United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Air Programs Branch
Region XV
Atlanta, Georgia 30305
Tebruary 1973
?/ EPA Motor Vehicle Emissions
Inspection/Maintenance
Program for
South Carolina
Executive Summary
-------
MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS
INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE
PROGRAM FOR
SOUTH CAROLINA .
—£30* IV
, ; tt cy
" "" -tiv -
- **• :'7V ,>» *(•»>,_
:v4J *««S5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
by:
JOHN GUNDERSON
EMIL J. VODONICK
GARY PAN
DAVID D, CLARK
JIM GATACRE
SYSTEMS CONTROL INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING DIVISION
421 EAST CERRITOS AV£N^
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA
IN ASSOCIATION WITH:
PACIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
CONTRACT NO. 69-02-2536
PROJECT OFFICER
WALLY JONES
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IV
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
-------
This report has been reviewed by the Air Programs Branch, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency3 and approved for publication. Approval does not signify
that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency 3 nor does mention of trade names or commercial
products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
ABSTRACT
This document was prepared to assist the South Carolina Department of
Highways and Public Transportation (SCDHPT) in the evaluation and development
of a Motor Vehicle Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) program for the State. I/M
was designated by the Clean Air Act Amendment of 1977 as a method by which
ambient air quality standards may be achieved by 1982. If standards cannot be
attained by 1982, an extension of compliance to 1987 may be obtained, in which
case I/M implementation will be mandatory.
This report presents an analysis of costs and benefits associated with a
basic I/M program that could be implemented in South Carolina. Study efforts
were limited to nonattainment geographic areas over 200,000 population, namely
Berkeley, Charleston, Lexington, and Richland Counties. For comparative pur-
poses, a cost analysis for a decentralized statewide program was also performed.
Three alternative options for administration of an I/M program were studied;
state operation, contractor operation, and private-garage operation.
Based upon cost information, the preferred option selected by the State
was the private garage integrated with an existing safety program. Due to
increased equipment and operating costs, only the idle-mode option was
investigated.
iii
-------
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT i±i
FIGURES v
tables [ !!!!!"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
A. Why an Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) Program 1
1. Inspection/Maintenance 2
2. I/M Implementation Schedule 8
B. Background of This Study 12
C- Study Findings 14
1. Assumptions 14
2. I/M Program Costs 17
3. Consumer Fee 21
4. Costs of Repair 25
5. Emission Reduction Benefits. ..... 27
6. Fuel Economy Benefits 27
7. Indirect Impacts and Political Issues 30
REFERENCES 34
FIGURES
Number page
1 Nonattainment Geographic Areas of the State of South
Carolina 13
2 South Carolina I/M Responsibility Chart 15
TABLES
Number
1 Qualitative Comparison of Administrative Program
Options 4
2 Existing I/M Program Summary 7
3 Typical I/M Problems, Solutions and Achievements 9
4 Preferred Option Program Considerations 12
5 Costs of South Carolina I/M Program - Four Counties
Option 18
6 Costs of South Carolina I/M Program - Statewide Option . 19
7 I/M State Manpower Requirements 22
8 Annualized Costs of I/M Program - Four Counties 23
9 Annualized Costs of I/M Program - Statewide 24
10 Arizona Service Industry Repair Cost for Failed
Vehicles 26
H Repair Cost Summary for Existing I/M Programs 26
12 HC Emission Reduction With and Without Implementation of
I/M Program for 1977, 1982 and 1987 28
co Emission Reduction With and Without Implementation of
I/M Program for 1977, 1982 and 1987 28
I4 Estimated Annual Fuel Economy Benefits for Failed
Vehicles 29
v
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. WHY AN INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE (I/M) PROGRAM
Recent ambient air quality data for the State of South Carolina indicates
violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for carbon
monoxide (CO) and photochemical oxidants. Because of these violations, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the State of South Carolina Department
of Health and Environmental Control, designated the urban areas of Columbia
and Charleston as non-attainment. These national standards have been established
in order to protect the health and welfare of the population. Both CO and 0
x
are gases which, in sufficient concentrations in the atmosphere are potentially
harmful to the public health.
A major source of CO and photochemical oxidants in South Carolina are
motor vehicles. Carbon monoxide is a product of incomplete combustion of an
internal combustion engine. Photochemical oxidants are indirect products,
formed through a complex series of atmospheric reactions of two other direct
products of combustion, reactive hydrocarbons (HC), and oxides of nitrogen
(NO ) in the presence of sunlight. An I/M program is a cost-effective strategy
X
to reduce CO and HC emissions from motor vehicles. By significantly reducing
the emission of HC and CO from in-use vehicles in South Carolina, an I/M
program will enhance the attainment of NAAQS.
The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1977 have specific provisions that
require the establishment of I/M programs. According to the CAAA the state
was to submit revisions to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) by January 1979,
which specifies methods to achieve the NAAQS. These methods include control
of stationary sources of air pollution and various transportation control
measures whose objective is to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and hence,
1
-------
reduce pollution from mobile sources. If, in these revisions, the state
cannot demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS by 1982 using all reasonably avail-
able pollution control measures, then an extension to 1987 can be requested.
If an extension is granted a mandatory I/M program will be required by the
CAAA. Based upon the SIP provisions, the NAAQS can not be attained in Berkeley,
Charleston, Lexington and Richland Counties of South Carolina by December
1982. The CAAA of 1977 provides that if a nonattainment area does not imple-
ment a mandatory program, then Federal funds will be withheld for 1) highways,
except safety, mass transit, or transportation improvement programs related
to air quality improvements; 2) sewage treatment grants; and 3) air quality
planning grants.
1. Inspection/Maintenance Programs
Inspection/Maintenance i§ a two-phase emission control program applied
periodically to all in-use vehicles. The inspection (Phase 1) of an I/M
program serves as a screening procedure to identify vehicles having emissions
which exceed established standards. The maintenance (Phase 2) of an I/M
program involves the repair of those vehicles that exceed the established
standards. Vehicles that have failed the inspection phase are required to
obtain corrective repair in order to pass inspection retest.
The Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) was established to
ensure that new cars, off the assembly line, are designed to meet increasingly
stringent emission standards. Federal testing of in-use vehicles throughout
the United States has demonstrated that motor vehicles are not meeting the
emission standards for which the vehicles were designed. The reasons they
exceed the standards include: improper or inadequate maintenance, tampering,
defective emission control devices, and fuel switching. Regardless of the
cause, it has become clear that some in-use vehicle emission inspection programs
are necessary to ensure that the emission controls on vehicles continue to
operate as they were intended over their useful life.
2
-------
a. Program Organizational Approach
A variety of approaches have been used to run I/M programs, but the major
types are generally in three organizational categories:
1. State - Centralized test facilities operated by state, city, or
local government.
2. Contractor - Centralized test facilities operated by a private,
corporation under contract to the State.
3. Private Garage - Decentralized test facilities operated by private
automobile service garages, certified or licensed by the State.
Each type of administrative program is compared qualitatively by identify-
ing responsibilities, functions, and roles in the emission test process as
shown in Table 1. In each program, the State plays an integral part by auditing
records, maintaining quality control checks, certifying contractor or private
stations, and assuring consumer protection.
b. Background Information on Present I/M programs
Inspection/maintenance programs currently operating throughout the country
are presented in Table 2. All available information is summarized under the
following categories: program type, size of subject vehicle population,
emission test, station requirements, cost (i.e., capital and operational), and
consumer fee charges.
Gbvenment I/M programs can be further subdivided into either state or
municipally-owned/operated programs. New Jersey operates a state program that
annually idle-tests 3.9 million light-duty vehicles (LDVs) at 38 stations (62
lane total capacity). This requires $2.5 and $1.3 million dollars in capital
and operating costs, respectively. Oregon idle-tests 0.55 million vehicles at
7 inspection stations on a biennial basis in the City of Portland. Capital
costs are $0.38 million dollars for leased facilities, and operating costs are
$2.22 million dollars. Consumer fee is estimated at $5.00 per vehicle.
3
-------
Table 1. QUALITATIVE COMPARISON OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROGRAM OPTIONS
COST CATEGORIES AND
CONSIDERATIONS
Instrumentation and
Technology
Site Acquisition
Facility Construction
and Acceptance
STATE-
OPERATED
CONTRACTOR-
OPERATED
PRIVATE GARAGE-
OPERATED
Equipment Acquisition and
Installation
Maintenance and Support,
Inspection-Oriented
Equipment
Design, requirements
analysis, and specifica-
tion development is
required.
Initial capital cost
required.
Capital investment
required, local govern-
ment approval to meet
zoning laws.
Volume discount.
Preventive maintenance
done by facility person-
nel; major corrective
maintenance done either
by a single technical
department or contracted
outside service; moder-
ate cost to State.
Will have expertise in
these areas.
Will have some basic exper-
tise, but will need to be
expanded.
Low capital cost to Capital invested already,
state, deferred to oper-
ational charge.
Contractor agency will
require building in-
spection approval by
the State and local
government.
Moderate cost volume
discount.
Minor corrective
maintenance done by
facility personnel;
major corrective
maintenance done by
contracted service;
no cost to State.
Facilities available.
Each participating garage
will have to purchase equip-
ment that it does not
already have.
Preventive and minor correc-
tive maintenance done by
facility personnel; major
corrective maintenance prob-
ably done by contracted ser-
vice; no cost to State.
Quality Control and
Support Activities
Periodic confidence test-
ing and calibration func-
tions; minor repairs of
supporting equipments
done by facility person-
nel; major repairs done
by single department or
contracted; moderate cost
to State.
Periodic confidence
testing and calibra-
tion of minimum
number of stations by
state. Data process-
ing by state.
Performed by State agency.
Numerous stations to be
checked. Data processing
input from card decks.
-------
Table 1. QUALITATIVE COMPARISON OP ADMINISTRATIVE PROGRAM OPTIONS (Continued)
COST CATEGORIES AND
CONSIDERATIONS
Program Management and
Functions
STATE-
OPERATED
Maintain records, sched-
ule vehicles, collect
fees, review emission re-
sults, update standards
and documentation, deter-
mine future requirements,
evaluate newer equipments,
determine budgetary re-
quirements , and other
program management func-
tions; may involve many
separate State agencies,
new and/or existing;
moderate cost to State.
CONTRACTOR-
OPERATED
Similar management
functions to State
operated program, but
with State agency
that oversees contrac-
tor administration;
moderate cost to State.
PRIVATE GARAGE-
OPERATED
Requires State to audit all
records on regular basis;
high cost to State.
Program Management and
Administration Surveil-
lance Program
Periodic certification of
existing facilities;
qualification/certifica-
tion of new facilities;
moderate cost to State.
Periodic certification
of contractor facil-
ities by State inspec-
tion team; moderate
cost to State.
Private-operated facilities
certified by State personnel;
high cost to State.
Initial Personnel Train-
ing and Indoctrination
Single department respons-
ibility; uniform training
policy, course content;
minimum quantity of
trained instructors,
equipment, buildings;
moderate cost to State.
Require single depart-
ment responsible for
training, etc.;
minimal cost to the
State.
Possibly many diverse training
policies, course contents,
equipment, facilities, in-
structors; requires guidance
from State agency on require-
ments; minimal cost to State.
State Qualification and
Certification
Single departmental re-
sponsibility; uniform
qualification and certi-
fication policies; mini-
mum quantity of techni-
cal and administrative
personnel; moderate cost
to State.
State responsibility to
supervise initial
operation of program;
moderate cost to State.
Mandatory that State qualify
and certify stations; high
cost to State.
-------
Table 1. QUALITATIVE COMPARISON OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROGRAM OPTIONS (Continued)
COST CATEGORIES AND
CONSIDERATIONS
Vehicle Scheduling
Facility Inspection
Personnel Salaries,
wages, etc.
Quality Assurance
a>
STATE-
OPERATED
Single departmental
responsibility.
Technical rating depen-
dent on test regime; cost
proportional to technical
requirements; salaries
and benefits must be com-
petitive to attract
higher-rated personnel;
high cost to State.
Responsible for complete
audit of all records;
complete data analysis;
adjusting confidence
limits; moderate cost to
State.
CONTRACTOR-
OPERATED
Calibration records
frequently audited by
State personnel; State
responsible for com-
plete data analyses;
moderate cost to state.
PRIVATE GARAGE-
OPERATED
Mandatory that State
be responsible.
Technical rating de-
pendent on test re-
gime requirements.
Mandatory that State be
responsible.
Technical rating depends on
test regime; cost propor-
tional to technical rating.
Difficult to implement be-
cause of instrument differ-
ences, diversified personnel;
high cost to State.
-------
Table 2.
EXISTING I/M PROGRAM SUMMARY
PROGRAM TYPE
STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCY
VEHICLE POP
(Millions)
TEST MODE AND
STRINGENCY3
STATION STATUS
L.D.V. H.D.V. #Lanes #Sta. Mobile
COST (Millions
Capital^
Yr)
Operating**
INSPECTION FEE
I. GOVERNMENT
A. State
B. Municipal
II. CONTRACTOR
III. PRIVATE
GARAGE
New Jersey
c
Oregon
Portland
Ohio,
Cincinnati
Illinois,
Chicago
Arizona,9
Maricopa
and Pima
counties
Nevada
(Clark
Co. only)
Rhode
Island
DMV - EPA
Dept. of
Environ. Qual.
Cincinnati
APCDd
Chicago Dept.
Env. Control
Ariz. Dept./
Health Ser.
Dept. Motor
Vehicles and
Dept. Human
Resources
Dept. of Trans-
portation
3.9 LDVs
0.55 LDVs
(biennial)
0.2 LDVs
1.1 IDVs
1.1 cars,
trucks, and
motorcycles
0.20 LDVs
0.5 LDVs
Idle
23*
Idle
40%
Idle
30*
Idle
30-35*
Idleh
30*
Idle
Idle
30*
NA
NA
NA
NA
EPA
City
NA
NA
62
14
10
38
7
None
36 12
218 Licensed
Private Stations
923 Private Garages
+ 1 State-Operated
challenge lane
52.50 (1972) +
$0.38 Leased
facil. (1975)
$0,013 safety
facil.
$2.0 (1973)
$1.33
$2.22
$0.13 for
$1.45 (1977) Free
$3.50 including
safety
$5
$3.75 including
safety
e,f
$10.5
$0.17 (1974)
$1.00 (1977)
$4.0
$0.43
approx.
(1974)
Part of
Capital cost
1st year
$5
$10.00-$33.00
(including
adjustments)
$4
Percent of vehicle failing to meet established standards.
bCost data defined per particular year. To upgrade costs to present year multiply by appropriate inflation factor.
c
State of Oregon, Oregon Environmental Quality Commission - "Report to the Oregon Legislature on the Motor Vehicle Emission Testing Program,"
January 14, 1977.
d ,
Air Pollution Control Department.
g
Included as part of the registration fee.
^Chicago's program costs are covered by a city sticker fee.
Definitions: DMV - Department of Motor Vehicles.
LDV - Light-Duty Vehicle (GVW <8501 lb.).
HDV - Heavy-Duty Vehicle (GVW >8500 lb.).
^State of Arizona, Bureau of Vehicular Emissions Inspections - "Tune-up for Less Emission - It's Working Arizona Vehicular Emissions Inspection
Program Operations", 1977.
^Loaded test with only idle fail/pass standards.
-------
Municipally-operated programs are found in Ohio (Cincinnati), and Illinois
(Chicago). These programs annually inspect 0.2 to 1.1 million vehicles. Ohio
has only one test facility, but intends to expand the program later. Illinois
currently operates five 2-lane capacity test facilities. In addition, Illinois
operates six mobile test facilities. Ohio capital cost is $13,000 and operating
cost is $0.13 million. Illinois expenditures are $2.0 million for capital
costs and $1.45 million annual operating expenses.
The only contractor-owned/operated program is located in Arizona (Maricopa
and Pima Counties). The 12 test facilities annually process an estimated
1.1 million cars, trucks, and motorcycles using 30 percent stringency factor
with idle test requirements. Capital cost expenditures are estimated at
$10.5 million with annual operating costs approaching $4.0 million.
At present, Nevada and Rhode Island are the only states that have private
garage-operated I/M programs. Rhode Island has an extensive program, testing
0.5 million vehicles at 923 certified private garages. The Nevada program is
comparatively smaller, licensing only 218 garages to test 200,000 vehicles.
As expected, the capital cost expenditure for Rhode Island is quite large
compared to Nevada. Unexpectedly, the cost to the motorist is quite high for
Nevada ($10.00 to $33.00) compared to Rhode Island ($4.00). However, the
Nevada program does have vehicle adjustment included in the test requirements.
For each I/M program type, typical problems encountered during implementa-
tion, and their subsequent solutions, are shown in Table 3. Additional informa-
tion includes representative achievements for each state I/M program.
2. I/M Implementation Schedule
In producing an I/M SIP revision, the state must provide for:
1. An analysis of the benefits and costs of the program,
2. A public information effort,
3. A legislative proposal, and
4. A schedule for I/M implementation.
8
-------
Table 3. TYPICAL I/M PROBLEMS, SOLUTIONS AND ACHIEVEMENTS
PROGRAM TYPE
STATE & RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
PROBLEMS
SOLUTIONS
ACHIEVEMENTS
I. GOVERNMENT-
OPERATED
A. State-Operated
California
.(Pilot Program)
Minimal Problems
.Public Reaction Excellent
•Unique Combination of Ex-
haust Analysis, Engine
Monitoring, and Computer
Technology
-Diagnostic Testing
New Jersey
10
.2-Year Exemption for New Cars
.Lack Operating Capital
Capacity Improvements Cannot be
Made
• DMV Resistant to Increased Re-
failure Rate Expected in
Phase III standards (23%)
•Refailure Rate is 25%
.Legislation Pending
•Funding Has Increased 5330,000
•No Position Change
•Refailure Rate Now 11%
.Nation's Longest On-Going
I/M Program
.4,700 Garages Now Utilizing
Exhaust Analyzers
.Private Garage Reinspection
Program
Oregon
Portland
•Biennial Inspection Lowers
Program Effectiveness, Created
Cash Flow and Personnel Problems
.Tampering
•Inspection Period Will be Shortened
•Trying to Implement An Annual In-
spection Cycle, Requires Legislat-
ion Action
•Estimates Reduction of HC is
14% and CO 7%
.Private Garage Acceptance is
Increasing
B. Municipal-
Operated
Ohio
Cincinnati
•Low Throughput
•Inadequate Enforcement
.No Phase-In Period and No P.R.
Program
.Mechanics Inadequately Trained
•Improved Enforcement Led to
Increased Throughput
•P.R. Program Needed
•Mechanic Training Program
-Demonstrated Short Lead
Time in Adding I/M Program
to Safety Program
Illinois
Chicago
.Less Than 20% of Registered
Vehicles Have Been Inspected
.Increased Enforcement Policies
•Favor Mandatory Inspection with
Three Conditions:
1. Fed. Govt, and Auto Manufac-
turer 1s Concurrence On War-
rantee Program
2. Auto Manufacturer's Compli-
ance With Existing Statutory
Emission Standards
3. I/M Implementation Over Reg-
ional Area
•Communication Channels Estab-
lished with Auto Manufactur-
ers Regarding High Emission
Levels of Late Model
Vehicles
•Nation's First Fully Auto-
mated Inspection Program
-------
Table 3. TYPICAL I/M PROBLEMS, SOLUTIONS AND ACHIEVEMENTS (Continued)
PROGRAM TYPE
II. CONTRACTOR-
OPERATED
III. PRIVATE
GARAGE-
OPERATED
STATE & RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
PROBLEMS
SOLUTIONS
ACHIEVEMENTS
Arizona
Maricopa and Pima Counties -Queuing Problems
-Tampering
•Initial Adverse Public Reaction -Expected to Disappear With Increased .Nation's First Contractor-
Nevada
Clark County
•Inadequate Inspector Training
•Minimal
Efficiency and Better Public
Awareness
-Needs Contractor Monitoring
Operated Program
.DMV Control of Licensing
of Stations and Inspectors
-Minimal Cost
Rhode Island
•Inadequate Training of Garage
Mechanics
•Some Garages Violated
Regulations
-On-Going Mechanic Training
Program
•Constant Monitoring Needed
•Program Initiated by
Governor and Rhode Island
DOT With Backing From Exe-
cutive and Legislative
Branches
•State-Run Inspection Facil-
ity Used as Reference
Station
-------
Before January 1, 1979, an SIP revision was prepared by DHEC and submitted
to the EPA. As a part of the SIP revision submittal itself, a commitment was
made by the Governor to implement the I/M program in accordance with the
schedule submitted. This schedule is in accordance with Reference 1. Quoting
from Reference 1:
"C. Authority To Implement I/M
Normally, adequate legal authority to implement a SIP revision must exist
for a revision to be approved. Where a legislature has had adequate opportunity
to adopt enabling legislation before January 1, 1979, the Regional Administrator
should require certification that adequate legal authority exists for I/M
implementation by January 1, 1979. However, for many states there will be
insufficient opportunity to obtain adequate legal authority before their
legislatures meet in early 1979. Therefore, a certification of legal authority
for the implementation in these states must be made no later than June 30,
1979. An extension to July 1, 1980 is possible, but only when the state can
demonstrate that a) there was insufficient opportunity to conduct necessary
technical analyses and/or b) the legislature has had no opportunity to consider
any necessary enabling legislation for inspection/maintenance between enactment
of the 1977 Amendments to the Act and June 30, 1979. Certification of adequate
legal authority, or other evidence that legal authority has been adopted, must
be submitted to the EPA Regional Offices to be included in the SIP revision
already submitted. Failure to submit evidence of legal authority by the
appropriate deadline will constitute a failure to submit an essential element
of the SIP "
"D. I/M Implementation Deadlines
Implementation of I/M 'as expeditiously as practicable1 shall be defined
as implementation of mandatory repair for failed vehicles no later than
2-1/2 years after passage of needed legislation or certification of adequate
legal authority for new centralized systems (State or Contractor-operated),
and 1-1/2 years after legislation or certification for decentralized systems
which are adding emission inspections to safety inspections. For the normal
legislation deadline of June 30, 1979, new centralized programs must start by
December 31, 1981, and all others must start by December 31, 1982, while all
other programs must start by December 31, 1981. Where I/M can be implemented
more expeditiously, it must be. Each state implementation schedule must be
looked at individually to determine if it is as expeditious as practicable...."
11
-------
B. BACKGROUND OF THIS STUDY
In order to comply with requirements of the CAAA of 1977, Systems Control,
Inc. (SCI), was contracted to study alternative I/M options.
The initial effort was the development of background data regarding the
technical and administrative aspects of I/M programs. A summary report which
described I/M program elements and other states' experience in I/M and various
technical memoranda, was produced to assist in the selection of a preferred
option.
The purpose of this report is to analyze the preferred option in terms of
cost and benefits such that the Department of Highways and Public Transportation
(DHPT) may consider it as a viable option in their SIP to meet NAAQS.
The Preferred Option - As indicated earlier, the DHPT selected the decen-
tralized preferred option of an idle test conducted by private garages measuring
HC and CO combined with the existing safety inspection program. The two
alternative program scenarios studied are shown in Table 4.
Table 4. PREFERRED OPTION PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS
PROGRAM CONSIDERATION SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2
Benefits yes yesa
Costs yes yes
Geographic Coverage 4-County Statewide
(see Figure 1)
Inspection Enforcement Annual Vehicle Registration Annual Vehicle Regis-
tration or Window
Sticker
aEmission data extrapolated from 4-County data.
In addition to the program considerations listed in Table 4, there are a
number of support services that are important to I/M effectiveness and cost,
but do not directly influence option selection. These support services include:
o Quality Assurance
o Mechanic Training
12
-------
w
iCALt OF MILES
IS
Fiqure 1.
NONATTAINMENT GEOGRAPHIC AREAS
OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OUTLINE MAP
$ c MtAtf fri. - t$ft
-------
o Consumer Protection
o Public Education
The eventual implementation of the preferred option will require the
cooperation of several different state offices internal to the DHPT. Figure 2
provides a functional outline of the DHPT as it relates directly to I/M needs
and requirements. Use of existing facilities, services and resources should
greatly reduce the cost of support services.
C. STUDY FINDINGS
1. Assumptions
The methodology used in this report was based upon the following
assumptions:
o The program operation is over a period of 10 years
o The private garages would assume the cost of purchasing test
equipments.
o Vehicle Population Growth
1976 to 1982 - 4 percent
1982 to 1992 - 3.5 percent
o Capital Investment Per Station
$3,000. - Cost of emission testing and auxiliary equipment
o Operations Throughput Time
3.75 minutes
o Mechanics Costs (including overhead)
$18. per hour
14
-------
Figure 2. SOUTH CAROLINA I/M RESPONSIBILITY CHART
-------
All current safety inspection facilities will participate in the I/M
program and there will be no increase in the number of facilities
over the life of the I/M program
Station inspection load factor capability - 10 percent. NOTE: In
the four-county area with safety inspection stations, the load
factor for emissions testing is about 3 percent.
Emissions for statewide option were developed by extrapolating the
four-county data.
Cost of capital is 6 percent for the State.
The State personnel benefits including sick leave, vacation, retire
ment, insurance, holidays, etc., is 25 percent of base rate.
Fuel cost is $0.70 per gallon.
Inflation rate is 7 Der-r^nt- m
percent. To convert from 1978 to 1983, a compound
factor of 1.403 must be used.
Indirect costs reflecting the cost to consumers for waiting time at
'nspection lanes and cost of transportation to and from the inspection
and repair facilities were ignored.
Average miles traveled per year for LDVs is 11,500 miles per year.
Failed vehicles consumed, on an average, 3.8 percent more fuel than
the certified vehicle.
Assumed miles-per-gallon fleet average for LDVs is 15 miles-per-
gallon (1982), 24 miles-per-gallon for 1987 LDVs.
16
-------
2. I/M Program Costs
a. I/M Program Costs
The major cost components for t-ho *=«
. e r°ur-county and statewide options are
summarized in Tables 5 and 6 Tho ^
costs are identified as to state costs
necessary to administer and conduct siirwm
surveillance of the private-garage program,
and operation and capital costs assiar^ 4- ^
gned to the private garage.
1* Four-County Option - it h,~ ^
as been estimated that 671 private garages,
distributed in the four couth-,-
ounties as noted in Table 5, will actively
participate in the I/m nrnay^ .
P gram. This will require a 10-year expendi-
ture iy the private garages of $4„ ^ ^ ^
test equipment and facility operations, respectively. During this
same period, the State will expend $4.9 for
and implementation costs. Tn+-ai t/m
xotal I/M expenditures by state and
private garages for a 10-v^at-
year program duration is estimated at
$18.9 million.
The private garage capital/expenditure of 4.0 million is the accumu-
lated first time instrumentation costs of $3,000 and a 5 year replace
ment cost for a total of $6,000 per private garage - (6,000 x 671 -
$4 million). The private garage-operation cost of 9.9 million are
for the 671 private garages over the 10-year program at an operating
cost per private garage over the 10 years of $14,800 or an average
of $1,500 per year. Therefore, the total average cost per private
garage per year is $2,200.
The state costs of $4.9 million or an average of $40,000 per year
over the 10 year program is for 3.2 million operating costs for
administrative support analysis of data, prepare reports and administer
the program including consumer protection, 1.2 million for quality
control of 671 private garages, $200,000 for one time public informa-
tion program, 1.2 million for quality control equipment, 8.5 thousand
for office equipment, $78,000 for vehicle for complaint investigation
17
-------
Table 5
COSTS OF SOUTH CAROLINA I/M PROGRAM - FOUR COUNTIES OPTION
($1,000 1978 Dollars)
1982-1986
1987-1991
TOTAL
CATEGORY
I Test Equipment Costs
II Operating Costs
Facility Operation
Administrative Support
Quality Control
III Initial Implementation Costs
Public Information
IV Other Capital Costs
Administrative Office
Equipment
Quality Control Equipment
Consumer Protection
TOTAL
TOTAL STATE & PRIVATE GARAGE
State
0
1,616.5
612.0
61.5
200.0
8.5
119.0
78.0
Private
Garage
2,013.0
4,562.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,695.5 6,575.9
9,271.4
State
0
1,616.5
612.0
0
0
0
0
0
Private
Garage
2,013.0
5,351.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,228.5 7,364.6
9,593.1
State
0
3,233.0
1,224.0
0
0
8.5
119.0
78.0
4,924
Private
Garage
4,026.0
9,914.5
0
0
61.5
200.0
0
0
0
13,940.5
18,864.5
dumber of private garages participations in the program are:
Berkeley County 47
Charleston County 235
Lexington County 124
Richland County 265
b
Facility operation costs increased to compensate for increase in the vehicle population.
-------
Table 6
COSTS OF SOUTH CAROLINA I/M PROGRAM - STATEWIDE OPTION0
($1,000 1978 Dollars)
CATEGORY
Test Equipment Costs
1982-1986
State
Private
Garage
9,405.0
1987-1991
State
Private
Garage
9,405.0
TOTAL
State
Private
Garage
18,810.0
II Operating Costs
Facility Operation
Administrative Support
Quality Control
III Initial Implementation Costs
Public Information
0
7,552.5
2,859.3
202.0
200.0
13,053.6
0
0
0
0
0
7,552.5
2,859.3
0
0
15,508.5
0
0
0
0
15,105.0
5,718.6
202.0
200.0
28,562.1
0
0
0
IV Other Capital Costs
Administrative Office
c
Equipment
Quality Control Equipment
Consumer Protection
TOTAL
TOTAL STATE & PRIVATE GARAGE
41.1
575.7
377.4
0
0
0
11,808.0 22,458.6
34,266.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
10,411.8 24,913.5
35,325.3
41.1
575.7
377.4
0
0
0
22,219.8 47,372.1
69,591.9
Costs are to the closest $100.
3,135 private garages would be participating in the program.
"Costs for statewide option are considered directly proportional to the number
of stations participating in the program.
-------
and software development for vehicle scheduling, and one time cost
associated with vehicle scheduling.
2. Statewide Option - In contrast to the four county option, the total
capital costs for 3,135 private garages at $6,000 per garage is
$18.8 million. This will require an annualized cost for capital
equipment $700 per year per private garage. The private garage
operation costs over the 10-year period is $28.5 million or $9,000
per private garage. This amounts to $900 per private garage per
year and a total cost per year for capital and operation costs of
$1,600.
The statewide operation costs of each private garage is less because
they will not inspect as many vehicles per garage as in the four
county option. The operating costs per vehicle is equal for each
option.
The state cost of $22.2 million or an average of $2.22 million per
year over the 10-year program is to cover 1) 15.1 million for operating
administrative costs to support analyses of data, prepare reports,
administer the program, investigate complaints and consumer protection,
$5.7 million for increased quality control of the 3,135 private
garages, 2) initial implementation costs of $202,000 and $200,000
for public information, and 3) other capital costs of approximately
1 million consisting of $41,000 for administrative equipment, $575,000
for quality control equipment and $377,000 for consumer protection
capital cost.
The state costs increase was considered to be proportional to the
large increase of participating private garages which was a 4.7 fold
increase over the four county options.
The total operating and capital cost for the statewide option program
is approximately $69.5 million. The gross estimate under this
option was to provide general comparative data only.
20
-------
b. Comparison of State Manpower Requirements
Table 7 lists the State personnel requirements for the four-county area
and the statewide program options. The State personnel requirements do not
have a one-to-one correspondence to the number of vehicles because the minimum
effort of program administration is independent of the number of vehicles.
For example, the number of inspection agents is based upon a calibration check
at each station every two weeks.
Program management responsibilities for either option will include:
1) vehicle test scheduling, 2) record maintenance, 3) establishment and review
of emission test limits, 4) data analyses to determine inspection program
effectiveness, 5) evaluation of current and future equipment needs, and 6) pro-
vision for future analyses and development. These program responsibilities
will be coordinated by three key state personnel positions: 1) Quality
Control Assistant Program Administrator, 2) Testing Assistant Program Adminis-
trator, and 3) Environmental Engineer. The specific responsibilities for each
management position is outlined as follows:
1. Assistant Program Administrator (Quality Control) - Will manage the
twice-monthly equipment calibration checks for all private-garage
inspection centers; the statistical analysis of emission test data.
2. Assis^nt Program Administrator (Test) - Will be responsible for the
efficient day-to-day operation of referee test stations.
3. Environmental Engineer - Is responsible for monitoring program
effectiveness and evaluation of vehicle emission reduction.
3. Consumer Fee
In order to compute consumer fee, the program costs for the four-county
and statewide options in Tables 5 and 6 were converted into annualized costs.
This was done by amortizing capital-related (categories I, IV, and V) over
10 years of program operation. Results are presented in Tables 8 and 9. Cost
of capital was assumed to be 6 percent.
21
-------
Table 7. I/M STATE MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS
JOB CATEGORY FOUR-COUNTY AREA STATEWIDE
Program Administrator 1 ^
Assistant Program Administrator (Quality Control) 1 1
Assistant Program Administrator (Testing) 1 ^
2
Environmental Engineer 1
Statistician 1
Clerical 4 ®
Secretaries 1
Inspection Agents 10 —
TOTAL 20 60
2
22
-------
CATEGORY
Table 8. ANNUALIZED COSTS OF I/M PROGRAM'
(1978 DOLLARS)
TOTAL AMORTIZED COSTC
a,b
I. Test Equipment Cost
private garage
$2,013,000 x 0.2374 x 5^ +
$2,013,000 x 0.2374 x 5 = $4,779,900
- FOUR COUNTIES
AVERAGE ANNUALIZED COST ($/YR)
$4,778,862/10 = $477,900
II. Operating Costs
private garage
state
III. Initial Implementation
Costs - state
IV. Other Capital Costs -
state
$61,500 x 0.1359 x 10 = $83,600
$200,000 x 0.1359 x 10 = $272,000
(8,500 + 119,000 + 78,000) x 0.1359
x 10 = $279,300
Total - State
Private Garage
State and Private Garage
aAll costs are rounded off to hundred dollars
Basic cost data is taken from Table 5.
"Amortization factor (F) is determined by the formula
$9,914,500/10 = $991,500
$3,233,000 + 1,224,000/10 = $445,700
(83,500 + 72,000)/10 = $35,600
$279,300/10 = $27,900
27,900
$ 509,300
$1,469,400
$1,978,000
p = ^(1+i)—where i is the cost of capital (=6%) and n is the number of years
(1+i)
n-1
For equipment amortization of 5 years, F = 0.2374
For capital amortization of 10 years, F = 0.1359
*The equipment life is considered to be 5 years, therefore, it is required to replace equipment after
5 years.
NOTE: Fee Calculation
private garage share =
state share =
$1,469,400
622,200 vehicles
$509,300
622,200 vehicles
= $2.36
= $0.81
TOTAL FEE $3.17
-------
CATEGORY
Table 9. ANNUALIZED COSTS OP I/M PROGRAM
(1978 DOLLARS)
TOTAL AMORTIZED COST°
a,b
- STATEWIDE
I. Test Equipment Cost
private garage
II. Operating Costs
private garage
state
III. Initial Implementation
Costs - state
IV. Other Capital Costs
state
$9,405,000 x 0.2374 x 5" +
$9,405,000 x 0.2374 x 5 =
$22,327,500
$28,562,100 facility operating
$202,000 x 0.1359 x 10 = $274,500
(41,100 + 575,700 + 377,400) x
0.1359 x 10 = $1,351,100
AVERAGE ANNUALIZED COST ($/YR)
$22,327,500/10 = $2,232,700
$28,562,100/10 = $2,856,200
(15,105,000 + 4,718/500)/10 = $2,082,400
$274,500/10 = $27,500
$1,351,100/10 = $135,100
$5,088,900
$2,245,000
$7,333,900
Total - State
Private Garage
State and Private Garage
*A11 costs are rounded off to hundred dollars.
Basic capital and operating cost data is taken from Table 6.
'Amortization factor (F) is determined by the formula.
F = i(l + i)n/l + i)n -1 where i is the cost of capital (= 6%) and n is the number of years.
For equipment amortization of 5 years, F = 0.2374
For capital amortization of 10 years, F = 0.1359
^Equipment life is considered 5 years, therefore, it is required to replace equipment after 5 years.
NOTE: Fee Calculations
private garage share =
state share =
$5,088,900
2,103,000 vehicles
$2,245,000
2,103,000 vehicles
= $2.42
= $1.06
TOTAL FEE $3.48
-------
The average consumer fee to defray the four-county I/M program cost was
estimated to be $3.17 per vehicle (in 1978 dollars). The state's share is
$0.81 while the private garages's share is $2.36. The fee is derived by
dividing total annualized costs in 1978 dollars by the vehicle population of
622,200 in year 1986. The fee allows one retest of a failed vehicle.
The average consumer fee to defray the statewide option I/M program cost
was estimated to be $3.48 (see Table 9). The state's share is $1.06, while
the private garage's share is $2.42. The average vehicle population for the
statewide option was 2,103,000 vehicles. The increased cost for the statewide
option is because the costs of equipment and operations requrements of 3,135
participating private garages. The participating garages for the statewide
program would be testing fewer vehicles then the participating stations in the
four-county option.
It should be noted that the fee covers only the State's direct cost on
the I/M program and certain indirect costs, such as utilities/supplies, office
rental, etc. It is difficult to include all governmental indirect costs in
this study without a detailed knowledge of the state's general accounting
procedure.
4. Costs of Repair
The maintenance of the I/M program involves the repair of those vehicles
which were identified as high emitters; the level of preventative maintenance
requested by vehicle owners; and any unnecessary repairs by the service
industry.
Recent Arizona I/M experience revealed that the average cost of repairs
of failed vehicles was $23.20 during 1977 based upon average repair cost for
1968 to 1977 model years with market distribution set forth in Table 10.
These costs ranged from zero for warranty repairs to over $600. for an engine
overhaul. Table 10 presents the average cost of repairs for various model-
year groupings in different facilities performing the repairs.
25
-------
Table 10. ARIZONA SERVICE INDUSTRY REPAIR COST FOR FAILED VEHICLES
MARKET SHARE
TYPE FACILITY 1964-1967 1968-1977 1964-1977 PERCENTAGE
Franchised dealers $41.25 $26.82 $27.97 13
Service stations 23.06 19.81 21.14 15
Merchandisers 15.53 20.29 19.43 3
Tune-up specialists 36.19 22.86 24.72 3
Independent garages 21.33 27.46 26.79 27
"Do-it-yourselfers" 14.27 20.61 19.08 39
Source: Ref. 2.
Moreover, Table 11 presents vehicle percent contribution to various repair
cost categories for Arizona, Oregon, and New Jersey. Again the repair costs
are less than $10 for 29.8 to 66 percent of the vehicles tested. Lower repair
costs are attributed to carburetor adjustments, rather than expensive tune-ups
or engine repairs. The median value of $15 in the Arizona repair costs would
indicate when comparing it to the average cost of $23.20 that the majority of
vehicles have low repair costs and a few vehicles may have high repair costs.
Table 11. REPAIR COST SUMMARY FOR EXISTING I/M PROGRAMS
ITEM ARIZONA OREGON NEW JERSEY
Repair Costs
Less than $10 44% 64% 29.8%
$10 to $25 24% 21% 26.4%
$25 to $50 20% 8% 22.1%
$50 to $100 10% 5% 16.1%
More than $100 2% 2% 5.6%
Number of Vehicles 2,000 1,400 1,600
Median Repair Costs $15 $8 $20
Percent of Repairs less
than average cost 64% 71% 65%
Ref. 8
Other studies, however, indicated the average repair cost would be approxi-
mately $36. (in 1977 dollars). (Ref. 3, 4, 5, 6.) Some states have placed a
cost ceiling on the amount of repair.
26
-------
5. Emission Reduction Benefits
The levels of emission reduction that-
. , that result from the implementation of
I/M programs depends on the number of ««»,¦ ,
lcles inspected, stringency factor*,
function, and also on the travel •
naracteristics in the county where the
vehicles are registered.
The calculation of emission reduction
tion as a result of I/M implementation
was based on results obtained from th- fm
supported MOBILE 1 computer program.
This program enables the user to aDnlv t/m
y 'M Program credits to emission factor
estimates by inputting a stringency fac+-o>- = ^
y actor and vehicle model-year applicability.
Emission levels developed by MOBILE 1
program, presented in Tables 12 and 13,
detail HC/CO emission levels without I/M- wi+->, t/m • •
/' with I/M; and percent emission
reduction from I/M implementation; for j
county and statewide geographic options.
This information was provided for 1QS9 i™-,
r 82 and 1987 I/M program years using
1977 as a base year. The second column for- im j ~ ...
uron tor HC and CO shows total emissions in
1977. The third and sixth columns show
-luuihs snow emissions expected in 1982 and 1987
without an I/M program. The lower figures £or ^ years are attrlbutable to
the Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Control Program (FMVCP) . The fourth and
seventh columns show the amount of emission
(smission reduction that would occur with
FMVCP and an I/M program. The fifth and p-iovn-v, „ i ^ ^
Q ei9hth columns show the actual percent
emission reduction that may be achieved through implementation of an I/M
program. In all instances, the percent reduction for each county closely
approximates percent reduction values achieved over the entire state.
6. Fuel Economy Benefits
One of the important benefits of I/M programs, in addition to the reduction
in vehicular emissions, is fuel conservation. A properly tuned engine operates
with greater efficiency, and therefore, consumes less fuel. This improvement
in fuel economy varies somewhat from one program to another but most sources
agree up to a 10-percent fuel economy improvement can be expected between the
failed and maintained vehicles.
*Stringency factor refers to the percentage of total vehicles tested in an
I/M program, in a given time period, that fail inspection and are required
to have maintenance performed.
27
-------
Table 12. HC EMISSION REDUCTION WITH AND WITHOUT IMPLEMENTATION OF I/M PROGRAM FOR
1977 (Base Year), 1982, AND 1987 (Tons Per Year)
1977 1982 1987
COUNTY WITHOUT I/M WITHOUT I/M WITH I/M % REDUCTION WITHOUT I/M WITH I/M % REDUCTION
1. Lexington 5,961 3,962 3,748 5 2,313 1,793 22*
2. Richland 10,376 6,148 5,790 6 3,499 2,670 24*
3. Berkeley 2,421 1,527 1,434 6 919 697 24*
4. Charleston 9,205 5,335 5,028 6 2,920 2,216 24*
Total 27,963 16,972 16,000 6 9,651 7,376 24*
Statewide 89,662 56,086 52,785 6 31,870 24,358 23*
SOURCE:: Ref. 6
*Although the 1987 percent reduction does not meet the EPA reduction of 25 percent as specified in
Reference 1, the percent reduction could be within the error potential of the MOBILE1 program and
the State of South Carolina should not have any difficulty in meeting the required percent reduction
with the planned I/M program.
Table 13. CO EMISSION REDUCTION WITH AND WITHOUT IMPLEMENTATION OF I/M PROGRAM FOR
1977 (Base Year), 1982, AND 1987 (Tons Per Year)
1977 1982 1987
COUNTY
WITHOUT I/M
WITHOUT I/M
WITH I/M
% REDUCTION
WITHOUT I/M
WITH I/M
% REDUCTION
1.
Lexington
43,973
38,548
32,552
16
25,903
17,459
33
2.
Richland
79,829
60,983
51,112
16
39,160
25,944
34
3.
Berkeley
17,581
14,684
12,278
16
10,116
6,609
35
4.
Charleston
71,793
53,356
44,626
16
32,715
21,456
34
Total
214,176
167,571
140,568
16
107,894
71,468
34
Statewide
683,540
552,835
463,754
16
356,300
236,010
34
SOURCE: Ref. 6
-------
An I/M program is to give an incentive to motorists to maintain their
cars better than they normally would in the absence of I/M. This maintenance
would increase vehicle-life and prevent problems such as vehicle stalling.
A 3.8 percent fuel economy improvement, per failed vehicle per year (as
established from California programs), was used in this study to calculate
fuel and dollar savings for the I/M program options. As shown in Table 14,
the four-county I/M option would save 5.48 million gallons of fuel in 1982 and
4.07 million gallons in 1987. At $0.70 per gallon, vehicle owners would save
$3.84 million and $2.85 million for 1982 and 1987, respectively. If coverage
is extended to include the entire state, motorists would save 18.10 million
gallons in 1982 and 13.45 million gallons in 1987. This amounts to $12.67 mil-
lion and $9.41 million for 1982 and 1987, respectively.
Table 14. ESTIMATED ANNUAL FUEL ECONOMY BENEFITS FOR FAILED VEHICLES3
1982 SAVINGSb 1987 SAVINGS0
d d
Fuel $ Per Fuel $ Per
OPTION Mil. Gal Million Vehicle Mil. Gal Million Vehicle
1. Four-County 5.48 $ 3.8 $7.14- 4.07 $2.85 $4.46
(Lexington,
Charleston,
Berkeley,
Richland)
2. Statewide 18.10 $12.67 $7.14 13.45 $9.41 $4.46
aSee Section 4-D of the final report for computation details.
Fleet average fuel efficiency is assumed to be 15 miles per gallon.
c • •
Fleet average fuel efficiency is assumed to be 24 miles per gallon.
^Average miles traveled per year is 11,500 miles per year.
In terms of fuel savings per vehicle, it would be $7.14 in 1982 and $4.46
in 1987. Less fuel savings per vehicle in 1987 is anticipated because of
higher fuel efficiency of automobiles. Moreover, the motorist who repairs his
failed vehicle will realize a saving in fuel cost as an offset to the repair
cost.
29
-------
7. Indirect Impacts and Political Issues
In addition to the primary benefits of reducing vehicular emissions, fuel
savings, and improving air quality, I/M programs have indirect benefits and
bearing on political issues. To discover what the potential benefits and
poltical issues might be, other I/M programs were reviewed.
a. Indirect Benefits
There are several indirect benefits that do not relate to specific options
but would result from the implementation of any I/M program option. These
include the following:
o Improved health benefits (less respiratory problems, etc.)
o Improved vehicle performance and vehicle life
o Increased agricultural production
o Reduction of airborne particulates
o Reduction of sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, ozone, and nitrogen
oxides
o Improvement in visibility
o Conservation of energy
The improvement in air quality in those areas where the NAAQS are currently
exceeded are likely to have some benefits in the health of the affected
population.
The amount and nature of the benefits would depend on the severity of air
pollution prior to the implementation of the I/M program, and the amount of
reduction in air pollution resulting from I/M. However, a recent publication
30
-------
"Clean Air for South Caroline - How Out- „
Our State Stands , identified several
areas throughout the state th^
perienced 300 to 350 days of stagnant weather
conditions.
b. Political Issues
Political issues surrounding an I/M program are:
o Impacts on low-income citizens
o Potential overcharging for rsnaive. j
repairs and performance of unnecessary
repair work
o Problems of conflict of interest „ • •
merest and uniformity of inspection m the
private-garage approach
I/M programs have the potential of placing a burden on low-income citizens
by forcing them to make expensive repair, for failed vehicles. This could
force low-income people who own older vehicles to make needed repair that
exceed the value of the vehicle. This ^ ^ i.
s Problem has been reduced by instituting
repair cost ceilings. Thus, if the nncf o-f ,
t tne cost of the repairs needed to meet the
standard exceed a cost ceiling, then the vehicle could receive an inspection
waiver. A cost ceiling, if implemented, could create administrative problems.
The problem of dealing with repair overcharging or unnecessary repair
work can be dealt with in several ways. Some states have instituted recommended
repair procedures that are specified for various emission failure problems.
These procedures range from an idle adjustment to a low emission tune-uP.
Mechanic training programs will result in a higher level of repair competence
and motivation. Consumer protection programs can be designed to identify
those garages that charge significantly more than the average repair cost or
identify garages generally drawing numerous consumer complaints. Such proce-
dures can be relatively informal or can be tied in with formal licensing of
garages and mechanics.
31
-------
The options with inspection a
-------
Supplemental information is required after the public has accepted the
need to understand the concepts of I/M. This additional information includes:
° The location of test facilities and private garage responsibilities
in the program
° Instructions and fee requirements
° Explanation of basic idle test requirements and retest requirements
and conditions
° Importance for allowing time for repair and retest, or considera-
tions for waiver (if implemented)
o Explanation of complaint referral system
° Explanation of area covered by I/M program
° Explanation of maximum repair level, average repair, carburetor and
ignition functions and major repair problems
33
-------
References
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "Inspection/Maint
nance Policy," David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator for Air and" 6
Waste Management, July 17, 1978.
State of Arizona, Bureau of Vehicle Emission Inspection, Arizona Department
of Health Services, "Arizona Vehicle Emission Inspection Program Operation
State of California, Air Resources Board, "Evaluation of Mandatory Vehicle
Inspection and Maintenance Program," August 2, 1976.
Northrop Corporation, "Mandatory Vehicle Emission Inspection and Mainte-
nance," Vol. 5, 1971.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Control Strategies for In-Use
Vehicle," November 1972.
Olson Laboratories, Inc., "Effectiveness of Short Emission Inspection
Test in Reducing Emissions Through Maintenance," July 31, 1977.
Engineering Science, Inc., "South Carolina Highway Emissions, October
1978.
Kincannon, B.F., A.H. Castaline, "Informantion Documents in Automobile
Emissions Inspection and Maintenance Programs." Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1978.
State of South Carolina, "Clean Air for South Carolina - How Our State
Stands," South Carolina Lung Association and Bureau of Air Quality
Control, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control.
34
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA .
"i Instructions on the reverse before cotnplettngj
1. REPORT NO
RPA
=£
wo
4. TITLE Af^D SUBTITLE
Motor Vehicle Inspection/Maintenance
for the State of &©ttcrr~Cetcoi-tna
7. AUTHOR'S)
18. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
[9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ACOR6SS
Systems Control, Inc.
Environmental Engineering Division
421 East Cerritos Avenue
Anaheim, California 92805
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Air Programs Branch
Environmental Protection Agency, Region
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30308 __
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESS/ON NO.
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-2536
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
i AB5T"?his report presents an analysis of alternative motor vehicle basic inspection
and maintenance programs in terms of related costs and ben,eflts *« «»State of
South Carolina with specific information covering Lexington, ll-ston-
and Berkley Counties. The study methodology used is described and includes
collecting data determining criteria for selecting alternative program configuration,
screening program option and evaluating alternative configuration selected through
the screening process. Program alternatives »ere evaluated in terms of emission
® screening process roveraee effective motor vehicle population,
reduction attainable, geographic coverage, ®"etuJ
.. ,iji..sequrance costs and financial teasionty.
consumer protection, quality assurance, ^
h7.
descriptors
Automobile engine exhaust
Exhaust detection
Exhaust emission
Inspection/Maintenance
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited Distribution
CPA Form 2220-1 (R.v. 4-77) pwev.ous eo.Tto* is obsolete
Mobile source emission
control Inspection/
Maintenance
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
39
------- |