[Federal Register: July 31, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 146)]
[Notices]
[Page 43144]
[DOCID:fr31jy06-60]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP06-421-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Application

July 24, 2006.
    Take notice that on July 17, 2006, as supplemented on July 20,
2006, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco) filed an
application pursuant to sections 7(c) and 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act
(NGA), for authorization to construct and operate the Potomac Expansion
Project, an incremental expansion of Transco's existing pipeline system
in its Mid-Atlantic market area. Transco states that the proposed
project will involve the construction and operation of approximately
16.39 miles of new pipeline looping facilities in Pittsylvania and
Campbell Counties, Virginia, and the replacement of 3.43 miles of
existing pipeline in Fairfax County, Virginia. Transco states that the
3.43-mile replacement of the existing pipeline in Fairfax County,
Virginia, will consist of the removal and replacement of 3.18 miles of
30-inch diameter Mainline B with 42-inch diameter Mainline D within the
same trench. In addition, 0.25 mile of existing Mainline B will be
abandoned in place, principally under existing road crossings, and
replaced in an adjacent trench with the new 42-inch diameter Mainline
D. Transco requests authorization under section 7(b) of the NGA to
abandon in place the 0.25 mile of existing Mainline B in Fairfax
County, Virginia. Transco states that the proposed project will enable
it to provide 165,000 dekatherms per day of incremental firm
transportation capacity to serve increased demand in the Mid-Atlantic
region of the United States. Transco estimates that the proposed
project will cost approximately $73.7 million, all as more fully set
forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open
to public inspection.
    This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
 using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number

excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or for

TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any initial questions regarding this application should be directed
to Marg Camardello, Manager, Tariffs and Certificates, Transcontinental
Gas Pipe Line Corporation, P.O. Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251 at (713)
215-3380. In addition, parties with questions about the Project may
call a Transco toll-free telephone number at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or access
a public Web site at (http://www.williams.com/potomac) or an e-mail support address at (potomac@williams.com).

    In Docket No. PF06-2-000, Transco participated in a pre-filing
National Environmental Policy Act review of the proposed project to
identify and resolve potential landowner and environmental problems
before the applications were filed.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project, should submit an original and two copies of their
comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors
will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will
receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of
meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. The Commission's rules require that
persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of
their protests only to the applicant. However, the non-party commentors
will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or
issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental
documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek
court review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on August 14, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-12246 Filed 7-28-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 17 (Friday, January 25, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5292-5303]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00929]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0433; EPA-R01-OAR-2012-0149; A-1-FRL-9754-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Massachusetts and New Hampshire; Enhanced Motor Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the State of New
Hampshire. These revisions include regulations to update the enhanced
motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs in
Massachusetts and New Hampshire. The revised programs in Massachusetts
and New Hampshire include a test and repair network for an on-board
diagnostic (OBD2) testing program for model year 1996 and newer
vehicles. The intended effect of this action is to approve the revised
programs into the Massachusetts and New Hampshire SIPs. This action is
being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective March 26, 2013, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by February 25, 2013. If adverse comments
are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final
rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will
not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R01-OAR-2009-0433 for comments pertaining to our approval action for
Massachusetts or EPA-R01-OAR-2012-0149 for comments pertaining to our
approval action for New Hampshire by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0433 or
EPA-R01-OAR-2012-0149,'' Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
(Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold,
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post
Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal
hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business
are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-
2009-0433 for comments pertaining to our approval action for
Massachusetts or EPA-R01-OAR-2012-0149 for comments pertaining to our
approval action for New Hampshire. EPA's policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public docket without change and may
be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through
www.regulations.gov, or email, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the

www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible,
you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
legal holidays.
    In addition, copies of the state submittal and EPA's technical
support document are also available for public inspection during normal
business hours, by appointment at the respective State Air Agency:
Division of Air Quality Control, Department of Environmental
Protection, One Winter Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02108; and Air
Resources Division, Department of Environmental Services, 6 Hazen
Drive, P.O. Box 95, Concord, NH 03302-0095.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ariel Garcia, Air Quality Planning
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional
Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code: OEP05-2), Boston,
MA 02109-3912, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number (617) 918-
0660, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. Background and Purpose
II. What are the Clean Air Act requirements for I/M programs?
III. What are the OBD2 requirements and how do Massachusetts' and
New Hampshire's programs address these requirements?
IV. What are all the other I/M regulatory requirements and how do
Massachusetts' and New Hampshire's I/M programs satisfy these
requirements?
    A. Applicability
    B. Enhanced I/M Performance Standard
    C. Network Type and Program Evaluation
    D. Adequate Tools and Resources
    E. Test Frequency and Convenience
    F. Vehicle Coverage
    G. Test Procedures and Standards
    H. Test Equipment
    I. Quality Control
    J. Waivers and Compliance via Diagnostic Inspection
    K. Motorist Compliance Enforcement
    L. Motorist Compliance Enforcement Program Oversight
    M. Quality Assurance
    N. Enforcement Against Contractors, Stations, and Inspectors
    O. Data Collection, Analysis, and Reporting
    P. Inspector Training and Licensing or Certification
    Q. Public Information and Consumer Protection
    R. Improving Repair Effectiveness
    S. Compliance With Recall Notices
    T. On-Road Testing
    U. Concluding Statement
V. What additional I/M program components are being submitted into
the SIPs?
VI. Final Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On June 1, 2009, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts submitted a
formal revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP); Massachusetts
later made a minor revision to that submittal on November 30, 2009.\1\
On November 17, 2011, the State of New Hampshire submitted a formal
revision to its SIP. These SIP revisions include regulations to update
the enhanced motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs in
Massachusetts and New Hampshire. EPA is approving Massachusetts' and
New Hampshire's revised I/M programs because they are consistent with
the Clean Air Act (CAA) I/M requirements and EPA's I/M regulations, and
will strengthen the SIP. Specifically, the Massachusetts June 1, 2009
SIP revision includes amendments to the Massachusetts regulations 310
CMR 60.02 and 540 CMR 4.00, and other administrative and technical
documentation required in a SIP submittal to address the requirements
for the implementation of the motor vehicle inspection and maintenance
program in Massachusetts. The New Hampshire November 17, 2011 SIP
revision includes amendments to the New Hampshire regulations Saf-C
3200 and Saf-C 5800, and other administrative and technical
documentation required in a SIP submittal to address the requirements
for the implementation of the motor vehicle inspection and maintenance
program in New Hampshire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The November 30, 2009 revision replaced the copy of the
Registry of Motor Vehicles regulation 540 CMR 4.00, included as
Appendix 3 of the June 1, 2009 SIP submittal, with a copy stamped by
the Secretary of State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What are the Clean Air Act requirements for I/M programs?

    The CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq., requires certain states to
implement an enhanced I/M program to detect gasoline-fueled motor
vehicles which emit excessive amounts of certain air pollutants. The
enhanced I/M program is intended to help states meet federal health-
based national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone and
carbon monoxide by requiring vehicles with excess emissions to have
their emissions control systems repaired. Section 182 of the CAA
requires I/M programs in those areas of the nation that are most
impacted by carbon monoxide and ozone pollution. 42 U.S.C. 7511c.
Section 184 of the CAA also created an ``Ozone Transport Region'' (OTR)
and includes I/M requirements for that region. The OTR geographically
includes the states from Virginia to Maine (including all of
Massachusetts and New Hampshire) and the District of Columbia
Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area. In addition, EPA
promulgated I/M regulations at 40 CFR part 51 Subpart S. Depending on
the severity of an area's nonattainment classification and/or
geographic location within the OTR, EPA's regulation under 40 CFR
51.350 outlines the appropriate motor vehicle I/M requirements.
    As a result of having areas designated nonattainment for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS (see 40 CFR 81.322 for Massachusetts and 40 CFR
81.330 for New Hampshire), and by virtue of their inclusion in the OTR,
Massachusetts and New Hampshire have implemented statewide enhanced
vehicle emissions testing programs. Both states have operated a vehicle
testing program, in some fashion, since 1999.
    In 1999, as part of its comprehensive plan to improve the state's
air quality, Massachusetts implemented an enhanced I/M program. The
Massachusetts I/M program was first approved into the SIP on November
15, 2000 (65 FR 68898) as a limited approval and SIP strengthening
measure. EPA's November 15, 2000 rulemaking describes the limited
approval and the supplemental information needed in order for
Massachusetts' program to be fully approved and meet the I/M
requirements of the CAA. The previously SIP-approved Massachusetts I/M
program consisted of a decentralized test and repair network, with
minimal test-only facilities, which utilized dynamometers to test
tailpipe emissions on model year 1984 and newer vehicles. Under this
program,

vehicles were due for emissions inspections biennially. Since that
time, the program has been modified in a number of ways. In 2004,
Massachusetts implemented OBD2 testing of model year 1996 and newer
vehicles. Most notable amongst all of Massachusetts' I/M program
changes was the shift to an ``OBD2-testing only'' I/M program, which
occurred on October 1, 2008. As of October 1, 2008, tailpipe testing
conducted on a dynamometer ceased, the frequency for emissions
inspections on vehicles changed from biennial to annual, and vehicles
15 model years old and older are exempt from emissions testing.
    The New Hampshire I/M program was first approved into the SIP on
January 10, 2001 (66 FR 1868) as a SIP strengthening measure. The
January 10, 2001 SIP approval discusses the flexibility granted to New
Hampshire for implementing an I/M program based on New Hampshire
meeting the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. This SIP-approved New Hampshire I/M
program consisted of an ``anti-tampering'' program, a visual check for
proper connection of emissions control components, and the commitment
for a statewide implementation of OBD2 testing on vehicles required to
be equipped with OBD2 vehicle monitoring systems. Since that time, the
New Hampshire I/M program has evolved into a robust decentralized I/M
program consisting of a test and repair network which includes OBD2
testing of model year 1996 and newer vehicles. New Hampshire continues
to operate an anti-tampering program on vehicles up to 20 years old
that are not subject to an OBD2 inspection.

III. What are the OBD2 requirements and how do Massachusetts' and New
Hampshire's programs address these requirements?

    On April 5, 2001, EPA published in the Federal Register
``Amendments to Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program Requirements
Incorporating the On-Board Diagnostics Check'' (66 FR 18156). The
revised I/M rule requires that electronic checks of the OBD2 system on
model year 1996 and newer OBD2-equipped motor vehicles be conducted as
part of states' motor vehicle I/M programs. OBD2 is part of the
sophisticated vehicle powertrain management system and is designed to
detect engine and transmission problems that might cause vehicle
emissions to exceed allowable limits. OBD2 requirements are a key part
of this rulemaking action.
    The OBD2 system monitors the status of up to 11 emission control
related subsystems by performing either continuous or periodic
functional tests of specific components and vehicle conditions. The
first three testing categories--misfire, fuel trim, and comprehensive
components--are continuous, while the remaining eight only run after a
certain set of conditions has been met. The algorithms for running
these eight periodic monitors are unique to each manufacturer and
involve such things as ambient temperature as well as driving
conditions. Most vehicles will have at least five of the eight
remaining monitors (catalyst, evaporative system, oxygen sensor, heated
oxygen sensor, and exhaust gas recirculation or EGR system) while the
remaining three (air conditioning, secondary air, and heated catalyst)
are not necessarily applicable to all vehicles. When a vehicle is
scanned at an OBD2-I/M test site, these monitors can appear as either
``Ready'' (meaning the monitor in question has been evaluated, also
interchangeably appears as ``Complete'' on some vehicles), ``Not
Ready'' (meaning the monitor has not yet been evaluated, also
interchangeably appears as ``Not Complete'' on some vehicles), or
``Unsupported'' (meaning the vehicle is not equipped with the component
monitor in question and the monitor is not applicable). The monitors
that are available in a certain vehicle's emission control design are
referred to as being ``Supported,'' and only supported monitors need to
be evaluated by the vehicle's computer to ultimately receive a
``Ready'' or ``Not Ready'' designation.
    The OBD2 system is also designed to fully evaluate the vehicle's
emissions control system. If the OBD2 system detects a problem that may
cause vehicle emissions to exceed 1.5 times the Federal Test Procedure
(FTP) standards, then the Malfunction Indicator Light (MIL) is
illuminated. By turning on the MIL, the OBD2 system notifies the
vehicle operator that an emissions-related fault has been detected and
the vehicle should be repaired as soon as possible, thus reducing the
harmful emissions contributed by that vehicle.
    EPA's revised OBD2 I/M rule applies to those areas that are
required to implement I/M programs under the CAA, which includes
Massachusetts and New Hampshire. The revised I/M programs submitted by
Massachusetts, on June 1, 2009, and New Hampshire, on November 17,
2011, both include OBD2 testing for model year 1996 and newer vehicles.
    EPA's OBD2 program requires scan tool equipment to read the
vehicle's built-in computer sensors in model year 1996 and newer
vehicles. The OBD2-I/M check consists of two types of examinations: A
visual check of the dashboard display function and status; and an
electronic examination of the OBD2 computer itself. The failure
criteria for OBD2 testing is any Diagnostic Trouble Code (DTC) or
combination of DTCs that result in the MIL to be commanded on. A DTC is
a code that indicates a malfunction in an emission control system or
component which may cause emissions to increase to 1.5 times the limit
due to the malfunction. Both Massachusetts and New Hampshire have
incorporated this OBD2 component into their programs.
    If the OBD2 scan reveals DTCs that have not commanded the MIL on,
the motorist should be advised of the issue, but the vehicle should not
be failed unless other non-DTC based failure criteria have been met.
Vehicles may fail an inspection if the vehicle connector is missing,
tampered with or otherwise inoperable, if the MIL is commanded on and
is not visually illuminated, and if the MIL is commanded on for one or
more DTCs as defined in the Society of Automotive Engineering (SAE)
J2012 guidance document, and EPA regulations.
    Vehicles are rejected from testing if the scan of the OBD2 system
reveals a ``Not Ready'' code for any OBD2 component. EPA's final
implementation guidance (``Performing Onboard Diagnostic System Checks
as Part of a Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program,'' EPA 420-R-
01-015, June 2001) allows states the flexibility to permit model year
1996 to 2000 vehicles with two or fewer unset readiness codes, and
model year 2001 and newer with one unset readiness code to complete an
OBD2-I/M inspection without being rejected. Vehicles would still fail
if the MIL was commanded on or if other failure criteria were met, or
be rejected from inspection if three or more unset readiness codes were
encountered. If the MIL is not commanded to be illuminated the vehicle
would pass the OBD2 inspection even if DTCs are present. Massachusetts'
and New Hampshire's testing programs are consistent with the EPA
recommended readiness failure criteria. Massachusetts' program
regulations, at 310 CMR 60.02(12)(b), and New Hampshire's program
regulations, at Saf-C 3222.03, require that the programs meet the OBD2
testing requirements and procedures set forth in 40 CFR 85.2222.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Both the Massachusetts regulation at 310 CMR 60.02(12)(b)
and the New Hampshire regulation at Saf-C 3222.03 directly cite, and
therefore incorporate by reference, the federal regulation at 40 CFR
85.2222. For purposes of the federal SIPs, EPA interprets both
regulations as incorporating by reference the version of 40 CFR
85.2222 as most recently amended on April 5, 2001 (66 FR 18156),
rather than prospectively incorporating any future changes to 40 CFR
85.2222.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes that for an OBD2-I/M test program to be most
effective, it should be designed to allow for: (1) Real-time data link
connections to a centralized testing database; (2) quality-controlled
input of vehicle and owner identification information; and (3)
automated generation of test reports. Massachusetts and New Hampshire
have incorporated these OBD2 program elements into their I/M programs.

IV. What are all the other I/M regulatory requirements and how do
Massachusetts' and New Hampshire's I/M programs satisfy these
requirements?

A. Applicability

    The SIP describes in detail the areas subject to the enhanced I/M
SIP revision and, consistent with 40 CFR 51.372, includes the legal
authority necessary to establish program boundaries. The Massachusetts
I/M regulations (``Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection and
Maintenance Program'' at 310 CMR 60.02 and ``Annual Safety and Combined
Safety and Emissions Inspection of All Motor Vehicles, Trailers, Semi-
trailers and Converter Dollies'' at 540 CMR 4.00) and authorizing
legislation (Massachusetts Statutes at M.G.L. c.111, sec. 142M; M.G.L.
c.21A, subsec. 2(28) and 16; M.G.L. c.90, sec. 2, 7A, 7V, 7W, and 31),
as well as the New Hampshire I/M regulations (``Official Motor Vehicle
Inspection Requirements'' at Saf-C 3200) and authorizing legislation
(New Hampshire Statutes codified at RSA 125-C:6, 260:6-b, 263:56-a,
266:1, 266:1-a, 266:5. 266:59-b, and 266:59-c), ensure that the
enhanced I/M program be implemented statewide.

B. Enhanced I/M Performance Standard

    Today's rulemaking discusses the I/M programs designed, in part, to
meet the enhanced I/M performance standard for ozone precursors causing
air quality problems in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. EPA's
performance standard establishes an emission reduction target that must
be met by a program in order for the SIP to be approvable. The I/M
programs, as documented in the Massachusetts and New Hampshire SIP,
must meet the performance standard in actual operation, with provisions
for appropriate adjustments if the standard is not met.
    The emissions modeling conducted as part of the performance
standard evaluation in the I/M SIP submittals illustrates that the new
Massachusetts and New Hampshire I/M programs are more stringent than
the federally required performance standard, and more stringent than
the previous I/M programs approved into the SIP. Thus, both SIP
submittals satisfy the anti-backsliding requirements of CAA section
110(l).
    Both Massachusetts' and New Hampshire's I/M SIP submittals include
the appropriate MOBILE6 vehicle emissions modeling demonstration \3\
considering the required performance standard and the actual program
being implemented statewide in each state. Massachusetts's submittal
also includes a comparison to the previously SIP-approved program that
Massachusetts is no longer implementing. The modeling runs for
Massachusetts included evaluations of 2009 through 2012, and an out
year of 2018 compliance dates and the modeling runs for New Hampshire
considered evaluations with 2007, 2009, and an out year of 2015
compliance dates. Both Massachusetts and New Hampshire have
demonstrated that reductions from the updated program are greater than
those achieved by the pre-existing I/M program and the EPA performance
standard. The MOBILE6 modeling performed by Massachusetts and New
Hampshire reflects the fact that both states conduct OBD2 testing of
all gasoline powered model year 1996 and newer vehicles. For
Massachusetts, the MOBILE6 modeling appropriately reflects the fact
that Massachusetts conducts annual emissions testing on vehicles up to
15 years old. The MOBILE6 modeling performed by New Hampshire also
shows that the State operates an anti-tampering program on vehicles up
to 20 years old that are not subject to OBD2 testing. However, in the
first year of analysis (2009 for Massachusetts and 2007 for New
Hampshire), both Massachusetts' and New Hampshire's MOBILE6 analyses of
the updated I/M programs, show a minimal increase in emissions. The
minimal emissions increase can be attributed to the limitations of the
MOBILE6 model. Vehicle testing requirements are included in 310 CMR
60.02 for Massachusetts and Saf-C 3200 for New Hampshire, and details
of meeting the performance standard are included in section 2 of the
narrative of each state's SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Since March 2, 2010, EPA's required model for on-road
vehicle emissions modeling in SIPs is the MOtor Vehicles Emissions
Simulator (MOVES) model. (See 75 FR 9411; March 2, 2010.) The
Massachusetts SIP revision was submitted prior to the MOVES release
date. Regarding the New Hampshire SIP revision, EPA's March 2, 2010
Notice (75 FR 9411), as well as EPA's guidance document, ``Policy
Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 and Subsequent Minor Revisions for
State Implementation Plan Development, Transportation Conformity,
and Other Purposes'' (EPA-420-B-12-010), allow for SIPs relying on
MOBILE6.2 vehicle emissions modeling to continue to be approvable
where significant work has already occurred using the MOBILE6.2
model. New Hampshire conducted the vehicle emissions modeling using
MOBILE6.2 prior to the release of the MOVES model, and significant
work had been conducted on the New Hampshire I/M SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Network Type and Program Evaluation

    Under the CAA and EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must include a
description of the network to be employed and the required legal
authority. Also, for enhanced I/M areas, the SIP needs to include a
description of the evaluation schedule and protocol, the sampling
methodology, the data collection and analysis system, the resources and
personnel for evaluation and related details of the evaluation program,
as well as the legal authority establishing the evaluation program.
    Massachusetts' and New Hampshire's revised programs consist of a
test and repair I/M network program design utilizing contractors to
manage and oversee the inspection portion of the program. Both states
have implemented a continuous ongoing evaluation program consistent
with the federal I/M rule. Both states commit to developing and
submitting the annual and biennial reports described by 40 CFR 51.366
and the results of the evaluation programs are included in the annual
and biennial reports. Both Massachusetts and New Hampshire have
sufficient legal authority to implement this contractor managed program
in concert with local inspection stations and conduct the program
evaluation, as necessary to implement I/M consistent with federal
requirements. Details of the network type and program evaluation are
included in section 3 of each state's SIP narrative.

D. Adequate Tools and Resources

    Under the CAA and EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must include a
description of the resources that will be used for program operation
and must discuss how the performance standard will be met, including:
(1) A detailed budget plan describing the source of funds for
personnel, program administration, program enforcement, purchase of
necessary equipment (such as vehicles for undercover audits), and for
other requirements discussed throughout the I/M rule; and (2) a
description of personnel resources, the number of

personnel dedicated to overt and covert auditing, data analysis,
program administration, enforcement, and other necessary functions, and
the training attendant to each function.
    Massachusetts and New Hampshire operate self-funded I/M programs.
Revenue from the inspection fees charged to motorists is used for all
expenses associated with the administration, implementation, and
enforcement of the I/M programs. Both Massachusetts and New Hampshire
have adequate staff dedicated to overt and covert auditing, data
analysis, program administration, enforcement, and other necessary
program functions. Section 4 of each state's SIP narrative, and the
attachments to the SIP narratives, describe the budget, staffing
support, and equipment needed to implement the programs.

E. Test Frequency and Convenience

    Under EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must include a detailed test
schedule, including the test year selection scheme if testing is other
than annual. The SIP must also include the legal authority necessary to
implement and enforce the test frequency requirement and explain how
the test frequency will be integrated with the enforcement process. In
addition, in enhanced I/M programs, the SIP needs to demonstrate that
the network of stations providing testing services is sufficient to
ensure customer convenience by providing short waiting times for a
test, and short driving distances to the test center.
    The Massachusetts and New Hampshire SIP revisions require annual
inspections for all subject motor vehicles. Massachusetts obtains a
``blue-print'' of the emissions-related component monitors that are
available, or ``supported,'' on a particular vehicle by conducting an
initial inspection after a new vehicle is registered. This ``blue-
print'' snapshot is extremely helpful if the vehicle ever has any
emissions-related issues in the future and concerns arise about which
monitors of emissions-related components should be operating on a
particular vehicle. New Hampshire's SIP revision requires the annual
testing of vehicles based on the vehicle owner's month of birth.
Section 5 of the SIP narratives and the contracts with the I/M program
vendors include additional information for ensuring convenient testing
wait times and convenient testing locations.

F. Vehicle Coverage

    Under EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must include a detailed description
of the number and types of vehicles to be covered by the program, and a
plan for identifying subject vehicles, including vehicles that are
routinely operated in the area but may not be registered in the area.
Also, the SIP must include a description of any special exemptions
which will be granted by the program, and an estimate of the percentage
and number of vehicles granted such exemptions. Such exemptions need to
be accounted for in the emission reduction analysis. In addition, the
SIP needs to include legal authority necessary to implement and enforce
the vehicle coverage requirement.
    The Massachusetts and New Hampshire I/M programs cover all light-
duty vehicles and light-duty trucks up to 8,500 pounds Gross Vehicle
Weight Rating (GVWR), operating on all fuel types, as required by the
federal I/M rule for enhanced programs. Massachusetts' I/M program also
covers heavy-duty vehicles (heavy-duty being those vehicles with a GVWR
greater than 8,500 pounds). New Hampshire's I/M program does not set
requirements on any heavy-duty gas vehicles, although heavy-duty diesel
vehicles with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds are subject to roadside
testing requirements under Saf-C 5800. Additional information on the
heavy-duty vehicle testing requirements in Massachusetts and New
Hampshire can be found in Section V of this rulemaking notice.
    In Massachusetts and in New Hampshire, light-duty vehicles and
trucks that are model year 1996 and newer, operating on a fuel other
than diesel fuel, are subject to an OBD2 inspection. Both states
require light-duty diesel-fueled vehicles that are model year 1997 and
newer, to undergo an OBD2 inspection. New Hampshire also requires
vehicles up to 20 years old to be subject to New Hampshire's anti-
tampering program if such vehicles are not subject to an OBD2
inspection.
    Both Massachusetts and New Hampshire exempt special classes of
vehicles from the emission testing programs, including: Vehicles older
than 15 model years old in Massachusetts and vehicles older than 20
model years old in New Hampshire; motorcycles; assembled vehicles,
reconstructed vehicles, grey market vehicles,\4\ and specialty import
vehicles, as appropriate; and vehicles that have been issued exemptions
by EPA. Based on information provided in the SIP submittals,
Massachusetts and New Hampshire have shown that such exemptions will
not prevent the programs from achieving the EPA-required performance
standard. Additional detail supporting this conclusion was included in
section 6 of each state's SIP narrative. Legal authority for the
vehicle coverage requirements in Massachusetts are contained in the
Massachusetts I/M regulations (``Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Emissions
Inspection and Maintenance Program'' at 310 CMR 60.02 and ``Annual
Safety and Combined Safety and Emissions Inspection of All Motor
Vehicles, Trailers, Semi-trailers and Converter Dollies'' at 540 CMR
4.00) and the authorizing legislation (Massachusetts Statutes at M.G.L.
c.111, sec. 142M; M.G.L. c.21A, subsec. 2(28) and 16; M.G.L. c.90, sec.
2, 7A, 7V, 7W, and 31). Legal authority for the vehicle coverage
requirements in New Hampshire are contained in the New Hampshire I/M
regulations (``Official Motor Vehicle Inspection Requirements'' at Saf-
C 3200) and the authorizing legislation (New Hampshire Statutes
codified at RSA 125-C:6, 260:6-b, 263:56-a, 266:1, 266:1-a, 266:5.
266:59-b, and 266:59-c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

G. Test Procedures and Standards

    Under EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must include a description of each
test procedure used. The SIP also must include the rule, ordinance, or
law describing and establishing the test procedures. The Massachusetts
and New Hampshire I/M SIP revisions and associated regulations obligate
each state to perform OBD2 testing on all 1996 and newer vehicles, in
accordance with EPA procedures. A vehicle which cannot be tested using
OBD2, due to known issues with readiness monitors or lack of electronic
communication, will be subject to alternative test procedures,
consisting primarily of a visual bulb check to ensure the MIL is not
illuminated. Both Massachusetts' and New Hampshire's OBD2 testing
procedures are based on the testing procedures established by EPA for
light duty vehicles in 40 CFR 85.2222. Details of the test procedures
and standards are included each state's I/M regulations and in Section
7 of each state's SIP narrative.

H. Test Equipment

    Under EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must include written technical
specifications for all test equipment used in the program and address
each of the requirements set forth at 40 CFR 51.358. The specifications
must describe the emission analysis process, the necessary test
equipment, the required features, and written acceptance testing
criteria and procedures.

    In Massachusetts' June 1, 2009 submittal and New Hampshire's
November 17, 2011 submittal, both states provide written equipment
specifications as contained in EPA's final implementation guidance and
the appendices of EPA's I/M rule. Both SIP submittals and their
appendices address the requirements in 40 CFR 51.358 and include
descriptions of performance features and functional characteristics of
the computerized test systems. The submittals reference 40 CFR Part 51
and 85, and are consistent with the procedures outlined in 40 CFR
85.2222 and EPA's final implementation guidance. The necessary test
equipment, required features, and acceptance testing criteria are
discussed in section 8 of each state's SIP narrative.

I. Quality Control

    Under EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must include a description of quality
control and recordkeeping procedures. The SIP also must include the
procedures manual, rule, and ordinance or law describing and
establishing quality control procedures and requirements.
    Both the Massachusetts and New Hampshire I/M SIP narratives, as
well as each state's program contract, contain descriptions and
requirements establishing the quality control procedures in accordance
with the federal I/M rule and EPA's final implementation guidance.
These requirements will help ensure that equipment calibrations are
properly performed and recorded and that the necessary compliance
document security is maintained. As described in section 9 of each
state's SIP narrative, the Massachusetts and New Hampshire SIPs comply
with all specifications for quality control set forth in Section 51.359
and Appendix A of the federal I/M rule, and EPA's final implementation
guidance.

J. Waivers and Compliance via Diagnostic Inspection

    Under EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must include a maximum waiver rate
expressed as a percentage of initially failed vehicles. This waiver
rate is used for estimating emission reduction benefits in the modeling
analysis. Corrective action must be taken if the waiver rate exceeds
that estimated in the SIP, or a state must revise its SIP and claim
emission reductions accordingly. The SIP also must describe the waiver
criteria and procedures, including cost limits, quality assurance
methods and measures, and administration. Lastly, the SIP must include
the necessary legal authority, ordinance(s), or rules to issue waivers,
set and adjust cost limits as required, and carry out any other
functions necessary to administer the waiver system, including
enforcement of the waiver provisions.
    Cost limits for the minimum expenditure waivers must be in
accordance with the CAA and the federal I/M rule. According to federal
requirements, expenditures of at least $450 for actual, non-tampering
related repairs, must be spent in order to qualify for a waiver in an
enhanced I/M program; this amount shall be adjusted annually according
to changes in the Consumer Price Index as specified in 40 CFR
51.360(a)(7). Massachusetts regulations at 310 CMR 60.02(17)(c)(8)
allow for waivers to be issued which meet minimum repair expenditures
ranging from $550 to $750 depending on the vehicle model year.
Massachusetts intends to annually update the cost to receive a waiver
from the emissions testing program in accordance with federal
requirements. New Hampshire does not issue conventional repair waivers.
However, an economic hardship time extension as allowed under EPA's
rule, is also allowed in the Massachusetts and New Hampshire programs.
Massachusetts and New Hampshire have demonstrated that they can meet
the enhanced I/M performance standard testing with the current program
design in each state.
    The Massachusetts and New Hampshire programs include waiver rates
of 1.0% and 0.5%, respectively, of initially failed vehicles. These
waiver rates are used in the modeling demonstration. Massachusetts' and
New Hampshire's SIP submittals essentially commit that, if the waiver
rates determined by each state's I/M program reports are higher than
the aforementioned waiver rates (1.0% for Massachusetts and 0.5% for
New Hampshire), the state will take corrective action to address the
deficiency. Both states' SIPs describe the types of waivers that will
be allowed, minimum expenditure waivers and/or economic hardship time
extensions. These issues are dealt with in a manner consistent with the
federal I/M rule. The proper criteria, procedures, quality assurance
and administration regarding the issuance of waivers, consistent with
EPA's I/M rule, will be ensured by each state and their I/M program
contractor and are detailed in section 10 of each state's SIP narrative
and the state's regulations: Massachusetts at 310 CMR 60.02(16) through
60.02(19) and New Hampshire at Saf-C 3222.08.

K. Motorist Compliance Enforcement

    Under EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must provide information concerning
motorist enforcement, including: (1) A description of the existing
compliance mechanism if it will continue to be used for the program,
and the demonstration that it is as effective, or more effective, than
registration denial enforcement; (2) an identification of the agencies
responsible for performing each of the applicable activities in this
section; (3) a description of, and accounting for, all classes of
exempt vehicles; and (4) a description of the plan for testing fleet
vehicles, and any other special classes of subject vehicles, such as
those operated (but not necessarily registered) in the program area.
Also, a SIP must include a determination of the current compliance rate
based on a study of the system including an estimate of compliance
losses due to loopholes, counterfeiting, and unregistered vehicles.
Estimates of the effect of closing such loopholes and otherwise
improving the enforcement mechanism must be supported with detailed
analyses. In addition, the SIP needs to include the legal authority to
implement and enforce the program. Lastly, the SIP must include a
commitment to an enforcement level and minimum compliance level used
for modeling purposes and to be maintained, at a minimum, in practice.
    Massachusetts and New Hampshire both have chosen to use a
registration suspension program which suspends the vehicle registration
of a vehicle that fails to meet emission testing requirements. The
motorist compliance enforcement program will be implemented primarily
by the state agencies charged with implementing the I/M program in
their respective states. However, state police and local law
enforcement can provide citations for vehicles not complying with the
I/M program. The enforcement strategy is described in each state's
submittal. The enforcement strategy is designed to ensure a high rate
of compliance. Those not receiving the emissions test as scheduled will
be subject to fines and late penalties, and also will have their
vehicle registrations suspended. Both Massachusetts and New Hampshire
have over a 96 percent program compliance rate with the emissions
inspection program. The legal authority to implement and enforce the
program is included in each state's law and in the state agency
regulations as submitted in the respective SIP submittals.
(Massachusetts regulations at 540 CMR 4.07(4), authority at MGL c.90,
sec. 2 and sec. 22; New Hampshire

authority at RSA 266:1, RSA 266:5, and RSA 263:56-a). Additional detail
of the motorist compliance enforcement program is included in section
11 of each state's SIP narrative.

L. Motorist Compliance Enforcement Program Oversight

    Under EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must include a description of
enforcement program oversight and information management activities.
    The Massachusetts and New Hampshire I/M SIP revisions provide for
regular auditing of each state's enforcement program and adherence to
effective management practices, including adjustments to improve the
programs when necessary. These program oversight and information
management activities are described in each state's SIP narrative, and
include a description of the emissions testing databases of each
state's programs (the Automated Licensing and Registration System,
ALARS, in Massachusetts and the New Hampshire OBD and Safety Testing,
NHOST, program testing and reporting system in New Hampshire). If a
vehicle is out of compliance with the emissions testing requirement,
registration is suspended. Each state's SIP describes the procedures to
be followed in identifying noncomplying vehicles, along with
appropriate follow-up and program documentation audits in sections 11
and 12 of their SIP narratives.

M. Quality Assurance

    Under EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must include a description of the
quality assurance program, and written procedure manuals covering both
overt and covert performance audits, record audits, and equipment
audits.
    The June 1, 2009 Massachusetts submittal and the November 17, 2011
New Hampshire submittal include a description of each respective
state's quality assurance program. The quality assurance programs will
include overt and covert performance audits, digital audits on station
and inspector performance, and equipment audits. New Hampshire does not
currently have an official covert audit program that utilizes vehicles
pre-set to pass or fail an emissions test. However, New Hampshire
places emphasis on sophisticated electronic analyses to evaluate
station and inspector performance by identifying anomalies and
irregularities; law enforcement officers auditing a station and/or
inspector that has been identified by the digital audit, begin by
essentially conducting covert visual audits and then proceed to audit
that stations and certified inspectors are following the inspection
requirements. Both Massachusetts and New Hampshire cover all of their
respective program's inspection stations with the implemented quality
assurance plans and conduct overt and/or covert audits, both in
response to customer complaints and as targeted follow-up. Detailed
quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures are included in
each state's SIP submittal at section 13 of the SIP narratives and in
the inspection program contract agreements.

N. Enforcement Against Contractors, Stations, and Inspectors

    Under EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must include a penalty schedule and
legal authority for establishing and imposing penalties, civil fines,
station and inspector license suspension, and revocations. In the case
of state constitutional impediments precluding immediate authority to
suspend licenses, each state's Attorney General shall furnish an
official opinion within the state's SIP explaining the constitutional
impediment as well as relevant case law. Each state's SIP also must
describe the administrative and judicial procedures and
responsibilities relevant to the enforcement process, including the
agencies, courts, and jurisdictions involved; personnel to prosecute
and adjudicate cases; and other aspects of the enforcement of the
programs requirements, the resources to be allocated to the enforcement
function, and the source of those funds. In states that are without
immediate suspension authority, the SIP must demonstrate that
sufficient resources, personnel, and systems are in place to meet the
three-day case management requirement for violations that directly
affect emission reductions.
    The Massachusetts and New Hampshire I/M SIP revisions include
specific penalties in its enforcement against contractors, stations,
and inspectors in accordance with the federal I/M rule. Based on their
SIP submittals dated June 1, 2009 for Massachusetts and dated November
17, 2011 for New Hampshire, each state's enforcement procedures can be
pursued through contractual or regulatory action. Each state, through
the contract that it has been authorized to enter into directly, under
MGL c.111, sec. 142M and c.21A, sec. 16 for Massachusetts and under RSA
260:6-b for New Hampshire, has the authority to immediately suspend a
station inspector for violations that directly affect emission
reduction benefits and a variety of other violations of procedures.
Details on enforcement against contractors, stations, and inspectors
are found in section 14 of each state's SIP submittal narrative.

O. Data Collection, Analysis, and Reporting

    Under EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must describe the types of data to be
collected. EPA's I/M rule also requires that the SIP describe the
procedures for data analysis and reporting to allow for monitoring and
evaluation of the program.
    The Massachusetts and New Hampshire I/M SIP revisions provide for
collecting test data to link specific test results to specific
vehicles, I/M program registrants, test sites, and inspectors. The test
data and quality control data which will be collected are described in
section 15 of each state's SIP narrative and I/M program vendor
contract. The data will be used to generate reports concerning test
data, quality assurance, quality control, enforcement, as well as
necessary changes and identified weaknesses in the programs. Both
Massachusetts and New Hampshire have also committed to collecting all
data necessary for quality assurance and enforcement reports, as
required by section 51.366 of the federal I/M rule. Details on data
analysis and reporting are found in section 16 of each state's SIP
narrative.

P. Inspector Training and Licensing or Certification

    Under EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must include a description of the
training program, the written and hands-on tests, and the licensing or
certification process.
    The I/M SIP submittals from Massachusetts and New Hampshire provide
details on each state's respective inspector training program. Both
Massachusetts' and New Hampshire's I/M SIP provides for implementation
of training, licensing, and refresher programs for emission inspectors.
The states' SIP and their respective inspection program contract
describe the inspector training program and curriculum including
written and hands-on testing. All inspectors will be required to be
certified to inspect vehicles in their state's I/M program. Further
details of the Inspector Training Program are included in section 17 of
each state's SIP narrative.

Q. Public Information and Consumer Protection

    Under EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must include a plan for consumer
protection and informing the public, on an ongoing basis, of the air
quality problems, the need for and benefits of a motor vehicle

inspection program, and how to find a qualified repair technician,
amongst other information related to the requirements of the I/M
program.
    Both Massachusetts and New Hampshire have implemented a web site
for their respective I/M program. Each state's Web site is designed to
provide information to motorists, the general public, inspectors, and
repair technicians regarding the respective state's I/M program. Both
Massachusetts and New Hampshire have the ability to take in general
questions and concerns, both via a telephone hotline and electronically
via the Web site, and have established a mechanism by which a vehicle
owner can contest the results of an inspection. Further details of the
public information and consumer protection plans are included in
section 18 of each state's SIP narrative and the program contract.

R. Improving Repair Effectiveness

    Under EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must include a description of the
technical assistance program to be implemented, a description of the
procedures and criteria to be used in meeting the performance
monitoring requirements of this section for enhanced I/M programs, and
a description of the repair technician training resources available in
the community.
    In Massachusetts' June 1, 2009 and New Hampshire's November 17,
2011 submittals, each state provided additional detail and description
of the technical assistance, performance monitoring, and repair
technician training programs to be implemented. The SIP revisions, as
detailed in section 19 of each state's SIP narrative, provide for
regularly informing repair facilities about changes to the inspection
program, training course schedules, common problems, and potential
solutions for particular engine families, diagnostic tips, repairs, and
other assistance issues. As described in the states' submittals,
Massachusetts and New Hampshire have also ensured that repair
technicians may utilize the telephone hotline, or the electronic
inquiry system on the program Web site, with any repair questions or
concerns. Performance monitoring statistics of repair facilities will
be provided to motorists whose vehicles fail the I/M test, as required
in enhanced I/M areas. The states have committed to ensure that
adequate repair technician training exists by establishing training
courses at technical schools in the area.

S. Compliance With Recall Notices

    Under EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must describe, for enhanced I/M
programs, the procedures used to incorporate the vehicle recall lists
provided into the inspection or registration database, the quality
control methods used to insure that recall repairs are properly
documented and tracked, and the method (inspection failure or
registration denial) used to enforce the recall requirements. EPA has
not yet established a computerized database listing all recalled
vehicles.
    The revised Massachusetts and New Hampshire I/M SIPs will ensure
that vehicles subject to enhanced I/M programs, that are included in
either a voluntary emission recall or a remedial plan determination
pursuant to the CAA, have had the appropriate repairs made prior to the
inspection. As described in section 20 of each state's SIP narrative,
the states and their contractors will implement this approach when EPA
databases exist which identify vehicles that have not completed recall
repairs. At that time, motorists with unresolved recall notices will be
required to show proof of compliance or will be denied the opportunity
for inspection.

T. On-Road Testing

    Under the CAA and EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must include a detailed
description of the on-road testing program required in enhanced I/M
areas, including the types of testing, test limits and criteria, the
number of vehicles (the percentage of the fleet) to be tested, the
number of employees to be dedicated to the on-road testing effort, the
methods for collecting, analyzing, utilizing, and reporting the results
of on-road testing, and the portion of the program budget to be
dedicated to on-road testing. Also, the SIP must include the legal
authority necessary to implement the on-road testing program, including
the authority to enforce off-cycle inspection and repair requirements.
In addition, emission reduction credit for on-road testing programs can
only be granted for a program designed to obtain significant emission
reductions over and above those predicted to be achieved by other
aspects of the I/M program. The SIP needs to include technical support
for the claimed additional emission reductions.
    The I/M SIPs submitted on June 1, 2009 by Massachusetts and on
November 17, 2011 by New Hampshire, include a description of the status
of an on-road testing program in section 21 of each state's SIP
narrative. Massachusetts' and New Hampshire's SIPs highlight the
ability for each state to implement pilot testing of remote emissions
testing technologies, and will implement a full on-road testing program
when the testing technology is demonstrated to be reliable. Neither
Massachusetts nor New Hampshire included additional modeling credit for
the on-road portion of their state inspection programs when
demonstrating that EPA's performance standard was met.

U. Concluding Statement

    A more detailed analysis of the Massachusetts and New Hampshire
submittals and how they meet the federal requirements is contained in
EPA's technical support document (TSD) prepared for this action. The
TSD is available from the EPA Regional Office listed above and in the
docket for this action. The criteria used to review the submitted SIP
revisions are based on the requirements set forth in section 182 of the
CAA and in the federal I/M regulations, 40 CFR Part 51 Subpart S. Based
on these requirements, EPA developed a detailed I/M approvability
checklist to be used nationally to determine if I/M programs meet the
requirements of the CAA and the federal I/M rule. The checklist states
the federal requirements, referenced by section of the rule, and
whether the Massachusetts and New Hampshire programs meet such
requirements. This checklist, the CAA, and the federal I/M regulation
formed the basis for EPA's technical review. EPA has reviewed the
Massachusetts and New Hampshire I/M SIP revisions submitted to EPA
using the criteria stated above. The Massachusetts and New Hampshire
regulations and accompanying materials contained in the SIP submittals
from each state represent an acceptable plan to comply with the I/M
requirements and meet all the criteria required for EPA to approve the
SIP submittals. EPA's review of the materials submitted indicates that
Massachusetts and New Hampshire have revised their I/M programs in
accordance with the requirements of the CAA, 40 CFR Part 51, and all of
EPA's technical requirements for an approvable vehicle inspection and
maintenance program, including OBD2.

V. What additional I/M program components are being submitted into the
SIPs?

    The I/M SIPs submitted on June 1, 2009 by Massachusetts and on
November 17, 2011 by New Hampshire, include a description of certain
vehicle testing components that have been incorporated into each
state's emissions testing program, which are not currently covered by
the federal I/M rule. In this rulemaking, EPA is approving these

components into each state's respective SIP. The emissions testing
requirements, vehicle coverage, testing frequency, and test procedures
and standards discussed in Section V. of this rulemaking can be found
at 310 CMR 60.02 and 540 CMR 4.00 for Massachusetts and Saf-C 3200 and
Saf-C 5800 for New Hampshire.
    Massachusetts requires non-diesel vehicles that are model year 2008
and newer, with a GVWR greater than 8,500 pounds and less than or equal
to 14,000 pounds, to be subject to an OBD2 inspection. Diesel vehicles
that are model year 2007 and newer, with a GVWR greater than 8,500
pounds and less than or equal to 14,000 pounds, are subject to an OBD2
inspection. All (diesel and non-diesel) heavy-duty vehicles with a GVWR
greater than 14,000 pounds, are subject to an OBD2 inspection starting
with model year 2010 vehicles as OBD systems are phased-in and required
to be installed on the vehicles.
    Diesel vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR that are model year 1984
and newer, are subject to Massachusetts' annual snap acceleration smoke
test, the ``opacity'' test, based on the test specified by SAE J1667.
In addition, Massachusetts also conducts roadside pullovers of diesel
vehicles, over 10,000 pounds GVWR, registered in any state or country,
and conducts opacity testing on all vehicles irrespective of age.
    Massachusetts is also submitting revised testing standards, for the
opacity testing conducted on those heavy-duty diesel vehicles subject
to the Massachusetts opacity test, which are more stringent than those
previously approved into the Massachusetts SIP. The revised opacity
testing standards for Massachusetts are included at 310 CMR 60.02(12).
Diesel trucks greater than 10,000 pounds GVWR: that are model year 1984
to 1990 must meet an opacity standard of 40% opacity (previous standard
was 55% opacity); that are model year 1991 to 1996 must meet an opacity
standard of 30% opacity (previous standard was 40%); and that are model
year 1997 and newer must meet an opacity standard of 20% (previous
standard was 40%). Diesel buses greater than 10,000 pounds GVWR: that
are model year 1984 to 1987 must meet an opacity standard of 40%
opacity (the same as previous standard); that are model year 1988 to
1993 must meet an opacity standard of 30% opacity (previous standard
was 40%); and that are model year 1994 and newer must meet an opacity
standard of 20% (previous standard was 30%). As stated earlier, all
diesel vehicles under 14,000 pounds GVWR, are now subject to OBD2
testing; thus the opacity standards previously approved into the
Massachusetts SIP for diesel vehicles under 10,000 pounds GVWR are no
longer applicable. Diesel vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR receive an
opacity test if OBD2 has not been phased-in on a particular vehicle.
    New Hampshire operates a roadside pullover opacity inspection
program. New Hampshire conducts opacity testing on all vehicles over
10,000 pounds GVWR, and all diesel-powered buses manufactured to carry
25 or more passengers, irrespective of age. New Hampshire's opacity
testing standards are included at Saf-C 5804.08. New Hampshire exempts
federal and military vehicles from opacity testing, as well as vehicles
that can pass a ``quick screen'' process upon being pulled over and
selected for testing. Upon being pulled over, any vehicle that can
present proof of having passed an opacity test in New Hampshire, or any
other state, within the previous 12 months or can present proof of
having repairs to address emission violations, are exempted from
testing. These non-federal exemptions do not apply if any subject
vehicle appears to be emitting visible black smoke.

VI. Final Action

    EPA is approving the SIP revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts on June 1, 2009 and November 30, 2009, as well as the SIP
revision submitted by the State of New Hampshire on November 17, 2011.
Each state's SIP revision contains the respective state's revised motor
vehicle inspection and maintenance program regulations and associated
SIP narrative. Specifically, EPA is approving the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection Regulation at 310 CMR 60.02 and
the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles Regulation at 540 CMR
4.00. EPA is also approving the New Hampshire Department of Safety
Regulations at Saf-C 3201, Saf-C 3202, Saf-C 3203, Saf-C 3204, Saf-C
3205, Saf-C 3206.04, Saf-C 3207, Saf-C 3209, Saf-C 3210, Saf-C 3218,
Saf-C 3220, Saf-C 3222, Saf-C 3248, and Saf-C 5800. EPA is approving
Massachusetts' and New Hampshire's revised I/M programs because they
are consistent with the CAA I/M requirements and EPA's I/M regulations
and they will strengthen the Massachusetts and New Hampshire SIPs.
    EPA is incorporating the aforementioned rules by reference into the
Massachusetts and New Hampshire SIPs, respectively, except as set forth
below. Specifically, both the Massachusetts and New Hampshire programs
contain enforcement provisions that detail state enforcement
procedures, including administrative, civil, and criminal penalties,
and administrative and judicial procedures. See 310 CMR 60.02(24)(f);
NH Saf-C 3222.04(d), NH Saf-C Part 3248, NH Saf-C Part 5805. Such
enforcement-related provisions are required elements of an I/M SIP
under 40 CFR 51.364, and EPA is approving the provisions as meeting
those requirements. However, EPA is not incorporating those provisions
by reference into the EPA-approved federal regulations at 40 CFR part
52. In any federal action to enforce violations of the substantive
requirements of the Massachusetts or New Hampshire I/M programs, the
relevant provisions of Section 113 or 304 of the CAA, rather than state
enforcement provisions, would govern. Similarly, the applicable
procedures in any federal action would be the applicable federal court
rules or EPA's rules for administrative proceedings at 40 CFR part 22,
rather than state administrative procedures. Since the state
enforcement provisions would not be applicable in a federal action,
incorporating these state-only enforcement provisions into the federal
regulations would have no effect. To avoid confusion to the public and
regulated parties, EPA is not incorporating these provisions by
reference into the EPA-approved federal regulations in the states'
respective plan identifications in 40 CFR part 52. Specifically, EPA is
not incorporating Massachusetts' regulation 310 CMR 60.02(24)(f) into
the federal regulations at 40 CFR 52.1120(c) or 52.1167, and EPA is not
incorporating New Hampshire's regulations Saf-C 3222.04(d), Saf-C Part
3248, or Saf-C Part 5805 into the federal regulations at 40 CFR
52.1520(c) or 52.1525.
    The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates
no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should
relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective March
26, 2013 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant
adverse comments by February 25, 2013.
    If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. All parties
interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this
time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this
rule will be effective on March 26, 2013 and no further action will be
taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 26, 2013. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed
rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in
the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

     Dated: November 14, 2012.
H. Curtis Spalding,
 Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

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

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart W--Massachusetts

0
2. Section 52.1120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(137) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (137) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection on June 1, 2009
and November 30, 2009.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Regulation 310 CMR 60.02 entitled ``Massachusetts Motor Vehicle
Emissions Inspection and Maintenance Program,'' effective in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts on September 5, 2008, with the exception
of subsection 310 CMR 60.02(24)(f).
    (B) Regulation 540 CMR 4.00 entitled ``Annual Safety and Combined
Safety and Emissions Inspection of All Motor Vehicles, Trailers, Semi-
trailers and Converter Dollies,'' effective in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts on September 5, 2008.
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) Letter from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection, dated June 1, 2009, submitting a revision to the
Massachusetts State Implementation Plan.
    (B) Letter from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection, dated November 30, 2009, amending the June 1, 2009 State
Implementation Plan submittal.
    (C) Massachusetts June 1, 2009 SIP Revision Table of Contents Item
7, ``Documentation of IM SIP Revision consistent with 42 USC Section
7511a and Section 182(c)(3)(A) of the Clean Air Act.''

0
3. In Sec.  52.1167, Table 52.1167 is amended by revising the entries
for Regulations 310 CMR 60.02 and 540 CMR 4.00 to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1167  EPA-approved Massachusetts State regulations.

* * * * *

                                                  Table 52.1167--EPA-Approved Massachusetts Regulations
                                                               [See notes at end of table]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Date         Date
          State citation                   Title/subject         submitted   approved by     Federal Register     52.1120(c)      Comments/unapproved
                                                                  by State       EPA             citation                              sections
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
310 CMR 60.02.....................  Massachusetts Motor              6/1/09      1/25/13  [Insert Federal                137  Revises enhanced I/M test
                                     Vehicle Emissions                                     Register page number                requirements to consist
                                     Inspection and                                        where the document                  of ``OBD2-only'' testing
                                     Maintenance Program.                                  begins].                            program. Approving
                                                                                submitted regulation with
                                                                                the exception of
                                                                                subsection 310 CMR
                                                                                60.02(24)(f).
540 CMR 4.00......................  Annual Safety and Combined       6/1/09      1/25/13  [Insert Federal                137  Revises requirements for
                                     Safety and Emissions                                  Register page number                inspections and
                                     Inspection of All Motor                               where the document                  enforcement of I/M
                                     Vehicles, Trailers, Semi-                             begins].                            program.
                                     trailers and Converter
                                     Dollies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1. This table lists regulations adopted as of 1972. It does not depict regulatory requirements which may have been part of the Federal SIP before this
  date.
2. The regulations are effective statewide unless otherwise stated in comments or title section.

Subpart EE--New Hampshire

0
5. In Sec.  52.1520:
0
a. The table in paragraph (c) is amended by removing the entry NHCAR,
Part Saf-C 3221A and adding a new entry for Saf-C 3200 in its place,
and by removing the entry for NHCAR, Part Saf-C 5800 and adding a new
entry for Saf-C 5800 in its place; and
0
b. The table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding a new entry at the
end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1520  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) EPA-approved regulations.

                                     EPA-Approved New Hampshire Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             EPA approval
       State citation          Title/subject      State effective date         date \1\         Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Saf-C 3200..................  Official Motor   6/22/07 and 6/20/08.......  1/25/13 [Insert  EPA is approving
                               Vehicle                                      Federal          submitted
                               Inspection                                   Register page    subsections Saf-C
                               Requirements.                                number where     3201, 3202, 3203,
                                                                            the document     3204, 3205,
                                                                            begins].         3206.04, 3207.01,
                                                                                3209, 3210, 3218,
                                                                                3220, and 3222
                                                                                (except for
                                                                                subsection
                                                                                3222.04).
Saf-C 5800..................  Roadside Diesel  1/1/99....................  1/25/13 [Insert  Approving submitted
                               Opacity                                      Federal          regulation with the
                               Inspection.                                  Register page    exception of
                                                                            number where     subsection Saf-C
                                                                            the document     5805.
                                                                            begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the
  Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.

    (e) Nonregulatory.

                                          New Hampshire Non-Regulatory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          State
                                       Applicable       submittal
   Name of non-regulatory SIP      geographic or non-     date/      EPA-approved date         Explanations
            provision               attainment area     effective           \3\
                                                           date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
SIP Narrative associated with     Statewide..........   11/17/2011  1/25/13 [Insert      .......................
 New Hampshire Vehicle                                               Federal Register
 Inspection and Maintenance                                          page number where
 Program SIP Revision.                                               the document
                                                                     begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the
  Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.

[FR Doc. 2013-00929 Filed 1-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 66100]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20814]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98458; File Nos. SR-NYSE-2023-29, SR-NYSEAMER-2023-39,
SR-NYSEArca-2023-53, SR-NYSECHX-2023-16]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE
American LLC; NYSE Arca, Inc.; NYSE Chicago, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule
Change To Amend the Connectivity Fee Schedule Regarding Power
Allocation

September 20, 2023.
    On August 3, 2023, New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE American LLC,
NYSE Arca, Inc., and NYSE Chicago, Inc. each filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to section 19(b)(1)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend the connectivity fee
schedule to include an alternative procedure to allocate power in the
Mahwah Data Center. The proposed rule changes were published for
comment in the Federal Register on August 22, 2023.\3\ The Commission
has received no comments on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 98148 (August 16,
2023), 88 FR 57150 (SR-NYSE-2023-29); 98149 (August 16, 2023), 88 FR
57154 (SR-NYSEAMER-2023-39); 98150 (August 16, 2023), 88 FR 57142
(SR-NYSEArca-2023-53); 98151 (August 16, 2023), 88 FR 57159 (SR-
NYSECHX-2023-16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notices for these proposed rule
changes is October 6, 2023. The Commission is extending this 45-day
time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change and the comments
received. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of
the Act,\5\ designates November 20, 2023 as the date by which the
Commission shall either approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings
to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule changes (File
Nos. SR-NYSE-2023-29, SR-NYSEAMER-2023-39, SR-NYSEArca-2023-53, SR-
NYSECHX-2023-16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-20814 Filed 9-25-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 59 (Monday, March 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17358-17359]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06421]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-536, OMB Control No. 3235-0596]

 Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Rule 204A-1

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collections of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit these existing collections of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    The title for the collection of information is ``Rule 204A-1 (17
CFR 275.204A-1) under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940'' (15 U.S.C.
80b-1 et seq.). Rule 204A-1 (the ``Code of Ethics Rule'') requires
investment advisers registered with the Commission to (i) set forth
standards of conduct expected of advisory personnel (including
compliance with the federal securities laws); (ii) safeguard material
nonpublic information about client transactions; and (iii) require the
adviser's ``access persons'' to report their personal securities
transactions, including transactions in any mutual fund managed by the
adviser. The Code of Ethics Rule requires access persons to obtain the
adviser's approval before investing in an initial public offering or
private placement. The Code of Ethics Rule also requires prompt
reporting, to the adviser's chief compliance officer or another person
designated in the code of ethics, of any violations of the code.
Finally, the Code of Ethics Rule requires the adviser to provide each
supervised person with a copy of the code and any amendments, and
require the

supervised persons to acknowledge, in writing, their receipt of these
copies.
    The purposes of the information collection requirements are to: (i)
Ensure that advisers maintain codes of ethics applicable to their
supervised persons; (ii) provide advisers with information about the
personal securities transactions of their access persons for purposes
of monitoring such transactions; (iii) provide advisory clients with
information with which to evaluate advisers' codes of ethics; and (iv)
assist the Commission's examination staff in assessing the adequacy of
advisers' codes of ethics and assessing personal trading activity by
advisers' supervised persons.
    The respondents to this information collection are investment
advisers registered with the Commission. The Commission has estimated
that compliance with rule 204A-1 imposes a burden of approximately 87
hours per adviser annually for an estimated total annual burden of
1,275,659 hours.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person
shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection
of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB
control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication by May 27, 2022.
    Please direct your written comments to David Bottom, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O John
Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
[email protected].

    Dated: March 23, 2022.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-06421 Filed 3-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 181 (Friday, September 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 56452]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23423]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives
notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following
meeting related to the transmission planning activities of the New York
Independent System Operator, Inc.

The New York Independent System Operator, Inc. Electric System Planning
Working Group Meeting

September 24, 2015, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via Web conference and
teleconference.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/markets_operations/services/planning/index.jsp.
    The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters
at issue in the following proceedings:

New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER13-102.
ISO New England Inc., et al., Docket Nos. ER13-1957, et al.
ISO New England Inc., Docket Nos. ER13-193 and ER13-196.
New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER14-2059.
New York Power Authority, Docket No. ER15-2012.
New York Transco, LLC, Docket No. ER15-572.

    For more information, contact James Eason, Office of Energy Market
Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: September 11, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-23423 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P