MassDEP

Bureau of Waste Prevention

Division of Consumer and Transportation Programs

310 CMR 60.02:

Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection and Maintenance Program

Background Document and Technical Support for Public Hearings on the
Proposed Amendments to the

State Implementation Plan for Ozone

Regulatory Authority:  Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 111,

Sections 142A through 142M

February 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section											Page

INTRODUCTION								 3

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 310 CMR 60.02 	 5

KEY ISSUES									10

Emissions Testing Technology: From Idle to Dynamometer to OBD Test	11

Malfunction Indicator Light Bulb Check						12

Discretionary Flexibility for Operational Issues					14

Opacity Emissions Test Cutpoints						15

Emissions Waivers								16

Economic Hardship Failure Repair Extensions					17

Registered Repair Technicians							18

AIR QUALITY IMPACTS							19

ECONOMIC IMPACTS							23

Elimination of Dynamometer Tailpipe Testing					23

More Stringent Opacity Test Cutpoints						23

Increase in Emissions Test Frequency						24

APPENDICES

Appendix A - Proposed Amendments to 310 CMR 60.02

Appendix B - Notice of Public Hearing

Background Document and Technical Support For Public Hearing

To Consider Amendments to:

310 CMR 60.02: Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection and
Maintenance Program

February 2007

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) is
proposing amendments to the Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Emissions
Inspection and Maintenance Program Regulation, 310 CMR 60.02, and the
State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone.

I.	INTRODUCTION

Massachusetts’ air exceeds the federal health based standards for
ground level ozone. On “bad air” days, there are increases in asthma
attacks and hospitalizations for people with severe respiratory
ailments.  To reduce the number of “bad air” days and to comply with
the Federal Clean Air Act and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
regulations, Massachusetts implements a variety of federally mandated
programs, which are collectively known as the “State Implementation
Plan” or “SIP”.

The most recent inventory of sources of ozone causing pollutants
(volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides) in Massachusetts
indicates that motor vehicles operated on roads (“on-road vehicles”)
contribute approximately 37% of those pollutants.  To reduce pollution
from motor vehicles, EPA requires Massachusetts to operate an Enhanced
Inspection and Maintenance (I&M) program.  EPA sets performance
standards for I&M programs.

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (“MassDEP”)
and the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles (“RMV”) jointly
administer the I&M program.  The I&M Program is designed to reduce ozone
pollution and achieve and maintain clean air, and to ensure that motor
vehicles that are operated in the Commonwealth are safe.  The current
Massachusetts I&M program was authorized by the Legislature by Chapter
210 of the Acts of 1997.  Implementing regulations (310 CMR 60.02) were
initially adopted in January 1999.  Since 1999, the program has been
implemented through a contract with Applus Technologies, Inc.

The I&M program, as established in 1999, has four goals:

To reduce vehicle pollution;

To identify unsafe vehicles;

To ensure that the program is convenient and reasonably priced for the
public; and

To promote effective repairs by designing the program to fit well with
the repair industry.

There are approximately 4.6 million vehicles registered in
Massachusetts. Under the current regulations, all are required to obtain
an annual safety inspection, and the vast majority of vehicles receive
an emissions test every other year.  Vehicles currently exempt from
emissions testing are:

Model year 1984 or older;

Less than 2 years old and still registered to the original owner; or

Light and medium duty diesel fueled vehicles.

Since 1999, the program has relied on a decentralized network of
inspection stations that are licensed by RMV to conduct safety and
emissions tests.  Most Massachusetts vehicles receive their inspections
at local public stations.  The program also allows owners of vehicle
fleets to purchase testing equipment so they can test their own
vehicles.  In 2006, 1,674 stations conducted inspections:  1,565 were
public stations and 109 were fleet only stations.

The current contract will expire on September 30, 2008, and the Agencies
are now reviewing bids solicited through a competitive process for a new
contract.  MassDEP is proposing to amend its I&M regulations to update
the program and to comply with federal requirements that have been
enacted since the regulations were last amended.  At the same time, RMV
is proposing to amend its regulations (540 CMR 4.00-4.09).  The Agencies
will seek public comment jointly.  Also, prior to October 1, 2008, the
Executive Office of Administration and Finance may propose regulations
that would revise the fee that motorists pay for inspections, following
the promulgation of MassDEP and RMV revised regulations and the
execution of a new contract.  Vehicle testing under the new contract
will begin on October 1, 2008.

Under the proposed regulations, the I&M program will continue to deliver
inspections through a decentralized network of local inspection
stations.  All vehicles will continue to receive an annual safety
inspection.  However, the amendments propose to require an annual
emissions test, rather than the biennial test in the current program.
The emissions test would rely primarily on an “on-board diagnostic”
(OBD) test; the current program’s use of a dynamometer to test
tailpipe emissions would be discontinued.  Large diesel trucks and buses
not equipped with an OBD system would continue to receive an opacity
test; the amendments propose to lower the opacity cut points for these
vehicles.  As new medium- and heavy-duty vehicles become equipped with
OBD systems, they would also be required to obtain an annual OBD
emissions test.

This document summarizes the proposed amendments to 310 CMR 60.02, and
describes key issues on which MassDEP seeks public comment.  It also
describes the impact of these regulation (and program) changes on air
quality and the Commonwealth’s economy.  The proposed amendments can
be found in Appendix A.

As required by M.G.L. c. 111, Section 142K and M.G.L. c. 30A, MassDEP
seeks public comment on these proposals.  Information about public
hearings and how to submit written comment can be found in the Notice of
Public Hearing in Appendix B.  This public comment period has also been
designed to comply with EPA’s requirements for revisions of State
Implementation Plans.

II.	SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 310 CMR 60.02

The I&M regulation is proposed to be modified as follows.  The
amendments that are consistent with the new I&M program contract would
take effect on October 1, 2008.

OBD Emissions Testing

Tailpipe testing requirements for most vehicles that are not equipped
with OBD would be deleted.

Most OBD-equipped vehicles in Massachusetts would receive an annual
emissions test instead of a biennial test.

The vehicles described in Table 1 below would be subject to an OBD
emissions test.

Table 1

Vehicles That Would Receive an OBD Emissions Test

Vehicle Fuel 	Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR)	OBD Testing Starting
with Model Year

Non-diesel	Light duty: 8,500 pounds or less	1996

Diesel	Light duty:  8,500 pounds or less	1997

Non-diesel	Medium duty: greater than 8,500 and less than or equal to
14,000 pounds	2008

Diesel	Medium duty:  greater than 8,500 and less than or equal to 14,000
pounds	2007

All	Heavy duty:  greater than 14,000 pounds	Phased in as OBD systems are
required to be installed, starting with model year 2010

OBD-equipped vehicles would be exempt when they are 15 years old (a
rolling 15-year exemption).

Vehicles that fail the emissions test because the malfunction indicator
light (MIL) on the dashboard is commanded on by the OBD system would be
checked to make sure it is functioning.

When an emissions inspection indicates that a vehicle’s emission
control system has been tampered with or otherwise altered so that a
complete test cannot be performed, the motorist would be required to
present his or her vehicle to a location designated by the Agencies to
resolve the issue.   For example, a mismatch between the Vehicle
Identification Number (VIN) and the OBD VIN indicates that the
vehicle’s emission control system may have been tampered with.

New Vehicles Equipped with OBD

The two year exemption from emissions inspection currently provided for
new vehicles would be eliminated.

New vehicles would receive an advisory computer scan of their OBD
systems as part of the inspection required for the vehicles’ first
registration.  This scan would not be an emissions test, but it would
provide an electronic “fingerprint” of the vehicle for future use by
the Agencies in detecting tampering with vehicles’ emission control
systems and preventing fraudulent inspections.

The scan would verify that the OBD system is operating properly, and
would advise the dealer and the buyer if it finds a fundamental flaw
(e.g. the on-board computer is not performing the required checks on the
vehicle or will not communicate with OBD test equipment, or the
vehicle’s VIN and OBD VIN do not match).  If a fundamental flaw is
identified but not fixed before the vehicle has its first emissions
test, the vehicle would fail its inspection.  New car dealers authorized
by RMV to use their pre-delivery inspection as a safety inspection would
be allowed to perform this scan before a vehicle is delivered.

Emissions Tests for Medium and Heavy Duty Diesel Trucks and Buses  Not
Equipped with OBD

Opacity testing requirements would be retained for heavy-duty diesel
vehicles and medium duty diesel vehicles more than 10,000 pounds GVWR
that are model year 1984 and newer and that do not have OBD systems.

The diesel opacity cutpoints for the opacity test would be tightened, as
described in Table 2.

Table 2

Proposed Opacity Test Cutpoints

For Diesel Trucks and Buses greater than 10,000 pounds GVWR

	Current Cutpoints	Cutpoints

Beginning October 1, 2008

	Percent Opacity	Percent Opacity

Diesel trucks greater than 10,000 pounds GVWR

	1984 – 1990 model years	55%	40%

	1991 – 1996 model years 	40%	30%

	1997 and newer model years	40%	20%

Diesel buses greater than 10,000 pounds GVWR

	1984 – 1987 model years	40%	40%

	1988 – 1993 model years 	40%	30%

	1994 and newer model years 	30%	20%

Emissions Tests for Other/Specialty Vehicles

Glider kits (vehicles weighing more than 10,000 pounds with a different
vehicle body placed upon the original chassis) would be required to have
a visual inspection when they are first registered, to verify that they
were assembled consistently with their configuration certified by EPA or
the California Air Resources Board (CARB).  Some glider kits may be
subject to an opacity test, based on the model year of the chassis.

Kit vehicles (unique or replica vehicles with production volume less
than 500 vehicles per year) would be required to have a visual
inspection when they are first registered and upon change of ownership
to verify that they comply with applicable emission control
requirements.  This is consistent with EPA’s policy on kit vehicles.
A list of the documentation that must be provided for the kit vehicle
visual inspection will be posted on the Enhanced Emissions and Safety
Test Program web site.

Provisions governing engine-switching would be revised to reflect EPA
requirements, to ensure that replacement engines are appropriate for the
vehicle in which they are installed and maintain the vehicle’s low
emissions characteristics.

Definitions and other provisions would be revised to address assembled
and reconstructed vehicles, gray market vehicles, specialty import
vehicles, and vehicles that have been issued exemptions by EPA or CARB.

Waivers from Emission Standards

The expenditure thresholds for waiver eligibility would be increased,
based on increases in the Consumer Price Index since the thresholds were
originally established (on the basis of 1989 dollars).  Cost thresholds
for waivers would still be based on the age of the vehicle, and would be
used to consider a vehicle for a waiver when repair costs exceed:

$750 for vehicles five model years old or newer;

$650 for vehicles six to ten model years old; and

$550 for vehicles more than ten model years old.

The new waiver expenditure thresholds would be adjusted annually, based
on the changes in the Consumer Price Index, starting in 2010.

Eligibility criteria would be updated to reflect factors that the
program has been using informally to determine waiver eligibility for
OBD equipped vehicles since full-scale OBD testing started in 2004.
Waivers would only be available for vehicles that:

Failed their initial inspection, were repaired, and failed their
re-inspection;

Have not failed their reinspection for problems that would cause the
vehicle to be a gross emitter (catalytic converter efficiency, misfire,
diesel particulate filter or energy storage in hybrid vehicles);

Are registered as a private passenger motor vehicle or auto home (no
waivers for commercial vehicles);

Meet all safety requirements;

Show no evidence that the emissions control system has been tampered
with;

Have a properly functioning malfunction indicator light;

Have had repairs performed by a registered repair technician that are
appropriate to the diagnostic trouble codes that caused the failure;

Have used all relevant manufacturer related warranties and recalls; and

Have repair costs that exceeded the thresholds described above.

Costs associated with the following repairs would be ineligible for
consideration towards the waiver cost limit:

Correcting an improper engine switch or replacement;

Correcting tampering;

Returning the malfunction indicator light to proper operation;

Meeting the minimum test criteria for readiness (to ensure that the OBD
computer is running its required checks of vehicle systems); however,
for repairs requiring replacement of the power train control module
(i.e., the on-board computer), a motorist will be allowed to combine one
half of the replacement cost of the module with the cost of repairs
needed to resolve diagnostic trouble codes to meet the applicable waiver
expenditure limit; and

Any repairs not performed by a registered repair technician, except
where MassDEP has specified that certain specialty repairs may be
performed by a non-registered repairer.

The diagnostic waiver provision would be deleted, since this only
applies to tailpipe tests.  This deletion would take effect on October
1, 2008, when the tailpipe test would be discontinued.

Economic Hardship Failure Repair Extension

An Economic Hardship Repair Extension would allow a one year extension
of the requirement to pass an emissions test, for non-commercial OBD
vehicles that:

Have failed their re-inspection;

Have no safety failures;

Have an emissions control system that shows no evidence of tampering;

Have an estimate of emissions-related repair work from a registered
repair technician that MassDEP agrees is reasonable and is more than 1.5
times the applicable waiver repair expenditure threshold;

Have exhausted all warranty coverage including recalls; and

Do not qualify for a waiver.

The extension would be valid until the vehicle’s next emissions
inspection, and would not be eligible for renewal.  A vehicle receiving
an economic hardship repair extension would be required to pass its next
emissions test.

No economic hardship extensions would be given for inspections
associated with a change of ownership.

Registered Repairers

The registered repairer technician eligibility would be expanded to
include certifications for certain types of vehicles, such as:

Specific fuels (e.g., diesel); or

Specific engines, vehicle makes or models at a manufacturer’s repair
facility or dealership at which the registered repairer is employed.

MassDEP would be authorized to remove repairers from the list of
registered repair technicians if the repairer:

Does not maintain the requirements for qualification;

Provides false documentation of a repair or repair costs to the
Agencies; or

Has been determined to have been a party to deceptive or fraudulent
business practices related to emissions control system repairs or to
environmental protection.

In addition to its current practice of removing repair shops that no
longer employ a registered repair technician from the program’s list
of registered repair facilities, MassDEP would also be authorized to
remove repair shops from the list of registered repair facilities if the
repair shop:

Provides false documentation of a repair or repair costs to the
Agencies; or

Has been determined to have been a party to deceptive or fraudulent
business practices related to the repair of emission control systems or
environmental protection.

General

I&M requirements that are currently in effect would remain so through
September 30, 2008.

New requirements proposed in this package (which are consistent with the
new I&M program contract) would take effect on October 1, 2008.

Minor edits would align the regulations with current program practices,
such as:

Allowing vehicles that have been granted an emission control system
waiver or exemption by the certifying agency (EPA or CARB) to also be
exempt from the Massachusetts emissions inspection to the extent of the
waiver or exemption;

Changing the requirement for an emissions inspection from within seven
days of the date of vehicle purchase to within seven days of the date on
which the motor vehicle is registered in the state to the new owner, as
is currently required by the RMV;

Specifying which waiver provisions apply specifically to transient
loaded or two-speed idle tests, and to OBD tests; and

Clarifying the definition of “tampering” to note that the term
includes using a fuel that a vehicle is not certified to use or
otherwise approved by EPA or CARB.

Proposed revisions to 310 CMR 60.02 can be found in Appendix A.

III.	Key Issues

The federal Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA) required EPA to
establish rules for states to follow in designing and implementing
vehicle inspection and maintenance programs.  Section 182(c)(3) of the
CAA amendments addresses vehicle inspection and maintenance programs.
On November 5, 1992, EPA issued final rules implementing Section 182 of
the CAA amendments of 1990.  The MA program has been designed to comply
with EPA requirements except in circumstances where the program goes
beyond federal requirements (e.g., opacity testing).

Emissions Testing Technology:  From Idle to Dynamometer to OBD Test

Beginning in Spring 1983, Massachusetts implemented an I&M program based
on a vehicle emissions idle test that measured carbon monoxide (CO) and
hydrocarbon (HC) emissions at the tailpipe while the vehicle was idling.
 In implementing the 1990 CAA, EPA required that MassDEP, as part of its
comprehensive plan to improve the state’s air quality, replace its
vehicle emissions idle test with an enhanced emissions inspection and
maintenance program.  The enhanced program was based on a dynamometer
test, which simulated driving conditions while measuring CO and HC at
the tailpipe, and included NOx testing for the first time in
Massachusetts.  In 1999, MassDEP revised the Massachusetts I&M
regulations to reflect the enhanced I&M program, and, with RMV, selected
a network contractor through a competitive bidding process to manage the
inspection program.

In April 2001, EPA updated the I&M testing requirements to require
testing using vehicles’ own OBD systems that started to be built into
light duty vehicles beginning with model year 1996.  MassDEP amended the
Massachusetts I&M regulations in 2003 to include EPA’s requirement to
use OBD systems to test emissions.

EPA’s requirement for the use of OBD systems applied to light-duty
vehicles fueled with gasoline and other non-diesel fuels (“non-diesel
vehicles”) and sold in the U.S.  Beginning with model year 1996, OBD
systems were required to meet specifications known as “OBD II”.  OBD
II is a standardized protocol in which a vehicle monitors its own
emissions control systems with an on-board computer and communicates
information from the computer to external test equipment in an
inspection.  The OBD protocol monitors the vehicle’s emissions control
systems under actual driving conditions, rather than the conditions
simulated by a dynamometer used to test tailpipe emissions.  OBD checks
provide a more complete assessment of the emission control system’s
performance:  for example, the OBD evaporative control check tests the
complete vapor control system, not just the gas cap which is checked on
vehicles that are not equipped with OBD.

The amendments to the I&M regulations proposed here reflect the changing
Massachusetts vehicle fleet and improved testing technologies.  In 2006,
76% of the vehicles registered in Massachusetts were equipped with OBD.
By 2009, MassDEP projects that this percent will increase to 88%, and by
2012 to 94%.  While EPA has required light duty non-diesel vehicles to
be equipped with OBD since model year 1996, the agency has also required
OBD to be installed in medium-duty diesel vehicles starting with model
year 2007, and medium-duty non-diesel vehicles starting with model year
2008.  New heavy-duty vehicles are scheduled to begin phasing in OBD
compliance beginning with model year 2010, and to complete phase-in by
model year 2013.

To comply with EPA’s requirement to use the OBD approach to the
maximum extent possible, these revisions of the I&M regulation propose
to discontinue dynamometer tailpipe testing and to rely on OBD emissions
testing, starting with the commencement of the new program contract on
October 1, 2008.  As the Massachusetts vehicle fleet becomes
increasingly equipped with OBD, there is a decreasing need for
dynamometer tailpipe testing.  As the dynamometer equipment that was
installed in inspection stations in 1999 continues to age, it is
increasingly expensive and labor intensive to operate, maintain, repair,
calibrate, and audit.  As the fleet continues to turn over, there will
be fewer and fewer pre-1996 vehicles in Massachusetts and this equipment
would be used less and less often.  Where the tailpipe test on the
dynamometer takes approximately fifteen minutes to perform, the OBD
emissions test takes only one or two minutes, providing shorter wait
times for motorists.  In addition, the OBD emissions test makes it
easier for the Agencies to detect and enforce against inspector fraud
and vehicles that have been tampered with by motorists.

RMV requires that safety inspections of all vehicles include a check for
visible smoke; vehicles emitting visible smoke are required to be
repaired and re-tested (540 CMR 4.00-4.09).  RMV is proposing to
continue to subject non-OBD compliant light- and medium-duty vehicles
(e.g., pre-model year 1996 vehicles) to this prohibition, which will
help ensure that older vehicles emitting enough smoke to be seen by an
inspector are repaired.

The amendments proposed by MassDEP include a new requirement that
non-OBD compliant kit vehicles (unique or replica vehicles manufactured
in lots of less than 500) will also receive a separate comprehensive
visual test when new and upon change of ownership, to ensure that all
required emissions control components are installed.  Heavy-duty diesel
vehicles and medium-duty diesel vehicles more than 10,000 pounds GVWR
and not otherwise subject to an OBD test will continue to receive an
opacity test.

The revisions of the I&M regulation would add a requirement that a
computer scan of a new vehicle’s OBD system be performed to establish
an “electronic fingerprint” of the vehicle’s OBD system when the
vehicle is new.  This scan would not be an emissions test, but would
provide data that the Agencies could use in the future to determine
whether future inspections are being conducted properly.  It would also
provide the vehicle purchaser and the dealer with early notice of
problems that would need to be resolved before the vehicle receives its
first emissions inspection.  The vehicle owner and dealer/manufacturer
would then have a year to address any potential problems, if necessary,
rather than the 60 day period that is normally be afforded for repairs
following an emissions test failure.

The amendments would eliminate the current two-year exemption from
emissions testing for new vehicles that remain registered to their
original owners.  Earlier emissions testing would identify malfunctions
covered by emissions warranties when the warranties are still in effect,
enhancing consumer protection.

Malfunction Indicator Light Bulb Check

Current Massachusetts OBD test procedures do not check the operation of
the malfunction indicator light (MIL) bulb.  The amendments would
require that the MIL bulb be checked in vehicles that fail their OBD
test when the MIL is commanded on:

In an initial inspection, the inspector would be prompted to check to
see whether the MIL bulb is illuminated when the workstation detects
that the MIL has been commanded on.  This bulb check would be performed
with the vehicle in a “key on/engine running” (KOER) mode.  If the
bulb is not illuminated, the vehicle would fail its inspection.  Failure
of the MIL to illuminate when commanded on would be listed as a cause of
the emissions test failure on the Vehicle Information Report (VIR)
provided to the motorist.

When a vehicle fails this bulb check, its re-inspection would include a
“key on/engine off” (KOEO) bulb check to verify that the bulb has
been repaired.  If vehicle repairs were unsuccessful and the MIL is
still commanded on, the inspector would also be prompted to check MIL
function in the KOER mode.  A waiver would not be issued to a vehicle
that has this malfunction, and costs for this repair would not count
toward waiver cost repair limits.

A KOEO bulb check is proposed only for vehicles that failed the KOER
bulb check during their initial inspection.  When MassDEP developed the
current OBD test procedures, consideration was given to the probability
that vehicles would fail the KOEO bulb check, the likelihood of false
failures for the KOEO bulb check, and the motorist inconvenience caused
by false failures.

Information from Oregon’s centralized OBD emissions test program
(obtained by MassDEP in 2002) showed a KOEO bulb check failure rate of
0.2%.  Even with this low failure rate, Oregon opined that this aspect
of the test was highly prone to false failures because the MIL stayed
illuminated in some vehicles for only a very brief period, so that the
illuminated bulb was not always seen by inspectors.  About half of the
vehicles failing the KOEO bulb check also failed their emissions test
because the electronic scan of the OBD system found the MIL was
commanded on.

Based on Oregon’s experience, prior to beginning full scale OBD
testing in 2004, Massachusetts conducted a brief OBD pilot program that
included the KOEO bulb check.  Of the vehicles that failed their OBD
test in this pilot program, 4.2% failed the KOEO bulb check.  This
raised concern that inspectors were likely to falsely fail a substantial
number of vehicles.  The New England Service Station and Auto Repair
Association commented that the bulb check was unnecessary because the
MIL command status was being checked by the electronic scan of the OBD
system, and that some vehicles were likely to have a high false failure
rate because their MIL does not stay on very long when the key is first
turned on, so that the inspector could easily miss the bulb’s
illumination.

More recent information from other states indicates that KOEO bulb check
failure rates remain very low.  In I&M programs designed with
centralized testing, the failure rates range from 0.4-0.7%, and in
decentralized testing, the failure rates range from 0.3-0.6%; however
the potential for false failures remains high.

Keyless ignition systems have become more widespread than they were when
the Oregon program information was developed and the Massachusetts pilot
program was conducted.  Keyless ignition systems operate in a variety of
ways: some vehicles automatically start when the electronic key
approaches the vehicle, while others activate the ignition and require
the motorist to merely push a button to start the vehicle.  With more of
these varied systems achieving market penetration, the likelihood that
an inspector would miss a bulb that is only illuminated for a short time
in a vehicle tested in KOEO mode would be expected to increase.

Another factor makes a KOEO bulb check difficult is the number of
self-monitoring warning lights populating vehicle dashboards.  In
addition to the traditional temperature, oil pressure, and charging
system indicator lights, many dashboards now include indicator lights
for antilock brake systems, air bag monitors, electronic stability
control, active suspension, driving mode selection, light monitors (for
burned out bulbs), low fuel indicators, loose gas caps, and unclosed
doors.  Add other functions, such as hybrid vehicle power distribution
and diesel catalytic systems for certain other vehicles, and it is
understandable that an inspector might have difficulty locating the MIL
among all the other bulb tests the vehicle performs when the ignition
key is turned on.

MassDEP estimates that the average Massachusetts inspector would see
about 2-4 vehicles/year that fail the KOEO bulb check.  Assuming the
Oregon finding that half of the KOEO bulb check failures also failed
because the MIL was commanded on, that leaves 1-2 failures related
directly to these bulbs per year (assuming the KOEO bulb check failure
rate information from other state includes no false failures).

In summary, Massachusetts is not proposing to perform a KOEO bulb check
for all vehicles as part of the OBD test procedure because:

The KOEO bulb check failure rate is low in other states;

Vehicles with disabled MILs are likely to be vehicles that fail the
electronic scan of the OBD system;

Vehicles failing the electronic scan of the OBD system because the MIL
is commanded on will receive a bulb check;

The bulb check is becoming increasingly prone to false failures because
of changes in vehicles themselves; and

False failures related to the bulb check raise concerns about costs to
motorists in terms of both time and money.

Discretionary Flexibility for Operational Issues

The amendments would provide the Agencies with some flexibility to
address unusual or unanticipated problems that can affect the operation
of I&M program.  For example, the elimination of the two-year deferral
of emissions testing for new vehicles may mean that new or substantially
redesigned vehicle models may experience design or production problems
would cause them to fail their initial emissions test if MassDEP does
not establish limited alternative emissions test procedures or defer the
requirement until manufacturers can take corrective action.  As medium-
and heavy-duty vehicle classes are outfitted with OBD systems, vehicle
or engine manufacturers may experience implementation issues that
require states to be flexible.

In another example, hand controls that allow a handicapped person to
operate a vehicle may be installed so that they block the OBD port,
preventing an OBD inspection from being performed.  This type of problem
may require that a customized test be developed specifically for an
individual vehicle, as opposed to a class of vehicles.

MassDEP intends to use the flexibility provisions only to address
operational problems, to advise EPA in a timely manner when these
problems arise, and to make appropriate adjustments in response to EPA
concerns.

Opacity Emissions Test Cutpoints for Diesel Vehicles Weighing More Than
10,000 pounds

EPA established the first emissions standards for smoke, hydrocarbons,
oxides of nitrogen and carbon monoxide for new diesel engines in 1974.
Emissions standards for particulate matter were added for new diesel
engines beginning in 1988.  Over time, deterioration and poor
maintenance of diesel engines can cause excessive levels of pollution
that is seen as black smoke.  Inspections that use opacity tests to
measure the density of black smoke identify vehicles that need to be
repaired.  Although the smoke opacity test does not test the diesel
vehicles at their respective engine emissions standards (as with the OBD
test), it can identify vehicles that exceed certain opacity levels (or
“cutpoints”):  the percent opacity (proportion of black smoke in the
vehicle’s exhaust) is used as an indicator of the level of particulate
matter that the vehicle is emitting.

Smoke inspections on older trucks and buses have spurred their owners to
conduct preventative maintenance.  The opacity inspection protocol used
in most northeast states (including Massachusetts) is the SAE J1667
Snap-Acceleration Smoke Test Procedure for Heavy-Duty Diesel Powered
Vehicles.  In 1999, EPA issued “Guidance to States on Smoke Opacity
Cutpoints to be used with the SAE J1667 In-Use Smoke Test Procedure”
supporting the cutpoints that the program currently uses to identify
vehicles needing repairs.  Also in 1999, Massachusetts joined eight
other northeastern states in signing a Memorandum of Understanding to
develop smoke opacity inspection programs that are as consistent as
possible.  Massachusetts began conducting opacity inspections in 2000 on
diesel vehicles model year 1984 and newer.  Under the proposed
amendments, diesel vehicles more than 10,000 pounds GVWR that are not
OBD-equipped would continue to receive the opacity test in
Massachusetts.

Recent developments in the diesel engine industry and improvements in
the emissions control technologies for diesel engines combine to make
diesel exhaust much cleaner than it has been in the past.  EPA’s
requirement that all on-road diesel vehicles use ultra low sulfur diesel
fuel (that took effect on October 15, 2006), has allowed for more
stringent engine emission standards beginning with model year 2007.  As
a result, new diesel vehicles are being equipped with diesel particulate
filters to lower emissions.

As a result of these developments, New Jersey is now considering
lowering its diesel opacity cutpoints for heavy duty trucks and buses,
which would be used in both roadside inspections and their IM program,
based on their study of 70,000 New Jersey smoke opacity inspections.
MassDEP is proposing in this regulation package to adopt these lower
diesel opacity cutpoints, which are also being considered for adoption
by other northeast states.

Emissions Waivers

EPA allows states to offer waivers from compliance with emission
standards, in order to balance repair costs for failing vehicles with
the environmental benefits that result from successful repairs and
provide some economic relief to owners of failed vehicles.  In
Massachusetts, waivers have been made available to motorists whose
vehicles have failed their re-inspections after having met certain
repair criteria, which include a requirement that emissions-related
repairs are performed by a registered repair technician.  Emissions
waivers are valid until the vehicle’s next emissions inspection.

In 2005 and 2006, approximately 2.9 million initial OBD emissions tests
were administered and approximately 9.2% (272,000) vehicles failed.  The
Agencies issued 210 waivers to OBD vehicles that failed their initial
inspection in 2005 and 2006 (less than 0.1% of vehicles failing an
initial OBD test).  MassDEP attributes the low emissions waiver rate to:

Motorists wanting their vehicle repaired properly;

The program requiring emissions repairs be performed by registered
repairers to qualify for waivers;

The program providing assistance to motorists seeking emissions repairs
and repairers performing the work; and

The program prohibiting waivers for vehicles with misfire and catalytic
converter problems.

Both the number of vehicles tested and the number of emissions failures
are expected to increase as annual testing replaces biennial testing.
However, both are expected to increase at the same rate, so that the
failure rate is expected to remain roughly constant.  With the changes
proposed in this package to the criteria for obtaining a waiver, MassDEP
does not anticipate a significant change in the rate at which waivers
are issued:  it is expected to remain at or below 1% of vehicles failing
the OBD emissions test.  As required by EPA, the emissions benefit of
the proposed I&M program has been modeled with this emissions waiver
rate.

The current waiver repair criteria and expenditure requirements took
effect with the start of the current I&M program in 1999.  The
expenditure requirements use three tiers, to allow older vehicles to
meet waiver eligibility requirements at lower costs than newer vehicles
(see Table 3 below).  While the current expenditure limits were lower
than those required by EPA ($450 in 1989 dollars, adjusted based on
changes in the Consumer Price Index or “CPI”), they were approved by
EPA because MassDEP also prohibited issuing waivers to vehicles with
after-repair emissions that are more than three times the pass/fail
cutpoint and to OBD vehicles with engine misfire or catalytic converter
problems identified by the OBD system.  These additional criteria made
the Massachusetts waiver requirement at least as restrictive as the
higher waiver expenditure limit required by EPA.

The amendments propose to increase the waiver expenditure threshold
initially to the updated level established by EPA for vehicles five
years old and newer, and would decrease the threshold by $100 or $200
for older vehicles.  By retaining the three tiers, the program would
continue to require lower expenditures for older vehicles.  Table 3
compares the proposed initial repair expenditure requirements with the
levels used in the current program.  The $750 in Table 3 reflects the
EPA-mandated $450 adjusted for CPI through 2007.

Table 3

Waiver Expenditure Requirements

Vehicle Age	Current Waiver Expenditure Requirement	Proposed Initial
Waiver Expenditure Requirement

Five model years old or newer 	$400	$750

More than five but less than  10 model years old 	$300	$650

More than 10 model years old.  	$200	$550

In addition to increasing the base expenditure thresholds, the
amendments also propose to adjust the thresholds annually, by the
percentage (if any) that the CPI for the preceding calendar year differs
from the CPI for 1989 (the year on which EPA based the original
thresholds).  Adjusted expenditure limits would be rounded to the
nearest five dollars.  The limits for vehicles between five and ten
years old, and for vehicles more than ten years old, would be adjusted
by subtracting $100 and $200 respectively from the adjusted limit for
vehicles five years old and newer.  MassDEP would publish adjusted
expenditure limits on the program’s web site for the Enhanced
Emissions and Safety Test Program, as well as informing motorists
through inspection stations and registered repair shops.  The first
adjustments would take effect on January 1, 2010.

Although the repair expenditure requirements for older cars will still
be $100-$200 less than EPA requirements, MassDEP is proposing to retain
the program’s current practice of not issuing waivers for vehicles
with engine misfire or catalytic converter problems.  In addition,
waivers would also not be available for hybrid vehicles with problems
with their energy storage devices, or for problems involving particulate
filters on diesel vehicles.  Under the amendments, waivers would only be
available for vehicles registered for personal use (i.e., not for
commercial vehicles), which would ensure that waivers would not be
issued for more than 1% of the vehicles that fail an initial
inspections, as required in the I&M SIP.

MassDEP is seeking comment on the proposed repair expenditure amounts
for the emissions waiver and the revised criteria for waivers for OBD
vehicles.

Economic Hardship Failure Repair Extensions

In some situations, a single major vehicle component must be repaired or
replaced to enable a vehicle that has failed its initial inspection to
resolve diagnostic trouble codes and pass its re-test; these can include
rebuilds or replacements of transmissions and engines.  These repairs
usually require significant expenditures, and can create an economic
hardship for some vehicle owners. Therefore, the amendments propose to
establish a one-time extension of the deadline for fixing emissions
problems in certain situations.  To qualify for this extension, the
repair or replacement cost would need to be estimated by a registered
repair technician to be more than 1.5 times the applicable waiver repair
expenditure limit for a vehicle of that age.  To obtain the extension,
the motorist would need to bring the vehicle to a location designated by
the MassDEP or RMV for an assessment, and the Agency (or its designee)
would need to agree with the findings of the registered repairer.

The extension would not be available for commercial vehicles, vehicles
that show evidence of emissions control system tampering, or vehicles
that fail the safety inspection.  Also, it would not be available for
inspection failures associated with initial registrations or transfers
of ownership. The extension would not be renewable.  It would be valid
until the vehicle’s next emissions inspection:  at that time, the
vehicle would be required to pass the emissions test.  This provision is
intended is to give motorists extra time to pay for expensive major
repairs, such as rebuilding or replacing a transmission or engine.

MassDEP is seeking comment on the proposed economic hardship failure
proposal in general, and specifically on the proposed threshold value of
greater than 1.5 times waiver expenditure limit for the vehicle’s age.

Registered Repair Technicians

Air quality improvements from inspection and maintenance programs
ultimately are obtained from effective repairs.  In addition, vehicle
owners expect that repairs required to reduce emissions will be accurate
and cost effective.  Because an increasing number of model year 1996 and
newer vehicles are expected to fail when the program implements annual
emissions testing, the Agencies place considerable emphasis on promoting
proper emissions repairs through a registered repairer network.

Registered repairers have been, and will continue to be, an important
component of the I&M program.  Their knowledge and training in the
repair of emissions systems is expected to allow the program to meet the
commitment that MassDEP is making to EPA in its I&M SIP, i.e., to
maintain the proportion of waivers issued at or below 1% of failing
vehicles.  Since an increasing portion of the Massachusetts vehicle
fleet is OBD compliant, and OBD compliant light- and medium-duty diesel
vehicles will be required to pass an emissions test, the registered
repairer program needs to be updated to better serve motorists.

To become a registered repair technician under the current program,
applicants must complete required MassDEP-approved training and be
either ASE L-1 certified for non-diesel vehicles or ASE L-2 certified
for diesel vehicles.  However, the L-2 certification applies only to
heavy-duty diesel engines.  Therefore, the proposed amendments would
expand the registered repairer network to include technicians who
specialize in light- and medium-duty diesel vehicles.  The proposed
amendments would also take advantage of equivalent engine- and
manufacturer-specific certifications by allowing registered repairers to
be certified specifically for repairing only those types of engines or
vehicles at the repair facility or dealership recognized by the engine
or vehicle manufacturer at which the registered repairer is employed.

The amendments propose to allow MassDEP to remove repairers from the
list of registered repair technicians if the repairer does not maintain
the requirements for qualification, if he/she provides false
documentation of the repair or the costs of the repair to the Agencies,
or MassDEP determines that he/she has been a party to deceptive or
fraudulent business practices related to emissions repairs or to
environmental protection.  In addition, MassDEP would expand its ability
to remove repair shops from the list of registered repair facilities to
include situations where the shop provides false documentation of
repairs or their costs to the Agencies, and where the repair shop has
been determined to have been a party to deceptive or fraudulent business
practices related to emissions repairs or environmental protection.  The
list of registered repair facilities would continue to be maintained by
MassDEP on the Enhanced Emissions and Safety Test Program’s web site.

IV.	AIR QUALITY IMPACTS

In order for the proposed I&M regulation to be approved by EPA as a
revision to the Massachusetts ozone SIP, MassDEP must demonstrate how
the program changes will reduce emissions from on-road mobile sources
using EPA’s approved model (MOBILE6).  This model uses specific
Massachusetts’ data (such as fleet age by vehicle class, vehicle miles
traveled, and ambient temperatures) in combination with national factors
established by EPA (such as emission factors for vehicles by age and
class).  The model also uses parameters that describe the emissions
benefits of all of the Commonwealth’s mobile source emission control
programs (such as Stage II Vapor Recovery and Reformulated Gasoline).
The model calculates on-road emissions from the Massachusetts vehicle
fleet (in grams per mile) that are expected to remain after all of the
mobile source emission control programs are taken into account.  When
these emission estimates are combined with estimates of vehicle miles
traveled by the fleet, the overall inventory of on-road vehicle
emissions can be expressed in terms of tons per summer day (tpsd).

Section 110(n) of the U.S. Clean Air Act (the “savings clause”)
states that if a program required by the Act is revised, it must
maintain at least the emission benefits demonstrated when it was first
approved into the SIP.  Since EPA requires Massachusetts to implement an
I&M program due to the Commonwealth’s non-attainment status with
respect to ground level ozone, the revised program that these regulation
amendments would establish must maintain at least the level of emission
reductions that were demonstrated for the current I&M program.

MassDEP has modeled the emissions impact of the proposed program, which
relies on annual OBD testing and removes requirements for transient
testing for pre-model year 1996 vehicles, using EPA’s MOBILE6 model.
MassDEP assumed the proposed program would begin in October 2008 and
would exempt vehicles that are 15 or more model years old from the
emissions testing requirement.  The emissions benefits of the proposed
program were compared with those estimated for the current program with
biennial emissions testing (transient testing for model year 1984-1995
vehicles and OBD testing for model year 1996 and later vehicles).  The
estimated figures for vehicle miles traveled per day by the
Massachusetts fleet as a whole that were used to determine the emissions
figures are shown in Table 4.

Table 4

Estimated Vehicle Miles Traveled Used to Model Air Quality Impacts of
Proposed Changes in the Massachusetts I&M Program

	2009	2010	2011	2012	2018

Estimated VMT per day	149,228,000	149,962,000	150,694,000	151,427,000
155,700,000

Table 5 and the graph below show the results of the modeling for 2009
through 2012, and for 2018 (the final analysis year required by EPA for
the 8-hour Ozone SIP).  The emission figures show the tons per summer
day of on-road mobile source emissions that would remain if the current
biennial testing program were to be continued into the future, under the
proposed annual OBD testing program, and the difference, or delta,
between the two.

Table 5

Comparison of Emissions for Current and Proposed I&M Programs

	 Pollutant	2009

(tpsd)	2010

(tpsd)	2011

(tpsd)	2012

(tpsd)	2018

(tpsd)

Current IM Program	VOC	73.61	67.18	61.60	56.32	38.97

	NOx	224.7	196.5	170.6	147.7	65.0

	CO	1002.1	938.6	885.2	837.8	711.5

Proposed IM

Program 	VOC	73.78	66.87	61.04	55.86	38.78

	NOx	224.0	195.4	169.2	146.4	64.2

	CO	1003.7	932.0	872.5	824.9	701.3

Delta =

Current - Proposed IM Programs	VOC	-0.17	0.31	0.57	0.46	0.19

	NOx	0.6	1.1	1.5	1.3	0.7

	CO	-1.6	6.6	12.7	12.9	10.2

These figures show that an annual OBD program, without transient
testing, will result in slightly more VOC emissions (0.17 tpsd) in 2009
than would be expected if the current program were to be continued.
However, an expected decrease in NOx emissions (0.6 tpsd) leads to a net
reduction in ozone forming pollutants.  While the modeling also shows a
slight increase in CO emissions (1.6 tpsd) in 2009, the pollutants that
are most important for ozone production are NOx and VOCs.

For the following reasons, MassDEP believes the program envisioned for
the new contract meets the requirements of the U.S. Clean Air Act’s
savings clause:

These results assume no carryover of emission reduction benefits from
the current transient testing program that will end on September 30,
2008.  A carryover effect would recognize that emissions from most of
the vehicles that currently receive a biennial transient test will not
automatically rise to levels that would result in a failing test
immediately at the end of the current program, and would allow these
benefits to be estimated in the modeling as a benefit in the proposed
I&M program.   Because the MOBILE6 model does not recognize any
carryover effect, it assumes the tailpipe testing benefit ends as soon
as the program stops.  MassDEP believes this is unrealistic.  EPA Region
1 has agreed that residual credit from the tailpipe testing would make
up for the small increase in HC and CO emissions that the model predicts
in 2009.

The MOBILE6 model calculates emissions on the basis of complete calendar
years, and does not allow for testing to begin in October of a calendar
year, when annual testing under the proposed program will begin.
Therefore, the model does not account for emission benefits that would
be earned between October 1, 2008 and December 31, 2008.

Table 6 below shows that the estimated difference in emissions benefits
between the current program and the proposed program are well within the
model’s margin of error.

In consideration of all of these factors, MassDEP believes the proposed
program will achieve the reductions needed for the SIP.  Specifically,
in 2009, the 0.17 tpsd difference for VOCs represents less than 0.3% of
VOC emissions modeled; and the 0.6 tpsd difference for NOx represents an
improvement of almost 0.3% of NOx emissions modeled.  For CO, the 1.6
tpsd difference represents less than 0.2% of CO emissions modeled.
Table 6 shows that the proposed program will create very close to 100%
of the air quality benefits of the current program for VOC and CO in
2009, and more than 100% for NOx.

Table 6

Detailed Comparison of Emissions for 2009

Emissions from Programs	Benefit from Programs	Differences between
Programs

2009	No IM Program

(tpsd)

	Current Program

(tpsd)

	Proposed Program

(tpsd)

	Benefit of Current Program

(tpsd)

	Benefit of

Proposed

Program

(tpsd)

	Delta

Between

Benefits

(tpsd)

	Delta

vs.

Current Program

	Proposed

vs.

Current Program

VOC	84.57	73.61	73.78	10.96	10.79	-0.17	0.23%	98.4%

NOx	241.1	224.7	224.0	16.4	17.0	0.6	0.27%	103.7%

CO	1224.9	1002.1	1003.7	222.9	221.3	-1.6	0.16%	99.3%

Table 7 shows that the proposed program’s slight increase in VOC
emissions modeled for 2009 over those expected from continuing the
current programs will disappear beginning in 2010, when the emissions
benefits of the proposed annual OBD program are projected to go beyond
those of the current program with biennial transient testing.

Table 7

Detailed Comparison of Emissions for 2010

Emissions from Programs	Benefit from Programs	Differences between
Programs

2010	No IM Program

(tpsd)

	Current Program

(tpsd)

	Proposed Program

(tpsd)

	Benefit Current Program

(tpsd)

	Benefit

Proposed

Program

(tpsd)

	Delta

Between

Benefits

(tpsd)

	Delta

vs.

Current Program

	Proposed

vs.

Current Program

VOC	77.98	67.18	66.87	10.81	11.11	0.31	0.46%	102.8%

NOx	213.0	196.5	195.4	16.5	17.7	1.1	0.56%	106.9%

CO	1160.0	938.6	932.0	221.4	228.0	6.6	0.70%	103.0%

In addition, Table 5 and its associated graph show that the emissions of
NOx and VOC under the proposed I&M program will continue to remain below
the emissions of the current I&M program through 2018, helping
Massachusetts to attain the ozone standard over time.  While the
difference between the two programs decreases somewhat after 2011,
please note that MOBILE6 does not allow for any credit from the OBD
emissions testing of light-, medium-, and heavy-duty diesel vehicles
that would begin on the schedule described in Table 1 above.

V.	ECONOMIC IMPACTS

There are three main changes in the proposed regulation that are
expected to have an economic impact on the Commonwealth:  (1) the
elimination of dynamometer tailpipe emissions tests; (2) the requirement
for more stringent opacity cutpoints for diesel vehicles more than
10,000 pounds GVWR; and (3) the increase in emissions test frequency
from biennial to annual testing.

Elimination of Dynamometer Tailpipe Testing

With the existing dynamometer workstation equipment reaching the end of
its useful life, this proposed regulation allows for a much less
expensive replacement with new OBD-only workstation equipment.  New
OBD-only workstations will not need emission gas analyzers, oxygen
sensors and air filters.  While the new stations will still need
“consumable” items such as stickers, printer ink and paper, they
will not require other (more expensive) consumable items such as gases
needed to calibrate the emissions gas analyzers.  In general, the new
OBD-only workstation equipment will be simpler, with fewer moving parts.
 Therefore, it will also cost much less to maintain workstations and to
replace them when needed.  The total cost for a new OBD-only
workstation, including installation and maintenance, is expected to be
approximately $5,000 vs. approximately $80,000 for the old dynamometer
workstation.

In addition, it will be much less labor intensive for the Agencies to
audit the performance of the new OBD-only workstation equipment (to
ensure that they are providing emission tests within acceptable ranges
of tolerance).  This will allow the Agencies to perform the QA/QC audits
themselves, rather than hiring an outside technical support contractor
to perform the audits (which could save the Commonwealth approximately
$600,000 per year).

More Stringent Opacity Test Cutpoints

The NESCAUM Heavy-Duty Diesel Workgroup analyzed the proposed lower
cutpoints by reviewing heavy-duty diesel truck smoke inspection data
from various states to compare current average smoke levels to the
current and proposed cutpoints.  These data suggest that most of the
diesel engines in this study would meet the proposed cutpoints, but that
tighter cutpoints would reduce excessive black smoke from enough
additional vehicles to provide a benefit for Massachusetts’ air
quality.

A review of opacity tests performed in 2004 and 2005 on Massachusetts’
diesel vehicles greater than 10,000 pounds GVWR was done by I&M program
staff in conjunction with the NESCAUM study.  This review showed that
1.6% of diesel vehicles in Massachusetts fail the opacity test at the
current cutpoints, and indicated that an additional 3% of diesel
vehicles (approximately 2000 additional vehicles) in Massachusetts could
be affected by the proposed cutpoints in the first year.  These vehicles
would need to receive some level of repair to pass the smoke opacity
inspection.  Not all of these vehicles would necessarily fail, however,
because many fleets repair and test their own vehicles and would be
likely to perform needed repairs before the vehicles were tested.  Most
of these affected vehicles (~60%) are expected to be older (model years
1984 to 1990) trucks.

Available smoke opacity repair data were also analyzed by the NESCAUM
Heavy-Duty Diesel Workgroup.  These data suggest that most of the
repairs required to bring trucks that fail based on the current
cutpoints back into compliance cost less than $1,000 on average, with
average repair costs for older trucks (1984 - 1990) less than $500.
Older trucks are expected to be the most affected by the adoption of the
proposed cutpoints, and they are often the least expensive to repair.
Diesel vehicles greater than 10,000 pounds GVWR would continue to be
ineligible for an emissions waiver under the proposed I&M regulation,
since waivers would not be provided to commercial vehicles (virtually
all of the vehicles in this class are commercial vehicles).

The proposed cutpoints have not been implemented in any state yet
(although they are expected to be proposed by the New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection before the end of 2007), so there are no
data available to evaluate actual increases in repair costs that would
be associated with them.  However, since most of the trucks repaired
under the current cutpoints would easily pass the opacity test under the
proposed cutpoints (with no additional repairs required), this impact is
expected to be minimal.

Mass DEP seeks comment on the proposed cutpoints, estimated cost of
repairs and worthiness of making this change in the diesel testing
program.

Increase in Emissions Test Frequency

Changing from biennial to annual emissions testing is anticipated to
result in an increase in the annual number of vehicles that fail their
emissions test, with a corresponding increase in motorist expenditures
for repair costs.

Vehicles that fail the OBD test will be required to be repaired whenever
they fail, which may be annually, instead of biennially.  This will put
upward pressure on total repair costs.  However, for some motorists, by
requiring repairs earlier than would have been required with biennial
testing, the overall cost of repairs may be reduced because defects can
be repaired before significant deterioration or damage to other
components could occur.  Additionally, OBD systems are designed to
provide qualified repair technicians with diagnostic information
allowing them to pinpoint likely causes, allowing more accurate
diagnosis and less costly repairs than hit-or-miss component
replacement.

Motorists who cannot repair their vehicles and pass a re-test have been
able to qualify for a repair cost waiver when repairs exceed $200-$400,
depending on the age of the vehicle.  In 2006, only 165 waivers were
granted, less than 0.01% of the emissions test administered that year.
Under the proposed regulations, motorists would be required to spend
$550-$750 to qualify for a waiver.  In EPA’s 2005 analysis of OBD
vehicles, the average repair cost was found to be $453, with a median
repair cost of $258 – expenditures that are well below the proposed
expenditure requirement for a waiver.  Therefore, the move to annual
testing is not expected to result in a substantial overall increase in
motorists’ costs.

Even though repair costs are not estimated to be high in general, some
vehicles may require high-cost repairs to fix transmission failures or
serious engine damage.  Under the proposed regulation, owners of these
vehicles would be able to use a one-year extension to schedule the
needed repairs as their finances allow, or to replace the vehicle if
they feel it is not worthwhile to repair it.

Diesel vehicles greater than 10,000 pounds GVWR would have an annual
smoke opacity test under the proposed regulation, rather than the
biennial test that is currently administered, unless they have OBD
systems that would allow OBD testing, which is not currently required.
The start of emissions testing of these vehicles will likely require a
small number of owners of vehicles that are not currently getting
emissions tests to repair them in order to pass.  Diesel vehicles are a
small fraction of vehicles subject to the emissions test, and the number
of diesel vehicles expected to fail the OBD test is low.  Also, until
the model year 2007, emissions control systems for diesel vehicles
consisted mostly of minor engine adjustments and the use of exhaust gas
recirculation to meet engine EPA’s emissions standards, so the cost of
repairs for failing vehicles is expected to be reasonable.  As a result,
OBD testing of diesel vehicles is not expected to have a substantial
impact on overall motorist repair costs.

The proposed regulation would exempt light- and medium-duty vehicles
from emissions testing when they are 15 years old.  In 2006, the
percentage of the fleet over 15 years old was less than 10%,
representing a small segment of total light- and medium duty vehicles.
Because older vehicles are driven fewer miles, they also represent a
small fraction of total miles traveled.  Exempting these older vehicles
is expected to put a downward pressure on total repair costs.

For newer OBD vehicles, eliminating the new vehicle exemption will
provide an added degree of consumer protection for motorists by enabling
them to get a new car fixed while it still under warranty.

 These programs are established in legally binding and federally
enforceable “State Implementation Plans” or “SIPs”.

 Massachusetts 2002 Baseline Emission Inventory of Volatile Organic
Compounds and Nitrogen Oxides, June 2006.     HYPERLINK
"http://www.mass.gov/dep/air/priorities/s1dintro.pdf"
http://www.mass.gov/dep/air/priorities/s1dintro.pdf

 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart S (§51.350 et seq.).

 The Contractor was originally known as “Keating Technologies, Inc.”
In July 2001, the Contractor changed its name to “Agbar Technologies,
Inc.”(due to a corporate buy-out), and in February 2005, changed its
name again to “Applus Technologies, Inc”.

 EPA Kit Car Policy, June 8, 1994.   HYPERLINK
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/imports/kitcar.htm
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/imports/kitcar.htm

2 40 CFR Part 51

 “OBD” in this document refers to OBDII.

 All vehicle weights in this document refer to Gross Vehicle Weight
Rating or “GVWR”. Vehicle classes are defined in Table 1 above.

 The Snap-Acceleration Smoke Test Procedure for Heavy-Duty Diesel
Powered Vehicles, 1996-02, issued by the Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE).

 Guidance to States on Smoke Opacity Cutpoints to be used with the SAE
J1667 In-Use Smoke Test Procedure, February 25, 1999.
http://www.epa.gov/oms/regs/hd-hwy/smokguid.pdf

 Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles:  Heavy-Duty Engine
and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control
Requirements, 40 CFR 69, 80 and 86, Federal Register January 18, 2001

 Northeast States Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Repair Study, NESCAUM
Heavy-Duty Diesel Workgroup, Repair Study Sub-Group, December 2006 –
DRAFT

 The Clean Air Act, (42 U.S.C.<PHONE_NUMBER>).
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/gen/caa-pdf.pdf

 Northeast States Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Repair Study, NESCAUM
Heavy-Duty Diesel Workgroup, Repair Study Sub-Group, December 2006 –
DRAFT

 Northeast States Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Repair Study, NESCAUM
Heavy-Duty Diesel Workgroup, Repair Study Sub-Group, December 2006 –
DRAFT

 “High-mileage Study of On-Board Diagnostic Emissions,” by EPA,
published in Air and Waste Management in 2005

MA SIP Revision: Table of Contents Item 6 – Background and Technical
Support for Public Hearings

 PAGE

MA SIP Revision, 310 CMR 60.02, the Massachusetts Motor Vehicle
Emissions Inspection and Maintenance Program.

Documentation of IM SIP Revision consistent with 42 USC Section 7511a
and Section 182 (c)(3)(A) of the Clean Air Act	  PAGE  25

	COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

ONE WINTER STREET, BOSTON, MA 02108<PHONE_NUMBER>

DEVAL L. PATRICK

Governor

TIMOTHY P. MURRAY

Lieutenant Governor

IAN A. BOWLES

Secretary

LAURIE BURT

Commissioner

This information is available in alternate format. Call Donald M. Gomes,
ADA Coordinator at<PHONE_NUMBER>. TDD Service - 1-800-298-2207.

  Printed on Recycled Paper

	COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

ONE WINTER STREET, BOSTON, MA 02108<PHONE_NUMBER>

DEVAL L. PATRICK

Governor

TIMOTHY P. MURRAY

Lieutenant Governor

IAN A. BOWLES

Secretary

LAURIE BURT

Commissioner

This information is available in alternate format. Call Donald M. Gomes,
ADA Coordinator at<PHONE_NUMBER>. TDD Service - 1-800-298-2207.

  Printed on Recycled Paper

This version was submitted with the Massachusetts SIP Revision to 310
CMR 60.02, of the Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection and
Maintenance Program;

as Table of Contents Item Six: Final for EPA Submittal