[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


