Rule2022-20586
Clean Air Plans; Base Year Emissions Inventories for the 2015 Ozone Standards; California
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
September 29, 2022
Effective
October 31, 2022
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve revisions to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning the base year emissions inventories for 18 areas designated as nonattainment areas (NAAs) for the 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standards ("2015 ozone NAAQS") submitted on July 24, 2020. The areas include Amador County, Butte County, Calaveras County, Imperial County, Kern County (Eastern Kern), Los Angeles--San Bernardino Counties (West Mojave Desert), Los Angeles--South Coast Air Basin, Mariposa County, Nevada County (Western part), Riverside County (Coachella Valley), Sacramento Metro, San Francisco Bay Area, San Joaquin Valley, San Luis Obispo (Eastern part), Sutter Buttes, Tuolumne County, Tuscan Buttes, and Ventura County. We are approving these revisions under the Clean Air Act (CAA), which establishes emissions inventory requirements for all ozone nonattainment areas.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 188 (Thursday, September 29, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 188 (Thursday, September 29, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59015-59021]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20586]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0408; FRL-8902-02-R9]
Clean Air Plans; Base Year Emissions Inventories for the 2015
Ozone Standards; California
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve revisions to the California State Implementation Plan
(SIP) concerning the base year emissions inventories for 18 areas
designated as nonattainment areas (NAAs) for the 2015 ozone national
ambient air quality standards (``2015 ozone NAAQS'') submitted on July
24, 2020. The areas include Amador County, Butte County, Calaveras
County, Imperial County, Kern County (Eastern Kern), Los Angeles--San
Bernardino Counties (West Mojave Desert), Los Angeles--South Coast Air
Basin, Mariposa County, Nevada County (Western part), Riverside County
(Coachella Valley), Sacramento Metro, San Francisco Bay Area, San
Joaquin Valley, San Luis Obispo (Eastern part), Sutter Buttes, Tuolumne
County, Tuscan Buttes, and Ventura County. We are approving these
revisions under the Clean Air Act (CAA), which establishes emissions
inventory requirements for all ozone nonattainment areas.
DATES: This rule is effective on October 31, 2022.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0408. All documents in the docket are
listed on the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information. If you need assistance
in a language other than English or if you are a person with
disabilities who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you,
please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben Leers, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415)
947-4279, or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cea2ababbcbde0acaba08eabbeafe0a9a1b8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6408010116174a06010a240114054a030b12">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Summary of Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
A. Comments From Private Individuals
B. Comment From Center for Biological Diversity
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Summary of Proposed Action
On October 5, 2021, in accordance with CAA sections 172(c)(3) and
182(a)(1), the EPA proposed to approve a July 27, 2020 SIP submittal
from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to address the ozone-
related emissions inventory requirements for the following 18 ozone
nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS: Amador County, Butte
County, Calaveras County, Imperial County, Kern County (Eastern Kern),
Los Angeles--San Bernardino Counties (West Mojave Desert), Los
Angeles--South Coast Air Basin, Mariposa County, Nevada County (Western
part), Riverside County (Coachella Valley), Sacramento Metro, San
Francisco Bay Area, San Joaquin Valley, San Luis Obispo (Eastern part),
Sutter Buttes, Tuolumne County, Tuscan Buttes, and Ventura County.\1\
We refer to our October 5, 2021 proposed rulemaking as the ``proposed
rule.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 86 FR 54887 (October 5, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 28, 2021, the EPA extended the comment period for the
proposed rule by 30 days in response to a stakeholder request for an
extension.\2\ The original deadline to submit comments was November 4,
2021. This action extended the comment period to December 6, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 86 FR 59678 (October 28, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our proposed rule, we provided background information on the
2015 ozone standards, area designations in
[[Page 59016]]
California, and related base year emissions inventory SIP revision
requirements under the CAA and the EPA's implementing regulations for
the 2015 ozone standards, referred to as the 2015 ozone SIP
Requirements Rule (``2015 Ozone SRR'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Implementation of the 2015 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Ozone: Nonattainment Area State Implementation Plan
Requirements,'' Final Rule, 83 FR 62998 (December 6, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 27, 2020, the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
submitted the ``70 ppb Ozone SIP Submittal'' (``2020 CARB SIP
Submittal'') to the EPA.\4\ As explained in our proposed rule, the 2020
CARB SIP Submittal contains a staff report with a release date of May
22, 2020, and attachments of emissions inventories that address base
year inventory requirements for 18 of the 21 NAAs in California.\5\ In
our proposed rule, we provided a summary of the 2020 CARB SIP
Submittal, evaluated the submittal for compliance with statutory and
regulatory requirements, and proposed to find that the submittal meets
all applicable requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Letter dated July 24, 2020, from Richard W. Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB, to John Busterud, Regional Administrator, EPA Region
IX (submitted electronically July 27, 2020).
\5\ CARB's submittal does not include the San Diego NAA, which
was submitted separately via the State Planning Electronic
Collaboration System (SPeCS) for SIPs on January 12, 2021. The EPA
will take action on the emissions inventory for the San Diego NAA in
a separate rulemaking. Because the State of California does not have
regulatory authority over the Pechanga and Morongo NAAs, CARB's
submittal does not include emissions inventories for these areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The emissions inventories we are approving into the SIP in this
final action are detailed in Table 1 of the proposed rule. The EPA
finds that CARB developed approvable inventories of oxides of nitrogen
(NO<INF>X</INF>) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions for the
18 ozone nonattainment areas as required under the CAA and 2015 Ozone
SRR (40 CFR 51.1315; see also CAA section 172(c)(3)).
Refer to our proposed rule for more information concerning the
background for this action and for a more detailed discussion of the
rationale for approval.
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
The EPA's proposed rule provided a 30-day public comment period
that ended on November 4, 2021. As explained in section I of this
preamble, on October 28, 2021, we extended the comment period by 30
days to December 6, 2021, in response to a stakeholder request for an
extension.\6\ We received eight sets of comments, including seven
comment submissions from private individuals \7\ and one comment letter
from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD).\8\ All comments
received in response to our proposed rulemaking are available in the
docket for this rulemaking.\9\ Four of the comment submissions from
private individuals generally support our proposal to approve the 2020
CARB SIP Submittal as meeting the base year emissions inventory
requirements.\10\ These four supportive comments do not require a
response. We respond to the remainder of the comments received on our
proposed rulemaking in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Email dated October 7, 2021, from Robert Ukeiley, Center for
Biological Diversity, to Khoi Nguyen, EPA Region IX.
\7\ Comments from private individuals were made to Docket ID No.
EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0408 as follows: (1) comment dated October 6, 2021,
from Saida Lopez Williams; (2) comment dated October 8, 2021, from
Annie Miller; (3) comment dated October 11, 2021, from Tristan
Sommers; (4) comment dated October 16, 2021, from Taylor W.; (5)
comment dated November 3, 2021, from Lindsey H.; (6) comment dated
November 3, 2021, from Alexander Mata; (7) comment dated November 3,
2021, from Tom Loch.
\8\ Letter dated December 1, 2021, from Nathan Donley, Center
for Biological Diversity, to Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0408,
Subject: ``Re: Comments on Clean Air Plans; Base Year Emission
Inventories for the 2015 Ozone Standards; California (Docket #: EPA-
R09-OAR-2021-0408).''
\9\ Comments are publicly available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0408/comments">https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0408/comments</a>.
\10\ Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0408-0011, EPA-R09-OAR-2021-
0408-0014, EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0408-0015, and EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0408-
0016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Comments From Private Individuals
Comment A.1: Two private individual commenters \11\ question how
the proposed rulemaking will improve air pollution in the nonattainment
areas. Additionally, one of the commenters \12\ suggests that there
should be a call to action for these nonattainment areas to implement
some forms of regulation or change in activities to actively pursue
attainment of environmental goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0408-0007 and EPA-R09-OAR-
2021-0408-0008.
\12\ Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0408-0008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response A.1: The EPA appreciates the commenters' questions
regarding how air pollution will be improved. As explained in our
proposed rule, CAA section 182(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1315 require states
to develop and submit, as SIP revisions, emissions inventories for all
areas designated as nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. An
emissions inventory for an ozone nonattainment area is comprised of
typical weekday actual emissions of ozone precursors in the area's
ozone season. Emissions inventories provide emissions data for a
variety of air quality planning tasks, including establishing baseline
emissions levels (i.e., the level of emissions associated with
violations of the ozone standards), calculating emissions reduction
targets needed to attain the NAAQS and to achieve reasonable further
progress (RFP) toward attainment of the ozone standards, determining
emissions inputs for ozone air quality modeling analyses, and tracking
emissions over time to determine progress toward achieving air quality
and emissions reduction goals.
The EPA also appreciates the commenters' concerns about
nonattainment areas needing to actively pursue attainment via
implementation of regulations or change in activities. The EPA
promulgates NAAQS for certain air pollutants, such as ozone, under
section 109 of the CAA. The NAAQS are concentration levels that the EPA
has determined to be requisite to protect public health and welfare.
Under CAA section 107(d), the EPA designates areas as nonattainment if
they are violating the NAAQS or contributing to a violation of the
NAAQS in nearby areas. State and local governments with nonattainment
areas must develop implementation plans outlining how these areas will
attain and maintain the NAAQS by reducing air pollutant emissions.
Sections 110, 172, and 182 of the CAA require states to develop and
submit SIPs to implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS.\13\ These
SIPs address requirements for emissions inventories, attainment
demonstrations, reasonable further progress, reasonably available
control measures, contingency measures, and motor vehicle emissions
budgets to improve air quality. Although the base year emissions
inventories submitted pursuant to CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1)
are not intended to result directly in reductions of emissions or ozone
concentration levels, they inform the development and implementation of
the SIP submittals that are required under the CAA to actively pursue
attainment of environmental goals, as suggested by the commenter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ For more information on the NAAQS implementation process,
please see <a href="https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-implementation-process">https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-implementation-process</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment A.2: One private individual commenter \14\ suggests that,
within the requirements for base year inventories, a fifth class of
anthropogenic sources should be added. The commenter explains that this
fifth class will cover emissions contributions from agriculture
livestock, agricultural soils, and rice production. The commenter
indicates that by adding this fifth class,
[[Page 59017]]
the proposed rule will gain a more thorough overview of ozone creation
within California, allowing the EPA to make better decisions based on
nonattainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0408-0009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response A.2: As explained in our proposed rule, CAA section
182(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1315 contain the requirements for ozone base
year emissions inventories. The EPA's guidance for the preparation of
ozone base year emissions inventories (``EI Guidance'') \15\ also
indicates that, traditionally, the term ``source category'' has been
used to identify the major types of emissions inventory groupings:
stationary point sources, stationary area (or nonpoint) sources, on-
road mobile sources, and nonroad mobile sources.\16\ Accordingly, our
proposed rule identifies four general classes of anthropogenic sources:
stationary point sources; area sources; on-road mobile sources; and
off-road mobile sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ EPA, ``Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of
Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations'' (May 2017).
\16\ EI Guidance, 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potentially referring to section A.2 of our proposed rulemaking
titled ``Requirements for Base Year Inventories,'' the commenter
proposes that the requirements for base year inventories should be
amended to add a requirement for a separate category of anthropogenic
sources encompassing emissions from agriculture livestock, agricultural
soils, and rice production. The requirements for base year emissions
inventories established at 40 CFR 51.1315 and at CAA sections 172(c)(3)
and 182(a)(1) do not define specific ``classes'' of sources in which to
sort reported emissions. However, we note that the source categories
cited by the commenter for inclusion in a ``fifth class,'' i.e.,
agricultural livestock, agricultural soils, and rice production, are
already included in California's base year emissions inventories for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Emissions from these sources are accounted for in
the 2020 CARB SIP Submittal under diesel agricultural equipment,
agricultural diesel irrigation pumps, pesticides, farming operations
(including livestock husbandry), and agricultural
burning.\17\Additionally, we note that the EPA's EI Guidance addresses
emissions from agricultural livestock \18\ and from certain
agricultural soil sources (e.g., direct emissions of pesticides and
fertilizers \19\) under the area source category. Emissions from rice
production are addressed under various source categories, including the
area source category for processes such as direct application of
pesticides and fertilizers \20\ and the non-road mobile source category
for mobile agricultural equipment.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 2020 CARB SIP Submittal, Staff Report, 13, 15, 20-22.
\18\ EI Guidance, 87 and B-1.
\19\ EI Guidance, 87-88.
\20\ Id.
\21\ EI Guidance, 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment A.3: One private individual commenter \22\ expresses
concerns about the lack of base year emissions inventory updates for
attainment areas and questions why emissions reductions or new
emissions standards are not required for attainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0408-0008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response A.3: While establishing requirements for nonattainment and
attainment areas is outside the scope of this rulemaking action, the
EPA agrees that protection of air quality in all areas is of vital
importance. We note that the CAA imposes various requirements on
nonattainment areas for ozone national ambient air quality standards.
The requirements that apply to ozone nonattainment areas, including the
requirement for states to submit base year emissions inventories for
these areas, are established in CAA sections 172 and 182. These
statutes apply specifically to areas that the EPA has determined to be
in nonattainment with respect to a NAAQS and are intended to restore
air quality in these areas to levels that the EPA has determined to be
requisite to protect public health and welfare with an adequate margin
for safety. Accordingly, the SIP submittal that the EPA is evaluating
for this action was submitted to fulfill requirements specific to ozone
nonattainment areas. The requirements in CAA sections 172 and 182 do
not apply to areas designated as attainment, and there is no CAA
requirement for states to submit base year emissions inventories for
attainment areas.
We do note, however, that recent emissions information is available
for all areas of the United States, including attainment areas, in the
EPA's national emissions inventory (NEI). The NEI contains
comprehensive and detailed information on air emissions of criteria
pollutants, criteria pollutant precursors, and hazardous air pollutants
from air emissions sources nationwide.\23\ The NEI is released every
three years and is based primarily upon data provided by state, local,
and tribal air agencies for sources in their jurisdictions in
accordance with the air emissions reporting requirements (AERR) at 40
CFR part 51, subpart A. At the state level, CARB also collects and
provides statewide emissions via the California emissions inventory
data analysis and reporting system (CEIDARS), which is a database
management system developed to track statewide criteria pollutant and
air toxics emissions.\24\ Similarly to the NEI, CEIDARS includes
emissions information for all areas in California and is not limited to
nonattainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ For more information on the NEI, please see <a href="https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory-nei">https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory-nei</a>.
\24\ See <a href="https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/criteria-pollutant-emission-inventory-data">https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/criteria-pollutant-emission-inventory-data</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Comment From Center for Biological Diversity
Comment B.1: CBD asserts that CARB's base year emissions
inventories must be corrected to account for anthropogenic sources of
soil-based NO<INF>X</INF> emissions related to fertilizer and pesticide
use in California before the EPA may approve the inventories.\25\
Throughout its comment letter, CBD refers to soil NO<INF>X</INF>
resulting from fertilizer and pesticide use as an anthropogenic
emissions source. CBD implies that CARB assumes NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions from fertilizers and pesticides to be zero and argues that
doing so is unacceptable and contrary to science. While the commenter
acknowledges the challenges associated with quantifying NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions resulting from fertilizer and pesticide use, they consider
the quantification of these emissions to be no more complex than CARB's
quantification of VOC emissions from pesticides in its base year
emissions inventories. CBD's comment letter discusses the impacts that
both fertilizer and pesticide use have on NO<INF>X</INF> emissions and
cites 13 research manuscripts to support their comment, 11 of which are
included as attachments to the comment letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ CBD's comment letter and attachments (``CBD comment'') are
available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a> under Docket ID No. EPA-
R09-OAR-2021-0408-0017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 59018]]
With respect to fertilizer use, the commenter first references two
studies: one concluding that non-fossil fuel NO<INF>X</INF> emissions
should be equally considered as fossil fuel NO<INF>X</INF> emissions
when designing NO<INF>X</INF> pollution mitigation,\26\ and another
estimating that 600,000 to 800,000 tons of nitrogen from inorganic
fertilizer were used in California each year between 2000 and 2008.\27\
Additionally, the commenter cites a study finding that, while soils are
always producing background NO<INF>X</INF> in California,
NO<INF>X</INF> production rises considerably in croplands with high
fertilizer use, and the NO<INF>X</INF> emitted through soil could
produce over 50 percent of the atmospheric NO<INF>X</INF> present in
rural California regions.\28\ The commenter also references a review of
studies conducted in California counties to suggest that between 0.2
and 10.4 percent of the nitrogen applied as fertilizer is emitted as
NO<INF>X</INF>, depending on the application method and region.\29\
Further, the commenter cites a recent study finding that fertilized
croplands account for 32 percent of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions across
California.\30\ Lastly, the commenter references a study indicating
that California has measured fluxes in NO<INF>X</INF> in the San
Joaquin Valley in the past and correlated these changes with fertilizer
use.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Song et al. (2021). Important contributions of non-fossil
fuel nitrogen oxides emissions, Nature Communications, 12(1),
doi:10.1038/s41467-020-20356-0; available at <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-20356-0">https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-20356-0</a>.
\27\ Rosenstock et al. (2013). Nitrogen fertilizer use in
California: Assessing the data, trends and a way forward, California
Agriculture, 67(1), 68-79, doi:10.3733/ca.e.v067n01p68; available at
<a href="https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5mk2q1sm">https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5mk2q1sm</a>.
\28\ Sha et al. (2021). Impacts of soil NO<INF>X</INF> emission
on O<INF>3</INF> air quality in rural California, Environmental
Science & Technology, 55(10), 7113-7122, doi:10.1021/
acs.est.0c06834; available at <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.0c06834">https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.0c06834</a>.
\29\ Verhoeven et al. (2017). N<INF>2</INF>O emissions from
California farmlands: A review, California Agriculture, 71(3), 148-
159, doi:10.3733/ca.2017a0026; available at <a href="https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0kb4505k">https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0kb4505k</a>.
\30\ Almaraz et al. (2018). Agriculture is a major source of
NO<INF>X</INF> pollution in California, Science Advances, 4(1),
doi:10.1126/sciadv.aao3477, 2018; available at <a href="https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/1/eaao3477">https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/1/eaao3477</a>.
\31\ Matson et al. (1997). Agricultural Systems in the San
Joaquin Valley: Development of Emissions Estimates for Nitrogen
Oxides; available at <a href="https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//research/apr/past/94-732.pdf">https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//research/apr/past/94-732.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to pesticide use, the commenter cites two recent
studies to suggest that pesticides of all types can have negative
impacts on soil invertebrates or microorganisms by killing or inducing
sublethal effects on growth, behavior, or reproduction.<SUP>32 33</SUP>
Additionally, the commenter references research studies to suggest that
the fumigant pesticide chloropicrin was found to increase soil
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions by 8-fold and 7-fold in laboratory and field
conditions, respectively,\34\ that multiple herbicides, one fungicide,
and one adjuvant all increased NO<INF>X</INF> emissions in agricultural
soils two months after crop harvest,\35\ that the herbicide butachlor
increased NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from citrus fields by 56-85
percent,\36\ that application of the insecticide sulfoxaflor to
greenhouse vegetables drives changes to soil microbial communities
leading to increased NO<INF>X</INF> emissions,\37\ and that application
of the fungicide chlorothalonil has similar impacts to soil microbial
communities leading to increases of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions in tea
fields by 380-830 percent.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Puglisi, E. (2012). Response of microbial organisms
(aquatic and terrestrial) to pesticides, EFSA Supporting
Publications, 9(11), doi:10.2903/sp.efsa.2012.en-359; available at
<a href="https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2903/sp.efsa.2012.EN-359">https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2903/sp.efsa.2012.EN-359</a>.
\33\ Gunstone et al. (2021). Pesticides and soil invertebrates:
A hazard assessment, Frontiers in Environmental Science, 9,
doi:10.3389/fenvs.2021.643847; available at <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2021.643847/full">https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2021.643847/full</a>.
\34\ Spokas and Wang. (2003). Stimulation of nitrous oxide
production resulted from soil fumigation with chloropicrin,
Atmospheric Environment, 37(25), 3501-3507, doi:10.1016/s1352-
2310(03)00412-6; available at <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1352231003004126">https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1352231003004126</a>.
\35\ Jezierska-Tys et al. (2021). Microbiological nitrogen
transformations in soil treated with pesticides and their impact on
soil greenhouse gas emissions, Agriculture, 11(8), 787, doi:10.3390/
agriculture11080787; available at <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/11/8/787">https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/11/8/787</a>.
\36\ XiangZhou et al. (2018). Effects of herbicides on urea
nitrogen transformation and greenhouse gas emission of soil in
citrus orchards with different planting years, Chinese Journal of
Eco-Agriculture, 26(3), 338-346; available at <a href="https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/20183141714">https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/20183141714</a>.
\37\ Fang et al. (2021). Effects of sulfoxaflor on greenhouse
vegetable soil N<INF>2</INF>O emissions and its microbial driving
mechanism, Chemosphere, 267, 129248, doi:10.1016/
j.chemosphere.2020.129248; available at <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33321281/">https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33321281/</a>.
\38\ Su et al. (2020). Long-term effects of chlorothalonil on
microbial denitrification and N<INF>2</INF>O emission in a tea field
soil, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(14), 17370-
17381, doi:10.1007/s11356-020-07679-7; available at <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11356-020-07679-7">https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11356-020-07679-7</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response B.1: We appreciate CBD's comment regarding the inclusion
of soil NO<INF>X</INF> emissions resulting from fertilizer and
pesticide use in CARB's 2015 ozone base year emissions inventories. We
acknowledge the studies cited by CBD in their comment letter finding
that these types of soil NO<INF>X</INF> emissions contribute to
atmospheric NO<INF>X</INF> levels in California. Particularly, the EPA
acknowledges the growing body of research surrounding the
identification and quantification of soil NO<INF>X</INF> emissions
induced by fertilizer application in agricultural soils. The EPA
encourages CARB and the districts governing California's ozone
nonattainment areas to perform and keep abreast of research on
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from agriculture and their implications for
air quality modeling and planning. However, as highlighted by our
discussion in the following paragraphs, in light of EPA guidance and
regulations related to the classification of emissions sources in base
year emissions inventories and uncertainties and disagreements among
studies regarding the contribution of fertilized cropland soils to
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions in California, the EPA disagrees with the
commenter's assertion that the emissions inventories in the 2020 CARB
SIP Submittal must be amended to account for soil NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions before the EPA may approve them as meeting the base year
emissions inventory requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
The 2020 CARB SIP Submittal specifies that the emissions
inventories in the submittal include only emissions from anthropogenic
sources, i.e., they do not include biogenic emissions.\39\ CBD's
comment letter frequently refers to soil NO<INF>X</INF> from
agricultural sources as an anthropogenic emissions source, suggesting
that these soil NO<INF>X</INF> emissions must be categorized as
anthropogenic and thereby included in CARB's base year emissions
inventories. However, the techniques currently available for the
estimation of soil NO<INF>X</INF> emissions induced by fertilizer
application, including the techniques used in the studies cited by CBD
in its comment letter, present substantial uncertainty and variability
with respect to the magnitude and proportion of soil NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions that can be attributed to agricultural fertilizer
application. Thus, at this time, we do not find CARB's base year
emissions inventories to be deficient for not including soil
NO<INF>X</INF> as an anthropogenic emissions source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ 2020 CARB SIP Submittal, Staff Report, 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its comment letter, CBD acknowledges the ``highly variable''
nature of soil NO<INF>X</INF> emissions and notes that estimating such
emissions requires data on fertilizer or pesticide use in a particular
region and is dependent on application method, amount of moisture in
the soil and ``a whole host of other variables.'' \40\ In a study cited
by the commenter, Almaraz et al. highlight the uncertainty present in
the soil NO<INF>X</INF> estimation techniques relied upon in the
[[Page 59019]]
study.\41\ While Almaraz et al. suggest that soil NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions may be significantly underestimated using currently employed
techniques, the study acknowledges the limited number of surface
measurements that were available for purposes of comparing the model
results and that, where observations exist, there is a large range of
observed values due to varying soil conditions (e.g., relating to
temperature, moisture, fertilizer application, etc.). The ``top-down''
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions estimates derived from aircraft measurements
relied upon in the study also reflect a significant degree of
uncertainty, reported at 190 tons per day plus or minus 130 tons per
day, i.e., plus or minus 68 percent. The authors acknowledge the
difficulty in comparing the model results to the observations and note
the need for more field measurements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ CBD comment, 3.
\41\ Almaraz et al. (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The challenges associated with quantifying the contribution of
fertilizer application to NO<INF>X</INF> emissions using currently
available datasets are also highlighted in a separate study not cited
by the commenter evaluating the impacts of soil NO<INF>X</INF> to
atmospheric levels of particulate matter in the San Joaquin Valley.\42\
In this study, Guo et al. expressed that obtaining an emission factor
correlating NO<INF>X</INF> emissions to fertilizer application from the
data available in various studies (including Almaraz et al.) would be
``difficult or impossible'' due to the sparsity of data collected in
terms of, sampling length, sampling frequency, and the episodic nature
of nitrogen gases from soil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Guo et al. (2020). Assessment of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions
and San Joaquin Valley PM<INF>2.5</INF> Impacts From Soils in
California, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 125(24),
doi: 10.1029/2020JD033304; available at <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033304">https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033304</a>, 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, estimates of the magnitude of agricultural soil
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions in California vary greatly from study to
study. For example, Almaraz et al. estimated that soil NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions from fertilized croplands account for 32 percent of
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions across California, Sha et al. estimated soil
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions to comprise 40.1 percent of California's total
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, and Guo et al., estimated that soil
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions in California equate to only 1.1 percent of
anthropogenic NO<INF>X</INF> emissions in the State.\43\ Similarly,
estimates of the fraction of nitrogen applied as fertilizer released as
NO<INF>X</INF> to the atmosphere was estimated by Almaraz et al. to be
15 percent, while seven other studies reviewed by Guo et al. estimated
2 percent or less.\44\ Almaraz et al., Sha et al., and Guo et al. each
evaluated the performance of the soil NO<INF>X</INF> estimation model
used in the respective studies by comparing modeled soil NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions to observed soil NO<INF>X</INF> emission values. Sha et al.
and Guo et al. also used photochemical models to compare the resulting
predicted NO<INF>2</INF> concentrations to satellite observations of
NO<INF>2</INF>. Despite producing drastically different estimates of
the portion of California's NO<INF>X</INF> emissions inventories
attributable to soil NO<INF>X</INF>, each of these studies report high
agreement between modeled and observed soil NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions.\45\ This discrepancy highlights the uncertainty surrounding
the available observations, given that agreement between modeled and
observed soil NO<INF>X</INF> emissions are not sufficient to constrain
these disparate model results. Thus, at this time, the EPA does not
believe that available research provides sufficient certainty about the
magnitude and proportion of soil NO<INF>X</INF> emissions attributable
to agricultural fertilizer application for the EPA to require that a
state categorize these emissions as biogenic or anthropogenic when
developing its base year emissions inventories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Guo et al. (2020).
\44\ Guo et al. (2020), 7, table 2.
\45\ For example, in evaluating model performance against
satellite-observed NO<INF>2</INF> observations over croplands, Sha
et al. reported that the soil NO<INF>X</INF> estimation technique
employed in the study decreased mean bias by nearly 23% compared to
the default model employed by MEGAN version 2.04, concluding that
the model employed in the study demonstrated ``good agreement'' with
tropospheric NO<INF>2</INF> column observations. Guo et al.
validated its soil NO<INF>X</INF> model by comparing modeled values
to field measurements of soil NO<INF>X</INF> flux rates in
croplands, finding that ``the model predicted the measured soil
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions closely, with an r\2\ of 0.69 and a p value
of <0.001, demonstrating again that the model is capable of
reasonably simulating N speciation and emissions from California
agricultural ecosystems.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the base year emissions inventories in the 2020 CARB SIP
Submittal do not include soil NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, the EPA
disagrees with the commenter that CARB has assumed the NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions attributed to soils to be zero. Biogenic emissions (including
soil NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, if categorized as such) are generally
accounted for in the modeled attainment demonstrations submitted for
nonattainment areas as recommended in the EPA's ``Modeling Guidance for
Demonstrating Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM<INF>2.5</INF> and
Regional Haze.'' \46\ Modeled attainment demonstrations have not yet
been submitted to the EPA for California nonattainment areas for the
2015 ozone NAAQS. However, publicly available draft SIP materials for
one nonattainment area in California, the Los Angeles-South Coast Air
Basin, indicate that soil NO<INF>X</INF> emissions have been quantified
and will be accounted for in the photochemical modeling relied upon in
the area's attainment demonstration.\47\ Additionally, CARB has
accounted for soil NO<INF>X</INF> emissions in modeled attainment
demonstrations for recent SIP submittals, including the ``2018 Plan for
the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Standards'' for the San
Joaquin Valley (``2018 SJV PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan''),\48\ which shows
that CARB develops estimates for soil NO<INF>X</INF> emissions and will
account for these emissions and their impacts on modeled ozone design
values in the upcoming attainment plans required for 2015 ozone NAAQS
nonattainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ EPA, ``Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Air Quality
Goals for Ozone, PM<INF>2.5</INF> and Regional Haze'' (November
2018), section 2.7.7.5.
\47\ South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2022 Draft Air
Quality Management Plan, Appendix V, V-4-16, V-4-17. Soil
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions are quantified by running the Model of
Emissions of Gases and Aerosols from Nature version 3.0 (MEGAN3.0),
which uses the Yienger-Levy model for soil NO<INF>X</INF>
production. The Yienger-Levy model includes a linear dependence of
NO<INF>X</INF> emission rates on nitrogen fertilizer application
rate for agricultural soils and accounts for NO<INF>X</INF> emission
pulses observed following the wetting of dry soils. See Yienger,
J.J.; Levy, H. Empirical model of global soil-biogenic
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions. J. Geophys. Res. 1995, 100, 11447-11464.
\48\ See the EPA's ``Response to Comments Document for the EPA's
Final Action on the San Joaquin Valley Serious Area Plan for the
2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS'' (June 2020), 149-150. Upon reviewing
the 2018 SJV PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, the EPA determined that
California used the Model of Emissions of Gases and Aerosols from
Nature (MEGAN) and the Model for Ozone and Related chemical Tracers,
version 4 (MOZART-4) to generate inputs for photochemical models
relied upon in the 2018 SJV Plan. MEGAN and MOZART-4 each include
models to estimate soil NO<INF>X</INF> emissions. The EPA confirmed
with CARB that the photochemical modeling in the 2018 SJV
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan accounted for soil NO<INF>X</INF> emissions
from agricultural sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with applicable emissions inventory requirements and EPA
guidance, the EPA generally grants flexibility to states in preparing
their base year emissions inventories to comport with the structure and
feasibility of their emissions collecting mechanisms, including with
respect to the allocation of an emissions source to a particular source
category. The requirements for base year emissions inventories in CAA
sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) and at 40 CFR 51.1315 do not include
requirements pertaining to the allocation of emissions to source
categories, and the EPA's EI Guidance does not suggest whether
agricultural soil NO<INF>X</INF> emissions should be categorized as an
anthropogenic emissions source.\49\ The EPA generally
[[Page 59020]]
grants discretion to states to allocate emissions sources to source
categories as they deem appropriate for the development of their
emissions inventory SIP submittals. Additionally, the EPA's national
emissions inventory also does not distinguish naturally occurring soil
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from fertilizer-induced soil NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions, and it categorizes soil NO<INF>X</INF> emissions as a
biogenic emissions source in name, because emissions are generated from
the Biogenic Emissions Inventory System model.<SUP>50 51</SUP> Thus, we
find it acceptable that CARB did not include soil NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions as an anthropogenic emissions source in the 2020 CARB SIP
Submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ EI Guidance, 100-101. ``Biogenic sources are a subset of
natural emissions sources that may contribute significantly to an
emissions inventory. Vegetation (i.e., forests and agriculture) is
the predominant biogenic source of VOC and is typically the only
source that is included in a biogenic VOC emissions inventory.
Microbial activity in the soil contributes to natural biogenic
NO<INF>X</INF> and CO emissions.''
\50\ See 2017 National Emissions Inventory Technical Support
Document (TSD), section 4.4 Agriculture--Fertilizer Application, 4-
49--4-56 (January 2021).
\51\ The EPA's EI Guidance clarifies that source category
groupings relate more to how emissions inventory data are created
than to the features of the actual emissions sources included in the
category. See EI Guidance, 19. For the purpose of the national
emissions inventory, soil NO<INF>X</INF> emissions are calculated
using the Biogenic Emissions Inventory System, a model that produces
estimates of total soil NO<INF>X</INF> emissions that are not
disaggregated into anthropogenic and biogenic contributions. Thus,
the classification of soil NO<INF>X</INF> emissions as biogenic in
the NEI is a matter of practicality rather than a policy statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the impact of pesticides on soil NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions, CBD's comment letter cites numerous studies to suggest that
pesticide application increases NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from soils. We
note that each of these studies correlates pesticide use to nitrous
oxide (N<INF>2</INF>O) emissions rather than NO<INF>X</INF> emissions.
These studies include Verhoeven et al. (2017), Spokas and Wang (2003),
Jezierska-Tys et al. (2021), XiangZhou et al. (2018), Fang et al.
(2021), and Su et al. (2020). These studies do not review pesticide
impacts on NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, nor do they relate soil
N<INF>2</INF>O emissions to NO<INF>X</INF> emissions. While
N<INF>2</INF>O is known to contribute to greenhouse climate warming
effects and atmospheric ozone depletion, N<INF>2</INF>O is not known to
be active in the chemical processes contributing to ground-level ozone
production and is relatively inert in the troposphere.\52\ It is
therefore not included in the EPA's definition for NO<INF>X</INF>.\53\
Because the studies cited by the commenter do not correlate pesticide
use (or the resultant N<INF>2</INF>O emissions) to NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions, the EPA disagrees that the information provided by the
commenter suggests that CARB's emissions inventories must be modified
to include NO<INF>X</INF> emissions resulting from pesticide
application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ Seinfeld, J., & Pandis, S. (2016). ``Atmospheric Chemistry
and Physics: From Air Pollution to Climate Change,'' John Wiley &
Sons, 28.
\53\ Per 40 CFR 51.1300, ``Nitrogen Oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>)
means the sum of nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide in the flue gas
or emission point, collectively expressed as nitrogen dioxide.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA does not find that CARB assumed NO<INF>X</INF> emissions
from fertilizers to be zero in its base year emissions inventories.
Rather, the EPA understands that CARB included only anthropogenic
emissions in its base year inventories and therefore did not include
soil NO<INF>X</INF> emissions in the base year inventories as a result
of considering those emissions to be biogenic. Upon review of
applicable statutes and regulations, EPA guidance, studies cited by the
commenter, and additional research, the EPA does not find that it must
require a particular categorization of soil NO<INF>X</INF> emissions in
base year emissions inventories at this time. Furthermore,
documentation related to various California area SIPs indicates that
CARB accounts for NO<INF>X</INF> emissions resulting from fertilizer
application in its attainment demonstration modeling for nonattainment
areas. The studies cited by the commenter related to pesticide
application address N<INF>2</INF>O emissions rather than NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions and thus do not indicate that CARB's emissions inventories
should be modified to include NO<INF>X</INF> emissions resulting from
pesticide application. For these reasons, we conclude that the
emissions inventories in CARB's submittal do not need to be amended
before the EPA may approve them as meeting the applicable base year
emissions inventory requirements.
III. Final Action
The comments submitted in response to our proposed action do not
change our assessment of the 2020 CARB SIP Submittal as described in
our notice of proposed rulemaking. Therefore, for the reasons discussed
in detail in the proposed rule and summarized herein, we are finalizing
our approval of the 2020 CARB SIP Submittal to address the ozone-
related base year emissions inventory requirements for the following 18
ozone nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS in accordance with
CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1): Amador County, Butte County,
Calaveras County, Imperial County, Kern County (Eastern Kern), Los
Angeles--San Bernardino Counties (West Mojave Desert), Los Angeles--
South Coast Air Basin, Mariposa County, Nevada County (Western part),
Riverside County (Coachella Valley), Sacramento Metro, San Francisco
Bay Area, San Joaquin Valley, San Luis Obispo (Eastern part), Sutter
Buttes, Tuolumne County, Tuscan Buttes, and Ventura County.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 Clean Air Act.
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:
<bullet> 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);
<bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
<bullet> 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.);
<bullet> 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);
<bullet> Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
<bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
<bullet> Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act.
The State did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as
part of its SIP submittal. There is no information in the record
inconsistent with the stated goals of Executive Order 12898 (59 FR
7629, February 16, 1994) of achieving environmental justice for people
of color, low-income populations, and indigenous peoples.
[[Page 59021]]
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the 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).
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. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 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 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 Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 28, 2022. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action 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 in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: September 8, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends chapter I,
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F--California
0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(589) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan--in part.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(589) The following plan was submitted on July 27, 2020 by the
Governor's designee.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) Additional materials. (A) California Air Resources Board.
(1) California Air Resources Board, ``70 ppb Ozone SIP Submittal,''
excluding section III, ``VMT Offset Demonstration,'' release date: May
22, 2020.
(2) [Reserved]
(B) [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 2022-20586 Filed 9-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 29, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.