OF FICE O F PREV E N TI ON

, P ESTI CID E S, A ND T OXI C S UBSTANCES

C hemical: S ulfometuron Met h yl 

### PC Co de: 122001

M EMO RANDUM

DAT E: Nov ember 20

, 2009

SU BJ EC T: Re sponse to C omment s R ece i ved Fo llo wing the Pub li cation of t he S ulfometuron Meth yl R eregistration E ligibi li ty Document



### FR OM : 

### Ru sse ll

### as**em cf2-.**  Ri sk Mana gement and Imp l ementation Branc h I
Pe sti cide R e-eva luatio n D i vision (7 5 9P)

TUR D: Ann e Ove rstreet, A ct i ng C hief
R i sk Management and Implem a t i on B ranch I
P esticide R e-evaluatio n Di vision (7509P)



### T O: S u l fometuron Me thy l D ocket ( EPA-HQ-OPP-2008

- 0129)

I n S ep te meber 2 008

, EP A i ssued th e r eregistra tion eligibi lit y deci sion ( RED) f or

s ulfometuron meth yl. The pub li c , including u sers , t he t echnical reg istrant, and trad e repre sentative g r o ups, s ubmitted commen t s o n that do cument during a 6 0

- day c omment
p eriod

. Th e comment s were c ompiled and a ssigned to the appropriate di vi sion within the
Offi ce of P esticide Programs for re sponse i .e., t h e Health E ffec ts Divi s ion

, the Ec ologica l
F ate and Effe cts Di vision, o r th e Pe s ticide Re- eva luati on Di vision. Wh ere c ommen t s

w ere si m ila r in n atur e , the y w ere gr ouped tog ether and addre ssed a s a s ingle c omment. A ll c omments c an b e f ound in the s u l fometuron meth y l do cket at : \V\V\v.rcgulations.gov : 

### docket number : EP A-HQ -OPP- 2008 -0l29

.

### 1. Summary of Public Comment(s): Several commenters expressed concern that mitigation measures indicated in the Sulfometuron Methyl Reregistra tion Eligibility Decision (SMM RED) were a reaction to specific environmental incident(s) cited in the SMM RED.

EPA Response: The Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) generally uses incident data in support of its risk assessment. The risk assessment conducted to support the reregistra tion of sulfometuron methyl identified unacceptable risks (expres sed as a risk quotient (RQ)) to non-target plants and were the primary factor that compelled the Agency to implement risk mitigation measures. In addition to direct risk to non-target plants, the Agency also noted that sulfometuron methyl use posed indirect ri sk to terrestrial and aquatic organisms that rely upon vegetation for growth reproduction or survival.

2. Summary of Public Comment(s) One commenter expressed concern that the mitigation measures would further limit the number of products that can be use for vegetation management in California Ground Water Protection Areas.

EPA Response The Agency acknowledges this concern a nd, based upon substantive public comments and other information received, has revised its risk assessment and mitigation requirements.

3. Summary of Public Comment(s) Several commenters had questions regardi ng the label language that requires a “60% chance of rain within 48 hours of the time of application” when making applications to soils subject to erosion.

EPA Response The Agency believes that standard local w eather forecasts available via the internet, newspaper, radio, or television are suitable for determining the percent chance for rainfall in the local area. National weather sources are also available and suitable. It is the role of the State to enforce the legal use of a pesticide and the subject label statement is intended to provide the professi onal applicator a parameter to help him/her make the best decision about how and when to apply sulfometuron methyl.

4. Summary of Public Comment(s) The Agency received comments regarding the Agency’s mitigation measures in relation to best management practices (BMP) associat ed with state requirements to reduce nonpoint source pollutants from forestry activities. Commenters argued that the mitigation

### measures imposed by the 2008 SMM RED were d uplicative, overly protective, and not necessary in light of BMPs curre ntly required by individual states.

EPA Response: In its February 25, 2009 meeting with Nationa l Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO) and National Council for Air and Stream Improveme nt (NCASI), the Agency discussed state management plans, and NCASI indicated th at it was currently preparing a document, Compendium of Forestry BMPs for Cont rolling Nonpoint Sour ce Pollution in North America, to summarize BMPs for forestry activ ities mandated by state plans. The NCASI provided a courtesy copy of this documen t to the Agency, and it is available from NCASI upon request (technical bulletin no. 966, Sep. 2009). The Agency notes, as it is also indicated in NCASI’s document, that wh ile States have their respective management practices for nonpoint source pollution associat ed with commercial forestry practices, which includes pesticides, State and Federal regulations clearly state that the use of a pesticide is regulated by the Federal Insectic ide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act, and that federal pesticide label requirements must be followed when using these products. The revised mitigation measures in the Amendmen t to the SMM RED fall within the range of typically found in state regulations and BMPs. Therefore, the Agency believes that the amended sulfometuron methyl requirements will not present an undue hardship, or conflict with BMP’s specified in re spective State management plans.

5. Summary of Public Comment(s) Several commenters expressed concern that the mitigation specified in the SMM RED, specifically the 500 foot aerial buffer from wate r, may lead to an increase of backpack application of herbicides and mechanical a nd manual removal of weed pests in forestry settings. The commenters believe this will in crease the number of workers, and therefore also increase potential occupational risks.

EPA Response: The Agency is concerned about occupational risk whether it is from direct exposure to an active ingredient, or physical c onditions related to the use of a pesticide product. Based upon comments received, the Agency has revised its mitigation requirements for sulfometuron methyl. The Agency believes that the revised application requirements will not lead to a greater reliance on manual application and c onsequently will not inadvertently increase potential risk to hand-held applicators.

6. Summary of Public Comment(s) Several commenters expressed concern that the Agency employed an overly narrow interpretation of the results fr om the AgDrift model, and this interpritation led to the 100 and 500 foot buffer zone requirements required by the SMM RED.

EPA Response: When developing ecological mitigation for sulfometuron methyl, the Agency not only considered the potential risks from use of su lfometuron methyl, but also the benefits of

### the product, typical applicati on patterns, and the comments and input of industry and stakeholders. The Agency strives to reach a ba lanced decision that is consistent with its statutory requirements, transparen t, and involves all stakeholders.

7. Summary of Public Comment(s) Multiple commenters believe the mitigation co ntained in the SMM RED will lead to an increased reliance on older pesticides that requi re higher application rates, cost more to use, and have a less desirable impact on human health and the environment.

EPA Response: The Agency strives to encourage the use of “s afe” pesticides (i.e., pesticides that present a reduced risk to the user, or non-target organism given the use scenario). The Agency acknowledges this concern and based on subs tantive public comments, has revised the mitigation for sulfometuron methyl and believes that the revised requirements are in line with current use patterns and, therefore, will not cause a shif t in market and/or potential risk.

8. Summary of Public Comment(s) During the comment period the Agency rece ived multiple requests to extend the comment period beyond the initial cl osing date of January 12, 2009.

EPA Response: While the Agency did not extend or reopen the comment period, it accepted and considered late comments it received.

9. Summary of Public Comment(s) Several commenters believe that the phrase “ under the forest canopy” is broad or vague and does not contribute to clear label language.

EPA Response: The language “except for under forest canopy” is standard language from the Agency’s Label Review Manual (LRM). The purpose of the LRM is to encourage consistency across all labels.