The reports you cite are rather old. There has been continual progress in 
remote emission sensing technology, but as far as I know, it is still not 
widely applied to replace annual "smog check" emission inspections. It does 
seem like a more effective strategy and I don't know what political factors 
have limited implementation.

A good source of information is the "FEAT (Fuel Efficiency Automobile 
Test)" Data Center (www.feat.biochem.du.edu), which has information on the 
results of several remote sensing vehicle emission studies. I suggest that 
you contact FEAT directly for more information.


At 09:28 AM 5/17/2005 +0200, Richard Darbéra wrote:
>After reading the report " Clean for the Day" (see references below), I 
>expected California to implement its recommendations and once again show 
>the world innovative ways to combat pollution.
>
>My understanding was that remote  sensing would  prove  far more 
>effective, less costly and eventually replace the current
>decentralized  inspection  and maintenance  program,  known  as Smog-Check.
>
> From the information I could gather on the Internet, it seems to me that 
> this did not happen, and that cars are still inspected only once every 
> two years. Remote Sensing Devices coupled with high-speed video cameras 
> are used to identifiy "Gross Polluters" and require them to take the 
> vehicle in for a confirmation test at a Test-Only/Referee Center, but It 
> did not find any mention of possible citation for non compliance.
>
>I thus have several questions:
>
>Is remote sensing only a marginal and dispensable complement of Smog Check 2?
>
>If yes, is it the result of lobbying by repair shops, vintage cars owners, 
>or any other group of stake holders?
>
>Are there some statistics for the number of remote sensing sites, number 
>of cars annually caught by the cameras, number of citations issued, and 
>actually paid, percentage of inspections triggered by remote sensing 
>relative to normal periodical inspections for some given areas, etc. ?
>
>Any answer or reference of recent reports or articles would be very much 
>welcome.
>
>References:
>Lave, Charles (1993) "Clean for the Day — California Versus the EPA's Smog 
>Check Mandates", Access No. 3, Fall 1993, University of California 
>Transportation Center (UCTC), Berkeley, pp.2-7
>
>Glazer, Amihai, Daniel Klein, and Charles Lave, Clean for  a Day: 
>Troubles  with  California’s  Smog Check - Report to the California State 
>Senate Committee on Transportation, UCTC No 163, August 1993, University 
>of California Transportation Center (UCTC), Berkeley, 59 p.
>
>Klein, Daniel B., and Pia Maria Koskenoja "The Smog-Reduction  Road: 
>Remote Sensing  versus  The Clean  Air  Act" Reprinted from Policy
>Analysis No. 249 (February 7,  1996) UCTC No.  301, The University of 
>California Transportation Center University of California at Berkeley
>
>Richard Darbera
>ENPC-LATTS
>Ecole Nationale des Ponts & Chaussees
>Cite Descartes
>77455 Marne la Vallee
>France
><[log in to unmask]>
>Telephone: 33,1,6415.3834
>Fax: 33,1,6415.3600
>Mobile (for SMS only) 33,6,98222291