The Regional Administrator, H. Curtis Spalding, signed this notice on November 14, 20 12, and EPA has submitted it 

for publication in the Federal Register. While we have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this internet version of 

the rule, it is not the official version of the rule for purposes of compliance. Please refer to the official version in a 

forthcoming Federal Register publication which will appear on www.regulations.gov in the docket for this action. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA-R01 -0AR-2009-0433; EPA-R01-0AR-2012-0149; A-1-FRLApproval 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 (liM) 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 [Insert date 60 days from date of publication 

in the Federal Register], unless EPA receives adverse comments by [Insert date 30 days from 

date of publication in the Federal Register). 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-RO l-OAR-2009-

0433 for comments pertaining to our approval action for Massachusetts or EP A-RO 1-0AR-20 12-
2 . 

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. E-mail: arnold.anne@epa.gov 

3. Fax: (617) 918-0047. 

4. Mail: "Docket Identification Number EPA-ROI -OAR-2009-0433 or EPA-ROI-OAR2012-0149," 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-R01-0AR-2009-0433 for comments 

pertaining to our approval action for Massachusetts or EPA-R01-0AR-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 e-mail, 
3 

information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov 

website 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 e-mail 

comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your e-mail 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 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'$ official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays. 
4 

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 021 08; 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 JIM 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 1/M Regulatory Requirements and How do Massachusetts' 

and New Hampshire's VM Programs Satisfy These Requirements? 

A. Applicability. 
5 

B. Enhanced VM 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. 

0. 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 1/M Program Components are being Submitted into the SIPs? 

VI. Final Action. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews. 
6 

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, 201 1, 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 (1/M) programs in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. EPA 

is approving Massachusetts' and New Hampshire's revised liM programs because they are 

consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA) liM 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, 201 1 SIP revision includes amendments to 

the New Hampshire regulations Saf-C 3200 and Saf-C 5800, and other adminjstrative and 

technjcal 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 1/M Programs? 

The CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq., requires certain states to implement an enhanced 

liM program to detect gasoline-fueled motor vehicles which emit excessive amounts of certain 

air pollutants. The enhanced liM program is intended to help states meet federal health-based 

national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone and carbon monoxide by requiring 

I The November 30, 2009 revision replaced the copy of the Registry of Motor Vehicles regulation 540 CMR 4.00, 

included as Appendix 3 ofthe June I, 2009 SIP submittal, with a copy stamped by the Secretary of State. 
7 

vehicles with excess emissions to have their emissions control systems repaired. Section 182 of 

the CAA requires 1/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 liM 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 liM regulations at 40 CFR Part 51 Subpart~· 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 UM requirements. 

As a result of having areas designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS (see 40 CPR 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 1/M program. The Massachusetts liM 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 liM requirements of the CAA. The previously SIP-approved 

Massachusetts liM 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, vehicles were due for emissions inspections biennially. 

Since that time, the program has been modified in a number of ways. In 2004, Massachusetts 
8 

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" liM 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 liM 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 liM program based on New 

Hampshire meeting the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. This SIP-approved New Hampshire liM 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 liM 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 ofthe OBD2 system 

on model year 1996 and newer OBD2-equipped motor vehicles be conducted as part of states' 

motor vehicle liM programs. OBD2 is part of the sophisticated vehicle powertrain management 
9 

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-VM 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 
10 

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 JIM rule applies to those areas that are required to implement 

JIM programs under the CAA, which includes Massachusetts and New Hampshire. The revised 

JIM programs submitted by Massachusetts, on June I, 2009, and New Hampshire, on November 

17, 20 11 , 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-IIM 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) 12012 guidance document, and EPA regulations. 

Vehicles arc 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 

On board Diagnostic System Checks as Part of a Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program," 
11 

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-IIM 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 

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 centralizyd 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 liM programs. 

IV. What are all the other liM Regulatory Requirements and How do Massachusetts' and 

New Hampshire's liM Programs Satisfy These Requirements? 

A. Applicability 

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 AprilS, 2001 (66 FR 18156), rather than prospectively incorporating any future changes to 40 

CFR 85.2222. 
12 

The SIP describes in detail the areas subject to the enhanced liM SIP revision and, 

consistent with 40 CFR 51.372, includes the legal authority necessary to establish program 

boundaries. The Massachusetts liM 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.lll, 

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 liM 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: l , 266:1-a, 266:5. 266:59-b, and 266:59-c), ensure that the enhanced 1/M 

program be implemented statewide. 

B. Enhanced JIM Performance Standard 

Today's rulemaking discusses the liM programs designed, in part, to meet the 

enhanced liM 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 liM 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 
13 

previous 1/M programs approved into the SIP. Thus, both SIP submittals satisfy the antibacksliding requirements of CAA section 11 O(l). 

Both Massachusetts' and New Hampshire's liM SIP submittals include the appropriate 

MOBILE6 vehicle emissions modeling demonstration3 considering the required performance 

standard and the actual program being implemented statewide in each s~ate. 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 of2009 

through 2012, and an out year of2018 compliance dates and the modeling runs for New 

Hampshire considered evaluations with 2007, 2009, and an out year of2015 compliance dates. 

Both Massachusetts and New Hampshire have demonstrated that reductions from the updated 

program are greater than those achieved by the pre-existing liM 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 11M programs, 

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, 201 0.) 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 ofMOVES2010 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. 
14 

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 liM rule, the SIP must include a description ofthe network 

to be employed and the required legal authority. Also, for enhanced liM 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 

1/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 liM 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 liM 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 
15 

Under the CAA and EPA's 1/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 liM rule; 

and (2) a description of personnel resources, the number of 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 11M programs. Revenue from 

the inspection fees charged to motorists is used for all expenses associated with the 

administration, implementation, and enforcement of the 11M 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, staffmg 

support, and equipment needed to implement the programs. 

E. Test Frequency and Convenience 

Under EPA's JIM 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 liM 

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. 
16 

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 liM 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 11M 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 
17 

than 8,500 pounds). New Hampshire's I/M program does not set requirements on any heavyduty 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 11M regulations ("Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection and 

Maintenance Program" at 310 CMR 60.02 and "Annual Safety and Combined Safety and 

4 Grey Market Vehicles being vehicles manufactured for use in a foreign country. 
18 

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. Ill, 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 liM 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 11M 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 liM regulations and in Section 7 of each 

state's SIP narrative. 

H Test Equipment 
19 

Under EPA's liM 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. 

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 liM 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 fmal 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 liM 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 liM SIP narratives, as well as each state's 

program contract, contain descriptions and requirements establishing the quality control 

procedures in accordance with the federal 1/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 
20 

all specifications for quality control set forth in Section 51.359 and Appendix A of the federal 

IIM rule, and EPA's fmal implementation guidance. 

J. Waivers and Compliance via Diagnostic Inspection 

Under EPA's IIM 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 1/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 1/M program; this amount shall be adjusted annually according to changes in the 

Consumer Price Index as specified iq 40 CFR 51.360(a)(7). Massachusetts regulations at 310 

CMR 60.02(17)(c)(8) allows 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 
21 

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 liM 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 liM rule. The 

proper criteria, procedures, quality assurance and administration regarding the issuance of 

waivers, consistent with EPA's liM rule, will be ensured by each state and their liM 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 liM 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 
22 

current compliance rate based on a study of the system including an estimate of compliance 

losses due to loopholes, counterfeiting, and umegistered 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 11M program in their respective states. 

However, state police and local law enforcement can provide citations for vehicles not complying 

with the liM 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 MOL c.90, sec. 2 and sec. 22; New Hampshire 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 
23 

Under EPA's 1/M rule, the SIP must include a description of enforcement program 

oversight and information management activities. 

The Massachusetts and New Hampshire liM 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 
24 

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 (QNQC) 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 liM 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 liM SIP revisions include specific penalties in 

its enforcement against contractors, stations, and inspectors in accordance with the federal I/M 
25 

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. 

0. Data Collection, Analysis, and Reporting 

Under EPA's liM rule, the SIP must describe the types of data to be collected. EPA's 

liM 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, liM 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 liM 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 ofthe federal liM 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 
26 

Under EPA's 11M rule, the SIP must include a description of the training program, the 

written and hands-on tests, and the licensing or certification process. 

The I1M SIP submittals from Massachusetts and New Hampshire provide details on 

each state's respective inspector training program. Both Massachusetts' and New Hampshire's 

11M 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 liM 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 liM 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 inspection program, and how to find a qualified repair technician, amongst 

other information related to the requirements of the 11M program. 

Both Massachusetts and New Hampshire have implemented a web site for their 

respective IIM program. Each state's website is designed to provide information to motorists, the 

general public, inspectors, and repair technicians regarding the respective state's IIM 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 website, 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. 
27 

R. Improving Repair Effectiveness 

Under EPA's 1/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 website, with any repair questions or concerns. Performance monitoring 

statistics of repair facilities will be provided to motorists whose vehicles fail the liM 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. 
28 

The revised Massachusetts and New Hampshire liM SIPs will ensure that vehicles 

subject to enhanced liM 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 1/M rule, the SIP must include a detailed description of the 

on-road testing program required in enhanced 1/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 1/M program. The SIP needs to include 

technical support for the claimed additional emission reductions. 

The IIM 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 
29 

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 1/M regulations, 40 CFR 

Part 51 Subpart S. Based on these requirements, EPA developed a detailed 1/M approvability 

checklist to be used nationally to determine if I/M programs meet the requirements of the CAA 

and the federal liM 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 1/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 liM 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. 
30 

V. What Additional 1/M Program Components are being Submitted into the SIPs? 

The JIM SIPs submitted on June I, 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 JIM rule. In this rulemaking, EPA is approving these 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 20 I 0 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 11667. 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 
31 

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 of30% opacity (previous standard was 40%); and that are model 

year 1997 and newer must meet an opacity standard of20% (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 of30% opacity (previous standard was 40%); and that are 

model year 1994 and newer must meet an opacity standard of20% (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 dieselpowered 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. 
32 

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 ofEnvironmental 

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 Safe 5800. EPA is approving Massachusetts' and New Hampshire's revised IIM programs because 

they are consistent with the CAA IIM requirements and EPA's liM 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)(£); NH Saf-C 3222.04( d), NH 

Saf-C Part 3248, NH Saf-C Part 5805. Such enforcement-related provi~ions are required 

elements of an liM SIP under 40 CFR 5 I .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 
33 

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)(±) 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 [Insert date 60 days from date of publication in 

the Federal Register] without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse 

comments by [Insert date 30 days from date of publication in the Federal Register]. 

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 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, 
34 

the public is advised that this rule will be effective on [Insert date 60 days from date of 

publication in the Federal Register] 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 (Public Law 

104-4); 

• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive ·Order 13132 (64 FR 

43255, August 10, 1999); 
35 

• 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) ofthe 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 until60 days after 
36 

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation 

Plans; Massachusetts and New Hampshire; Enhanced Motor Vehicle 

Inspection and Maintenance Program 

Page 36 of40 

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)(l) 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 [FEDERAL 

REGISTER OFFICE: insert date 60 days from date of publication of this document in the 

Federal Register]. 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 fmal 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, olatile organic compounds . 

Dated: . Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, 

EPA New England. 
37 

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: 

PART 52- [AMENDED] 

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)(138) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1120 Identification of plan 

* * * * * * 

(c)* * * 

(138) 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) because federal 

enforcement provisions rather than state enforcement provisions would 

govern in any federal action to enforce violations of the substantive 

requirements of the Massachusetts motor vehicle inspection and 

maintenance program. 

(B) Regulation 540 CMR 4.00 entitled "Annual Safety and Combined 

Safety and Emissions Inspection of All Motor Vehicles, Trailers, Semi-
38 

trailers and Converter Dollies," effective in the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts on September 5, 2008. 

(C) Massachusetts Regulation Filing, dated July 11 , 2008, 

substantiating September 5, 2008, State effective date for amended 310 

CMR 60.02 entitled "Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Inspection and Maintenance Program." 

(D) Massachusetts Regulation Filing, dated August 22, 2008, 

substantiating September 5, 2008, State effective date for amended 540 

CMR 4.00 entitled "Annual Safety and Combined Safety and Emissions 

Inspection of All Motor Vehicles, Trailers, Semi-trailers and Converter 

Dollies." 

(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 I, 2009 SIP Revision Table of Contents Item 

7, "Documentation ofiM SIP Revision consistent with 42 USC Section 

751la and Section 182(c)(3)(A) ofthe Clean Air Act." 

3. In §52.1167, Table 52.1167 is amended by revising the entries for the existing state citations 

for Regulations 310 CMR 60.02 and 540 CMR 4.00 to read as follows: 
39 

§ 52.1167 - EPA - approved Massachusetts State regulations 

* * * * * 

Table 52.1167 - EPA - Approved Massachusetts Regulations 

[See Notes at end of Table] 

State Title/Subject Date Date Federal Register 52.1120(c) Comments/unapproved 

citation submitted approved citation sections 

by State by EPA 

* * • • • • * 

310 Massachusetts 6/1/09 [Insert [Insert Federal 138 Revises enhanced 1/M test 

CMR Motor Vehicle date ofFR Register page requirements to consist of 

60.02 Emissions publica- number where the "OBD2-only" testing 

Inspection and tion] document begins] program. Approving 

Maintenance submitted regulation with 

Program the exception of subsection 

310 CMR 60.02(24 )(t). 

540 Annual Safety 6/ 1/09 [Insert [Insert Federal 138 Revises requirements for 

CMR and Combined date ofFR Register page inspections and enforcement 

4.00 Safety and publica- number where the of liM program. 

Emissions tion] document begins] 

Inspection of 

All Motor 

Vehicles, 

Trailers, Semitrailers and 

Converter 

Dollies 

Notes: 

I. 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. 

4. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart EE - New Hampshire 

5. Section 52.1520 is amended to read as follows: 

Sec. 52.1520 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * * 
40 

In §52.1520: Table (c) EPA approved regulations is amended by. deleting the entry to 

existing state citation for regulation Saf-C 3221A, adding a new entry for the state 

citation for regulation Saf-C 3200, and revising the entry for the existing state citation for 

regulation Saf-C 5800 (being re-titled as "Roadside Diesel Opacity Inspection"); and 

Table (e) is amended by adding a new entry at the end of the table to read as follows: 

(c) EPA approved regulations. 

EPA A .pprove dN ew H amps h' tre R egu atwns l . 

State citation Title/subject State effective EPA approval date 1 Explanations 

date 

** * "' * ** 

Saf-C 3200 Official Motor 6/22/07 )Insert date of FR EPA is approving submitted 

Vehicle Inspection and publication) subsections Saf-C 320 I, 3202, 

Requirements 6/20/08 3203, 3204, 3205, 3206.04, 

)Insert Federal 3207, 3209,3210,32 18,3220, 

Register page and 3222 (except for subsection 

number where the 3222.04). 

document begins) 

Saf-e 5800 Roadside Diesel 1/1/99 !Insert date of FR .Approving submitted regulation 

Opacity publication) with the exception of subsection 

Inspection Saf-C 5805. 

)Insert Federal 

Register page 

number where the 

document b~ins} 

1 In order to detennine 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 NonRegulatory 

Name of Applicable State submittal EPA approved Explanations 

nonregulatory SIP geographic or date/effective date date 3 

orovision nonattainment area 

*"' "' "' * *"' 

SIP Narrative Statewide 11/ 17/201 1 I Insert date of FR 

associated with New publication) 

Hampshire Vehicle 

Inspection and )Insert Federal 

Maintenance Program Register page 

SIP Revision number where 

the document 

b~ins} 

3 In order to detennine 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.