[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 91 (Monday, May 12, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25414-25418]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-11186]



[[Page 25413]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Parts 52 and 81



Air Quality Implementation Plans--State of Missouri, St. Louis Area, 
and State of Illinois; Final Rules

  Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 91 / Monday, May 12, 2003 / Rules and 
Regulations  

[[Page 25414]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MO 181-1181; FRL-7494-6]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of 
Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing approval of a revision to the state 
implementation plan (SIP) for the vehicle inspection and maintenance 
(I/M) program operating in the Missouri portion of the St. Louis, 
Missouri, ozone nonattainment area. Missouri made several amendments to 
the state-adopted I/M rule to improve performance of the program and 
requested that the SIP be revised. The effect of this action ensures 
Federal enforceability of the state air program rules and maintains 
consistency between the state-adopted rules and the approved SIP. EPA 
proposed approval of this rule in the Federal Register on January 30, 
2003 (68 FR 4842). This final action is being published to meet our 
statutory obligation under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This final rule is effective May 12, 2003.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the state submittal is available at the following 
address for inspection during normal business hours: EPA, Region 7, Air 
Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, 
Kansas 66101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leland Daniels at (913) 551-7651.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This section provides 
additional information by addressing the following questions:

What is a SIP?
What is the Federal approval process for a SIP?
What does Federal approval of a state regulation mean to me?
What is being addressed in this document?
What comments were received on the proposed approval of the I/M SIP 
revision and what is our response?
What action is EPA taking?
What is the effective date for this rulemaking?

What Is a SIP?

    Section 110 of the CAA requires states to develop air pollution 
regulations and control strategies to ensure that state air quality 
meets the national ambient air quality standards that we established. 
These ambient standards are established under section 109 of the CAA, 
and they currently address six criteria pollutants. These pollutants 
are carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, 
and sulfur dioxide. Each state must submit these regulations and 
control strategies to us for approval and incorporation into the 
Federally enforceable SIP. Each Federally-approved SIP protects air 
quality primarily by addressing air pollution at its point of origin. 
These SIPs can be extensive, containing state regulations or other 
enforceable documents and supporting information such as emission 
inventories, monitoring networks, and modeling demonstrations.

What Is the Federal Approval Process for a SIP?

    In order for state regulations to be incorporated into the 
Federally-enforceable SIP, states must formally adopt the regulations 
and control strategies consistent with state and Federal requirements. 
This process generally includes a public notice, public hearing, public 
comment period, and a formal adoption by a state-authorized rulemaking 
body.
    Once a state rule, regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the 
state submits it to us for inclusion into the SIP. We must provide 
public notice and seek additional public comment regarding our proposed 
action on the state submission. If adverse comments are received, we 
must address them prior to taking any final action.
    All state regulations and supporting information that we approve 
under section 110 of the CAA are incorporated into the Federally-
approved SIP. The record of each SIP approval is maintained in the Code 
of Federal Regulations (CFR) at Title 40, Part 52, entitled ``Approval 
and Promulgation of Implementation Plans.'' The actual state 
regulations which are approved are not reproduced in their entirety in 
the CFR but are ``incorporated by reference,'' which means that EPA has 
approved a given state regulation with a specific effective date.

What Does Federal Approval of a State Regulation Mean?

    Enforcement of the state regulation before and after it is 
incorporated into the Federally-approved SIP is primarily a state 
responsibility. However, after the regulation is Federally approved, we 
are authorized to take an enforcement action to return a violator to 
compliance. Citizens are also offered legal recourse to address 
violations as described in section 304 of the CAA.

What Is Being Addressed in This Document?

    This rulemaking addresses a number of submissions from Missouri 
Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) concerning revisions to the I/M 
SIP for St. Louis. The content of those submissions is described below.
    State statutory amendments in 1999 required an interagency 
agreement between MDNR and the Missouri Highway Patrol for the 
administration and enforcement of section 307.366, Missouri Revised 
Statutes (RSMo); established criteria and procedures for the I/M 
contract; and provided the residents of Franklin County the option of 
biennial motor vehicle registration. For vehicles sold by a licensed 
motor vehicle dealer, any inspection and approval within 120 days 
preceding the date of the sale is considered timely for the purpose of 
vehicle registration. Costs for repair work performed by a recognized 
repair technician only may be included toward reaching the waiver 
amount. The $5.00 fee reduction for any person required to wait for up 
to 15 minutes before the inspection begins was deleted. Penalties for 
longer wait times were retained. The I/M amendments contained in the 
October 25, 2000, submittal reflected these statutory changes.
    The October 25, 2000, submission included revisions made to the I/M 
rule (10 CSR 10-5.380). These changes removed a fee reduction 
(otherwise known as a wait time penalty) of $5.00 whenever someone had 
to wait up to 15 minutes for a test; incorporated a transition program 
from January 1 through April 4, 2000; and provided another test option 
for residents of Franklin County.
    The June 19, 2002, submittal contained a plan for incorporating the 
On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) test into the I/M program and a commitment to 
do so. This was in response to our amendment of the Federal I/M rule 
that changed the implementation date for use of the OBD test from 
January 1, 2001, to January 1, 2002, and provided options for other 
implementation dates. We took no action on this plan as Missouri was 
involved in amending the I/M rule to incorporate the provisions of the 
plan. This revision is described below.
    The December 13, 2002, submittal contained additional amendments 
made to the I/M rule. In addition to restructuring the rule, a number 
of amendments were made to: clarify the meaning of vehicles primarily 
operated

[[Page 25415]]

in the area (section 1); clarify existing definitions and include new 
definitions (section 2); clarify fleet vehicle testing requirements and 
requirements for Federal facilities, set fee payment methods, station 
and clean screening testing procedures, emission test standards and 
waiver requirements (section 3); clarify the vehicle test report 
requirement for vehicles that fail the OBD test, the clean screening 
test report requirements and the fleet vehicle reporting requirements 
(section 4); clarify the test methods for the OBD and the visual test 
methods; exempt hybrid electric vehicles from tailpipe test methods; 
include clean screening test methods as valid test methods (section 5), 
and delete the transition period.
    As discussed in the proposed rulemaking (68 FR 4842; January 30, 
2003), the state's requirement that the I/M240 test be the deciding 
test for the retest during the phase-in period for the OBD test is 
inconsistent with our April 5, 2001, rule which requires only the OBD 
test be used for the retest. Although the Missouri regulation is not 
consistent with our requirements for the OBD test during the 2003-2004 
phase-in period, the Federal I/M rule (see 40 CFR 51.372) provides 
additional flexibility with regard to as-of-yet unimplemented I/M 
program elements for basic I/M areas that qualify for redesignation to 
attainment. Under this additional flexibility, an as-of-yet 
unimplemented I/M program element may be converted into a contingency 
measure as part of the area's approved maintenance plan (which, in 
turn, forms a part of the area's approved redesignation request). We 
believe that the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area is eligible for 
redesignation and, in a separate rulemaking today, we are taking final 
action to find that the area has attained the 1-hour ozone standard and 
to redesignate the area from nonattainment to attainment for that 
standard. Thus, the Missouri I/M regulation meets the requirements of 
40 CFR 51.372, and we are taking final action to approve the program 
pursuant to that section.
    MDNR's letter of January 17, 2003, informed us that a printing 
error occurred when the revised rule was first published on November 
30, 2002, in the state's official administrative rules publication, the 
Missouri Code of State Regulations (CSR). Inadvertently, the table 
containing the final transient emission test standards for Light Duty 
Vehicles was omitted in subparagraph (3)(G)4.A of the Missouri rule. 
The table was part of the rule revision which had been adopted by the 
Missouri Air Conservation Commission (MACC) after notice and public 
comment. The post-adoption publication of the rule omitted the table, 
and the December 31, 2002, publication of the Missouri CSR corrected 
the printing error by reinserting the table. The December 31, 2002, 
publication was an administrative correction only and did not change 
the rule as adopted by the MACC nor the effective date of the rule.
    Even though MDNR's initial submission did contain an error, which 
was corrected between our signature of the proposed rule and this final 
action, we view it as inadvertent and nonsubstantive. In addition, the 
corrected version of the state rule is the version which was available 
to the public for comment at the state level and has been included in 
EPA's docket for this rule since the January 30 publication of the 
proposal. Therefore, we do not believe that any additional public 
comment on the corrected rule is necessary and, in this Federal 
Register document, we are taking final action to approve the revisions 
to the I/M SIP as described in the January 30, 2003, proposed rule.
    Elsewhere in today's Federal Register publication, we are also 
taking final action to find that the St. Louis area has attained the 1-
hour ozone standard, redesignate the area to attainment, and approve 
the state's plan for maintaining the 1-hour ozone standard. This final 
rulemaking on this I/M SIP revision is being done in conjunction with 
the above rulemaking to fulfill the applicable CAA requirements.

What Comments Were Received on the Proposed Approval of the I/M SIP 
Revision and What Is Our Response?

    Comments were submitted by the Great Rivers Environmental Law 
Center on behalf of the Sierra Club and the Missouri Coalition for the 
Environment. Its conclusion was that EPA should disapprove the proposed 
SIP revision. A summary of the comments and our responses to the 
comments are provided below.
    Comment 1: St. Louis is now a ``serious'' ozone nonattainment area 
and, as a result, its I/M program must meet the requirements of section 
182(c)(3). EPA acknowledges that the I/M program does not meet these 
requirements. It should, accordingly, be disapproved, or at most 
partially approved.
    Response 1: On November 25, 2002, the Seventh Circuit Court of 
Appeals vacated a June 26, 2001, rule extending the St. Louis area's 
attainment date, and remanded to EPA for ``entry of a final rule that 
reclassifies St. Louis as a serious nonattainment area effective 
immediately * * *'' (Sierra Club and Missouri Coalition for the 
Environment v. EPA, 311 F. 3d 853 (7th Cir. 2002)). In response to the 
Court's order, and in accordance with section 181(b)(2) of the Act, EPA 
reinstated the nonattainment determination and reclassification 
contained in the March 19, 2001, rulemaking (66 FR 15585) in the 
January 30, 2003, final rule at 68 FR 4838. In addition, the January 
30, 2003, final rule established a deadline of January 30, 2004, for 
submission of SIP revisions to meet the serious nonattainment area 
requirements. The final rule also explained that EPA was concurrently 
proposing to redesignate the area to attainment, and that such a 
redesignation, if done prior to the deadline for submission of the 
serious area requirements, would eliminate the need for Missouri and 
Illinois to submit SIP revisions to meet the serious area requirements 
(68 FR 4836). The final rule, including the serious area submittal 
deadline, was not challenged within the 60-day period provided in 
section 307(d) of the CAA. This subsequent rulemaking does not reopen 
the issue of the submittal deadline or the determination that SIP 
submissions would not be due should the area be redesignated prior to 
the due date.
    Section 110(k)(3) of the CAA requires EPA to approve a plan 
submission in full if it meets ``all of the applicable requirements'' 
of the Act. Under that section a partial approval is appropriate where 
only a portion of the plan submission meets all of the applicable 
requirements of the Act. The commenter asserts that the I/M revision 
cannot be fully approved because it does not meet the I/M program 
requirements for serious areas under section 182(c)(3). However, under 
our interpretation of the statute, these requirements are not 
applicable, because they are not yet due. (See also the response to 
comment 2 concerning the due date for the serious area requirements.) 
In addition, because the area is today being redesignated to 
attainment, it is no longer obligated to meet the I/M requirements of 
section 182(c)(3). (See the September 4, 1992, memorandum from John 
Calcagni, ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to 
Attainment,'' p. 4, n. 3.) Therefore, the fact that the submittal does 
not include all of the requirements for an I/M program for a serious 
area does not require EPA to disapprove or partially approve it. Since, 
as discussed elsewhere in this notice, the submittal meets all of the 
applicable requirements of the Act, EPA is fully approving the 
revisions to the Missouri I/M program.

[[Page 25416]]

    Comment 2: EPA suggests that because Missouri's SIP revisions to 
conform to the serious requirement are not yet due, the applicable 
criteria for approval are those pertaining to ``moderate'' ozone 
nonattainment areas. This determination is erroneous because the 
``serious'' SIP submissions have, ``as a matter of law'', become due. 
EPA's later rulemakings withdrawing these rules was vacated by the 
Seventh Circuit, effectively reinstating the withdrawn rules, including 
the May 18, 2002, SIP submission deadline. In addition, if EPA ``had 
obeyed the law'', the revisions would have been due by June 14, 1998.
    Response 2: As explained in response to comment 1, on January 30, 
2003, EPA reinstated a rule reclassifying the St. Louis area to 
``serious'' nonattainment and established a deadline of January 30, 
2004, for the state to submit the serious area requirements. The 
rationale for the deadline is stated in the January 30, 2003, final 
rule (68 FR 4838). This redesignation rulemaking does not reopen the 
January 30 rulemaking, and comments on the appropriate deadline for the 
serious area requirements are thus beyond the scope of this rule.
    With respect to the commenter's assertion that the serious area 
requirements should have been due by June 14, 1998, this is based on an 
argument made by the commenter in the U.S. District Court and the Court 
of Appeals for the District of Columbia that the reclassification of 
the St. Louis area to serious should have been made retroactive to 
1997, with the serious area measures due in 1998. This argument 
pertaining to the timing of reclassification is not only outside the 
scope of this rulemaking as explained previously, but it was rejected 
by both Courts (See, Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F.3d 63, 68 (D.C. 
Cir.2002)). A detailed discussion of the inapplicability of the serious 
area requirements to the St. Louis area is also included in the 
response to comments on the final rule determining the area has 
attained the ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) and 
redesignating the area to attainment, published in today's Federal 
Register.
    Comment 3: The proposed revisions, as EPA itself concedes, do not 
even meet the requirement for a basic I/M program that moderate ozone 
nonattainment areas must promulgate and implement. Nonetheless, EPA 
says that ``additional flexibility'' may be extended to the state under 
40 CFR 51.372. This is an arbitrary conclusion. First, the cited 
regulation does not provide for approval of I/M programs that do not 
meet federal requirements; it merely permits states to treat otherwise 
approval programs as contingency measures in their maintenance plans. 
Second, the regulation's flexibility is contingent upon the following: 
``A contingency commitment that includes an enforceable schedule for 
adoption and implementation of the (I/M) program, and appropriate 
milestones. The schedule shall include the date for submission of a SIP 
meeting all of the requirements of this subpart. Schedule milestones 
shall be listed in months from the date EPA notifies the state that it 
is in violation of the ozone or CO standard or any earlier date 
specified in the state plan. Unless the state, in accordance with the 
provisions of the maintenance plan, chooses not to implement I/M, it 
must submit a SIP revision containing an I/M program no more than 18 
months after notification by EPA.'' Missouri's maintenance plan does 
not include a contingency commitment that meets these requirements.
    Response 3: The commenter is incorrect in the assertion that 40 CFR 
51.372 does not authorize EPA to approve I/M SIPs that do not meet all 
EPA requirements. Section 51.372(c) states as follows: ``Any 
nonattainment area that EPA determines would otherwise qualify for 
redesignation from nonattainment to attainment shall receive full 
approval of a SIP submittal under sections 182(a)(2)(B) or 182(b)(4)'' 
if the submittal meets the requirements of section 51.372(c)(1) through 
(4). (Emphasis added.) As explained in detail in the proposal (68 FR 
4842, 4844 January 30, 2003), the revision to the I/M program submitted 
by Missouri meets all of the applicable Federal I/M requirements, with 
the exception that Missouri does not require the exclusive use of an 
OBD test for the retest of vehicles which fail the initial OBD 
emissions test (during the 2003-2004 phase-in of the Missouri OBD 
rule). (After the 2003-2004 phase-in period, the Missouri rule requires 
the appropriate OBD test for both the initial test and the retest, 
which is consistent with EPA's rule.) Because, as explained below, 
Missouri has included a commitment to consider adoption of the OBD test 
for the retest as a contingency measure and has met all other 
requirements of Sec.  51.372(c), that section authorizes EPA to fully 
approve the Missouri I/M SIP submittal under section 182(b)(4) of the 
CAA. This conclusion is consistent with the language of the regulation 
and with the application of the regulation to other I/M program 
approvals in conjunction with redesignations (see 60 FR 12459; March 7, 
1995).
    The commenter is also incorrect in its assertion that Missouri's 
submission does not meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.372(c)(4), which 
the commenter quotes in its comment. Section 51.372(c)(4) provides that 
the state must make the following commitments: (1) An enforceable 
schedule for adoption, submission to EPA, and implementation of the I/M 
program element; (2) appropriate milestones in months from EPA 
notification of the violation (or any earlier trigger date provided in 
the plan); and (3) a commitment to submit the program to EPA within 18 
months of the notification of the violation, unless the state elects 
not to implement the I/M element of its contingency measures. The 
commenter does not identify any specific elements of this requirement 
which it believes are not met, but Missouri's maintenance plan contains 
provisions meeting all of these elements. The plan commits that the 
state will adhere to the following schedule (pp. 40-43 of the 
maintenance plan), if the state selects this contingency measure:
    1. Three months from notification by EPA of a violation--the state 
will propose necessary regulatory changes for adoption by the Missouri 
Air Conservation Commission.
    2. Five months from notification--the state will present proposed 
revisions for public hearing.
    3. Six months from notification--the state will request adoption by 
the Commission.
    4. Ten to eighteen months after notification--the state will submit 
the adopted regulations to EPA as a SIP revision.
    5. Eighteen months after notification--the state will implement the 
contingency measure.
    The commenter has not provided any information indicating that 
these commitments in Missouri's maintenance plan do not meet the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.372(c)(4), and EPA finds that the state has 
met these requirements.
    In the January 30, 2003, proposal on the I/M revisions, EPA 
discussed how Missouri had met the requirements of section 
51.372(c)(1)-(3) (68 FR 4842, 4844-4845). EPA did not receive any 
comments on its proposal with respect to these other requirements. For 
the reasons stated in the proposal, EPA finds that the requirements of 
section 51.372(c)(1)-(3) are met.

What Action Is EPA Taking?

    EPA's review of the material submitted indicates that the state has

[[Page 25417]]

revised the I/M program in accordance with the requirements of the CAA 
and the Federal rule except for one. The state's requirement that the 
I/M240 test be the deciding test for the retest during the phase-in 
period for the OBD test is inconsistent with our April 5, 2001, rule 
which requires only the OBD test be used for the retest (see Test 
Procedures and Standards in the January 30, 2003, proposed rule, page 
4844 for further discussion). However, since the St. Louis area is 
being redesignated to attainment with the 1-hour ozone standard 
elsewhere in today's Federal Register, and as provided for in the 
Federal I/M rule at 40 CFR 51.372, we are fully approving the Missouri 
SIP revision for the St. Louis I/M program pursuant to that section and 
incorporate by reference the state I/M rule, 10 CSR 10-5.380, which was 
submitted on December 13, 2002.
    As noted in the January 30, 2003, proposal, Missouri has revised 
its regulations to require Federal facilities operating vehicles in the 
I/M program area to report certification of compliance to the state. 
These requirements appear to be different from those for other non-
Federal groups of Missouri registered vehicles. However, at this time 
we are not requiring states to implement 40 CFR 51.356(a)(4) dealing 
with Federal installations within I/M areas. The Department of Justice 
has recommended to us that this Federal regulation be revised since it 
appears to grant states authority to regulate Federal installations in 
circumstances where the Federal government has not waived sovereign 
immunity. It would not be appropriate to require compliance with this 
regulation if it is not authorized. We will be revising this provision 
in the future and will review state I/M SIPs with respect to this issue 
when this new rule is final.
    Therefore, for these reasons, we are neither proposing approval nor 
disapproval of the specific requirements which apply to Federal 
facilities at this time.

What Is the Effective Date For This Rulemaking?

    To fulfill the requirements of the CAA, this rulemaking is being 
done in conjunction with another rulemaking published today which finds 
that the St. Louis area has attained the 1-hour ozone standard, 
redesignates the area to attainment, and approves the state's plan for 
maintaining the 1-hour ozone standard. Because these rulemakings are 
linked, in that the redesignation cannot be completed until this I/M 
rulemaking is completed, EPA finds that there is good cause for this 
final rule to become effective immediately upon publication as the 
redesignation will also become effective immediately for good cause 
shown. See also the discussion in the referenced rulemaking for 
additional information. The immediate effective date is authorized 
under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rulemaking actions may 
become effective less than 30 days after publication if the rule 
``grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction.'' In the 
January 30, 2003, final rule (68 FR 4836), we reclassified the St. 
Louis area to a ``serious'' nonattainment area and established a 
schedule for submission of SIP revisions fulfilling the requirements 
for serious ozone nonattainment areas. Upon the effective date of the 
rule that finds the area has attained, redesignates the area, and 
approves the maintenance plan (also published today), the state of 
Missouri will be relieved of the obligation to develop and submit these 
SIP revisions. Thus, Missouri will not be required to develop a SIP for 
the implementation of an enhanced I/M program. EPA finds that good 
cause exists for this final rule being immediately effective since, in 
conjunction with the redesignation, it relieves the state of Missouri 
of certain requirements established as a result of the January 30, 
2003, reclassification to a serious nonattainment area.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it 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).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have federalism 
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule 
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or 
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. 
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of 
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this 
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state 
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to 
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an 
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    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 rule and other 
required information to the United States Senate, the United States 
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

[[Page 25418]]

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 CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by July 11, 2003. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this rule 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. 
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its 
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects 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: April 29, 2003.
William W. Rice,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

0
Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as 
follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart AA--Missouri

0
2. In Sec.  52.1320 the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising 
the entry for 10-5.380, under Chapter 5, to read as follows:


Sec.  52.1320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                                            EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Missouri citation                           Title                        State effective date           EPA approval date         Explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Missouri Department of Natural Resources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
-----------------------------------
                       Chapter 5--Air Quality Standards and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the St. Louis Metropolitan Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
-----------------------------------
10-5.380..........................  Motor vehicle emissions inspection.....  12/30/02                       5/12/03
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 03-11186 Filed 5-9-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P