This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposedissuance of rules and regulations. Thepurpose of these notices is to give interestedpersons an opportunity to participate in therule making prior to the adoption of the finalrules.Proposed RulesFederal Register19229 
Vol. 88, No. 62 
Friday, March 31, 2023 
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
Food and Nutrition Service 
7 CFR Parts 210, 215, 220, 225, and 226 
RIN 0584–AE88 
Child Nutrition Programs: Revisions to 
Meal Patterns Consistent With the 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans 
AGENCY : Food and Nutrition Service 
(FNS), USDA. 
ACTION : Proposed rule; extension of 
comment period. 
SUMMARY : The USDA Food and 
Nutrition Service is extending the public comment period on the proposed rule, ‘‘Child Nutrition Programs: Revisions to Meal Patterns Consistent With the 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans,’’ which published in the Federal Register on February 7, 2023. This action extends the public comment period from April 10, 2023, to May 10, 2023, to give the public additional time to review the proposed rule. 
DATES : The comment period of the 
proposed rule published February 7, 2023, at 88 FR 8050, is extended through May 10, 2023. To be assured of consideration, written comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before May 10, 2023. 
ADDRESSES : The Food and Nutrition 
Service invites interested persons to submit comments on this proposed rule. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: 
•Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
online instructions for submitting comments. 
•Mail: Send comments to School 
Meals Policy Division, Food and Nutrition Service, P.O. Box 9233, Reston, Virginia 20195. 
•All comments submitted in 
response to this proposed rule will be included in the record and will be made available to the public. Please be advised that the substance of the comments and the identity of the individuals or entities submitting the 
comments will be subject to public disclosure. The Food and Nutrition Service will make the comments publicly available on the internet via https://www.regulations.gov. 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Tina 
Namian, School Meals Policy Division— 
4th floor, Food and Nutrition Service, 1320 Braddock Place, Alexandria, VA 22314; telephone: 703–305–2590. 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : The Food 
and Nutrition Service is extending the public comment period on the proposed rule ‘‘Child Nutrition Programs: Revisions to Meal Patterns Consistent With the 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans,’’ which published on February 7, 2023, at 88 FR 8050. This rulemaking proposes long-term school nutrition standards based on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020–2025, and feedback the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) received from child nutrition program stakeholders during a robust stakeholder engagement campaign. This action extends the public comment period to May 10, 2023, to give the public additional time to review the proposed rule. USDA is proposing a gradual multi-year approach to implementing the nutrition standards. The proposed rule indicates that USDA expects to issue a final rule in time for schools to plan for school year (SY) 2024–2025. However, the proposed rule would not require changes from current meal patterns to take effect in SY 2024–2025. As proposed, new requirements to the school meal patterns would not begin until SY 2025–2026, at the earliest. USDA encourages public comments on the proposed implementation timelines, in addition to the proposed changes to the child nutrition program’s regulatory text. 
Cynthia Long, 
Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service. 
[FR Doc. 2023–06666 Filed 3–30–23; 8:45 am] 
BILLING CODE 3410–30–P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
Agricultural Marketing Service 
7 CFR Parts 800 and 810 
[Doc. No. AMS–FGIS–22–0083] 
United States Standards for Soybeans 
AGENCY : Agricultural Marketing Service, 
USDA. 
ACTION : Proposed rule. 
SUMMARY : The Agricultural Marketing 
Service (AMS) proposes to revise the 
United States Standards for Soybeans by removing soybeans of other colors (SBOC) as an official factor. In addition, AMS proposes to revise the table of Grade Limits and Breakpoints for Soybeans to reflect this change. 
DATES : Comments must be submitted on 
or before May 1, 2023. 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : 
Barry Gomoll, USDA AMS; Telephone: (202) 720–8286; Email: Barry.L.Gomoll@usda.gov. Copies of the proposed U.S. 
Standards for Soybeans are available at https://www.regulations.gov. Copies of 
the current Standards are available at https://www.ams.usda/govgrades- standards/grain-standards. 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : This 
proposed action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., would amend regulations, at 
7 CFR part 800 and part 810, issued under the United States Grain Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 71–87k), as amended (USGSA). Section 4 of the USGSA (7 U.S.C. 76(a)) grants the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to establish standards for grain regarding kind, class, quality, and condition. 
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 
AMS is issuing this proposed rule in 
conformance with Executive Orders 
12866 and 13563. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. This proposed action falls within a category of 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 Mar 30, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31MRP1.SGM 31MRP1ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS119230 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 62 / Friday, March 31, 2023 / Proposed Rules 
1https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ 
media/FGISSBOCStudy.pdf. regulatory actions that the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted from review under Executive Order 12866. 
Executive Order 13175 
This proposed rule has been reviewed 
under Executive Order 13175— 
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, which requires agencies to consider whether their rulemaking actions would have tribal implications. 
AMS has determined that this 
proposed rule is unlikely to have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. 
Executive Order 12988 
This proposed rule has been reviewed 
under Executive Order 12988, Civil 
Justice Reform. This proposed action is not intended to have retroactive effect. There are no administrative procedures that must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule. 
Background 
AMS regularly reviews grain 
standards to ensure their effectiveness 
in meeting the quality requirements of grain moving in the value chain. Under the current soybean standards, soybeans of other colors (SBOC) is a grade determining factor in the class Yellow Soybeans. As such, SBOC content is not typically a factor that determines the numerical grade for a sample. Damage or foreign material typically has the greatest impact on the numerical grade of a given soybean shipment. 
Until recently, yellow soybeans have 
shown phenotypic stability in seedcoat color; however, modern breeding technologies have produced varieties that have a higher tendency to demonstrate variations in seed coat color. Industry interactions (with producer groups, exporters, grain elevators, and grain processors) suggest that these varieties are gaining popularity with soybean growers and likely will be present in the value chain for the foreseeable future. 
Official inspection data shows a sharp 
rise in the amount of SBOC found in soybean samples over the past two years. In 2019 and 2020, only 0.4% and 0.2%, respectively, of all inspected soybean lots failed to meet the standard for U.S. No. 1 Yellow Soybeans, as was typical in the years leading up to 2021. In 2021, 3.1% of all inspected soybean lots failed to meet the standard for U.S. No. 1 Yellow Soybeans, followed by 
8.8% of lots inspected so far in 2022. The figures for 2022 also show an uneven distribution based on mode of conveyance, with 17.7% of container lot inspections failing to meet the standard versus 5.3% of shiplot inspections. 
The increase in SBOC over the past 
two years has made it more difficult for shippers of U.S. soybeans to meet contract grade requirements, based solely on the factor of SBOC. Although research shows that SBOC do not impact the intrinsic quality of soybeans, such soybeans, present at certain levels, still influence the final grade of soybeans because of the current soybean grade standards. 
The Department of Agriculture 
(USDA) Grain Inspection Advisory Committee recommended, at its June 2022 meeting in Kansas City, MO, that the Federal Grain Inspection Service conduct a study to determine whether the presence of higher SBOC has any impact on the oil and protein content of 
soybeans. The results of the study show no significant correlation between SBOC and protein and oil content.
1 
Additionally, based on visual analysis, the color variation in the seedcoat does not extend into the cotyledon. Since most commercial crushing operations remove the hull before crushing, this is not likely to affect the color of the finished product. 
Several producer and exporter groups 
have reached out to AMS to request that the soybean standards be reviewed to address the marketing challenges introduced by the higher presence of SBOC in U.S. soybeans. The groups requested that consideration be given, and provision be made, for those soybean processors who may desire soybeans with yellow seedcoats. In such instances, applicants for service would maintain the ability to request that soybeans be inspected for SBOC. 
This proposed rule would remove 
SBOC as a criterion for determining the grade of U.S. Yellow soybeans (e.g., U.S. 
No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, etc.). It also would retain SBOC as a class-determining criterion in the class ‘‘Yellow soybeans.’’ Official inspectors would only determine SBOC if needed to meet the definition of ‘‘Yellow soybeans’’ or at the request of an applicant for service. Accordingly, official certificates for Yellow soybeans would not show SBOC content unless requested by the applicant for service. Any sample of soybeans containing more than 10.0 percent of SBOC would continue to be graded as the class Mixed soybeans. A 30-day comment period is provided 
for interested persons to submit 
comments on the proposed revised Grade Standards. Copies of the proposed revised standards are at https://www.regulations.gov. 
Implementation Period 
The USGSA requires that changes to 
the grain standards may not be made 
effective within one calendar year of their promulgation ‘‘unless in the judgment of the Secretary, the public health, interest, or safety require that they become effective sooner’’ (7 U.S.C. 76(b)(1)). This provision was put into place to allow industry participants adequate time to make adjustments and transition to new standards. However, in this case, the soybeans that are more likely to exhibit discolored seedcoats and trigger higher determinations of SBOC in soybean samples are already present in the supply chain. Additionally, based on AMS research showing that the color variation does not materially affect the end use of the soybeans, AMS does not foresee any 
deleterious effects to farmers or merchandisers by making the rule effective sooner. AMS believes that implementing this proposed rule effective September 1, 2023, would be in service of public interest. AMS invites all interested parties to comment on whether this change is necessary to implement effective September 1, 2023. 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
Pursuant to the requirements set forth 
in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), AMS has considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial Regulatory Flexibility analysis. The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. 
As stated earlier in this proposed rule, 
modern breeding technologies have produced varieties that have a higher tendency to demonstrate variations in seed coat color. Official inspection data shows a sharp rise in the presence of soybeans that demonstrate these color variations, as well as impacts to the grade of U.S. soybeans. For instance, soybean discoloration can cause soybeans to be downgraded, which can potentially reduce the price of soybeans to producers, or even cause the soybeans to be rejected by some purchasers. 
It is estimated that these modern 
soybean varieties are being adopted rapidly and could have market share as 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 Mar 30, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31MRP1.SGM 31MRP1ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS119231 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 62 / Friday, March 31, 2023 / Proposed Rules 
2Green, Jerry M., ‘‘The rise and future of 
glyphosate and glyphosate-resistant crops’’, Pest Management Science, 2018, Volume 74, pp. 1035– 
1039. high as 30 to 50 percent of the soybean 
seed market according to industry sources.
2This rapid rate of adoption 
indicates that soybean producers see benefits exceeding costs in the production of soybean from this new seed breed. The proposed rule would eliminate color as an official factor that affects the grade of soybeans. 
The proposed rule has been initiated 
at the request of industry, which recognizes the costs associated with lower grades and discounting. Reduced discounting due to the removal of the color requirement represents a benefit to producers. Costs of the rule primarily accrue to the government and would mainly involve the cost to the federal government for changing the standards electronically and in printed material. 
The 2017 Agricultural Census 
(Census) reports soybean production, and classifies producers by income class, acreage, and other factors. The Small Business Administration (SBA) determines the cutoff level between large and small firms. The most recent SBA guidance has a size cutoff of $2.25 million for soybean producers. This classification is not specified in the Census, however, using current production and market data in combination with Census data, we can approximate the proportion of producers affected. 
The Economic Research Service (ERS) 
reports that in 2021 soybean prices were $13.25 per bushel, and the per acre production was 51.4 bushels per acre. Therefore, the per acre revenue is $681. To be considered a large soybean producer, it would take $2,250,000/$681 or 3,304 acres. According to the Census, there were a total of 303,191 soybean producers, 1,624 of which were farms exceeding 3,000 acres. Thus, 0.5 percent of all soybean farms could be considered large. 
However, to determine the impact of 
the rule on small farms, we must look at production of producers with less than 3,000 acres. Again from the Census, a total of 4.356 billion bushels were produced, with 0.332 billion bushels produced on farms of 3,000 or more acres, or 7.6 percent of production. Therefore, 92.4 percent of total production in 2017 came from small farms, according to the SBA definition. 
The ERS reports that in 2021, 4.435 
billion bushels of soybeans were produced in the U.S., with a carryover inventory of 0.257 billion bushels, for a total of 4.692 billion bushels available. Assuming the same production proportions between small and large farms as in the 2017 Census would yield a total of 4.334 billion bushels produced by farms of less than 3,000 acres. 
AMS has data on the share of 
soybeans that are graded based on color for each of the four grade categories. Table 1 shows the distribution for an average over the 2010–2020 period. Individual years’ data varies little from the overall average. However, data from 2022 shows a sharp decline in the share of soybeans with the highest grade, and an increase in the lower grade levels. The last line in the table shows the difference between the two, indicating a significant change in grading based on color since the introduction of the new seeds. 
TABLE 1—S HARE OF SOYBEANS GRADED BASED ON COLOR BY GRADE LEVEL * 
Category % #1 
SBOC % #2 
SBOC % #3 
SBOC % #4 
SBOC 
2010–2020 Average ........................................................................................ 99.60 0.24 0.11 0.05 
2022 ................................................................................................................. 83.12 11.42 4.98 0.48 
Difference ......................................................................................................... 16.48 11.18 4.87 0.43 
* SBOC = Soybeans of other colors. 
The price impact on graded soybeans 
is less significant than Table 1 might suggest, as there is typically little price difference between grades #1 and #2. However, grades #3 and #4 are discounted by 1.5 cents and 3.5 cents, respectively. The total impact on small 
farm revenues is shown in Table 2. 
TABLE 2—C ALCULATION OF DISCOUNTS FOR SBOC U NDER CURRENT GRADE STANDARDS  
Grade Share 
(percent) Production 
(Bu.) Affected bushels Discount 
(per Bu.) Total discount 
#3 .......... 4.87 4,334,091,811 211,018,410 $0.015 $3,165,276 
#4 .......... 0.43 4,334,091,811 18,587,862 0.035 650,575 
Total ............................... ................................................. 229,606,272 ............................... 3,815,851 
Using the difference in grading shares 
between the 2010–2020 average, and applying the share to production by small farms, shows that a total of nearly 230 million bushels of soybeans we discounted in 2022, and the total discount was $3.8 million. While we do not know the exact market share of the genetically modified soybeans in 2022, if we assume it was 30 percent, then an increase in market share of each additional 10 percent would be approximately $1,272,000. 
The total value of discounts due to 
color represents a benefit to small producers from removing the color standard. Given that the majority of producers are considered small entities and the majority of production comes from small farms, AMS believes the impacts of the proposed changes to the standards would not be disproportionate or unduly burdensome 
to small producers. 
Inspection Plan Tolerances 
To reflect the removal of SBOC as an 
official factor, AMS proposes to revise 
the tables pertaining to soybean grade limits in section 800.86 of the regulations. Shiplots and unit trains are inspected in accordance with a statistically based inspection plan (55 FR 24030; June 13, 1990). Inspection 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 Mar 30, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31MRP1.SGM 31MRP1ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS119232 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 62 / Friday, March 31, 2023 / Proposed Rules 
tolerances, commonly referred to as 
breakpoints, are used to determine acceptable quality. AMS’s proposal to remove SBOC as an official factor necessitates removing soybean SBOC breakpoints from the Grade Limits and Breakpoints for Soybeans table. However, because SBOC would still be used to determine class in Yellow soybeans, the Breakpoints for Soybean Special Grades and Factors table will remain unchanged. Under this proposal, that breakpoint would only apply to determining the class of a sample of soybeans. Inspection plan breakpoints would not apply to SBOC when an applicant requests that it be inspected on an official criteria basis. Proposed AMS Action 
AMS proposes to revise 7 CFR 810, 
Subpart J, United States Standards for 
Soybeans. It is proposed that SBOC be eliminated as a grading factor but be retained in the standards as part of the definition of the class Yellow soybeans. AMS also proposes to revise 7 CFR 800.86, Inspection of shiplot, unit train, 
and lash barge grain in single lots, paragraph (c)(2) by removing SBOC from table 17. 
List of Subjects 7 CFR Part 800 
Administrative practice and 
procedure, Conflict of interests, Exports, 
Freedom of information, Grains, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 7 CFR Part 810 
Exports, Grain. 
For reasons set forth in the preamble, 
the Agricultural Marketing Service 
proposes to amend 7 CFR parts 800 and 810 as follows: 
PART 800—GENERAL REGULATIONS 
■1. The authority citation for part 800 
continues to read as follows: 
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 71–87k. 
■2. Amend § 800.86 by revising Table 
17 to paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows: 
§ 800.86 Inspection of shiplot, unit train, 
and lash barge grain in single lots. 
* * * * * 
(c) * * * 
(2) * * * 
TABLE 17 TOPARAGRAPH (c)(2)—G RADE LIMITS (GL) ANDBREAKPOINTS (BP) FORSOYBEANS  
Grade Maximum limits of— 
Damaged kernels 
Foreign material 
(percent) Splits 
(percent) Heat damaged 
(percent) Total 
(percent) 
GL BP GL BP GL BP GL BP 
U.S. No. 1 ........................................................................................ 0.2 0.2 2.0 0.8 1.0 0.2 10.0 1.6 
U.S. No. 2 ........................................................................................ 0.5 0.3 3.0 0.9 2.0 0.3 20.0 2.2 
U.S. No. 31...................................................................................... 1.0 0.5 5.0 1.2 3.0 0.4 30.0 2.5 
U.S. No. 42...................................................................................... 3.0 0.9 8.0 1.5 5.0 0.5 40.0 2.7 
1Soybeans which are purple mottled or stained shall be graded not higher than U.S. No. 3. 
2Soybeans which are materially weathered shall be graded not higher than U.S. No. 4. 
* * * * * 
PART 810—OFFICIAL UNITED STATES 
STANDARDS FOR GRAIN 
■3. The authority citation for part 810 
continues to read as follows: 
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 71–87k. 
■4. Amend § 810.1602 by revising 
paragraph (a)(1) and removing paragraph (g). The revisions read as follows. 
§ 810.1602 Definition of other terms. 
(a) * * * 
(1) Yellow soybeans. Soybeans that 
have yellow or green seed coats and which, in cross section, are yellow or 
have a yellow tinge, and may include not more than 10.0 percent of soybeans of other colors. Soybeans of other colors are soybeans that have black or bicolored seedcoats, as well as soybeans that have green seedcoats and are green in cross section. Bicolored soybeans will have seed coats of two colors, one of which is brown or black, and the brown or black color covers 50 percent of the seed coats. The hilum of a soybean is not considered a part of the seed coat for this determination. 
* * * * * ■5. Revise § 810.1603 to read as 
follows: 
§ 810.1603 Basis of determination. 
Each determination of class, heat- 
damaged kernels, damaged kernels, and 
splits is made on the basis of the grain when free from foreign material. Other determinations not specifically provided for under the general provisions are made on the basis of the grain as a whole. 
■6. Revise § 810.1604 to read as 
follows: 
§ 810.1604 Grades and grade requirements 
for soybeans. 
Grading factors Grades U.S. Nos. 
1 2 3 4 
Maximum percent limits of: 
Damaged kernels: 
Heat (part of total) .................................................................................... 0.2 0.5 1.0 3.0 
Total ................................................................................................... 2.0 3.0 5.0 8.0 
Foreign material ............................................................................................... 1.0 2.0 3.0 5.0 
Splits ................................................................................................................ 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 Mar 30, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31MRP1.SGM 31MRP1ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS119233 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 62 / Friday, March 31, 2023 / Proposed Rules 
Grading factors Grades U.S. Nos. 
1 2 3 4 
Maximum count limits of: 
Other materials: 
Animal filth ................................................................................................ 9 9 9 9 
Castor beans ............................................................................................ 1 1 1 1 
Crotalaria seeds ....................................................................................... 2 2 2 2 
Glass ......................................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 
Stones1..................................................................................................... 3 3 3 3 
Unknown foreign substance ..................................................................... 3 3 3 3 
Total2................................................................................................. 10 10 10 10 
U.S. Sample grade are soybeans that: 
(a) Do not meet the requirements for U.S. Nos. 1, 2, 3, or 4; or (b) Have a musty, sour, or commercially objectionable foreign odor (except garlic odor); or (c) Are heating or otherwise of distinctly low quality. 
1In addition to the maximum count limit, stones must exceed 0.1 percent of the sample weight. 
2Includes any combination of animal filth, castor beans, crotalaria seeds, glass, stones, and unknown foreign substances. The weight of 
stones is not applicable for total other material. 
* * * * * 
Melissa Bailey, 
Associate Administrator, Agricultural 
Marketing Service. 
[FR Doc. 2023–06679 Filed 3–30–23; 8:45 am] 
BILLING CODE P 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 
AGENCY 
40 CFR Part 52 
[EPA–R09–OAR–2022–0910; FRL–10564– 
01–R9] 
Air Quality Implementation Plan; CA; 
El Dorado County Air Quality Management District; Stationary Source Permits 
AGENCY : Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA). 
ACTION : Proposed rule. 
SUMMARY : The Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the El Dorado County Air Quality Management District (EDCAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). In this action, we are proposing to approve a rule submitted by the EDCAQMD governing the issuance of permits for stationary sources, focusing on the preconstruction review and permitting of major sources and major modifications under part D of title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘the Act’’). We are taking comments on this 
proposal and plan to follow with a final action. 
DATES : Comments must be received on 
or before May 1, 2023. 
ADDRESSES : Submit your comments, 
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– OAR–2022–0910 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. 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 the disclosure of which 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, please contact the person identified in the 
FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 
For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. 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 : 
Camille Cassar, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105; by phone: (415)–947–4164; or by email to cassar.camille@epa.gov. 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : 
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 
Table of Contents 
I. The State’s Submittal 
A. What rule did the State submit? 
B. Is there any other version of this rule? C. What is the purpose of the submitted 
rule? 
II. The EPA’s Evaluation 
A. What is the background for this action? B. How is the EPA evaluating this rule? C. Does this rule meet the evaluation 
criteria? 
III. Proposed Action and Public Comment IV. Incorporation by Reference V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 
I. The State’s Submittal 
A. What rule did the State submit? 
Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this 
proposal, including the date on which it 
was adopted by the District and the date on which it was submitted to the EPA by the California Air Resources Board (CARB or ‘‘the State’’). 
TABLE 1—S UBMITTED RULE 
Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 
Rule 523–1 ..... Federal Non-Attainment New Source Review ......................... December 7, 2021 .................. March 9, 2022 . 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 Mar 30, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31MRP1.SGM 31MRP1ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1