Rule2025-17054
Air Plan Approval; ID; Regional Haze Plan for the Second Implementation Period
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 5, 2025
Effective
October 6, 2025
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the Idaho regional haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted on August 5, 2022, supplemented on September 27, 2024, and clarified on August 12, 2025, as satisfying applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR) for the program's second implementation period. The Idaho SIP revision addressed the requirement to make reasonable progress toward the national goal of preventing any future, and remedying any existing, anthropogenic impairment of visibility in certain national parks and wilderness areas.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 170 (Friday, September 5, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 170 (Friday, September 5, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42821-42829]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-17054]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R10-OAR-2024-0545; FRL-11879-02-R10]
Air Plan Approval; ID; Regional Haze Plan for the Second
Implementation Period
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
Idaho regional haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted
on August 5, 2022, supplemented on September 27, 2024, and clarified on
August 12, 2025, as satisfying applicable requirements under the Clean
Air Act and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR) for the program's second
implementation period. The Idaho SIP revision addressed the requirement
to make reasonable progress toward the national goal of preventing any
future, and remedying any existing, anthropogenic impairment of
visibility in certain national parks and wilderness areas.
DATES: This final rule is effective October 6, 2025.
[[Page 42822]]
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2024-0545 at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or other information
the disclosure of which 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 at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, or please contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Chi, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Suite 155, Seattle, WA 98101, at (206) 553-1185 or
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ff9c9796d195909791bf9a8f9ed1989089"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fb989392d591949395bb9e8b9ad59c948d">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the use of ``we''
and ``our'' means ``the EPA.''
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. EPA Responses to Comments Received
A. The National Parks Conservation Association, the Coalition To
Protect America's National Parks, and the Sierra Club
1. Additional Facilities Considered
2. Low Cost-Effectiveness Threshold
3. Clearwater Paper Corporation
4. ITAFOS Conda LLC
5. J.R. Simplot--Don Siding Pocatello
6. TASCO Paul
7. Clearwater Paper Corporation Low Sulfur Fuel Oil Requirement
B. The Amalgamated Sugar Company
1. Inclusion of Site-Specific Permit Conditions
2. Condition 4.6 Is Redundant in Permit T1-2019-0020
C. The Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On March 24, 2025, the EPA proposed to approve the regional haze
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by Idaho on August
5, 2022, supplemented on September 27, 2024, and clarified on August
12, 2025, as satisfying applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act
and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR) for the program's second
implementation period (90 FR 13516).
The public comment period for our notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) closed on April 23, 2025. We received six comments. We
determined two of the comments were not germane to our action. One
commenter requested that, ``the EPA and the Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality [``IDEQ'' or ``DEQ''] consider a program to
install supplemental catalytic converters on older gasoline cars to
reduce NO<INF>X</INF>, VOCs, and CO emissions.'' The commenter further
stated that the commenter's company has developed supplemental
catalytic converters to reduce tailpipe emissions. This comment is
outside the scope of this action. The revisions to Idaho's SIP
addressed in this action do not relate to control of motor vehicle
emissions in general, or the control of tailpipe emissions using
supplemental catalytic converters. Rather, this action primarily
addresses stationary source industrial emissions that may impact
visibility in Class I areas in Idaho. In addition, the commenter did
not indicate that the EPA approval of the Idaho regional haze plan
submission is inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
A second commenter recommended not approving the plan until Idaho
attains clean air standards. The commenter also stated that ``Idaho
will need to degrowth, contract and regulate more to provide clean air
for Idahoans health and safety.'' This action addresses the Clean Air
Act visibility protection requirements of sections 169A and 169B, not
the Clean Air Act's health-based air quality standards, such as the
national ambient air quality standards. Therefore, this comment is
outside the scope of this action.
We also received one comment in support of this action. The
commenter conveyed overall support for our NPRM, stating, ``I am very
happy and proud of the EPA for proposing this influential rule that
will help in Idaho. However, seeing that Idaho has an average AQI of 62
which many other states are well above 70 I think similar rules to
these should be implemented in other areas of our nation.'' The EPA
acknowledges the commenter's support.
We received germane, adverse comments from a coalition of
conservation groups (the National Parks Conservation Association, the
Coalition to Protect America's National Parks, and the Sierra Club),
the Amalgamated Sugar Company (TASCO), and the Idaho Association of
Commerce and Industry (IACI). The full text of the comments may be
found in the docket for this action. We have reprinted in relevant part
or summarized the comments and provided our responses in section II of
this preamble.
II. EPA Responses to Comments Received
A. The National Parks Conservation Association, the Coalition To
Protect America's National Parks, and the Sierra Club
1. Additional Facilities Considered
Comment: ``[W]e believe DEQ should have considered additional
facilities to strengthen their SIP Revision Package.''
Response: The RHR does not require a State to evaluate all sources
of emissions, nor does it list factors that a State must or may
consider when selecting sources. Rather, the RHR requires that a
State's submission include ``a description of the criteria it used to
determine which sources or groups of sources it evaluated.'' \1\ The
State must also appropriately document the technical basis for source
selection, which may include methods for quantifying potential
visibility impacts such as emissions divided by distance metrics,
trajectory analyses, residence time analyses, and/or photochemical
modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As detailed in the submission and described in our NPRM, Idaho used
the source selection methodology developed by the Western Regional Air
Partnership (WRAP) for western States.\2\ The WRAP's approach used the
Q/d method, where Q is the sum of visibility impairing pollutants
(NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF> and PM<INF>10</INF>), and d is the
distance (kilometers) to the boundary of the nearest Class I area. The
Idaho DEQ screened sources as described in the following steps: \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See the WRAP Technical Support System (TSS) at
<a href="http://www.wrapair2.org">www.wrapair2.org</a>.
\3\ Idaho 2022 plan submission, page 54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Identify those facilities with total facility-wide emissions of
visibility impairing pollutants (NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF> and
PM<INF>10</INF>) greater than 25 tons per year (tpy) based on 2014
National Emissions Inventory (NEI) data.
2. Calculate the distance from each facility identified in Step 1
to the nearest Class I area boundary (including those in other States)
in kilometers (km). Facilities greater than 400 km from the nearest
Class I area were considered to have minimal impact on visibility and
were excluded.
3. Identify those facilities with a Q/d greater than the State-
defined threshold. Idaho used a relatively low Q/d threshold of 2.0
because the State estimated that the threshold captured 70% to 80% of
emissions from Idaho facilities.
4. Refine the Q/d analysis using more recent 2017 NEI data to
screen out sources that have a Q/d less than the
[[Page 42823]]
State-defined threshold for 2017 emissions.
Idaho's initial source screening used 2014 emissions inventory data
to identify 14 facilities in Idaho with Q/d greater than 2.0.\4\ Idaho
refined the Q/d analysis using 2017 emissions inventory data and
screened out three additional facilities from the original 14 (Idaho
Forest Group LLC-Riley Creek-Moyie Springs, Plummer Forest Group, Inc-
Post Falls, and Rexburg Facility of Basic American Foods).\5\ Idaho
also screened out a facility outside of the State's regulatory purview
(Boise Airport), as well as a facility near Sawtooth Wilderness Area
(Northwest Pipeline--Mountain Home) because the facility primarily
emitted NO<INF>X</INF> and WRAP modeling found anthropogenic
contributions to NO<INF>X</INF> at SAWT1 were negligible.\6\ This
screening process yielded nine Idaho facilities with Q/d greater than
2.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Id., page 55. See table 22 as updated by Idaho 2024
supplemental submission.
\5\ Id.
\6\ Id., page 56. See also figure 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho also used the WRAP's weighted emissions potential (WEP) to
further inform source selection.\7\ The WEP is a screening tool used to
identify sources contributing to visibility impairment in the 2014-2018
period and still operating in 2028 that have the potential to
contribute to haze formation at Class I areas.\8\ The rank point
analysis consists of facility-level 2028 emissions for NO<INF>X</INF>
or SO<INF>2</INF> sources overlaid with the corresponding extinction-
weighted residence time for ammonium nitrate or ammonium sulfate.\9\
Ultimately, Idaho determined that the sources it selected for review
under the four statutory factors captured the sources potentially
contributing to visibility impairment in Class I areas in other States.
Importantly, Idaho noted that all the sources it reviewed had greater
visibility impacts on Idaho Class I areas. Specifically, the 2028OTBa2
State-level source apportionment results indicated that Idaho
facilities had the most significant impact on visibility impairment at
Class I areas within the State. Thus, Idaho reasoned, and the
neighboring States agreed, that addressing visibility impairment in
Idaho's Class I areas would adequately capture Idaho sources'
contribution to visibility impairment in Class I areas outside the
State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Id., pages 61-62.
\8\ Id.
\9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, Idaho identified 27 Class I areas in five neighboring
States (Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Wyoming) that could
potentially be affected by emissions from sources within Idaho.
However, applying the same source screening analysis yielded no
additional Idaho facilities beyond the nine already selected for four-
factor analysis.\10\ Those nine facilities were ultimately selected for
further evaluation by Idaho.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Id., tables 24-28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in the NPRM, the RHR preamble, and in the response to
the conservation group comments above, the RHR does not require States
to consider controls for all sources, all source categories, or any or
all sources in a particular source category. This is addressed on page
9 of the 2019 Regional Haze Guidance \11\ as follows ``Instead, a state
may reasonably select a set of sources for an analysis of control
measures. The guidance that an analysis of control measures is not
required for every source in each implementation period is based on CAA
section 169A(b)(2).'' Rather, the States have discretion to choose any
source selection methodology or threshold that is reasonably calculated
to evaluate and determine the emission reduction measures necessary to
make reasonable progress, provided that the choices they make are
reasonably explained. To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires that
a State's SIP submission include ``a description of the criteria it
used to determine which sources or groups of sources it evaluated.''
The technical basis for source selection, which may include methods for
quantifying potential visibility impacts such as emissions divided by
distance metrics, trajectory analyses, residence time analyses, and/or
photochemical modeling, must also be appropriately documented, as
required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Guidance on Regional Haze State Implementation Plans for
the Second Implementation Period. The EPA Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park (August 20, 2019),
page 38 (EPA 2019 Guidance), available in the docket for this action
and at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/visibility/guidance-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-second-implementation-period">https://www.epa.gov/visibility/guidance-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-second-implementation-period</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On that basis, we find that Idaho included adequate information and
an explanation of its source selection methodology in its regional haze
plan submission and that the information submitted supports a finding
that Idaho examined a reasonable set of sources for the second
implementation period.
2. Low Cost-Effectiveness Threshold
Comment: ``DEQ evaluated potential reasonable progress measures for
its sources using an unreasonably low cost-effectiveness threshold.
DEQ's average cost-effectiveness threshold for evaluating controls was
just $6,100. DEQ should have used a higher cost-effectiveness
threshold, similar to that employed by other states like Colorado,
Nevada, and New Mexico, all of which used a $10,000 per ton
threshold.''
Response: As the EPA stated in the NPRM, the EPA did not establish
a cost-effectiveness threshold for the second implementation period.
Rather, the EPA's 2019 Guidance clarified that States had the
flexibility to decide a reasonable approach to evaluating costs.\12\
Further, the RHR does not provide a specific cost effectiveness
threshold. The fact that Idaho used a cost-effectiveness threshold that
is lower than another State's threshold is not, by itself, an adequate
basis for disapproving a State's regional haze plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Guidance on Regional Haze State Implementation Plans for
the Second Implementation Period. The EPA Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park (August 20, 2019),
page 38 (EPA 2019 Guidance), available in the docket for this action
and at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/visibility/guidance-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-second-implementation-period">https://www.epa.gov/visibility/guidance-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-second-implementation-period</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In developing its regional haze plan for the second implementation
period, Idaho established a cost-effectiveness threshold of $6,100 per
ton by adjusting the $5,000 per ton best available retrofit technology
(BART) cost-effectiveness threshold (used during the first
implementation period) for inflation.\13\ Idaho then analyzed potential
control measures using the four statutory factors for specific units at
selected facilities. Control measures that would cost over $6,100 per
ton were considered too costly for purposes of the second
implementation period. While there is no threshold for percentage of
emissions captured for analysis, Idaho's approach is well reasoned and
therefore we continue to find that Idaho documented a reasonable
approach to evaluating costs and met its obligations under 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Idaho 2022 plan submission, pages 64 and 65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, although Nevada did set a $10,000 per ton cost-
effectiveness threshold in its second planning period regional haze
SIP, the EPA disagrees with commenters' assertion that both New Mexico
and Colorado also set $10,000 per ton thresholds. Colorado only
mentioned the possibility of a $10,000 per ton threshold in its
prehearing statement and in early drafts of its SIP revision for the
second implementation period. However, this threshold was not carried
over into the final SIP revision submitted to the EPA. Also, as of the
time this comment was
[[Page 42824]]
submitted, New Mexico has not yet submitted their SIP revision for the
second implementation period. Although New Mexico's draft SIP revision
references a $10,000 per ton threshold in its analysis, New Mexico has
yet to submit a formal SIP revision to the EPA.
3. Clearwater Paper Corporation
Comment: ``DEQ evaluated control measures for Clearwater Paper
Corporation and determined that the figure of $9,556/ton for selective
catalytic reduction (SCR) was greater than the threshold of $6,100/ton
that DEQ set. DEQ then failed to propose SCR controls at No. 4 Power
Boiler based on cost-effectiveness. In their SIP comments to Idaho's
2024 submission, NPS encouraged DEQ to evaluate whether requiring SCR
to control NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from the No. 4 Power Boiler would
be reasonable. The Conservation Organizations support that
recommendation and urge EPA to ensure SCR controls at No. 4 Power
Boiler are included in its final proposal.''
Response: We disagree with the commenters. In the 2024 submission,
Idaho assessed the feasibility and costs of retrofitting the No. 4
Power Boiler with additional NO<INF>X</INF> controls, including low-
NO<INF>X</INF> burners (LNB), Ultra-low NO<INF>X</INF> burners (ULNB),
selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR), selective catalytic reduction
(SCR), and low-temperature oxidation (LoTOx).\14\ Idaho determined that
ULNB and flue gas recirculation were technologically infeasible. For
the remaining, feasible controls, Idaho concluded that the cost to
install LNB, SNCR, SCR, and LoTOx would exceed the State's established
cost-effectiveness threshold.\15\ For SCR specifically, Idaho estimated
that add-on controls would cost $9,556 per ton of NO<INF>X</INF>
removed. Idaho used vendor quotes and the EPA's Control Cost Manual to
estimate this cost.\16\ As discussed above, Idaho reasonably explained
the basis for its cost effectiveness threshold of $6,100/ton reduced.
States may evaluate the cost factor using a cost threshold and use that
threshold to provide a reasonable justification for four-factor
analysis outcomes. Thus, Idaho was reasonable to reject SCR as too
costly based on this threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Idaho 2022 plan submission, Appendix B. Four-Factor
Analyses and Reviews. Clearwater Paper Corp.--Pulp and Paperboard
Division.
\15\ Ibid. Idaho determined that installing a low NO<INF>X</INF>
burner would have a cost effectiveness nor >$10,000 per ton reduced;
SNCR $11,600 per ton reduced; and LoTOx $21,132 per ton reduced.
\16\ Idaho 2024 supplemental submission, appendix H, DEQ
Responses to Public Comments (Replace), page 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. ITAFOS Conda LLC
Comment: ``[T]he NPS recommended that a wet packed scrubber would
likely be cost-effective to reduce SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from the
East Sulfuric Acid Plant. In the SIP Supplement, DEQ updated the
information provided in appendix B including a new facility Four-Factor
Analysis and DEQ's review of the analysis. In its review, DEQ provided
an adjusted cost effectiveness for wet flue gas desulfurization or
hydrogen peroxide scrubbing of about $8,000/ton SO<INF>2</INF> removed.
While the cost exceeds DEQ's cost threshold of $6,100/ton of
SO<INF>2,</INF> given the facility's impact on Class I areas, we
support NPS's recommendation on the SIP Supplement to require
SO<INF>2</INF> scrubbing in this planning period.''
Response: We disagree with this comment. As discussed above, the
EPA finds that Idaho was reasonable in using a cost effectiveness
threshold of $6,100 to evaluate whether controls are necessary in the
second implementation period. Idaho was thus reasonable to reject
controls with projected costs in excess of this threshold. This was the
case with all of the controls Idaho evaluated for the East Sulfuric
Acid Plant.
To the extent the comment contests Idaho's cost estimates, we also
disagree. With respect to cost calculations, the EPA recommended in the
2019 Guidance that States follow the EPA's Control Cost Manual
recommendations to ensure consistent cost calculations across controls
and sources.\17\ The EPA also recommended that States explain any
deviations from those methods or alternative approaches.\18\ Finally,
the Control Cost Manual provides for generic cost estimates using a
consistent methodology but recommends that States obtain facility-
specific vendor cost quotes when practical.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ EPA 2019 Guidance, page 37 (``We anticipate that the
outcome of the decision-making process by a state regarding a
control measure may most often depend on how the state assesses the
balance between the cost of compliance and the visibility benefits,
with the other three statutory factors either being subsumed into
the cost of compliance or not being major considerations.'').
\18\ Id.
\19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In evaluating the cost of WFGD, a hydrogen peroxide scrubber, and
DSI, Idaho obtained cost information from equipment vendors.\20\ Idaho
conducted subsequent evaluations of its initial cost estimates to
ensure the cost estimates took into consideration all the ancillary
equipment necessary and site-specific complexities. Idaho adequately
explained its cost calculation methodology, its use of the Control Cost
Manual, and its rationale for adjusting initial vendor estimates based
on site-specific information. Therefore, the EPA's position remains
that Idaho adequately considered cost, along with the other three
factors in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2), in determining the controls necessary
for reasonable progress at the East Sulfuric Acid Plant and the State
was reasonable in rejecting controls with costs above $6,100 per ton
reduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Idaho 2024 supplemental submission, appendix B Four Factor
Analysis and Review (Append), page 5-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. J.R. Simplot--Don Siding Pocatello
Comment: ``the NPS explained that because the Itafos analysis
included a vendor quote for a packed tower wet scrubber using hydrogen
peroxide and caustic soda as scrubbing reagents and the Simplot plants
have higher permitted production capacity but are similar to the Itafos
facility plant, the NPS used the Itafos vendor quote PEC and the ``six-
tenths'' rule to apply these costs to the Simplot plants. The NPS
explained that it detailed all analysis assumptions in the written
documentation. The NPS's cost-effectiveness figures demonstrate that
scrubbers on the Simplot sulfuric acid plants are cost effective for
Plants No. 300 and 400, reducing emissions by 98% or roughly 733 tons
per year. Thus, the EPA must ensure that Four-Factor Analyses are
conducted and emission controls are included for these plants in the
final action. Although the SIP Supplement concludes that existing
permit conditions for both sulfuric acid plants are sufficient and that
no Four-Factor Analysis or additional SO<INF>2</INF> controls are
needed this planning period, we agree with NPS's recommendation that a
wet packed-tower scrubber is still likely cost-effective for Plants No.
300 and 400 and should be required in this planning period.''
Response: We disagree with the commenters that four-factor analyses
are required for evaluating retrofit SO<INF>2</INF> controls on the Don
Siding Plant sulfuric acid plants. In our NPRM, we proposed to approve
the Idaho DEQ's determination that the Don Siding sulfuric acid plants
were already subject to BACT-level SO<INF>2</INF> limits per a 2015
Federal consent decree to resolve PSD applicability issues and that
those limits constituted existing effective controls.\21\
[[Page 42825]]
In our NPRM we stated that in the EPA 2019 Guidance, the EPA
acknowledged that a control technology review under the four regional
haze factors was unlikely to find feasible, cost-effective controls for
sources that recently went through PSD BACT.\22\ In this instance, both
plants are subject to 2015 BACT limits imposed through a Federal
consent decree with the EPA. Consistent with the EPA 2019 Guidance, and
based on the submitted information, the EPA agreed with Idaho that
additional control technology review under the four regional haze
factors would be unlikely to find feasible, cost-effective
controls.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See <a href="https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/consent-decree-j-r-simplot-company/">https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/consent-decree-j-r-simplot-company/</a>. For the No. 300 Sulfuric Acid Plant,
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions are limited to 2.5 lb/ton of 100% sulfuric
acid produced on a rolling 3-hour average basis, except during
periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, and 1.5 lb/ton 100%
sulfuric acid produced on a rolling 365-day average basis including
periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction. For the No. 400
Sulfuric Acid Plant, SO<INF>2</INF> emissions are limited to 2.5 lb/
ton of 100% sulfuric acid produced on a rolling 3-hour average
basis, except during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction,
and 1.6 lb/ton 100% sulfuric acid produced on a rolling 365-day
average basis including periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction.
\22\ 2019 EPA Guidance, pages 22-23.
\23\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As background, it is helpful to review the technology already in
place on the plants to control SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. The No. 300
Sulfuric Acid Plant is already equipped with scrubber technology to
reduce SO<INF>2</INF> emissions, specifically a DynaWave reverse-jet
wet gas scrubber and an Ammsox packed bed ammonium scrubber in series.
The No. 400 Sulfuric Acid Plant uses a double contact/double absorption
(DCDA) process and makes use of a high-efficiency catalyst to maximize
conversion of SO<INF>2</INF> to SO<INF>3</INF>, which in turn reduces
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. In an SO<INF>2</INF> BACT analysis conducted
in 2013, Simplot determined the No. 400 plant could meet BACT-level
SO<INF>2</INF> limits based on DCDA technology and high-efficiency
catalysts alone.\24\ In its research for the BACT analysis, Simplot
found that wet scrubbing is not typically used in combination with DCDA
technology for SO<INF>2</INF> emissions control and that the use of a
wet scrubber in combination with a high-efficiency catalyst would
provide only marginal SO<INF>2</INF> reductions at significant
cost.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Simplot Don Siding Permit to Construct application, July
2013, pages 53 through 60 (section 4.7).
\25\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We continue to find that Idaho's decision was reasonable--that
additional control technology review under the four regional haze
factors would be unlikely to find additional feasible, cost-effective
retrofit SO<INF>2</INF> controls on the Simplot sulfuric acid plants.
Therefore, we concur with Idaho that the existing consent decree limits
constitute existing effective controls for purposes of the regional
haze second implementation period.
6. TASCO Paul
Comment: ``NPS recommended removing coal as a fuel for the pulp
dryers at the TASCO-Paul facility to further reduce SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions. In the SIP Supplement, DEQ found that
eliminating coal from the north and south pulp dryers at the Paul
facility is the most cost-effective option with the greatest emission
reductions. However, no additional controls were required for this
planning period due to the Foster-Wheeler boiler fuel conversion at the
TASCO-Twin Falls facility. We agree with NPS in their 2024 SIP
Supplement that emission reductions at one facility do not justify
bypassing cost-effective controls at another. We support NPS's
recommendation to remove coal as a fuel for the pulp dryers at the
TASCO-Paul facility to reduce haze-causing emissions in this planning
period.''
Response: In its submission, Idaho selected controls to achieve
emissions reductions at the TASCO Nampa and Twin Falls facilities over
the TASCO Paul facility because doing so would achieve greater overall
emissions reductions and because the Nampa and Twin Falls facilities
have greater visibility impacts on Class I areas. The RHR does not
prohibit States from maximizing emissions reductions across multiple
facilities impacting the same Class I area. We continue to find that
Idaho's approach is consistent with the RHR.
7. Clearwater Paper Corporation Low Sulfur Fuel Oil Requirement
Comment: ``The Conservation Organizations echo the recommendation
of NPS to require the use of low-sulfur fuel oil as an alternative fuel
in the No. 4 Power Boiler at this facility to ensure short-term changes
in emissions.''
Response: In our NPRM we stated that we concur with Idaho's
assessment that it is not feasible to require the facility to fire
lower sulfur fuel oil in the No. 4 Power Boiler at this time.
Information in the 2024 submission stated that the No. 4 Power Boiler
fires hog fuel and natural gas primarily, and while being permitted to
fire higher sulfur fuel oil, the facility must limit the amount of fuel
oil fired due to operational requirements and to ensure compliance with
the current 100 ton per year SO<INF>2</INF> emission limit.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Idaho 2024 supplemental submission, appendix B, Clearwater
power boiler fuel oil analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. The Amalgamated Sugar Company
1. Inclusion of Site-Specific Permit Conditions
Comment: ``The IDEQ Air Permits and the site-specific permit
conditions included in the proposed approval are federally enforceable
through state delegated and EPA approved air quality programs,
specifically New Source Review (and related Permits to Construct) and
Title V (known as Tier I permits). While the IDEQ Air Permits included
in the Idaho SIP contain conditions acceptable to ASC when the Idaho
SIP was developed, economic and operational changes can and frequently
do prompt necessary revisions. Revisions to federally enforceable
permits issued by IDEQ are governed by state law and the applicable
Federal framework incorporated by reference into state law. If the
Idaho SIP is approved as proposed, with inclusion of specific permit
conditions, then those included permit conditions are also subject to
Federal processes to revise the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) when
circumstances at a facility change. This approach is impractical,
creates delay and drains resources of ASC, IDEQ, and EPA.''
Response: The visibility requirements of the Clean Air Act and 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2) require each applicable implementation plan to contain
such emission limits, schedules of compliance and other measures as may
be necessary to make reasonable progress toward meeting the national
goal of preventing and remedying visibility impairment in class I
areas. See Clean Air Act 169A(b)(2). Consistent with these
requirements, Idaho submitted for incorporation into its SIP permit
conditions detailing emission limits, fuel requirements, monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and compliance schedules that
Idaho determined were necessary for reasonable progress. Accordingly,
the EPA proposed to approve and incorporate by reference into the SIP
these enforceable requirements. We acknowledge the commenter is
concerned about future, potential necessary changes to permit
conditions. The EPA commits to working collaboratively with Idaho on
any future revisions to these permit conditions to ensure the revisions
meet Clean Air Act requirements and to minimize processing delays.
2. Condition 4.6 Is Redundant in Permit T1-2019-0020
Comment: ``Permit T1-2019-0020 issued November 5, 2021, to ASC's
Paul facility, includes many conditions
[[Page 42826]]
proposed to be incorporated into the Idaho SIP. Specifically,
conditions 4.4, 4.6, and 4.7, among others, limit utilization of the
boilers at the ASC Paul facility, with some of the conditions
overlapping others. ASC plans to request a permit revision from IDEQ to
remove condition 4.6 to allow for greater flexibility in the facility's
boiler utilization. Future operations may need to run three boilers
simultaneously to achieve preferred load distribution and steam
generation. Federally enforceable condition 4.4 limits the emissions
generated by the facility boilers annually and condition 4.7 limits the
amount of total energy consumed by the facility boilers annually (in
therms). These conditions sufficiently limit the annual emissions of
pollutants subject to regulation under the regional haze program. The
facility's compliance with conditions 4.4 and 4.7, makes condition 4.6
redundant and unreasonably limits operational flexibility of the boiler
system at the facility. ASC requests that EPA disapprove Idaho SIP
inclusion of condition 4.6 of Permit T1-2019-0020 issued November 5,
2021, because it is redundant and unnecessary for reasonable further
progress.''
Response: The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality withdrew
condition 4.6 of Permit T1-2019-0020 via a letter sent on August 12,
2025, because the State determined that this condition is not necessary
for reasonable progress during the second planning period. The EPA
agrees with the State. The EPA reviewed Idaho's 2022 and 2024
submissions and confirmed that condition 4.6 is not needed to
sufficiently limit emissions from these specific boilers for purposes
of the regional haze second implementation period. As discussed in the
NPRM and in section II.A.6. of this preamble, Idaho determined that
controls on TASCO Paul were not necessary for reasonable progress for
the second implementation period because of the surplus emissions
reductions at the TASCO Twin-Falls facility.
Therefore, our final action is not incorporating condition 4.6 by
reference into the SIP.
C. The Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry
Comment: ``IACI urges the restructuring of the Regional Haze
Program to simplify and streamline future permit revisions by deferring
to federally enforceable actions of state permitting agencies that
comply with the provisions of the Clean Air Act and applicable Federal
regulations to avoid additional EPA process and delay and IACI urges
EPA to revise the Regional Haze Program with sanity and purpose. This
proposed action, incorporating existing and already enforceable site-
specific permit conditions into the CFR, will result in impractical and
unreasonable layers of process to revise permit conditions that support
future economic growth in local communities and manifest the Great
American Comeback. Additional processes also erode the cooperative
federalism framework under the Clean Air Act and will add to the
persistent SIP backlog.''
Response: The EPA acknowledges IACI's concerns with the current RHR
and support for revising the rule. On March 12, 2025, Administrator
Zeldin announced the EPA's intention to review the RHR and to restore
sanity and purpose to the program.\27\ We encourage IACI to participate
in any future regional haze rulemaking effort. This review of the RHR
is separate from the EPA's actions on regional haze SIPs for the second
planning period. The EPA's position remains that Idaho's regional haze
plan for the second implementation period meets the requirements of
Clean Air Act section 169A and 40 CFR 51.308(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See Administrator Zeldin Begins Restructuring Regional Haze
Program, March 12, 2025, available at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/administrator-zeldin-begins-restructuring-regional-haze-program">https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/administrator-zeldin-begins-restructuring-regional-haze-program</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the EPA's response to the Amalgamated Sugar Company at
section II.B.1. of this preamble for an explanation of the need to
adopt source-specific enforceable emission limits into the SIP.
Regarding IACI's concern about economic growth, the EPA notes that
adoption of existing emission limits into the SIP does not impact nor
limit construction of new stationary sources or emission units within
existing stationary sources. New construction will be governed by
Idaho's existing minor and major new source review permit programs.
With respect to IACI's comment regarding the timing of the EPA's
NPRM, the EPA notes that it is subject to a Consent Decree obligation
to finalize action on Idaho's regional haze plan by August 28, 2025
(originally May 30, 2025, before the Court granted the EPA's motion for
extension). The EPA must publish proposed actions in sufficient time
for the public to comment prior to finalization. Additionally, with
respect to the commenter's concern about the SIP backlog, there are
currently no backlogged Idaho SIP submissions, except this regional
haze plan on which we are taking final action.
III. Final Action
For the reasons stated in our NPRM (90 FR 13516, March 24, 2025)
and in section II. of this preamble, we are approving the Idaho SIP
revision submitted on August 5, 2022, supplemented on September 27,
2024, and clarified on August 12, 2025, as satisfying the regional haze
requirements for the second implementation period contained in 40 CFR
51.308. Idaho submitted the SIP revision to meet visibility protection
requirements pursuant to Clean Air Act sections 169A and 169B and the
EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.308.
We are approving the SIP revision as meeting the following
requirements:
<bullet> Identification of Class I area requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(f);
<bullet> Calculation of baseline, current, and natural visibility
conditions; progress to date; and uniform rate of progress requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1);
<bullet> Long-term strategy requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2);
<bullet> Reasonable progress goal requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3);
<bullet> Reasonably attributable visibility impairment requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4);
<bullet> Monitoring strategy and other plan requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(6);
<bullet> 5-year progress report requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(5)
and (g); and
<bullet> State and Federal Land Manager coordination requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(i).
We are also approving and incorporating by reference into the Idaho
SIP at 40 CFR 52.670(d), EPA approved source-specific requirements, the
following source-specific control requirements as part of Idaho's long-
term strategy for regional haze:
[[Page 42827]]
Table 11--Regional Haze Long-Term Strategy Source Specific Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Name of source Permit or compliance effective Explanations
agreement No. date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearwater Paper Corp, Lewiston, Idaho. Permit T1-2020.0024....... 3/30/2023 Permit conditions 5.4, 5.5,
5.6, 5.7, 5.10, 5.11, 5.12,
5.13, 5.14, 5.15, 7.1, 7.4,
7.9, 7.10, 8.1, 8.6, 9.1,
9.2, 9.6, 9.11, 26.22, 26.23,
26.26, 26.27, 26.28, and
26.29 only.
ITAFOS Conda, LLC, Soda Springs, Idaho. Permit T1-2016.0015....... 3/2/2022 Permit conditions 5.1, 5.4,
5.5, 5.11, 16.22, and 16.23
only.
Northwest Pipeline LLC, Soda Springs, Compliance Agreement 9/1/2023
Idaho. Schedule Case No. E-
2023.0011.
P4 Production, LLC, Soda Springs, Idaho Compliance Agreement 11/27/2021
Schedule Case No. E-
2023.0013.
P4 Production LLC, Soda Springs, Idaho. Permit T1-2020.0029....... 12/23/2021 Permit conditions 4.2, 4.4,
4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.19, 4.20,
4.21, 13.22, and 13.33 only.
J.R. Simplot, Pocatello, Idaho......... Permit T1-2017.0024....... 3/29/2023 Permit conditions 15.9, 15.10,
15.11, 15.19, 15.20, 15.21,
15.22, 15.25, 15.27, 16.6,
16.9, 16.10, 16.19, 16.20,
16.21, 16.22, 16.26, 16.27,
18.22, and 18.23 only.
Tamarack Mill LLC, New Meadows, Idaho.. Permit T1-2019-0024....... 10/17/2022 Permit conditions 5.2, 5.3,
5.5, 5.8, 5.17, 10.22, and
10.23 only.
The Amalgamated Sugar Company LLC-- Permit P-2018.0011........ 2/15/2023 Permit condition 4.8 only.
Nampa Factory, Nampa, Idaho.
The Amalgamated Sugar Company LLC--Paul Permit T1-2019-0020....... 11/5/2021 Permit conditions 4.3, 4.4,
Factory, Paul, Idaho. 4.5, 4.7, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11,
4.12, 4.15, 4.16, 4.18,
11.22, and 11.23 only.
The Amalgamated Sugar Company LLC--Twin Permit T1-2016.0017....... 1/21/2022 Permit condition 4.9 and 5.2
Falls Factory, Twin Falls. only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that
includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of
1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
regulatory provisions described in section III. of this preamble. The
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally
available through <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> and at the EPA Region 10
Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).
Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion
in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that
plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the
Clean Air Act as of the effective date of the final rule of the EPA's
approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to
the SIP compilation.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. 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 Clean Air Act
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the 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 Order 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
<bullet> Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065,
February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under
Executive Order 12866;
<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 subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it approves a State program;
<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.
In addition, this final action 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). Consistent with EPA policy, the EPA contacted four Tribes,
specifically the Coeur d'Alene Tribe, the Shoshone Bannock Tribes of
the Fort Hall Reservation, the Nez Perce Tribe, and the Kootenai Tribe
of Idaho, and offered an opportunity to consult on a government-to-
government basis in letters dated July 22, 2022. We received no
consultation or coordination requests. The letters may be found in the
docket for this action.
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. This action
[[Page 42828]]
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 4, 2025. 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, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: August 22, 2025.
Emma Pokon,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is
amended 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 N--Idaho
0
2. In Sec. 52.670:
0
a. Amend paragraph (d), Table 4 by adding ten entries to the end of the
table; and
0
b. Amend paragraph (e), Table 6 by adding the entry ``Regional Haze SIP
Revision for the Second Implementation Period'' to the end of the
table.
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.670 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
Table 4 to Paragraph (d)--State Source-Specific Requirements \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Name of source Permit No. effective EPA approval date Explanation
date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Clearwater Paper Corp, Lewiston, T1-2020.0024........ 3/30/2023 9/5/2025, 90 FR Permit conditions
Idaho. [INSERT FEDERAL 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7,
REGISTER PAGE WHERE 5.10, 5.11, 5.12,
THE DOCUMENT 5.13, 5.14, 5.15,
BEGINS]. 7.1, 7.4, 7.9,
7.10, 8.1, 8.6,
9.1, 9.2, 9.6,
9.11, 26.22, 26.23,
26.26, 26.27,
26.28, and 26.29
only.
ITAFOS Conda LLC, Soda Springs, T1-2016.0015........ 3/2/2022 9/5/2025, 90 FR Permit conditions
Idaho. [INSERT FEDERAL 5.1, 5.4, 5.5,
REGISTER PAGE WHERE 5.11, 16.22, and
THE DOCUMENT 16.23 only.
BEGINS].
Northwest Pipeline LLC, Soda Compliance Agreement 9/1/2023 9/5/2025, 90 FR
Springs, Idaho. Schedule Case No. E- [INSERT FEDERAL
2023.0011. REGISTER PAGE WHERE
THE DOCUMENT
BEGINS].
P4 Production LLC, Soda Springs, Compliance Agreement 11/27/2021 9/5/2025, 90 FR
Idaho. Schedule Case No. E- [INSERT FEDERAL
2023.0013. REGISTER PAGE WHERE
THE DOCUMENT
BEGINS].
P4 Production LLC, Soda Springs, T1-2020.0029........ 12/23/2021 9/5/2025, 90 FR Permit conditions
Idaho. [INSERT FEDERAL 4.2, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6,
REGISTER PAGE WHERE 4.7, 4.19, 4.20,
THE DOCUMENT 4.21, 13.22, and
BEGINS]. 13.33 only.
J.R. Simplot, Pocatello, Idaho... T1-2017.0024........ 3/29/2023 9/5/2025, 90 FR Permit conditions
[INSERT FEDERAL 15.9, 15.10, 15.11,
REGISTER PAGE WHERE 15.19, 15.20,
THE DOCUMENT 15.21, 15.22,
BEGINS]. 15.25, 15.27, 16.6,
16.9, 16.10, 16.19,
16.20, 16.21,
16.22, 16.26,
16.27, 18.22, and
18.23 only.
Tamarack Mill LLC, New Meadows, T1-2019-0024........ 10/17/2022 9/5/2025, 90 FR Permit conditions
Idaho. [INSERT FEDERAL 5.2, 5.3, 5.5, 5.8,
REGISTER PAGE WHERE 5.17, 10.22, and
THE DOCUMENT 10.23 only.
BEGINS].
The Amalgamated Sugar Company P-2018.0011......... 2/15/2023 9/5/2025, 90 FR Permit condition 4.8
LLC--Nampa Factory, Nampa, Idaho. [INSERT FEDERAL only.
REGISTER PAGE WHERE
THE DOCUMENT
BEGINS].
The Amalgamated Sugar Company T1-2019-0020........ 11/5/2021 9/5/2025, 90 FR Permit conditions
LLC--Paul Factory, Paul, Idaho. [INSERT FEDERAL 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.7,
REGISTER PAGE WHERE 4.9, 4.10, 4.11,
THE DOCUMENT 4.12, 4.15, 4.16,
BEGINS]. 4.18, 11.22, and
11.23 only.
[[Page 42829]]
The Amalgamated Sugar Company T1-2016.0017........ 1/21/2022 9/5/2025, 90 FR Permit condition 4.9
LLC--Twin Falls, Twin Falls, [INSERT FEDERAL and 5.2 only.
Idaho. REGISTER PAGE WHERE
THE DOCUMENT
BEGINS].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA does not have the authority to remove these source-specific requirements in the absence of a
demonstration that their removal would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, violate any
prevention of significant deterioration increment or result in visibility impairment. Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality may request removal by submitting such a demonstration to EPA as a SIP revision.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
Table 6 to Paragraph (e)--State Attainment, Maintenance, and Other Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable geographic State submittal EPA approval
Name of SIP provision or nonattainment area date date Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Regional Haze SIP Revision for State-wide............ 8/5/2022, 9/5/2025, 90 FR
the Second Implementation supplemented 5/8/ [INSERT FEDERAL
Period. 2024. REGISTER PAGE
WHERE THE
DOCUMENT
BEGINS].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2025-17054 Filed 9-4-25; 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 5, 2025.
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.