State of California

AIR RESOURCES BOARD



### STAFF REPORT:

ENHANCED FLEET MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ASSESSMENT

Date of Release: November 19, 2013

Scheduled for Consideration: November 21, 2013

This report has been reviewed by the staff of the C alifornia Air Resources Board and approved for publication. Approval does not signif y that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Air Resources Board, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recom mendation for use.2



### This report was prepared by the Alternative Strateg ies Section in the OnRoad Controls Branch of the California Air Resource s Board. The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance and cooper ation of the Bureau of Automotive Repair and in particular, the roadside i nspection teams who conducted emissions testing. In addition, other di visions and offices of the Air Resources Board contributed to this report. St aff from the Field Operations Warranty Section of the In-Use Vehicle P rograms Branch collected data and conducted testing, and staff fro m the Mobile Source Analysis Branch assisted in data analysis and provi ded emission inventory

data.3



## Enhanced Fleet Modernization Program Update

Date of Release: November 19, 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary .................................

................................................... .................. 5

I

. Introduction and Background ......................

................................................... .......... 8

A. EFMP Vehicle Retirement and Replacement Program .................................... 9

B. Other Existing Retirement Programs ............. ................................................. 1 0

II

. Program Analysis and Assessment ..................

................................................... . 11

A. Retirement-Only Element ........................

................................................... .... 11

1. Qualitative and Quantitative Assessment ........ .................................... 12

2. Testing Conducted at the Dismantler ............ ....................................... 13

a. Qualitative Results ............................ ........................................ 13

b. Quantitative Results ........................... ....................................... 15

3. Phone Survey Results ........................... .............................................. 16

4. Areas for Further Study and Potential Program Im provement ............. 16

a. Limit Acceptance of End-of-Life Vehicles ....... ........................... 17

b. Appropriate Incentive to Attract Desired Vehicle s ..................... 18

B. Pilot Retirement plus Replacement Voucher Elemen t .................................... 19

1. Economic Assessment of Program Design .......... ................................ 19

a. Incentive Amount Compared to Retired Vehicle Val ue ............. 19

b. Low-Income Motorist Participation .............. .............................. 20

2. Areas for Further Study and Potential Program Im provement ............. 234

III

. Conclusion .......................................

................................................... .................... 24

IV

. Next Steps .......................................

................................................... .................... 24

Appendix ..........................................

................................................... ......................... 26

Appendix A: Testing Roles and Responsibilities by A gency ............................... 26

Appendix B: Qualitative Inspection Checklist ...... ............................................... 29

Appendix C: Summary Tables for Qualitative Testing ........................................ 30

Appendix D: Summary Table for Quantitative Testing ....................................... 32

Appendix E: Summary Tables for Phone Survey........ ........................................ 335

Executive Summary

The Enhanced Fleet Modernization Program (EFMP) is a vehicle retirement and replacement program authorized by Assembly Bill (AB ) 118 (Nunez, Chapter 750, Statutes of 2007, California Health and Safety Code Section 44125, amended 2010, 2013). EFMP is funded by a $1 surcharge on motor v ehicle registration, translating into about $30 million every fiscal year.

The purpose of the program is to retire high pollut ing passenger vehicles and light-duty and medium-duty trucks by voluntary means. Statute directs that the program should be focused on the areas with the greatest air quali ty impact, and considers costeffectiveness and impacts on disadvantaged and low- income populations. EFMP is designed to help people move into newer, cleaner ve hicles through the retirement and/or replacement of older, dirtier vehicles.

The Air Resources Board (ARB or Board), in consulta tion with the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR), adopted guidelines to administer two separate elements of the program: Retirement-Only and Retirement plus Replacement Voucher. The EFMP retirementonly element is extremely popular with motorists; o ver 70,000 vehicles have been purchased and retired since inception and funds are typically exhausted within the first 8 months of the year. The program offers $1000 ($150 0 for low-income) to retire a vehicle. In addition about $3 million (10 percent of total annual funds) was allocated for a pilot retirement plus replacement voucher element which has solicited over 11,000

motorists in the South Coast Air Basin with vehicle s either known or suspected to be the highest emitters with an offer of $3000 ($4000 for low-income) to retire their vehicle and replace it with a newer vehicle less than four year s old (less than eight years old, if lowincome). However, the voucher program has had limi ted success and as of November 1, 2013, only 21 people have taken advanta ge of this offer of additional funds towards vehicle replacement.

During the course of administering the program, ARB staff encountered substantial anecdotal evidence suggesting consumers participati ng in vehicle retirement intended to scrap their vehicles even without the EFMP incen tive. As the emissions reductions achieved by the program are dependent on the useful life remaining on the retired vehicle being taken off the road sooner than would otherwise happen, staff decided it should conduct an assessment of a sample of the veh icles being retired. Similarly, the low participation in the pilot voucher program prom pted an examination of that aspect of the program.

In order to evaluate the benefits and performance o f the program, ARB and BAR jointly

conducted an assessment of 164 vehicles retired at two approved dismantlers in

Southern California. All of the vehicles were asse ssed qualitatively to determine their remaining useful life, and 140 were assessed quanti tatively and for operational functionality using the standard acceleration simul ation mode (ASM) dynamometer emissions test for roadside Smog Check inspections.6

The key findings from the field assessment confirm that the vehicles entering EFMP retirement are generally high emitters, but also ge nerally at the end of their useful life. While emission inventory models show vehicles in th e age range of EFMP participants have on average about three years of remaining usef ul life, the physical condition of the tested vehicles suggests imminent retirement was li kely anyway, even without State assistance. The majority of vehicles tested exhibit ed mechanical problems that inhibited proper operation and/or would cause them to fail Sm og Check, preventing them from being registered; in either case, the vehicle’s own ers elected to retire the vehicles in lieu of repair. The overall conclusion of the assessmen t of the sample of participating vehicles is that while EFMP is meeting program goal s by purchasing and retiring high emitting vehicles, the cost-effectiveness and emiss ion benefits of the program could be substantially improved by ensuring that only vehicl es with significant remaining useful life are allowed to participate.

Staff also assessed the retirement plus replacement element under the voucher program with respect to participation rates and eco nomics. The key findings suggest that the program is overly complicated, highly bure aucratic, and the monetary incentives offered are too low. Participation requires intera ction of the motorist with two government agencies and two private businesses. Thi s leads to multiple points in the process where participants drop out from either fru stration or confusion, even if the program incentives are attractive. Staff investiga tion of the value of solicited vehicles suggests the current incentives for replacement are approximately equal to or slightly less than the private market value of the vehicles solicited for participation and, therefore, do not provide sufficient financial moti vation for a prospective participant to engage in a complex, bureaucratic process.

The conclusions of this study identify key areas fo r potential program improvement, which can inform program changes to the existing EF MP guidelines. In addition, two recent acts of legislation adopted this year, Assem bly Bill (AB) 8 and Senate Bill (SB) 459, directly address this program and require ARB adopt new program guidelines by June 30, 2015. The first piece of legislation, AB 8, extends funding until January 1, 2024. The second piece of legislation, SB 459, specifically targets changes

to EFMP that:

• establish compensation for replacement vehicles fo r low-income vehicle owners to no less than $2500,

• make replacement an option for all motor vehicle o wners,

• make replacement compensation available to an owne r in addition to the compensation for the retired vehicle,

• prohibit compensation for all other vehicle owners from exceeding the compensation for low-income vehicle owners, and

• authorize an increase in the compensation for low- income vehicle owners as necessary to balance maximizing air quality benefit s while ensuring participation.

Staff believes that the key areas identified by thi s study can be effectively utilized to inform changes to the program that are consistent w ith the legislative direction.7

In response to this legislative direction and to ad dress the findings of this study, ARB staff will develop and implement program improvemen ts in coordination with BAR, local air districts, and other interested parties. Empha sis will be placed on community outreach and in developing partnerships with stakeh olders in targeted communities. Staff will present the proposal for program improve ments through new guidelines to the

Board in mid-2014.8

I. Introduction and Background

Although California has been the nation's leader in efforts to reduce air and climate pollution, the State -- and in particular the South Coast air basin and the San Joaquin Valley air basin, home to nearly 50 percent of the State’s passenger vehicles 1

-- continues to struggle with air quality problems. C alifornia’s 23 million passenger cars and light- and medium-duty trucks, which travel clo se to 865 million miles per day, contribute significantly to the problem 2 . Older vehicles, which are certified at higher emission levels, account for a larger share of thes e emissions than newer models that comply with more stringent emission standards.

Estimated smog-forming emission rates by model year are shown in Figure 1. Note that the emission rate of a 20 year old vehicle, in term s of grams per mile of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) plus reactive organic gases (ROG), i s about 30 times that of a late model vehicle. Vehicles that are 20 years old and older account for only 5 percent of all miles traveled, but are responsible for 40 percent of daily smog forming emissions from

motor vehicles 3 . These facts make retirement of older vehicles an attractive strategy to combat excess emission of pollutants from on-road m otor vehicles.

Figure 1: Vehicle Emission Rate by Model Year

1 EMFAC2011 (http://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/)

2 Ibid

3 Ibid9

A. EFMP Vehicle Retirement and Replacement Program

EFMP is a vehicle retirement and replacement progra m authorized by AB 118 (Nunez, Chapter 750, Statutes of 2007, California H ealth and Safety Code Section 44125, amended 2010, 2013). EFMP is funded by a $1 surcharge on motor vehicle registration, translating into about $30 million ea ch fiscal year.

The purpose of the program is to retire high pollut ing passenger vehicles and lightduty and medium-duty trucks by voluntary means. St atute directs that the program should be focused on the areas with the greatest ai r quality impact and considers cost-effectiveness and impacts on disadvantaged and low-income populations. Low-income is defined in statute as 225 percent of the federal poverty level. The authorizing statute also directs that compensation should take into account the age, emission benefits of retirement, and the impact of any replacement vehicle.

ARB, in consultation with BAR, has adopted guidelin es to administer two separate elements of the program:

• The Retirement-only element was implemented starting in August 2010 and is administered by BAR. Motorists are offered $1000 ( $1500 for low-income) to

permanently retire their vehicle. The EFMP retirem ent-only element is extremely
popular with motorists. BAR has retired over 70,00 0 vehicles (62 percent lowincome) since inception and funds are typically exh austed within the first eight
months of the year.

• The Retirement plus replacement voucher element was first implemented in June
2012 in the South Coast Air Quality Management Dist rict (SCAQMD) 4 . About $3
million (10 percent of total annual funds) was allo cated for a pilot voucher
program which has solicited over 11,000 motorists i n the SCAQMD with vehicles
either known or suspected to be the highest emitter s with an offer of $3000 ($4000 for low-income) to retire their vehicle and replace it with a newer vehicle
less than 4 years old (less than 8 years old, if lo w-income). The intention at time
of adoption was that replacement vehicles would be the newest and cleanest
vehicles meeting ARB’s Low Emission Vehicle II stan dards; however, given
financial considerations of low-income participants , an older replacement vehicle
was allowed. As of November 1, 2013, only 21 peopl e had taken advantage of
this offer of additional funds towards vehicle repl acement.

4 The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Contr ol District has also expressed interest in the Reti rement plus Replacement Voucher element, but has not yet taken steps to implement the program in their area.10

The popularity of the retirement-only element has d eveloped spontaneously without any formal advertising or promotion. This grassroo ts popularity is a stark contrast to the very limited participation in the retirement pl us replacement voucher element which offers a larger incentive, but is only availa ble to high polluters identified by ARB and BAR based on existing vehicle Smog Check em issions data.

B. Other Existing Retirement Programs

There are seven other publicly funded vehicle retir ement programs either planned or currently operating within the State. Six of the s even are local programs operated by air districts using Carl Moyer Program, AB 923, or other local funds. These local programs have been in operation three to seven year s and are collectively much smaller than EFMP in terms of total funding, with a pproximately $21 million expended to date:

• Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District $ 350,000

• Bay Area Air Quality Management District $16,000, 000

• Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District $ 475,000

• San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District $ 200,000

• Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District $ 1 ,200,000

• South Coast Air Quality Management District $ 2,7 80,000 5

These local programs, along with EFMP, are designed to reduce fleet emissions by accelerating the turnover of the existing fleet and the consequent replacement with newer, cleaner vehicles. Reducing emissions from t he existing fleet is a critical part of California’s State Implementation Plan, which ou tlines the State’s overall clean air strategy to meet federal ambient air quality standa rds.

The other statewide retirement program is the vehic le retirement element of the Consumer Assistance Program (CAP), which is also ad ministered by BAR and receives roughly the same annual funding as EFMP. CAP is designed to assist motorists to comply with the Smog Check vehicle ins pection program. Because vehicles cannot legally be operated or re-registere d in the State without passing the Smog Check test, the emission benefits from repair assistance and vehicle retirement are attributed to the Smog Check program

.

CAP provides qualified consumers who fail a Smog Ch eck test the option to retire a vehicle and receive $1000. As with EFMP, consumers meeting low income eligibility requirements (i.e., that are below 225 percent of t he federal poverty level) may receive $1500. Alternatively, CAP provides qualifi ed consumers who own a vehicle that cannot pass its biennial (every other year) Sm og Check inspection up to $500 in financial assistance toward emissions-related repai rs.

5 South Coast Air Quality Management District’s High Emitter Repair or Scrap voluntary pilot program to detect “gross-polluting” cars, pickups SUVs and vans using remote sensing, and to provide incentives to repai r them or scrap and replace them may continue depending on th e direction of EFMP.11

Although CAP and EFMP have different mandates and g oals, the two programs are generally perceived by the public as a single progr am because EFMP is administered by BAR under the CAP label using the e xisting CAP application. The objective of CAP is to provide options for Californ ians facing difficulties in registering their vehicles resulting for failing Smog Check, wh ile EFMP is to improve air quality though the voluntary retirement of light- and mediu m-vehicles. Many consumers are familiar with the CAP name, but the name EFMP exist s only in statute and regulation.

II. Program Assessment and Analysis

A. Retirement-Only Element

The primary goal of voluntary vehicle retirement is to take older, still operational vehicles off the road sooner than they would normal ly be retired. (i.e., while they still have “useful life” left in them). A vehicle may ha ve no remaining useful life due to mechanical failures, or it may have no remaining us eful life due to emission control system failures. Mechanical failures may physicall y prevent operation, while the Smog Check program blocks registration of those veh icles that do not have functioning emissions controls.

During the course of answering thousands of calls w ith questions about the EFMP,

ARB staff has collected substantial anecdotal evide nce suggesting there may be very little remaining useful life in the vehicles e ntering the program. The program assumes three years of remaining useful life for ca lculating benefits. Most callers/applicants have either just experienced an expensive mechanical failure and/or cannot pass the Smog Check test for re-regis tration without costly repairs. Callers typically describe their vehicles as “not w orth repairing,” or “the repairs cost more than the car is worth.” In either situation, t he potential participant has already made the decision to dispose of the vehicle and is simply shopping for the best option. A vehicle that is not worth repairing has ostensibly little or no resale value, and EFMP may be an attractive option because disman tlers typically offer substantially less for junk vehicles, typically bet ween $200 and $600 6 . Retirement of these end-of-life vehicles using EFMP funds does no t offer any emission benefit when the owner has already made the decision to scr ap the vehicle.

Increasing evidence that a substantial number of en d-of-life vehicles were entering the program prompted ARB and BAR staff to launch an assessment of the condition of vehicles participating in the retirement-only el ement. Appendix A contains the testing roles and responsibilities by agency.

6 http://www.pickapartauto.com (participating dismantler) and http://www.junkmycar.com/12

1. Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment

The EFMP Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment wa s a “proof of concept” effort which was designed to capture a sample of 12 0 to 160 vehicles retired through the program and to assess the condition of those vehicles at the time of voluntary retirement. The quantitative assessment consisted of subjecting the participating vehicles to a standard Smog Check tes t using an approved dynamometer and the ASM driving cycle. The purpose of the qualitative assessment of vehicle condition, which included com pletion of a Checklist (Appendix B) and taking digital interior and exteri or photos, was to facilitate an

assessment of the value of the vehicle and the like lihood that it could have remained operable if it had not been retired. Asse ssment was based on a

number of indicators of vehicle mechanical function ality and general roadworthiness condition as determined by an expert ARB staff.

Two auto dismantlers – one in Ontario and the other in Rialto – agreed to

facilitate the assessment of the EFMP vehicle retir ement program. Only

dismantlers in the South Coast air basin were consi dered for this study due to

weather and cost considerations.

BAR was responsible for securing dismantler partici pation and providing roadside team staffing, CAP oversight, and CAP field represe ntative participation. BAR provided technical assistance and support for the p roject and all equipment normally supplied for roadside ASM testing.

ARB provided equipment necessary to start-up EFMP v ehicles, including jump start equipment, tire inflation, and sufficient fue l to keep it idling and/or driving 12 to 15 minutes prior to testing (preconditioning), o perating through the ASM test cycle, and driving back to the place where it is st ored.

BAR’s roadside teams conducted ASM testing and ARB field representatives conducted inspections and photographed vehicles at the dismantler sites on three consecutive Fridays, beginning Friday, Januar y 18, 2013. Staff conducted the first day of testing at the Ontario facility an d the remaining two days at the Rialto facility.

Two BAR CAP field representatives were on-site each Friday to interface with the dismantler and to assist with pre-conditioning of v ehicles and transporting them to and from the ASM testing area. The BAR CAP Lead field representative acted as on-site project lead and served as the point of contact for the dismantler. ARB’s on-site project lead facilitated the qualitat ive assessment, ensured proper vehicle preconditioning, and coordinated driving th e vehicles to and from the ASM test site. The BAR roadside team performed ASM testing.13

2. Testing Conducted at the Dismantlers

One hundred and sixty-four vehicles in Southern Cal ifornia were assessed as a part of the study. All of the vehicles were assess ed qualitatively, and 140 were assessed quantitatively using the standard ASM (roa dside Smog Check) dynamometer test. The key findings from this study confirm that the vehicles entering the EFMP are generally high emitters, but are also generally at end-oflife. Sixty percent of the vehicles tested failed the Smog Check test, with 21 percent failing as gross polluters. The emission l evel at which a vehicle fails as a Gross Polluter varies according the vehicle type an d year. Specific test limits for gross polluters can be found in 16 CCR § 3340.42. For comparison, on average, 25 percent of similarly aged vehicles across the en tire statewide fleet fail the Smog Check test, with only six percent failing as g ross polluters 7 . The prevalence of high emitters in the sample populatio n is encouraging, but a majority of vehicles tested exhibited some type of mechanical problem that inhibited proper operation and/or prevented them fr om re-registration due to Smog Check. The lack of remaining useful life in r etired vehicles seriously limits the program’s effectiveness for reducing pollution.

a. Qualitative Results

The majority of vehicles inspected for this assessm ent required significant effort to be started and prepared for testing on th e dynamometer. After sitting for less than one week, most required jump starting and/or battery replacement. Many required starting fluid or other starting assistance, and many required transmission fluid or coolant in orde r to function for the duration of the Smog Check test. Five vehicles sim ply would not start without component replacement which was beyond the scope of this testing.

Results from the Checklists reveal the majority of vehicles could not be used without repairs. Nearly every vehicle required eit her mechanical and/or emission control repairs to pass Smog Check and re- register, or required mechanical repairs to be functional. Some required both. Roughly 60 percent of the vehicles had expired registration an d could not legally be used without repairs to pass the Smog Check test and re- register, and about 30 percent of the vehicles could not physically be use d without mechanical repairs 8 . None of the vehicles were evaluated for safety.

Fifty-three of the 164 vehicles tested were 1996 an d newer vehicles equipped with On-Board Diagnostic II (OBDII) systems. Of all the 1996 and newer model year vehicles assessed, 53 percent had their “check engine” light on, and an additional 10 percent had a malfunctioning l ight. These vehicles

7 BAR Random Roadside data, 2010-2012

8 This analysis conducted for vehicles still display ing license plates and vehicle test histories from http://www.bar.ca.gov/pubwebquery/vehicle/pubtstqry .aspx14 would have automatically failed a Smog Check inspec tion and denied registration.

About 60 percent of the vehicles did not display cu rrent registration tags, with the majority of the registrations having expired wi thin the last 6 months. Retirement of these vehicles is presumed to provide minimal emission benefits because presumably they would have either been repaired or scrapped anyway when they could not pass their Smog Check test. Although some of these vehicles could have conceivably remai ned on the road unregistered for some period of time, enforcement o f registration and Smog Check requirements is highly effective, particularl y in urban areas.

In addition to mechanical and emission control fail ures that suggest the vehicles have reached end-of-life, the model year p rofile of vehicles entering the program also suggests high rates of participati on by end-of-life vehicles because it is almost exactly the same as vehicles r etired naturally during the same time period at the dismantlers where the study was conducted. Figure 2 shows the model year distribution of vehicles ret ired in December 2012 by EFMP statewide and non-EFMP vehicles naturally reti red at the Ontario dismantler (Pick-A-Part) during approximately the s ame period (dismantler data is based on vehicle inventory on January 18, 2 013--vehicles are held for 6 weeks prior to destruction). Appendix C contains summary tables for the qualitative testing.15

Figure 2: Distribution by Model Year of Vehicles Re tired by EFMP vs. Natural

Retirement

Note: the mean age of the EFMP vehicles computed us ing data from the chart above was 21 years which is nearly the same as the 20 year mean age of natur ally retired vehicles. 9 On average, the program purchased slightly older vehicles that were nearly identical to those naturally scrapped during the sa me time period.

b. Quantitative Results

Twenty-six of the 140 vehicles experienced difficul ty driving at 25 miles per hour (mph) during the ASM (roadside smog check) dyn amometer test, an additional 17 vehicles were physically unable to co mplete the test (could not drive 25 mph), and some vehicles even suffered cata strophic engine or transmission failure during the test.

Sixty percent of the vehicles tested failed the Smo g Check test, with 21 percent failing as gross polluters. The emission l evel at which a vehicle fails as a Gross Polluter varies according the vehicle ty pe and year. Specific test limits for gross polluters can be found in 16 CCR § 3340.42. For comparison,

9 Posted vehicle inventory at http://www.pickapartauto.com/inventory/ontinv.html on 1/18/13 compared to EFMP participating vehicles during December 2012 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10%

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Fraction of Total Retirements

Model Year



### Pick a Part

EFMP-statewide16 25 percent of similarly aged vehicles in the fleet fail, with only 6 percent failing as gross polluters. 10 Appendix D shows pass/fail results by model year.

3. Phone Survey Results

In addition to the physical inspection and testing, staff conducted a brief phone survey, successfully reaching 50 percent of the 164 vehicle owners. The phone survey was intended to inform us about the owner’s use of the retired vehicle prior to replacement, why the owner decided to reti re the vehicle, what mode of transportation the owner replaced the vehicle with, and how the owner learned about the program.

The phone survey confirmed that the majority of veh icles had either major mechanical problems or could not pass Smog Check wi thout extensive repairs; two-thirds of respondents indicated that the vehicl e had problems they judged not worth repairing. About half of participants reache d in the survey purchased a replacement vehicle, and the majority of remaining respondents used another vehicle they already owned to replace the retired v ehicle. Of those that did purchase a replacement, about 60 percent purchased a vehicle older than the fleet average, almost 20 percent purchased a used v ehicle newer than the fleet average, and about 15 percent purchased a new vehic le. Participants typically learned about the program through friends, relative s, a smog check technician, or the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Appendix E contains summary tabulated results of the phone survey.

4. Areas for Further Study and Potential Program Im provement

Annually, more than 1 million vehicles reach end-of -life and are scrapped in California naturally without public assistance. 11 The direct emission benefits of this program result from driving that figure higher by permanently removing older vehicles from service early. Emission benefits fro m vehicle retirement are limited to the relatively short period between when the veh icle is actually retired and when it would have been retired anyway without publ ic assistance. While the EFMP is meeting program goals by purchasing and ret iring high emitting vehicles, the emission benefits and cost-effectiven ess could be substantially improved by purchasing only vehicles with significa nt remaining useful life.

Programs designed to generate emission reduction be nefits by purchasing older, higher emitting vehicles must balance the emission benefits (remaining useful life) and incentive amount (value of target vehicle s). Previously published costeffectiveness estimates for the EFMP retirement-onl y element are based on 2 critical assumptions: fleet average emissions by mo del year and 3 years average

10 BAR Random Roadside Data 2010-2012

11 EMFAC2011 ( http://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/ ) difference between new model year population and total population growth17

remaining useful life 12 . Data from the assessment of 164 vehicles raises questions about both of these assumptions. The ret ired fleet average emissions may be higher than previously estimated and the use ful remaining life may be near zero. Although the higher emissions rates imp ly that the program achieves greater reductions and better cost-effectiveness th an estimated, the nearly nonexisting remaining life that the car would have bee n operated implies the opposite. Figure 2 shows that because the distribu tion of EFMP and normal vehicle retirement ages is nearly identical, the re maining life of an EFMP vehicle approaches zero. This effect overpowers the effect of a higher emissions rate. Thus, based on the findings from this study, EFMP i s likely less cost-effective than previously estimated.

The overall benefits of the EFMP retirement-only el ement could be improved significantly by shifting the program towards vehic les with demonstrable remaining useful life as the program assumes, which may require a higher

incentive to match the vehicle’s commercial value. However, the program design must avoid simply paying more for the same vehicles

.

a. Limit Acceptance of End-of-Life Vehicles

For any vehicle, at some point the cost of repair w ill exceed the value of the vehicle (for all but a few collector, or special in terest vehicles) and it will naturally be retired. Necessary repairs may be mec hanical, affecting the physical ability to use the vehicle or they may be emission related, affecting the legal ability to use the vehicle. EFMP purchas e of end-of life vehicles

offers no direct emission benefit because these veh icles would have been retired anyway. These benefits are therefore not i n excess to a baseline without the program. However, there may be some ve ry small ancillary

emission benefits due to the fact that vehicles ret ired in the program are completely destroyed, thereby removing the ability to recycle any of parts to be reused in similar vintage vehicles currently in operation. This could result

in the accelerated retirement of similar vehicles d ue to the limited availability of used replacement parts. Vehicles at end-of life due to emission control system failures should be directed to BAR’s CAP pro gram, which is designed to purchase end-of-life vehicles; vehicles at end-o f-life due to mechanical failure need to be culled from the program.

A more sophisticated acceptance inspection could mi tigate the end-of-life concern in EFMP. While the current acceptance insp ection requires the participant to drive the vehicle to the dismantler and demonstrate starting the vehicle engine and 30 feet of forward motion upon a rrival, there is no practicable way for the dismantler to verify the ve hicle was actually driven to the facility. In addition, and the requirement for 30 feet of forward motion is

12 Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaki ng (EFMP) May 8, 2009 [http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2009/carscrap09/carsc rapisor.pdf]18 simply too lenient. The 164 vehicle study shows ve hicles that barely run and could not reasonably be driven anywhere are being a ccepted into the program. An improved and objective acceptance test could enhance the quality of participating vehicles, and significantl y increase the benefits of the program. The ASM dynamometer test is a good candid ate for a universally available, widely accepted, and objective operating test.

Requirement of a Smog Check test would automaticall y exclude the approximately 10-15 percent of today’s participants that cannot at least drive 25 mph for 90 seconds. It might also deter a large r, but unknown, number of owners who know their vehicles do not run properly. Test results would also allow the vehicles to be directed to the appropriat e funding source for retirement: CAP or EFMP funds, depending on whether they pass or fail the test. Requirement of any objective drivability tes t would improve the quality of participating vehicles, but it likely could not be comprehensive enough to completely block end-of-life vehicles. For this re ason, an actual Smog Check test is proposed, rather than simply a new drivabil ity requirement.

b. Appropriate Incentive to Attract Desired Vehicles

In addition to blocking unwanted end-of-life vehicl es, the program can be improved to better attract high-polluting vehicles that are not end-of-life vehicles, but rather vehicles still in use and, hen ce, offer the potential for reduction of truly excess emissions. Staff reviews of vehicle classified ads show 99 percent of similar vehicles advertised for sale in running condition are listed above the current incentive of $1000/$15 00 and have a median price over $4000 13 . This evidence suggests the current level of ince ntive is significantly below commercial values and, hence, l ess likely to attract the desired operational vehicles with remaining useful life. An increase in the incentive amount may be warranted to better reflect the actual value of vehicles intended to be captured by the program. C onsidering a larger incentive that reflects both the recognition of act ual used vehicle market value of an operating vehicle and the added cost of a Smo g Check ASM test would improve the current program by providing a better b alance between remaining useful life, vehicle value, and cost-effectiveness. Both of these measures should be taken together; an increase in the incent ive amount may attract the desired vehicles, but a simple increase in incentiv e without a mechanism to restrict the quality of participating vehicles woul d simply result in paying more

with little to no additional benefit.

Increasing the basic incentive for retirement may a ffect other existing retirement programs, in particular, CAP. Thus, BAR and ARB are coordinating efforts on EMFP program improvement to ensure the program

13 www.autotrader.com

and www.craigslist.com

(multiple access dates May to July 2013) for vehic les advertised for sale in the SCAQMD19 remain complimentary. It must be recognized that a t present, administration of CAP and EFMP is generally indistinguishable to t he consumer, and an

increase in the incentive amount for EFMP alone cou ld generate some confusion. However, the goals and mandates of CAP and EFMP are different: CAP is designed to purchase end-of-life vehicles, while EFMP is designed to purchase vehicles before end-of-life. Marketplace data indicate a difference in price between these types of vehicles and suggest the incentives should differ. Changes in the eligibility requirem ents for CAP and/or EFMP will be considered in coordination by the overseein g agencies.

B. Pilot Retirement plus Replacement Voucher Elemen t

The need for cleaner vehicles in the areas of the S tate hardest hit by air pollution prompted staff to design the pilot voucher program to assist motorists operating the worst polluting vehicles in replacing that vehicle with a newer, cleaner vehicle. The basic concept is to take the existing popular retir ement-only element and offer additional funding to owners of known or highly pro bable gross polluters to retire and replace sooner than it would otherwise occur. The initial funding allocation for this pilot program was roughly $3 million (approximately 10 percent of available EFMP funds) for the fiscal year. However, few people ha ve taken advantage of the offer of $3000 ($4000 low income) to retire their cars and p urchase newer, cleaner ones.

Of the 11,372 vehicle owners contacted by mail for participation specifically in the Voucher program, 1,436 responded expressing interes t by returning a postage-paid card. Each respondent was subsequently contacted v ia phone by BAR staff, which then mailed 211 applications to the most interested responders. Ninety-five of those vehicle owners received approval prior to the end o f Fiscal Year 2012-2013 and BAR staff provided them with direction how to purch ase a vehicle and claim the additional Voucher incentive. Of those 95 approved to participate, 72 elected for retirement only without a replacement voucher, and, as of November 1 2013, only 21 opted to claim the full retirement and replacement incentive. Several factors are at played for resulting in this low participation rate and the staff’s analysis of these factors will inform changes for program improvement

.

1. Economic Assessment of Program Design

The low response rate led staff to investigate whet her the incentives offered were appropriate for the target audiences and vehicles—s pecifically whether the

retirement value was sufficient to cover the value of the retired vehicle that could be received elsewhere, and whether the replacement amount was sufficient to enable low-income participants to purchase a replac ement, cleaner vehicle.

a. Incentive Amount Compared to Retired Vehicle Val ue

As mentioned earlier when discussing the retirement -only element incentive amount, staff review of classified ads indicate the mean advertised price of20 vehicles offered for sale in running condition and similar to those solicited for participation in the EFMP retirement plus replaceme nt voucher element range from $4000 listed by a dealer and $5000 listed by a private party. 14 That value is approximately equal to, and perhaps slight ly less than, the $3000 to $4000 total retirement plus voucher incentive amoun t offered by the program. This generally means the pilot program has, on aver age, not offered motorists

an incentive above the current value of their vehic le to retire it and upgrade in the EFMP program. Considering this, likely program participants were those people who had coincidently already decided to repl ace their vehicle and/or

outliers at the lower end of the value distribution

.

b. Low-Income Motorist Participation

Staff analysis of DMV data suggest that older vehic les tend to be registered in lower income areas. Staff reviewed existing econom ic data to estimate what resources low-income participants would require to purchase a replacement vehicle, because the overall participation rate in the retirement plus replacement voucher program raises questions of how well the incentives offered correspond with the needs of potential part icipants.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the av erage household expenditure on transportation is approximately 15 p ercent of gross income 15

. This is a fairly constant figure across all income groups, but some individual households spend more, and some spend less. Table 7 shows an estimate of how transportation expenses for a newer, cleaner car might fit into the 15 percent budget for various household sizes at the l ow-income threshold. Income is shown at the top of the table, followed b y an estimate of expenses for a newer, cleaner car in the middle of the table . In the bottom half of the table, the ‘fixed’ expenses associated with vehicle ownership are subtracted from the 15 percent budget to arrive at a potential amount which could be put towards a monthly car payment. The very bottom of the table shows estimated borrowing ability based on that potential amount followed by the incremental cost beyond that required to purchase n ewer, cleaner vehicles.

For low-income households of 1 and 2 people, 15 per cent of their income does not even cover expenses for gas, insurance, ma intenance, etc.; these households either do not own a vehicle, are likely not paying for essential costs such as insurance, registration, and maintena nce, or are doing without other household necessities. For a family of 3, lo w-income is at or below $42,953. Fifteen percent of that figure is virtual ly equivalent to the costs of gasoline, insurance, registration, repairs, and mai ntenance, leaving essentially no remaining income left for a loan pay ment towards a newer,

14 www.autotrader.com

and www.craigslist.com

(multiple access dates May to July 2013) for vehic les advertised for sale in the SCAQMD

15 www.bls.gov/news.release/cesan.nr0.htm21 more expensive vehicle. Larger households have a h igher income eligibility limit and, on average, may have some resources to p urchase a new vehicle with a loan. Using the assumptions stated here, a household of 4 could theoretically assume a loan for a $7500 vehicle and a household of 5 could theoretically assume a loan for a $13,500 vehicle.

These figures suggest that the current incentive am ounts are only appropriate for larger households of five or more people. Assi stance to smaller households would require substantially larger incen tives.

A further confounding issue is that many other publ ic assistance programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Progr am 16 (popularly known as the food stamp program) include an asset test, and some households could be denied benefits from other programs where they currently receive benefits, if they were to participate in the vehicl e replacement program that placed a high-value asset (a newer car) in the hous ehold.

Obviously, some households may elect to spend more than the average household expenditure on transportation and may cho ose to participate in the program as currently constituted. However, calcula tions suggest that lowincome participants in the replacement purchase pro gram will generally be outliers. Experience in other states, such as the current “Drive a Clean Machine” program in Texas, also indicates few low i ncome participants have taken advantage of replacement programs 17

.

16 www.snap-step1.usda.gov/fns/tool/tutorial/vehicle_s tates_chart/states_chart.html

17 Personal communication on 7/9/13 with Santos Olive ros, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality22

Table 7. Estimate of Additional Funds Required for Low-Income Households by Household size and Replacement Vehicle Technology

Household

Identification Household Size 1 2 3 4 5

Annual Gross Income 1 $ 25,133 $ 34,043 $ 42,953 $ 51,863 $ 60,773

Monthly

Income Monthly Gross Income $ 2,094 $ 2,837 $ 3,579 $ 4,322 $ 5,064

15% for Transportation 2 $ 314 $ 426 $ 537 $ 648 $ 760

Monthly Transportation Expenses for

Newer Vehicle Liability Insurance 3 $ 45 $ 45 $ 45 $ 45 $ 45

Collision Insurance 3,4 $ 110 $ 110 $ 110 $ 110 $ 110

Registration 5,6 $ 13 $ 13 $ 13 $ 13 $ 13

Maintenance and Repair 7,8 $ 150 $ 150 $ 150 $ 150 $ 150

Fuel 9 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200

Potential Monthly Car Payment (15% of monthly gross, less all other vehicle expenses) -- -- $ 19 $ 131 $ 242

Loan Potential Car Loan Amount 10

(based on potential payment

above) -- -- $ 1,000 $ 7,500 $ 13,500

Potential

Incentive

Amount Required in

Addition to

Loan ULEV (MY 2006) 11 $15,000 Full Cost Full Cost $14,000 $7,500 $1,500

SULEV (MY 2010) 11 $18,000 Full Cost Full Cost $17,000 $10,500 $4,500

Hybrid (used) 11 $19,000 Full Cost Full Cost $18,000 $11,500 $5,500

AT PZEV (Leaf) 12 $21,300 Full Cost Full Cost $20,300 $13,800 $7,800

1 225% of federal poverty level

2 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Consumer Expenditu res Report 9/25/12

3 June 2013 Quote from State Farm Automobile Insuranc e Company for good driver with 15 years’ experience

4 Additional $60 per month for new vehicle

5 CA Department of Motor Vehicles Vehicle Registratio n Fee Calculator website model year 2005 representa tive vehicle

6 Additional $10 per year for each model year newer t han 2005, e.g. additional $80 per year ($6.67/month ) for 2013 vehicle

7 Edmunds.com True Cost to Own for 8 year old represe ntative vehicle

8 Costs may be lower for newer vehicles

9 Assumes 12,000 miles annually at 20 mpg and $4.00/g al

10 Prime Borrower (credit score >800) at 3% (Bankrate 2.67% average on 6/28/13) for 60 months

11 CARMAX mean web advertised price in LA area on 6/28 /13

12 Base model MSRP on Nissan.com on 6/28/13 (after max imum federal incentives)23

2. Areas for Further Study and Potential Program Im provement

Staff’s initial evaluation has concluded that facto rs such as low incentive amounts, program complexity throughout the transact ion process, and limited outreach may be important contributors to the lack of success of the voucher

program.

To address the barriers to low-income participation identified above, staff suggests incentive amounts should be revised upward s. As noted previously, surveys have consistently shown that the total reti rement plus voucher incentive amount is approximately equal to the mean and media n advertised price of vehicles similar to those being solicited. This ge nerally means the pilot program has on average offered motorists the value of their vehicle to retire it and upgrade, which may not be much of an incentive for most motorists. Likely the only participants were people who had coincidently already decided to replace

their vehicle and/or outliers at the lower end of t he value distribution, and thus their participation provided little or no emission benefit. The program must not only offer sufficient financial incentive to overco me the inertia or hassle of making a change and mitigate the added financial burden of an upgrade; it must also overcome hurdles that are not always strictly finan cial, such as participant distress over the thought of crushing what may be a beloved car.

The current model of direct solicitation in the pil ot voucher retirement plus replacement program has proven to be inefficient bo th in terms of administrative costs and participation rates. The program is effe ctively making cold calls to offer motorists approximately the value of their ve hicles in exchange for scrapping their car and buying a more expensive upg rade.

Instead of simply increasing the replacement incent ive, and thus decreasing the cost-effectiveness, and adding additional resources to expand existing outreach efforts, staff is evaluating a structural change wh ere the outreach and function of the program is moved to an arena where people are a lready motivated to make a change: the vehicle dealership. The current model is limited to inviting an owner of a likely high polluter vehicle (who may not be i nterested in replacing a vehicle at all) to retire the vehicle and then go to a deal ership to replace it; the proposed model would incentivize everyone at the dealership with an older vehicle to make a cleaner replacement choice. All older vehicles c ould be eligible for retirement with an additional tiered incentive for purchase of more environmentally friendly replacement vehicles. This approach could be coord inated with other programs such as the Clean Vehicle Rebate Project (CVRP) to maximize opportunity for low-income participants.

Many vehicles sold to dealerships as trade-ins are excellent candidates for EFMP retirement. Many trade-ins are relatively hig h emitters due to age and also have significant useful life remaining. The d ealership typically purchases24

these vehicles for less than retail resale value an d the vehicle is subsequently

sold into another household. Those vehicles could potentially be intercepted at a price that is advantageous to both the dealer and t he consumer and retired instead of eventually returning to the road under n ew ownership.

If the program was to be transitioned to one that i s implemented at the dealer to leverage car dealers’ resources and existing motiva tion, the program would no longer be necessarily restricted to the highest pol luters. Instead, this approach would rely on the proven fact that older vehicles g enerally pollute more and the replacement program focus would shift from the diff icult task of convincing owners of gross polluters to crush their cars to fo cusing on influencing people who have already decided to make a change towards m aking a cleaner choice. A significant increase in efficiency could be gaine d by purchasing vehicles whose owners have already decided to sell, rather than in crease the incentive amount sufficiently to convince other owners to sell.

Besides simply leveraging dealer outreach resources , additional benefits from a dealer/EFMP relationship may be possible. BAR coul d mine the very large data from statewide Smog Check test results, the Vehicle Information Database, to create a ‘want list’ of specific vehicles, or vehic le types wanted for purchase. The list could be distributed among the participating d ealerships for additional targeting of higher emitting vehicles. Every time a vehicle matching the

characteristics of vehicles on the list arrived as a trade-in, it could be diverted from the usual auction route or other resale path t owards EFMP retirement instead. A sophisticated targeted list could even include mileage, in addition to age, make and model. Additional outreach beyond th e dealer could be added to

increase the likelihood of reach the owners of thos e vehicles.

III. Conclusion

EFMP has been successful in retiring high polluting vehicles, but less so in providing incentives for replacement vehicles. Staff has ide ntified aspects of both elements of the program that warrant additional study and can impro ve the program’s ability to reduce

emissions and serve low-income consumers.

However, it must be recognized that the issue of in centivizing vehicle retirement and replacement is complex, with many confounding facto rs. To determine a sensible retirement and replacement vehicle solution, it is recommended that different approaches be evaluated and tested. Course correct ions may be necessary, if the initial approach does not prove fruitful.

IV. Next Steps

The conclusions of this study identify key areas fo r potential program improvement, which can inform program changes to the existing EF MP guidelines. This assessment yielded useful information that played a role in re cent legislation which paves the way25

for improving the program. Two recent acts of legi slation adopted this year, Assembly Bill (AB) 8 and Senate Bill (SB) 459, directly addr ess this program and require ARB adopt new program guidelines by June 30, 2015. The first piece of legislation, AB 8, extends funding until January 1, 2024. The second piece of legislation, SB 459, specifies, among other items, that vehicles should not be eligible for retirement unless they have sufficient remaining useful life. And in addition to a directive that outreach should be increased, the bill provides options to e nsure the program adequately serves persons of low- and moderate-income, such as by gra nting the ability to limit eligibility

on the basis of income.

Moving forward, ARB staff will work closely with BA R staff to develop strategies to improve the program and to ensure that all changes are complementary to the Consumer Assistance Program. Development and imple mentation of the program modifications will require coordination with local air districts, engagement with stakeholders and outreach to interested parties. C onsistent with SB 459, staff will emphasize community outreach and developing partner ships with stakeholders in targeted communities. ARB staff will work with sta keholders to develop a draft proposal that will be the subject of public workshops schedu led for early spring 2014 and return to the Board with a proposal for program changes an d improvements in mid-2014.26

Appendix A: Testing Roles and Responsibilities by A gency

On-site leads were as follows:

On

- site Leads Name

BAR CAP Lead Howard Pittman

BAR Roadside Lead Paul Thomas

ARB On-Site Lead John Ellis

ARB Point of Contact Gene Seto

The participating dismantlers’ names, addresses, an d phone numbers are as follows:

Dismantler Address Phone Number(s)

Pick-A-Part 2025A South Milliken Avenue Ontario, California 91761 (800) 600-5865 (909) 390-5270

Ecology Auto Parts 221 East Santa Ana Avenue Rialto, California 92316 (909) 877-8707

Agency Roles and Responsibilities:

I. BAR roadside team (the quantitative assessment t eam) responsible for: 1. Setting up the mobile ASM unit, calibrating the equipment. 2. Establishing a queuing area for vehicles waiting in line to be tested. 3. Ensuring vehicles have been appropriately pre-co nditioned prior to testing. 4. Performing an ASM test on all testable EFMP vehi cles stored at the dismantler site and entering test information using the vehicle license plate or

vehicle identification number ( VIN). 5. Performing equipment calibration in the morning and at lunch. 6. Printing two Vehicle Inspection Reports and prov iding one to ARB at the end

of the test. 7. Notifying ARB’s Representative and informing him of the reason if a vehicle arrives in the staging area that the BAR roadside t eam determines is unsafe

to test:
a. Unsafe vehicles or vehicles that cannot be teste d due to the vehicle’s

condition marked on the Checklist as “vehicle could NOT be tested due to
________________________.” 8. Taking down the equipment following testing and ensuring the testing and queuing areas are left in the same condition as the y were found. 9. Informing the CAP Field Representative if an iss ue requires dismantler

clarification or resolution. 10. Ensuring that all areas impacted by the roadsid e team are left in the same condition as they were found.27

II. CAP field representative responsible for: 1. Establishing and maintaining rapport with the di smantler, including all interface activity on the day of testing. 2. Securing adequate space for queuing and testing vehicles, and establishing the procedure for moving EFMP vehicles from the yar d to the staging area (queue) and returning the vehicles to the yard. 3. Securing the keys for all EFMP vehicles. 4. Assisting in the process of starting and warming up EFMP vehicles for testing and driving them to and from the staging area. 5. Ensuring all areas impacted by the project (BAR roadside testing and ARB qualitative assessment) left in the same condition as they were found.

III. ARB Representatives (the qualitative assessmen t team) responsible for: 1. Identifying each EFMP vehicle and accurately rec ording its VIN, CAP ID, make, model, and model year (Checklist). 2. Checking the vehicle tires (for safety) and wind ows (Checklist). 3. Starting the vehicle to begin the warm-up (pre-c onditioning) process, recording the odometer reading, and checking the fu el gauge (Checklist): a. If needed, re-charge the battery. b. If needed, add gas to enable vehicle to be teste d. 4. Determining if the vehicle is untestable, i.e., unsafe to test or unable to be started and driven to the staging area (record on c hecklist if not testable).

NOTE: ARB staff check with BAR roadside before dec iding if a vehicle is not

testable:

a. Check for obvious leaks that could render the ve hicle untestable

b. Mark vehicle as “vehicle could NOT be tested due to ________________________” (Checklist). 5. (While the vehicle is warming up) recording on t he checklist the nonmechanical interior and exterior condition of the v ehicle (Checklist). 6. Taking interior and exterior digital photos to v isually display – in the best possible manner -- the condition of the vehicle (Ch ecklist): a. Take at least two photos of the interior, includ ing one of the dash and a second that shows the general condition of the seat s and flooring i. If severe damage is present, take a photo of the damaged area. b. Take at least four photos of the exterior, inclu ding a frontal photo, a photo from the rear end of the vehicle, and a photo of each sides i. If severe damage is present, take a photo of the damaged area(s). 7. Checking that the vehicle’s emissions control sy stems is not missing, modified, or tampered (Checklist). An ASM test per formed regardless of findings if vehicle is determined to be testable. 8. Working in tandem with the CAP Field Representat ive be sure all vehicles are properly pre-conditioned prior to driving the vehic le to the staging area:

a. Idled the vehicle for a minimum of 10 minutes at normal idling speed b. At “fast idle,” idle the vehicle for one minute. 9. Driving all testable vehicles to and from the st aging area: a. Check that the MIL (Engine Check Light) is not o n (Checklist)28 b. Check that there is no obvious problem with the engine while driving (Checklist) c. Check vehicle transmission while driving (Checkl ist) d. Check that there is no obvious frontend problem while driving (Checklist) e. Check that the brakes are working while driving (Checklist) f. Check the coolant system (Checklist). 10. Checking if vehicle is smoking when it arrives at staging area (Checklist). 11. Marking the overall condition of the vehicle (C hecklist).

12. If the roadside test team determines the vehicl e is untestable, marking vehicle as “vehicle could NOT be tested due to ____________ _______-” (Checklist). 13. Informing the CAP Field Representative if an is sue requires dismantler

clarification or resolution. 14. Ensuring that all areas impacted by ARB are lef t in the same condition as they were found. 15. Following the assessment at the dismantlers, co mbining the Checklist with the printed photos for each vehicle.29

Appendix B: Qualitative Inspection Checklist30

Appendix C: Summary Tables for Qualitative Testing

Vehicle’s Overall Mechanical Condition (as rated by ARB field technician)

Overall Vehicle Condition

Good Fair Poor

All Vehicles 12% 63% 25%

By location

Ontario 16% 71% 13%

Rialto 10% 60% 30%

Status of the On-Board Diagnostic Malfunction Indic ator Light (MIL) for 1994

and Newer Model Year Vehicles

Status of Malfunction Indicator Light (MIL)

ON” “OFF” Malfunctioning
1994 and newer model-year vehicles 55% 37% 8%

1996 and newer model-year vehicles 53% 37% 10%

The Top 12 Mechanical Problems

Top 12 Mechanical Problems

1 Catalytic Convertor (aftermarket part, not certifie d for vehicle) 26

2 Transmission Problem 14

3 Engine Misfire 11

4 Power Steering 7

5 Vacuum Hose 6

6 Smoking 6

7 Overheating 5

8 Rough Idle 3

9 Engine Noise 3

10 Engine Knocking 3

11 Other disconnect or modified 6

12 Leaking oil or fluids 5

Note: Some vehicles had more than one mechanical pr oblem identified at the time of visual inspection.31

Non-Mechanical Condition (as rated by ARB field tec hnician)

Non

- Mechanical Condition of the Vehicle

Good Fair Poor

Interior Condition 16% 37% 47%

Exterior Condition 22% 52% 26%32

Appendix D: Summary Table for Quantitative Testing



### ROADSIDE EFMP TESTS
1/18/2013 AND 1/25/2013 AND 02/01/2013

Vehicle Odometer Reading Gross Polluter

MODEL

YEAR AVERAGE HIGH LOW TESTED FAILED

NON-GP FAILED GP FAILED

TOTAL PASS FAIL

RATE

1973 66,914 88,784 28,704 3 0 1 1 2 33%

1975 27,237 27,237 27,237 1 0 0 0 1 0%

1978 46,213 46,213 46,213 1 0 1 1 0 100%

1979 74,635 74,635 74,635 1 0 1 1 0 100%

1981 994 994 994 1 0 1 1 0 100%

1983 2,262 2,262 2,262 1 0 1 1 0 100%

1986 92,864 133,304 52,424 2 1 1 2 0 100%

1987 193,928 310,695 93,710 5 2 0 2 3 40%

1988 203,371 393,443 80,981 4 1 0 1 3 25%

1989 190,512 303,849 3,502 10 8 1 9 1 90%

1990 253,734 253,734 253,734 1 1 0 1 0 100%

1991 186,396 241,034 92,195 11 5 3 8 3 73%

1992 172,470 263,903 15,688 8 4 1 5 3 63%

1993 224,891 322,347 142,883 10 5 3 8 2 80%

1994 189,107 331,410 79,743 9 3 2 5 4 56%

1995 210,168 325,054 114,878 11 4 2 6 5 55%

1996 202,565 285,535 0 10 6 2 8 2 80%

1997 200,153 326,133 89,520 13 2 3 5 8 38%

1998 213,651 294,593 176,743 4 2 0 2 2 50%

1999 167,063 216,093 93,728 4 1 1 2 2 50%

2000 154,842 217,080 0 6 2 0 2 4 33%

2001 112,798 123,195 102,400 2 0 1 1 1 50%

2002 113,040 113,040 113,040 1 0 0 0 1 0%

2003 252,078 252,078 252,078 1 0 0 0 1 0%

TOTAL 182,024 120 47 25 72 48 60%

An odometer reading was collected for each vehicle tested and data is shown in the table above for all vehicles by age group. Data fr om 1992 and older model year vehicles that have 5-digit odometers may not reflec t total mileage, and without the vehicle history might not show the real picture. I n the same manner, at least 2 of the newer vehicles (one in model year 1996 and the othe r in model year 2000) had inoperable odometers. Therefore, in only a few year s do the odometer readings reflect the actual mileage driven.33

Appendix E: Summary Tables for Phone Survey

A t the time you retired your vehicle was it register ed with DMV?

(The responses to this question do not agree with staff observations; abou t 60 percent of the vehicles displayed expired tags during testing and inspectio n.)

# % “Yes” or “No”

80 98% Yes (the vehicle was registered)

2 2% No (the vehicle was not registered)

What would you have done with your vehicle if you d id not retire it through the State program?

# % Response

38 46% Keep it, drive it, and/or fix it to drive

30 37% Sell it

6 7% Scrap it

4 5% Donate it

3 4% Don’t know

1 1% Register it as “Non-Op”

At the time you retired your vehicle, what did you think it was worth? While 13 percent did not know or did not want to guess, 71 participa nts stated what they thought their vehicle was worth. (87 percent of these vehicles were purchased by EFMP for $1500 and 13 percent for $1000). The following table summarizes the results:

# % The owner thought the vehicle was worth:

1 1% Less than $200

2 2% Between $200 to $399

3 4% Between $400 to $599

2 2% Between $600 to $799

4 5% Between $800 to $999

23 28% $1,000

4 5% $1,001 to $1,299

3 4% $1,300 to $1,499

10 12% $1,500

2 2% $1,501 to $1,799

1 1% $1,800 to $1,999

9 11% $2,000

3 4% $2,001 to $2,499

1 1% $2,500

Between $2,501 to $2,999

1 1% $3,000 to $3,999

$4,000 to $4,999

2 2% $5,000 or over

11 13% Did not know34

Was the retired vehicle used to commute to work or school?

# % Response

39 48% Vehicle used to commute to work

21 26% Vehicle was not used to commute

16 20% Vehicle used for both work and school

6 7% Vehicle used to commute to school

How many miles did you commute each way? Answers to this question suggested that many respon dents may not have known or been able to realistically estimate how many mil es they drove their [retired] vehicle each way to work.

Was the retired vehicle driven during the morning c ommute time (7:00 to 9:00 a.m.) or the evening commute time (5:00 to 7:00 p.m.)?

# % Response

38 46% Used during both commute times

31 38% Not used during either commute time

9 11% Used during morning commute, only

4 5% Used during afternoon commute, only

Over the last year before the vehicle was retired, about how many miles per week was

the vehicle driven? Answers to this question suggested that many respon dents may not have known the mileage, may have combined the round trip milea ge, or guessed in a manner that could not be substantiated by their response t o the question, “about how many miles did they commute each way?”

Why did you decide to retire the vehicle?

# % Primary Reason

34 41% The vehicle had major mechanical problems that

would be too expensive to repair

19 23% Owner thought it couldn’t pass the Smog Check

12 15% The vehicle was no longer needed

9 11% The vehicle was no longer as reliable and you

wanted a newer vehicle

4 4% Other

2 2% Owner recognized it was time to retire the vehicle

1 1% Unavailability of replacement parts

Did you purchase a replacement vehicle?

# % “Yes” or “No”

43 52% No (a replacement vehicle was NOT purchased)

39 48% Yes (a replacement vehicle was purchased)35

If you purchase a replacement vehicle, how old was the vehicle you purchased?

# % Age in model years

23 59% Purchased a vehicle 9 model years or older

7 18% Purchased a vehicle 8 model years old or newer

6 16% Purchased a new vehicle

3 8% Did not answer

If you purchased a replacement vehicle, about what was the odometer reading of the replacement vehicle? What is the estimated average odometer reading for the (non-new) replacement vehicles? Average Odometer reading For vehicles that are 8 model years old or newer (if entered) 128,000

For vehicles that are 9 model years old or older (if entered) 120,667

For new vehicles 0

What method of travel do you currently use?

# % Primary Reason

39 48% Used replacement vehicle you purchased

32 39% Use another car you already owned

5 6% Carpool or get a ride with someone else

3 4% Other

1 1% Use public transit

-- -- Walk or ride a bike

How did the participant learn about the State vehic le retirement program?

# % Primary Reason

24 29% Friends or family

15 18% Smog Station

13 16% Internet or Website

12 15% DMV

4 5% Repair shop or parts store

4 5% Dismantler

4 5% Other

3 4% You or others you know participated before