Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 47445 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, section 

12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). 

VII. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report 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: August 25, 2009. 

Lois A. Rossi, 

Director, Registration Division, Office of 

Pesticide Programs. 

■ Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

amended as follows: 

PART 180—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. In § 180.589, the table to paragraph 

(a)(1) is amended by alphabetically 

adding an entry for ‘‘coffee, green bean, 

imported’’, by revising the entry for 

‘‘banana, import’’ and by removing the 

entry for ‘‘cucumber’’ with the limit of 

0.20 ppm and the entry for ‘‘vegetable, 

root, subgroup 1A, except sugar beet, 

garden beet, radish, and turnip’’ with 

the limit of 0.7 ppm. The added and 

revised entries read as follows: 

§ 180.589 Boscalid; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a)* * *(1) * * * 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

*****

Banana, import \1\ .................... 0.40 

*****

Coffee, green bean, import \1\ .. 0.05 

*****

1No US registrations as of September 16, 

2009. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–22163 Filed 9–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0002; FRL–8434–1] 

Acetochlor; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for residues of acetochlor, 

including its metabolites and 

degradates, in or on cotton, gin 

byproducts; cotton, undelinted seed; 

soybean, meal; and soybean, seed. 

Monsanto Company requested these 

tolerances under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). This 

regulation also removes the existing 

tolerance for indirect or inadvertent 

residues of acetochlor on soybean, seed. 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

September 16, 2009. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before November 16, 2009, and 

must be filed in accordance with the 

instructions provided in 40 CFR part 

178 (see also Unit I.C. of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2009–0002. All documents in the 

docket are listed in the docket index 

available at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(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 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 Bldg.), 2777 

S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The 

Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. 

to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The Docket 

Facility telephone number is (703) 305– 

5805. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Stanton, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 305–5218; e-mail address: 

stanton.susan@epa.gov. 

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 those engaged in the 

following activities: 

• 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 to provide 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? 

In addition to accessing electronically 

available documents at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, you may access 

this Federal Register document 

electronically through the EPA Internet 

under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may 

also access a frequently updated 

electronic version of EPA′s tolerance 

regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through 

the Government Printing Office′s e-CFR 

cite at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. 

To access the OPPTS Harmonized 

Guidelines referenced in this document, 

go directly to the guidelines at http:// 

www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/home/ 

guidelin.htm. 

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing 

Request? 

Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 21 

U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an 

objection to any aspect of this regulation 

and may also request a hearing on those 

objections. You must file your objection 

or request a hearing on this regulation 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
47446 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

proper receipt by EPA, you must 

identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2009–0002 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 

as required by 40 CFR part 178 on or 

before November 16, 2009. 

In addition to filing an objection or 

hearing request with the Hearing Clerk 

as described in 40 CFR part 178, please 

submit a copy of the filing that does not 

contain any CBI for inclusion in the 

public docket that is described in 

ADDRESSES. Information not marked 

confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 

may be disclosed publicly by EPA 

without prior notice. Submit this copy, 

identified by docket ID number EPA– 

HQ–OPP–2009–0002, 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 Bldg.), 2777 S. 

Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket 

Facility’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 Facility telephone number is 

(703) 305–5805. 

II. Petition for Tolerance 

In the Federal Register of April 8, 

2009 (74 FR 15971) (FRL–8407–4), EPA 

issued a notice pursuant to section 

408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 

346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of 

pesticide petitions (PP 8F7443 and PP 

8F7448) by Monsanto Company, 1300 I 

St., NW., Suite 450 East, Washington DC 

20052. The petitions requested that 40 

CFR 180.470 be amended by 

establishing tolerances for combined 

residues of the herbicide acetochlor, 2- 

chloro-2’-methyl-6’-ethyl-Nethoxymethylacetanilide, and its 

metabolites containing either the 2- 

ethyl-6-methyl-aniline (EMA) or the 2- 

(1-hydroxyethyl)-6-methyl-aniline 

(HEMA) moiety, to be expressed as 

acetochlor equivalents, in or on cotton, 

gin byproducts; and cotton, undelinted 

seed at 4.0 parts per million (ppm) and 

0.6 ppm, respectively (PP 8F7443); and 

soybean, seed at 1.0 ppm (PP 8F7448). 

That notice referenced a summary of the 

petition prepared by Monsanto 

Company, the registrant, which is 

available to the public in the docket, 

http://www.regulations.gov. There were 

no comments received in response to 

the notice of filing. 

Based upon review of the data 

supporting the petition, EPA has 

determined that a tolerance for residues 

of acetochlor and its metabolites is also 

required on soybean, meal at 1.2 ppm. 

EPA has also revised the tolerance 

expression for acetochlor to clarify the 

chemical moieties that are covered by 

the tolerances and specify how 

compliance with the tolerances is to be 

measured. The reasons for these changes 

are explained in Unit IV.C. 

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and 

Determination of Safety 

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of 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 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 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. . . .’’ 

Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) 

of FFDCA, and the factors specified in 

section 408(b)(2)(D) of 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 

and to make a determination on 

aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for 

tolerances for residues of acetochlor, 

including its metabolites and 

degradates, on cotton, gin byproducts at 

4.0 ppm; cotton, undelinted seed at 0.6 

ppm; soybean, meal at 1.2 ppm; and 

soybean, seed at 1.0 ppm. EPA’s 

assessment of exposures and risks 

associated with establishing tolerances 

follows. 

A. Toxicological Profile 

EPA has evaluated the available 

toxicity data and considered its validity, 

completeness, and reliability as well as 

the relationship of the results of the 

studies to human risk. EPA has also 

considered available information 

concerning the variability of the 

sensitivities of major identifiable 

subgroups of consumers, including 

infants and children. 

Acetochlor has low acute toxicity by 

the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes 

of exposure and is mildly irritating to 

the eyes. The results of two dermal 

irritation studies indicate that it is a 

mild to strong skin irritant. Acetochlor 

is also a strong dermal sensitizer. 

Evidence of neurotoxicity was 

observed in acute and subchronic 

neurotoxicity screening studies in rats, 

developmental toxicity studies in rats, 

and subchronic and chronic studies in 

dogs. In addition to the nervous system, 

the major target organs affected in 

subchronic and chronic studies in rats, 

dogs and mice exposed to acetochlor are 

the liver, thyroid (secondary to liver), 

kidney, testes, and erythrocytes. 

Species-specific target organs include 

the nasal olfactory epithelium in rats 

and the lungs in mice. 

There is no evidence of increased 

qualitative or quantitative susceptibility 

of fetuses or offspring to acetochlor 

exposure in the developmental and 

reproduction toxicity studies in rats and 

rabbits. In two developmental toxicity 

studies in rats, fetal effects (increased 

early resorptions, postimplantation loss, 

and decreased fetal weight) occurred at 

doses that also resulted in maternal 

toxicity (mortality, clinical signs of 

toxicity, and decreased maternal body 

weight gain). In two rabbit 

developmental toxicity studies there 

were no adverse fetal effects at the 

highest doses tested (HDT) (190 

milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day) 

and 300 mg/kg/day); whereas maternal 

toxicity (body weight loss) was seen at 

50 mg/kg/day in one study. In three 

reproduction toxicity studies in rats, 

offspring effects (decreased pup weights 

in the first two studies; decreased pup 

weights, decreased F2 litter size at birth, 

and focal hyperplasia and polypoid 

adenomata in nasal epithelium of adult 

F1 offspring at study termination in the 

third study) occurred at the same or 

higher doses than those resulting in 

parental toxicity (decreased body weight 

or weight gain in the first two studies; 

focal hyperplasia and polypoid 

adenomata in nasal epithelium of adult 

F1 offspring at study termination in the 

third study). There was no evidence of 

reproductive toxicity observed at any 

dose tested in two of the three 

reproductive toxicity studies in rats. 

The third reproduction study in rats 

showed a decreased number of 

implantations at the HDT of 1,750 ppm. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 47447 

There was evidence of carcinogenicity 

in studies conducted with acetochlor in 

rats and mice. A 23–month mouse 

carcinogenicity study showed weak 

evidence for increased benign lung 

tumors in females, and a 78–week study 

showed weak evidence for increased 

benign lung tumors in males. The 

increases were considered equivocal, 

based on increases in benign tumors 

only, inconsistent dose-responses 

between the two studies, 

inconsistencies in the responses of 

males and females between the two 

studies, lack of pre-neoplastic lung 

lesions in the 23–month study (while 

the 78–week study showed an increase 

in bronchiolar hyperplasia), and the 

variable incidence of lung tumors 

known to occur in older mice. 

Two carcinogenicity studies in rats 

showed an increase in nasal epithelial 

tumors and thyroid follicular cell 

tumors. Thyroid tumor incidence was 

relatively low, and there was evidence 

that the tumors were due to disruption 

of thyroid-pituitary homeostasis. There 

are acceptable mode of action data for 

the rat tumors (nasal olfactory epithelial 

tumors and thyroid follicular cell 

tumors) which are adequate to support 

a non-linear, margin of exposure (MOE), 

approach for assessment of cancer risk. 

The data show that, like the related 

compounds, alachlor and butachlor, 

tumor formation is dependent upon 

local cytotoxicity secondary to oxidative 

damage by a reactive quinone imine 

intermediate. The mechanistic data on 

nasal tumorigenesis of acetochlor in the 

rat, when considered together with the 

mutagenicity data on acetochlor and 

consistent findings in mechanistic and 

mutagenicity studies on the closely 

related compound alachlor, are 

considered adequate to demonstrate a 

cytotoxic, non-mutagenic mode of 

tumor induction. 

Because a clear mode of action was 

demonstrated for the rat tumors, EPA 

based the cancer classification on the 

data from the mouse. Given the 

weakness of these data (benign lung 

tumors in male and female mice and 

histiocytic sarcomas in female mice), 

EPA has classified acetochlor as having 

‘‘Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic 

Potential’’ and determined that linear 

quantification of carcinogenic potential 

would not be appropriate for the mouse 

tumors. The rat nasal tumors, with a 

point of departure (POD) of 10 mg/kg/ 

day, are the most sensitive effect for 

cancer risk. The chronic population 

adjusted dose (cPAD), based on the noobserved-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) 

of 2.0 mg/kg/day from the chronic dog 

study, will be protective of both noncancer and cancer effects, including rat 

nasal tumors, thyroid tumors, and 

mouse tumors. 

Specific information on the studies 

received and the nature of the adverse 

effects caused by acetochlor as well as 

the NOAEL and the lowest-observedadverse-effect level (LOAEL) from the 

toxicity studies can be found at http:// 

www.regulations.gov in the document 

Acetochlor Human Health Risk 

Assessment for Proposed New Use of 

Acetochlor on Cotton and Soybeans, 

page 41 in docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2009–0002. 

B. Toxicological Endpoints 

For hazards that have a threshold 

below which there is no appreciable 

risk, a toxicological POD is identified as 

the basis for derivation of reference 

values for risk assessment. The POD 

may be defined as the highest dose at 

which no adverse effects are observed 

(the NOAEL) in the toxicology study 

identified as appropriate for use in risk 

assessment. However, if a NOAEL 

cannot be determined, the lowest dose 

at which adverse effects of concern are 

identified (the LOAEL) or a Benchmark 

Dose (BMD) approach is sometimes 

used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/ 

safety factors (UFs) are used in 

conjunction with the POD to take into 

account 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. Safety is assessed for acute 

and chronic dietary risks by comparing 

aggregate food and water exposure to 

the pesticide to the acute population 

adjusted dose (aPAD) and cPAD. The 

aPAD and cPAD are calculated by 

dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. 

Aggregate short-term, intermediate-term, 

and chronic-term risks are evaluated by 

comparing food, water, and residential 

exposure to the POD to ensure that the 

MOE called for by the product of all 

applicable UFs is not exceeded. This 

latter value is referred to as the level of 

concern (LOC). 

For non-threshold risks, the Agency 

assumes that any amount of exposure 

will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, 

the Agency estimates risk in terms of the 

probability of an occurrence of the 

adverse effect greater than that expected 

in a lifetime. For more information on 

the general principles EPA uses in risk 

characterization and a complete 

description of the risk assessment 

process, see http://www.epa.gov/ 

pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm. 

A summary of the toxicological 

endpoints for acetochlor used for 

human risk assessment can be found at 

http://www.regulations.gov in the 

document Acetochlor Human Health 

Risk Assessment for Proposed New Use 

of Acetochlor on Cotton and Soybeans 

page 25 in docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2009–0002. 

C. Exposure Assessment 

1. Dietary exposure from food and 

feed uses. In evaluating dietary 

exposure to acetochlor, EPA considered 

exposure under the petitioned-for 

tolerances as well as all existing 

acetochlor tolerances in 40 CFR 

180.470. EPA assessed dietary 

exposures from acetochlor in food as 

follows: 

i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute 

dietary exposure and 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 1–day or single 

exposure. 

In estimating acute dietary exposure, 

EPA used food consumption 

information from the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) 1994–1996 and 

1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of 

Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII). As 

to residue levels in food, EPA assumed 

that residues are present in all 

commodities at the tolerance level and 

that 100% of commodities are treated 

with acetochlor. Dietary Exposure 

Evaluation Model 7.81 (DEEMTM 7.81) 

default concentration factors were used 

to estimate residues of acetochlor in 

processed commodities. 

ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting 

the chronic dietary exposure assessment 

EPA used the food consumption data 

from the USDA 1994–1996 and 1998 

CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA 

assumed that residues are present in 

soybeans and cotton at the tolerance 

level and that 100% of cotton and 

soybeans are treated with acetochlor. 

For existing uses of acetochlor, EPA 

assumed average field trial levels and 

100 percent crop treated (PCT). 

DEEMTM 7.81 default concentration 

factors were used to estimate residues of 

acetochlor in processed commodities. 

iii. Cancer. Based on the results of 

carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice, 

EPA classified acetochlor as having 

‘‘Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic 

Potential’’ but determined that the 

chronic risk assessment will be 

protective of both non-cancer and 

cancer effects. Therefore, a separate 

exposure assessment to evaluate cancer 

risk is unnecessary. 

iv. Anticipated residue and PCT 

information. EPA used anticipated 

residues derived from the results of field 

trials in the chronic dietary exposure 

assessment. EPA did not use PCT 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
47448 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

information in the acute or chronic 

exposure assessments. 

Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA 

authorizes EPA to use available data and 

information on the anticipated residue 

levels of pesticide residues in food and 

the actual levels of pesticide residues 

that have been measured in food. If EPA 

relies on such information, EPA must 

require pursuant to FFDCA section 

408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years 

after the tolerance is established, 

modified, or left in effect, demonstrating 

that the levels in food are not above the 

levels anticipated. For the present 

action, EPA will issue such Data CallIns as are required by FFDCA section 

408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under 

FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be 

required to be submitted no later than 

5 years from the date of issuance of 

these tolerances. 

2. Dietary exposure from drinking 

water. The Agency used screening level 

water exposure models in the dietary 

exposure analysis and risk assessment 

for acetochlor in drinking water. These 

simulation models take into account 

data on the physical, chemical, and fate/ 

transport characteristics of acetochlor. 

Further information regarding EPA 

drinking water models used in pesticide 

exposure assessment can be found at 

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/ 

water/index.htm. 

Based on the Pesticide Root Zone 

Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling 

System (PRZM/EXAMS), the estimated 

drinking water concentration (EDWC) of 

acetochlor for acute exposures is 

estimated to be 75 parts per billion 

(ppb) for surface water. The EDWC for 

chronic exposures for non-cancer 

assessments is estimated to be 4.8 ppb 

for surface water. Residues of parent 

acetochlor in ground water are expected 

to be insignificant compared to residues 

in surface water. 

Modeled estimates of drinking water 

concentrations were directly entered 

into the dietary exposure model. For 

acute dietary risk assessment, the water 

concentration value of 75 ppb was used 

to assess the contribution to drinking 

water. For chronic dietary risk 

assessment, the water concentration of 

value 9.5 ppb was used to assess the 

contribution to drinking water. This 

value is higher than the modeled EDWC 

for chronic exposures (4.8 ppm) and 

was derived from preliminary modeling 

that was subsequently refined. Since 

chronic exposure estimates using the 

higher value are below EPA′s LOC, EPA 

did not revise the dietary exposure 

assessment to reflect the final modeled 

EDWC. 

3. From non-dietary exposure. The 

term ‘‘residential exposure’’ is used in 

this document to refer to nonoccupational, non-dietary exposure 

(e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, 

indoor pest control, termiticides, and 

flea and tick control on pets). 

Acetochlor is not registered for any 

specific use patterns that would result 

in residential exposure. 

4. Cumulative effects from substances 

with a common mechanism of toxicity. 

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of 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.’’ 

The chloroacetanilides have been 

evaluated by the Agency and the FIFRA 

Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) as a 

related group of chemicals for this 

purpose. Acetochlor is included in a 

Cumulative Assessment Group (CAG) of 

Chloroacetanilide pesticides. 

Structurally related chloroacetanilides 

include acetochlor, alachlor, butachlor, 

propachlor and metolachlor. For 

purposes of a cumulative risk 

assessment, it was determined that the 

common mechanism of toxicity group 

consists of alachlor, acetochlor and 

butachlor. Butachlor is excluded from 

the group for risk assessment purposes 

at present since there are no registered 

uses or tolerances for this chemical in 

the United States. The group was 

selected based on common endpoints of: 

i. Nasal turbinate tumors in rats, and 

a known mechanism of toxicity for 

development of these tumors. 

ii. Induction of hepatic UDPGlucuronosyl Transferase (UDPGT), 

which results in increased incidence of 

thyroid follicular cell tumors secondary 

to disruption of pituitary-thyroid 

homeostasis. Thyroid effects were not 

included in the final cumulative 

assessment of the chloroacetanilide 

herbicides because they were 

determined to occur at excessively toxic 

dose levels, and therefore were not 

considered relevant to human risk 

assessment. Nasal tumors represent the 

most sensitive endpoint for both 

compounds. 

An updated cumulative risk 

assessment of the Chloroacetanilide 

CAG pesticides, acetochlor and alachlor, 

was conducted in April 2007. The risk 

assessment ‘‘ACETOCHLOR/ 

ALACHLOR: Revised Cumulative Risk 

Assessment for the Chloroacetanilides 

to Support the Proposed New Uses on 

Alachlor and Acetochlor’’. PP 8F05000 

and 8F5025 (Alachlor), PP 6F4791, 

1F6263 and 5F6918 (Acetochlor) is 

available in the docket established for 

this action (EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0002). 

Based on the most recent 

Chloroacetanilide CAG cumulative risk 

assessment, cumulative risk is not of 

concern. A revised quantitative 

cumulative assessment was not 

conducted for the current assessment of 

proposed new uses for acetochlor, 

because the proposed new uses on 

cotton and soybeans would not affect 

the cumulative risk results. Acetochlor 

is a very minor contributor to 

cumulative risk when compared to 

alachlor, and the proposed new uses 

(cotton and soybeans) are minor 

contributors to acetochlor dietary risk. 

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 EPA’s website at 

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ 

cumulative. 

D. Safety Factor for Infants and 

Children 

1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of 

FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply 

an additional tenfold (10X) 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 database on toxicity 

and exposure unless EPA determines 

based on reliable data that a different 

margin of safety will be safe for infants 

and children. This additional margin of 

safety is commonly referred to as the 

FQPA safety factor (SF). In applying this 

provision, EPA either retains the default 

value of 10X, or uses a different 

additional SF when reliable data 

available to EPA support the choice of 

a different factor. 

2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. 

The prenatal and postnatal toxicity 

database for acetochlor includes two rat 

and two rabbit developmental toxicity 

studies and three reproduction toxicity 

studies in rats. As discussed in Unit 

III.A., there was no evidence of 

qualitative or quantitative susceptibility 

of fetuses or offspring to acetochlor 

exposure in any of these studies. 

3. Conclusion. EPA has determined 

that the FQPA safety factor of 10X must 

be retained as a database UF for 

acetochlor acute risk assessment. This 

decision is based on the following 

findings: 

i. The toxicity database for acetochlor 

is incomplete. Additional data 

pertaining to acetochlor’s potential to 

cause developmental neurotoxicity 

(DNT) or immunotoxicity are 

outstanding. 

ii. Evidence of neurotoxicity was 

observed in acute and subchronic 

neurotoxicity screening studies in rats, 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 47449 

developmental toxicity studies in rats, 

and subchronic and chronic studies in 

dogs. Frank neuropathology was seen in 

a chronic study in the dog. EPA has 

required a DNT study in rats to assess 

susceptibility of offspring to neurotoxic 

effects relative to adult animals. Results 

of the DNT study could impact the 

current dose selected for assessing acute 

oral exposure, since the NOAEL used 

for acute dietary risk assessment (150 

mg/kg/day) is greater than the NOAEL 

from a reproductive toxicity study (21 

mg/kg/day) for acetochlor, and the DNT 

study will likely be conducted at dose 

levels similar to those of the 

reproductive toxicity study. The results 

of the DNT study are not expected to 

impact the dose selected for chronic risk 

assessment, which is based on the lower 

NOAEL of 2.0 mg/kg/day from the 

chronic dog study. 

iii. In accordance with 40 CFR part 

158 Toxicology Data requirements, an 

immunotoxicity study (870.7800) is 

required for acetochlor. In the absence 

of specific immunotoxicity studies, EPA 

has evaluated the available acetochlor 

toxicity data to determine whether an 

additional database UF is needed to 

account for potential immunotoxicity. 

There are no indications in the available 

studies that organs associated with 

immune function, such as the thymus 

and spleen, are affected by acetochlor, 

and acetochlor does not belong to a 

class of chemicals (e.g., the organotins, 

heavy metals, or halogenated aromatic 

hydrocarbons) that would be expected 

to be immunotoxic. 

iv. There is no evidence that 

acetochlor results in increased 

susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits 

in the prenatal developmental studies or 

in offspring in the 2-generation 

reproduction studies. 

v. There are no residual uncertainties 

identified in the exposure databases. 

The dietary food exposure assessments 

were performed based on 100% crop 

treated and tolerance-level residues or 

average residue levels derived from 

reliable field trials. EPA made 

conservative (protective) assumptions in 

the ground and surface water modeling 

used to assess exposure to acetochlor in 

drinking water. Residential exposure to 

acetochlor is not expected. These 

assessments will not underestimate the 

exposure and risks posed by acetochlor. 

After weighing this evidence, EPA 

retains significant uncertainty regarding 

potential neurotoxic effects in infants 

and children but does not have such 

concerns for immunotoxicity. Given the 

findings of neurotoxicity and the 

uncertainty regarding the sensitivity of 

fetal and neonatal animals to neurotoxic 

effects, EPA has concluded that it lacks 

reliable data to remove the FQPA 10X 

safety factor for acute exposures. For 

chronic exposures, EPA concludes that 

reliable data show that removal of the 

FQPA 10X factor will be safe for infants 

and children. Three factors predominate 

here. First, given the expected dosing in 

the DNT study, that study is unlikely to 

affect the cPAD, even if effects were 

seen at the lowest dose tested. Second, 

there is no evidence of increased 

susceptibility in multiple studies in 

multiple species. Third, although 

neurotoxic effects have been observed in 

the database, at lower doses the more 

significant effects are not related to 

neurotoxicity. 

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of 

Safety 

EPA determines whether acute and 

chronic pesticide exposures are safe by 

comparing aggregate exposure estimates 

to the aPAD and cPAD. The aPAD and 

cPAD represent the highest safe 

exposures, taking into account all 

appropriate SFs. EPA calculates the 

aPAD and cPAD by dividing the POD by 

all applicable UFs. For linear cancer 

risks, EPA calculates the probability of 

additional cancer cases given the 

estimated aggregate exposure. Shortterm, intermediate-term, and chronicterm risks are evaluated by comparing 

the estimated aggregate food, water, and 

residential exposure to the POD to 

ensure that the MOE called for by the 

product of all applicable UFs is not 

exceeded. 

1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk 

assessment takes into account exposure 

estimates from acute dietary 

consumption of food and drinking 

water. Using the exposure assumptions 

discussed in this unit for acute 

exposure, the acute dietary exposure 

from food and water to acetochlor will 

occupy 11% of the aPAD for infants less 

than 1 year old, the population group 

receiving the greatest exposure. 

2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure 

assumptions described in this unit for 

chronic exposure, EPA has concluded 

that chronic exposure to acetochlor from 

food and water will utilize 6% of the 

cPAD for infants less than 1 year old, 

the population group receiving the 

greatest exposure. There are no 

residential uses for acetochlor. 

3. Short-term/intermediate-term risk. 

Short-term and intermediate-term 

aggregate exposure take into account 

short-term or intermediate-term 

residential exposure plus chronic 

exposure from food and water 

(considered to be a background 

exposure level). Acetochlor is not 

registered for any use patterns that 

would result in residential exposure. 

Therefore, the short-term or 

intermediate-term aggregate risk is the 

sum of the risk from exposure to 

acetochlor through food and water and 

will not be greater than the chronic 

aggregate risk. 

4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. 

population. As explained in Unit III.A., 

risk assessments based on the endpoint 

selected for chronic risk assessment are 

considered to be protective of any 

potential carcinogenic risk from 

exposure to acetochlor. Based on the 

results of the chronic risk assessment 

discussed above in Unit E.2., EPA 

concludes that acetochlor is not 

expected to pose a cancer risk. 

5. 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, or to infants and children 

from aggregate exposure to acetochlor 

residues. 

IV. Other Considerations 

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology 

Adequate enforcement methodology 

(high performance liquid 

chromatography (HPLC) method with 

oxidative coulometric electrochemical 

detection (OCED)) 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: (410) 305–2905; email address: residuemethods@epa.gov. 

B. International Residue Limits 

There are no CODEX, Canadian or 

Mexican maximum residue limits 

established for residues of acetochlor on 

cotton or soybean commodities. 

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For 

Tolerances 

The registrant proposed a tolerance 

for residues of acetochlor and its 

metabolites on soybean, seed at 1.0 

ppm. Based on processing data for 

soybean showing the potential for 

residues of acetochlor to concentrate in 

soybean meal (1.2X), EPA determined 

that a tolerance is also needed for 

soybean, meal at 1.2 ppm. 

Tolerances for acetochlor are 

currently expressed in terms of 

‘‘residues of acetochlor; 2-chloro-2’- 

methyl-6-ethyl-Nethoxymethylacetanilide, and its 

metabolites containing the ethyl methyl 

aniline (EMA) moiety and the 

hydroxyethyl methyl aniline (HEMA) 

moiety, to be analyzed as acetochlor and 

expressed as acetochlor equivalents.’’ 

EPA is revising the tolerance expression 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
47450 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

for existing tolerances and the new 

tolerances on cotton and soybeans to 

clarify the chemical moieties that are 

covered by the tolerances and specify 

how compliance with the tolerances is 

to be measured. The revised tolerance 

expression makes clear that the 

tolerance covers ‘‘residues of acetochlor, 

including its metabolites and 

degradates,’’ and that compliance with 

the tolerance levels will be determined 

by measuring only ‘‘acetochlor, 2- 

chloro-2’-methyl-6-ethyl-Nethoxymethylacetanilide, and its 

metabolites containing the EMA moiety 

and the HEMA moiety. Both parent and 

the named metabolites shall be 

determined as EMA and HEMA, and 

calculated as the stoichiometric 

equivalents of acetochlor.’’ 

EPA has determined that it is 

reasonable to make this change final 

without prior proposal and opportunity 

for comment, because public comment 

is not necessary, in that the change has 

no substantive effect on the tolerance, 

but rather is merely intended to clarify 

the existing tolerance expression. 

V. Conclusion 

Therefore, tolerances are established 

for residues of acetochlor, including its 

metabolites and degradates, on cotton, 

gin byproducts at 4.0 ppm; cotton, 

undelinted seed at 0.6 ppm; soybean, 

meal at 1.2 ppm; and soybean, seed at 

1.0 ppm. Compliance with these 

tolerance levels is to be determined by 

measuring only acetochlor, 2-chloro-2’- 

methyl-6-ethyl-Nethoxymethylacetanilide, and its 

metabolites containing the EMA moiety 

and the HEMA moiety. Both parent and 

the named metabolites shall be 

determined as EMA and HEMA, and 

calculated as the stoichiometric 

equivalents of acetochlor. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This final rule establishes tolerances 

under section 408(d) of FFDCA in 

response to a petition submitted to the 

Agency. 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 final rule 

has been exempted from review under 

Executive Order 12866, this final rule is 

not subject to Executive Order 13211, 

entitled Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, 

entitled Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). 

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., 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). 

Since tolerances and exemptions that 

are established on the basis of a petition 

under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as 

the tolerance 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. 

This final rule directly regulates 

growers, food processors, food handlers, 

and food retailers, not States or tribes, 

nor does this action alter the 

relationships or distribution of power 

and responsibilities established by 

Congress in the preemption provisions 

of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, 

the Agency has determined that this 

action will not have a substantial direct 

effect on States or tribal governments, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States or tribal 

governments, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government or between 

the Federal Government and Indian 

tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined 

that Executive Order 13132, entitled 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) and Executive Order 13175, 

entitled Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply 

to this final rule. In addition, this final 

rule does not 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). 

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). 

VII. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report 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: August 31, 2009. 

Lois Rossi, 

Director, Registration Division, Office of 

Pesticide Programs. 

■ Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

amended as follows: 

PART 180—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 180.470 is amended by 

revising the introductory text in 

paragraphs (a) and (d); alphabetically 

adding the entries cotton, gin 

byproducts; cotton, undelinted seed; 

soybean, meal; and soybean, seed to the 

table in paragraph (a), and by removing 

the entry for ‘‘soybean, seed’’ from the 

table in paragraph (d) to read as follows. 

§ 180.470 Acetochlor; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. Tolerances are 

established for residues of acetochlor, 

including its metabolites and 

degradates, in or on the commodities in 

the table below. Compliance with the 

tolerance levels specified below is to be 

determined by measuring only 

acetochlor, 2-chloro-2’-methyl-6-ethylN-ethoxymethylacetanilide, and its 

metabolites containing the ethyl methyl 

aniline (EMA) moiety and the 

hydroxyethyl methyl aniline (HEMA) 

moiety. Both parent and the named 

metabolites shall be determined as ethyl 

methyl aniline (EMA) and hydroxyethyl 

methyl aniline (HEMA), and calculated 

as the stoichiometric equivalents of 

acetochlor, in or on the following 

commodities: 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 47451 

Commodity Parts per million 

*****

Cotton, gin byproducts ................................................................................................................. 4.0 

Cotton, undelinted seed ............................................................................................................... 0.6 

*****

Soybean, meal ............................................................................................................................. 1.2 

Soybean, seed ............................................................................................................................. 1.0 

* * * * * 

(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. 

Tolerances are established for indirect 

or inadvertent residues of acetochlor, 

including its metabolites and 

degradates, in or on the raw agricultural 

commodities in the table to this 

paragraph when present therein as a 

result of application of acetochlor to the 

growing crops in the table to paragraph 

(a) of this section. Compliance with the 

tolerance levels specified below is to be 

determined by measuring only 

acetochlor, 2-chloro-2’-methyl-6-ethylN-ethoxymethylacetanilide, and its 

metabolites containing the ethyl methyl 

aniline (EMA) moiety and the 

hydroxyethyl methyl aniline (HEMA) 

moiety. Both parent and the named 

metabolites shall be determined as ethyl 

methyl aniline (EMA) and hydroxyethyl 

methyl aniline (HEMA), and calculated 

as the stoichiometric equivalents of 

acetochlor, in or on the following 

commodities. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–21845 Filed 9–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0251; FRL–8431–7] 

Ametryn, Amitraz, Ammonium Soap 

Salts of Higher Fatty Acids, Bitertanol, 

Coppers, et al.; Tolerance Actions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is revoking certain 

tolerances/tolerance exemptions for the 

fungicides pentachloronitrobenzene and 

triadimenol; the herbicides ametryn, 

fluazifop-p-butyl, and prometryn; the 

insecticides amitraz and mineral oil; the 

defoliant/desiccant sodium chlorate; 

and the fungicide/algicide/herbicide 

coppers. Also, EPA is modifying certain 

tolerances for the fungicide bitertanol 

and the insecticide malathion. In 

addition, EPA is establishing new 

tolerances/tolerance exemptions for the 

fungicides coppers and 

pentachloronitrobenzene; the herbicide 

prometryn; the insecticide malathion; 

and the defoliant/desiccant sodium 

chlorate; and revising the tolerance 

expression for the ammonium salts of 

higher fatty acids (ammonium soap 

salts). The regulatory actions finalized 

in this document are in follow-up to the 

Agency’s reregistration program under 

the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and tolerance 

reassessment program under the Federal 

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 

section 408(q). 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

September 16, 2009. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before November 16, 2009, and 

must be filed in accordance with the 

instructions provided in 40 CFR part 

178 (see also Unit I.C. of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2009–0251. All documents in the 

docket are listed in the docket index 

available at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(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 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 Bldg.), 

2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The 

Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. 

to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The Docket 

Facility telephone number is (703) 305– 

5805. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joseph Nevola, Pesticide Re-evaluation 

Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (703) 308-8037; e-mail address: 

nevola.joseph@epa.gov. 

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? 

In addition to accessing electronically 

available documents at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, you may access 

this Federal Register document 

electronically through the EPA Internet 

under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may 

also access a frequently updated 

electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 

through the Government Printing 

Office’s e-CFR site at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. 

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing 

Request? 

Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 21 

U.S.C. 346a, 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. 

You must file your objection or request 

a hearing on this regulation in 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES