Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Massachusetts and New Hampshire; Enhanced Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, 5292-5303 [2013-00929]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
5292
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS, TECHNICAL MEMORANDA, AND STATUTES IN THE MARYLAND SIP
Code of Maryland
administrative
regulations (COMAR)
citation
State effective
date
Title/subject
26.11.01
*
26.11.01.04 ...............
*
*
*
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0433; EPA–R01–
OAR–2012–0149; A–1–FRL–9754–6]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Massachusetts and New Hampshire;
Enhanced Motor Vehicle Inspection
and Maintenance Program
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is approving State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts and the State of New
Hampshire. These revisions include
regulations to update the enhanced
motor vehicle inspection and
maintenance (I/M) programs in
Massachusetts and New Hampshire. The
revised programs in Massachusetts and
New Hampshire include a test and
repair network for an on-board
diagnostic (OBD2) testing program for
model year 1996 and newer vehicles.
The intended effect of this action is to
approve the revised programs into the
Massachusetts and New Hampshire
SIPs. This action is being taken in
accordance with the Clean Air Act.
DATES: This direct final rule will be
effective March 26, 2013, unless EPA
receives adverse comments by February
25, 2013. If adverse comments are
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
SUMMARY:
17:07 Jan 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
*
*
*
Amended section 04C.
*
*
Volatile Organic Compounds From Specific Processes
*
3/5/12
*
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
*
1/25/13 [Insert page number
where the document begins].
*
*
*
Applicability, Determining Compliance, Reporting, and General Requirements.
[FR Doc. 2013–00839 Filed 1–24–13; 8:45 am]
VerDate Mar<15>2010
*
3/5/12
*
26.11.19
*
26.11.19.02 ...............
General Administrative Provisions
*
*
Testing and Monitoring .............
*
Additional
explanation/
citation at 40 CFR 52.1100
EPA approval date
*
1/25/13 [Insert page number
where the document begins].
*
*
received, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Federal Register informing the public
that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
R01–OAR–2009–0433 for comments
pertaining to our approval action for
Massachusetts or EPA–R01–OAR–2012–
0149 for comments pertaining to our
approval action for New Hampshire by
one of the following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Email: arnold.anne@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (617) 918–0047.
4. Mail: ‘‘Docket Identification
Number EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0433 or
EPA–R01–OAR–2012–0149,’’ Anne
Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA New England Regional
Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection,
Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office
Square—Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05–
2), Boston, MA 02109–3912.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver
your comments to: Anne Arnold,
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit,
Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
New England Regional Office, Office of
Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality
Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square—
Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05–2), Boston,
MA 02109–3912. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional
Office’s normal hours of operation. The
Regional Office’s official hours of
business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R01–OAR–2009–
0433 for comments pertaining to our
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
Amended sections .02D, .02E,
.02G and .02I.
*
*
approval action for Massachusetts or
EPA–R01–OAR–2012–0149 for
comments pertaining to our approval
action for New Hampshire. EPA’s policy
is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without
change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes
information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit
through www.regulations.gov, or email,
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an
‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly
to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov your email address
will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made
available on the Internet. If you submit
an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
E:\FR\FM\25JAR1.SGM
25JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem
Protection, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square—
Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests
that if at all possible, you contact the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding legal holidays.
In addition, copies of the state
submittal and EPA’s technical support
document are also available for public
inspection during normal business
hours, by appointment at the respective
State Air Agency: Division of Air
Quality Control, Department of
Environmental Protection, One Winter
Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02108;
and Air Resources Division, Department
of Environmental Services, 6 Hazen
Drive, P.O. Box 95, Concord, NH 03302–
0095.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ariel Garcia, Air Quality Planning Unit,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA New England Regional Office, 5
Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail
code: OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109–
3912, telephone number (617) 918–
1660, fax number (617) 918–0660, email
garcia.ariel@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
Organization of this document. The
following outline is provided to aid in
locating information in this preamble.
I. Background and Purpose
II. What are the Clean Air Act requirements
for I/M programs?
III. What are the OBD2 requirements and how
do Massachusetts’ and New Hampshire’s
programs address these requirements?
IV. What are all the other I/M regulatory
requirements and how do Massachusetts’
and New Hampshire’s I/M programs
satisfy these requirements?
A. Applicability
B. Enhanced I/M Performance Standard
C. Network Type and Program Evaluation
D. Adequate Tools and Resources
E. Test Frequency and Convenience
F. Vehicle Coverage
G. Test Procedures and Standards
H. Test Equipment
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:07 Jan 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
I. Quality Control
J. Waivers and Compliance via Diagnostic
Inspection
K. Motorist Compliance Enforcement
L. Motorist Compliance Enforcement
Program Oversight
M. Quality Assurance
N. Enforcement Against Contractors,
Stations, and Inspectors
O. Data Collection, Analysis, and Reporting
P. Inspector Training and Licensing or
Certification
Q. Public Information and Consumer
Protection
R. Improving Repair Effectiveness
S. Compliance With Recall Notices
T. On-Road Testing
U. Concluding Statement
V. What additional I/M program components
are being submitted into the SIPs?
VI. Final Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
On June 1, 2009, the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts submitted a formal
revision to its State Implementation
Plan (SIP); Massachusetts later made a
minor revision to that submittal on
November 30, 2009.1 On November 17,
2011, the State of New Hampshire
submitted a formal revision to its SIP.
These SIP revisions include regulations
to update the enhanced motor vehicle
inspection and maintenance (I/M)
programs in Massachusetts and New
Hampshire. EPA is approving
Massachusetts’ and New Hampshire’s
revised I/M programs because they are
consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA)
I/M requirements and EPA’s I/M
regulations, and will strengthen the SIP.
Specifically, the Massachusetts June 1,
2009 SIP revision includes amendments
to the Massachusetts regulations 310
CMR 60.02 and 540 CMR 4.00, and
other administrative and technical
documentation required in a SIP
submittal to address the requirements
for the implementation of the motor
vehicle inspection and maintenance
program in Massachusetts. The New
Hampshire November 17, 2011 SIP
revision includes amendments to the
New Hampshire regulations Saf-C 3200
and Saf-C 5800, and other
administrative and technical
documentation required in a SIP
submittal to address the requirements
for the implementation of the motor
vehicle inspection and maintenance
program in New Hampshire.
1 The November 30, 2009 revision replaced the
copy of the Registry of Motor Vehicles regulation
540 CMR 4.00, included as Appendix 3 of the June
1, 2009 SIP submittal, with a copy stamped by the
Secretary of State.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
5293
II. What are the Clean Air Act
requirements for I/M programs?
The CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.,
requires certain states to implement an
enhanced I/M program to detect
gasoline-fueled motor vehicles which
emit excessive amounts of certain air
pollutants. The enhanced I/M program
is intended to help states meet federal
health-based national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone
and carbon monoxide by requiring
vehicles with excess emissions to have
their emissions control systems
repaired. Section 182 of the CAA
requires I/M programs in those areas of
the nation that are most impacted by
carbon monoxide and ozone pollution.
42 U.S.C. 7511c. Section 184 of the CAA
also created an ‘‘Ozone Transport
Region’’ (OTR) and includes I/M
requirements for that region. The OTR
geographically includes the states from
Virginia to Maine (including all of
Massachusetts and New Hampshire) and
the District of Columbia Consolidated
Metropolitan Statistical Area. In
addition, EPA promulgated I/M
regulations at 40 CFR part 51 Subpart S.
Depending on the severity of an area’s
nonattainment classification and/or
geographic location within the OTR,
EPA’s regulation under 40 CFR 51.350
outlines the appropriate motor vehicle
I/M requirements.
As a result of having areas designated
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS (see 40 CFR 81.322 for
Massachusetts and 40 CFR 81.330 for
New Hampshire), and by virtue of their
inclusion in the OTR, Massachusetts
and New Hampshire have implemented
statewide enhanced vehicle emissions
testing programs. Both states have
operated a vehicle testing program, in
some fashion, since 1999.
In 1999, as part of its comprehensive
plan to improve the state’s air quality,
Massachusetts implemented an
enhanced I/M program. The
Massachusetts I/M program was first
approved into the SIP on November 15,
2000 (65 FR 68898) as a limited
approval and SIP strengthening
measure. EPA’s November 15, 2000
rulemaking describes the limited
approval and the supplemental
information needed in order for
Massachusetts’ program to be fully
approved and meet the I/M
requirements of the CAA. The
previously SIP-approved Massachusetts
I/M program consisted of a
decentralized test and repair network,
with minimal test-only facilities, which
utilized dynamometers to test tailpipe
emissions on model year 1984 and
newer vehicles. Under this program,
E:\FR\FM\25JAR1.SGM
25JAR1
5294
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
vehicles were due for emissions
inspections biennially. Since that time,
the program has been modified in a
number of ways. In 2004, Massachusetts
implemented OBD2 testing of model
year 1996 and newer vehicles. Most
notable amongst all of Massachusetts’
I/M program changes was the shift to an
‘‘OBD2-testing only’’ I/M program,
which occurred on October 1, 2008. As
of October 1, 2008, tailpipe testing
conducted on a dynamometer ceased,
the frequency for emissions inspections
on vehicles changed from biennial to
annual, and vehicles 15 model years old
and older are exempt from emissions
testing.
The New Hampshire I/M program was
first approved into the SIP on January
10, 2001 (66 FR 1868) as a SIP
strengthening measure. The January 10,
2001 SIP approval discusses the
flexibility granted to New Hampshire for
implementing an I/M program based on
New Hampshire meeting the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS. This SIP-approved New
Hampshire I/M program consisted of an
‘‘anti-tampering’’ program, a visual
check for proper connection of
emissions control components, and the
commitment for a statewide
implementation of OBD2 testing on
vehicles required to be equipped with
OBD2 vehicle monitoring systems.
Since that time, the New Hampshire
I/M program has evolved into a robust
decentralized I/M program consisting of
a test and repair network which
includes OBD2 testing of model year
1996 and newer vehicles. New
Hampshire continues to operate an antitampering program on vehicles up to 20
years old that are not subject to an
OBD2 inspection.
III. What are the OBD2 requirements
and how do Massachusetts’ and New
Hampshire’s programs address these
requirements?
On April 5, 2001, EPA published in
the Federal Register ‘‘Amendments to
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
Program Requirements Incorporating the
On-Board Diagnostics Check’’ (66 FR
18156). The revised I/M rule requires
that electronic checks of the OBD2
system on model year 1996 and newer
OBD2-equipped motor vehicles be
conducted as part of states’ motor
vehicle I/M programs. OBD2 is part of
the sophisticated vehicle powertrain
management system and is designed to
detect engine and transmission
problems that might cause vehicle
emissions to exceed allowable limits.
OBD2 requirements are a key part of this
rulemaking action.
The OBD2 system monitors the status
of up to 11 emission control related
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:07 Jan 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
subsystems by performing either
continuous or periodic functional tests
of specific components and vehicle
conditions. The first three testing
categories—misfire, fuel trim, and
comprehensive components—are
continuous, while the remaining eight
only run after a certain set of conditions
has been met. The algorithms for
running these eight periodic monitors
are unique to each manufacturer and
involve such things as ambient
temperature as well as driving
conditions. Most vehicles will have at
least five of the eight remaining
monitors (catalyst, evaporative system,
oxygen sensor, heated oxygen sensor,
and exhaust gas recirculation or EGR
system) while the remaining three (air
conditioning, secondary air, and heated
catalyst) are not necessarily applicable
to all vehicles. When a vehicle is
scanned at an OBD2–I/M test site, these
monitors can appear as either ‘‘Ready’’
(meaning the monitor in question has
been evaluated, also interchangeably
appears as ‘‘Complete’’ on some
vehicles), ‘‘Not Ready’’ (meaning the
monitor has not yet been evaluated, also
interchangeably appears as ‘‘Not
Complete’’ on some vehicles), or
‘‘Unsupported’’ (meaning the vehicle is
not equipped with the component
monitor in question and the monitor is
not applicable). The monitors that are
available in a certain vehicle’s emission
control design are referred to as being
‘‘Supported,’’ and only supported
monitors need to be evaluated by the
vehicle’s computer to ultimately receive
a ‘‘Ready’’ or ‘‘Not Ready’’ designation.
The OBD2 system is also designed to
fully evaluate the vehicle’s emissions
control system. If the OBD2 system
detects a problem that may cause
vehicle emissions to exceed 1.5 times
the Federal Test Procedure (FTP)
standards, then the Malfunction
Indicator Light (MIL) is illuminated. By
turning on the MIL, the OBD2 system
notifies the vehicle operator that an
emissions-related fault has been
detected and the vehicle should be
repaired as soon as possible, thus
reducing the harmful emissions
contributed by that vehicle.
EPA’s revised OBD2 I/M rule applies
to those areas that are required to
implement I/M programs under the
CAA, which includes Massachusetts
and New Hampshire. The revised I/M
programs submitted by Massachusetts,
on June 1, 2009, and New Hampshire,
on November 17, 2011, both include
OBD2 testing for model year 1996 and
newer vehicles.
EPA’s OBD2 program requires scan
tool equipment to read the vehicle’s
built-in computer sensors in model year
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
1996 and newer vehicles. The OBD2–I/
M check consists of two types of
examinations: A visual check of the
dashboard display function and status;
and an electronic examination of the
OBD2 computer itself. The failure
criteria for OBD2 testing is any
Diagnostic Trouble Code (DTC) or
combination of DTCs that result in the
MIL to be commanded on. A DTC is a
code that indicates a malfunction in an
emission control system or component
which may cause emissions to increase
to 1.5 times the limit due to the
malfunction. Both Massachusetts and
New Hampshire have incorporated this
OBD2 component into their programs.
If the OBD2 scan reveals DTCs that
have not commanded the MIL on, the
motorist should be advised of the issue,
but the vehicle should not be failed
unless other non-DTC based failure
criteria have been met. Vehicles may fail
an inspection if the vehicle connector is
missing, tampered with or otherwise
inoperable, if the MIL is commanded on
and is not visually illuminated, and if
the MIL is commanded on for one or
more DTCs as defined in the Society of
Automotive Engineering (SAE) J2012
guidance document, and EPA
regulations.
Vehicles are rejected from testing if
the scan of the OBD2 system reveals a
‘‘Not Ready’’ code for any OBD2
component. EPA’s final implementation
guidance (‘‘Performing Onboard
Diagnostic System Checks as Part of a
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
Program,’’ EPA 420–R–01–015, June
2001) allows states the flexibility to
permit model year 1996 to 2000 vehicles
with two or fewer unset readiness
codes, and model year 2001 and newer
with one unset readiness code to
complete an OBD2–I/M inspection
without being rejected. Vehicles would
still fail if the MIL was commanded on
or if other failure criteria were met, or
be rejected from inspection if three or
more unset readiness codes were
encountered. If the MIL is not
commanded to be illuminated the
vehicle would pass the OBD2 inspection
even if DTCs are present. Massachusetts’
and New Hampshire’s testing programs
are consistent with the EPA
recommended readiness failure criteria.
Massachusetts’ program regulations, at
310 CMR 60.02(12)(b), and New
Hampshire’s program regulations, at
Saf-C 3222.03, require that the programs
meet the OBD2 testing requirements and
procedures set forth in 40 CFR 85.2222.2
2 Both the Massachusetts regulation at 310 CMR
60.02(12)(b) and the New Hampshire regulation at
Saf-C 3222.03 directly cite, and therefore
incorporate by reference, the federal regulation at
E:\FR\FM\25JAR1.SGM
25JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
EPA believes that for an OBD2–I/M
test program to be most effective, it
should be designed to allow for: (1)
Real-time data link connections to a
centralized testing database; (2) qualitycontrolled input of vehicle and owner
identification information; and (3)
automated generation of test reports.
Massachusetts and New Hampshire
have incorporated these OBD2 program
elements into their I/M programs.
IV. What are all the other I/M
regulatory requirements and how do
Massachusetts’ and New Hampshire’s
I/M programs satisfy these
requirements?
A. Applicability
The SIP describes in detail the areas
subject to the enhanced I/M SIP revision
and, consistent with 40 CFR 51.372,
includes the legal authority necessary to
establish program boundaries. The
Massachusetts I/M regulations
(‘‘Massachusetts Motor Vehicle
Emissions Inspection and Maintenance
Program’’ at 310 CMR 60.02 and
‘‘Annual Safety and Combined Safety
and Emissions Inspection of All Motor
Vehicles, Trailers, Semi-trailers and
Converter Dollies’’ at 540 CMR 4.00)
and authorizing legislation
(Massachusetts Statutes at M.G.L. c.111,
sec. 142M; M.G.L. c.21A, subsec. 2(28)
and 16; M.G.L. c.90, sec. 2, 7A, 7V, 7W,
and 31), as well as the New Hampshire
I/M regulations (‘‘Official Motor Vehicle
Inspection Requirements’’ at Saf-C 3200)
and authorizing legislation (New
Hampshire Statutes codified at RSA
125–C:6, 260:6–b, 263:56–a, 266:1,
266:1–a, 266:5. 266:59–b, and 266:59–c),
ensure that the enhanced I/M program
be implemented statewide.
B. Enhanced I/M Performance Standard
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Today’s rulemaking discusses the I/M
programs designed, in part, to meet the
enhanced I/M performance standard for
ozone precursors causing air quality
problems in Massachusetts and New
Hampshire. EPA’s performance standard
establishes an emission reduction target
that must be met by a program in order
for the SIP to be approvable. The I/M
programs, as documented in the
Massachusetts and New Hampshire SIP,
must meet the performance standard in
actual operation, with provisions for
appropriate adjustments if the standard
is not met.
40 CFR 85.2222. For purposes of the federal SIPs,
EPA interprets both regulations as incorporating by
reference the version of 40 CFR 85.2222 as most
recently amended on April 5, 2001 (66 FR 18156),
rather than prospectively incorporating any future
changes to 40 CFR 85.2222.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:07 Jan 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
The emissions modeling conducted as
part of the performance standard
evaluation in the I/M SIP submittals
illustrates that the new Massachusetts
and New Hampshire I/M programs are
more stringent than the federally
required performance standard, and
more stringent than the previous I/M
programs approved into the SIP. Thus,
both SIP submittals satisfy the antibacksliding requirements of CAA
section 110(l).
Both Massachusetts’ and New
Hampshire’s I/M SIP submittals include
the appropriate MOBILE6 vehicle
emissions modeling demonstration 3
considering the required performance
standard and the actual program being
implemented statewide in each state.
Massachusetts’s submittal also includes
a comparison to the previously SIPapproved program that Massachusetts is
no longer implementing. The modeling
runs for Massachusetts included
evaluations of 2009 through 2012, and
an out year of 2018 compliance dates
and the modeling runs for New
Hampshire considered evaluations with
2007, 2009, and an out year of 2015
compliance dates. Both Massachusetts
and New Hampshire have demonstrated
that reductions from the updated
program are greater than those achieved
by the pre-existing I/M program and the
EPA performance standard. The
MOBILE6 modeling performed by
Massachusetts and New Hampshire
reflects the fact that both states conduct
OBD2 testing of all gasoline powered
model year 1996 and newer vehicles.
For Massachusetts, the MOBILE6
modeling appropriately reflects the fact
that Massachusetts conducts annual
emissions testing on vehicles up to 15
years old. The MOBILE6 modeling
performed by New Hampshire also
shows that the State operates an antitampering program on vehicles up to 20
years old that are not subject to OBD2
testing. However, in the first year of
analysis (2009 for Massachusetts and
2007 for New Hampshire), both
3 Since March 2, 2010, EPA’s required model for
on-road vehicle emissions modeling in SIPs is the
MOtor Vehicles Emissions Simulator (MOVES)
model. (See 75 FR 9411; March 2, 2010.) The
Massachusetts SIP revision was submitted prior to
the MOVES release date. Regarding the New
Hampshire SIP revision, EPA’s March 2, 2010
Notice (75 FR 9411), as well as EPA’s guidance
document, ‘‘Policy Guidance on the Use of
MOVES2010 and Subsequent Minor Revisions for
State Implementation Plan Development,
Transportation Conformity, and Other Purposes’’
(EPA–420–B–12–010), allow for SIPs relying on
MOBILE6.2 vehicle emissions modeling to continue
to be approvable where significant work has already
occurred using the MOBILE6.2 model. New
Hampshire conducted the vehicle emissions
modeling using MOBILE6.2 prior to the release of
the MOVES model, and significant work had been
conducted on the New Hampshire I/M SIP revision.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
5295
Massachusetts’ and New Hampshire’s
MOBILE6 analyses of the updated I/M
programs, show a minimal increase in
emissions. The minimal emissions
increase can be attributed to the
limitations of the MOBILE6 model.
Vehicle testing requirements are
included in 310 CMR 60.02 for
Massachusetts and Saf-C 3200 for New
Hampshire, and details of meeting the
performance standard are included in
section 2 of the narrative of each state’s
SIP submittal.
C. Network Type and Program
Evaluation
Under the CAA and EPA’s I/M rule,
the SIP must include a description of
the network to be employed and the
required legal authority. Also, for
enhanced I/M areas, the SIP needs to
include a description of the evaluation
schedule and protocol, the sampling
methodology, the data collection and
analysis system, the resources and
personnel for evaluation and related
details of the evaluation program, as
well as the legal authority establishing
the evaluation program.
Massachusetts’ and New Hampshire’s
revised programs consist of a test and
repair I/M network program design
utilizing contractors to manage and
oversee the inspection portion of the
program. Both states have implemented
a continuous ongoing evaluation
program consistent with the federal I/M
rule. Both states commit to developing
and submitting the annual and biennial
reports described by 40 CFR 51.366 and
the results of the evaluation programs
are included in the annual and biennial
reports. Both Massachusetts and New
Hampshire have sufficient legal
authority to implement this contractor
managed program in concert with local
inspection stations and conduct the
program evaluation, as necessary to
implement I/M consistent with federal
requirements. Details of the network
type and program evaluation are
included in section 3 of each state’s SIP
narrative.
D. Adequate Tools and Resources
Under the CAA and EPA’s I/M rule,
the SIP must include a description of
the resources that will be used for
program operation and must discuss
how the performance standard will be
met, including: (1) A detailed budget
plan describing the source of funds for
personnel, program administration,
program enforcement, purchase of
necessary equipment (such as vehicles
for undercover audits), and for other
requirements discussed throughout the
I/M rule; and (2) a description of
personnel resources, the number of
E:\FR\FM\25JAR1.SGM
25JAR1
5296
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
personnel dedicated to overt and covert
auditing, data analysis, program
administration, enforcement, and other
necessary functions, and the training
attendant to each function.
Massachusetts and New Hampshire
operate self-funded I/M programs.
Revenue from the inspection fees
charged to motorists is used for all
expenses associated with the
administration, implementation, and
enforcement of the I/M programs. Both
Massachusetts and New Hampshire
have adequate staff dedicated to overt
and covert auditing, data analysis,
program administration, enforcement,
and other necessary program functions.
Section 4 of each state’s SIP narrative,
and the attachments to the SIP
narratives, describe the budget, staffing
support, and equipment needed to
implement the programs.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
E. Test Frequency and Convenience
Under EPA’s I/M rule, the SIP must
include a detailed test schedule,
including the test year selection scheme
if testing is other than annual. The SIP
must also include the legal authority
necessary to implement and enforce the
test frequency requirement and explain
how the test frequency will be
integrated with the enforcement
process. In addition, in enhanced I/M
programs, the SIP needs to demonstrate
that the network of stations providing
testing services is sufficient to ensure
customer convenience by providing
short waiting times for a test, and short
driving distances to the test center.
The Massachusetts and New
Hampshire SIP revisions require annual
inspections for all subject motor
vehicles. Massachusetts obtains a ‘‘blueprint’’ of the emissions-related
component monitors that are available,
or ‘‘supported,’’ on a particular vehicle
by conducting an initial inspection after
a new vehicle is registered. This ‘‘blueprint’’ snapshot is extremely helpful if
the vehicle ever has any emissionsrelated issues in the future and concerns
arise about which monitors of
emissions-related components should
be operating on a particular vehicle.
New Hampshire’s SIP revision requires
the annual testing of vehicles based on
the vehicle owner’s month of birth.
Section 5 of the SIP narratives and the
contracts with the I/M program vendors
include additional information for
ensuring convenient testing wait times
and convenient testing locations.
F. Vehicle Coverage
Under EPA’s I/M rule, the SIP must
include a detailed description of the
number and types of vehicles to be
covered by the program, and a plan for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:07 Jan 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
identifying subject vehicles, including
vehicles that are routinely operated in
the area but may not be registered in the
area. Also, the SIP must include a
description of any special exemptions
which will be granted by the program,
and an estimate of the percentage and
number of vehicles granted such
exemptions. Such exemptions need to
be accounted for in the emission
reduction analysis. In addition, the SIP
needs to include legal authority
necessary to implement and enforce the
vehicle coverage requirement.
The Massachusetts and New
Hampshire I/M programs cover all lightduty vehicles and light-duty trucks up
to 8,500 pounds Gross Vehicle Weight
Rating (GVWR), operating on all fuel
types, as required by the federal I/M
rule for enhanced programs.
Massachusetts’ I/M program also covers
heavy-duty vehicles (heavy-duty being
those vehicles with a GVWR greater
than 8,500 pounds). New Hampshire’s
I/M program does not set requirements
on any heavy-duty gas vehicles,
although heavy-duty diesel vehicles
with a GVWR greater than 10,000
pounds are subject to roadside testing
requirements under Saf-C 5800.
Additional information on the heavyduty vehicle testing requirements in
Massachusetts and New Hampshire can
be found in Section V of this rulemaking
notice.
In Massachusetts and in New
Hampshire, light-duty vehicles and
trucks that are model year 1996 and
newer, operating on a fuel other than
diesel fuel, are subject to an OBD2
inspection. Both states require lightduty diesel-fueled vehicles that are
model year 1997 and newer, to undergo
an OBD2 inspection. New Hampshire
also requires vehicles up to 20 years old
to be subject to New Hampshire’s antitampering program if such vehicles are
not subject to an OBD2 inspection.
Both Massachusetts and New
Hampshire exempt special classes of
vehicles from the emission testing
programs, including: Vehicles older
than 15 model years old in
Massachusetts and vehicles older than
20 model years old in New Hampshire;
motorcycles; assembled vehicles,
reconstructed vehicles, grey market
vehicles,4 and specialty import vehicles,
as appropriate; and vehicles that have
been issued exemptions by EPA. Based
on information provided in the SIP
submittals, Massachusetts and New
Hampshire have shown that such
exemptions will not prevent the
programs from achieving the EPA4 Grey Market Vehicles being vehicles
manufactured for use in a foreign country.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
required performance standard.
Additional detail supporting this
conclusion was included in section 6 of
each state’s SIP narrative. Legal
authority for the vehicle coverage
requirements in Massachusetts are
contained in the Massachusetts I/M
regulations (‘‘Massachusetts Motor
Vehicle Emissions Inspection and
Maintenance Program’’ at 310 CMR
60.02 and ‘‘Annual Safety and
Combined Safety and Emissions
Inspection of All Motor Vehicles,
Trailers, Semi-trailers and Converter
Dollies’’ at 540 CMR 4.00) and the
authorizing legislation (Massachusetts
Statutes at M.G.L. c.111, sec. 142M;
M.G.L. c.21A, subsec. 2(28) and 16;
M.G.L. c.90, sec. 2, 7A, 7V, 7W, and 31).
Legal authority for the vehicle coverage
requirements in New Hampshire are
contained in the New Hampshire I/M
regulations (‘‘Official Motor Vehicle
Inspection Requirements’’ at Saf-C 3200)
and the authorizing legislation (New
Hampshire Statutes codified at RSA
125–C:6, 260:6–b, 263:56–a, 266:1,
266:1–a, 266:5. 266:59–b, and 266:59–c).
G. Test Procedures and Standards
Under EPA’s I/M rule, the SIP must
include a description of each test
procedure used. The SIP also must
include the rule, ordinance, or law
describing and establishing the test
procedures. The Massachusetts and
New Hampshire I/M SIP revisions and
associated regulations obligate each
state to perform OBD2 testing on all
1996 and newer vehicles, in accordance
with EPA procedures. A vehicle which
cannot be tested using OBD2, due to
known issues with readiness monitors
or lack of electronic communication,
will be subject to alternative test
procedures, consisting primarily of a
visual bulb check to ensure the MIL is
not illuminated. Both Massachusetts’
and New Hampshire’s OBD2 testing
procedures are based on the testing
procedures established by EPA for light
duty vehicles in 40 CFR 85.2222. Details
of the test procedures and standards are
included each state’s I/M regulations
and in Section 7 of each state’s SIP
narrative.
H. Test Equipment
Under EPA’s I/M rule, the SIP must
include written technical specifications
for all test equipment used in the
program and address each of the
requirements set forth at 40 CFR 51.358.
The specifications must describe the
emission analysis process, the necessary
test equipment, the required features,
and written acceptance testing criteria
and procedures.
E:\FR\FM\25JAR1.SGM
25JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
required, and carry out any other
functions necessary to administer the
waiver system, including enforcement
of the waiver provisions.
Cost limits for the minimum
expenditure waivers must be in
accordance with the CAA and the
federal I/M rule. According to federal
requirements, expenditures of at least
$450 for actual, non-tampering related
repairs, must be spent in order to
qualify for a waiver in an enhanced
I/M program; this amount shall be
adjusted annually according to changes
in the Consumer Price Index as
specified in 40 CFR 51.360(a)(7).
Massachusetts regulations at 310 CMR
60.02(17)(c)(8) allow for waivers to be
issued which meet minimum repair
expenditures ranging from $550 to $750
I. Quality Control
depending on the vehicle model year.
Under EPA’s I/M rule, the SIP must
Massachusetts intends to annually
include a description of quality control
update the cost to receive a waiver from
and recordkeeping procedures. The SIP
the emissions testing program in
also must include the procedures
accordance with federal requirements.
manual, rule, and ordinance or law
New Hampshire does not issue
describing and establishing quality
conventional repair waivers. However,
control procedures and requirements.
an economic hardship time extension as
Both the Massachusetts and New
Hampshire I/M SIP narratives, as well as allowed under EPA’s rule, is also
allowed in the Massachusetts and New
each state’s program contract, contain
Hampshire programs. Massachusetts
descriptions and requirements
and New Hampshire have demonstrated
establishing the quality control
that they can meet the enhanced I/M
procedures in accordance with the
performance standard testing with the
federal I/M rule and EPA’s final
current program design in each state.
implementation guidance. These
requirements will help ensure that
The Massachusetts and New
equipment calibrations are properly
Hampshire programs include waiver
performed and recorded and that the
rates of 1.0% and 0.5%, respectively, of
necessary compliance document
initially failed vehicles. These waiver
security is maintained. As described in
rates are used in the modeling
section 9 of each state’s SIP narrative,
demonstration. Massachusetts’ and New
the Massachusetts and New Hampshire
Hampshire’s SIP submittals essentially
SIPs comply with all specifications for
commit that, if the waiver rates
quality control set forth in Section
determined by each state’s I/M program
51.359 and Appendix A of the federal
reports are higher than the
I/M rule, and EPA’s final
aforementioned waiver rates (1.0% for
implementation guidance.
Massachusetts and 0.5% for New
Hampshire), the state will take
J. Waivers and Compliance via
corrective action to address the
Diagnostic Inspection
deficiency. Both states’ SIPs describe
Under EPA’s I/M rule, the SIP must
the types of waivers that will be
include a maximum waiver rate
allowed, minimum expenditure waivers
expressed as a percentage of initially
and/or economic hardship time
failed vehicles. This waiver rate is used
extensions. These issues are dealt with
for estimating emission reduction
in a manner consistent with the federal
benefits in the modeling analysis.
I/M rule. The proper criteria,
Corrective action must be taken if the
procedures, quality assurance and
waiver rate exceeds that estimated in
the SIP, or a state must revise its SIP and administration regarding the issuance of
waivers, consistent with EPA’s I/M rule,
claim emission reductions accordingly.
will be ensured by each state and their
The SIP also must describe the waiver
I/M program contractor and are detailed
criteria and procedures, including cost
in section 10 of each state’s SIP
limits, quality assurance methods and
narrative and the state’s regulations:
measures, and administration. Lastly,
the SIP must include the necessary legal Massachusetts at 310 CMR 60.02(16)
authority, ordinance(s), or rules to issue through 60.02(19) and New Hampshire
at Saf-C 3222.08.
waivers, set and adjust cost limits as
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
In Massachusetts’ June 1, 2009
submittal and New Hampshire’s
November 17, 2011 submittal, both
states provide written equipment
specifications as contained in EPA’s
final implementation guidance and the
appendices of EPA’s I/M rule. Both SIP
submittals and their appendices address
the requirements in 40 CFR 51.358 and
include descriptions of performance
features and functional characteristics of
the computerized test systems. The
submittals reference 40 CFR Part 51 and
85, and are consistent with the
procedures outlined in 40 CFR 85.2222
and EPA’s final implementation
guidance. The necessary test equipment,
required features, and acceptance
testing criteria are discussed in section
8 of each state’s SIP narrative.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:07 Jan 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
5297
K. Motorist Compliance Enforcement
Under EPA’s I/M rule, the SIP must
provide information concerning
motorist enforcement, including: (1) A
description of the existing compliance
mechanism if it will continue to be used
for the program, and the demonstration
that it is as effective, or more effective,
than registration denial enforcement; (2)
an identification of the agencies
responsible for performing each of the
applicable activities in this section; (3)
a description of, and accounting for, all
classes of exempt vehicles; and (4) a
description of the plan for testing fleet
vehicles, and any other special classes
of subject vehicles, such as those
operated (but not necessarily registered)
in the program area. Also, a SIP must
include a determination of the current
compliance rate based on a study of the
system including an estimate of
compliance losses due to loopholes,
counterfeiting, and unregistered
vehicles. Estimates of the effect of
closing such loopholes and otherwise
improving the enforcement mechanism
must be supported with detailed
analyses. In addition, the SIP needs to
include the legal authority to implement
and enforce the program. Lastly, the SIP
must include a commitment to an
enforcement level and minimum
compliance level used for modeling
purposes and to be maintained, at a
minimum, in practice.
Massachusetts and New Hampshire
both have chosen to use a registration
suspension program which suspends
the vehicle registration of a vehicle that
fails to meet emission testing
requirements. The motorist compliance
enforcement program will be
implemented primarily by the state
agencies charged with implementing the
I/M program in their respective states.
However, state police and local law
enforcement can provide citations for
vehicles not complying with the I/M
program. The enforcement strategy is
described in each state’s submittal. The
enforcement strategy is designed to
ensure a high rate of compliance. Those
not receiving the emissions test as
scheduled will be subject to fines and
late penalties, and also will have their
vehicle registrations suspended. Both
Massachusetts and New Hampshire
have over a 96 percent program
compliance rate with the emissions
inspection program. The legal authority
to implement and enforce the program
is included in each state’s law and in
the state agency regulations as
submitted in the respective SIP
submittals. (Massachusetts regulations
at 540 CMR 4.07(4), authority at MGL
c.90, sec. 2 and sec. 22; New Hampshire
E:\FR\FM\25JAR1.SGM
25JAR1
5298
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
authority at RSA 266:1, RSA 266:5, and
RSA 263:56–a). Additional detail of the
motorist compliance enforcement
program is included in section 11 of
each state’s SIP narrative.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
L. Motorist Compliance Enforcement
Program Oversight
Under EPA’s I/M rule, the SIP must
include a description of enforcement
program oversight and information
management activities.
The Massachusetts and New
Hampshire I/M SIP revisions provide for
regular auditing of each state’s
enforcement program and adherence to
effective management practices,
including adjustments to improve the
programs when necessary. These
program oversight and information
management activities are described in
each state’s SIP narrative, and include a
description of the emissions testing
databases of each state’s programs (the
Automated Licensing and Registration
System, ALARS, in Massachusetts and
the New Hampshire OBD and Safety
Testing, NHOST, program testing and
reporting system in New Hampshire). If
a vehicle is out of compliance with the
emissions testing requirement,
registration is suspended. Each state’s
SIP describes the procedures to be
followed in identifying noncomplying
vehicles, along with appropriate followup and program documentation audits
in sections 11 and 12 of their SIP
narratives.
M. Quality Assurance
Under EPA’s I/M rule, the SIP must
include a description of the quality
assurance program, and written
procedure manuals covering both overt
and covert performance audits, record
audits, and equipment audits.
The June 1, 2009 Massachusetts
submittal and the November 17, 2011
New Hampshire submittal include a
description of each respective state’s
quality assurance program. The quality
assurance programs will include overt
and covert performance audits, digital
audits on station and inspector
performance, and equipment audits.
New Hampshire does not currently have
an official covert audit program that
utilizes vehicles pre-set to pass or fail an
emissions test. However, New
Hampshire places emphasis on
sophisticated electronic analyses to
evaluate station and inspector
performance by identifying anomalies
and irregularities; law enforcement
officers auditing a station and/or
inspector that has been identified by the
digital audit, begin by essentially
conducting covert visual audits and
then proceed to audit that stations and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:07 Jan 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
certified inspectors are following the
inspection requirements. Both
Massachusetts and New Hampshire
cover all of their respective program’s
inspection stations with the
implemented quality assurance plans
and conduct overt and/or covert audits,
both in response to customer complaints
and as targeted follow-up. Detailed
quality assurance/quality control (QA/
QC) procedures are included in each
state’s SIP submittal at section 13 of the
SIP narratives and in the inspection
program contract agreements.
N. Enforcement Against Contractors,
Stations, and Inspectors
Under EPA’s I/M rule, the SIP must
include a penalty schedule and legal
authority for establishing and imposing
penalties, civil fines, station and
inspector license suspension, and
revocations. In the case of state
constitutional impediments precluding
immediate authority to suspend
licenses, each state’s Attorney General
shall furnish an official opinion within
the state’s SIP explaining the
constitutional impediment as well as
relevant case law. Each state’s SIP also
must describe the administrative and
judicial procedures and responsibilities
relevant to the enforcement process,
including the agencies, courts, and
jurisdictions involved; personnel to
prosecute and adjudicate cases; and
other aspects of the enforcement of the
programs requirements, the resources to
be allocated to the enforcement
function, and the source of those funds.
In states that are without immediate
suspension authority, the SIP must
demonstrate that sufficient resources,
personnel, and systems are in place to
meet the three-day case management
requirement for violations that directly
affect emission reductions.
The Massachusetts and New
Hampshire I/M SIP revisions include
specific penalties in its enforcement
against contractors, stations, and
inspectors in accordance with the
federal I/M rule. Based on their SIP
submittals dated June 1, 2009 for
Massachusetts and dated November 17,
2011 for New Hampshire, each state’s
enforcement procedures can be pursued
through contractual or regulatory action.
Each state, through the contract that it
has been authorized to enter into
directly, under MGL c.111, sec. 142M
and c.21A, sec. 16 for Massachusetts
and under RSA 260:6–b for New
Hampshire, has the authority to
immediately suspend a station inspector
for violations that directly affect
emission reduction benefits and a
variety of other violations of procedures.
Details on enforcement against
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
contractors, stations, and inspectors are
found in section 14 of each state’s SIP
submittal narrative.
O. Data Collection, Analysis, and
Reporting
Under EPA’s I/M rule, the SIP must
describe the types of data to be
collected. EPA’s I/M rule also requires
that the SIP describe the procedures for
data analysis and reporting to allow for
monitoring and evaluation of the
program.
The Massachusetts and New
Hampshire I/M SIP revisions provide for
collecting test data to link specific test
results to specific vehicles, I/M program
registrants, test sites, and inspectors.
The test data and quality control data
which will be collected are described in
section 15 of each state’s SIP narrative
and I/M program vendor contract. The
data will be used to generate reports
concerning test data, quality assurance,
quality control, enforcement, as well as
necessary changes and identified
weaknesses in the programs. Both
Massachusetts and New Hampshire
have also committed to collecting all
data necessary for quality assurance and
enforcement reports, as required by
section 51.366 of the federal I/M rule.
Details on data analysis and reporting
are found in section 16 of each state’s
SIP narrative.
P. Inspector Training and Licensing or
Certification
Under EPA’s I/M rule, the SIP must
include a description of the training
program, the written and hands-on tests,
and the licensing or certification
process.
The I/M SIP submittals from
Massachusetts and New Hampshire
provide details on each state’s
respective inspector training program.
Both Massachusetts’ and New
Hampshire’s I/M SIP provides for
implementation of training, licensing,
and refresher programs for emission
inspectors. The states’ SIP and their
respective inspection program contract
describe the inspector training program
and curriculum including written and
hands-on testing. All inspectors will be
required to be certified to inspect
vehicles in their state’s I/M program.
Further details of the Inspector Training
Program are included in section 17 of
each state’s SIP narrative.
Q. Public Information and Consumer
Protection
Under EPA’s I/M rule, the SIP must
include a plan for consumer protection
and informing the public, on an ongoing
basis, of the air quality problems, the
need for and benefits of a motor vehicle
E:\FR\FM\25JAR1.SGM
25JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
inspection program, and how to find a
qualified repair technician, amongst
other information related to the
requirements of the I/M program.
Both Massachusetts and New
Hampshire have implemented a web
site for their respective I/M program.
Each state’s Web site is designed to
provide information to motorists, the
general public, inspectors, and repair
technicians regarding the respective
state’s I/M program. Both Massachusetts
and New Hampshire have the ability to
take in general questions and concerns,
both via a telephone hotline and
electronically via the Web site, and have
established a mechanism by which a
vehicle owner can contest the results of
an inspection. Further details of the
public information and consumer
protection plans are included in section
18 of each state’s SIP narrative and the
program contract.
R. Improving Repair Effectiveness
Under EPA’s I/M rule, the SIP must
include a description of the technical
assistance program to be implemented,
a description of the procedures and
criteria to be used in meeting the
performance monitoring requirements of
this section for enhanced I/M programs,
and a description of the repair
technician training resources available
in the community.
In Massachusetts’ June 1, 2009 and
New Hampshire’s November 17, 2011
submittals, each state provided
additional detail and description of the
technical assistance, performance
monitoring, and repair technician
training programs to be implemented.
The SIP revisions, as detailed in section
19 of each state’s SIP narrative, provide
for regularly informing repair facilities
about changes to the inspection
program, training course schedules,
common problems, and potential
solutions for particular engine families,
diagnostic tips, repairs, and other
assistance issues. As described in the
states’ submittals, Massachusetts and
New Hampshire have also ensured that
repair technicians may utilize the
telephone hotline, or the electronic
inquiry system on the program Web site,
with any repair questions or concerns.
Performance monitoring statistics of
repair facilities will be provided to
motorists whose vehicles fail the I/M
test, as required in enhanced I/M areas.
The states have committed to ensure
that adequate repair technician training
exists by establishing training courses at
technical schools in the area.
S. Compliance With Recall Notices
Under EPA’s I/M rule, the SIP must
describe, for enhanced I/M programs,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:07 Jan 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
the procedures used to incorporate the
vehicle recall lists provided into the
inspection or registration database, the
quality control methods used to insure
that recall repairs are properly
documented and tracked, and the
method (inspection failure or
registration denial) used to enforce the
recall requirements. EPA has not yet
established a computerized database
listing all recalled vehicles.
The revised Massachusetts and New
Hampshire I/M SIPs will ensure that
vehicles subject to enhanced I/M
programs, that are included in either a
voluntary emission recall or a remedial
plan determination pursuant to the
CAA, have had the appropriate repairs
made prior to the inspection. As
described in section 20 of each state’s
SIP narrative, the states and their
contractors will implement this
approach when EPA databases exist
which identify vehicles that have not
completed recall repairs. At that time,
motorists with unresolved recall notices
will be required to show proof of
compliance or will be denied the
opportunity for inspection.
T. On-Road Testing
Under the CAA and EPA’s I/M rule,
the SIP must include a detailed
description of the on-road testing
program required in enhanced I/M
areas, including the types of testing, test
limits and criteria, the number of
vehicles (the percentage of the fleet) to
be tested, the number of employees to
be dedicated to the on-road testing
effort, the methods for collecting,
analyzing, utilizing, and reporting the
results of on-road testing, and the
portion of the program budget to be
dedicated to on-road testing. Also, the
SIP must include the legal authority
necessary to implement the on-road
testing program, including the authority
to enforce off-cycle inspection and
repair requirements. In addition,
emission reduction credit for on-road
testing programs can only be granted for
a program designed to obtain significant
emission reductions over and above
those predicted to be achieved by other
aspects of the I/M program. The SIP
needs to include technical support for
the claimed additional emission
reductions.
The I/M SIPs submitted on June 1,
2009 by Massachusetts and on
November 17, 2011 by New Hampshire,
include a description of the status of an
on-road testing program in section 21 of
each state’s SIP narrative.
Massachusetts’ and New Hampshire’s
SIPs highlight the ability for each state
to implement pilot testing of remote
emissions testing technologies, and will
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
5299
implement a full on-road testing
program when the testing technology is
demonstrated to be reliable. Neither
Massachusetts nor New Hampshire
included additional modeling credit for
the on-road portion of their state
inspection programs when
demonstrating that EPA’s performance
standard was met.
U. Concluding Statement
A more detailed analysis of the
Massachusetts and New Hampshire
submittals and how they meet the
federal requirements is contained in
EPA’s technical support document
(TSD) prepared for this action. The TSD
is available from the EPA Regional
Office listed above and in the docket for
this action. The criteria used to review
the submitted SIP revisions are based on
the requirements set forth in section 182
of the CAA and in the federal I/M
regulations, 40 CFR Part 51 Subpart S.
Based on these requirements, EPA
developed a detailed I/M approvability
checklist to be used nationally to
determine if I/M programs meet the
requirements of the CAA and the federal
I/M rule. The checklist states the federal
requirements, referenced by section of
the rule, and whether the Massachusetts
and New Hampshire programs meet
such requirements. This checklist, the
CAA, and the federal I/M regulation
formed the basis for EPA’s technical
review. EPA has reviewed the
Massachusetts and New Hampshire I/M
SIP revisions submitted to EPA using
the criteria stated above. The
Massachusetts and New Hampshire
regulations and accompanying materials
contained in the SIP submittals from
each state represent an acceptable plan
to comply with the I/M requirements
and meet all the criteria required for
EPA to approve the SIP submittals.
EPA’s review of the materials submitted
indicates that Massachusetts and New
Hampshire have revised their I/M
programs in accordance with the
requirements of the CAA, 40 CFR Part
51, and all of EPA’s technical
requirements for an approvable vehicle
inspection and maintenance program,
including OBD2.
V. What additional I/M program
components are being submitted into
the SIPs?
The I/M SIPs submitted on June 1,
2009 by Massachusetts and on
November 17, 2011 by New Hampshire,
include a description of certain vehicle
testing components that have been
incorporated into each state’s emissions
testing program, which are not currently
covered by the federal I/M rule. In this
rulemaking, EPA is approving these
E:\FR\FM\25JAR1.SGM
25JAR1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
5300
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
components into each state’s respective
SIP. The emissions testing requirements,
vehicle coverage, testing frequency, and
test procedures and standards discussed
in Section V. of this rulemaking can be
found at 310 CMR 60.02 and 540 CMR
4.00 for Massachusetts and Saf-C 3200
and Saf-C 5800 for New Hampshire.
Massachusetts requires non-diesel
vehicles that are model year 2008 and
newer, with a GVWR greater than 8,500
pounds and less than or equal to 14,000
pounds, to be subject to an OBD2
inspection. Diesel vehicles that are
model year 2007 and newer, with a
GVWR greater than 8,500 pounds and
less than or equal to 14,000 pounds, are
subject to an OBD2 inspection. All
(diesel and non-diesel) heavy-duty
vehicles with a GVWR greater than
14,000 pounds, are subject to an OBD2
inspection starting with model year
2010 vehicles as OBD systems are
phased-in and required to be installed
on the vehicles.
Diesel vehicles over 10,000 pounds
GVWR that are model year 1984 and
newer, are subject to Massachusetts’
annual snap acceleration smoke test, the
‘‘opacity’’ test, based on the test
specified by SAE J1667. In addition,
Massachusetts also conducts roadside
pullovers of diesel vehicles, over 10,000
pounds GVWR, registered in any state or
country, and conducts opacity testing
on all vehicles irrespective of age.
Massachusetts is also submitting
revised testing standards, for the opacity
testing conducted on those heavy-duty
diesel vehicles subject to the
Massachusetts opacity test, which are
more stringent than those previously
approved into the Massachusetts SIP.
The revised opacity testing standards for
Massachusetts are included at 310 CMR
60.02(12). Diesel trucks greater than
10,000 pounds GVWR: that are model
year 1984 to 1990 must meet an opacity
standard of 40% opacity (previous
standard was 55% opacity); that are
model year 1991 to 1996 must meet an
opacity standard of 30% opacity
(previous standard was 40%); and that
are model year 1997 and newer must
meet an opacity standard of 20%
(previous standard was 40%). Diesel
buses greater than 10,000 pounds
GVWR: that are model year 1984 to 1987
must meet an opacity standard of 40%
opacity (the same as previous standard);
that are model year 1988 to 1993 must
meet an opacity standard of 30%
opacity (previous standard was 40%);
and that are model year 1994 and newer
must meet an opacity standard of 20%
(previous standard was 30%). As stated
earlier, all diesel vehicles under 14,000
pounds GVWR, are now subject to
OBD2 testing; thus the opacity
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:07 Jan 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
standards previously approved into the
Massachusetts SIP for diesel vehicles
under 10,000 pounds GVWR are no
longer applicable. Diesel vehicles over
10,000 pounds GVWR receive an
opacity test if OBD2 has not been
phased-in on a particular vehicle.
New Hampshire operates a roadside
pullover opacity inspection program.
New Hampshire conducts opacity
testing on all vehicles over 10,000
pounds GVWR, and all diesel-powered
buses manufactured to carry 25 or more
passengers, irrespective of age. New
Hampshire’s opacity testing standards
are included at Saf-C 5804.08. New
Hampshire exempts federal and military
vehicles from opacity testing, as well as
vehicles that can pass a ‘‘quick screen’’
process upon being pulled over and
selected for testing. Upon being pulled
over, any vehicle that can present proof
of having passed an opacity test in New
Hampshire, or any other state, within
the previous 12 months or can present
proof of having repairs to address
emission violations, are exempted from
testing. These non-federal exemptions
do not apply if any subject vehicle
appears to be emitting visible black
smoke.
VI. Final Action
EPA is approving the SIP revisions
submitted by the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts on June 1, 2009 and
November 30, 2009, as well as the SIP
revision submitted by the State of New
Hampshire on November 17, 2011. Each
state’s SIP revision contains the
respective state’s revised motor vehicle
inspection and maintenance program
regulations and associated SIP narrative.
Specifically, EPA is approving the
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection Regulation at
310 CMR 60.02 and the Massachusetts
Registry of Motor Vehicles Regulation at
540 CMR 4.00. EPA is also approving
the New Hampshire Department of
Safety Regulations at Saf-C 3201, Saf-C
3202, Saf-C 3203, Saf-C 3204, Saf-C
3205, Saf-C 3206.04, Saf-C 3207, Saf-C
3209, Saf-C 3210, Saf-C 3218, Saf-C
3220, Saf-C 3222, Saf-C 3248, and SafC 5800. EPA is approving
Massachusetts’ and New Hampshire’s
revised I/M programs because they are
consistent with the CAA I/M
requirements and EPA’s I/M regulations
and they will strengthen the
Massachusetts and New Hampshire
SIPs.
EPA is incorporating the
aforementioned rules by reference into
the Massachusetts and New Hampshire
SIPs, respectively, except as set forth
below. Specifically, both the
Massachusetts and New Hampshire
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
programs contain enforcement
provisions that detail state enforcement
procedures, including administrative,
civil, and criminal penalties, and
administrative and judicial procedures.
See 310 CMR 60.02(24)(f); NH Saf-C
3222.04(d), NH Saf-C Part 3248, NH SafC Part 5805. Such enforcement-related
provisions are required elements of an
I/M SIP under 40 CFR 51.364, and EPA
is approving the provisions as meeting
those requirements. However, EPA is
not incorporating those provisions by
reference into the EPA-approved federal
regulations at 40 CFR part 52. In any
federal action to enforce violations of
the substantive requirements of the
Massachusetts or New Hampshire I/M
programs, the relevant provisions of
Section 113 or 304 of the CAA, rather
than state enforcement provisions,
would govern. Similarly, the applicable
procedures in any federal action would
be the applicable federal court rules or
EPA’s rules for administrative
proceedings at 40 CFR part 22, rather
than state administrative procedures.
Since the state enforcement provisions
would not be applicable in a federal
action, incorporating these state-only
enforcement provisions into the federal
regulations would have no effect. To
avoid confusion to the public and
regulated parties, EPA is not
incorporating these provisions by
reference into the EPA-approved federal
regulations in the states’ respective plan
identifications in 40 CFR part 52.
Specifically, EPA is not incorporating
Massachusetts’ regulation 310 CMR
60.02(24)(f) into the federal regulations
at 40 CFR 52.1120(c) or 52.1167, and
EPA is not incorporating New
Hampshire’s regulations Saf-C
3222.04(d), Saf-C Part 3248, or Saf-C
Part 5805 into the federal regulations at
40 CFR 52.1520(c) or 52.1525.
The EPA is publishing this action
without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial
amendment and anticipates no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed
rules section of this Federal Register
publication, EPA is publishing a
separate document that will serve as the
proposal to approve the SIP revision
should relevant adverse comments be
filed. This rule will be effective March
26, 2013 without further notice unless
the Agency receives relevant adverse
comments by February 25, 2013.
If the EPA receives such comments,
then EPA will publish a notice
withdrawing the final rule and
informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments
received will then be addressed in a
subsequent final rule based on the
proposed rule. The EPA will not
E:\FR\FM\25JAR1.SGM
25JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
institute a second comment period on
the proposed rule. All parties interested
in commenting on the proposed rule
should do so at this time. If no such
comments are received, the public is
advised that this rule will be effective
on March 26, 2013 and no further action
will be taken on the proposed rule.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph,
or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the
remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that
are not the subject of an adverse
comment.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
state choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:07 Jan 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by March 26, 2013.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this action for
the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a
petition for judicial review may be filed,
and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with
objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in
response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action
published in the proposed rules section
of today’s Federal Register, rather than
file an immediate petition for judicial
review of this direct final rule, so that
EPA can withdraw this direct final rule
and address the comment in the
proposed rulemaking. This action may
not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
5301
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: November 14, 2012.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart W—Massachusetts
2. Section 52.1120 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(137) to read as
follows:
■
§ 52.1120
Identification of plan.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(137) Revisions to the State
Implementation Plan submitted by the
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection on June 1,
2009 and November 30, 2009.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Regulation 310 CMR 60.02
entitled ‘‘Massachusetts Motor Vehicle
Emissions Inspection and Maintenance
Program,’’ effective in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts on
September 5, 2008, with the exception
of subsection 310 CMR 60.02(24)(f).
(B) Regulation 540 CMR 4.00 entitled
‘‘Annual Safety and Combined Safety
and Emissions Inspection of All Motor
Vehicles, Trailers, Semi-trailers and
Converter Dollies,’’ effective in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts on
September 5, 2008.
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) Letter from the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental
Protection, dated June 1, 2009,
submitting a revision to the
Massachusetts State Implementation
Plan.
(B) Letter from the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental
Protection, dated November 30, 2009,
amending the June 1, 2009 State
Implementation Plan submittal.
(C) Massachusetts June 1, 2009 SIP
Revision Table of Contents Item 7,
‘‘Documentation of IM SIP Revision
consistent with 42 USC Section 7511a
and Section 182(c)(3)(A) of the Clean
Air Act.’’
E:\FR\FM\25JAR1.SGM
25JAR1
5302
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
3. In § 52.1167, Table 52.1167 is
amended by revising the entries for
§ 52.1167 EPA-approved Massachusetts
State regulations.
Regulations 310 CMR 60.02 and 540
CMR 4.00 to read as follows:
■
*
*
*
*
*
TABLE 52.1167—EPA-APPROVED MASSACHUSETTS REGULATIONS
[See notes at end of table]
State citation
Date
submitted
by State
Title/subject
*
310 CMR 60.02
*
*
Massachusetts Motor Vehicle
Emissions Inspection and
Maintenance Program.
540 CMR 4.00
Annual Safety and Combined
Safety and Emissions Inspection of All Motor Vehicles, Trailers, Semi-trailers
and Converter Dollies.
Date
approved
by EPA
Federal Register
citation
6/1/09
*
1/25/13
*
[Insert Federal
Register
page number
where the
document
begins].
6/1/09
1/25/13
Comments/unapproved sections
52.1120(c)
[Insert Federal
Register
page number
where the
document
begins].
137
137
*
*
Revises enhanced I/M test requirements to consist of
‘‘OBD2-only’’ testing program. Approving submitted
regulation with the exception
of subsection 310 CMR
60.02(24)(f).
Revises requirements for inspections and enforcement
of I/M program.
Notes:
1. This table lists regulations adopted as of 1972. It does not depict regulatory requirements which may have been part of the Federal SIP before this date.
2. The regulations are effective statewide unless otherwise stated in comments or title section.
Subpart EE—New Hampshire
5. In § 52.1520:
a. The table in paragraph (c) is
amended by removing the entry
NHCAR, Part Saf-C 3221A and adding a
new entry for Saf-C 3200 in its place,
■
■
and by removing the entry for NHCAR,
Part Saf-C 5800 and adding a new entry
for Saf-C 5800 in its place; and
■ b. The table in paragraph (e) is
amended by adding a new entry at the
end of the table to read as follows:
§ 52.1520
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
*
*
(c) EPA-approved regulations.
EPA-APPROVED NEW HAMPSHIRE REGULATIONS
State citation
Title/subject
*
Saf-C 3200 ..................
*
Official Motor Vehicle
Inspection Requirements.
Saf-C 5800 ..................
Roadside Diesel
Opacity Inspection.
*
EPA approval date 1
State effective date
*
*
*
6/22/07 and 6/20/08 .. 1/25/13 [Insert Federal Register page
number where the
document begins].
1/1/99 ........................ 1/25/13 [Insert Federal Register page
number where the
document begins].
*
*
*
Explanations
*
*
EPA is approving submitted subsections SafC 3201, 3202, 3203, 3204, 3205, 3206.04,
3207.01, 3209, 3210, 3218, 3220, and
3222 (except for subsection 3222.04).
Approving submitted regulation with the exception of subsection Saf-C 5805.
*
*
*
1 In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.
(e) Nonregulatory.
NEW HAMPSHIRE NON-REGULATORY
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Name of non-regulatory
SIP provision
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Applicable
geographic or non-attainment area
17:07 Jan 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
State
submittal
date/effective date
Frm 00050
EPA-approved date 3
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\25JAR1.SGM
Explanations
25JAR1
5303
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
NEW HAMPSHIRE NON-REGULATORY—Continued
Name of non-regulatory
SIP provision
Applicable
geographic or non-attainment area
State
submittal
date/effective date
*
SIP Narrative associated
with New Hampshire
Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance Program
SIP Revision.
*
*
Statewide ......................
11/17/2011
EPA-approved date 3
Explanations
*
*
1/25/13 [Insert Federal
Register page number where the document begins].
*
*
3 In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.
[FR Doc. 2013–00929 Filed 1–24–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R07–OAR–2012–0763; FRL–9772–6]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri; Control of Sulfur Emissions
From Stationary Boilers
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is taking direct final
action to approve revisions to the
Missouri State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submitted October 27, 2009. This
revision adds a new rule to reduce the
concentration of fine particles (PM2.5) in
the St. Louis nonattainment area by
limiting sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions
(a precursor pollutant to PM2.5), from
industrial boilers. EPA is approving this
revision because it strengthens the
Missouri SIP. EPA’s approval of this SIP
revision is being done in accordance
with the requirements of the Clean Air
Act (CAA).
DATES: This direct final rule will be
effective March 26, 2013, without
further notice, unless EPA receives
adverse comment by February 25, 2013.
If EPA receives adverse comment, we
will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register
informing the public that the rule will
not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07–
OAR–2012–0763, by one of the
following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Email: bhesania.amy@epa.gov.
3. Mail or Hand Delivery: Amy
Bhesania, Environmental Protection
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:07 Jan 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
Agency, Air Planning and Development
Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard,
Lenexa, Kansas 66219.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2012–
0763. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit through
www.regulations.gov or email
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an
‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly
to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Environmental Protection Agency,
Air Planning and Development Branch,
11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa,
Kansas 66219. The Regional Office’s
official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:00 to 4:30 excluding
Federal holidays. The interested persons
wanting to examine these documents
should make an appointment with the
office at least 24 hours in advance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amy Bhesania, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and
Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at
(913) 551–7147, or by email at
bhesania.amy@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
or ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. This section
provides additional information by
addressing the following questions:
Outline
I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Have the requirements for approval of a
SIP revision been met?
III. What action is EPA taking?
I. What is being addressed in this
document?
EPA is approving revisions to the
Missouri SIP submitted to EPA on
October 27, 2009. EPA has conducted an
analysis of the State’s amendment, as
detailed in the technical support
document which is part of this docket,
and has concluded that this new rule
does not adversely affect the stringency
of the SIP. Missouri’s revision adds 10
CSR 10–5.570 Control of Sulfur
Emissions from Stationary Boilers to the
SIP. This rule reduces the
concentrations of fine particles (PM2.5)
in the St. Louis nonattainment area by
limiting sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions
(a precursor pollutant to PM2.5), from
industrial boilers.
E:\FR\FM\25JAR1.SGM
25JAR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 17 (Friday, January 25, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5292-5303]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00929]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0433; EPA-R01-OAR-2012-0149; A-1-FRL-9754-6]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Massachusetts and New Hampshire; Enhanced Motor Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the State of New
Hampshire. These revisions include regulations to update the enhanced
motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs in
Massachusetts and New Hampshire. The revised programs in Massachusetts
and New Hampshire include a test and repair network for an on-board
diagnostic (OBD2) testing program for model year 1996 and newer
vehicles. The intended effect of this action is to approve the revised
programs into the Massachusetts and New Hampshire SIPs. This action is
being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.
DATES: This direct final rule will be effective March 26, 2013, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by February 25, 2013. If adverse comments
are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final
rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will
not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R01-OAR-2009-0433 for comments pertaining to our approval action for
Massachusetts or EPA-R01-OAR-2012-0149 for comments pertaining to our
approval action for New Hampshire by one of the following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. Email: arnold.anne@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (617) 918-0047.
4. Mail: ``Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0433 or
EPA-R01-OAR-2012-0149,'' Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
(Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold,
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post
Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal
hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business
are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-
2009-0433 for comments pertaining to our approval action for
Massachusetts or EPA-R01-OAR-2012-0149 for comments pertaining to our
approval action for New Hampshire. EPA's policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public docket without change and may
be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through
www.regulations.gov, or email, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
[[Page 5293]]
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible,
you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
legal holidays.
In addition, copies of the state submittal and EPA's technical
support document are also available for public inspection during normal
business hours, by appointment at the respective State Air Agency:
Division of Air Quality Control, Department of Environmental
Protection, One Winter Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02108; and Air
Resources Division, Department of Environmental Services, 6 Hazen
Drive, P.O. Box 95, Concord, NH 03302-0095.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ariel Garcia, Air Quality Planning
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional
Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code: OEP05-2), Boston,
MA 02109-3912, telephone number (617) 918-1660, fax number (617) 918-
0660, email garcia.ariel@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.
I. Background and Purpose
II. What are the Clean Air Act requirements for I/M programs?
III. What are the OBD2 requirements and how do Massachusetts' and
New Hampshire's programs address these requirements?
IV. What are all the other I/M regulatory requirements and how do
Massachusetts' and New Hampshire's I/M programs satisfy these
requirements?
A. Applicability
B. Enhanced I/M Performance Standard
C. Network Type and Program Evaluation
D. Adequate Tools and Resources
E. Test Frequency and Convenience
F. Vehicle Coverage
G. Test Procedures and Standards
H. Test Equipment
I. Quality Control
J. Waivers and Compliance via Diagnostic Inspection
K. Motorist Compliance Enforcement
L. Motorist Compliance Enforcement Program Oversight
M. Quality Assurance
N. Enforcement Against Contractors, Stations, and Inspectors
O. Data Collection, Analysis, and Reporting
P. Inspector Training and Licensing or Certification
Q. Public Information and Consumer Protection
R. Improving Repair Effectiveness
S. Compliance With Recall Notices
T. On-Road Testing
U. Concluding Statement
V. What additional I/M program components are being submitted into
the SIPs?
VI. Final Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
On June 1, 2009, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts submitted a
formal revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP); Massachusetts
later made a minor revision to that submittal on November 30, 2009.\1\
On November 17, 2011, the State of New Hampshire submitted a formal
revision to its SIP. These SIP revisions include regulations to update
the enhanced motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs in
Massachusetts and New Hampshire. EPA is approving Massachusetts' and
New Hampshire's revised I/M programs because they are consistent with
the Clean Air Act (CAA) I/M requirements and EPA's I/M regulations, and
will strengthen the SIP. Specifically, the Massachusetts June 1, 2009
SIP revision includes amendments to the Massachusetts regulations 310
CMR 60.02 and 540 CMR 4.00, and other administrative and technical
documentation required in a SIP submittal to address the requirements
for the implementation of the motor vehicle inspection and maintenance
program in Massachusetts. The New Hampshire November 17, 2011 SIP
revision includes amendments to the New Hampshire regulations Saf-C
3200 and Saf-C 5800, and other administrative and technical
documentation required in a SIP submittal to address the requirements
for the implementation of the motor vehicle inspection and maintenance
program in New Hampshire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The November 30, 2009 revision replaced the copy of the
Registry of Motor Vehicles regulation 540 CMR 4.00, included as
Appendix 3 of the June 1, 2009 SIP submittal, with a copy stamped by
the Secretary of State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. What are the Clean Air Act requirements for I/M programs?
The CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq., requires certain states to
implement an enhanced I/M program to detect gasoline-fueled motor
vehicles which emit excessive amounts of certain air pollutants. The
enhanced I/M program is intended to help states meet federal health-
based national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone and
carbon monoxide by requiring vehicles with excess emissions to have
their emissions control systems repaired. Section 182 of the CAA
requires I/M programs in those areas of the nation that are most
impacted by carbon monoxide and ozone pollution. 42 U.S.C. 7511c.
Section 184 of the CAA also created an ``Ozone Transport Region'' (OTR)
and includes I/M requirements for that region. The OTR geographically
includes the states from Virginia to Maine (including all of
Massachusetts and New Hampshire) and the District of Columbia
Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area. In addition, EPA
promulgated I/M regulations at 40 CFR part 51 Subpart S. Depending on
the severity of an area's nonattainment classification and/or
geographic location within the OTR, EPA's regulation under 40 CFR
51.350 outlines the appropriate motor vehicle I/M requirements.
As a result of having areas designated nonattainment for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS (see 40 CFR 81.322 for Massachusetts and 40 CFR
81.330 for New Hampshire), and by virtue of their inclusion in the OTR,
Massachusetts and New Hampshire have implemented statewide enhanced
vehicle emissions testing programs. Both states have operated a vehicle
testing program, in some fashion, since 1999.
In 1999, as part of its comprehensive plan to improve the state's
air quality, Massachusetts implemented an enhanced I/M program. The
Massachusetts I/M program was first approved into the SIP on November
15, 2000 (65 FR 68898) as a limited approval and SIP strengthening
measure. EPA's November 15, 2000 rulemaking describes the limited
approval and the supplemental information needed in order for
Massachusetts' program to be fully approved and meet the I/M
requirements of the CAA. The previously SIP-approved Massachusetts I/M
program consisted of a decentralized test and repair network, with
minimal test-only facilities, which utilized dynamometers to test
tailpipe emissions on model year 1984 and newer vehicles. Under this
program,
[[Page 5294]]
vehicles were due for emissions inspections biennially. Since that
time, the program has been modified in a number of ways. In 2004,
Massachusetts implemented OBD2 testing of model year 1996 and newer
vehicles. Most notable amongst all of Massachusetts' I/M program
changes was the shift to an ``OBD2-testing only'' I/M program, which
occurred on October 1, 2008. As of October 1, 2008, tailpipe testing
conducted on a dynamometer ceased, the frequency for emissions
inspections on vehicles changed from biennial to annual, and vehicles
15 model years old and older are exempt from emissions testing.
The New Hampshire I/M program was first approved into the SIP on
January 10, 2001 (66 FR 1868) as a SIP strengthening measure. The
January 10, 2001 SIP approval discusses the flexibility granted to New
Hampshire for implementing an I/M program based on New Hampshire
meeting the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. This SIP-approved New Hampshire I/M
program consisted of an ``anti-tampering'' program, a visual check for
proper connection of emissions control components, and the commitment
for a statewide implementation of OBD2 testing on vehicles required to
be equipped with OBD2 vehicle monitoring systems. Since that time, the
New Hampshire I/M program has evolved into a robust decentralized I/M
program consisting of a test and repair network which includes OBD2
testing of model year 1996 and newer vehicles. New Hampshire continues
to operate an anti-tampering program on vehicles up to 20 years old
that are not subject to an OBD2 inspection.
III. What are the OBD2 requirements and how do Massachusetts' and New
Hampshire's programs address these requirements?
On April 5, 2001, EPA published in the Federal Register
``Amendments to Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program Requirements
Incorporating the On-Board Diagnostics Check'' (66 FR 18156). The
revised I/M rule requires that electronic checks of the OBD2 system on
model year 1996 and newer OBD2-equipped motor vehicles be conducted as
part of states' motor vehicle I/M programs. OBD2 is part of the
sophisticated vehicle powertrain management system and is designed to
detect engine and transmission problems that might cause vehicle
emissions to exceed allowable limits. OBD2 requirements are a key part
of this rulemaking action.
The OBD2 system monitors the status of up to 11 emission control
related subsystems by performing either continuous or periodic
functional tests of specific components and vehicle conditions. The
first three testing categories--misfire, fuel trim, and comprehensive
components--are continuous, while the remaining eight only run after a
certain set of conditions has been met. The algorithms for running
these eight periodic monitors are unique to each manufacturer and
involve such things as ambient temperature as well as driving
conditions. Most vehicles will have at least five of the eight
remaining monitors (catalyst, evaporative system, oxygen sensor, heated
oxygen sensor, and exhaust gas recirculation or EGR system) while the
remaining three (air conditioning, secondary air, and heated catalyst)
are not necessarily applicable to all vehicles. When a vehicle is
scanned at an OBD2-I/M test site, these monitors can appear as either
``Ready'' (meaning the monitor in question has been evaluated, also
interchangeably appears as ``Complete'' on some vehicles), ``Not
Ready'' (meaning the monitor has not yet been evaluated, also
interchangeably appears as ``Not Complete'' on some vehicles), or
``Unsupported'' (meaning the vehicle is not equipped with the component
monitor in question and the monitor is not applicable). The monitors
that are available in a certain vehicle's emission control design are
referred to as being ``Supported,'' and only supported monitors need to
be evaluated by the vehicle's computer to ultimately receive a
``Ready'' or ``Not Ready'' designation.
The OBD2 system is also designed to fully evaluate the vehicle's
emissions control system. If the OBD2 system detects a problem that may
cause vehicle emissions to exceed 1.5 times the Federal Test Procedure
(FTP) standards, then the Malfunction Indicator Light (MIL) is
illuminated. By turning on the MIL, the OBD2 system notifies the
vehicle operator that an emissions-related fault has been detected and
the vehicle should be repaired as soon as possible, thus reducing the
harmful emissions contributed by that vehicle.
EPA's revised OBD2 I/M rule applies to those areas that are
required to implement I/M programs under the CAA, which includes
Massachusetts and New Hampshire. The revised I/M programs submitted by
Massachusetts, on June 1, 2009, and New Hampshire, on November 17,
2011, both include OBD2 testing for model year 1996 and newer vehicles.
EPA's OBD2 program requires scan tool equipment to read the
vehicle's built-in computer sensors in model year 1996 and newer
vehicles. The OBD2-I/M check consists of two types of examinations: A
visual check of the dashboard display function and status; and an
electronic examination of the OBD2 computer itself. The failure
criteria for OBD2 testing is any Diagnostic Trouble Code (DTC) or
combination of DTCs that result in the MIL to be commanded on. A DTC is
a code that indicates a malfunction in an emission control system or
component which may cause emissions to increase to 1.5 times the limit
due to the malfunction. Both Massachusetts and New Hampshire have
incorporated this OBD2 component into their programs.
If the OBD2 scan reveals DTCs that have not commanded the MIL on,
the motorist should be advised of the issue, but the vehicle should not
be failed unless other non-DTC based failure criteria have been met.
Vehicles may fail an inspection if the vehicle connector is missing,
tampered with or otherwise inoperable, if the MIL is commanded on and
is not visually illuminated, and if the MIL is commanded on for one or
more DTCs as defined in the Society of Automotive Engineering (SAE)
J2012 guidance document, and EPA regulations.
Vehicles are rejected from testing if the scan of the OBD2 system
reveals a ``Not Ready'' code for any OBD2 component. EPA's final
implementation guidance (``Performing Onboard Diagnostic System Checks
as Part of a Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program,'' EPA 420-R-
01-015, June 2001) allows states the flexibility to permit model year
1996 to 2000 vehicles with two or fewer unset readiness codes, and
model year 2001 and newer with one unset readiness code to complete an
OBD2-I/M inspection without being rejected. Vehicles would still fail
if the MIL was commanded on or if other failure criteria were met, or
be rejected from inspection if three or more unset readiness codes were
encountered. If the MIL is not commanded to be illuminated the vehicle
would pass the OBD2 inspection even if DTCs are present. Massachusetts'
and New Hampshire's testing programs are consistent with the EPA
recommended readiness failure criteria. Massachusetts' program
regulations, at 310 CMR 60.02(12)(b), and New Hampshire's program
regulations, at Saf-C 3222.03, require that the programs meet the OBD2
testing requirements and procedures set forth in 40 CFR 85.2222.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Both the Massachusetts regulation at 310 CMR 60.02(12)(b)
and the New Hampshire regulation at Saf-C 3222.03 directly cite, and
therefore incorporate by reference, the federal regulation at 40 CFR
85.2222. For purposes of the federal SIPs, EPA interprets both
regulations as incorporating by reference the version of 40 CFR
85.2222 as most recently amended on April 5, 2001 (66 FR 18156),
rather than prospectively incorporating any future changes to 40 CFR
85.2222.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5295]]
EPA believes that for an OBD2-I/M test program to be most
effective, it should be designed to allow for: (1) Real-time data link
connections to a centralized testing database; (2) quality-controlled
input of vehicle and owner identification information; and (3)
automated generation of test reports. Massachusetts and New Hampshire
have incorporated these OBD2 program elements into their I/M programs.
IV. What are all the other I/M regulatory requirements and how do
Massachusetts' and New Hampshire's I/M programs satisfy these
requirements?
A. Applicability
The SIP describes in detail the areas subject to the enhanced I/M
SIP revision and, consistent with 40 CFR 51.372, includes the legal
authority necessary to establish program boundaries. The Massachusetts
I/M regulations (``Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection and
Maintenance Program'' at 310 CMR 60.02 and ``Annual Safety and Combined
Safety and Emissions Inspection of All Motor Vehicles, Trailers, Semi-
trailers and Converter Dollies'' at 540 CMR 4.00) and authorizing
legislation (Massachusetts Statutes at M.G.L. c.111, sec. 142M; M.G.L.
c.21A, subsec. 2(28) and 16; M.G.L. c.90, sec. 2, 7A, 7V, 7W, and 31),
as well as the New Hampshire I/M regulations (``Official Motor Vehicle
Inspection Requirements'' at Saf-C 3200) and authorizing legislation
(New Hampshire Statutes codified at RSA 125-C:6, 260:6-b, 263:56-a,
266:1, 266:1-a, 266:5. 266:59-b, and 266:59-c), ensure that the
enhanced I/M program be implemented statewide.
B. Enhanced I/M Performance Standard
Today's rulemaking discusses the I/M programs designed, in part, to
meet the enhanced I/M performance standard for ozone precursors causing
air quality problems in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. EPA's
performance standard establishes an emission reduction target that must
be met by a program in order for the SIP to be approvable. The I/M
programs, as documented in the Massachusetts and New Hampshire SIP,
must meet the performance standard in actual operation, with provisions
for appropriate adjustments if the standard is not met.
The emissions modeling conducted as part of the performance
standard evaluation in the I/M SIP submittals illustrates that the new
Massachusetts and New Hampshire I/M programs are more stringent than
the federally required performance standard, and more stringent than
the previous I/M programs approved into the SIP. Thus, both SIP
submittals satisfy the anti-backsliding requirements of CAA section
110(l).
Both Massachusetts' and New Hampshire's I/M SIP submittals include
the appropriate MOBILE6 vehicle emissions modeling demonstration \3\
considering the required performance standard and the actual program
being implemented statewide in each state. Massachusetts's submittal
also includes a comparison to the previously SIP-approved program that
Massachusetts is no longer implementing. The modeling runs for
Massachusetts included evaluations of 2009 through 2012, and an out
year of 2018 compliance dates and the modeling runs for New Hampshire
considered evaluations with 2007, 2009, and an out year of 2015
compliance dates. Both Massachusetts and New Hampshire have
demonstrated that reductions from the updated program are greater than
those achieved by the pre-existing I/M program and the EPA performance
standard. The MOBILE6 modeling performed by Massachusetts and New
Hampshire reflects the fact that both states conduct OBD2 testing of
all gasoline powered model year 1996 and newer vehicles. For
Massachusetts, the MOBILE6 modeling appropriately reflects the fact
that Massachusetts conducts annual emissions testing on vehicles up to
15 years old. The MOBILE6 modeling performed by New Hampshire also
shows that the State operates an anti-tampering program on vehicles up
to 20 years old that are not subject to OBD2 testing. However, in the
first year of analysis (2009 for Massachusetts and 2007 for New
Hampshire), both Massachusetts' and New Hampshire's MOBILE6 analyses of
the updated I/M programs, show a minimal increase in emissions. The
minimal emissions increase can be attributed to the limitations of the
MOBILE6 model. Vehicle testing requirements are included in 310 CMR
60.02 for Massachusetts and Saf-C 3200 for New Hampshire, and details
of meeting the performance standard are included in section 2 of the
narrative of each state's SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Since March 2, 2010, EPA's required model for on-road
vehicle emissions modeling in SIPs is the MOtor Vehicles Emissions
Simulator (MOVES) model. (See 75 FR 9411; March 2, 2010.) The
Massachusetts SIP revision was submitted prior to the MOVES release
date. Regarding the New Hampshire SIP revision, EPA's March 2, 2010
Notice (75 FR 9411), as well as EPA's guidance document, ``Policy
Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 and Subsequent Minor Revisions for
State Implementation Plan Development, Transportation Conformity,
and Other Purposes'' (EPA-420-B-12-010), allow for SIPs relying on
MOBILE6.2 vehicle emissions modeling to continue to be approvable
where significant work has already occurred using the MOBILE6.2
model. New Hampshire conducted the vehicle emissions modeling using
MOBILE6.2 prior to the release of the MOVES model, and significant
work had been conducted on the New Hampshire I/M SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Network Type and Program Evaluation
Under the CAA and EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must include a
description of the network to be employed and the required legal
authority. Also, for enhanced I/M areas, the SIP needs to include a
description of the evaluation schedule and protocol, the sampling
methodology, the data collection and analysis system, the resources and
personnel for evaluation and related details of the evaluation program,
as well as the legal authority establishing the evaluation program.
Massachusetts' and New Hampshire's revised programs consist of a
test and repair I/M network program design utilizing contractors to
manage and oversee the inspection portion of the program. Both states
have implemented a continuous ongoing evaluation program consistent
with the federal I/M rule. Both states commit to developing and
submitting the annual and biennial reports described by 40 CFR 51.366
and the results of the evaluation programs are included in the annual
and biennial reports. Both Massachusetts and New Hampshire have
sufficient legal authority to implement this contractor managed program
in concert with local inspection stations and conduct the program
evaluation, as necessary to implement I/M consistent with federal
requirements. Details of the network type and program evaluation are
included in section 3 of each state's SIP narrative.
D. Adequate Tools and Resources
Under the CAA and EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must include a
description of the resources that will be used for program operation
and must discuss how the performance standard will be met, including:
(1) A detailed budget plan describing the source of funds for
personnel, program administration, program enforcement, purchase of
necessary equipment (such as vehicles for undercover audits), and for
other requirements discussed throughout the I/M rule; and (2) a
description of personnel resources, the number of
[[Page 5296]]
personnel dedicated to overt and covert auditing, data analysis,
program administration, enforcement, and other necessary functions, and
the training attendant to each function.
Massachusetts and New Hampshire operate self-funded I/M programs.
Revenue from the inspection fees charged to motorists is used for all
expenses associated with the administration, implementation, and
enforcement of the I/M programs. Both Massachusetts and New Hampshire
have adequate staff dedicated to overt and covert auditing, data
analysis, program administration, enforcement, and other necessary
program functions. Section 4 of each state's SIP narrative, and the
attachments to the SIP narratives, describe the budget, staffing
support, and equipment needed to implement the programs.
E. Test Frequency and Convenience
Under EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must include a detailed test
schedule, including the test year selection scheme if testing is other
than annual. The SIP must also include the legal authority necessary to
implement and enforce the test frequency requirement and explain how
the test frequency will be integrated with the enforcement process. In
addition, in enhanced I/M programs, the SIP needs to demonstrate that
the network of stations providing testing services is sufficient to
ensure customer convenience by providing short waiting times for a
test, and short driving distances to the test center.
The Massachusetts and New Hampshire SIP revisions require annual
inspections for all subject motor vehicles. Massachusetts obtains a
``blue-print'' of the emissions-related component monitors that are
available, or ``supported,'' on a particular vehicle by conducting an
initial inspection after a new vehicle is registered. This ``blue-
print'' snapshot is extremely helpful if the vehicle ever has any
emissions-related issues in the future and concerns arise about which
monitors of emissions-related components should be operating on a
particular vehicle. New Hampshire's SIP revision requires the annual
testing of vehicles based on the vehicle owner's month of birth.
Section 5 of the SIP narratives and the contracts with the I/M program
vendors include additional information for ensuring convenient testing
wait times and convenient testing locations.
F. Vehicle Coverage
Under EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must include a detailed description
of the number and types of vehicles to be covered by the program, and a
plan for identifying subject vehicles, including vehicles that are
routinely operated in the area but may not be registered in the area.
Also, the SIP must include a description of any special exemptions
which will be granted by the program, and an estimate of the percentage
and number of vehicles granted such exemptions. Such exemptions need to
be accounted for in the emission reduction analysis. In addition, the
SIP needs to include legal authority necessary to implement and enforce
the vehicle coverage requirement.
The Massachusetts and New Hampshire I/M programs cover all light-
duty vehicles and light-duty trucks up to 8,500 pounds Gross Vehicle
Weight Rating (GVWR), operating on all fuel types, as required by the
federal I/M rule for enhanced programs. Massachusetts' I/M program also
covers heavy-duty vehicles (heavy-duty being those vehicles with a GVWR
greater than 8,500 pounds). New Hampshire's I/M program does not set
requirements on any heavy-duty gas vehicles, although heavy-duty diesel
vehicles with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds are subject to roadside
testing requirements under Saf-C 5800. Additional information on the
heavy-duty vehicle testing requirements in Massachusetts and New
Hampshire can be found in Section V of this rulemaking notice.
In Massachusetts and in New Hampshire, light-duty vehicles and
trucks that are model year 1996 and newer, operating on a fuel other
than diesel fuel, are subject to an OBD2 inspection. Both states
require light-duty diesel-fueled vehicles that are model year 1997 and
newer, to undergo an OBD2 inspection. New Hampshire also requires
vehicles up to 20 years old to be subject to New Hampshire's anti-
tampering program if such vehicles are not subject to an OBD2
inspection.
Both Massachusetts and New Hampshire exempt special classes of
vehicles from the emission testing programs, including: Vehicles older
than 15 model years old in Massachusetts and vehicles older than 20
model years old in New Hampshire; motorcycles; assembled vehicles,
reconstructed vehicles, grey market vehicles,\4\ and specialty import
vehicles, as appropriate; and vehicles that have been issued exemptions
by EPA. Based on information provided in the SIP submittals,
Massachusetts and New Hampshire have shown that such exemptions will
not prevent the programs from achieving the EPA-required performance
standard. Additional detail supporting this conclusion was included in
section 6 of each state's SIP narrative. Legal authority for the
vehicle coverage requirements in Massachusetts are contained in the
Massachusetts I/M regulations (``Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Emissions
Inspection and Maintenance Program'' at 310 CMR 60.02 and ``Annual
Safety and Combined Safety and Emissions Inspection of All Motor
Vehicles, Trailers, Semi-trailers and Converter Dollies'' at 540 CMR
4.00) and the authorizing legislation (Massachusetts Statutes at M.G.L.
c.111, sec. 142M; M.G.L. c.21A, subsec. 2(28) and 16; M.G.L. c.90, sec.
2, 7A, 7V, 7W, and 31). Legal authority for the vehicle coverage
requirements in New Hampshire are contained in the New Hampshire I/M
regulations (``Official Motor Vehicle Inspection Requirements'' at Saf-
C 3200) and the authorizing legislation (New Hampshire Statutes
codified at RSA 125-C:6, 260:6-b, 263:56-a, 266:1, 266:1-a, 266:5.
266:59-b, and 266:59-c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Grey Market Vehicles being vehicles manufactured for use in
a foreign country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Test Procedures and Standards
Under EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must include a description of each
test procedure used. The SIP also must include the rule, ordinance, or
law describing and establishing the test procedures. The Massachusetts
and New Hampshire I/M SIP revisions and associated regulations obligate
each state to perform OBD2 testing on all 1996 and newer vehicles, in
accordance with EPA procedures. A vehicle which cannot be tested using
OBD2, due to known issues with readiness monitors or lack of electronic
communication, will be subject to alternative test procedures,
consisting primarily of a visual bulb check to ensure the MIL is not
illuminated. Both Massachusetts' and New Hampshire's OBD2 testing
procedures are based on the testing procedures established by EPA for
light duty vehicles in 40 CFR 85.2222. Details of the test procedures
and standards are included each state's I/M regulations and in Section
7 of each state's SIP narrative.
H. Test Equipment
Under EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must include written technical
specifications for all test equipment used in the program and address
each of the requirements set forth at 40 CFR 51.358. The specifications
must describe the emission analysis process, the necessary test
equipment, the required features, and written acceptance testing
criteria and procedures.
[[Page 5297]]
In Massachusetts' June 1, 2009 submittal and New Hampshire's
November 17, 2011 submittal, both states provide written equipment
specifications as contained in EPA's final implementation guidance and
the appendices of EPA's I/M rule. Both SIP submittals and their
appendices address the requirements in 40 CFR 51.358 and include
descriptions of performance features and functional characteristics of
the computerized test systems. The submittals reference 40 CFR Part 51
and 85, and are consistent with the procedures outlined in 40 CFR
85.2222 and EPA's final implementation guidance. The necessary test
equipment, required features, and acceptance testing criteria are
discussed in section 8 of each state's SIP narrative.
I. Quality Control
Under EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must include a description of quality
control and recordkeeping procedures. The SIP also must include the
procedures manual, rule, and ordinance or law describing and
establishing quality control procedures and requirements.
Both the Massachusetts and New Hampshire I/M SIP narratives, as
well as each state's program contract, contain descriptions and
requirements establishing the quality control procedures in accordance
with the federal I/M rule and EPA's final implementation guidance.
These requirements will help ensure that equipment calibrations are
properly performed and recorded and that the necessary compliance
document security is maintained. As described in section 9 of each
state's SIP narrative, the Massachusetts and New Hampshire SIPs comply
with all specifications for quality control set forth in Section 51.359
and Appendix A of the federal I/M rule, and EPA's final implementation
guidance.
J. Waivers and Compliance via Diagnostic Inspection
Under EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must include a maximum waiver rate
expressed as a percentage of initially failed vehicles. This waiver
rate is used for estimating emission reduction benefits in the modeling
analysis. Corrective action must be taken if the waiver rate exceeds
that estimated in the SIP, or a state must revise its SIP and claim
emission reductions accordingly. The SIP also must describe the waiver
criteria and procedures, including cost limits, quality assurance
methods and measures, and administration. Lastly, the SIP must include
the necessary legal authority, ordinance(s), or rules to issue waivers,
set and adjust cost limits as required, and carry out any other
functions necessary to administer the waiver system, including
enforcement of the waiver provisions.
Cost limits for the minimum expenditure waivers must be in
accordance with the CAA and the federal I/M rule. According to federal
requirements, expenditures of at least $450 for actual, non-tampering
related repairs, must be spent in order to qualify for a waiver in an
enhanced I/M program; this amount shall be adjusted annually according
to changes in the Consumer Price Index as specified in 40 CFR
51.360(a)(7). Massachusetts regulations at 310 CMR 60.02(17)(c)(8)
allow for waivers to be issued which meet minimum repair expenditures
ranging from $550 to $750 depending on the vehicle model year.
Massachusetts intends to annually update the cost to receive a waiver
from the emissions testing program in accordance with federal
requirements. New Hampshire does not issue conventional repair waivers.
However, an economic hardship time extension as allowed under EPA's
rule, is also allowed in the Massachusetts and New Hampshire programs.
Massachusetts and New Hampshire have demonstrated that they can meet
the enhanced I/M performance standard testing with the current program
design in each state.
The Massachusetts and New Hampshire programs include waiver rates
of 1.0% and 0.5%, respectively, of initially failed vehicles. These
waiver rates are used in the modeling demonstration. Massachusetts' and
New Hampshire's SIP submittals essentially commit that, if the waiver
rates determined by each state's I/M program reports are higher than
the aforementioned waiver rates (1.0% for Massachusetts and 0.5% for
New Hampshire), the state will take corrective action to address the
deficiency. Both states' SIPs describe the types of waivers that will
be allowed, minimum expenditure waivers and/or economic hardship time
extensions. These issues are dealt with in a manner consistent with the
federal I/M rule. The proper criteria, procedures, quality assurance
and administration regarding the issuance of waivers, consistent with
EPA's I/M rule, will be ensured by each state and their I/M program
contractor and are detailed in section 10 of each state's SIP narrative
and the state's regulations: Massachusetts at 310 CMR 60.02(16) through
60.02(19) and New Hampshire at Saf-C 3222.08.
K. Motorist Compliance Enforcement
Under EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must provide information concerning
motorist enforcement, including: (1) A description of the existing
compliance mechanism if it will continue to be used for the program,
and the demonstration that it is as effective, or more effective, than
registration denial enforcement; (2) an identification of the agencies
responsible for performing each of the applicable activities in this
section; (3) a description of, and accounting for, all classes of
exempt vehicles; and (4) a description of the plan for testing fleet
vehicles, and any other special classes of subject vehicles, such as
those operated (but not necessarily registered) in the program area.
Also, a SIP must include a determination of the current compliance rate
based on a study of the system including an estimate of compliance
losses due to loopholes, counterfeiting, and unregistered vehicles.
Estimates of the effect of closing such loopholes and otherwise
improving the enforcement mechanism must be supported with detailed
analyses. In addition, the SIP needs to include the legal authority to
implement and enforce the program. Lastly, the SIP must include a
commitment to an enforcement level and minimum compliance level used
for modeling purposes and to be maintained, at a minimum, in practice.
Massachusetts and New Hampshire both have chosen to use a
registration suspension program which suspends the vehicle registration
of a vehicle that fails to meet emission testing requirements. The
motorist compliance enforcement program will be implemented primarily
by the state agencies charged with implementing the I/M program in
their respective states. However, state police and local law
enforcement can provide citations for vehicles not complying with the
I/M program. The enforcement strategy is described in each state's
submittal. The enforcement strategy is designed to ensure a high rate
of compliance. Those not receiving the emissions test as scheduled will
be subject to fines and late penalties, and also will have their
vehicle registrations suspended. Both Massachusetts and New Hampshire
have over a 96 percent program compliance rate with the emissions
inspection program. The legal authority to implement and enforce the
program is included in each state's law and in the state agency
regulations as submitted in the respective SIP submittals.
(Massachusetts regulations at 540 CMR 4.07(4), authority at MGL c.90,
sec. 2 and sec. 22; New Hampshire
[[Page 5298]]
authority at RSA 266:1, RSA 266:5, and RSA 263:56-a). Additional detail
of the motorist compliance enforcement program is included in section
11 of each state's SIP narrative.
L. Motorist Compliance Enforcement Program Oversight
Under EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must include a description of
enforcement program oversight and information management activities.
The Massachusetts and New Hampshire I/M SIP revisions provide for
regular auditing of each state's enforcement program and adherence to
effective management practices, including adjustments to improve the
programs when necessary. These program oversight and information
management activities are described in each state's SIP narrative, and
include a description of the emissions testing databases of each
state's programs (the Automated Licensing and Registration System,
ALARS, in Massachusetts and the New Hampshire OBD and Safety Testing,
NHOST, program testing and reporting system in New Hampshire). If a
vehicle is out of compliance with the emissions testing requirement,
registration is suspended. Each state's SIP describes the procedures to
be followed in identifying noncomplying vehicles, along with
appropriate follow-up and program documentation audits in sections 11
and 12 of their SIP narratives.
M. Quality Assurance
Under EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must include a description of the
quality assurance program, and written procedure manuals covering both
overt and covert performance audits, record audits, and equipment
audits.
The June 1, 2009 Massachusetts submittal and the November 17, 2011
New Hampshire submittal include a description of each respective
state's quality assurance program. The quality assurance programs will
include overt and covert performance audits, digital audits on station
and inspector performance, and equipment audits. New Hampshire does not
currently have an official covert audit program that utilizes vehicles
pre-set to pass or fail an emissions test. However, New Hampshire
places emphasis on sophisticated electronic analyses to evaluate
station and inspector performance by identifying anomalies and
irregularities; law enforcement officers auditing a station and/or
inspector that has been identified by the digital audit, begin by
essentially conducting covert visual audits and then proceed to audit
that stations and certified inspectors are following the inspection
requirements. Both Massachusetts and New Hampshire cover all of their
respective program's inspection stations with the implemented quality
assurance plans and conduct overt and/or covert audits, both in
response to customer complaints and as targeted follow-up. Detailed
quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures are included in
each state's SIP submittal at section 13 of the SIP narratives and in
the inspection program contract agreements.
N. Enforcement Against Contractors, Stations, and Inspectors
Under EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must include a penalty schedule and
legal authority for establishing and imposing penalties, civil fines,
station and inspector license suspension, and revocations. In the case
of state constitutional impediments precluding immediate authority to
suspend licenses, each state's Attorney General shall furnish an
official opinion within the state's SIP explaining the constitutional
impediment as well as relevant case law. Each state's SIP also must
describe the administrative and judicial procedures and
responsibilities relevant to the enforcement process, including the
agencies, courts, and jurisdictions involved; personnel to prosecute
and adjudicate cases; and other aspects of the enforcement of the
programs requirements, the resources to be allocated to the enforcement
function, and the source of those funds. In states that are without
immediate suspension authority, the SIP must demonstrate that
sufficient resources, personnel, and systems are in place to meet the
three-day case management requirement for violations that directly
affect emission reductions.
The Massachusetts and New Hampshire I/M SIP revisions include
specific penalties in its enforcement against contractors, stations,
and inspectors in accordance with the federal I/M rule. Based on their
SIP submittals dated June 1, 2009 for Massachusetts and dated November
17, 2011 for New Hampshire, each state's enforcement procedures can be
pursued through contractual or regulatory action. Each state, through
the contract that it has been authorized to enter into directly, under
MGL c.111, sec. 142M and c.21A, sec. 16 for Massachusetts and under RSA
260:6-b for New Hampshire, has the authority to immediately suspend a
station inspector for violations that directly affect emission
reduction benefits and a variety of other violations of procedures.
Details on enforcement against contractors, stations, and inspectors
are found in section 14 of each state's SIP submittal narrative.
O. Data Collection, Analysis, and Reporting
Under EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must describe the types of data to be
collected. EPA's I/M rule also requires that the SIP describe the
procedures for data analysis and reporting to allow for monitoring and
evaluation of the program.
The Massachusetts and New Hampshire I/M SIP revisions provide for
collecting test data to link specific test results to specific
vehicles, I/M program registrants, test sites, and inspectors. The test
data and quality control data which will be collected are described in
section 15 of each state's SIP narrative and I/M program vendor
contract. The data will be used to generate reports concerning test
data, quality assurance, quality control, enforcement, as well as
necessary changes and identified weaknesses in the programs. Both
Massachusetts and New Hampshire have also committed to collecting all
data necessary for quality assurance and enforcement reports, as
required by section 51.366 of the federal I/M rule. Details on data
analysis and reporting are found in section 16 of each state's SIP
narrative.
P. Inspector Training and Licensing or Certification
Under EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must include a description of the
training program, the written and hands-on tests, and the licensing or
certification process.
The I/M SIP submittals from Massachusetts and New Hampshire provide
details on each state's respective inspector training program. Both
Massachusetts' and New Hampshire's I/M SIP provides for implementation
of training, licensing, and refresher programs for emission inspectors.
The states' SIP and their respective inspection program contract
describe the inspector training program and curriculum including
written and hands-on testing. All inspectors will be required to be
certified to inspect vehicles in their state's I/M program. Further
details of the Inspector Training Program are included in section 17 of
each state's SIP narrative.
Q. Public Information and Consumer Protection
Under EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must include a plan for consumer
protection and informing the public, on an ongoing basis, of the air
quality problems, the need for and benefits of a motor vehicle
[[Page 5299]]
inspection program, and how to find a qualified repair technician,
amongst other information related to the requirements of the I/M
program.
Both Massachusetts and New Hampshire have implemented a web site
for their respective I/M program. Each state's Web site is designed to
provide information to motorists, the general public, inspectors, and
repair technicians regarding the respective state's I/M program. Both
Massachusetts and New Hampshire have the ability to take in general
questions and concerns, both via a telephone hotline and electronically
via the Web site, and have established a mechanism by which a vehicle
owner can contest the results of an inspection. Further details of the
public information and consumer protection plans are included in
section 18 of each state's SIP narrative and the program contract.
R. Improving Repair Effectiveness
Under EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must include a description of the
technical assistance program to be implemented, a description of the
procedures and criteria to be used in meeting the performance
monitoring requirements of this section for enhanced I/M programs, and
a description of the repair technician training resources available in
the community.
In Massachusetts' June 1, 2009 and New Hampshire's November 17,
2011 submittals, each state provided additional detail and description
of the technical assistance, performance monitoring, and repair
technician training programs to be implemented. The SIP revisions, as
detailed in section 19 of each state's SIP narrative, provide for
regularly informing repair facilities about changes to the inspection
program, training course schedules, common problems, and potential
solutions for particular engine families, diagnostic tips, repairs, and
other assistance issues. As described in the states' submittals,
Massachusetts and New Hampshire have also ensured that repair
technicians may utilize the telephone hotline, or the electronic
inquiry system on the program Web site, with any repair questions or
concerns. Performance monitoring statistics of repair facilities will
be provided to motorists whose vehicles fail the I/M test, as required
in enhanced I/M areas. The states have committed to ensure that
adequate repair technician training exists by establishing training
courses at technical schools in the area.
S. Compliance With Recall Notices
Under EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must describe, for enhanced I/M
programs, the procedures used to incorporate the vehicle recall lists
provided into the inspection or registration database, the quality
control methods used to insure that recall repairs are properly
documented and tracked, and the method (inspection failure or
registration denial) used to enforce the recall requirements. EPA has
not yet established a computerized database listing all recalled
vehicles.
The revised Massachusetts and New Hampshire I/M SIPs will ensure
that vehicles subject to enhanced I/M programs, that are included in
either a voluntary emission recall or a remedial plan determination
pursuant to the CAA, have had the appropriate repairs made prior to the
inspection. As described in section 20 of each state's SIP narrative,
the states and their contractors will implement this approach when EPA
databases exist which identify vehicles that have not completed recall
repairs. At that time, motorists with unresolved recall notices will be
required to show proof of compliance or will be denied the opportunity
for inspection.
T. On-Road Testing
Under the CAA and EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must include a detailed
description of the on-road testing program required in enhanced I/M
areas, including the types of testing, test limits and criteria, the
number of vehicles (the percentage of the fleet) to be tested, the
number of employees to be dedicated to the on-road testing effort, the
methods for collecting, analyzing, utilizing, and reporting the results
of on-road testing, and the portion of the program budget to be
dedicated to on-road testing. Also, the SIP must include the legal
authority necessary to implement the on-road testing program, including
the authority to enforce off-cycle inspection and repair requirements.
In addition, emission reduction credit for on-road testing programs can
only be granted for a program designed to obtain significant emission
reductions over and above those predicted to be achieved by other
aspects of the I/M program. The SIP needs to include technical support
for the claimed additional emission reductions.
The I/M SIPs submitted on June 1, 2009 by Massachusetts and on
November 17, 2011 by New Hampshire, include a description of the status
of an on-road testing program in section 21 of each state's SIP
narrative. Massachusetts' and New Hampshire's SIPs highlight the
ability for each state to implement pilot testing of remote emissions
testing technologies, and will implement a full on-road testing program
when the testing technology is demonstrated to be reliable. Neither
Massachusetts nor New Hampshire included additional modeling credit for
the on-road portion of their state inspection programs when
demonstrating that EPA's performance standard was met.
U. Concluding Statement
A more detailed analysis of the Massachusetts and New Hampshire
submittals and how they meet the federal requirements is contained in
EPA's technical support document (TSD) prepared for this action. The
TSD is available from the EPA Regional Office listed above and in the
docket for this action. The criteria used to review the submitted SIP
revisions are based on the requirements set forth in section 182 of the
CAA and in the federal I/M regulations, 40 CFR Part 51 Subpart S. Based
on these requirements, EPA developed a detailed I/M approvability
checklist to be used nationally to determine if I/M programs meet the
requirements of the CAA and the federal I/M rule. The checklist states
the federal requirements, referenced by section of the rule, and
whether the Massachusetts and New Hampshire programs meet such
requirements. This checklist, the CAA, and the federal I/M regulation
formed the basis for EPA's technical review. EPA has reviewed the
Massachusetts and New Hampshire I/M SIP revisions submitted to EPA
using the criteria stated above. The Massachusetts and New Hampshire
regulations and accompanying materials contained in the SIP submittals
from each state represent an acceptable plan to comply with the I/M
requirements and meet all the criteria required for EPA to approve the
SIP submittals. EPA's review of the materials submitted indicates that
Massachusetts and New Hampshire have revised their I/M programs in
accordance with the requirements of the CAA, 40 CFR Part 51, and all of
EPA's technical requirements for an approvable vehicle inspection and
maintenance program, including OBD2.
V. What additional I/M program components are being submitted into the
SIPs?
The I/M SIPs submitted on June 1, 2009 by Massachusetts and on
November 17, 2011 by New Hampshire, include a description of certain
vehicle testing components that have been incorporated into each
state's emissions testing program, which are not currently covered by
the federal I/M rule. In this rulemaking, EPA is approving these
[[Page 5300]]
components into each state's respective SIP. The emissions testing
requirements, vehicle coverage, testing frequency, and test procedures
and standards discussed in Section V. of this rulemaking can be found
at 310 CMR 60.02 and 540 CMR 4.00 for Massachusetts and Saf-C 3200 and
Saf-C 5800 for New Hampshire.
Massachusetts requires non-diesel vehicles that are model year 2008
and newer, with a GVWR greater than 8,500 pounds and less than or equal
to 14,000 pounds, to be subject to an OBD2 inspection. Diesel vehicles
that are model year 2007 and newer, with a GVWR greater than 8,500
pounds and less than or equal to 14,000 pounds, are subject to an OBD2
inspection. All (diesel and non-diesel) heavy-duty vehicles with a GVWR
greater than 14,000 pounds, are subject to an OBD2 inspection starting
with model year 2010 vehicles as OBD systems are phased-in and required
to be installed on the vehicles.
Diesel vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR that are model year 1984
and newer, are subject to Massachusetts' annual snap acceleration smoke
test, the ``opacity'' test, based on the test specified by SAE J1667.
In addition, Massachusetts also conducts roadside pullovers of diesel
vehicles, over 10,000 pounds GVWR, registered in any state or country,
and conducts opacity testing on all vehicles irrespective of age.
Massachusetts is also submitting revised testing standards, for the
opacity testing conducted on those heavy-duty diesel vehicles subject
to the Massachusetts opacity test, which are more stringent than those
previously approved into the Massachusetts SIP. The revised opacity
testing standards for Massachusetts are included at 310 CMR 60.02(12).
Diesel trucks greater than 10,000 pounds GVWR: that are model year 1984
to 1990 must meet an opacity standard of 40% opacity (previous standard
was 55% opacity); that are model year 1991 to 1996 must meet an opacity
standard of 30% opacity (previous standard was 40%); and that are model
year 1997 and newer must meet an opacity standard of 20% (previous
standard was 40%). Diesel buses greater than 10,000 pounds GVWR: that
are model year 1984 to 1987 must meet an opacity standard of 40%
opacity (the same as previous standard); that are model year 1988 to
1993 must meet an opacity standard of 30% opacity (previous standard
was 40%); and that are model year 1994 and newer must meet an opacity
standard of 20% (previous standard was 30%). As stated earlier, all
diesel vehicles under 14,000 pounds GVWR, are now subject to OBD2
testing; thus the opacity standards previously approved into the
Massachusetts SIP for diesel vehicles under 10,000 pounds GVWR are no
longer applicable. Diesel vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR receive an
opacity test if OBD2 has not been phased-in on a particular vehicle.
New Hampshire operates a roadside pullover opacity inspection
program. New Hampshire conducts opacity testing on all vehicles over
10,000 pounds GVWR, and all diesel-powered buses manufactured to carry
25 or more passengers, irrespective of age. New Hampshire's opacity
testing standards are included at Saf-C 5804.08. New Hampshire exempts
federal and military vehicles from opacity testing, as well as vehicles
that can pass a ``quick screen'' process upon being pulled over and
selected for testing. Upon being pulled over, any vehicle that can
present proof of having passed an opacity test in New Hampshire, or any
other state, within the previous 12 months or can present proof of
having repairs to address emission violations, are exempted from
testing. These non-federal exemptions do not apply if any subject
vehicle appears to be emitting visible black smoke.
VI. Final Action
EPA is approving the SIP revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts on June 1, 2009 and November 30, 2009, as well as the SIP
revision submitted by the State of New Hampshire on November 17, 2011.
Each state's SIP revision contains the respective state's revised motor
vehicle inspection and maintenance program regulations and associated
SIP narrative. Specifically, EPA is approving the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection Regulation at 310 CMR 60.02 and
the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles Regulation at 540 CMR
4.00. EPA is also approving the New Hampshire Department of Safety
Regulations at Saf-C 3201, Saf-C 3202, Saf-C 3203, Saf-C 3204, Saf-C
3205, Saf-C 3206.04, Saf-C 3207, Saf-C 3209, Saf-C 3210, Saf-C 3218,
Saf-C 3220, Saf-C 3222, Saf-C 3248, and Saf-C 5800. EPA is approving
Massachusetts' and New Hampshire's revised I/M programs because they
are consistent with the CAA I/M requirements and EPA's I/M regulations
and they will strengthen the Massachusetts and New Hampshire SIPs.
EPA is incorporating the aforementioned rules by reference into the
Massachusetts and New Hampshire SIPs, respectively, except as set forth
below. Specifically, both the Massachusetts and New Hampshire programs
contain enforcement provisions that detail state enforcement
procedures, including administrative, civil, and criminal penalties,
and administrative and judicial procedures. See 310 CMR 60.02(24)(f);
NH Saf-C 3222.04(d), NH Saf-C Part 3248, NH Saf-C Part 5805. Such
enforcement-related provisions are required elements of an I/M SIP
under 40 CFR 51.364, and EPA is approving the provisions as meeting
those requirements. However, EPA is not incorporating those provisions
by reference into the EPA-approved federal regulations at 40 CFR part
52. In any federal action to enforce violations of the substantive
requirements of the Massachusetts or New Hampshire I/M programs, the
relevant provisions of Section 113 or 304 of the CAA, rather than state
enforcement provisions, would govern. Similarly, the applicable
procedures in any federal action would be the applicable federal court
rules or EPA's rules for administrative proceedings at 40 CFR part 22,
rather than state administrative procedures. Since the state
enforcement provisions would not be applicable in a federal action,
incorporating these state-only enforcement provisions into the federal
regulations would have no effect. To avoid confusion to the public and
regulated parties, EPA is not incorporating these provisions by
reference into the EPA-approved federal regulations in the states'
respective plan identifications in 40 CFR part 52. Specifically, EPA is
not incorporating Massachusetts' regulation 310 CMR 60.02(24)(f) into
the federal regulations at 40 CFR 52.1120(c) or 52.1167, and EPA is not
incorporating New Hampshire's regulations Saf-C 3222.04(d), Saf-C Part
3248, or Saf-C Part 5805 into the federal regulations at 40 CFR
52.1520(c) or 52.1525.
The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates
no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should
relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective March
26, 2013 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant
adverse comments by February 25, 2013.
If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not
[[Page 5301]]
institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. All parties
interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this
time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this
rule will be effective on March 26, 2013 and no further action will be
taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 26, 2013. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed
rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in
the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: November 14, 2012.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart W--Massachusetts
0
2. Section 52.1120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(137) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.1120 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(137) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection on June 1, 2009
and November 30, 2009.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Regulation 310 CMR 60.02 entitled ``Massachusetts Motor Vehicle
Emissions Inspection and Maintenance Program,'' effective in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts on September 5, 2008, with the exception
of subsection 310 CMR 60.02(24)(f).
(B) Regulation 540 CMR 4.00 entitled ``Annual Safety and Combined
Safety and Emissions Inspection of All Motor Vehicles, Trailers, Semi-
trailers and Converter Dollies,'' effective in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts on September 5, 2008.
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) Letter from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection, dated June 1, 2009, submitting a revision to the
Massachusetts State Implementation Plan.
(B) Letter from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection, dated November 30, 2009, amending the June 1, 2009 State
Implementation Plan submittal.
(C) Massachusetts June 1, 2009 SIP Revision Table of Contents Item
7, ``Documentation of IM SIP Revision consistent with 42 USC Section
7511a and Section 182(c)(3)(A) of the Clean Air Act.''
[[Page 5302]]
0
3. In Sec. 52.1167, Table 52.1167 is amended by revising the entries
for Regulations 310 CMR 60.02 and 540 CMR 4.00 to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1167 EPA-approved Massachusetts State regulations.
* * * * *
Table 52.1167--EPA-Approved Massachusetts Regulations
[See notes at end of table]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Date
State citation Title/subject submitted approved by Federal Register 52.1120(c) Comments/unapproved
by State EPA citation sections
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
310 CMR 60.02..................... Massachusetts Motor 6/1/09 1/25/13 [Insert Federal 137 Revises enhanced I/M test
Vehicle Emissions Register page number requirements to consist
Inspection and where the document of ``OBD2-only'' testing
Maintenance Program. begins]. program. Approving
submitted regulation with
the exception of
subsection 310 CMR
60.02(24)(f).
540 CMR 4.00...................... Annual Safety and Combined 6/1/09 1/25/13 [Insert Federal 137 Revises requirements for
Safety and Emissions Register page number inspections and
Inspection of All Motor where the document enforcement of I/M
Vehicles, Trailers, Semi- begins]. program.
trailers and Converter
Dollies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1. This table lists regulations adopted as of 1972. It does not depict regulatory requirements which may have been part of the Federal SIP before this
date.
2. The regulations are effective statewide unless otherwise stated in comments or title section.
Subpart EE--New Hampshire
0
5. In Sec. 52.1520:
0
a. The table in paragraph (c) is amended by removing the entry NHCAR,
Part Saf-C 3221A and adding a new entry for Saf-C 3200 in its place,
and by removing the entry for NHCAR, Part Saf-C 5800 and adding a new
entry for Saf-C 5800 in its place; and
0
b. The table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding a new entry at the
end of the table to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1520 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) EPA-approved regulations.
EPA-Approved New Hampshire Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA approval
State citation Title/subject State effective date date \1\ Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Saf-C 3200.................. Official Motor 6/22/07 and 6/20/08....... 1/25/13 [Insert EPA is approving
Vehicle Federal submitted
Inspection Register page subsections Saf-C
Requirements. number where 3201, 3202, 3203,
the document 3204, 3205,
begins]. 3206.04, 3207.01,
3209, 3210, 3218,
3220, and 3222
(except for
subsection
3222.04).
Saf-C 5800.................. Roadside Diesel 1/1/99.................... 1/25/13 [Insert Approving submitted
Opacity Federal regulation with the
Inspection. Register page exception of
number where subsection Saf-C
the document 5805.
begins].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the
Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.
(e) Nonregulatory.
New Hampshire Non-Regulatory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Applicable submittal
Name of non-regulatory SIP geographic or non- date/ EPA-approved date Explanations
provision attainment area effective \3\
date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5303]]
* * * * * * *
SIP Narrative associated with Statewide.......... 11/17/2011 1/25/13 [Insert .......................
New Hampshire Vehicle Federal Register
Inspection and Maintenance page number where
Program SIP Revision. the document
begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the
Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.
[FR Doc. 2013-00929 Filed 1-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
