{"id":52653,"date":"2021-03-10T17:20:08","date_gmt":"2021-03-10T17:20:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/klaclaw.visibilitywebdesign.com\/?p=52653"},"modified":"2021-03-10T17:33:55","modified_gmt":"2021-03-10T17:33:55","slug":"do-air-emissions-constitute-disposal-of-solid-waste-the-9th-circuits-answer-is-no","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/10\/do-air-emissions-constitute-disposal-of-solid-waste-the-9th-circuits-answer-is-no\/","title":{"rendered":"DO AIR EMISSIONS CONSTITUTE DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE? THE 9TH CIRCUIT\u2019S ANSWER IS \u201cNO\u201d."},"content":{"rendered":"\n[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”4.9.1″ width=”87%” custom_margin=”-165px||||false|false” custom_padding=”3px|||||” locked=”off”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.9.1″ width=”95%” max_width=”1749px” custom_padding=”|||”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_cta title=”DO AIR EMISSIONS CONSTITUTE DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE? THE 9TH CIRCUIT\u2019S ANSWER IS \u201cNO\u201d.” button_url=”#TOP” _builder_version=”4.9.1″ header_font=”Georgia|700|||||||” header_font_size=”22px” header_line_height=”1.5em” body_font=”Noto Sans||||||||” body_font_size=”17px” body_line_height=”2em” use_background_color=”off” custom_button=”on” button_text_size=”17px” button_text_color=”#ffffff” button_bg_color=”#ff6b5a” button_border_width=”5px” button_border_color=”#ff6b5a” button_border_radius=”100px” button_font=”Noto Sans|700||on|||||” button_use_icon=”off” text_orientation=”left” background_layout=”light” max_width=”100%” module_alignment=”center” custom_margin=”|||” hover_enabled=”0″ header_font_size_tablet=”” header_font_size_phone=”34px” header_font_size_last_edited=”on|phone” button_text_color_hover=”#ffffff” button_border_color_hover=”#ff9e59″ button_bg_color_hover=”#ff9e59″ button_text_size__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_text_size__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_text_size__hover_enabled=”off” button_text_color__hover_enabled=”on” button_text_color__hover=”#ffffff” button_one_text_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_text_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_border_width__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_width__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_width__hover_enabled=”off” button_border_color__hover_enabled=”on” button_border_color__hover=”#ff9e59″ button_one_border_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_border_radius__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_radius__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_radius__hover_enabled=”off” button_letter_spacing__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_letter_spacing__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_letter_spacing__hover_enabled=”off” button_bg_color__hover_enabled=”on” button_bg_color__hover=”#ff9e59″ button_one_bg_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_bg_color__hover_enabled=”off” sticky_enabled=”0″]

Posted on August 27, 2014 by <\/span>Karen Crawford<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

On August 20, 2014 the 9th<\/sup>\u00a0Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in\u00a0Center For Community Action and Environmental Justice; East Yard Communities For Environmental Justice; Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. BNSF Railway Company;<\/em>\u00a0Union Pacific Railroad Company,\u00a0<\/em>No. 12-56086, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-08608-SJO-SS, determining that emissions of diesel particulate matter does not constitute \u201cdisposal\u201d of solid waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).\u00a0 As a result, plaintiffs could not state a plausible claim for relief under RCRA\u2019s Citizens\u2019 Suit provision, 42 U.S.C. \u00a76972(a)(1)(B).<\/p>\n

A number of environmental organizations had sought to enjoin the emission from defendants\u2019 rail yards of particulate matter found in diesel exhaust from locomotive, truck, and other heavy-duty vehicle engines operated on or near 16 rail yards in California.\u00a0 Plaintiffs cited studies by both EPA and the state agency, which identified diesel particulate matter as a toxic air contaminant with the potential or likelihood \u201cto cause cancer and other adverse health problems, including respiratory illnesses and increased risk of heart disease.\u201d\u00a0 Plaintiffs contended that, while the particulate emissions were initially emitted into the air, they ultimately were deposited on land and water.\u00a0 They argued that people inhale the exhaust while it is airborne and after deposition (because the particulates are \u201cre-entrained\u201d into the air by wind, air currents, and passing vehicles).\u00a0 Defendants moved to dismiss arguing that RCRA only applies to air emissions from burning fuel which itself consists of or contains \u201csolid\u201d or hazardous\u201d waste, i.e. a \u201cdiscarded material.\u201d\u00a0 Otherwise, emissions fall within the scope of the Clean Air Act, which, they argued, was inapplicable.<\/p>\n

The district court concluded that (1) any gap that might exist between the two regulatory schemes as they apply (or don\u2019t apply) to mobile sources of air pollution \u201cwas created through a series of reasoned and calculated decisions by Congress and EPA,\u201d and, independently, (2) plaintiffs failed to state a claim under RCRA because, even if RCRA does apply, diesel exhaust is not a \u201csolid or hazardous waste.\u201d<\/p>\n

In affirming, the appeals court cited (and distinguished) prior case law, but for the most part relied on the plain language of the statutes and pertinent legislative history of Congressional actions (or intentional inaction) related to regulation of mobile sources of diesel exhausts and rail yards.\u00a0 Relying on the principle of\u00a0expressio unius est exclusio alterius\u00a0<\/em>(when\u00a0<\/em>Congress expresses meaning through a list, a court may assume that what is not listed is excluded), the court of appeals noted that \u201cemitting\u201d is excluded from the definition in RCRA of \u201cdisposal.\u201d\u00a0 Citing \u00a76903(3), the court of appeals added that the specific statutory text further limits the definition of \u201cdisposal\u201d to \u201cplacement\u201d of solid waste \u201cinto or on any land or water\u201d and concluded that emitting the exhaust into the air does not equate to placing the exhaust into or on any land or water. The 9th<\/sup>\u00a0Circuit concluded that to decide otherwise would be rearranging the wording of the statute which courts cannot do.\u00a0 Specifically, the court of appeals held, \u201cReading \u00a76903(3) as Congress has drafted it, \u2018disposal\u2019 does not extend to emissions of solid waste directly into the air.\u201d<\/p>\n

The 9th<\/sup>\u00a0Circuit might have stopped there, but it did not\u00a0 The Court of Appeals further supported its decision by (1) recognizing that the term \u201cemitting\u201d was used elsewhere in the statute and, therefore, was intentionally excluded from the definition of \u201cdisposal,\u201d and (2) reviewing the legislative history and determining that Congress had opted not to address diesel emissions from locomotives, heavy-duty trucks, and buses at various points in the history of the Clean Air Act amendments adopted in 1970. It also noted that a railroad emissions study required during the planning of a 1977 Clean Air Act overhaul (only one year after enactment of RCRA) omitted rail yards and mobile sources and resulted in a prohibition of federal regulation of \u201cindirect sources\u201d that included corridors attracting mobile sources, like roads or highways, leaving regulation of those sources entirely to the states. The opinion also discussed later amendments to the Clean Air Act, finding that in the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act, Congress finally required EPA to promulgate regulations setting forth standards applicable to emissions from new locomotives and new engines used in locomotives and prohibited states from doing the same, but left the regulation of indirect sources including rail yards, exclusively to the states, noting that, once again, in 1990, RCRA applied to neither.<\/p>\n

The court \u00a0of appeals was not persuaded by plaintiffs\u2019 argument that the two statutes should be \u201charmonized\u201d to fill any gaps, or that there was irreconcilable conflict between the two statutes, observing that in actuality no conflict existed because neither statute applied to rail yards\u2019 diesel exhausts.\u00a0 But to put an exclamation point on its holding, the 9th<\/sup>\u00a0Circuit added: \u201c[H]owever, to the extent that its text is ambiguous, RCRA\u2019s statutory and legislative histories resolve that ambiguity.\u201d<\/p>\n

The 9th<\/sup>\u00a0Circuit\u2019s straightforward analysis of the plain language of the statutes and the\u00a0 statutory history of Congressional action in this opinion is a refreshing contrast to recent opinions in which courts have struggled to find justification for EPA\u2019s attempts to regulate in areas where Congress has clearly failed to take action.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/article>[\/et_pb_cta][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Posted on August 27, 2014 by Karen Crawford   On August 20, 2014 the 9th\u00a0Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in\u00a0Center For Community Action and Environmental Justice; East Yard Communities For Environmental Justice; Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. BNSF Railway Company;\u00a0Union Pacific Railroad Company,\u00a0No. 12-56086, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-08608-SJO-SS, determining that emissions of diesel […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":"\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Posted on March 21, 2013 by Karen Crawford<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The EPA issued its long-awaited CISWI Rule in the Federal Register on February 7, 2013. 78 FR 9112. The final rule, entitled \u201cCommercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units;
Reconsideration and Final Amendments; Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid
Waste,\u201d contains the provisions in EPA\u2019s 2011 rule, vacated in January 2012, that EPA agreed to
reconsider. The 2011 final rule in turn superseded EPA\u2019s 2000 CISWI rule. The new CISWI Rule
amends 40 CFR part 60 subparts CCCC and DDDD and part 241. The amendments to 40 CFR part 60 subpart DDDD, along with certain incorporations by reference, were effective on the
promulgation date; amendments to part 60 subpart CCCC are effective August 7, 2013, and those to 40 CFR part 241 are effective April 8, 2013.
In response to both the court\u2019s vacatur of a Notice of Delay issued in 2011 and the numerous petitions for reconsideration and comments submitted by the regulated community and the
public, the final rule includes three subcategories of ERUs (energy recovery units) and two
subcategories for waste-burning kilns based on design-type differences, with separate carbon
monoxide (CO) limits for the latter. Certain limits were also revised based on comments
regarding the CO span methodology and on incorporation of additional data. The rule establishes
stack testing and continuous monitoring requirements and allows for the use of continuous
emissions monitoring systems (CEMS), setting levels based on a 3 hour block or 30-day rolling
average (depending on the parameter and subcategory of CISWI).
The rule addresses and preserves a source\u2019s choice to cease or start combusting solid waste at
any time due to market conditions or other reasons, and to switch from one set of applicable
emission standards to another pursuant to CAA section 112, thereby amending the original \"once
in always in\" approach reflected in the earlier versions of this rule. This in turn will provide an
incentive to the regulated community to continue operating incinerators.
The deadline for compliance with the CISWI Rule by existing sources depends primarily on when the state implementation plan incorporating the final rule is approved, with such approval
required no later than five years after the February 7, 2013 Federal Register publication date. The effective date for new source compliance is August 7, 2013 or the date of startup, whichever date is later. New sources are defined as sources that began construction on or after June 4, 2010, or commenced reconstruction or modification after August 7, 2013.<\/p>\n","_et_gb_content_width":"793","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-52653","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\nDO AIR EMISSIONS CONSTITUTE DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE? THE 9TH CIRCUIT\u2019S ANSWER IS \u201cNO\u201d. - Klac Law Firm<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/10\/do-air-emissions-constitute-disposal-of-solid-waste-the-9th-circuits-answer-is-no\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"DO AIR EMISSIONS CONSTITUTE DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE? THE 9TH CIRCUIT\u2019S ANSWER IS \u201cNO\u201d. - Klac Law Firm\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Posted on August 27, 2014 by Karen Crawford   On August 20, 2014 the 9th\u00a0Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in\u00a0Center For Community Action and Environmental Justice; East Yard Communities For Environmental Justice; Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. BNSF Railway Company;\u00a0Union Pacific Railroad Company,\u00a0No. 12-56086, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-08608-SJO-SS, determining that emissions of diesel […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/10\/do-air-emissions-constitute-disposal-of-solid-waste-the-9th-circuits-answer-is-no\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Klac Law Firm\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-03-10T17:20:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-03-10T17:33:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/10\/do-air-emissions-constitute-disposal-of-solid-waste-the-9th-circuits-answer-is-no\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/10\/do-air-emissions-constitute-disposal-of-solid-waste-the-9th-circuits-answer-is-no\/\",\"name\":\"DO AIR EMISSIONS CONSTITUTE DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE? THE 9TH CIRCUIT\u2019S ANSWER IS \u201cNO\u201d. - Klac Law Firm\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-03-10T17:20:08+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-03-10T17:33:55+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/621decac54e9280b38dcf19052ae7ed0\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/10\/do-air-emissions-constitute-disposal-of-solid-waste-the-9th-circuits-answer-is-no\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/10\/do-air-emissions-constitute-disposal-of-solid-waste-the-9th-circuits-answer-is-no\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/10\/do-air-emissions-constitute-disposal-of-solid-waste-the-9th-circuits-answer-is-no\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"DO AIR EMISSIONS CONSTITUTE DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE? THE 9TH CIRCUIT\u2019S ANSWER IS \u201cNO\u201d.\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/\",\"name\":\"Klac Law Firm\",\"description\":\"Klac Law Firm\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/621decac54e9280b38dcf19052ae7ed0\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3b4404843ed567da51bd99ddb87a595f?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3b4404843ed567da51bd99ddb87a595f?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/author\/admin\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"DO AIR EMISSIONS CONSTITUTE DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE? THE 9TH CIRCUIT\u2019S ANSWER IS \u201cNO\u201d. - Klac Law Firm","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/10\/do-air-emissions-constitute-disposal-of-solid-waste-the-9th-circuits-answer-is-no\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"DO AIR EMISSIONS CONSTITUTE DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE? THE 9TH CIRCUIT\u2019S ANSWER IS \u201cNO\u201d. - Klac Law Firm","og_description":"Posted on August 27, 2014 by Karen Crawford   On August 20, 2014 the 9th\u00a0Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in\u00a0Center For Community Action and Environmental Justice; East Yard Communities For Environmental Justice; Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. BNSF Railway Company;\u00a0Union Pacific Railroad Company,\u00a0No. 12-56086, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-08608-SJO-SS, determining that emissions of diesel […]","og_url":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/10\/do-air-emissions-constitute-disposal-of-solid-waste-the-9th-circuits-answer-is-no\/","og_site_name":"Klac Law Firm","article_published_time":"2021-03-10T17:20:08+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-03-10T17:33:55+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/10\/do-air-emissions-constitute-disposal-of-solid-waste-the-9th-circuits-answer-is-no\/","url":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/10\/do-air-emissions-constitute-disposal-of-solid-waste-the-9th-circuits-answer-is-no\/","name":"DO AIR EMISSIONS CONSTITUTE DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE? THE 9TH CIRCUIT\u2019S ANSWER IS \u201cNO\u201d. - Klac Law Firm","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-03-10T17:20:08+00:00","dateModified":"2021-03-10T17:33:55+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/621decac54e9280b38dcf19052ae7ed0"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/10\/do-air-emissions-constitute-disposal-of-solid-waste-the-9th-circuits-answer-is-no\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/10\/do-air-emissions-constitute-disposal-of-solid-waste-the-9th-circuits-answer-is-no\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/10\/do-air-emissions-constitute-disposal-of-solid-waste-the-9th-circuits-answer-is-no\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"DO AIR EMISSIONS CONSTITUTE DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE? THE 9TH CIRCUIT\u2019S ANSWER IS \u201cNO\u201d."}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/","name":"Klac Law Firm","description":"Klac Law Firm","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/621decac54e9280b38dcf19052ae7ed0","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3b4404843ed567da51bd99ddb87a595f?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3b4404843ed567da51bd99ddb87a595f?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/klaclaw.com"],"url":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/author\/admin\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52653"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=52653"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52653\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":52661,"href":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52653\/revisions\/52661"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52653"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52653"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52653"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}