Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: May 12, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 91)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 25413-25418]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12my03-9]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MO 181-1181; FRL-7494-6]

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.

? 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 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

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri

Local Navigation