I/M PROGRAMSpubs.awma.org/flip/EM-April-2015/freeman2.pdf · hybrids or motorcycles12), weight (e.g., > 14,000 lb13), or use (e.g., farm/agriculture11). Non-ex-empted vehicles must

Thin

ksto

ck P

hotoem • feature

Identifying a solution that promotes vehicle emission management programs in developing nations by implementing proven and low-cost techniques.

forDeveloping Nations

VEHICLEI/M PROGRAMS

by Brian Freeman, Bahram Gharabaghi, Shah Faisal, Meshal Abdullah, and Jesse Thé

awma.org14 em april 2015

This page: ©iStock.com/Sophie_James; page 17: ©iStock.com/-Oxford-

About the Authors:Brian Freeman, P.E., PMP, QEP, is team leader of air regulatory management for the United Nations Development Program’s Kuwait Integrated Management Project, and a Ph.D. candi-date with the University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada; Bahram Gharabaghi, Ph.D., P.Eng, is an associate professor of engi-neering at the University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada; Shah Faisal is team leader of the air emissions management and reporting system for the United Nations Development Program’s Kuwait Integrated Management Project; Meshal Abdullah is deputy director general of Kuwait’s Environment Public Authority; and Jesse Thé, Ph.D., P.Eng, is pres-ident and founder of Lakes Environmental Software Inc. and a professor at the University of Waterloo, Canada. E-mail: [email protected].

14_EM0415-FT2-Freeman2-FNL.indd 14 3/23/15 12:21 PM

Copyright 2015 Air & Waste Management Association

Thin

ksto

ck P

hoto

april 2015 em 15awma.org

th

ANNIVERSARY

ttth

ANNNNIVERIVERIVERIVERSARY

Emissions from cars, trucks, and other mobile sources are signifi cant sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and green-house gases (GHGs).1,2 The United States

and Europe established standards to limit tail pipe emissions from vehicles as early as 1964.3 While many developing countries do not have the same history of environmental enforcement and analysis as the United States and other developed nations, they can take advantage of lessons learned and low-cost compliance actions to immediately improve air quality.

Inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs that enforce emission limits offer one of the best oppor-tunities to reduce emissions for in-service vehicles. Unfortunately, many countries do not have ade-quate I/M programs. The purpose of this article is to promote implementation of vehicle emission management programs in developing nations to reduce the harmful effects associated with traf-fi c-related pollution4,5 using low-cost, proven tech-niques. The methodologies given below can be implemented without expensive attainment stud-ies, using the results and recommendations from existing programs as the basis to begin.

Each year, an additional 40 million cars and trucks6 are added to the more than 1.1 billion vehicles already in service around the world.7 Most new vehicles are designed to meet strict emission stan-dards established by the European Union (EU) or the United States. Other manufacturing coun-tries, such as Japan, China, India, and Brazil,8 have adopted similar strict emission standards for new vehicles. In 2013, the United Nations Working Party on Pollution and Energy approved the World Harmonized Light-Duty Vehicles Test Procedure (WLTP) to standardize emission tests.9 Prior to the WLTP, different protocols were in place to evaluate

compliance requiring manufacturers to conduct multiple tests cycles.10

Testing protocols to meet these standards typ-ically involve large dynamometers and laborato-ries, and are the burden of manufacturers. For vehicles already in service, emissions reduction programs include insuring proper maintenance, improving driver behaviors, enhancing fuel quality, and implementing traffi c management systems to avoid congestion, as summarized in Table 1.

Some vehicle emission management programs exempt certain vehicles from emissions testing based on age (e.g., historic vehicles11), type (e.g., hybrids or motorcycles12), weight (e.g., > 14,000 lb13), or use (e.g., farm/agriculture11). Non-ex-empted vehicles must undergo evaluation every one to three years to legally operate on public roads. These tests typically include a combination of procedures shown in the “Vehicle Maintenance” column of Table 1.

Vehicle Emission Tests Visual InspectionsVisual inspections confi rm that vehicle pollution control technologies (PCT) have not been tam-pered with. Visual inspections also allow initial screening of vehicle performance by identifying heavy exhaust smoke and fuel smells if present. The most common PCT on vehicles is a cata-lytic converter that oxidizes unburned fuel from the exhaust; other PCTs that could be subject to inspection include the positive crankcase ventila-tion (PCV) valve and fuel caps. Fuel cap meters can be used to test the sealing capacity of the cap.

Visual inspections do not determine whether the technology is working properly and require sub-stantial knowledge from inspectors due to the wide

Some vehicle

emission

management

programs exempt

certain vehicles

from emissions

testing based

on age.

Inspection/Maintenance Driver Behavior Fuel Quality Traffi c Management

• Visual Inspections• Idle Exhaust Testing• Fuel Cap Testing• On Board Diagnostic

(OBD) Evaluation• Opacity Testing

• Limited Idling• Reduced

Aggressive Driving• Enforced Moving

Violations

• Reduced Sulfur

• Clean Fuels

• Smart Traffi c Controls• New Bypass and Road

Design• Improved Road Surfaces• Flexible Work Hours• Carpooling

Table 1. Non-manufac-turer-related methods to reduce vehicle emissions.



16 em april 2015 awma.org

variety of vehicles. As a result, ineffective inspec-tions may take place. In Mexico, for example, more than 50% of inspected cars were found to have received fraudulent or incomplete inspections.14

Idle Exhaust TestingEmissions from light road vehicles (LRVs) using gasoline are often measured using a two-speed idle (TSI) test with an emissions exhaust meter. The first, or low idle speed, is the normal idle state of the vehicle at rest. The second, or fast idle speed, is measured at 2,500 RPM. The maximum limits for gasoline LRV in the United States15 are shown in Table 2.

The United Kingdom uses a similar TSI test.16 Emission limits are based on the type and model

of the car, but range from 0.2–0.5% for low idle carbon monoxide (CO) and 0.2–0.3% for fast idle CO. Hydrocarbons are only measured at the fast idle speed and may not exceed 200 parts per million (ppm), while the fuel/air ratio (lambda) can range from 0.91 to 0.97. A typical TSI test kit weighs less than 5 lb (2.3 kg) and costs approxi-mately US$6,000.

The use of TSI testing is being challenged. Regula-tory agencies are instead relying on the on board diagnostic (OBD) test to provide a more com-prehensive evaluation of the state of the vehicle’s emission system.

Opacity TestingVehicles with diesel engines use exhaust smoke opacity tests. The measurement units are in light absorption coefficient (m-1) or smoke density (%). Opacity meters measure light extinction as exhaust gas passes through a light beam.17 The light wavelength is selected to prevent absorp-tion by specific gas components and allow scat-tering by aerosols as small as 50 nm.18 Table 3 presents the EU smoke limits for different types of diesel engines.19

The United States uses the SAE J1667 Snap Acceleration Test standard for heavy road vehicles (i.e., > 8,500 lb).20 Limits are based on the year of vehicle manufacture, as shown in Table 4.

Engine Type Smoke Density (m-1)

Non-Turbo Charged 2.5

Turbo Charged 3.0

Built to EURO 4 or higher

per manufacturer(not to exceed 1.5)

Table 3. Smoke density limits for different types of diesel engines.

Year of Manufacture Maximum Opacity Limit (%)

Pre-1991 55

1991 and Later 40

Buses 30

Table 4. Smoke density limits for heavy road vehicles.

Idle Speed Minimum Sampling Time (sec) HC (ppm) CO (%) Lambda

(Fuel/Air Ratio)

Low 30 100 0.5

Fast 30 100 0.5 0.97–1.03

Table 2. Emission limits for light road vehicle gasoline engines.

Vehicle Model Year and Type

Pass Criteria Fail Criteria

1998–2000 OBD-enabled

vehicles

No Fail criteria

detected

• Vehicle OBD computer is unable to communicate with OBD emissions test unit

• 3 or more supported readiness monitors not set to “Ready”• Malfunction Indicator Light (MIL) is commanded “ON” with

Diagnostic Trouble Code (DTC)

2001 and later OBD-enabled

vehicles

No Fail criteria

detected

• Vehicle OBD computer is unable to communicate with OBD emissions test unit

• 2 or more supported readiness monitors not set to “Ready”• MIL is commanded “ON” with DTC

Table 5. Pass/fail criteria for OBD-enabled vehicles.



april 2015 em 17awma.org

th

ANNIVERSARY

ttth

ANNNNIVERIVERIVERIVERSARY

Programs using opacity testing have been shown to be effective in reducing emitted pollutant despite not showing strong correlation to particu-late matter and carbon monoxide.1,21 Opacity tests can be conducted either at fi xed test centers or at random road side check points due the portability of test kits. A typical test kit weighs approximately 25 lb (11.3 kg) and costs approximately US$5,000.

On Board Diagnostics (OBD) TestingThe California Air Resources Board (CARB) has mandated OBD systems for all vehicles sold in the state since 1988. The U.S. Clean Air Act of 1990 expanded the OBD requirements (OBD II) and enforced implementation in all new light-duty cars and trucks from 1996.22 The OBD II system mon-itors the emission performance of a vehicle and tracks malfunctions. A technician can access stored information with an OBD reader.23 The pass/fail criteria in Table 5 shows basic features of the OBD II in regards to an I/M program.

Keys to Effective Testing ManagementLessons learned from a World Bank study in Mexico found that testing pro-cedures must be performed within an effective management approach.14 Key elements of a successful vehicle emis-sions program should include:

1. Dedicated testing center. Centers should test emissions and not repair dis-crepancies to avoid confl ict of interest.

2. Multiple testing centers. Centers should be conveniently located for easy access.

3. Effective test certifi cate enforce-ment. Testing certifi cates should be is-sued or easily tracked by enforcement staff. Enforcement should be autho-rized to a wide enough body of public agents to allow for effective oversight. This may mean allowing local police to issue citations if a certifi cate is out of

date, as compared to only allowing the environmental regulatory agency sole jurisdiction.

4. Rigorous procedures. Testing proce-dures should be rigorous enough to prevent vehicles from circumventing passable standards.

5. Independent testing center reviews. An independent third party outside of the responsible agency should be assigned to review each test center to insure it is properly and consistent-ly conducting test procedures with trained personnel.

Re-Test

Re-Test

Vehicle Passes

Vehicle Passes

OBD Test

Does Vehicle have a working OBD?

Visual Inspection

Re-Test

Snap/FAS Test

Gasoline or Diesel Fuel?

2-Step Idle Test

Fail Fail

Diesel Gasoline

No Yes

Fail

Fail

Figure 1. Basic vehicle emissions I/M process.



18 em april 2015 awma.org

The EU developed its own OBD system, E-OBD, and has mandated it in all new M1 category cars (i.e., <2,500 kg) since 2002.24 Other countries adopted modifications of OBD II, including Japan, Brazil, China, India, and South Korea. Vehicles with OBD II, EOBD, or the Japanese OBD variant sys-tems are likely to meet the requirements of most countries.25,26

RecommendationsA simplified I/M process is shown in Figure 1. Categorizations such as exemptions and weight classes are not considered in order to emphasize that a low-cost, simple program is more sustainable and widely accepted by vehicle operators than a

complex system that is ambiguous or unenforce-able. For environmental authorities developing or enhancing a vehicle I/M program, the key tests, in order of cost and effectiveness would be:

1. visual inspection with pass/fail criteria with at a minimum checks for positive crankcase venti-lation valves, fuel cap, and catalytic converters;

2. OBD test for vehicles equipped with an OBD system; and

3. two-step idle test for gasoline fuel vehicles that do not have an OBD system or cannot take the OBD test due to incompatible formats.

The cost to equip an inspection station is relatively inexpensive, as shown in Table 6. For example, if only the OBD tester is used with visual inspec-tion, a minimum cost of only US$600 is required. Other supporting costs required for a successful I/M program, such as a national data management system to track inspection results, real estate costs for inspection centers, staff wages, training and certification programs, as well as audit protocols, were not included. em

References1. McCormick, R.L., et al. Quantifying the Emission Benefits of Opacity Testing and Repair of Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles; Environ. Sci. Technol.

2003, 37 (3), 630-637.2. Wargo, J.; Wargo, L.; Alderman, N. The Harmful Effects of Vehicle Exhaust; Environment & Human Health Inc., 2006; p. 65.3. Milestones in Auto Emissions Control; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 1994; p. 34. Chambliss, S., et al. The Impact of Stringent Fuel and Vehicle Standards on Premature Mortality and Emissions. In ICCT’s Global Transporta-

tion Health and Climate Roadmap Series; International Council on Clean Transportation, Washignton, DC, 2013; p. 96.5. Lim, S.S., et al. A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21

regions, 1990–2010: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010; The Lancet 2012, 380 (9859), 2224-2260.6. 2012–2014 Half-Year Car Sales Statistics; International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers (OICA), 2014, Paris, France;

http://www.oica.net.7. Total World Vehicles in Use; International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers (OICA), 2014, Paris, France; http://www.oica.net.8. An, F.; Earley, R.; Green-Weiskel, L. Global overview on fuel efficiency and motor vehicle emission standards: Policy options and perspectives for inter-

national cooperation; United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, The Innovation Center for Energy and Transportation (iCET), 2011.9. Proposal for a New UN Global Technical Regulation on Worldwide Harmonized Light-Duty Vehicles Test Procedure (WLTP); UN Economic

and Social Council, 2013; p. 253.10. Worldwide Harmonized Light-Duty Vehicles Test Procedure (WLTP); International Council on Clean Transportation, Washignton, DC, 2014.11. Ontario Drive Clean Test, 2014; http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/drive-clean-test.12. Maryland Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program, General Requirements, 2015; http://www.mva.maryland.gov/vehicles/veip/.13. Illinois Vehicle Emissions Testing Program, 2014; http://www.epa.illinois.gov/topics/air-quality/mobile-sources/vehicle-emissions-testing/index.14. Kojima, M.; Bacon, R. Privatizing Vehicle Inspection and Reducing Fraud in Mexico City. In Public Policy for the Private Sector; World Bank, 2001.15. Two-Speed Idle Test; Fed. Reg. 1996, 61, 40947.16. Service Exhaust Emission Standards for Road Vehicles, 17th Edition; Department of Transport, United Kingdom, 2012.17. Clapsaddle, C.; Trenholm, A. Current Knowledge of Particular Matter Continuous Emissions Monitoring; U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 2000; p. 98.18. Commission Directive 2010/48/EU; European Union, 2010.19. Majewski, W.A.; Jääskeläinen, H. Smoke Opacity, 2013; https://www.dieselnet.com/tech/measure_opacity.php.20. J1667 Recommended Practice—Snap Acceleration Smoke Test Procedure for Heavy-Duty Powered Vehicles; Society of Automotive Engineers

(SAE), Warrendale, PA, 1996.21. Houtte, J.V.; Niemeier, D. A Critical Review of the Effectiveness of I/M Programs for Monitoring PM Emissions from Heavy-Duty Vehicles;

Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42 (21), 7856-7865.22. On-Board Diagnostics (OBD) Basic Information; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 2013; http://www.epa.gov/obd/basic.htm.23. J1939-3 On Board Diagnostics Implementation Guide; Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), Warrendale, PA, 2015; http://standards.sae.

org/wip/j1939/3/.24. Tsinoglou, D., et al. Impact Assessment of On Boad Diagnostic (OBD) Systems for Passenger Cars; Laboratory of Applied Thermodynamics,

Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece, 2005.25. Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 79/01: Emission Control for Light Vehicles) 2005; ADR 79/01; Australia, 2007.26. Ferris, D.H. Global OBD Legislation Update (Worldwide Requirements). In Proceedings of in SAE 2009 On-Board Diagnostics Symposium,

Indianapolis, IN, 2009.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTThis work resulted in part from a draft mobile source stan-dard development for the State of Kuwait funded through the United Nations De-velopment Program. The work was sup-ported directly by the Kuwait Environment Public Authority (KEPA). The authors thank Athari Al Seed and Ayman Bojbarah of KEPA and Tim Sexton at the Min-nesota Department of Transportation for their review and comments of the original work.

Table 6. Example costs for I/M tests.

Test Equipment Estimated Cost ($)

Visual Inspection Fuel Cap Tester 600

OBD OBD Reader 500

Snap/FAS Test Opacity Meter 5,000

TSI Test Tailpipe Meter 6,000

Total I/M Station Costs 12,100



Documents

I/M PROGRAMSpubs.awma.org/flip/EM-April-2015/freeman2.pdf · hybrids or motorcycles12), weight (e.g., > 14,000 lb13), or use (e.g., farm/agriculture11). Non-ex-empted vehicles must