EPA evaluated the interstate ozone contributions in terms of three contribution factors: 1) the magnitude of contribution; 2) the frequency of contribution; and 3) the relative amount of contribution. For each factor, EPA calculated metrics to quantify the contributions to ozone nonattainment The relative amount of the contribution is used to compare the total ozone contributed by the upwind State to the total amount of nonattainment ozone in the downwind area. The source apportionment metric for the relative amount factor is the total average contribution to exceedance ozone in the downwind area ( aka average percent There are three parts to the calculation of the average percent of nonattainment metric. In step 1, the ozone values for each of the exceedance periods in a particular downwind area ( e. g., Fulton Co.) are summed over the three episodes ( rounded to nearest integer). In step 2, the total ozone from the previous step that is due to anthropogenic sources is calculated based on the source apportionment results ( rounded to neasrest integer). In step 3, the contributions from a given source region to this downwind area are summed over the exceedance periods ( rounded to one decimal place). The total contribution calculated in step 3 is then divided by the total nonattainment ozone resulting from manmade sources in step 2 to determine the fraction of ozone that is due to The worksheet entitled Fulton Co. contains the results of this calculation & each of its pre final steps. The value from Step 1 is provided in cell B2. The value from Step 2 is provided in cell B3. The values for Step 3 are provided for each upwind State in column B. The final value for this metric is shown in column E ( though the For more information on the process of determining interstate ozone contributions, see the CAIR air quality modeling technical support document. Please direct any additional questions re: these data to Pat Dolwick at Receptor Area = Fulton Total ppb = 120511 Anthro ppb = 96067 # Values = 1240 Source Area total ppb contributed % of total anthro ( 1 decimal) % of total anthro ( rounded to nearest integer) GA 72983.7 76.0 76 TN 3829.6 4.0 4 AL 3790.0 3.9 4 KY 2431.3 2.5 3 SC 1917.6 2.0 2 NC 1435.9 1.5 2 TX 1138.4 1.2 1 IL 948.7 1.0 1 MO 913.7 1.0 1 AK 874.3 0.9 1 IN 858.7 0.9 1 FL 781.0 0.8 1 OH 710.5 0.7 1 OK 613.1 0.6 1 VI 524.7 0.5 1 WV 507.1 0.5 1 MS 467.7 0.5 1 PA 322.7 0.3 0 LA 243.7 0.3 0 KA 204.5 0.2 0 MD 111.6 0.1 0 IA 104.9 0.1 0 NY 90.5 0.1 0 NJ 47.1 0.0 0 MI 40.7 0.0 0 WI 39.0 0.0 0 CN 33.4 0.0 0 NE 20.0 0.0 0 MA 17.6 0.0 0 DE 16.5 0.0 0 CT 15.2 0.0 0 MN 9.2 0.0 0 GM 5.8 0.0 0 SD 5.7 0.0 0 RI 5.0 0.0 0 ME 3.2 0.0 0 NH 3.1 0.0 0 VT 1.7 0.0 0 AO 0.1 0.0 0 DC 0.0 0.0 0


[Federal Register: June 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 117)]
[Notices]
[Page 34288-34289]
[DOCID:fr17jn08-42]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

June 11, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP99-518-107.
    Applicants: Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation.
    Description: Gas Transmission Northwest Corp submits Sixteenth
Revised Sheet 24 and Fifth Revised Sheet 28 to FERC Gas Tariff, Third
Revised Volume 1-A.
    Filed Date: 06/09/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080610-0232.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 23, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-570-001. RP07-695-001.
    Applicants: CenterPoint Energy--Mississippi River Transmission
Corporation.
    Description: CenterPoint Energy--Mississippi River Transmission
Corporation submits Substitute Sixty-First Revised Sheet 5 et al. to
FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1, effective 10/1/07 and 11/1/07.
    Filed Date: 06/05/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080606-0097.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 17, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-317-001.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation.
    Description: Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation submits Third
Revised Sheet 489 to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1, proposed
to become effective 6/1/08.
    Filed Date: 06/05/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080606-0096.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 17, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-338-001.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company.
    Description: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company submits Thirteenth
revised Sheet 405C and Original Sheet 405C.01 for inclusion in
Tennessee's FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume 1, to become
effective 6/1/08.
    Filed Date: 06/06/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080606-0133.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 18, 2008

    Docket Numbers: RP08-402-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP submits Fifth Revised
Sheet 804 of its Gas Tariff Sixth Revised Volume 1, to become effective
7/7/08.
    Filed Date: 06/06/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080606-0134.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 18, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: CP08-54-003.
    Applicants: Columbia Gulf Transmission Company.
    Description: Columbia Gulf Transmission Company submits compliance
filing to cancel Dynegy Marketing and Trade capacity entitlements.
    Filed Date: 05/30/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080530-5030.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 18, 2008.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access

who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-13560 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 113)]
[Notices]
[Page 32640-32642]
[DOCID:fr13jn07-63]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0298; FRL-8132-5]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Certification of Pesticide Applicators; EPA ICR No.
0155.09, OMB Control No. 2070-0029

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to
submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection
Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR,
entitled: ``Certification of Pesticide Applicators'' and identified by
EPA ICR No. 0155.09 and OMB Control No. 2070-0029, is scheduled to
expire on December 31, 2007. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for
review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of
the proposed information collection.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 13, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0298, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2007-0298. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The Federal regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made
available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available

in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov
, select ``Advanced Search,'' then ``Docket

Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the
``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov web
site to view the docket index or access available documents. Although
listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available either in the
electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available

in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA.
The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are 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: Joseph Hogue, Field and External
Affairs Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What Information is EPA Particularly Interested in?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically
solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility.
    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of
the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used.
    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected.
    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

II. What Should I Consider when I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
    6. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
    7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
    8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page
of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal
Register citation.

III. What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does this Action Apply
to?

    Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action
are:
     Applicators on farms:
    Crop production (North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) code 111).
    Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Commercial services applicators:
    Exterminating and pest control services (NAICS code 561710).
     Administration of certification programs by states/tribal
lead agencies:
    Environmental protection program administration (NAICS code
924110).
    Pest control programs, agricultural, governmental (NAICS code
926140).
     Pesticide dealers (only for EPA-administered programs):
    Retail nursery, lawn, and garden supply stores (NAICS code 444220).
    Agricultural chemicals merchant wholesalers (NAICS code 424910).
    Title: Certification of Pesticide Applicators.
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 0155.09, OMB Control No. 2070-0029.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on December
31, 2007. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal
Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed
either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate
means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if
applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: This ICR is designed to provide EPA with the information
necessary to oversee training and certification programs for
applicators of restricted use pesticides. The Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) allows the EPA to classify a
pesticide as ``restricted use'' if the pesticide meets certain toxicity
or risk criteria. Restricted use pesticides, because of their potential
to harm human health or the environment, may be applied only by a
certified applicator or by a person under the direct supervision of a
certified applicator. A person must meet certain standards of
competency to become a certified applicator. States can be delegated
the certified applicator program, but it must be approved by the Agency
before it can be implemented. In non-participating entities, EPA
administers the certification program.
    Annual reports from the states are used as a monitoring tool to
develop overall data on pesticide activities for OMB, Congress, and
others; to distribute EPA grant funds to participating states, to
target enforcement activities, and to revise certification and training
program emphasis and requirements. An application form is used to
obtain vital information from persons applying for certification, such
as name and address, and to schedule applicators for certification or
re-certification. Dealer records are necessary to ensure that access to
restricted use pesticides is limited to certified applicators. A record
of each application of a restricted use pesticide is required for
certified commercial applicators. These records are monitored to assure
that restricted-use pesticides are used only by, or under the
supervision of, certified applicators and to ensure that pesticide
labeling requirements are adhered to by requiring applicators to record
details of the restricted-use product application. Without these
records it would often be difficult to successfully enforce against
misuse. Responses to this ICR are mandatory. The authority for this
information collection activity is

provided under sections 3(d) and 11 of FIFRA and 40 CFR part 171.
    Burden statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.17
hours per response for application for certification in the Navajo
Indian country, 77.4 hours per response for each state to submit annual
reports, and 3.1 hours per response for commercial applicators'
recordkeeping of restricted use pesticide applications. Burden means
the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to
generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or
for a Federal Agency. This includes the time needed to review
instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and
systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements which have
subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a
collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the
collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information.
    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of this estimate, which is
only briefly summarized here:
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 421,097.
    Frequency of response: On occasion or annually, depending on the
category of respondent.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 1-
3.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 1,309,623 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $39,694,611. This is an estimated
burden cost of $39,694,611 with no additional cost for capital
investment or maintenance and operational costs.

IV. Are There Changes in the Estimates from the Last Approval?

    There is a decrease of 1,745 hours in the total estimated
respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This decrease is due to Colorado assuming
responsibility for the private applicator program, and the dealer
recordkeeping program in that state. The previous ICR included the
burden of those programs in Colorado, as EPA still administered them at
that time. This change is the result of a program change.

V. What is the Next Step in the Process for this ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce
the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit
additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or
the approval process, please contact the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 30, 2007.
James B. Gulliford,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances.
[FR Doc. E7-11292 Filed 6-12-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


United States Prevention, Pesticides EPA 738 R 00 009 Environmental Protection and Toxic Substances March 2006 Agency ( 7508C)

Report of the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA) Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Risk Management Decision ( TRED) for Acetochlor Report of the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA) Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Risk Management Decision ( TRED) for Acetochlor Approved By:

___________________________ Debra Edwards, Ph. D. Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division ___________________________ Date 1 of 9 I. Regulatory Determination The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), as amended by FQPA, requires EPA to reassess all the tolerances for registered chemicals in effect on the day before enactment of the FQPA on August 3, 1996. In reassessing these tolerances, the Agency must consider, among other things, aggregate risks from non occupational sources of pesticide exposure, whether there is increased susceptibility to infants and children, and the cumulative effects of pesticides with a common mechanism of toxicity. When a safety finding has been made that aggregate risks are not of concern, the tolerances are considered reassessed. Existing tolerances associated with acetochlor must be reassessed in accordance with FFDCA, as amended by FQPA. Ecological and occupational assessments were originally conducted when acetochlor was first registered in 1994. Therefore, no further ecological or occupational assessments were conducted as part of this Report of the FQPA Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Risk Management Decision for Acetochlor ( also referred to as a TRED).

Acetochlor, 2 chloro N( ethoxymethyl) N( 2 ethyl 6 methylphenyl) acetamide, is a chloroacetanilide herbicide used for preemergence control of weeds. It is registered for use on field corn and popcorn, although no tolerances currently exist for popcorn. Corn fields treated with acetochlor may later be rotated to grain sorghum ( milo), soybeans, wheat, and tobacco, according to the currently registered use pattern. Residues in/ on corn, popcorn and the rotational crops listed above were considered in the acetochlor dietary risk assessment supporting the acetochlor tolerance reassessment.

The Agency's human health and drinking water findings for the pesticide acetochlor are summarized in the following risk assessments: Acetochlor. Revised HED Chapter of the Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility Decision ( TRED) Document dated March 1, 2006, and Drinking Water Exposure Assessment for Acetochlor dated February 16, 2006. For further details, please refer to these risk assessments and other technical documents pertaining to the acetochlor TRED, which are available on the internet at http:// www. regulations. gov and in the public docket.

EPA has determined that acetochlor is a member of the chloroacetanilides group and that the chloroacetanilides share a common mechanism of toxicity due to their ability to cause nasal turbinate tumors. The chloroacetanilides group also includes alachlor and butachlor; however, butachlor was not incorporated into the cumulative assessment because there are no U. S. registrations or established tolerances. A chloroacetanilide cumulative assessment was, therefore, conducted for acetochlor and alachlor exposures based on a common mechanism of toxicity. The Agency concludes in the assessment that chloroacetanilide cumulative risks are below the Agency's level of concern. For more information please refer to the document: Cumulative Risk from Chloroacetanilide Pesticides dated March 8, 2006, which is also available on the internet at http:// www. regulations. gov and in the public docket.

The Agency has evaluated the human health risks associated with all currently registered uses of acetochlor and has determined that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate non occupational exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. In making this 2 of 9 determination, EPA has considered dietary exposure from food and drinking water and all other non occupational sources of pesticide exposure for which there is reliable information. In addition, the Agency has concluded that the cumulative risks associated with chloroacetanilide pesticides, including acetochlor, are below the Agency's level of concern. Therefore, the twelve ( 12) tolerances established for residues of acetochlor in/ on raw agricultural commodities are now considered reassessed as safe under section 408( q) of FFDCA, as amended by FQPA.

The Agency is issuing this TRED document for acetochlor as announced in a Notice of Availability published in the Federal Register. The Agency previously released the EPA's human health risk assessment and related documents for acetochlor for public comment on November 23, 2005. The Agency considered all submitted comments in preparing this TRED. Responses to these comments are also available on the internet at http:// www. regulations. gov and in the public docket.

II. Tolerance Reassessment A. FQPA Assessment Supporting Tolerance Reassessment Decision The Agency has conducted risk assessments to ensure that the acetochlor tolerances meet the safety standards established by FFDCA, as amended by FQPA. These recent risk assessments for acetochlor include evaluation of potential susceptibility to infants and children; and dietary, drinking water, and aggregate risk from these various exposure pathways. EPA also considered potential cumulative risks for acetochlor and other substances sharing a common mechanism of toxicity. See also Section II. B of this document.

EPA has determined that risk from exposure to acetochlor, as well as cumulative risk from total exposure to chloroacetanilides pesticides, are within their own applicable " risk cups". In other words, EPA is able to conclude that the tolerances for acetochlor meet the FQPA safety standards. In reaching this determination, the Agency has considered the available information on the potential sensitivity of infants and children, as well as the chronic and acute food exposure. There are no residential uses of acetochlor nor are there residential post application exposures expected from currently registered uses. Therefore, an aggregate assessment was conducted for exposures through food and drinking water only. Results of this aggregate risk assessment indicate that the human health risks from these combined exposures are within acceptable levels; that is, combined risks from all exposures to acetochlor " fit" within the individual risk cup for this chemical. In addition, the Agency has concluded that the cumulative risks associated with chloroacetanilide pesticides, including acetochlor, are below the Agency's level of concern. The Agency's risk assessment conclusions are summarized below.

FQPA Safety Factor Considerations. The FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, directs the Agency to use an additional tenfold ( 10X) safety factor to take into account potential pre and post natal toxicity and completeness of the data with respect to exposure and toxicity to infants and children. FFDCA authorizes the Agency to modify the tenfold safety factor only if reliable data demonstrate that the resulting level of exposure would be safe for infants and children. 3 of 9 Available developmental toxicity studies in two species and three two generation reproductive toxicity studies in the rat did not show evidence of increased susceptibility of the offspring. There are low concerns and no residual uncertainties with regard to pre and/ or postnatal toxicity. However based on evidence of neurotoxicity, which was observed in studies in the dog and in the rat including frank neuropathology in a chronic dog study, the Agency is requiring that a developmental neurotoxicity ( DNT) study be submitted by the registrant. Pending submission and Agency review of this study, an FQPA safety factor of 10X was retained for deriving the acute dietary reference dose for acetochlor to account for the absence of the DNT study. A 10X FQPA safety factor was not used in calculation of the chronic dietary reference dose because the results of the DNT are not expected to affect this risk assessment.

Dietary Risks from Food and Drinking Water. Acute, chronic, and cancer dietary ( food and drinking water) risk assessments were conducted that considered all registered acetochlor uses ( corn and rotational crops) using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database ( DEEM FCID), which uses food consumption data from the USDA's Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by Individuals ( CSFII) from 1994 1996 and 1998. Although there is no existing tolerance for popcorn, a dietary risk assessment that included popcorn was completed since it is a registered use. Field corn field trial data were translated to popcorn for this assessment. The acute, chronic, and cancer dietary ( food) exposure assessment incorporated tolerance or proposed tolerance level residues for all crops and percent crop treated data provided by the Acetochlor Registration Partnership ( ARP). Processing data were available for numerous commodities and incorporated into the assessment. See also Acetochlor. Acute, Chronic, and Cancer Dietary Exposure Assessments for the Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility Decision ( TRED) Document dated June 30, 2005 for detailed information.

The dietary risk assessment included residues of the parent, acetochlor, and the metabolites 2 ethyl 6 methylaniline ( EMA) and 2 hydroxyethyl 6 methylaniline ( HEMA) in/ on the primary crops, corn and popcorn. In addition to EMA and HEMA, the dietary risk assessment also included residues of the metabolite hydroxymethyl ethyl aniline ( HMEA) in/ on rotational crops ( i. e., crops grown in fields previously treated with acetochlor). These metabolites, EMA, HEMA, HMEA, are only found in plants, thus, they were not included in the drinking water assessment. Refer to the Environmental Degradates section below for additional information about metabolites found in drinking water.

EPA obtained drinking water residues from the Acetochlor Registration Partnership ( ARP) acetochlor water monitoring program. The ARP monitored a total of 175 Community Water Supplies ( CWSs) in nine mid western and three Mid Atlantic States for the acetochlor surface water monitoring program. The selection process was designed to include a wide array of CWSs with watersheds in areas of corn production, with an emphasis on including worst case watersheds i. e., smaller watersheds ( not on the Great Lakes and continental rivers) in areas of high corn production. Residues of acetochlor from this monitoring program were incorporated directly into the DEEM FCID model. EPA considers both acute ( one day) and chronic ( lifetime) drinking water risks and exposure to pesticides through contamination of surface and ground 4 of 9 water sources. The acetochlor risk estimates for acute, chronic, and cancer dietary exposure reflect combined food and drinking water exposure. For detailed information see the document titled, Revised Drinking Water Exposure Assessment for Acetochlor dated February 16, 2006.

The population adjusted dose ( PAD) is the dose predicted to result in no unreasonable adverse effects to any human subpopulation, including sensitive members of such subpopulation. Estimated dietary risks less than 100% of the PAD are not of concern to the Agency. The acute dietary risk assessment showed that for all registered commodities, the acute dietary risk estimates ( food and drinking water) do not exceed the Agency's level of concern at the 99.9th percentile of exposure for all populations. The general U. S. population comprises 2% of the acute population adjusted dose ( aPAD), with the highest exposed population subgroup being infants less than 1 year old at 6% of the aPAD. The aPAD is the dose at which a person could be exposed on any given day with no adverse health effects, and was derived from an acute rat neurotoxicity study in which decreased motor activity in females was observed.

EPA's chronic dietary risk assessment indicates that dietary risk from acetochlor residues in food and drinking water are low and also not of concern. The resulting chronic dietary exposure estimates using the DEEM FCID model were less than 1% of the chronic population adjusted ( cPAD) for the U. S. general population and all population subgroups including the most highly exposed population subgroup, all infants (< 1 years old). The cPAD is the dose at which a person could be exposed over the course of a lifetime with no adverse health effects, and was derived from a chronic oral toxicity study in beagle dogs in which increased salivation and histopathology in the testes, kidney and liver were observed.

The Agency classified acetochlor as " likely to be carcinogenic to humans" based on increased incidence of lung tumors in male and female mice, histiocytic sarcoma in female mice and nasal epithelial tumors, and thyroid follicular cell adenomas in male and female rats. A nonmutagenic ( with threshold) mode of action was established for the nasal and thyroid tumors; however, no mode of action was established for the other observed tumors. In the absence of supporting mechanistic data for the formation of lung tumors and histiocytic sarcomas in mice, a linear low dose extrapolation was used to estimate cancer risk for those tumors. The cancer dietary exposure assessment incorporated tolerance or proposed tolerance level residues for all crops and percent crop treated data provided by the ARP, assuming consumption of those foods over a 70 year lifetime. Processing data were available for all commodities and incorporated into the assessment. The assessment also included the overall multi year time weighted annualized mean surface water concentration generated from the ARP acetochlor water monitoring program. The chronic exposure value was multiplied by a linear low dose response factor ( Q1*) of 3.27 x 10 2 based on animal studies to determine the lifetime cancer risk estimate. The estimated dietary ( food and drinking water) cancer risk for the general U. S. population was 8.40 x 10 7, and was below the Agency's level of concern ( 1 x 10 6). Therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary to address dietary risks from food and drinking water. 5 of 9 Residential Risks. Currently there are no registered residential uses nor potential residential post application exposures for acetochlor, thus no residential exposure assessment was conducted.

Aggregate Risk. In examining aggregate exposure, EPA takes into account the available and reliable information concerning exposures from pesticide residues in food and other exposures including drinking water and non occupational exposures, e. g., exposure to pesticides used in and around the home ( residential). Risk assessments for aggregate exposure consider short, intermediate and long term ( chronic) exposure scenarios considering the toxic effects which would likely be associated with each exposure duration. Since there are no residential uses of acetochlor, the considerations for aggregate exposure are those from food and drinking water only. As discussed above, the results of the acute, chronic and cancer aggregate assessments indicate that the combined exposure to acetochlor from food and drinking water is below the Agency's level of concern. Therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary to address aggregate risks.

Environmental Degradates. The drinking water assessment was conducted using the parent acetochlor as the residue of concern. However, there are two degradates of acetochlor which may be found in drinking water. These degradates, acetochlor sulfonic acid ( ESA) and acetochlor oxanilic acid ( OXA), were not included in the water risk assessment based on comparison of the available toxicity data for acetochlor and the ESA and OXA degradates and structure activity relationships which showed that neither ESA nor OXA degradates are likely to be carcinogenic and that both are significantly less toxic than the parent acetochlor.

However, extensive surface and ground water monitoring data for acetochlor and its two degradates have been collected as required by the Agency under the conditional registration of acetochlor. These monitoring studies showed that both the ESA and OXA degradates have been detected in water samples ( both groundwater and surface water). Concentrations of the degradates in surface water were in the same order of magnitude as acetochlor while groundwater concentrations of the degradates were significantly higher than those of the parent. Given the potential for relatively high levels of degradates in drinking water, worst case margin of exposure ( MOE) calculations were conducted to estimate potential drinking water risks for the two degradates. MOEs ranged from > 21,000 to 122,000 for ESA and 45,000 to 264,000 for OXA and, therefore, were below the Agency's level of concern.

B. Cumulative Assessment As previously stated, acetochlor is a member of the chloroacetanilides group which shares a common mechanism of toxicity due to the members' ability to cause nasal turbinate tumors. The chloroacetanilide group also includes the chemicals alachlor and butachlor. This determination can be found in the chloroacetanilides common mechanism group ( CMG) decision document published in 2001 entitled " The Grouping of a Series of Chloroacetanilide Pesticides Based on a Common Mechanism of Toxicity" ( http:// www. epa. gov/ oppfod01/ cb/ csb_ page/ updates/ commechs. htm). Butachlor, however, has no registered uses or tolerances and has been excluded from the risk 6 of 9 assessment. Thus, the Common Assessment Group ( CAG), on which the risk assessment was conducted, consists of acetochlor and alachlor only.

Development of nasal olfactory epithelium tumors in rats has been attributed to a non linear, non mutagenic mode of action. Thus, as per the 2005 EPA Cancer Guidelines, the Agency used a margin of exposure ( MOE) calculation for the cumulative risk assessment as one would do for a threshold noncancer toxicity risk assessment. Because the threshold approach was used for assessing the risks, uncertainty factors ( UFs) of 10x ( interspecies) and 10x ( intraspecies) were used. Further, since there is no evidence of potential pre and post natal susceptibility, the FQPA safety factor was reduced to 1x. Therefore, MOEs above 100 were considered to be below the Agency's level of concern ( LOC).

The chloroacetanilide cumulative risk assessment involved only two pathways of exposure ( food and drinking water) via the oral route of exposure. Because the nasal olfactory epithelium tumors are a systemic chronic endpoint, only a chronic dietary analysis was conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database ( DEEM FCIDTM, Version 2.03). Results of the DEEM FCIDTM analysis produced cumulated MOEs greater than 13,000 for all populations. Therefore, the cumulated MOE values estimated for the subject CAG are below the Agency's level of concern. Because these cumulative MOE values were obtained using high end exposures, they are considered to be protective. More detailed information related to the chloroacetanilide cumulative risk assessment can be found in the document: Cumulative Risks from Chloroacetanilide Pesticides dated March 8, 2006, which is available on the internet at http:// www. regulations. gov and in the public docket.

C. Endocrine Disruptor Effects EPA is required under the FFDCA, as amended by FQPA, to develop a screening program to determine whether certain substances ( including all pesticide active and other ingredients) " may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the Administrator may designate." Following recommendations of its Endocrine Disruptor and Testing Advisory Committee ( EDSTAC), EPA determined that there was a scientific basis for including, as part of the program, the androgen and thyroid hormone systems, in addition to the estrogen hormone system. EPA also adopted EDSTAC's recommendation that the Program include evaluations of potential effects in wildlife. For pesticide chemicals, EPA will use FIFRA and, to the extent that effects in wildlife may help determine whether a substance may have an effect in humans, FFDCA authority to require the wildlife evaluations. As the science develops and resources allow, screening of additional hormone systems may be added to the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program ( EDSP).

Studies in the rat evaluating thyroid and liver effects following dietary administration of acetochlor at various dose levels indicate that acetochlor may disrupt thyroid pituitary homeostasis via increased hepatic UDPGH mediated increased clearance of the thyroid hormone thyroxine ( T4). Slightly increased incidence of thyroid follicular cell tumors have been observed in rat two year bioassay studies at higher dose levels. Although thyroid follicular cell tumors were considered to be related to treatment, they were not considered as part of the cancer 7 of 9 quantification, due to relatively low incidence and evidence for disruption of thyroid hormonal homeostasis as the mode of action. Structure activity relationship data on the related chloroacetanilide herbicides alachlor and butachlor support this conclusion. The available data do not indicate that acetochlor disrupts androgen or estrogen hormone systems.

When additional appropriate screening and/ or testing protocols being considered under the Agency's EDSP have been developed, acetochlor may be subjected to further screening and/ or testing to better characterize effects related to endocrine disruption.

D. Tolerance Summary The current tolerance expression for residues of acetochlor resulting from direct application to primary crops is adequate. The Agency has determined that the tolerance expression for residues in/ on corn, popcorn, and rotational crop commodities should include only acetochlor and its metabolites containing the 2 ethyl 6 methylaniline ( EMA) and 2 hydroxyethyl 6 methylaniline ( HEMA) moiety, expressed in acetochlor equivalents. A summary of acetochlor tolerance reassessments is presented in Table 1.

Tolerances Listed Under 40 CFR § 180.470:

Adequate residue data have been submitted to reassess the established tolerances for corn commodities. The available field trial data indicate that the current tolerances on corn grain and stover are adequate, but the tolerance on corn forage should be increased to 3.0 ppm based on data from the early postemergence use. Adequate field rotational crop trials are also available to support the currently established tolerances on commodities of rotational sorghum, and wheat. The tolerance on soybean grain should be increased to 0.1 ppm based on the submitted rotational crop data.

As the tolerances on field corn commodities are for the direct application to a primary crop, these general tolerances on corn will be reassigned to 40 CFR § 180.470( a). Likewise, tolerances on sorghum, soybeans, and wheat commodities are for inadvertent residues on rotational crops; therefore, these tolerances will be reassigned to 40 CFR § 180.470( d).

The 40CFR § 180.470 should be revised and separated into subparts ( a) through ( d). Subpart ( a) should contain tolerances resulting from the direct application of acetochlor to a primary crop; ( b) Section 18 emergency exemptions, ( c) tolerances with regional registrations, and ( d) tolerances resulting from indirect or inadvertent residues.

Based on the residue data for currently registered uses and rotational crops, tolerances for livestock commodities are not required at the present time. 8 of 9 Tolerances Needed Under 40 CFR § 180.470( a):

Acetochlor is registered for use on popcorn; however, there are no existing tolerances associated with this use. Adequate data submitted by the ARP are available and a dietary assessment was conducted which included the use of acetochlor on popcorn. Information is being reviewed to determine whether the tolerance can be established, and the Agency will address this issue when it considers pending new use petitions.

Tolerances Needed Under 40 CFR § 180.470( d):

The available rotational crop field trial data on wheat forage and straw indicate that residues are also likely to occur on wheat hay. A tolerance for wheat hay can be set using the residue data for wheat forage and adjusting for the differences in dry weight between the two commodities. Based on maximum residues of 0.457 ppm in/ on wheat forage ( 25% dry wt.), maximum expected residues in/ on wheat hay ( 88% dry wt.) would be 1.61 ppm. Therefore, a permanent tolerance of 2.0 ppm needs to be established for wheat hay. The addition of this tolerance will not change the current calculated maximum dietary burden for cattle.

Table 1. Tolerance Reassessment Summary for Acetochlor Commodity Current Tolerance ( ppm) Range of Residues ( ppm) Tolerance Reassessment ( ppm) Comment/[ Correct Commodity Definition]

Tolerances Listed Under 40 CFR § 180.470 Corn, field, forage 1.0 < 0.05 2.52 3.0 Corn, field, grain 0.05 < 0.05 0.05 Corn, field, stover 1.5 < 0.05 1.08 1.5 Tolerances on corn commodities should be reassigned to § 180.470( a) as these tolerances are for the direct use on corn.

Sorghum, forage 0.1 < 0.02 0.093 0.1 Sorghum, grain 0.02 < 0.02 0.02 Sorghum, grain, stover 0.1 < 0.02 0.068 0.1 Soybean, forage 0.7 < 0.2 0.648 0.7 Soybean, grain 0.02 < 0.02 0.101 0.1 Soybean, hay 1.0 < 0.024 1.064 1.0 Wheat, forage 0.5 < 0.02 0.457 0.5 Wheat, grain 0.02 < 0.02 0.02 Wheat, straw 0.1 < 0.02 0.104 0.1 Tolerances on sorghum, soybean, and wheat commodities should be reassigned to § 180.470( d) as these are tolerances for inadvertent residues in/ on rotational crops.

The correct commodity definition for Sorghum, grain is Sorghum, grain, grain and for Soybean, grain is Soybean, seed.

Tolerances Needed under 40 CFR § 180.470( a)

Corn, pop, grain 0.5 < 0.05 0.05 A permanent tolerance should be set at 0.05 ppm based on maximum residues in field corn grain.

1.5 < 0.05 1.08 1.5 A permanent tolerance should be set 9 of 9 Table 1. Tolerance Reassessment Summary for Acetochlor Commodity Current Tolerance ( ppm) Range of Residues ( ppm) Tolerance Reassessment ( ppm) Comment/[ Correct Commodity Definition]

Corn, pop, stover at 0.05 ppm based on maximum residues in field corn stover.

Tolerances Needed under 40 CFR § 180.470( d)

Wheat, hay None 1.611 2.0 A permanent tolerance should be set at 2.0 ppm based on maximum residues in wheat forage corrected for moisture content.

1. Maximum expected residues in wheat hay ( 88% dry wt.), based on maximum residues of 0.457 ppm in wheat forage ( 25% dry wt.).

III. Data Requirements There are data that must be submitted to support the continuing registration of acetochlor. These data are not expected to change the regulatory conclusions for acetochlor described in this document. A generic data call in ( DCI) will be issued and will require development and submission of these listed data:

Toxicology 870.6300 A developmental neurotoxicity study is required.

870.6200 Validation studies ( positive controls) are required for the rat neurotoxicity studies.