[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 222 (Tuesday, November 17, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73229-73233]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24443]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2020-0002; FRL-10016-52-Region 8]
Determination of Attainment by the Attainment Date for the Salt
Lake City, Utah and Provo, Utah 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final action.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that
the Salt Lake City, Utah and Provo, Utah Serious nonattainment areas
(NAAs) attained the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by
the December 31, 2019 ``Serious'' area attainment date. The
determination is based on quality-assured, quality-controlled and
certified ambient air quality monitoring data from 2017 through 2019,
available in the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database.
DATES: This final action is effective on December 17, 2020.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2020-0002. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available through http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Crystal Ostigaard, Air and Radiation
Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-IO, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6602, ostigaard.crystal@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' means the EPA.
I. Background
On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), in accordance with section
109(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the EPA revised the level of the
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, lowering the primary and secondary
standards from the 1997 level of 65 micrograms per cubic meter
([micro]g/m\3\) to 35 [micro]g/m\3\. On November 13, 2009 (74 FR
58688), the EPA designated several areas as nonattainment for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, including the Salt Lake City and Provo
NAAs. On May 10, 2017 (82 FR 21711), the EPA determined that the Salt
Lake City and Provo 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAs failed to attain
by the Moderate area attainment date of December 31, 2015 and were
reclassified to Serious 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAs.
Under 40 CFR 50.13 and 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, a NAA meets the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS when the area's design value \1\ is
less than or equal to 35 [micro]g/m\3\. On June 8, 2020 (85 FR 35033),
the EPA proposed to determine, based on the most recent three years
(2017-2019) of valid data,\2\ that the Salt Lake City and Provo NAAs
have attained the 2006 primary and secondary 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. Subsequently, on July 7, 2020 (85 FR 40618), the EPA published a
correction document, which corrected an error in Table 1 of the June 8
proposed rule. The table in the June 8 document had erroneously listed
the 2017-2019 98th percentiles and design value for the Spanish Fork
monitor twice; correctly, in the row for the Spanish Fork monitor, and
incorrectly, in the row for the Lindon monitor. Additional detail on
the basis for this action can be found in the June 8 proposed action
and the July 7 correction document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The design value is the 98th percentile 24-hour
concentration, as determined in accordance with appendix N.
\2\ Meeting the requirements of 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, and
40 CFR part 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Response to Comments
The EPA received a public comment on the June 8 proposed action
that identified the inaccuracy discussed above. The EPA acknowledged
this mistake and corrected the table in the July 7, 2020 (85 FR 40618)
correction document, which also gave notice that the EPA was providing
an additional
[[Page 73230]]
comment period. From June 8, 2020 to August 6, 2020, the EPA received
additional public comments on the proposed action and the correction
document from Western Resource Advocates (WRA), the Utah Petroleum
Association (UPA), and from individuals. Below is the summary of
comments submitted and the EPA's response to these comments.
WRA comment: WRA submitted comments \3\ asserting that because the
data do not include three years of monitoring from a near-road monitor,
EPA cannot determine that the Salt Lake City area attained the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 standard by the Serious attainment date of
December 31, 2019. Citing the EPA's 2013 rule revising the PM NAAQS (78
FR 3086, 3241) the comment asserts that Utah was required to have an
operational PM2.5 near-road monitor in the Salt Lake City
NAA by January 1, 2017, but that Utah did not install the monitor until
January 2019. WRA further states that the August 24, 2016
PM2.5 state implementation plan (SIP) Requirements rule (81
FR 58010, 58136) supports that requirement by providing evidence that
PM2.5 concentrations are higher near highways and that, as a
result, low-income and minority populations are disproportionately
exposed to high PM2.5 concentrations and therefore bear a
disproportionate risk of adverse health outcomes from PM2.5.
Citing the same rule, the comment asserts that ``EPA has explained that
monitoring data from the required PM2.5 near road monitor[s]
is to be considered when determining if a nonattainment area is
attaining a PM2.5 NAAQS.'' The comment asserts that ``Utah
did not meet its legal obligations and failed to install and operate a
near-road monitor as required, by the beginning of 2017,'' and that
``[w]ithout data covering 2017 to 2019 from an operational near road
monitor, Utah cannot show and EPA cannot find attainment.'' WRA
requests that the EPA withhold any determination of attainment by the
attainment date of the PM2.5 standard ``until Utah can
establish that the standard is being met at a near road monitor.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-R08-OAR-2020-0002-0130.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a further basis for its request, WRA cites the COVID-19 global
pandemic, recent studies that show a preliminary link between
PM2.5 exposure and death from COVID-19, health disparities
in the U.S. population, and disproportionate pollution impacts on parts
of the population, including those living near highways.
EPA response: The EPA agrees that new near-road PM2.5
monitor requirements were set out in the January 15, 2013
PM2.5 rule (78 FR 3086), but we do not agree that the Agency
is prohibited from making a determination that the Salt Lake City area
attained by its attainment date because of the absence of three full
years of data from a near-road PM2.5 monitor. As explained
below, quality-assured, quality-controlled, and certified ambient air
quality monitoring data were collected for each year from 2017 through
2019 in accordance with an approved annual monitoring network plan
(AMNP) for each year. The EPA has reviewed this data and concludes that
it justifies a finding of attainment and shows the area attained by its
attainment date.
Under the CAA, the Agency must determine whether the area attained
by the attainment date, based on the area's design value as of the
attainment date (i.e., the design value derived from the three calendar
years of data preceding the attainment date).\4\ The design value
calculation must be based on three years of valid annual mean values
for data collected at a suitable monitor for PM2.5,
determined in accordance with the procedures in 40 CFR part 50,
appendix N.\5\ Review and approval of AMNPs requires notice and comment
at the state level; the state must include and address any comments in
the plan submitted to the EPA for review.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ CAA sections 179(c) and 188(b)(2); 40 CFR 50.13; 40 CFR part
50, appendix N, 4.2.
\5\ Suitable monitors are generally all federal reference or
equivalent monitors, except for certain continuous monitors where
the state, with EPA's approval, has found the data not to be of
sufficient quality. 40 CFR part 50, appendix N; see also 40 CFR
58.11.
\6\ 40 CFR 58.10(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the commenter's assertion concerning the EPA's 2013
rule revising the PM NAAQS, that rule did require at least one
operational near-road PM2.5 monitor in each Core Based
Statistical Area (CBSA) with a population greater than or equal to 1
million but less than 2.5 million by January 1, 2017.\7\ But it did not
bar the EPA from making attainment determinations in the absence of
near-road monitors. As recognized in the 2016 rule that WRA relies
on,\8\ ``States should consult with the appropriate EPA regional office
to determine how and when near-road data should be used in the
PM2.5 NAAQS implementation process for specific
nonattainment areas.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 78 FR 3086, 3241; 40 CFR 58.13(f)(2).
\8\ 81 FR at 58051.
\9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA's finding that an area has attained the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard must be based on complete, quality-assured
data that is gathered at established state and local air monitoring
stations (SLAMS) in the NAA and entered in AQS. Monitoring agencies
submit AMNPs to the EPA for review and approval, and annually certify
that the data submitted to AQS are accurate to the best of their
knowledge. As described in our proposed rule, the Utah Division of Air
Quality (UDAQ) has complied with these requirements, and the EPA
approved the AMNPs for the relevant years.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 85 FR 35033, 35034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The monitoring requirements in 40 CFR 58.10 lay out the roles of
the air agency and the EPA in identifying whether a site is consistent
with the network plan requirements for a NAAQS. Accordingly, after the
January 15, 2013 (78 FR 3086) final rule became effective, the State of
Utah and EPA Region 8 began collecting information and assessing
multiple characteristics for each identified roadway. An important
consideration for near-road assessments was the complexity of urban
land use in the Salt Lake City NAA. Factors such as the type of road
(highways and arterial roadways), traffic activity patterns (number of
vehicles, fleet mix, and vehicle speeds), traffic volume, meteorology
(wind speed/direction, temperature, humidity, and atmospheric
stability), topography, roadway design features, and the presence of
nearby structures and barriers were reviewed by UDAQ in conjunction
with historical monitoring data to show potential near-road
PM2.5 sites.
After UDAQ's review of the parameters above and following the EPA's
guidance,\11\ the State identified the Interstate-15 (I-15) corridor as
the best candidate for a near-road PM2.5 monitoring site.
Near the end of 2016, however, the Utah Department of Transportation
(UDOT) began a major expansion project on I-15 to help address traffic
problems. Due to the timing of this highway expansion on I-15, UDAQ was
not able to place a properly sited near-road PM2.5 monitor
by the January 1, 2017 deadline. Alternate locations outside the I-15
corridor were considered by UDAQ and the EPA, but on closer review of
the traffic counts by both agencies at these locations, they were
determined to be outside the core areas where potential pollution
impacts would be near a location of maximum NO2
[[Page 73231]]
concentrations,\12\ and therefore would not satisfy the monitoring
network requirements or be as useful for achieving monitoring
objectives.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Near-road NO2 Monitoring Technical Assistance
Document, EPA-454/B-12-002.
\12\ 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, 4.7.1(b)(2). For CBSAs with a
population of 1,000,000 or more persons, at least one
PM2.5 monitor is to be collocated at a near-road
NO2 station required in section 4.3.2(a) of this
appendix. 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, 4.3.2(a) contains requirements
for Near-road NO2 Monitors, including a requirement that
a monitor be sited to monitor expected maximum hourly concentrations
near a major road.
\13\ 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, 1.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
UDAQ and the EPA discussed how to address the monitor siting
question in light of the highway construction, and in July 2018 a EPA
Region 8 monitoring contact conducted an on-site assessment with UDAQ
monitoring staff along the I-15 corridor to identify potential sites.
During this assessment, they located several potential sites, but all
but one was determined to be unusable. The only potential site had been
set aside initially because the station could not be installed long-
term due to the road expansion, which would require the site to be
moved multiple times. Nonetheless, after discussions with UDOT and the
additional site reviews, UDAQ and the EPA decided in August 2018 that
the best location was the site that had initially been set aside.
Therefore, the near-road PM2.5 monitoring site was
established and began recording data on January 1, 2019 (AQS ID 49-035-
4002), after the road construction was completed.
The near-road PM2.5 site, including updates on site
locations, was discussed in UDAQ's AMNPs. As required, following
publication, the AMNPs were available for at least 30 days of public
inspection and comment. If any comments had been submitted, UDAQ would
have been required to address any significant issues raised in the
public comment before submitting the AMNP to the EPA for review. The
EPA acts on AMNPs through informal adjudications in which the EPA
determines whether the network plans satisfy the requirements in 40 CFR
58.10. Such adjudications are not rulemakings subject to the public
participation requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
(see 5 U.S.C. 553), although they are final agency actions subject to
judicial review (see 5 U.S.C. 706).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 81 FR 17248, 17251 (March 28, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this case, UDAQ provided each of the AMNPs to the public for the
required 30-day inspection, and no public comments were submitted on
any AMNP. Based on the completeness of the network, and considering the
constraints imposed on Utah's planning by the I-15 road construction
project, the EPA approved the AMNPs for 2017, 2018 and 2019. No party
challenged the approval of any of these AMNPs.
Although the near-road monitor was not included in the 2017-2019
AMNPs, and although the one year of available data from that monitor is
not sufficient for calculating a design value, UDAQ and the EPA have
decided to make the data from that monitor available in AQS for public
review. The 98th percentile daily average concentration for 2019 at the
PM2.5 near-road monitor was 31.0 [micro]g/m\3\. Therefore,
the available data do not support a conclusion that, if the monitor had
been operating since 2017 with concentrations similar to 2019 and had a
valid design value based on three years of data, data from the near-
road monitor would have altered the conclusion that the area attained
the standard.
The lack of three years of near-road data does not preclude the EPA
from making a determination based on the available data for the Salt
Lake City NAA as to whether the area attained by the statutory Serious
2006 24-hour PM2.5 attainment date of December 31, 2019,
because the EPA is making the determination based on a design value
determined in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 50,
appendix N, and other relevant regulations. As stated in the comment
from WRA, ``[w]hen complete data from near-road PM2.5
ambient monitors become available, the data should be used by states
and the EPA for all aspects of the NAAQS implementation process, from
attainment planning to the determination of attainment.'' \15\ UDAQ's
near-road PM2.5 monitor does not have a complete 3-year
design value to be used in the determination, and accordingly it should
not be considered in calculating the area's design value. UDAQ and the
EPA are committed to collecting a complete 3-year data set for the
near-road PM2.5 monitor in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ WRA comment, docket ID: EPA-R08-OAR-2020-0002-0130, quoting
81 FR 58010, at 58138 (Aug. 24, 2016) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to WRA's comment about COVID-19, the CAA requires the
EPA to determine whether an area attained an established NAAQS by its
attainment date. The statute does not permit the agency to decline to
make that determination on the basis raised by the commenter. As
explained further below in the response to the citizen comments, this
determination of attainment by the attainment date is based on
attainment of the existing 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Any
consideration of new factors, including those regarding vulnerable
populations raised by WRA, would come into play if EPA were to set a
new NAAQS, not in making attainment determinations under existing
NAAQS.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 71 FR 61152/1 (October 17, 2006) (24-hour PM2.5
standards); 85 FR 24094 (April 30, 2020) (Proposed 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: UPA submitted comments in support of the proposed
determination that the Salt Lake City and Provo 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAs attained by their Serious area date of December
31, 2019. UPA provides details on the design values (2017-2019) at all
eligible monitors in the Salt Lake City NAA and asserts that they meet
the primary and secondary 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35
[micro]g/m\3\. UPA states that these design values are a result of
emission reductions in direct PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursors from a large number of sources (e.g., major point sources,
mobile sources, etc.). Additionally, UPA comments that the proposed
determination meets the detailed requirements laid out in 40 CFR part
50, appendix N, which comprises the total of all requirements that the
NAA must meet for a determination of attainment by the attainment date.
EPA response: We acknowledge the UPA's comments.
Comment: The remaining comments submitted for the proposed finding
that the Salt Lake City and Provo 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAs
attained by the Serious attainment date of December 31, 2019, were from
multiple citizens, some of whom were anonymous. Generally, these
comments presented a number of arguments against the proposed
determination of attainment by the attainment date: (1) The NAAs are
some of the most polluted regions for PM2.5 in the country,
according to the American Lung Association; (2) the data leading to
EPA's attainment determination are primarily due to a series of milder
and stormier winters with fewer inversion days, not to major progress
in reducing emissions; (3) by relaxing the requirements that haven't
been attained for several years previously, the sense of urgency about
seriously unhealthy air quality by the State of Utah will be reduced;
(4) the CAA states that air quality standards ``shall accurately
reflect the latest scientific knowledge,'' but the current
PM2.5 standards are not up to date; and (5) the air they
breathe impacts the health of the individual, the family, and the
communities.
Some of these comments from citizens were unique in content. One
commenter requested that the refineries should be moved east of the
Wasatch Front, with incentives if necessary, to move them
[[Page 73232]]
outside the metropolitan counties. Another commenter mentioned that
these areas are still out of attainment for the ozone NAAQS.
EPA response: In making a determination as to whether a
PM2.5 area attained by its attainment date, the EPA is
permitted to consider only the air quality data of the area as of the
attainment date. See CAA section 179(c)(1) (general nonattainment area
provision) (``As expeditiously as practicable after the applicable
attainment date for any nonattainment area, but not later than 6 months
after such date, the Administrator shall determine, based on the area's
air quality as of the attainment date, whether the area attained the
standard by that date.'') (emphasis added); CAA section 188(b)(2)
(subpart 4 p.m. specific provisions) (``Within 6 months following the
applicable attainment date for a PM-10 nonattainment area, the
Administrator shall determine whether the area attained the standard by
that date.''). We therefore do not agree that the concerns raised by
the commenter--that the areas at issue in this document are purportedly
``some of the most polluted regions for PM2.5 in the
country''; that air quality data were primarily influenced by
meteorological factors; that making the determination could have a
disincentivizing effect on efforts of state regulators; and that the
current PM2.5 NAAQS are not sufficiently up to date--are
bases that the EPA may consider when making its determination of
whether an area attained by the attainment date. The statute simply
does not permit the agency to take into consideration the types of
factors raised by these comments.
With respect to the comment that the air the public breathes
affects the individual, families, and communities, the EPA agrees. This
is precisely why the CAA requires the EPA to make determinations of
whether an area attained the NAAQS by its attainment date. If a Serious
PM2.5 area fails to attain by its attainment date, the EPA's
determination triggers statutory consequences, such as contingency
measures (CAA section 172(c)(9)); the requirement to submit a new plan
within 12 months of the finding of failure to attain demonstrating how
the area will attain (CAA section 189(d)); and from the date of such
submission until attainment, an annual reduction in PM2.5 or
PM2.5 precursor emissions within the area of not less than 5
percent of the amount of such emissions as reported in the most recent
inventory prepared for the area (CAA section 189(d)).
The commenter's second, third, fourth, and fifth points above are
beyond the scope of this action, as is the comment requesting that
refineries be moved away from the Salt Lake City area. The comment
stating that the State of Utah still has ozone NAAs has not presented
any information germane to this action. The EPA is not permitted to
consider the attainment or nonattainment status of areas in a state for
other NAAQS when making determinations of whether an area attained the
NAAQS at issue by its attainment date.
III. Final Action
The EPA is finalizing our determination, pursuant to CAA section
188(b)(2), that based on the most recent 3 years (2017-2019) of quality
assured, certified air quality monitoring data, the Salt Lake City and
Provo NAAs attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the
December 31, 2019 attainment date.
This final action does not constitute a redesignation of the Salt
Lake City and Provo NAAs to attainment for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS under CAA section 107(d)(3), because we have not
yet approved a maintenance plan for the Salt Lake City and Provo NAAs
as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA and have not
determined that the area has met the other CAA requirements for
redesignation. The classification and designation status in 40 CFR part
81 will remain Serious nonattainment for these areas until the EPA
determines that Utah has met the CAA requirements for redesignation to
attainment for the Salt Lake City and Provo NAAs.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This action finalizes a determination of attainment by the
attainment date based on air quality and thus would not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21,
2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, Feb. 2, 2017)
regulatory action because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
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.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, described in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
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 CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994).
In addition, this action is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. Accordingly, the action
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, Nov. 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 19, 2021. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by
[[Page 73233]]
the Administrator of this final action 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 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, Carbon monoxide,
Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: October 29, 2020.
Gregory Sopkin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2020-24443 Filed 11-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P