25414 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 91 / Monday, May 12, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

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 Federallyapproved 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 Federallyenforceable 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 stateauthorized 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 

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

25416 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 91 / Monday, May 12, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 

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

25418 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 91 / Monday, May 12, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

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.

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

PART 52—[AMENDED]

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart AA—Missouri

■ 2. In § 52.1320 the table in paragraph 

(c) is amended by revising the entry for 

10–5.380, under Chapter 5, to read as follows:

§ 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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[MO 182–1182; FRL–7494–5] 

Determination of Attainment of Ozone 

Standard, St. Louis Area; Approval and 

Promulgation of Implementation Plans, 

and Redesignation of Areas for Air 

Quality Planning Purposes, State of 

Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is determining that the 

St. Louis ozone nonattainment area (St. 

Louis area) has attained the 1-hour 

ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS). The St. Louis ozone 

nonattainment area includes the 

counties of Franklin, Jefferson, St. 

Charles, and St. Louis as well as St. 

Louis City in Missouri and the counties 

of Madison, Monroe, and St. Clair in 

Illinois. This determination is based on 

three years of complete, quality-assured 

ambient air quality monitoring data for 

the 2000 through 2002 ozone seasons 

that demonstrate that the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS has been attained in the area. 

EPA is also determining that certain 

ozone attainment demonstration 

requirements, along with certain other 

related requirements of part D of title I 

of the Clean Air Act (CAA), are not 

applicable to the St. Louis area. 

EPA is also approving a request from 

the state of Missouri, submitted on 

December 6, 2002, to redesignate the St. 

Louis area to attainment of the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS. In approving this 

request EPA is also approving the state’s 

plan for maintaining the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS through 2014, as a revision to 

the Missouri State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). EPA is also finding adequate and 

approving the state’s 2014 Motor 

Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and 

nitrogen oxide compounds (NOX) in the 

submitted maintenance plan for 

transportation conformity purposes. 

Refer also to a separate rule published 

today regarding similar approvals for 

the state of Illinois.

DATES: This rule is effective May 12, 

2003.

ADDRESSES: Relevant documents for this 

rule are available for inspection at the 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 7, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, 901 North 5th 

Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 

Interested persons wanting to examine 

these documents should make an 

appointment with the appropriate office 

at least 24 hours in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tony Petruska, (913) 551–7637, 

(petruska.anthony@epa.gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA.

Table of Contents 

I. What is the background for this action? 

II. What actions are we taking and when are 

they effective? 

III. Why are we taking these actions to 

redesignate the area? 

IV. What are the effects of redesignation to 

attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS?