Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2022 / Proposed Rules 30437 

1On May 3, 2022, the Commission voted 3–1 to 

publish this Notice of Petitions for Rulemaking in 

the Federal Register. 

number for this notice. CPSC may post 

all comments without change, including 

any personal identifiers, contact 

information, or other personal 

information provided, to: https://

www.regulations.gov. Do not submit 

electronically: Confidential business 

information, trade secret information, or 

other sensitive or protected information 

that you do not want to be available to 

the public. If you wish to submit such 

information, please submit it according 

to the instructions for mail/hand 

delivery/courier written submissions. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to: https://

www.regulations.gov, and insert the 

docket number, CPSC–2022–0015, into 

the ‘‘Search’’ box, and follow the 

prompts. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alberta E. Mills, Division of the 

Secretariat, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, 

Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone: 301– 

504–7479 (office) and 240–863–8938 

(work cell); cpsc-os@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

November 29, 2021, Carol PollackNelson, Ph.D. of Independent Safety 

Consulting, LLC, Sarah B. Newens, M.S. 

of Safety and Systems Solutions, M.S., 

and Alan H. Schoem, Esq. (collectively 

‘‘Petitioners’’) submitted two documents 

to the Commission through the Division 

of the Secretariat, titled: (1) Petition to 

Require Minimum Thickness for Play 

Yard Mattresses (‘‘Mattress Thickness 

Petition’’), and (2) Petition to 

Standardize the Size of Play Yards and 

Play Yard Mattresses (‘‘Play Yard Size 

Petition’’) (collectively ‘‘petitions’’).1

The petitions seek a rulemaking to 

amend the Commission’s regulation, 

Safety Standard for Play Yards, 16 CFR 

part 1221, to address the hazard of 

infants becoming entrapped between the 

edge of a play yard and the play yard 

mattress and suffocating (‘‘gap 

entrapment hazard’’). CSPC docketed 

the Mattress Thickness Petition as 

petition CP 22–1 and docketed the Play 

Yard Size Petition as CP 22–2. 

The Mattress Thickness Petition states 

that to reduce consumer perception that 

a play yard floor is too hard, and the 

notion that soft bedding should be 

added for the comfort of an infant, the 

Commission should require a minimum 

play yard mattress thickness of 1.5 

inches with a minimal tolerance 

allowed. Additionally, Petitioners seek a 

maximum 0.5-inch gap requirement 

between a play yard mattress and the 

mesh side of the play yard wall, and to 

allow a maximum play yard mattress 

thickness of 3 inches. 

The Play Yard Size Petition seeks to 

‘‘mitigate the risk posed by an 

undersized mattress in a play yard’’ by 

standardizing the size of play yards and 

play yard mattresses ‘‘to one size for 

each given perimeter shape,’’ meaning 

‘‘one size for square play yards, one size 

for rectangular play yards, one size for 

oval play yards and one size for round 

play yards.’’ Petitioners assert that this 

change also would reduce hazardous 

gaps between play yard mattresses and 

play yard walls. 

By this notice, the Commission seeks 

comments concerning the two petitions. 

In particular, the Commission seeks 

comments on the following: 

• The Commission considered the 

gap-entrapment hazard in granting 

petition CP 15–2, Petition Requesting 

Rulemaking on Supplemental 

Mattresses for Play Yards with NonRigid Sides, in establishing a Safety 

Standard for Crib Mattresses, and in 

continuing to work on play yard 

mattress requirements with the ASTM 

F15.18 Subcommittee on Play Yards and 

Non-Full-Size Cribs. What effect would 

these new petitions have on the 

Commission’s work on this issue? 

• Are any of the issues raised in the 

Mattress Thickness Petition supported, 

mooted, or rendered superfluous by the 

continuing work on the gap-entrapment 

hazard in the ASTM F15.18 

Subcommittee on Play Yards and NonFull-Size Cribs? 

• The Commission, by statute, will 

consider any revised ASTM voluntary 

standard for play yards if ASTM notifies 

the Commission of a revised standard. 

15 U.S.C. 2056a(b)(4). Based on the new 

petitions, should the Commission 

commit additional resources to the gapentrapment issue, beyond staff’s current 

work on mattress fit and thickness with 

the ASTM F15.18 Subcommittee on 

Play Yards and Non-Full-Size Cribs? 

Why or why not? 

• The Commission’s rules are 

typically stated in terms of performance 

requirements, and/or requirements for 

labeling and instructions. See, e.g., 15 

U.S.C. 2056(a). Is the proposal in the 

Play Yard Size Petition to limit the sizes 

of play yards and play yard mattresses 

consistent with this practice? If not, is 

the departure justified? 

• Can the safety objective identified 

in the Play Yard Size Petition, i.e., 

assisting consumers to purchase play 

yard mattresses that properly fit into a 

play yard, be addressed by a 

performance requirement different from 

that proposed in the Play Yard Size 

Petition? If so, are there reasons to favor 

or disfavor the requirement proposed in 

the Play Yard Size Petition? Does the 

existing requirement for play yard 

mattresses in the Safety Standard for 

Play Yards adequately address this 

hazard? 

The petitions are available at: http:// 

www.regulations.gov, under Docket No. 

CPSC–2022–0015, Supporting and 

Related Materials. Alternatively, 

interested parties may obtain a copy of 

the petitions by writing or calling the 

Division of the Secretariat, Consumer 

Product Safety Commission, 4330 EastWest Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; 

telephone: 301–504–7479 or 240–863– 

8938; cpsc-os@cpsc.gov. 

Brenda Rouse, 

Acting Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2022–10293 Filed 5–18–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2022–0419; FRL–9830–01– 

R7] 

Air Plan Approval; Missouri; St. Louis 

Area Vehicle Inspection and 

Maintenance Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve, 

through parallel processing, revisions to 

the Missouri State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) relating to the St. Louis area’s 

vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/ 

M) Program received on November 12, 

2019, and March 2, 2022. In the 

submissions, Missouri requests EPA 

approval of revisions to a regulation and 

related plan that implement the St. 

Louis area’s Inspection and 

Maintenance program called, Gateway 

Vehicle Inspection Program (GVIP). We 

propose to approve Missouri’s removal 

of vehicles registered in Franklin 

County, unless the vehicle is primarily 

operated in the rest of the area, from the 

Gateway Vehicle Inspection program. 

The revisions to this rule include 

amending the rule exemption section for 

vehicles subject to the rule, removing 

unnecessary words, amending 

definitions specific to the rule, updates 

due to technology changes, and other 

minor edits. These revisions do not 

impact the attainment of any National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

nor delay the timely attainment of 2015 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
30438 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

1Although not the case in this proposed 

rulemaking, in some instances, EPA’s NPRM is 

published in the Federal Register during the same 

time frame that the state is holding its public 

hearing and conducting its public comment 

process. The state and EPA then provide for 

concurrent public comment periods on both the 

state action and federal action. 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard. Approval of these revisions 

will ensure consistency between state 

and federally approved rules. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 21, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2022–0419 to https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Docket ID No. for this 

rulemaking. Comments received will be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. For 

detailed instructions on sending 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

‘‘Written Comments’’ heading of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jed 

D. Wolkins, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality 

Planning Branch, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; 

telephone number: (913) 551–7588; 

email address: wolkins.jed@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Written Comments 

II. Parallel Processing 

III. History and Current Status of St. Louis 

Area Air Quality 

IV. Background of Missouri’s I/M Program 

V. What is being addressed in this document? 

VI. Have the requirements for approval of a 

SIP revision been met? 

VII. What is the EPA’s analysis of Missouri’s 

SIP request? 

VIII. What action is the EPA proposing to 

take? 

IX. Environmental Justice Concerns 

X. Incorporation by Reference 

XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Written Comments 

Submit your comments, identified by 

Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2022– 

0419, at https://www.regulations.gov. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

II. Parallel Processing 

Parallel processing refers to a process 

that utilizes concurrent state and federal 

proposed rulemaking actions, consistent 

with the provisions of 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix V. Generally, the state submits 

a copy of the proposed regulation or 

other revisions to EPA before 

conducting its public hearing and 

completing its public comment process 

under state law. EPA reviews this 

proposed state action and prepares a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

under federal law.1 If, after the state 

completes its public comment process 

and after EPA’s public comment 

process, the state changes its final 

submittal from the proposed submittal, 

EPA evaluates those changes and 

decides whether to publish another 

NPRM in light of those changes or to 

proceed to taking final action on its 

proposed action and describe the state’s 

changes in its final rulemaking action. 

Any final rulemaking action by EPA 

will occur only after the final submittal 

has been adopted by the state and 

formally submitted to EPA. 

Missouri’s November 12, 2019 

submittal has been adopted by the state 

and formally provided to EPA. 

Missouri’s public comment process has 

been completed for its March 2, 2022 

submittal, but the implementing state 

regulation in the submittal has not been 

formally submitted by the state to EPA. 

In accordance with the parallel 

processing provisions in section 2.3.1 of 

40 CFR part 51, appendix V, the State 

has been provided an opportunity to 

consider EPA comments prior to 

submission of a final plan for EPA’s 

review and has submitted a schedule for 

final submittal of the state regulation. 

Specifically, Missouri’s schedule 

includes publication of the order of 

rulemaking in the Missouri Register on 

April 15, 2022. The final state regulation 

was published in Missouri’s Code of 

State Regulations (CSR) on April 30, 

2022 and will become effective 30 days 

later on May 30, 2022. Missouri 

anticipates formally submitting the 

regulation package to EPA shortly after 

the rule’s publication in the CSR. 

Because the State has satisfied all 

requirements for parallel processing 

concerning the March 2, 2022, 

submittal, EPA proposes to approve the 

submittal through parallel processing. If 

the State changes the final submittal 

from the version that we are proposing 

to approve today, EPA will evaluate the 

significance of those changes. If EPA 

finds any such changes to be significant, 

then the Agency intends to determine 

whether to re-propose based on the 

revised submission or proceed to take 

final action on the submittal as modified 

by the State. 

III. History and Current Status of St. 

Louis Area Air Quality 

The St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois bistate area, which has been designated as 

nonattainment for several prior Ozone 

NAAQS, has historically included the 

counties of Franklin, Jefferson, St. 

Charles, and St. Louis and St. Louis City 

in Missouri, and the counties of 

Madison, Monroe and St. Clair in 

Illinois (hereafter referred to as the St. 

Louis area unless otherwise noted). For 

all Ozone NAAQS, except for the 2015 

Ozone NAAQS, the St. Louis area has 

been redesignated to attainment as 

described in this section. 

On May 12, 2003, EPA redesignated 

the St. Louis area from Serious 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

1979 Ozone NAAQS. (68 FR 25418). On 

June 15, 2005, EPA revoked the 1979 1- 

hour Ozone NAAQS for all areas except 

the 8-hour Ozone nonattainment early 

action compact (EAC) areas. (70 FR 

44470). The St. Louis area did not 

participate in the EAC and therefore, the 

1-hour standard was revoked for all 

areas in Missouri effective June 15, 

2005. 

On February 20, 2015, EPA 

redesignated the St. Louis area from 

Moderate nonattainment to attainment 

for the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS. (80 

FR 9207). On March 6, 2015, EPA 

revoked the 1997 8-hour Ozone 

NAAQS. (80 FR 12264). 

On September 20, 2018, EPA 

redesignated the St. Louis area from 

Moderate nonattainment to attainment 

for the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS. (83 

FR 47572). The 2008 8-hour Ozone 

NAAQS has not been revoked. 

On April 30, 2018, EPA designated 

Boles Township of Franklin County, St. 

Charles County, St. Louis County, and 

St. Louis City as Marginal 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2022 / Proposed Rules 30439 

2See file titled Herculaneum AQS Report in 

Docket. 

3 50 FR 32411, August 12, 1985. 

4 65 FR 62295, May, 18, 2000. 

5Missouri’s December 6, 2021 letter to EPA is 

included in the docket for this action. 

nonattainment for the 2015 Ozone 

NAAQS. (83 FR 25776) As part of that 

same action, EPA designated Jefferson 

County and the remaining portion of 

Franklin County as attainment/ 

unclassifiable. On July 10, 2020, the 

District of Columbia Circuit Court 

remanded the Jefferson County 

designation (among other designations) 

back to the EPA. The Court upheld 

EPA’s designation of Boles Township as 

nonattainment and the remainder of 

Franklin County as attainment/ 

unclassifiable. In response to the Court 

remand, the EPA revised the Jefferson 

County designation to nonattainment on 

May 26, 2021. (86 FR 31438) On 

November 16, 2017, EPA designated all 

areas of Missouri except the St. Louis 

area as attainment/unclassifiable for the 

2015 8-hour Ozone NAAQS. (82 FR 

54232) 

On March 29, 1999, EPA redesignated 

a portion of St. Louis County and St. 

Louis City from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 1971 Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) NAAQS. (64 FR 3855). 

On August 3, 2018, EPA redesignated 

Franklin County, Jefferson County, St. 

Charles County, St. Louis County, and 

St. Louis City from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 1997 Annual Fine 

Particulate Matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. (83 

FR 38033). 

A portion of Jefferson County is 

currently designated nonattainment for 

both the 2008 and 1978 Lead NAAQS. 

This nonattainment area is currently 

monitoring compliance with both the 

1978 and 2008 Lead NAAQS.2 The rest 

of the St. Louis Area is designated 

attainment/unclassifiable for both the 

2008 and 1978 Lead NAAQS. 

On January 28, 2022, EPA 

redesignated a portion of Jefferson 

County from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS. (87 FR 4508). The rest of the 

St. Louis Area is designated as either 

attainment or unclassifiable for the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS. 

The St. Louis Area is designated 

attainment/unclassifiable for all other 

NAAQS. 

IV. Background of Missouri’s I/M 

Program 

Under section 182 (b)(4),(c), and (d) of 

the CAA, vehicle I/M programs are 

required for areas that are classified as 

Moderate or above nonattainment for 

Ozone. As a result, Missouri has 

previously submitted, and the EPA has 

previously approved into the SIP an I/ 

M program for the St. Louis Area of 

Franklin County, Jefferson County, St. 

Charles County, St. Louis County, and 

St. Louis City.3 At the time of the 

program’s inception, the program was 

based on tailpipe testing. In 2000, the 

EPA approved Missouri’s switch to On 

Board Diagnostic testing for the same 

geographic area, consistent with our 

regulations and section 182 of the 

CAA.4

V. What is being addressed in this 

document? 

The EPA is proposing to approve, 

through parallel processing, revisions to 

the Missouri SIP received on November 

12, 2019 and March 2, 2022. In the 

November 12, 2019, submission, 

Missouri requested EPA approval of 

revisions to the vehicle I/M Program 

also known as GVIP, for the St. Louis 

area. The revisions remove both 

Franklin and Jefferson Counties from 

the GVIP; however, the EPA is only 

proposing to take action on the removal 

of Franklin County from the GVIP in 

accordance with a request from 

Missouri. 

At the time of the November 12, 2019 

submission, Missouri had not yet 

revised the implementing GVIP 

regulations nor provided supplemental 

emission controls to offset the emission 

increases resulting from ceasing vehicle 

emission inspections in the Boles 

Township portion of the nonattainment 

area, in accordance with CAA section 

110(l). EPA’s longstanding position is 

that the implementing rule revision and 

supplemental emission controls, for the 

nonattainment area, are needed for EPA 

approval. This position is consistent 

with the CAA, our implementing 

regulations, and our previous approvals 

of I/M removal across the nation. 

At the time of Missouri’s November 

12, 2019 submission, Jefferson County 

was designated as attainment/ 

unclassifiable for the 2015 Ozone 

NAAQS. As a result of the May 26, 2021 

EPA designation for Jefferson County to 

nonattainment, Missouri requested that 

EPA act on the removal of Franklin 

County from the GVIP plan and 

postpone action on the removal of 

Jefferson County from the GVIP plan via 

a letter dated December 6, 2021.5

Missouri would need to provide further 

supplemental emission controls for us 

to be able to propose approving the 

removal of I/M in Jefferson County as 

long as the County remains designated 

nonattainment. Additionally, in 

response to comment from EPA on the 

draft rulemaking, Missouri limited the 

implementing regulation’s exemption to 

Franklin County as opposed to 

exempting both Franklin and Jefferson 

Counties. 

On March 2, 2022, Missouri 

submitted a draft SIP revision 

supplementing the November 12, 2019 

submittal, along with a parallel 

processing request. The March 2, 2022 

submittal included both the revised 

implementing rule, 10 CSR 10–5.381, 

and supplemental emission controls to 

offset the increased emissions in the 

Boles Township portion of Franklin 

County that is designated as 

nonattainment for the 2015 Ozone 

NAAQS. The revision to 10 CSR 10– 

5.381 adds an exemption for vehicles 

registered in Franklin County from the 

program unless the vehicles are 

primarily operated in the remainder of 

nonattainment area. The revisions to 

this rule include amending the rule 

exemption section for vehicles subject 

to the rule, removing unnecessary 

words, amending definitions specific to 

the rule, and other minor edits. The EPA 

is proposing to approve the portion of 

the November 12, 2019 GVIP Plan 

relating to Franklin County, St. Charles 

County, St. Louis County, and St. Louis 

City, by approving the removal of 

Franklin County from the I/M program, 

and fully approve the revisions to 10 

CSR 10–5.381. 

In accordance with Missouri’s 

December 6, 2021, letter, the EPA is not 

taking action on Missouri’s November 

12, 2019 request to remove Jefferson 

County from the Inspection and 

Maintenance Program for the St. Louis 

Area. Missouri states in the 2021 letter 

that it views the requests in the 2019 

SIP revision to remove inspection and 

maintenance requirements in Franklin 

and Jefferson Counties as severable. The 

EPA agrees the removal of inspection 

and maintenance requirements in 

Franklin and Jefferson Counties are 

severable. Missouri also states in the 

letter that the implementing regulation, 

10 CSR 10–5.381, continues to require 

the inspection and maintenance 

program to operate in Jefferson County. 

As a result of today’s proposed action, 

the nonregulatory 1999 Implementation 

Plan for the Missouri Inspection and 

Maintenance Program, originally 

approved into the SIP on May 18, 2000, 

65 FR 31480, remains approved into the 

SIP for Jefferson County. The EPA 

proposes to approve the nonregulatory 

Inspection and Maintenance Program 

for the St. Louis Area—2019 Revision, 

into the SIP, which requires the I/M 

program to continue to operate in the 

City of St. Louis and the counties of St. 

Louis and St. Charles and removes 

requirements for Franklin County. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
30440 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

The EPA’s analysis of the revisions 

can be found in the ‘‘What is the EPA’s 

analysis of Missouri’s SIP request?’’ 

section and in the technical support 

document (TSD) included in this 

docket. 

VI. Have the requirements for approval 

of a SIP revision been met? 

Both the 2019 and 2022 State 

submissions have met the public notice 

requirements for SIP submissions in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The 

submission also satisfied the 

completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix V. The State provided public 

notice on the November 12, 2019 SIP 

revision from July 29, 2019 to August 

29, 2019 and on the March 2, 2022 SIP 

revision from October 15, 2021 to 

December 9, 2021. The State received 

ten comments during the 2019 public 

notice. The State received four 

comments on the 2021 public notice. 

The EPA finds Missouri has adequately 

addressed the comments received in its 

submissions. Please see the TSD for 

more discussion on Missouri’s 

responses to comments. In addition, as 

explained here and in more detail in the 

TSD which is part of this docket, the 

revision meets the substantive SIP 

requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA), including section 110 and 

implementing regulations. 

VII. What is the EPA’s analysis of 

Missouri’s SIP request? 

EPA is making the preliminary 

determination that the Ozone NAAQS is 

the primary focus for the 

noninterference demonstration required 

by section 110(l) of the CAA because the 

I/M program results primarily in 

emissions benefits for VOCs, NOX, and 

CO. While the GVIP program does 

produce CO reductions, the St. Louis 

Area has CO concentration much less 

than the CO NAAQS. Ozone 

concentrations are at the Ozone 

NAAQS. As such, any increases to CO 

emissions are unlikely to lead to a 

violation of the CO NAAQS, but any 

increases to Ozone precursors are 

extremely likely to cause a violation of 

the Ozone NAAQS. VOCs and NOX

emissions are precursors for Ozone. 

NOX emissions are precursors for 

particulate matter. NO2 is a component 

of NOX. There are no emissions 

reductions attributable to the emissions 

of particulate matter, lead and sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) from the I/M program. 

In Missouri’s March 2, 2022, SIP 

revision, the State concluded that the 

removal of the Franklin County from the 

I/M program would not interfere with 

attainment or maintenance of the Ozone 

NAAQS. While MOVES2014 mobile 

emissions modeling results show no 

Ozone precursor increase from 2017 to 

2020 associated with the removal of 

Franklin County from the I/M program, 

MOVES2014 mobile emission modeling 

results show Ozone emission precursor 

increases on a same year comparison. 

The Ozone design value in St. Louis is 

right at the level of the 2015 Ozone 

standard. Since Boles Township of 

Franklin County is part of the St. Louis 

nonattainment area and emissions from 

Boles Township have been shown to 

impact air quality in the rest of the St. 

Louis Area, Missouri has provided 

supplemental NOX emission controls 

exceeding the amount of the highest 

same year increase from removal of the 

I/M program. Since the rest of Franklin 

County is attainment/unclassifiable for 

the 2015 Ozone NAAQS and emissions 

from the rest of the county do not 

impact the St. Louis Area, Missouri is 

relying on the 2017 to 2020 emission 

comparison. The EPA proposes to find 

that removal of Franklin County from 

the SIP-approved I/M program would 

not interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the 2015 or any prior 

Ozone NAAQS. 

Franklin County is designated 

attainment or unclassifiable for all other 

NAAQS. Missouri’s MOVES2014 mobile 

emission modeling showed no emission 

increase for particulate matter, NO2, CO, 

or lead. Based on this data together with 

air quality data, EPA is making the 

preliminary determination that the 

change will not interfere with the area’s 

ability to maintain the particulate 

matter, NO2, CO, or lead NAAQS, or any 

other applicable requirement. EPA is 

making the preliminary determination 

that the change will not interfere with 

reasonable progress towards natural 

visibility in Missouri’s Class I areas nor 

any Class I area in another state 

Missouri impacts. For more details 

please see the ‘‘Clean Air Act (CAA) 

Section 110(l) Demonstration’’ section 

of the TSD in the docket of this action. 

VIII. What action is the EPA proposing 

to take? 

The EPA is proposing to approve, 

through parallel processing, revisions to 

the Missouri SIP received on November 

12, 2019 and March 2, 2022. The EPA 

is proposing to approve portions of the 

November 12, 2019 GVIP Plan, by 

approving the removal of Franklin 

County from the I/M program, and fully 

approve the revisions to 10 CSR 10– 

5.381. The EPA is not taking action on 

the remainder of the November 12, 2019 

GVIP Plan, at this time. We are 

soliciting comments on this proposed 

action. Final rulemaking will occur after 

consideration of any comments. 

IX. Environmental Justice Concerns 

When the EPA reviews a state’s 

desired change to their SIP for a 

NAAQS, the CAA requires the EPA to 

ensure that the change will not cause 

‘‘backsliding’’ of the air quality or 

delaying attainment of air quality. SIP 

revisions address environmental justice 

concerns by ensuring that the public is 

properly informed about the Plan and 

regulations to attain and maintain air 

quality. 

The EPA utilized the EJSCREEN tool 

to evaluate environmental and 

demographic indicators within Franklin 

County, Jefferson County, St. Charles 

County, St. Louis County, and St. Louis 

City. The tool outputs reports are 

contained in the docket for this action. 

Looking specifically at Franklin County, 

the EPA’s EJSCREEN tool demonstrates 

that demographic indicators are 

consistent with national averages, 

however there are vulnerable 

populations in Franklin County 

including low-income populations and 

persons over 64 years of age. In 

addition, emissions from Boles 

Township impact populations in the 

other portions of the nonattainment 

area. St. Louis City has demographic 

indicators significantly above national 

averages for low-income and minority 

populations. While the other counties’ 

demographic indicators are consistent 

with or lower than national averages, 

there are vulnerable populations in 

these Counties including low-income 

populations and persons over 64 years 

of age. 

CAA section 110 requires Missouri to 

provide supplemental emission controls 

for the increases from Boles Township. 

As described earlier, EPA proposes to 

find these supplemental emission 

controls are sufficient to address the 

projected emissions increase from 

ceasing GVIP in Franklin County. 

This action addresses EPA’s 

determination that the removal of 

Franklin County registered vehicles 

from the GVIP, unless they are 

predominately operated in the rest of 

the St. Louis Area. This action proposes 

to determine the removal of these 

Franklin County registered vehicles 

from the GVIP will not have an adverse 

impact to air quality or interfere with 

the nonattainment area attaining or 

maintaining the NAAQS. For these 

reasons, this proposed action does not 

result in disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority populations, lowincome populations and/or indigenous 

peoples. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2022 / Proposed Rules 30441 

X. Incorporation by Reference 

In this document, the EPA is 

proposing to include regulatory text in 

an EPA final rule that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is proposing to 

incorporate by reference the Missouri 10 

CSR 10–5.381 as described in Sections 

V and VIII of this preamble and set forth 

below in the proposed amendments to 

40 CFR part 52. The EPA has made, and 

will continue to make, these materials 

generally available through 

www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 

Region 7 Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

XI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTA) because this 

rulemaking does not involve technical 

standards; and 

• This action does not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority populations, low-income 

populations and/or indigenous peoples, 

as specified in Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The 

basis for this determination is contained 

in section IX of this action, 

‘‘Environmental Justice Concerns.’’ 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: May 11, 2022. 

Meghan A. McCollister, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the EPA proposes to amend 

40 CFR part 52 as set forth below: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 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: 

■ a. In the table in paragraph (c): 

■ i. Revise the entry ‘‘10–5.381’’. 

■ b. In the table in paragraph (e): 

■ i. Revise the entry ‘‘(38)’’. 

■ ii. Add the entry ‘‘(84)’’ in numerical 

order. 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1320 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
30442 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 

*******

10–5.381 ........................ On-Board Diagnostics 

Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection.

5/30/2022 [Date of publication of 

the final rule in the 

Federal Register], 

[Federal Register citation of the final rule].

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * (e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI NONREGULATORY SIP PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory 

SIP provision 

Applicable geographic 

or nonattainment area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

(38) Implementation plan 

for the Missouri inspection maintenance 

program.

Jefferson County ........... 11/12/1999 5/18/2000, 65 FR 31480 [MO 096–1096b; FRL–6701–6]. Approved for 

Jefferson County only. 

* * * * * * * 

(84) Implementation plan 

for the Missouri inspection maintenance 

program.

St. Charles County, St. 

Louis County, and St. 

Louis City.

11/12/2019, 

3/2/2022.

[Date of publication of 

the final rule in the 

Federal Register], 

[Federal Register citation of the final rule].

[EPA–R07–OAR–2022–0419; FRL–9830–01– 

R7]. Approved only for St. Charles County, St. 

Louis County, and St. Louis City and removal 

of Franklin County. Removal of Jefferson 

County is not SIP approved. 

[FR Doc. 2022–10688 Filed 5–18–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 14 

[CG Docket No. 10–213, DA 22–463; FR ID 

86631] 

Interoperable Video Conferencing 

Service 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau (CGB or Bureau) of the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC or 

Commission) seeks to refresh the record 

on proposed rules to enable people with 

disabilities to access and use 

interoperable video conferencing 

services by requesting further comment 

on the kinds of services encompassed by 

the term ‘‘interoperable video 

conferencing service,’’ a type of 

advanced communications service. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

June 21, 2022, and reply comments are 

due on or before July 18, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted, identified by CG Docket No. 

10–213, by either of the following 

methods: 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Website: https://

www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/standard. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. Filings can be 

sent by hand or messenger delivery, by 

commercial overnight courier, or by 

first-class or overnight U.S. Postal 

Service mail. Currently, the Commission 

does not accept any hand delivered or 

messenger delivered filings as a 

temporary measure taken to help protect 

the health and safety of individuals, and 

to mitigate the transmission of COVID– 

19. All filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see document DA 22–463 at: https://

www.fcc.gov/document/pn-refreshrecord-re-interoperable-videoconferencing. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information, contact Darryl 

Cooper at: 202–418–7131; email: 

Darryl.Cooper@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Public 

Notice, document DA 22–463, released 

on April 27, 2022, in CG Docket No. 10– 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1