NewHampshire Motor Vehicle I/MSIP Revision

NewHampshire Departments of Safety and Environmental Services May 12, 2011

The State of New

Hampshire Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance State Implementation Plan Revision

Attachment 1: New Hampshire I/MProgramBackground

Prepared by: The New

Hampshire Department of Environmental Services

Concord, NH November 1, 2011

Attachment I : NewHampshire I/MProgramBackground 1New Hampshire Motor Vehicle I/MSIP Revision NewHampshire Departments of Safety and Environmental Services May 12, 2011 New Hampshire 1/MProgramBackground Table of Contents New Hampshire I/MProgramOverview . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . .: . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . .. . .. . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . . .. . .3 History of Inspection & Maintenance Requirement .. . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .-.- .. .- .. . . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . . 3 History of Inspection & Maintenance Programin New Hampshire. .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . ..- .4

Attachment I : NewHampshire I/MProgramBackground 2NewHampshire Motor Vehicle I/MSIP Revision

NewHampshire Departments of Safety and Environmental Services May 12, 2011 New Hampshire I/MProgramOverview New Hampshire is subject to federal I/Mrequirements due to elevated ozone levels in the Southern and Seacoast portions of the state. The requirements are due to the establishment of three ozone nonattainment areas (two serious and one marginal) under the former federal 1-hour ozone standard that have been consolidated into a single, slightly smaller moderate ozone non-attainment area under an 8- hour ozone standard. New Hampshire is also located in the Ozone Transport Region . With the finalization of a pending new, more stringent, 8-hour ozone standard in 2010, NewHampshire will again revise its non-attainment boundary. The federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 ("CAAA") requires enhanced vehicle inspection/maintenance programs ("I/M") in many population centers and areas that have experienced a history of high concentrations of ground-level ozone (or "smog") . Section 182(c) of the CAAA mandates enhanced I/Min areas designated as "Serious" for ozone non-attainment with a 1980 population of 200,000 or more. Parts of Hillsborough and Rockinghamcounties in NewHampshire, which were referred to as NewHampshire's "Southern Serious Non-Attainment Area" under the former federal 1-hour ozone standard and which are included in the Boston-Lawrence-Salem Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area ("CMSA"), fall under this criteria. Section 184(b) of the CAAA outlines I/M requirements for the Northeast Ozone Transport Region ("OTR") . All of New

Hampshire, eleven other states and the District of Columbia comprise the OTR as established in Section 184(b) . Enhanced I/Mis mandated in each Metropolitan Statistical Area ("MSA") within the OTR with a 1990 population of 100,000 or more, regardless of air quality status. The Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester MSA (part of Rockinghamcounty and most of Strafford county), referred to as NewHampshire's "Seacoast Serious Non-Attainment Area," and the Manchester MSA (parts of Hillsborough and Rockinghamcounties, and two towns in Merrimack county), referred to as the Manchester marginal non-attainment area under the former 1-hour ozone standard, each had 1990 populations of more than of 100,000, and therefore fall under this criterion. History of Inspection &Maintenance Requirement EPA's final rule for I/M was issued in November 1992. The rule states that counties, which are at least~in part within an MSA that is mandated to have enhanced I/M, must be in the programin their entirety. An exemption is provided if the 1990 population density of the county is less than 200 persons per square mile and over 50%of the MSA is in another county which is covered by the I/Mprogram . Based on these criteria, Merrimack County can be exempted fromthe requirement . Hillsborough, Rockingham and Strafford counties are mandated to have an enhanced I/Mprogram . EPA's final I/Mrule outlined a comprehensive test protocol that included centralized network facilities equipped with elaborate dynamometers and evaporative test equipment . EPA's testing protocol provided very little implementation flexibility, resulting in an unprecedented public backlash against I/M . This prompted EPA to create a "Low-Enhanced I/MPerformance Standard" in September 1995, a considerably less complicated emissions test. States that do not rely on I/M to meet overall CAAA emission reduction requirements, such as New Hampshire, can choose to meet the low-enhanced I/M performance standard to satisfy the federal I/Mmandate. Under EPA's enhanced I/Mprotocol, emission reduction credit was automatically discounted by 50% for a programwith a decentralized testing network, based on EPA's assumption that a decentralized Attachment I : New Hampshire I/MProgramBackground 3NewHampshire Motor Vehicle I/MSIP Revision

NewHampshire Departments of Safety and Environmental Services May 12, 2011 network was inherently corrupt . In November 1995, President Clinton signed the National Highway Systems Designation Act ("NHSDA"), which afforded states the temporary opportunity to demonstrate that a test and repair programcould achieve comparable reductions in air pollutants. While this removed EPA's power to automatically discount a decentralized I/Mprogram, it did not relax the testing criteria. It merely postponed the day of reckoning for states . Further I/Mflexibility was offered by EPA in July 1996, when the "OTR low-enhanced performance standard" was released. This standard included a limited inspection procedure with essentially no emission testing component . The rule states that only areas in the OTR designated as moderate or better for ozone can implement this type of I/Mprogram . By strict legal interpretation, New Hampshire's serious non-attainment areas were not eligible. In June 2004, EPA designated areas relative to a newer, more stringent 8-hour ground-level ozone standard. NewHampshire was classified as moderate non-attainment for this standard in portions of the southeastern three counties (Rockingham, Strafford, and Hillsborough) . As a result of this designation and the state's inclusion in the OTR, the state is once again subject to an I/M requirement . It is anticipated that the OBDprogramcurrently under implementation would be acceptable to EPA in meeting the state's renewed I/Mobligations . As previously, failure to implement the required I/M programcould result in EPA imposed sanctions and/or citizen suits fromenvironmental organizations. The OBDvehicle inspection programis also a part of the state's comprehensive strategy to meet additional federal transportation planning requirements referred to as "transportation conformity" . These provisions require that the state's transportation plans "conform" to the purpose and intent of the SIP (i .e., that emissions generated as a result of transportation projects do not cause the state to further violate or fail to achieve attainment in a timely manner) . History of Inspection & Maintenance Programin New Hampshire In 1993, the New

Hampshire Legislature passed legislation that gave the Department of Safety (DOS) the authority to implement an enhanced I/M240 tailpipe testing program . Detailed negotiations with several potential contractors followed in anticipation of enhanced I/Mas an integral part of emission reduction plans in New Hampshire and most states in the region. However, these negotiations halted when Maine repealed its I/M240 programdue to vehement public opposition to its cost and inconvenience. During subsequent sessions, the NewHampshire Legislature reacted by taking an appropriate "wait-and-see" approach, delaying the start date of any New Hampshire I/Mprogram . Legislators consistently offered clear indications that an enhanced I/Mprogramwould not be acceptable because of its poor environmental cost-effectiveness and inconvenience to consumers. The CAAA mandated implementation of enhanced I/Min New Hampshire's serious ozone nonattainment areas. New Hampshire, however, demonstrated that it had met its overall emission reduction requirements without an I/Mprogram . The federal mandate remained, however, and in June 1997 EPA issued a "findings letter" to NewHampshire for failure to implement an enhanced I/M programin Hillsborough, Rockinghamand Strafford counties. This findings letter started an 18 month sanctions "clock" in New Hampshire that could have led to economic development constraints and withholding of federal highway funding. In an effort to achieve compliance with federal lawin the most cost-effective and consumer friendly manner, NewHampshire held discussions with EPA over the summer of 1997 to seek approval for an

Attachment I : New Hampshire I/MProgram BackgroundNew Hampshire Motor Vehicle I/MSIP Revision NewHampshire Departments of Safety and Environmental Services May 12, 2011 environmentally superior alternative to fulfill its I/M obligation. In a letter to EPA dated November 13, 1997, New

Hampshire proposed a package of reduction strategies including an Enhanced Safety Inspection (ESI) (anti-tampering) Program, an on-road diesel opacity testing program, and a guarantee of additional NOX utility reductions (Attachment II) . Relative to vehicle emission testing, the agreement points committed NewHampshire to implementing an OTR low-enhanced I/M programminus the centralized testing and registration denial requirements, a requirement for testing vehicles that meet EPA's on-board diagnostic II (OBD II) standards statewide, and with a start date consistent with EPA rules. The response fromEPA was favorable, and in a document titled "Revised I/M Agreement Points," dated January 30, 1998, NewHampshire outlined an environmentally superior plan to meet its I/M obligation (Attachment II) . EPA in turn notified NewHampshire that this plan would fulfill the State's I/M obligation provided it was implemented in a timely manner . In June 1998, House Bill ("HB") 1513 (Attachment IV) established the agreement points in State lawby creating RSA 266: 59-b (Attachment V), mandating a statewide programincluding: " an enhancement to the existing Safety Inspection Programto include visual checks for proper connection of emissions control components on 1980and newer vehicles; " a statewide implementation of OBDII testing on vehicles required to be equipped with OBD II systems; " a smoke opacity testing programon heavy duty trucksl ; and " the retirement of NOx emissions credits, which would have otherwise been allocated to the PSNH Merrimack Station power plant, to address immediate reductions that would have been achieved fromthe repair of older vehicles. DES subsequently submitted an Alternative I/M State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision in September 1998 that included the agreement points. In December 1998, the EPA published a notice to approve the SIP as a "SIP strengthening measure" in the Federal Register, thus stopping the sanctions clock. On January 1, 1999, the Roadside Diesel Smoke Opacity Inspection ProgramRules (Saf-C 5800) (Attachment VI) went into effect . The implementation of these rules fulfills a portion of the SIP strengthening measure. These rules are exempt fromNH RSA 54-A and have no expiration date (Attachment VIII) . The statewide ESI anti-tampering inspection was also implemented in 1999 for 1980and newer vehicles. This programhas continued since that time, with a legislative revision to the programin 2004 through House Bill ("HB") 1293 (Attachment IV), which changed RSA 266: 59-b (Attachment V) such that the vehicles subject to the inspection were those vehicles newer than 20 model years old . In April 1998, EPA amended the federal I/Mrule, moving the OBD mandatory implementation date from January 1, 1999 to January 1, 2001 . DES and DOS, in consultation with EPA Region 1, began developing an OBD II inspection programthat would utilize hand-held OBD scan tools and rely on a paper-based reporting system

. In preparation for the implementation of the OBD II I/Mprogram, between April and July 2000, approximately 1800 licensed State inspectors and repair technicians were trained to performthe OBD test using hand-held OBDscan tools and utilizing a paper-based reporting format at NewHampshire Community Technical Colleges. Electronic reporting, while required under the federal rule, was 1 Aprogram

implementing regulations in Chapter Saf-C 5800 was implemented by the Department ofSafety beginning in 1999. Attachment I : New Hampshire I/M

ProgramBackground 5NewHampshire Motor Vehicle I/MSIP Revision

NewHampshire Departments of Safety and Environmental Services May 12, 2011 considered prohibitively expensive at that time. EPAwas willing to allowNewHampshire the flexibility of a paper-based systemwith reduced air quality credits. All federal programreporting requirements still applied. In September 2000, the start date was pushed back by the EPA, once again, to January 2002. During late 2001, DOS submitted a request to EPA for a one-year delay in implementing the NewHampshire program . During the preparation for the I/Mprogram's implementation, it had become clear that a paper-based systemwould be too burdensome to implement due to the volume of data entry thate would be necessary. In addition, over the course of the previous year, the cost of electronic reporting options had dropped dramatically. The delay in programimplementation would allow sufficient time to prepare for a fully electronic-based systemand significantly reduce the cost and effort of the program while achieving the full emission reduction benefit . EPA granted NewHampshire's extension request to January 2003. NewHampshire experienced further delays in issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) and did not release an RFP until September 2002. Throughout late 2003 and early 2004, vendors submitted and presented their proposals to DOS, which were reviewed by stakeholders and agency staff. In June 2004, Governor and Council (G&C) approved a contract with Gordon-Darby NHOSTServices, Inc. Under this contract Gordon-Darby is required to supply all participating licensed NH inspection stations with OBDII testing hardware, software, technical support, and training on the computerized testing/reporting systemknown as the New Hampshire OBD and Safety Testing program, or "NHOST." On November 2, 2005, the Gordon-Darby contract was amended and extended through June 30, 2010and a two-year extension clause was exercised In June 2010, extending the contract to June 30, 2012. In 2005, the New

Hampshire General Court passed HB 513 (Attachment IV) and amended RSA 266 (Attachment V), which had codified the I/Magreement points in New Hampshire statute. These amendments allowed for the provision of economic hardship time-extensions, a notification requirement for sellers of vehicles that failed OBD II testing, and the establishment of an OBD II testing advisory committee. In May 2005, all inspection stations were required to have signed contracts with Gordon-Darby in order to continue doing motor vehicle inspections. Stations conducting less than 200 inspections per year were given until December 2006 tojoin the Gordon-Darby system, conducting OBD II inspections using hand-held scan tools and reporting in a paper-based format until that time. Starting in May 2005, an advisory OBD II inspection programwas conducted on all 1996 and newer light-duty gasoline vehicles and on 1997 and newer light-duty diesel vehicles, with failing vehicle owners informed of the failure and encouraged to repair thevehicles, but the vehicles were still able to obtain an inspection sticker. Pursuant to Senate Bill ("SB") 341 (2006 Session) (Attachment IV), the OBDII programadvisory for MY2002 and newer vehicles until December 2006, and for MY1996and newer until July 2007 (this date was subsequently moved to October 1, 2007) . On December 1, 2006, New Hampshire began a pass/fail OBDII programfor all MY2002 and newer vehicles. On October 1, 2007, all MY1996 to MY2001 vehicles were subject to a pass/fail OBD II inspection as well . The ESI rules began in 1999 along with opacity rules. The June 2007, the ESI rules (Saf-C 3220) (Attachment VI) were revised and the OBD II, paper-based, programwas added. In June of 2008, the most current OBD rules (Saf-C 3222) (Attachment VI) became effective and reflect the current state of the program

. Attachment I : New Hampshire I/MProgramBackground