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 

Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date 

Additional 

explanation/ 

citation at 40 CFR 52.1100 

26.11.01 General Administrative Provisions 

*******

26.11.01.04 ............... Testing and Monitoring ............. 3/5/12 1/25/13 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Amended section 04C. 

*******

26.11.19 Volatile Organic Compounds From Specific Processes 

*******

26.11.19.02 ............... Applicability, Determining Compliance, Reporting, and General Requirements.3/5/12 1/25/13 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Amended sections .02D, .02E, 

.02G and .02I. 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–00839 Filed 1–24–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 5293 

1The 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. 

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. 

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, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
5294 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

2Both 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 

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 

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


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 5295 

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. 

3Since 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. 

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 

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 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 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
5296 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

4 Grey Market Vehicles being vehicles 

manufactured for use in a foreign country. 

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 ‘‘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 

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 EPArequired 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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
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. 

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 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 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 


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 

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 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 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 

■ 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.’’ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
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 

Regulations 310 CMR 60.02 and 540 

CMR 4.00 to read as follows: 

§ 52.1167 EPA-approved Massachusetts 

State regulations. 

* * * * * 

TABLE 52.1167—EPA-APPROVED MASSACHUSETTS REGULATIONS

[See notes at end of table] 

State citation Title/subject 

Date 

submitted 

by State 

Date 

approved 

by EPA 

Federal Register 

citation 

52.1120(c) Comments/unapproved sections 

*******

310 CMR 60.02 Massachusetts Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Inspection and 

Maintenance Program.

6/1/09 1/25/13 [Insert Federal 

Register 

page number 

where the 

document 

begins].

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). 

540 CMR 4.00 Annual Safety and Combined 

Safety and Emissions Inspection of All Motor Vehicles, Trailers, Semi-trailers 

and Converter Dollies.

6/1/09 1/25/13 [Insert Federal 

Register 

page number 

where the 

document 

begins].

137 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 State effective date EPA approval date 1 Explanations 

*******

Saf-C 3200 .................. Official Motor Vehicle 

Inspection Requirements.

6/22/07 and 6/20/08 .. 1/25/13 [Insert Federal Register page 

number where the 

document begins].

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). 

Saf-C 5800 .................. Roadside Diesel 

Opacity Inspection.

1/1/99 ........................ 1/25/13 [Insert Federal Register page 

number where the 

document begins].

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

Name of non-regulatory 

SIP provision 

Applicable 

geographic or non-attainment area 

State 

submittal 

date/effective date 

EPA-approved date 3 Explanations 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 5303 

NEW HAMPSHIRE NON-REGULATORY—Continued 

Name of non-regulatory 

SIP provision 

Applicable 

geographic or non-attainment area 

State 

submittal 

date/effective date 

EPA-approved date 3 Explanations 

*******

SIP Narrative associated 

with New Hampshire 

Vehicle Inspection and 

Maintenance Program 

SIP Revision.

Statewide ...................... 11/17/2011 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 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: 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 

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. 

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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with