It’s not just a matter of losing a piece of paper. Violations by an inspector can carry some serious consequences. I didn’t paste the entire article but the guy in Missouri referred to in the story about falsifying emission reports was facing the below cut and paste line on 32 separate counts…
Do the math on that one.
If convicted, each violation of the Clean Air Act carries a maximum penalty of two years in prison and/or fines up to $250,000.
In another Missouri incident, a fleet mechanic about 10 years ago was charged with adding a partial can of refrigerant to a company van; a procedure he was not licensed to do. Someone ratted him out and the ensuing story said that he was facing 5 years in the pen and a 100k dollar fine.
I happen to be licensed to do automotive ac work. I was certified by macs years ago. It was a very easy test to pass, by the way
Yet I know for a fact that many, perhaps most, of my colleagues are not certified
I’m not sure I would turn anybody in, though. If I don’t like what somebody’s doing, I just watch from a distance. Often enough, they wind up shooting themselves in the foot
@db4690: I’m sorry that you may have miscontrued something I have said as a personal attack against you. I certainly did not intend that.
I just have an objection to hiring an inspector and having them act in somebody else’s interest. I would not ask a tech to lie or defraud on my behalf, but I would expect them to take every legal and ethical measure to get me a passing grade…that’s why I pay 'em.
I would consider “sniffing” another car’s talipipe to be fraudulanet, as would I consider telling the tech to “spoof” the ECU by feeding it false HO2S data, for example. I would consider it entierly legal and ethical to pre-configure the car so as to maximize its chances of passing, provided the configuration is one actually encountered in street drvivng (i.e. if I coud acheive an equivalent cat temp pulling a trailer uphill at the PSL, it’s ethical, but not if I could only acheive it by hot-lapping it on a closed course.)
The only reason I can see to take this personally,is if you, personally, are the tech letting the cats cool…
Everybody’s still friends . . . as true as that statement can be, considering none of us on this forum will actually meet each other . . . knowingly, that is
Anyways, here’s some california BAR guidelines
Here’s what I recommend, because it explains everything I was talking about earlier
3.10 on page 11
4.5 on page 14
4.15 on page 19
If nothing else, it may explain why a particular smog tech seems to be a hard ass
220 was the limit here for 81-94 cars for a long time. In Washington State we only do tailpipe testing on pre-1996 vehicles (mostly). In 2012 the state changed the max limits to 3.0% CO and 400ppm HC for ALL tailpipe testing. When the news came out you could hear a collective “WTF?” from all the state certified emissions specialists.
We also no longer care if the MIL is functional and have done away with gas cap testing.