                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                            WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

                                        OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY
                                                       AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

MEMORANDUM

Date:  		10/5/2011

SUBJECT:	Amicarbazone  Acute and Chronic Aggregate Dietary (Food and Drinking Water) Exposure and Risk Assessments for the Section 3 Registration Action on Turfgrass

PC Code:  114004
DP Barcode:  D394925
Decision No.:  441345
Registration No.: 66330-46
Petitions:  NA
Regulatory Action:  Section 3 Registration
Risk Assessment Type:  Dietary
Case No.:  NA
TXR No.:  NA
CAS No.:  129909-90-6
MRID No.:  NA
40 CFR:  180.615

FROM:  	Douglas Dotson, Ph.D., Chemist
		Risk Assessment Branch II
		Health Effects Division (7509P)

THROUGH:	William Cutchin, Chemist
		Thurston Morton, Chemist
		Dietary Exposure Science Advisory Council (DESAC)

TO:		Michael Walsh/Kathryn Montague, RM Team 23
		Herbicide Branch
		Registration Division (7505P)

Executive Summary

Acute and chronic aggregate dietary (food and drinking water) exposure and risk assessments were conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model DEEM-FCID(TM), Version 2.03 which uses food consumption data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) from 1994-1996 and 1998.  The analyses were conducted as part of a human health risk assessment for the requested use of the herbicide amicarbazone on turfgrass and conifers.

The acute and chronic analyses are both based on conservative estimates of residues in food and drinking water.  For amicarbazone, drinking water is the greatest contributor to dietary exposure and risk.  The estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) represent upper-bound estimates that might be found in surface water and groundwater as a result of the application of amicarbazone on turf and conifers one time at the maximum yearly rate (worst case scenario).  In addition, tolerance-level residues and 100% crop treated assumptions were made for all food commodities.  DEEM default processing factors were used for processed commodities for which they were available.  Because such conservative assumptions were made in the assessments, the resulting exposure and risk estimates are considered to be conservative as well.  HED is confident that the acute and chronic dietary exposure assessments do not underestimate risk to the general U.S. population or any population subgroup.

The acute risk estimates are below HED's level of concern for all population subgroups, including those comprised of infants and children.  Generally, HED is concerned when risk estimates exceed 100% of the population-adjusted dose (PAD).  The acute risk estimate for the general U.S. population is 8.8% of the acute PAD (aPAD).  The population subgroup with the highest acute dietary risk estimate is All Infants, which uses 29% of the aPAD.  As percent crop treated estimates and monitoring data were not incorporated into the acute assessment, the risk estimates are being reported at the 95[th] percentile of exposure.

Chronic risk estimates are below HED's level of concern for all population subgroups.  The risk estimate for the general U.S. population is 17% of the chronic PAD (cPAD).  The most highly exposed population subgroup is All Infants (<1 year old), which uses 48% of the cPAD.

 Amicarbazone has been classified as "not likely to be a human carcinogen."  As a result, a dietary exposure assessment for cancer risk is not necessary.

I.   Introduction

Dietary risk assessment incorporates both exposure and toxicity of a given pesticide.  For acute and chronic assessments, the risk is expressed as a percentage of a maximum acceptable dose (i.e., the dose which HED has concluded will result in no unreasonable adverse health effects).  This dose is referred to as the population-adjusted dose (PAD).  The PAD is equivalent to the point of departure (POD, NOAEL, LOAEL, e.g.) divided by the required uncertainty or safety factors.

For acute and non-cancer chronic exposures, HED is concerned when estimated dietary risk exceeds 100% of the PAD.  References which discuss the acute and chronic risk assessments in more detail are available on the EPA/pesticides web site:  "Available Information on Assessing Exposure from Pesticides, A User's Guide," 21 Jun 2000, web link:  http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2000/July/Day-12/6061.pdf; or see SOP 99.6 (20 Aug 1999).

The last dietary exposure assessment performed for amicarbazone was done in 2005, when tolerances were first established for the chemical (D313754, D. Dotson, 4/19/2005).

II.   Residue Information

This registration action is being performed for the proposed use on turfgrass.  No tolerances are being proposed at the present time.  Established tolerances are for the combined residues of amicarbazone and its metabolites DA amicarbazone and isopropyl-2-OH-DA amicarbazone.  For risk assessment purposes, additional metabolites are included with the three residues to be used for tolerance enforcement.  For assessing human dietary exposure to residues in wheat grain (or any other rotated cereal grains), the two glucose conjugates of DA OH MKH 3586 are included.  These conjugates constituted about 30% of the grain TRR at the 138- and 364-day plant back intervals.  In ruminants, the metabolite tBuOH MKH 3586 is included because of the fact that it was the highest level residue in milk (28% TRR) as well as a major metabolite (> 10% TRR) in muscle and kidney.  For poultry commodities, the metabolites iPr-Acid DA MKH 3586, iPr-1-OH DA MKH 3586, and iPr-Ene DA MKH 3586 are included in the risk assessment because of their presence as major residues in liver, fat, or eggs.  These additional metabolites all contain the triazolinone ring and, therefore, are considered toxicologically equivalent to the parent.  In order to account for these metabolites in the dietary exposure analyses, the tolerances were multiplied by factors that account for their contribution to the exposure.  These factors are given in Table 1 along with the recommended tolerances.

Table 1.  Residue Values for Use in Dietary Exposure Assessment

                                   Commodity

                                Tolerance (ppm)

                               Metabolite Factor

              Residue Value Used in Dietary Exposure Assessments

Field Corn Grain

                                     0.05

                                       -

                                     0.05

Undelinted Cotton Seed

                                     0.07

                                       -

                                     0.07

Soybean Seed

                                      0.8

                                       -

                                      0.8

Wheat Grain

                                      0.1

                                      1.7

                                     0.17

Wheat Milled Byproducts

                                     0.15

                                      1.7

                                     0.255

Milk

                                     0.01

                                      1.6

                                     0.016

Meat of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep

                                     0.01

                                      1.2

                                     0.012

Fat of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep

                                     0.01

                                       -

                                     0.01

Liver of cattle, goats, horses, sheep

                                      1.0

                                       -

                                      1.0

Meat Byproducts (except liver) of cattle, goats, horses, and sheep

                                      0.1

                                      1.2

                                     0.12

Hog liver

                                      0.1

                                       -

                                      0.1

Meat Byproducts (except liver) of hogs

                                     0.01

                                      1.2

                                     0.012

Poultry liver

                                     0.01

                                      1.8

                                     0.018

III.   Percent Crop Treated Information

The acute and chronic assessments were both based on the assumption that 100% of all commodities with amicarbazone tolerances will be treated.

IV.   Drinking Water Data

The estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) used in the dietary risk assessments were provided by the Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED; D384659, A. Shelby, 9/7/2011).  The EDWCs are incorporated directly into this dietary assessment into the food categories "water, direct, all sources" and "water, indirect, all sources."  The residues of concern in drinking water for risk assessment are parent amicarbazone and its des-amino and N-methyl des-amino degradates.  The surface water and groundwater estimates were calculated using the PRZM/EXAMS and SCI-GROW Models, respectively.  The EDWCs given in Table 2 are the total toxic residues of amicarbazone, which include the des-amino and N-methyl des-amino degradates as well as unextracted residues.  The EDWCs represent upper-bound estimates that might be found in surface water and groundwater as a result of the application of amicarbazone on turf and conifers one time at the maximum yearly rate (worst case scenario).

The groundwater estimate of 136 ppb was used for both the acute and chronic assessments because it was higher than all of the surface water values.  For more information about EFED's drinking water models, see http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/).

Table 2.  Amicarbazone EDWCs Determined Using the PRZM/EXAMS and SCI-GROW Models

                                   Chemical
                           Surface water EDWCs (ppb)
                                  Groundwater
                           Acute/Chronic EDWC (ppb)

                             Peak 96 hour average
                              Peak annual average

30 Year Average

                     Total Toxic Residues of amicarbazone

                                     33.3

                                     25.8

                                     11.1

                                      136

EDWCs would be reduced if degradates were not assumed to be of equal toxicity as parent amicarbazone or if unextracted residues were determined to be bound residues.  Exclusion of degradates and bound residue results in reduction of EDWCs by as much as 70%.  Exclusion of bound residues results in reduction of EDWCs by as much as 20%.

V.   DEEM-FCID(TM) Program and Consumption Information

Amicarbazone acute and chronic dietary exposure assessments were conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database DEEM-

FCID(TM),Version 2.03 which incorporates consumption data from USDA's CSFII, 1994-1996 and 1998.  The 1994-96, 98 data are based on the reported consumption of more than 20,000 individuals over two non-consecutive survey days.  Foods "as consumed" (e.g., apple pie) are linked to EPA-defined food commodities (e.g. apples, peeled fruit - cooked; fresh or N/S; baked; or wheat flour - cooked; fresh or N/S, baked) using publicly available recipe translation files developed jointly by USDA/ARS and EPA.  For chronic exposure assessment, consumption data are averaged for the entire U.S. population and within population subgroups, but for acute exposure assessment are retained as individual consumption events.  Based on analysis of the 1994-96, 98 CSFII consumption data, which took into account dietary patterns and survey respondents, HED concluded that it is most appropriate to report risk for the following population subgroups: the general U.S. population, all infants (<1 year old), children 1-2, children 3-5, children 6-12, youth 13-19, adults 20-49, females 13-49, and adults 50+ years old.

For chronic dietary exposure assessment, an estimate of the residue level in each food or food-form (e.g., orange or orange juice) on the food commodity residue list is multiplied by the average daily consumption estimate for that food/food form to produce a residue intake estimate.  The resulting residue intake estimate for each food/food form is summed with the residue intake estimates for all other food/food forms on the commodity residue list to arrive at the total average estimated exposure.  Exposure is expressed in mg/kg body weight/day and as a percent of the cPAD.  This procedure is performed for each population subgroup.

For acute exposure assessments, individual one-day food consumption data are used on an individual-by-individual basis.  The reported consumption amounts of each food item can be multiplied by a residue point estimate and summed to obtain a total daily pesticide exposure for a deterministic exposure assessment, or "matched" in multiple random pairings with residue values and then summed in a probabilistic assessment.  The resulting distribution of exposures is expressed as a percentage of the aPAD on both a user (i.e., only those who reported eating relevant commodities/food forms) and a per-capita (i.e., those who reported eating the relevant commodities as well as those who did not) basis.  In accordance with HED policy, per capita exposure and risk are reported for all tiers of analysis.  However, for tiers 1 and 2, any significant differences in user vs. per capita exposure and risk are specifically identified and noted in the risk assessment.

VI.   Toxicological Information

Adequate data have been submitted to characterize the toxicity of amicarbazone for the purposes of dietary risk assessment.  Acute and chronic dietary endpoints were selected for the general U.S. population and all population subgroups including those comprised of infants and children.  The toxicological doses and endpoints selected for human health risk assessment are summarized in Table 3, below.  The FQPA Safety Factor was reduced to 1x.  Amicarbazone is classified as "not likely to be a human carcinogen."

Table 3.  Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Amicarbazone for Use in Dietary Human Health Risk Assessments
                              Exposure/ Scenario
                              Point of Departure
                        Uncertainty/FQPA Safety Factors
                RfD, PAD, Level of Concern for Risk Assessment
                        Study and Toxicological Effects
Acute Dietary (General Population, including Infants and Children and Females 13-49 years of age)
NOAEL= 10 mg/kg/day
UFA= 10x
UFH=10x
FQPA SF= 1x

Acute RfD = 0.10 mg/kg/day

aPAD =0.10 mg/kg/day
Acute Oral Neurotoxicity Screening Battery

LOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day based on eyelid ptosis, decreased approach response and red nasal staining in females
Chronic Dietary (General Population, including Infants and Children and Females 13-49 years of age)
NOAEL= 2.3 mg/kg/day
UFA= 10x
UFH=10x
FQPA SF= 1x

Chronic RfD = 0.023
mg/kg/day

cPAD = 0.023 mg/kg/day
Chronic Oral Rat and Chronic Oral Dog (co-critical)

Rat LOAEL = 25.3 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight and weight gain
Dog LOAEL = 8.7 mg/kg/day based on liver effects, including increased absolute/relative liver weights, triglycerides and cholesterol
Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation)
Classification:  There was no treatment-related increase in tumor incidence when compared to control.  Dosing was considered adequate.  This chemical is not likely to be a carcinogen.
Point of Departure (POD) = A data point or an estimated point that is derived from observed dose-response data and  used to mark the beginning of extrapolation to determine risk associated with lower environmentally relevant human exposures.  NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level.  LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level.  UF = uncertainty factor.  UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies).  UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies).  FQPA SF = FQPA Safety Factor.  PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic).  RfD = reference dose.

VII.   Results/Discussion

As stated above, for acute and chronic assessments, HED is concerned when dietary risk exceeds 100% of the PAD.  The DEEM-FCID(TM) analyses estimate the dietary exposure of the U.S. population and various population subgroups.  The results reported in Table 5 are for the general U.S. Population, all infants (<1 year old), children 1-2, children 3-5, children 6-12, youth 13-19, females 13-49, adults 20-49, and adults 50+ years.  Risk estimates are below HED's level of concern for all population subgroups in both the acute and chronic analyses.  The acute risk estimate for the general U.S. population is 8.8% of the aPAD.  The population subgroup with the highest acute risk estimate is All Infants, which uses 29% of the aPAD.  The chronic risk estimate for the general U.S. population is 17% of the cPAD.  The most highly exposed population subgroup is All Infants, which uses 48% of the cPAD.  As amicarbazone is not likely to be a human carcinogen, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is not necessary.

 Full listings of exposure and risk estimates are included in Attachments 2 (acute analysis) and 3 (chronic analysis).

 Table 4.  Summary of Acute and Chronic Dietary (Food and Drinking Water) Exposure and Risk Estimates for Amicarbazone

 Population Subgroup
                      Acute Assessment (95[th] Percentile)
                               Chronic Assessment

                                  aPAD, mg/day
                           Exposure Estimate, mg/day
                                     % aPad
                                  cPAD, mg/day
                           Exposure Estimate, mg/day
                                     % cPad
U.S. Population
0.10
0.008807
                                      8.8
                                     0.023
0.003889
17
All infants
0.10
0.029429
                                      29
                                     0.023
0.010987
48
Children 1-2 yrs
0.10
0.014750
                                      15
                                     0.023
0.006921
30
Children 3-5 yrs
0.10
0.013469
                                      13
                                     0.023
0.006474
28
Children 6-12 yrs
0.10
0.009356
                                      9.4
                                     0.023
0.004469
19
Youth 13-19 yrs
0.10
0.006999
                                      7.0
                                     0.023
0.003120
14
Adults 20-49 yrs
0.10
0.007621
                                      7.6
                                     0.023
0.003472
15
Adults 50+ yrs
0.10
0.006711
                                      6.7
                                     0.023
0.003441
15
Females 13-49 yrs
0.10
0.007603
                                      7.6
                                     0.023
0.003431
15

 As drinking water is a major contributor to dietary risk for the general U.S. population and all population subgroups, commodity contribution analyses were performed to determine the contribution of drinking water to the total dietary exposure estimates.  In the acute analyses, drinking water contributed between 76% and 90% of the total exposure.  In the chronic analyses, drinking water contributed between 62% and 86% of the total exposure.  The results of the analyses are given in Table 5, below.

 Table 5.  Contribution of Residues in Drinking Water to Total Dietary Exposure

 Population Subgroup
                                Acute Assessment
                          % of Total Dietary Exposure
                               Chronic Assessment
                          % of Total Dietary Exposure
U.S. Population
                                      80
                                      74
All infants
                                      90
                                      86
Children 1-2 yrs
                                      74
                                      62
Children 3-5 yrs
                                      76
                                      62
Children 6-12 yrs
                                      76
                                      62
Youth 13-19 yrs
                                      85
                                      66
Adults 20-49 yrs
                                      88
                                      77
Adults 50+ yrs
                                      90
                                      82
Females 13-49 yrs
                                      89
                                      78

 VIII.   Characterization of Inputs/Outputs

HED considers both the acute and chronic assessments to be very conservative.  For amicarbazone, drinking water is the greatest contributor to dietary exposure and risk.  The EDWCs represent upper-bound estimates that might be found in surface water and groundwater as a result of the application of amicarbazone on turf and conifers one time at the maximum yearly rate (worst case scenario).  The EDWCs would be reduced if degradates were not assumed to be of equal toxicity as parent amicarbazone or if unextracted residues were determined to be bound residues.  Exclusion of degradates and bound residue results in reduction of EDWCs by as much as 70%.  Exclusion of bound residues results in reduction of EDWCs by as much as 20%.

Although food commodities do not contribute significantly to the total dietary exposure, minor reductions in the exposure and risk estimates could be made through the use of refinements.  The assessments are based on tolerance-level residues for all commodities.  Conservative processing factors were used for all processed commodities for which they were available.  In addition, it is assumed that 100% of all crops with registered uses of amicarbazone are treated.  Further refinements to these analyses could be made through the use of anticipated residues (e.g., distributions of field trial data for the acute assessment and average field trial values for the chronic assessment) and percent crop treated estimates.  However, as all risk estimates are not of concern, it is not necessary to make any refinements to the dietary exposure assessments.

 IX.   Conclusions

The exposure estimates that were generated are very conservative estimates of the actual dietary exposures that might occur.  The aggregate (food + water) dietary risk estimates are below HED's level of concern for all population subgroups for both the acute and chronic exposure scenarios.  HED is confident that the acute and chronic dietary exposure assessments do not underestimate risk to the general U.S. population or any population subgroup.

 X.   List of Attachments

Attachment 1.  Acute and Chronic Dietary Residue Input File for Amicarbazone
Attachment 2.  Results of Acute Dietary Exposure Assessment
 Attachment 3.  Results of Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessment

Attachment 1:  Acute and Chronic Dietary Residue Input File for Amicarbazone

DEEM FCID Version 2.03

Acute NOAEL for general population and all population subgroups:  10 mg/kg bw/day
Acute PAD for general population and all population subgroups:  0.10 mg/kg bw/day

Chronic NOAEL for general population and all population subgroups:  2.3 mg/kg bw/day
Chronic PAD for general population and all population subgroups:  0.023 mg/kg bw/day

Filename: C:\Documents and Settings\ddotson\My Documents\Deemfcid\ Amicarbazone\Amicarbazone2011.R98

Date created/last modified: 10-01-2011/14:33:04/8

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  EPA    Crop                                   Def Res     Adj.Factors   Comment
  Code    Grp  Commodity Name                    (ppm)       #1    #2
-------- ---- -------------------------------  ----------  ------ ------  -------
06003470 6    Soybean, seed                      0.800000   1.000  1.000
06003480 6    Soybean, flour                     0.800000   1.000  1.000
06003481 6    Soybean, flour-babyfood            0.800000   1.000  1.000
06003490 6    Soybean, soy milk                  0.800000   1.000  1.000
06003491 6    Soybean, soy milk-babyfood or in   0.800000   1.000  1.000
06003500 6    Soybean, oil                       0.800000   1.000  1.000
06003501 6    Soybean, oil-babyfood              0.800000   1.000  1.000
15001200 15   Corn, field, flour                 0.050000   1.000  1.000
15001201 15   Corn, field, flour-babyfood        0.050000   1.000  1.000
15001210 15   Corn, field, meal                  0.050000   1.000  1.000
15001211 15   Corn, field, meal-babyfood         0.050000   1.000  1.000
15001220 15   Corn, field, bran                  0.050000   1.000  1.000
15001230 15   Corn, field, starch                0.050000   1.000  1.000
15001231 15   Corn, field, starch-babyfood       0.050000   1.000  1.000
15001240 15   Corn, field, syrup                 0.050000   1.500  1.000
15001241 15   Corn, field, syrup-babyfood        0.050000   1.500  1.000
15001250 15   Corn, field, oil                   0.050000   1.000  1.000
15001251 15   Corn, field, oil-babyfood          0.050000   1.000  1.000
15004010 15   Wheat, grain                       0.170000   1.000  1.000
15004011 15   Wheat, grain-babyfood              0.170000   1.000  1.000
15004020 15   Wheat, flour                       0.255000   1.000  1.000
15004021 15   Wheat, flour-babyfood              0.255000   1.000  1.000
15004030 15   Wheat, germ                        0.255000   1.000  1.000
15004040 15   Wheat, bran                        0.255000   1.000  1.000
21000440 M    Beef, meat                         0.012000   1.000  1.000
21000441 M    Beef, meat-babyfood                0.012000   1.000  1.000
21000450 M    Beef, meat, dried                  0.012000   1.920  1.000
21000460 M    Beef, meat byproducts              0.120000   1.000  1.000
21000461 M    Beef, meat byproducts-babyfood     0.120000   1.000  1.000
21000470 M    Beef, fat                          0.010000   1.000  1.000
21000471 M    Beef,fat-babyfood                  0.010000   1.000  1.000
21000480 M    Beef, kidney                       0.120000   1.000  1.000
21000490 M    Beef, liver                        1.000000   1.000  1.000
21000491 M    Beef, liver-babyfood               1.000000   1.000  1.000
23001690 M    Goat, meat                         0.012000   1.000  1.000
23001700 M    Goat, meat byproducts              0.120000   1.000  1.000
23001710 M    Goat, fat                          0.010000   1.000  1.000
23001720 M    Goat, kidney                       0.120000   1.000  1.000
23001730 M    Goat, liver                        1.000000   1.000  1.000
24001890 M    Horse, meat                        0.012000   1.000  1.000
25002900 M    Pork, meat                         0.012000   1.000  1.000
25002901 M    Pork, meat-babyfood                0.012000   1.000  1.000
25002910 M    Pork, skin                         0.012000   1.000  1.000
25002920 M    Pork, meat byproducts              0.012000   1.000  1.000
25002921 M    Pork, meat byproducts-babyfood     0.012000   1.000  1.000
25002930 M    Pork, fat                          0.010000   1.000  1.000
25002931 M    Pork, fat-babyfood                 0.010000   1.000  1.000
25002940 M    Pork, kidney                       0.012000   1.000  1.000
25002950 M    Pork, liver                        0.100000   1.000  1.000
26003390 M    Sheep, meat                        0.012000   1.000  1.000
26003391 M    Sheep, meat-babyfood               0.012000   1.000  1.000
26003400 M    Sheep, meat byproducts             0.120000   1.000  1.000
26003410 M    Sheep, fat                         0.010000   1.000  1.000
26003411 M    Sheep, fat-babyfood                0.010000   1.000  1.000
26003420 M    Sheep, kidney                      0.120000   1.000  1.000
26003430 M    Sheep, liver                       1.000000   1.000  1.000
27002220 D    Milk, fat                          0.016000   1.000  1.000
27002221 D    Milk, fat - baby food/infant for   0.016000   1.000  1.000
27012230 D    Milk, nonfat solids                0.016000   1.000  1.000
27012231 D    Milk, nonfat solids-baby food/in   0.016000   1.000  1.000
27022240 D    Milk, water                        0.016000   1.000  1.000
27022241 D    Milk, water-babyfood/infant form   0.016000   1.000  1.000
27032251 D    Milk, sugar (lactose)-baby food/   0.016000   1.000  1.000
40000940 P    Chicken, liver                     0.018000   1.000  1.000
50003830 P    Turkey, liver                      0.018000   1.000  1.000
60003020 P    Poultry, other, liver              0.018000   1.000  1.000
86010000 O    Water, direct, all sources         0.136000   1.000  1.000
86020000 O    Water, indirect, all sources       0.136000   1.000  1.000
95001280 O    Cottonseed, oil                    0.070000   1.000  1.000
95001281 O    Cottonseed, oil-babyfood           0.070000   1.000  1.000

Attachment 2:  Results of Acute Dietary Exposure Assessment

Residue file: Amicarbazone2011.R98
Analysis Date: 10-01-2011/14:39:50
Residue file dated: 10-01-2011/14:33:04/8
Daily totals for food and foodform consumption used.

===============================================================================

Summary calculations (per capita):

      95th Percentile             99th Percentile             99.9th Percentile
 Exposure  % aRfD     MOE    Exposure  % aRfD     MOE    Exposure  % aRfD     MOE
---------- ------- -------- ---------- ------- -------- ---------- ------- --------
U.S. Population:
  0.008807    8.81    1135    0.015320   15.32     652    0.029257   29.26     341
All infants:
  0.029429   29.43     339    0.042121   42.12     237    0.071274   71.27     140
Children 1-2 yrs:
  0.014750   14.75     677    0.023625   23.62     423    0.041600   41.60     240
Children 3-5 yrs:
  0.013469   13.47     742    0.019734   19.73     506    0.035375   35.37     282
Children 6-12 yrs:
  0.009356    9.36    1068    0.014263   14.26     701    0.019715   19.72     507
Youth 13-19 yrs:
  0.006999    7.00    1428    0.010993   10.99     909    0.018113   18.11     552
Adults 20-49 yrs:
  0.007621    7.62    1312    0.012089   12.09     827    0.020763   20.76     481
Adults 50+ yrs:
  0.006711    6.71    1490    0.009375    9.38    1066    0.015091   15.09     662
Females 13-49 yrs:
  0.007603    7.60    1315    0.011946   11.95     837    0.019959   19.96     501

Attachment 3:  Results of Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessment

Residue file name: C:\Documents and Settings\ddotson\My Documents\Deemfcid\ Amicarbazone\Amicarbazone2011.R98
Residue file dated:  10-01-2011/14:33:04/8
Analysis Date:  10-01-2011/14:42:17

===============================================================================
                    Total exposure by population subgroup
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                    Total Exposure
                                         -----------------------------------
          Population                         mg/kg             Percent of
           Subgroup                       body wt/day             Rfd
--------------------------------------   -------------       ---------------
U.S. Population (total)                     0.003889                16.9%

U.S. Population (spring season)             0.003870                16.8%
U.S. Population (summer season)             0.004080                17.7%
U.S. Population (autumn season)             0.003802                16.5%
U.S. Population (winter season)             0.003802                16.5%

Northeast region                            0.003623                15.8%
Midwest region                              0.003978                17.3%
Southern region                             0.003704                16.1%
Western region                              0.004327                18.8%

Hispanics                                   0.004292                18.7%
Non-hispanic whites                         0.003811                16.6%
Non-hispanic blacks                         0.003751                16.3%
Non-hisp/non-white/non-black                0.004624                20.1%

All infants (< 1 year)                      0.010987                47.8%
Nursing infants                             0.004012                17.4%
Non-nursing infants                         0.013634                59.3%
Children 1-6 yrs                            0.006499                28.3%
Children 7-12 yrs                           0.004243                18.4%

Females 13-19 (not preg or nursing)         0.002931                12.7%
Females 20+ (not preg or nursing)           0.003535                15.4%
Females 13-50 yrs                           0.003588                15.6%
Females 13+ (preg/not nursing)              0.003671                16.0%
Females 13+ (nursing)                       0.004902                21.3%

Males 13-19 yrs                             0.003284                14.3%
Males 20+ yrs                               0.003361                14.6%
Seniors 55+                                 0.003431                14.9%

Children 1-2 yrs                            0.006921                30.1%
Children 3-5 yrs                            0.006474                28.1%
Children 6-12 yrs                           0.004469                19.4%
Youth 13-19 yrs                             0.003120                13.6%
Adults 20-49 yrs                            0.003472                15.1%
Adults 50+ yrs                              0.003441                15.0%
Females 13-49 yrs                           0.003431                14.9%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 144 (Monday, July 27, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45146-45154]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15399]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0590; FRL-10009-70-Region 10]

Air Plan Approval; WA; Interstate Transport Requirements for the
2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State
of Washington (Washington) demonstrating that the SIP meets certain
Clean Air Act (CAA) interstate transport requirements for the 2010 1-
hour Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). In this action, EPA is proposing to determine that
emissions from sources in Washington will not contribute significantly
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in any other state. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
approve Washington's February 7, 2018 SIP submission as meeting the
interstate transport requirements for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 26, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2016-0590, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Chi, EPA Region 10 Air and
Radiation Division, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206)-553-
1185<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to EPA. Information
is organized as follows:

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Infrastructure SIPs
    B. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Designations Background
II. Relevant Factors To Evaluate 2010 SO2 Interstate
Transport SIPs
III. State Submission
IV. EPA's Analysis
    A. Prong 1 Evaluation
    B. Prong 2 Evaluation
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. Infrastructure SIPs

    On June 2, 2010, EPA established a new primary 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year
average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations.\1\ The CAA requires each state to submit, within 3
years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, SIPs meeting the
applicable infrastructure elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). One
of these applicable infrastructure elements, CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to contain ``good neighbor'' provisions
to prohibit certain adverse air quality effects on neighboring states
due to interstate transport of pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct components, commonly
referred to as prongs, that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP
submissions. The first two prongs, codified at CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), require SIPs to contain adequate provisions that
prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in one state
from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in any
other state (prong 1) and from interfering with maintenance of the
NAAQS in any other state (prong 2). The remaining prongs, codified at
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), require SIPs to contain adequate
provisions that prohibit emissions activity in one state from
interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration
of air quality in any other state (prong 3) and from interfering with
measures to protect visibility in any other state (prong 4).
    In this action, EPA is proposing to approve the prong 1 and prong 2
portions of the Washington's February 7, 2018 SIP submission because,
based on the information available at the time of this rulemaking,
Washington demonstrated that it will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS in any other state. All other applicable infrastructure SIP
requirements for this SIP submission will be addressed in separate
rulemakings.

B. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Designations Background

    In this action, EPA has considered information from the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS designations process, as discussed in more detail
in Section III of this preamble. For this reason, a brief summary of
EPA's designations process for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is
included here.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ While designations may provide useful information for
purposes of analyzing transport, particularly for a more source-
specific pollutant such as SO2, EPA notes that
designations themselves are not dispositive of whether or not upwind
emissions are impacting areas in downwind states. EPA has
consistently taken the position that CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
addresses ``nonattainment'' anywhere it may occur in other states,
not only in designated nonattainment areas nor any similar
formulation requiring that designations for downwind nonattainment
areas must first have occurred. See e.g., Clean Air Interstate Rule,
70 FR 25162, 25265 (May 12, 2005); Cross-State Air Pollution Rule,
76 FR 48208, 48211 (August 8, 2011); Final Response to Petition from
New Jersey Regarding SO2 Emissions From the Portland
Generating Station, 76 FR 69052 (November 7, 2011) (finding facility
in violation of the prohibitions of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
with respect to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS prior to
issuance of designations for that standard).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required
to designate areas as ``nonattainment,'' ``attainment,'' or
``unclassifiable'' pursuant to section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. The
process for designating areas following promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS is contained in section 107(d) of the CAA. The CAA
requires EPA to complete the initial designations process within two
years of promulgating a new or revised standard. If the Administrator
has insufficient information to make these designations by that
deadline, EPA has the authority to extend the deadline for completing
designations by up to one year.
    EPA promulgated the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on June 2,
2010. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). EPA completed the first round of
designations (''round 1'') \3\ for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
on July 25, 2013, designating 29 areas in 16

states as nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. See
78 FR 47191 (August 5, 2013). EPA signed Federal Register actions of
promulgation for a second round of designations \4\ (``round 2'') June
30, 2016 (81 FR 45039 (July 12, 2016)) and on November 29, 2016 (81 FR
89870 (December 13, 2016)), and a third round of designations (``round
3'') on December 21, 2017 (83 FR 1098 (January 9, 2018)).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``round'' in this instance refers to which ``round
of designations.''
    \4\ EPA and state documents and public comments related to the
round 2 final designations are in the docket at regulations.gov with
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0464 and at EPA's website for
SO2 designations at https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations.
    \5\ Consent Decree, Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Case No. 3:13-cv-
3953-SI (N.D. Cal. March 2, 2015). This consent decree requires EPA
to sign for publication in the Federal Register documents of the
Agency's promulgation of area designations for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS by three specific deadlines: July 2, 2016
(``round 2''); December 31, 2017 (``round 3''); and December 31,
2020 (``round 4'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 21, 2015 (80 FR 51052), EPA separately promulgated air
quality characterization requirements for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in the Data Requirements Rule (DRR). The DRR
requires state air agencies to characterize air quality, through air
dispersion modeling or monitoring, in areas associated with sources
that emitted 2,000 tons per year (tpy) or more of SO2, or
that have otherwise been listed under the DRR by EPA or state air
agencies. In lieu of modeling or monitoring, state air agencies, by
specified dates, could elect to impose federally enforceable emissions
limitations on those sources restricting their annual SO2
emissions to less than 2,000 tpy, or provide documentation that the
sources have been shut down. EPA expected that the information
generated by implementation of the DRR would help inform designations
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
    In ``round 3'' of designations, EPA designated Lewis and Thurston
counties in Washington as unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS. Washington selected the monitoring pathway
pursuant to the DRR for the areas surrounding two sources in Chelan and
Douglas, and Whatcom counties. These areas will be designated in a
fourth round of designations (``round 4'') by December 31, 2020. The
remaining counties in Washington were designated as attainment/
unclassifiable in round 3.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Technical Support Document: Chapter 42 Final Round 3
Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Washington at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-12/documents/42-wa-so2-rd3-final.pdf. See also Technical Support Document: Chapter 42 Intended
Round 3 Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Washington at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/43_wa_so2_rd3-final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Relevant Factors To Evaluate 2010 SO2 Interstate Transport SIPs

    Although SO2 is emitted from a similar universe of point
and nonpoint sources, interstate transport of SO2 is unlike
the transport of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) or ozone,
in that SO2 is not a regional pollutant and does not
commonly contribute to widespread nonattainment over a large (and often
multi-state) area. The transport of SO2 is more analogous to
the transport of lead (Pb) because its physical properties result in
localized pollutant impacts very near the emissions source. However,
ambient concentrations of SO2 do not decrease as quickly
with distance from the source as Pb because of the physical properties
and typical release heights of SO2. Emissions of
SO2 travel farther and have wider ranging impacts than
emissions of Pb but do not travel far enough to be treated in a manner
similar to ozone or PM2.5. The approaches that EPA has
adopted for ozone or PM2.5 transport are too regionally
focused, and the approach for Pb transport is too tightly circumscribed
to the source to serve as a model for SO2 transport.
SO2 transport is therefore a unique case and requires a
different approach.
    In this proposed rulemaking, as in prior SO2 transport
analyses, EPA focuses on a 50 km-wide zone because the physical
properties of SO2 result in relatively localized pollutant
impacts near an emissions source that drop off with distance. Given the
physical properties of SO2, EPA selected the ``urban
scale'', a spatial scale with dimensions from 4 to 50 kilometers (km)
from point sources given the usefulness of that range in assessing
trends in both area-wide air quality and the effectiveness of large-
scale pollution control strategies at such point sources.\7\ As such,
EPA utilized an assessment up to 50 km from point sources in order to
assess trends in area-wide air quality that might impact downwind
states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For the definition of spatial scales for SO2,
please see 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, section 4.4 (``Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) Design Criteria''). For further discussion on how
EPA is applying these definitions with respect to interstate
transport of SO2, see EPA's proposal on Connecticut's
SO2 transport SIP. 82 FR 21351, 21352, 21354 (May 8,
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. State Submission

    On February 7, 2018, the Washington State Department of Ecology
(Ecology) submitted a SIP to address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
prongs 1 and 2, of the ``good neighbor'' provisions, for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS.\8\ The submission concluded that SO2
emissions from sources in Washington will not contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS in any other state. Washington arrived at this conclusion after
(1) reviewing SO2 emissions sources, (2) identifying
downwind monitoring sites as potential receptors in neighboring states,
(3) conducting an emissions over distance (Q/D) analysis, (4)
evaluating available SO2 modeling results for specific
sources, and (5) reviewing the current SIP for existing federally-
approved controls that limit SO2 emissions from existing and
future sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The February 7, 2018 SIP submission also addressed the 2015
ozone NAAQS. EPA approved the ozone-related portion of the SIP
submission on September 20, 2018 (83 FR 47568).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Emissions Sources

    Washington reviewed preliminary 2014 emissions inventory data (the
most recent data available at the time the submission was
developed).\9\ Point sources, including electrical utilities and
industrial sources, account for the largest anthropogenic sources of
SO2 emissions as shown in Table 1. Washington's port and
shipping activities account for the second highest source category,
after point sources. Washington's conclusions about this source sector
are also further discussed in a later section of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In Section III of this preamble, we have reviewed more
recent data released as part of the 2017 National Emissions
Inventory.

   Table 1--Preliminary 2014 Emissions Inventory of Anthropogenic SO2
                       Sources in Washington \10\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Emissions
                     Source category                       (short tons)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point sources...........................................          14,510
Commercial marine vessels...............................          11,316
Silvicultural burning...................................           1,177
Industrial, commercial, institutional combustion........           1,095
On-road mobile..........................................             591
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Receptors in Neighboring States
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The top five categories and emissions numbers in table 1
are re-printed from page 9 (Table 5) of the Washington State
Implementation Plan Revision Interstate Transport of Sulfur Dioxide
and Ozone, February 2018, publication 18-02-005, in the docket for
this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The submission identified SO2 monitoring sites in Idaho
and Oregon, which are the only two states that border Washington. These
monitoring sites were selected as downwind receptors and further
evaluated for

potential impacts from Washington SO2 sources. The
submission included a table of downwind receptor monitored values for
2012 through 2016 (the most recent data available at the time the
submission was developed). The data presented in Table 2 is the 99th
percentile of the annual distribution of daily maximum 1-hour average
concentrations at the identified receptors, in parts per billion (ppb).

           Table 2--99th Percentile for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS at Identified Downwind Receptors (ppb) \11\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  County                       Site ID        2012       2013       2014       2015       2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ada County, ID...........................       160010010          6         11          5          3          4
Bannock County, ID.......................       160050004         73         40         38         45         33
Caribou County, ID.......................       160290031         35         31         23         23         32
Multnomah County, OR.....................       410510080         10          5          3          4          3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The submission included a spatial analysis of these receptor
locations relative to the Washington State border, and relative to
stationary sources in Washington that are located within 50 kilometers
(km) of each receptor. After mapping the identified downwind receptors,
the Washington Department of Ecology found that the Multnomah County,
Oregon receptor (Site ID 41051008), which is the National Core (NCore)
site located in the Portland metropolitan area, warranted further
analysis because (1) it is within 50 km of the Washington border and
because (2) four Washington SO2 point sources are within a
50-km radius of the Multnomah County receptor. The submission states
that the sources within the 50-km radius are small (three of the four
sources emitted less than 10 tons SO2 in 2014, and the
fourth source emitted 17 tons in 2014). In addition, the Multnomah
County receptor has historically monitored low 1-hour SO2
99th percentile values, as shown in the prior table.
    Washington identified two Washington SO2 sources with
annual emissions greater than 100 tons within 50 km of the Washington
border. These two sources, Weyerhaeuser NR Company and Longview Fibre,
are pulp and paper plants. Washington further evaluated these sources
to assess whether they may have a potential impact on the Multnomah
County receptor. The State reviewed monitoring data, local weather
data, and regional emissions modeling and found it is reasonable to
conclude that most of the SO2 monitored at the Multnomah
County receptor originates within the Portland metropolitan area of
Oregon.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The values in table 2 are re-printed from page 8 (Tables 3
and 4) of the Washington State Implementation Plan Revision
Interstate Transport of Sulfur Dioxide and Ozone, February 2018,
publication 18-02-005, in the docket for this action. These are 99th
percentile values, rounded to the nearest whole number.
    \12\ See page 13-14 of the Washington State Implementation Plan
Revision Interstate Transport of Sulfur Dioxide and Ozone, February
2018, publication 18-02-005, in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Washington proceeded to conduct an emissions-to-distance analysis
of point sources (including Weyerhaeuser NR Company and Longview Fibre)
as described in the following section. Washington also reviewed
SO2 emissions from commercial marine vessels operating at
several Washington ports. Washington asserted that SO2
emissions from western-Washington ports are not likely to impact the
Multnomah County receptor (nor the Idaho receptors) in part because the
ports are located over 50 km from the Oregon border and also because
the port emissions are spread across large areas, vessels, and
operations, as opposed to emissions from stationary point sources.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Ibid.
    \14\ Ibid. Table was from the SIP submittal with added sources.
    \15\ Most recent emissions data available at the time the State
developed the submission. In Section III of this preamble, we have
reviewed more recent data released as part of the 2017 National
Emissions Inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Emissions-to-Distance Analysis

    The submission included an emissions-to-distance (Q/D) analysis
used to prioritize point sources with potential impact on the closest
receptor in a neighboring state. Q/D is a common screening technique
used to estimate potential visibility impacts for purposes of Regional
Haze planning and to analyze predicted air quality impacts in the
context of major stationary source permitting in areas designated
attainment and unclassifiable (Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) permitting). The submission included the following table of Q/D
results.

                                                    Table 3--Emissions-to-Distance (Q/D) Results \14\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Distance     Distance      2014 SO2
                Facility                              Type                       County             to border   to receptor   (short tons)       Q/D
                                                                                (km)         (km)          \15\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TransAlta Centralia General LLC.........  Electricity Generation via   Lewis.....................           68          141           3,037         21.5
                                           Combustion.
Alcoa Primary Metals Intalco Works......  Primary Aluminum Plant.....  Whatcom...................          292          373           4,794         12.9
Alcoa Primary Metals Wenatchee Works....  Primary Aluminum Plan......  Chelan....................          164          281           2,935         10.5
Weyerhaeuser NR Company.................  Pulp and Paper Plant.......  Cowlitz...................            1           76             440          5.8
BP Cherry Point Refinery................  Petroleum Refinery.........  Whatcom...................          296          377             917          2.4
Longview Fibre..........................  Pulp and Paper Plant.......  Cowlitz...................            1           72             141          2.0
Boise Paper.............................  Pulp and Paper Plant.......  Walla Walla...............          150          100             186         1.85
RockTenn Mill Tacoma....................  Pulp and Paper Plant.......  Pierce....................          131          197             261          1.3
Cosmo Specialty Fibers..................  Pulp and Paper Plant.......  Grays Harbor..............           75          185             237          1.3
Puget Sound Refining Company............  Petroleum Refinery.........  Skagit....................          255          331             347          1.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The TransAlta Centralia Generation facility was the only source
that exceeded Washington's threshold ratio of 20 for the Q/D analysis
(Q/D = 21.5). As a result, it was the only source that Washington
evaluated further following the Q/D analysis.

Available SO2 Modeling Results

    In the SIP submission, Washington explained their review of
published modeling data for the TransAlta facility and indicated that
the modeling showed limited SO2 impact outside of the
immediate area of the facility.\16\ Washington also provided plume
modeling data that indicated the facility's SO2 plume
distributes toward the south but would not be expected to reach the
area near the Multnomah County receptor in any significant
concentration.\17\ Washington further explained that the facility has
SO2 emissions at the facility of less than 1,350 pounds per
hour as of December 15, 2016.\18\ Based on this information, Washington
concluded that the TransAlta facility does not significantly contribute
to SO2 emissions at the Multnomah County Receptor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See page 12 of the Washington State Implementation Plan
Revision Interstate Transport of Sulfur Dioxide and Ozone, February
2018, publication 18-02-005, in the docket for this action.
    \17\ https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-01/documents/ecologytechnicalreporttransaltaso2modelingresults2017.pdf.
    \18\ http://www.swcleanair.org/docs/permits/prelim/16-3202ADP.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Existing and Future SO2 Controls

    Washington reviewed current and future enforceable emission limits
and controls that apply to SO2 sources in Washington. Most
of the limits and control requirements referenced have been approved
into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR part 52, subpart
WW, including the SIP and Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)
requirements related to Regional Haze best available retrofit
technology (BART). These provisions and others listed below are
designed to limit SO2 emissions from existing and future
sources in the State:

 40 CFR 52.2470(c) reasonably available control technology
requirements (Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.94.154 and Chapter
173-400 Washington Administrative Code (WAC))
 40 CFR 52.2470(c) kraft pulp mill regulations (173-405 WAC)
 40 CFR 52.2470(c) sulfite pulp mill regulations (173-410 WAC)
 40 CFR 52.2470(c) primary aluminum smelter regulations (173-
415 WAC)
 40 CFR 52.2470(c) pre-construction permitting (WAC 173-400-111
and 720)
 40 CFR 52.2470(c) gasoline vapor and volatile organic compound
emission regulations (173-490 and 491 WAC)
 40 CFR 52.2470(d) BART requirements for TransAlta Centralia
(coal units BW21 and BW22 will permanently cease burning coal and be
decommissioned by December 31, 2020 and December 31, 2025,
respectively) \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The submission references Southwest Clean Air Agency
Regulatory Order 16-32 dated December 15, 2016. This regulatory
order was not submitted for approval and is therefore not addressed
in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 40 CFR 52.2470(d) BART requirements for BP Cherry Point
Refinery
 40 CFR 52.2500 BART requirements for ALCOA Primary Metals
Intalco Works
 40 CFR 52.2501 BART requirements for Tesoro Petroleum Refinery
 40 CFR 52.2502 BART requirements for ALCOA Primary Metals
Wenatchee Works

    Based on their analysis of monitoring and emissions data, the Q/D
analysis, and current and future SO2 controls, Washington
concluded that SO2 emissions from sources in Washington will
not contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state. Therefore, Washington
requested EPA approval of the submission for purposes of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

IV. EPA's Analysis

    EPA first reviewed the Washington submission to assess how the
State evaluated interstate transport of SO2, the types of
information Washington used in the analysis, and the conclusions drawn
by the State. We then conducted a weight of evidence analysis to
determine if we agree with the State's conclusion that SO2
emissions from sources in Washington will not significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in any other state.

A. Prong 1 Evaluation

    Washington's submission focused on one downwind receptor and a
relatively limited source-oriented and spatial evaluation of potential
transport based on an emissions-to-distance analysis. As a result of
the emissions-to-distance analysis, Washington reviewed one source,
TransAlta, for potential transport. TransAlta is located approximately
70 km from the state border with Oregon.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ As mentioned in Section I.B of this preamble, EPA
designated the area containing TransAlta, Lewis and Thurston
counties in Washington, as Unclassifiable in Round 3 of
SO2 designations. Washington submitted modeling for the
area, however, EPA identified deficiencies with the modeling as the
basis for the Unclassifiable designation. This Unclassifiable area
boundary is within 50 km of the Washington state border, however,
the only source emitting over 100 tpy in the area, TransAlta, is
located more than 50 km from the state border. Given the distance
between TransAlta and the state border, EPA did not evaluate this
source further for potential transport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has performed a supplemental analysis to more fully evaluate
sources in Washington for potential transport to neighboring states. In
our analysis we reviewed: (1) Emissions inventory data and emissions
trends for point sources in Washington emitting greater than 100 tpy;
(2) SO2 ambient air quality data; and (3) spatial analysis
of point sources located within 50 km of the Washington state border.
1. Point Source Emissions Inventory Data
    First, we compiled a list of Washington point sources emitting over
100 tons per year of SO2 according to the 2017 NEI. Then, we
added 2008, 2011, and 2014 NEI data, for reference, as listed in Table
4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 2011, 2014, and 2017 National Emissions Inventory data for
point sources available at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories.

             Table 4--Trends in SO2 Emissions (Tons per Year) From Point Sources in Washington \21\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Facility                    Type              County          2008       2011       2014       2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa Primary Metals Intalco    Primary Aluminum   Whatcom..........      4,523      4,538      4,794      3,987
 Works.                          Plant.
TransAlta Centralia             Electricity        Lewis............      2,318      1,136      3,037      1,689
 Generation, LLC.                Generation via
                                 Combustion.
Alcoa Primary Metals Wenatchee  Primary Aluminum   Chelan...........      1,810      2,906      2,935  .........
 Works*.                         Plant.
BP Cherry Point Refinery......  Petroleum          Whatcom..........      1,764      1,007        917        808
                                 Refinery.

Boise Paper...................  Pulp and Paper     Wallula..........        780        793        186        885
                                 Plant.
Weyerhaeuser NR Company         Pulp and Paper     Cowlitz..........        512        582        440        390
 (Nippon Dynawave).              Plant.
Puget Sound Refining Company..  Petroleum          Skagit...........        450        359        347        225
                                 Refinery.
Longview Fibre................  Pulp and Paper     Cowlitz..........        281        202        141        197
                                 Plant.
WestRock Tacoma Mill..........  Pulp and Paper     Pierce...........        635        349        261        189
                                 Plant.
Cosmo Specialty Fibers........  Pulp and Paper     Grays Harbor.....         --        214        237        242
                                 Plant.
Sea-Tac International Airport.  Airport..........  King.............        192        243        261        506
Chemtrade.....................  Chemical Plant...  Skagit...........        123        155        215        203
                                                  --------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................  .................  .................     13,388     12,484     13,771      9,321
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Curtailed since 2015.

    The NEI data from 2008 to 2017 show decreases in SO2
emissions from certain sources, including two petroleum refineries: BP
Cherry Point and Puget Sound Refining Company. The data in Table 4 also
show a mix of slight increases and decreases at some large pulp and
paper plants and other sources categories.
2. SO2 Ambient Air Quality Data
    Information from SO2 monitors near the borders between
Washington and its neighboring states of Idaho and Oregon is also
useful context for evaluating whether the SIP submission from
Washington satisfies prong 1. Tables 5 and 6 below summarize this
SO2 monitoring information for monitors in Washington and
the bordering states of Idaho and Oregon. We note that there are only
two monitors within approximately 50 km of the Washington State border,
and both monitors are located outside of the State (in Idaho and
Oregon).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Data obtained on 11/13/2019 at https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values.
    \23\ Data obtained on 4/16/2020 at https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/monitor-values-report.
    \24\ Data obtained from EPA's Outdoor Air Quality Database (11/
13/2019).

              Table 5--Trends in 3-Year SO2 Design Values (ppb) for AQS Monitors in Washington \22\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         ~ Distance  to
       Site ID            Site name        border (km)       2013-2015          2014-2016          2015-2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
530570011...........  Anacortes-202 O               263  5................  5................  4
                       Ave.
530090013...........  Cheeka Peak......             240  2................  2................  1
                                                         incomplete.......                     incomplete
530730013...........  Ferndale-                     293  invalid..........  invalid..........  invalid
                       Kickerville Rd.
530730017...........  Ferndale-Mountain             294  invalid..........  invalid..........  invalid
                       View Rd.
530070012...........  Malaga-Malaga                 228  invalid..........  invalid..........  invalid
                       Highway.
530330080...........  Seattle-Beacon                167  6................  5................  6
                       Hill.                             incomplete.......  incomplete.......  incomplete
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
incomplete = Design value calculated based on data that does not meet completeness criteria.
invalid = Insufficient data collected to determine a valid 3-year design value.

               Table 6--Trends in 99th Percentile Values (ppb) for AQS Monitors in Washington \23\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   ~ Distance to
         Site ID                 Site name          border (km)        2017            2018            2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
530570011................  Anacortes-202 O Ave..             263               3               2               3
530090013................  Cheeka Peak..........             240               1               1               1
530730013................  Ferndale-Kickerville              293              70              74              70
                            Rd*.
530730017................  Ferndale-Mountain                 294             114             101             105
                            View Rd*.
530070012................  Malaga-Malaga                     228               1               1               1
                            Highway**.
530330080................  Seattle-Beacon Hill..             167               6               8               6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These two monitors are source-oriented monitors that began operating in early 2017 to characterize air quality
  around Alcoa Intalco Works.
** This monitor is a source-oriented monitor that began operating in early 2017 to characterize air quality
  around Alcoa Wenatchee Works.

          Table 7--Trend in 3-Year SO2 Design Values (ppb) for AQS Monitors Surrounding Washington \24\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              ~ Distance to
        Site ID                County            Border           2013-2015          2014-2016       2015-2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
160010010.............  Ada County, Idaho..              55  7..................               4               3
                                                             incomplete.........
160050004.............  Bannock County,                 489  41.................              39              38
                         Idaho.

160290031.............  Caribou County,                 558  26.................              26              30
                         Idaho.
410510080.............  Multnomah County,                12  4..................               3               3
                         Oregon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
incomplete = Design value calculated based on data that does not meet completeness criteria.

    Except for the Anacortes monitor, Washington SO2
monitors have either incomplete or invalid data during the last three
design value periods.\25\ However, in Table 6 of this document, we've
included the 99th percentile values for these monitors in Washington as
additional evidence that, generally, statewide monitored values are
below the level of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ To be comparable to the NAAQS, the design value must be
valid according to appendix T to 40 CFR part 50 which specifies
minimum data completeness criteria for the 1-hour 2010
SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three new SO2 monitors were established in Washington in
early 2017. These three monitors were established to characterize two
sources for purposes of the SO2 Data Requirements Rule
(DRR), namely Alcoa Primary Metals Intalco Works and Alcoa Wenatchee
Works. These areas will be designated in Round 4 of SO2
designations. The data from these monitors (Site IDs 530730013,
530730017, and 530070012) was required to be certified by the State as
valid, 3-year design values by May 1, 2020. One of these monitors is
recording exceedances of the NAAQS. However, we note that all three
monitors (and the sources they were sited to characterize) are over 200
km away from the Washington border with neighboring states and are
therefore not likely to have an adverse impact on air quality in the
neighboring states of Idaho and Oregon.
    Valid, complete data is available for the SO2 monitors
in Idaho and Oregon, and design values are well below the level of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS, as shown in Table 7 of this document. As
described, there are no Washington monitors located within 50 km of a
neighboring state's border, however, there are two monitors in
neighboring states located within approximately 50 km of the Washington
border, and these monitors recorded SO2 design values well
below the level of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for the most recent
valid design value periods. These monitored values do not, alone,
indicate any particular location that would warrant further
investigation with respect to SO2 emission sources that
might significantly contribute to nonattainment in the neighboring
states. However, because the monitoring network is not necessarily
designed to capture all locations of high SO2
concentrations, this observation indicates an absence of evidence of
impact at these locations and is insufficient to capture the impact at
all locations in the neighboring states. Therefore, we have also
conducted a source-oriented analysis.
3. Spatial Analysis of Point Sources
    As noted, EPA has determined that it is appropriate to examine the
impacts of emissions from stationary sources in distances ranging from
0 km to 50 km from the facility, based on the ``urban scale''
definition contained in appendix D to 40 CFR part 58, section 4.4. As a
result, we evaluated point sources of up to 50 km from the state border
for emissions trends and SO2 concentrations in areawide air
quality. In the absence of special factors, for example the presence of
nearby larger sources or unusual factors, sources emitting less than
100 tons per year SO2 can be appropriately presumed to not
be significantly contributing to SO2 concentrations above
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The list of sources emitting 100 tons
per year or more of SO2, based on 2017 point source data,
within 50 km of the Washington state border, are shown in Table 8.

       Table 8--Sources Within 50 km of the Washington State Border With SO2 Emissions Greater Than 100 tpy and Nearest Neighboring State Sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2017 SO2
                                             2017 SO2      Distance from                                       Neighboring State Source    Emissions of
                 Sources                     Emissions      the Border             Neighboring State             (Distance Between the      Neighboring
                                              (tons)           (km)                                                    Sources)            State Source
                                                                                (tons)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weyerhaeuser NR Company--Longview,                   390               1  Oregon............................  Wauna Mill--Paper Mill--               540
 Washington.                                                                                Clatskanie, Oregon (33
                                                                                km).
Longview Fibre--Longview, Washington....             197               1  Oregon............................  Wauna Mill--Paper Mill--               540
                                                                                Clatskanie, Oregon (38
                                                                                km).
Boise Paper--Wallula, Washington........             885              11  Oregon............................  PGE Boardman--Boardman,               3298
                                                                                Oregon (82 km).
Portland International Airport--                     215               2  Washington........................  Longview Fibre--Longview,              197
 Portland, Oregon.                                                                                Washington (62 km).
Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc.--                118               4  Washington........................  Longview Fibre--Longview,              197
 Portland Oregon.                                                                                Washington (66 km).
PGE Boardman--Boardman, Oregon..........            3298              17  Washington........................  Boise Paper--Wallula,                  885
                                                                                Washington (82).
Wauna Mill--Paper Mill--Clatskanie,                  540              <1  Washington........................  Weyerhaeuser NR Company--              390
 Oregon.                                                                                Longview, Washington (33).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Washington sources listed are of interest with respect to
SO2 transport because of the possibility that they are
causing a violation of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in their locality
that extends into a neighboring state. There is also the possibility of
emissions from one or more of these sources in Washington and emissions
from a source in a neighboring state interacting in such a way as to
contribute significantly to a violation in the neighboring state. As
such, we have also included sources in neighboring states within 50 km
of the Washington state border as part of this analysis. The prior
table shows the distance from each of the sources listed therein to the
nearest source across the Washington state border emitting above 100
tons per year of SO2. Generally, a greater distance between
two sources reduces the likelihood that their emissions could interact
in such a way as to contribute significantly to a violation in the
neighboring state. Given the localized range of potential 1-hour
SO2 impacts, sources which are greater than 50 km from each
other would not warrant further investigation with respect to
Washington SO2 emission sources that might contribute to
problems with attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in
neighboring states. As shown, there are two sources in Washington which
are within 50 kilometers from a source in a neighboring state;
Weyerhaeuser NR Company and Longview Fibre in Longview, Washington,
located 33 and 38 km respectively, from the Wauna Mill in Clatskanie,
Oregon. Therefore, we have evaluated these sources further.
    Longview, Washington, and Clatskanie, Oregon, comprise a cross-
border, uncombined metropolitan area. Currently, EPA does not have
monitoring or modeling information to indicate a violation or elevated
SO2 concentrations in this area. Given the distance between
the cross-state sources (over 30 km), the declining emissions at the
sources in Longview, Washington, as demonstrated in Table 4 of this
document, and the lack of evidence of violations or elevated
SO2 concentrations in the area; it is unlikely that
emissions from the two sources in Longview, Washington, could interact
with emissions from the Wauna Mill in Clatskanie, Oregon, in such a way
as to adversely impact a violation of the SO2 NAAQS in
Oregon. Based on these factors, we propose to concur with the state's
conclusion that SO2 emissions from sources in Longview,
Washington, will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS in the neighboring state of Oregon.
    EPA has also evaluated PGE Boardman, a DRR source located within 50
km of the Washington border. PGE Boardman is located in Boardman,
Oregon, and, as shown in Table 8 of this document, the nearest source
in Washington is Boise Paper in Wallula, Washington. Although these
sources are located 82 km apart, and it is unlikely that their
emissions could interact in such a way as to contribute significantly
to violations in the neighboring state, because emissions from PGE
Boardman near the Washington border are over 3000 tons per year, we
have further evaluated the source. The State of Oregon modeled the area
surrounding the facility, and the details are summarized in Table 9.

               Table 9--Other States' Sources With DRR Modeling Located Within 50 km of Washington
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Modeled 99th
                                                 Approximate        Other          percentile
                                                Distance From     facilities    daily maximum 1-    Model grid
         DRR source            County (state)     Source to      included in        hour SO2       extends into
                                                 Washington        modeling      concentration    another state?
                                                 Border (km)                         (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PGE Boardman \26\...........  Morrow (OR)....              17  11 sources in    73 (based on     Yes, into WA
                                                                Oregon:          PTE emissions).  (portions of
                                                                Columbia Ridge                    Benton,
                                                                Landfill, PGE                     Klickitat and
                                                                Boardman Carty                    Yakima
                                                                Plant, ConAgra                    Counties, WA).
                                                                Foods Lamb
                                                                Weston, Inc.,
                                                                TMF Biofuels,
                                                                LLC, Hermiston
                                                                Power LLC,
                                                                Hermiston
                                                                Generating
                                                                Company,
                                                                Perennial-
                                                                Windchaser
                                                                LLC, Oregon
                                                                Potato
                                                                Company,
                                                                Finley
                                                                BioEnergy LLC,
                                                                Gas
                                                                Transmission
                                                                Northwest LLC,
                                                                Finley Buttes
                                                                Landfill.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State submitted the resulting model data to EPA and indicated
that Oregon found no modeled exceedances of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS within 50 km of the Boardman Plant. The State recommended EPA
designate the area around the Boardman Plant as unclassifiable/
attainment. EPA agreed and designated the entire State of Oregon
attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS (83 FR
1098, January 9, 2018).\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Technical Support Document: Chapter 34 Final Round 3
Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Oregon at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/34_or_so2_rd3-final.pdf.
    \27\ See 40 CFR 81.338.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, Oregon's SIP requires PGE Boardman to implement a
phased reduction of operation and cease coal-fired operation by
December 31, 2020. Based on this analysis, as well as the modeling
results for the area around the Boardman plant and the federally
enforceable emissions reductions planned for the facility, we propose
to concur with the State's conclusion that SO2 emissions
from sources in Washington will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in the area in Oregon
surrounding the PGE Boardman facility.
    This spatial analysis of point sources within 50 km of the
Washington border, including available modeling results, weighed along
with the other factors in this document, support EPA's proposed
conclusion that sources in Washington will not adversely impact air
quality so as to significantly contribute to

nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other
state. Furthermore, EPA does not have any evidence of any violations of
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the neighboring states to which
SO2 emissions from Washington could significantly
contribute.
    Based on our review of the Washington submission and our weight of
evidence analysis, we propose to conclude that sources in Washington
will not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in any other state, per the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

B. Prong 2 Evaluation

    Prong 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires an evaluation of
the potential impact of a state's emissions on areas in other states
that may have trouble attaining and maintaining the NAAQS in the
future. Approval of a SIP for prong 2 requires a conclusion that
SO2 emissions from the State's sources will not interfere
with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another
state.
    Our prong 2 evaluation for Washington builds on our analysis
regarding significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1).
Specifically, as explained in Section IV.A of this preamble, we have a
sufficient basis to conclude that there are no NAAQS violations in
other states near their shared borders with Washington (Idaho and
Oregon) and accordingly, we are proposing that sources in Washington
are not significantly contributing to a violation of the NAAQS in any
of those states. As explained in this section, we also have a
sufficient basis for concluding that SO2 emissions from
sources in Washington and other states near their shared borders are
highly unlikely to increase sufficiently to alter this situation.
Therefore, we are proposing to find that SO2 levels in
neighboring states (Idaho and Oregon) near the Washington border will
continue to be at or below the level of the SO2 NAAQS.
    As presented in Table 4 in Section IV.A of this preamble,
SO2 emissions from larger point sources in Washington have
decreased by approximately 30 percent between 2008 and 2017. This
information on point source SO2 emissions trends does not by
itself demonstrate that SO2 emissions in the near-border
areas in Washington and neighboring states will not impact neighboring
states. However, as a component of our weight of evidence analysis for
prong 2, it provides an indication that such an increase is unlikely.
    As described in the Washington Department of Ecology submission and
summarized in Section II of this preamble, there are multiple
provisions in the Washington SIP designed to control and limit
SO2 emissions from existing Washington sources. Future
stationary sources of SO2 emissions are subject to
Washington's SIP-approved pre-construction permitting program, also
known as New Source Review. New Source Review for major stationary
sources in areas designated nonattainment for the 2010 SO2
NAAQS is called nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) and requires
lowest achievable emission rates and offsets in accordance with the
SIP-approved NNSR program for Washington State. New Source Review for
major stationary sources in attainment and unclassifiable areas is
called Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and requires that
best available control technology be applied to any new major source or
major modification of a major source. Washington's SIP-approved PSD
program requires that new or modified major sources in attainment and
unclassifiable areas do not interfere with maintenance in any other
state, in accordance with federal regulations set forth in 40 CFR
51.165(b)(1). See 40 CFR 52.2497.
    Turning to minor sources, such sources are covered by the State's
SIP-approved minor new source review permitting program. In accordance
with 40 CFR 51.160 through 164, subject sources may not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. We note that the neighboring
states of Idaho and Oregon also have SIP-approved PSD and minor source
permitting programs. See 40 CFR 52.683 and 52.1987, respectively. The
permitting regulations contained within these programs are designed to
ensure that ambient concentrations of SO2 in the neighboring
states of Idaho or Oregon are not exceeded as a result of new facility
construction or modifications occurring in the near-border areas of
these states.
    In conclusion, for interstate transport prong 2, EPA has
incorporated additional information about emissions trends as well as
the technical information considered for interstate transport prong 1,
into our evaluation of Washington's submission, which did not include
an independent analysis of prong 2. We find that the large distances
between cross-state SO2 sources, combined with an overall
reduction in SO2 emissions from larger Washington sources
and SIP-approved measures designed to control and limit emissions from
SO2 sources in Washington, Idaho, and Oregon, taken along
with the other factors considered in this document support EPA's
proposed conclusion that there will be no interference with maintenance
of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in neighboring states from sources in
Washington. Based on our weight of evidence analysis, we propose to
conclude that sources in Washington will not interfere with maintenance
of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state, per the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

V. Proposed Action

    As discussed in Section III of this preamble, Washington concluded
that SO2 emissions from the State will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in any other state. EPA's analysis, discussed in
Section IV of this preamble, confirms this finding. Therefore, we are
proposing to approve the Washington SIP as meeting CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations.\28\ Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role
is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 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
proposed action:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because actions such as SIP approvals are
exempted 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, as 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, August 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 the requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; 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, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed action does not apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where 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 as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Sulfur dioxide, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: July 10, 2020.
Michelle Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2020-15399 Filed 7-24-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Table 4 Annual Respondent Burden and Cost  Average, Trading and Banking Program for Non Road Engine Manufacturers Hours and cost per application Total hours and cost Information Collection Activity Mgr./ engr/ tech @$ 75/ hr Cler. @

$ 38/ hr Respon.

hr/ yr Labor Cost / yr Capital Startup Cost O & M Cost( 1) Number of Respon. Total hr/ yr Total Cost/ yr Review of regs and guidance document( 2) 120 20 140 9,760 0 0 2 280 19,520 Other precertification activities 36 4 40 2,852 0 0 2 80 5,704 Submit AB & T info with cert application 9 2 11 751 0 0 15 165 11,265 Gather Information regardingpoint of first retail sale 155 24 179 12,537 0 0 15 2,685 188,055 Develop and submit endof year report 28 4 32 2,252 0 0 15 480 33,780 Develop and submit final reports 25 5 30 2,065 0 0 15 450 30,975 Recordkeeping( 3) 24 4 28 1,952 0 0 15 420 29,280 Total 397 63 460 32,169 0 0 15 4,560 318,579 Total for the industry N/ A N/ A N/ A 318,579 0 0 15 4,560 318,579 ( 1) There no O & M Costs associated to the AB & T program other than those already associated to certification ( See Table 3).

( 2) See section 6( b)( i) for details.

( 3) Numbers reflect one activity done four times a year.