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 ofthis internet version of the rule, it is not the official version ofthe rule for purpo se s ofcompliance. Please refer to the official version in a forthcoming Federal Reg is ter publication which will appear on www. re g ul atio n s. 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 ofAir 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 ) rev isions submitted by the Commonwealth ofMassachusetts 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 vehic les. The intended effect ofthis action is to appro ve the revised programs into the Massachusetts and New Hampshire SIPs. This action is being taken in
accordance with the C lean Air Act.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective [Insert date 60 day s 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). Ifadverse commen ts are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal ofthe 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 approva l action for Massachusetts or EP A -RO1-0AR-20 1 2-2
. 0149 for comments pertaining to our approval action for New Hampshire by one ofthe following metho d s: 1
. www .reg u lati o ns. gov : F o llow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. E -mail: arno ld.an ne@epa .go v 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 ofEcosystem Prot ecti on, Air Quality P lanning 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 ofEcosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office ofEcosystem Protection, A ir Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square
- Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02 1 09-39 12. Such de li verie s are only accepted during the Regional Office ' s normal hours ofoperation. The Re g ional Office's official hours ofbusiness
are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal ho lidays.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA- R01
-0AR-2009-0433 for comments pertaining t o our approval action for Massachus etts 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 pu blic docket w ithout cha nge and may be made avai lab le online at www.regulations .gov, including any personal information provided , unles s the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Bus iness Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is re stricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations. gov, or e-mai l,3 information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The www.regul ation s .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 ofyour comment. Ifyou send an e -mail comment directly to EPA without going through www .re gul atio ns .gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part ofthe comment that is placed in the public docket and made avai lab le on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body ofyour comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. IfEPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. E lectronic files should avoid the use ofspecial characters, any form ofencryption, and be free ofany defects
or viruses.

Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www .regu lati o n s .go v 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 ofEcosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square
- Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that ifat all possible, you contact the contact listed in the 

### FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection
. The Regional Office'$ offic ial hours of bus iness are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 , excluding legal holidays.4 In addition, copies ofthe 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 ofAir Quality Control, Department ofEnvironmental 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 ofthis 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 Inspect ion. 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 Execu tive Order Reviews.6 

### I. Background and Purpose. On June 1, 2009, the Commonwealth ofMassachusetts submitted a formal revision to its State Impl ementation 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 Hamp s hire s ubmitted a formal revision to its SIP. These S IP revisions include regulations to update the enhanced motor vehi cle inspection and maintenance 

### (1/M) programs in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. EPA i s approving Massachusetts' and New Hamp shire's revised 

### liM programs beca us e 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, 200 9 SIP revision includes amendments to th e Massachusetts regulations 310 CMR 60.02 and 540 CMR 4.00, and other administrative and t echnical documentation required in a SIP submittal to address the
re quirements for the imp lementation ofthe motor vehicle inspection and m aintenance program in Massachusetts. The New H ampshire November 1 7, 201 1 S IP revi sion includes amendments to the New Hamp shire 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 ofthe 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. 740 1, et seq., requi res certain states to implement an enhanced liM program to detect gaso line-fue led motor vehicles which emit excessive amounts ofcertain
air pollu tants . The enhanced liM program is intend ed to help states meet federal health-based national am bi ent air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone and carbon monoxide by requiring

I The November 30, 2009 revision replaced the copy ofthe Registry ofMotor Vehicles regulation 540 CMR 4.00, in cluded as Appendix 3 ofthe June I, 2009 SIP subm ittal , w it h a copy stampe d 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 ofthe nation that are most impacted by carbon monoxide and ozone pollution. 42 U.S.C. 7511c. Section 184 ofthe CAA also c reated an "Ozone Transport Region" (OTR) and includes liM requirements for that region. The OTR geographically includes the states from Virginia to Maine (including all ofMassachusetts and New Hampshire) and the District ofColumbia Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area. In addition, EPA promulgated 

### liM regulations at 40 CFR Part 51**Subpart~·** Depending on the severity ofan area's nonattainment classification and/or geographic location within the OTR, EPA's regulation under 40 CFR 51 .35 0 outlines the appropriate motor vehicle UM requirements. As a result ofhavin g a reas desi gnated 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
v irtue oftheir inclusion in the OTR, Massachusetts and New Hampshi re have implemented statewide enhanced vehicle emissions testing programs. Both states have operated a vehicle t esting program, in some fashion, since 1 999. 

### In 1999, as part ofits 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 supplementa l information needed in order for Massachusetts' program to be fully approved and meet the 

### liM requirements ofthe CAA. The previously SIP-approved Massachusetts liM program consisted ofa decentralized test and rep air network, with minimal test-only facilities , which utili zed dynamometers to test tailp ip e emi ssion s on model year 1984 and newer vehicles. Under thi s program, vehicles were due for emissions inspections biennially. Since that time, the program has been modified in a number of ways. 

### In 2004 , Massachusetts8 implemented OBD2 testing ofmodel 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 o ld 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 ofan "anti-tampering" program, a visual check for proper connection ofemissions control components, and the commitment for a statewide implementation ofOBD2 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 ofmodel year 1 996 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 Apri l 5, 2001, EPA pub lished 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 e lectronic checks ofthe OBD2 system
on model year 1996 and newer OBD2
-equipped motor vehicles be conducted as part ofstates' motor vehicle liM programs. OBD2 is part ofthe sophisticated vehicle powertrain management9 system and is designed to detect engine and transmission problems that might cause vehicle emissions to exceed allowable lim its. OBD2 requirements are a key part ofthis rul ema king action. The OBD2 system monitors the status ofup to 11 emission control related subsystems by performing either continuous or periodic functional tests ofspecific 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 ofconditions 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 ofthe 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, al so 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 applicab le). 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. Ifthe 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 an10 emissions-related fault has been detected and the vehicle should be repaired as soon as possible, thus reducing the harmful emi ssions 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 revi sed JIM programs submitted by Massachusetts, on June I, 2009, and New Hampshire , on November 17, 20 11 , both include OBD2 tes ting for model year 1996 and newer vehic les. EPA's OBD2 program requires scan tool equipment to read the vehicle's built-in computer sen sors in model year 1996 and newer vehicles. The OBD2-IIM check consists oftwo types ofexaminations: a visual check ofthe dashbo ard display function and status; and an electronic examination ofthe OBD2 computer itself. The failure criteria for OBD2 testing is any Di agnostic Trouble Code (DTC) or combin ation ofDTCs that result in the MIL to be commanded on. A DTC is a code that indicates a malfunction 

### in an emiss ion 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 command ed the MIL on , the mo torist
should b e advised ofthe is sue, but the vehicle s hould not be fai led unl ess other non-DTC based failure criteria have been met. Vehicles may fai l an inspection ifthe vehicle connector is missing, tampered with or otherwise inoperable, ifthe 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. Vehic les arc rejected from testing ifthe s can ofthe OB D 2 sys tem reveals a ''Not Ready" code for any OBD2 component. EPA's final implementation guidance (" Performing Onboard Diagnostic System Checks as Part ofa Ve hicl e Inspection and Maintenance Program,"11 EPA 420-R-01-015 , June 2001) allows st ates the fl exib ility to permit model year 1 996 to 2000 vehicles with two or fewer unset readiness codes, and mode l year 2001 and newer with one unset
readiness code to complete an OBD2-IIM inspection without being re j ected. Vehicles would still fai l ifthe MIL was commanded on or ifother failure criteria were m et, or be rejected fro m inspection ifthree or more unset readiness codes were encountered. Ifthe 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 r eadiness failure criteria . Massachusetts' program regulations, at 3 10 CMR 60.02(12)(b), and New Ham p shire 's pro gram 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 OBD 2
-I/M test program to be mo st effective, it should be designed to allow for: ( 1) Real-time data link connections to a centralizyd testing database; (2) qu ality-controlled input ofvehicle and owner identification information ; and (3) automated generation oftest reports. Massachusetts and New Hampshire ha ve 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 ofthe federa l S IPs, EPA interprets both regulations as incorporating by reference the version of40 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 "Ann ual Safety and Combined Safety and Emissions Insp ection ofAll Motor Vehicles, Trail ers, Semi-trailers and Converter Dollie s" 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 authori zing 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 pro gram 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 sta ndard in actual operation, with provisions for appropriate adjustments ifthe standard i s not met. The emissions modeling conducted as part ofthe performance standard evaluation in the liM SIP submittals illustrates that the new Massachusetts and New Hamp shire I/M programs
are more stringent than the federally required performance standard, and more stringent than the13 previous 1/M programs approved into the SIP. Thus, bot h SIP submittals satisfy the antibacksliding requirements ofCAA section 11 

### O(l). Both Massachusetts' and New Hampshire's liM SIP submittals include the appropriate MOBILE6 vehicle emissio ns modeling demonstration3 considering the required performance standard and the actual program being implemented statewide in each**s~ate.** Massachusetts's submittal also includes a compar i son 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 ofa ll gasoline powered model year 1996 and newer vehicles. For Massachusetts , the MO BILE6 modeling appropriately re fl ects the fact that Massachusetts conducts annual emissions testing on vehicles up to 15 years old. The MO BILE6 modeling performed by New Hampshire also shows that the State operates an antitampering program on vehic les up to 20 years o ld that are not subject to OBD2 testing. However, in the first year ofanalysis (2009 for Massachusetts and 2007 for New Hamp shire), both Massachusetts ' and New Hampshire's MOBILE6 analyses ofthe updated 11M programs,

3 S ince March 2, 2010, EPA's required model for on-road vehicle emissions mode ling in S IPs is the MOtor Vehicles Emiss ions Simulator (MOVES) model. (See 75 FR 94 1 1; 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 P lan 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 s ignificant work has a lready occurred using the MOB ILE6
.2 mode l. New Hampshire conducted the vehicle emissions modeling using MOBILE6.2 prior to the release ofthe 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 ofthe MOB ILE6 model. Vehicle testing requirements are included in 310 CMR 60.02 for Massachusetts and Saf -C 3200 for New Hampshire, and details ofmeeting the performance standard are included in section 2 ofthe narrative ofeach 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 ofthe evalua tion program, as well as the lega l authority establishing the evaluation program. Massachusetts' and New Hampshire's revised programs cons i st ofa test and repair 1/M network program design utilizing contractors to manage and oversee the inspection portion ofthe 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 ofthe evaluation programs are included in the annual and biennial reports. Both Massach usetts 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 ofthe network type and program evaluation are included in section 3 ofeach state's SIP narrative.

D. Adequate Tools and Resources15 Under the CAA and EPA's 1/M rule, the SIP must include a description ofthe
resources that will be used for program operation and must discuss how the performance sta ndard will be met , including: ( 1) A detailed budget plan describing the source offunds for personnel, program administration, program enforcement, purchase ofnecessary equipment (such
as vehicles for undercover audits), and for other requirements discussed throughout the liM rule; and (2) a description ofpersonnel resources, the number ofpersonnel 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 ofthe 11M programs. Both Massachusetts and New Hampshire have adequate staffdedi cated to overt and covert auditing, data analys i s, program administration, enforcement, and other necessary program functions. Section 4 ofeach state's SIP narrative , and the attachments to t he SIP narratives , describe the budget, staff mg
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 iftesting is other than annual. The SIP must also include the legal
au thority necessary to implement and enforce the test fre quency requirement and exp lain 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 ofstations providing testing s ervices i s 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" ofthe 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 ifthe vehicle ever has any emissions-related issues in the future and concerns arise about which monitors ofemissions-related components should be operating on a particular vehicle. New Hampshire's SIP revision requires the annual testing ofvehicles based on the vehicle owner's month of birth. Section 5 ofthe SIP narratives and the contracts with the liM program vendors include additional information for ensuring convenient t esting wait times and convenient testing locations.

F. Vehicle Coverage Under EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must include a detailed description ofthe number and types ofvehicles to be covered by the program, and a plan for identifying subject vehicles, inc luding vehicles that are routinely operated in the area but may not be registered in the area. Also, the SIP must include a description ofany special exemptions which will be granted by the program, and an estimate ofthe percentage and number ofvehicles 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-du ty being those vehicles with a GVWR greater17 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 ofthis 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 ofvehicles 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 t he EPA-required performance standard. Additional detail supporting this conclusion was included in section 6 ofeach state's SIP narrative. Legal authority for the vehicle coverage requirements in Massachusetts are contained in the Massachusetts 11M regulations ("Massachuset ts 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 ofAll 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 .2 1A, 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 ofeach 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 rev isions and associated regulations obligate each state to perform OBD2 testing on all 1 996 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 ofelectronic communication, wi ll be subject to alternative test procedures, consisting primarily ofa visual bu lb check to ensure the MIL is not illuminated. Both Mas sachus etts' and New Hamp shire's OBD2 testing procedures are based on the testing procedures established by EPA for light duty vehicles in 40 CFR 85.2222. Details ofthe test procedures and standard s are included each state's liM regu lations and in Section 7 ofeach
state ' s SIP narrative.



### H Test Equipment19 Under EPA's 

### liM rule , the SIP must include written technical specifications for all test equipment used in the program and address each ofthe requirements set forth at 40 CFR 51.358. The specifications must describe the emission analysis process, the necessary test equipment, t he 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 e quipment specifications as contained in EPA's final implementation guid anc e and the appendices ofEPA'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 ofthe 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 implemen tation guidance. The necessary test e quipment, required features, and acceptance testing criteria are discussed in section 8 ofeach state's SIP narrative.

I. Quality Control Under EPA's 

### liM rule , the SIP must include a description ofquality 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 procedur es 

### in accordance with th e federal 1 /M rule and EPA' s final implementation guidance. These requirements will help ensure that equipment calibrations are prop erly performed and recorded and that the necessary compliance document security is maintained. As described in section 9 ofeach state's SIP narrative , the Massachusetts and New Hamps hire SIPs comply with20 all specifications for quality control set forth in Section 51. 359 and Appendix A ofthe 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 fo r estimating emiss ion reduction bene fit s in the modeling ana lysis. Corrective action must be taken ifthe waiver rate exceeds that estimated in the SIP, or a state must revise its SIP and claim emission reductions accordingly. The S IP also must de s crib e the waiver criteria and procedures, including cost limits, quality
assurance methods and measures, and administration. Lastly, the SIP mus t include the nece ssary le gal authority, ordinance(s), or rules to issue waivers, set and adjust cost limits as required , and carry out any other functions necess ary to administer the waiver system, including enforcement ofthe waiver provisions. Cost limits fo r the minimum expenditure waivers must be in accordance with the CAA and the federal 1 /M rule. According to federal requireme nts, expend iture s ofat least $ 450 for actual , non-tampering related repairs, must be spent in order to quali fy for a waiver in an enhanced 1 /M pro gram ; this amoun t shall be adjusted annuall y according to changes in the Consumer Price Index as specified iq 40 CFR 51.360(a)( 7). Massachusetts regula tions at 310 CMR 60.02(17)(c)(8) allows for waivers to be issued which meet minimum repair expenditures
ranging from $550 to $750 depend ing on the vehicl e model year. Massachusetts intends to annually update the cost to receive a waiver from the emissions testing program in accordance wit h federal requirements. New Hamp shire does not issue conventiona l repair waivers. However, an economic hardship time extension as allowed under EPA's rule , is also allowed in the Massachuse tts and New Hampshire programs. Massachusetts and New Hampshire have21 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, ofinitially 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 ofeach 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 ofthe existing compliance mechanism ifit 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 ofthe agencies responsible for performing each ofthe applicable activities in this section; (3) a description of, and accounting for, all classes ofexempt vehicles; and (4) a description ofthe plan for testing fleet vehicles, and any other special classes ofsubject vehicles, such as those operated (but not necessarily registered) in the program area. Also, a SIP must include a determination ofthe22 current compliance rate based on a study ofthe system including an estimate ofcompliance losses due to loopholes, counterfeiting, and umegistered vehicles. Estimates ofthe 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 ofa 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 fo r 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 ofcompliance
. 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 ofthe motorist compliance enforcement program is included in section 

### 11 ofeach state's SIP narrative.

L. Motorist Compliance Enforcement Program Oversight23 Under EPA's 1/M rule, the SIP must include a description ofenforcement program oversight and information management activities
. The Massachusetts and New Hampshire liM SIP revisions provide for regular auditing ofeach 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 ofthe emissions tes ting databases ofeach 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). Ifa vehicle is out ofcomp liance with the emiss ions testing requirement, registration is suspended. Each state's S IP describes the procedures to be followed in identifying noncomplying vehicles, along with appropriate followup and program documentation audits in sections 11 and 12 oftheir SIP narratives.



### M Quality Assurance Under EPA's I/M rule , the S IP must include a description ofthe quality assurance program, and written procedure manuals covering both overt and covert performance audits, record audits, and equipment audits. T he June 1, 2009 Massachusetts submittal and the November. 17, 2011 New Hampshire submittal include a description ofeach 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 Hamp shire does not currently have an official covert audit program that utilizes vehicles pre-set to pass or fail an emi ssions test. However, New Hampshire places emphasis on sophisticated electronic analyses to evaluate station and inspector performance by identifying anomalies and irregularities; law enforcement24 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 oftheir 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 ofthe 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 ofstate 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, andjurisdictions involved; personnel to prosecute and adjudicate cases; and other aspects ofthe enforcemen t ofthe programs requirements, the resources to be allocated to the enforcement function, and the source ofthose 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 /M25 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 ofother vio lations of procedure s . Details on enforcement against contractors, stations, and inspectors are found in section 14 ofeach state's SIP submittal narrative.

0. Data Collection, Analysis, and Reporting Under EPA's liM rule, the SIP must describe the types ofdata 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 ofthe 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 ofeach 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 ofeach state's SIP narrative.

P. Inspector Training and Licensing or Certification26 Under EPA 's 11M rule , the SIP must include a description ofthe training program, the written and hands-on tests , and the licensing or certification proce ss. The 

### I1M SIP submittals from Massachusetts and New Hamp shire provide details on each state's respective inspector training program. Both Massachusetts' and New Hampshire's 11M SIP provides for implementation oftraining , licensing, and refresher programs for emission inspectors. The states' SIP and their respective inspection program contract de scribe the inspector training program and curriculum including written and hands-on testing. All inspectors will be required to be certified to inspect vehicl es in their sta te 's liM program. Further details of the Inspector Training Program are included in section 17 ofeach 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 , ofthe air quality problems, the need for and benefits ofa motor vehicle inspection program, and how to find a qualified repair technician, amongst other information related to the requirements ofthe 11M program. Both Massachusetts and New Hampshire have implemented a web site for their respective 

### IIM 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 

### IIM program. Both Massachus etts 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 ofan inspection. Further detail s of the public information and consumer protection plans are included in section 18 ofeach 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 ofthe technical assistance program to be implemented, a description ofthe procedures and criteria to be used in meeting the performance monitoring requirements ofthis section for enhanced I/M programs, and a description ofthe 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 ofthe technical assistance, performance monitoring, and repair technician training programs to be implemented. The SIP revisions, as detailed in section 19 ofeach 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 ofrepair 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 ofeach state's SIP narrative, the states and their contractors will implemen t 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 proofofcompliance or will be denied the opportunity for inspection.



### T On-Road Testing Under the CAA and EPA's 1 /M rule, the S IP must include a detailed description ofthe on-road testing program required in enhanced 1/M areas, including the types of testing, test limits and criteria, the number ofvehic les (the percentage ofthe 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 ofon-road testing, and the portion ofthe 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 ofthe 1/M program. The SIP needs to include technical support for the claimed additional emission red uctions. The IIM SIPs submitted on June 1, 2009 by Massachusetts and on November 17, 2011 by New Hampshire, include a description ofthe status ofan on-road testing program in section 21 ofeach state's SIP narrative. Massachusetts' and New Hampshire's SIPs highlight the ability for each state to implement pilot testing ofremote emissions testing technologie s, and will29 implement a full on-road testing program when the testing technology i s demonstrated to be reliable. Neither Massachusetts nor New Hampshire included additional modeling credit for the on-road portion oftheir state inspection programs when demonstrating that EPA's performance standard was met.



### U. Concluding Statement A more detailed analysis ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ifI/M programs meet the requirements ofthe CAA and the federa l 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 Hamp shire 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 wit h the 1 /M requirements and meet all the criteria required for EPA to approve the SIP submittals. EPA's review ofthe materials submitted indicates that Massachusetts and New Hampshire have revised their liM programs in accordance with the requirements ofthe CAA, 40 CFR Part 51, and all ofEPA'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 ofcertain vehicle te s ting 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, vehic le coverage, testing frequency, and test procedures and standards discussed in Section V. of this rulemaking ca n 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, w ith 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 vehicl es. Diesel vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR that are model year 1984 and newer, are subject to Mas sachusetts' annual snap acceleration smoke test, the "opacity" test, based on the test specified by SAE 11 667. In addition, Massachusetts also conducts roadside p ull overs of diesel vehicles , over 10, 000 pounds GVWR, registered in any state or country, and conducts opacity testing on all vehicles irrespective ofage. Massachusetts is also submitting revised testing standards, for the opacity testing conducted on those heavy-duty diesel vehicles subject to the Massachusetts opacity test, which31 are more stringent than those previously approved into the Massachusetts S IP
. 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 of40% 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 1 0,000 pounds GVWR: that are model year 1984 to 1 987 must meet an opacity standard of40% 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 sta ndard 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 opac ity test ifOBD2 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 ofage. New Hampshire ' s opacity testing standards are included at Saf-C 5804.08. New Hampshire exempts federal and military vehicles from opacity te sting, 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 ofhaving passed an opacity test in New Hampshire , or any other state, within the previous 12 months or can pre sent proof ofhaving repairs to address emission violations, are exempted from testing
. The se non-federal exemptions do not apply ifany subject vehicle appears to be emitting vi sib le black smoke.32


### VI . FINAL ACTION EPA is approving the SIP revisions submitted by the Commonwealth ofMassachusetts
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 regulat ion s and associated SIP narrative. Specifically, EPA is approving the Massachusetts Department ofEnvironmental Protection Regulation at 3 10 CMR 60.02 and the Massachusetts Registry ofMotor Vehicles Regulation at 540 CMR 4.00. EPA is also approving the New Hampshire Department of Safety Regulations at Saf-C 3201, Saf -C 3202, Saf-C 3203, Saf-C 3204, Saf-C 3205, Saf-C 3206.04, Saf-C 3207, Saf-C 3209, Saf -C 3210, Saf-C 3218, Saf-C 3220, Saf-C 3222, Saf-C 3248, and Saf

# e 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 Massachus etts and New Hampshire programs contain enforcement provisions that detail sta te enforcement procedures, including administrative, civil, and criminal penalties, and administrative andjudicial 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 ofan liM SIP under 40 CFR 5 I .364, and EPA i s 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 ofthe substantive requirements ofthe Massachusetts or New Hampshire I/M programs, the33 relevant provisions of Section 113 or 304 ofthe 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 ofthis Federal Regis ter 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 ofpublication in the Federal Register] without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by [Insert date 30 days from date ofpublication in the Federal Register]. Ifthe 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 fina l 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. Ifno 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 ifEPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and ifthat provision may be severed from the remainder ofthe rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions ofthe rule that are not the subject ofan adverse comment.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submiss ion that complies with the provisions ofthe 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 choice s, provided that they meet the criteria ofthe 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 ofManagement and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1 99 3);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 

### et seq.);
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall 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 ri sks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Execu tive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 200 1 );

• 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 appl ication ofthose 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, thi s rule does not ha ve tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, N ovember 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 trib al 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 ofthe rule, to each House ofthe Congress and to the Comptroller General ofthe United States. EPA will submit a report containing thi s action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, and the Comptroller General ofthe United States prior to publication ofthe rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until60 days after36 Approval and Promulgation ofAir 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 "ma jor rule" as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 3 07(b )(l) ofthe Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review ofthis action must be filed in the United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuit by [F EDERAL REGISTER OFFICE: insert date 60 days from date ofpublication ofthis document 

### in the Federal Register]. Fi ling a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator ofthis final rule does not affect the finality ofthis action for the purpose s of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not po stp one the effectiveness ofsuch rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct fmal rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the pa rallel noti ce of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section oftoday's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review ofthi s direct fin al 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, o latil e organic compounds
.

D ated:
. Curtis Spalding , Regional Administrator, EPA New England.37 Part 52 ofchapter I, title 40 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations i s 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 ofEnvironmental Protection on June 1, 2009 and November 30, 2009. (i) Incorporation by reference. (A) Regulation 310 CMR 60.02 entitled "Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Emiss ions Inspection and Maintenance Program," effective in the Commonwealth ofMassachusetts on September 5, 2008, with the exception ofsubsection 310 CMR 60.02(24)(f) because federal enforcement provisions rather than state enforcemen t provi sions would govern in any federal action to enforce violations ofthe substan tive requirements ofthe Massachusetts motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program. (B) Regulation 540 CMR 4.00 entitled "Annual Safety and Combined Safety and Emissions Inspection ofAll 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, substantia ting September 5, 2008, State effective date fo r amended 540 CMR 4.00 entitled "Annual Safety and Combined Safety and Emissions Inspection ofAll Motor Vehicles, Trailers, Semi-trailers and Converter D ollies." (ii) Additional materials (A) Letter from the Massachusetts Department ofEnvironmental Protection, dated June 1 , 2009, submitting a revision to the Massachuset ts State Imp lementation Plan. (B) Letter from the Massachusetts Department ofEnvironmental Protection, dated November 30, 2009, amending the June 1, 2009 State Implementation Plan submittal. (C) Massachusetts June I, 2009 SIP Revision Table ofContents 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 3 10 CMR 60.02 and 540 CMR 4.00 to read as follows:39 § 52.1167
- EPA
- approved Massachusetts State regulation s 

## * * * * * Table 52.1167
- EPA
- Approved Massachusetts Regul ations [See Notes at end ofTable] 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 en hanced 1/M test C MR Motor Vehicle date ofFR Regi ster page requirements to consist of 60.02 Emi ss io ns publica- numb er where the "OBD2-only" testing Inspection and tion] docum ent begins] program. Approving Maintenance submitted regulation with

Program the excep tion ofsubsection 310 CMR 60.02(24)(t). 540 Annual Safety 6/ 1/09 [Insert [Insert Federal 138 Revises requirements for CM R and Combined date ofFR Regist er page inspections and enforcement 4.00 Safety and publica- number where the ofliM program. Emiss i ons tion] document begins] In spection of

All Motor Vehicles, Trail ers, Semitrailers and Converter

Dollies Notes: I. This table lists regulations adopted as of 1972. It does not depict regulatory requirements whi ch may have been part of the F ederal SIP before this date. 2. The regulations are effective statewide un less otherwise state d in comments or t it le section.

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

### Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et s eq . 

### Subpart EE - New Hampsh ire 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 cita tion 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 ofthe table to read as follows: (c) EPA approved regulations. .pprove ew EPA A dN Hamps tre egu atwns h' R l
. State citation Title/ subject State effective EPA approval date 1 Explanations date 

### ** * 

### "' * ** Saf-C 3200 Official Motor 6/ 22/ 07 )In sert 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, ) I nsert Federa l 3207 , 3209,3210,32 1 8,3220, Register pa ge and 3222 (except for subsection number where the 3222.04). document b egins) Saf -e 5800 Road s ide Diesel 1/1 /99 !Insert date of FR .Approving submitted regulation Opacity p ublication) with the exception ofsubsection Inspection Saf-C 5805. )Insert Federal Register pag e 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 o f Applicable State submittal EPA approved Explanati o ns nonregulatory SIP geographic or date/effective date date 3 orovision nonattainment area 

### *"' 

### "' "' * *"' SIP Narrative Statewide 1 1/ 17/201 1 

### IInsert date of FR associated with New publication) Hampshire Vehicle Inspection and )Insert Federal Ma intenance Program Register page SIP Revision number whe re the d ocum e nt**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.