tftD STAj.
1	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency	2007-P-00001
w \ Office of Inspector General
S
I*	\ WTTiue ot mspeuior oenerai	October 5,2006
O
4c PRQI^
At a Glance
Why We Did This Review
We conducted this review to
determine whether selected
Inspection and Maintenance
(I/M) programs have been
effective in identifying poorly
performing vehicles, ensuring
they are adequately repaired,
and achieving emissions
reductions. We also assessed
whether EPA oversight has
ensured that I/M programs are
achieving program goals in a
timely manner.
Background
About 237 million vehicles
were registered in the United
States in 2004. On-road
mobile source emissions
account for from 29 to
51 percent of three key
pollutants in our nation's air,
and even more in major urban
areas. In the 1990 Clean Air
Act Amendments, Congress
outlined a four-point strategy
to reduce emissions from
mobile sources, including the
vehicle I/M program. If not
properly maintained, even
newer vehicles will not
perform as designed, causing
them to work harder, wear out
faster, and pollute more.
For further information,
contact our Office of
Congressional and Public
Liaison at (202) 566-2391.
To view the full report,
click on the following link:
www.epa.qov/oiq/reports/2007/
20061005-2007-P-00001.pdf
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
EPA's Oversight of the Vehicle inspection and
Maintenance Program Needs Improvement
What We Found
Properly implemented, I/M programs ensure that poorly performing vehicles are
identified and timely repaired. These programs represent a key component of
the pollution control strategies for major urban areas. Although States in
Region 3, where we focused our review, have achieved substantial emissions
reductions from vehicles, EPA has not ensured that States have fully met their
I/M program commitments. Four of 5 I/M programs in Region 3 reported
substantial percentages of vehicles with no known final outcome, ranging from
12 to 22 percent of vehicles that failed their I/M inspection. The fifth program
did not report this measure to EPA and, since September 2005, has used a less
stringent testing procedure than required. Our in-depth work in one State
showed that 12 percent of failing vehicles were not resolved after a year, and
that 5 percent were still not resolved after 21 months. Because State I/M
programs generally do not have access to each others" databases, they have been
unable to verify the outcome of many vehicles that failed their I/M tests.
Our nationwide survey of all 10 EPA regions covering 34 I/M programs, as well
as our detailed work in Region 3, indicate that EPA has not been obtaining
sufficient information to ensure that States are meeting their I/M program
commitments. In the last 5 years (1999-2004), 11 of the 34 I/M programs
submitted timely reports, 14 programs had either never submitted the required
reports or the regions were unsure whether the reports were submitted, and
4 programs submitted reports but they were not timely (typically 1-2 years late
in the Region we examined). The remaining five programs had mixed results
(some reports from these programs were submitted timely but some reports were
not received). Also, EPA regions only audited/evaluated 9 of the 34 I/M
programs, and EPA reduced resources for overseeing and assisting I/M
programs. As a result, EPA does not have reasonable assurance that emission
reductions claimed by some I/M programs have been achieved.
What We Recommend
We recommend that EPA obtain and evaluate all required I/M reports to ensure
that the programs are operating effectively, and follow up with States on
significant issues identified. We also recommend that EPA provide more
technical assistance and guidance to States, and work with State I/M programs
to follow up on vehicles with no known final outcome to a degree proportional
to the problem. EPA generally concurred with our recommendations.

-------