Proposed Rule2024-25947
Air Plan Revisions; Arizona; Maricopa County Air Quality Department
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
November 8, 2024
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of revisions to the Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD or "County") portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from loading of organic liquids and gasoline. We are proposing action on local rules to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or "Act"). We are also proposing to disapprove the MCAQD's reasonably available control technology (RACT) demonstration for the source categories associated with these rules for the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in the Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment area. We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 217 (Friday, November 8, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 217 (Friday, November 8, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 88690-88694]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25947]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2024-0349; FRL-12130-01-R9]
Air Plan Revisions; Arizona; Maricopa County Air Quality
Department
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a
limited approval and limited disapproval of revisions to the Maricopa
County Air Quality Department (MCAQD or ``County'') portion of the
Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern
emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from loading of organic
liquids and gasoline. We are proposing action on local rules to
regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or
``Act''). We are also proposing to disapprove the MCAQD's reasonably
available control technology (RACT) demonstration for the source
categories associated with these rules for the 2008 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in the Phoenix-Mesa
ozone nonattainment area. We are taking comments on this proposal and
plan to follow with a final action.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 9, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2024-0349 at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. For comments submitted at
<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, 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 <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets</a>. If you need assistance in a
language other than English or if you are a person with a disability
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: Donnique Sherman, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415) 947-4129; email
at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f98a919c8b949897d79d96979790888c9cb99c8998d79e968f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1e6d767b6c737f70307a717070776f6b7b5e7b6e7f30797168">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State's Submittal
[[Page 88691]]
A. What rules did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of these rules?
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
C. Were there any newly identified deficiencies with the
December 3, 2020, submitted rules?
D. The EPA's Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules
E. Proposed Action and Public Comment
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State's Submittal
A. What rules did the State submit?
Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates
that they were adopted by the MCAQD and submitted to the EPA by the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ or ``State'').
Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local agency Rule No. Rule title Revised Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCAQD.............................. 352 Gasoline Cargo Tank Testing 11/18/2020 12/03/2020
and Use.
MCAQD.............................. 353 Storage and Loading of 11/18/2020 12/03/2020
Gasoline at a Gasoline
Dispensing Facility (GDF).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 3, 2021, the SIP submittal containing the documents listed
in Table 1 was deemed complete by operation of law.
B. Are there other versions of these rules?
We conditionally approved earlier versions of Rule 352 and Rule 353
into the SIP on February 26, 2020 (85 FR 10986), based on a commitment
made by the MCAQD to remedy the deficiencies identified in that action.
In order to fulfill that commitment, the MCAQD adopted revisions to the
SIP-approved versions of these rules on November 18, 2020, and ADEQ
submitted them to the EPA on December 3, 2020. The February 26, 2020
conditional approval, and an explanation of how the SIP submittal
proposed for approval here addresses the deficiencies identified in the
conditional approval, are discussed in more detail below. If we
finalize this proposal for a limited approval and limited disapproval
of the November 18, 2020 versions of these rules, then these versions
will replace the conditionally approved versions of these rules in the
SIP.
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
Emissions of VOC contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone
which harms human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA
requires states to submit plans that provide for implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. In addition, CAA section
182(b)(2) requires that SIPs for ozone nonattainment areas classified
as ``Moderate'' or higher implement RACT for sources covered by a
control techniques guidelines (CTG) document. The MCAQD regulates a
portion of the Phoenix-Mesa area designated as nonattainment for ozone
and classified as Moderate nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\1\
Therefore, the MCAQD is required to submit SIP revisions that implement
RACT-level controls for all sources covered by a CTG. The MCAQD
submitted Rule 352 and Rule 353 to establish RACT-level controls for
VOC emissions from sources covered by the CTGs listed in Table 2. Rule
352 limits VOC emissions from gasoline cargo tanks that are used to
load or unload gasoline within Maricopa County. Rule 353 limits VOC
emissions from storage and loading of gasoline at gasoline dispensing
facilities (GDFs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On November 12, 2019 (84 FR 60920), the EPA issued a
determination that the Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment area
attained the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) by the Moderate area attainment date of July 20, 2018. That
determination did not constitute a redesignation of the area to
attainment for the 2008 ozone standard. The designation status of
the Phoenix-Mesa area will remain Moderate nonattainment for the
2008 ozone NAAQS until such time as the EPA determines that the area
meets Clean Air Act requirements for redesignation to attainment.
Table 2--Rules and Associated CTGs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule No. Associated CTGs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 352.......................... Control of Volatile Organic Compound
Leaks from Gasoline Tank Trucks and
Vapor Collection Systems (EPA-450/2-
78-051).
Rule 353.......................... Design Criteria for Stage I Vapor
Control Systems--Gasoline Service
Stations (EPA-450/R-75-102).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section III.D of the preamble to the EPA's final rule to implement
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015) discusses RACT
requirements. It states in part that RACT SIPs must contain adopted
RACT regulations, certifications where appropriate that existing
provisions are RACT, and/or negative declarations that there are no
sources in the nonattainment areas subject to a specific CTG. The
County's RACT SIP \2\ provides MCAQD's analysis of its compliance with
the CAA section 182 RACT requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
On February 26, 2020, the EPA conditionally approved MCAQD Rule 352,
Rule 353, and the County's RACT demonstration for the CTGs associated
with these rules, into the Arizona SIP. The rules contained
deficiencies which precluded full SIP approval and were conditionally
approved based on a commitment by the MCAQD and the ADEQ to provide,
within one year, a SIP submission that would address those
deficiencies. The MCAQD subsequently revised these rules to address the
identified deficiencies and the ADEQ submitted the revised rules on
December 3, 2020. The EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more
information about these rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Analysis of Reasonably Available Control Technology for
the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
State Implementation Plan (RACT SIP)'' submitted June 22, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 88692]]
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?
Rules in the SIP must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2))
and must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements
(see CAA section 110(l)). In addition, because these rules were
submitted to satisfy the RACT requirement for sources covered by the
CTGs listed in Table 2, these rules must establish RACT level controls
for such sources.
Guidance and policy documents that the EPA used to evaluate
enforceability, revision/relaxation, and rule stringency requirements
for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:
1. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 57
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11,
1990).
3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
4. ``Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Gasoline Tank
Trucks and Vapor Collection Systems,'' EPA-450/2-78-051, December 1978.
5. ``Design Criteria for Stage I Vapor Control Systems-Gasoline
Service Stations,'' EPA-450/R-75-102, November 1975.
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
The EPA is proposing to conclude that the State met its commitment
and that these revised rules have corrected the deficiencies previously
identified in the earlier versions of the rules that were conditionally
approved into the SIP. The TSD has more information on our evaluation,
including descriptions of the individual deficiencies and the way that
each was addressed in the current submitted version of the rules.
As described in the TSD, the submitted rules strengthen the SIP and
generally establish RACT level controls. However, as discussed in the
subsequent section, EPA is proposing to conclude that the submitted
rules contain newly identified deficiencies that prevent full approval
of the rules.
C. Were there any newly identified deficiencies with the December 3,
2020, submitted rules?
EPA is proposing to conclude that the following provisions in Rule
352 do not satisfy the requirements of section 110 and part D of title
I of the Act and therefore prevent full approval of the SIP revision.
1. In addition to the annual certification test required by Section
301.1, Sections 502 and 503 of Rule 352 outline ongoing monitoring
tests to perform to detect potential leaks. However, the rule does not
identify any enforceable requirements to monitor using these tests on a
periodic basis or any recordkeeping and reporting associated with this
requirement. EPA is proposing to find that this undermines the
enforceability of the rule, constitutes a SIP deficiency, and is
inconsistent with the requirements of CAA Section 110.
2. Section 103.3(a) requires that an ``owner or operator of a
gasoline cargo tank provides documentation from the gasoline cargo tank
testing company to the Control Officer that certifies that the gasoline
cargo tank was tested and verified vapor tight using test methods at
least as stringent as those in Section 501.1 (Maricopa County Vapor
Tightness Test).'' This provision allows the Control Officer authority
to approve another test method, and without further specificity
regarding how this authority will be exercised, could functionally
allow for a revision of the SIP without complying with the process for
SIP revisions required by the CAA. As a result, EPA is proposing to
determine that this undermines the enforceability of the submission,
constitutes a SIP deficiency, and is inconsistent with the requirements
of CAA Section 110.
The EPA is proposing to conclude that the following provisions in
Rule 353 do not satisfy the requirements of section 110 and part D of
title I of the Act and prevent full approval of the SIP revision.
1. Rule 353 requires that control equipment or spill containment
equipment at a stationary GDF or on a gasoline cargo tank be leak free
and vapor tight, requiring weekly inspections. Rule 353 generally
requires a facility to determine if there is a ``potential vapor leak''
prior to being required to conduct a more stringent vapor tightness
determination. Section 501 of Rule 353 allows for four different
options to identify potential vapor leaks. Section 501.1 allows for the
``use of sight, sound, or smell'' as an acceptable method for
identifying potential vapor leaks. Although using sight, sound, or
smell can play a role in identifying potential vapor leaks, allowing
for that to potentially be the only method used could functionally
allow for potential leak identification to be left solely left to the
operator's discretion and sensory inputs. Therefore, without a
provision to periodically utilize methods beyond sight, sound, or
smell, EPA is proposing to determine that this provision undermines the
enforceability of the rule's requirement for vapor tight compliance.
2. Section 500 of Rule 353 contains ongoing monitoring and
recordkeeping requirements but does not specifically contain any
requirements to report compliance information. However, reporting
requirements are contained within Section 301 of the rule because it
incorporates the applicable requirements from the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Category: Gasoline
Dispensing Facilities at 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC (``Subpart
CCCCCC''), which includes reporting requirements.\3\ However, Subpart
CCCCCC is not applicable to the loading of aviation gasoline into
storage tanks at airports, and the subsequent transfer of aviation
gasoline within the airport.\4\ Rule 353 does apply to loading of
aviation gasoline at airports, but does not elsewhere require periodic
reporting for these facilities. Given this framework, EPA is proposing
to find that Rule 353 has a reporting gap, because there is no periodic
compliance reporting required for loading of aviation gasoline at
airports. Due to the lack of adequate reporting requirements (or some
alternative means of ensuring enforceability) during loading of
aviation gasoline into storage tanks, EPA is proposing to find that
this provision undermines the enforceability of the rule's requirement
for vapor tight compliance, constitutes a SIP deficiency, and is
inconsistent with the requirements of CAA Section 110.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 40 CFR 63.11126 and Table 3 to Subpart CCCCCC. For
example, Subpart CCCCCC requires annual reporting related to
malfunctions (malfunction of process equipment and air pollution
control equipment), requires all performance tests reports to be
submitted, and requires advanced notification of performance tests.
\4\ See 40 CFR part 63.11111(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. The EPA's Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules
The TSDs include recommendations for the next time the MCAQD
modifies these rules.
[[Page 88693]]
E. Proposed Action and Public Comment
The EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of
the submitted rules. The EPA is proposing a limited approval because
the EPA's analysis demonstrates that Rule 352 and Rule 353 would
strengthen the SIP. The rules generally establish RACT level controls,
and the MCAQD has fixed the deficiencies that were previously
identified with the rules in the February 26, 2020, conditional
approval. The EPA is proposing a simultaneous limited disapproval for
Rule 352 and Rule 353 based on the enforceability issues identified in
section II.C. of this notice and described in detail in their
respective TSDs.
In addition, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA
is proposing a disapproval of the RACT demonstrations for the 2008
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the sources
covered by the CTGs associated with these rules, because the
deficiencies for certain source categories as identified in the
proposed limited disapproval preclude the EPA from proposing to approve
this RACT demonstration as a whole. The EPA is also proposing to find
that the State has met its commitment under the previous conditional
approval of Rules 352 and 353 and the associated CTG source categories.
If we finalize this limited approval and limited disapproval as
proposed, we would replace the conditionally approved versions of the
rules with the newly submitted versions in the SIP, and also remove the
text associated with the conditional approval from 40 CFR 52.119(c)(1).
We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until December
9, 2024. If finalized, this action would incorporate the submitted
rules into the SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient.
This approval is limited because the EPA is simultaneously proposing a
limited disapproval. If we finalize this disapproval as proposed, CAA
section 110(c) would require the EPA to promulgate a federal
implementation plan within 24 months unless we approve subsequent SIP
revisions that correct the deficiencies identified in our final action.
In addition, final disapproval would trigger the offset sanction in
CAA section 179(b)(2) 18 months after the effective date of a final
disapproval, and the highway funding sanction in CAA section 179(b)(1)
six months after the offset sanction is imposed. A sanction would not
be imposed if the EPA determines that a subsequent SIP submission
corrects the deficiencies identified in our final action before the
applicable deadline. The EPA intends to work with MCAQD to correct the
deficiencies in a timely manner.
Note that the submitted rules have been adopted by MCAQD, and the
EPA's final limited disapproval would not prevent the State from
enforcing them. The limited disapproval also would not prevent any
portion of the rules from being incorporated by reference into the
federally enforceable SIP as discussed in a July 9, 1992 EPA memo found
at: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/procsip.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/procsip.pdf</a>.
III. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference MCAQD Rule 352, ``Gasoline Cargo Tank Testing and Use,''
revised on November 18, 2020, which regulates VOC emissions during
loading and unloading of gasoline to any gasoline cargo tank within
Maricopa County. The EPA is also proposing to incorporate by reference
MCAQD Rule 353, ``Storage and Loading of Gasoline at a Gasoline
Dispensing Facility,'' revised on November 18, 2020, which regulates
VOC emissions during storage and loading of gasoline at a gasoline
dispensing facility. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials available through <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> and at the EPA Region
IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to review state choices,
and approve those choices if they meet the minimum criteria of the Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action is proposing a limited approval and
limited disapproval of state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders">https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders</a>.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those
imposed by state law.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to
state, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will
result from this action.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, because 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, and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
[[Page 88694]]
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. Therefore, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is merely proposing a
limited approval and limited disapproval of state law as meeting
federal requirements. Furthermore, the EPA's Policy on Children's
Health does not apply to this action.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA
believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section
12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be
inconsistent with the CAA.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on communities with environmental justice
(EJ) concerns to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
EPA defines EJ as ``the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of
all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with
respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations, and policies.'' EPA further defines
the term fair treatment to mean that ``no group of people should bear a
disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including
those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and
policies.''
The State did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as
part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing
regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did
not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Due
to the nature of the action being taken here, this action is expected
to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected
area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and
there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal
of Executive Order 12898 of achieving EJ for communities with EJ
concerns.
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.
Dated: November 2, 2024.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2024-25947 Filed 11-7-24; 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 November 8, 2024.
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.