A SURVEf OF OPERATING
INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE
PROGRAMS
"irial Report
RADIAN
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
C I \J *J V
DCN 80-230-146-09
A SURVEf OF OPERATING
INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE
PROGRAMS
Final Report
Prepared by:
R.F. Klausmeier
D.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 68-02-253S
17 April 1980
8500 Shoal Creek Blvd. I P.O. Box 99481 Austin, Texas 78766 I (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.
-------
A SURVEY OF OPERATING INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledqements i
Foreword ii
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
i i i
-------
Page
4.0 Selection of Cut Points
4.1 Initial Selection of Cut Points
4.2 Revising the Cut Points
5.0 Data Collection and Analysis
5.1 Methodology and Reports
5.2 Hardware and Software Requirements
6.0 Quality Assurance
7.0 Training Programs
7.1 Inspector Training
7.2 Station Investigator Training
7.3 Mechanic Training
8.0 Public Information
8.1 Description of Programs
8.2 Public Response
9.0 Air Quality Improvements
38
38
39
42
42
48
49
58
58
60
60
64
64
69
72
-------
LIST OF TABLES ANO FIGURES IN SECTION ONE
TABLE TITLE PAGE
1.1 Description of Operating I/M Programs 4
1.2 Tampering Inspections 18
1.3 Failure Rate and Repair Costs 22
1.4 Emission Analyzers and Other Test Equipment 30
1.5 Data Collection 44
1.6 Data Analysi s 45
1.7 Quality Assurance Programs 50
1.8 Training Programs 59
1.9 Public Information 65
FIGURE TITLE PAGE
1.1 Inspection Cost to Motorist 9
1.2 Incremental Operating Cost 34
1.3 Capital Costs 35
1.4 New Jersey Ambient Carbon Monoxide Air Quality
and Motor Vehicle Gasoline Consumption 73
1.5 Composite Violations of 0.12 ppm Ozone Ambient
Air Quality Standard for Bayonne Trailer, Camden
Trailer, Ancora, Asbury Park, Somerville 74
v
-------
0
1
2.1
2.2
2. 3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2. 7
3
4
5
6
7
8
9.1
9. 2
9. 3
9.4
9. 5
10
11
12
13
14
PAGE
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
SECTION TWO - SUMMARY TABLES
TITLE
Description of Operating I/M Programs
Vehicle Coverage
Personnel Requirements for New Jersey
Personnel Requirements for Cincinnati and Norwood
Personnel Requirements for Oregon
Personnel Requirements for Arizona
Personnel Requirements for California
Personnel Requirements for Nevada
Personnel Requirements for Rhode Island
Failure Rate and Repair Costs
Operating Costs'
Capital Costs
Emission Analyzers and Other Test Equipment
Quality Assurance Programs
Training Programs
Training Details for New Jersey
Training Details for Oregon
Training Details for Arizona
Training Details for California
Training Details for Rhode Island
Data Collection
Data Analysis
Public Information
Tampering Inspections
Staff Contacts
vi
-------
APPENDIX TITLE PAGE
A Compilation of Emission Standards for
I/M Programs A-l
B Arizona Appendix Material B-l
C California Appendix Material C-l
D Cincinnati & Norwood Appendix Material D-l
E Nevada Appendix Material E-l
F New Jersey Appendix Material F-l
G Oregon Appendix Material G-l
H Rhode Island Appendix Material H-l
References R-l
vi i
-------
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.
1
-------
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
2
-------
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;
3
-------
TABLE 1.1 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATING I/M PROGRAMS
ITEM
ST- J ERSE":
CINCINNATI
ORiCON
ARIZONA
NEVADA
RHODE ISLAND
CALIFORNIA
Geograpnic Location
Entire State
Cincinnati 4
Norwood, Ohio
Port land
Pima and
Miracopa C:v.
Clark and
Washoe Cty
Entire State
South Coast Air
Basin (LA Area)
Dace of Inspection
Mandator
Vo lu^.tary
Feo. 1. 1974
July 5. 1972
Jan. 1, 1975
July 1, 1975
Jar.. 1, 1977
Mandatorv reoairs
Jan. 1, 1976
Mandaterv Inspec.
Voluntary repairs
Cii of Ovner
7-1-74 * Nev
Regis. O-Tier
7-1-77 Annual
(Clark Onlv)
Jan. 1 30
Jan. 1, 1979
\ov I, 1977
Mar 19. 1979
Coverage
(LDV-Lignt Duty Venicle)
All LDVs less
than 6000 lbs
GV*
All LDVs less
than 6000 lbs
160,000 venicle
All vehicles
500,000
vehicles
All venicles
1,200,000
venicles
All LDV's less
than 6000 lbs
CM'. 330,000
vehicles
All LDVs less
than 3000 lbs
GW 500,000
vehicles
All LDV's less
than 3500 lbs
GW. 1,200,000
venicles
Exe^-1 ions
Diesels,
venicles less
than 30 cu.
in., pre 63 2
stroke Saabs,
new cars for
first 2 years.
Diesels (essls-
sIons only).
Motorcycles,
Historical veh'i
(over 25 years,
collectors
item)
MDV diesels
over 3500 lbs
GW, ootorcycle
farm plated
vehlcles , f ixed
& restricted
load vehicles.
Interstate vhls
Vehicles over
13 vears old.
Prorated
veh lcles
(Interstate
venicles)
65 and over
13 >ears old.
Prorated
vehicles
(Interstate
vehicles)
Diesels, new
venicles for
12 months or
12,000 miles
Farm vehicles
over 25 years
old, motorcycles
Diesels, motor-
cycles, aual fuel
or complete fuel
conversions
Type of Program
Centralized-
State Oper.
Centralized-
Clty Ot>er.
Cencralized-
State Oper.
Centralized-
Contractor-
Oper
Decent ralized
- Private
Garage
Decentralized
- Private
Garage
Centralized-
Contractor
Administrating Agency
DMV/
N. J . D. E. ?.
Clnn. Dept
of Severs
Ore. D.E.Q.
Bur. of Veh.
EmlssIon Inspec.,
Div. or Environ.
Health Services
D.M V
R.l D.O.T.
Bur. Auto Repair/
Air Res Board
Nucber of Inspection
Stations
38 stations
63 lanes
£736 rein-
spection sta.
Cine - 1 Sta-
tion, 4 lanes
Norwood - I sta-
tion, 1 lane
7 stations
14 lanes
(1 state
owned,
6 leased)
12 stations
36 lanes
1 aoclle
facility
90 in Wasnoe.
165 aaraoes
in Clark
Licensed 900
private garages
15 permanent
2 mobile
46 lanes
Can Fleets Self
Inspect^
So
No
Yes
50 stations
ves
300 stations
Yes
(Incl above)
Yes
(Incl. above)
Yes
799 stations
Insoection Frequency
Annual
Annual
Piennial-LDV's
Annual-HDV's
Annua 1
Change of
Ovne r/Annua 1
(Clark Ctv On!
Annual
)
Change of Ovner/
New registered
ovner
Insoect ion Modes
Idle HC 5 CO
Pass/Fall
Pass/Falf
Pass/Fail
Pass/Fail"
°ass/Fail
Pass/Fail
Pass/rail
2 300 RPM HC & CO
Condition Veh/
Data Collection
Condition Veh/
Data Collection
Collection Veh/
Data Collection
Loaded KC i CO
NO <
Condition Veh/
Data Collection
Planned
Planned
Exhaust Dilution
(CO:)
P lanned
Pass/Fail (37.)
Pass/Fail (4 '
Pass/FaiL(4.32)
Idle Speed
Pass/Fail
Cr.eck i
Adjust
?ass/FaiI
Diagnostics or other
Engine Parameters
Check i.
Adjust
'
SsioKe
Tampering
Pass/Fail
Pass/Fail
Pass/Fat1
Pass/Fail
Pass/Fail (HD
diesel only)
Pass/Fal 1
Pass/Fal1
Pass/Fail
Pass/Fa:I
Pass/Fail
Safety
Pass/Fail
Pass/Fail
Pass/Fail
Enforcement/Fines
Sticker i
Registration
$100 -nax.
Sticker
Cine. S11 -35
Norwood $15
Registrat ion
3100 max
Regist rat ion
53 late regis
Registration
l'p to n mo.
and $500
SticVer -
Road Checks
515
Registration
finable offense
(vari.ioli)
Re inspect ion
At lanes or
licensed
Private
Reinspectioa
Stat ions
At Lanes
At Lar.es
At Lanes
Vehicle
\djusted
•'hen
inspec t cd
9tZ pa«=s
At Carages
At Lanes
Hours or" Station
Ooerat ion
3-3 M-F some
Saturday and
nignts
3-7 M-F
3-6 Tues - Sat
Metro
3 - 3-30 - MWF
3 - 7-00 - T-Th
Varies for
Garages
Varies, for
garages. Chal-
lenge station
open 7•30 -
3.30 M-F
Flexible ¦ usuall\
3-4 30 T - F
3-7.00 M
Waiting Tines
(vax, Avg )
Avg-6 rain.
Max-15 Min
Usually no
ia 11
Avg-10 min
(varies greatly
trru year)
Avg-10 min
Max - 1 hr
Va11 in f o
iviiUS'# ?V
Customer
usually
leaves car
np
Custoner usuallv
leaves car
Avg-10-15 min.
Max - 1 hr 1
-ait info
ava 11 bv ohone
Cueing Lenztns
-
-
l
7 car mn
Inspect ion Time
5-10 min
1 ain for
ecussions
3-5 oin , 4 5
seconds for
eaissions
3-5 min.
5 min
20 min
30-60 run.
mc lud ing
safety
6 min
inspection Cost
32.50 (incl.
safety)
SI.00 for
relnsoection
at private
garages
53.75 (incl.
safety) Free
retests
?5.00
Free retests
S5.00 Incl.
one free
recest
312. T'l* -
17 00
34.00 including
safecv
$11.00
57.00 rein-
spect ion
^Transmission in ^rive (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
regi strati on.
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 the.ir 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.
5
-------
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
(N0^) emissions. California plans to begin loaded-mode testing at a future
time for this reason.
Oregon, Arizona, and California monitor carbon dioxide (CO^ 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 N0^, it plans to discontinue its visual inspection because
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
6
-------
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
I
$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.
7
-------
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 emission 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
8
-------
A - Includes Safety
B - $7.00 fee for retests
C - Includes parameter adjustment
FIGURE 1-1 INSPECTION COST TO MOTORIST
9
-------
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 t,o 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
mi nutes.
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 better-
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 CO2 (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 N0^ 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
-------
TAIH.E .1.2 TAMIM-H INC I NSI'ECT IONS
ORECON
CALIFORNIA
NEVADA
Components Inspected
(V-Vlsual Check, F-Functional. Cheek)
Catalytic Converter
V
V
V
ECR Valve
V
F
V
Air injection System
V
V
V
VCV Valve
V
V
V
Thermostatic Air Cleaner
V
V
V
Oxygen Sensor
Fuel Fillerneck
Mini.tcr Caps
v (pl'if;
on site)
V (unions locked)
Exhaust System Modifications
Engine Mod ifJ cat ions
V
V
V
Has to meet
specs for
model year
Inspector Training
Covered in a
one week train-
ing program
Contractor
trained inspec-
tors. Fleet
inspect l.on
stations must
employ a quali-
fied mechanic.
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." 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 during 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 se£ms 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 KATE AND REPAIR COSTS
ro
ro
NliW JERSEY
CINCINNATI
ORKCON
ARIZONA
CALIFORNIA
NEVADA
RHODE ISLAND
Kailure Kate
18% (1979)
18% (1979)
40% (1979)
25% (1979)
47X (1979)
2 7% Kmi ss i on.s
32Z(197K; - li
.'i7,(197H) - A
Not. Ava i 1 ab I e
Refailure Kate
29% (1979)
Not Ava i1able
23% (1979)
34 %(1979)
28% (1979)
Not Ava i I ab 1 e
Not Avai1ab1e
Repair Cost
(1979)
Not Available
(1979)
(1979)
(1979)
Median
Average
$17
$18.71 (2/3
below $28)
80% of repairs
under $30
$30
$32
$20./. 5
NoL Ava i1ab1e
Repair Cost After
Refailure
Median
Not Available
Not available
Not aval1-
ab 1 e
Not avail-
able
Not available
Not ava i1 -
ah 1 e
Not AvaiIabIe
Average
Waivers
Available?
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Time Period
1 Year
1 Year
-
1 Year
1 Year
St Jpulat1ons
MotorLsL must
document that a
good faith effort
was made Lo pass
test.
Kepai r proce-
dure , cost
ceilings $25-
67, $75 - 68-
up
Repai r performed
by MVPC mech.
cosL coilin^s.
$50 (No KCS modif
Creator f veil.
is modi f )
$25 parLs
ce i1 inn, $7 5
parts & labor,
(Not i nc1ud i ng
catalytic con-
verters) No
missing con-
verters
MoLorist must make
reasonable effort
to pass - no visual
tampering, param-
eters checked
Number (%)
Approx. 10/yr.
41 sLnce the start
of the program
Approx- 80,000
yr. (30Z of
failed veil)
Approx. 30,000/
yr (10% of
fai 1 ed veli.)
Approx. 5000
per year (2%)
None
A - After Adjustment
Bo fore Ad j us LinenL
-------
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
exami ned).
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 allowantes. 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 perforin
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 reelassification 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 (OEQ). 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
stati ons.
The personnel who administer and enforce Nevada's I/M program are
located in the DMV's 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 DMV's 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 DMV's 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
recommendations.
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, CO2, as well as engine rpm.
29
-------
TABLE 1.4 EMISSION ANALYZERS AND OTHER TEST EQUIPMENT
SEW JERSEY
CINCINNATI
OREGON
ARIZONA
CALIFORNIA
NEVADA
RHODE ISLAND
Emissions Analyzer
(New Analyzers)
Type of Analyzer
Infra-red
Infra-rea
Inf ra-tea
Infra-red
Infra-red
Varies fron
garage to
garage
Varies fron garage
to garage
Make/Model
Sun 3021
Sun 9101
Sun 0EA-75
HTS
HTS
Stock or Moat fled
Modifled
Modified
Modified
Mod i fled
Modified
Display
Oigital
Dial
Digital
Prir.c-out
Print-out
Measures
HC, CO
X
X
X
\
A
co2
X
X
X
X
Autonatic or Manual
Oata Recording
Manual (can be
used with aux
printout)
Manual
Manual
Auto
A>j C >1
Nuroer On-line
106
5
IS
1 per lane
(37 total)
1 per lsne
(-5 total)
SunDer of Spares
19
u
11 (1-2
spares per
station)
0
0
Cose
Si,656 (1980)
SI,400
57,500
Not available
Not available
Not available
Range $900-57000
Avg. 52,1-9
Tachometer
Make/Model
Part of aoove
anaIvze rs
Part of
analysers
PlCk-lr?
Display
Clip to plug
wire
Digital
Clipped to
plug wire
Printout
Cose
Cal'.oration Equipment
(Cose)
Hoses £ Accessories
X (S10.000)
X
X
X
X
X
Gases
.( (S75 .000/yr)
X (S10,000/v r)
X
X
K (53,000/yr)
X
Other Equipment
Ar.al> zer
Horiba Ana-
1;. zer PIR
2nno
Beck-nan 6300
n Chromato-
graoh (20.000)
Master analyzer at
Challenge Station
Horlha D-00 - also
used for cnallenge
i'!lCC-<2
Opac. i t \ Equ i paient
(Cost)
T'.pe
Visual
Photographic
fila to deter-
ninf- visual
levels
Visual
(Smoke school)
Visual
Visual
V i sua 1
0
Inforceae-.t Equipaent
Porcaole Analvzer
Tvpe
Chrysler III
Number
20
2
Total Cost
SiO.OOO
Not Availaole
Other
Master Analyzer
Automatic Data Pro-
cessing Equlosen:
Type
Paoer tape
Printout
Sunoer
5
VThat is Xecorced1
Test data
stds, test
readings
Cost
Other Equipment
Sun 2001 for
dxagnost ic
work
Clayton
Dynamometers
Plan to in-
stall Clayton
Dvno'3 for
loaded testing
Laooratory
ciagnostics
Sun 2001
(520.COD)
also used
for Chal-
lenge cnecks
30
-------
The CC>2 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 CO2 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 faci1ities'(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,Q00K)
N.J. ORE,
Administrative Personnel
Technical Personnel
Enforcement Personnel
Leases
Other Operating Costs
m
($2,400K)
($1,012K)
\\\\V
(S249K)
n
CINC. ARIZ. CALIF. NEV.
( ) Total Incremental Cost
R.I.
FIGURE 1.2 INCREMENTAL OPERATING COST
34
-------
Capital Cost/
Cair
2.00
($834K)
1.00
($300K)
($707K)
($519K)
($13K)
($300K)
($68K)
N.J. ORE. CINC. ARIZ. CALIF.
( ) Total Capital Cost
NEV. R.I.
FIGURE 1.-3 CAPITAL COSTS
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
exi sted.
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 CO2; 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 0EQ 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
MEW JERSEY
CINCINNATI
OREGON
ARIZONA
C^.-IFORNIA
NEVADA
RHODE
ISLAND
Data Collected
(A ¦ All inspected
vehicles)
(R » Roadside Checks)
(S ¦ Survey or Sample)
Pass/Fail (Initial)
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Pass/Fail (re-exam)
A
S
A
A
Idle HC and CO
Before Repair
S
A
A
A
A
A
R(biased
for safety)
After Repair
A
A
A
25QO RPM HC and CO
Before Repair
A
A
A
After Repair
A
A
Loaded Mode HC and CO
Before Repair
A
After Repair
A
Tampering Results
A
A
A
Smoke Test
s
A
A
R
Engine Parameters
A
A
A
A
V.I.D.
A
A
A
A
A & R
Make & Year of Vehicle
s
A
A
A
A
A
A & R
Engine Size/Family
s
A
A
Repair Costs
s
S
S
A
A
Odometer
s
A
A
A
A
A
Method of Collecting
Daca
Lane data -
manual: sur-
vey data
semi-auco-
matic
Collected
Manually
Test data
automatic,
Vehicle
Info, semi-
automatic
Test data
automatic.
Other data
manual 5
serai-auco.
Manual 6
semi-
automatic
CoLlecced
Manually
Method of Storing
Data
Cards Tape
Tape - Disk
Hard-copy
Tape
Tape
Forms *
Tape
Currently
hard-copy
developing
programming
44
-------
TABLE 1.6 DATA ANALYSIS
NEW JERSEY
CINCINNATI
OREGON
ARIZONA
CALIFORNIA
NEVADA
RHODE
ISLAND
Analvsis and Reporcs
(A = All inspected
vehicles)
(R = Roadside checks)
(S ¦ Survey or Sample)
No. of Inspections
A
A
A
A
A
Failure Rate
Overall
By Inspection Sta.
By Pollutant
By Model Year
By Make & Model Year
A
A
S
S
s
A
A
A
A
A
A
S
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
R
R
Re-Exam Failure Rates
Overall
By Inspection Sta.
By Pollutant
By Model Year
By Make h Model Year
A
A
S
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Average Idle HC and CO
Before Repair
Overall
By Model Year
After Repair
Overall
By Model Year
s
s
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
R
R
Average 2500 RPM HC & CO
Before Repair
Overall
By Model Year
After Repair
Overall
By Model Year
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Average Loaded HC & CO
Before Repair
Overall
By Model Year
A
A
After Repair
Overall
By Model Year
A
A
Repair Costs
s
S
S
A
S
Other Analysis
Data base
maintained
on survey
data and
accessed
as needed.
Waiting
time
survey
Type of
repair,
waiting
time
Additional
analysis
(e.g., CO
failure
rate data
for '79 GM
vehicles)
Cost effec-
tiveness
using actual
FTP results
for certain
cut points.
Repair data
by Mech 4
repair
facility.
Data base
maintained
on test
data and
accessed
as needed
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
-------
'I'AH LI1'. I.. 7 (QUALITY /\ r:! ¦ IJ U A NC! I-! IJK()GKAMS
MI"W II.KSL't
CINCINNA11
Ol{| < on
| AKI/UNA
i .. i 1 ! ¦ * ' H A
Nl VAHA
niMU t M Nr.! 1
runt i .it i hi 1' 1. i'I
• i>¦ 11 i .ii I ..i <(••(
Ann 1 v /.«i ' .11 i hi at I mii
Ki i «jiii.nrv
Ki-.spon.s 11 > 1 1 ¦ t y
for '11 .u-c.it) i 1 i l y
1 /mo in I n - 1 . *>/iu<»
State ot f i c 1 n Is
W)
Yus
1 /ino.
Serv i ci- Cone i ,i. i
wlih M.innf ($12 per
una ly.sei f•«>i inont Ii)
t.'o
r» / d a v
l.i'.nt 1 ir.|>i i l oi
Yes
Wi'< k 1 v Mil's Hi conm.
Com r.i<-( oi 1' 1« i t s
Ye:. Yi s
Wi . J. 1 \ I.', i-k 1 \
( oil! i.it t to KI i'i'I •
Y. s Y, .
r.*t i 11 i|M 11 ¦ mi in .
II I an., I . •, i
i 11 i In ai i d i", 'II i
1 ! 1 1 ll t li
.... 1 1 %
'
1 1 o|i ii, I oniiil 11
• Ii- ¦,.! i ajs s
lloClinil'l) 1 (.'J
I'l oi'ialtu < it
Y o
No
Yi's
No No
J..
Set Span «ini! Zfio
of Analyser
Tw i ee/d.iy , ni-vi
.inaly/.i.TS will b«*
set iiutom.it li.il 1 y
Honi ly
Ai. iii-i'd.-tl, at li.isl
S/dav
Antci IV i Ml r ' s
An 1 o
Il ll 1. ,1
•at upi". 1 ..
. 1 I-. toi. i a. .
Station Inspection
(KcinipecL ion Si a )
( e 1. . t s)
Krc«|nc*iiLy
1/2 cud.
Mont lil v
2/mo l.vt f y 'M> day.
/ tlx) 1 Vi'l\ >o 1 -
Moot Ms
Monlh 1 •
Annuiinrt-d or
Unannounced
Un.iinit>iinr«.il
Kot Ii
Unannouin i'd CiiannoniH'iM
Mti.iniiouiti • d Mm iiiiihhiii i il
I'll.iniMMIlll ¦ d
Kubpons 1 It 11 11 y
FuncL ion
St.tic off i trial*
(L>MV) I/1IH) sL.i.
Slalt Of 1" Ii- in I
(DKJ) 1 /Ml sta .
State Slate DM' 11-1 .i 1
Official 1/1 'tU -.La
Si .it i- (>l 1 i - SI ali OI f i
l.lls l/ll) < Ml!. I//.O
lanes ,i .ii ions
Kiv ot i 11 i i ^
Ml' s.i i.
HO! ot 1 11 l.i 1 s
1/ Si» si.,
Clu'ck Analyzer
X
X
X X
X X
A
1 .il il>> u ion Ii. mo-
(< a 1 1 hi al 1.>ll >
CI lock Kcrordb
\ (CiilIbrniion)
X (fa 1 lb t aI Ion 1
>• (C.l i 1 Ii >
\ >.
*
. i\ a 1 111 .
Co I i cm: t Koi ui.s
X
X
X
N
X
(>l llii! b
Sid- InupccLion
I'l OCudll 1 UN
No
No
X (IIoiim-
k*¦ 1 „u)
No
X (li.it a \ Ki |m i i
in o i il 1 ii|; | > i oi i 11111 i s
i'<|u i |>tni n( ) d I .ifiii>• 1 11
iVsi.'ii 1 > ak al-1 1 I I \
Chi'i k
\cs
1 ook 1 III 1 1 }> I 1
hooks
Use of Challenge
Slat ion or
Laboratory
Ubed 1 O I Dki 1 lit l.-
nance & r«-|iu 1 r of
ana 1 y usi s (Ma | or
I ll.S JIC pl'l -
fo rem J l>v Ml r . )
M.i'.llt iiii.i 1 \ /.e i
iisi il for gas
checks
I'se 1 oi ijii.i 1 11 v i oilt i o 1
• f « a 1 I hi .it 1 >>11 i's
Us. d 1 O l hi l 1.
..".p 1 11 nl ill
v. lui 1. s
A,.|. i ox >l» l.ilu-
ll 1 a i oi s/iinm t It
1 .. d I >• il>. ,'l i. . 11
!"'¦ 1 '«"i
:..ni>i n i/, ,\
>'11 v, In e II- « h. , ki d 111
('. passed)
iMl.t Analyiiib
h'a 11 in u runs at
LIn.1 ut.it Ions at c
ana 1 y«Joi!
Ka i 1 nri* rat e per
Mul Ion
Ma i (t 1 v used to vim ifv
charges
Uepa I i il.il a nsi d t o < hi i l>
I"- 11,1 maiti . ot ••
aiid/o i i it i lian I < s
Spot and ko.ids i (!<¦
Checks
Look at ii inspection
i c(
W.i t vi' i soi vi' i 1 1 .inn-
A!»IMlt 0(1? «">f W.llVl'l I.ISl'S
a i • 0 i 11 Ira lly 11 vh-wi-d -
mci hitn I c s >'i't not l f I iM 1 t on
nt t MIK
Yi s - l.s ltd i <*il it i-sl
VI It I. 1. S .1 . t . Ill .|..'i ( . .1
al 1 U-i. t s
*1 I S - III 1 1 l 1 a I s
siihm I 1 1 111 'i p • ¦ till
I iis.n . 1 I on-
\« l\ . n. . l>',
Willi S.td. 1
rlii ck . tii i «d. m-
. t'lup 1 " i iif' \i lit. !. s r.nsl
In i . pa i i . il >>< .sih ' 1 I 1 ••
O 1 1 1 111
(ll I..m l.l A 1 .isk;,
Appi ov.* ana 1 v/. i :>
1 >>r ri-pa i i , null -
pi ndi nt .samp 1 i ng
ot vi*l111:1« .
Coup.il 1 son fltui k:.
uud«- on .ilia 1 v/fi :¦
lln.iiinoiini eil moul h 1 V
i'a 1i h rat lon i tin
I'iosS ruli'ii llll' 1 est -
iii}-, oi <¦ n.i 1 v/.i-i ii
1 (oin il 1 III i i'ii t st o
Ci.t t I fv ana 1 y
-------
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
Fleet licensing criteria
54
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
wai vers.
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 2Js~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 TRA I'.NINC PROGRAMS
cn
TYPE OF TRAINING
NEW JERSEY
CINCINNATI
OREGON
ARIZONA
CALIFORNIA
NEVADA
RHODE ISI.AND
Mechanic Training
Train Instructors
X (In past)
X (in past)
X
X (in past)
X
Conduct Seminars
X
X
On-Site Instruction
X
Sponsor Vocational
Training
X (in past)
X
X
License/Certify
Mechanics
X
Number (%) Certified by
NIASE (Entire state)*
2,982 (16Z)
1,136 (20%)
964 (20Z)
7,176 (15%)
239 (20%)
312 (13%)
Z of Mechanics Trained
Inspector Training
At beginning of
I/M, N.J held sev-
eral. 1 day ses-
sions on use and
maintenance of
analyzers
Sun Electric
Corp. trained
-personnel in
operation of
analyzer
One week
training
program with
tape and
slides
Contractor
trains per-
sonnel .
Fleet inspec-
tors trained
bv.state. 7
hr course
Contractor
trains per-
sonnel. Fleets-
Class A mech.
plus 2.5 hr in-
spector train.
No formal
training;
however test
req'd & vo-
tech train,
to be curt.
15 hr course
4 hrs on emis-
sions analyzers
Supervisor Training
None (except
for continual)
None (except
for continual)
20 Hr. in-house
proeram
Training for Station
Inspectors or Quality
Auditors
DE? personnel
trained In test
procedures and the
callb. & oper. of
the analyzers.
Investigators
trained in cali-
bration procedures
Trained for
approx. 1
month by work-
ing with
other Inspector
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 lJj-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
TYPE OK PKOORAM
NEW JERSEY
CINCINNATI
OKKCON
Alt! ZONA
CAI.I KOItNl A
NEVADA
KIIODE ISLAND
PrelIroinary/
Voluntary Test
Programs
1-1/2 year program
Mandatory inspection
Voluntary Maintenance
I year voluntary
program
I year mand.
inspect Ion/
voluntary
maintenance
Phase I volun-
tary program.
50,000 vehicles
tested
Voluntary Lesl-
jng sponsored
by Lung Assoc.
and DMV
1 year mand.
inspect Ion/
vo1uniary mai n-
tenance
Pamphlets
Developed by KPA
and state
Distribute EPA
handbook at
fLrst. Cur-
rently distribut
their own
pamphlet
Developed by
state & EPA.
Reminder with
2 registration
forms.
Developed by
state, EPA,
& contractor
Distribute pam-
phlet describ-
ing program &
repn ir faci1.
Do not encourage
do it yourself
repa i r
Notices dev't by
DMV. Distribute
EPA pamphlet
Lung Assocta-
Lion deve1 oped
pamphlels with
EPA grant.
Use of Challenge
Station or
Laboratory
Laboratory Is
open by
appointment
Approx. 10
veii/day have
d iagnosti cs
performed at
laboratory
Challenges made
at lanes
CompIaj nts,
d iagnos i s
Customer may have
veli ic le checked
for free after
garage inspecLion.
(rarely used)
Telephone Assis-
tance (Consumer
Hot-Lines)
DEI* Personnel
Answer questions
and refer people
to the labora-
tory
City and County
personnel in-
volved will
answer
questions
Public may call
DEQ. No formal
hot line
Contractor
maintains toll
free It (watts)
Customers can
call state.
Contractor main-
tains toll free
0 (watts). Cus-
tomers can also
call B.A.R.
DMV number is
well publici zed
May call DOT. No
formal DDT hoi iine
Lung Assoc. lias
hoL 1ine (rarely
ut»ed)
Radio & Television
Ads or Public Ser-
vice Announcements
Contractor
placed prime
time ads
(advise to
avoid end of
month)
Contractor placed
prime time ads at
beginning of pro-
grain
DMV & county
officials appe.i r
on talk shows
Chief appeared on
(piesLion b answer
shows
Other Programs
Press releases,
Public van
demonstrations. Pro-
vide customer with
list of repair
facilities
Press releases
to improve
relations
Press coverage,
DEO bulletins,
bumper stickers
Press releases,
opinion sur-
veys
Press releases,
opinIon surveys
Set-up booth at
county fa i r
Attempt s to im-
prove press rela-
tions. At t ili d i-
nal survey spon-
sored by EPA Re-
I'lOll 1
Manpower
Requireroents
15 hours/week
for diagnostic
technician
None
Less than 1
person
1 person -
fulltime for
d iagnostic
technician
ARB - 1 person,
BAR- 9 people
to handle
complaints
1 person fuLl-
time in labor,
(not all P.I.
work)
1 person in DEM
coordinates public
education programs.
Other respons lb iJ it e
-------
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 OEQ 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."
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
sess i ons.
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 Or. 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
thei rs."
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
CALENDAR YEAR
AMBIENT CARSON MONOXIDE
GASOLINE CONSUMPTION
PHASES I AND II I/M 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
d)
G
O
N
o
0)
tn
ro
fc
(U
a
>
a,
<
CN
^ i—i
i—i
•
o
3
0
c
(0
x:
c
Eh
(0
u
&
QJ
+J
+J
•H
m
S-
a>
w
u
ra
c
Q
o
•H
4-»
o
m
-p
-------
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
NEW JERSEY
CINCINNATI
0REC0N
ARIZONA
NEVADA
RHODE ISLAND
CALIFORNIA
Geographic Location
Entire State
Cincinnati &
Norwood, Ohio
Portland
Pima and
Miracopa Cty.
Clark and
Uasnoe Cty.
Entire State
South Coast Air
Basin (LA Area)
Date of Inspection
Mandatory
Voluntary
Feb. L, 1974
July 5, 1972
Jan. 1, 1975
July 1, 1975
Jan. 1, 1977
Mandatory repairs
Jan. 1, 1976
Mandatory Inspec.
Voluntary repairs
Ch. of Owner
7-1-74 + Sew
Regis. Owner
7-1-77 Annual
(Clark Only)
Jan. 1. 30
Jan. 1. 1979
Nov. 1, 1977
Mar. 19. 1979
Coverage
(LDV-Light Duty Vehicle)
All LDVs less
than 6000 lbs
cvu
All LDVs less
Chan 6000 lbs
160,000 vehicle:
All vehicles
500,000
vehicles
All vehicles
1,200,000
vehicles
All LDV's less
than 6000 lbs
CVW. 330,000
vehicles
All LDVs less
than 8000 lbs
GVW. 500,000
vehicles
All LDV's less
than 3500 lbs
GVW- 1,200,000
vehicles
Exempt ions
Diesels,
vehicles less
than 50 cu.
in., pre 68 2
stroke Saaos.
new cars for
flrsc 2 years.
Diesels (emis-
sions only)
Motorcycles,
Historical veh'j
(over 25 years,
collectors
item)
HDV dlesels
over 8500 lbs
CV\I, motorcycle
fare plated
vehicles, fixed
h restricted
load vehicles
Interstate vhls
Vehicles over
13 years old.
Prorated
vehicles
(Interstate
vehicles)
65 and over
13 years old.
Prorated
venlcles
(Interstate
vehicles)
Diesels, new
vehicles for
12 months or
12,000 miles.
Farm vehicles
over 25 years
old, motorcycles
Diesels, motor-
cycles, dual fuel
or complete fuel
conversions
Type of Program
Centralized*
State Oper.
Centralized-
Cltv Oper.
Centralized-
State Oper
Centralized-
Contractor-
Oper.
Decentralized
- Private
Garage
Decentralized
- Private
Garage
Centralized-
Contractor
Administrating Agency
DMV/
N.J.D.E.P.
Clnn. Dept.
of Sewers
Ore. D.E.q.
Bur. of Veh.
Emission Inspec.,
Dlv. of Environ.
Health Services
D.M.V.
R.I.D.O.T.
Bur. Auto Repair/
Air Res. Board
Number of Inspection
Stations
38 stations
68 lanes
4736 rein-
spection sta.
Cine. - 1 Sta-
tion, 4 lanes
Norwood - 1 sta-
tion, 1 lane
7 stations
14 lanes
(1 state
owned,
6 leased)
12 stations
36 lanes
1 mobile
facility
90 in Washoe.
165 aaraces
in Clark
Licensed 900
private garages
15 permanent
2 mobile
46 lanes
Can Fleets Self
Inspect?
No
No
Yes
50 stations
Yes
300 stations
Yes
(Incl above)
Yes
(Incl. above)
Yes
799 stations
Inspection Frequency
Annual
Annual
Blennlal-LDV's
Annual-HDV's
Annual
Change of
Owner/Annual
(Clark Ctv Onl
Annual
)
Change of Owner/
New registered
owner
Inspection Modes
Idle HC & CO
Pass/Fail
Pass/Fall
Pass/Fail
Pass/Fall'
Pass/Fail
Pass/Fail
Pass/Fall
2 500 RPM HC & CO
Condition Veh/
Data Collection
Condition Veh/
Data Collection
Collection Veh/
Data Collection
Loaded HC & CO
Condition Veh/
Data Collection
Planned
SO,
Planned
Exhaust Dilution
(C02)
Planned
Pass/Fail (S;.)
Pass/Fail (4. y,'\
Pass/FaiL (4 .52)
Idle Speed
Pass/Fail
Check &
Adjust
Pass/Fail
Diagnostics or other
Engine Parameters
Check 4
Adjust
Smoke
Tampering
Pass/Fall
Pass/Fail
Pays/Pat1
Pass/Fail
Pass/Fall (HD
diesel only)
Pass/Fai1
Pass/Fail
Pass/Fail
Pass/Fa i1
Pass/rail
Safety
Pass/Fail
Pass/Fall
Pass/Fail
Enforcement/Fines
Sticker &
Registration
S100 max.
Sticker
Cine. $11-35
Norwood S15
Registration
S100 max
Registration
S3 late regis
Regist rat ion
I'p to 6 mo
and S500
Sticker -
Road Checks
515
Registration
finable offense
(vanaole)
Remspect ion
At lanes or
Licensed
Private
Reinspect ion
Stations
At Lanes
At Lanes
At Lane9
Vehicle
Adjusted
when
Inspected
9tZ pass
At Garages
At Lanes
Hours of Station
Operation
3-5 M-F some
Saturday and
nights
8-7 M-F
8-6 Tues - Sat
Metro
8 - 3:30 - MW7
3 - 7:00 - T-Th
Varies for
Garages
Varies for
garages. Chal-
lenge station
open 7:30 -
3:30 M-F
Flexible - usuall\
3-4-30 T - F
3-7:00 M
Waiting Tines
(Max. Avg.)
Avg-6 min.
Max-13 Min
Usually no
wait
Avg-10 min
(varies greatly
thru year)
Max - 10 nin
Avg-10 min
Max - 1 hr.
Walt Info.
Customer
usuallv
leaves car
Customer usually
leaves car
Avg-10-15 min.
Max - 1 hr +
Wait info,
avail, bv shone
Quelng Lengths
-
1
i
7 car mln.
Inspection Time
5-10 nin.
1 min for
emissions
3-5 mln.; 45
seconds for
emissions.
3-S min.
5 min
20 mln
30-60 ain.
including
safety
6 mln
Inspection Cost
S2.50 (incl.
safety)
SI.00 for
reinspectlon
at private
garages
$3.75 (incl.
safety) Free
retests
?5.00
Free recests
$5.00 incl.
one free
retest
$12.-
17.00
S4.00 including
safetv
Sll.00
$7.00 rein-
spection
transmission In Orive (neutral on manual transmission)
-------
TABLE 2.1 VEHICLE COVERAGE
NKW JERSEY
C. 1 NC 1 nnat r
OREGON
AR1 ZONA
CAI.I I'ORNIA
NEVADA
RHODE ISLAND
Light Duty Vehicle
and Trucks (¦' or No. )
CVW Limit
6,000 lbs
6,000 lbs
8,500 lbs
6,000 lbs
8,500 lbs
6,000 lbs
H , 000 lbs
Gasoline (J/year)
3,800,000
1/.5.000
475,000
1,067,000
1,200,000 est.
Washoe Cty.
(Ch. ol owner)
30,000
500,000
Diesel (///year)
Clark CLy.
(annua 1)
300,000
Total LDVs and LDTs
3,800,000
]45,000
475.000
1,067,000
1,200,000 est
320,000
1
Heavy Duty Trucks
Gasoline (11/year)
Diesel (///year)
Planned
Not covered
25,000
(No CVW limit)
Not covered
140,000 (est)
(No CVW limit)
Not Covered
(Covered under
decent raJ i zed
li Luc Sli i e 1 d Fro . )
Not Covered
NoL covered
Tor emissions
Total
25,000
140,000
Motorcycles (///year)
Not covered
Not covered
Not covered
lncl. w/LDV's
NoL covered
Not covered
vIot covered
Total Number of
Vehicles Tested
3,800,000
145,000
500,000
1,200,000 (est.)
1,200,000 est
330,000
500,000
-------
TABLE 2.2.1 PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW JERSEY
DKPAItTMKN 1"
N1IHI1I-K
SAIAKY RANf'l' (S/YR)
COMMENTS
administrative:
Cenoi al Supei vl*;oi's
i>nv
$?f»,ooo
Safety also
Sf .it Ion Sopei vlsorn
l*1V
)H
I r», <>fH >
Snfety a 1 so
Ask 1 si.ml Snporv 1 soi s
|)MV
V.
14 ,000
Saf et y ,i 1 ko
Chief
|)MV
1
?f»,oon
Sa fof y a 1 so
(!!«.'! leal b Seei i'l .11 1 ;i 1
IIMV
H
11,ooo
1 KCIINICAI.
Superv1sor
df.p
1
$?H,000
AnalyslN
OF.P
1
I1), 000
Fjnfflsloiifl Inventories am)
data analyses
TraI nors
DKP
2
$n,ooo - 15,000
Also diagnostic and P.I.
Ass 1 stance
K1 *i 1 d T«iclmtc 1 ana
okp
5
10,000 - 17,000
Data rolled Ion, analyzer
cal Ihratlon
Laboratory T«n:Iii» l<: I nun
i>':r
2
in.ooo - iri.ooo
RAO, analyzer repair, FTP
IHnill oners
OKI'
i
15,000 - 28,000
Manager fnnet ion;», regulatoi y
policy, liaison w/other agencies,
special studies and projects,
stds oval.
Clciical h Secretarial
l>KP
1
1 |,00l»
KNTOKCI-MKNT
Kxaw liters
l#IV
520
12,000
Safety also
Slate f* l.oca 1 Police
Pol 1C V
(;.ti;i^,e Invest Igators
IV1V
/.s
15,000
Srnloi Invest Igators
miv
5
lfit000
SiijM* t i «joi t Oiii ;<*
1 oves I i f»al oi s
r>nv
1
20.000
-------
TABLE 2.2.2 PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS FOR CINCINNATI AND NORWOOD
CO
o
lllil'AKTMKNT
MUM iii:k
Cincinnati/Norwood
5AI.AKY RANCI",
CINCINNATI/NORWOOD
COMMENTS
ADMINISTRATIVE.
Chief In.spucLor
C 1 nr. f lin.it i .
<>l full! 1c Works f
Ni»rwun,7/i;>,05y
N ,11 <: t y Also
C.ihIi iur
"
3/2
1 t,r>H9/l 1 ,'JVJ
Saf el y A1 :;o
Sii)>c r 1 ill cmtL'ii I
1/1
21 ,'i 70/ 19, 202
S.*i f i:Ly A J sn
Clerical t-
Sucrntnrlaj
"
0/1
0 /11,229
S;if u I y A1 so
TI-.CIINICAI.
M.'i f iiten.'incc
I/O
1(1,597/0
Safely Al.sn
i£Ni"
SafeLy Also
-------
TABLE 2.2.
3 PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS L-OR OREGON
DKl'AKTMKNT
NUMIIKK
SAI.AKY liANCK ($/YK)
COMMENTS
ADMINlSTMATIVIi
Sea Li on Superv 1 sora
UlSec.)
General Supervisors
l)i rucLor
oiaj
7
1
$16,400 - 21 ,060
$2!i, 1 00 - 2y,4)
I'nlil Ic !!«.'.*« 1 (. It 1 neel /S<«|>er v J
Clerical 6
Secretarial
l)l£Q
1
$ tt.yoo - 11,200
TECHNICAL
Ana 1 yt>Ls
Tra 1 ults
Teclm1 cJ ans
hlnglneeitJ
I'ubJic KclaLions
1)K<(
2
$16,400 - 23,100
$20,700 - 26,700
lliiv i roiinioiii a 1 ling i ueei
Sen i ur Kit v i ronmeiila I Knginee r
Clerical
Secret i»r
(also analyzer mainlenancc)
-------
TABLE 2.2.1* PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS FOR ARIZONA
m-i'aktmknt
NIIMII l-:it
SAI.AKY HANCK ($/YR)
COMNKNTS
AI>MINI STRATI VK
Program & I'rojoct
Vehicular Emissions
1
sifi.:um - ?1,500
Admlnlsl r.'il ivo Ofl leer
Spec i*i 1 1st
Inspect Ion - Arizona
l/M Managei (Chief)
Oepl . of Uo.il tli
•i •!
1
$2 5,200 - v., •)()()
Kng 1 neer 1 lit', liackgrouml, also
perfoi ins 1 eclin leal management
Asst . Chief
it n
1
$i\.oon - •)i.nno
Engineer, also provides
techu i c.i 1 ;i(lv i sc
Clerical &
..
r,
$ 7,000 - 12,700
1 nc 1 mles account ing c 1 erV
Secreta rial
TKCIINICAI.
Si /il i yl J c 1 rs
..
i
$|/i ,000 - lfi.500
Inspect Ion of government
veil 1 c les
\' lecl h Ti Hit i .it* 1 of
1 II V« -s 1 i);,|l(il.S
n !•
-
Above Teelin i r lans
-------
TARLE 2.2.5 PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS FOR CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT
NUMUEK
SAI.AKY KANOK (i>/YI<)
COMMUNIS
ADMINISTRATIVE
Aiibt. Chief
11A K
1
31,200
Saci anient o (IIAK Hdqtrs) 1/2 MVIT
Adiuin. Officer
HA It
L
23,000
Sueraiuenl o
llrog. Coordtualor
BAR
I
28,000
Sac i anient o
Keg ion a 1 Manager
BAK
1
26,000 - 32,000
Senior Kuj'lucor (mainly admin.)
Clerical & Secretarial
UAK
11
9,000 -* I'. ,000
4 lit SacramenLo
Clerical
AKU
in
11,000 - 1 3,220
Count i a I ii L Handling
UAH
5
16,(>00 - 20,412
Answer technical i|nesl lon:>
Telephone Screening
BAK
4
9,6b0 - ll.iOO
TECHNICAL
Technical Director
UAK
1
29,000
Sac t'auienl o
ling i nee i s
UAR
4
28,000
Sac rdiiienLn
Tra 1 ners
UAK
4
Coord 1 nal e 1 raining In S.C.A.I!. *
(noI strictly MV II')
Engl nee r /Ana I ysL
Alt 11
1
19,000 - 2 J,000
Cot,i liene 1 11 analysis
Field KepreseiuaL 1 ve
AKU
1/2
16,700 - 20,500
Inve^Ll^ale 1/M relaLed
compl a i nt b
enforcement
S(i|>urviMir Coin rue Lor
1 nvest IgaL Ion
UAR
J
20,800 - 25,200
CoiiL i iicloi' Invest I gaLors
UAK
6
18,200 - 2J,000
Sii|>e rv i s>or E 1 eel
1 nvi^.'il i gaLors
BAK
J
18,600 - 20,400
Tlietie people also conduct. mechanic
<|na 1 1 f 1 cat. Ion scm 1 nart.
Elect 1 nvest 1 gatorb
UAK
17
17,000 - 18,600
<«
*Soul h Coatil Air Ua^in
-------
TABLE 2.2.6 PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS FOR NEVADA
DI-l'AKlMKNT
NUMUUK
SAIAKY KANCi; <:>/YI<)
COMMI-NTS
Clark CLy/W«»ijltoe Ct y
AOMIN ISTKATIVI!
l'i ogram Supervisor^
wiv
1 / 1
1 (>. 000 - !!0,IMIO
Aiiloiuol ivc ll.u k^iuiiiiil
Of l ice Management
l)MV
i / i
tO/iOO - 1 4, uoo
Kon oil ice
Keypunch
l>MV
^ / i
0,500 - 12, WO
DaL I «l i ii I s ,
ilev*.' 1 op LUIii l t agUlllM
t.L Jl 1 OII&
-------
TABLE 2.2.7 PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS FUR RHODE ISLAND
IMTAKTMKNT
NUMHF.R
SAI.AHY RANCK ($/YR)
COMMUNIS
ADM 1NlSTKAT i VE
St m ion Snj>»;rv 1 soi s
DOT
h
$11.346 - 1I.OH2
Senior auto and emission control
1 iiR|>r<;i ors
Ccncr.il Supervisors
nor
1
12,65; - W.,787
At Clia 11'Mif'o Station
a,inf
1H >(
1
17,ooo - n.ooo
Asst. ClilaT
imvi*
1
K ,000 - 16 ,000
(.' 1 ~* r 1 ca 1 h •
S«'».ret ar ia 1
i>or
R
8,000 - 10,000
TKCIINICAI.
KNHdtCKMI'NT
1 its poet ors
|m>T
6
I0,H0 - 17, Mil
r.uc and Truck Safety nl
Challenge fit at Ion
State ami l.oral
IVJ l.u-
I'ol lc«?
Carafe Invest If', a Lots
dot
M
io,56o - 12,or.ii
Auto and Kmlsslon (Control
1 nRpor I or«?
-------
TAKij.; 2.3 KAILURI5 RAT 15 AND Klil'AIR COSTS
oo
cr>
NEW JERSEY
CINCINNATI
OREGON
ARIZONA
CAM K0KN 1 A
NEVADA
RHODE I SI.AND
Failure Rate
18% (1979)
L8% (1979)
40% (1979)
2 5% (1979)
47% (1979)
2 7% Em i ss i oils
32%(1978) - 11
4 % (19 78) - A
NoL Ava i1ab1e
Refailure Rate
29% (1979)
Not Available
23% (1979)
34%( 1 979)
28% (1979)
NoL Ava i 1 ab 1e
NoL Availab 1e
Repair Cost
(1979)
Not Available
(1979)
(1979)
(1979)
Median
Average
$17
$18.71 (2/3
below $28)
80% of repairs
under $30
$30
$32
$20.45
NoL Ava i1ab1e
Repair Cost After
Refailure
Median
Not Available
Not available
Not avail-
able
Not avail-
able-
Not available
Not avail-
able
Not Ava i1ab1e
Average
Waivers
Available?
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Time Period
1 Year
1 Year
-
1 Year
1 Year
St ipulatJons
MoLorist must
document that a
good faith effort
was made to pass
test.
Repair proce-
dure, cost
ceilings $25-
67, $75 - 68-
up
Repair performed
by MVPC mech.
cost ceilings.
$50 (No ECS mod if
Greater if veli.
i s mod If.)
$25 parts
ce i1ing, $7 5
parts & labor,
(Not including
cataly t ic con-
verters) No
missing con-
verters
MotorisL must make
reasonable effort
to pass - no visual
tampering, param-
eters checked
Number (%)
Approx. 10/yr.
41 since the start
of the program
Approx. 80,000
yr. (30% of
failed veil)
Approx. 30,000/
y r (1 0% o f
failed veil. )
Approx. 5000
per year (2%)
None
A - After Adjustment B - Before Adjustment
-------
TABLE 2.4 Ol'liRATINC
COSTS
nw .ii-ksky
( 1 lir | (MlUMl t -l 1
fur l/M)
I'i NCI NMA'I t
( 1 ncrumeul u 1
l'«r l/M)
OKECON*
( literi;iut"f n 1
for l/M)
AHIXUNA
( f no cnont ;i 1
l..i l/M)
CALIFORNIA
( Inci enuMil ;i 1
for l/M)
NKVAnA
{ 1 nc r
JV.t 1 foi |/tl
-Hill S;tii-1y
VnJi 1 ¦: 1 n 1 n:i|w:cl or.s
Salaries
(Kh.T S.il.irkH
v tsor , <}. A. ,
Tr;ili>orb , t:Lc. )
$f>OII,UOO (i it 1 ;is-
h 1 ( leal ion l**
Include l/M)
1 ,'<00,[H"'O
$SO,MOO
$^*>0,(100
TlO.WlO
O
51 /iDO.OftO
$201 ,oni>
$?00,000
760,000
Ma iiil.uttiitice & (HTU c
1 i o.s
75,(100
lo.min
33,000
1 ik: 1 . vf ml
$:iS,00t> (15,000
for 111' 1 nl 1 (if*,)
0
Tr.ivc 1
120,000
10,000
2'*, 000
75,000
7 ,*>00
'i? ,000
Processing
l,i* !<«<•':
s.oo"
loo,noo
15,000
2S.OOO
f,S,0fM
1 no 1 . w/mi'>c
0
I.IIK'CMJS
4 00, ooo
fpnyrol I ,
wnnl |»vInn.
nml olhci j'rnfM.il
IM\Q rhaxf-cN)
r,,o(io
;r»o,ooo
$*1,000 l>ro.|».
of iloomiont f
-------
TABLE 2.5
CA11I TAL
COSTS
HV,W JWWW
ClW'.niHATi
unV.CtiN
ART/IWA
CAl.lFtriMLA
NV.VA1WS
ttltOW. kSLf\Nl>
|.,'inrl
?9rl ,011(1
\ \} SC F«<* till 1
An:»ly/.crs & Cilllk.
o r La 1 s
$250,0110 OW)
Mi2,onn
S 12, ft 110
SHnjn?r)
21 1,sw>
57511,OIK) Mm|»lie vch» 11:1 <•«?.
Office S|»ni;u/
|.ahot ,tl «»i y/*-!I 1 uiif.o
S*«»< )0H
270,0011
it2 ,0
0 - llsr safi'ty furl Ileitis
l.abnl.ilory K<|m 1 pmriit
ioo.ihio
lso.uon
TO.UOO
2d.(Win
10.000
< -11111 r ;n 1 mi
F>|lll| N- •!
I :>, rinn
liar .i IYik ess l-un
Ki|"i i L-fin.-ii 1 \ S«3 r L-
wiiri* <1cvj etc)
? MUNI
?hi>„^(H>
U: 1 Utf
2R7,nOiJ
.ni,oon
Knf i»rr*:mnnl
Kij it 1 |»hm»iiL
r' II1. | I r 1 ii Fn i i»ll i on
H.H rf lal
TOTAL
S7n7,onn
1 .11.14 .(Kin <1»»BIJ>
$ 12 , -TiOf I
$297,SOO
$r>l9 jxm
$H >0.000
$(,R,or>o
?n,i.n:i (fpa r in i.-.i)
$hv, ,nnn
(IVt r.ai")
(- I'M
(
( .2*V>
{.70)
<1 .67)
-------
TABLE 2.6 EMISSION ANALYSERS AND OTHER TEST EQUIPMENT
NEW JERSEY
CINCINNATI 1
OREGON
ARIZONA
CALIFORNIA I
NEVADA
RHODE ISLAND
¦missions \na lyzer
(New Analyzers)
1
T>pe of Analyzer
Infra-red
Infra-red
Infra-red
Infra-red
Infra-red
Vanes from
garage to
garage
Varies from garage
to garage
Make/Model
Sun 3021
Sun 9101
Sun 0EA-75
HTS
UTS
Stock or Modified
Modified
Modified
Modified
Modified
Modified
Displas
Digital
Dial
Digital
Print-out
Print-out
Measures
hC. CO
X
X
X
X
X
co2
X
X
X
X
Automatic or Manual
i)aca Recording
Manual (can be
used with aux
printout)
Manual
Manual
Auto
Auto
Nuroer On-Line
106
5
13
1 per lane
(37 total)
1 per lane
(45 total)
Number of Spares
19
4
11 (1-2
spares per
station)
0
0
Cost
$4,656 (1980)
si,too
S7.500
Not available
Not available
Not available
Range S900-37000
Avg. S2.149
Tachometer
Make/Model
Part of above
analyzers
Part of
analyzers
Pick-Up
Display
Clip to plug
wire
Digital
Clipped to
plug wire
Printout
Cose
Calibration Equipment
(Cost)
Hoses & Accessories
X (510.000)
X
X
X
X
X
Gases
X (575 ,000/yr)
X (S10,000/yr)
X
X
X (S3 ,000/yr)
X
Other Equipaent
Analyzer
Horiba Ana-
lyzer P IP.
20^0
Becknan 6300
A Chromato-
grapn (20,000)
.
Master analyzer at
Challenge Statlor
Horiba D4Q0 - aiao
used for challenge
rhcc'tr.
Opacitv Equipment
(Cost)
Tvpe
Visual
Photographic
ft la to deter-
mine Visual
levels
Visual
(Smoke school)
Visual
Visual
V; sual
0
Enforcement Equipment
Portable Analyzer
Type
Chrysler III
Number
20
2
Total Cose
S40.000
Not ^.vailaole
Other
Master Analyzer
Automatic Daca Pro-
cessing Equipment
Type
Paper tape
Printout
Numoer
5
Vhac is Recorded"*
Te9t data
stds, test
readings
Cost
Other Eouipcenc
Sun 2001 for
dlagnost ic
work
Clayton
Dynanoneters
Plan to In-
stall Clayton
Dyno's for
loaded testing
LaDoratory
diagnostics
Sun 2001
(520.COO)
also used
for Chal-
lenge checks
89
-------
TABLE 2.7 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAMS
NI'U IKKSn*
CINCINNAI1
oui:co.n
AIM ZONA
' ai i " i 'iia
•;i VAliA
KH< >UI IMA.'JIt
j Cuntia
toi ! 1. el
« onl I .l.'l oi II 1 <¦!
1
|
Alt.l 1 V/r 1 C.I 1 1 b l al i oil
1
11 iMjucnrv
Kt.spons 1 b 11 11 y
Sp.in-K'is-i-lioekeil
lor '{i aceabl Illy
1 /mo mi it - 1 . S/mo
.IVOI .Ifce
Si lit l of t ii* I.i si
Yus
I /mo.
Service Coiilraei
witii Hannf ($12 per
un.ily.iei pei month)
No
S/.lav
I.e.id I nspi-4 t or
Yes
j u.-ek I y
:
1 (.out I a
1
; Y.-,
|
HI i 1 s Ket'onim
toi I'l i e t s
Yes
' Wiil.lv Weekly
1
i ( out i .i« l oi hi eel s
i v....
j
Mo 1 1 <|!l lit ilh lit
1 l.'l II 1 .O..ilw. 1
• .i 1 ii-i 11 • (1 by Mil.
il i ¦ il t ifx< 1
.{
It , J
Respond 1 b 1 1 i ty
Kunct 1 on
Slate . • f 1 i c I a 1 b
(HMV) 1/IUO Hia.
Slate Or f 11 11\ 1
(Ikki)) l/SO :,ca.
St.ile
oi f ic i.
Stal* Of f it i ,i I
I I/ISO M.i.
Si it e Oi 1 I Si at < Oi 1 i
I.Ms 1/10 , i.i Is I//.0
).me1. .1 al ions
II'JV III 1 Ik . IS
Ml - si a.
IKIJ (It t 1. 1 ll S
1 / m ..|
Chock Analyzer
X
X
X
X
X X
( M i b • a I i. hi P. in<>
'• « M ib.
. U al ib. )
Clicck Records
X (Ca11 In at Ion)
X (Cat ihral (on)
* (Calib >
\ \
X
Col luce Foius
X
X
X
X
x
Others
Sid . 1 iibpcc l ion
I'l ocudll ICS
No
No
X (llonse-
kee p I n|;)
No
X (Dal a X lupaii
r< > <-> i (11 iij; p i (>< ¦•<|ii I es
i'<|n | pmeiH ) dia^lli.st |r
s v:.l .11 I ¦ ,ik .ib 1 1 ! 1 \
Cli. < k
Yes
1 ook toi t < pa 11
boo k S
Use ot L'li.l 1 1 ni»K«-
SLal ion or
i.aboi .itory
Used for nu hit e-
naiioe & repair of
" /I' * olli-
plaint s/iimii) t li
1 oi O 1 1 n-.|U < l 1 nil
.ol 1 « I I |>wb lit 1 /.< tl
Jll V. til. les . bet k. .1 in I'l/'J
((. IMS... d)
l)al a Ann 1 y b 1 s
b.i i lure rales at
Lite stations are
ana 1 yied
Ka i 1 hi 4' t ate |>et
sl.it (on
H.iu.ly
lIi.i i yes
ust d lo v< i i ty
Ut |>a it da t a osi <1 1 o i In t k
*lot ni;im v ol >;.11 .!>•> •.
.ni.l/o r 11< i lian i < s
Spot iimi Roadside
Checks
l.ouk .«t ieinspeel Ion
I lloi »ls & cheek
vehicles uilh nu-
nsua 1 repa i rs
No
No
Wa i ve i t>ii i ve 1 1 1 aiir«-.
About '>!)£ of walvei tnses
,t t < critically n v i ewe.l -
mi cluin 11*>• f>i• t not i f lent ion
.i 1 t hiu •
\< s - S. |« t i, .1 < ei l i 1 i e.l
vc li 11 1 es .ii r< III .|" rt ¦ <1
ll flulS
Y. s - (ill 1
siiIhii 11 I .imp. i
C.ll 1 OI
1 US|M , 1 I..I1S
^ .-S - v. 11 .-1 \ 1 b. . k'.
will, .one . mi- loos
. Ii. i .,i
. . Hup 1 1 lit' Vi Ii 1 . 1 ». s inosl
be l < p i ll . tl vt ana) y zei s
t or repa • i . • ndi -
pt-n.lL nl saoip 1 I ng
ot V*. Il ( C 1 4 s .
Cuoipar 1 son checks
mn.
1 II vt sllph
K 11 .IK' ' .i
>. ..Ml Ot
lovesl IIMI. ) a 1 .!)'• ¦
1 .1 1 . S 1 1 1 1 .1J
(bill. O.-I Si .1 VI .1 1 s
-------
TABLE 2.8 TRAINING PROCRAMS
TYPE OF TRAINING
NEW JERSEY
CINCINNATI
ORECON
ARIZONA
CALIFORNIA
NEVADA
RHODE ISLAND
Mechanic Training
Train Instructors
X (In past)
X (in past)
X
X (in past)
X
Conduct Seminars
X
X
On-Site Instruction
X
Sponsor Vocational
Training
X (in past)
X
X
License/Certify
Mechanics
X
Number (Z) Certified by
NIASE (Entire state)*
2,982 (16Z)
1,136 (20Z)
964 (20Z)
7,176 (15Z)
239 (20%)
312 (13%)
Z of Mechanics Trained
Inspector Training
At beginning of
I/M, N.J held sev-
eral. 1 day ses-
sions on use and
maintenance of
analyzers
Sun Electric
Corp. trained
personnel in
operation of
analyzer
One week
training
program with
tape and
slides
Contractor
trains per-
sonnel .
Fleet inspec-
tors trained
bv state. 7
hr course
Contractor
trains per-
sonnel . Fleets-
Class A mech.
plus 2.5 hr in-
spector train.
No formal
training;
however test
req'd & vo-
tech train,
to be cert.
15 hr course
A hrs on emis-
sions analyzers
Supervisor Training
None (except
for continual)
None (except
for continual)
20 Hr. ln-house
program
Training for Station
Inspectors or Quality
Auditors
DE? personnel
trained In test
procedures and the
calib. & oper. of
the analyzers.
Investigators
trained In cali-
bration procedures
Trained for
approx. 1
month by work-
ing with
other Inspector
»
20 llr. In-house
program - mostly
safety oriented
*Source; NIASE
-------
TABLE 2.S.1 TRAINING DETAILS FOR MEW JERSEY
GARAGE INVESTIGATORS
Source of Curriculum
In-tiouse
Course Length
2 Weeks
Topics Covered (% of
time devoted to each)
Calibration procedures; Regulations;
Investigation techniques
Training Method
(% of time)
Classroom
Number Trained
45 (Former examiners prior to I/M)
Manpower Requirements to
Administrating Agency
1 man-month (one shot effort)
Certification Procedures/
Requirements
Refresher Requirements
New employees get on the job
training
92
-------
TABLE 2.9.2 TRAINING DETAILS FOR OREGON
STATE INSPECTORS
FLEET INSPECTORS
MECHANICS
Source of Curriculum
In-House
In-House
C.S.U. Program
Course Length
One week
2-1/2 days
Var iable
Topics Covered (% of
time devoted to each)
1. Program background
2. Air pollution causes
and controls
3. Releasing loads
4. Clerical skills &
handwriting
1. Air pollution causes and
controls
2. Inspector skills
3. Forms
Training Method
(% of time)
Formal course with slides
and tape recording. Pro-
cedures Manual available.
Some hands-on instruction
Formal course with slides &
tape recording. Some hands-on
instruction
Number Trained
20-50/year
30/year
Manpower Reqirements
to Administrating
Agency
Program has been accredited
by Clackamas Junior Col-
lege. 6-12 manweeks per
year DEQ requirement
15 mandays per year DEQ
requirements
DEQ interfaces with com-
munity colleges and voca-
tional schools (1/2 person)
Certification Pro-
cedures/Requirements
No licensing required -
a drawback
Refresher Requirements
Subsequent courses
available
-------
TABI.K 2.9.3 TRAINING DETAILS FOR ARIZONA
MECHANIC TKAIN1MC
SKM1NAK
ON-SITI-
INSTRUCTION
l-'l.i-'l-T INSl'lXTOK
smoki-: SCHOOL
Source ut Ourricultun
1 n* House
1 n-llouse
1 n-llouse
1 n-liouse
Course l.engt h
4 Houra
Var ics, usua11y
2 hours
7 Uoucs
A hours
Topics Covered ($ of
Lluie devoted Lo each)
Mainly carburetor
ad.) us Line ill. by propane
cur 1 cluueut . Some
IgnitJun diagnostics
Propane entIchmenL
Rules and KegulaLions,
lingine d JagnosL les,
Ana 1 yzer opuraL ion aiul
ca 1 1 hi'al ion
Opacity DeLeiminat ion
Tim 1 it I ng McLltoil
(X of Lime)
Classroom - 1 hour
Hands-on - 3 hours
Hands-on
Classroom - 5 hours
Hands-on - 2 hours
C 1 ast> room/
i)eim>nsLi at ion
Number Trained
Approx. 2.'>0/year
Approx. 5t>0/year
u%
ao
Manpower Ke<| i re men Lb l o
Adin 1 ii 1 t>L ral lug Agency
J people - Full Tlt'ie
1 person - lu11 Li me
4 iii.in lirs/monLh
Ce r L 1 1 i CU L 1 oil Procedu l*es/
Keiju 11'eiiieuL s
None:
None
iixaiti.
None
Ke f reblie r Ue<|it i remeuts
None
None
Yearly re<:i-rL i 1 i ca L l on
k hour course and e/.am
None
-------
TABLE 2.9.4 TRAINING DETAILS FOR CALIFORNIA
MECHANICS
(Qualified & Qualified MVPC)
FLEET INSPECTORS
Source of Curriculum
CSU/BAR
In-House
Course Length
51 Hours
2-3 Hours
Topics Covered (% of time
devoted to each)
Introduction to emission
controls & and MVIP - 6 hrs;
ignition theory - 12 hours;
fuel system & controls sys-
tems - 21 hours: diagnostics -
12 hours + regulations for
qualified MVPC
Use and calibration of the
analyzer, filling out of
forms, emissions control
systems identification
Training Method
(X of time)
Classroom - 70%
Demos/hands-on - 30%
On site training, mainly
hands on
Number Trained/
Certified
400 actually were trained/
5400 took examinations and
passed
800 fleets certified
Manpower Requirements to
Administrating Agency
24 manhours/month to conduct
certification seminars
2-3 manhours per certified
station
Certification Procedures/
Requirements
Class A (Qual. MVPC): $10
Cert, fee, exam only - no
hands on. Qualified: exam -
no fee. Approx 53% pass rate
Need Class A license plus
qualified status
Refresher Requirements
Class A facilities, 4 year
license; to maintain qualified
status, exam every 3 years.
Same re-exam as
Class A facilities.
-------
TABLE 2.9.5 TRAINING DETAILS FOR RHODE ISLAND
INSPECTORS
(Private Garages)
GARAGE
INVESTIGATORS
Source of Curriculum
In-House
State
Course Length
15 Hours
20 Hours
Topics Covered
(%of time
devoted to each)
Safety - 11 hours,
Emissions testing -
4 hours (1 hour to
forms, 1 hour to basic
understanding of
analyzers)
Safety (16 hours), Emis-
sion Analyzers Calibra-
tion problems. Causes
of high HC and CO
Training Method
(% of time)
Emissions only -
60% classroom
40% hands-on
Classroom
Number Trained
Over 3,000
53 - all DOT inspection
personnel
Manpower Require-
ments to Administrat-
ing Agency
2 DOT personnel @
first 15 hours/
week. Now 15 hrs/
month
None. Conducted by
R.I. Trade School
Certification
Procedures
Complete course
None
Refresher
Requirements
None
None
96
-------
TABLE 2.10 DATA COLLECTION
NEW JERSEY
CINCINNATI
OREGON
ARIZONA
CALIFORNIA
NEVADA
RHODE
ISLAND
Daca Collected
(A = All inspected
vehicles)
(R « Roadside Checks)
(S = Survey or Sample)
Pass/Fail (Initial)
A
1
A
A
A
A
A
Pass/Fail (re-exam)
A
S
A
A
Idle HC and CO
Before Repair
S
A
A
A
A
A
R(biased
for safety)
After Repair
A
A
A
2500 RFM HC and CO
Before Repair
A
A
A
After Repair
A
A
Loaded Mode HC and CO
Before Repair
A
After Repair
A
Tampering Results
A
A
A
Smoke Test
s
A
A
R
Engine Parameters
A
A
A
A
V.I.D.
A
A
A
A
A 4 R
Make & Year of Vehicle
s
A
A
A
A
A
A & R
Engine Size/Family
s
A
A
Repair Costs
s
S
A
A
Odometer
s
A
A
A
A
A
Method of Collecting
Data
Lane data -
manual; sur-
vey data
semi-auto-
matic
Collected
Manually
Test data
automatic,
Vehicle
Info, semi-
automatic
Test data
automatic *
Other data
manual &
semi-auto.
Manual &
serai-
automatic
Collected
Manually
Method of Storing
Daca
Cards Tape
Tape Disk
Hard-copy
Tape
Tape
Forms
Tape
Currently
hard-copy
developing
programming
97
-------
TABLE 2.11 DATA ANALYSIS
NEW JERSEY
CINCINNATI
OREGON
ARIZONA
CALIFORNIA
NEVADA
RHODE
ISLAND
Analvsis and ReDorts
(A = All inspected
vehicles)
(R ¦ Roadside checks)
(S = Survey or Sample)
No. of Inspections
A
A
A
A
A
Failure Rate
Overall
By Inspection Sta.
By Pollutant
By Model Year
By Make & Model Year
A
A
S
s
s
A
A
A
A
A
A
S
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
R
R
Re-Exam Failure Rates
Overall
By Inspection Sta.
By Pollutant
By Model Year
By Make & Model Year
A
A
S
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Average Idle HC and CO
,
Before Repair
Overall
By Model Year
After Repair
Overall
By Model Year
s
s
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
R
R
Average 2500 RPM HC & CO
Before Repair
Overall
By Model Year
After Repair
Overall
By Model Year
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Average Loaded HC & CO
Before Repair
Overall
By Model Year
A
A
After Repair
Overall
By Model Year
A
A
Repair Costs
s
s
S
A
S
Other Analysis
Data base
maintained
on survey
data and
accessed
as needed.
Waiting
time
survey
Type of
repair,
waiting
time
Additional
analysis
(e.g. CO
failure
rate data
for '79 CM
vehicles)
Cost effec-
tiveness
using actual
FTP results
for certain
cut points.
Repair data
by Mech &
repair
facility.
Data base
maintained
on test
data and
accessed
as needed
98
-------
TABLE 2 . .1.2 PUBLIC I NFOKMAT I ON
TYPE OF PROCKAM
NEW J Kit SKY
CINCINNATI
ORKCON
ARIZONA
CALIFORNIA
NKVADA
RHODE ISLAND
Pre 1 i rainary /
Voluntary Test
Programs
1-1/2 year program
Mandatory inspection
VoLuntary Maintenance
1 year voluntary
program
1 year mand.
i nspect ion/
voluntary
maintenance
Phase 1 volun-
tary program.
50,000 vehicles
tested
Voluntary test-
ing sponsored
by Lung Assoc.
and DMV
1 year mand.
i nspectI on/
vo1unLary ma i n-
Unanee
Pamphlets
Developed by KPA
and state
Distribute KPA
handbook at
first. Cur-
rently distribut
their own
pamphlet
Developed by
state & KPA.
Reminder with
2 registration
forms.
Developed by
state, KPA,
£¦ contractor
Distribute pam-
phlet describ-
ing program &
repair fncil.
Do not encourage
do it yourself
repa i r
Notices dev'u by
DMV . 1)1 st r i hute
KPA pamph1eL
1ung Associa-
t Lon developed
pamphlets w i 1 h
KPA wraiil .
Use of Challenge
Station or
Laboratory
Laboratory is
open by
appointment
Approx. 10
veh/dny have
diagnostics
performed at
laboratory
Chn11enges made
at lanes
Complaints,
d i agnosIs
Customer may have
veh i c1e checked
for froe after
garage inspection.
(rare 1y used)
Telephone Ass is-
tancc (Consumer
Hot-Lines)
DEP Personnel
Answer questions
and refer people
to the labora-
tory
City and County
personnel In-
volved will
answer
questions
Public may call
DEQ. No formal
hot line
Contractor
maintains toll
free B (watts)
Customers can
call state.
Comractor main-
tains toll free
ft (watts). Cus-
tomers can also
call B.A.R.
DMV number is
weLJ publicized
May call DOT. No
formal DDT hot iine
Lung Assoc:, lias
hot 1ine (rare 1y j
used)
Radio & Television
Ads or Public Ser-
vice Announcements
Contractor
placed prime
time ads
(advise to
avoid end of
month)
Contractor placed
prime time ads at
beginning of pro-
gram
DMV 6 county
off icials appear
on talk shows
Chief appeared on
question h, answer
shows
Other Programs
Press releases,
Public van
demonstrations. Pro-
vide customer with
list of repair
facilities
Press releases
to improve
relat ions
Press coverage,
DKQ bullet Ins,
bumper stickers
Press releases,
opinion sur-
veys
Press releases,
opinion surveys
Set-up booth at
county fai r
ALtempIS 10 im-
prove press lela-
t ions. Atti tidi-
nal survey spon-
sored by EPA Re-
jjion ]
Manpower
Requ1reraents
15 hours/week
for diagnostic
technic iau
None
Less than L
person
1 person -
fulltime for
d iagnostic
techn ician
ARB - i person,
BAR- 9 people
to handle
compla ints
1 person full-
time in labor.
(noL all P.I.
work)
1 person in DEM
coo I'd i nates pub 1 i c
educaL ion programs.
Other responsihi 1iL e
-------
TABLE 2.1J TAMPERING INSPECTIONS
OREGON
CALIFORNIA
NEVADA
Components Inspected
(V-Vtsua.l Check, F-Functional Cheek)
Catalytic Converter
V
V
V
EGR Valve
V
F
V
Air Injection System
V
V
V
rev Valve
V
V
V
Thermostatic Air Cleaner
V
V
V
Oxygen Sensor
FueL Flileineck
Li.nii.tcr Caps
V (plug
on r 1. te)
V (unless locked)
Exhaust System Modifications
Engine Modifications
V
V
V
Has to meet
specs Tor
model yeni
Inspector Training
Covered In a
one week train-
ing program
Contractor
trained inspec-
tors . Fleet
inspect ion
stations must
employ a quali-
fied mechanic.
None
-------
TABLE 2.14 STAFF CONTACTS
CONTACT
ADDRESS
PHONE
New Jersey
Daniel Cowperthwait
R. W. McMinn
Deputy Director
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
(609) 292-6714
(609) 292-4593
Cincinnati
Norwood
Joseph Rockford
Eugene Ermenc
Martin A. Ferris
Cincinnati Dept. of Public
Works
S.W. Ohio Air Pollution
Control Agency
Norwood City Hall
Elm & Montgomery Streets
Norwood, Ohio 45212
(513) 352-3719
(513) 352-4880
(513) 631-2700
Oregon
Ron Householder
Dept. of Environmental
Quality Vehicle Inspection
Program
522 S.W. Fifth Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97401
(503) 229-6200
Arizona
Fred Iacobelli
Chief
Arizona Dept. of Health
Services, Bureau of Vehicular
Emissions Inspection
1740 W. Adams Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
(602) 255-1149
California
John R. Wallauch
Regional Director
John Urkov
Field Representative
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
(213) 575-7005
(213) 575-6798
Nevada
Las Vegas
Reno
Hon Crane
Ken Boyer
Dept. of Motor Vehicles
2701 E. Sahara Blvd.
Las Vegas, Nevada
Dept. of Motor Vehicles
Emission Control Section
305 Galletti Way
Reno, Nevada 89512
(702) 386-5356
(702) 784-4776
Rhode Island
A1 Massarone
Tom Getz
R.I. DOT, State House, Room
Providence, RI 02906 101
Dept. of Environmental
Manag"ement
Health Bldg.
Davis St.
Providence, RI 02906
(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 T./M PROGRAMS
ARIZONA
DIAGNOSTIC
INFORMATION
PASS/FAIL
INFORMATION
numper
TYPE
CYLINDERS
YEAR
50 MPI 1 (Approx)
30 MPH (Approx)
IDLE
IIC
ppm CO%
HC ppm
CO%
IIC ppm
CO%
1975 and
newer
100
0.90
120
1.00
250
2.5
4 or less
1972-74
300
3.00
380
3. 50
450
b . 0
MOST
1968-71
450
3.75
450
4.25
800
6.5
1967 and
older
1000
5.00
1000
6.00
1800
7.5
PASSENGER
1975 and
newer
100
0.90
120
1.00
250
2.2
VEHICLES
1972-74
300
2.50
300
3.00
400
5.5
CD
1
1968-71
380
3.00
380
3.50
750
6.5
1967 and
older
700
4 . 25
700
5.25
1200
7.5
TRUCKS
1975 and
newer
300
2.50
300
3.00
350
5.0
& VAT'S,
1972-74
300
2. 50
300
3.00
400
5.5
OVER
6-8
1968-71
380
3.00
380
3. 50
750
6.5
6000 GVW
1967 and
older
700
4 . 25
700
5. 25
1200
7 . b
-------
COMPILATION OF EMISSION STANDARDS FOR I/M PROGRAMS
CALIFORNIA
Acceptable Emissions Levels
Standards
Model
Emission
Number of
HC
CO
Years
Control System
Cylinders
(ppm)
(%)
1955-65
——
5
or
more
1100
8.5
1966-70
with air injection
5
or
more
350
2.5
1966-70
without air injection
5
or
more
500
6.5
1971-74
with air injection
5
or
more
150
1.75
1971-74
without air injection
5
or
more
3 50
5.5
1955-67
—
4
or
less
1750
7.5
1968-70
with air injection
4
or
less
400
2.5
1968-70
without air injection
4
or
less
900
* . L)
1971-74
with air injection
4
or
less
250
1 .75
1971-74
without air injection
4-
or
less
400
5.5
1975-79
catalyst
All
150
1.5
1975-79
non-catalyst
All
250
2.5
To
these standards, a tolerance
of
10 0 ppm HC
and .5% CO
has
been added until more data have been collected.
NEVADA
Acceptable Emissions. Levels
Model Year HC ppm CO%
1967 and earlier 1200 7.5
1968-69 600 5.0
1970-74 400 4.0
1975 and later 300 3.0
A-3
-------
COMPILATION OF EMISSION STANDARDS FOR I/M PROGRAMS
NEW JERSEY
Acceptable Emissions Levels
Year
HC ppm
CO%
1967 and
1400
8.5
earlier
1968-69
700
7.0
1970-74
500
5.0
1975 and
300
3.0
later
Stiffer standards have been proposed but not adopted.
RHODE ISLAND
Acceptable Emissions Levels.
Model Year
HC (ppm)
CO (%)
1967 or
1600-
o
•
o
H
earlier
1968-69
800
8.0
1970-74
600
6.0
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 Enforcement to Tolerance
% Through June, 1979
ILFA ROMEO
1978 0.5 0.5
1975 through 1977 1.5 1.0
1971 through 1974 3.0 1.0
1968 through 1970 4.0 1.5
pre-1968 6.0 0.5
AMERICAN MOTORS CORPORATION
19 75 through 1978 Non-Catalyst 1.5 0.5
1975 through 1978 Catalyst Equipped 0.5 0.5
1972 through 1974 2.0 1.0
1970 through 1971 3.5 1.0
1968 through 1969 5.0 0.5
pre-1968 6.0 0.5
Above 6000 GVWR, 1974 through 1978 2.0 1.0
IRROW, Plymouth - see COLT, Dodge
lUDI
1975 through 1978
1971 through 1974
1968 through 1970
pre-1968
1.5 0.5
2.5 1.0
4.0 1.0
6.0 0.5
AUSTIN - see BRITISH LEYLAND
BMW
1975 through 1978 1.5 0.5
1974, 6 cyl. 2.5 1.0
1974, 4 cyl. 2.0 1.0
1971 through 1973 3.0 1.0
1968 through 1970 4.0 1.0
pre- 1968 6.0 0.5
A-5
-------
OREGON (Continued)
BRITISH LEYLAND
Austin, Austin Healey, Morris, and Marina
1S75 2.0 0.5
1973 through 1974 2.5 1.0
19 71 through 19 72 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
19 75 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 MGB, MGC 4.0 1.0
19 6 8 through 1971, except 1-971
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
-------
CHECKER
OREGON (Continued)
1975 through 1978 Catalyst Equipped 0.5 0.5
1973 through 1974 1.0 1.0
1970 through 1972 2.5 1.0
19 6 8 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 19 78 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 1.0
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
197 3 through 1974 2.0 1.0
pre-1973 4.0 1.0
A-7
-------
OREGON (Continued)
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER
197.5 through 1978 2.5 0.5
1972 through 1974 3.0 1.0
1970 through 1971 -4.0 1.0
196 8 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
pre-1974
1.5
3.0
1.0
1.0
MAZDA
1978 Catalyst-Equipped Q..".5 0,5
1975 through 1978 Non-Catalyst 1.5 0.5
1968 through "1974, Piston Engines 4.0 1.0
1974, Rotary Engines "2.'0 0.5
1970 through 19 73, Rotary Engines 3.0 0.5
MERCURY - see FORD MOTOR COMPANY
A-8
-------
OREGON (Continued)
MERCEDES-BENZ
1975 through 1977 Non-Catalyst,
4-cy1.
1975 through 1978, all other
1973 through 1974
1972
1968 through 1971
pre-1968
Diesel Engines (all years)
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-196-8- 6. 0 0.5
Diesel Engines (all years) 1.0 0.5
1.0
0.5
2.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
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
1975 through 1978 Non-Catalyst 2.5
1972 through 1974 3.0
1974 Fuel Injection 1.8 liter (914) 5.0
1963 through .1971 5.0
pre-1968 6.5
0.
0,
1,
1,
1,
0.
RENAULT
19 77 through 197 8
1976 Carbureted
1975 and 1976 Fuel Injection
1975 Carbureted
1971 through.1974
1968 through 197 0
- pre-rl968
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
3.0
5.0
6.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
ROLLS-ROYCE and -BENTLEY
1975 through 1978
19 71 through 1974
1968 through 197 0
pre-1968
0.5
3.0
4.0
6.0
¦'0.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
ROVER - see BRITISH LEYLAND
SAAB
1975 through 1978
1968 through 1974, except 1972
99 1.85 liter
1972 99 1.85 liter
pre-1968 (two-stroke cycle)
1.5
3.0
4.0
3.0
0.5
.1.0
1.0
3.5
SAPPORO, Plymouth - see COLT, Dodge
SUBARU
1975 through 1978
1972 through .1974
1968 through 1971, except 360's
pre-1968 and all 360's
1.5
3.0
4.0
6.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
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
_J76 Rabbit and Scirocco 0.5 0.5
1976 through 1.978 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-196 8 6.0 0.5
Diesel Engines (all years) 1.0 0.5
VOLVO
1978 0.5 0.5
1975 through 197 7, 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.
2,0
0.5
1975 through 1978 Non-Catalyst,
all except 4 cyl.
1.0
0.5
1975 Catalyst Equipped
0.5
0. 5
1972 through 1974
3.0
1.0
1970 through 1971
4.0
1.0
196 8 through 1969
5.0
1.0
pre-19 68 and those engines less
than 820 cc (50 cu. in.)
6.5
0.5
Hydrocarbon idle emission values not to be exceeded
:
Enforcement Tolerance
PPM Through June 1979
: Check — All two-
stroke cycle
engines
ignition
1500
100
1200
800
600
500
400
300
200
125
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Pre-19 68 4 or less cylinder engines, 4 or
less cylindered non-complying imports, 2m
those engines less than 820 cc (50 cu. in./
displacement
Pre-196 8 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 19 74
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 Enforcement Tolerance
% Through June, 19 79
ALL VEHICLES
Pre-1970 6.0 0.5
1970 through 1973 4.0 1.0
19 74 through 197 8 3.0 1.0
(2) Carbon monoxide nominal 2,500 RPM emission values not be be exceeded:
Base Standard Enforcement Tolerance
% Through June, 1979
ALL VEHICLES
Pre-1970 3.0 1.0
1970 through 1978 2.0 1.0
Fuel Injected No Check
(3) Hydrocarbon idle emission values not to be exceeded:
Base Standard Enforcement Tolerance
PPM Through June, 1979
ALL VEHICLES
Pre-1970
1970 through 1973
1974 through 1978
A-13
700
500
300
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) B-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 SELOW NEEDED FOR REGISTRATION
(CANNOT BE REPLACED IF LOST OR STOLEN)
. : s
Your vehicle's test results are shown below. If it uses gasoline, it was tested for hydrocarbons I
(HC) and carbon monoxide (CO); pass or fail is based on the idle portion of the test. If it uses j
diesel fuel, it was tested for smoke emissions. If your vehicle failed, you are entitled to one free retest j
after repairs or adjustments have been made. To get the free retest, you must return within 60days'
with this report, signed on the reverse side, signifying that emission-related repairs or adjustments i
have been made j
I
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 !
Wow. J
f STATION NO. 1 LANE NO. \ TEST MOOE
TEST NO.
TIME \
I
I
r
VEHICLE INFORMATION >
t C E ' • S E p- T £ ! v€- i CO OPACITV
MAXIMUM
allowable
TEST
READING
"°l 1
ARIZONA VEHICULAR EMISSION INSPECTION CERTIFICATE
The aoove vehicle was emission inspected at station
. and
standards as established oy regulation
This certificate may only be used I or registration purposes wnen
either the word COMPLIANCE or
WAIVER is printed in tnis olock
r
0000000
'I
the emission
If the word TEST appears, see inspection report supplement
THIS CERTIFICATE CANNOT BE REPLACED IF LOST OR
STOLEN AND IS VOID WHEN ALTERED.
IF THE WORD COMPLIANCE OR WAIVER
APPEARS IN THE BLUE BLOCK 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 BE REPAIRED
ACCORDING TO INSTRUCTIONS ON THE
REVERSE OF THIS FORM
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)
=>erson or Facility Performing Reoairs-
Aaaress
.Phone No .
REPAIR REQUIREMENTS
REPAIRED.'
ADJUSTED REPLACED
Emission Related
Repair Cost
5et jwetl arc timing to mfgr soec
C ft ecu air -neiner • raoiace »f oirrv
CnecK :no*e 'or oroper operation - reoa»r if necessary
Cfiec* ®CV valve • replace if fauitv
Onecx vacuum noses for orooer routing ana -eaus ¦
repair .f necessary
Set air fue» mixture to mfgr soec
Aciust ioie soeea to mfgr spec
Cnecx otug wires • reoiace •» necessarv
C^eck spar* ciugs • r-piace if necessary
Cneck JistriOutor ccmeonents ¦ vacuum advance,
oistnoutor cap rotor cents - replace if necessary
i Date of Repair .
/
Official Use
Only
i; an N 01R analyzer was
usee during me reoairs
recora trie following r *yr""
ANALYZER REG NO ' " '
CO
C~eck float setting, power valve
fecair replace as reauireo
-.eeoies seat, -ets
initial Qea(?mg
{As Received
:mai Reading
(After Adjust-
ment/Repairs)
if ventcie is '967 or older mooel or if a registered emissions analyzer is used and both HC and CO readings do not exceed
maximum aiiowaote on venicle inspection reoon or if vemcte is '963-1971 reconstructed, onlv A :s reaured
Otner 1958 ana newer models If 'est results »naicate CO tenure only comoiete items A A .
'ailure oniv or ootn HC anc CO failure complete items A & S
If '.est results indicate HC
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE REPAIRS REQUIRED ABOVE WERE PERFORMED ON THIS VEHICLE AND IF
THE VEHICLE FAILS REINSPECTION. A WAIVER IS REQUESTED.
NAME:.
REPAIR COST LIMITS: Owners of 1967 and earlier models need not spend more than $25 on the repair
procedures listed above, for 1968 ana later model vehicles, the maximum cost is S75 Exceptions to these repair
limits are listea 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 CAPBCN
MONOXIDE (CO) MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE ONLY AND HAS BEEN
REPAIRED 3Y A FACILITY WITH A REGISTERED EMISSIONS
ANALYZER. YOU MAY BYPASS THE FREE RETEST FILL IN THE
INFORMATION ABOVE AND BELOW AND SEND THE ENTIRE
REPORT TO THE BUREAU OF VEHICLUAR EMISSIONS INSPEC-
TION. 800 NORTH 40TH STREET PHOENIX. AZ 3S008. OR TO
¦WO EAST 29TH STREET TUCSON. AZ 3571 1 ENCLOSE 31
(CHECKS PAYABLE TO THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH SERVICES). A CERTIFICATE OF WAIVER WILL BE
RETURNED TO YOU BY MAIL. WHICH YOU MUST THEN SEND
WITH THE REGISTRATION FEES TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR
Vehicle Owner.
Address
.oiUSE ooiNT,
TS 3"Q'7-M V I or
City. State. Zip .
T.-3
-------
-»1'iiii^giy M.a ».L»| y*t »m. [ ^¦¦¦.; iyLy» iltf j*».i.wiii.»ji j
INSPECTION REPORT SUPPLEMENT
Provided by
Bureau of Vehicular Emissions Inspection
; . ; Arizona Department of Health Services - •
¦* tUPi
" _• . J \*v.
< • z * y • . j »»*• v •
v.* * *x -
• , •> ,v* ¦
"A
v"r« ft, ' . •' ' ' - ~ * • *v*i '*1 '/'v 7„' ¦•»'» -
; V."1 - - - - *V . » V - T - -s * :¦ •
. s. ' • u **•'-' • •. T-f i : • ¦ y ' <- »' • ¦ •
¦;? •. ^-rv. t . />••" -:V- * " :x ¦ ¦
,• -r
. >• '
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; ,
For repair and waiver information, contact the Bureau of Vehicular Emissions Inspection at
600 North 40th Street Phoenix, A2 85008 (telephone 255-1149); or 4040 East. 29th Street
Tucson, AZ 85711 (telephone 882-5395).-
IF YOUR VEHICLE FAILED its first inspection, it must be repaired and
V retested before registration (see repair requirements on back of Vehicle-
1 . Inspection Report). Reinspection is free within 60 days of first inspection, if
. you return with your Vehicle Inspection Report completed and signed on the
'¦ - back. 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
4040 East 29th Street Tucson, AZ 85711..'Enclose $1 (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. ' ^ t
CAUSES FOR FAILURE: In general, a CO.failure indicates acarburetion
:v problem; an HC failure indicates an.ignition problem (plugs, points, wires.,-
^ etc.). For details, see back of this supplement '.
, I
. .i
* ^
rj-.i
; 4
^ -r^, A*
w..
Experience has shown thar with vehicles tuned-to manufacturer's specifications, 98% of the
vehicles can meet the state maximum allowable emissions--within the cost limits. (See- Vehicle r .' -jj
I Inspection Report, for cost limits.)-. " >%Y, •¦¦¦
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.
. 3. Disconnected or inoperative emissions control devices may cause high CO and/or high HC.
Particularly in late model cars.
IP EMISSION RRAOINO IS
PROBABLE CAUSES ARE
C —•
1. High at idle only, or
2. High at idle and low cruise
Improper carburetor idle speed and/or
. air/fuel mixture adjustment
O c
® s
S&8
1. High at low cruise only, or
2. High at high cruise only, or
3. High at low and high cruise
¦\ Carburetor main system malfunction .
*-' NOTE This problem cannot be corrected
by idle adjustment only.
® 5
U *
1. Hign at idle and high cruise, or
2. High at idle, low and high cruise-
A combination of. malfunctioning carburetor main
system and a maladjusted idle/air fuel ratio.
I
0
8
•o
>
z
.
'
1. High at idle only, or
2. High at idle and low cruise
.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
mamfofd causing subsequent misfire in some cylinders.
• 6. Compression leak through one or more valves
U
X
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
Ignition misfire H-
%
w
EXCEPTIONS TO MAXIMUM REPAIR COST
VEHICLE
REPAIR
UMIT
VEHICLE
REPAIR
UMIT
.943
. 58
. 42*
. 56
... 53
AMERICAN MOTORS
1968-All except Jeep
1969-All except Jeep
CHRYSLER
1968lmperial/Chrysler/Dodge/P1ymouth
1969Imperial/Chrysler/Dodge/Plymouth ....
GENERAL MOTORS
1968 Chevrolet/Buick/OIdsmcbile/Pontiae'...
1969Chevroiet/8uick/Qldsmot)ile/Pontiac
1968 Cadillac 1
F°R°
- 1968 Ford/Mercury .*.... .1. .'-V..
1969 Ford/ Mercury
1968 Lincoln _ .V—... .'i;
.AUSTIN-;-,, v; 'j-
1968. jTA. . ".'v
1969
1970 .- .;.........S.
'- 1971 . ..... ¦ .*.•.. • ..
DATSUN ' - ¦ ¦- •%; • * -,.
1968 ........
1969 .. I7. ......
fiat -- v/yV-::
> 1968 .......... ¦/...;
* 1969 vY...
FORO CORTINA
r 1968
1969
1970
OPEL
.. 1968
I 1969
. 1970
.$28 v-
. 40 .:-V
. 57 i*'
-'38
. 50
. 67
..'¦71
RENAULT
- - .
-62' :
1968 . ; - .....;
1 45
'V.i969 ; ...................
59-
^'¦54'.":
rover ^ . f
.v 72 • ••
1968 y
58
57.- V'.-
SIMCA -
. .V
/.,'-i968 ..i.:.!
:. .^r.-."„35
\ .'25*.
>969 ... i...:v.> -
45
30
SUNBEAM \- "•
40 ^ ,
1969
...;54 ;>.r'v
TOYOTA
... 7"-...
. 1968
58
.-.¦48 -v.V-
RECONSTRUCTED VEHICLES'
. •• ¦ -.
V. vSI
1968-i 970....:. : „;«/;..
30
^ 1971 >.i.................
:50
¦
1972 ...
: 70
•.. 63
'¦ .. . -•yX..'-"-
¦.i
ikwv •
B-5
-------
117 7
I C1 7 8
H7S
-------
I'lTI
r,vn: i;
0 i. b n t
a i< r.
All U R t
i r
K a c II
l n c
t i n n
L OCATIGH
AND
GTA'i 1014
DO
I
—J
110 I
1102
M(i3
IV.-1
1105
(106
1107
iir.a
I1«H I COP A
POI
P02
F-03
P04
P IMA
MOBILE
101 ALE
I
10TAI I
Vlll III1[-. I
I
12747 I
loies i
9069 I
13401 1
13772 I
980b I
1263 1
533 1
70/70 I
1
7020 I
977T I
0107 I
265 I
2b97l
1111 f 1AL
TfilS I
I-
p a i n r c s t ;
INr NTS IJIMBEN
bvp i cun i nnifcp i
- - I
I
1I II Al I
/iMOunt i
103IO I
15194 I
74b 1
1 1101
I 13U I
7906
1C1 <1
"438 1
£.4775
61 39 I
7760 1
" 6176 1
206 1
20501 "
I I
1 I
" I
10311
I 519*,
7452
11101
1 I2s6
7907
1014
430
64705
61 40
7760
t,476
207
,'0503
515 I
I-
105264 I
373 I
-I
373
057?^ j
- — I I
0 1 0 1
-- I I
II 111 [>574 1
— T I
I *4uG49
! 470813
I ."i-1726
<51730
* 529c>5
*36046
*4 7."'5
~ :-041
1*301098
i »;.-0&i2
I *36161
1 *3017,")
1 *964
I *95916
il 738
1*399553
|
i'6 I
36 I
32 I
66 I
56 I
12 I
7:1 1
£.0 I
10 I
1
<10 I
60 I
16 I
62 1
78 I
t
10 I
I
06 I
-- I
(J (J N
FfTE
fitILSIS
1' A 1 1/
CiTnirR
TEUIS 1
TESTS
NUMBER
HUT CHARCED
FAILURE
TESTS
NUtlUER Pfc'RCENl
A t\ 1
Hli It"
NUIiUEh
f. a
liT
KRCLHf
2339
o / I
2436
isSO 24 73
71
2733
256 I
2909
31 49 20. 73
7t>4
27
V/
\ bm
a;, i
1617
1668 22 39
17-7
3 J
2?
1 |
2206
S7 1
2303
2407 22 40
t:»o
ei'i
7'. f/
' 1 1
2406
2526 22 23
£iH'_
29
34
1 U 1 7
ni i
1098
2026 25 63
61-2
3D
??
24^
0 I
249
270 27 42
' 1
*16
*95
0 I
"95
114 26 03
26
27
3/
J 3305
fcEfc I
— — — 1
13993
14790 22 05
4143
:u
1 4
16G3
L, 1
1 600
1001 30. 64
705
4 1
U9
199!
20 1
201 1
2050 26 52
731
36
72
1 1 3
It". I
1631
1 t£ 5 cit» 64
530
32
h/.
r, i
5B
64 31 07
31
t»3
4 5
t/34t>
C'J I
5300
57£B 27 B3
199 7
37
3:.
bO
I
1 42
81 21 72
22
44
Of
10/00
H. i I
—- — !
19523
20607 24 04
61 62
32
9'j
>
P°
M
N
O
I
I
<
0
t-
1
>
23
O
T1
>
M
r1
G
pd
W
£
H
cn
CO
o
po
M
>
O
Vl
r1
o
o
>
H
M
o
23
-------
f \r»
7 1:.' ¦
t n
i»:.
yrnl' I f
i 1:1 T 1,
I.
i i til ij
MClDEl
N» »hnirii
iiunntR k
A 11 UP1
VEAiJ
rrMro
I'All (-1)
[< at r
vf'FC 1 Al
?o i
1 i."
1 ) u2
PlvT- i,l
b
1
20 00
**:-!
1
o
00
1 9 t,«:
3
J
3 *j :>3
I
0
r,
r-O
I 964
0
0
00
1965
5
1
20 00
1964,
2630
760
29 90
1'"»* 7
207 I
7 74
7'r v6
'61- 'i.7
5510
1 536
27 EiG
1 9/ >3
3492
1 I 20
32 30
1 969
4/, 7 7
1 297
27 73
I97r.
513?
1262
24 l<9
1 v7 1
0653
I 321
23 37
'c.a ¦ '7i
10954
boon
26 42
17?
7 T; 4 9
T*"Vi |
p.e r,A
19-
r" n
: i
25 75
1 ->/4
vr.t'i
1771
2 4 09
¦71 -71
; M -iv»
6276
25 99
1 9 >5
•K.e-i
1423
3 ! 74
1 \ 7
1 'u
t//0
e.fs 1
I 3V 1
1009
! i • ?
1 MO
I 171
<14 7?
l?y°
onv
5.^
1 3.» I
1 LU7
20 1 7
t 424
1 07\j0
i i t 1 CjN
NUn.iFH f"A 11.
• Ait r i# i/A;
i)
o
0
192
2 i»
4 03
396
ryn
373
3?L»
I '.>4 4
1/J5
L"c..4
<;&o
501/
327
i r>r
? \ ? ?
C; 1 *.2
:r/
'iv
29
39
34
HP
32
34
uhe
; r:
UL/
GO
r.»»
oo
¦ >(/
00
00
83
9H
39
"i?5
4c
7 ^
?u
53
746 37 s|
.i.'i
34
; .i
7 1
39
Cls1
vSl
96
I L"»
'/t>
I L
i a i. ii n o d f i. v u a r<
.. » UP
IM b TCST I10IU
"(» MC(PPM) UUMbEH
liury VI MJCLl £»
H I CM CHUI!
I COC/.l HC
m m;l
M'.H'HjLI'
00
r,
u
00
0
t i
I 1
o t:
i
— .
00
0
70
201't
4
97
93
3 I
1
£.2
1 /o
4
V
^ 1
1
00
0
0 I
4
35
1 -H>
\
7
or?
1 00
1
55
uo
1 I
*.B
1 50
i
w(>
o
0
on
u
0 I
00
o
r>
00
0
0
00
o
0 I
00
0
r,
2
63
2/5
r»
1
12
IUO
1 I
[j
16
1 20
i
4
05
392
2 4:? 6
3
05
260
1802 I
3
01
271
1915
4
04
3 ¦/ • i
3
10
257
1940 I
-V
91
21 7
."'094
4
05
395
5 <.".3 2
3
12
250
3752 !
n
9L
24 3
401 2
3
32
316
J1 76
~ 2
16
21 5
2395 I
2
113
190
259 ,
3
25
2 6 4
4209
1
96
105
3257 1
T
95
1 64
34 HI
3
01
249
4639
1
57
167
3797 I
l
50
1 50
400^,
2
94
24 5
50:,9
1
52
163
4152 I
i
52
135
4435
3
1 1
264
17093
1
75
179
13601 I
i
75
156
14010
*»
M
2O0
6*; 90
1
27
131
6 1 & 1 I
i
29
1 22
6. 24
2*
c '
1 \ 5
/ 7v6
1
4 2
1 12
£94 5 I
i
34
109
70 1 ,
2
45
i c4
6 4'iEi
1
52
i;.'B
5731 I
i
32
1 1 7
5u:"'0
c >\
1 is 7
21 IP A
1
4 0
131
10u3 7 1
_ f
i
32
1 1 6
1 9u:. i
z,
99
SU'j
74
i. J
3331 I
7/
<»0
3.1 */t>
CIO
L>B
S 7)3,3
55
61
5314 I
53
56
54 4 4
"/
03
/ 12
39
57
6572 I
I"
5o
tsfP '
55
72
731 1
36
60
6769 !
57
t,7
6969
41
7
^£6
29
40
4900 I
34
4 3
50 "0
¦»0
r 4
27
02
10
26 I
20
•i
i.l£j
ic;
1
14
1 40
1 I
I 4
7o
' 1
66
70
1">245
4 4
50
26933 T
53
27 hi, 3
02
1 V.'i
72»J
po
I—I
N
o
>
~n
>
* M
* tr'
c
I ^
* M
H
t-n
C/3
>
22
O
>
<
M
O
W
CO
-'¦1
~*1
o
?o
m
>
o
32
O
O
PI
t-1
' -<
:,s
f 1 ?o
-------
A6>fc E M 1^5 Jin ~c i"v (j/'-'vL.'1!; '"u iLt O 'f - c u £ £.
IM ^te" ,-ii'OT MSNTif, a- TiT' "irO .*, r
;Cl: r-toO'z ~oo li 2" 4
3.03
130
33,4",3
1.10
tl4
44W
3. 02.
T-3o "iSXT
1.73
'.^
43,714
\cnz
^ -62.
n 6
4 8 5^1
1 -61
MS S"6f7
1-63
172
?4,lU
I17t
1 .4*i
i it.
41^ S 2.
2 -73
loi* 42^3
1.51
161
46}3IC
ms
OX 7
I4loo
2 - 4 S*
173 $ico
Ml
lol
32,206
\n&
£?-« 1
S I
35 <315"
T--Z2.
\t>'ei 7732
1.06
14
47/67
m 7
0-71
16
4i"£fl6
l.'H
131 11 4*
0.11
%
SS".37I
I
Ki7?
£. S"4
= 2
4 3316
(.72
1 lo
o.n
H
Si,2)2
* ^'cfi/c/cs - —6000 !»<.
^ -/e^y- VehiJe^ - ytaoo I'os •
/f 6(S R E Cr A i
'£" D
A66/?=6AT£
Cc ) M
C C?Pm ')
Ml> mS£
&6-11
2.43
1 *, 4-
-44^,2+^
£6-7
-------
A'.' = \i AG? =,Mr^srjN S F(y< r-jc-t-tO ¦s=HI^l£'$
TM Cri<3 iT 'dl£ mM D MVDQ.0 C s cpp^>.
»> I
¦ 0 C i. »
-'• r
1_
>
- DuT(j ^ * w,
' * C
c!c j
:V1 U '-1 " U K
H atvi
CO tV-")
* "" ^
J
ol-v'clc5
MJM°zR
-lo-T-
Ca(ye) yiCff0^ MVHlIix
I 4 i;'
-.1-1
4*4
>0 3,1 4
4.&0
-33
4 .-??
445"
3l,Vob
/ ! r>»3
4 .70
4Vb
Vo 39
4 .13 ..
Al\
1111^
1 -.TO
i ^-
t
^ .71
4 n ¦
1" if!
viS .
-2-41
... 4 8*1
3-5?
152.
M )U0
l&, 1!
"5-41.
11^
514CS"
3 -7 S"
'.t.zs
3. -T-l ^ ZZ1 ^ _£>'z ,?>_
-------
FdtZ. &4Sc:LSNg rVzLdO V£t".C LSS
AVfC>6? e^ISC
rows. ^
3wK(17
/AT ¦ZVLE atoOc fCiZ
C>l?B<5^ MONV«;
- i j*
"
j
r
) HC (fP,*\) (VUAII^lKv.
c uf/j) rtcCrf'^^
co(°r,)
,NUA^.r££
l*»64
4.7^ 4^ li"4 5 3
4 .<-n
i - j.
¦-."3
-t.n
4^1
26/, 1J
!'«(5 5
4-24 n' 3 51" 3
i 739
J /.><2-
4io
7,7.'? !0
e\K
4-71 346 4|S41
V'*--
"Mi,
117.0
4 .l"7
3ai(,
4A,OiO
rUl
4-76 316
4 ic
114
13 3
4 -77
^5"
4l; 130
•3-St 1g| 53oil
4-1\
•5) "5
1110
3.2 2
-3-!? 3,
--~Vk)
H s>*
-3.-21 146 664So
4 • U
1ZL
4.!.^
Z . ¦- "®
iW
14,210
1310
.1.61 ai'i 63161
"3 .7?
14<5
3-5Z
130
iz
y
M7|
"i.-Vl io3 i^O|
3.31
13o
i ")
3 .45"
11/73
1417-
^.ok U3 ^^35-2.2
"*.S6
\32.
U I11 "
1 .01.
la,il
0.11 63 I17"i
2 -19
i H
4 f? ?
\.(5l
11
14 aoO
^ b 6 i Q
__D n_"\
/»G6'V-GMT£ coC'/j) hc CpPnN
,mi/m i3t 'T.
,(7
X"
/ /
6 4-7^"
c-* - 7 o 3 • n ^
.21!
111. ''
..is
*5 £
!j3!S-T> ^
110 "'
7 5*4^04 '
—
-
C^-75" 1-11,^
1-''0 ^
*r-f
ln,2^z^
Q>5- 1 ~1 3 . 05*
"2-0 \ ^
2S"7.|6 I
R-ll
-------
ARIZONA REPAIR DATA
! i S 7 S
j.,pe Qf Number Percentage Of Average
Seoa i r ,-ac i 1 > tv
i Same led
1 ncu s t rv
Cost
Oea1ers
< 1233
i
10.0
i it . 32
Service 5cac ions
! 2173
i
17.7
Z1 63
Independent Garages
1 3C83
25- i
32.55
Mer^handisers
570
. 6
30.63
Tune-up 5pecia 1 i s t s
621
5.3
33 32
¦1 i sc . Sepa i r fac i 1 i t i es
373
3-1
ii I
Individuals r, Colleces
Ho
i :
fca 2]
Do - 1 t- You r s e1 fers
itOI2
I
32.6
27.^3
Unknown (left blank)
i
1 102
S
•S 39
TOTAL POPULATION
1 2323
100.0
2°.
Uncoded 1973.
1 201U
1 - .0
.
Total Count 1973: i ^ J 3 7 Averace Cos: 1978: $29
Total Count 1377- 1313'' Average Cost 1977: $2S
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-ll
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 orogram 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 PDP
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 PDP 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 PDP 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.
c-3
-------
VEHICLE INSPECTION REPOKT
OFFICIAL
STATE OF CALIFORNIA I c-
EHICLE INSPECTION
2
CENTER
'z^r .e^'Cies tesi 'esu'ts die 9nov*n oeio-* if :ne ^.nai ^esuit oc* fsaos fail or qEj£CT, tne ECS Cooes tre EMISSION TEST
rA»L'^nE Coces or r* 3EjECT =SASOn jreas 01 :ms 'eoort gut? .ne 'eason ior failure ot reieoon An ma:cation o* tms srooaoie
• jos«? or :jnufe can ce 'ouna on ire -ac* ct 'us reoort Tne .nosi ::mmon ^cjustmems ana .-goairj hVeiv *o oe required in orcer 'ct
.our -en-cie to djss reT.soecion can do found m :r.e Consumer s -ancaoc* Junnsnec z\ :^e Ceoartmeni or Consumer Atacs Tr»e
:e*ji««ec O'oceaufes 3re ^ontamea >n :re Guai'!>eo Vecnanics -ancooo* ouoiisnea 3v me Qeoarrment of Consumer Affairs
( EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS (ECS)
I FAILURE COOES
ciPST CHAPACTcq
I - :
Zrjn«CJM
A.f 5»s«
irqi-i.* McO-"c.»t>0"
i,r i.r Ciea'**'
:nt'ion So.u* Cc"
=
c,je* ;.dOO'Ji'«e S
£«riu»J v!cnv»»':e'
S«~auii C
^e-o'n **0' J;n-i
SECONO CHARACTca
t uooifiw Device o'
Severn 101 •*Q9.jQD'0.'ec
^ wisccrn«c!«a-3v-cas^»»l
• iroo ji OFFICIAL 1
STATE "j US£
STAN0AR0 I j 0NLY I
EMISSION
READINGS
2ND I0LE
1 li
hc tppw> ; co (**o i| official
STATE
STANOARO
USE
'I
ONLY !
EMISSION
REAOINGS
HC tppm( | CO <*>J
; OFFICIAL j
i
i USE 1
I
ONLY
IDLE RPM
FEE
AMMT: $.
-------
CALIFORNIA INSPECTION REPORT -- REVERSE
>f m« fin* mutt doi on trw from us iPO'cateo 2v ine secono aiqn of tfie cooe
?-e 5<»»a*»ov-»'o» ^vSJef* f^usi "?oair-id or "»ofaoso
i' .in Enweaion T»*i Failure Coda of '2' ¦* »no*n a iow-e"nsbion "jn-»uo must ne zifiQtmna 10 "ie soeo'icanens o' :ne Deoarrment of
C^nsum»f *fU«rs _m „v:i^stmer.is of ^v»eH ;.rr.»rig 3PM ana «*afOu»eiO' .Jtff-ei •future
-"TMO'e Uuses .ir,a 'ecj^^-encec 'eoaifs c ne teTiaintng Emission inssecuon Cooes are sno*o -n :ne Mote cei Jumot'C".
w«j»n <-,r s.*o«en 'ini;s .3r •
Si»e -iem ?! loove
• nco^ect CI**
Sue-no 'i-«.wje
incorrect "»:»«# TinfL"?
0»r:y JIC 'liter
Cno«*
-luqgeo 3C. «<$:en
di
rSte<
! '.«jrt :> jrc.»anc«o 'Ct* inmre
/dOUU'*' '*.!«<
!i LO* -'CiTifireiSlOO
Oc^l'.^er? -JOGDCO* Oi ^OJ" Cost "
Oiaq^osa ann 'soair js fMLifM
3eoiace 3'"5«on .y *c> Mas as r^au-trea
AC|U3l '0 manufacturer's soeof'CJdon*
LwO'icaie. reoa«f or '90>ace nn«ag#
Aaiusi to manu'acursr s soecn'cationj
^ao>ace f»uaf
Reoair cno*e
Qaoair/rooiace PCV system
Ciaqnosa ar>0 reoair or reoiace f :ci»cti.a jirii
Diagnose ana 'ee.nr as "ecessary
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 QUALIFY FOR RE-INSPECTION OR BE GRANTED A WAIVER. THIS FORM MUST BE RE-
TURNED TO THE INSPECTION CENTER ANO THE REPAIR INFORMATION ANO SlGNATUREfSl MUST BE BROVIOCO BELOW.
TO BE FILLED OUT BY THE REPAIR FACILITY OR VEHICLE OWNER.
CHECK OFF ITEMS R€?Ai»-.10 OR REPLACED
mjscsinxeous systems
c-i'Snort runeuO
C*r3ur*tO' : je- :niec*«Oi
.'ac-on t.0 OF THE BUSINESS I PROFESSIONS COOE
ARO REGISTRATION NUMBER
QUALIFIED MECHANIC S NUMBER
SIGNATURE
MVPC REPAIR STATEMENT
TO BE COMPLETED 0Y A QUALIFIED LICENSED MECHANIC IINSTALLERI IN AN MVPC STATION
I CERTIFY *HAT
~ all RECOMMENOEO REPAIRS WERE PERFORMEO IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OUALIFISO MECHANICS HANOBOOK
i ' THIS VEHICLE IS IN NEEO OF FURTHER REPAIRS T«AT WOULD EXCEEO THE COST LIMITATION ANO HAS RECEIVED A LOW-EMISSION U/NE-uP
ADDITIONAL REPAIRS need
Estimated Cost Si
MVPC" STATION NUMBER LICENSED INSTALLER S NUMBER " SIGNArURT
"00 NOT USE QUALIFIED MECHANIC NUMBER
C-5
-------
FLEET
INSPECTION CHECKLIST
BUSINESS NAME
3JS}NESS ABERE55
&US INES5 PHONE ( )
MVPC STATION LICENSE NO..
CONTACT PERSON
fleet center
OWN 10 OR MORE VEHICLES
CURRENT ARB (If APPLICABLE)
CURRENT MVPC STATION
REQUIRED EQUIPMENT
•3AR APPROVED EXHAUST ANA.
¦OSCILLOSCPPE-IGN. ANA.
¦AMMETER
QHMKETER
VOLTMETER
TACHOMETER
VACUUM/PRESSURE GAUGE
OWELL METES
IGNITION TIMING LIGHT
COMPRESSION TESTER
DISTR J 8UT0R ADV. TESTER
REFERENCE MATERIAL
HANDBOOKS (VIP i MVPC)
ADDEQUATE FACILITIES 1 PROVIDE
ACCESS
MAINTAIN RECORDS & FOLLOW REGS.
EMPLOY "P'JAL IFIED" CLASS "A" MECH.
PROVIDE TIME FOR TRAINING
FLEET MEMSER
OWN 10 OR MORE VEHICLES
MUST CONTRACT WITH DEALER
FLEET CENTER
PROVIDE ACCESS
BOTH FLEET CENTER & FLEET
MEMBER NEW/USED CAR DEALER
SCHEDULED INSPECTION
DATE
TIME
COMMENTS
INSPECTION ASSIGNED TO
INSPECTION ASSIGNED 3Y
DATE INSPECTION ASSIGNED
C-6
-------
FL22T ANAL'/SZR ACCURACY CHECK
= RA,'!C l/=. ANAIYZCP. SERIAL NUMBER CORRECTION F-C7GR
-T'r-
GA= 20TTIS VALVES
COHHECTrD VALUES
:-:c co
VZSiriCATIOM P.IADINGS
:-:c co
3i:-::Aru?.£
»
1
C-7
-------
CALIFORNIA -
- CONTRACTOR LANE INSPECTION' REPORT
LANE INSPECTION REPORT
LANE * . DATE t / TIME rt
INSP
-i^'hu r rip^/CO- 1 C02--4-
Ht444»44444444M4«4«
¦c MNC T i C NfiL CHEC>: '5
» Enl^-jlON OAT"A EWTRY PANEL.
r£iT CUE PANEL.
» cArtA'JST S-V-j-TE" LOWERS
* VEHICLE IOE.NT TERMINAL
«¦ CERTIFICATE PRINTED
» I R PRINTER
CO MOWI TOR—2- ASST
ACCURACY CHECKS
R P H TACHOMETER.
ACCURAC V
C 0 MONITOR'
CONC.
READING
CALIBRATION OAS
C-A^/Cyl A 77 79
CONC IOC
EC-'JIV CONC
READING
DELTA.
CcLW "4
STANDARDS
;et * . 2
A953 6
28.6
rLOW RATE ¦? CFH
AIW 2.7 MH2152
6.73 907
HEXANE PROPANE
21-309.7 JU9309
20k$ . 3336
3>
cufji; 0.50-
REPDIMj
DEL Tfi
DELTA V
E-TANOAROS 20f»
1.49
20%
2.34-
5,70
b%
6.60
5?d
8.89
536-
C-Ai./CYL.
COiNC
fiE A 0 2NO
GELT A
DEL i"£ ¦;
"iT ANOASX'i-
A6333
170
A3600
;os
S ECS
LEAK CHECK
MiX INCHES Hg
3 INCH DRO?
C-G
-------
V. I. F\ INSPECTION CENTER R;EF'ORX
4 > 4
* APPEARANCE * QUEUING' *
* LANDSCAPING/EXTERNAL. * <¦
* PUBLIC AREAS «¦ # OF VEHICLES IN QUEUE «¦
* HALLS * # OF VEHICLES IN STREET *
*>¦ RESTROOMS. . » •*
•» OFFICE. + QUEUE TIME (MIN) *
* TESTING AREAS. « CUSTOMER TIME (MIN) +
4 4 ¦*
4444444»4444*44444**4»44*4»**4*4**44'»444«4444444444444«44444444*444444444444
4 4 S*
•» PUBLIC INTERFACE * INSPECTION PROCEDURES *
* EMPLOYEE APPEARANCE. * *
+ EMPLOYEE COURTESY . * POSITION 1 DUTIES *
* PAMPHLETS ?! LITERATURE ... * POSITION 2 DUTIES *
REPAIR FACILITY STATISTICS « POSITION 3 DUTIES. *
¦* ¦» •*
444444444»44444444»»44444«44444»444444444444*44«44«4444»444444444«4»44»44444
4 ~ »
* PUBLIC SAFETY + EMPLOYEE SAFETY *
•* SLIPPERY FLOORS. * OAS BOTTLE STORAGE ~
-* STRAY TOOLS. ETC. » SAFETY DEVICES IN USE *
¦* SAFETY SIGNS * EXCESSIVE NOISE *
¦» OTHER HAZARDS. ~ OTHER HAZARDS. >
* » 4
* * 4
+ FACILITY EQUIPMENT * SYSTEM SOFTWARE *
* VEHICLE MOVER. . . ~ APFROVED VERSION . »
« COMPUTER HARDUARE. . . * MEDIA VERIFICATION. *
* CALI BRAT I ON/SPAN GAS . ~ MAINTENANCE FILE CHECK'. *
4 . * ¦*
444444444444444»4*44*44444444»4*44*444*44*4444«444+44444*44444444444*4+44444
4 4
* RECORD KEEPING »
«• MAINTENANCE LEDGER . C. OF N C. LOG *
« CONSOLE PRINTER LOG PROCEDURE MANUALS *
* FORMS CONTROL LOG *
4- •»
44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444«4444
STATE ASSISTED
INSPECTOR. BY H. T S DATE.
C-9
-------
CALIFORNIA -- FLEET INSPECTION REPORT
MVIH INSPECTION HEPOH f ,^c-^
i 1
1
•>o
!
i
]
1
TY = S INSPECTION 1 ; ;:i-M6RClAL FLEET |
LJ INITIAL G DEALER FLEET |
HO 3' :t»-C{irn >S«u(0 *
LJ -OLLO'* UP ! COLLECTtVE CLE£T | •»»';
' ! PERIODIC 1 ! QUALIFIED
ANALYZER CALIBRATION
NFGRMATION
jw«: -««* im)o(. H.4II. -.o. }<
i 1 1
CORRECTED CAL GAS
VALUES
. PROP ¦ eACTOR „
Z IQO ?om ACCEPTABLE RanGE .
. BOM hex
. PPM
CO 30TTL £ VALUE
Z tr. RANGE TO.
ANALYZER
ACCURACY
CHECK
REMARKS i-R ANALYZER ONLY
METER READINGS
ACC
eptable
wr thru tai onoT
"u
G
'« lj
NO
HC 7-»®U PROBE
®0u
1 ;
~
1-ES I 1
SO
O *HRU r»L 'OPT
YES ! !
CO THRU 'ROBE
*"•
u
rss 1 !
NO
GENERAL INSPECTION ITEMS
{YE 3 »NQ [
;vES! .\0
OFFICIAL SIGN DISPLAY SO
•? RECCRO OF *^0¦ STICKER MAINTAINED
: CURRENT STA. LtC/ REG POSTED
JO RECORD Of C£RT/ »ORK GROERS MAINTAINED
3 CURRENT EMPLOTSO LIC InST'aQS
! I i
M »eQ TOOLS 4 SCUIP AVAIL i SERVICEABLE
4 CURRENT EMP INST ' AOS LIC !»> DISPLAYED
12 BAR BULLETINS. MECrl HANDBOOK CURRENT
5 ORICSS POSTED
13 TUNE UP SPECS 4 SERv Data CJRRE^T
4 INSPECTION OROCEDURES POSTED
14, HAVE RECEIVED FLEET TRAINING
7. 9£G INSPECTION STEPS FOLLOWED
3 CERTIFICATES ISSUED CORRECTLY
COMMENTS:
3u»_ »«o / :.»»*
• ce"o» t >••<( '
79M-27 (1/791
.3 u 7S7 . a?
C-10
-------
o
>
r1
M
¦n
o
?o
2;
1—1
>
c/>
Table A-2 - Idle Emission Test Standards anil Failure Rates for each Vehicle Category M
Tor the First 22 Ueets of the Proqram t-1
Standards with
H
rn
o
Catcqory
Vehicles
Inspected
Model-Year
Cy1Inders
Emission
Control System
Tolerance
IIC CO
Emission
Failure Rates
Device
Failure Rates
Smoke and RPH
Failure Rates
Overal1
Failure Rates
1
34.764
1955-1965
5
or more
1200
9.0
21.431
40.071
10.431
55.341
2
IS.663
1966-1970
5
or more
w/AI
450
3.0
42.141
54.571
2.711
70.231
3
63.217
1966-1970
5
or more
w/o Al
600
7.0
30.951
46.531
2.191
61.531
4
2<>.546
1971-1974
5
or more
w/AI
250
2.2
35.801
22.961
1.681
48.481
5
46.633
1971-1974
5
or more
w/o Al
450
6.0
30.771
24.391
1.261
46.231
6
IS.137
I9S5-I967
4
or less
1850
6.0
26.431
21.771
31.761
60.181
7
4.846
1968-1970
4
or less
w/AI
500
3.0
40.691
48.391
19.671
71.321
A
IS.460
1968-1970
4
or less
w/o Al
1000
7.0
30.211
42.m
17.901
62.241
9
13,650
1971-1974
4
or less
w/AI
350
2.25
42.421
17.631
11.331
54.651
10
40.711
1971-1974
4
or less
w/o Al
500
6.0
28.991
17.031
13.401
45.481
II
23.870
1975-1979
All
No cat
350
3.0
22.261
9.701
3.481
30.101
1?
19,137
1975-1979
All
Cat w/o Al
250
2.0
34.771
10.401
2.411
41.041
IJ
67,124
1975-1979
All
Cat w/AI
250
2.0
10.371
10.841
2.781
20.661
14
24
1975-1979
All
3-way cat
250
2.0
4.171
4.171
4.171
8.331
386.790
27.051
26.481
6.501
46.741
H
>
ca
tr*
tn
on
Tl
q " TW ,vjrf ("•-¦"! ¦! Wl IWIO »/ u r» I tJU U.U JU./ft CI. l.£D* 1D.CJ*
A !£ 117 ta&C-IQAl A lotr 1DCA OA •)£ «1« <11 11« -k ¦ rn ici« O
H
W
M
•T)
£
e
>
r1
s
o
ja
H
-------
n
>
r
i—r
o
2
0
1
lable A-J
Emtsslcm Control Oewlce failure*
for kteks 11 cfcrtiiigh ZZ by Vehicle Category
(iitgory
/further
Category
r.j]LijJ fit lor,
Crankciie
Ventilation
ilettcd Air
Infection
Engine
Hadtftcaiion
Mr
Cleaner
limltion
Spurt
ten
Fuel
Evap.
Catalysl
Retrofit
Eitims t
\ t
MO*
Vehicles
fjJ Mrwj
*
IH.552
2,57)
_
¦
.
}tfi4Z
[A2.H)
.
B.7?6
i47.0t)
2
B.toilll
84 ¦!
( 9-W)
i.?n
(20.01)
itl
(1.91)
i~zl
(e.Gt)
i it it J
-
u
to.«)
2
i0, Q?!j
4 .736
5,-565
3
Jl,2lt
2,fi'7
t s.nii
-
337
S.3C0
(1S.55C)
I.JM
f 6.211
-
«0
(I.K)
-
7
(0.021}
1
I&.-463
{54.CIJ
4
ro ,i>»6
6?l
( 1-«)
UJ3
t S.91>
99
10.51)
1,958
(11.81)
619
(4.St)
1,446
Uft.JH
646
-
-
j*a,n)
5
?S, ?<4
1.306
1 a.rti
_
1?9
(0.71)
4.85?
(19.il)
1,499
(J. 91)
1,304
{ 5.211
1.577
(6, Ml
_
_
_
;,37/
{?Q.2D
fc
m
1 s «)
20'
< O.Ml
-
-
-
.
-
JM
1
<16.&X)
*',0^
{2i U)
7
-o
( ,fU)
mi
I 8.6X1
603
(ia.?n
fi
(0.91)
no
> *¦ n>
M
1# 53>
.
64
(2.«)
_
-
l>25?
(46,61]
1 h5lb
(66.^
5 a
fl,IS4
ma
( 9.6*)
It's
1.653
tM,2l1
47
ie t-„i
.
?61
.
3.?se
4 ,OOi
4*9.1^3
9
j, sua
19ft
{ 2.fill
S04
I ?.8t)
S3
(0. 71)
JO?
(10.51)
IS]
(2.0t)
zxt
( 3.11)
302
(4.01)
_
»
1 .631
to
f 1 61)4
< a.a*}
_
18.1
2.SSI
(13.21)
fill
J2.e*t
519
( 2 «>
».?G1
js.m:-
_
,
4,664
ii
II,S3i
194
( < 61)
m
( *.»)
*&
fa.sit
ass
(t.m
us
(J.01)
A IS
( 3.511
JSS
.
.
1 .4TI
(12-31)
n
w,sn
313
13.LIS
,
.
1 ,3«
<13/11
u
sn
* l.Ml
610
( I.6H
40
(O.U)
j.oj-j
( 4.6*)
f'jS
(0.)lt
1 .90S
< 5-H1
723
(1.9*)
m
(2.UJ
.
S.1JJ
<13 Br.)
in
1 =
c
(0-)
0
(0
. 0
in;]
0
10'>
0
lOT'l
1
Lfa.7T.>
0
ft'-J
0
iW
-
,
1
V
l-l
'V
>
s
2!
C
>
t-
?3
M
hd
O
70
H
-------
CALIFORNIA -- MVIP ANNUAL REPORT
Table A-4 - Cost/Effectiveness Analysis at Various Idle HC/CO
Cut Points Using the Emissions and Cast Data from
the 1976 Riverside Surveillance Study
Category 1 (1955-1965, 5 or more cylinders)
A. Cut point HC (ppm)/C0(2) I00C/7.0f311050/7. S 1000/8.0 1100/8.5^ 120C/9.0(11
8. Failure Rate of MVIP
Centers (5)^'
C. Average Emission Reduc-
tion per Repaired Veh-
icle (g/nrl
0. weighted Annual Emis-
sion Reduction per
Inspected Vehicle
{lbs/year)
1. Per Cent Emission
Seduction Fleetxide
at this Cut Point {%)
f. Average Fuel Consumption
iTOrovement (Gal./IQOO
M11 es)
G. Average Repair Cost
per Failed Vehicle (S)
H. Total Weighted Cost
per Vehicle (S) (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
(5/1 bs) HC+NOx 1.70 1.82 1.89 1.91 1.68
(!) Standards and tolerances of 100 ppm HC snd 0.5% CO in effect from March 19, 1979
to present
(2) Standards without tolerances as adopted March 15, 1979.
(3) Optimum Cutpolnts.
(4) Total exhaust amissions failure rata; may include other types of fai7ures.
(5) Negative sign indicates an Increase in pollutants.
(6) Costs include those for repairs, inspection and fuel economy benefits.
36.8
33.0
31.0
26.8
21.3
HC
4.08
4.08
4.08
4.23
5.96
CO
22.84
22.34
22.84
23,31
24.26
NOx
-0.17
-0.77
-0.17
-0.06
-0.07
HC
9.43
8.46
7.95
7.12
7.98
CO
72.08
64.64
60.72
53.54
44.32
NOx
-0.63
-0.61
-0.57
-0.19
-0.17
HC
10.0
S. 9
3.4
7.5
8.4
CO
8.7
7.8
7.3
6.5
5.3
NOx
-2.4
-2.2
-2.0
-0.7
-0.6
*.22
4.22
4.22
3.86
3.59
26.95
26.95
26.95
25.29
27.88
14.90
14.29
13.97
13.22
13.13
TZT7
C-13
-------
CALIFORNIA -- MVIP ANNUAL REPORT
TiDle A-5 - Cost/Effectiveness Analysis at Various Idle HC/CO
Cut Points Using the Emissions ana Cost Data from
the 1976 Riverside Surveillance Study
Category 2 (1966-1970 W/AI, 5 or more cylinders)
A. Cut Point HC (ppm)/C0(S) 350/2.5(2) 450/3.0(1)(3) 600/3.5 550/4.0 600/4
B. Failure Rate of MVIP
Centers (S)(4) 54.2 41.3 37.6 35.7 34.9
C. Average Emission
Reduction HC 3.10 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.4
per Repaired CO 21.55 26.01 26.01 26.01 25.01
Vehicle (g/m1)<5> NOx -°"03 *0-13 -°'13 *0-13 "°'13
0. Weighted Annual
Emission HC 37.10 32.33 29.89 28.38 27.74
Reduction per CO 134.65 123.36 112.76 107.06 104.66
Inspected Vehicle Npx 0.23 -0.32 -0.74 -0.71 -0.69
(lbs/year)
E. Per Cent Emission HC 24.9 22.0 20.0 19.0 18.6
Reduction Fleetwide CO 14.6 13.5 12.3 11.7 11.4
at tnis Cut Point NOx 0.4 -1.5 -1.4 -1.3 -1.3
F. Average Fuel Consumption 5.53 6.06 6.06 6.06 6.06
Imorovement (Gal/1000 Mile)
G. Average Repair Cost 37.94 33.97 33.97 33.97 33.97
per Failed Vehicle
(S)
H. Total Weighted Cost 16.35 12.19 11.91 11.76 . 11.70
per Vehicle (S) (6)
1. Cost/Effectiveness HC 0.45 0.37 0.40 0.41 0.42
At Each Cut Point CO 0.13 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.11
(S/lbs) HC+NOx 0.45 0.38 0.41 0.43 0.43
(1) Standards and tolerances of 100 ppm HC and 0.5$ CO in effect from March 19, 19/o
to present
(2) Standards without tolerances as adopted March 15, 1979.
(3) Optimum cutpoints
(4) Total exhaust emissions failure rate; tray include other types of failures
(E) Negative sign indicates an increase in oollutants.
(6) Costs include those for repairs, inspection and fuel economy benefits.
A22.
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 (1966-1970 w/o AI, 5 or more cylinders)
A. Cut Point HC (ppm)/C0(S) 550/6.0 500/6.5(2)(3) 600/6.25 650/6.25 600/7.0(1)
3. Failure Rate of MVIP
Centers (S){4) 39.6 37.8 36.1 35.7 30.8
C. Average Emissions
Reductions HC 3.08 3.44 3.24 3.24 3.84
per repaired ,,, CO 27.10 28.84 27.80 27.80 29.26
Vehicle (g/mir3' NOx .20 0.16 0.13 0.13 0.04
0. Weighted Annual
Emission HC 10.28 10.50 9.80 10.37 10.0
Reduction per CO 123.71 120.03 114.41 121.13 103.90
Inspected Vehicle NOx 1.20 0.36 0.66 0.70 0.18
(lbs/year)
E. Per Cent Emission HC 9.8 10.0 9.3 9.8 4.5
Reduction Fleet- CO 11.4 11.0 10.6 11.2 9.6
wide at this NOx 2.6 1.9- 1.5 1.6 0.4
Cut Point (5)
F. Average Fuel Consumption 2.54 2.93 2.89 2.89 2.58
Imorovement (Gal/1000 miles)
G. Average Repair Cost
per Failed Vehicle ($) 20.26 21.18 20.85 20.85 22.25
H. Total Weighted Cost
Der Vehicle ($)(6) 13.93 13.10
1. Cost/Effectiveness HC 1.36 1.25
At Each Cut Point CO 0.11 0.11
(S/lbs) HC+NOx 1.21 1.15
(1) Standards and tolerances of 100 ppm HC and 0.5S CO in effect from March 19,
1979 to present.
(2) Standards without tolerances as adopted March 15, 1979.
(3) Ootimum cutpoints.
(4) Total exhaust emissions failure rate; may include other tyoes of failures.
(5) Negative sign indicates an increase in pollutants.
(6) Costs include those for repairs, inspection and fuel economy benefits.
13.01
13.24
13.39
1.33
1.28
1.34
0.11
0.11
0.13
1.24
1.20
1.31
A237
C-15
-------
CALIFORNIA -- MVIP ANNUAL REPORT
Table A-7 - Cost/Effectiveness Analysis at Various Idle
HC/CO Cut Points Using trie 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(ppm)/C0(2) 150/1.75^2'(3) 300/2.0 250/2.25(1) 250/2.5 300/2.5
8. Failure Rate of MVIP
Centers CS)(4' 52.8 43.4 35.1 33.8 33.1
C. Average Emission
Reduction HC 2.49 2.7 3.3 3.3 3.3
per Repaired ,,, CO 26.42 27.07 27.53 27.63 27.63
Vehicle (g/mi r ' NOx 0.37 0.4 0.64 0.64 0.59
0. Weighted Annual
Emission HC 15.85 14.14 13.97 13.45 13.18
Reduction per CO 229.55 193.25 159.53 153.62 150.44
Inspected Vehicle NOx 4.60 4.09 5.29 5.09 4.60
(lbs/year)
E. Per Cent Emission HC 18.8 16.8 16.6 16.0 15.6
Reduction Fleet- CO 24.4 20.5 17.0 16.3 16.0
wide at this NOx 7.1 6.3 8.1 7.7 7.1
Cut Point (%)
F. Average Fuel Consumption -3.73 -4.48 -5.59 -5.99 -5.99
Improvement (Gal/I000 miles)
G. Average Repair Cost
per Failed Vehicles 34.54 39.16 46.37 46.38 46.52
(S)
H. Total Weighted Cost
oer Vehicle (S)(6) 44.83 42.91 42.97 41.65 37.73
1. Cost/Effectiveness HC 2.33 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 0.5S CO in effect from March 19,
1579 to present.
(2) Stanaards witnout tolerances as adooted March 15, 1979.
(3) Optimum cutpoints.
(4) Total exhaust emissions failure rate; rcay include other types of failures.
(5; Negative sign indicates an increase in aollutants.
(6) Costs include those for repairs, inspection and fuel economy benefits.
42
-------
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. Cut Point HC(ppm)/C0(5)
B. Failure Rate of MVIP
Centers (I)(4)
C. Average Emission
Reduction
oer Repaired
Vehicle (g/mi)*
D. Weighted Annual
Emission
Reduction per
Vehicle (lbs/year)
E. Per Cent Emission
Reduction Fleet-
wide at this Cut
Point {%)
G. Average Repair Cost
per Failed Veh-
icle ($)
H. Total Weighted Cost
per Vehicle (S)^
350/5.5(2'
38.8
HC 4.68
CO 52.08
NOx -0.09
HC 21.90
CO • 332.39
NOx -0.83
HC 19.5
CO 40.7
NOx -1.8
0.93
22.95
20.77
400/5.5 450/5.5{3)
36.7 34.6
4.68 4.68
52.08 52.08
-0.09 -0.09
20.72 19.53
314.40 296.41
-0.78 -0.74
18.5 17.5
38.5 36.3
-1.7 -1.6
0.93 0.93
22.95 22.95
16.89 16.03
450/5.75 450/6.0(1)
32.6 30.4
5.30 5.74
52.95 56.08
-0.09 -0.07
20.84 21.05
283.94 280.43
-0.69 -0.50
18.6 18.8
34.8 34.4
-1.5 -1.0
0.54 0.43
23.91 25.62
17.27 17.49
0.83
0.06
0.85
I. Cost/Effectiveness HC 0.95 0.82 0.32 0.83
At Each Cut Point CO 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.06
(S/lbs) HC+NOx 0.99 0.85 0.85 0.86
(1) Standards and tolerances of 100 ppm HC and 0.55 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.
(5) Costs include those for repairs, insDection and fuel economy benefits.
F. Average Fuel Consumption
Imorovement (Gal/1000 miles)
AZ5T
C-17
-------
CALIFORNIA -- MVIP ANNUAL REPORT
Table A-s - Cost/effectiveness .Analysis at Various
Idle HC/CO Cut Points Usinq the Emissions
and Cost Data from the 1976 Riverside
Surveillance Study
A. Cut Point HC(ppm)/C0(;)
Category 6 (1955-1967, 4 or less cylinders)
(3) (j)
1600/7.5 1650/7.5 1750/7.5^'
1700/8.0 1S50/8.0
(1)
3.
failure Rate of MVIP
Csntars (;)' '
35.2
34.1
32.3
29.3
26.7
C.
Average Emission
Reduction
HC
3.05
3.C5
3.05
3.05
3.05
per .Repaired
CO
15.92
15.52
15.92
15.92
15.92
Vehicle (g/mi)
NOx
-0.16
-0.16
-0.16
-0.16
-0.16
0.
Weichted Annual
Emission
HC
7. 36
7.13
6.78
6.13
5.59
Seaucticn per
CO
52.50
50. as
48.18
43.70
39.81
Inspected Vehicle
MOx
-0.70
-0.57
-0,64
-0.58
-0.53
(lbs/year)
c_
Per Cent Emission
HC
7.2
7.0
5. 6
6.0
5.5
?°diiczior> "eet-
CO
7.7
7.5
7.1
6.4
5.8
wiac: at this Cut
MOx
-3.3
-3.7
-3.5
-3.2
-2.9
Pcint (S)
r .
^ve^age Fuel Consumption
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.2C
IraroveTnent [Galy 1000 miles)
3.
Average Recatr Cost
aer Failec Vehicle
IS)
34.11
34.U
34.11
34.'1
34-.11
H.
Total Weighted Cost
oer Vehicle (5)'^
22.5*
22.2*.
21.51
20.35
19.34
t.
Cost/Effectiveness
HC
3.0'
3.11
3.13
3.32
3.46
/*t Each Cut Point
CC
0.43
0.44
0.45
0.47
0.4?
(:7its)
HC+NCx
3! 39
3.34
3.52
3.57
3 ^2
(1; itandaras and tolerances of 100 pon HC and 0.55= CO in effect from March 19,
1573 t; present.
(2) Star.dans without tolerances as adopted March 15 , 1979.
[3) Cpritnuir cjtpoints.
(i) 'its'' sxhavst emissions failure rate; nay include other types of failures.
(31 ve sinn Mijicates tn increase ir. osl 1 utar ts.
A26.
C-18
-------
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. Cut Point HC (ppm)/C0(») 400/2.5(2)(3) 300/2.5 500/3.0(1 UsO/4.0 550/4.5
B.
Failure Rate of MVIP
Centers
47.9
40.9
39.5
35.7
33.0
C.
Average Emission
Reduction
per Reoaired lt.\
Vehicle (g/mir
HC
CO
NOx
2.33
17.22
0.42
2.33
17.22
0.42
2.33
17.22
0.42
1.32
7.89
0.78
1.32
7.89
0.78
0.
Weighted Annual
Emission
Reduction per
Inspected Vehicle
(lbs/year)
HC
CO
rtox
9.71
98.05
3.06
3.29
83.72
2.61
8.00
80.35
2.52
4.12
33.48
4.26
3.81
30.94
3.94
E.
Per Cent Emission
Reduction Fleet-
wide at This Cut
Point (%)
HC
CO
NOx
17.8
12.8
7.0
15.2
11.0
5.8
14.8
10.6
5.6
7.6
4.4
9.6
14.0
8.2
15.8
F.
Average Fuel Consumption
Improvement (Gal/1000 miles)
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.01
3.01
G.
Average Repair Cost
per Failed Vehicle
22.15
22.15
22.15
25.56
25.56
H.
Total Weighted Cost
Der Vehicle (S)
13.72
13.03
12.89
14.30
13.90
I.
Cost/Effectiveness
At Each Cut Point
(S/lbs)
HC
CO
HC+NOx
1.41
.14
1.07
1.57
.16
1.19
1.61
0.16
1.72
3.47
0.43
1.71
3.65
0.45
1.79
(1) Standards and tolerances of 100 ppm HC and 0.55 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/i pollutants.
(6) Costs include those for repairs; inspection and fuel economy benefits.
A27.
C-19
-------
CALIFORNIA -- MVIP ANNUAL REPORT
Table A-11 - Cost/Effectiveness Analysis at Various
Idle HC/CQ Cut Points Using the Emissions
and Cost Data from the 1976 Riverside
Surveillance Study
Category 3 (1968-1970 W/o AI 4 or less cylinders)
A. Cut Point HC(ppm)/C0(2) 900/6.5(2)(3) 1050/6.0 900/7.0 950/7.0 1000/7.0(1)
8. Failure Rate of MVIP
Centers (S)(4) 36.7 34.1 32.6 31.5 30.3
C. Average Emission
Reduction HC 2.66 2.66 2.66 2.66 2.66
per Reoaired CO 36.29 36.29 36.29 36.29 36.29
Vehicle (g/mi)^; NOx -0.17 -0.17 -0.17 -0.17 -0.17
D. Weiohted Annual
Emission HC 8.50 7.90 7.56 7.30 7.03
Reduction oer CO 158.26 147.02 140.58 135.84 130.66
Inspected Vehicle NOx -0.94 -0.87 -0.83 .30 -0.77
(lbs/year)
E. Per Cent Emission HC 10.6 9.8 9.4 9.2 8.8
Reduction Fleet- CO 16.2 15.0 14.4 13.9 13.4
wide at This NOx -2.9 -2.7 -2.6 -2.5 -2.4
Cut Point (5)
F. Average Fuel Consumotion 7.48 7.48 7.48 7.48 7.43
Imorovement (Gal/1000 miles)
G. Average Repair Cost
per Failed Vehicle ($) 32.43
H. Total Weighted Cost
Der Vehicle ($)^ 3.10
I. Cost/Effectiveness HC 0.95
At Each Cut Point 0.05
(S/1bs) HC+NOx 1.07
1979 to present.
(2) Standards without tolerances as adopted Ma
(3) CDtimum cutpoints.
(4) Total exhaust emissions failure rate; may include other types of failures.
(5) Negative sign indicates an increase in pollutants.
(£) Costs include those for repairs, inspection and fuel economy benefits.
32.43
32.43
32.43
32.43
8.17
3.20
8.23
3.26
1.03
1.08
1.13
1.18
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
1.16
1.22
1.27
1.32
i" CO in
effect from
March 19,
15, 197
9.
A28.
C-20
-------
CALIFORNIA -- MVIP ANNUAL REPORT
Table A-12 - Cost/Effectiveness Analysis at Various
Idle HC/CO Cut Points Using the Emissions
and Cost Data from the ARB LDVSP II and III
A. Cut Point HC (ppm)/C0(S)
B. Failure Rate of /¦<
MVIP Centers (Sr ;
C. Average Emission
Reduction HC
per Repaired CO
Vehicle (g/m1) NOx
0. Weighted Annual
Emission HC
Reduction per CO
Inspected Vehicle NOx
(lbs/year)
E. Per Cent Emission HC
Reduction Fleet- CO
wide at this Cut NOx
Point (2)
F. Average Fuel Consumption
Improvement (Gal/1000 miles)
G. Average Repair Cost
per Failed Vehicle ($)
H. Total Weighted Cost
Category 9 (1971-1974 W/AI, 4 or less cylinders)
250/3.0
per Vehicle ($)
(6)
250/1.75
52.4
1.43
4.91
0.38
9.04
42.32
4.69
o:
i.
Cost/Effectiveness
At Each Cut Point
(S/lbs)
HC
CO
HC+NOx
9.0
7.3
9.4
-0.77
25.53
28.26
3.13
0.67
2.06
350/2.25
41.4
2.15
7.7
0.57
10.74
52.44
5.56
10.6
9.0
11.2
!2)
350/3.0 400/3.5
(3)
-0.43
33.18
26.33
2.45
0.50
1.62
40.3
2.15
7.7
0.57
10.45
51.04
5.41
10.3
8.8
11.0
-0.43
33.44
25.87
2.48
0.51
1.63
37.5
2.15
7.7
0.57
9.73
47.50
5.03
9.6
8.1
10.2
-0.43
33.18
24.59
2.54
0.52
1.67
34.1
2.89
10.16
0.69
11.88
56.99
5.54
11.7
9.8
11.2
-1.17
37.65
26.69
2.25
0.47
1.53
(1) Standards and tolerances of 100 ppm HC and 0.5S CO in effect from March 19,
1979 to present.
(2) Standards without tolerances as adopted March 15, 1979.
(3) Optimum cutpoints.
(4) Total exhaust emissions failure rate; may include other types of failures.
(5) Negative sign indicates an increase in pollutants.
(6) Costs include those for repairs, inspection and fuel economy benefits.
A29.
C-21
-------
CALIFORNIA -- MVIP ANNUAL REPORT
Table A-13 - Cost/Effect1veness Analysis at Various Idle
HC/CO Cut Points Using the Emissions and Cost
Data from the ARB LDVSP II and III
Category 10 (1971/197-1 W/o AI, J or less cylinders)
A. Cut Point HC(ppm)/C0(2) 400/5.5^^ 450/5.5 350/6.0 450/6.0 500/6.0(1^
S. Failure Rate of MVIP
Center (%)^ 36.1 34.8 34.6 30.3 28.5
C. Average Emission
Reduction HC 3.22 2.84 2.90 2.90 2.90
per Repaired CO 37.30 34.41 34.31 34.31 34.31
Vehicle (g/m)l3J NOx -0.27 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2
0. Weiahted Annual
Emission HC 14.02 11.92 12.10 10.60 9.97
Reduction per CO 221.^9 196.97 195.27 171.0 160.85
Inspected Vehicle NOx -2.29 -1.64 -1.63 -0.15 -0.13
(lbs/year)
E. Per Cent Emission HC 13.2 11.2 11.4 10.0 9.4
Reduction Fleet- CO 20.7 18.4 18.3 16.0 15.0
wide at This Cut NOx -5.48 "-3.6 -3.6 -0.3 -0.3
Point (?)
F. Average Fuel Consumption 0.60 0.51 1/24 1.24 1.24
Improvement (Gal/1000 miles)
G. Average Repair Cost
per Failed Vehicle (S) 23.20 21.50 22.70 22.70 22.70
K. Total Weighted Cost
per Vehicle ($)(6) 17.74 17.10 15.55 14.74 14.40
1. 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) HC-NOx 1.51 1.66 1.49 1.41 1.46
(1) Standards and tolerances of 100 opm HC and 0.5J CO in effect from March 19,
1979 to present.
(2) Standards without tolerances as adopted March 15, 1979.
(3) Optirrum 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, insoection 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)/C0(S)
100/2.5
(3)200/2.5
250/2.5(2)
300/3.0
350/3
B.
Failure Rate of
MVIP Centers (5)^
40.9
30.7
28.8
23.5
22.1
C.
Average Emission
Reduction HC
per Repaired ,c\ CO
Vehicle (g/mi)* ' NOx
0.86
16.36
0.16
0.83
15.57
0.16
0.36
14.51
0.23
0.88
16.44
0.26
0.88
16.44
0.26
0.
Weighted Annual
Emission HC
Reduction per CO
Inspected Vehicle NOx
(lbs/year)
6.10
158.22
1.80
4.42
113.02
1.67
4.29
98.81
2.24
3.59
91.35
2.07
3.37
85.91
1.95
E.
Per Cent Emission HC
Reduction Fleet- CO
wide at This Cut NOx
Point {%)
16.0
33.8
3.4
11.3
24.1
3.1
11.0
21.1
4.1
9.1
19.5
3.8
8.6
18.3
3.69
F.
Average Fuel Consumotion
Improvement (Gal/1000 miles)
-0.34
-0.63
-0.34
-0.56
-0.41
G.
Average Repair Cost
per Failed Vehicle ($)
29.20
27.93
29.20
29.44
30.15
H.
Total Weighted Cost
per Vehicle (S)^
24.66
21.36
20.03
18.25
17.86
r.
Cost/Effectiveness HC
At Each Cut Point CO
(S/lbs) HC*N0x
4.04
0.16
3.12
4.83
0.19
¦3.51
4.67
0.20
3.07
5.08
0.20
3.22
5.30
0.21
3.35
(1)
Standards and tolerances of 100 ppm HC
to present.
and 0.5X CC
1 in effect
from March 19,
1979
(2)
Standards without tolerances
as adopted March 15,
1979.
(3)
Optimum cutpoints.
(4)
Total exhaust emissions failure rate;
may include
other types
of failures.
(5) Negative sign indicates an increase in pollutants.
(6) Costs include those for repairs, inspection and fuel economy benefits.
A31.
C-23
-------
CALIFORNIA -- lMVIP ANNUAL REPORT
Table A-15 - Cost/Effectiveness Analysis at Various
Idle HC/CO Cut Points Using tne Emissions
and Cost Data from the ARB LDVSP II ana III.
Category 12 (1975-1979 Cat. w/o AI, Ail cylinders)
A. Cut Point HC (ppm)/C0(?) 150/1.5(Z)(3) 200/2.25 200/2.5 250/2.0(1 ) 300/3.0
8. Failure Rate of MVIP 46.5 37.3 36.5 34.7 30.4
Centers (5)^'
C. Average Emission
Reduction HC 1.01 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.93
per Repaired ,,, CO 31.53 31.10 31.10 31.37 23.32
Vehicle (g/mi)^; NOx -0.11 -0.31 -0.31 -0.34 -0.30
0. Weighted Annual
Emission HC 8.14 6.21 6.08 5.84 4.90
Reduction per CO 346.57 274.29 267.53 257.39 203.57
Inspected Vehicle NOx -1.73 -3.91 -3.30 -3.S9 -3.09
(lbs/year)
E. Per Cent Emission HC 16.9 12.9 12.6 12.1 10.2
Reduction Fleet- CO 50.7 40.1 39.1 37.6 29.8
wiae at This Cut NOx -3.02 -6.32 -6.7 -7.1 -5.2
Point {%)
F. Average Fuel Consumotion 0.06 0.09 0.09 -C.02 -0.12
Improvement (Gal/1000 miles)
G. Average Repair Cost 25.79 22.74 22.74 22.78 22.21
per failed Vehicle (S)
H. Total Weighted Cost ¦ 23.23 19.19 18.97 19.54 17.81
per Vehicle ($)^
1. Cost/Effectiveness HC 2.85 3.09 3.12 3.35 3.63
At Each Cut Point CO 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.09
(S/lbs) HC+NOx 3.52 8.34 8.32 10.50 9.34
(1) Standards and tolerances of 100 pom HC and 0.51 CO in effect from March 19,
197S to present.
(2) StanGards without tolerances as adopted March 15, 1979.
(3) CDtimum cutpoints.
(4) Total exhaust emissions failure rate; may include other typas cf failures.
(5) Negative sign indicates an increase in pollutants.
(6) Costs include those for reoairs, insoection and fuel 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. Cut Point HC(ppm)/C0(S) 100/1.0 100/1.25
B. Failure Rate of MVIP 25.7 24.2
Centers (2)^
C. Average Emission
Reduction HC 2.04 2.10
per Repaired CO 12.16 12.57
Vehicle (g/mi) NOx 0.48 0.50
D. Weighted Annual
Emission HC 9.08 8.80
Reduction CO 54.19 52.75
per Inspected NOx 2.38 2.48
Vehicle (Ibs/yearl
E. Per Cent Emission HC' 26.2 25.4
Reduction Fleet- CO 19.8 17.7
wide at This Cut NOx 4.4 4.5
Point (5)
F. Average Fuel Consumption 2.04 2.33
Improvement (Gal/1000 miles)
6. Average Repair Cost
per Failed Vehicle ($) 21.35 20.55
H. Total Weighted Cost
per Vehicle (S)(6) 10.28 . 9.21
I. Cost/Effectiveness HC 1.13 1.05
At Each Cut Point CO 0.19 0.17
(S/lbs) HC+NOx 0.90 0.82
!3)
150/1.5
18
2.32
12.24
0.53
7.24
38.20
1.86
20.9
12.8
3.4
1.98
21.63
10.04
1.39
0.26
1.10
(2)
250/2.0
10.2
2.5
14.17
0.57
4.63
25.85
1.18
13.4
8.7
2.1
2.54
21.42
9.56
2.11
0.38
1.65
(1)
300/2.0
9.9
2.3
14.15
0.59
3.94
23.43
1.13
11.4
7.8
2.0
3.19
22.28
8.36
2.12
0.34
1.69
(1) Standards and tolerances of 100 ppm HC and 0.5S CO in effect from March 19,
1979 to present.
(2) Standards without tolerances as adopted March 15, 1979.
(3) Optimum cutpoints.
(4) Total exhaust emissions failure rate; may include other types of failures.
(5) Negative sign indicates an increase in pollutants.
(6) Costs include those for repairs, inspection and fuel economy benefits.
A33.
C-25
-------
0
1
N3
Table A-19 - Cost-Effectiveness of Various Pass/Fail Criteria
Scenario(1)
Scenario (2)
Scenario (3)
Scenario (4)
Scenario (5)
Scenarlo(6)
All Exhaust
Current
Standards[ 1 ]
Optimised
0verall[2]
All Exhaust
All Exhaust
HI til
Exhaust[l]
Failures
Standards[l]
Standards[1]
Tolerance
Optiuiized[l]
Cut-Points
With
With
Hi thout
Plus All
Exhaus t
Plus All
Tolerance
Tolerance
Tolerance
NOx Device
Cut-Points
NOx Devices
A
Average Annual Emission
IIC
10.92
10.43
12.08
10.44
12.29
12.30
Reduction per Fleet
CO
132.77
119.90
150.71 -
122.28
154.18
156.56
Vehicle (lb/yr)
NOx
1.02
0.53
0.62
1.07
0.64
1.18
13
Per Cent Emission Reduction
IIC
11 .39
10.89
12.61
10.90
12.83
12.84
rieetwide
CO
14.94
13.49
16.96
13.76
17.35
17.62
NOx
2.13
1.12
1.30
2.25
1.34
2.47
C
Overall Failure Rate
44.07
27
35
36.8
36.5
45. 7
0
Total Meighled Cost
Fleetwlde ($)
19.54
16.41
17.86
18.58
17.47
19.64
E
Overall Cost/Effectiveness
IIC
1.79
1.57
1.48
1.7U
1.42
1 .60
($/1b)
CO
0.15
0.14
0.12
0.15
0.11
0.13
HCiNOx
1.63
1.49
1.41
1.61
1.35
1.46
O
>
r1
M
•n
o
2
<
M
>
z
2
G
>
yo
ID
O
•pa
H
[1] Vehicles falling 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.
**l
(_»j|
-------
CI
>
r
M
o
po
22
STAU OF CALIFORNIA
R1PORT IPA00J-02 RUN UK 12/18/79
--- repair Facility name ---
>1AK T I rtti A U 1 (I CARE
IVANS FURCICN CAS RE PA I R S
sounr coast auto coast clinic
SflEttUNS FORE!GH CAR REP INC
6Aut« muuirs
ADAM SAM H UNION 76
NEWPORT C< A5SIC CARS
GOO DM IH AUTOMOTIVE
OAVES UNJ OH 76
COLLfcGE VOLKSWAGEN INC
tYONS AUfO REPAIR INC
IW.WliUuH DICK DATSJN
CYVRESS COLLEGE AL11 OftDTIVE
BROKEN WHEEL RV CEMIER
JOHNS UNION SERVICE
UllSON CLARK SHELL SERVICE
MfLS IfXACQ SERVICE
(IE KM ANS GULF SERVICE
HART CHEVRON
DHUCCIA BROS CHEVRON
WI I N E ft 5 TIRE CO
j t i ou ca
BitL5 MOBIL SERVICE
SHAJir* ARCD SERVICE
HAY 1 OAVES TEXACU
LtS AUlUhOTIVE
SIERRA BOOV SHOP
mc cgy-muls fobd
BAUGHHAN ft TURNER
RILEYS AUTO SAFETY CENTER
JCRSY GOODMIM DODGE INC
COMMONWEALTH FOREIGN CAR SERVICE
RCN1CK C AO ILIAC INC
FRECKS OARAGE INC
HANSEL OL OSMUBIL E INC
CMET LAHBERT CHEVRON SERVICE
BAS T ANCHOR Y CHEVRON
BENS CHEVRON
department of consumer affairs
HURLAU OF AU1 OHO1 IVE REPAIR
CALIFORNIA VEHICLE INSPECTION PROGRAM
REPAJR F AC I I I I IE S NEAR INSPECTION CEN1ER CCI-GARDEN GROVE
PAGE
««¦ CI TV «»>¦
COSTA HE SA
COST A MESA
COSTA MESA
COSTA MESA
CDS1A HE SA
COSTA MESA
COSIA MESA
CO?,I A MESA
CYPRESS
CYPRESS
CYPRESS
CYPRESS
CYPRESS
EAST iRVlNL
FOUNTAIN VALLEY
FtiUtt f A 1 N valley
FOUNTAIN VALLEY
FOUIUAIN VALLEY
FOUNTAIN VALLEY
F OUNIAIN VALLEY
FOUNTAIN VALLEY
FOUIUAltl VALLEY
FOUNTAIN VAL1EY
FOUNTAIN VALLEY
FQUtUAlU VfcVVEf
fULLERTUN
FULLERTON
FULLER ION
FULLERTON
FUL LERTOM
KUL1EATON
fULLERTON
FtlLLERTON
FULLER!ON
FOLLERTON
FUL LERTON
TULLERTON
FULLEKTON
*** STREET ADRESS «¦-
7 0 0 W 191H ST
1995 NARBOR BL
BAKER ST
125 ROCHESTER ST
P O BOX 1660
560 W ]?TI1 ST
26 3 4 NEUPORI BLVU
1927 IIARbOR BL VD
900 VALLEY VIEW ST
5120 LINCOLN AVE
69&Q H00t>Y ST
Sfl&O VINCOLN AVE
5200 VALLEY VIEU
644J B4JRT RU
9025 GARflEL D AVE
17975 tu£NQL1h ST
«520 WARNER AVE
9025 WARNER
1 7980 MAGNOI 1 A
10020 WARNER AVENUE
16 14 2 HARBOR BLVO
lJ4fO E1) 1 MG E R
1 7025 BflOOKHURST S I
9520 MARKER AVE
)fi97* BRIIOKHURST ST
1018 W OH AIICETllOFPf AVE
POBX 2691 ORANGE f"URST STA
700 U COI1MOHWI AL 1H
Kfl E CQIlMOUUEAtTH
SSL 5 RAYNQMD AVE
J] JO U ORANGE THORPE AVE
820 U COMMONWEALTH AVE
] 100 SOUTH EUCLID
321 SU HIGHLAND AVE
1125 W COr.MONHE ALTH
laoa M OCANGETUDRPE
2961 E VOROA LINDA BL VD
?*•& F nfri^nunDDC
« OF
REPAIR
ACTIONS
I 7
1
20
6
5
2
I
1
M
41
26
25
1
2
1
1
24
15
I I
<•7
6
27
25
2
I
5
1
43
25
1
6
6
1
18
16
<.9
2
PERCENI PROCED.
PASSING COHI (1KM AVE
heinsp Facjos cnsi
100
1 DU
] OD
60
100
1 DO
LOO
1 QO
I OU
I 00
S2
I 00
] -0 D
100
1 00
100
100
100
I 00
10U
94
98
. <~ J
. 50
. OB
. 15
.22
. I J
. 25
.40
.22
. 00
. 2U
-05
.03
. ia
.09
. 14
*20
S 10
S 36
&2U
*29
t<<0
Si V
130
*30
*45
4 34
4 30
629
&
tTJ
O
O
po
tn
hd
>
W
Tl
>
D
bi
CO
-------
Stat* of California
Memorandum
To : ^ACK solan
Puptii ihimii of Co—mmr I ib
Dei* : January S, 1980
File No.:
From Btiroou of Automolive Repair
5415 Fletcher Ave., Suite #2, SI Monte, CA 91731
Subject, REGIONAL OFFICE ACTIVITY REPORT FOR THE PERIOD OP DECEMBER 3
THRU DECEMBER 28, 1979
The enclosed activity report contains a summary of the Regional
Office's activities for the subject period and includes accumu-
lative totals from start up of the VIP fleet program {February
16, 1979).
Toll owing is- an-executive sunmiary of selected items: .
-Total fleets licensed ------------ 793
-Total fleet members - -- -- -- -- -- -- 3.31^
-Fleet reinspections this period ------- 258'
-Total field contacts - -- -- -- -- -- - 38Q:
-Total number of Qualified Mechanics ----- 5»454
-Number of telephone inquiries this period - - 6,229
-3CS Waiver authorizations issued ------ 1,836
-Total fleet certificate sales -------- $2,402,395
Please advise if-you feel there is a need for additional or
more detail reporting in a particular subject area.
J9HV R. WA.LLA.UCR
Regional Manager¦
G.
Hunter
*2
Wall
b!
Kay ex-
V _
Webb
j'
Todd
r—,
IjS aby
C-28
-------
REGIONAL OFFICE ACTIVITY REPORT
PERIOD OF DECEMBER 3 THRU DECEMBER 28, 1979
ET LICENSING ACTIVITIES
Total fleet applications received to date ------ 941
1. Fleet licensed to date --------- 798
a. new/used car dealers 605 - 34* = 575
b. used car .dealers 176 - 10* = 166
c. auto "repair dealers 3
a. "Rasing companies. 7
e. uounty/state/federal 7
f/ -commercial" fleets 40
2. Cancelled fleets to date -------- 44
3- Applications withdrawn --------- 24
4. Applications denied ---------- 75
5. Applications deferred --------- 0
6. Status of Collective Fleets:
a. Total' TColl'ective fleet centers: 128
b. Total'collective fleet members: 331
Total Fleet Licenses (fleets & members) - - 1,128
Periodic Fleet- Inspection Activities. Report Accum
Period Total
1. Number of - inspections conducted: 258 2,201
2. Results of inspections:
a. No Violations issued: 189 1,707
0. Violations of one or more
fleet requirements: 69 470
Summary of violations:
1'. Required equipment probiems( 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
es number of fleet lice?.ses cancelled as a result of dealers
ut of business, or withdrawing from the Fleet program.
C-29
-------
c. Major violations requiring suspension of a fleet's...
activities. (Violations of Sections 3396.13(b)(1),
(2), or (3) and/or 3396.17).
Ti/o licensed fleet operations were suspended during
report period. One fleet operation was sus-
pended due to 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 inspection
of vehicles certified by the fleet. The second
fleet license suspension resulted from administrative
action suspending the fleet owners ART and MVPC
licenses' for a period of 60 days.
'The suspension resulting from violation of Section
3396.19 was a first occurance and the owner has
initiated -he needed repairs to correct the
deficiencies.
Report Accum
d. Other Field investigations Period Total
(InitialMembers, SCZ Waivers) 122 1,101
e. Random-.reinspection of fleet certi-
fied vehicles 244 1,164
f. "Total field, c.ontacts 380 -4,136
g. . Personnel, .resources usage weekly
average:--
1. Office staff 3*
2. Field staff 7.9
h. Average daily field contacts per
inspector: 2.5
i. Vehicle mileage driven this month: 24,324
"One inspector on loan to Complaint Group.
MEGHANICS ORIENTATION SEMINARS AND QUALIFICATION
Total Seminar attendance
to
date -
- - - - -
¦ 10,323
Total, persons examined -
- -
, _ _ _
_ _ _ _ .
- 10,238
Total qualification cert
-Class "A" mechanics
if ic
•ates is
Pass
3822
sued - -
Fail
2073
5,454
percentage *
6 ~j '/i
357°
-non Class "A" mechanics
percentage
C\.".rail examinat: on i^ass
pei
1632
'0 en t age
2709
6270
53%
C-30
-------
K'jiUber cf Seminars offered this report period 4
Total Seminars held to date - -- -- -- - 266
Nv-nber of schools offering mechanic 1 s quali-
¦¦ i carir-n training - -- -- -- -- -- -- 29
-Classes irt session or scheduled ----- n
XuKl-ei; mechanics taking re-exainination
after training, this, report period - - - - 2
. - Total raechanics attending classes ----- 317
¦J. Seminar smainary by., county:
£cr,::tv Year Totals
Lcs Angeles 1978 T59
197? 56
19f
Orange 1975 17
1979
29
r.iviersiiJe 1978 8
"197S 3
11
Sail Bernardino 1975 5
1979 1
V&r.tura 19Vc 19
1979 2
21
Sar^ta Barbara 19 7S 3
19 ^9 3
267
CTOr.IS? INQUIRIES C3^FLA~H?S
?hcr:s inquiries received to date: 62,344*
?}.c..e inquiries received this rc-pcrt period: 6,229
Detail reporting of calls received "began with the May Activity
hepc.rt. The accumulative total is an estinate based upon
current recorded data.
C-31
-------
-4-
Report
Accuic
Cat
scries
Period
Total
i _
HTS Problems
294
2,536
C »
Department of Motor Vehicles
31
374
V »
Qualified Mechanic's List
24
876
4.
Waiver Information
678.
4,191
Data Logs - Fleets
4
255
c .
Qualified Mechanic's Procedures
27
376
n
r .
ECS Application (OEM & Retro)
143
2,417
s,
Engine Ci^anges
134
1,063
G
General InTonaation
3,003
28,964
10.
Fleet Information & SVIS Calls
62
649
-L — »
Certifying Heavy-duty trucks
115
751
y
Non-compliance Questions - new cars
19
202
I3!.
Non-jurisdictional
6
145
14.
Seminar Information
159
950
-j r
HVPC Information
33
314
\ r-.
Idle speed, Standards, $35 Nox Price
38
521
96.
Reference Materials
11
59
A. H , B.
24
122
•f .
Calls from Politicians
0
3
Cost of Inspection
401
1,268
Av=rage number of calls per day:. 327
;';n>^.ary of inquiries and complaints received by phone
:r.vciv::ig HTS" operational problems:
r«.U inspections OMISSION CO-MISSION
-Retrc-nox 3 5
-Retro exhaust 1 0
-Crankcase 2 0
-Air system 0 7
-Spark Control 4 1
-TAC System 0 3
-EGk System 1 2
-Fuel Evap. 3 1
-Exhaust Catalyst 1 0
-Oth^r ECS Systej;.o 3 2
-After Market Farts _0 _Q
23 21
Other HTS Complaint Categories
-wreng Standards 12
-Repair Facility List "c: Handed Out 2
-Unhelpful #TS P-.-rjcnnsi. 10
- W r -o n a; I n f _¦ o n V i R 5
-VJr.Lild Sot Accept Signed VIR/l'/ould Not Retest 1
-Certified Exempt Vehicles 1
-Waiting Time 5: LTS (ir. lir.e)_ 1?
-f-JS EC 3 Lookup Incorrect 1
-railed Retest for Condition i»'ot Listed on
In,t:al VI?. " 4
-Taj.e recorded i::i^ not Turned On 12
-HTS Questions to VIP Staff 2
-Lyl ving Distance Cotr.pial r-.t 12
-.i.^-ctiono ;o Center-o 15o
C-32
-------
~ :ic=c^ i.vtd:
v>::si:. v ^vKt-.^l ^a:vz;.s
Y'.epert Accu:
Period Tcta^. Fer.d-Xg
v' Waiver- Autfcoriiati <. nc Issued:
Report
Period
325"
ECS Wai* ers Authorised wi thout
rco::i^s being spent tetter tliaui LETU) 4
SAJ
Ac cum
To Date
1,836
339
iai:. :
.i:g the- month of Dece/cber, the Quality Assurance teams conducted
^tal cf VI randans unannounced visits to the seventeen Hamilton
: Cente This activity accounted for the calibrate on verifi-
Lon cheeX* of 151 test: lanes arid 12 EtfS 200 backup analysers,
•¦.- were ? lane failures recorded, wherein the analysers failed
¦¦ret ~*.e calibration gas accuracy curve checks on the first try;
-r rsprevrajtir.*; the SKi. with a ncai ciai" tape borrowed from
.-tor rair.reriance, the analyser passed the calibration accuracy
- ch=c>-:.
:<•- cancellation of a r&jiJo;v visit accured once this report
: due to long queue lines.
. lesss visited ea.h riri
-¦ c r c 2 e r i d -
center a^ avera^r ? c-f J
tiites duriag
COLLECTION?
Report
Peri-od
JvCCUKL
*204,710
$2,400,272
I . Over the cour.ter-
$156,400
$1,673,597
2. ris.il Crder
$ €6,510
% 726,675
V- -uv-t ary Inspection Cor.t >-ibution
? cC
$ It407
qualified Mechanic's & ;-'leet
Handbooks
% 120
$ 716
Accumulative Grand Total (Vlr)
$2,400,392
£&:. - of «:VPC Doc"j;;m-;: : ^
-iTi : _cat:- c: ".^i.atico
$ 700
S 4,275
> ¦" :'.pj; a;;-
5 0
S 10"'
'¦ . J-t ic-ke r-r
¦S 95
3 495
Handbooks
5 120
t 1,694-
.^cc-ir.uia^ive Crrand Tcz&l (MVPC)
^ £ j -47 4
C-33
-------
- period
a;
/
'¦V Vu. U
.R WAlLAUC--:
-^-3nal Majiatre:-
-------
TRAINING PROGRAM 10 QUALIFY MECHANICS FOR LOW EMISSION
TUNEUP AND REPAIR
•-d O
o r
o M
fO Tl
> o
z:
0
1
CJ
01
Course Outline
MOilu 1 e I:
1. Introduction to Automotivo IJiniSbionb Controls
2. SLate Vehicle Inspection program
Modnle 2:
1. Internal Combustion Engine Theory anil Emissions
2. Fundamentals of Electricity
3. Conventional and Electronic Ignition Systems
4. Ignition Timing Control SysLems
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
Course Length: SI
Module Hours: _ 6
3
3
Module Hours: 12
1
1.5
3
(Demonstration) 1.5
Mrs .
Mrs.
lira.
Ilrs.
llr s_.
llr .
Mrs.
Ilrs.
Ilrs.
Ilrs.
Ilrs.
(Demonstration)
Module Hours: 21 Ilrs.
(Demonstration)
Ilrs.
llr.
2 Ilrs.
(Demonstration) 1 llr.
(Demonstration)
(Demonstration)
2 ilrs.
1 llr.
2 Ilrs.
1 Hr.
i
i
O
G
H
f
M
2!
tn
o
r1
o
s:
tn
cn
cn
M
O
s:
M
O
Z
M
o
2;
o
-------
•x)
O
O
5.
L'xhjuut Oai Itccirculaiion System
2
II rs
{ He mor a t r a t i on)
1
llr.
6.
Aic System
2
II ib.
(Demonst ra Lion)
]
llr.
1.
Catalytic Converter System
2
Ilrs
{Demonstrat ion)
1
llr .
ii 1
Module tlouis:
U
Jtib
1.
Ignition Analyzer Oscilloscope
1
llr .
(Demon s L ra 11 oil)
2
Hr u
2.
I1C/C0 Exhaust Gas Analyzer
1
lir.
tDemons Lra11 on)
'i
tlr-j
3.
Failure Diagnosis and Hepair I'rocuiluros
2
Mrs
(DewonstraIJ on)
1
Jlr .
4 .
Vehicle Inspection Profjram failure and Itopair
2
Mrs
Reports
(Demonst rat ion)
1
llr.
Couise Conclusion
NOTE: The module and section time lencjLhs 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.
-------
CALIFORNIA -- FLEET LICENSE APPLICATION
STATf 0# CMIWNIA— STATt ANO CONSUMft SC*VlCC5 AOINCT /
EDMUND G. 9BOWN jr.,
OIM8TM6NT 0*
(pnsumer
BUREAU OF AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR
VKMICLC INSPECTION PROGRAM
nsaioNAL o^rict
3419 FlfTCHKft AVC.. IUITK 3* KL MONTf, CA 91731
FHONK: (213) 978-7008
.APPLICATION FOR LICENSE (INITIAL OR RENEWAL)
FOB ftURMU U9I ONIY
LICENSE NO. 1 CODE i FEE | QATg ISSUSD
IMSTAUCnONti a»»uica7:Cn »o« vskic.I isipict'On phoc8*m
'usr '.iccnic. .33*r! *-u tPO(.ic*:'0N a*olisa8l*
*33*caa :»«<( 't wtsiic* ojci
Is. :5»POt4TIO« 40
REASON FOR APPLICATION
| ; initial =leet operation license
CZj =>ENEWAL OF FLEET OPERATION LICENSE
1 i INITIAL FLEET MEM8EP LICENSE
' i 3ENEV/AL CF "LEET MEM3ER LICENSE
3.
LICENSE APPLIED FOR blc« 9'3(ai4MATX9 «»«Cat*TA*lvf
nta csui::i:
78M.3B (t.rti
> i-N im rnif at*
C-37
-------
CALIFORNIA -- FLEET INSPECTION FORM
VEHICLE CERTIFICATION DATA LOG SHEET
: [ s 11 n z
. Ct-.SC *iC
t»ICJ Ui-C
•It" v»0 5 tl»
- t »• »»SI I
©
Innioi miinont mtaiur«n«ni, ••cord tinautt I i (After ¦ al e check / ast.)
"<« oom CO
FIRST IDLE
2500 9PM
SECOND IDLE
, 1
IOLE RPm
©
V«nfy the installation an d operation of ail '•qwreo «ni in on control 3«vicev Indicate required fv ^«r« are no en gin e miwirn ens meawr* ana <3Si u sr, > t i eeessary, "i« 'allowing engine idiuimtnii >o Tionuiocturert
specified settings and record readings NOTE, If equipped « «o : c : .•* »o«
1 I LEAN IDLE CROP I \ PROPANE GAIN
©
I'ems repaired {Inaieote ov -narlung an X)
I | CAR9URET09/CUEL INJECTION
| I IGNITION SYSTEM
| [ VACUUM LEAKS (HOSES/GASd v«ntci« odisoi all applicant* eirousr emission ltonaords spooned by A«r Resourcts Sooro
or *ne«M woiver criteria. If «ai<*r issued, proviso estitnote tost ana Jeicnonon af additional repairs reeflid.
I I 3 ASScO
:I t:i h»ivt® no
I ! waived
! |ti .|ii
" A J J i ySC-i'JiCS NO
1 1 1 1 ¦ .
SiCS*T'wi9C
~
cu*u NO |
1 • I I 1 1 1 1
no
i ; i i 1 i .
COfcWENTS
78M-26
C-3G
-------
OfPAtTMfNf Of
VEHICLE INSPECTION
PROGRAM
FLEET INFORMATION LETTER
The State of California, on March 19, 1979, initiated a
Mandatory Vehicle Inspection Program (MVT?) in the South Coast Air
3asin (SCAB) on transfer of registration. There are 17 inspection
centers located in the 3asin, 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 MVIP fleet facility may
inspect and test another car dealer's vehicles of 10 or more with prior
authorization by the Department. The licensing of car dealers as MVIP
fleets will terminate upon implementation of the annual renewal of
registration phase of the Program.
C-39
-------
Fleet Licensing ?.ecuicements
To become licensed as an MVT? fleet facility, the applicant must:
-3e located in the Vehicle Inspection Program area as indicated in
Attachment I.
-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)
with a 0 to 10% CO and 0-2000 PPM
6 .
Tachometer
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
analyser i.e. 3.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 VTP seminar and passing the written examination.
-Make available your "Qualified" Class "A" mechanics for a 2*j hour
orientation and training course in the inspection 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 nembers 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 511.00.
Certificates are sold in books of 10, totaling 5110.00.
-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
P.egional Office
3415 Fletcher Avenue
Suite §2
SI 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
Nearest Street
Number
City
Address
Intersection
Phone
CA1
West L. A.
5461
W. Jefferson
Hauser/Jefferson
(213
930-0245
(Panarama City)
CA2
Van Nuys
9933
Woodman
Woodman/Lassen
(213
391-1125
CA3
Simi Valley
Easy
Street
Easy/First Street
(805
526-1322
CA4
Ventura
2187
Xnoll Dr.
Knoll/Valentine
(805
642-5531
CA5
Goleta
4865
Calle Real
Calle Real/Turnpike
(805
967-0706
CA6
Newhall
Sand
Canyon Rd./Soledad
(805
251-1596
(Lincoln Heights)
C31
East L. A.
3847
Selig
Selig/Mission
(2
3
223-0225
CB2
Rosemead
2649
Stingle Ave.
Stingle/Garvey
(2
3
573-^76
CB3
Azusa
805 W
. Foothill
Vernon/Foothill
<2
3
334-3556
CB4
Cudahy
4959
Patata
Wilcox/Patata
(2
3
562-0572
CC1
Garden Grove
7131
Orangewood
Markon/Orangewood
(7
4
897-4401
CC2
Carson
230 E
. Alondra
Alondra/Main
(2
3
558-5^65
CC3
Santa Fe
10144
Freeman
Telegraph/Freeman
(2
3
944-8633
Springs
CC4
Laguna
23022
La Cadena
LaCadena/Verdugo
(7
4
837-6233
Hills
CD1
Riverside
3195
Motor Circle
Auto Center
(7
4
683-7958
CD2
San
222 E
. Valley
Valley/Allen
(7
4-
884-3619
Bernardino
CD3
San Jacinto
State
St./7th St.
(7
4
654-8231
C-43
-------
Mandatory Vehicle Inspection Area
0
1
¦p-
SAN BERNARDINO
RIVBMlD£
-------
3t'A*r«UNt Of
Consur
BUREAU OF AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR
VCMICUC INSPECTION »toa«AM
ITCMIR AVI.1UITI *1 1L MONTI. CA *1711
PMONCi (2ISI 97t-T00S
• REQUEST FOR INITIAL INSPECTION •
fui«T business aoorcii
( 1-
MVPC STATION LICENSE NO.
, YOUR T1TVE .
l HAVE REVIEWED THE MVIP FLEET FACILITY pEQUIPSMSNTS CONTAINED IN THE INFORMATION LETTER AND I AM
INTERESTED IN BECOMING AN MVIP FLEET FACILITY.
UPON RETURN OF THIS REQUEST. A STATE REPRESENTATIVE WILL CONTACT YOU IN REOAROt TO AN INITIAL
INSPECTION OF YOUR FACILITIES.
( I /?*!
C-45
-------
CALIFORNIA -
- NOTICE FOR QUALIFYING MECHANICS
STATE OP CALIFORNIA—-STATE aNO CONSUMER SERVICES AGENCY EDMUND O. 6ROWN JR., Go'vntos
oiuitawi o> BUREAU OF AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR caucopmi«
Consumer vehicle inspection program ^%j|j5S§CT
^-flprairs regional office TUmfr
3413 fisTCMCR AVfNut, suiTt sj June, 1979
CL MOMTt. C/WF 91731
PHONt: (213) J75-70M
NOTICE TO: MECHANICS INTERESTED IN QUALIFYING TO PERFORM REPAIRS
REQUIRED 3Y 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 3asin
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
7SM-V8 (3ev. 6/79)
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
SATS 1
uietH«c no.
•• : •« o i •«» I » -j
1MOCNT L:CSN»e no
• »sj£3 'N##tcrio*« [-.o |
f<^OTtl iO | |
¦ co is 10** 1
jT \J /
~o / wo \ ) /to \
• 1 O '1 Ml S *
I • •
r "On: Wu«u j , ,„¦
o«
urn* ,M JM
2 « - »u sr 5 r*
: 3. s-o*< , .-.i 3.
st'C^inc '-v-ecu I -•*«
0.
~ G ~ 1-1
HC
»*• j ©« I CO 1 .«»! o*
Srit»tNC mjch . •.-»
o«
•ma«i • umioi
AhTI PSwUOtlC
OlVlC< { -•'tl 0«
rims |
—« ......
s»»rr* 5r»«»o*-»os | „>«i o«
'•Olf 1 "OOT 1 • 1 1 J**
o«
EMISSION STANDAROS-CINCINNATI INSPECTION LANE - SEC 504-38
MOO El YEAR HC CO
Pre-1963 1,000 PPM" 6.0%
1968-1969 600 10
J 970 fhrovqn 197a 500 4 0
1775 4 iwotftquenr yean 220 1.2
•Pom oer Million
IF your vehtcle hoi been rettcrsd aecouie of ei
-------
Auiosiojm.c alible:.' tkst I'ao.jft/vM
Cincinnati and JiorwcGd Stullona
1979
H
Defective Carr,
Ilonth
Test
Duy9
1(0. of Cai-3 Tested Flrat Time
Percent
of
Defective
CniM
Police Clint Ion:; •
01 f I)n y a
19/9
1978
197/
1976
1975
Clntl
Iloruocxl
Totol
Totol
Total
Total
Total
Cintl
llorw
1979
1970
19 77
1976
19 V 5
Jnn
21
it.oeo
2,590
6 f 6/8
5,0llt
7,'i'i6
15,001
25,7'n
20.3
13.7
673
1,178
1,582
1,169
'.,(117
910
llcw Yeor's 1
Mor Lu Klntf T)
Feb
19
3.C61
2,952
6,813
11 ,'i7'i
17,7'i6
2L.612
10,37't
22.2
13.9
5to7
3,533
10,31,6
to'.'//
Presidents1
b»v 1 >
Mar
22
9.5^0
5,eiii.
15,30't
20,528
2't,503
23,213
20,060
20.1
17.3
615
1,163
to, 1ft 5
6,198
723
Hone
Apr
21
9,655
6,171
15,026
20,97'"
21,0o6
23,000
25,2'i3
16.7
17.6
635
3,035
6,5'i9
7, to 00
1,219
Hon.;
tviii.t'irfal "
lJ-jy CE
May
22
9,506
(>SlUo
l6,2'i6
22,220
21,601
21,'i6'i
20,011
19.6
16.0
1,012
3,e><9
3, to/7
6,071
912
Jun
21
9.U5
5,959
1'5,07't
20,3'il
22,39'|
2'/.,90|i
l',i, 926
22.1
13.1
1,770
3,203
2,0'flO
12,8/5
1,053
li'JMO
Jul
2L
8,22't
5,1'tO
13,372
15,000
16,091
10,711
11,097
23.5
18.9
1.731'
3,199
2,737
7,6/3
1,106
Jndepcndoncc
Di / It
Aug
23
0.O97
5.292
13,395
l6,26v
16,9>iO
19,726
9.520
23.6
16.3
2.325
2,893
2,831
5,578
1,151
Hone
Sep
19
7,572
'i,550
12,122
15,052
l'i ,067
15,963
e,70i
21.6
10.6
2.291
3.981
3,30to
6.133
2,'il0
Labor Duv 3
Oct
23
7,750
't,665
12 ,'.13
1to,937
13,702
12,929
8.6/2
21.3
10.3
1.977
to ,':25
3.692
't,'i02
3,011
l/onc
Nov
21
6,328
3.771
10,099
12,157
11,toll
12,220
6,905
16.7
0.1
1.506
1,755
2,661
to,3to2
3,313
Vel oralis ' L)i»y } J.
1 v ! nv
-------
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
-------
INSPECTION FORM
j CirniffVaf iZ AO " " 1 —* ¦
| sdif of Nf»»q®
| DEPxRTMEM OK MOTOR NEHJCLES
j REGISTRATION diwnios
I CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE FOR MOTOR
\ EHICLE EMISSION CONTROL DEMCE
jh;5 cz7"Hnc^rE >rusr cz »fCHrrrr3 to a dm* ?ra>ch office oa a
r?Ei»C.N*7ID COl~NTY njSE-jOR WITH *H£ iEOFS'S P :?uKT OF ?\Lf OR
OTHER NiCC*S-i-it roO.MS.NTS SCFORt A sn**D\ ^ICtSTiATtOS MaY
DC I5M.TD Ok ££N£\*;d.
.. _ _ _ _ . _ r .. . .
5T5H5T ODR=SS — - -- -
CiT>- _ > .. CCINP. ... -IiP
?'-.a'e;rrv»ji Z
1N>PK(.T1QN KEM L fS
Se.'ort «\r.ius. jn-ssuns RPM idl? HC — CO . .
rpm ::?o ic. ... co
u»tll this temcie r^ss me I M on tr.e lust •-.spe."on'> Z Z
Or f.ra! s'ucie E"nis>ioo Centra. Equ.^-ncm Irtstalleo
\ n Z No Z Rr.ron.t.ed: Us I No Z
Is :n*i vehicle caiaivnc equ.ppctf* Yet Z No Z
Eng. t> pe ¦•vt Rotors ... ___ C ! D —
Tirru.it . __ D^eil/ \»/ yas . - — —
\fter etnaust smiss.onj RPM Idle HC CO...
rpm ::. \ppliianl Cop*. While. DMV. C 11S176
Pink, AufRon/rd i«l«HOO.
ao-*» (a»» ; :n <>*:•
Ioi30Ptaat: ^Tiea .•eat^nc -rr*i:rat.'oe by r-jfl
ihli cab nojt t» «ndo*#d wtih nrecwaJ fcrnv
C 115176
Inspecting Firm
(Ar» J-"9l CM7I
E-2
-------
NEVADA -- WAIVER FORM
htatc or NsyjmI.i
DEPARTMENT OP KOTOW VEHICLES
R£CI5TRATI0N DlVISiON
REQUEST WAIVER FOR EXEMPTION* 07
CERTIFICATE 0? COAU'LTA.NCE
this covw.c.T::« form vust rv st"^mti> io v d.m v. drascji Or":c:-.
szcno.i run a»t:;ov.vi, »eio:^ a >l>aDa kkc»s;:fliied: Ym n No Q
Eng. type cyl T-o:crs C.IJ)
Tuning. i^\vclI/,A.:r gap.—.
Ailcr exhaust emission'.: P.?M Hie ..i HC-. CO ..
!\P.\[ ZISO J^J. HC CO
Will this vcbide pes* the I/^'statWrds o:i iho ftrut inspection Yis Q No Q
Emission. analyzer crUibi — ——
^ \ ^ Montft Day . Ysa?
by Dsf?nT.i2^p{ M^icr Vihic'/js
Inspector's stature. No-
TflT.«No
• To rfrTo,: of repair for I-bor S j._.or
Totai parts aad labor *
. 1 hereby certify rhac the repairs required per instructions vers ,*;:rfor:r.--d on
this vehicle zzd waiver is requested.
Approv. . b/ D.M.V. EnT'Vjn, C*":i:ol 5c.:."c:i
this rnnv is \oio ?o dws aiter date of issuance and any alte^a-
nort or eriASUK£ vaix void Tins iokm.
Green, Applicant Copy; White, DMY;
. Pink, Authorized Station.
RD.J6 - i24i
^ A 11075
E-3
-------
ro
i
-P-
ALL VEHICLES
^rtOoRA.-l 1 M 1 0
EPO.U OMt U/ll/fd
.ILL VtnlCLES
VEHICLES
Infill I 96?
tt.HSl
VEtl 1 CLt S
VciilCLta
I960 - Hl>l(
"7,"'126
VEHICLES
VEmYClYs "'
197u - 197"
. . 2oA'
f
/»
1 t L t S
SlATt uf i\ t V A |) A
* £ li I u h ii (j 1 0 H V t rl
rtti-ISIrtATIUii U 1 V I i> I (irv.
EMSaJOi. C'^Ti«OL StCflOii
ErtlSSJU* CUiilKOL SI M lil ICS
AAA*A*AA*A A F 1 £ H AA*AA***AA
»*** IDLE A** A aaaa if 250 aa*»
*C • L i h • L ( C 10 i
/^,3 i. ij . .J c-i
'J 03
349
* lUtR^GK Cub T OK J fjSPtCT I Oil 3»~
*a*aa**a** j fc h u »< l **********
*aaa IDLE * * * * **«* ****
n • C • _ C.O* i .... rt»t ~ C.O* .. -
3b9 i»d <25^
. * •u'EfiAUd. CU61 Or Irt3P£C f IO'i $
'********** y t F
X * * A I 0 L L AAA*
li. L . C . u .
U H E »***#**<#*
a « a * 2250
n.C. C.u.
2o3
32d'
\CH
196
• « avEHAGE COST OF INSPECTION i
A V t' H A G E
ft A * A IULC AAA*
tt * C .
thm
11.di
3 03
"3 06
27i
"V/'
AvEiiAoE COST OF hEPUHS"*'"
C.U.
llt\33Z
1.00
£ 0 0
« A * *
K, c,
fAGt 137
C f I U lj
C^^i) * * * *
C ,o*
f/7
********** M F
* * * A I DL £ A * * *
. . C.O,
13. it
t H **********
* * * a
0
>
1
i
s
M
CO
Ui
H
O
Z
r
m
<
w
r1
?o
m
hd
o
&
H
125 137 10 !>=i.'/i 132
AVEKACE COST OF REPAIrfii i J.32
. VEHICLES _
197b 0,-1/,'hAl)
\ 7 , ^ i» 3 :
vtniCLto
AJAAAA»*XAA 0. t .E_-" ^ t AA*«A***A*
A * A A IDLt AAA* AAA* 22^0 *AAA
h.c: c.u. h.c. c.o.
.1./.167 l/'t.. V6 90..
A «vti'lAU£ CUST uF 1 ASPECTIOM 1
aaaaa^aaaa A F
* A A A A IDLE A A A A
n.c. c.o.
..113
1«.!>3
9o
T £ S AAAAAAAAAft
Ik A A A 22b0 AAA*
H.c. C.O.
A V £ H A G E
AAA* I0LC * A A A
H.C. C.O.
t Li U C 1 ION
* A A A 22b0 AAA*
h.C. C.O.
09 b9 ^3iyt
mVEmAUE CUST OF KEPAlKS i
70 '/-5Z
.51
VEHICLES
ALL .rt^HS
S d, 0 a 7
VfchlCLtS
********** li £ f 0 tl t **********
_**A* JQLt,**** **** 2i?ii0 ***«_
HfC. C.O. n.C. C.O*
301
30ti ^uo 193
V'~a~v' £ I < A G E" "C 0 S T 0^" JhSPECT 101^* J
********** A F
* * * * IOL £ * * * *
H.C. C.Cj.
202
1 i .79
160
E li *AAA*AAAftA
AAJt* 22b 0 AAA*
'H.C. C.O.
A V E k A G E
* A A A IDLE A a * a
H.C. C.U.
1<4 4
141
99
AVEi"2 *j
3-''/>
NOTE: AvEUAGt CUST OF^I'iSI'tCUOf Ij'jCLUUES
-------
PROGR'-" |'110
Rt'POkT DATE 12/14/7«
ALL.VEHICLES
VEHICLES
.THRU, 1967
6,176
VEHICLES
********** H £
* * » * 1DLt * * * *
H.C. C.O,
129
3.51
D"E~P ;A"'R~T
STAT
M"£~N "T
F NEVADA
M "0 T" O K rt'N'I
REGISTRATION DIVISION
EMISSION CONTROL SECTION
o
-------
NEVADA-- PRESCRIBED INSPECTION PROCEDURES
S'TT 1 ' s 2 cz 2. or. tt'jsz of 3s'l~.£.~sz 5-stsr for visz^Lb sr.z y s
STlC D_ C pi n 61 2S <= - 2C^:r s~C TiSZ 2--Id/ £.~C 2 C.*?0C\*r CT
che vehicle musz be made zo ensure that ail emission conzrol devices
required by this state and the Federal Government are connected.
STEP 2: After the motor vehicle has been to r.crr.al operating temperature,
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. With engine running,
record the F.FM idle and steadu HC and CO levels. If dual exhaust, probe
both. Increase zo 2250, record steady l^-.-sls of HC and CO.
STEP 3: Adjust the following to manufacturer's specifications, inducing
recommended tolerances:
k. Idle speed (- 5CP.PM) in addition to manufacturer' s specifications.
3. Dwell
C. Air gap
D. Timing (+ 5*)ir. addition zo manufacturer's specifications.
STEP 4: While vehicle is still connected to the diagnostic ecui zmer.t, record the
steady HC and CO levels at the manufacturer' s idle ?.?!<. Increase F:?!'. to 2250
record steady HC and CO levels.
STEP 5: If the vehicle is fcsnd not to exceed the maximum levels for HC and CO
sez forth in these regulations at either idle or 2Z5C . although
the vehicle has missing pollution control devices, exclusive of the
catalytic converter, and if the vehicle has no blowby or visible smoke
the approved inspector shall complete and sign the certificate of
compliance, designating on the certificate that an exemption from the
recuirement for the missinc devices has been eras.ted.
STEP 6: If the vehicle is found to exceed the maxim-urn levels for HC and CO
set forth in these regulations at either idle or 2250 RPX, anc if no
blowby 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:
Make, model, and year of
\r^hz ^2 &
Engine type CID CY1
Vehicle identification number
Odometer reading
3efore 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 sta:;dap.ds
Model Year of Vehicle CO (%) HC (ppm)
1966 - 1967, inclusive 7.5 1200
1968 - 1969, inclusive 5.0 600
1970 - 1974, inclusive 4.0 400
1975 and later 3.0 300
' tertifu under oenalty of perjury that I have read anc understand these Prescribed Ir.spectio
'est Procedures.
-------
iN7EVADA -
- QUALIFICATIONS FOR AN APPROVED INSPECTOR'S LICENSE
3.12.1 :;c person will be approved as an inspector unless he has demonstrated his
qualifications and ability to zhe satisfaction of the department by:
3.12.1.1 Submitting an application on the form provided by the department which
aszablisr.es thai the applicant is qualified to make all necessary
adjustments of emission conzrol devices according• to zhe manufacturer's
specifications, record necessary in formazicn, and inspect and test the
operation of fedsrallv recuired emission control devices:
3.12.1.2 Submizzing a certificate of competence \-hich indicates his technical
ability in major motor veh.
practices of the industry:
ability in major motor vehicle tune-ups in accordance with accepzed
3.12.1.3 Submitting a certificate of competence as issued by zhe 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 dem-.onszration of Prescribed Test
Procedures.
3.12.1.5 At the discretion cf the Deparzment of :'otor 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
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 10 days after the date when zhe
chance or termination occurred.
E-7
-------
department o.-" Mure?. vehicles
registratIo:: uivision
t:r.insion control sec
2701 E Saha.-1
Las Vecas, Nevada
APPLICATION FOR "APPROVED INSPECTOR"
I hereby make application for a certificate as an "APPROVED INSPECTOR1
for the purpose
of inspecting,
installing, naintai
ning and a
djus t ing
notor
vehicle err-.issi
on
control devices.
; (Please
print)
(Last)
First)
(Middle)
R?s Idenee address:
(NuT.be r
n i> d
street)
(City)
(Telephone)
Social Security
No.
D
river's License No.
State
Current Err.ploy
C' I"
Ac c: re s s :
f
r:;,d sL'roe
. \
(CiLv
)
(' c, r -- !¦ N
\ ! • - • - )
1 I?. rthday
)ie ight
i;o. Lay Year
Sex
y
e e t In.
t * - -r -
Colo
r I'.-: Lr
Color Eves
i
M.-rPANTf
A!
PXP'PJ EMC
= an
; FMPi.OYME?
- p c r n ^
(list '-,:os
t recen t
first)
7 rom
To
Ei'p
1 o y--rs
''en: n Year
Mouth Y
e a r
Du.ies rev
f or.-.ed
** ¦'-,;c
o. A'd r - ¦ ? s
¦
I
Expedience in automotive time-up
E'- per i c-nce in mi!:or-.oL ive repair
-Automotive tunc-up class or school
-¦Automotive repair class or school
_ycars
y c- a r s
hou rs
hours
•'•Must be documented and copies of such docjrentation to accerrp.-ny this application,
E-3
-------
Iv re r: fence emission analyzing: years.
Emission analyzing equipment qualified to operate:
Sake: (1) __
(2 )
(3 )
Copies of certifications or copies of other documents attesting to the operation
of the above lis ted equipment must accompany this application..
Remarks pertaining to additional qualifications: .
I certify under penalty of perjury the foregoing information is true.
Signed _Date , 19_
DMV USE ONLY g
x
Written test completed: Passed / f Yes 7 / No Score 7„ x
• —i i~ "¦ - » — — ' Km*
Appropriate documents attached / / Yes ¦/ / No x
Certificate of Competence attached /~~T Yes / / No g
List those missing: x
: £
x
x
x
REMARKS: 2
Approved Inspector's Certificate issued: Number
x
X
X
X
Investigator's signature date ,19
T
X
xxxB
>toxx>xmzoL)CKXxxxxxx>LXX>zcx>xxx>xxxx>^xxx>:xxxxxxx>jooco:>D:x>^ooo^xx>xx}'-xxx>Lxxx>:
E-9
-------
NEVADA
4.2 Exhaust Gas Analyzer Performance Specifications
4.2.1 The analyzing device shall measure carbon monoxide express
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 the
performance specifications:
CARBON MONOXIDE
Units
Accuracy of reading
Drift -- 2 hours
Repeatability
Min. detectable limits
%
±0.3 units on
107, sacle
±0.1 units
17c FS
0.5 units
HYDROCARBONS
PFM
±50 units on
7.000 scale p
±15 units
17o FS
100 units
Calibration--2 point dynamic calibration.
Readout--Dual digital or dual meters. Digital elements mu:
be 0.5 inch in height, or each meter shall have a 4 in<
effective scale width.
If the department has reason to believe any infrared exhau;
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
be
r.
is not suitable for
service until its
control officer,
station may lease
for temporary use
analyzer is being
analyzer is on the
use must not
because it
returned to
accuracy is verified by an emission
An authorized station or fleet
borrcw or rone an emission analyze
¦while the station's approved
repaired if the substitute infrared
list of approved exhaust analyzers
'its
and an emission control officer has verified
accuracy and has approved its use.
F.-10
-------
NEVADA -- APPROVED GAS ANALYZERS
A .C.
i - SOU
cJ3 3lQcf\
^ 3 3fta c A
ALi EN
23-067 13-090
2 3-0 7 C ]£-150
2 ^ - '*i3n
¦S3 iirC 5C
:^v:-V- -V'_?
t ' !7:'V r ' ''
700 iJC/C0
"/ 0 5 - C
710-C
i D_r
DA*.!-:
r\ • ¦
i -Ji»
'• ' 0 /
1836C
1 \: '
) i i i
— --I
c335C
23-365
13-156
8335T
2 3"- 07 6
i: nr-'
i ^ * >:."0
:"YCK 1
•
23-036
- L 89
.ti *J
<96
•: :PYSIFR '•'..xSir.P. Tcr:^:j_f^
:e-2iTc
COT.ERICAL El ECiK'jNICS INC
! 0
KA'.-lOUI P
j94
mo
¦JvAR DIVISION
mOOC
rO''.11" READY
"m'^oo
l' T > I r
K : .: U
Christie n.KCiri-: r
EA-74C
EA-74
FOX
1800
770 1 r;i:i£ SA.'iiY Ari-'L IA.Jl.E|
303"
ill LEX
1U56
PKF.Rl.-SS
660
675
LS'.-iOO
r ¦: >:a -oo
42-169
42-1S3
^ C - 2 2 2
40"225
",':n
'0 - 2 7 6
42-076
-'A'- ' Vd'V
S1'E:-:AR; -'..'A.'-i'JtK
31-6 OA
•: '2-/30 23-335
r- -
:5
; - 076
iy-:ss
CHE >2-73:
r »¦ * p ,vi t ' r.. c ^ o D
-495
-<*-35
S'JN ELECTRIC
7 5 ~ Srnrt-'^o
910 1 -co^ 7
/" It! £
I
'r I"
ij 912 ]
?301
¦s.(i"T T \Y ::,f ' '¦ • "CVrj'.f Y1!
ml;
E-ll
-------
v: r -rer.zs 7c Obtain a Lic-=r.s•.
zzrorz zee
CJ- - -
tan Dr.
-pp-y tor anc completes an app^zcazicn.
(application forms are provided by the deparz.~a.nt)
-=:ore a .zcense for ar. anznorz zc-z szatzzn is r.rriz
cc ;;r::r=:s s-zrezy z':er=or., d'zly lio-r.-ed to do 1 -zs :-.+ ¦? ztaie
."evada. approved as re- :'err: by zha azzzrr.ey gerarsl, cr 'i~spzsi~.
* '. z r. r/.r zeparzn-rnt (aj zasr., (z>) a ~>cnc ssz-~z lz z.ze ,n:zz~z ~ z j. ~~ s /
f
\ '
thaz z'r.e applicant shall conczc:
fra-zc or frazd'zl en.t represen is ti or. arc wi thozt vi ~ 1 a tier. of zhe provisions c
Chapter 445 of i'P.S cr these regulations.
4. The depart-anz will ir.spect authorized stations and certify That they are
pr: perl y ec~zi ppec and their personnel are adeczazely zrair.ee ic issue
car t: fi ~i t e of compliance or appli Cc-.i r r s for :-c-iv--r in zcorra-. re izh the
zc zcaczres of the ceparzr er.t. On or afzer January 1, !?:?>, a .arson
r.ar.ing application to bacon,e licensed zs an azzhrrizez srazicr. m.zst provide
eczipr.arz necessary to perform. the ir.szeczi or. rec\.i zed in Article 4.1. The
eci:i z r-er.z must include the following, singly cr i.n c:~binazion:
1. I-rniticn analyzer cscellzsccze cr equivalent.
2. C=r
3. '.'clz'-ezer
4. Tachzn.etsr
5. 7ac z L'.7i gauge
6. Car: ancle dwell meter
7. Ignition timing light
S. Compression tester
9. Szaze approved infra-red a:.alyzer
10. Ciszributor advance tester.
5. Ko license shsll be issvec to an applicant unless the applicant employs at
least one approved ir.sveczor, *ho may be zhe station oosr.
6. Licensing Fee is ?25.00. License expires at midnight on December 31 of each,
calendar year.
7. City or County license, if required.
E-12
-------
NEVADA
A£Z>?£SS
mo. or i::£?£ctc?-s
License disclaved
Yes
Station
Ir.ssectors
Peculation sicn ocsted
References available
State exhaust er.issirn standards
Specification r-ar/jal
Titles
Tjr.e -\i3 ec::i-rer.t
.-jre the inspection records available and ccr.ciete
Are the Certifirate of Ccrnliar.ee fcrr.s available
Are they filled cut sreoeriv
Per.arks
Type of infra red ecuipr.ent
Serial :;ur.ber
.Model
Tolerances
Corralaticn factor
CO %
Hi Standard
iiibration Test
1st tast reaci.-.c: CO
Standard
??M 2nd test reading: CO_
Ird test readir.c: CO
:h t-2st resdinc: CO
_% HC_
_% HC_
' HC_
% HC
??M
CUT OF SI?"TCI
?.LASC:.T: "ailed to pass calibration test
Approved Inspector ncterplcyad
Failure to keep bond in force
Yes
license under revocation
Failure to renew license
Other
Last Certificate of Compliance issued on 19 . Cert.^
This equipment car.r.ot be used for the issuance of a certificate of cor.pliar.ee until released
by an agent of the -mission Control Section of the Department of "otor Vehicles. 236-3356.
Station Authorised representative
tr.ission Control Officer
3ack in Service: Date 19 ; Tine AM ?y.
mission Control Officer
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-11
Reinspection Station Test Procedure & Standards F-15
-------
~
? w.ccnh
>
n V|i» O'" rfimCU* l?*f.O*< OA IC
Nev; Jersey Inspection
I? o c u Lt: j
3 STEERING AMD SUSPENSION
| | l- | *MeeL r°ck
lOOtiMcas
R* mout ino
6 Examination of cla|
Ulf!
WIN03HICL0
t.
OOO*
A.
Alia
oeoa
n.
L. VENTS
A.
L.
• in
• IDS
A
ai«a
NEW JCASCY OIVI8ION OF MOTOR VCHlCLCS
INSPECTION CARD
The motor vehicle feglalared aa thown on the face of thla card hu been
rejected. Rejected Heme hive been punched. Check by corresponding
number oa mao^t'on requirements.
Thia ta an official record whlcn muat 0* pteeented when the vehicle ia lo be
relnspected. 00 NOT DESTROY.
Tha repaired vehicle mual be presented forrelnapeclion within .tt days Irom
lha data of original Issue of (Ma card If lha vehicle U not praaaniad lor
rainapectlon within lha 36-day parlod II may be aubjact lo a comptate
rainapectlon. flepelra may ba mede by any person al any placa and lha
relnapacilon may ba mada al c licensed Rainapactlon Caniar (lor a fee) or al
a Slata Impaction Station. Tha Otvlslon doaa noi do any aucn wcrk nor may
III employees recommend ho*, where, or by whom it should ba dona
"C* COLUMN • (Clarification for rejection on face)
21. MISCELLANEOUS (Reason for reieciion under item 21 on face)
Id. OTHER LIGHTS (Reason for rejection under item IB cn face)
¦ uKimcr
UCar#KATIO« 4.
M4PI [Z1
~
~
~
~
~
Reporting Form
(Front and Back)
-------
Teim VUV 001 S/?7
SIJUMIT rtL> UYi
NAME
rnorie
May Ji.icsia hi- i aiI'Jnj i *ii i nvikonmimN im. rito i i.ciion
VEHICLE IDLE IIMISSIOK INVENTORY
IDLE INSPECTION DATA SHEET
Jo», llo.
I'ltUtO
[ I XBVMVKOI - I..
f•• • • • OI O'll.l I >||.C
| | XftVMVKI) - A.lj
CqiICTU J Oiilll
2J
W
s:
M
?0
en
M
~<
i
i
II 12
I
U>
D
r
m
w
3:
M
in
a>
M
o
z:
u
>
H
>
W
Pd
tn
w
H
-------
T1
I
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF JINV 1 RONMENTAL PROTECTION
AND DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES
COST STUDY OP AMISSION RELATED REPAIRS
4J a
CJ o
•H
C 4'
O AS M
•WOO)
4-i *H ,Q
O G
0) H 3
0.4J2
w a
c a)
H 'O
a> M
M
nj
0)
>~
0)
¦o
o
<0
u
a>
<0
O 4J
a> o
a. a>
W -n
C
VI
a>t
M
5*3
CO
-------
Codes to be used with ?IJDE? and DMV "Cost Study of Emission Related
Repairs" form
Column 6: Type of Center
D = Automobile Dealer
G = Garage
S = Service Station (gas station)
O = Other
Columns
11 - 14: Make
of Car
OPEL
Opel
=
A.MCO
=
American Motors
FIAT
Fiat
OTHR
=
Other
AUDI
=
Audi
FORD
Ford
PLYI-1
=
Plymouth
AUHE
=
Austin Kealey
HOND
a
Honda
PONT
3
Pontiac
AUST
=
Austin
INTE
International
PORS
=
Porsche
3MWO
a
BMW
JAGU
a
Jaguar
PUGT
3
Peugeot
BUCK
=
Buick
JEEP
a
Jeep
REHA
S
Renault
CADI
=
Cadillac
LINC
=
Lincoln
SAAB
3
Saab
CHEK
=
Checker
MAZD
a
Mazda
SUBA
=
Subaru
CHEV
=
Chevrolet
MEBZ
Mercedes Benz
TOYO
=
Toyota
CHRY
Chrysler
MERC
=
Mercury
TRIP
3
Triumph
DATS
=
Datsun
MGOO
MG
VOLX
as
Volkswagen
DODG
=
Dodge
OLDS
Oldsmobile
VOLV
=
Volvo
Columns 30, 32, 34: Emissions Failures
1 = Vehicle failed for this pollutant
0 = Vehicle die 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 (PCV, 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
MEMO
new JERSEY STATE DEPARTMENT OF EHVIROI-IMEMTat F=OTECTION
to; vehicular anc r; ansf of.tat i on ffoof.ams persoiih£l
FROM; DANIEL COMPSPTHwaiT DATE; DECEMBER ^3, 1979
SUBJECT; NOVEMBER MONTML'r INSPECTION FEFOFT
aTTSCHED IS THE NOVEMBER MOTOR VEHICLE MOMTHLI INSPECTION FEFOFT, THE
O VEF ALL FOILUFE RATE FOR THE MONTH WAS 18.16 PERCENT AS COMPARED WITH .
18.53 FERCENT IN OCTOBER. ALL TOLD, 266928 VEHICLES WEFE TESTED; 48468...-.
WEFE F EJECTED FOR EMISSIONS. THE F EI IISF'ECT I ON FAILUFE FATE FOP NOVEMBER
wos 30.08 percent as compared with 29.63 percent in October, a total of
22637 vehicles, cr 46.71 fefcemt, returned for reinspection as com-
FAFED WITH INITIAL IMSF'ECTION REJECTIONS,
FAILURE
CHANGE
OVER
STATION
PATE
-
pevioys_
MONTH
FOLLOWING five
STATIONS HAVE
THE
HIGHEST
INITIAL
P ATE
*
whip PAN r
22.75
6.19
r-OBB
WESTFIELD
24.21
".90
E>F INKER
no bp.umsu:c:<
24.3?
. 16
SWANSON
COHDEil
25.61
'2.08
SWANSQM
KILMER
27.39
4.05
SWAMSOH
FOLLOWING FIVE
STATIONS HAVE
THE
LOWEST
INITIAL
PATE ~
LOCI
9.91
-2. 1 4
WEST
BPIDGETON
10.04
**4.77
TERR, T
UN ION
12.02
1 .04
BP INKER
F AHWAY
12.86
3.30
&PIHKSP
DEPTFOF0
13 .30
*.44
TERRY
: FOLLOWI'lC FIVE
STATIONS HAVE
THE
HIGHEST
PEEKAM
RATE •
WASHINGTON
42.23
3.42
WEST
MANAHAUKIM
44.31
6.09
JOHflSON
KILMER
44.76
2.68
SWANSON
ATLANTIC CT
45.26
7.29
TEF F. f
LOPI
49. 15
18.54
WEST
: FOLLOWING FIVE
STATIONS HAVE
THE
LOWEST
r.EE!:AM PATE J
LIVINGSTON
10.34
"3.61
' OBB
CAMDEN
15.62
.94
SWANSON
ATCO
15.39
"1 .22
TEF RY
PARAMUS
17.69
.48
WEST
NEWAR K
13.33
".23
3 R I N l< E R
F-6
-------
DATE? DECEMBER J. Q f 19"
MEW JERSEY DEPAp-TMEflT OP ENVIPONMENTAU PROTECTION
AND
DIVtSIOM OF MOTOR VEHICLES
MONTHLY VEHICLE INSPECTION P.EFOPT
NOVEMBER 1979
I
W I T I
A L
F.
EE::
A M 3
STaTIOH
EXAMS
PAIL
PERCENT
geexAMS
RETUFN
FAIL
ISStJ
ASBUftl FORK
4847
786
16
• "1">
521
66
.28
213
40
.38
JOHNSON
0TC9 :
4744
809
17
.05
340
42
.03
54
15
.38
TEF.R r
ATLANTIC CT
5714
1071
18
.74
369
3d
.45
167
45
.26
TEFRY
PPir'GETON
2649
266
10
.04
->25
84
.59
32
23
. 11
TERRY
fcUF LINGTOM
4540
816
17
.97
378
46
.32
97
23
. 66
3 AN K S
CfiMC'EM
13699
3508
25
. 61
1306
37
.23
204
15
.62
SWANSON
CAPE Mor
3131
550
17
.57
255
46
.36
84
32
.94
TERR r
OEPTFORO
9332
1211
13
. 30
674
34
. 31
177
26
.26
TEF F 1
EATONTOWM
10529
1443
13
.71
692
47
.96
183
26
.45
JOHNSON
FLEMIflGTOM
3283
389
17
.94
329
55
.86
110
33
.43
BANKS
FREEHOLD
6344
1164
18
• 35
561
48
.20
137
33
. 33
JOHNSON
HACKENSACK
4780
960
20
.08
391
40
.73
138
35
.29
WEST
JERSEY CITY
6481
1180
18
.21
826
70
.00
216
26
. 15
BANKS
KILMER
7297
2013
27
.39
840
41
.73
376
44
.76
SWANSON
LIVIMG5TQM
4641
853
18
.38
232
27
.20
24
10
. 34
ROBB
loo:
13275
1315
9
.91
468
35
.59
230
49
. 15
WEST
MAMAHAWK 111
2415
422
17
.47
246
58
.29
109
44
> 31
JOHNSON
MILLVILLa
4254
958
m
.52
495
51
.67
143
28
.39
TERRY
MONTCLAIR
3357
1654
19
.79
683
41
.29
191
27
.96
F OBB
MORRISTOWN
9395
1579
16
.46
624
39
.52
186
29
.81
POD&
MT , HOLLT'
5364
1141
19
.46-
498
43
.65
154
30
.92
BANKS
NEWAR K
15523
2611
1 o
.82
791
30
.29
145
13
. 33
I-RINKER
NEWTON
4986
862
17
.29
476
55
«°2
116
24
.37
ROBS
NO BRUNSWICK
4323
1076
24
.89
430
39
.96
153
35
.53
SWANSON
PARAMUS
12693
2579
20
.32
1266
49
.09
104
17
.69
WEST
PLAINFIELD
6033
1198
19
.86
783
65
.36
304
38
.33
BP.INKER
RAHUAY
11855
1524
12
.36
9'06
59
.45
316
34
.33
BRIHKER.
RIDGEWOOD
6272
1155
18
.42
628
54
.37
168
26
.75
WEST
SALEM
2483
504
20
. 30
251
49
.80
83
33
.07
TEF'R Y
5ECAUCUS
8146
1650
20
.26
636
38
.55
206
32
.39
BANKS
SOMERVILLE
5346
844
15
.79
640
75
.33
144
n
.50
BANKS
TOMS RIVER
7997
1475
18
.44
813
55
.12
216
26
.57
JOHNSON
TPENTON
12954
2601
20
.08
901
34
.64
205
O-i
.75
SWANSON
UHIOH
4526
544
12
.02
237
52
.76
69
24
.04
BR.INKER
WASHINGTON
4006
752
18
.77
¦499
66
.36
211
42
.29
WEST
WAYNE
14322
2483
17
. 34
1606
64
.68
651
40
. 54
WEST
WESTPIELD
5956
1442
24
.21
462
32
.04
179
33
.74
B R IN K E P
WHIPPANY
3736
350
nn
.75
309
36
.35
125
40
.45
ROfiB
TOTAL
266928
48463
18
. 16
22637
46
.71
6810
30
.08
F-7
-------
OflTE: f'ECEMSEP 10, ^97
HEW JERSEY SEFOf TKEilT OF EMVIPOMMEMTflL FPOTECTION
Al ID
DIVISIQH OF MOTOR VEHICLES
MONTHLY VEHICLE I NSF EC T I ON REPORT
CUMULATIVE 1979
INITIAL R S E :: A M 3
tI9II!?U S-ifitiS ES5t E.§E££UJ see::om5 EEiyE." fml f;
ASSUPY F5RK
60433
10907
IS
.05
6662
61
.08
2638
39,
, 60
JOHNSON
ATCO
62455
10728
17
. 18
4467
41
.64
841
18
.83
TEE R T
ATLANTIC CT
<47106
12033
17
.96
461 1
38
.26
1737
37
.67
r e p r r
SPII'GETOII
33269
5644
16
.96
4154
73
.60
1163
23
.00
TEF'F. I
&UP.L INGTON
56840
10^67
18
.41
4938
47
. 18
1271
25,
, 74
s> A N K s
CAMUEN
172650
39491
22
.87
14866
37
.64
2203
14
;85
5WCIISON
COPE MAY
37936
6889
18,
. 16
2530
36
. 73
694
27,
1 43
T E P P' T
Z'CF TFORD
120696
14273
11
.33
6490
45
. 47
1692
26
.07
TERP I
SATONTOWN
134120
19703
14,
.69
10619
53
.90
2164
20,
, 33
JOHNSON
FLSMIMGTOII
43296
3176
18,
.88
4147
50
.72
1394
33 ,
.61
BAN K S
cP.£EHOLD
32556
16544
20.
.04
3393
50
. 73
3587
42 ,
, 74
JOHNSON
HACKENSACK
58478
10831
13,
.52
5066
46
. 77
1522
30 ,
.04
WEST
JEPSEY CITY
82303
14835
13,
.02
9443
63
.69
2613
T?
.71
£' AII K 3
KILMER
92125
22472
24 ,
.39
10743
47
.31
4672
43 .
,49
SWANSON
LIVINGSTON
59782
10659
17,
.83
2966
27
.83
486
16 ,
,39
ROBE.
LOD I
170966
23050
13,
.43
7482
32
. 46
2158
23 ,
.34
WEST
MANAHAWKIN
30869
5078
16,
.45
2632
51
.33
378
33,
, 36
JOHNSON
MILLVILLE
55913
12153
21,
.73
6611
54
. 40
1909
2°.
.88
TEr P "f
MONTCLAIR
104751
20606
19.
.67
3732
42
.62
2505
23.
,52
P OBB
MOP P.I5TOWN
121337
21545
17 ,
.76
9657
44
.32
2975
30.
,31
ROSS
MT, HOLLf
- 76163
17222
m ,
.61
6213
36
. 10
1905
30 .
64
&6iWK5
NEWARK
191699
31032
16.
. 19
10914
35
.17
2051
13.
,79
BP INKER
NEWTON
67243
11748
17.
. 47
6540
55
.67
1954
29 .
88
F'O&S
MO BRUNSWICK
54799
12570
->n t
,94
4204
33
.44
1217
23.
,95
5WAN50N
PAP AMUS
164687
29329
17.
.31
14256
48
.61
2548
17 .
87
WEST
PLAIMPIELD
76417
15954
20.
,33
9578
60
.04
3093
32.
29
BRISKER
RAHWOY
148595
19091
12.
,35
11672
61
. 14
3568
30.
37
&PIMKER
RIDGEWOOD
78081
13529
17.
.33
7323
54
. 13
1369
25.
,52
WEST
SALEM
32230
5328
16.
.53
2948
55
.33
1016
34 .
46
TEP F Y
SECAUCUS
101288
19150
13.
,91
8058
42
.08
2360
29.
29
SOMERVILLE
65917
13489
20.
.46
9325
69
. 13
2144
o n
99
BANKS
TOMS RIVER
100532
17676
17.
, 50
9472
53
.59
2523
26.
64
JOHNSON
TRE1ITQH
153953
31152
19,
, 60
11120
35
. 70
2433
21.
92
swortsotj
UNION
52337
6943
13.
14
3531
50
.36
311
22.
97
&F I.NKEP
WASHINGTON
52333
9051
17 ,
.30
5440
60
.10
2170
39.
,39
WE3T
WO fHE
183603
33094
20.
,75
20772
54
.53
3333
42.
55
WEST
WESTFIELD
75596
13805
24 ,
,38
7065
37
.57
2654
37,
,57
&F HIKER
WHIPRANY
47888
9516
19.
.37
3806
40
.00
1348
35.
42
PO&©
TOTAL
3376739
615733
13.
24
287506
46
.69
33619
29.
08
F-3
-------
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AND
DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES
MONTHLY VEHICLE INSPECTION REPORT
NOVEMBER 1979
Calendar Year
-------
ni:w .jijusiiY division of environmental quality
MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTIONS
DATA SUMMARY
All Stations
Nov 1978
NOV 19 79
Cumulative 1979
Total Initial Handlings
272,696
266,928
3,376,739
Initial Emission
Rejection Rate (Percent)
19.05%
18.16%
18.24%
•n
Total (Safety and Emission)
Initial Rejection Rate (Percent)
48.11%
47.30%
47.38%
i
O
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%
tn
s:
M
PJ
CO
M
K
i
i
CJ
>
H
>
CO
£
pa
Kj
o
?a
>
tr*
t-
cn
H
>
H
M
O
z
CO
Waiting Time (Minutes)
-------
NEW JERSEY -
- CALIBRATION PROCEDURE
CALI3?.A?;CN ?ROCiDC?X
Si.-.ca sxhausz analysers are extremely sensitive instruments,
careful maintenance and calibration is necessary. ixhaust :as
analysers are of major assistance to the mechanic when they ara
in coed vcrJci."g order. t-Thes they are net in good working order,
they can be misleading and the cause of wasted effort.
The basic guide for maintaining ar.y specific analyser is
the manual which cones with the instrument. This manual must be
followed co the lettar. Since there are major differences between
instruction procedures used for the various analysers, so a:teoct
is made here to provide the detailed guidance which would apply"
to each of the approved models.
n:aro set" and "3paa" adjustments are vital. After the
analyser has been varied up, these adjustments should be performed
as described in the manufacturer1 s manual before each emissions
test. Carelessness with these tvo adjustments will defeat the
purpose of the analyser.
Cf equal importance is periodic calibration of the analyser.
The analyser's accuracy is checked by sampling a standard gas with
known concentrations cf carbon nonoxide and hydrocarbons. The
analyser should accurately identify the composition of this test
gas within the permitted tolerances.
C-as caiibration should be performed as often as it is necessary
to maintain analyser accuracy. This is at least every two weeks
vher. performed by shop personnel, or every three months when per-
formed by a service contractor. Records 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 by the Division of Motor
T*shi ciss •
At licensed Motor Vehicle '^inspection Centers, Division'of
:*.ctor 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 made by a manu-
facturer-authorized service/caliiraticn representative. Figure
2 is an illustration of the calibration cas equipment used in ..:e
official Mew Jersey calibration procedure.
F-ll
-------
r_i=e
5'ausci;
?¦*?"—-1=3? "liv«
~?T-° cfiicial Mew Jarsey saiiirizici prscedurs i.3. is :cll.;vs:
1
The anal'/:e: 5
hill Z'
r^iuras :r:cr
-3 t3S
=«r3C.*^ei sr.il
1 is
cricr ir.ves
ra-a:
. {?.aii3?ec~ics cei'ia.r
sroasijla i=r *.*-.s rac-iiraser.i
T>.a rare aid 3par. cc-ire 1 3eii^..-.g szculi be sieehec
—i, -i .-.acaasAr-/, ;=rrsc-3c. Zi v.a :sr; aid 3^4.-
cair.cz ae set vizi. i~\:z lass il-ar. 50 r=a (HC aid
2 . 3> (CO ;rsr i 3C-sac=ic :en:c, -l.-.2
serz^iici-isi szickar rusz se iirkac disarcrcvec aid
ii s'-z-of-semse sziricar 3-all be iizac.-.ad -2 zie
i.-.al'*~2r. "icMrs : il.-iS"azas iia ^a-libra-ici
c :^-c:-ser7'.:a sugars.
rare ir.c. sz&i iri_- ara zz&sa ..:
vi ;i ".a rasz ;;
F-12
-------
THIS UNIT
HAS SEEN CROSSED
OUT OF
SERVICE
JY rne NRV ;EaSSY SIVtSICH
OP MOTCfl VHHIC^S
•*n wtust inwt4r WUM *o« a* umq '3f
«niiMA *>f*flC«C£OA .AQi a U* C3ner*>
ion s c»«rfi»a > a gf 1-wmfw
r#mai >rtecson 3
-------
-~ac.. me regu-acor tigntiv zo tne ca-icraticr. gas
cylinder. (>Tote that this connection utilises a
laft-handad thread.) Cpen the cylinder valve shut-
off located cn top cf the cylinder. Read the gas
delivery pressure off the regulator cauge. If it
is r.ct approximately 10 lis., adjust it by turning
the T-screw cn the regulator. This adjustment ziust
he uade wish both the supply line shut-off valve
and flew cor.trol valve open. After adjusting, close
the flow cor.trol valve.
3. To check for analyser sacple hose leaks, secure the
hose tightly over the tip cf the sample prcbe. If
a lew-flow condition is not indicated on the analyser,
there is a laak in the sample hose sysies which aust
is corrected before proceeding.
5. Open the flew control valve until the balloon just
barely inflates. After 30 seconds, record the ana-
lyter readings in the proper blanks.
?uil the hose off the prcbe and irmediataiy clcse the
flow-control valve and then the shut-off valve on toe
cylinder. ?.echeck the sero en the analyzer as in
Step 2. The drift rr.ust still be within 50 ppm HC
and 0.3% CC cr ar. out-cf-service stickar rtust be
issued.
3. ?.eopen the flow-control valve until the pressure drops
to tero cn both gauges. Then close- all valves and
rencva the regulator :re- she cylinder. P.eplace tne
cylinder cap.
?. Mew compare the analyser readings ycu recorded against
the expected analyser readings. If the difference is
greater than 100 ppia HC or 0.3% CO, the instrument is
out cf calibration.
10. Affix the filled-out "gas calibration certification
sticker" to the analyser.
Since the analysers encountered in the carace system will be of
many different makes, problems nay be encountered with using tnis
procedure on all of then. If such a problem is encountered, call
the lab • and a technician will attar.pt to "talk you through"
the orccedure.
F-14
-------
NEW JERSEY REINSPECTION STATION TEST PROCEDURE AND
STANDARDS
ttZZ ??CCZ-L~ Airs
The ;e:ar~snt of invirsnr.ental Protection has specified
staps vhicn sust is folloved in order to cor.duct an emissions
inspection test. These are as follows:
1. The zest shall be conducted after the engine has
'seen operating for a sufficient period of ti^e to
attain r.crMi operating terxeratura.
2. With the rotor vehicle in neutral gear, all acces-
sories off ar.d the hand brake secured, accelerate
the engine to approximately 2500 rpm and hold.
Observe for visible smcke in the exhaust emissions
and/or crankcase enissicr.s.
ilOTS: Any isotor vehicle designed primarily for
transportation of persons or property and regis-
tered at 5,000 pounds gross vehiole veight cr less
shall not eniit visible smoka fron the exhaust syste-
or the crankcase.
3. with the engine operating i- idla insert the sairple
probe of the exhaust ar.aiy:er into the vehicle's
exhaust pipe. The probe tip shall be inserted at
least 5 to 12 inches, or as far as possible, into
the tailpipe, "or dual exhaust vehicles, check
both exhaust pipes; the higher reading shall ba
the exhaust gas aeasurerer.t.
-1. The steady state emissions levels measured as percent
carbon Tnonoxide (CO%) and parts per niilion cf hydro-
carbons (HC ppss) in the exhaust shall be the inspec-
tion test result. These results shall be cocpared by
vehicle node! vaar and effective date as shown in
Table 1.
TA3L2 1
raw JZaSZY 0E?A?.TMJ^IT OF ENVT3CNMINTAL PROTECTION
EXHACJST EMISSIONS STANDARDS
itedel Yaar
of Vehicle CO (3) HC (pom)
?rs-1963 3.5 1400
1368-1969 7.0 700
1970-197; 3.0 500
1975-1979 3.0 300
F-15
-------
::
-------
a??xovzc tist ZQtx?Ks:rr
£missicr.s analyzers ara highly sensisiva i.istraiests vhicn
measure the amount of carbcn monoxide (CC) and hydrocarbons (HC)
i.-. tne axhaust gases of a no tor vehicle. The analyser's direct
reading raters show the mechanic the percentage cf carbcn scnoxide
ar.c the parts per million of hydrocarbons in the exhaust. It
should be pointed out that the analyzer also can be of great help
to the mechanic with hi3 trouble-snooting when emissions are ex-
cessive .
Mo instruments are used to check smoke enissions from auto-
mobiles. These emissions are "read by eyeball"
Although exhaust inalyzers come in many sizes, shapes and
colors, the basic operating fundamentals of these instruments
ara 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, cr other
particulates which would interfere with the analysis. The ex-
haust sample is then passed to the sample cell where detectors
and an infrarac licht source ara used to determine the amount of
earner. monoxide ar.d hydrocarbons contained in the sarnie. The de-
tectors provide information to an amplifier which activates the
meters to give diract readings cf the percentage cf carbon monoxide
and the parts per million cf hydrocarbons in the exhaust sample.
Analyzers used in the Mew Jersey amissions inspection test
must be approved by che Department cf Environmental Protection.
These analyzers must be of the type employing the tJcn-Dispersive
Infrared (>fDI?.) principle. The 3ureau of Air Pollution Control
periodically publishes a list of approved NDI?. analyzers. This
does not .tear, the Department recommends any specific analyzer
which appears cn the list. It does mean that the analyzers named
have been examined ar.d tested by Mobile Source Control technicians.
These technicians have certified that the analyzers Met the fol-
lowing specifications 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 cf
Environmental Protection. The system shall be capable of
continuously measuring the concentration cf carbon monox-
ide* ar.d hydrocarbons** in vehicle exhaust emissions
from a gasoline engine in the idle mode.
2. A direct readout is required for both carbcn monoxide
and hydrocarbons.
F-17
-------
i. The analyser shall be simple to operate and -aintain
cy garaga personnel. The analycer sr.all have suffi-
cient durability anc ruggecness fcr freeuant use and
continuous analysis at vancus vehicle axnaust flew
races for long periods m a garage ar.vircr.seii-- Ccn-
secuently, the oeeratme te.Traerature rar.ae shall be
betveen 32°F-,and 110°?.*
4. The analyser concentration ranees shall be the follov-
ing:
Slch Sance Low ?-ance
CO range: 0-10% 0-4%
r.C range: 0-2000 pom 0-400 ppn hexine
3. The hexane-prooane factor shall. be analytically de-
termined at the 5000 ppm carbon concentration and
3r.all be in. the range of 0.47 so 0.55. The factor
snail be displayed cn the outside of the cabinet.
o. Interference fror. acn-interest gases, particulates,
and water vapor shall be less than l%cf full scale.
". The response time for an sxhaust gas sample intro-
duced at the crcie shall be iess than 10 seconds
for 90% of the reading.
3. The accuracy af the analyzer shall be greater
+ 3% of the full scale reading for all ranges.
"era sr.d spar, drift shall be no sore tnan -3%
scale m two-hours.
?. The sampla¦¦system -shall -include all ccapcnents as
probe, tubing, pv.rros. filters, water traps, etc. re-
quired to continuously analyse raw axnaust gas. The
system shall be easy to clear, and maintain.
10. A. low flew indicator shall indicate a sample flow
degradation sufficient to cause a response time
•greater than 10 seconds for 90S of tr.e reading.
11. The hydrocarbon hang up shall be measured at 70°:
by sampling an idling 3-cyiincer engine with cr.a
spark plug disconnected to create a concentration
between 1500 pen ana 2C00 pen hydrocarbons. After
sampling for five mnutas, -the probe 3hall be re-
moved from the axnaust pipe and the HC reading shall
stabilize within 30 seconds at a reading less than
10% si full scala.
F-10
-------
12. The sy start certain a sa.iiira-si.or: checX for :er-
isra&nce tasting. T^.e caiiiraticr. method nay be a
?as standard cr a tier aecr.ajs-cai er electrical setiod.
Air say be ased isr zero checfeir.g. The ijsatruaer.t
shall ta.v& tie capability isr ^as caliiritior. thrsuijh
ieii —a saneii.-.c svstea ss.
-------
APPENDIX G
LIST OF OREGON APPENDIX MATERIAL
Pa^e
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-l 0
Sample Monthly Activity Report
G-ll
Sample Heavy-Duty Vehicle Test Summary
G-l 2
Waiting Time Survey
G-l 3
Repair Cost Survey
G-l 4
Cost of Repair Survey
G-l 5
Station Supervisors' Calibration Log
G-l 6
Analyzer Calibration Schedule
G-l 7
Customer Statement of Replacement Equipment
G-l 8
G-l
-------
OREGON -
- EMISSION TEST FORM
DEPARTMENT Or ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
EMISSION TEST FORM
Date
Equioment Numoer
L i cense
Year
1
Make
1 1 1
L i ne
1 1 1
Engine ClO/ec
1 1 l
TEST
SPEED
3PM
COS
HC pom
C02*
DISCONNECT/
OTHER
INSPECTOR
1st Idle
PCV ~
AIR ~
EGR O
CAT ~
TAC ~
01 ST Q
EVAP ~
SMOKE ~
DILUTION Q
NOISE ~
TEST RESULT
2500
2nd Idle
1 -4-
P
F
L i cense
Year
Ma*e
J L
L i ne
Engine ClO/cc
I I I
TEST
SPEED
P.PM
COS
HC pp.n
co2s
DISCONNECT/
OTHER
INSPECTOR
!
1st 1d1e |
PCV ~
AIR ~
EGR ~
SMOKE ~
DILUTION^
NOISE Q
CAT ~
TAC ~
01 ST ~
EVAP Q
2500
TEST
RESULT
2nd Idle)
I
P
F
L1 cense
1 1 1 1 1 1
Year
1
Make
1 1 1
L i ne
1 1 1
Engine CID/cc
1 1 1
TEST
SPEED
3PM
0
0
Jf
HC opm
co2s
DISCONNECT/
OTHER
INSPECTOR
1st idle
PCV ~
AIR 0
EGR ~
CAT ~
TAC ~
DIST ~
EVAP ~
SMOKE ~
DILUTION ~
NOISE ~
TEST RESULT
2500
2nd Idle
P F
:s434433S3;:33s43343443if3344i 9*43443 44 33 *4444444 44 04*444444444 44 *i44 444444444444 444000044444 4444444)
0EQ/AQ-701
V I p-75080
0-2
-------
OREGON -- NONCOMPLIANCE FORM
TEST OATE
Mon th
Day
Year
(DEPARTMENT OF SNVI RONMENTAL QUALITY
VEHICLE INSPECTION PROGRAM
EMISSION CONTROL TEST RESULTS
| | Carbon Monoxide (CO)
1 I Emission Control Equipment
I 1 Idle Speed Too High
~
NONCOMPLIANCE
1 i Hydrocarbon Gases (HC)
I I Smoke
1 I 0 iIu t i on
Exhaust Inaccessible
LICENSE:
YEAR:
MAKE:
VEHICLE STANOARDS
AT IOLE
TEST RESULTS
IOLE READINGS
EMISSION CONTROL EQUIPMENT DEFECT
CO %
CO %
1. 0 Positive Crankcase
Ventilation (PCV) System
2. D Exhaust Modifier System
3. Q Exhaust Gas Recirculation
(EGR) System
k. Q Evaporative Control System
5. Q Special Emission Control
Devices
HC ppm
HC ppm
Idle Speed RPM
Idle Speed RPM
Minimum OMution Factor
CO + CO, %
Oilution Factor
| CO + CO, %
l
i
STATION:
INSPECTOR:
RETEST OATE
Passed:
Fa i1ea:
Station:
•** ADVISORY ***
EMISSION READINGS AT 2500 RPM WERE:
CO S
HC ppm
INSPECTORS ARE PROHIBITED FROM MAKING ANY RECOfENDATICfIS OR ESTIMATES
RELATIVE TO REPAIRS OR REPAIR FACILITY.
GENERAL REPAIR INFORMATION ON REVERSE SIDE.
RETURN COMPLETED FORM AT TE€ OF REINSPECTION.
OEQ/AQ- 702
VIP 77192
R- 3
-------
OREGON -- DIAGNOSTIC SUGGESTIONS
An amission tune-uD performed by a qualified technician will
usually correct a ooliution problem and also improve eigine
perrormance ana increase cas mileage.
1. High carjon monoxide (CO) emissions may be caused by:
" Incorrect carouretion adjustments -¦ PCV valve restricted
¦' Choke malfunction * Severely restricted air cleaner
- Dirty or worn carburet ion system
2. excessive hydrocarbon gases (hC) may result from:
~ Faulty ignition system Defective emission control equipment
* ImproDer timing * Leaking exhaust valves
" Excessively lean carburetion adjustments
3- '/isible smoke is generally caused by:
* Improper or inadequate maintenance
- Varn piston rings or valves
U. Pollution control equipment:
Both Feaerai and Oregon lat, prohibit disconnecting, or modifying, or altering
the requirec emission control equipment. This control equioment is designed to
reduce exhaust emissions during various driving conditions and not just at idle.
5¦ Dilution:
Dilucion is generally caused by exhaust system leaks. Such leaks do not allow
for a proper emission control test, ^nd may allow dangerous fumes to enter
the venicle.
ATf/ISCR'; NUTS: High 2500 RPM readings may indicate that more thorough repairs than
siraoly those affecting the idle -node may be advisable to insure good averal'; vehicle
performance.
TO 5E FILLED OUT B'S HE?.€EH ."ACILiri' OR VEHICLE: QWiEH
Person or Facility Performing Repairs
Address
3a te of Repairs
Check the appropriate items below indicating the repairs and adjustments performed:
Q A/F Hixzure
M Idle Speed
~ Air Cleaner
M Choke
| [ Carburetion
Owe 11/Timing
Spark Plugs
Plug Wires
0 i s t r i feu tor
Vacuum Hoses
~ Other
TOTAL COST OF REPAIRS: $
REFJRN COMPLETED ?0RM AT TE'E OF PEDBrSCnON
EJE<1/AQ- 702 Vlp 77132
G-4
-------
OREGON
DEFECT NOTIFICATION
POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT
(Oefect Checked 3elow)
1.Positive Crankcase Ventilation (PCV) System
2.Exhaust Modifier Systems
3-Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) System
k.Evaporative Control System
5.Soecial Emission Control Devices
Oregon Igd, OSS iS3. 325, prohibits disconnecting, or xtodif-jing, or
altering required pollution control equipment. The vehicle inspection
program rules adopted by zhe Znvirovmental Q/jali—j Commission prohibit
issuing a certificate of compliance to vehicles vith pollution control
equipment defects.
Pollution Control Systems Incluee:
1. 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.
b. 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, thermostatic air cleaner,
pre-heat tube, transmission controlled spark, tnrottle solenoid control, etc.
Department of Environmental Quality
Vehicle Inspection Program
Portland, Oregon
229-6235
OEQ/AQ-706 (Rev. 11/77)
VIP 77318
(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 caugnt in a bag and then measured to determi'ne 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 k,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 oollution
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-instaI Ied motor vehicle air Dollution
control devices or systems.
OREGON REVISED STATUTE *>83.325
'483.825. DISCONNECTION OR ALTERATION OF FACTORY-INSTALLED MOTOR VEHICLE AIR
POLLUTION CONTROL DEVICE OR SYSTEM PROHISI TED.
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to disconnect or permit to be dis-
connected a factory-instalIed motor vehicle air pollution control device or a factory-
installed system, as defined in ORS 'tfeS.J&O, nor shall any person knowingly and
willfully permit such device or factory-instaI 1ed system to become or remain inoperative.
(2) I* shall be unlawful for any person to modify or alter a certified system
or a factory- i ns ta I led system, as defined in ORS *(68.360, in a manner which decreases
its efficiency or effectiveness in the control of air pollution.
(3) (a) The provisions of subsections (I) and (2) of this section do not apply
when factory-insta11ed 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.
CO The provisions of subsections (I) 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 CF ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY
VEHICLE INSPECTION PROGRAM LOCATION:
CAIL-.' TESTING SUV-MAR* - LIGHT C'JTV VEHICLES
PASS
psascx rca .vci.rcM? li.-j:ce
HC
CO
9CTH
sriGKZ
I^LZ | DIL
DISC
TOTAL
Pre 63
To C 3 1
63-69
Tota 1
70-71
Total
72-7<*
i
1
Tota i
i
1
75 Plus
1
1
Tota 1
1
1
G.total)
across
Total Light and Heavy Duty
Total Certificates
Total Money
Total Pass
Truck Certs Only
Noise Tests
Over-Short
Deposit Slip Munber
Deposit Slip Number
Notes: Summary Prepared 3y:
Summary Approved 3y:
TiTgnaturasT
Absent: Reason: From-To:
jdown
Overtime:
P.eason
From To:
G-7
-------
OREGON -- WAITING TIME SURVEY
Department of Environmental Quality
Vehicle Insoection Program
Station WAITING TIME SURVEY
Date
Tine
sf Vehicles
7®«;
,t Vehicles
Va i'1 no
3 Ava i1abl e
1 nSD¦<;
9
10
1 1
12 I
1
i
2
3
k
5
1
1
~
o
Tota 1
Averace
OEQ/VI? 77?39
G-3
-------
OREGON -- HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLE TESTING SUMMARY
DEPARTMENT Or ENV I RONMt.'lTAL O.UALITV
VEHICLE INSPECTION PROGRAM
OAILY TESTING SUMMARY
HEAVY DUTY VEHICLES
Locat i on:
Date:
PASS
HC
FAIL
CO
Both
2500
CO
- - - 0
Smoke
T H E R
Idle
Di lu.
disc.
T0T*L
P re 170
!
To r 1
1
1 i
70- ¦ 7"?
•
1
To r .11
1
1
1
1
7<*+
Tfi r ,11
1
Tirand
Tota 1
Aero'. •
Total H.D. Certificates Sold
Deposit Slip Number
Deposit Bag Number
Summary Prepared 3y:
C
Notes:
S i gnature
Summary Approved 3y:
OEQ/AQ-743-3/77
VIP 77152
Signature
G-9
-------
OREGON -- SAMPLE CUMULATIVE ACTIVITY REPORT
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
VEHICL2 INSPECTION PROGRAM
Activity Summary for Julv, L979 - October. 197?
EMISSION INSPECTION TESTS
LIGHT DOW 79,139
HEAVY DtJTY 3,486
TOTAL 82,675
CERTIFICATES OP COMPLIANCE ISSUES 47,490
COMPLIANCE CRITERIA APPLIED:
OAR Chapter 340, Section 24-330 Mandatory Light-Duty
Motor Vehicles Idle Emission Standards
Emission Inspection Tests
Pass Emission Test 47,003 » 59%
Tests Failed for Carbon Monoxide (CO) 11,086 = 14%
Tests Failed for Hydrocarbons (HC) 6,223 » 3%
Tests Failed for Both 3C S CO 6,266 » 8%
Tests Failed for Qnission Equipment Disconnects 4,086_ » 5%
Tests Failed for Other Causes 4,52S = 6%
(i.e., smoke, dilution, idle 3PM)
PRE—CATALYST VEHICLE TESTS
Nuaoer 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%
VP AS (rev.10/79)—VA0013.3 VIP 309
C-10
-------
OREGON -
- SAMPLE MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT
DEPARTMENT OP 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 356
Totals 21,214
CERTIFICATES OP COMPLIANCE ISSUED Light and Heavy Duty 12,309
COMPLIANCE CRITERIA APPLIED:
OAR Chapter 340, Section 24-330 Mandatory Light-Duty
Motor Vehicles Idle-Qnission Standards
Emission Inspection Tests
Pass Qnission Test
12,145
¦
59%
Tests Failed .for
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
2,836
a
14%
Tests Failed for
Hydrocarbons (HC)
1,605
s
8%
Tests Failed for
Both HC & CO
1,581
a
8%
Tests Failed for
Emission Equipment Disconnects
1,014
s
5%
Tests Failed for
Other Causes
1,277
a
6%
(i.e., smoke, dilution, idle RPM)
Pte-Catalvst Vehicle Tests
Number of Tests 8,682 » 42% of all Tests
Percentage Pass 524
1975 and Mewer Vehicle Tests
Number of Tests 11,776 » 58% of all Tests
Percentage Pass 65%
Total Light and Heaw Dutv Emission Inspection Test bv 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
OQARTMENT OP ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
VEHICLE INSPECTION PROGRAM
522 Southwest Fifth Avenue
Portland, Oregon
3eavy-0uty Gasoline Vehicle Test Summary
October 1979
QtlSSION INSPECTION T2STS 856
OVERALL PERCENTAGE PASS 58.9%
Pre-1970 Trucks (260)
Pass Emission Test 56.9%
Tests Failed for Carbon Monoxide (CO) 10.0%
Tests Failed for Hydrocarbons (EC) 13.0%
Testa Failed for 3oth HC & CO 4.2%
Tests Failed for CO 3 2500 rpm 10.0%
Tests 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 (HC) 12.6%
Tests Failed for 3oth 3C and CO 6.0%
Tests Failed for CO 3 2500 rpm 6.0%
Tests Failed for Qnission 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 9 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) VIP 309
G-12
-------
OREGON -- WAITING TIME SURVEY
Department of Snvironmental Quality
Vehicle Inspection Program
Waiting Tine Survey
Minutes Average Waiting Time
September 1979
Date Station
Powell Northwest Northeast Tigard Milwaukie 3oc!cwood Hillsfaoro
9/4 3.7 1.5 2.3 10.9 1.9 4.1 3.4
9/6 2.8 1.3 0.3 7.2 0.0 1.2 0.9
9/8 4.4 1.2 2.2 5.3 1.2 0.9 1.2
9/11 16.6 7.5 6.5 26.2 5.0 4.1 7.5
9/20 3.7 . 2.3 3.1 7.5 2.3 3.1 3.1
9/28 3.4 4.4 4.1 11.2 3.1 O.fi 2.5
9/29 4.7 1.2 2.5 1.6 1.2 0.9 2.3
Average 6.3 2.8 3.1 10.0 2.2 2.1 3.1
VA2047
vrs (6/79)
G-13
-------
OEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
VEHICL2 INSPECTION PROGRAM
522 S.W. Fifth Avenue
Portland, Oregon
Cost of Repair Survey
(1,65 5 Responses)
Sumaarv for September , 1979
Repairs and Adjustments Performed for Retest
A/F Mixture Adjustment 34.2%
Idle Speed Adjustment 19.5%
Air Cleaner Replacement 6.6%
Choke Repair 2.3%
Carburetion Repair 10.3%
Owell/Tiaing Adjustment 3.4%
Spark Plug Replacement 5.3%
Spark Plug Wire Replacement 1.6%
Distributor Repair 2.3%
Vacuum Hose Replacement 2.5%
Other Adjustments j3r Repairs 5.3%
Passir.o Retest After Reoair 76.9%
Reported Cost of Repair
0 - 5S 36.4%
35.01 - S10.00 28.1%
S10.01 - S20.00 13.7%
S20.01 - S30.00 5.1%
S30.01 - SS0.00 5.7%
350.01 - S75.00 1.3%
Over S7S.00 4.7%
VA2047.A
VCaS (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
Idle Speed Adjustment
Air Cleaner Replacement
Choke Repa i r
Carburet ion Repair
Dwell/Timing Adjustment
Spark Plug Replacement
Spark Plug Wire Replacement
Distributor Repair
Vacuum Hose Replacement
Other Adjustments or Repairs
50.0
17-1
10.0
3-3
11.3
9.6
8.1
3.7
3-2
1.8
it.O
Passing Retest After Repair
93-3
Reported Cost of Repair
0 - $5
53. i*
21.2
6.7
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.7
$5-01 - $10
$10.01 - $20
$20.01 - $30
$30.01 - $50
$50.01 - $75
Over $75
DEQ/VIP 78l
-------
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIItOtMENTAL QUALITY - VEHICLE INSPECTION PROGRAM
CALIBRATION LOG OEA-75
¦n
i-1
cr>
Date
Propane Factor
Unit
Station
X Tank Value
Gaa Bottle
Date
Set Polntsi CO
. = HC _
COj_
HOURLY READINGS
O
s
o
0
z:
1
i
in
H
>
H
TIME
DATE
IIRO
CO UC 002
OPTICAL
CD HC 00 2
OAS
OO HC (»2
ADJ
BY
TANK
PRESS
a
9
10
11
12 Noon
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
DEO/AO-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
Subiect OEA '75 Exhaust Gas Analyser Calibration Schedule
PURPOSE: Tto establish the schedule to be followed for the caliDration 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.a. 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 i
-------
OREGON -
- CUSTOMER STATEMENT OF REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
STATEMENT OF FACT
MOTOR VEHICLE REPLACEMENT ENGINE
Reference: OAR Chapter 3^0 Section 2320(6)
VEHICLE CHASSIS
L i cense
Year
Make
Vehicle Identification NumDer
The above described vehicle has either been altered by the replacement of a motor
venicle 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 ClO/cc
Under penalties for perjury, I
(Name of Owner)
declare that the foregoing is true and correct.
Street Address
C i ty
S i gnature
OEQ/VID 7522^
Zip Code
County
Date
G-13
-------
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. 1980 INSPECTION
CHECK mark M only |T£m CORRECTED
LIGHTS
WORM
GLASS
BRAKES
STJERIN6
MUFFLER
DIRECTIONAL SI6MAIS
WIPERS
REGISTRATION CARD
TIRES
NUMBER PLATES
Rl/kR viewmirsoR
...! ! cv.!s:^>i f£55 g;.t» -Ahzx sf :•
: '! I r? :XK M4.1X (' ; P- i*£Ci'".LI5
» i j — ¦ - —
i r,i/.oi;jG 35F-'j;,i :.ti ac„j3~ii£:iT at-,i
5 e nal o
O dcrr.e^er Re^c i r
ng
r rpe
o
f/V
HC
- * o v- ¦* r;
I
p ? ?«¦
WHICH WHEEL LtFT FRONT J. R1<3HT FRONT .'
PULLED7 LEFTt^r^R . RlGHTREARiGj
Registration No _. fear !
Owner ____—^'
AcdriSS - -—. !
v. a U e —
> ^«f."is:o*4 'in a(rn cASuiraV^a asuwio ,
| i* w f'A ->' (; - C . ~\S % £ V _. j
• * • i .i'Lt * f"' >¦* fAilni i
i
i cvr/i.OH f-.r
r -r \rr:i\ r.v.::
'; • :
.0 p \; r,
**> •? : s v '-"A " .
¦>. .i . l-> ..l: . :
I
¦¦ ¦ . # j .: v.
t i. -sn,:: l
- - - 1
FRONT
REVERSE
II-2
-------
RHODE ISLAND -- ROADSIDE CHECK TICKET
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
NOTICE AND DEMAND ind-u
DATE OF fc.
NOTICE *
MONTH
DAY
tEaR
TIME
ijt!
LOCATION
REGIS- ^
TRATION *
NUMBER
CLASS
CO
¦-J
CJH
CD
CO
VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
OWNER name
STREET ADDRESS
CITY/TOWN
STATE
T OPERATOR (IF NOT OWNER)
~
OPERATOR NAME
STREET ADDRESS
CITY /TOWN
STATE
DATE OF BIRTH
OPERATOR'S LICENSE NUMBER. STATE
PRESENT w
STICKER *
NUMBER
YEAR
NOTICE: THIS VEHICLE IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH R.I.
LAW. DEMAND IS MADE THAT ALL DEFECTS BE CORRECTED
~ headlight
~ tail LIGHT
~ plate LIGHT
~ STOP LIGHT
~ DIRECTIONAL
SIGNALS
~ foot BRAKE
~ park BRAKE
~ PLATE
~ MIRRORS
~ HORN
~ INSPECTION
STICKER REQ'D.
~ WINDSHIELD
~ WIPERS
~ EXHAUST SYSTEM
• ~tires
_ excessive:
L) SMOKE
~ other ~
~ co.
<%)
~ HC.
(PPM)
FORWARD THIS COPY TO
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
WITHIN 5 DAYS OF NOTICE DATE
ISSUED BY
SIGNATURE
DEPT NO
BADGE NO
X
H-3
-------
DA IT
WKATIII-Tt
'ri-:111* )¦:? t A'l'iJ n !¦:
viiintcr.K
MKT. I STRATI ON
NUMOJ'Jt
1 A\K
1 = a:ic "TT = fiM
2 = Chy 5 = J MP
3 = Pom: 6 - OT1I
'luniir, cooks
"Mihcoiapoc t
Coi'inuc I
1 nci'ineil La l.e
Ku L L i
l.ii/cuiy
Tn»:!(/Vnn
MO. OK CYf..
I) = Lnosel
l( = HoLary
0 = Other
l'!l I Lis I Ot! STAUPARD5>
vrnicL.i: YH. lie co
67 or hftl'ore 1600 10.0
1.968-i969 0800 Ofl.O
1970-1.97'• 0600 06.0
1975 asicJ LuLer0300 03 0
0
1]
i>.
0
.
0
< ¦)
.1
»-1
1
lii
s: :r:
•
c:
(.)!*
0
o
O
>
O
cn
M
D
M
>
a
o
£
f
PI
2:
o
M
O
M
O
~n
o
?a
-------
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.
YES
NO
APPROVED ANALYZER
CALIBRATING GAS
BRAKE LINING GAUGE
BRAKE DRUM GAUGE
3ALL JOINT GAUGE
•/EH I CLE LIFT
TAPE MEASURE
FIRE EXTINGUISHER
TIRE DEPTH GAUGE
SIDE SLIP INDICATOR
PROPER RECORD KEEPING
CERTIFIED INSPECTOR
I
HOME PHONE *
BUSINESS PHONE *
LICENSE POSTED
YES
NO
INSPECTION MANUAL
INSPECTION STICKERS
REJECTION REPORTS
STATION SIGN
STATION HAND STAMP
MOTORCYCLE STATIONS ONLY:
STRAIGHT EDGE
PROTRACTOR
FRAMING SQUARE
BRILLIANCY METSr
TAPE MEASURE
GARAGE KEEPER'S LEGAL LIABILITY INSURANCE NAME, NUMBER AND EFF. DATES
GARAGE LIABILITY INSURANCE NAME, NUMBER AND EFFECTIVE DaTES
I have inspected the above premises, checked the equipment and
interviewed the owner or responsible agent thereof, and I hereby
recommend that the Inspection perntit for Station Class be:
Denied Issued Suspended Revoked
Remarks:
Signature or State Inspector Site
H-5
-------
I
cr>
IfRIII OR 1111)
«** of sunn«_
l OCA I lOfl:
SIAIl U Bllfrt ISUKII KPARIHIII IT IRAIig'ailUI W-4IIIAUSI A»Allf/lR CIUBRMIO* CIlClS
(mr mis hpori uiiii orriciAi imci it* hmuju.)
lie /CO AKAU/IR HwmTACIllHR:
MIL IMG AOOUSS:
HCIJU KUMI(R:_
SUMO* HO.
SlIIIM. HO.
iaci hi an.
NUIWR II JU1AI T/lHS IK SfAlICM:
OIK
CM. IBRAI IBI GAS
SlCIf ICAI IONS
HC (PHI) CO %
mm kauihk
CALIBRMIW OAS
lie (PHI) CO %
AUlWJtlHO II3UI0R OK AGCNI
If SIAIIM
SIGHAIURt NIMH
AKAU/IR
AFPKOVltt
ns *0
SATIIT IF SI
fuuintm
ns ho
ftnAHXS Oil
corrcci ions hauc
sun uyuiim
sighaiub
PIT
1
rtr
PTH
*
m
rrn
1
pin
rtr
1
rrn
—
rpp
1
PTN
PTh
1
rrn
HP.
1
PPK
PPr
1
rrn
1
P?p
1
rrn
PM
t
rrn
if KSimc ruuirrvni uNSAnsfACiosr ciitck 'no- wovi aho siionn a which iipori
?a
•X
o
CJ
PI
in
>
z;
0
1
1
>
>
f
Kj
N
FD
PO
o
>
t-
I—I
Dd
£
H
M
o
2
o
ps
M
n
o
§
-------
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
1975
1967 or
before
1968
1969
1970
1974
and
after
Summary
All years
Vehicles Tested
149
178
454
273
1054
Passed Both (%)
77.19
73.03
70.27
77.66
73.63
Rejected (%)
22.81
26.97
29.73
22.34
26.37
Fail Both (%)
1.34
6.18
5.51
7.33
5.50
Fail HC only (%)
17.45
15.17
12.55
3.66
11.39
Fail CO only (%)
4.02
5.62
11.67
11.35
9.48
Average HC (PPM)
904.07
592.49
408.08
191.16
523.95
Average CO (%)
5.20
4.74
3.83
2.16
3.98
H-7
-------
RANDOM ROAD CHECKS (Emissions) (Cont.)
£
a.
&
c c
o o
£t -H
J-i i—I
(0 r-l
O -H
0 E
M
> 4)
= C-
n
4J
Ul
(0
Oh
1000
800
600
400
200
1978 HYDROCARBON AVERAGES 3Y VEHICLE MODEL YEAR
904.07
592.49
523.95
408.08
191.16
1967
or .
before
1968
or
1969
1970
thru
1974
1975
and
after
Average
for all
years
10 1978 CARBON MONOXIDE AVERAGES BY VEHICLE MODEL YEAR
'V —-
•H <*>
X —
0
C 4J
o
s
c
0
c
0)
o
w
-------
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
ppnr ar rnniipnnoTATmii » niuiomfti nr unrnn uphiai pa
Please read carefully:
In our continuing efforts to improve the Rhode Island in-
spection program and in accordance with inspection regulation 1.2
concerning station reports, a"11 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:
December 20, 1979
To:
All Inspection Stations
From: Alfred Massarone, Chief
Motor Vehicle Safety and
Emission Control Division
Record this type of reading
in the CO space as A.2
on high scale
on high scale
Record this type of reading
in the HC space as 1450.
H-9
-------
RHODE ISLAND -- MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR INSPECTION STATIONS
3TATE G" nHCTZ ISLA.Tj
dc?a~i::z::t c? inA::.3?CFi!ATTo::
Is L-ilililEl ssauir.^zaTs tor approved z:rs?5cno:; 5T*ii::?5
In accepting your appointnent as an official inspection station,
you are responsible for and required to maintain qualified oersonr.el,
space, cools, approved testing equipment, liability insurance,
inspection reports and stichers, rejection reports ar.c a copy of all
the rules and' regulations. ;vny violation of these requirements -..all
be cause for immediate suspension of your inspection p'ermit until all
requirements have been net and approved.
The size requirements of each inspection lane or bay '*111 be
approved based on the type of headlight aiding equipment being used
and the size of the vehicles required to be inspected.
Inspection stations vri.ll oe issued permits for a 12-nontr. period
and •..111 be alloved to inspect only those vehicles classified as
follows:
CLASS A: .All totor vehicles and ail trailers registered -.ri.th a
gross '.'/eight of sore than I,OOC nounds except
motorcycles.
CLASS C: .Ail motor vehicles registered with a gross weight of
more than 3,CC0 pounds, and all trailers registered
with a gross weight of more than 1,0C0 pounds.
CLASS A d C: The inspection lane or bay shall be at least 55 feet
long by 13 feet vide -:1th ar. entrance door at least II
feet in height. This is to allow for a ^0 foot lor.g
vehicle plus 25 feet for the headlamp aiming board.
However, if mecnanical aimers are used, a lane or bay
^5 feet long '.-<111 be accepted. Certain vehicles such
as cedent sixers and box trailers etc., './Ill 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: Ail .motor vehicles that are registered with a gross
weig ht of 3,000 pounds or less, except trailers and
motorcycles.
The inspection lane or bay shall be at least u5 feet
long by 13 feet wide. -his is to allow for a 20 foot
long vehicle plus an additional 25 feet for a headlar.p
aiming board. However, if mechanical aimers are used,
a lane or bay 25 feet long will be accepted.
CLASS ?: Limited to 10 or more vehicles registered, used and
serviced by a business. me space and equipment
requirements of these inspection lanes or bays ¦./ill
be determined according to the type vehicles registered
by the fleet operator.
PAGE 1
H-10
-------
2. ...i-. i.: - • L? - Ui. --.y r. - ^ -—' - : - -J -1 ¦? J.l J < CCr.'.. )
CL.^SS .1: Motorcycles cniv. The inspection iar.e or bay snail be
at least 20 feet long by : feet -.ride. This is to all;1
for a 5 foot space for the ver.icie plus an additional
25 feet for the headlamp aiming board. however, if a
mechanical aimer is used, a lane 1; feet long will be
accepted.
Additional motorcycle requir er.ents may be found in
Section 2.2.
o ; T--;7r"T-[> • -,3 -,,v
ri I » --Q. - ¦*..
Zvery appointed inspection station will be required to have at
least one approved inspection lane or bay containing ail tr.e
required headlamp aiding equipment. It is to be available for the
purpose of venicle inspection during the entire calendar year.
All inspection lanes or bays shall be enclosed in a building with
a smooth, fiat substantial fleer on which the vehicle «ill stand. The
headlamp aiming equipment must be calibrated according to the level
of the floor of such lar.e or bay.
2.1.1 C"TlrlZD I"S?ECTCR
£ach 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 i/it'n a valid driver's
license who have successfully completed a satisfactory training course
in auto safety_and emission inspection that .-.as been approved oy the
Department of Transportation. The certified inspector just 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 STATU"
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 heignt and -7'
in width and must bear the words, "r.'r.oae Island Official Inspection
Station1' along with the station number tnat has been assigned by
State.
2.1. ^ IITSPZCTIOM STATIOil '~IA:?D 3TAJ-I?
A rubber stamp with the station number, name and address
approximately 27"'long by 3A" ;,lde is required.
PAGZ 2
H-ll
-------
.-u .% — -». ~ » •»— -
Ihe headlamp testing equipment -iay be a headlighc test!.-.:, target
board, a uecnar.ical neadla.tp tester, optical aiding devices :r
co::binaticn photoelectrie and optical headlight testing rachines.
Zach station -cust be equipped :dth sufficient equipment to aim round
cr rectangular headlands for any ~otcr vehicle presented for inspect!cr.
The r.eacla^p aiming ecuipiem =usc be calibrated according :o
the level of tne fleer of the inspection lane or bay.
2-ni 2 DZ?..-: 5 AUG1
The tire depth gauge r.ust be graduated in l/32r.ds of an men.
2.1.3 3RAICZ Li:ri!,-G GAL'C-Z
A gauge suitable to measure the thickness cf brahe lining uatenal
vhen nour.ted (either bonded or riveted). The gauge cust be graduated
ir. l/SVths of an inch.
2.1.7 BRAICZ DRUM GAUOZ
The brake drum inspection gauge or nicroneter ~ust be graduated
in thousandths of an inch.
2.1.3 ;ra:;z disc oaugz
A brake disc inspection gauge or nriororteter type dial indicator
capable of reading ueasureser.ts in one-thousandths inch increments,
to determine the thichnesr of tne brahe rot:;- disc.
g.l.? 3ALL J0I".j"T GAUOZ
A ball joint gauge or similar device v.'hich is capable of measuring
the vertical and horizontal movement of a vheel or ball joint in order
to determine the play or movement of the bail joint in thousandths of
an inch.
This unit dust be a micrometer-type dial indicator instrument
capable of reading measurements in one-thousandths iner. increments.
2.1.10 './i-rszL .ALic-T.;s:T tz3t::;g zqui?;:z}tt
::ust include side slip indicator, capable of measuring side slip
or scuff at 30 feet per mile.
3 i it ~,r?~
- ' - * — ~ -1
The tame measure must be at least 15 feet long and distinctively
narlced at-.'2^" - 30" anc IV feet.
PAG— 3
H-12
-------
.-.t least one automatic vehicle Lift capable c? lifting at least
the front er.d of the vehicle and one -portable jac
2.- i- C^Z.-.i! .-..TP - Or
Ivery i.ispection lane or bay aust be free of hazards that could
cause injury to persons or dar^a.-e to vehicles. hazards incluc'.e, out
are r.c; limited to. open fires, exposed gasoline, paint spraying
equipment, 'unprotected'pits ar.d slippery floors.
2.1.1^ g.^ac: LIABILITY II^ArCT
lach inspection station './ill be required to s'nov/ evidence of
an active GAflAGE aIE?CP> 13 LL3AL LIABILITY Insurance Policy vith a
miniaua of ;S,COO liability coverage as "./ell as a C-AP.AGI LIABILITY
Insurance Policy Testing the nininun state Limits which will afford
liability coverage for the customer's vehicle vr.ile it is being
tested or us-ed in connection vith the inspection of the vehicle.
2.1.15 LSSSZOii T-STII;C- :JuI?l:Z:I .-.irp calibiutic:; GASZ3
Saission inspection equipment aust be capable of performing
an idle emission inspection of ail vehicles required to be inspected
for hydrocarbon in parts-per-ailiion (??'.!) and carbon aono::ide in
percent (,-i CO ). The analyzer shall be of a type approved by the
Director of the Departue.it of Transportstion.
lach analyzer shall be equipped ••¦¦1th all necessary valves, hoses,
ar.d ct.:er equipment to calibrate the analyzer along "./itr. a supply of
calibration gases in concentrations that aeet the aanufacturer1s
specifications for calibration of the analyzer. The calibration
gases shall be certified by the gas blender to be vlthi.i ;2,j of the
labeled concentrations attached to the gas container.
lach station vill be required to gas chec'.; the calibration of
each analyzer used for inspection at least once each vee'
-------
<^opey
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 Sir;
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 (+10,1 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.
*f. 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,
DEPARTMENT 0? TRANSPORTATION
WJF:rb
H-14
-------
RHODE ISLAND -- LIST OF APPROVED ANALYZERS
37ATS Or RHCCS ISLAND
DEPARTMENT Or TRANSPORTATION
MOTOR VEHICLE 3ATSTY AND EMISSION CONTROL DIVISION
NOVEMBER 13, 13 79
The following exhaus- analvzers have been "***a—¦*Q/J ir.-erirr. aocroval
by the Department of Transportation and are in accordance with the intan.-r.
approval accradi-acicn procedures -hac have been established by the Sta-a
of Shcce Island for use as par- of che State's Emission Inspec-icn Procra-T..
ALLSN TSSTPRODL'CTS
ROTUNDA
AMSSRV
M7SS
2 3- 3 60-CA
13-090-CA
2 3-055-CA
2 3-057-CA
2 3-056-CA
2 3-3 70-CA
13-150-CA
2 3-075-CA
2 3-0 77-CA
2 3-076-CA
23-330-CA
13-I90-CA
23-035-CA
2 3-037-CA
2 3-0 36-CA
2 3-060-CA
13-250-CA
23-155-CA
23-157-CA
23-155-CA
2 3-070-CA
23-175-CA
23-177-CA
23-175-CA
23-030-CA
23-360
23-135-CA
2 3-137-CA
23-135-CA
23-150-CA
23-370
13-095-CA
13-097-CA
13-096-CA
23-170-CA
23-330
1S-155-CA
13-157-CA
13-155-CA
2 3-130-CA
18-195-CA
13-19 7-CA
13-195-CA
13-255-CA
13-29 7-CA
13-296-CA
APPLISD POWER
Atlas
AMA-313
ASA-376
AMA- 5 50
AMA313C
Marcusfis
4 2—076
40-175
-10-276
40-175 A
Rotunda
3RE 42-735
40-796
40-771
3ARMSS ENGINEERING CO.
Banes 1336 C
Barnes 3335 C
Clayton CS3/310
fox 1300
Peerless 575
Ring 770 C
r.MC CO RP 0 RAT ION
:-:CRI3A
Rocur.da
705 C
710 C
Also any of the
4000 IR-C series
Au-oscar.
705 C
710 C
Aiso any of the
4000 IR-C series
Mexa 300 A
D—4 0 0 A -v/MSXA 300
GSM-300
G3M-300 A
KAL-SQUI? COMPANY
Xal-Squio Comoany's Model 40940-RI
MAPA/3ei:i 759400-2
Avis Rer.c-A-Car wi -h ar.aly-ar
7510 50 2
Model 150, P/'N 751050-2
CKRYSLSR CORPORATION
Chrysler III C
Chrysler III C wi
Chrysler III C wi;
Chrvsler III C wi
SUN SLSCTRIC CORPORATION
: Mopar Logo
i MTSS Logo
* Scoci Logo
Atlas AEA 370
Sim
H15
1215 ConDUtar 13
2001
SPA-75
237-310-1
0-312-I
Acias
AST-330
ama-4 50
AMA-470
Rotur.da - 000 3
Ro-ur.da - 7 3-00-
Rcrvir.da - 7 3-00'
3ECXMAN INSTRUMENTS STEWART WARNSR CO. 3NAP-CN TOOLS
3eck.-7.ar. 590 Model 3150-ACI MT 496 A MT 496
M7 49 7 A MT 49 7
II-15
-------
RHODE ISLAND -- APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT AS AN OFFICIAL
INSPECTION STATION
If =X£2T STATION, nu=aer af
vehicles registered in Cihode Island
lias any Inspection Ciation appointment af yaurs bees , 3C"i; C3.
-SID? If 'CZZ, state year
I, (ve) the undersigned hersay sal:3 application far a Class _________
Official Inspectiac Statian License a; tha Location incicatad above and certify
that I, ("re) have, ncn and 'ri.ll have continuously in effect a Oarage Vesper's
Le^ai Liability Insurance ?elicy :rith a -- -— 3f $c,CC0 Liability cav-sraige as
veil ar a Garage Liability Insurance ?aliay nastinj aha —'-itata Limits
:ri-.ich will affard liability protection far the custc=er's vehicle -.-hile it is
being "estad ar uied. irr connection "rith the inspection a: the vehicla.
ca3j>cz s lzgal liabilit: n:su?^:ci ,-it-D u*zctivi -v.tis
CA3rf»jQi. LIA3ILIT7 ^.-iSU^AjiCI WU12Z?. .-jiC ITTICT-'/Z DAIZ5
I, (ue) farther a^res to accept the respcnsiblity from the Stata at
Jhoce Island ta inspect vehicles in accordance vi th the State's Inspection Lavs
and ta provide at least cce qualified inspector and one approved inspection
Lana or bay, throughout the ysar, during ny nomal inspection hours as isciarad
above. Any violation of the rules and regulations of the Inspection Laws by ne
ot ny esnlayees vill be cause far suspensian ar revocation of the appointment as
as Official Inspection Station.
3IQ!Aiui\Z GF i2SrCUSI3LS AGCI Cc isCVi STATION -¦ ~ITLI AaD IZLIThO'.ii 07
33SCH 5IC,;~?G
Subscribed and swots to ne this day of ,19
SICSiS:
H-16
-------
list aii T-rs pr'.iCHs L :z at r.-::s
(Add additional s^iasc if iecasjary)
?^rrr :WE__ Izsoector'3 Va
If cercifiac:
A2-DRIS5
JSXiT ':lr-.Z Inspector's Vie.
If certifiad:
ADCSSS5
?JTii itAME Inspector's Ma.
If certified:
ADCPwSS '
TTvIir. jliU-S Inspector's :.io.
If certified:
A2s:.z2s
TOUTT liAiS Inspector1 s V!o.
If certified:
.OCOZ3S
?XETT :!AI£ Inspector's ilo.
If cartlfiad:
ADCP.ZS5
^TTLAjiATICf; C" SSriCTICH STATICS? CLk55~~Q,~"-r.Z
(.3«e ?ii-~—— J-aquiracanta ior spaca and ecuipcect -aadad.)
CLASS A -Ail nocar vehicles and all trailers registered :-rith a .—ass •¦7ei.»p.c of
.sore than 1,000 pcunds except notorcycles.
GJ.SS 3 -All sotar vehicles chat are registered with a grass weigh: of 3,CCC
pcunds 3T lass, except trailers and astorcycles.
CLASS C -All notar vehicles rs'iscered with a jras-s ;-ei.£ht of ncra than 3,0CC
pounds aad all trailers rsrjistarad :ri.th a _Jr5ss "*-Z" of ncra than
1,CQ0 pounds, exceac nstcrcyclas.
C-iS3 : -rlaees on!/.
CLASS H -Motorcycles atly.
H-17
-------
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 Iacobelli (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. Wallaucn (Department of Consumer Affairs - Bureau of Automotive
Repair, State of California), Personal Communication with R. Klausmeier,
16 January 1980.
R-l
-------
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
State of California, "Vehicle Inspection Program - Mechanic's
Program Information," April 1978.
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."
Jerome Panzer (Exxon Research and Development, Linden, New Jersey),
Personal Communication with R. Klausmeier, 2 January 1980.
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.
Richard L. Sandheger (Hamilton Test Systems, Phoenix, Arizona),
Personal Communication with R. Klausmeier, 14 January 1980.
Charles Pollock (Hamilton Test Systems, Phoenix, Arizona), Personal
Communication with R. Klausme'ier, 14 January 1980.
Ken Boyer (Supervisor, Emission Control Section, Nevada
ment of Motor Vehicles), Personal Communication with R.
28 February 1980.
State Depart-
Klausmeier,
R.W. McMinn (Deputy Director, New Jersey State Division of Motor
Vehicles), Personal Communication with R. Klausmeier, 2 January,
14 April 1980.
John M. Urkov (Air Resources Board, State of California), Personal
Communication with R. Klausmeier, 15 January 1980.
State of New Jersey, "Specification for Exhaust Gas Analytical
System," 1 October 1977.
State of New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles, "Proposed Rules on
Licensing of Motor Vehicle Reinspection Centers."
State of New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles, "Combining Emissions
With Safety Inspection Programs." 28 February 1980.
R-2
-------
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
State of New Jersey Bureau of Air Pollution Control, "Operational
Procedures for Motor Vehicle Emission Reinspection," September 1978.
State of Rhode Island Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle
Safety and Emission Control Division, 1978 Annual Report, "Vehicle
Safety and Emission Inspection Program."
State of Rhode Island Department of Transportation, "Minimum Require-
ments for Approved Inspection Stations."
State of Rhode Island Department of Transportation, "Official Manual
for Vehicle Inspection."
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.
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.
Bruce D. Merrill, Ph.D. (State of Arizona), "Attitudes Toward the Emis-
sions Control Program in Maricopa and Pima Counties," May 1979.
State of Arizona Bureau of Vehicular Emissions Inspection, "Vehicular
Emissions Inspection News & Notes," March 1978.
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.
Joe Dykstra (Arizona Dept. of Health Services), Proposed Vehicle
Emissions 79/80 Budget, 10 May 19 79.
State of Arizona Air Pollution Control, Article 10, Motor Vehicles;
Combustion Engines; Fuel. Adopted 3 January 19 77, 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.
:>0. 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
------- |