MEMORANDUM
DATE: 	May 14, 2010
TO: 		DISTRIBUTION
FROM: 	ROB KLAUSMEIER, TOM DVORAK
SUBJECT: 	PIF EFFECTIVENESS FACTOR
Based on New Jersey's enhancements to the enforcement of its OBDII inspection, it's reasonable to claim that OBDII inspections in PIFs are as effective as OBDII inspections in CIFs. In addition, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Georgia and Utah claim in their SIP that their decentralized OBDII inspections are as effective as centralized programs. None of these states use the decentralized program effectiveness prompt when modeling the emission benefits for their OBDII inspection. We recommend further analysis of MIT and previous inspection data. Although many states claim that their decentralized tailpipe inspections are 100% effective, we plan to keep the PIF effectiveness factor for tailpipe tests at 80% until we complete the analysis of MIT and previous inspection data.
Tom Dvorak prepared estimates of the overall network effectiveness based on the following data and assumptions:
   * PIF Effectiveness is as follows:
         o OBDII tests: 100%
         o Tailpipe  tests: 80%
   * 30% of the vehicles are tested in PIFs. Based on historical data, the percent tested in PIFs is more like 20%, so this assumption results in a conservative, i.e., low, effectiveness factor. 
Table 1 and Figure 1 summarize the results of Tom's analysis.
Table 1  -  Preliminary Estimates of the I/M Program Effectiveness of the Network
Year
PIF Testing OBD %
PIF Testing TP %
PIF I/M Effectiveness
CIF I/M Effectiveness
Mobile 6.2 I/M Effectiveness
                                     2005
                                                                         54.00%
                                                                            46%
                                                                          90.8%
                                                                         100.0%
                                                                          97.2%
                                     2006
                                                                         53.00%
                                                                            47%
                                                                          90.6%
                                                                         100.0%
                                                                          97.2%
                                     2007
                                                                         57.45%
                                                                            43%
                                                                          91.5%
                                                                         100.0%
                                                                          97.4%
                                     2008
                                                                         64.47%
                                                                            36%
                                                                          92.9%
                                                                         100.0%
                                                                          97.9%
                                     2009
                                                                         67.76%
                                                                            32%
                                                                          93.6%
                                                                         100.0%
                                                                          98.1%
                                     2010*
                                                                         71.66%
                                                                            28%
                                                                          94.3%
                                                                         100.0%
                                                                          98.3%
                                     2011*
                                                                         75.56%
                                                                            24%
                                                                          95.1%
                                                                         100.0%
                                                                          98.5%
                                     2012*
                                                                         79.46%
                                                                            21%
                                                                          95.9%
                                                                         100.0%
                                                                          98.8%
                                       

               Figure 1  -  Projected I/M Program Effectiveness
                                       
