spoil and construction of valley fills that will bury headwater
streams. Wildlife that live in those streams or within the footprint of
the valley fills will be buried. Other wildlife will lose important
habitat on which they depend for all or part of their lifecycles. The
streams and wildlife that will be buried cannot be viewed in a vacuum.
When those streams and wildlife are buried, there will be effects to
downstream waters and downstream wildlife caused by the removal of
functions performed by the buried resources and by transformation of
the buried areas into sources that may contribute pollutants to
downstream waters. In addition, the project could contribute to
conditions that would support blooms of golden algae that release
toxins that can kill fish and other aquatic life. There also will be an
effect from deforestation of the project site on terrestrial wildlife.
In addition, impacts from the project could contribute to cumulative
impacts from multiple surface mining activities in the Coal River sub-
basin.

VI. Other Considerations

A. Environmental Justice

    Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful
involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin,
or income with respect to the development, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. EPA has
this

goal for all communities and persons across this Nation. In this case
these goals are promoted through the requirement that all agencies of
the Federal government shall include an analysis of environmental
justice issues when considering the impacts related to the Spruce No. 1
project. Although the Spruce No. 1 Draft EIS contained some information
regarding environmental justice, EPA remains concerned that these
issues were not adequately addressed in the Final EIS.
    Spruce No. 1 is located in a Census block group where the per
capita income is roughly half that of the national average and $6,000
less than the West Virginia state average. Moreover, 24% of the
residents of Logan County live below the poverty line which also
exceeds state and national averages. Accordingly, additional analysis
of the potential for disproportionately high and adverse effects on
these low-income populations needs to be conducted.
    Specifically, a characterization of the economic status of
residents near the site and the conditions they face including any
effects relating to the proximity of the blasting zone, locations of
discharges of fill material, truck traffic, noise, fugitive dust, and
habitat loss needs to be conducted. Additional consideration must also
be given to these activities' potential impacts on subsistence fishing,
hunting, foraging and gardening in the area. Additional information is
needed concerning sources of drinking water for the affected
populations (including municipal water supplies and private sources of
drinking water including streams and/or wells).
    Furthermore, the cultural implications of mountaintop mining must
not be ignored. The mountains being affected by Spruce No. 1 are
considered a cultural resource by many residents. The mountains
influence residents' daily lives and in many cases have helped define
Appalachian society. Removing them may have profound cultural changes
on area residents, so it is important that cultural impacts be
considered as well.
    It is important that consideration be given as to whether these
impacts will range over a broad area or will be concentrated in
particular areas. Detailed maps outlining the residential areas in
relation to these activities may help in conducting this evaluation. It
is also important that the effects be considered both independently and
cumulatively. Considering the effects cumulatively provides the most
realistic ``snapshot'' of what the community will be facing when the
project reaches fruition. Having this information readily available
will help engage the affected communities during public outreach and
ensure that they can be meaningfully involved.

B. Cumulative Effects

    The Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines require that ``no
discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if it causes
or contributes, after consideration of disposal site dilution and
dispersion, to violation of any applicable State water quality
standard.'' In addition, the Guidelines prohibit any discharge of
dredged or fill material that would cause or contribute to significant
degradation of the aquatic ecosystem, with special emphasis placed on
the persistence and permanence of effects, both individually and
cumulatively. Cumulative impacts are ``the impact on the environment
which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to
other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions,
regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions.''
(40 CFR 1508.7) Individual adverse impacts from an action may be
insignificant individually, but may accumulate over time from one or
more origins and collectively result in significant adverse impacts
that degrade important natural resources. The cumulative impacts of a
particular action can be viewed as the total effects on natural
resources (including wildlife), socioeconomic resources, human health,
recreation, quality of life aspects, and cultural and historical
resources of that action and all other activities affecting those
resources, compounding the effects of all actions over time. Surface
mining of coal has the potential to cumulatively impact natural
resources, both aquatic and terrestrial. In the West Virginia portion
of the PEIS study area, the projected loss of riparian habitat from
MTM/VF is 30.72 km\2\, 3.2% of the baseline. Approximately 42% of these
projected losses occur in headwater (first and second-order) streams.
    As currently authorized, the Spruce No. 1 project is one of the
largest mountaintop mining projects authorized in West Virginia. The
project would directly impact nearly seven and one-half miles of
valuable headwater streams, and would indirectly impact Spruce Fork and
potentially other downstream waters in the Coal River Sub-basin. These
indirect impacts can include but are not limited to discharges of
pollutants from the valley fills, such as total dissolved solids (TDS)
and selenium and removal of freshwater dilution currently being
provided by Pigeonroost Branch and Oldhouse Branch.
    Spruce No. 1 project lies within the Little Coal River watershed
within the Coal River sub-basin. The Little Coal watershed contains 98
miles of impaired streams, representing 33% of the streams in the
watershed, and the Coal River sub-basin has 743 miles of impaired
streams, representing 30% of the streams in the sub-basin. Stream
segments are listed for selenium and biological impairment by WVDEP,
indicating that the relationship between mining and watershed quality
is strong.
    In addition to impacts from discharges and removal of riparian
habitat and sources of freshwater dilution, there also will be an
adverse effect from deforestation of the project site on terrestrial
wildlife. Approximately 2,278 acres of deciduous forest will be
destroyed by the Spruce No. 1 Mine. Forests like these in Appalachia
support some of the highest biodiversity in North America and are
unique in its expansiveness. In its natural condition, the Appalachian
landscape is dominated by interior forest. A decrease in forest cover
by mining followed by conversion to grasslands or other less valuable
land cover has the potential to shift the fauna of the region from that
found in intact, high elevation forests to one dominated by grassland
and edge dwelling species.
    Numerous studies have demonstrated that the region is losing
forest, especially ecologically valuable interior forest, at a
significant pace due largely to surface mining operations. Studies
conducted in connection with the PEIS concluded that surface mining had
deforested 1,540 km\2\ or 380,542 ac (3.4%) of the study area during
the 10 years between 1992 and 2002. An estimated 5,700 km\2\ or
1,408,500 ac (11.5%) of the PEIS study area was projected to be
deforested by 2012, an area 1.4 times the size of the state of Rhode
Island. A 3-fold increase has been shown in acres classified as
``surface mining/quarries/gravel pits indicating a degrading land-use
change at the expense of the natural condition of the area.
    Because of fragmentation of forests by mountaintop mining
activities, the area of interior forest lost was 1.75-5.0 times greater
than the direct forest lost between 1992 and 2001. Such an increase in
habitat fragmentation has the potential to isolate natural populations,
reduce population sizes, reduce gene flow, increase the risk of
extirpation or extinction of rare species, and increase the rate of
invasion by exotic species, especially plants. Fragmentation of the
terrestrial environment due to mining,

projected from land cover data in the West Virginia Gap Analysis
Program (GAP) and the permit rates observed during the 10 years
preceding the publication of the PEIS, indicates:
     40% increase in the number of isolated forest habitat
fragments
     41% decrease in the average size of habitat fragments from
24.64 to 14.3 acres
     2.7% increase in the amount of edge habitat, caused by
fragmentation of interior forests
    The Spruce No. 1 project will destroy approximately 2,278 acres of
functional deciduous forests replacing it with grasslands or other land
cover. According to WVDEP Division of Mining and Reclamation (DMR)
permit maps, within the Headwaters Spruce Fork sub-watershed, where
Spruce No. 1 is to be located, there are more than 34 past and present
surface mine permits issued which collectively occupy more than 33% of
the land area. From 1992 to 2009 forest coverage decreased from
approximately 73% to 61% and can be expected to decrease to 53% of the
sub-watershed in the reasonably foreseeable future. Additionally, other
sub-watersheds in the Coal River sub-basin have more than 55% of the
land occupied by surface mine permits.
    Within the Coal River sub-basin there are more than 257 past and
present surface mining permits issued which collectively occupy more
than 13% of the land area. Furthermore, EPA is aware of at least 11
additional mining operations either proposed or authorized but not
constructed in addition to Spruce No. 1 in the Coal River sub-basin.
The Spruce No. 1 proposal along with these 11 additional projects in
the Coal River Sub-basin, if constructed as proposed, would impact
approximately 29.4 miles of stream channels resulting in potential
impairment to more streams in the Coal River sub-basin.
    Trend analysis indicates mountaintop mining and valley fills as a
percentage of the land cover will continue to increase in the Coal
River sub-basin and forest area will continue to decrease as a result.
These 11 additional projects, if constructed, have not been assessed
and factored in the regulatory decision-making for Spruce No. 1 in
terms of their cumulative affects on water quality, aquatic, and forest
resources of the region. EPA believes that the Spruce No. 1 project, in
conjunction with the numerous other mining operations either under
construction or proposed for the Coal River sub-basin, will contribute
to the cumulative loss of water quality, aquatic and forest resources.
The Coal River sub-basin is already heavily mined and substantially
impaired. Landscape and site specific assessments reveal that past and
current mountaintop mining has caused substantial, irreplaceable loss
of resources and an irreversible effect on these resources within the
Coal River sub-basin.
    At the sub-basin level, surface mining of coal has the potential to
cumulatively impact natural resources, both aquatic and terrestrial,
and the number of mining operations, permitted or proposed, in the Coal
River watershed have the potential to have significant cumulative
effects on the aquatic ecosystem as described above. The cumulative
effects of these operations in the Coal River sub-basin and its
contributing watersheds have resulted in many miles of headwater stream
destruction, downstream water quality degradation, and the destruction
and fragmentation of many acres of productive and functional forests.
EPA believes these impacts have not been sufficiently acknowledged or
analyzed by the permittee or the Corps of Engineers for this project.
    Additional data from the PEIS's Landscape-Scale Cumulative Impact
Study modeled terrestrial impacts based on past surface mine permit
data. These data suggest that for the entire 22-year period from 1992
to 2013, the estimated forest clearing in the study area would be 1,189
square miles (761,000 acres). Should these forests not be adequately
restored, invaluable water quality and ecological services will be
permanently lost.
    Forest losses of this magnitude, although largely temporary (on the
scale of decades), are not inconsequential. In addition to the
popularly appreciated wildlife, recreational, and timber resources
associated with forest systems, many ecological services can be
attributed to forest systems. We are just beginning to understand and
assign value to these ecological services. For example, forests are
known to be natural areas of carbon sequestration. The cumulative loss
of 1,189 square miles of forest would conservatively equate to the loss
of 1.7M tons of carbon dioxide sequestration potential per year or the
equivalent of taking 300,000 cars off the road. Additionally, forests
dampen flooding potential and act as natural nutrient sinks. One study
estimates that forest cover of 1,189 square miles cumulatively provides
approximately $138 million in aquatic nutrient-cycling and waste
treatment services.

VII. Solicitation of Comments

    EPA today is soliciting comments on all issues discussed in this
notice. In particular, we request:
    (1) Additional information on the likely adverse impacts to fish
and values of the receiving waters that will be directly (Right Fork of
Seng Camp Creek, Pigeonroost Branch, Oldhouse Branch) or indirectly
affected (Spruce Fork, Little Coal River, Coal River) by the Spruce No.
1 Surface Mine as currently authorized in DA Permit No. 199800436-3
(Section 10: Coal River).
    (2) Additional information pertaining to the water quality, flora,
fauna and hydrology of the waters identified in no. 1 above, and
information on the fish and wildlife species which would be affected by
changes in the aquatic ecosystem if the project is constructed.
    (3) Additional information about drinking water (including
municipal water supplies and private sources of drinking water
including streams and/or wells).
    (4) Additional information about recreational uses of the project
area and how they would be impacted if the project were constructed.
    (5) Additional information on the potential for mitigation to
reduce the impacts of the project.
    (6) Additional information describing the known or potential
cumulative impacts to human health and the environment within the Coal
River sub-basin and the Spruce Fork sub-watershed.
    (7) Consistent with Executive Order 12898, information about low-
income and minority populations likely to be affected by the Spruce No.
1 Surface Mine and the disproportionately high adverse human health or
environmental effects, if any, on these populations if EPA makes a
final determination to rescind the proposed determination or to
prohibit or restrict the use of Seng Camp Creek, Pigeonroost Branch and
Oldhouse Branch as disposal sites for dredged or fill material in
connection with the project.
    (8) During the course of the past year, various techniques have
been identified to or by EPA as means by which impacts from this
project or other similar projects may be reduced to an acceptable
level. As indicated in EPA's letter dated October 16, 2009, EPA has not
ruled out the possibility that this project may be modified in a way
that will address the environmental impacts described herein.
Accordingly, in addition to the information sought in items 1-7 above,
EPA is seeking comment on potential techniques to reduce or mitigate
the environmental impacts described herein.

    (9) Whether the discharge should be permanently prohibited, allowed
as authorized by the Corps, or restricted in time, size or other
manner.
    All relevant data, studies, knowledge of studies, or informal
observations are appropriate.
    The record will remain open for comment until June 1, 2010. All
comments will be fully considered in reaching a decision to either
rescind the proposed determination or forward to EPA Headquarters a
recommended determination to prohibit or restrict the discharge of
dredged or fill material into Pigeonroost Branch and Oldhouse Branch in
connection with construction and operation of Spruce No. 1 Surface
Mine.

    Dated: March 26, 2010.
Shawn M. Garvin,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2010-7532 Filed 4-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 214 (Tuesday, November 5, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66279-66280]
[FR Doc No: 2013-26508]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9 and 721

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0399; FRL-9902-16]
RIN 2070-AB27

Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances; Removal
of Significant New Use Rules

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is removing significant new use rules (SNURs) promulgated
under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for chemical substances
identified as alkanes, C21-34--branched and linear, chloro; alkanes,
C22-30--branched and linear, chloro; and alkanes, C24-28, chloro, which
were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMNs) P-12-539, P-13-107,
and P-13-109, respectively. EPA published these SNURs using direct
final rulemaking procedures. EPA received a notice of intent to submit
adverse comments on the rules. Therefore, the Agency is removing these
SNURs, as required under the expedited SNUR rulemaking process. EPA
intends to publish in the near future proposed SNURs for these three
chemical substances under separate notice and comment procedures.

DATES: This final rule is effective November 5, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0399, is available at
http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the OPPT Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor
instructions and additional information about the docket available at
http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: Kenneth Moss, Chemical Control
Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does this action apply to me?

    A list of potentially affected entities is provided in the Federal
Register of August 7, 2013 (78 FR 48051) (FRL-9393-4). If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

II. What rules are being removed?

    In the Federal Register of August 7, 2013 (78 FR 48051), EPA issued
several direct final SNURs, including SNURs for the chemical substances
that are the subject of this removal. These direct final rules were
issued pursuant to the procedures in 40 CFR part 721, subpart D. In
accordance with Sec.  721.160(c)(3)(ii), EPA is removing the rules
issued for chemical substances identified as alkanes, C21-34--branched
and linear, chloro; alkanes, C22-30--branched and linear, chloro; and
alkanes, C24-28, chloro, which were the subject of PMNs P-12-539, P-13-
107, and P-13-109, respectively, because the Agency received a notice
of intent to submit adverse comments. EPA intends to publish proposed
SNURs for these chemical substances under separate notice and comment
procedures.
    For further information regarding EPA's expedited process for
issuing SNURs, interested parties are directed to 40 CFR part 721,
subpart D, and the Federal Register of July 27, 1989 (54 FR 31314). The
record for the direct final SNUR for the chemical substances that are
being removed was established at EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0399. That record
includes information considered by the Agency in developing this rule
and the notice of intent to submit adverse comments.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule revokes or eliminates an existing regulatory
requirement and does not contain any new or amended requirements. As
such, the Agency has determined that this removal will not have any
adverse impacts, economic or otherwise. The statutory and executive
order review requirements applicable to the direct final rule were
discussed in the Federal Register of August 7, 2013 (78 FR 48051).
Those review requirements do not apply to this action because it is a
removal and does not contain any new or amended requirements.

IV. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 9

    Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 721

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 28, 2013.
Maria J. Doa,
Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics.

    Therefore, 40 CFR parts 9 and 721 are amended as follows:

PART 9--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003,
2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318,

1321, 1326, 1330, 1342, 1344, 1345 (d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38
FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243,
246, 300f, 300g, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6,
300j-1, 300j-2, 300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k,
7401-7671q, 7542, 9601-9657, 11023, 11048.

Sec.  9.1  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  [emsp14]9.1, remove under the undesignated center heading
``Significant New Uses of Chemical Substances'' Sec. Sec.
[emsp14]721.10673, 721.10674, and 721.10675.

PART 721--[AMENDED]

0
3. The authority citation for part 721 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c).

Sec. Sec.  721.10673, 721.10674, and 721.10675   [Removed]

0
4. Remove Sec. Sec.  [emsp14]721.10673, 721.10674, and 721.10675.

[FR Doc. 2013-26508 Filed 11-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 16, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 220)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 69457-69464]
[DOCID:fr16no05-16]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP-2005-0270; FRL-7740-1]

Sulfosulfuron; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes time-limited tolerances for
combined residues of sulfosulfuron and its metabolites in or on
Bahiagrass, forage; Bahiagrass, hay; Bermudagrass, forage;
Bermudagrass, hay; milk; fat (of cattle, goat, horse and sheep); meat
(of cattle, goat, horse and sheep); and meat byproducts (of cattle,
goat, horse and sheep). This action is in response to EPA's granting of
emergency exemptions under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authorizing use of the pesticide
on Bahiagrass and Bermudagrass pastures and hayfields. This regulation
establishes maximum permissible levels for residues of sulfosulfuron in
these food commodities. The tolerances will expire and are revoked on
December 31, 2009.

DATES: This regulation is effective November 16, 2005. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before January 17, 2006.

ADDRESSES: To submit a written objection or hearing request follow the
detailed instructions as provided in Unit VII. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION. EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
identification (ID) number OPP-2005-0270. All documents in the docket
are listed in the EDOCKET index at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although

listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in EDOCKET or in hard copy at the Public Information and Records
Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 2, 1801 S.
Bell St., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Libby Pemberton, Registration Division
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111)
     Animal production (NAICS code 112)
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311)
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532)
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of This Document and Other
Related Information?

    In addition to using EDOCKET (http://www.epa.gov/edocket/), you may

access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA
Internet under the ``Federal Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
 A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180

is available on E-CFR Beta Site Two at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    EPA, on its own initiative, in accordance with sections 408(e) and
408 (l)(6) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a, is establishing a tolerance for combined residues of the
herbicide sulfosulfuron, [1-(4,6-dimethoxypyrimidin-2yl)-3-[(2-
ethanesulfonyl-imidazo[1,2-a]pyridine-3-yl)sulfonyl]urea and
metabolites converted to 2-(ethylsulfonyl)-imidazo[1,2-a]pyridine
(calculated as sulfosulfuron), in or on Bahiagrass, forage at 11 parts
per million (ppm); Bahiagrass, hay at 40 ppm; Bermudagrass, forage at
11 ppm; Bermudagrass, hay at 40 ppm; milk at 0.02 ppm; fat (of cattle,
goat, horse and sheep) at 0.04 ppm; meat (of cattle, goat, horse and
sheep) at 0.02 ppm; and meat byproducts (cattle, goat, horse and sheep)
at 0.50 ppm. These tolerances will expire and are revoked on December
31, 2009. EPA will publish a document in the Federal Register to remove
the revoked tolerances from the Code of Federal Regulations.
    Section 408(l)(6) of the FFDCA requires EPA to establish a time-
limited tolerance or exemption from the requirement for a tolerance for
pesticide chemical residues in food that will result from the use of a
pesticide under an emergency exemption granted by EPA under section 18
of FIFRA. Such tolerances can be established without providing notice
or period for public comment. EPA does not intend for its actions on
section 18 related tolerances to set binding precedents for the
application of section 408 of the FFDCA and the new safety standard to
other tolerances and exemptions. Section 408(e) of the FFDCA allows EPA
to establish a tolerance or an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance on its own initiative, i.e., without having received any
petition from an outside party.
    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is
a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of the FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and

children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. .
..''
    Section 18 of the FIFRA authorizes EPA to exempt any Federal or
State agency from any provision of FIFRA, if EPA determines that
``emergency conditions exist which require such exemption.'' This
provision was not amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996
(FQPA). EPA has established regulations governing such emergency
exemptions in 40 CFR part 166.

III. Emergency Exemption for Sulfosulfuron on Bahia and Bermudagrass
Pastures and Hayfields and FFDCA Tolerances

    Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and Oklahoma indicate
that, with the removal of imazapic from the hay and pasture market,
there is no available control for Johnsongrass in Bahiagrass and/or
Bermudagrass pasture and hayfields. Growers may experience significant
losses without sulfosulfuron to control Johnsongrass. Johnsongrass
reduces Bermudagrass hay quality and value. Additionally, under
stressful conditions such as drought, frost or trampling, Johnsongrass
may produce prussic acid which is toxic to livestock. Imazapic, the
herbicide previously used to control Johnsongrass, was removed from the
pasture and hay market in January 2004 resulting in the need for an
emergency replacement. EPA has authorized under FIFRA section 18 the
use of sulfosulfuron on Bahiagrass and Bermudagrass pasture and
hayfields for control of Johnsongrass in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Oklahoma. After having reviewed the submissions, EPA
concurs that emergency conditions exist for these States.
    As part of its assessment of this emergency exemption, EPA assessed
the potential risks presented by residues of sulfosulfuron in or on
forage and hay associated with both Bermudagrass and Bahiagrass, as
well as on various animal commodities for which residues may be
present. In doing so, EPA considered the safety standard in section
408(b)(2) of the FFDCA, and EPA decided that the necessary tolerances
under section 408(l)(6) of the FFDCA would be consistent with the
safety standard and with FIFRA section 18. Consistent with the need to
move quickly on the emergency exemptions in order to address an urgent
non-routine situation and to ensure that the resulting food is safe and
lawful, EPA is issuing these tolerances without notice and opportunity
for public comment as provided in section 408(l)(6) of the FFDCA.
Although these tolerances will expire and are revoked on December 31,
2009, under section 408(l)(5) of the FFDCA, residues of the pesticide
not in excess of the amounts specified in the tolerances remaining in
or on forage and hay associated with both Bermudagrass and Bahiagrass,
as well as on the various associated animal commodities after that date
will not be unlawful, provided the pesticide is applied in a manner
that was lawful under FIFRA, and the residues do not exceed a level
that was authorized by these tolerances at the time of that
application. EPA will take action to revoke these tolerances earlier if
any experience with, scientific data on, or other relevant information
on this pesticide indicate that the residues are not safe.
    Because these tolerances are being approved under emergency
conditions, EPA has not made any decisions about whether sulfosulfuron
meets EPA's registration requirements for use on Bermudagrass or
Bahiagrass or whether permanent tolerances for this use would be
appropriate. Under these circumstances, EPA does not believe that these
tolerances serve as a basis for registration of sulfosulfuron by a
State for special local needs under FIFRA section 24(c). Nor do these
tolerances serve as the basis for any State other than Alabama,
Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Oklahoma to use this pesticide on
these crops under section 18 of FIFRA without following all provisions
of EPA's regulations implementing FIFRA section 18 as identified in 40
CFR part 166. For additional information regarding the emergency
exemption for sulfosulfuron, contact the Agency's Registration Division
at the address provided under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the
regulatory requirements of section 408 of the FFDCA and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see the final rule on
Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997) (FRL-
5754-7).
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of the FFDCA, EPA has reviewed
the available scientific data and other relevant information in support
of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of
sulfosulfuron and to make a determination on aggregate exposure,
consistent with section 408(b)(2) of the FFDCA, for time-limited
tolerances for combined residues of sulfosulfuron and its metabolites
(calculated as sulfosulfuron) in or on Bahiagrass, forage at 11 ppm;
Bahiagrass, hay at 40 ppm; Bermudagrass, forage at 11 ppm;
Bermudagrass, hay at 40 ppm; milk at 0.02 ppm; fat (of cattle, goat,
horse and sheep) at 0.04 ppm; meat (of cattle, goat, horse and sheep)
at 0.02 ppm; and meat byproducts (cattle, goat, horse and sheep) at
0.50 ppm. EPA's assessment of the dietary exposures and risks
associated with establishing these tolerances follows.

A. Toxicological Endpoints

    The dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) from
the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in risk
assessment is used to estimate the toxicological endpoint. However, the
lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the
LOAEL) is sometimes used for risk assessment if no NOAEL was achieved
in the toxicology study selected. An uncertainty factor (UF) is applied
to reflect uncertainties inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory
animal data to humans and in the variations in sensitivity among
members of the human population as well as other unknowns. An UF of 100
is routinely used, 10X to account for interspecies differences and 10X
for intraspecies differences.
    For dietary risk assessment (other than cancer) the Agency uses the
UF to calculate an acute or chronic reference dose (acute RfD or
chronic RfD) where the RfD is equal to the NOAEL divided by the
appropriate UF (RfD = NOAEL/UF). Where an additional safety factor is
retained due to concerns unique to the FQPA, this additional factor is
applied to the RfD by dividing the RfD by such additional factor. The
acute or chronic Population Adjusted Dose (aPAD or cPAD) is a
modification of the RfD to accommodate this type of FQPA SF.
    For non-dietary risk assessments (other than cancer) the UF is used
to determine the level of concern (LOC). For example, when 100 is the
appropriate UF (10X to account for interspecies differences and 10X for
intraspecies differences) the LOC is 100. To estimate risk, a ratio of
the NOAEL to exposures (margin of exposure (MOE) = NOAEL/exposure) is
calculated and compared to the LOC.
    The linear default risk methodology (Q*) is the primary method
currently used by the Agency to quantify carcinogenic risk. The Q*
approach assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree
of cancer risk. A Q* is calculated and used to estimate risk which
represents a probability of occurrence of additional cancer cases

(e.g., risk is expressed as 1 x 10-6 or one in a million).
Under certain specific circumstances, MOE calculations will be used for
the carcinogenic risk assessment. In this non-linear approach, a
``point of departure'' is identified below which carcinogenic effects
are not expected. The point of departure is typically a NOAEL based on
an endpoint related to cancer effects though it may be a different
value derived from the dose response curve. To estimate risk, a ratio
of the point of departure to exposure (MOEcancer = point of
departure/exposures) is calculated. A summary of the toxicological
endpoints for sulfosulfuron used for human risk assessment is shown in
the following Table 1:

    Table 1.--Summary of Toxicological Dose and Endpoints for Sulfosulfuron for Use in Human Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Hazard and Exposure
          Exposure Scenario               Dose Used in Risk        Based Special FQPA    Study and Toxicological
                                            Assessment, UF           Safety Factor               Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute Dietary; all populations         A dose and endpoint was  NA                       NA
                                        not selected for acute
                                        dietary risk
                                        assessment because
                                        there were no effects
                                        attributable to a
                                        single dose (exposure)
                                        in the oral toxicology
                                        studies including
                                        developmental toxicity
                                        studies in the rat and
                                        the rabbit and an
                                        acute neurotoxicity
                                        study in the rat.
--------------------------------------
Chronic Dietary all populations        NOAEL= 24 mg/kg/day      FQPA SF = 1              Chronic toxicity/
                                       UF\1\ = 100............  cPAD = cRfD / FQPA SF..   carcinogenicity - rat;
                                       Chronic RfD = 0.24 mg/   cPAD = 0.24 mg/kg/day..  LOAEL = 244.2 mg/kg/day
                                        kg/day.                                           based on urinary tract
                                                                                pathology,abnormal
                                                                                cyrtals and urinary
                                                                                calculi (both sexes);
                                                                                mineraliztion in
                                                                                heart, lung, pancreas,
                                                                                and skeletal muscles
                                                                                (male)
--------------------------------------
Short-,Intermediate- Long-Term Dermal  No dermal or systemic    NA                       NA
                                        toxicity was seen
                                        following repeated
                                        dermal application at
                                        the limit dose in a 21-
                                        day dermal toxicity
                                        study in rats.
                                        Therefore, this risk
                                        assessment is not
                                        required.
--------------------------------------
Inhalation (Any time period)           Based on the low acute   NA                       NA
                                        inhalation toxicity
                                        (Category IV; no
                                        mortality at 3 mg/L),
                                        the formulation of the
                                        product as wettable
                                        granules, and the low
                                        application rates for
                                        the proposed use
                                        patterns ranging from
                                        25 - 70 g a.i./hectare
                                        (10-28 g a.i./acre),
                                        there is minimal
                                        concern for potential
                                        inhalation exposure
                                        and risk. Therefore, a
                                        separate inhalation
                                        risk assessment is not
                                        required.
--------------------------------------
Cancer                                 Likely human carcinogen  NA                       NA
                                        - Q1* = 1.03 x 10-3
                                        (mg/kg/day) -1 in
                                        human equivalents
                                        (converted from
                                        animals to humans by
                                        use of the BW3/4's
                                        scaling factor)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ uncertainty factor; 10x for intraspecies variation and 10x for interspecies variation
* The reference to the FQPA SF refers to any additional SF retained due to concerns unique to the FQPA.

B. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. Tolerances have been
established (40 CFR 180.552) for the combined residues of
sulfosulfuron, in or on wheat grain, forage, hay, staw and related milk
and meat commodities. Risk assessments were conducted by EPA to assess
dietary exposures from sulfosulfuron in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Acute dietary risk assessments are performed for
a food-use pesticide if a toxicological study has indicated the
possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a one day
or single exposure. As summarized in Table 1 (above), EPA's review has
concluded that sulfosulfuron has low acute oral, dermal, and inhalation
toxicity. It is non-irritating to skin and slightly irritating to eyes.
It is not a skin sensitizer. EPA has not selected toxicity endpoints
for acute exposure reflecting the low hazard associated with acute
exposure to this chemical.
    ii. Chronic exposure and cancer assessement. Chronic and cancer
dietary risk assessments were conducted using LifelineTM
(ver. 2.00) and the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model - Food
Consumption Intake Database (DEEM-FCIDTM, ver. 1.30) models.
Both of these models use food consumption data from the USDA's
Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII); 1994-1996
and 1998).
    The chronic and cancer analyses assumed tolerance level residues,
100% crop treated, and DEEMTM (ver. 7.76) default processing
factors. The LifelineTM chronic exposure estimates were <1%
cPAD for all population subgroups (therefore less than EPA's level of
concern). The LifelineTM lifetime cancer risk for the U.S.
population is 2.0 x 10-7 (therefore less than EPA's level of
concern for the general U.S. population). DEEM-FCIDTM
resulted in chronic (< 1% cPAD; children 1-2 years old were the most
highly exposed subgroup) and cancer

(2.1 x 10-7) exposure estimates similar to
LifelineTM.
    In accordance with the Agency's Proposed Guidelines for
Carcinogenic Risk Assessment (April 10, 1996), EPA has classified
sulfosulfuron as a likely human carcinogen. The weight-of-evidence for
this classification includes: (1) Occurrence of rare transitional cell
papilloma (benign tumors) and carcinoma of the urinary bladder in
female rats; (2) occurrence of rare benign mesenchymal tumors of the
urinary bladder in high dose male as well as renal adenomas in female
and possibly male mice, and (3) the relevancy of the observed tumors to
human exposure.
    EPA utilizes a linear low-dose approach (Q1*) for human risk
characterization and extrapolation of risk should be based on the
incidence of benign mesenchymal tumors in male mice. The rat
transitional cell tumors and mouse renal adenomas were not used because
of their low incidence. This extrapolation, rather than an MOE
approach, is supported by the lack of sufficient data to characterize
the mechanism of carcinogenicity. The unit risk, Q1* (in milligrams/
kilograms/day) (mg/kg/day)-1 of sulfosulfuron based upon
male mouse urinary bladder mesenchymal tumor rates is 1.03 x
10-3 (mg/kg/day)-1 in human equivalents.
    iii. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT)
information. EPA did not use PCT information in this assessment. As
stated above, EPA has performed a conservative assessment utilizing an
assumption of 100% crop treated, and 100% tolerance levels detected,
for the associated commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency lacks
sufficient monitoring exposure data to complete a comprehensive dietary
exposure analysis and risk assessment for sulfosulfuron in drinking
water. Because the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data,
drinking water concentration estimates are made by reliance on
simulation or modeling taking into account data on the physical
characteristics of sulfosulfuron.
    The Agency uses the Generic Estimated Environmental Concentration
(GENEEC)or the Pesticide Root Zone/Exposure Analysis Modeling System
(PRZM/EXAMS) to estimate pesticide concentrations in surface water and
Screening Concentrations in Groundwater (SCI-GROW), which predicts
pesticide concentrations in ground water. In general, EPA will use
GENEEC (a Tier 1 model) before using PRZM/EXAMS (a Tier 2 model) for a
screening-level assessment for surface water. The GENEEC model is a
subset of the PRZM/EXAMS model that uses a specific high-end runoff
scenario for pesticides. GENEEC incorporates a farm pond scenario,
while PRZM/EXAMS incorporate an index reservoir environment in place of
the previous pond scenario. The PRZM/EXAMS model includes a percent
crop area factor as an adjustment to account for the maximum percent
crop coverage within a watershed or drainage basin.
    None of these models include consideration of the impact processing
(mixing, dilution, or treatment) of raw water for distribution as
drinking water would likely have on the removal of pesticides from the
source water. The primary use of these models by the Agency at this
stage is to provide a coarse screen for sorting out pesticides for
which it is highly unlikely that drinking water concentrations would
ever exceed human health levels of concern.
    Since the models used are considered to be screening tools in the
risk assessment process, the Agency does not use estimated
environmental concentrations (EECs) from these models to quantify
drinking water exposure and risk as a %RfD or %PAD. Instead, drinking
water levels of comparison (DWLOCs) are calculated and used as a point
of comparison against the model estimates of a pesticide's
concentration in water. DWLOCs are theoretical upper limits on a
pesticide's concentration in drinking water in light of total aggregate
exposure to a pesticide in food, and from residential uses. Since
DWLOCs address total aggregate exposure to sulfosulfuron they are
further discussed in the aggregate risk sections below.
    Based on the GENEEC and SCI-GROW models the EECs of sulfosulfuron
for acute exposures are estimated to be 0.66 parts per billion (ppb)
for surface water and 1.9 ppb for ground water. The EECs for chronic
exposures are estimated to be 1.73 ppb for surface water and 0.295 ppb
for ground water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    There are no residential uses of sulfosulfuron that are expected to
result in residential handler exposure. However, the commercial use of
sulfosulfuron on residential and recreational turf may lead to post
application exposure in individuals. EPA has performed a cancer risk
assessment for adults and children based on post application
residential exposure.
    Cancer risk for residential adults was calculated based on high and
low activity. For high-exposure activity, a Transfer Coefficient (Tc)
of 1,000 cm2/hr (1 hr) was used and for low-exposure
activity, a Tc of 500 cm2/hr (1 hr) was used.
    EPA built several conservative assumptions into the assessment of
residential cancer risk. These include using 50 years of exposure and
an estimated 20% (default) of dislodgeable foliar residues (DFR) from
the turf, which is derived from the maximum application rate. An
average of 14 days of DFRs was used for this cancer assessment; this
would be considered a 10% decrease each day (from dilution by rain, and
mowing of the grass) of the 20% residue for at least 14 days, and then
taking the mean value of this 14-day exposure.
    The Lifetime Average Daily Dose (LADD) = 6.0 x 10-5 mg/
kg/day for a Tc =1,000 cm2/hr (high-exposure activity for 1
hour) and for a Tc = 500 cm2/hr (low-exposure activity for 1
hour) is equal to 3.0 x 10-5 mg/kg/day.
    The estimated cancer risk for adults on day zero, based on high-
exposure activity for 1 hour (Tc =1,000 cm2/hr) is estimated
to be 1.2 x 10-7. For low-exposure activity (Tc = 500
cm2/hr), the risk is estimated to be 6.0 x 10-8.
    Although it is likely that toddlers would also be exposed to
sulfosulfuron from incidental ingestion of grass, soil, or hand-to-
mouth transfer, no relevant oral toxicological endpoints have been
identified by EPA. Therefore, to address the short-term residential
risk to children from incidental exposure, for the purposes of this
assessment only, EPA used the NOAEL of 24mg/kg/day from the combined
chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study in rats. This NOAEL is
considered conservative and health protective for this assessment
because it represents the lowest NOAEL in the most sensitive species
(the basis for the cRfD).
    Postapplication inhalation exposure is considered to be negligible.
However, non-dietary, incidental ingestion of residues from treated
turfgrass and ingestion of contaminated soil are possible.
    As a conservative measure, the exposure and risk estimates for four
residential exposure scenarios are assessed for the day of application
(day zero) because it is assumed that toddlers could contact the lawn
immediately after application. Chronic exposure is not expected (i.e.,
these activities are

not expected to occur continuously for more than 30 days).
    Children's estimated risk from oral hand-to-mouth activities on
treated lawns is estimated to result in a short-term MOE of 1,700.
Children's estimated risk from oral object-to-mouth (turfgrass) from
treated lawns is estimated to result in a short-term MOE of 6,800.
Children's estimated risk from incidental ingestion of soil from
treated lawns is estimated to result in a short-term MOE of 510,000.
Since short-term MOEs are above 100, they do not exceed EPA's level of
concern. Chronic or long-term exposure is not expected.
    While considered unlikely, if a toddler were to experience exposure
from all of these sources at the same time, the combined incidental
oral exposure would be 0.018 mg/kg/day. This combined exposure results
in an estimated MOE of 1,400, which does not exceed EPA's level of
concern.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative
risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made
a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to sulfosulfuron and any
other substances and sulfosulfuron does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that sulfosulfuron has
a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information
regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common
mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such
chemicals, see the policy statements released by EPA's Office of
Pesticide Programs concerning common mechanism determinations and
procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a
common mechanism on EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/
.

C. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408 of the FFDCA provides that EPA shall
apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children
in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the data base on toxicity and exposure
unless EPA determines that a different margin of safety will be safe
for infants and children. Margins of safety are incorporated into EPA
risk assessments either directly through use of a MOE analysis or
through using uncertainty (safety) factors in calculating a dose level
that poses no appreciable risk to humans.
    2. Developmental reproductive toxicity studies. The results of the
2-generation reproduction and developmental toxicity studies indicated
that sulfosulfuron is not a developmental or reproductive toxicant. The
acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies showed that sulfosulfuron is
not neurotoxic. Sulfosulfuron is rapidly excreted, primarily
unmetabolized. Excretion at low dose occurred primarily in the urine,
whereas at high dose, a large percentage of the administered dose was
excreted in the feces. Sulfosulfuron was not retained in tissues to any
significant extent.
    3. Conclusion. There is a complete toxicity data base for
sulfosulfuron and exposure data are complete or are estimated based on
data that reasonably accounts for potential exposures. EPA has
determined that the 10X safety factor to protect infants and children
should be removed. The FQPA factor is removed because the developmental
and reproductive toxicity data did not indicate increased
susceptibility of rats or rabbits to in utero and/or postnatal
exposure. Any detectable residues in food or drinking water would be
expected at low levels since application rates are low. There are
currently no registered homeowner uses for sulfosulfuron. Finally,
concern for post-application exposure to infants and children from
commercial application of the pesticide is tempered by the low acute
oral, dermal, and inhalation toxicity of this pesticide.

D. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    To estimate total aggregate exposure to a pesticide from food,
drinking water, and residential uses, the Agency calculates DWLOCs
which are used as a point of comparison against the model estimates of
a pesticide's concentration in water (EECs). DWLOC values are not
regulatory standards for drinking water. DWLOCs are theoretical upper
limits on a pesticide's concentration in drinking water in light of
total aggregate exposure to a pesticide in food and residential uses.
In calculating a DWLOC, the Agency determines how much of the
acceptable exposure (i.e., the PAD) is available for exposure through
drinking water (e.g., allowable chronic water exposure (mg/kg/day)) =
cPAD - (average food + chronic non-dietary, non-occupational exposure).
This allowable exposure through drinking water is used to calculate a
DWLOC.
    A DWLOC will vary depending on the toxic endpoint, drinking water
consumption, and body weights. Default body weights and consumption
values as used by EPA's Office of Water are used to calculate DWLOCs: 2
liter (L)/70 kg (adult male), 2L/60 kg (adult female), and 1L/10 kg
(child). Default body weights and drinking water consumption values
vary on an individual basis. This variation will be taken into account
in more refined screening-level and quantitative drinking water
exposure assessments. Different populations will have different DWLOCs.
Generally, a DWLOC is calculated for each type of risk assessment used:
Acute, short-term, intermediate-term, chronic, and cancer.
    When EECs for surface water and ground water are less than the
calculated DWLOCs, EPA concludes with reasonable certainty that
exposures to sulfosulfuron in drinking water (when considered along
with other sources of exposure for which EPA has reliable data) would
not result in unacceptable levels of aggregate human health risk at
this time. Because EPA considers the aggregate risk resulting from
multiple exposure pathways associated with a pesticide's uses, levels
of comparison in drinking water may vary as those uses change. If new
uses are added in the future, EPA will reassess the potential impacts
of sulfosulfuron on drinking water as a part of the aggregate risk
assessment process.
    1. Acute risk. As discussed earlier, sulfosulfuron has low acute
oral, dermal, and inhalation toxicity. It is non-irritating to skin,
slightly irritating to eyes and is not a skin sensitizer. Endpoints for
risk assessment through exposure via the acute dietary, dermal,
inhalation and incidental oral routes were not identified; therefore,
acute, short- and intermediate-term dermal and inhalation risk were not
concerns.
    2. Chronic risk. Chronic and cancer aggregate risk assessments were
performed for adults, while short-term and chronic aggregate risk
assessments were performed for children. Using the exposure assumptions
described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that
exposure to sulfosulfuron from food will utilize < 1% of the cPAD for
all population subgroups, including infants and children, young
children, young adults, females of childbearing age and for the overall
U.S. population. Based the use

pattern, chronic residential exposure to residues of sulfosulfuron is
not expected. In addition, despite the potential for chronic dietary
exposure to sulfosulfuron in drinking water, after calculating DWLOCs
and comparing them to conservative model EECs of sulfosulfuron in
surface water and ground water, EPA does not expect the aggregate
exposure to exceed 100% of the cPAD, as shown in the following Table 2:

             Table 2.--Aggregate Risk Assessment for Chronic (Non- Cancer) Exposure to Sulfosulfuron
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Chronic    Max Chronic     Ground      Surface
                                    cPAD (mg/kg/     Food        Water        Water        Water       Chronic
            Population                  day)       Exposure   Exposure\1\     EEC\2\       EEC\2\      DWLOC\3\
                                                 (mg/kg/day)  (mg/kg/day)     (ppb)        (ppb)        (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General U.S. population                      NA     0.000206         0.24           NA           NA        8,400
-----------------------------------
NA                                         0.24           NA           NA        0.295         1.73           NA
-----------------------------------
All infants (< 1 year old)                    NA     0.000286         0.24           NA           NA        2,400
-----------------------------------
Children (1-2 years old)                     NA     0.000900         0.24           NA           NA        2,400
-----------------------------------
Children (3-5 years old)                     NA     0.000636         0.24           NA           NA        2,400
-----------------------------------
Children (6-12 years old)                    NA     0.000387         0.24           NA           NA        2,400
-----------------------------------
Youth (13-19 years old)                      NA     0.000182         0.24           NA           NA        7,200
-----------------------------------
Adults (20-49 years old)                     NA     0.000124         0.24           NA           NA        8,400
-----------------------------------
Adults (50 + years old)                      NA     0.000114         0.24           NA           NA        8,400
-----------------------------------
Females (13-49 years old)                    NA     0.000123         0.24           NA           NA        7,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Maximum chronic water exposure (mg/kg/day) = cPAD (mg/kg/day) - chronic food exposure from DEEM (mg/kg/day);
  no res. exp.
\2\ FIRST and SCI-GROW modeling EECs (Tier 1)
\3\ DWLOC([mu]g/L) = (allowable water exposure (mg/kg/day) x body weight (kg) x 1,000 [mu]g/mg) / (water
  consumption (liters))

    3. Short-term risk. The short-term aggregate risk takes into
account the exposure from potential residential sources in addition to
average dietary residues from food and drinking water. The short-term
aggregate risk assessment was performed for children only, since an
endpoint for dermal risk assessment was not identified. The resulting
short-term DWLOC is 2,200 ppb and is not of concern because it exceeds
the EECs for sulfosulfuron. Short-term aggregate risks are presented in
the following Table 3:

                                               Table 3.--Short-Term Aggregate Risk and DWLOC Calculations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Short-Term Scenario
                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Average                  Aggregate   Allowable                          Short-
              Population               NOAEL mg/    Target      Max        Food    Residential    MOE (food     Water      Ground    Surface      Term
                                         kg/day      MOE      Exposure   Exposure  Exposure mg/      and       Exposure  Water EEC  Water EEC    DWLOC
                                                             mg/kg/day  mg/kg/day     kg/day    residential)  mg/kg/day    (ppb)      (ppb)      (ppb)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child                                         24        100       0.24    0.00090       0.018         1,270    0.221100      0.295       1.73      2,200
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account non-dietary, non-occupational exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). Although residential exposure could occur with the use of
sulfosulfuron, no toxicological effects have been identified for
intermediate-term toxicity. Therefore, the aggregate risk is the sum of
the risk from food and water, which were previously addressed.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. The cancer aggregate
risk assessment considered exposure from food, water and residential
sources. EPA performs cancer assessments for only the general U.S.
population. The cancer dietary analyses assumed tolerance level
residues, 100% crop treated, and DEEM default processing factors. The
Lifeline\TM\ lifetime cancer risk for the U.S. population is 2.0 x
10-7 and is therefore less than EPA's level of concern.
Residential cancer risk was estimated for adults only. The aggregate
cancer risk DWLOC of 25 ppb exceeds EECs for sulfosulfuron and does not
result in a concern.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, and to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to sulfosulfuron residues.

V. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (example--gas chromatography) is
available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be
requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental
Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

B. International Residue Limits

    There is neither a Codex proposal, nor Canadian or Mexican maximum
residue limits, for residues of sulfosulfuron in or on grasses.
Therefore, harmonization is not an issue for this tolerance action.

C. Conditions

    No conditions are placed on these time-limited tolerances.

VI. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for combined residues of
sulfosulfuron, 1-(4,6-dimethoxypyrimidin-2yl)-3-[(2-ethanesulfonyl-
imidazo[1,2-a]pyridine-3-yl)sulfonyl]urea and metabolites converted to
2-(ethylsulfonyl)-imidazo[1,2-a]pyridine (calculated as sulfosulfuron),
in or on Bermudagrass, forage at 11 ppm; Bermudagrass, hay at 40 ppm;
Bahiagrass, forage at 11 ppm; Bahiagrass, hay at 40 ppm; milk at 0.02
ppm; fat (of cattle, goat, horse and sheep) at 0.04 ppm; meat (of
cattle, goat, horse and sheep) at 0.02 ppm; and meat byproducts
(cattle, goat, horse and sheep) at 0.50 ppm.

VII. Objections and Hearing Requests

    Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any
person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may
also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural
regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for
hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. Although the procedures in those
regulations require some modification to reflect the amendments made to
the FFDCA by the FQPA, EPA will continue to use those procedures, with
appropriate adjustments, until the necessary modifications can be made.
The new section 408(g) of the FFDCA provides essentially the same
process for persons to ``object'' to a regulation for an exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance issued by EPA under new section 408(d)
of the FFDCA, as was provided in the old sections 408 and 409 of the
FFDCA. However, the period for filing objections is now 60 days, rather
than 30 days.

A. What Do I Need to Do to File an Objection or Request a Hearing?

    You must file your objection or request a hearing on this
regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit
and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number OPP-2005-0270 in the subject line on the
first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and
must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before January
17, 2006.
    1. Filing the request. Your objection must specify the specific
provisions in the regulation that you object to, and the grounds for
the objections (40 CFR 178.25). If a hearing is requested, the
objections must include a statement of the factual issue(s) on which a
hearing is requested, the requestor's contentions on such issues, and a
summary of any evidence relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27).
Information submitted in connection with an objection or hearing
request may be claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that
information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except
in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the
information that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion
in the public record. Information not marked confidential may be
disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice.
    Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk (1900L),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001. You may also deliver your request to the
Office of the Hearing Clerk in Suite 350, 1099 14\th\ St., NW.,
Washington, DC 20005. The Office of the Hearing Clerk is open from 8
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Office of the Hearing Clerk is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2.Copies for the Docket. In addition to filing an objection or
hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in Unit VII.A.1.,
you should also send a copy of your request to the PIRIB for its
inclusion in the official record that is described in ADDRESSES. Mail
your copies, identified by the docket ID number OPP-2005-0270, to:
Public Information and Records Integrity Branch, Information Technology
and Resource Management Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001. In person or by courier, bring a copy to the
location of the PIRIB described in ADDRESSES. You may also send an
electronic copy of your request via e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Please use an ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters
and any form of encryption. Copies of electronic objections and hearing
requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII
file format. Do not include any CBI in your electronic copy. You may
also submit an electronic copy of your request at many Federal
Depository Libraries.

B. When Will the Agency Grant a Request for a Hearing?

    A request for a hearing will be granted if the Administrator
determines that the material submitted shows the following: There is a
genuine and substantial issue of fact; there is a reasonable
possibility that available evidence identified by the requestor would,
if established resolve one or more of such issues in favor of the
requestor, taking into account uncontested claims or facts to the
contrary; and resolution of the factual issue(s) in the manner sought
by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested (40
CFR 178.32).

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes time-limited tolerances under section
408 of the FFDCA. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order
12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993). Because this rule has been exempted from review under Executive
Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this rule is not subject
to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001). This final rule does not contain any information
collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose any enforceable duty or
contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). Nor
does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898,
entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994);
or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045,
entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not
involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration
of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA),
Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Since
tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a FIFRA
section 18 exemption under section 408 of the FFDCA, such as the
tolerances in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a
proposed rule, the

requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply. In addition, the Agency has determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' This final rule directly regulates growers, food
processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States. This action
does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of the FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency
has determined that this rule does not have any ``tribal implications''
as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6,
2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in
the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.''
``Policies that have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive
Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.''
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal
governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this rule.

IX. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. This final
rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 7, 2005.
Donald R. Stubbs,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--AMENDED

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. Section 180.552 is amended by adding text to paragraph (b) to read
as follows:

Sec.  180.552  Sulfosulfuron; pesticide tolerances.

     * * * * *
    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. Time-limited tolerances are
established for the combined residues of the herbicide sulfosulfuron,
1-(4,6-dimethoxypyrimidin-2-yl)-3-[(2-ethanesulfonyl-imidazo[1,2-
a]pyridine-3-yl)sulfonyl]urea and metabolites converted to 2-
(ethylsulfonyl)-imidazo[1,2-a]pyridine (calculated as sulfosulfuron) in
connection with use of the pesticide under section 18 emergency
exemptions granted by EPA. The tolerances are specified in the
following table. The tolerances will expire on the dates specified in
the table.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Expiration/
                   Commodity                     Parts per    revocation
                                                  million        date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bahiagrass, forage............................           11     12/31/09
Bahiagrass, hay...............................           40     12/31/09
Bermudagrass, forage..........................           11     12/31/09
Bermudagrass, hay.............................           40     12/31/09
Cattle, fat...................................         0.04     12/31/09
Cattle, meat..................................         0.02     12/31/09
Cattle, meat byproducts.......................         0.50     12/31/09
Goat, fat.....................................         0.04     12/31/09
Goat, meat....................................         0.02     12/31/09
Goat, meat byproducts.........................         0.50     12/31/09
Horse, fat....................................         0.04     12/31/09
Horse, meat...................................         0.02     12/31/09
Horse, meat byproducts........................         0.50     12/31/09
Milk..........................................         0.02     12/31/09
Sheep, fat....................................         0.04     12/31/09
Sheep, meat...................................         0.02     12/31/09
Sheep, meat byproducts........................         0.50     12/31/09
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 05-22699 Filed 11-15-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S