IVE REPAIR
CALIFORNIA VEHICLE INSPECTION PROGRAM
REPAIR FACILITIES NEAR INSPECTION CENTER CCI-GARDEN GROVE
o
««« Rtl'AIR FACILITY HAHE **»
nAK I HIS AUK) CARt
IVANS FOREIGN CAR REPAIRS
SOU III COAST AUTO COAST CLINIC
•JIIEEIIANS FOREIGN CAR REP INC
BAUER MUUIRS
ADAM SAM II UNION 76
MEWI'IIK I Cl ASSIC CARS
COODUIN AUTOMOTIVE
DAVES UNION 76
COLLEGE VOLKSWAGEN INC
I VIIH'j AIIIO REPAIR INC
11ARUOUR DICK OATSUN
CYPRESS COLLEGE AUTOMOTIVE
BROKEN WHEEL RV CENIER
JOHNS UNION SERVICE
III ISDN CLARK SHELL SERVICE
MIIS IEXACO SERVICE
IILKMAMS GUI I SERVICE
IIARF CHEVRON
DIIIICCIA BROS CIIEVKUN
WIIIICKG TIRE CO
J S L OIL CO
DllIS MOUIL SERVICE
SHAH IN ARCO SERVICE
RAY S, UAVES TEXACO
IES AUTOMOTIVE
SIERRA BODY SHOP
MC COY-MILLS FORD
UAUGIIMAN » TURNER
RILEYS AUTO SAFETY CENTER
JLKRY GOODWIN DODGE INC
COMMONWEALTH FOREIGN CAR SERVICE
KENICK CADILLAC INC
FREEKS GARAGE INC
HANSEL OLDSMOBILE INC
CHET LAMBERT CHEVRON SERVICE
BASTANCHURY CHEVRON
BENS CHEVRON
»"» CITY »»«
COSTA MESA
COSTA MESA
COSTA MESA
COSTA MESA
COSTA MESA
COSTA MESA
COSTA MESA
COSTA MESA
CYPRESS
CYPRESS
CYPRESS
CYPRESS
CYPRESS
EAST IRVINE
FOUNTAIN VALLEY
FOUNTAIN VALLEY
FOUNTAIN VALLEY
FOUNfAIN VALLEY
FOUHIAIN VALLEY
FOUNIAIN VALLEY
FOUNTAIN VALLEY
FOUNIAIII VALLEY
FOUNTAIN VALLEY
FOUNTAIN VALIEY
FOUNTAIN VALLEY
FULLERTON
FULLERTON
FULLERTON
FULLERTON
FULLERTON
FULLERTON
FULLERTQN
FULLERTON
FIJI LERTOH
FULLERTON
FULLERTON
FULIERTON
FULLERTON
»»« STREET ADRESS «•«
700 W 19111 ST
1995 HARBOR BL
648 BAKER ST
125 ROCHESTER ST
P 0 OOX 1680
560 H 19TH ST
2634 NEWPORT BLVD
1927 HARBOR BLVD
9500 VALLEY VIEW ST
5120 LINCOLN AVE
8980 MOODY ST
5800 LINCOLN AVE
9200 VALLEY VIEW
6441 BURT RD
9025 GARFIELD AVE
17975 MAGNOLIA ST •
8520 WARNER AVE
9025 WARNER
17980 MAGNOLIA
10020 WARNER AVENUE
16142 HARUOR BLVD
114/0 EDINGER
17025 BROOKHURST ST
9520 WARNER AVE
18975 BROOKHURST ST
1018 W ORANGETHOFPE AVE
POBX 2691 ORANGE).URST STA
700 W COMMONWEAL fll
140 E COMMONWEALTH
551 S RAYMOND AVE
1110 W ORANGETHORPE AVE
820 W COMMONWEALTH AVE
1100 SOUTH EUCLID
321 SO HIGHLAND AVE
1325 W COMMONWEALTH
1000 W ORANGETHURPE
2961 E YOROA LINDA BLVD
246 F noiwRciunooc
I OF
REPAIR
ACTIONS
17
1
20
8
5
2
1
8}
43
26
25
1
2
1
1
24
15
11
47
6
27
25
2
1
5
1
43
25
1
6
6
1
16
16
49
2
PERCENT PRUCED.
PASSING CONFORM AVE
REINSP FACTOR COST
100
100
100
80
100
100
100
100
100
100
82
100
100
100
100
80
100
100
100
100
100
94
98
.43
. 1 3
.25
.40
.22
.00
.20
.05
.03
.38
.49
.09
. 14
$20
$30
$36
O
•2
W
T)
.30 «28
.08 S29
.15 S40
.22
£30
SI 7
$30
$30
«45
«34
«30
«29
-------
Star* of California
Memorandum
To
JACK DOLAN
Date : January 8, 1980
File No.: •••:"
From : Bureau of Automotive Repair
3415 Fletcher Aye. , Suite #2', El Monte, CA 91731
Subject: REGIONAL OFFICE ACTIVITY REPORT FOR THE PERIOD OF DECEMBER 3
THRU DECEMBER 28, 1979 . y,-.. -..;•; : . .: ;
The enclosed activity report contains a summary of the Regional -i--:::'
Office's activities for the subject period and includes accumu- ;V -.-
lative totals from start up of the VIP fleet program (February'-:'. "-."•'•'
16, 1979). ; . ' :;;-X- :.;
Following is an-executive summary of selected items:..
. -Total fleets .licensed -- -:-- - 4'-•- - - - - -"- ; ••
-Total fleet members - - '-"- -'- ---------
-Fleet reinspections thi's. period --------
-Total field contacts -. - .- -'-•" ----- -•.--. ,
-Total number of. Qualified Mechanics - - - - -
-Number of telephone inquiries this period - - -
-ECS Waiver authorizations issued ------
793 ^^?>:jf
-Total fleet. .-certificate sales-
$2,402,395 j|;;^;3
'
•• • • • • .•.. —
Please advise if -you feel there is a need for. additional or
more- detail reporting in a particular subject' area.
R. WALLAUCH;
Regional Manager.
G. Hunter
B. Wall .'
B. Mayer
M. Webb
J. Todd
T. Le'ahy
C-28
-------
. ' -1-
.REGIONAL OFFICE ACTIVITY REPORT
PERIOD OF DECEMBER 3 THRU DECEMBER 28, 1979
FLEET LICENSING ACTIVITIES
A. Total fleet, applications received to date ------ 941; V
1. Fleet-licensed;, to date - -------- 793
a. new/used.car dealers 605 - 34* = 575
b. used'.car-dealers ; 176 - 10* = 166
c. auto repair dealers 3
d. :"^..asing companies,... -. 7
e. ; countyAState/.federal 7
• f-/ /-commercial": fleets '• . 40
2. Cancelled .fleets to date -------- 44
3. Applications withdrawn --------- 24
4. Applications denied --- ___-_ 75
5. Application's deferred '-:- - -..-- - - - - 0.
6. Status of - Collective Fleets:
a. Total-'bbirective fleet centers: 128 -
b. Total "collective--fleet members: 331
Total Fleet Licenses (fleets & members) - - 1,128
B. Periodic Fleet'Inspection Activities. '',;... Report Acciun ::-
" .. . ' - Period Total -;
1. Number of-inspections conducted: . 258 . 2,201 ••;
2. Results of inspections:
a.- No Violations issued: 189 1,707
rj. Violations of one or more
fleet requirements: 69 470
Summary of Violations:
1'. Required equipment problems( I/R) 50 396 -
2. No'Qualified installer 16 85 -
3. Fleet licensing criteria '11 29 .
4. Maintenance of records 12 54 ••:
5. Fail to follow procedures 11 63
6. Other " ' 25 71
\i::a~.~s 'number of fleet lic-c?.ses cancelled as a result of dealers
.'•,£ out of business, or withdrawing from the Fleet program.
c-29
-------
-2-
Major violations requiring suspension of a .
activities. (Violations of Sections 3396.13("b)(l), "
(2), or (3) and/or 3396.17). . •:•:'. "
T^'o licensed fleet operations were suspended
this report period. One fleet operation was sus- , ' {.
pended duetto observed .violation of Section 3396. 19>...
£b) 5, "Failure to Inspect or Test Vehicles in ''>:;
accordance .with Department specifications". The -.;-.._
violation was found during random on-site inspectiqn.;
of vehicles certified by the- fleet. The second ^.i
fleet license suspension resulted from administrative
action suspending the fleet owners ARD and MVPC - ; .-;
licenses' for a -period of 60 days. . ' .:.-V'I
The -suspension resulting from violation of Section ' ' :
3596.19 was a first occurance and the owner has. ''•'.''•
initiated the needed repairs to correct the
deficiencies. - •'-.:"
Report Accum
Other Field Invest j. ---at ions Period Total -
(Initial, Members, S
-------
u. Number of Seminars
E. Total Seminars held
F. Number of schools o
f i cation training -
-Classes in session
w. Number ">..T mechanics
after training, thi
;:. Total mechanics att
J. Seminar summary, by./
County .. . .'....' . . :
Los Angeles
Orange ... ;...,
Riverside
San Bernardino
• Ventura ' -
Santa Barbara
offered this report period 4
f fering mechanic ' s
quali-
T n
taking re-examination
s. report period ----- . 2
county: ;.
Year
T978
1979
1975
1979
1978
"1979
" 1978
.1979
1976
1979
1978
1979
j-i- 1
Totals
139
195" •
17
11
28 -•
8
3
11
5 ,
•' -•• 19
2
21
3
3
267
MOTORIST INQUIRIES AMD COMPLAINTS
Phone inquiries received to date: 62,344*
Fhe.-.e inquiries received this report period: 6,229
Detail reporting of call.: received began with the May Activity
Repc.rt. The accumulative- total is an estimate based upon
curvent recorded data.
C-31
-------
-4-
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
II,
12,
13,
14,
'-.' b
'ategcries
.. HTS Problems
!. Department of Motor Vehicles
';, Qualified Mechanic's List
Waiver Information
Data Logs - Fleets
Procedures
& Retro)
Qualified Mechanic's
ECS Application (OEM
Engine Changes.
General Information . •
Fleet Information & SVIS Calls
Certifying Heavy-duty trucks
Non-compliance Questions - new cars
Non-jurisdictional
Seminar Information
MVPC Information
Idle speed, Standards,
Reference Materials
A.R.B.
Calls from Politicians
Cost of Inspection
Average number of calls per day:, 327
; i!!W!iary of inquiries and complaints received by phone
involving HTS operational problems:
$35 Nox Price
Report
Period
294
31
24
678.
4
27
143
134
3,003
62
115
19
6
159
33
38
11
24
0
401
Accum
Total
2,536
374
876
4,191
255
376
2,417
1,063
28,964
649
751
202
145
950
314
521
59
122
3
1,268
Misinspections
OMISSION
CO-MISSION
-Retro-nox
-Retro exhaust
-Crankcase
-Air system
-Spark Control
-TAG System
-EGR System
-Fuel Evap.
-Exhaust Catalyst.
-Other.. ECS Systems
-After .Market Farts
Other HTS Comnlaint Gate
-Wrong Standards
-Rerair Facility List No
-Unhelpful HTS For^onnei
-Wrong Inf.: on ViH
-Would Not Accept Signed
-Certified Exempt Vehicl
-Waiting Time & [ITS (in
-HTS ECS Lookup Tncorrse
-Failed Retest for O.T.di
I-tial V1R
_ 'T ^j ; - ^ >•• p_ r» ,~> •"»,-? .': ,~i ; • • ' - \ -s- > -r-
_H"y.j '"uest "• o- s to^ V;IF 3t
-!•!•: vine Distance Comrla
3
1
2
0
4
0
•}
3
1
8
0
^"5"
£. j
^ ^' ^ i e s
t Handed Out
'/ •* •,• /%;-,,, i ^ T..T
% - . . / K O -.1 .i. U i»
w .^
line)
r
ticn Not Lis
Turned On
- r v
A.L —
1 *". T
5
0
0
7
1
3
2
1
0
2
0
21
ot Retest
ted on
12
2
10
5
T
1
17
1
/_
T 9
2
12
C-32
156
-------
-5-
Report
Period Total Pending
... Written Complaints Received: 3 " 56 TO
.-rM.'gg.yv CONTROL WAIVSKS Report Accum
Period To Date
A. ECS Waiver Authorisations '--Issued: 325 1,836
••'. SC5 Waivers Authorised without
monies being spent (other than LETU) 4 339
'"•"'ATTrTV 4 °, -"'^l VfF
. v • *-• rt 1- * 1 . .*t ^J i^- '_• . h/l *\ w .D ....
^M^M«HMMHIIM^*l«BM^MM«^BBB^H^BMMMMMM«l««mM ' «•<
.T." ,
•.ring the month of December, the Quality Assurance teams conducted.
i t;^tal of 57 random unannounced visits to the seventeen Hamilton ;;.-..'
Vot Center-s. This activity accounted .for the calibration verifi-;:'1--
•ation check, of 151 test lanes and 12 EMS 200 backup analyzers. ... ,J>;;'
'•.ore were 2 lane failures recorded, wherein the analyzers failed'-^
•- riieet the calibration gas accuracy curve checks on the first try;-'-"
.:'•-:• repro#"ramirig the- EMS wit}; a "cal cal" tape borrowed from
..ajn.ll ton maintenance ,. . the analyser passed the calibration accuracy
• ;•••_•_ Oiifr C'iv . '
-..,. en- ca.':cellation of a random visit occured once this report
'•:•-'. • .i due to long queue lines. . :•'•;'
':.-. Q.A. Teams visited each HTS center an average of 3 times during
-.. F: report period. . • -
: . r.SPORT OF COLLECTIONS . . Report Accum '"v
Period Total
A. Sale of Fleet ; Certificates 5204,710 $2,400,272
1. Over the counter .".'•- ' 3136,400 31,673,597
2. Mailorder" $68,310 $ 726,675
-. Voluntary Inspection Contribution $ £0 $ 1,407.
.:. Qualified Mechanic's & Fleet • ' .
Handbooks ' $ 120 $_ " 716'
Accumulative Grand Tctal (VI?) $2, 400, 392 . '^
' . ~&: -.T of KVFC DOCU:I:C---:;:L' ''-•-
--. .•:\:-y nBJ'iO. DOCK £
Ac-emulative Graiia rpctal (MVPC)
C-33
700
r\
95
120
. 6,474
3
3
3
3
4 , 275-
10'"
495
1,694-
-------
to report this period,
'U!i v [( L
•O-itf'R!' WALLAUCH
C-34
-------
O
I
u>
TRAINING PROGRAM TO QUALIFY MECHANICS FOR LOW EMISSION
TUNEUP AND REPAIR
Course Outline
Moilule_ 1:
1. Introduction to Automotive Emissions Controls
2. State Vehicle Inspection Procjram
Modi He 2 :
1. Internal Coinhustion Engine Theory and Emissions
2. Fundamentals of Electricity
3. Conventional and Electronic Ignition Systems
4. Ignition Timing Control Systems
Module 3;
1. Fuel System, Carburetor Float and Idle Systems
2. Carburetor Main, Power, Pump, Choke Systems and
Throttle Controls
3. Evaporative and Crankcase Emissions Control
Systems
4. Thermostatic Air Cleaner System
[MISSION
Course Length:
Module Hours:
Module Hours:
(Demonstration)
( Demon strati on )
Module Hours:
( Demon s t ra t ion )
(Demonstration)
(Demonstration)
(Demonstration)
51 llrs.
6 llrs.
3 Hrs.
3 llrs.
12 llrs.
1 llr.
1.5 llrs.
3 Hrs.
1.5 Hrs.
3 llrs.
2 llrs.
21 Hrs.
2 Hrs.
1 Hr.
2 Hrs.
1 Hr.
2 llrs.
1 Hr.
2 Hrs.
1 Hr.
i-d O
50 p>
o t~*
O M
p> O
^
1
o
c
$
M
M
o
tr1
0
SS
w
M
$
O
2!
§
O
M
O
H
2
i— i
O
-------
§
o
o
I
5. fcxliaust Gas Recirculation System
6. Air Injection System
7. Catalytic Converter System
MO Ju 1 e 4 :
1. lyriition Andilyzer Oscilloscope
2. IIC/CO Exhaust Gas Analyzer
3. Failure Diagnosis and Repair Procedures
4. Vehicle Inspection Program Failure and Repair
Reports
(Demonstration)
(Demonstration)
(Demonstration)
Module Hours:_
(Demon strati on)
(Demon s t r a t i 011)
(Demon s t ra t i on)
(Demonstration)
2 llrs.
1 llr.
2 llrs.
1 llr.
2 llrs.
1 llr.
_L2_JJr_s_.
1 Hr.
2 llrs.
1 llr.
2 llrs.
2 llrs.
1 llr.
2 llrs.
1 llr.
^
O
I
O
M
O
O
W
M
in
M
O
Course Conclusion
NOTE: The module and section time lengths provided in this outline
are to serve as general guidelines. The instructor may wish
to modify the hours spent or slides utilized for a particular
group of students.
O
M
O
H
2
O
-------
CALIFORNIA -- FLEET LICENSE APPLICATION
STATE OP CAUPOHNIA—STATE AND CONSUME* SERVICE] AGENCY /
EDMUND 0. SHOWN JR..
-_ DEPABTMENT OP
(pnsumer
BUREAU OF AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR
VEHICLE INSPECTION PROGRAM
REOIONAL OPPICE
3419 FLETCHER AVE.. SUITE =4 EL MONTE. CA 91731
PHONE: (213) 979-7009
FOR IUUAU USI ONLY
LICENSE NO. ' CODE i FEE ! DATE ISSUED
APPLICATION FOR LICENSE (INITIAL OR RENEWAL)
la. CON'OIUTIQN NO.
REASON FOR APPLICATION
| _ ; INITIAL FLEET CPESATION LICENSE
l~~! RENEWAL OF FLEET OPERATION LICENSE
_ i INITIAL FLEET MEMBER LICENSE
' - '. RENEWAL OF =LEST MEMBER LICENSE
LICENSE APPLIED FOR ,-.di fcfodb « «0p™Pri«.j
COMMERCIAL FLEET OPERATIONS LICENSE
NEW USED CAR DEALER FLEET 0
MVPC .
DMV i
APPLICANT'S BACKGROUND
III upp/icarion it lor w»wa(, comp/.t. 1 ai«t C axlrl
N0
Til", lIPLAtN IIL6W.
APPLICANT'S CERTIFICATION
' agrt« fo eomp/x *''^ o" 'awi and rtquiatieat applieobit to lh» lietnn for which 1 am applying and / unovrifonrf thor n'o/otion of anjf /gw or
regulation adopted if tht Oirtcfor at CoMumtr Alfain punuanf fhvnM may r*cu/f i*n fh» fifing of a criminal action in a court of law or ffo filing
of an adminiitrativt action to ititptnd or rtvoJrt fh« 1'tetns*.
SIGNATURE OF
APPLICANT
INSPECTION AND APPROVAL
I I
! OlfTIICT
78M-25 (LTD
C-37
-------
CALIFORNIA -- FLEET INSPECTION FORM
VEHICLE CERTIFICATION DATA LOG SHEET
: - i i i , i i i i i
",CtT .:CE\3l *0.
; i i i I | | 1
i i , , .
ioiiier: vc -
-------
DEPAITMtNT Of
onsumer
VEHICLE INSPECTION
PROGRAM
FLEET INFORMATION LETTER
The State of California, on March 19, 1979, initiated a
Mandatory Vehicle Inspection Program (MVTP) in the South Coast Air
Basin (SCAB) on transfer of registration. There are 17 inspection
centers located in the Basin, which includes the counties of Ventura,
Orange and portions of Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, Riverside, and
San Bernardino Counties (See Attachment I). The inspection centers
will be operated by a private contractor (Hamilton Test Systems, Cal-
ifornia, inc.) and"controlled by the State of California.
The vehicles affected by the new Program are those of 1955 and
newer model years, under 8501 GVW, within the Basin. Such vehicles
will no longer receive Certificates of Compliance from licensed MVPC
("smog") stations. Instead, they will be inspected at the new State
inspection centers. These centers will issue either Certificates of
Compliance or Certificates of Waiver. A Certificate is also required
when an out-of-state vehicle is first registered in the Basin.
MVIP Fleet Facility License
As an alternative to taking their vehicles through one of the 17
inspection centers, the law permits the Department of Consumer Affairs
to license fleets of ten or more vehicles to conduct the inspections
and issue Certificates of Compliance or Waiver. These functions are
to be performed on the fleet owners own premises utilizing his own
facilities or personnel, or both, subject to certain conditions dis-
cussed later in this letter. The license will allow the fleet owner
to test vehicles owned and operated by the fleet owner or, in the case
of a car dealer, to test vehicles in his business inventory on his own
premises; and to issue Certificates of Compliance or Waiver.
The ^leet concept provides an opportunity for governmental enti-
ties (Federal, State and local governments), public utilities and
private business to become licensed as fleets and perform their own
inspections subject to State surveillance. It is emphasized that this
is an option and those preferring to utilize the State controlled
inspection centers, rather than being licensed as fleets, obviously
may do so.
A new or used car dealer licensed as an MYTP fleet facility may
inspect and test another car dealer's vehicles of 10 or mora with prior
authorization by the Department. The licensing of car dealers as MVI?
fleets will terminate upon implementation of the annual renewal of
registration phase of the Program.
C-39
-------
Fleet Licensing Requirements
To become licensed as an MVIP fleet facility, the applicant must:
-Be located in the Vehicle Inspection Program area as indicated in
Attachment -1.
-Own a fleet of 10 or more vehicles affected by the Program (see
second paragraph on page one).
-Be registered as an automotive repair dealer, with the Bureau of
Automotive Repair, if repairs are performed for compensation.
-Be licensed as an official MVPC station with the Bureau of Automo-
tive Repair.
-Have the required diagnostic and test equipment as follows:
1. Exhaust gas analyzer (dual range) 6. Tachometer
with a 0 to 10% CO and 0-2000 PPM
HC as approved by the Bureau of 7. Vacuum/pressure gauge
Automotive Repair
8. Ignition timing light
2. Oscilloscope - ignition analyzer
9. Cam-angle dwell meter
3. Ammeter
10. Compression test gauge
4. Ohmmeter
11. Distributor advance
5. Voltmeter tester
-Have means of providing weekly gas accuracy check of infra-red
analyzer i.e. B.A.R. approved gas bottle or have outside service.
-Have any special testing or diagnostic equipment required by the
vehicle or retrofit device manufacturer.
-Have adequate facilities to conduct inspections and tests on his
premises in an area approved by the Department.
-Provide whatever access and cooperation the State deems necessary
to facilitate random spot checks.
-Employ a mechanic who is a Class "A" MVPC installer and VIP
"Qualified". A Class "A" installer may become qualified by at-
tending a VIP seminar and passing the written examination.
-Make available your "Qualified" Class "A" mechanics for a 2h hour
orientation and training course in the insoection and test respon-
sibilities of fleet licensed facilities.
-Purchase and issue Certificates and comply with all Departmental
rules, regulations and procedures including maintenance of all
required records.
C-40
-------
Fleet Member Requirements and Responsibilities of the Inspecting
Fleet Facility (Applies to Car Dealers)
A Fleet Member is defined as a car dealer that elects not to
meet the requirements to become a licensed fleet facility; elects
not to send his cars through one of the 17 state controlled inspec-
tion centers; and who is authorized by the State to have his
vehicles inspected and certified by another car dealer who is
licensed as a fleet facility.
To become a fleet member, a dealer must meet the following
requirements:
-Own and operate or have in his business inventory 10 or more
vehicles affected by-the MVIP.
-Furnish proof that a car dealer licensed as an MVIP fleet
facility has agreed to perform the inspection and certification
of the fleet member's vehicles.
-Provide whatever access and cooperation the State deems neces-
sary to facilitate random inspections of his car inventory.
-Cannot be a fleet facility without specific Department approval.
Responsibility of the Inspecting Fleet Facility
-The licensed fleet facility that has agreed to perform the
inspection must identify in his application for license each
fleet member whose vehicles he has agreed to inspect and
certify.
-If the inspecting fleet facility determines it will no longer
inspect a particular fleet member, the Department shall be
notified immediately.
-Specific Departmental approval will be required to add any new
fleet member not identified in the approved fleet facility
license.
-Five working days time will be required for inspection and
approval.
-The licensed fleet facility will be responsible for the proper
performance of inspection and certification issued, and disputes
between inspecting fleet facilities and fleet members may result
in revocation of the Fleet Member's license, the inspecting
facility license, or both.
-Inspection and certification for fleet member vehicles must be
in compliance with the Department's rules and regulations.
-Certificates are not transferrable.
C-41
-------
Certificate Costs
-Each Certificate of Compliance or Waiver costs $11.00.
Certificates are sold in books of 10, totaling $110.00.
-Certificates may be purchased from the Regional Office (address
provided below) after the fleet applicant's facility has been
inspected and the applicant's license approved.
-Certificates will be paid for in the form of cash, certified
check, money order, bank draft or check. Payment by check
shall be deemed conditional until honored by the bank upon
which it is drawn. Certificates will be paid for by the fleet
applicant to the Regional Office (address provided below) after
the applicant's facility has been inspected by a State repre-
sentative and the fleet application has been approved.
Applying for a Fleet Facility License
Attachment II is a "Request for Initial Inspection Form".
If you wish to be a licensed MVIP fleet facility, complete
the form. You must meet all the requirements listed in this letter
under the heading of Fleet Licensing Requirements.
Return the form to the VIP Regional Office at:
Vehicle Inspection Program
Regional Office
3415 Fletcher Avenue
Suite »2
El Monte CA 91731
Telephone: (213) 575-7005
Fleet applicants requesting initial inspections will be
contacted by a qualified State representative to schedule their
initial inspection.
If you need further information, please write or telephone
to the above.
Attachment I - Map of South Coast Air Basin
Attachment II - "Request for Initial Inspection Form"
C-42
-------
TABLE 1
VEHICLE INSPECTION PROGRAM CENTERS
Station
Number
CA1
CA2
CA3
CA4
CAS
CA6
C31
CB2
CB3
CB4
CC1
CC2
CC3
CC4
CD1
CD 2
CD3
City Address
West L. A. 5461 W. Jefferson
(Panarama City)
Van Nuys 9933 Woodman
Simi Valley Easy Street
Ventura 2187 Knoll Dr.
Goleta 4865 Calle Real
Nearest Street
Intersection
Hauser/Jefferson
Woodman/La s s en
Easy/First Street
Knoll/Valentine
Calle Real/Turnpike
Newhall Sand Canyon Rd./Soledad
(Lincoln Heights)
East L. A. 3847 Selig
Rosemead 2649 Stingle Ave.
Azusa 805 W. Foothill
Cudahy 4959 Patata
Garden Grove 7131 Orangewood
Carson 230 E. Alondra
Sar.ta Fe 10144 Freeman
Springs
Laguna 23022 La Cadena
Hills
Riverside 3195 Motor Circle
San 222 E. Valley
Bernardino
San Jacinto State St. /7th St.
Selig/Mission
Stingle/Garvey
Vernon/Foo thill
Wilcox/Patata
Markon/Orangewood
Alondra/Main
Telegraph/Freeman
LaCadena/Verdugo
Auto Center
Valley/Allen
Phone
(213) 930-0245
(213) 391-1125
(805) 526-1322
(805) 642-5531
(805) 967-0706
(805) 251-1596
(213) 223-0225
(213) 573-44.76
<213) 334-3556
(213) 562-0572
(714) 897-4401
(213) 558-5^65
(213) 944-8633
(714) 857-6233
(714) 683-7958
(714) 884-3619
(714) 654-8231
C-43
-------
Mandatory Vehicle Inspection Area
n
i
-------
BUREAU OF AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR
V. MONTE. CA »1T1I
PMONKi (>13t 97B-TOOB
REQUEST FOR INITIAL INSPECTION
I HAVE REVIEWED THE MV1P FLEET FACILITY RSQUIRHMSNTS CONTAINED IN THE INFORMATION LETTER AND I AM
NTERSSTED IN BECOMING AN MVlP FLEET FACILITY.
UPON RETURN Or THIS REQUEST, A STATE RBPMC8CNTAT1VB WILL CONTACT YOU IN REGARDS TO AN INITIAL
C-45
-------
CALIFORNIA -- NOTICE FOR QUALIFYING MECHANICS
STATE OP CALIFORNIA—STATE AND CONSUMER SERVICES AGENCY EDMUND O. 6ROWN JR., Gownor
ITMENT o. BUREAU OF AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR CAM.HQPJVIIA
VEHICLE INSPECTION PROGRAM
REGIONAL OFFICE
3413 FLETCHER AVENUE. SUITE SJ JUH6 , 1979
El MONTE. CALIF. 91731
PHONE: (213) 573-7003
NOTICE TO: MECHANICS INTERESTED IN QUALIFYING TO PERFORM REPAIRS
REQUIRED BY THE NEW CALIFORNIA VEHICLE INSPECTION PROGRAM
On March 19, 1979, the State of California, Vehicle Inspection Program (VIP)
started testing 1955 and later model year light and medium duty motor vehi-
cles in the counties of Ventura, Orange, Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, River-
side and San Bernardino. The inspection will include measurement of exhaust
emissions and an inspection of required emission control systems.
Vehicles will be inspected upon transfer of registration or whenever vehicles
from out of state are being registered in California. Vehicles exceeding the
States' exhaust emission standards must receive a low emission tune-up and
repairs and either pass reinspection or qualify for a waiver.
The law requires that persons performing the necessary low emission repairs
on failed vehicles for compensation be qualified by:
1. Attending a VIP orientation seminar
and
2. Passing the written qualification examination administered
at the seminar.
If a mechanic fails the examination at the seminar, he may wish to attend
VIP approved training through various educational facilities. He must pass
reexamination in the module(s) originally failed.
The orientation seminars will be held throughout the South Coast Air Basin
in accordance with the enclosed schedule. Information on the availability
of training courses will be disseminated at the seminars. Mechanics who
wish to participate in a seminar and the associated qualification examina-
tion must complete and return the enclosed self-addressed registration card
indicating which of the scheduled seminars he wishes to attend. Facility
space and administrative feasibility require that each seminar be limited
in size. If there is still space available at the time your application is
received, you will be notified that you have been accepted for the seminar
you have chosen. If the seminar is filled to capacity, your second choice
will be scheduled. Study material will be mailed to mechanics prior to
their attending a seminar.
The seminar orientation is scheduled for three hours. During the first hour
information on the program will be presented. The remaining two hours of
the seminar will be allocated to the mechanics' qualification test.
If you have any questions relative to the program or need to request addi-
tional Mechanics' Attendance Cards, please contact:
Vehicle Inspection Program
3415 Fletcher Avenue, Suite 2
El Monte, CA 91731
(213) 575-7005
tf—i-c
5 (Rev. 5/79)
C-46
-------
APPENDIX D
LIST OF CINCINNATI APPENDIX MATERIAL
Page
Inspection Results Reporting Form D-2
Emission Test Program Report D-3
D-l
-------
CINCINNATI -- INSPECTION RESULTS REPORTING FORM
LICENSE NO
OWMCH
AOOHCSV
MAKE
w * ! i. 1 •
0
1 1 300 I
— | — r*°* ! : —
. -« • •
M« 1 '
1 .«« I !
Q G G n_j
MOTOR VEHICLE
INSPECTION
CITY OF
CINCINNATI
HEADLIGHTS
RIGHT jl LEFT
LICENSE PLATES u
TURN SIGNALS • u
W.NOSHIELD | j
WlNOCWS U
TAIL LIGHT y
— f^-
,.|,,
«*| 3«
111 ot
"I"
zrir
».|o.
STOP L:GHT ynij 01
OTMSS LIGHTS ! 'j
REAR VIEW sfinnc^ u
-.. 0.
-I"
MUO »-LA>»S ; wwsi o-
HC :,„!.. i CO ,.;,.!.. S7IM.NO M.O..
••'-
EMISSION STANDARDS - CINONNAT1 INSPECTION LANE -SEC SO»-38
MOO& YEA* HC CO
?r»-1943 1,000 PPM- 4.0%
1948-1949 400 5.0
1970 Through 1971 . 500 4.0
197S & subsequent years 2£0 il.5
'Parts per Million
If your vehicle nai been rejected because of excessive exhaust emission, the following
are probable causes:
Peutbl* Reasons For Excessive Carbon Monoxide (CO)
• Dirty air filter
• Clogged crankcase ventilation valve or other
improperly maintained emission control device
• Choke iruck. partially closed
• Incorrect carburetor adjustment
Possible Reasons for Excessive Hydrocarbons (HC1
• Spark plugs fouled
• Faulty spark plug wires or distributor cop
• Ignition poinn improperly iat
• Ignition timing incorrect
• Incorrect carburetor adjustment
• Improper or inadequate maintenance of emission
control devices
INSPECTION LANE HOURS KESP THIS CARD IN GLOVE COMPARTMENT
8:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. IT MUST BE PRESENTED FOR RE-INSPSCT1ON
Monday thru Friday
Cincir_nati Inspection Results 3epcr*ir.g ?om.
D-2
-------
o
M
O
Mi&iicu TK;;T rao:;R/iM
Cincinnati and Unnrccd Stationa
1979
Month
.Inn
Feb
M»r
Apr
liny
Jim
Jul
A us
Gup
Oct
llov
Deo
TGr.AI.ii
Teat.
Duyj
SI
i.9
2?.
21
22
21
-21
23
19
£3
21
19
2^2
llo. of Cars Tested First Time
1979
Cintl
L.OfiO
3,061
9,5'iO
9,655
9,506
9,115
8,221.
8,097
7.572
7,750
6,328
5,101.
UC.920
tefectlvc Cnra
Norwood
2,590
2,952
5,81.1.
6,171
6.7')0
5,959
5,lliO
5.298
•i , 550
I..665
3,771
2,911
56,599
Total
6,67(1
6,813
15.301.
15,02C>
16,21.6
15,07'i
13,372
13,395
12, IK?
12,1.15
10,099
8.095
J'i5,5J9
1975
1976
1977
1970
1979 l.o dnte
1978
Total
5,8l'l
il,'i7't
20,528
20,97'i
22,220
20,3'il
15,688
16,261
15,052
Hi, 937
12,157
9,050
l8l|,70l(
1977
Total
7,i.ii6
17,7''6
2U.503
21,806
21,601
22,39'i
16,091
16,9''0
H. ,867
13,702
11,'iH
8,li6l
1 96,9C>5
Cincinnati I
21.5
16.9
17.0
21.lt
20.5
1976
Total
15 ,001
21,612
23,213
23,800
ai,l|6)|
25/-«'i
10,711
19,726
15.963
12,929
12,220
10,690
221,233
1975
Total
25,7'.l
10,37't
20,068
25,21.3
20,011
19,l.l26
11,097
9,520
8.761
8,672
6,905
7,812
103,750
Percent
of
Defective
Cnr.i
Cinti
20.8
22.2
20.1
16.7
19.6
22.1
23.5
23.6
21.6
21.3
16.7
lfi.0
20.5
Norif
13.7
13.9
17.3
17.6
16.8
13.1
.18.9
16.3
18.6
10.3
8.1
8.8
15.0
Polica Citations*
1979
673
51.7
615
635
1,012
1,778
l,73'i
2,325
2,291
1,977
1,506
1,266
16,359
1970
1,178
1,582
1,163
3,035
3,81.9
3,283
3,199
2,893
3.981
M25
1,755
2,098
33,2'H
1977
1.169
3,5'J3
1..1G5
C,5'.9
3, 'i77
2,90?
2,737
2,031
3,381.
3,^92
2,661
1,575
30,775
1976
'i,fll7
10,356
6,190
7,1.00
6,071
12,075
7,673
5,570
6,133
li,l.02
b.lte
2,95't
78,709
1975
910
'.97
723
1,219
912
1,053
1,126
1,151
2,1.10
3,011
3,313
3,21.0
19,573
W
Off Dnya g
M
cn
CA1
Hew Year1 a 1 M
Mnr Lu Kinfi 15 Q
Presidents' "**
nav 19 ,_}
Hone W
Hone H
Keusnrlal >T)
IJ.oy 2G ?0
O
Hone Q
Independence ^
Da;/ 1. hj.
Hone ^
M
Labor Duv 3 i-,-)
" ' O
Hone pO
Veterans' Day 3.'-?
71innk5/d v In*-' ?i^
Curiatnifts Eve 2'.
Uirlfiiinojj 21
oi-i/oo
-------
APPENDIX E
LIST OF NEVADA APPENDIX MATERIAL
Page
Inspection Form E-2
Waiver Form E-3
Emission Level Report E-4
Vehicles That Passed Inspection Before
Adjustment E-5
Prescribed Inspection Procedures E-6
Qualifications for an Approved
Inspector's License E-7
Application for "Approved Inspector" E-8
Exhaust Gas Analyzer Performance
Specifications E-10
Approved Gas Analyzers E-ll
Requirements to Obtain a License as an
Authorized Station E-12
License Station Check List E-13
E-l
-------
NEVADA -- INSPECTION FORM
si«i* of \rvadi
DEPARTMENT OK MOTOR VEHICLES
REGISTRATION DIVISION
CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE FOR MOTOR
VEHICLE EMISSION CONTROL DEVICE
IH:S ctRnncATE >TVST GE itTMrrrtD TO A DM* BRANCH OFFICE oa A
DESIGNATED COUNTY ASSE55OR WITH THE DEALER'S REPORT OF SALE OR
OTHER >-*CC«AKY DOCVME-NTS CCFOKE A NEVADA R£C!ST^AnfiN MAY
CE ISSUtD Ok i^.VEU-D.
-\PP' 1C VST ......... . .... __ ,
r
5TREET ADDRESS _ ~ _ _ -
CITY _ _..CCU NTY ..
!i
P::va:e«ale Z v-hie's Dsa.er saie - DRS No
^:r.:«al Z
ISjiPKCTIQN HESLLTS
Before exhaust emissions: RPM Idl? HC CO
RPM ::?o HC co
,; Wil! :hi$ vehicle ~oss the I/M standards on :r.e firsi inspection' Yes — No
; Ori^ir.al V-hicie E:rm»ion Control Eguipmeni Ip.sialled:
i-: Yes Z No G Rs-.ronued: Yes ~ No Z
|! Is this vehicle caiatyiic equipped? Yes C No Z
,i Enj. type cyt Rotor? C.l.D
'.] Timina D^eil/Air sap -
; After e\hausi emissions: RPM Idle HC CO
il RPM ::5o HC co
j( Ar.aiyzin^ Equipment: Make „,_ M..3eriai So
I; Vehicle Inspection: Daie Ti.-ne A.M. Z ?.M.
state ieveis for HC's and CO's.
:' Iris sector's sijr.uure ,._...—_.-_^_ ___...._ _._ __.No ___
: Cos; of insrectioti S ....... - - . _„ Cost of rtpairs S _
(• Inspecting nrm — _....._.._..»..._.._ _ „ -._ No _^.
•i TH7S CERTITTCATE VQtO «0 DATS AFTTR I>ATE Of
.I ISSV-OCCE AND A.W ALTERATION OR ERASURE
;• ^TLJL VOID VH1S CERnriCATt
;; Canao-, Applit-ani Copy: While. DMV;
i Pink, Auftiimied Station.
'i so-»4in**. :-'t\ o-*'i
Imaortaai: XVhca rrsrwins rrrtsrratioo by nufl
'. thu flub most b« cacJoMd vltb rtctwal fcrffl.
I! Make Year ^ -^ -1 -- C H - £?
!' VIS ^ G l±Ol ( D
i1 Inspecting Fir^i So Date
I' RD-"* (Rev. 3-9) O-*TI
E-2
-------
NEVADA -- WAIVER FORM
. Mate of Mevrt(l:i • ' ' f:
':.-••• DEPARTMENT 07 MOTOR VEHICLES . . •.: [•.
' .', ...-'• REGISTRATION DIVISION ''.''..'••• |'
/" \'REQUEST WAIVER FOR EXE:,;i'Tio>; OF ' . '. [.;,
. . CEPvTJFICATE 0? COMl'LIANCE .•'.'' • i'.'
THIS coM?i.F.Tr.n FOR.-.T r.vsr BE SIIBMTTTZO TO A D.M.V. BRANCH omen !
E^ISSIU.N CO.Vi"0« SECTION FOK At'l'BOVAL BErO:-J-: A .NtVAD-v KKCiS'/XA-
TION MAY tE ISSUHD. . • . • -. .... . i-
APPLICANT. '..'.i '..: ;...:._'. ;
' STREET ADDRESS .'.„-._.... .' : ; ;•;'
CITY. _.L....L._:. _.^. COUNTY. _.'j._"..". ZIP '. ;
. '. 'Vet-lids Make . Yc.ir . 'Moiisl O(iomi:er Rej-i-? U--
hic^cI.D. No. ' Lircr.:; l':r.t= Srs:: Y=.ir
Private sals Q -. Vehicls Dealer Sale p ' DRS No._
Boforo c.Thausi emissions: RPM I,:h ......... _ ...... JICL ...... _ .......... CO ....... - ..... -...
'.-. . ' / RPM 2250 ..... :..... ______ JiC. _____ ......... CO ........... _ .....
Original Vehicle Emission Coairc! Equi:rv:cnt !.TSt.iI!tti: . • ' .
Yes Q NO Q R.j:roiiited: Y« Q No Q
Eng. typs cy! ........ _!..; ___________ Rorors _______ ...... ______ ..... C.IJD ..... __ : ______ „ .......
Tilling..— ___ __ ___ «.- _________ „ _____
After exhaust emissions: RPM Ijk..i.x HC - CO
•'". . . - HPM 225S>...±.,.s: HC....~... CO : „.
Will tbis vehicle pass the r/M/Stiiido'rds on is first ir.spsctiop. Y;> fj No O
• Emission, analyzer calibr;::iLV..,yC^—.'. i—.'. ....-.; ; :
. ' ^ : \ \\ • Month Day • . Yjar •.. •
..by Dsp?rtT.jat-pf MbiorVcfcicS.es ''. ..•••.. • .. -. ;. •. .. .
Reason for Waiver?—!...-',._ .v. :.—'. _':._ .....
j..
'Owner's si
•''Signature ..... _: Tille. '. '.Dj:;...'.
THIS FOP.M 13 VOID Vi> DAYS AFTER DATE OF IS31MNCT-. A.VD .V.SY ALTERA-
TION OR EilASUHS \>7LL VOID TiUS FOK.M.
Greca, Appllcini Copy; ^Vhitc, DMV; •..••/' ' -• • :- . . . • '
. Pinlc, Autsurizeil Station. . .•. . .; . . •.:' ." '. . '. .
'-RD-SS '-I'-. ' ' '"' • '-8341 ^rrg. A 11075 .
• Inspector's signature— „ —..- .".« ;— '..'. «_—No_ :....'„ ' ' f'
IosFe£iiij£ firm •/,. ,, _,-. —.'.„ _.« .........No ^ „'. " K"
•"TdraTcosl of rrpair for libor S _:...._.._..„.;.... ,"_„' J....l'..--'_or - |:.
Total parts aad labor S«~__._._..,.J '_ '. ". *. :' •'. -
• I hereby c=rt;fy that the rspairs required per instruciioas '.vcrs psrfonv.j'J on ' :"
this vehicls and w;iiver is requested. • - ' • ; ;_;
E-3
-------
EPOiil OA7L
ALL. VEHICLES
ALL VEHICLES
/o/.'»i ft M if "•'•"'••'
STATE OF i\ t .V A l> A
0 f. P A R T M E li 1 0 t- M 0 T (I K V fc H" X C L fc S
KEijISTrtftTIOr; DIVISION
EMISiJOh COMKOL SECTION
CGiiTHOL STATISTICS
PAGE 137
'Z,
M
<
>
%
VEHICLES
,. InfiU 1967
U , « 5 1
1966 * 1 '^ 0 **
7 /IPs
VEHICLES
. . . ....
VEnlCLES . '
I97U - 197"
Vth'icLtS '•"
• '\, '• : •
1975 OriftftRD ;'
.-... ; :
VEhicLEJ . ..J
VEHICLES
ALL rt'uKS
Si} OQ7
VEHICLES
NOTE: AVEKAGE
n.C .
.552
A
AAAA IDLE
. n.C. ..
3b9
A
AAAAAAAAA
»AA« IOLE
M.C.
2d3
. A
AAAA IOLt
M.C.
' 167
- !• *
.;-.
**** JOLE
ri,C.-
; 301
*• *
• .'1 E F
C.O.
153
AVENGE
AAAA
C.U. .
392
A i' Eft AGE
* U E F
AAA*
C.u.
32d "
AVEHAGE
AAAA
C.O.
17')..
AAAA
c.o;
308
AVE.KAGE
ri.c. c'.i).
•)03 339
COST OF JliSPECTlOiri"
AAAA 225*) * A A A
.. M.C. . C.O.
286 259
.COST OF ..INSPECTION *
0 H E AAA'AA~**~AA*
AAAA 2250 **AA
n.C. C.O.
192 196
COST OF INSPECTION 4
A*»* 225 (i AAAA
H.C. C.O.
96 90
COST OF 1,'ISPECTIOiN I
A*** 2250 A*AA
n.C/ C.O. •"• " '
206 193
COST OF liJSPECTlOU i
COST OF ItoSI'fc'tUllN IiMCLUOES la.fj^JO '
*tt*AAAAAA A F 1
h.C. C.O.
'I'l'l 303
13.23
AAAA I L)UE AAAA
H.C. C.O.
25U 215
13. £l .
AAAA 1 i) L E A A * *
h.C. C.U.
• ' ItO 196 .
13.63
'*AA» IOLE AA*»"
M.C. C.O.
113 96
11.53
AAAA IOLE AAAA
H.C. C.O.
202 160
13.79 "
\ATt FEE
h.C. C.O, n.C. C . (.1 .
30b 275 Ufa ,. 1«5 ^3
Av£f.
125 137 IOSS&X 132^
AVEK*liE COST OF REPAIRS i 1.32
'AAAA 2250 AAAA AAA* IOLE AAAA
H.C. C.O. H.C. C.O.
09 59 ^^Si.y 7t> i/*~
AVERAGE COST DF REPAIKS 1 .51
A*** 2250 **** *A*A IDLE ***A
•H.C. c.o. ••• H.C. c.o.
141 111 9V . l^.li'jj/
"AVERAGE COST OF REPAIHS "i"1'' .1.02
E U O C f 1 0 U
H.C. C.o.
^ ".•?'//' t;* /9j/
E 0 u C 1 ION
**** 2250 AAA*
ri.C. C.O.
'/ t^^&'/i *>!')/'/
** •-*/*
E U 0 C T I 0 N
*AAA 2250 «A*A
h.C. C.O.
^ 6735/i ^5£>'/'
*AA* 2250 AAA*
h.C. C.O.
'/ dW/i *[*7'4
**A* 2250 AAAA
rt.C. C.O.
62 ,. 52 „/
^-/' ^7 /'.-.- ,-;
0
'r^
M
M
tr1
M
T1
r~i
H
-------
PROCR'.H 1'IH
Kt'POi'T DATE
ALL.
V £ H I C L t S
.THRU. 1467
6,«76
VEHICLES
— • • -
VEHICLES
196S - 1969
1,692
VEHICLES
VEHICLES
M 1970 - 1974
ui 15,91)1
VEHICLES
VF. H I f. LE S
1975 Olvr.ARP
13,7'JI
VEHICLES
\t r 1 1 1 r i &-' '\
VLM J I. UC .J
ALL VEAHS
10,fl /'"••
E V A 0 A , PAGE 119
M"E~N"T U'F M'O'T'O K — VfH"I C'L-fa '
REGISTRATION DIVISION ' STATE
EMISSION CCiNTHUL SECTION . MOt"
" EMISSION COi'JTHUL S 1 fl 1 10 1 ILCJ - - — — —
**** IOLE *«*
-•— H.C. C.O.
375 291
j 13.20 -
* *«** 2250 **** *«*« IOLE **»* **»* 2250 ****
M.C. ' C.O.- - H.C. C.O. H.C. C.O.. — -----
280 251 5"/3^ 57/4^ 51/yX 2?/4//
AVERAGE COST' OF- REPAIRS i ' .51 ' '"''-
A-A*****^*^Arli.f*****"w«»J»lsnn •*vu*^"fk I»»«M*/VI***H'
**** IOLE *««« **** 2250 **»* »**« IOLE **** **«* 2250 **««• J •
H.C. C.O. H.C. C.O. H.C. C.O. 'H.C. C.O.
230 226
».... .13,23
**** IDLE **«
H.C. C.O.
. ' 159 178
S 13.65
...
A^^An^fcfc** A
•**** 'IULE"***
H.C. C.O.
99 81
i 11. Sd
**** IDLE **»
H.C. ' C.O.
Ittl 169
• » " 13.11 v
177 173 25,^ 3a/^ U^/ 15 'gfi""-
AVERAGE COST OF REPAIRS t"/i .57
* **** 2250 **** »*** IOLE' **** **** 2250 ****
H.C. C.O. H.C. C.O. H.C. C.O. >
— - - 109 122 ' VzQ/f 21 ///4 *>£'% W/?/-— -
f f " * . .
AVERAGE COST OF REPAIRS $ -.51 _. • i • :V
-- :- -
'
FTEK*******##* AVERAGE REDUCTION ':: :
*- **** 2250 **»* *»** IDLE' *»*«• -**** 2250 **** — ••••
H.C. C.O. M.C. C.O. ..H.C. C.O.---
60 SO 9^ 11 /^- <* £'/ * 9¥
AVERAGE' COST OF REPAIRS i .21 •
FT P P AA****^«A* A UPH A fl P P 1- • 11 1 1 P T T 11 M •'•
1 CH*«*«»«K*B* ^ V t n A O C. n • C U U L I I U |W
* ***« 2250 **»* *»** IDLE **** **** 22SO **** :
H.C. C.O. H.C. C.O. H.C. C.O..-!--;-— ---^
/ *y xy
i2/ 121 in/o'/ 25/^/v ^7 ft ^//i '
•'- • AVERAGE COST OF REPAIRS S ' .13 .. •; :
OF INSPECTION INILUOES J2.00 CERTIFICATE FcE ' • " .
Z
W
<
>
>
i
i
M
M
O
tr1
CO
H.
H
hd
CO
CO
M
2;
CO
M
o
M
o
cd
M
O
M
J^>
O
a
CO
H
2!
H
-------
NEVADA-- PRESCRIBED INSPECTION PROCEDURES
•^~-~-~ I • .~. visual insoection must be ~-ade of the e.Y.h£'js- system for vi sible smd\e
a.-jc ilcvji; p-ases while the engine is at idle and fast idle, and a chec.:: of
the vehicle ~ust be made to ensure that all emission control devices
required by this state and the Federal Government are connected.
STEP 2: After the motor vehicle has been to normal operative terperature,
connect motor vehicle to engine diagnostic equipment. The infra-red
exhaust analyzer shall be adjusted according to the manufacturer.'-s
specifications. Place the probe in the tail pipe. Kith engine running,
record the RPM idle and steady KC snd CO levels. If dual .exhaust, proie
.both. Increase PJ>M to 2250, record steady levels of KC and CO.
STEP 3: Adjust the following to manufacturer's specifications, including
recommended tolerances:
A. Idle speed (- 50P.PM) in addition to manufacturer's specifications.
8. Dwell
C. Air gap
3. Timing (+ 5* ) in addition co r.Erufacturer's specifications.
STEP 4: While vehicle is still connected to the diagnostic equipment, record the
steady HC and CO levels at the -anufacturer's idle RPK. Increase P.PM to 2250
record steady HC and CO levels.
STEP 5: If the vehicle is found not to exceed ths -axi-um levels for HC and CO
set forth in these regulations at either idle or 225C =.?", although
the vehicle has rdssing pollution control devices, exclusive of the
catalytic converter, and if the vehicle has no blo^by or visible snoke
the approved inspector shall complete and sign the certificate of
compliance, c'esianati.Tcr on the certificate that ar. exemption fro- the
requirement for the missing devices has been granted.
STEP 6: If the vehicle is found to exceed the maximum levels for HC and CO
set forth in these regulations at either idle or 2250 RPM, and if no
blovby or visible smoke is evident, the approved inspector shall complete
and issue an application for a waiver.
STEP 7: The following information must be recorded on a certificate of compliance or
an application for a waiver:
AfaJcs, model, and year of
vehicle . .
Engine type CID CYL
Vehicle identification nuirber . _
Odometer reading
Before HC and CO readings •
Dwell or air gap
Ignition timing
Idle setting (rpm)
After HC and CO readings
Cost of adjustments and parts
EXHAUST EMISSION STAXDAP.DS
Atoce! i'ear of Vehicle CO (%)
1966 - 1967, inclusive 7.5
1968 - 1969, inclusive 5.0
1970 - 1974, inclusive 4.0
1975 and later ., 3.0
I Certify under penalty of perjury that I have read and understand these .--escribed Inspection
Test Procedures.
E~6 5icnature Date.
-------
NEVADA -- QUALIFICATIONS FOR AN APPROVED INSPECTOR'S LICENSE
3.12.1 ','0 person will be approved as an inspector unless he has demonstrated his
qualifications and ability to the satisfaction of the department by:
3*12.1.1 Submitting an application on the form provided by the department which
establishes that the applicant is qualified to make all necessary
adjustments of emission control devices according- to the manufacturer's
specifications, record necessary information, and inspect and test the
operation of federally required emission cor.trol devices:
/
3.12.1.2 Submitting a certificate of competence which indicates his techr.ical
ability in major motor vehicle tune-ups in accordance with accepted
practices of the industry: ' *~
3.12.1.3 Submitting a certificate of competence as issued by the manufacturer
of an exhaust gas analyzer approved by the department, indicating his
ability to adjust and" operate that equipment: and
3.12.1.4 Successfully completing a written test which was prepared by the
department, with a grade score of not .less than 75 percent and, if
required, by performing a practical demonstration of Prescribed Test
Procedures.
3.12.1.5 At the discretion of the Department of .Voter Vehicles, an applicant
who fails to pass the inspector's test may be required to wait for a
period of seven calendar days before he may retake the approved
inspector's test.
3.'12.1.6 Every inspector approved by the department shall report in writing
to the department every change in his place of employment and any
termination of his employment within ID days after the date when the
change or termination occurred.
E-7
-------
;.•> i A j i. L-V .'...... :.".
DKPAKTKr^KT OK MOICT. V£HJCU:S
R,-:GISTRATI o:; D iv is j ON
EMISSION CONTROL SECTIO::
2701 E Saha.-a •
Las Vecas, Nevada
APPLICATION FOR "APPROVED INSPECTOR"
I hereby make application for a certificate as an "APPROVED INSPECTOR"
for the purpose of inspecting, installing, maintaining and adjusting motor
vehicle emission control devices.
NAME: (Please print)_
(Last)
(First)
/ (Middle)
Residence address:
(Number and street) (City) (Telephone)
Social Security No. Driver's License No. Stat
Current Employer
Address:
(Ni:;.:hsr
L5.rth.day
Mo. Day Yc,-?r
r::;d s^ree
Sex
t)
Height
>"eet In.
CCitv
vc. -? «• •- -
)
Color il.xiv
(Sr.M-c)
Color r\-es
MECHArilCAL EXPFRIENCE. AND E?^LOYy.LNT PlCQRIL (list .,-ost recent first)
i
rom
Year
TO
Month Year
Eir-loyc-rs
Experience in automotive tune-up _
Expi-r icMice in auCorriot ive repair _
•''•'Automotive tune-up class or school
••'•'Automotive repair class or school .
_ye.-u-s
__>-ears
hours
hours
••'•'Must be documented and copies of such docui-ent-atioii to accempnny this r.pplicafion.
E-3
-------
emission analyzing: years
ssion analyzing equipment qualified to operate:
Make: (1)
(2)
Copies of certifications or copies of other documents attesting to the operation
of the above listed equipment must accompany this application. .'
Remarks pertaining to additional qualifications:
I certify under penalty of perjury the foregoing information is true.
Signed Date , 19
"XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX1
:xxxm:xxxxxxxx
DMV USE ONLY
Written test
Appropriate
Certificate
XX>:XXXXX>LXX>Z>:XXXXXXX:O:>LX>^
completed: Passed / f Yes ~t T No Score
documents attached i f Yes / / No
of Competence attached I~~J Yes /"~T No
List those missing:
REMARKS :
;s
X
« X
/. X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
g
X
X
Approved Inspector's Certificate issued; Number
Investigator
's signature date
X
X
X
,19
X
X
X
X
E-S
-------
NEVADA
4.2 Exhaust Gas Analyzer Performance Specifications
4.2.1 The analyzing device shall measure carbon monoxide expressed
as percent carbon monoxide in air and measure hydrocarbons
as hexane expressed as parts per million of hydrocarbons
(hexane) in air. The device shall be designed meeting these
performance specifications:
CARBON MONOXIDE HYDROCARBONS
Units % PPM
Accuracy of reading ±0.3 units on ±50 units on
10% sacle 2000 scale ppra
Drift -- 2 hours ±0.1 units ±15 units
Repeatability . 1% FS 1% FS
Min. detectable limits 0.5 units 100 units
Calibration--2 point dynamic calibration.
Readout—Dual digital or dual meters. Digital elements must
be 0.5 inch in height, or each meter shall have a 4 inch
effective scale width.
If the department has reason to believe any infrared e:-:haustl
gas analyzer is not in compliance with requirements of this
section, the department may require such equipment to be
laboratory tested by an independent source other than the
manufacturer of the equipment.
4.2.1.1 An infrared analyzer which is red tagged because it
is not suitable for use must not be returned to
service until its accuracy is verified by an emission
control officer. An authorized station or fleet
station may lease, borrow or ront an emission analyser
for temporary use while the station's approved
analyzer is being repaired if the substitute infrared
analyzer is on the list of approved exhaust analyzers
and an emission control officer has verified its
accuracy and has approved its use.
-------
NEVADA -- APPROVED GAS ANALYZERS
A.C.
37-500
' • . - •. vn
i -.-' •'-"
',' >' ' • ~T/ f'
' •'<•.". .'- _' ~..'-
ALIEN
22-067"
22-070
22-030
£3 oirOf-A
AET-245
Ai'A-313
A?'A-550
13-090
IS-150
23-077
?};-r;87
13-097
13-157
!:CH_
:~39
45
- ^*7(r
<3
13
50
BARNES
35 C
o^r
v> • (^
K • i:0
770
.MIL EX.
1856
r •'D T s r i r pi <•.••;: T r
^nr\ * -> i i •„' r. >. r.U ! ..: -..
EA-74C
EA-74
FOX
1800
A-:-oo
.--
MiiiE SAFETY A^PLIA^UE
PHERi.FSS
660
675
AC-276
42-075
s -.•••••.. /.on
. -- • . • r ^ J
C
—(
J"
31-60A
'li: -495
MT-<:35
c
ELE
75
910
CS 1C
/S" O
___ ^^ _ _ i
E-ll
-------
F.E ~ IS TP.A TI O.V D-'.'-S 1C'!
r.v"55r::; C-::T?SI 5T~.ro:;
."er-ji'r•=:'=--cs To Obtain 3 License as a.- .-.uthorized Station
1. tpply for and completes a.n appl^'catj'c.-j.
(application forms are provided by the departjr^nt)
2. Proof that applicant has an established place cf business:
"Established place of business .rsj-ns - The psr-.zr.e.nt structure O^.TSC s:rh=r
.i- r;e or .l.^rsc vith sufficient s~'j-:d to test, inspect' or Sf; •_.= :, if / •-;..";•::,
• ::.,? or .r-;.re v=h>.:-.I ~s :shi-h a ^e^tiJic-^e of c.\:-~: i =.~:-:=p t.'-r ' h: - : s,
-rr:ifj!r;:tes of ec.'.Tr I .:_•..••,_• = , £.;• ~ ;2J. Jthsr reccrc= of !.'•:'= ^--r:../: .'.:-?if
~-=wiir, at ••••:-.ich f-iia or Jc-^rV/r t.-.s principal por-i>:r; ::' :-. :'-. !;_;. :^e's
b--? :.:•;• s :'-*ll be c:.-m to ir.s: ~--. :.:'.;:: c-'.-'ls.g visual ;:•.*.-•; ,:-~ '. ._•= ':•'-• j=-i;
= -•;:.-;--.: Jc-c i^i.-t of the ^=j:£rt~T/:t of .Voter Vi.v.i-jJ^s.
?. 5="or5 = r^cs.75s for an sutler-2£-c station is f-.rr:'£.' -c io •=../ * >r5o--;, the
w-o.rpcr£ts surst:; tr.erion, cirJj' HC^-.F=C to co ;•_'«:-.=••? vj-: .'-:'- :..'•.; rtste cf
(c) a -.avincs certificate in the arount of $2,-:-~'0. 00, and co.-;Gi t.;cr,ed
that the ^pplicarit shall ccncucz his business as ar. authorized station vith ~~
fraud cr fraudulent representation and without viols tier, of the pro-visions of
Chapter 445 of KKS or these -emulations.
4. The department will inspect authorized stations and certify that they are
prcperly equipped and their personnel are adequately zrainec to issue
certificate of compliance or applications for •.••zi"--r in :- :c.-rc~-.--:e -.-'ith the
:.:.cecu-es of the depart~.ent. On or after January 2, 1-^0, = -=csc-r.
r.a'-:ing application to beco~,e licensee ss an au^hr
-------
NEVADA
STATION MA.".E
ADDRESS
NO. Or INSPECTORS
License disolaved
Station
Inspectors
Regulation sign posted
References available
State exhaust emission standards
Specification -anual
Titles
Tur.o-'jo ea;:i--ent
Are the inspection records available and complete
.-.re the Certificate of Cornliar.ce forr.s available
Are they filled cut srcoeriv
?.er.arXs
!
I
Type of infra red equipment
Serial :;urier
Model
Tolerances
Correlation factor
Calibration Test
1st test readir.c: CO
Propane
KC PPM
CO %
PPM 2nd test reading: C0_
3rd test reading: CO
Hi Standard
4th t-jst readinc: CO
Hi Standard Low
KC
% :-:c
% KC
CUT OF SERVICE
Yes
REASON: Failed to pass calibration test_
Approved Inspector net er.plcyed
Failure to keep bond in force
:License under revocation
:Failure to renew license
Last Certificate of Ccnpliar.ca issued on 19 .
This ecuip-ent cannot be used for the issuance of a certificate of co-plia.-ce ur.-il released
by an agent of the Emission Control Section or the C=partr.sr.t cf .Motor Vehicles. 3S6-3356.
Station Authorized Representative
Emission Control Officer
Sack in Service: Date
E-13
-------
APPENDIX F
LIST OF NEW JERSEY APPENDIX MATERIAL
Page
Inspection Results Form F-2
Idle Emission Data Sheet F-3
Cost Study of Emission-Related Repairs F-4
Codes to be used with NJDEP and DMV "Cost
Study of Emission Related Repairs" Form F-5
Failure Rate Reports F-6
Monthly Vehicle Inspection Report, November 1979 F-7
Monthly Vehicle Inspection Report,
Cumulative 1979 F-8
Monthly Vehicle Inspection Report, November 1979 F-9
Data Summary for all Stations F-10
Calibration Procedure F-ll
Reinspection Station Test Procedure & Standards F-15
F-l
-------
D
n
s
StiCKtA HUU0CA
'--I
1
_-
kO*
c.*
Our
tMM
MIM
r^«
e.*.
OUT
ItCtt
MiM
Vil*
C.P
Ouf
*IM
,-. ..
,.0.
.u.
MlM
,-..„
REA
Uff 1
___.. JO
— 1 11-
— l-l«
—
—
-
14 •
It
10
**•
I*.
10
• -
• -
- I •
- o -
R
IU
z
\ •« " m r /
r°\ °
* J
§
/ -« x et - » \
\-y
r
a
<
o
A
J
/ H * 0 - »\
\ H i» m r /'
sYq 5
/-. x u - «\
\ H-~^ /
\
S
•
/ -* I
•tT
•\o
t
a
So
11
* "
C a
° *
ss
"1
(~,
/
?l s
~\
0- »\
•v*
X
s--
$
let
X
f*4
!l
•ei
FRONT
—
—
—
—
. JO-
- It
. 2ft.
•It
• to-
• I*
- id-
- |4 •
• 10
• ••
• * -
• 1-
. O-
—
—
—
-
Ill »CVIMt« HOt
*ii(Cf to
COLwMM "C • Ck««i*>C*riOi
DHIVE
A
SAFE
VEHICLE
s
s
H
*
Z
1
Ul
a
fl'v *IG IN t ,
:r^....
^MiiJiiaia-
-iiI;i-f.kV?.5ri-
««O Al *• LIQNF
*1-«H LfCHl
tro». L.ai*r«
;.:.'." 8
-on a
LI... a
co a
»l*0 LldMTI
•>l«XO*tl
l*ircx>»(i
l>-0. C *fO» LlOHT*
I(.H . ...i-..,
r« «".VA «• ~sTi"k«
C3u*L.IIAMOe.
K*viCC ***«•
—
._
...
-
-
-
-
-
-*
-
-
—
-
-j INITIAL REJECTION j
—
-
—
»rtE£l AUCMUcNr
- •*— IH OUT — >
- >»4*>eHlt»ia}l»OM»
7 WWU]OIDOIO»»MM
J r«ONT WHItU MlOW UHI
1
J
1
4
4
>
1
»
10
II
1^
n
1 4
11
1}
A
it
17
ia
19
in
11
1)
11
14
3i
—-
-
-•
-
—
—
—
—
—
—
X
X
X
X
X
X
1. STEERING AND SUSPENSION «
• Tf ceim
L. 1 WHEEL ROCK
R.
L001EMEM
PNOHT tNO
•• EXAMINATION OF GLARING
WINOSMIEUO
L. II VENTS
n.
L.
L.
f »(!Ht
004H
• in
• IOC
«.
R.
1 "**"
k. | 000«
et*e
N.
NEW JERtCY DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLE!
INSPECTION CARD
Th« motor vehicle r*gl«ttred «• chown on lh« (act of thU c«n] h«» boon
rt|tcl»d. Rtjectad Item* hiv* &e«n punched. Check by corresponding
number on insc^ct'on requlramenti.
ThU u en olllclil racoid wnlctl mull o* pnnnled «t»n tn> veMcl* ll la b«
ralnipKUd. DO NOT OESTHOY.
The repiinM vehicle ntuel be pietenltd (or relnipectlon within 10 dtyi Irani
in* due al ailglnel lieue ol lhl« cud. II the vehicle 14 nol pretenied lor
(elnipecllan within the 30-dey period It mey bo eubfect la t complete
rtlnepecllon. Repelre mey be mede by >ny person el eny piece end the
relnipecllan mey be mede el e Llceneed Relnipectlon Center (lor e lee) or el
e Stele Inspection Stellon. The Olvltlon doee nol do eny eucn wcrh nor mey
lie employeee recommend how, where, or by whom II ahould be done.
"C" COLUMN • (Clerlllcetlon for re|eciion on Inc.)
21. MISCELLANEOUS(R«»ioo lor raiacilon under Item 71 on loco)
IS. OTHER LIGHTS (Reeion for rejection under item IB on feco)
fO« LAMP!
D
D
a
a
a
a
Nev; Jersey Inspection Resu.Vta Reporting Form (Front and Back)
-------
NEW JERSEY -- IDLE EMISSION DATA SHEET
_ = „ a
o ; — -_
2 5; o * 1
£ 3 ^ 3 £
1
! i
I 1
| i
! II
1
J L
| |
1
i si
I $i
azi3>icao i 5|
i"TT
I g|
I I I ! iT
! 1
III 1
1 1
i 1 1 1
II
r >•
2 j_ iij
z Q .
2 5 <
C h-
I 2 a
~ ••: 5
t «5
! i
i i i
111
1 !
II
II 1 1 i
3»°« sl
i i i i i i i
i !
1
I
Il
| i
! I
l
(Mod) 3H
Si i
2ZIS 1NISN3 1 SI
i
3003 "300W
I SI
I =•!
1 21
3003 3XVW
aaawriN ;.iirc
i 1
1 1 1 1
1
1 l|
1
I I
1 1
1 ! i
1 1 !
1 1
I I I
i I 1 1
i 1 ! I
I I I
! 1 1 1 1 I
1 I
II
II
1 I 1 1 i
1 1 !
ll
i i i
' 1 ! !
= -Z
3 <
F-3
-------
NEW JERSEY -- COST STUDY OF EMISSION-RELATED REPAIRS
•u c
to o
O -I
> '0*
C 0)
•%^*g5^j=E;^^
o
a = a
a r
>
o J
as at a
w p ei
O z
a S o
sS53gggagg5Sftgg33gj^^
F-4
-------
Codes to be used with NJDEP and DMV "Cost Study of Emission Related
Repairs" form
Column 6: Type of Center
D = Automobile Dealer
G = Garage
S = Service Station (gas station)
0 = Other
Columns 11 - 14: Make of Car
AMCO = American Motors
AUDI = Audi
AUHE = Austin Healey
AUST = Austin
BMWO = BMW
BUCK = Buick
CADI = Cadillac
CHEK = Checker
CHEV = Chevrolet
CHRY = Chrysler
DATS = Datsun
DODG = Dodge
FIAT = Fiat
FORD = Ford
HOND = Honda
INTE = International
JAGU = Jaguar
JEEP = Jeep
LINC = Lincoln
MAZD = Mazda
MEBZ = Mercedes Benz
MERC = Mercury
MGOO = MG
OLDS = Oldsmobile
OPEL
OTHR
PLYM
PONT
PORS
PUGT
RENA
Opel
Other
Plymouth
Pontiac
Porsche
Peugeot
Renault
SAAB = Saab
SUBA = Subaru
TOYO = Toyota
TRIP = Triumph
VOLK = Volkswagen
VOLV = Volvo
Columns 30, 32, 34: Emissions Failures
1 = Vehicle failed for this pollutant
0 = Vehicle did not fail for this pollutant
Column 54: Type of Repair
0 = Adjust carburetor, idle mixture and/or idle speed
1 = " " and ignition system repair or timing
2 = Ignition system work (new plugs, wires, etc.)
3 = " " " + emission system work (PC/, EGR, etc.)
4 => " " " + emission system work +• adjust
and/or repair carburetor (repair carb. implies "external"
work like a vacuum leak or choke repair). .
5 = Adjust and/or repair carburetor •*• emission system work
6 = Rebuild or replace carburetor
7 = Rings and/or valves (major engine work)
8 = Refill or replace catalyst
9 = Other (replace air pump, e.g.)
Columns 56 - 60: Leave blank
F-5
-------
NEW JERSEY -- FAILURE RATE REPORTS
EMO
NEW JERSEY STOTE DEPORTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION .
TO» VEHICULAR AND TRANSPORTaT I ON PROGRaMS PERSONNEL
FROM; DANIEL COWPERTHUaiT OaTE; DECEMBER 13, 1979
SUBJECT; NOVEMBER MONTHLY INSPECTION REPORT-
ATTACHED IS THE NOVEMBER MOTOR VEHICLE MONTHLY INSPECTION REPORT. THE
OVERALL FAILURE RATE FOR THE MONTH WAS 18.16 PERCENT AS COMPARE!' WITH .
18.53 PERCENT IN OCTOBER. aLL TOLD, 266929 VEHICLES WERE TESTED; 4 8 '16 8. •;•>!,<.
WERE REJECTED FOR EMISSIONS, THE REINSPECTION FAILURE RATE FOR NOVEMBER '
WAS 30.08 PERCENT AS COMPARED WITH 29.63 PERCENT IN OCTOBER. A TOTAL OF
22637 VEHICLES, OR 46.71 PERCENT, RETURNED; I-OR REINSPECTION as COM-
PARED WITH INITIAL INSPECTION REJECTIONS,
FAILURE CHANGE OVER
STATION S.ST.§
THE FOLLOWING FIVE STATIONS HAVE THE HIGHEST INITIAL RATE;
WHIPPANY
WESTFIELD
NO BRUNSWICK
CAMDEN
KILMER
22.75
24.21
24.89
25.61
27.59
6.19
-.90
.16
-2.08
4.05
ROBB
BRINKER
SWANSON
SWANSOM
SWANSON
THE FOLLOWING FIVE STATIONS HAVE THE LOWEST INITIAL RATE;
LODI
8RIDGETON
UNION
RAHWaY
DEPTFORD
9.91
10.04
12.02
12.86
13.30
"2.14
•4.77
1.04
3.30
~.44
WEST
TERRY
BRINKER
BRINKER
TERRY
THE FOLLOWING FIVE STATIONS HAVE THE HIGHEST REEXAM ROTE I
WASHINGTON
MONaHOWKIN
.KILMER
ATLaNTIC CT
LODI
42.28
44.31
44.76
45.26
49.15
3.42
6.09
2.68
7.29
18.54
WEST
JOHNSON
SWANSON
TERRY
WEST
THE FOLLOWING FIVE STATIONS HAVE THE LOWEST REEXAM RATE*
LIVINGSTON
CAMDEN
ATCO
PARAMUS
NEWARK
10.34
15.62
15.88
17.69
13.33
-3.61
.94
"1.22
.48
-.23
ROBB
3WAMSOM
TERRY
WEST
BRINKER
F-6
-------
DATE; DECEMBER 19, 19:
MEW JERSEY DEPORTMENT OF ENVIROMMENTAL PROTECTION
AMD
DIVISIOW OF MOTOR VEHICLES
MONTHLY VEHICLE INSPECTION REPORT
NOVEMBER 1979
STATION
AS BURY PARK -
ATCO ._ .^
ATLANTIC CT
BRIDGETOM
BURLINGTON
CAMDEM
CAPE MAY
DEPTFORD
EATONTOWN
FLEMINGTON
FREEHOLD
HACKEMSACK
JERSEY CITY
KILMER.
LIVINGSTON
LODI
MANAHAWK IN
MILLVILLE
MONTCLAIR
MORRISTOWM
MT. HOLLY
NEWARK
NEWTON
NO BRUNSWICK
PARAMUS
PLAINFIELO
RAHWAY
RIDGEWOOD
SALEM
SECAUCUS
SOMERVILLE
TOMS RIVER
TRENTON
UNION
WASHINGTON
WAYNE
WE5TFIELD
WHIPPANY
TOTAL
I
E::AMS
4847
4744
5714
2649
4540
136"99
3131
9332
10529
3283
6344
4730
6481
7297
4641
13275
2415
4254
8357
9595
5364
15523
4986
4323
12693
6033
11855
6272
2483
3146
5346
7997
12954
4526
4006
14322
5956
3736
266923
N I T I
FAIL
736
809
1071
266
816
3508
550
1241
1443
539
1164
960
1180
2013
353
1315
422
958
1654
1579
1141
2611
362
1076
2579
1198-
1524
1155
504
1650
844
1475
2601
544
752
2483
1442
350
48463
A L
PERCENT
• 16
. 17
18
10
17
25
17
13
13
17
IS
20
13
27
IS
9
17
22
19
16
19
16
17
24
20
19
12
13
20
20
15
18
20
12
13
17
24
i~>
13
* ^^
.05
.74
.04
.97
.61
.57
.30
.71
.94
.35
.08
.21
.59
.38
.91
.47
.52
.79
.46
.46-
.82
.29
.89
.32
.36
.36
.42
.30
.26
.79
.44
.08
.02
.77
.34
.21
.75
.16
REEXAMS
521
340
369
225
378
1306
255
674
692
329
561
391
326
840
232
468
246
495
683
624
498
791
476
430
1266
733
9'06
623
251
636
640
313
901
237
499
1606
462
309
22637
REE
RETURN
66
42
34
84
46
37
46
54
47
55
48
40
70
41
27
35
58
51
41
39
43
30
55
39
49
65
59
54
49
38
75
55
34
52
66
64
32
36
46
.28
.03
.45
.59
.32
.23
.36
.31
.96
.36
.20
.73
.00
.73
.20
.59
.29
.67
.29
.52
.65
.29
, ^n
.96
.09
.36
.45
.37
.80
.55
.33
.12
.64
.76
.36
.68
.04
.35
.71
:•: A M s
FAIL
213
54
167
52
97
204
84
177
183
110
137
13S
216
376
24
230
109
143
191
136
154
145
116
153
224
304
316
168
33
206
• 144
216
205
69
211
651
179
125
6810
PEPCBNT TECH
40
15
45
23
25
15
32
26
26
33
33
35
26
44
10
49
44
28
27
29
30
IS
24
35
17
38
34
26
33
32
<•}/•}
26
9"1
24
42
40
33
40
30
.88
.33
.26
.11
.66
.62
.94
.26
.45
.43
. 33
.29
.15
.76
.34
.15
.31
.39
.96
.31
.92
.33
.37
.53
.69
.83
.38
.75
.07
.39
.50
.57
.75
.04
.23
.54
.74
.45
.08
JOHNSON.
TERRY
TERRY
TERRY
BANKS
SUONSON
TERRY
TERRY
JOHNSON
BANKS
JOHNSON
WEST
BANKS
SWAMSON
ROBE-
WEST
JOHNSON
TERRY
ROBB
ROE' EC
BONKS
ER INKER
ROBS
SWONSON
WEST
BR INKER
BRINKER
WEST
TERRY
BANKS
BANKS
JOHNSON
SUANSON
DRINKER
WEST
WEST
SRIMKER
ROBB
-------
DATE; DECEMBER 18* 197
MEW JERSEY DEPORTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AND
DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES
MONTHLY VEHICLE INSPECTION REPORT
CUMULATIVE 1979
ASBURY PARK
ATCO
ATLANTIC CT
BRIDGETON
BURLINGTON
CAMDEM
CAPE MAY
DEPTFORD
EATONTOWN
FLEMINCTON
FREEHOLD
HACKENSACX
JERSEY CITY
KILMER
LIVINGSTON
LODI
MANAHAWKIM
MILLVILLE
MONTCLAIR
MORRISTOWM
MT. HOLLY
NEWARK
NEWTON
MO BRUNSWICK
PARAMUS
PLAINFIELD
ROHWOY
RiriQEWOOD
SALEM
SECAUCUS
SOMERVILLE
TOMS RIVER
TRENTON
UNION
WASHINGTON
WAYNE
WESTFIELD •
WHIPPANY
TOTAL
60435
62455
67106
33269
56840
172650
37936
120696
134120
43296
32556
58478
82303
92125
59782
170966
30869
55918
104751
121337
76163
191699
67243
54739
164697
76417
148595
78081
32230
101288
65917
100532
158953
52937
52333
183603
75596
47898
3376739
10907
10728
12053
5644
10467
39491
6889
14273
19703
3176
16544
10831
14835
22472
10659
23050
5078
12153
20606
21545
17222
31032
11748
12570
29329
15954
19091
13529
5329
19150
13439
17676
31152
6943
9051
38094
1SS05
9516
615783
19.05
17.19
17.96
16.96
13.41
22.87
18.16
11.33
14.69
18.88
20.04
13.52
13.02
24.39
17.83
13.43
16.45
21.73
19.67
17.76
22.61
16.19
17.47
22.94.
17.81
20.38
12.95
17,33
16.53
13.91
20.46
17.58
19.60
13.14
17.30
20.75
24.88
19.37
13.24
6662
4467
4611
4154
4938
14866
2530
6490
10619
4147
3393
5066
9443
10743
2966
7482
2632
6611
3732
9657
6213
10914
6540
4204
14256
9578
11672
7323
2948
8058
9325
9472
11120
3531
5440
20772
7065
3806
287506
61.08
41 '.64
38.26
73.60
47.19
37.64
36.73
45.47
53.90
50.72
50.73
46.77
63.69
47.31
27.83
32.46
51 .33
54,40
42.62
44.82
36.10
35.17
55.67
33.44
48.61
60.04
61. ,14
54.13
55.33
42.08
69.13
53.59
35.70
50.36
60.10
54.53
37.57
40.00
46.69
2638
341
1737
1163
1271
2203
694
1692
2164
1394
3587
1522
2613
4672
436
2158
373
1909
2505
2975
1905
2051
1954
1217
2548
3093
3568
1869
1016
2360
2144
2523
2438
311
2170
3333
2654
1348
33619
39.60
18.83
37.67
28.00
25.74
14.85
27.43
26.07
20.38
33.61
42.74
30.04
27.71
43.49
16.39
23.84
33.36
28. 38
23.52
30.81
30.64
13.79
29.38
29.95
17.37
32.29
30.57
25.52
34.46
29.29
22.99
26.64
21.92
22.97
39.39
42.55
37.57
35.42
29.08
JOHNSON
TERRY
TERRY
TERRY
BflMKS
SWftNSON
TERRY
TERRY
JOHNSON
BANKS
JOHNSON
WEST
BANKS
SWANSON
R08B
WEST
JOHNSON
TERRY
ROBB
ROSB
BANKS
DRINKER
ROBB
SWANSON
WEST
BRINKER
BRINKEP.
WEST
TERRY
BANKS
BANKS
JOHNSON
SWANSON
BRIMKER
WEST
WEST
BRINKER
ROBB
F-C
-------
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AND
DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES
I
1
MONTHLY VEHICLE INSPECTION REPORT
NOVEMBER 1979
Initial Rat*
R*«xan Rat*
-4-
1974 1975 1976 1977 1978
Calendar Yean
1979
1980
-------
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTIONS
W
O
DATA SUMMARY
All Stations . •
Nov 1978 Nov 1979 Cumulative 1979
Total Initial Handlings 272,696 266,928 3,376,739
Initial Emission
Rejection Rate (Percent) 19.05% 18.16% 18.24%
Total (Safety and Emission)
Initial Rejection Rate (Percent) , 48.11% 47.30% 47.38%
Total Reexam Handlings 77,730 78,837 928,130
Reexam Emission Rejection
Rate (Percent) 8.74% 9.22% 9.00%
Total (Safety and Emissions)
Reexam Rejection Rate (Percent) 26.64% 26.14% 26.17%
Waiting Time (Minutes) 666
C-i
W
W
i
i
H
C/)
1
O
r1
c/r
>
H
O
O>
-------
NEW JERSEY -- CALIBRATION PROCEDURE
Since exhaust analyzers are extremely sensitive instruments,
careful maintenance and calibration is necessary. Ixhaust gas
analysers are of major assistance to the mechanic when they'are
in good working order. When they are not in good working arder,
they can be misleading and the cause of wasted effort.
The basic guide for maintaining any specific analyser is
the manual which cones with the instrument. This rsanual must be
followed to the letter. Since there ara major differences between
instruction procedures used for the various analyzers, no attempt
is made here to provide the detailed guidance which would apply
to each of the approved models.
"Zero set" and "span" adjusteients are vital, .\fter the
analyser has been warmed up, these adjustments should be performed
as described in the manufacturer's manual before each emissions
test. Carelessness with these two adjustments will defeat the
purpose of the analyser.
Of equal importance is periodic caiibraticr. of the analyser.
The analyser's accuracy is checked by sampling a standard gas with
known concentrations of carbon nonoxide and hydrocarbons. The
analyser should accurately identify the composition of this test
gas within the permitted tolerances.
Gas calibration should be performed as often as it is r.ecessary
to maintain analyser accuracy. This is at least every two weeks
••.'hen performed by shop personnel, or avery three months when per-
formed by a service contractor. P.ecords of calibration, including
date of calibration, calibration gas standard, observed and/or
corrected equipment reading and calibrator's signature, should be
recorded in a log or on a sticker supplied bv the Division of, Motor
vehicles.
At Licensed Motor Vehicle Seinspecticn Centers, Division'of
.'lotor Vehicle investigators will check calibration and review cal-
ibration procedures at least once every two months. Analysers
which cannot be calibrated within permitted tolerances will be
placed "out of service" until repairs have been mada by a manu-
facturer-authorized service/calibration representative, "igure
2 is an illustration of the calibration gas 'equipment used in ..:e
official Mew Jersey calibration procedure.
F-ll
-------
is saussi: Bailees.
--=-
•s
C-li=car - rcoc'r-,-3
"low
Cansrai
Tha official Mew Jarsey saiiiraticn prccedura is as fs-lsvs :
1. The anaiyrer shall :e varssd -is fsr i- iassc siiirry
iiiiutss prior ta zastiz?. {Saiassec^icn cas-sajr
cerscnael sfcaii is rssroasiiia far t^'.s rac-iiracier.t
=rior ta ir.-5-es-;ica-:sr' s ;n.sii.)
2. T^a sero isd spaa csr-=rsl se-rsiag siauld be
iid, if .r.aeassai-/, ssrracrac. If sis sars ar.i scar.
sarr.ct se set viii ^rif-t lass -~.ar. JC ?aa (HCI
0.3% (CC)' "aver i 30— secsnc serisc, ir.a ;aliir2-si=r.
=ar-i_:i=a=ica acisicar =us-s be sartesd di3a=?rcvs
-------
THIS UNIT
HAS SEEN GROSSED
OUT OF
SEHY1CS
3Y THE .NEW JESSSY OIVISIOH
OP MOTOH VSHIC'_HS
•vmcKSan -nni a ;u :mon-
a r#
Ths saiiira-ior. cas cyliadar will be l^ceiad wis
^a cor.csr.iratisr. of crscaire ir. p?a
Tiis
es'zrz-isn sy tie rrsrasa-r.exaze facscr.
fac-sr sfccuid be s-cassec -cs iha sic:_-.ec of tie aaa-
lyrar. If -c iaeisr is s-^aaaed an the iai'ii^a'g, visa
a iac'tar os 0.^2. 7ii3 :ac-sr wcaii ziiizipiiac ;y
zha pzscase csncer.tratisa should ?ire yen tie ax-
ceetad aaaiyzar raadisg far tie iydrsearSen scaia .
Xaeard tiis r.uaser is. tia srccer biasJc OP. zia
s-tisXer. tha sxractad aaaiyzar raaciiij fsr ^e
CC scale is sissiy tr.a 02 ccccsc-sri-ica =s tie
cylinder. ?.ec=rd" tiij s'j~ar is tie :rs=er bla=J<
F-13
-------
4. Attach the regulator tightly ;o the calibration gas
cylinder. (Note that this connection utilises a
left-handed thread.) Cpen the cylinder valve shut- .
off located on to? of the cylinder. Read the gas
delivery pressure off the regulator gauge. If it
is r.ot approximately 10 Ibs., adjust it ay turning
the T-screw on the regulator. This adjustaent must
be Bade with both the supply line shut-off valve
and flow control valve open. After adjusting, close
the flow control valve.
5. To check for analyser sample hose leaks, secure the
hose 'tightly over the tip «f the sample prcbe. If
a low-flow condition is r.ot indicated on the analyser,
thera is a leak in the sacpie hose system which aust
be corrected before proceeding.
6. Cpen the flew control valve until the balloon just
baraly inflates. After 30 seconds, record the ana-
lyser readings in the proper blanks.
7. -?uli the hose off the prose and isaediataly close the
flow-control valve and then the shut-off valve on the
cylinder. P.echeck the zero-on the analyzer s.s in
Step 2. The drift aust still be within SO p?m EC
and 0.3% CO or an out-of-service sticker aust be
issued.
3. P.eopen -the flow-control valve until iha pressure drops
to zero en both gauges. Then close-all valves and
reiacve the regulator frcrr. the cylinder. Replace the
cylinder cap.
3. Mew coispare the analyser readings you recorded against
the expected analyzer readings. If the difference-is
greater than 100 ppm EC or 0?3% CO, the instrument is
out of calibration.
10. Affix the filled-out "gas calibration certification
sticker" to the analyzer.
Since the analyzers encountered in the garage systen will be of
many different zakes, problsas nay be encountarad with using this
procedure on all of then. If such a problea is encountered, call
the 2S?.lab•and a technician will attempt to "talk you through"
the orocedure.
F-14
-------
NEW JERSEY RE INSPECTION STATION TEST PROCEDURE AND
The 2esar<=2ent of Invironsental ?rotacticr. has specified
steps which must be followed in order to conduct an emissions
inspection test. These are as follows:
1. The test shall be conducted after the engine has
been operating for a sufficient period of time to
i attain normal operating temperature.
2. With the motor vehicle. in neutral gear, all acces-
sories off and the hand brake secured, accelerate
the engine to approximately 2500 rpm and hold.
Observe for visible smoke in the exhaust .emissions
and/or crankcase emissicr.s.
HOTS: Any motor vehicle designed primarily for
transportation of persons or property and regis-
tered at 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight or less
shall not emit visible smoke frsm the exhaust sys-sem
or the crankcase.
3. With the engine operating ac idla insert the sample
crobe of the exhaust analyser into the vehicle's
exhaust pipe. The probe tip shall ie inserted at
least S to 12 inches, or as far as possible, into
the tailpipe. For dual exhaust vehicles, check
both exhaust pipes ; the higher reading shall be
the exhaust gas aeasureaent.
•4. The steady state emissions levels measured as percent
carbon monoxide (C0%) and parts per million of hydro-
carbons (HC ppm) in the exhaust shall be the inspec-
tion test: result. These results shall be compared by
vehicle model year and effective data as shewn in
Table 1 .
TABLE 1
JT2W J23S27 DSPASTMEUT OF SNVI-IOKMESTAI,
EXHAUST 2MIS SIGNS STANDARDS
Model Yaar
of Vehicle CO (%) HC (pea)
?re-1963 ' 8.5 1400
1963-1969 7.0 ' 700
1970-1974 3.0 500
1973-1979 3.0 300
F-15
-------
IMPORTANT SCTS: Tiie above standards are Sew Jersey
Inspect-on standards only, not vehicle performance
or nan'-±act'jrers ' racossended standards . Service
mechanics should maintain vehicles :or insrecti or.
or sals so that exhaust emissions levels are in
.accordance with specifications race-amended by the
manufacturer or seek reasonable emissions levels as
shewn in Table 2.
TA3LZ 2
RSASONA3IS V2HICL2 ?ESFORMANCS EMISSIONS LEVELS
C0% Tolerance HC !??a) Tolerance*
?ra-196S 3.0 -f-2.0- 700 -*-200
GM Motor %'ehicles "" ~
Pre-1963 3.0 *2.0 300 -200
Mcn-QM Motor Vehicles ~ ~
13(58-1969 3.0 +2.0 ' 300 -100
All Vehicles ~
1970-1974 1.5 *1.0 200 rlOO
All Vehicles
197S-1979 ' 0.3 +0.5 50 - 25
Catalytic Equipped ~ ~
1973-1579 1.0 +0.3 100 + 50
Mon-Catalv-tic ~ ~
* The reasonable HC emissions levels can be achieved by zest
vehicles. However, soae lew production vehicles ray have
rrsascr.abie -SC-amissicns levels at or above these levels.
-------
APPROVES TiST IQOIPMSIJT
Emissions analyzers are highly sensitive instruments which
measure the amount of carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrocarbons (HC!
in the exhaust gases of a actor vehicle. The analyser's direct
reading meters show the mechanic the percentage of carbon monoxide
and the parts per aillion of hydrocarbons in the exhaust. It
should be pointed out that the analyzer also can be of great help
to the mechanic with his trouble-shooting when emissions are ex-
cessive.
>To instruments are used to check smoke emissions from auto-
mobiles. These emissions are "read by eyeball".
Although exhaust analyzers come in many sizes, shapes and
colors, the basic operating fundamentals of these instruments
are the same. Exhaust analyzers draw"-gas samples from the ex-
haust system of a vehicle. The analyzer filters the sample to
remove the water and any small particles of carbon, or other
parti dilates which would interfere with the analysis. The ex-
haust sample is then passed to the sample cell where detectors
and an infrared light source ara used to determine the amount of
carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons contained in the sample. The de-
tectors provide information to an amplifier which activates the
netars to give direct rsadiacs of the percentage of carbon acnoxide
and the parts per million cf hydrocarbons in the exhaust sample.
Analyzers used in the Mew Jersey emissions inspection test
must be approved by the Department of Environmental Protection.
These analyzers must be of the type employing the Hcn-Oisaersive
Infrared (OT1?.) principle. The Bureau" of Air Pollution Control
periodically publishes a list of approved MDIP.' analyzers. This
does not mean the Department recommends any specific analyzer
which appears on the list. It dees mean that the analyzers named
have been examined and tested by Mobile Source Control technicians.
These technicians have certified zhat the analyzers maet the fol-
lowing specificaticns established by the Department:
General Specifications
1. The instrumentation, shall consist of analyzers, sampling
system, readout indicators, etc. necessary to diagnose
and properly maintain all vehicles to comply with stan-
dards established by the New Jersey State Department of
Environmental Protection. The system shall be capable of
continuously measuring the concentration of carbon monox-
ide* and hydrocarbons'* in vehicle exhaust emissions
from a gasoline engine in the idle r.cde.
2. A direct readout is required for both carbon monoxide
and hvdrocarbons.
F-17
-------
2. The analyser shall be simple to operate and maintain
3v garage personnel. The analyser shall have suffi-
cient durability and ruggedness for frecuent use and
continuous analysis at various vehicle exhaust flew
rates for long periods in a garage envirczuaent. Con-
sequently, the ocerating tsiroerature range shall be
between -32°?-..and HOT.
4. The analyser concentration ranees shall be the follow-
ing:
Sigh Sanea Low Ranee
CO range: 0-10% 0-4%
HC range: _ 0-2000 ppm 0-400 ppn hexane
• S. The- hexane-propane factor sliall. be analytically de-
terained at-the SOOO ppm carbcn:-concentration and
shall be inithe range of 0^47 to 0.56. The factor
shall be displayed en'the outside of the cabinet.
5. Interference iron non-interest gases, ^articulates,
and water vapor shall ie less than 14of full scale.
7. The response -tine :f or -.an exhaust gas -saicple intro-
•ducad at the -.crcie shall be lass than 10 seconds
for 90%"of tha reading.
3. The accuracy of the analyser shall be greater than
*3% of the full scale reading for all ranges. The
zero and span drift shall be no aors than ^3% of full
scale in two-'hours. ~
9. The sample:system'shall-include all ccaponents as
probe, tubing, puaps, filters, water traps, etc. re-
quirad to continuously analyse raw ashaust gas. The
systec shall be sasy to clean and maintain.
10. A low flow indicator shall indicate,a sample flow
degradation sufficient to cause a. response ti.se
greater.than 10 secends for 50% of the reading.
11. The hydrocarbon hang up shall be aaasurad at 73"T
by. sampling an idling 3-cylinder engine with cne
spark plug disconnected to create a concentration
between-.1500 pen and 2000 ppn hydrocarbons. After
sanpling for "five ainutas, -the probe shall be re-
soved fron the- exhaust pipe and the HC reading shall
stabilise within 3,0 seconds at a reading less than
10% of full.scale.
F-1C
-------
12. The system shall csr.tai.-j a calibration cheefc for per-
formance testing. The calibration aethod :say be a
gas standard or other mechanical or electrical aethod.
Air aay be used for zero checking. The inatruaenr
shall have the capability for gas calibration through
both the sampling system and calibration part.
13. Warat-u? tisie shall be as shczt as possible, but not
greater than 15 icinutes from a cold start.
14. All electronics shall be solid state.
* (as percent CO at the 4.74-aicron band
** (as opm hexar.e) at the 3.41 micron band
7-19
-------
APPENDIX G
LIST OF OREGON APPENDIX MATERIAL
Page
Emission Test Form G-2
Noncompliance Form G-3
Diagnostic Suggestions G-4
Defect Notification Pollution Control Equipment G-5
Light-Duty Vehicle Testing Summary G-7
Waiting Time Survey G-8
Heavy-Duty Vehicle Testing Summary G-9
Sample Cumulative Activity Report G-10
Sample Monthly Activity Report G-ll
Sample Heavy-Duty Vehicle Test Summary G-12
Waiting Time Survey G-13
Repair Cost Survey G-14
Cost of Repair Survey . G-15
Station Supervisors' Calibration Log G-16
Analyzer Calibration Schedule G-17
Customer Statement of Replacement Equipment G-18
c-l
-------
OREGON -- EMISSION TEST FORM
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
EMISSION TEST FORM
Date
Equipment Number
License
1 1 1 l 1 1
TEST
1st Idle
2500 '
2nd Idle
SPEED
RPM
Year
1
CO*
Make
1 I 1
HC ppm
co2*
•
Line
1 _L I
DISCONNECT/
OTHER
PCV D
AIR n
EGR D
CAT D
TAC D
DIST D
EVAP n
SMOKE D
DILUTION Q
NOISE C3
Engine CID/cc
l l l
INSPECTOR
TEST RESULT
P F
License
! t 1 1 1 l
TEST
1st Idle
2500
SPEED
RPM
i
2nd Idle J
1
Year
CO?
-
Make
t i i
HC ppm
co2*
Line
i i i
DISCONNECT/
OTHER
PCV D
AIR D
EGR D
CAT n
TAC n
OIST g
EVAP Q
SMOKE Q
DILUTION^]
NOISE Q
Engine CID/cc
1 1 1
INSPECTOR
TEST RESULT
P F
License
1 1 1 1 1 1
TEST
1st Idle
2500
2nd Idle
SPEED
RPM
Year
1
COS
Make
1 1 1
HC ppm
co2*
Line
1 1 1
DISCONNECT/
OTHER
PCV G
AIR D
EGR n
CAT n
TAC D
OIST n
EVAP Q
SMOKE D
DILUTION D
NOISE D
Engine CID/cc
1 1
INSPECTOR
TEST RESULT
P F
OEQ/AQ-701
VIP-75080
Of
•~~ i.
-------
OREGON -- NONCOMPLIANCE FORM
TEST DATE
Month
day
Year
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
VEHICLE INSPECTION PROGRAM
EMISSION CONTROL TEST RESULTS
NONCOMPLIANCE
Carbon Monoxide (CO) | I Hydrocarbon Gases (HC)
_ Emission Control Equipment Smoke
I I Idle Speed Too High Dilution
Exhaust Inaccessible
LICENSE:
YEAR:
MAKE:
VEHICLE STANDARDS
AT IDLE
TEST RESULTS
IDLE READINGS
EMISSION CONTROL EQUIPMENT DEFECT
CO
HC ppm
Idle Speed RPM
Minimum Dilution Factor
CO + C02 %
CO
HC ppm
Idle Speed RPM
Dilution Factor
CO + C02 %
1. LJ Positive Crankcase
Ventilation (PCV) System
2. Q Exhaust Modifier System
3- Q Exhaust Gas Recirculation
(EGR) System
j k. Q Evaporative Control System
{ 5. Q Special Emission Control
I Devices
STATION:
RETEST OflTF
INSPECTOR:
Passed :
Fa i led:
Station:
*** ADVISORY ***
EMISSION READINGS AT 2500 RPM WERE:
CO %
HC ppm
INSPECTORS ARE PROHIBITED FROM WKING ANY RECQffENDATICNS OR ESTIMATE
RELATIVE TO REPAIRS OR REPAIR FACILITY,
GEKERAL REPAIR Z>FDRMATION OH REVERSE SIDE.
RETURN COMPLETED rCRM AT TIME 0? REINSPECTICN.
OEQ/AQ- 702
VI? 77192
0-3
-------
OREGON -- DIAGNOSTIC SUGGESTIONS
An emission tune-up performed by a qualified technician will
usually correct a pollution problem and also improve engine
performance and increase gas mileage.
1. High carbon monoxide (CO) emissions may be caused by:
* Incorrect carburetion adjustments * PCV valve restricted
* Choke malfunction * Severely restricted air cleaner
* Dirty or worn carburetion system
2. Excessive hydrocarbon gases (HC) may result from:
" Faulty ignition system * Defective emission control equipment
* Improper timing * Leaking exhaust valves
* Excessively lean carburetion adjustments
3. Visible smoke is generally caused by:
* Improper or inadequate maintenance
* Worn piston rings or valves
4. Pollution control equipment:
Both Federal and Oregon law prohibit disconnecting, or modifying, or altering
the required emission control equipment. This control equipment is designed to
reduce exhaust emissions during various driving conditions and not just at idle.
5. OiIut ion:
Dilution is generally caused by exhaust system leaks. Such leaks do not allow
for a proper emission control test, and may allow dangerous fumes to enter
the vehicle.
ADVISORY NOTE: High 2500 RPM readings may indicate that more thorough repairs than
simply those affecting the idle mode may be advisable to insure-good overall vehicle
performance.
•10 BE FILLED OLT 3Y REPAIR FACILITY OR VEHICLE OWNER
Person or Facility Performing Repairs
Address
Date of Repai rs
Check the appropriate items below indicating the repairs and adjustments performed:
b*s
A/F Mixture L
I ^ 1 a C naAs-J J
Idle Speed
Air Cleaner
Choke
LJ Carburetion
Dwell/Timing II Other
Spark Plugs
PIug Wires
Distributor
Vacuum Hoses
TOTAL COST OF REPAIRS: S
RETURN COMPLETED FORM AT TEC OF REB'SFECTICN
DEQ/AQ- 702 VIP 77192
G-4
-------
OREGON
DEFECT NOTIFICATION
POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT
(Defect Checked Below)
1. j"n Positive Crankcase Ventilation (PCV) System
2. | | Exhaust Modifier Systems
3. [~] Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) System
4. | | Evaporative Control System
5. I Special Emission Control Devices _____^_
Oregon lau, ORS 483.325, prohibits disconnecting, or modifying, or '
altering required pollution control equipment. The vehicle inspection
program rules adopted by the Environmental Quality Commission prohibit
issuing a certificate of compliance to vehicles >jith pollution control
equipment defects.
POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEMS INCLUDE:
I. POSITIVE CRANKCASE VENTILATION (PCV) SYSTEM. This system removes cylinder
blow-by gases from the engine crankcase and routes them into the combustion chambers
to be burned rather than allowing them to escape into the atmosphere.
2. EXHAUST MODIFIER SYSTEMS. This group includes air injection units, thermal
reactors, ana catalytic converters. All are designed to convert carbon monoxide (CO)
and hydrocarbon gases (HC) to carbon dioxide. This occurs after the pollutants have
left the engine combustion chambers.
3. EXHAUST GAS RECIRCULATION (EGR) SYSTEM. This system is designed to control
nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions. This is accomplished by recirculating a controlled
amount of exhaust gas into the combustion chambers to reduce peak burning temperatures.
k. EVAPORATIVE CONTROL SYSTEM. This system traps fumes that evaporate from
the fuel tank and carburetor. These fumes are then routed into the engine to be
burned rather than allowing them to escape into the atmosphere.
5. SPECIAL EMISSION CONTROL DEVICES. These devices are designed to assist
the basic emission control systems. Special emission control devices include
orifice spark advance control, speed control switch, chermostatic air cleaner,
pre-heat tube, transmission controlled spark, cnrottle solenoid control, etc.
Department of Environmental Quality
Vehicle Inspection Program
Portland, Oregon
229-6235
DEQ/AQ-706 (Rev. 11/77) ' vlp 77313
(Over)
G-5
-------
POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT
FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS: New car manufacturers must certify that the vehicle
models they sell in the United States meet Federal air pollution control standards.
The manufacturers may design their vehicles any way they choose, so long as the air
pollution produced by the vehicle model meets the standards.
Vehicles to be certified must be tested using federal procedures designed to
represent urban driving. Vehicles are tested on a dynamometer for about 25 minutes,
during which the vehicle is cold started, idles, accelerates, cruises, and decelerates.
The exhaust is caught in a bag and then measured to determine the weight of air
pollution produced. The test is repeated to determine hot start emissions.
To determine if the controls used by the manufacturer will continue to properly
operate over a period of time, federal procedures require that vehicles be driven
for 50,000 miles with only specified maintenance allowed. Full emission tests are
made every 4,000 miles on these vehicles.
STATE REQUIREMENTS: The emission control tests used by the state are much
simpler than the federal certification tests. The state tests detect high pollution
vehicles based upon their original emission control design. The state emission
control tests do not certify pollution control equipment or systems. State law does
prohibit disconnection or alteration of factory-installed motor vehicle air pollution
control devices or systems.
OREGON REVISED STATUTE 483.825
483.825. DISCONNECTION OR ALTERATION OF FACTORY-INSTALLED MOTOR VEHICLE AIR
POLLUTION CONTROL DEVICE OR SYSTEM PROHIBITED.
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to disconnect or permit to be dis-
connected a factory-installed motor vehicle air pollution control device or a factory-
installed system, as defined in ORS 468.360, nor shall any person knowingly and
willfully permit such device or factory-installed system to become or remain inoperative.
(2) It shall be unlawful for any person to modify or alter a certified system
or a factory-installed system, as defined in ORS 468.360, in a manner which decreases
its efficiency or effectiveness in the control of air pollution.
(3) (a) The provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of this section do not apply
when factory-installed motor vehicle air pollution control equipment, systems, or
devices are disconnected for the purpose of conversion to gaseous fuels.
(b) As used in this subsection, "gaseous fuels" includes, but is not
limited to, liquefied petroleum gases and natural gases in liquefied or gaseous form.
(4) The provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of this section are not intended
to prohibit the use of replacement or conversion components in a certified or factory-
installed system, if the components do not significantly affect the efficiency or
effectiveness of the system in controlling air pollution.
(Over)
DEQ/AQ-706 . VIP 77201
G-6
-------
OREGON -- LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE TESTING SUMMARY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
VEHICLE INSPECTION PROGRAM
DAILY TESTING SUMMARY - LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES
LOCATION:
DATE:
Pre 63
Total
63-69
Total
70-71
Total
72-7^
Total
75 Plus
Total
G. TOTAL
PASS
•
HC
CO
REASON FOR NGNCCMPLZAHCE
BOTH
SMOKE _,
I2L£ OIL
.
DISC
i
i
TOTAL
across
JTotal Light and Heavy Duty
JTatal Certificates
_Total Money
_Total Pass
Truck Carts Only
^Noise Tests
_Cver-Short
_Deposit Slip Muofaer
Denosit Slis Number
Absent:
Overtime:
Reason:
Reason
Idown
rrom-To:
?rom To:
Susmarv Prenarsd 3y:
Sunmary Approved By:
iiicr.azuras;
G-7
-------
OREGON -- WAITING TIME SURVEY
Department of environmental Quality
Vehicle'Inspect ion Program
Station
Date
# Vehicles # Vehicles . '
Tfme 7=5 roH Waifino
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Total
Averaoe
WAITING TIME SURVEY
# Ava i I able
lnsoec*o-s
|
r r
b—l.
-------
OREGON -- HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLE TESTING SUMMARY
.DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
VEHICLE INSPECTION PROGRAM
DAILY TESTING SUMMARY
HEAVY DUTY VEHICLES
Location:
Date:
Pro '70
TOM!
70- '73
Tor;,!
7 It*
roi-.-ii
3rand
Total
PASS
HC
FAIL
CO
1
Both
•
2500
CO
- - - c
Smoke
)T U C C
Idle
Dilu.
| OfSC.
1
TOTAL
Ac roc '
Total H.D. Certificates Sold
Deposit SIip Number
Deposit Bag Number
Summary Prepared By:
Down
Notes:
Signature
Summary Approved 3y:
DE07AQ-7<»3-3/77
VIP 77152
Signature
C-9
-------
OREGON -- SAMPLE CUMULATIVE ACTIVITY REPORT
OREGON DEPARTMENT OP ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
VEHICLE INSPECTION PROGRAM
Activity Summary for July, 1979 - October, 1979
EMISSION INSPECTION TESTS
LIGHT DOTY
HEAVY DOTY
TOTAL
CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE ISSUED
COMPLIANCE CRITERIA APPLIED:
OAR Chapter 340, Section 24-330 Mandatory Light-Duty
Motor Vehicles Idle Emission Standards
Emission Inspection Tests
Pass Emission Test 47,0.03 = 59%
Tests Failed for Carbon Monoxide (CO) 11,086 » 14%
Tests Failed for Hydrocarbons (HC) 6,223 = 8%
Tests Failed for Both HC & CO 6,266 » 8%
Tests Failed for Emission Equipment Disconnects 4,086_ « 5%
Tests Failed for Other Causes 4,525~= 6%
(i.e., smoke, dilution, idle RPM)
PRE-CATALYST VEHICLE TSSTS
Number of Tests 33,713 » 43% of all Tests
Percentage Pass 31%
1975 and Newer Vehicle Tests
Number of Tests 45,476 » 57% of all Tests
Percentage Pass 65%
VPAS (rev.10/79)— VA0013.3 VIP 309
-------
OREGON -- SAMPLE MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
VEHICLE INSPECTION PROGRAM
522 Southwest Fifth Avenue
Portland, Oregon
Activity Report for October 1979
EMISSION INSPECTION TESTS
Light Duty 20,458
Heavy Duty 856
Totals 21,214
CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE ISSUED Light and Heavy Duty 12,309
COMPLIANCE CRITERIA APPLIED:
OAR Chapter 340, Section 24-330 Mandatory Light-Duty
Motor Vehicles Idle-Emission Standards
Emission Inspection Tests
Pass Emission Test 12,145 = 59%
Tests Failed for Carbon Monoxide (CO) 2,336 = 14%
Tests Failed for Hydrocarbons (HC) 1,605 = 8%
Tests Failed for Both HC S CO 1,581 = 8%
Tests Failed for Emission Equipment Disconnects 1,014 = 3%
Tests Failed for Other Causes 1,277 = 6%
(i.e., smoke, dilution, idle RPM)
Pre-Catalyst Vehicle Tests
Number of Tests 8,682 = 42% of all Tests
Percentage Pass 52%
197S and Newer Vehicle Tests ,
Number of Tests 11,776 » 58% of all Tests
Percentage Pass 65%
Total Light and Heavy Duty Emission Inspection Test by Location
Powell - 4,241
Tigard - 4,176
Milwaukie - 2,787
Northeast - 2,833
Rockwood - 2,503
Hillsboro - 2,571
Northwest - 2,203
VMAR (rev.10/79)— VA0013.A VIP 309
0-11
-------
OREGON -- SAMPLE HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLE TEST SUMMARY
DEPARTMENT OP ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
VEHICLE INSPECTION PROGRAM
522 Southwest Fifth Avenue
Portland, Oregon
Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicle Test Summary
October 1979
EMISSION INSPECTION TESTS 856
OVERALL PERCENTAGE PASS 58.9%
Pre-1970 Trucks (260)
Pass Emission Test 36.9%
Tests Failed for Carbon Monoxide (CO) 10.0%
Tests Failed for Hydrocarbons (EC) . 13.0%
Tests Failed for Both EC & CO 4.2%
Tests Failed for CO I 2500 rpm 10.0%
Testa Failed for Other Causes • 5.7%
1970-1973 Trucks (198)
Pass Emission Test 55.5%
Tests Failed for Carbon Monoxide (CO) 13.6%
Tests Failed for Hydrocarbons (EC) 12.6%
Tests Failed for Both EC and CO 6.0%
Tests Failed for CO S 2500 rpm 6.0%
Tests Failed for Emission Equipment Disconnects 2.0%
Tests Failed for Other Causes 4.0%
1974 and Later Trucks (398)
Pass Emission Test 62.0%
Tests Failed for Carbon Monoxide (CO) 12.5%
Tests Failed for Hydrocarbons (HC) 13.3%
Tests Failed for Both HC and CO 3.2%
Tests Failed for CO @ 2500 rpm 2.7%
Tests Failed for Emission Equipment Disconnects 2.7%
Tests Failed for Other Causes 3.2%
VA0013
VMHD (rev.10/79) —(VA0013) VTP 309
G-12
-------
OREGON -- WAITING TIME SURVEY
Department of 2nvironmental Quality
Vehicle Inspection Program
Waiting Time Survey
Minutes Average Waiting Time
September 1979
Date
Station
9/4
9/6
9/8
9/11
9/20
9/28
9/29
Average
Powell
3.7
2.8
4.4
16.6
3.7 ,
3.4
4.7
6.3
Northwest
1.5
1.3
1.2
7.3
2.3
4.4
1.2
2.3
Northeast
2.3
0.3
2.2
5.5
3.1
4.1
2.5
3.1
Tigard
10.9
7.2
5.3
26.2
7.5
11.2
1.6
10.0
Milwaukie
1.9
0.0
1.2
5.0
2.3
3.1
1.2
2.2
Rockwood
4.1
1.2
0.9
4.1
3.1
O.fi
0.9
2.1
Hillsboro
3.4
0.9
. 1.2
7.5
3.1
2.5
2.3
3.1
VA2047
(5/79)
G-13
-------
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
VEHICLE INSPECTION PROGRAM
522 S.M. Fifth Avenue
Portland, Oregon
Coat of Repair Survey
(1,655 Responses)
Summary for September , 1979
Repairs and Adjustments Performed for Retest
A/F Mixture Adjustment 34.2%
Idle Speed Adjustment 19.6%
Air Cleaner Replacement 6.6%
Choice Repair 2.3%
Carburetion Repair 10.3%
Dwell/Timing Adjustment 8.4%
Spark Plug Replacement 5.3%
Spark Plug Wire Replacement 1.6%
Distributor Repair /2.9%
Vacuum Hose Replacement 2.5%
Other Adjustments or Repairs 5.3%
*
Passing Retest After Repair 76.9%
Reported Cost of Repair
0-5$ 36.4%
$5.01 - S10.00 28.1%
$10.01 - $20.00 . 13.7%
$20.01 - $30.00 5.1%
$30.01 - $50.00 5.7%
$50.01 - $75.00 1.3%
Over $75.00 4.7%
7A2047.A
VCRS (5/79)
The information used in these surveys was entered
on the bottom of the Diagnostic Suggestion form
(see page G-4), which was then returned to the DEQ
for tabulation. This survey is no longer being
conducted, according to DEQ officials.
G-14
-------
OREGON -- REPAIR COST SURVEY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
VEHICLE INSPECTION PROGRAM
Cost of Repair Survey
(1,628 Responses)
Summary for April, 1978
Repairs and Adjustments Performed for Retest
A/F Misture Adjustment 50.0
Idle Speed Adjustment ' 17.1
Air Cleaner Replacement 10.0
Choke Repair 3-3
Carburetion Repair 11.3
Dwell/Timing Adjustment 9.6
Spark Plug Replacement . 8.1
Spark Plug Wire Replacement 3-7
Distributor Repair 3.2
Vacuum Hose Replacement 1.8
Other Adjustments or Repairs 4.0
Passing Retest After Repair 93-3
Reported Cost of Repair
0 - $5 53.4
$5.01 - S10 21.2
$10.01 - $20 6.7
$20.01 - $30 2.1
$30.01 - $50 2.2
$50.01 - $75 2.2
Over $75 2.7
DEO/VIP 78143
G-15
-------
DEPARTMENT Of ENVIRONMENTAI. QUALITY - VEHICLE INSPECTION PROGRAM
I
h-1
C^
Date
Propane Factor
Unit
Station
X Tank Value
Gaa Bottle
CALIBRATION LOG OEA-75
Set Pointst CO
a HC
Date
HOURLY READINGS
TIME
8
9
10
11
12 Noon
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
.
DATB
ZERO
CO HC 002
OPTICAL
CO HC 002
GAS
CO HC 002
•
ADJ
BY
TANK
PRESS
o
o
o
T)
w
O
O
H
H
O
O
DEQ/AQ-723
VIP 79194
-------
OREGON -- ANALYZER CALIBRATION SCHEDULE
STATE OF OREGON
Department of Environmental Quality
VEHICLE INSPECTION PROGRAM Number: 702
Operating Policies and Procedures Supersedes:
Originating Section: Engineering Page 1 of 1
OEA '75 Exhaust Gas Analyzer Calibration Schedule
PURPOSE: To establish the schedule to be followed for the calibration of
exhaust gas analyzers.
REFERENCE: 701
Policy
All exhaust gas analyzers are to be gaseous and optical calibrated on
the following schedule.
8:00 a.m.* Calibration and recording of readings
9:00 a.m. Calibration and recording of readings
12:00 noon Calibration and recording of readings
3:00 p.m. Calibration and recording of readings
6:00 p.m.** Recording of gaseous readings only
*At beginning of testing day for Mobile Units.
**At end of testing day for Mobile Units.
Approved j AJ 'J \^X '!\ \S~ Date
VF0442 ^ \
o-i?
-------
OREGON -- CUSTOMER STATEMENT OF REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
STATEMENT OF FACT
MOTOR VEHICLE REPLACEMENT ENGINE
Reference: OAR Chapter 340 Section 24-320(6)
VEHICLE CHASSIS
License
Year
Make
Vehicle
Ident i f icat ion
Number
The above described vehicle has either been altered by the replacement of a motor
vehicle engine other than the type originally equipped by the manufacturer, or is
an assembly vehicle. The year, make, and type of the engine currently installed
is accurately described below.
VEHICLE ENGINE
Year
Make
Engine CID/cc
Under penalties for perjury, I
(Name of Owner)
declare that the foregoing is true and correct.
Street Address
City
Signature
OEQ/VID 75224
Zip Code
County
Date
G-1G
-------
APPENDIX H
LIST OF RHODE ISLAND APPENDIX MATERIAL
Page
Inspection Form H-2
Roadside Check Ticket H-3
Roadside and Challenge Check Form H-4
Inspection Station Report H-5
Analyzer Calibration Check Form H-6
Random Road Checks (Emissions) H-7
Inspection News - December 20, 1979 H-9
Minimum Requirements for Inspection Stations H-10
Analyzer Accreditation H-14
List of Approved Analyzers H-15
Application for Appointment as an Official
Inspection Station H-16
H-l
-------
RHODE ISLAND INSPECTION FORM
R.I. 1960 INSPECTION ._..,.,! F^SSO fESf (UTA S£K;iiT 3f sr?;i£V2) VBv£
CHECK MARK M ONLY iTS.M CORRECTED } »j ('KJCK MiitS (• 5 Ps.>$i;0/r"JLj;Q iUC3ri2!riGiV:
! LIGHTS
: BRAKES
WORM
STEERIN6
j DIRECTIONAL SI6MALS
; REGISTRATION CARD
| NUMBER PLATES
GLASS
MUFFLER
WIPERS
TIRES
RUR VIEW MIRROR
'K-ZSiaX niACifJG CEf-;}."; JJfV aDJU3T5.!£?iT S-
CO ".liiTO ______ . HC "ASSIH
i . ?.^sr»s;o,:! r.r'^'.'in ft.-rrn cA.-isunf
' ' ;
j WHICH WHEEL LEFT FRONT",' RIGHT FRONT-l". I J '"'
i PULLED? LEFTHeJK RIGHT REAR Oj ! .,..,,„„. . ,r ., .;-r;( ..,-,,
. Registration No. YearMfg j • "' '' ,','....,,
. Make
• Serial No
,. Gricmete
FRONT
REVERSE
n-2
-------
RHODE ISLAND -- ROADSIDE CHECK TICKET
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
NOTICE AND DEMAND
-------
3
o
o
DAT!::
VEHICLE
NUMRIIJ1
I'l
n.
fe
o
o
o c i
tl O
r1
>
2
o
ffl
1 = AMC
2 -- Chy
3 = KU.'iO
IMP
OTI1
L "-
2 -
3 =
't ~
Lj =
:'.iil>i:ompac t
Coinpac t
1 nermeil lal.e
full size
Luxury
'I'riu:!c/Van
OK CYL.
I) - iJiosel
li = iiol.ary
0 = OLIior
VI'IMCLI.: YH. !!C CO
67 or lu.fore loOO 10.0
1.968-L%9 0000 08.0
1970-197't 0600 06.0
1975 aud latoi-0300 03 0
§
O
O
o
w
PC
w
o
-------
RHODE ISLAND -- INSPECTION STATION REPORT
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
INSPECTION STATION REPORT
NAME, LOCATION AND STATION NO.
NAME AND ADDRESS OF RESPONSIBLE
AGENT OF STATION
HEADLT. AIMING EQUIP.
APPROVED ANALYZER ~m
CALIBRATING GAS
BRAKE LINING GAUGE
BRAKE DRUM GAUGE
BALL JOINT GAUGE
VEHICLE LIFT
TAPE MEASURE
FIRE EXTINGUISHER
TIRE DEPTH GAUGE
SIDE SLIP INDICATOR _
PROPER RECORD KEEPING
CERTIFIED INSPECTOR
YES
NO
HOME PHONE #
BUSINESS PHONE *
LICENSE POSTED
INSPECTION MANUAL
INSPECTION STICKERS
REJECTION REPORTS
STATION SIGN
YES NO
STATION HAND iTAMP
MOTORCYCLE STATIONS ONLY:
STRAIGHT EDGE
PROTRACTOR
FRAMING SQUARE
BRILLIANCY METST
TAPE MEASURE
GARAGE KEEPER'S LEGAL LIABILITY INSURANCE NAME, NUMBER AND EF?. DATES
GARAGE LIABILITY INSURANCE NAME, NUMBER AND £7?ECTIVEDATES
Inave inspectedthe above premises, cneckedthe equipment ana
interviewed the owner or responsible agent thereof, and I hereby
recommend that the Inspection permit for Station CLass_ be:
Denied
Issued
Suspended
Revoked
Remarks:
Signature of State Inspector
Date
H-5
-------
IPRIII OR iin)
«AH OF SIAIIWu
suit or mm ISUHO omnium or iRj>»sPo«uiiOK-4XMAUS! AKAI.T/IR CAIIBRAIIOK CIICKS
(ntr mis RIPORI UIIH ornciAi. msrtcnoN HANUAI.)
IOCAIICH:
HAILING AOORfSS:
OAll
CAl IRRAI ION CAS
SrtCIHCAIIUIS
IIC (PPK) CO J
trr.
PTH
rrn
.rrr
rrr
PPM
_ PFR
ppr
Ett.
ffn
X
X
1
I.
I
1
I
H.IIR FADING
CALI8RAIKN GAS
MC ( PPM) CO X
rrr
pfh
n'M
mi
ctt
pnii
PPM
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
Auniaii/tn iNsrtciOR OR ACINI
Cf SIAIIWt
SlfiNAIURt NUKKR
ANAimR
ATPHOVtO
ns no
SATUY If SI
COUIPttltl
ns NO
SHARKS OR
connections KAK
SIAK IK3UIIMI
SIG«AIUH:
O
£
M
M
O
O
ffi
M
O
It SI ING (UUIPHNI UHSAIISfACIUflt CUCK 'NO' ABOVt AND SU6HII A KRIIICN HPURI
-------
RANDOM.ROAD CHECKS (Emissions)
In addition to the safety checks being conducted during
the random road check program, State Inspectors examined vehicles
for emission violations by measuring the exhaust gases at the
tail pipe for both hydrocarbon (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO) .
Statistical information was recorded which indicates that
vehicles inspected for emission violations demonstrated a
rejection rate of 26.37%. Many of the vehicles that were
inspected had the benefit of a garage inspection and may have
had repairs made during the voluntary period. A total of 1,054
vehicles were inspected producing the following results.
VEHICLE MODEL YEAR
Vehicles Tested
Passed Both (%)
Rejected (%}
Fail Both (%)
Fail HC only (%)
Fail CO only (%)
Average HC (PPM)
Average CO (%)
1967 or
before
149
77.19
22.81
1.34
17 . 45
4.02
904.07
5.20
1968
1969
178
73.03
26.97
6.18
15.17
5.62
592.49
4.74
1970
1974
454
70.27
29.73
5.51
12.55
11.67
408.08 '
3.83
1975
and
after
273
77.66
22.34
7.33
3.66
11.35
191.16
2.16
Summary
All years
1054
73.63
26.37
5.50
11.39
9.48
523.95
3.98
H-7
-------
RANDOM ROAD CHECKS (Emissions) (Cont.)
§§
.Q-H
M iH
ffl pH
O -H
O 5
M
t3 H
>i 0)
S PU
- 'n
4J
h
(0
1000
800
600
400
200
1978 HYDROCARBON AVERAGES BY VEHICLE MODEL YEAR
904.07
592.49
523.95
408.08
191.16
1967 1968 1970 1975 Average
or or thru and for all
before 1969 1974 after years
0
C 4J
O C
2 O
O
fi V4
0 <1J
j2 e-
M
(C
u
10 1978 CARBON MONOXIDE AVERAGES BY VEHICLE MODEL YEAR
5.20
4.74
3.83
3.98
1967
or
before
1968
or
1969
1970
thru
1974
2.16
1975
and
after
Average
for all
years
-------
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES
December 20, 1979
To: All Inspection Stations
From: Alfred Massarone, Chief
Motor Vehicle Safety and
Emission Control Division
Please read carefully: I
In our continuing efforts to improve the Rhode Island in-
spection program and in accordance with inspection regulation 1.2
concerning station reports, a"1! inspection stations are hereby
required as of January 1, 1980, to issue approval stickers in
strict numerical order, starting with the lowest number assigned
to the station and to record additional emission information for
those vehicles that are required to be tested for emissions.
The 1980 inspection report that accompanies each inspection
approval sticker has been re-designed so that you can record
emission inspection information on the back side of the report
that can only be obtained at the time of inspection. This informa-
tion MUST BE RECORDED ACCURATELY on the inspection report when the
vehicle is approved.
From time to time, State inspectors will examine these records
and extract certain safety and emission information that will be
computerized and used to determine the effectiveness of the program.
Record the appropriate number that is indicated by the line that
is "closest" to the dial indicator as shown by the following examples:
H C x 1 0 0 «c m
n-HEXANE EQUIVALENT
on high scale
Record this type of reading
in the CO _ space as 4.2
on high scale
Record this type of reading
in the HC _ space as 1450.
H-9
-------
RHODE ISLAND -- MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR INSPECTION STATIONS
STATE OF RHODE I5LA:D
DEPARTMENT OF TRAifSPOETATTOl;
2. MINE-IUII RSQUIHZ-I5ITIS FOR APPROVED IITSPZCTIOIT STATIONS .
In accepting your appointment as an official inspection station,
you are responsible for and required to maintain qualified personnel,
space, tools, approved testing equipment, liability insurance,
inspection reports and stickers, rejection reports and a copy of all
the rules and regulations. Any violation of these racuir events will
be cause for immediate suspension of your inspection permit until all
requirements have been set and approved.
'The size requirements of each inspection lane or bay will be
approved based on the type of headlight aiding equipment being used
and the size of the vehicles required to be inspected.
Inspection stations '.-/ill be issued permits for a 12-nonth period
and will be allowed to inspect only those vehicles classified as
follows:
CLASS A: All motor vehicles and all trailers registered with a
gross weight of sore than 1,000 pounds except
motorcycles.
CLASS C: All actor vehicles registered with a1 gross weight of
more than 8,000 pounds, and all trailers registered
with a gross weight of sore than 1,000 pounds.
CLASS A & C: The inspection lane or bay shall be at least 6? feet
long by" 13 feet wide with an entrance door at least 11
feet in height. This is to allow for a *fG fsot long
vehicle plus 2? feat for the headla-p aiming board.
However, "if mechanical aiders are used, a lane or bay
^5 feet long will be accepted. Certain vehicles such
as cement mixers and box trailers etc., will be allowed
to be checked outside the inspection lane if the vehicle
cannot fit into the Class A or C inspection lane or bay
providing that the station has mechanical headlamp
aimers calibrated for the outside area being used.
CLASS 3: All motor vehicles that are registered with a gross
weight of 3,000 pounds or less, except trailers and
motorcycles.
The inspection lane or bay shall be at least ^-j feet
long by" 13 feet wide. This is to allow for a 20 foot
long vehicle plus an additional 2? feet for a headlamp
aiming board. However, if mechanical aimers are used,
a lane or bay 25 feet long will be accepted.
CLASS F:
by the fleet operato
H-10
-------
2. jiiinirjii ~.z«!iJir.j.:Eirrs For. .-.?pr.ov^3 II'^PEC^IU.' STATIONS icont.)
accepted.
Additional motorcycle requirements say be found in
Section 2.2.
2.1
Every appointed inspection station will be required to have at
least one approved inspection lane or bay containing all the
required headlamp aiaing equipment. It is to be available for the
purpose of vehicle inspection during the entire calendar year.
All inspection lanes or bays shall be enclosed in a building vith
a smooth, flat substantial floor on which the vehicle will stand. Hie
headlaap aiaing equipment must be calibrated according to the level
of the floor of such"lane or bay.
2.1.1 CZ'TIFIZS INSPECTOR
Each station must have at least one certified inspector available
during the normal inspection hours of the station.
It is required that each station owner select certified inspectors
who are at least eighteen (13) years of age with a valid driver's
license who have successfully completed a satisfactory training course
in auto safety and emission inspection that has been approved by the
Department of Transportation. The certified inspector iust be able
to demonstrate to the Department of Transportation that he is capable
of operating and calibrating all required testing equipment and
capable of inspecting vehicles.
2.1.2 INSPECTION STATIC:: SIG::
Each inspection station must be suitably identified by a sign that
is visible at or near the normal main entrance to the establishment.
The sign must be in letters and numbers at least 3" in height and ~:'
in width and must bear tha words, "P.hode Island Official Inspection
Station" along with the station number that has been assigned by ~U°
State.
2.1.3 IITSPZCTIOtl STATION :-!AI-:p 3TA>.f?
A rubber stamp with the station number, name and address
approximately 2t" long by jA" :.dde is required.
H-ll
-------
O 1 L ^"^ "r t" T*3 1 T1 r7"'f- ""'" "Tpr r-7Mr»
g » J_ « *T il._-.l^|j-LJ|l*^* i\ j. . « i . . j _•>..' — . ^. j._;j • —
The headlamp testing equipment :.iay be a headlight testing target
board, a mechanical headlamp tester, optical aiming devices or
combination photoelectric and optical headlight tasting machines.
Zach station" must be equipped with sufficient equipment to aim round
or rectangular headlamps for any actor vehicle presented for inspectior
The headlamp aiming equipment must be calibrated according to
the level of the floor of the inspection lane or bay.
2.1.5 TIHS DEPTH GAUGZ
The tire depth gauge must be graduated in l/32r.ds of an inch.
2.1.6 3F.AK5 LINING GAUG2
A gauge suitable to measure the thickness of braice lining raaterial
vhen mounted (either bonded or riveted). The gauge cust be graduated
in l/G'fths of an inch.
2.1.7 3P.AICS DRUM OAUC-3
The brake drum inspection gauge or micrometer must be graduated
in thousandths of an inch.
2.1.3 3HAXZ DISC GAUGZ
A brake disc inspection gauge or micrometer type dial indicator
capable of reading measurements in one-thousandths inch increments,
to determine the thickness of the bral;9 rotrr disc.
2.1.9 BALL JOIST GAUG5
A ball joint gauge or similar device which is capable of measuring
the vertical and horizontal movement of a wheel or ball joint in order
to determine the play or movement of the ball joint in thousandths of
an inch.
This unit must be a micrometer-type dial indicator instrument
capable of reading measurements in one-thousandths inch increments.
2.1.10 '.JEZZL ALIGl-EiENT TESTING SguI?"5IIT
;iust include side slip indicator, capable of measuring side slip
or scuff at 30 feet per mile.
2.1.11 TAPE MZA3URD
The tape measure must be at least lj feet long and distinctively
marked at;~2u" - 3C'! and l~ feet.
H-12
-------
2.1.12 JACICj AiTD LIFTS
At least one automatic vehicle lift capable of lifting at least
the front end of the vehicle and one portable jack.
2.1.H CLZAII AIU FRZ3 0? HAZA'DS
Every inspection lane or bay nust be free of hazards that could
cause injury to persons or damage to vehicles. Hazards include. but
are net limited to; open fires, exposed gasoline, paint spraying
equipment, unprotected pits and siijoery floors.
Each inspection station will be recuired to show evidence of
an active GAT.AGE KEEPER'S LZOAL LIABILITY Insurance Policy with a
minimum of ';6,000 liability coverage as well as a C-AP.AC-E LIABILITY •
Insurance Policy meeting the minimus state liaits which will afford
liability coverage for the customer's vehicle while it is being
tested or used in connection with the inspection of the vehicle.
2.1.15 ZIELSSIOii TESTING EqUIPliZIIT AIFD CALIBRATION GA5Z3
Emission inspection equipment must be capable of performing
an idle emission inspection of all vehicles required to be inspected
for hydrocarbon in parts-per-million (??!:} and carbon scr.o::ide in
percent (?> CO ). 'The analyser shall be of a ty-se approved by the
Director of the Department of Transportation.
Each station will be required to gas checl; the calibration of
each analyzer used for inspection at least once each '.feesc and record
the results of the calibration check. Periodically, each certified
inspector will be required to gas checlc the calibration of each
analyzer used by actual descnstra-ion before a 'jtate Inspector. This
demonstration does not preclude vay Calibration o.'neoi that the State
say want to make.
H-13
-------
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS
Department of Transportation
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
State Office Building
Providence, R.I. 02903
August 29, 1977
Dear Sirs
Enclosed is the interim accreditation procedure that has
been established by the State of Rhode Island to determine what
emission analyzers will be acceptable for use as part of the
State's Emission Inspection Program.
Please be advised that effective September 1, 1977, interim
approval will be granted to those exhaust analyzers whose
manufacturers can certify in writing to the Inspection Office of
the Rhode Island Department of .Transportation that their exhaust
analyzers can meet the following minimum requirements:
1. The analyzer must operate on 115 volts (±10/2 AC) 60
hertz electrical power.
2. The analyzer has been tested by a recognized testing
laboratory and has met the accreditation procedures
for use in the State of California.
3. The analyzer is capable of remaining in a warmed up
condition ready for immediate use throughout an eight (8)
hour period.
^. The analyzer has affixed to its cabinet operating
instructions including calibrating procedures.
Qualified instruments will be listed by and posted in the
Inspection. Office of the Department of Transportation for easy
reference to all of our appointed inspection stations.
Sincerely yours,
Wendall J. Fenders, director
DEPARTMENT 0? TRANSPORTATION
WJF:rb ' H~14
-------
RHODE ISLAND -- LIST OF APPROVED ANALYZERS
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY AND EMISSION' CONTROL DIVISION
NOVEMBER 13, 1979
The following exhaust analysers have bean granted interim approval
by the Department of Transportation and are in accordance with the ir.terirr.
approval accreditation procedures that have been established by the State
of Rhode Island for use as part of the State's Emission Inspection Prograra.
JLEN TSST?RODUCTS
ROTUNDA
AM5ERV
VT 5 £
23-360-CA 13-090-CA 23-063-CA
23-370-CA 13-150-CA 23-075-CA
23-330-CA 13-190-CA 23-03S-CA
23-060-CA 13-230-CA 23-155-CA
23-070-CA 23-175-CA
23-030-CA 23-360 23-135-CA
23-1SO-CA 23-370 13-095-CA
23-170-CA 23-330 13-155-CA
23-130-CA 13-195-CA
13-255-CA
APPLIED POWER
Atlas Marcuette Rotunda
AMA-313 42~-076 3RE 42-735
AEA-376 40-176 40-796
AMA-550 40-276 40-771
AMA313C 40-175 A
FMC CORPORATION
Rotunda Autoscan
705 C 705 C
710 C 710 C
Also any of the Also anv of the
4000 IR-C series 4000 IR-C series
KAL-EQUI? COMPANY
Xal-Ecuio Comoanv's Model 4094D-RI
NAPA/Belkamn's Model 14-4737-RI
Powereadv's Model 370-400-RI
AC-Delco's Model 5T-500-RI
CHRYS'-R CORPORATION
Chrvsler III C
Chrysler III C with Mopar Logo
Chrysler III C with MTSE logo
Chrvsler III C with Scotz Loco
Atlas AEA 370
3ECO1AN INSTRUMENTS STEWART WARMER
3ecfcr.an 5SO Model 3150-ACI
23-067-CA 23-065-CA
23-077-CA 23-075-CA
23-037-CA 23-03S-CA
23-157-CA 23-1S5-CA
23-177-CA 23-175-CA
23-137-CA 23-135-CA
13-097-CA 13-096-CA
13-157-CA 13-155-CA
13-197-CA 13-19S-CA
13-297-CA 13-29S-CA
3ARNSS ENGINEERING CO.
3ames 1336 C Fox 13QO
Sarnes S335 C • ?serless 575
Clayton CSS/310 Xing 770 C
HCRI3A
Mexa 300 A
3-40CA-W/MEXA 300 A
GSM-300
C-3M-300 A
uzyrT-my n-™CS~VS~
Model 200, ?/M 759400-2
Avis Rent-A-Car wi-h ar.alvser
7510502-
Model 150, ?/N 75105C-2
SUN ET~CTRIC CORPORATICM
Sun Atlas
1115 AET-330
1213 Corrautar II A;-LA-450
2001 AMA-470
EPA- 7 5 Rof_L-da - :-CC3
EET-910-I 'oi-'-ida - 73-OC-;
•C-912-I Rccur.da - 73-OC4
CO. SNAP— CN TCC'S
MT 496 A Ml 495 AS
n-15
-------
RHODE ISLAND -- APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT AS AN OFFICIAL
INSPECTION STATION
STATZ Or 3HCDE 151X3 - D^ATV^S:? 0? TTu^iSi?CrvI.'.riCt;
i'-??LICATICN FC3. APFCEiTMSrT AS As 0™ICIAL E:S2EC7ICK 3TATIOK
ACCOUHT •>• 5TATICH MO. :-~ "ISTS-VLL LidTSS
VIS
$25.00 ?S2 ATTAC£I3_J-rC fXTD ' APTOCTiS ?OCl CLAS3_
AP230VSD 3V_ '._' SATS
L co ;iCT ••airrs.-./^CT:; THIS'LEI
(Print or type)
3CSTM2SS IIASS - ' ' '
OF STATICH: DATS _Su3K!T7ZT
LCCATIOK: ' TZLSrSOtH SO.
HCKi'U. EISSiCTIOl-T KCCHIS:
If 2T22T STATION, aunber as
rehiclas ragiscaraa is CUioda tslasti
lias any Inspection Stacian
CMnt of yours iaen 5U3?E^D;:3, .UTVC:^: C
I, (we) the undersized hereby sal:* application for a Class
Official Inspection Station License at the location indicated above and certify
that I, (we) have, now and t-ri.ll have continuously in efface a Garage ilaeper's
Legal Liability Insurance 3olicy with a -.•i~-t--~- Of $6,000 Liability covarage as
veil as a Gara?» Liability Insurance Policy nesting the ninitas: State limits
t-jhich -/rill afford liability pratactian for the customer's vahicie "hila it is
being tasted or used irr connection -.rith the inspection of the vshicle.
GASAGi ICZiPEZ1 3 LZGAL LZ-UILIT: 2:5u?>Ai-iC2 Ix^-iE, 1101322. AliD iJFlCTr/l 2AI
;i DA7
I, (we) further' a.gras to accept tie rasocnsiblir/ frac the S^ata a:
Shode Island to inspect vaaiclas in accordance -Jich the State's Inspection La:«
and to provide, at least one qualified inspects- asd one approved inspection
lane or bay, throughout the year, curing sy sarsai inspection Irours as daciarad
above. Any violation of the rules and regulations of the Isspectisn Lavs by -a
or ay ssnlayees will be cause far suspension ar ravccatisn of the aopoint=.ent as
an Official Inspection Station.
UJAi OP =L2ScCuSI3L2 AGS37 Gc A5CV~ STATIOK -• "ITLZ AitD sCZS. ~ZLi3>lC
?HSSCS SICIJI^G
Subscribed ana nwra to ne this day of ,
,' ViOTASY r'JBLIC)
H-16
-------
List all iia Persons ^.o are Partners or Cs-^araticn Csficars:
(«;w2) (HCKE iDDKZs:) (117
LIST ALL 7HS ?SasCi-iS "'-:Q 'JILL 35 ~;;3ri:CT3-.G TiKiCIIj A" T.-:i3 STATION
(Add additianai sl:aac ii cecas-sary}
If certified:
ADDRESS
jjia-sacisr' 5 ;Io.
If cartiiiad:
-------
REFERENCES
1. Daniel Cowperthwait (Bureau of Air Pollution Control, New Jersey
State Department of Environmental Protection), Personal Communica-
tion with R. Klausmeier, 2 January 1980.
2. John C. Elston (Bureau of Air'Pollution Control, New Jersey State
Department of Environmental Protection), Personal Communication
with R. Klausmeier, 28 January 1980.
3. Thomas D. Getz, "Inspection/Maintenance Using Licensed Inspection
Station." Presented at the 6th North American Motor Vehicle
Emission Control Conference, Arlington, VA, April 1978.
4. Thomas D. Getz (Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management),
Personal Communication with R. Klausmeier, 7 February, 1 April 1980.
5. R. Fred lacobelli (Chief, Bureau of Vehicular Emissions Inspection,
Arizona Department of Health Services), Personal Communication with
R. Klausmeier, 14 January, 14 April 1980.
6. State of New Jersey, Motor Vehicle Inspection System Study Commission,
Final Report, Trenton, NJ, May 1978.
7. A. Massarone (Chief, Vehicle Inspection, Rhode Island Department
of Transportation.) Personal Communication with R. Klausmeier,
3 January, 14 April 1980.
8. State of Oregon, Department of Environmental Quality. Vehicle
Inspection Program, Activity Summary for July 1979 - November 1979.
9. M.M. (Hon) Crane (Emission Control Officer, Nevada State Department
of Motor Vehicles), Personal Communication with R. Klausmeier,
15 January 1980.
10. J.F. Wallauch (Department of Consumer Affairs - Bureau of Automotive
Repair, State of California), Personal Communication with R. Klausmeier,
16 January 1980.
R-l
-------
11. State of California, "Vehicle Inspection Program - Mechanic's
Program Information," April 1978.
12. State of California, "Performance Criteria, Design Guidelines, and
Accreditation Procedures for Hydrocarbon (HC) and Carbon Monoxide
(CO) Analyzers Required in California Official Motor Vehicle
Pollution Control Stations."
13. Jerome Panzer (Exxon Research and Development, Linden, New Jersey),
Personal Communication with R. Klausmeier, 2 January 1980.
14. Jeffrey L. Hunter, Ph.D. (Chief, Automotive Environmental Services,
Office of Air Pollution Control, State of Ohio), Personal Communica-
tion with R. Klausmeier, 12 February 1980.
15. Richard L. Sandheger (Hamilton Test Systems, Phoenix, Arizona),
Personal Communication with R. Klausmeier, 14 January 1980.
16. Charles Pollock (Hamilton Test Systems, Phoenix, Arizona), Personal
Communication with R. Klausmeier, 14 January 1980.
17. Ken Boyer (Supervisor, Emission Control Section, Nevada State Depart-
ment of Motor Vehicles), Personal Communication x^ith R. Klausmeier,
28 February 1980.
18. R.W. McMinn (Deputy Director, New Jersey State Division of Motor
Vehicles), Personal Communication with R. Klausmeier, 2 January,
14 April 1980.
19. John M. Urkov (Air Resources Board, State of California), Personal
Communication with R. Klausmeier, 15 January 1980.
20. State of New Jersey, "Specification for Exhaust Gas Analytical
System," 1 October 1977.
21. State of New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles, "Proposed Rules on
Licensing of Motor Vehicle Reinspection Centers."
22. State of New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles, "Combining Emissions
With Safety Inspection Programs." 28 February 1980.
R-2
-------
23.. State of New Jersey Bureau of Air Pollution Control, "Operational
Procedures for Motor Vehicle Emission Reinspection," September 1978.
24. State of Rhode Island Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle
Safety and Emission Control Division, 1978 Annual Report, "Vehicle
Safety and Emission Inspection Program."
25. State of Rhode Island Department of Transportation, "Minimum Require-
ments for Approved Inspection Stations."
26. State of Rhode Island Department of Transportation, "Official Manual
for Vehicle Inspection."
27. Ben F. Brown and Debbie K. Martin (Research Corp. of New England),
"Final Report on the Attitudinal Assessments of Motor Vehicle Inspec-
tion Station Personnel and Motor Vehicle Owners Towards the Rhode
Island Inspection/Maintenance Program," EPA 901/9-79-010, September 1979,
28. State of Arizona Bureau of Vehicular Emissions Inspection, "An Analysis
of the Impact of the Vehicular Inspection/Maintenance Program on Ambient
Carbon Monoxide," November 1979.
29. Bruce D. Merrill, Ph.D. (State of Arizona), "Attitudes Toward the Emis-
sions Control Program in Maricopa and Pima Counties," May 1979.
30. State of Arizona Bureau of Vehicular Emissions Inspection, "Vehicular
Emissions Inspection News & Notes," March 1978.
31. R. Fred lacobelli (Arizona Dept. of Health Services), Memorandum,
Summary of Expenditures and Budget Requests (Revised 8-17-79) Vehicular
Emissions Inspection Fund, 17 August 1979.
32. Joe Dykstra (Arizona Dept. of Health Services), Proposed Vehicle
Emissions 79/80 Budget, 10 May 1979.
33. State of Arizona Air Pollution Control, Article 10, Motor Vehicles;
Combustion Engines; Fuel. Adopted 3 January 1977, amended 2 March 1978,
R-3
-------
34. State of Rhode Island Department of Transportation, Amendments to the
Official Manual for Vehicle Inspection, Effective 1 January 1979.
35. Jeffrey L. Hunter, "A Citizen's Guide to Motor Vehicle Emissions
Control Inspection and Maintenance," Ph.D Dissertation, Columbia
Pacific University, 1979.
36. The Cincinnati Post, "Auto Emissions Test Program Exhausted,"
20 February 1980.
37. State of California, "MVIP Program, Field Operational Procedures,"
1 September 1979.
38. State of California, "Fleet Station Handbook."
39. State of California Air Resources Board, "Notice of Executive Officer
Public Hearing to Consider Vehicle Inspection Standards for the Motor
Vehicle Inspection Program (MVIP)," 18 January 1980.
40. State of California, "First Annual Report to the Legislature on the
Mandatory Vehicle Inspection Program (MVIP)," October 1979.
41. Bruce D. Merrill, Ph.D. and Richard B. Wirthlin, Ph. D. (California
Air Resources Board) "Attitudes Toward Air Pollution and Emission Con-
trol in the South Coast Air Basin," 16 April 1979.
42. State of California, "Qualified Mechanics Handbook," February 1979.
43. State of California, "Mechanics Program Information Guide," May 1979.
44. Las Vegas Sun, "Where Does the Commission Stand?," 8 January 1980.
45. State of Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles, Budget Statement.
46. State of Nevada, "Air Quality Regulations for Mobile Equipment,"
December 1979.
R-4
-------
47. William P. Jasper Jr. and Ron Householder (Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality), "The Oregon Motor Vehicle Emission Inspection
Program," Presented at the West Coast International Meeting, Portland,
Oregon, 6-9 August, 1979.
48. State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, "Vehicle Inspec-
tion Information Bulletin," 79075.
49. Dan C. Knapp (Director, Operating Programs, National Institute for
Automotive Service Excellence), Personal Communication with R.
Klausmeier, 15 February 1980.
50. NAPA Guide to NIASE Testing, 1979.
51. R. F. Klausmeier and Dr. E. P. Hamilton, III, "A Survey of Vehicle
Emissions Inspection/Maintenance Programs," Radian Corporation Report
No. 79-340-403-04, Revised 31 March 1979.
52. Radian Corporation, "Inspection/Maintenance and Emission Inventories
of Area Sources in Oklahoma," Volume I, Report No. 79-202-187-31-20,
EPA 906/9-79-004a, February 1979.
53. Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association, "Summary of State and Local
Vehicle Emissions Inspection/Maintenance Programs," State Relations
Department, November 1979.
54. Ron Householder (Chief Environmental Engineer, Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality), Personal Communication with R. Klausmeier
and D. Kirk, 23 January, 11 April 1980.
55. John Ciardella (Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles), Personal
Communication with R. Klausmeier, February 1980.
56. Ralph Frehlich (Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana - Regional Council of Govern-
ments), Personal Communication with R. Klausmeier, 14 April 1980.
57. Mario Faria (Rhode Island Department of Transportation), Personal
Communication with R. Klausmeier, 2 April 1980.
R-5
-------
58. Dominic Mansolillo (Rhode Island Department of Transportation),
Personal Communication with R. Klausmeier, 4 April 1980.
59. Joe Todd (California Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Auto
Repair), Personal Communication with R. Klausmeier, 14 April 1980.
60. Robert Mayer (California Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of
Auto Repair), Personal Communication with R. Klausmeier, 14 April 1980.
R-6
------- |