UNITEDSTATESENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCYREGION7MEMORANDUM11201RennerBoulevardLenexa,Kansas66219DEC112014SUBJECT:TechnicalSupportDocumentfortheRevisiontotheMissouriStateImplementationPlan(SIP)fortheSt.LouisInspectionandMaintenance(liM)FROM:TO:THRU:StevenBrownAirPlanningandDevelopmentBranchEPA-RO?-OAR-2014-0399JoshuaTapp,""BranchChiev-WMD/APDBMichaelJay,SectionChief,AWMD/APDB/AtPSMissouriStateImplementationPlan1/MRevisionsTABLEOFCONTENTSI.INTRODUCTIONII.DESCRIPTIONOFREVISIONSA.INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE(liM)PROGRAMCONVERSIONB.GENERALREVISIONS/SPECIALLYCONSTRUCTEDVEHICLEDEFINITIONC.PLUG-INHYBRIDELECTRICVEHICLE(PHEV)EXEMPTIOND.MISSOURISTATEHIGHWAYPATROLRULESREMOVALIII.EVALUATIONOFMDNRMOBILESOURCESIPREVISIONSA.INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE(liM)PROGRAMCONVERSIONA.lBackgroundA.2GatewayVehicleInspectionProgram(GVIP)EvaluationA.3FederalJIMRegulations40C.F.R.Part51EvaluationBGENERALREVISIONS/SPECIALLYCONSTRUCTEDVEHICLEDEFINITIONC.PLUG-INHYBRIDELECTRICVEHICLE(PHEV)EXEMPTIONC.IShortfallAnalysisC.2ShortfallAnalysisResultsD.MISSOURISTATEHIGHWAYPATROLRULESREMOVALPrintedonRecycledPaper

# IV. OVERALL EVALUATION 

# 1. EMISSION

TOTALS 2. MONITORING

DATA 3. CLEAN

AIR ACT SECTION

110(1) ANALYSIS 4. SUMMARY

AND FINAL CONCLUSION List

of Figures

and Tables Figure

A-1

St. Louis

1995

& 

# Older Vehicles Table

A-2

Bar Graphs,

11M Performance

Standard Table

A-3

11M Performance

Standard

(one

year

of operation demonstration) Table

C-1

2022

GVIP Mobile Emissions

(NOx,

VOC,

CO) Table

C-2

2022 GVIP-PHEV

Mobile Emissions

(NOx,

VOC,

CO) Table

C-3

2022 GVIP-PHEV

Mobile Emissions

(NOx,

VOC,

CO) (GVIP

to PHEV Differences) Table

C-4

2022

GVIP Mobile Emissions

(NOx,

VOC,

CO)

(%I



# 03 Season

Day) (GVIP

to PHEV Differences) Table

D-1 Missouri Department

of Public

Safety Division

50-State Highway

Patrol Chapter

2- Motor Vehicle Inspection Table

1-1

2008

and 2015

CO, NOx,

and VOC Emissions Figure

1-2

Tons

per Ozone

Season

Day Table

1-3

Total Emissions

St. Louis,

MO Nonattainment

Area

(Tons

Per Ozone

Season

Day) Table

2-1a 2008-2010

St. Louis 8-hour

Ozone

Design

Values Table

2-1b 2011-2013

St. Louis 8-hour

Ozone

Design

Values Figure

2-2

8-hour

Ozone Design

Value Trends-

MO Table

3-1

Level

of Control

in Tons/Ozone

Season

Day Emissions

(GCAP

vs GVIP) Table

3-2

StLouis

Area Ozone

Season

Day Emissions

(tons)

GCAP

vs GVIP Figure

3-2

St Louis

Area Ozone

Season

Day Emissions

GCAP

vs GVIP Table

3-3a

2002-

2008 On-Road

Mobile Decreases

for CO, NOx,

and VOC Emissions

for

the Missouri

Portion

of the

St. Louis Ozone Nonattainment

Area

(Tons

per Ozone

Season Day) Table

3-3b 2008-2015

On-Road

Mobile Decreases

for CO, NOx,

and VOC Emissions

for

the Missouri

Portion

of the

St. Louis Ozone Nonattainment

Area (Tons

per Ozone

Season Day)

2I.INTRODUCTIONThisTechnicalSupportDocument(TSD)addressesStateImplementationPlanrevisionssubmittedbytheStateofMissourithatcreatesandamendsMissourirule10CSR10-5.381.WhiletheseSIPrevisionsweresubmittedinseparaterequests,theyarealldirectchangestotheSIPapprovedSt.LouisVehicleInspectionProgram.ThisTSDprovidesEPA'sanalysisofthesupportingevidenceprovidedbyMissouriastowhytheserevisions,intheaggregate,meettheminimumrequirementsoftheCleanAirAct(CAA)andassociatedregulations,guidanceandpolicy.II.DESCRIPTIONOFREVISIONSEPAreceivedatotalofsixrequestsfromMDNR.Adescriptionofthefirstthree requestsarelistedbelowinsectionAandtheotherthreeareeachlistedinsectionsB, C,andD.A.INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE(liM)PROGRAMCONVERSIONEPAreceivedaSIPrevisionfromMDNRonAugust16,2007,requestingapprovaltorescindthecentralizedvehicleinspectionmaintenanceprogramrule,10CSR5.380andreplacewiththeGatewayVehicleInspectionProgram(GVIP)de-centralizedvehicleinspectionprogramrule,10CSR10-5.381.MDNRalsorequestedinthesameletterthatMissouriRule,10CSR10-5.375"MotorVehiclesEmissionsInspectionWaiver"berescinded.EPAdoesnotplanontakinganyactionon10CSR10-5.375asitisnotapartoftheSIP.OnDecember14,2007,MDNRsubmittedthenewGVIPplan-InspectionandMaintenanceProgramfortheSt.Louis8-HourOzoneNonattainmentArea,2007RevisionincludingaperformancemodelingdemonstrationofthenewGVIPprogramrequestingthatEPAapprovetheplanandrevisetheSIP.OnJanuary2,2009,MDNRsubmittedthenetworktypeandprogramevaluationrequiredby40CFR51.353.ThisdemonstrationisrequiredwithinoneyearaftertheVMprogrambegins.MDNR'sJanuary2,2009,letterrequestedfinalapprovaloftheGVIPprogrambasedonthesubmissionoftherequiredinformation.B.GENERALREVISIONS/SPECIALLYCONSTRUCTEDVEHICLEDEFINITION10CSR10-5.381-MDNRsubmittedthisSIPrevisiontoEPAonJune17,2009.Thisamendmentdefinesandexemptsspeciallyconstructedvehicles"kit-cars"tomaketheruleconsistentwithcurrentpractices.TherearealsoothergeneralrevisionssuchastheadditionofdefinitionsandchangesthataddclaritytotheInspectionMaintenance(VM)portionoftheSIP.C.PLUG-INHYBRIDELECTRICVEHICLE(PHEV)EXEMPTION10CSR10-5.381-MDNRsubmittedthisSIPrevisiontoEPAonDecember10,2012requestingapprovaltoexemptPlug-inHybridElectricalVehicles(PHEV)fromtheVMprogram.3D.MISSOURISTATEHIGHWAYPATROLRULESREMOVAL10CSR10-5.381-OnDecember21,2007MissourisubmittedarevisionrequestingthattheMissouriStateHighwayPatrolrulesberemovedfromtheMissouriSIP.III.EVALUATIONOFMDNRMOBILESOURCESIPREVISIONSThissectionprovidesadetailedanalysisofeachseparateSIPrevisionindependently.SectionIVprovidesadditionaldiscussionandanalysisregardingthecumulativeimpactsoftheserevisionsonmobilesourceemissions.A.INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE(I/M)PROGRAMCONVERSIONMDNRsubmittedthisSIPrevisiontoEPAonAugust16,2007,requestingapprovaltoreplacetheexistingtransientIIM240centralizedprogram10CSR10-5.380withtheGVIPbasicOBDonlydecentralizedvehicleinspectionprogram10CSR10-5.381.Thisolderhybrid-enhancedcentralizedVMprogramwasdevelopednotonlytomeettherequirementsfortheareaforabasicI/Mprogrambutalsotoachieve creditableemissionsreductionstomeettheobligationsfora15%reductioninVOCemissionsasestablishedbysection182(b)(i)oftheCAA.ThisprogramishereafterreferredtoattheGatewayCleanAirProgramor(GCAP).Inthesamesubmittal,MDNRrequestedtorescind10CSR10-5.375.EPAisnottakingactionon10CSR10-5.375asitisnotapartoftheSIP.A.lBackgroundInApril2000,MissouriimplementedtheGCAPcentralizedvehicleemissionstestingstationnetworktomeetoneoftheCAArequirementsfortheSt.Louisnonattainmentareafortheone-hourozonestandard.TheaffectedareasweretheCityofStLouis,andStLouis,St.CharlesandJeffersoncounties.AspartoftestingforGCAP,1971to1980modelyearvehiclesweretestedwithasinglespeedidletest;1981andnewermodelyearvehiclesweretestedwiththetransientIM240tailpipeandagascappressuretest;and1996andnewermodelyearvehiclesreceivedanOn-BoardDiagnostics(OBD)test.Attheendoftheozoneseasonin2002,thedesignvaluesformonitorsinSt.Louisareawerebelowthe1979one-hourozonestandard.ThedepartmentsubmittedarequesttoEPAtoredesignatetheareatoattainment.OnMay12,2003,EPAapprovedtherequest,andSt.Louisbecameredesignatedtoattainmentunderthe1979one-hourozonestandard(68FR25418).Aspartofthemaintenanceplan,thedepartmentcommittedtoretainavehicleemissionsVMprogram.In2004,afterthepromulgationofthe1997eight-hourozonestandard,EPAdesignatedtheSt.Louisareaasa"moderate"ozonenonattainmentareaunderthenewlyestablishedeight-hourozonestandard.ThenonattainmentareaincludedSt.LouisCityandFranklin,Jefferson,St.CharlesandSt.Louiscounties.ThisnonattainmentdesignationrequiredthedepartmenttorevisetheirSIPtoincludeanattainmentplanandadditionalrelatedrequirementstobringtheareatoattainmentoftheeight-hourozonestandardbyJune2010.The"moderate"ozonenonattainmentstatusrequiredthestatetoincludewithinitsSIPavehicleemissions11MprogramthatmetorexceededEPA'sBasicVMPerformanceStandard(40CFR51.350(a)(4)).SincetheGCAPvehicleemissionsnetworkwasstilloperational,andMDNRdemonstrateditexceededEPA'sBasicVMPerformanceStandardTest,therequiredcontrolstrategywasdeterminedbyEPAtobeapprovable(69FR51953)..4In2005,thestateofMissourielectedtochangetheoperationalelementsoftheVMprogram.OnJune30,2006,MOSenateBill583waspassedandsignedintolawtorevisetheVMprogramdesignelementsfromthestate'sGCAPtoadecentralizedOBD-onlyvehicleemissionsVMprogram.Theprogramwasrenamed,GatewayVehicleInspectionProgramorGVIP.TheGVIPisacombinedOBDemissionstesting,andsafetyinspectionprogramforvehiclesregisteredintheSt.Louisozonenonattainmentarea.GVIPestablisheddecentralizedtestinglocationsaroundtheSt.Louisfivecountynonattainmentarea.All1996andlatermodelyeargasolinepoweredlightdutyvehiclesandlightdutytrucks,1997andnewerdieselpoweredlightdutyvehicles,uptoeightthousandfivehundredpounds(8,500lbs.)GrossVehicleWeightRating(GVWR)aresubjecttotheprogram.TheemissionstestingfacilitiestestusingOBD.Thisadvancedcomputerinspectionsystemdetermineswhether1996andnewervehiclespassorfailtheemissionsinspection.VehiclesfailingtheOBDtestmustberepairedtopassthevehicleemissionstestandtoreceivelicenseregistrationand/orrenewal.Allsubjectvehiclesmustalsopassasafetyinspection.Safetyinspectionsextendbeyondsafetyandincludeavisualinspectionofallemissioncomponentpartstoinsuretheyareinplace.A.2GatewayVehicleInspectionProgram(GVJP)EvaluationAsindicatedearlier,thisSIPproposalwillcompletelyreplaceMissourirule10CSR10-5.380with10CSR10-5.381,andareplacementoftheSt.LouisliMprogram(GCAPtoGVIP).Thisprogramreplacementhasseveraldesignchanges.TheGatewayVehicleInspectionProgramnetworktypeofdecentralizedreferstoalargenetworkoflowvolumetest-and-repairinspectionstationsascomparedtotheGCAPnetworktypecentralizedprogramhavingasmallnetworkofhighvolumetest-onlyinspectionstations.Byhavingadecentralizedprogramitcreatesnumeroustestinglocationsaroundthefivecountyareaandpreventslonglineslastinghoursinordertoreceiveemissionstests.ThiswaspreviouslyamajorrecurringprobleminSt.Louis.Itisalsomorecosteffectiveandconvenienttocontracttheworktoautorepairbusinesseswhoqualifytobecomeaninspectionstation.Themainconcernwithadecentralizedprogramisthatitbecomesalargernetworkandcouldbemoredifficulttomanage.However,MDNRhassecuredtheservicesofasole-sourcecontractorthathasprovidedtheinfrastructureforareal-time,fraud-resistantdecentralizedemissionsinspectionstationnetwork.MDNRhasalsocreatedpenaltiesassociatedwithfraudulentactivitybuiltintotheruleandhascreatedapenaltyscheduletoaccompanyit(10CSR10-5.381(3)).BothGVIPandGCAPincludedOBDtestingfor1996andnewervehicles.GCAPalsoincluded1971to1980modelyearvehiclestestedwithasinglespeedidletestand1981andnewermodelyearvehiclestestedwiththetransientIM240tailpipeandagascappressuretest.However,theGCAPVMSIPexemptsupto40%ofthetotalvehiclefleetwith20%exemptionofcleanscreenvehicles,8%waiverrateand12%forbrandnewvehicles.TheGVIPI/Mprogram,however,exempts1995andoldervehiclesfromtakingtheI/Mtest,newervehicles,hasa2.5%waiverrateandisconsideredabasicOBDVMprogram.AsthefleetinSt.Louiscontinuestobecomenewer,thenumberofvehiclesolderthan1996intheSt.Louisareaaredecreasing.Infact,injusttwoyearsthereisadecreaseofnearly20,000vehicles1995andolder(FigureA-1).ThistrendgivestheindicationthattheolderfleetisshrinkingandthereforemakessensetofocustheOBDtestingof1.4millionvehiclesthatmakeupthefleetmajority.Inaddition,theadvancementsoftechnologyinvehicleshasnowestablishedadvancedcomputerswithasecondgenerationofOBD(OBD-II)thatdetectsemissioncomponentsthatmalfunctionsuchas02sensors,EGRvalvesandgascaps.NewerOBDdetectionisnowamoreuptodatetestingsystem.5FigureA-1St.LouisArea1995&OlderVehiclesIEKJ,OOOl75,000170,000165,000155,000150,000145,0002009TheFederalVMruleSections51.350-51.373establishminimumperformancestandardsforbasic1/Mprograms.Theperformancestandardsaddressthefollowing:networktypeandprogramevaluation;adequatetoolsandresources;testfrequencyandconvenience;vehiclecoverage;testproceduresandstandards;testequipment;qualitycontrol;waiversandcomplianceviadiagnosticinspection;motoristcomplianceenforcement;motoristcomplianceenforcementprogramoversight,qualityassurance;enforcementagainstcontractors,stations,andinspectors;datacollection;dataanalysisandreporting;inspectortrainingandlicensingorcertification,publicinformationandconsumerprotection;improvingrepaireffectiveness;compliancewithrecallnotices;andon-roadtesting.MDNRsubmittedademonstrationoftheemissionimpactsofthe1/MconversiontoabasicVMtestingprogramincludedinthe"InspectionMaintenanceProgramfortheSt.Louis8-HourNonattainmentPlan2007Revision"submittal,December14,2007.ThisplanutilizedEPA'sMobile-6modelingtoprojecttheemissionreductionbenefitsfromimplementingabasicdecentralizedVMprogramintheSt.LouisnonattainmentareabycomparingresultsfromtheGVIPprogramtothe basicVMperformancestandardsetbyEPA.TheresultsfromthisanalysisperformedbyMDNRindicatethattheGVIPprogramprojectionsmetand/orexceededthebasicperformancestandard(TableA-2IBarGraphs).EPA'sBasicPerformanceStandardishighlightedinred text.TableA-2,BarGraphs11MPerformanceStandardositeEmissionsFactorComarisonat27.6MPH)NOx(m)No11MControls0.9069.3630.864EPABasicPerformanceStandard0.8688.6960.819GatewayVehicleInspectionProgram(rojected)0.910.90.890.880.870.860.850.840.830.820.81¥-----.----------,--------('No1/McontrolsEPAPerfomanceGatewayStandardVehicleInsp.Pra&ram•voc60.8420880860848.2410.776082080.780.760.740.72-+:=------.-------,-------t"No1/McontrolsEPAPerfomanceGatewayStandardVehlclelnsp.Program9.49.28.88.68.48.27.87.6*-------.-----.------<'No1/McontrolsEPAPerfomanceGatewayVehicleStandardInsp.ProsramAsrequiredby40CFR51.353NetworkTypeandProgramEvaluation,astateusingadecentralizedtest-and-repairvehicleemissionsinspection networkmustsubmitademonstrationwithinoneyearaftertheVMprogrambegins.ThepurposeofthedemonstrationistodocumentthattheactualVMprogramisaseffectiveasthepredictedVMperformancestandardmodelingtest.MDNRsubmittedthisdemonstrationtoEPAonJanuary2,2009,andtheresultsarebelowinTableA-3.TableA-3TypeofProgramVOC(gpm)CO(gpm)NOx(gpm)NoliMControls0.9069.3630.864EPABasicPerformanceStandard0.8688.6960.819GatewayVehicleInspectionProgram0.8398.1900.772(actual,afterIyearofoperationdemonstration)ThemodelingresultsofGVIPafteroneyearofoperationsshowthatemissionsfromVOC,CO,andNOxarelowerthanEPABasicPerformanceStandard(TableA-3)andlowerthantheprojectedGVIPVMprogramincludedinthe"InspectionMaintenanceProgramfortheSt.Louis8-HourNonattainmentPlan2007Revision"submittal(TableA-2,BarGraphs).1A.3FederalJIMRegulations40C.F.R.Part51EvaluationThissectionofthedocumentsummarizestherequirementsoftheFederalVMregulationsandaddresswhethertheelementsofthestate'ssubmittalcomplywiththeFederalrule.ThespecificrequirementsforVMplansubmissionsarein40C.P.R.Part51,SubpartS,andalistofrequiredSIPelementsarein40C.P.R.51.372.EPA'sdecisionsforapprovalisbasedonthestate'sabilitytomeettheliMrequirementsforabasicprogram.NetworkTypeandProgramEvaluation-40C.P.R.Section51.353-PartCoftheSIPBasicVMprogramscanbecentralized,decentralizedorahybridatthestate'sdiscretion.Missourihasthelegalauthorityforandacontractinplacetoimplementandoperateadecentralized,OBD-onlynetworkthatmeetstheFederalrequirements.AstateprogramisrequiredtodemonstratethatitachievesthesameemissionreductionsasthemodelprogramdescribedintheFederalrule(40C.P.R.51.353)andsubmitareporteverytwoyearsstartingtwoyearsaftertheinitialstartdate.ThisreportwillbepopulatedwiththeinformationcollectedthroughtheOBDtestequipmentpurchasedbythelicensedvehicleemissionsstationsthatisstoredand1Formoreinformationonhowtomodeltheperformancestandardofan11Mprogram,seelatestEPAguidancetitled:PerformanceStandardModelingforNewandExistingVehicleInspectionandMaintenance(liM)ProgramsUsingtheMOVESMobileSourceEmissionsModel(25pp,246K,EPA-420-B-14-006,January2014).7maintainedinavehicleinspectiondatabase(VID).TherewillbeevaluationmethodologyandauditsconsistentwithEPAregulationsconductedonthedataandemissionsstations,andtheprogramwillalsosubmitanannualreporttoEPAshowingtheevaluation.Therefore,theSIPisapprovablewithregardtotheprogramevaluationrequirements.AdequateToolsandResources-40C.F.R.Section51.354-PartDoftheSIPTheFederalregulationrequiresMissouritoprovideadescriptionoftheresourcestobeusedintheprogram.Thestatemustprovideadetailedbudgetplanthatdescribesthesourceoffundsforpersonnel,programadministration,programenforcement,andpurchaseofequipment.Inaddition,theSIPmustincludepubliceducationandassistanceandfundingforothernecessaryfunctions.TheSIPincludesadetailedbudgetplanthatdescribesthesourceoffundsforpersonnel,programadministration,programenforcement,andpurchaseofequipment.TheSIPalsodetailsthenumberofpersonneldedicatedtoaudits,dataanalysis,programadministration,enforcement,publiceducationandassistance,andothernecessaryfunctions.ThedescriptionoffundingandresourcesisadequateforpurposesofSection51.354.Section51.372requires thestatetodemonstratethatadequatefundingisavailabletomeetthe requirementsdescribedinthissection.TheSIPshowsthattheprogramwillbefundedbya$24.00pervehicleinspectionfee.Asetportionof$2.50oftheinspectionfeewillberemittedtoaStateTreasure'saccountand,subjecttoappropriation,beexpendedforadministrationandenforcementachievedthroughthe18.02employeesofMDNRwhowillbeinvolvedintheprogram.TheSIPmeetstheFederalrequirementsforevidenceofadequatetoolsandresourcesunderSections51.372and52.354.TestFrequencyandConvenience-40C.F.R.Section51.355-PartEoftheSIPTheliMperformancestandardassumesanannualtestfrequency;however,otherschedulesmaybeapprovediftheperformancestandardisachieved.TheMissourilegislationprovidesthelegalauthoritytoimplementthebiennialprogram.Missouri'sI/Mregulationprovidesforabiennial testfrequencyandprovidesforenforcementofthebiennialtestfrequency.TheMissourisubmittalmeetstheperformancestandard.Althoughnotrequiredforabasicprogram,enhancedliMprogramsshallbedesignedinsuchawayastoprovideconvenientservicetomotoristrequiredtogettheirvehiclestested.Thestatehasensuredmotoristconvenienceisassuredbystatelawthatrequiresthedepartmenttorecruitvehiclerepairstationsifmorethantwentypercent(20%)ofmotoristsaremorethanfive(5)milesfromavehiclerepairstation.Therefore,thisportionoftheSIPmeetsthetestfrequencyandconveniencerequirementsforanenhancedI/Mprogramwhichexceedthe requirementsforabasicprogram.VehicleCoverage-40C.F.R.Section51.356-PartFoftheSIPTheperformancestandardsforenhancedliMprogramsassumecoverageofall1968andlatermodelyearlight-dutyvehicles(LDV)andlight-dutytrucks(LDT)upto8500poundsgrossvehicleweightrating(GVWR)andincludesvehiclesoperatingonallfueltypes.ThestandardforbasicliMprogramsdoesnotincludeLDTs.Otherlevelsofcoveragemaybeapprovedifthenecessaryemissionreductionsareachieved.Missouri'ssubmittalincludes:legalauthoritynecessarytoimplementandenforceprogramwithrespecttovehiclesrequiredtobecoveredinabasicandanenhancedprogram;adetaileddescriptionofthenumberandtypesofvehiclestobecoveredbytheprogram;aplanforhowthosevehiclesareidentified,includingvehiclesthatareroutinelyoperatedintheareabutmaynotberegisteredinthearea;andadescriptionofanyspecialexemptions.8Missouri'sliMlegislationrequirescoverageofall1996andlatermodelyeargasolinepoweredLDVandLDT,and1997andnewerdieselpoweredLDVandLDT,upto8,500lbs.GVWR,whicharedomiciledorprimarilyoperatedintheareaaresubjecttotheprogram.Asofthedateofthesubmittal,anestimated1.2millionvehiclesareinthenonattainmentarea.TheMissouriliMregulationprovidestheregulatoryauthoritytoimplementandenforcethevehiclecoverage.Thestateregulationprovidesforthefollowingspecialexemptions.Exemptedvehicleswillincludevehiclesoperatedorregisteredasoneofthefollowing:modelyearvehiclespriorto1996;motorvehicleswithamanufacturer'sGVWRgreaterthan8500pounds;hydrogen-poweredvehicles;electrically-poweredvehicles;motorcyclesandmotortricycles;newandunusedmotorvehicles,ofmodelyearsofthecurrentcalendaryearandofanycalendaryearwithintwoyearsofsuchcalendaryear,whichhaveanodometerreadingoflessthan6,000milesatthetimeoforiginalsalebyamotorvehiclemanufacturerorlicensedmotorvehicledealertothefirstuser;motorvehiclesregisteredintheapplicableareacoveredbytheVMrequirementswhicharedomiciledandoperatedexclusivelyinanareanotsubjecttotheVMrequirements,butonlyiftheownerpresentstoMDNRanaffidavitthatthevehiclewillbeoperatedexclusivelyinanareanotsubjecttotheliMrequirementsforthenext24months;newmotorvehiclesnotpreviouslytitledandregistered,forthefour-yearperiodfollowingtheirmodelyearofmanufacture,iftheodometerreadingsareunderfortythousandmilesatthefirstrequiredbiennialsafetyinspection;motorvehiclesdrivenfewerthantwelvethousandmilesbetweenbiennialsafetyinspections.Fleettestingwillbeconductedatofficialtest-onlystations.SomefleetsownersmayopttohaveI/Mtestingequipmentinstalledattheirfacilitythatwillbeoperatedandmaintainedbythecontractoratthefleetowner'sexpense(andconnectedtotheon-linedatasystem).Fleetprogramsarerequiredtoundergothesametestingrequirementsandqualityassuranceproceduresasothersubjectvehicles.FederalfleetvehiclesarealsorequiredtocomplywiththesameinspectionprogramrequirementsasotherfleetvehiclesinthebasicVMarea.This ruleappliestoallemployee-ownedandleasedvehiclesandallvehiclesownedbycivilianandmilitarypersonnelonfederalinstallationsaswellasagency-ownedoroperatedvehicles,excepttacticalmilitaryvehicles.Thislevelofcoverageisapprovableasitmeetstherequirementsforabasicprogram.Inaddition,Missourihaslegalauthoritytoimplementfleet-testingrequirementsandtoimplementrequirementsforspecialexemptions.Therefore,thisportionoftheSIPisapprovableasitmeetstherequirementsforabasicandanenhancedVMprogram.TestProceduresandStandards-40C.F.R.Section51.357-PartGoftheSIPTheFederalrulerequiresMissouritohavewrittentestproceduresandpass/failstandardstobeestablishedandfollowedforeachmodelyearandvehicletypeincludedintheprogram.Testproceduresandstandardsaredetailedin40C.F.R.Section51.357andinEPAdocumententitled"High-TechVMTestProcedures,EmissionStandards,QualityControlRequirements,andEquipmentSpecifications,"EPA-400-F-92-001,datedJuly20,1998.Thestate'sVMregulation,Missourirule10C.S.R.10-5.381,includesadescriptionofthetestproceduresforanon-boarddiagnostic(OBD)check,andforavisualemissioncontroldeviceinspection.ThesetestproceduresconformtoEPA-establishedstandardsandareapprovable.9TestEquipment-40C.F.R.Section51.358-PartHoftheSIPAsrequiredbyFederalrule,thestatesubmittalcontainsthewrittentechnicalspecificationsforalltestequipmenttobeusedintheprogram.Thespecificationsrequiretheuseofcomputerizedtestsystems.ThespecificationsalsoincludeperformancefeaturesandfunctionalcharacteristicsofthecomputerizedtestsystemsthatmeettheapplicableFederalVMregulationsandareapprovable.TheSIPmeetstherequirementsofthissection.QualityControl-40C.F.R.Section51.359-PartIoftheSIPTheFederalrulerequiresthatqualitycontrolmeasuresshallensurethaton-boarddiagnosticequipmentisworkingproperly,thatinspectionrecordsareaccuratelycreated,recorded,andstored,andtheabnormalitiesintestingresultsaredetected.Inaccordancewiththeserequirements,thestate'sVMruleandcontractaddressthequalitycontrolprovisionsbyproviding:qualitycontrolstandardsandcriteriaforalltestequipmenthardware;proceduresandspecificationsforthemaintenanceofalltestequipmenthardware;proceduresmanualforstationoperationsresponsibilities;softwarerequirementsfortrackingequipmentmaintenance,emissionstestdata,andvehiclerepairrecords;ThisportionofthesubmittalcomplieswiththequalitycontrolrequirementssetforthintheFederalVMregulationandisapprovable.WaiversandComplianceviaDiagnosticInspection-40C.F.R.Section51.360-PartJoftheSIPTheFederalVMregulationallowsfortheissuanceofawaiver,whichisaformofcompliancewiththeprogramrequirementsthatpermitsamotoristtocomplywithoutmeetingtheapplicableteststandards.ForenhancedVMprograms,anexpenditureofatleast$450inrepairs,adjustedannuallytoreflectthechangeintheConsumerPriceIndex(CPI)ascomparedwiththeCPIfor1989,isrequiredtoqualifyforawaiver.Forthebasicprogramtheminimumexpenditureis$75forpre-1981vehiclesand$200for1981andnewervehicles.Asrequired,RSMo643.335provideslegislativeauthoritytoissuewaivers,setandadjustcostlimits,andadministerandenforcethewaiversystem.TheMissourilegislationsetsaminimumdollaramountof$450tobespentforrepairsmadebyarepairshop,$400iftherepairsaremadebytheownerofthevehicleor$200iftheindividualmeetsthestatutoryrequirementofsection643.335.8.,RSMo. WaiverswillbeissuedbyMDNRstaffforvehiclesthatdonotpasstheemissioninspection,providedtheminimumdollaramountwasspentforrepairs.Therepairrecordmustshowthattherepairexpenditureswerenotcoveredbyeitherarecallormanufacturerwarrantyandthatpartscostsandlaborcostofrecognizedtechnicianstotaltheminimumapplicableamountforthemodelyearofthevehicle.Awaiverrateofeightpercent(8%)offailedvehiclesisassumedintheMOBILEmodelingthatdemonstratesthattheliMprogrammeetstheapplicableperformancestandard.TheStateofMissourimaintainsawaiverratethatinpracticeisequaltoorlowerthaneightpercent(8%).IfthewaiverratereportedintheannualreporttoEPAishigherthan8%,theStatewillattemptcorrectiveactiontolowerthewaiverrate.IfthewaiverratecannotbeloweredtolevelscommittedtointheSIP,oriftheStatechoosesnottoimplementmeasurestodoso,thentheStatewillrevisetheliMemissionreductionprojectionsintheSIPandwillimplementotherprogramchangesneededtoensuretheperformancestandardismet.Missouriregulationsincludeprovisionsthataddresswaivercriteriaandprocedures,includingcostlimits,tamperingandwarranty-relatedrepairs,qualitycontrol,andadministration.TheSIPsetsamaximumwaiverrateanddescribescorrectiveactionthatwillbetakeniftheactualwaiverrateexceedsthecommitmentintheSIP.TheSIPmeetsthisportionoftheregulationandisacceptable.10MotoristComplianceEnforcement-40C.F.R.Section51.361-PartKoftheSIPTheFederalregulationrequiresthatcompliance willbeensuredthroughthedenialofmotorvehicleregistrationinenhancedI/Mprogramsunlessanexceptionforuseofanexistingalternativeisapproved.AbasicliMareamayuseanalternativeenforcementmechanismifitdemonstratesthatthealternativewillbeaseffectiveasregistrationdenial.ToregisteravehiclesubjecttotheliMrequirements,thecontractorbyrule(10C.S.R.10-5.381)shallmakeelectronicallyavailabletotheDepartmentofRevenueonarealtimebasistheemissionsandanyassociatedsafetyinspectioncompliancerecordstoenablevehicleregistrationandcomplianceenforcement.Papervehicleinspectionreportsmaynotbeusedforregistrationpurposes,unlessthecontractor'srealtimevehicleinspectiondatabaseisnotprovidinginspectioninformationtotheDepartmentofRevenueonarealtimebasis.TheMDNRshallexpresslyauthorize,eitherinwritingorbyvoiceauthorization,theuseofthepapervehicleinspectionreportsbytheDepartmentofRevenueand/oritscontractoffices.Thus,theenforcementmethodusedisregistrationdenial.StateandlocalpoliceagencieswillenforceanyvehicleregistrationfailuresandallremainingliMprogramenforcementactionsaretheresponsibilityofMDNR.TheMissouriSIPcommitstoacompliancerateof96percentwhichwasusedintheperformancestandardmodelingdemonstrationandisapprovable.Thesubmittalincludesdetailedinformationconcerningtheregistrationdenialenforcementprocess,theidentificationofagenciesresponsibleforperformingeachapplicableactivity,andaplanfortestingfleetvehicles.Therefore,thisportionoftheSIPisapprovable.MotoristComplianceEnforcementProgramOversight-40C.F.R.Section51.362-PartLoftheSIPTheFederal11Mregulationrequiresthattheenforcementprogramshallbeauditedregularlyandshallfolloweffectiveprogrammanagementpractices,includingadjustmentstoimproveoperationwhennecessary.TheSIPshallincludequalitycontrolandqualityassuranceprocedurestobeusedtoensuretheeffectiveoverallperformanceoftheenforcementsystem.Aninformationmanagementsystemshallbeestablishedwhichwillcharacterize,evaluate,andenforcetheprogram.InaccordwithFederalregulation,Missouri'sSIPincludesregulationsanddescriptionsofproceduralmanualsandsupportingdocumentsdescribinghowtheenforcementprogramoversightwillbequalitycontrolledandquality-assuredandincludestheestablishmentofaninformationmanagementsystem.RSMoSection643.355providesauthoritytoenforceagainstpersonswhomisrepresentthemselvesasofficialemissioninspectionstation;anyonewhoknowinglymanufactures,conveys,orpossessesanycounterfeitdocuments;andanyonewhoknowinglyoperatesamotorvehiclewithoutdisplayingavalidemissioninspectionsticker.Theenforcementprogramwillbeauditedthroughdataanalysisoftheregistrationandinspectiondatabases,follow-upsurveysofexemptvehiclesandregistrationchangestriggeringanexemption,confirmationofregistrationrenewals,crosscheckingdatabasestoidentifyvehiclesobtainingregistrationwithmeetingtheliMrequirements.AsindicatedintheSIP,requirementsofthissectiondependontheparticipationoftheMDORanditsfeeoffices,theMSHP,andtheliMcontractorwithMDNR.MDNRhasaMemorandumofUnderstandingwithMDORandwiththeMSHP,andacontractspecifyingthedutiesofthecontractortomeettherequirementsofthissection.11TheSIPcontainswrittenproceduresforpersonnelengagedinliMdocumenthandlingandprocessingsuchasregistrationclerksorpersonnelinvolvedindispensingcertificateofemissionsinspection·andwaiverprocessing.StateemployeeshandlingliMdocumentsaresubjecttodisciplinaryactionsfordeviationfromestablishedrequirements.TheMDORcontractwiththefeeofficescontainsproceduresthatservetominimizeunauthorizedactivitiesandcanleadtotheterminationofthecontract.Contractoremployeesthatdeviatefromstandardrequirementsarealsosubjecttosanctionsspecifiedinthecontract.ThereforethisportionoftheSIPisapprovable.QualityAssurance-40C.F.R.Section51.363-PartMoftheSIPAnongoingqualityassuranceprogrammustbeimplementedtodiscoyer,correct,andpreventfraud,waste,andabuseintheprogram.Theprogramshallincludecoyertandovertperformanceauditsoftheinspectors,auditsofstationandinspectorrecords,equipmentaudits,andformaltrainingofallstate1/Menforcementofficialsandauditors.TheMissourisubmittalincludesaqualityassuranceprogramthatincludesqualitycontrolandqualityassuranceproceduresdescribingmethodsforreviewinginspectorrecords,performingequipmentaudits,andprovidingformaltrainingtoallstateenforcementofficials.Performanceauditsofinspectorsandstationswillconsistofbothcovertandovertaudits.Eachlicensedstationwillhaveatleasttwoovertauditsandonecovertauditperyear.Programauditorswilltake40hoursoftrainingperyearandwillbeauditedonceperyearaswell.Thecontractorwillprovidereportsweekly,monthly,quarterly,andannuallytoMDNR.TheSIPmeetstherequirementsofthissection.EnforcementAgainstContractors,StationsandInspectors-40C.F.R.Section51.364-PartNoftheSIPEPAregulationrequiresthatenforcementagainststations,contractorsandinspectorsshallincludeswift,sure,effective,andconsistentpenaltiesforviolationofprogramrequirements.ImplementationandoperationofMissouri'sdecentralizedprogramagainstalicensedemissionsstationisdonethroughprovisionsoftheindividualemissionsstationlicenseissuedbytheMSHP.Mostviolationsforimpropertesting,improperoperationoftheprogram,andotherkeycriteriaresultinstationlicensesuspensionorrevocation.Thecontractincludesappropriatepenaltyprovisionsandincludesrecordkeepingandenforcementprocedures.TheSIPmeetstherequirementsofthissection.DataCollection-40C.F.R.Section51.365-Part0oftheSIPAccuratedatacollectionisessentialtothemanagement,evaluation,andenforcementofanliMprogram.TheFederalliMregulationrequiresdatatobegatheredoneachindividualtestconductedandontheresultsofthequalitycontrolchecksoftestequipment,asrequiredunder40C.F.R.Section51.359.TheSIPprovidesacommitmenttogather,maintain,summarize,andreportallofthedatarequirementsandhaslistedallthedatawhichwillbecollected.Thecontractdetailsthefunctionsthecontractorwillfulfillandspecifiesthedatatobecollectedandtherecordstorageformat.ThistestdataandqualitycontrolwillbemaintainedandsummarizedbyMDNR.TheSIPmeetstherequirementsofthissection.DataAnalysisandReporting-40C.F.R.Section51.366-PartPoftheSIPDataanalysisandreportingarerequiredtoallowformonitoringandevaluatingtheprogrambythestateandEPA.TheFederalliMregulationrequiresannualreportstobesubmittedwhichprovideinformationandstatisticsandsummarizeactivitiesperformedforeachofthefollowingprograms:testing,qualityassurance,qualitycontrol,andenforcement.ThesereportsaretobesubmittedbyJulyandwillprovide12statisticsduringJanuarytoDecemberofthepreviousyear.AbiennialreportwillbesubmittedtoEPAthataddresseschangesinprogramdesign,regulations,legalauthority,programprocedures,andanyweaknessesintheprogramfoundduringthetwo-yearperiodandhowtheseproblemswillbeorwerecorrected.Thestatehascommittedtomeetallofthedataanalysisandreportingrequirementsofthissection.Thecontractspecifiesthedataanalysisandreportingthecontractorwillfulfill.ThestatecommitstosubmitthereportstoEPAasrequired.TheSIPmeetstherequirementsofthissection.InspectorTrainingandLicensingorCertification-40C.F.R.Section51.367-PartQoftheSIPTheFederal11Mregulationrequiresallinspectorstobeformallytrainedandlicensedorcertifiedtoperforminspections.TheSIPstatesthatinspectorsaretoreceiveformaltraining,liststhecurricula,setstheminimumexaminationrequirements,andstatesthatinspectorsmustbereexaminedeverytwoyears.Thecurriculaandcertificationexaminationswillbeapprovedbythestate.Thecontractorwillconductthetrainingandcertificationexamination.TheSIPmeetstherequirementsofthissection.PublicInformationandConsumerProtection-40C.F.R.Section51.368-PartRoftheSIPTheFederal11MregulationrequirestheSIPtoincludepublicinformationandconsumerprotectionprograms.Thestatehascommittedtoconductpublicinformationandconsumerprotectionprograms.Thecontractspecifiesandliststheactivitiesthecontractorwillperformtoprovideinformationtothepublic.Thestatehascommittedtofollowingupandrespondingtocomplaintsmadebythemotoristandthepublic,evenre-inspectthevehicleifneedbe.ThisportionoftheSIPsubmittalmeetstherequirementsofthissection.ImprovingRepairEffectiveness-40C.F.R.Section51.369-PartSoftheSIPEffectiverepairworkisthekeytoachievingprogramgoals.Thefederalregulationrequiresstatestotakestepstoensurethatthecapabilityexistsintherepairindustrytorepairvehicles.TheSIPmustincludeadescriptionofthetechnicalassistanceprogram;inenhancedareas,adescriptionoftheproceduresandcriteriatobeusedinmeetingtheperformancemonitoringrequirements;andadescriptionofthetechniciantrainingresourcesavailableinthecommunity.Trainingisrequiredfor"staterecognizedqualifiedrepairtechnicians"andMDNRhassetthetrainingcriteriafortechniciansthatwillbeprovidedbynon-profitandfor-profitschoolsaswellasindependenttrainers.Thestatewillreviewandapprovecoursesandsetcriteriaforcoursecurriculaandnumberofclasshours.Thecontractorwillprovideatelephoneinformationservicelinetohelptherepairindustryidentifyandrepairemissionproblems.ThisportionoftheSIPsubmittalmeetstherequirementsofthissection.CompliancewithRecallNotices-40C.F.R.Section51.370-PartToftheSIPTheCAAandFederalregulationrequirestatessubjecttotheenhancedliMrequirementstoestablishmethodstoensurethatvehiclesthathavebeenrecalledforemission-relatedrepairstoreceivetherepairpriortocompletingtheemissiontestand/orrenewingthevehicleregistration.TheMissouri11Mregulationrequiresownerstocomplywithemission-relatedrecallsbeforecompletingtheemissiontestorrenewingthevehicleregistration.Thecontractorwillmaintainadatabaseofvehiclesthathavebeenrecalledandcanidentifythemattheteststation.Thosethathaveobtainedtheneededrepairscancompletetheinspection.ThesubmittalincludesacommitmenttosubmitanannualreporttoEPAthatincludestheinformationasrequired.Therefore,thisportionoftheSIPmeetstherequirementsforanenhanced11Mprogramwhichexceedtherequirementsforabasicprogram.13On-RoadTesting-40C.F.R.Section51.371On-roadtestingisrequiredinenhancedI/Mareasandisanoptionforbasicareas.Theon-roadtestingprogramshallprovideinformationabouttheemissionperformanceofin-usevehicles.Theuseofeitherremotesensingdevices(RSD)orroadsidepulloverswheretailpipeemissiontestingisdonecanbeusedtomeettheFederalregulations.Theprogrammustincludeon-roadtestingof0.5percentofthevehiclesor20,000vehicles,whicheverislessinthenonattainmentareaorthe11Mprogramarea.Motoriststhathavepassedanemissiontestandarefoundtobehighemittersasaresultofanon-roadtestshallberequiredtopassanotheremissiontest.TheMissouri11MProgramdoesnotcontainon-roadtesting,butitisnotrelevanttoEPA'sproposedactionwithrespecttothebasic11Mrequirement.StateImplementationPlanSubmissions-40C.F.R.Section51.372-PartUoftheSIPStatessuchasMissouriarerequiredtosubmitaSIP,includingaschedule,analysis,description,legalauthority,andadequateevidenceoffundingandresourcesforprogramimplementationasdiscussedinEPA'sliMrule.Theschedulerequirementslistsanumberofelementsthatthesubmittalshallincludesuchasthestatutoryauthorityandregulations,specificationandprocedures,licensingorcertificationofstationinspectors,datemandatorytestingwillbegin,anddatefull-stringencycutpointswilltakeeffect.Thesubmittalhasaddressedtherequirementsofthissection.ThefollowingisascheduleimplementingthebasicliMprogramintheSt.Louisozonenonattainmentarea:1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.PassageoflegalauthoritySignatureofGovernorAdoptionofliMrulebyMACCIssuanceofRFPBidconferenceRFPbidsdueContractawardedCompleteinspector/mechanictrainingStartofDecentralizedliMprogramtesting2007annualreports2007-2008biennialreportsMay4,2006June30,2006April26,2007December14,2006January4,2007February15,2007May29,2007September29,2007October1,2007June15,2008June15,2009FortheliMrule,theMDNRprovideda30-daypubliccommenthearingbeforetheMACConMarch29,2007.TherevisionwasadoptedbytheMACConApril26,2007,andbecameeffectiveonOctober1,2007.MDNRfollowedallapplicableadministrativeproceduresinproposingandadoptingtherulereVISIOnS.Inaddition,MDNRcompliedwiththerequirementsof40C.F.R.Part51,AppendixV,forSIPsubmittals.MissourihasmetalltheapplicablerequirementsforaSIPrevision.14ImplementationDeadlines-40C.F.R.Section51.373ProvisionsdescribedinthissectionoftheliMregulationsarenotdirectlyapplicabletothispresentSIPrevisionbecausethissectionreferstoimplementationdatesofinitialprogramsandthedatesspecifiedareinthepast.Missourihadfullyimplementedalltheapplicablerequirementsofabasicprogramandwiththisrevisioniscontinuingtheimplementationofallrequiredelements.EPA'sreviewofthematerialsubmitteddeterminedthatMissouri'srevisiontotheSt.LouisliMprogramrulelanguagesubmittedonAugust7,2007andnarrativelanguagesubmittedonDecember7,2007,isinaccordancewiththerequirementsoftheCleanAirActandtheFederalrule.B.GENERALREVISIONSISPECIALLYCONSTRUCTEDVEHICLEMDNRsubmittedthisSIPrevisiontoEPAonJune17,2009.Thisamendmentdefinesandexemptsspeciallyconstructedvehicles(kit-cars)tomaketheruleconsistentwithcurrentpractices.Includedinthisrequestwasananalysisofthenumberof"kit-car"vehiclesthatreceivedwaiversfromtheSt.LouisliMprogram.FromAprilof2000toSeptemberof2007,theGCAPprogramexempted109"kit-cars"fromthetakingtheemissionstest.Thatextrapolatestoapproximately15exemptionsperyear.Whencomparedtothetotalnumberofvehiclestested(5,933,561)forthattimeperiod,109exemptionsequatesto0.00184%whichisfarlessthanonehundredthofonepercent.Speciallyconstructedvehiclesor"kitcars"havelimitedroaduseand/ordesignatedoffroaduse.Sincethereareveryfewandthesevehicletypeshaveveryfewmilestraveled,EPAagreeswithMDNR'sanalysisthattheemissionimpactsarenegligible.TherearealsogeneralrevisionssuchasaddingdefinitionsandtextchangesthathelpaddclaritytotheI/MportionoftheSIP.Themajorityoftherevisionsto10CSR10-5.381arechangesthatclarifytherulerequirementsandaredesignedtoincreasetheintegrityoftheGVIPprogrambyaddingclearauditingandenforcementprocedures.Itclarifiestheexemption,inspectionsstation,vehicleinspection,andwaiverrequirementsoftherule.Revisionstotheruleincludesections(1), (2),and(4)andsubsections(3)(A)-(F),(3)(H),(3)(J)-(N),(5)(A),(5)(B),and(5)(D).Asummaryoftherevisionsarelistedbelowbysection.Revisions(1)Applicability:(A)(B)•addsacronymsandminortextrevisions•addslanguagetobetterclarify"GrossVehicleWeightRating"(GVWR)•addslanguagetobetterclarify"outofareaexemptions"subjecttotherule•addslanguagetobetterclarify"mileage-basedexemptions"anditsrequirements•clarifiesthatSafetyVehicleInspectionReportsarearequirementforproofofexemptions•addslanguagethatexemptionsshallbeautomaticallyissuedbyinspectionstationsoftware15(2)Definitions:(B)•addsthedefinitionof"CleanScanning"(C)(M)(N)(R)(S)(U)(V)(W)(Y)(Z)•addsminortexttobetterclarifydefinitions•addsthedefinitionof"MDAS"(MissouriDecentralizedAnalyzerSystems)and itsspecifictoolsparametersandequipment•addsdefinitionof"MDOR"(MissouriDepartmentOfRevenue)•addsminortexttohelpclarifydefinitions•addstexttobetterdescribethedefinitionof"OBD"forclarity•addstexttobetterdescribethedefinitionof"QualifyingRepair"•addstexttobetterdescribethedefinitionof"RecognizedLaborCosts"•addsdefinition"SpecificallyConstructedvehicle"•addsdefinition"VehicleInspectionDatabase"(VID)•addsdefinition"VehicleInspectionReport"(VIR)(3)GeneralProvisions:(A)SubjectVehicleCompliance,(B)EmissionsInspectionIntervals•addsminortextforreferencingandclarification(C)EmissionsInspectionPeriods•addstexttoclarifyinspectionsarevalid120daysaftertheinspectiondateforregistrationpurposesandvehiclebeingsoldisnotsubjecttoinspectionfor90daysaftersaledate(D)EmissionsInspectionFees•addstextexemptingfleetoperatorsinspectingtheirownfleetfrominspectionfee•addstexttoclarifyreinspectionandreinspectionrequirements•addslanguagetobetterclarifyinspectionfees,applicabilityandoversightincludingprepaidinspectioncredits,reimbursements,vehicleinspectiondatabaseservicefee(E)EmissionsInspectionEquipment•languageremovedandlanguageaddedtobetterexplainproperfunctionalcharacteristicsoftheequipmentusedforinspectionsandtheproceduresduringtestingincludingissuingstickers,cameraoperationandphotocapturing,documentationtogatherandenterintothesystemsuchasVIN,licensenumber,etc...(F)EmissionInspectionStationRequirements•languageaddedtobetterclarifyemissionsinspectionstationsrequirements,premises,equipmenttype,equipmentleasingorpurchase,maintenance,functionality•"InspectionFees"languageremovedbecauseitwasreplacedandcoveredearlierinsection3(D)•"Operations"languagewasremovedbecausenewlanguageonthistopicisplacedinsection3(H)EmissionsInspectionProcedures•generaltextisaddedforcitingpurposesandclarification16(H)EmissionsInspectionProcedures•removeslanguageandaddslanguagetobetterexplainthatavehiclecannotbefailedorpassedonpartialinspectionsandsubjectvehiclesmustcompletetheinspectiononcetheinspectionbegins•removedtextandaddslanguagetodescribeuploadingdataprocedures•languageremovedandnewtextaddedtodescribestickerprocedures,describeswhatdataisrequiredforuploading,timeofuploadingdata,numberofphotostaken,whatphotosandsubjectwillbetaken,modesettingsofthecamera(lighting,angles),testmethodprocedures,abortedtestingprocedures(J)EmissionReinspectionProcedures•removed"EmissionsReinspectionFees"language•addedlanguagedescribingreinspectionproceduresJ(l)(A-E)(K)EmissionsInspectionsWaivers&Exemptions•removestextandaddslanguagetobetterdescribetestproceduresforcost-basedwatvers•addedlanguagethatexplainsvehicleoperatorwaiverapplicationrequirement•addedlanguagethatnotifiesvehicleowneroroperatormayberequiredtobringvehicletotheGVIPdepartmentforvisualinspection•addedlanguagedescribingthatiftheemissionsfailureisnotrelatedtotheexactpartslistedin40CFR51.360,thecostofthepartsfixedwillnotcounttowardthewaiverminimum•languageaddedtoclarifythatmotoristmustsubmitthepropercost-basedwaiverapplication•addedtextspecifyingthataftermarketpartsandexpensesrelatedtofixingthevehicleduetotheinstallationofsaidpartsarenotincludedinwaiverminimum•addedlanguagethatdocumentedrepairsperformedwereauthorizedbyowner•addedlanguagelistingconditionswhenacost-basedwaiverestimatewillbeissued•textaddedthatgrantsthedepartmenttherighttoinvestigateallcost-basedwaiverrequests•addedlanguagereiteratingwhat(4)(H)andexplainingmileageexemptionrequirements•addedlanguageGVWRexemptionrequirementsandverificationrequirements(L)QualityControlRequirements•languageremovedandreplacedregardingprovisionsof(3)(L)(2)willresultinpenaltiesdescribedin(3)(N)•generalwordedits•lockouts,penalties,finelanguagewereaddedtothissectiontobetterclarifyandciteMissourirules•languageaddedtoexplainwhyandhowstationscouldbefined,lockedoutoftheinspectionsystem,oralicenserevoked•addedlistofspecificirregularitiesthatwouldconstitutealockout•addedlanguageexplainingintentionalviolationswhichconstitutefines•addedexplanationoncivilpenaltiesforaftermarketparts17(4)ReportingandRecordKeeping(A)PassingVehicles•languagereplaceddescribingspecificdocumentationrequirementsofpassingvehiclestobeincludedintheVehicleInspectionReport(VIR)(B)FailingVehicles•languagereplacedtobetterdescribethedocumentationrequiredtobeincludedintheVIR(C)RepairFacilityPerformanceReport•languagereplacedtobetterclarifyspecificitemsrequiredtobeincludedintheRepairFacilityPerformanceReportandproceduresfordoingthat(D)RepairDataSheet•languagereplacedtobetterdetailthepreparationandrequirementsfortheRepairDataSheet(E)MotoristCommentForm•replaceslanguagetodescribeprocedures/requirementsforMotoristCommentForms(F)Cost-basedWaivers•addedlanguagelistingspecificrequiredVIRdocumentationrequirementsforCostBasedWaiversincluding:vehiclesdescription,moneyacceptedbydept.towardcostbasedwaivers,staffidentificationdocumentation,stickerrequirements(G)ReciprocityWaivers•ReciprocityWaiverdocumentationandproceduresrequiredtobeincludedintheVIR(H)Mileage-basedEmissionExemptVehicles•addedlanguagedescribingandlistingalldocumentationrequirementstogatherandreportintheVIRforMileage-basedWaivers(I)GVW-basedEmissionsExemptedVehicles•addedlanguagedescribingandlistingalldocumentationrequirementstogatherandreportintheVIRforGVW-basedEmissionsExemptedVehicles(J)Out-of-AreaEmissionsExemptedVehicles•addedlanguagedescribingandlistingalldocumentationrequirementstogatherandreportintheVIRforOut-of-AreaEmissionsExemptedVehicles(K)AbortedEmissionsInspections•addedlanguagedescribingandlistingalldocumentationrequirementstogatherandreportintheVIRforAbortedEmissionsInspections(5)TestMethods(B)•addslanguagetobetterdescribespecifictestmethodproceduressuchasbulbcheck,datalinkconnection,communicationtest,readinessmonitoringtest,OBDverificationtool18C.PLUG-INHYBRIDELECTRICVEHICLEEXEMPTIONInOctober2012,MDNRsubmittedaSIPrevisiontoEPArequestingapprovalofanamendmenttoexemptPlug-inHybridElectricalVehicles(PHEV)fromtheSt.Louis11Mprogram.ThissectionisEPA'sanalysisoftheinformationMissouriprovidedforthisrevision.C.IShortfallAnalysisMDNRperformedashortfallmodelinganalysistoshowtheimpactsofexemptingplug-inhybridelectricvehicles(PHEV)fromtheSt.LouisareaInspectionandMaintenanceprogram,andtodeterminewhetherornotexemptingPHEV'sfromtakingtheemissionstestwouldpreventtheirI/Mprogramfrommeetingtheminimumperformancestandards.MDNRfollowedEPArecommendedproceduresforthisshortfallanalysisasdescribedbelow.BecauseEPA'sapprovedmobilemodel,MotorVehicleEmissionsSimulatororMOVESmodel,doesnotcategorizePHEVinaseparateclassofvehicles,aworstcasescenariowasassumedinwhichallPHEVareconsideredtonotcomplyorfailtheI/Mprogram.ThisisreflectedbyadjustingthecomplianceratewithintheMOVESmodelbythedirectestimatedpercentageofPHEVgrowthfortheprojectedyear2022.Therefore,thefleetofPHEV'swithinthenonattainmentareacountedasaportionofthepercentageofthenormal passengervehiclesthatarenotcomplyingwiththeprogram.Inotherwords,allPHEV'sweretreatedaspassengervehiclesthatareoutofcomplianceorfailingtheI/Mprogram.Thismethodologyisrecognizedasbeingextremelyconservative.However,untiltheMOVESmodelcanaccountforPHEVvehicles,EPAbelievestheMDNR'sanalysistopredictthefutureimpactofPHEVsbeingremovedfromliMprogramisapprovable.MDNRrantheMOVESmodelfortwodifferentscenariosinthisanalysis.ThefirstscenarioranMOVESusingtheircurrentfleetandprojectedthegrowthofthatfleettotheyear2022(horizonyearinMissouri'sMaintenancePlan).Thesecondmodelingscenarioutilizedthesameinputparameters,butadjustedthecompliancerateofthePHEVmarketgrowthfortheyear2022.ToestimatethegrowthofPHEVmarketpenetrationin2022,Missouriused0.43%marketsalesperyear,startingin2012untilthehorizonyearof2022.FordetailedinformationonhowMDNRestablishedthe.043%ofPHEVgrowth,seetheirdemonstrationtitled"TechnicalSupportDocumentfortheAmendmentof10CSR-5.381,On-BoardDiagnosticsMotorVehicleEmissionsInspectionApril18,2012."Themodelingresultswerethencomparedfordifferencesmemtsswns.C.2ShortfallAnalysisResultsTheresultsfromtwodifferentmodelingrunsshowanincreaseinemissions.Thereisanincreaseofemissionsby0.03%forVOC,0.01%forNOx,and0.03%forCO(TableC-1throughC-4).Thesedifferencesarefarlessthanone-tenthofonepercentandequatetoincreasesof12lbsforVOC,10lbsforNOx,and146lbsofCOperozoneseasondayemissionsfortheentireSt.LouisareathatiscomposedoffiveMissouricountiesThesenegligibleincreasesareonlyvisiblebyroundingtheozoneprecursorpollutantnumberstothethirddecimalplace(TableC-1throughC-4)showingasmallincreaseinemissions.EPArecognizesthattreatingPHEV'sasanormalpassengervehiclenotcomplyingorfailingtheliMprogramisdrasticallyconservative.PHEV'sdohavethecapabilityofoperatingfor40milesofbatterylifebeforegettingassistancefromcombustionpower.IfadriverofaPHEVisnonaggressive,theusageoftheinternalcombustionmotorisminimizedthus,relyingmostlyonelectricpropulsionandproducinglittleornoemissionsduringthistime.PHEV'sarecertainlylesspollutingthananaveragevehicleontoday's19

# roadway,

and

far less polluting

than

the same average

vehicle

that

is failing

the

liM



# test,

as described

in Missouri's

modeling

analysis

. Therefore,

a more accurate assumption

is, since PHEV's

can have

little

or no (zero) emissions

for

the first

40 miles

of travel,

the slight increase

in emissions

from

this modeling analysis

is overestimated

and completely

offset

by

the little

or

no (zero) emissions

from

the first

40 miles

of travel. In addition,

it

is recognized

that

this exemption

could possibly encourage

the public

to drive

less polluting

vehicles

such

as PHEV's;

and,

for every PHEV

that replaces

a typical passenger

vehicle

on

the roadway

equates

to

a reduced

amount

of carbon monoxide,

oxides

of nitrogen

and volatile

organic compound

emissions

in the nonattainment

area,

not

an increase

. Therefore,

the penetration

ofPHEV's, especially

in

a nonattainment

area,

are more

likely

to have

a positive

impact

on

air quality. Missouri's conservative

analysis demonstrates

that

the emissions

impacts

from exempting

PHEV

from the

St. Louis

liM program

are insignificant

and consequently,

even when considering

an unlikely

worstcase scenario

whereby

all PHEV's

fail, Missouri's

modeling demonstrates

that

the area

will meet

the EPA's performance

standard

. 

# Table

C-1

Table

C-2 2022

GVJP

Mobile Emissions



# (Tons

Ozone

Season

Day)



# 2022

GVJP PHEV

E 

# - xemptwn

(Tons Ozone

Season

Day) 

# County

Name



# co

NOx



# voc

County

Name



# co

NOx



# voc Franklin

County

19

. 573

3

. 128

1.395

Franklin

County

19.578

3.128

1.396 Jefferson

County

27

. 836

4

. 055

2.358

Jefferson

County

27.842

4.055

2.358 St. Charles

County

40.254

5.991

3.247

St. Charles

County

40

. 264

5.992

3.248 St. Louis County

155

. 186

24.638

11.234

St. Louis County

155.228

24.641

11.237 St. Louis

City

41.224

6.969

2.783

St. Louis

City

41

. 235

6.970

2.783 Totals

284.074

44.781

21.017

Totals

284.147

44.786

21.023 

# Table

C-3

Table

C-4 2022 GVJP-PHEV

Mobile

Emiss

i ons



# 2022 GVJP-PHEV

Exemption

Mobile Emissions 

# (Tons

Ozone

Season

Da

) (GVIP

to PHEV Differences)

( %

I 

# Ozone

Season

Day) (GVIP

to PHEV Differences) 

# County

Name



# co

NOx



# voc

County

Name



# co

NOx



# voc Franklin

County

+0.005

0

. 000

+0.001

Franklin

County

+0

. 03%

0.00%

+0.07% Jefferson

County

+0.006

0.000

0.000

Jefferson

County

+0.02%

0.00%

0.00% St. Charles

County

+0.010

+0

. 001

+0.001

St. Charles

County

+0

. 02% +0.02%

+0.03% St. Louis County

+0.042

+0.003

+0.003

St. Louis County

+0.03%

+0.01%

+0.03% St. Louis

City

+0

. 011

+0

. 001

0.000

St. Louis

City

+0.03%

+0.01%

0.00% Totals

+0.073

+0.005

+0.006

Totals

+0.03%

+0.01%

+0.03% 

# D. MISSOURI

STATE HIGHWAY

PATROL

RULES REMOVAL On December

21, 2007 Missouri submitted

a revision requesting

that

the Missouri

State Highway

Patrol rules

that were

in place

to support

the GCAP

11M program

in the

St. Louis nonattainment

area,

be removed

from

the Missouri

SIP because

the new

rule

10 CSR 10-5.381

does

not rely

on

the Missouri Highway

Patrol

rules

for enforcement.

The enforcement

rules

are embedded

and listed

in the GVIP rule10

CSR 10-5.381. Therefore,

the highway

patrol

rules

are

not necessary

for implementation

of the emissions

inspection

program

and

do

not need

to

be

in the

SIP separately.

These

rules

are listed below

in Table

D-1.

20TableD-1MissouriDepartmentofPublicSafetyDivision50-StateHighwayPatrolChapter2-MotorVehicleInspection50-2.010Definitions4/11/828/12/85,50FR32411.50-2.020MinimumInspectionStationRequirements10/111828/12/85,50FR32411.50-2.030InspectionStationClassification12/111778/12/85,50FR32411.50-2.040PrivateInspectionStations5/311748/12/85,50FR32411.50-2.050InspectionStationPermits111111798/12/85,50FR32411.50-2.060DisplayofPermits,Signs&Poster111311748/12/85,50FR32411.50-2.070HoursofOperation111111838/12/85,50FR32411.50-2.080LicensingofInspector/Mechanics4/131788/12/85,50FR32411.InspectionStationOperational50-2.090Requirements8/111788/12/85,50FR32411.RequisitionofInspectionStickers&50-2.100Decals6/12/808/12/85,50FR32411.50-2.110IssuanceoflnspectionStickers&Decals12111/778/12/85,50FR32411.50-2.120MVI-2Form111111838/12/85,50FR32411.50-2.130ViolationsofLawsorRulesPenalty5/311748/12/85,50FR32411.50-2.260ExhaustSystem5/31/748/12/85,50FR32411.50-2.280AirPollutionControlDevices121111808/12/85,50FR32411.50-2.290FuelTank5/3/748/12/85,50FR32411.ApplicabilityofMotorVehicleEmission50-2.350Inspection5/11848/12/85,50FR32411.50-2.360EmissionFee11/11838/12/85,50FR32411.50-2.37010/13/92,57FRInspectionStationLicensing12/2119046778.50-2.380Inspector/MechanicLicensing11111838/12/85,50FR32411.50-2.390Safety/EmissionStickers11/11838/12/85,50FR32411.50-2.40110/13/92,57FRGeneralSpecifications12/2119046778.TheSIPdoesnot10/13/92,57FRincludeSection(6),50-2.402MASSoftwareFunctions12/21/9046778.SafetyInspection.TheSIPdoesnotincludeSection(3)(B)4,SafetyInspectionSequencesorMissouriAnalyzerSystem(MAS)Display(3)(M)5(11),Safety50-2.403andProgramRequirements12/2119010/13/92,57FR46778InspectionSummary.TheSIPdoesnotincludeSection(5),SafetyInspection50-2.404TestRecordSpecifications12/2119010/13/92,57FR46778Results.VehicleInspectionCertificate,VehicleInspectionReport,andPrinterFunction50-2.405Specifications12/2119010/13/92,57FR4677810/13/92,57FR50-2.406TechnicalSpecificationsfortheMAS12/2119046778.Documentation,LogisticsandWarranty10113/92,57FR50-2.407Requirements12/2119046778.10/13/92,57FR50-2.410VehiclesFailingReinspection12/2119046778.ProceduresforConductingOnlyEmission10/13/92,57FR50-2.420Tests12/21/9046778.21

# IV.OVERALL EVALUATION 1. 

# EMISSION

TOTALS In August

of 2013, MDNR submitted

an Early Progress

Plan demonstration

to EPA which analyzes

the emissions

inventory

and establishes

a 2008 baseline emissions

inventory

for

the

St. Louis nonattainment area

for ozone precursors-carbon

monoxide

(CO), oxides

of nitrogen

(NOx),

and volatile

organic compounds (VOC)-and

projects

the emissions

for these pollutants

to the attainment

year of2015. Table

1-1 from

the Early Progress

Plan demonstration

shows

the Missouri

portion

of the

St. Louis nonattainment

area emissions

inventory

totals

for 2008

and 2015,

as broken

down

by source category and presented

in tons

per ozone

season

day emissions.

Figure

1-2 places

those

totals

in

a bar graph

to display

a visual

trend

of emissions

over

time. Based

on

the emissions

inventory

analysis,

there

is

a reported emissions

decrease

in

all three ozone precursor

pollutants

between

the 2008

and 2015 timeframe.

These decreases

are displayed

in ozone

season

day emissions

and

are

as follows:

(321.4

tons of CO),

(98.4

tons ofNOx),

and (26.7

tons ofVOC). 

# Table

1-1 2008

and 2015

CO, NOx,

and VOC Emissions 2008

CO, NOx,

and VOC Emissions

for

the Missouri

Portion ofthe

St. Louis Ozone Nonattainment

Area (Tons

per Ozone

Season

Day) Source Category



# co

NOx



# voc Point Sources

33.14

88.84

18.01 Area Sources

17.31

6.52

99.47 On-Road

Mobile

Sources

593.43

161.25

60.86 Off-Road

Mobile

Sources

527.74

65.18

45.08 Total

1,171.61

321.79

223.42 2015

CO, NOx,

and VOC Emissions

for

the Missouri

Portion of the

St. Louis Ozone Nonattainment

Area

(Tons

per Ozone

Season

Day) Source Category



# co

NOx



# voc Point Sources

34.33

86.32

21.6 Area Sources

18.28

6.64

111.73 On-Road

Mobile

Sources

353.49

76.70

32.70 Off-Road

Mobile

Sources

444.07

53.72

30.67 Total

850.17

223.37

196.70 

# 22

# 1200 100

0 

# B O O 600 400 200



# Figure

1-2 (Tons

er Ozone

Season

Day) St. Louis

Area

Total Emissions Comparison

2008

& 2015

32

14 1cns 

# • co

350 300 250 200 150 100 50



# St. Louis

Area

Total Emissions Comparison

2008



# & 2015 0 **~------------------/**



# 0 2008 Emissions

2015

Em

i ssions

2008 Emissions 

# St. Louis

Area

Total Emissions Comparison

2008

& 2015 2008 Emissions

2015 Emissions

2015 Emissions 2671ons

**ons** 

# Table

1-3 lists

the total emissions

for

the

St. Louis nonattainment

area

and shows

a decrease

of ozone **p~ecursor**



# pollutants

before

and after

the



# V M program conversion.

The trend

of continually

decreasing emissions

even

after

the

IIM program conversion

, supports

that

the



# VM program conversion

did

not interfere

with

the state's

ability

to attain

and maintain attainment

of the 1997 8-hour

ozone standard

and will

not interfere

with

or delay

the state's progress

toward attainment

for

the 2008 standard.

This

is based

on

the projections

that show

the area

will continue

to show significant

decreasing

emissions out

to 2015.



# Table

1-3 Total Emissions

St. Louis

MO Nonattainment

Area

(Tons

Per Ozone

Season

Day) 

# voc

co

NOx *2002

310

. 73

1

, 868

. 81

424.86 *2005

272.46

1,483.13

362.03

GCAP 2008

223.42

1,171.61

321.79 2015

196.70

850.17

223.37



# GVIP *Values ongmate

from EPA's National EmiSSions

Inventory

data

base (other

values

ar

e from MDNR's

Early

Progr

es

s Plan) 

# 23

# 2. MONITORING

DATA After

the conversion

of the centralized



# VM program

to decentralized

in 2007,

the

St. Louis nonattainment

area acquired

three consecutive

ozone seasons

of complete,

quality

assured

ambient

air quality monitoring

data

for 2008,

2009

& 

# 2010 demonstrating

attainment

with

the 8-hour

ozone NAAQS promulgated

in 1997.

On June

9, 2011,

EPA published

a final

clean

data determination

in the Federal Register

stating

that

the

St. Louis

ozone nonattainment

area covering

both Missouri

and Illinois had attained

the 1997 8-hour

ozone standard

based

on three consecutive

ozone seasons

of quality assured

ambient

air monitoring

data

(76

FR 33647,

June

9, 2011). The area's

design

value

is determined

by

the single highest individual

monitor's

design

value

for each three consecutive

ozone

season averaging

period.

Design

values

are calculated

by averaging

the annual fourth-highest

daily maximum

8-hour

ozone concentrations

over

the three consecutive

years

(40 CFR Part

50).

The standard

at

a site

is met when

the site's design value is

less than

or equal

to 0.084

ppm

(84 ppb)

for

the 1997 Ozone National

Ambient

Air Quality Standard.

For

the eight-hour

ozone standard,

the design

value

at

all monitors

for

the three-year

time periods

from

2008 through

2010

did

not exceed 0

. 084 ppm,

and thus achieved attainment

for

the

St. Louis nonattainment

area

. The calculated 2008-2010

8-hour

design

values

for sites

in the

St. Louis nonattainment

area

are presented

in Table

2-1

a

. As shown

in the table,

all sites three-year

design

values

are less

than

the 1997 standard, demonstrating

that

the

St. Louis

area

has attained

the 1997 8-hour

air quality standard.

The

St. Louis nonattainment

area's

design

value monitor

would

be

the West

Alton monitor,

due

to

its design value

being

the highest.

The West

Alton monitor

is bold

in Table

2-1a.

The latest

data calculating

2011- 2013 8-hour

design

values

are listed

in Table

2-1b.

All monitors

in the

St. Louis nonattainment

area

are below

the 1997 8-hour

ozone standard.



# Table

2-la 2008-2010

St. Louis 8-Hour

Design

Values 

# =

ppl 

# (1997 NAAQS

84

b) 2008

4th

2009

4th

2010

4th 2008-2010 County

Monitoring

Sites

High

High

High

Design

Value Missouri St. Charles

Orchard

Farm

72



# 73

77



# 74 St. Charles

West

Alton

76

71

84

77 

# St. Louis

City

Blair

Street

73

65

71

69 St. Louis

Maryland

Heights

69

70

76

71 St. Louis

Pacific

64 64 69

65 Jefferson

Arnold

West

70

70

77

72 

# Table

2-lb 2011-2013

St. Louis 8-Hour

Design

Values 

# (1997 NAAQS

=



# 84 ppb) 

# 2011

4th

2012

4th

2013

4th 2011-2013 County

Monitor

High

High

High

Design

Value St. Charles

Orchard

Farm



# 77



# 86

71

78 St. Charles

West

Alton

84

92

71

82 St. Louis

City

Blair

Street

79

87

66

77 

# St. Louis

Maryland

Heights

80

90

70

80 St. Louis

Pacific

70

85

67

74 Jefferson

Arnold

West

75

85 69 76 24Figure2-2showsthedesignvaluetrendsforthemonitorsintheMissouriportionoftheSt.Louisnonattainmentarea.Asindicatedbythetrends,ozoneconcentrationsdecreasedatallmonitors,indicatingimprovedairqualitythroughouttheSt.Louisarea.Allsitesintheareaarenowincomplianceofthe1997standard,asshownbythedesignvaluedata.Figure2-22001-20108-hourOzoneDesignValueTrends-MOSt.LouisNonattaimnentArea,MO(1997NAAQS-84ppb)10095------------------------______..,":'"____------------------------------90..------"-Bll---·-·..•--------·------......•:'!!·,Concentrationsin(ppb).\.y..J•··'\."-...../80-- ---------..---____,---------.,"<.;<>....-75..........._•'.'•70-··----------·---------------------------------------------.,65.--'\.---6008-10-orchardFarms9288868689 827174--WestAlton91898585898117877Clark(relocated)7470-BlairStreet847871169--Margaretta(discontinued)898684798681SouthBroadway(discontinued)83--Ferguson(relocated)8883-MarylandHeights88827771-Ladue(discontinued)8581BreckenridgeHills(discontinued)8683SunsetHills(discontinued)9181182798678QueenyParks(relocated)888278_......,..___.,Pacific83767165Arnold(relocated)8781818085___.__ArnoldWest7971172--.-Violationofthe1997NAAQS85858118581185811811253.CLEANAIRACTSECTION110(1)ANALYSISThissectionofthedocumentdemonstratesthattheliMprogramconversionfromGCAPtoGVIPisconsistentwiththe requirementsofSection110(1)oftheCleanAirAct.Section110(1)oftheCAAstatesthat"[t]heAdministratorshallnotapprovearevisionofaplaniftherevisionwouldinterferewithanyapplicablerequirementconcerningattainmentandreasonablefurtherprogress(asdefinedinsection171),oranyotherapplicablerequirementofthisAct."Theanalysisthatfollowsshowsthattherevised1/MSIPdoesnotinterferewiththearea'sabilitytomaintainthe19978-hourozonestandard,nordoesitinterferewitharea'sprogresstowardattainmentbycausingorcontributingtoadelayinthetimeframeofprojectedattainmentforthe20088-hourozonestandard.First,emissionstotalsandmonitorvaluesforallozoneprecursorshavebeensteadilydecreasingsincetheGVIPprogramwasimplemented.AsfullydescribedinSectionIV1and2,totalemissionsofozoneprecursorpollutantsfortheSt.LouisnonattainmentareahavebeencontinuallydecreasingevenaftertheVMprogramconversion.Inaddition,monitoringdataillustratestrendsofdecreasingozoneconcentrationssince2008,indicatingimprovedairqualitythroughouttheSt.Louisarea.ThesetrendssupportthattheVMprogramconversiondidnotinterferewiththearea'sabilitytomaintainattainmentofthe19978-hourozonestandardandwillnotinterferewithordelaythestate'sprogresstowardattainmentforthe20088-hourozonestandard.Furthermore,EPAhasanalyzedandmodeledthedifferencesinemissionsbetweentheGCAPandGVIPprograms.ThatanalysisshowsadecreaseinNOxandVOCemissionsfromGVIPcomparedtoGCAP,whichisconsistentwithoverallinventorytrends.WhileitmayappearthatbecausetheGCAPprogramincludedanI/M240tailpipetestforsomevehicles,itwouldproducebettercontrolsthanthatoftheGVIPOBD-onlyprogram.Inrealityhowever,therearemultipleaspectsinwhichtherevisedGVIPVMprogramandassociatedstaterulesaremorestringentinpracticewithrespecttoairquality.Specifically,theprograms'differencesinwaiverrates,compliancerates,removingcleanscreening,testingdieselvehicles,andenforcementwithanimplementedpenaltyschedulerepresentincreasedstringencycomparedtotheGCAPprogram.2·iTodeterminewhethertheSIPrevisioncomplieswithSection110(1)oftheAct,EPARegion7utilizedMOVES2014andperformedamobilemodelingexercisetoshowthedifferencesinemissionsbetweenthepreviousGCAPVMprogramandtherevisedGVIPliMprogram.3EPAmodeledthefivecountiesmakinguptheSt.Louis20088-hourozonenonattainmentareafortheyear2015.ThisistheyeartheSt.Louisareaisprojectedtoshowattainmentforthe2008ozonestandard.Asexplainedabove,severalelementsoftheGVIPprogramaremorerigorousthanthoseoftheGCAPprogram.OneimportantelementisthecleanscreeningprovisionincludedintheGCAPprogram.2ThecleanscreeningprovisioninGCAPwasaimedatreducingthenumberofvehiclessubjecttorequiredtailpipetestingupto40%basedonremotesensing.IntheMissouriGCAPVMSIP,MDNRusedanextremelyconservativeapproachtoaccountforcleanscreeningusingMOBILE6.BecauseMOBILE6wasnotfullyequippedtoaccountforcleanscreening,MDNRcharacterizedcleanscreeningbysettingtheVMEffectivenessinputinMOBILE6at50%ofwhatwouldotherwisebeassumedforacentralizedVMprogram.Inotherwords,MDNRassumedthattheemissionsbenefitsofGCAPwouldbereducedby50%duetothecleanscreeningprovision.ForEPA'smodelingdemonstration,becauseMOVES2014issimilarlynotequippedwithparameterstoaccountforcleanscreening,andtoensureconsistencywith2ThereareotherelementsoftheGCAPprogramthatarelessstringentthantheGVIPprogrambutaredifficulttoquantifyintermsofemissionsreductions.Forafulldiscussionoftheimprovementsoftherevisedprogram,seeendnotei.3Run-SpecsfortheMOVES2014inputparametersareincludedinthedocket.26modelinginthecurrentSIP,the50%liMEffectivenessisalsoappliedtotheMOVES2014modelingresultsoftheolderGCAPprogram.Table3-1showsthelevelofemissionscontroldifferencesofGCAPversusGVIP.TheseemissionscontrolresultsindicatethattheGVIPliMprogramismorestringentanddemonstratesincreasedemissionreductionswith3.48tonsofNOxand2.32tonsofVOCscomparedto2.47tonsofNOxand2.05tonsofVOCcontrolsfortheGCAPVMprogram.Table3-1LevelofControlinTons/OzoneSeasonDayEmissionsGCAPvsGVIP2015NOxvocGCAPI/M240(100%liMEffectiveness)4.944.10(50%liMEffectiveness)2.472.05GCAPIIM2402.472.05GVIPOBDOnly3.482.32Table3-2andFigure3-2displaytheSt.LouisareamobilemodelingresultsoftotalNOxandVOConroadmobileemissions,whichshowanemissionsdecreaseof1.01tonsforNOxand0.27tonsforVOCemissionswiththenewGVIPprogram.35.0030.0025.0020.0015.0010.005.000.00Table3-2StLouisAreaOzoneSeasonDayEmissions(tons)GCAPvsGVIP2015NOxvocGCAPliM24033.2424.16GVIPOBDOnly32.2323.89Difference1.01.27Fiure3-2St.LouisAreaOzoneSeasonDayEmissionsGCAPvsGVIP•Nox•vocGCAP1/M240GVIPOBDOnly27TheresultsshowingemissionsdecreasesdemonstratesthattheGVIPprogramisstrongerinregardtoairqualityandsatisfiesSection110(1)oftheAct.Infact,ifMissouriweretoimplementtheoldGCAPprogram,therewouldbeaslightincreaseofNOxandVOCemissionsintheSt.LouisareacomparedtowhatiscurrentlyoccurringwithGVIP.EPAfurthernotesthatinadditiontotheoveralltrendofemissionsdecreasesandthemobilemodelingandanalysisshowingemissionsdecreases,Table3-3ashowsthedecreasesinon-roadmobilesourceemissionspriortotheVMconversion.Table3-3bdisplaystheon-roadmobilesourceinventoryfortheSt.LouisnonattainmentareaaftertheGCAPconversiontoGVIPandalsoshowsemissiondecreasesdespitethechangestotheVMprogram.Table3-3aOn-RoadMobileDecreasesforCO,NOxandVOCEmissionsfortheMissouriPortionoftheSt.LouisNonattainmentArea(TonsPerOzoneSeasonDay)(GCAP-Priortothe11MConversion)coNOxvoc*2002On-RoadMobileSource1,316.13191.39109.042008On-RoadMobileSource593.43161.2560.86On-RoadTotalEmissionsDecreases722.7030.1448.18*The2002On-RoademissionsoriginatesfromEPA'sNationalEmissionsInventorydatabase.Table3-3bOn-RoadMobileDecreasesforCO,NOx,andVOCEmissionsfortheMissouriPortionoftheSt.LouisOzoneNonattainmentArea(TonsperOzoneSeasonDay)(GVIP-Afterthe11MConversion)SourceCategorycoNOxvoc2008On-RoadMobileSources593.43161.2560.862015On-RoadMobileSources353.4976.7032.70On-RoadTotalEmissionsDecreases239.9484.5528.16Inconclusion,anevaluationoftheoveralltrendofemissionsdecreases,EPA'sMOVES2014mobilemodelingandanalysisshowingemissionsdecreases,indicatesthattheprogramconversiondoesnotinterferewiththearea'sabilitytomaintainthe19978-hourozonestandard,norinterferewitharea'sprogresstowardattainmentorcauseorcontributetoadelayinthetimeframeofprojectedattainmentforthe20088-hourozonestandard.Kit-CarsFortheSIPrevisionrelatedto"kit-cars"asdiscussedindetailinSection3.B,basedonthenumberof"kit-cars"inthearea(fifteen)ascomparedtothe1.5millionvehiclessubjectfortestinginthearea,thisamountstolessthan1oathofonepercentofthetotalvehicles(sectionB).Anyemissionsproducedfromtheminutenumberof"kit-cars"isconsideredanegligibleamountandwouldbeaccountforinthedecreasingemissionsfromtheVMprogramconversionfromGCAPtoGVIP(Table3-2).Therefore,exempting"kit-cars"inSt.Louisdoesnotinterferewiththearea'sabilitytomaintainthe19978-hourozonestandard,norinterferewitharea'sprogresstowardattainmentorcauseorcontributetoadelayinthetimeframeofprojectedattainmentforthe20088-hourozonestandard.28

# PHEV For

the

SIP revision

related

to PHEV exemption

as discussed

in detail

in Section

C, Missouri's

worstcase shortfall

analysis

of exempting

PHEV's

shows

that

any possible

increase

is far less

than one-tenth of one percent

and equates

to increases

of

12 lbs

for VOC,

10 lbs

for NOx,

and

146

lbs

of CO

per ozone season

day en;tissions

for

the entire

St. Louis

area (Table

C1-

C4). Brcause

the MOVES

model

is not capable

of accounting

for PHEV vehicles

in

a separate

vehicle

class, Missouri's

analysis

treated PHEV's as failing. Therefore,

the modeling

results

are grossly overestimated.

In fact,

as indicated

in Section

C, introducing

PHEV's

into

St. Louis

would

likely decrease

VOC,

CO

and NOx emissions.

Therefore, exempting

PHEV's

do not interfere

with

the

St. Louis

area's

ability

to maintain

the 1997 8-hour

ozone standard,

nor interfere

with area's progress

toward attainment

or cause

or contribute

to

a delay

in the timeframe

of projected attainment

for

the 2008 8-hour

ozone standard. SUMMARY

AND FINAL CONCLUSION The

SIP revisions

submitted

by MDNR

are:

(A) INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE

(liM) PROGRAM CONVERSION,

(B) GENERAL REVISIONS/SPECIALLY

CONSTRUCTED

VEHICLE DEFINITION,

(C) PLUG-IN

HYBRID ELECTRIC

VEHICLE

(PHEV) EXEMPTION,

(D) MISSOURI STATE HIGHWAY

PATROL

RULES REMOVAL,

all

of which include

an emissions

impact demonstration,

data analysis

of the changes

to the



# liM program,

or

an explanation

of general

edits

to text language.

After analyzing

the demonstrations

and

data analysis,

as discussed

in sections

A,

B and

C, the results demonstrate

that

the

SIP revisions

will

not have

an adverse

impact

on

air quality. Aside

from

the mobile

source demonstrations

and

data analyses,

the ozone precursor

emissions inventory,

over

time, shows

an overall

trend

of decreasing

emissions

as discussed

in sections

1 and

2. MDNR's

Early Progress

Plan demonstration

shows

the projected

decreases

in CO, NOx

and VOC emissions

from

2008

to 2015

are 27%,

31%

and

12% respectively,

resulting

in

a significant

decrease

of 321.4

tons

of CO,

98.4

tons ofNOx,

and 26.7

tons ofVOC

per ozone

season

day emissions.

In 

# other words,

2008 emissions

for these pollutants

for ozone

season

day were much higher

than ozone

season day emissions

projected

in 2015 (Table

1-1) (Figure

1-2). Furthermore,

the monitoring

values

show

a decrease

in ozone concentrations

that began

in themid2000's

and continues

to decrease

well below

the 1997 8-hour

ozone standard

for

all monitors

in the

St. Louis

area.

As stated earlier,

all sites

in the area

are now

in compliance

of the 1997 ozone standard,

as shown

by

the design

value

data

in Figure

2-1

a and

2-1

b. Moreover,

the trend continues

to decrease (Figure

2-1),

thus, supporting

that none

of these

SIP revisions

will have

a negative

impact

on

the state's ability

to maintain

the

air quality

for

the 1997 ozone standard

nor interfere

with state's progress

toward attainment

or cause

or contribute

to

a delay

in the timeframe

of projected attainment

for

the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. Tables

3-3a

and 3-3b

show decreasing

mobile

source emissions

directly

after

the implementation

of the new GVIP



# liM program

and associated

state rules. Furthermore,

the overall emissions

inventory

trends from

2008

to 2015

show

there

are decreasing

NOx

and VOC emissions

in the area

and supports

there

are no increases

from

these

SIP revisions.

In 

# fact,

any possible

slight increase

in emissions

in

an unlikely worst-case

scenario,

by exempting

PHEV's

or exempting

"kit-cars"

have

been accounted

for alone

by the

liM conversion

from GCAP

to GVIP.

This modeling

analysis

shows decreases

in ozone precursor emissions

in the

St. Louis

area

by implementing

the newer

GVIP

liM program

(Table

3-2, Figure

3-2). 29Thedecreaseinemissionsfromallinventoryarevalidatedbythedecreasingozonemonitoringconcentrations.Asnewer,cleanervehiclescontinuetobeintroducedthroughoutthenation,includingtheSt.Louismarket,older,higherpollutionemittingvehicleswillbereplaced.Therewillbeevencleanervehiclestoreplacethoseinthenearfuture.Inadditjontothisanalysis,onMarch3,2014,theTier3Finalwassignedandpromulgated.TheTier3Rulewillreduceemissionsaboveandbeyondwhatthisanalysisprovidesandwillcontinuereductionsfrommobilesourceswellintothefuture.Thesevehiclestandardswillreducebothtailpipeandevaporativeemissionsfrompassengercars,light-dutytrucks,medium-dutypassengervehiclesandsomeheavy-dutyvehicles.Thiswillresultinsignificantreductionsinpollutantssuchasozone,particulatematterandairtoxicsacrossthecountryandhelpstateandlocalagenciesintheireffortstoattainandmaintainhealth-basedNationalAmbientAirQualityStandards.In2030,areductionfromNOxandVOCemissionsfromon-highwayvehicleswillbereducedbyanestimated21%,andCOemissionsreducedby24%.Reductionswillcontinuebeyond2030forNOxandVOCofnearly31%by2050.FormoreinformationseethefinalrulewebpagetitledTier3VehicleEmissionandFuelStandardsProgramathttp://www.epa.gov/otaq/tier3.htm.Inconclusion,theevidenceprovidedinthistechnicalsupportdocumentandMissouri'sSIPsubmittaldemonstrationsshowthesechangestotheVMprogramandassociatedruledonotinterferewithstate'sabilitytoattainormaintainthe19978-hourozonestandardnorinterferewithstate'sprogresstowardattainmentorcauseorcontributetoadelayinthetimeframeofprojectedattainmentforthe20088-hourozonestandard.Therefore,MDNR'sVMprogramSIPrevisiondemonstratesthatSt.LouiscontinuestomeettheapplicableVMperformancestandard,andthatthechangestotheVMprogramdoesnotandwillnotcompromisetheState'seffortstomeetand/ormaintainthe19978-hourozone,20088-hourozone,orPM2.5NAAQSandtherefore,EPAsupportsapprovingtheseSIPrevisionsthataddandamend10CSR10-5.381.References:1.1990CAAofNovember15.1990:section182(b)(4);requirementforVMprograms,section,182(a)(2)(B);requirementforEPAtopublishupdatedguidanceforstateI/Mprograms,section11O(k)(3),EPAactiononSIPsubmissions,section110(1)2.VMregulationspromulgatedonNovember5,1992(57FR52950),andcodifiedin40C.F.R.Part51,SubpartS,sections51.350-51.373.3.ContractfortheVMprogram4.MOCSR5.MDNREarlyProgressPlan6.Tier3VehicleEmissionandFuelStandardsProgramhttp://www.epa.gov/otaq/tier3.htm7.St.LouisCleanDataDetermination(76FR33647,June9,2011).iWhentheSt.LouisvehicleliMSIPwasrevisedin2007tochangefromacentralizednetworkfeaturingIM240testingonmodelyear1995andoldervehiclesandOBDtestingonmodelyear1996andnewervehiclestoadecentralizedprogramthatonlytestsmodelyear1996andnewervehiclesusingtheOBDtest,itwouldseemthattheoverallprogramhadbeenweakened.Inrealityandpractice,however,manyelementsoftherevised,decentralizedSt.Louisprogramaremorerigorousthanthoseofthecentralizedprogramthenewerprogramreplaces,largelyoffsettinganypotentialshortfallcreatedbydroppingtheever-shrinkingnumberofnon-OBD-equippedvehiclesfromtheinspection.Thefollowing listsareasinwhichthenewer,OBD-baseddecentralizedprogramrepresentsastrengtheningofthe11MSIPrelativetothepreviousversion.RollingModelYearVehicleTestingforIIM24030Theprevious11Mprogram,GCAP,includedrollingmodelyeartailpipetestingfortheI/M240portionoftheprogram.Modelyear1995vehiclesandolderweresubjecttotailpipetestinguptotwentyfiveyearsofage.Onceavehiclereachedtwentyfiveyearsofage,itwasnolongersubjecttotesting.Forexample,asoftheyear2014,only1990through1995modelyearvehicleswouldberequiredforIIM240testingandin2015,1991through1995modelyearvehicleswillbeandsoon.In2020,when1995modelyearvehiclesbecometwentyfiveyearsofage,theIIM240portionoftheprogramwouldnotrequireanyvehiclesfortesting,thenonlyontheOBDportionoftheGCAP11Mprogram.TheRevisedProgramRemovesCleanScreening:InthepreviousGCAP11MSIP,whilebothIM240andOBDtestingwereincluded,theprogramwassignificantlylessrigorousthanthatmightsuggest,duetotheinclusionofacleanscreeningcomponentaimedatexempting20%ofthesubjectfleetbaseduponremotesensingdevice(RSD)readingsindicatingthatthevehiclesinquestionmightpasstheregularinspection.Becauseremotesensingonlylooksattailpipeemissionsandisgenerallylessrigorouscomparedtotheregular11Mtestingusedintheprogram,someofthesevehiclesidentifiedas"clean"wouldfailtheregularinspection,whichinturnwouldlowertheemissionreductionsexpectedfromtheprogram.Forexample,avehiclefailingitsgascapevaporativeemissionortheOBDevaporativeemissiontestswouldnotbedetectedbyatestthatonlylooksattailpipeemissions.Additionally,RSDwouldnot"see"OBD-identifiedemissioncontrolmalfunctionsthatdonotimmediatelyresultinhightailpipeemissionsbutwilleventually,asaresultof,forexample,catalystpoisoning.Itisthis"earlywarning"featureofOBDthatmakesitsuperiortotraditionaltailpipetestingforvehiclessoequipped.Theremovalofthe"cleanscreen"componentaspartofthenewerSt.Louis11Mprogramthereforerepresentsastrengtheningoftheprogramcomparedtotheearlier11MSIP.100%versus50%11MEffectiveness:FollowingthereleaseoftheMOBILE6modelthatMissouriusedtoestimatetheemissionreductionsattributabletotheearlierGCAP11Mprogram,EPAprovidedautilitythatwastoberuninconjunctionwiththeMOBILEmodeltoestimatethelossofreductionsresultingfromacleanscreenprogramliketheonedescribedabove.ThereisnoevidenceintheSIPsubmissionforthatearlierGCAPprogramthattheStatemadeuseoftheMOBILE6cleanscreenutility.Instead,Missouriappearstohaveusedafarmoreconservativeapproachbysettingthe11MEffectivenessinputfortheearlierSIPprogramat50%ofwhatwould otherwisebeassumedforacentralizedprogramwithoutcleanscreening.BecausethenewerGVIPprogrameliminatesthecleanscreencomponentandisotherwiseequivalenttotheeffectivenessofacentralized11Mprogramofcomparabledesign(i.e.,100%effective),theMOVES2014modelingperformedtoestimateanypotentialshortfallbetweentheolderGCAPandnewerGVIPSt.Louis11Mprogramshasassumeda100%effectivenesslevelforthenewprogram,whileadjustingtheMOVES2014resultsfortheoldGCAPprogramtoreflectthe50%effectivenesslevelassumedbytheStateintheearlier11MSIP.8%versus3%WaiverRates:ThepreviousGCAP1/MSIPforSt.Louisassumedan8%waiverrate,meaningthatroughly8%ofvehiclesthatinitiallyfailedthe1/Minspectionwouldnotbefixedtopasstheinspectionbutwouldqualifyforawaiverinsteadafterspendingasetamountonrelevantalbeitunsuccessfulrepairs.Giventhatwaiversarelimitedtovehiclesthatareknowntohavefailed,asmallincreaseinthewaiverratecanhaveadisproportionatelynegativeimpactontheemissionreductionsachievedbytheprogram.Conversely,areductioninthewaiverratecanhaveasignificantlypositiveimpactontheemissionreductionsachievedbytheprogram.InthecaseofthenewSt.Louis11Mprogramversustheolderprogram,thelattercaseholds,withthenewerGVIPprogramreportingactualwaiverratesofjust2.5%forthelastseveralyears,meaningthatthenewGVIPprogramismorerigorousthantheGCAPprogramitreplaces.ImprovedPenaltyScheduleAdopted:UnderthepreviousGCAP11Mprogram,theState'spenaltyschedulewasrelativelylaxwiththecostofcomplianceoftenbeinghigherthanthepenaltyfornon-compliance.Underthenewerprogram,aformalpenaltyschedulewasadoptedtocorrectthisdeficiency.Whiletheimpactoftheimprovedpenaltyschedulecannotbedirectlyquantified,itneverthelessrepresentsanotherwayinwhichthenewGVIPprogramisstrongerthantheolderGCAPprogramitreplaces.AddingDieselVehiclesTested:InthepreviousGCAP11MSIP,vehiclesoperatingondieselfuelwerenotrequiredtobetested.TherevisedGVIPprogramrequires1997andnewervehiclesoperatingondieselfuelbelow8,500poundsgrossweightsubjecttotesting.ComplianceRateofGCAPversusGVIP:ThepreviousGCAP11MprogramSIPassumeda96%complianceratefortheentireprogram.EPAbelievesthatthisnumberoverestimatestheprogram.Inanycase,therevisedGVIPprogramhasbeenreportinga98.59%compliancerateforseveralyears.Onceagain,thenewerGVIPprogramisstrongerthantheolderGCAPprogramitreplaces.31