## Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental Protection

Final State Implementation Plan Revision Visual Inspection Quality Assurance Protocol Revision in the Vehicle Safety

Inspection Program for 42 Counties 

## March 2009 Bureau of Air Quality Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

P.O. Box 8468 Harrisburg, PA 17105
- 8468 717 - 787 - 9495 www.dep web .state.pa.us John Hanger Secretary Edward G. Rendell Governor2

Blank page for cop yi ng purposes3



### Background A. Pennsy lv ania’s Vehicle Safety Inspection Program State Implementation Plan On December 1 , 2003 , the Secretary of the Penns ylvania Department of Environmental Protection (Department) submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a re vision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s ( Commonwealth’s or Pennsylvania’s ) enhanced vehicle emission inspection and maintenance (I/M) program and vehicle safet y inspection program. The December 1, 2003 , SIP rev ision included a requirement for a visual inspection of pollution control equipment in the vehicle safet y inspection program in the 42 Pennsylvania counties in which an I/M program is not required
. Th e SIP submittal included safet y inspection regulations, codified at 67 Pa. Code Chapter 175 , and information about how the Commonwealth will meet federal I/M program requirements contained in 40 CFR §§ 51.350 - 51.371. On October 6 , 2005 , EPA approved the SIP revision (70 FR 58313). The approved SIP revisions are codified in 52 CFR §2020 (relating to identification of plan)
. 

### B. Effectiveness of the A nti - Tampering Pilot Program Pennsylvania safet y inspection regulations require, in 67 Pa. Code § 175.80(d) (relating to inspection procedure), that in the 42 count ies in which there is not an emission inspection program (non
- I/M counties) , vehicle s must be visually checked to ensure that the following emission control components are not the wrong type for the certified vehicle configuration and have not been removed or disconnected:

 C ataly

tic converter  Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) valve  Positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) valve  Fuel inlet restrictor  Air pump  Evaporative control sy stem components The visual inspection is also referred to as the anti
- tampering pr ogram (ATP). The current quality assurance program for the safety inspections, as it relates to administrative audits of approximately

5,200 safety

inspection garages in the 42 non
- I/M counties, has experienced significant operational inefficiencies becau se of the frequent need to return to the inspection stations to achieve full compliance with the following terms of the December 1 , 2003 S IP that reads: “As part of the audit of the 42 Non
- I/M County Program, a vehicle on the station’s premises which has a safety inspection sticker indicating that it has passed a safet y inspection administered by the station within the immediately prece ding two business day s shall be re
- inspected by station personnel in the presence of the personnel performing the audit to determine whether the vehicle properl y passed the anti
- tampering4

program/visual inspection (ATP) portion of the safety inspection. In the event it is determined that a vehicle improperly passed the ATP portion, in addition to any other sanction available by

law, if the station remains in operation, it shall be revisited unannounced at least once within the three months following the initial audit and again within the next three
- month period to ascertain compliance with ATP inspection requirements. If the re is no vehicle available for re
- inspection at the time of the audit, the station shall be revisited un announced within 30 day s. The C ommonwealth also will implement a records audit that includes the calculation of failure rates for ATP inspection compon ents for each inspection station. The Commonwealth shall compare these failure rates to rates in areas conducting both ATP and I/M inspections and, as necessary , will respond to significant differences in failure rates with adjustments to the audit proces s and/or training, as appropriate. ” In fiscal ye ar (FY) 20 05/ 20 06, 4,662 administrative audits were conducted with 2,014 (44%) having a vehicle to re
- inspect in conformance with the criteria outlined above. Because of the absence of a recently

inspected vehicle ( namely , a vehicle inspected within the preceding two business day s) on the premises of the station being audited, it was necessary to re
- visit 2,648 (56%) of the stations to attempt to veri f y compliance with the ATP ins pection protocol. During th e 2, 648 re - vis i ts conducted in FY 20 05/20 06, there were vehicles available for re
- inspection at only 450 (17%) stations. In FY 20 06/20 07, there were 5, 043 administrative audits conducted with 2,937 (58%) having vehicles present to re
- inspect to verify compliance. For all re
- inspections performed in FY 20 05/20 06 and FY 20 06/20 07, there were no measurable ATP inspection failures detected. In an effort to increase the number of vehicles observed and reduce cost and wasted effort, the Penns yl vania Department of Transportation ( PennDOT ) instituted a pilot program in which quality a ssurance staff checked two vehicles at those garages that had vehicles present at the time of their visit and examined vehicles that had been inspected in the preceding five business day s rather than in the preceding tw o business day s . The pilot procedure, evaluated between March 1, 2007 and June 30, 2007 , was conducted as follows: A vehicle on the station’s premise which had a safety inspection sticker indicating that it had passed a safet y inspection administered b y the station within the preceding five business day

was re - inspected by

station personnel in the presence of the PennDOT Quality Assurance Officer to determine whether the vehicle properl y passed the anti
tampering porti on of the safet y inspection. Extending the “preceding business days” from two to five enabled PennDOT staff to see more vehicles without having to revisit stations. The alternate method piloted resulted in substantial reduced mileage and fuel costs by el iminating revisits, while increasing the number of stations PennDOT’s Qualit y Assurance Officers were able to visit. This method of verifying anti
- tampering results will more efficientl y utilize PennDOT’s Qualit y Assurance Staff and permit more targeted s tation visits i f necessary . During the 120
- day

pilot program , PennDOT conducted 1,956 administrative audits with 1,677 (85%) stations having a vehicle to re
- inspect according to the pilot program criteria5

outlined above. By

continuing to use the above criteria, PennDOT staff will be able to visit every station at least once a year and see more vehicles for the purpose of auditing anti
tampering results. During this pilot program , staff drove 20,000 fewer miles than in the same time frame from the previ ous year. This will result in substantial fuel cost savings each ye ar and permit more effective use of quality a ssurance personnel. The anal ys is of the p ilot program results show s that the required objective of ensuring that inspection stations are cor rectl y conducting anti
- tampering inspections will be achieved in a more efficient and cost effe ctive manner and w ill strengthen the Commonwealth’s I/M SIP. 

### C. The Program Changes The Commonwealth proposes to revise the Quality Assurance section in the De cember 1 , 2003 SIP revision (pp. 23
- 24) for the non
- I/M counties as follows
. 

### § 51.363 Qualit y As surance There are no quality

assurance changes to the 1996 I/M SIP with respect to the I/M program. The Commonwealth’s Quality Assurance program is comprise d of both internal PennDOT personnel and external personnel. PennD OT ’s Vehicle Inspection Division oversees the 42 N on - I/M County

Program. The description of the staff is contained in the 1996 I/M SIP. In addition, through the contract with the I/M Prog ram Manager, the contractor provides oversight for the safet y i nspection program in the 25 I/M counties. Both PennDOT staff and the Contractor perform, at least once per year, safety audits of each safety inspection station in accordance with established protocol for the audit of stations performing vehicle safety inspections pursuant to 67 Pa. Code , Chapter 175. As part of the audit of the 42 Non
- I/M County Program, a vehicle on the station’s premises which has a safet y inspection sticker indicating that it has passed a safet y inspection administered by the station within the immediately

preceding two FIVE business day s shall be re
- inspected by station personnel in the presence of the personnel performing the audit to determine whether the vehicle properl y passed the anti
- tampering program/visual inspection (ATP) portion of the safety i nspection. In the event it is determined that a vehicle improperl y passed the ATP portion, in addition to any other sanction available b y law, if the station remains in ope ration, it shall be revisited unannounced at least once within the three months following the initial audit and again within the next three
month period to ascertain compliance with ATP inspection requirements. If there is no vehicle available for re
- ins pection at the time of an y audit, the station shall be revisited unannounced within 30 day s. The Commonwealth also will implement a records audit that includes the calculation of failure rates for ATP inspection components for each inspection station. Th e Commonwealth shall compare these failure rates to rates in areas conducting both ATP and I/M inspections and, as necessary , will respond to significant differences in failure rates with adjustments to the audit process and/or training, as appropriate.6



### D. Public Participation Requirements for a public comment process are set forth in Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA and 40 CFR Section 51.102(d). A public hearing on the proposed revisions to the quality a ssurance p rogram was held on T hurs day , March 19 , 200 9 . Notice of the hearing w as published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin at least 30 day s prior to the date of the hearing. No public comment was received.