Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 16, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 69457 

text as (c)(1) and adding paragraph 

(c)(2). 

§ 180.368 [Corrected] 

■ 3. On pages 51637 and 51638, in the 

third and first columns respectively, in 

the table to § 180.368 (a)(3), remove the 

stars wherever they appear. 

[FR Doc. 05–22609 Filed 11–15–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[OPP–2005–0270; FRL–7740–1] 

Sulfosulfuron; Pesticide Tolerances for 

Emergency Exemptions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

time-limited tolerances for combined 

residues of sulfosulfuron and its 

metabolites in or on Bahiagrass, forage; 

Bahiagrass, hay; Bermudagrass, forage; 

Bermudagrass, hay; milk; fat (of cattle, 

goat, horse and sheep); meat (of cattle, 

goat, horse and sheep); and meat 

byproducts (of cattle, goat, horse and 

sheep). This action is in response to 

EPA’s granting of emergency 

exemptions under section 18 of the 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authorizing 

use of the pesticide on Bahiagrass and 

Bermudagrass pastures and hayfields. 

This regulation establishes maximum 

permissible levels for residues of 

sulfosulfuron in these food 

commodities. The tolerances will expire 

and are revoked on December 31, 2009. 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

November 16, 2005. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before January 17, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: To submit a written 

objection or hearing request follow the 

detailed instructions as provided in 

Unit VII. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

identification (ID) number OPP–2005–

0270. All documents in the docket are 

listed in the EDOCKET index at http:// 

www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed 

in the index, some information is not 

publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in EDOCKET or in hard 

copy at the Public Information and 

Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 

119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., 

Arlington, VA. This docket facility is 

open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The docket telephone number 

is (703) 305–5805. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Libby Pemberton, Registration Division 

(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 308–9364; e-mail address: 

pemberton.libby@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 and Other Related 

Information? 

In addition to using EDOCKET (http:// 

www.epa.gov/edocket/), you may access 

this Federal Register document 

electronically through the EPA Internet 

under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. A 

frequently updated electronic version of 

40 CFR part 180 is available on E-CFR 

Beta Site Two at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/. 

II. Background and Statutory Findings 

EPA, on its own initiative, in 

accordance with sections 408(e) and 408 

(l)(6) of the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, 

is establishing a tolerance for combined 

residues of the herbicide sulfosulfuron, 

[1-(4,6-dimethoxypyrimidin-2yl)-3-[(2- 

ethanesulfonyl-imidazo[1,2-a]pyridine3-yl)sulfonyl]urea and metabolites 

converted to 2-(ethylsulfonyl)- 

imidazo[1,2-a]pyridine (calculated as 

sulfosulfuron), in or on Bahiagrass, 

forage at 11 parts per million (ppm); 

Bahiagrass, hay at 40 ppm; 

Bermudagrass, forage at 11 ppm; 

Bermudagrass, hay at 40 ppm; milk at 

0.02 ppm; fat (of cattle, goat, horse and 

sheep) at 0.04 ppm; meat (of cattle, goat, 

horse and sheep) at 0.02 ppm; and meat 

byproducts (cattle, goat, horse and 

sheep) at 0.50 ppm. These tolerances 

will expire and are revoked on 

December 31, 2009. EPA will publish a 

document in the Federal Register to 

remove the revoked tolerances from the 

Code of Federal Regulations. 

Section 408(l)(6) of the FFDCA 

requires EPA to establish a time-limited 

tolerance or exemption from the 

requirement for a tolerance for pesticide 

chemical residues in food that will 

result from the use of a pesticide under 

an emergency exemption granted by 

EPA under section 18 of FIFRA. Such 

tolerances can be established without 

providing notice or period for public 

comment. EPA does not intend for its 

actions on section 18 related tolerances 

to set binding precedents for the 

application of section 408 of the FFDCA 

and the new safety standard to other 

tolerances and exemptions. Section 

408(e) of the FFDCA allows EPA to 

establish a tolerance or an exemption 

from the requirement of a tolerance on 

its own initiative, i.e., without having 

received any petition from an outside 

party. 

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA 

allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the 

legal limit for a pesticide chemical 

residue in or on a food) only if EPA 

determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the FFDCA 

defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result from aggregate exposure to the 

pesticide chemical residue, including 

all anticipated dietary exposures and all 

other exposures for which there is 

reliable information.’’ This includes 

exposure through drinking water and in 

residential settings, but does not include 

occupational exposure. Section 

408(b)(2)(C) of the FFDCA requires EPA 

to give special consideration to 

exposure of infants and children to the 

pesticide chemical residue in 

establishing a tolerance and to ‘‘ensure 

that there is a reasonable certainty that 

no harm will result to infants and 

69458 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 16, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

children from aggregate exposure to the 

pesticide chemical residue. . ..’’

Section 18 of the FIFRA authorizes 

EPA to exempt any Federal or State 

agency from any provision of FIFRA, if 

EPA determines that ‘‘emergency 

conditions exist which require such 

exemption.’’ This provision was not 

amended by the Food Quality Protection 

Act of 1996 (FQPA). EPA has 

established regulations governing such 

emergency exemptions in 40 CFR part 

166. 

III. Emergency Exemption for 

Sulfosulfuron on Bahia and 

Bermudagrass Pastures and Hayfields 

and FFDCA Tolerances 

Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, 

Mississippi and Oklahoma indicate that, 

with the removal of imazapic from the 

hay and pasture market, there is no 

available control for Johnsongrass in 

Bahiagrass and/or Bermudagrass pasture 

and hayfields. Growers may experience 

significant losses without sulfosulfuron 

to control Johnsongrass. Johnsongrass 

reduces Bermudagrass hay quality and 

value. Additionally, under stressful 

conditions such as drought, frost or 

trampling, Johnsongrass may produce 

prussic acid which is toxic to livestock. 

Imazapic, the herbicide previously used 

to control Johnsongrass, was removed 

from the pasture and hay market in 

January 2004 resulting in the need for 

an emergency replacement. EPA has 

authorized under FIFRA section 18 the 

use of sulfosulfuron on Bahiagrass and 

Bermudagrass pasture and hayfields for 

control of Johnsongrass in Alabama, 

Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and 

Oklahoma. After having reviewed the 

submissions, EPA concurs that 

emergency conditions exist for these 

States. 

As part of its assessment of this 

emergency exemption, EPA assessed the 

potential risks presented by residues of 

sulfosulfuron in or on forage and hay 

associated with both Bermudagrass and 

Bahiagrass, as well as on various animal 

commodities for which residues may be 

present. In doing so, EPA considered the 

safety standard in section 408(b)(2) of 

the FFDCA, and EPA decided that the 

necessary tolerances under section 

408(l)(6) of the FFDCA would be 

consistent with the safety standard and 

with FIFRA section 18. Consistent with 

the need to move quickly on the 

emergency exemptions in order to 

address an urgent non-routine situation 

and to ensure that the resulting food is 

safe and lawful, EPA is issuing these 

tolerances without notice and 

opportunity for public comment as 

provided in section 408(l)(6) of the 

FFDCA. Although these tolerances will 

expire and are revoked on December 31, 

2009, under section 408(l)(5) of the 

FFDCA, residues of the pesticide not in 

excess of the amounts specified in the 

tolerances remaining in or on forage and 

hay associated with both Bermudagrass 

and Bahiagrass, as well as on the 

various associated animal commodities 

after that date will not be unlawful, 

provided the pesticide is applied in a 

manner that was lawful under FIFRA, 

and the residues do not exceed a level 

that was authorized by these tolerances 

at the time of that application. EPA will 

take action to revoke these tolerances 

earlier if any experience with, scientific 

data on, or other relevant information 

on this pesticide indicate that the 

residues are not safe. 

Because these tolerances are being 

approved under emergency conditions, 

EPA has not made any decisions about 

whether sulfosulfuron meets EPA’s 

registration requirements for use on 

Bermudagrass or Bahiagrass or whether 

permanent tolerances for this use would 

be appropriate. Under these 

circumstances, EPA does not believe 

that these tolerances serve as a basis for 

registration of sulfosulfuron by a State 

for special local needs under FIFRA 

section 24(c). Nor do these tolerances 

serve as the basis for any State other 

than Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, and Oklahoma to use this 

pesticide on these crops under section 

18 of FIFRA without following all 

provisions of EPA’s regulations 

implementing FIFRA section 18 as 

identified in 40 CFR part 166. For 

additional information regarding the 

emergency exemption for sulfosulfuron, 

contact the Agency’s Registration 

Division at the address provided under 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and 

Determination of Safety 

EPA performs a number of analyses to 

determine the risks from aggregate 

exposure to pesticide residues. For 

further discussion of the regulatory 

requirements of section 408 of the 

FFDCA and a complete description of 

the risk assessment process, see the final 

rule on Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances 

(62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997) 

(FRL–5754–7). 

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

of the FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the 

available scientific data and other 

relevant information in support of this 

action. EPA has sufficient data to assess 

the hazards of sulfosulfuron and to 

make a determination on aggregate 

exposure, consistent with section 

408(b)(2) of the FFDCA, for time-limited 

tolerances for combined residues of 

sulfosulfuron and its metabolites 

(calculated as sulfosulfuron) in or on 

Bahiagrass, forage at 11 ppm; 

Bahiagrass, hay at 40 ppm; 

Bermudagrass, forage at 11 ppm; 

Bermudagrass, hay at 40 ppm; milk at 

0.02 ppm; fat (of cattle, goat, horse and 

sheep) at 0.04 ppm; meat (of cattle, goat, 

horse and sheep) at 0.02 ppm; and meat 

byproducts (cattle, goat, horse and 

sheep) at 0.50 ppm. EPA’s assessment of 

the dietary exposures and risks 

associated with establishing these 

tolerances follows. 

A. Toxicological Endpoints 

The dose at which no adverse effects 

are observed (the NOAEL) from the 

toxicology study identified as 

appropriate for use in risk assessment is 

used to estimate the toxicological 

endpoint. However, the lowest dose at 

which adverse effects of concern are 

identified (the LOAEL) is sometimes 

used for risk assessment if no NOAEL 

was achieved in the toxicology study 

selected. An uncertainty factor (UF) is 

applied to reflect uncertainties inherent 

in the extrapolation from laboratory 

animal data to humans and in the 

variations in sensitivity among members 

of the human population as well as 

other unknowns. An UF of 100 is 

routinely used, 10X to account for 

interspecies differences and 10X for 

intraspecies differences. 

For dietary risk assessment (other 

than cancer) the Agency uses the UF to 

calculate an acute or chronic reference 

dose (acute RfD or chronic RfD) where 

the RfD is equal to the NOAEL divided 

by the appropriate UF (RfD = NOAEL/ 

UF). Where an additional safety factor is 

retained due to concerns unique to the 

FQPA, this additional factor is applied 

to the RfD by dividing the RfD by such 

additional factor. The acute or chronic 

Population Adjusted Dose (aPAD or 

cPAD) is a modification of the RfD to 

accommodate this type of FQPA SF. 

For non-dietary risk assessments 

(other than cancer) the UF is used to 

determine the level of concern (LOC). 

For example, when 100 is the 

appropriate UF (10X to account for 

interspecies differences and 10X for 

intraspecies differences) the LOC is 100. 

To estimate risk, a ratio of the NOAEL 

to exposures (margin of exposure (MOE) 

= NOAEL/exposure) is calculated and 

compared to the LOC. 

The linear default risk methodology 

(Q*) is the primary method currently 

used by the Agency to quantify 

carcinogenic risk. The Q* approach 

assumes that any amount of exposure 

will lead to some degree of cancer risk. 

A Q* is calculated and used to estimate 

risk which represents a probability of 

occurrence of additional cancer cases 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 16, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 69459 

(e.g., risk is expressed as 1 x 10-6 or one 

in a million). Under certain specific 

circumstances, MOE calculations will 

be used for the carcinogenic risk 

assessment. In this non-linear approach, 

a ‘‘point of departure’’ is identified 

below which carcinogenic effects are 

not expected. The point of departure is 

typically a NOAEL based on an 

endpoint related to cancer effects 

though it may be a different value 

derived from the dose response curve. 

To estimate risk, a ratio of the point of 

departure to exposure (MOEcancer = point 

of departure/exposures) is calculated. A 

summary of the toxicological endpoints 

for sulfosulfuron used for human risk 

assessment is shown in the following 

Table 1: 

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSE AND ENDPOINTS FOR SULFOSULFURON FOR USE IN HUMAN RISK

ASSESSMENT

Exposure Scenario Dose Used in Risk Assessment, UF 

Hazard and Exposure 

Based Special FQPA 

Safety Factor 

Study and Toxicological Effects 

Acute Dietary; all populations A dose and endpoint was not selected for 

acute dietary risk assessment because there 

were no effects attributable to a single dose 

(exposure) in the oral toxicology studies including developmental toxicity studies in the 

rat and the rabbit and an acute neurotoxicity 

study in the rat. 

NA NA 

Chronic Dietary all populations NOAEL= 24 mg/kg/day 

UF1 = 100 

Chronic RfD = 0.24 mg/kg/day 

FQPA SF = 1 

cPAD = cRfD ÷ 

FQPA SF 

cPAD = 0.24 mg/kg/ 

day 

Chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity - rat; 

LOAEL = 244.2 mg/kg/day based on 

urinary tract pathology,abnormal 

cyrtals and urinary calculi (both 

sexes); mineraliztion in heart, 

lung, pancreas, and skeletal muscles (male) 

Short-,Intermediate- LongTerm Dermal No dermal or systemic toxicity was seen following repeated dermal application at the 

limit dose in a 21–day dermal toxicity study 

in rats. Therefore, this risk assessment is not 

required. 

NA NA 

Inhalation (Any time period) Based on the low acute inhalation toxicity (Category IV; no mortality at 3 mg/L), the formulation of the product as wettable granules, 

and the low application rates for the proposed use patterns ranging from 25 - 70 g 

a.i./hectare (10-28 g a.i./acre), there is minimal concern for potential inhalation exposure 

and risk. Therefore, a separate inhalation 

risk assessment is not required. 

NA NA 

Cancer Likely human carcinogen - Q1* = 1.03 x 10-3

(mg/kg/day) -1 in human equivalents (converted from animals to humans by use of the 

BW3/4’s scaling factor) 

NA NA 

1 uncertainty factor; 10x for intraspecies variation and 10x for interspecies variation 

* The reference to the FQPA SF refers to any additional SF retained due to concerns unique to the FQPA. 

B. Exposure Assessment 

1. Dietary exposure from food and 

feed uses. Tolerances have been 

established (40 CFR 180.552) for the 

combined residues of sulfosulfuron, in 

or on wheat grain, forage, hay, staw and 

related milk and meat commodities. 

Risk assessments were conducted by 

EPA to assess dietary exposures from 

sulfosulfuron in food as follows: 

i. Acute exposure. Acute dietary risk 

assessments are performed for a fooduse pesticide if a toxicological study has 

indicated the possibility of an effect of 

concern occurring as a result of a one 

day or single exposure. As summarized 

in Table 1 (above), EPA’s review has 

concluded that sulfosulfuron has low 

acute oral, dermal, and inhalation 

toxicity. It is non-irritating to skin and 

slightly irritating to eyes. It is not a skin 

sensitizer. EPA has not selected toxicity 

endpoints for acute exposure reflecting 

the low hazard associated with acute 

exposure to this chemical. 

ii. Chronic exposure and cancer 

assessement. Chronic and cancer dietary 

risk assessments were conducted using 

LifelineTM (ver. 2.00) and the Dietary 

Exposure Evaluation Model - Food 

Consumption Intake Database (DEEMFCIDTM, ver. 1.30) models. Both of these 

models use food consumption data from 

the USDA’s Continuing Surveys of Food 

Intakes by Individuals (CSFII); 1994–

1996 and 1998). 

The chronic and cancer analyses 

assumed tolerance level residues, 100% 

crop treated, and DEEMTM (ver. 7.76) 

default processing factors. The 

LifelineTM chronic exposure estimates 

were <1% cPAD for all population 

subgroups (therefore less than EPA’s 

level of concern). The LifelineTM

lifetime cancer risk for the U.S. 

population is 2.0 x 10-7 (therefore less 

than EPA’s level of concern for the 

general U.S. population). DEEM-FCIDTM

resulted in chronic (<1% cPAD; 

children 1-2 years old were the most 

highly exposed subgroup) and cancer 

69460 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 16, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(2.1 x 10-7) exposure estimates similar to 

LifelineTM. 

In accordance with the Agency’s 

Proposed Guidelines for Carcinogenic 

Risk Assessment (April 10, 1996), EPA 

has classified sulfosulfuron as a likely 

human carcinogen. The weight-ofevidence for this classification includes: 

(1) Occurrence of rare transitional cell 

papilloma (benign tumors) and 

carcinoma of the urinary bladder in 

female rats; (2) occurrence of rare 

benign mesenchymal tumors of the 

urinary bladder in high dose male as 

well as renal adenomas in female and 

possibly male mice, and (3) the 

relevancy of the observed tumors to 

human exposure. 

EPA utilizes a linear low-dose 

approach (Q1*) for human risk 

characterization and extrapolation of 

risk should be based on the incidence of 

benign mesenchymal tumors in male 

mice. The rat transitional cell tumors 

and mouse renal adenomas were not 

used because of their low incidence. 

This extrapolation, rather than an MOE 

approach, is supported by the lack of 

sufficient data to characterize the 

mechanism of carcinogenicity. The unit 

risk, Q1* (in milligrams/kilograms/day) 

(mg/kg/day)-1 of sulfosulfuron based 

upon male mouse urinary bladder 

mesenchymal tumor rates is 1.03 x 10-3

(mg/kg/day)-1 in human equivalents. 

iii. Anticipated residue and percent 

crop treated (PCT) information. EPA did 

not use PCT information in this 

assessment. As stated above, EPA has 

performed a conservative assessment 

utilizing an assumption of 100% crop 

treated, and 100% tolerance levels 

detected, for the associated 

commodities. 

2. Dietary exposure from drinking 

water. The Agency lacks sufficient 

monitoring exposure data to complete a 

comprehensive dietary exposure 

analysis and risk assessment for 

sulfosulfuron in drinking water. 

Because the Agency does not have 

comprehensive monitoring data, 

drinking water concentration estimates 

are made by reliance on simulation or 

modeling taking into account data on 

the physical characteristics of 

sulfosulfuron. 

The Agency uses the Generic 

Estimated Environmental Concentration 

(GENEEC)or the Pesticide Root Zone/ 

Exposure Analysis Modeling System 

(PRZM/EXAMS) to estimate pesticide 

concentrations in surface water and 

Screening Concentrations in 

Groundwater (SCI-GROW), which 

predicts pesticide concentrations in 

ground water. In general, EPA will use 

GENEEC (a Tier 1 model) before using 

PRZM/EXAMS (a Tier 2 model) for a 

screening-level assessment for surface 

water. The GENEEC model is a subset of 

the PRZM/EXAMS model that uses a 

specific high-end runoff scenario for 

pesticides. GENEEC incorporates a farm 

pond scenario, while PRZM/EXAMS 

incorporate an index reservoir 

environment in place of the previous 

pond scenario. The PRZM/EXAMS 

model includes a percent crop area 

factor as an adjustment to account for 

the maximum percent crop coverage 

within a watershed or drainage basin. 

None of these models include 

consideration of the impact processing 

(mixing, dilution, or treatment) of raw 

water for distribution as drinking water 

would likely have on the removal of 

pesticides from the source water. The 

primary use of these models by the 

Agency at this stage is to provide a 

coarse screen for sorting out pesticides 

for which it is highly unlikely that 

drinking water concentrations would 

ever exceed human health levels of 

concern. 

Since the models used are considered 

to be screening tools in the risk 

assessment process, the Agency does 

not use estimated environmental 

concentrations (EECs) from these 

models to quantify drinking water 

exposure and risk as a %RfD or %PAD. 

Instead, drinking water levels of 

comparison (DWLOCs) are calculated 

and used as a point of comparison 

against the model estimates of a 

pesticide’s concentration in water. 

DWLOCs are theoretical upper limits on 

a pesticide’s concentration in drinking 

water in light of total aggregate exposure 

to a pesticide in food, and from 

residential uses. Since DWLOCs address 

total aggregate exposure to sulfosulfuron 

they are further discussed in the 

aggregate risk sections below. 

Based on the GENEEC and SCI-GROW 

models the EECs of sulfosulfuron for 

acute exposures are estimated to be 0.66 

parts per billion (ppb) for surface water 

and 1.9 ppb for ground water. The EECs 

for chronic exposures are estimated to 

be 1.73 ppb for surface water and 0.295 

ppb for ground water. 

3. From non-dietary exposure. The 

term ‘‘residential exposure’’ is used in 

this document to refer to nonoccupational, non-dietary exposure 

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

indoor pest control, termiticides, and 

flea and tick control on pets). 

There are no residential uses of 

sulfosulfuron that are expected to result 

in residential handler exposure. 

However, the commercial use of 

sulfosulfuron on residential and 

recreational turf may lead to post 

application exposure in individuals. 

EPA has performed a cancer risk 

assessment for adults and children 

based on post application residential 

exposure. 

Cancer risk for residential adults was 

calculated based on high and low 

activity. For high-exposure activity, a 

Transfer Coefficient (Tc) of 1,000 cm2/ 

hr (1 hr) was used and for low-exposure 

activity, a Tc of 500 cm2/hr (1 hr) was 

used. 

EPA built several conservative 

assumptions into the assessment of 

residential cancer risk. These include 

using 50 years of exposure and an 

estimated 20% (default) of dislodgeable 

foliar residues (DFR) from the turf, 

which is derived from the maximum 

application rate. An average of 14 days 

of DFRs was used for this cancer 

assessment; this would be considered a 

10% decrease each day (from dilution 

by rain, and mowing of the grass) of the 

20% residue for at least 14 days, and 

then taking the mean value of this 14–

day exposure. 

The Lifetime Average Daily Dose 

(LADD) = 6.0 x 10-5 mg/kg/day for a Tc 

=1,000 cm2/hr (high-exposure activity 

for 1 hour) and for a Tc = 500 cm2/hr 

(low-exposure activity for 1 hour) is 

equal to 3.0 x 10-5 mg/kg/day. 

The estimated cancer risk for adults 

on day zero, based on high-exposure 

activity for 1 hour (Tc =1,000 cm2/hr) is 

estimated to be 1.2 x 10-7. For lowexposure activity (Tc = 500 cm2/hr), the 

risk is estimated to be 6.0 x 10-8. 

Although it is likely that toddlers 

would also be exposed to sulfosulfuron 

from incidental ingestion of grass, soil, 

or hand-to-mouth transfer, no relevant 

oral toxicological endpoints have been 

identified by EPA. Therefore, to address 

the short-term residential risk to 

children from incidental exposure, for 

the purposes of this assessment only, 

EPA used the NOAEL of 24mg/kg/day 

from the combined chronic toxicity/ 

carcinogenicity study in rats. This 

NOAEL is considered conservative and 

health protective for this assessment 

because it represents the lowest NOAEL 

in the most sensitive species (the basis 

for the cRfD). 

Postapplication inhalation exposure is 

considered to be negligible. However, 

non-dietary, incidental ingestion of 

residues from treated turfgrass and 

ingestion of contaminated soil are 

possible. 

As a conservative measure, the 

exposure and risk estimates for four 

residential exposure scenarios are 

assessed for the day of application (day 

zero) because it is assumed that toddlers 

could contact the lawn immediately 

after application. Chronic exposure is 

not expected (i.e., these activities are 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 16, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 69461 

not expected to occur continuously for 

more than 30 days). 

Children’s estimated risk from oral 

hand-to-mouth activities on treated 

lawns is estimated to result in a shortterm MOE of 1,700. Children’s 

estimated risk from oral object-to-mouth 

(turfgrass) from treated lawns is 

estimated to result in a short-term MOE 

of 6,800. Children’s estimated risk from 

incidental ingestion of soil from treated 

lawns is estimated to result in a shortterm MOE of 510,000. Since short-term 

MOEs are above 100, they do not exceed 

EPA’s level of concern. Chronic or longterm exposure is not expected. 

While considered unlikely, if a 

toddler were to experience exposure 

from all of these sources at the same 

time, the combined incidental oral 

exposure would be 0.018 mg/kg/day. 

This combined exposure results in an 

estimated MOE of 1,400, which does not 

exceed EPA’s level of concern. 

4. Cumulative effects from substances 

with a common mechanism of toxicity. 

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the FFDCA 

requires that, when considering whether 

to establish, modify, or revoke a 

tolerance, the Agency consider 

‘‘available information’’ concerning the 

cumulative effects of a particular 

pesticide’s residues and ‘‘other 

substances that have a common 

mechanism of toxicity.’’

Unlike other pesticides for which EPA 

has followed a cumulative risk approach 

based on a common mechanism of 

toxicity, EPA has not made a common 

mechanism of toxicity finding as to 

sulfosulfuron and any other substances 

and sulfosulfuron does not appear to 

produce a toxic metabolite produced by 

other substances. For the purposes of 

this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has 

not assumed that sulfosulfuron has a 

common mechanism of toxicity with 

other substances. For information 

regarding EPA’s efforts to determine 

which chemicals have a common 

mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate 

the cumulative effects of such 

chemicals, see the policy statements 

released by EPA’s Office of Pesticide 

Programs concerning common 

mechanism determinations and 

procedures for cumulating effects from 

substances found to have a common 

mechanism on EPA’s website at http:// 

www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/. 

C. Safety Factor for Infants and Children 

1. In general. Section 408 of the 

FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply 

an additional tenfold margin of safety 

for infants and children in the case of 

threshold effects to account for prenatal 

and postnatal toxicity and the 

completeness of the data base on 

toxicity and exposure unless EPA 

determines that a different margin of 

safety will be safe for infants and 

children. Margins of safety are 

incorporated into EPA risk assessments 

either directly through use of a MOE 

analysis or through using uncertainty 

(safety) factors in calculating a dose 

level that poses no appreciable risk to 

humans. 

2. Developmental reproductive 

toxicity studies. The results of the 2–

generation reproduction and 

developmental toxicity studies 

indicated that sulfosulfuron is not a 

developmental or reproductive toxicant. 

The acute and subchronic neurotoxicity 

studies showed that sulfosulfuron is not 

neurotoxic. Sulfosulfuron is rapidly 

excreted, primarily unmetabolized. 

Excretion at low dose occurred 

primarily in the urine, whereas at high 

dose, a large percentage of the 

administered dose was excreted in the 

feces. Sulfosulfuron was not retained in 

tissues to any significant extent. 

3. Conclusion. There is a complete 

toxicity data base for sulfosulfuron and 

exposure data are complete or are 

estimated based on data that reasonably 

accounts for potential exposures. EPA 

has determined that the 10X safety 

factor to protect infants and children 

should be removed. The FQPA factor is 

removed because the developmental 

and reproductive toxicity data did not 

indicate increased susceptibility of rats 

or rabbits to in utero and/or postnatal 

exposure. Any detectable residues in 

food or drinking water would be 

expected at low levels since application 

rates are low. There are currently no 

registered homeowner uses for 

sulfosulfuron. Finally, concern for postapplication exposure to infants and 

children from commercial application of 

the pesticide is tempered by the low 

acute oral, dermal, and inhalation 

toxicity of this pesticide. 

D. Aggregate Risks and Determination of 

Safety 

To estimate total aggregate exposure 

to a pesticide from food, drinking water, 

and residential uses, the Agency 

calculates DWLOCs which are used as a 

point of comparison against the model 

estimates of a pesticide’s concentration 

in water (EECs). DWLOC values are not 

regulatory standards for drinking water. 

DWLOCs are theoretical upper limits on 

a pesticide’s concentration in drinking 

water in light of total aggregate exposure 

to a pesticide in food and residential 

uses. In calculating a DWLOC, the 

Agency determines how much of the 

acceptable exposure (i.e., the PAD) is 

available for exposure through drinking 

water (e.g., allowable chronic water 

exposure (mg/kg/day)) = cPAD - 

(average food + chronic non-dietary, 

non-occupational exposure). This 

allowable exposure through drinking 

water is used to calculate a DWLOC. 

A DWLOC will vary depending on the 

toxic endpoint, drinking water 

consumption, and body weights. Default 

body weights and consumption values 

as used by EPA’s Office of Water are 

used to calculate DWLOCs: 2 liter (L)/ 

70 kg (adult male), 2L/60 kg (adult 

female), and 1L/10 kg (child). Default 

body weights and drinking water 

consumption values vary on an 

individual basis. This variation will be 

taken into account in more refined 

screening-level and quantitative 

drinking water exposure assessments. 

Different populations will have different 

DWLOCs. Generally, a DWLOC is 

calculated for each type of risk 

assessment used: Acute, short-term, 

intermediate-term, chronic, and cancer. 

When EECs for surface water and 

ground water are less than the 

calculated DWLOCs, EPA concludes 

with reasonable certainty that exposures 

to sulfosulfuron in drinking water 

(when considered along with other 

sources of exposure for which EPA has 

reliable data) would not result in 

unacceptable levels of aggregate human 

health risk at this time. Because EPA 

considers the aggregate risk resulting 

from multiple exposure pathways 

associated with a pesticide’s uses, levels 

of comparison in drinking water may 

vary as those uses change. If new uses 

are added in the future, EPA will 

reassess the potential impacts of 

sulfosulfuron on drinking water as a 

part of the aggregate risk assessment 

process. 

1. Acute risk. As discussed earlier, 

sulfosulfuron has low acute oral, 

dermal, and inhalation toxicity. It is 

non-irritating to skin, slightly irritating 

to eyes and is not a skin sensitizer. 

Endpoints for risk assessment through 

exposure via the acute dietary, dermal, 

inhalation and incidental oral routes 

were not identified; therefore, acute, 

short- and intermediate-term dermal 

and inhalation risk were not concerns. 

2. Chronic risk. Chronic and cancer 

aggregate risk assessments were 

performed for adults, while short-term 

and chronic aggregate risk assessments 

were performed for children. Using the 

exposure assumptions described in this 

unit for chronic exposure, EPA has 

concluded that exposure to 

sulfosulfuron from food will utilize <1% 

of the cPAD for all population 

subgroups, including infants and 

children, young children, young adults, 

females of childbearing age and for the 

overall U.S. population. Based the use 

69462 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 16, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

pattern, chronic residential exposure to 

residues of sulfosulfuron is not 

expected. In addition, despite the 

potential for chronic dietary exposure to 

sulfosulfuron in drinking water, after 

calculating DWLOCs and comparing 

them to conservative model EECs of 

sulfosulfuron in surface water and 

ground water, EPA does not expect the 

aggregate exposure to exceed 100% of 

the cPAD, as shown in the following 

Table 2: 

TABLE 2.—AGGREGATE RISK ASSESSMENT FOR CHRONIC (NON-CANCER) EXPOSURE TO SULFOSULFURON

Population cPAD (mg/ 

kg/day) 

Chronic 

Food Exposure (mg/kg/ 

day) 

Max Chronic Water Exposure1

(mg/kg/day) 

Ground 

Water EEC2

(ppb) 

Surface 

Water EEC2

(ppb) 

Chronic 

DWLOC3

(ppb) 

General U.S. population NA 0.000206 0.24 NA NA 8,400 

NA 0.24 NA NA 0.295 1.73 NA 

All infants (<1 year old) NA 0.000286 0.24 NA NA 2,400 

Children (1-2 years old) NA 0.000900 0.24 NA NA 2,400 

Children (3-5 years old) NA 0.000636 0.24 NA NA 2,400 

Children (6-12 years old) NA 0.000387 0.24 NA NA 2,400 

Youth (13-19 years old) NA 0.000182 0.24 NA NA 7,200 

Adults (20-49 years old) NA 0.000124 0.24 NA NA 8,400 

Adults (50 + years old) NA 0.000114 0.24 NA NA 8,400 

Females (13-49 years old) NA 0.000123 0.24 NA NA 7,200 

1 Maximum chronic water exposure (mg/kg/day) = cPAD (mg/kg/day) - chronic food exposure from DEEM (mg/kg/day); no res. exp. 2 FIRST and SCI-GROW modeling EECs (Tier 1) 3 DWLOC(μg/L) = (allowable water exposure (mg/kg/day) x body weight (kg) x 1,000 μg/mg) ÷ (water consumption (liters)) 

3. Short-term risk. The short-term 

aggregate risk takes into account the 

exposure from potential residential 

sources in addition to average dietary 

residues from food and drinking water. 

The short-term aggregate risk 

assessment was performed for children 

only, since an endpoint for dermal risk 

assessment was not identified. The 

resulting short-term DWLOC is 2,200 

ppb and is not of concern because it 

exceeds the EECs for sulfosulfuron. 

Short-term aggregate risks are presented 

in the following Table 3: 

TABLE 3.—SHORT-TERM AGGREGATE RISK AND DWLOC CALCULATIONS

Population 

Short-Term Scenario 

NOAEL 

mg/kg/ 

day 

Target 

MOE 

Max Exposure 

mg/kg/ 

day 

Average 

Food Exposure 

mg/kg/ 

day 

Residential Exposure mg/ 

kg/day 

Aggregate 

MOE 

(food and 

residential) 

Allowable 

Water Exposure 

mg/kg/ 

day 

Ground 

Water 

EEC 

(ppb) 

Surface 

Water 

EEC 

(ppb) 

ShortTerm 

DWLOC 

(ppb) 

Child 24 100 0.24 0.00090 0.018 1,270 0.221100 0.295 1.73 2,200 

4. Intermediate-term risk. 

Intermediate-term aggregate exposure 

takes into account non-dietary, nonoccupational exposure plus chronic 

exposure to food and water (considered 

to be a background exposure level). 

Although residential exposure could 

occur with the use of sulfosulfuron, no 

toxicological effects have been 

identified for intermediate-term toxicity. 

Therefore, the aggregate risk is the sum 

of the risk from food and water, which 

were previously addressed. 

5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. 

population. The cancer aggregate risk 

assessment considered exposure from 

food, water and residential sources. EPA 

performs cancer assessments for only 

the general U.S. population. The cancer 

dietary analyses assumed tolerance level 

residues, 100% crop treated, and DEEM 

default processing factors. The 

LifelineTM lifetime cancer risk for the 

U.S. population is 2.0 x 10-7 and is 

therefore less than EPA’s level of 

concern. Residential cancer risk was 

estimated for adults only. The aggregate 

cancer risk DWLOC of 25 ppb exceeds 

EECs for sulfosulfuron and does not 

result in a concern. 

6. Determination of safety. Based on 

these risk assessments, EPA concludes 

that there is a reasonable certainty that 

no harm will result to the general 

population, and to infants and children 

from aggregate exposure to 

sulfosulfuron residues. 

V. Other Considerations 

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology 

Adequate enforcement methodology 

(example—gas chromatography) is 

available to enforce the tolerance 

expression. The method may be 

requested from: Chief, Analytical 

Chemistry Branch, Environmental 

Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. 

Meade, MD 20755–5350; telephone 

number: (410) 305–2905; e-mail 

address:residuemethods@epa.gov. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 16, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 69463 

B. International Residue Limits 

There is neither a Codex proposal, nor 

Canadian or Mexican maximum residue 

limits, for residues of sulfosulfuron in or 

on grasses. Therefore, harmonization is 

not an issue for this tolerance action. 

C. Conditions 

No conditions are placed on these 

time-limited tolerances. 

VI. Conclusion 

Therefore, tolerances are established 

for combined residues of sulfosulfuron, 

1-(4,6-dimethoxypyrimidin-2yl)-3-[(2- 

ethanesulfonyl-imidazo[1,2-a]pyridine3-yl)sulfonyl]urea and metabolites 

converted to 2-(ethylsulfonyl)- 

imidazo[1,2-a]pyridine (calculated as 

sulfosulfuron), in or on Bermudagrass, 

forage at 11 ppm; Bermudagrass, hay at 

40 ppm; Bahiagrass, forage at 11 ppm; 

Bahiagrass, hay at 40 ppm; milk at 0.02 

ppm; fat (of cattle, goat, horse and 

sheep) at 0.04 ppm; meat (of cattle, goat, 

horse and sheep) at 0.02 ppm; and meat 

byproducts (cattle, goat, horse and 

sheep) at 0.50 ppm. 

VII. Objections and Hearing Requests 

Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as 

amended by the FQPA, any person may 

file an objection to any aspect of this 

regulation and may also request a 

hearing on those objections. The EPA 

procedural regulations which govern the 

submission of objections and requests 

for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. 

Although the procedures in those 

regulations require some modification to 

reflect the amendments made to the 

FFDCA by the FQPA, EPA will continue 

to use those procedures, with 

appropriate adjustments, until the 

necessary modifications can be made. 

The new section 408(g) of the FFDCA 

provides essentially the same process 

for persons to ‘‘object’’ to a regulation 

for an exemption from the requirement 

of a tolerance issued by EPA under new 

section 408(d) of the FFDCA, as was 

provided in the old sections 408 and 

409 of the FFDCA. However, the period 

for filing objections is now 60 days, 

rather than 30 days. 

A. What Do I Need to Do to File an 

Objection or Request a Hearing? 

You must file your objection or 

request a hearing on this regulation in 

accordance with the instructions 

provided in this unit and in 40 CFR part 

178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, 

you must identify docket ID number 

OPP–2005–0270 in the subject line on 

the first page of your submission. All 

requests must be in writing, and must be 

mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk 

on or before January 17, 2006. 

1. Filing the request. Your objection 

must specify the specific provisions in 

the regulation that you object to, and the 

grounds for the objections (40 CFR 

178.25). If a hearing is requested, the 

objections must include a statement of 

the factual issue(s) on which a hearing 

is requested, the requestor’s contentions 

on such issues, and a summary of any 

evidence relied upon by the objector (40 

CFR 178.27). Information submitted in 

connection with an objection or hearing 

request may be claimed confidential by 

marking any part or all of that 

information as CBI. Information so 

marked will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. A copy of the 

information that does not contain CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public record. Information not marked 

confidential may be disclosed publicly 

by EPA without prior notice. 

Mail your written request to: Office of 

the Hearing Clerk (1900L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001. You may also deliver 

your request to the Office of the Hearing 

Clerk in Suite 350, 1099 14th St., NW., 

Washington, DC 20005. The Office of 

the Hearing Clerk is open from 8 a.m. 

to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Office of the Hearing 

Clerk is (202) 564–6255. 

2.Copies for the Docket. In addition to 

filing an objection or hearing request 

with the Hearing Clerk as described in 

Unit VII.A.1., you should also send a 

copy of your request to the PIRIB for its 

inclusion in the official record that is 

described in ADDRESSES. Mail your 

copies, identified by the docket ID 

number OPP–2005–0270, to: Public 

Information and Records Integrity 

Branch, Information Technology and 

Resource Management Division (7502C), 

Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001. In person or by courier, 

bring a copy to the location of the PIRIB 

described in ADDRESSES. You may also 

send an electronic copy of your request 

via e-mail to: opp-docket@epa.gov. 

Please use an ASCII file format and 

avoid the use of special characters and 

any form of encryption. Copies of 

electronic objections and hearing 

requests will also be accepted on disks 

in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file 

format. Do not include any CBI in your 

electronic copy. You may also submit an 

electronic copy of your request at many 

Federal Depository Libraries. 

B. When Will the Agency Grant a 

Request for a Hearing? 

A request for a hearing will be granted 

if the Administrator determines that the 

material submitted shows the following: 

There is a genuine and substantial issue 

of fact; there is a reasonable possibility 

that available evidence identified by the 

requestor would, if established resolve 

one or more of such issues in favor of 

the requestor, taking into account 

uncontested claims or facts to the 

contrary; and resolution of the factual 

issue(s) in the manner sought by the 

requestor would be adequate to justify 

the action requested (40 CFR 178.32). 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This final rule establishes timelimited tolerances under section 408 of 

the FFDCA. The Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) has exempted these 

types of actions from review under 

Executive Order 12866, entitled 

Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993). Because this 

rule has been exempted from review 

under Executive Order 12866 due to its 

lack of significance, this rule is not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This final rule does not 

contain any information collections 

subject to OMB approval under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose any 

enforceable duty or contain any 

unfunded mandate as described under 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public 

Law 104–4). Nor does it require any 

special considerations under Executive 

Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994); or OMB review or any Agency 

action under Executive Order 13045, 

entitled Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

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

This action does not involve any 

technical standards that would require 

Agency consideration of voluntary 

consensus standards pursuant to section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, section 

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

tolerances and exemptions that are 

established on the basis of a FIFRA 

section 18 exemption under section 408 

of the FFDCA, such as the tolerances in 

this final rule, do not require the 

issuance of a proposed rule, the 

69464 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 16, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et 

seq.) do not apply. In addition, the 

Agency has determined that this action 

will not have a substantial direct effect 

on States, on the relationship between 

the national government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999). Executive Order 13132 requires 

EPA to develop an accountable process 

to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input 

by State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies 

that have federalism implications’’ is 

defined in the Executive Order to 

include regulations that have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ This final rule 

directly regulates growers, food 

processors, food handlers, and food 

retailers, not States. This action does not 

alter the relationships or distribution of 

power and responsibilities established 

by Congress in the preemption 

provisions of section 408(n)(4) of the 

FFDCA. For these same reasons, the 

Agency has determined that this rule 

does not have any ‘‘tribal implications’’

as described in Executive Order 13175, 

entitled Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 

67249, November 6, 2000). Executive 

Order 13175, requires EPA to develop 

an accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by tribal 

officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal 

implications’’ is defined in the 

Executive Order to include regulations 

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on 

one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and the Indian tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes.’’ This 

rule will not have substantial direct 

effects on tribal governments, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rule. 

IX. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of this final 

rule in the Federal Register. This final 

rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 

5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: November 7, 2005. 

Donald R. Stubbs, 

Acting Director, Registration Division, Office 

of Pesticide Programs. 

■ 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 180.552 is amended by 

adding text to paragraph (b) to read as 

follows: 

§ 180.552 Sulfosulfuron; pesticide 

tolerances. 

* * * * * 

(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. 

Time-limited tolerances are established 

for the combined residues of the 

herbicide sulfosulfuron, 1-(4,6- 

dimethoxypyrimidin-2-yl)-3-[(2- 

ethanesulfonyl-imidazo[1,2-a]pyridine3-yl)sulfonyl]urea and metabolites 

converted to 2-(ethylsulfonyl)- 

imidazo[1,2-a]pyridine (calculated as 

sulfosulfuron) in connection with use of 

the pesticide under section 18 

emergency exemptions granted by EPA. 

The tolerances are specified in the 

following table. The tolerances will 

expire on the dates specified in the 

table. 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Expiration/ 

revocation 

date 

Bahiagrass, forage ................ 11 12/31/09 

Bahiagrass, hay 40 12/31/09 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Expiration/ 

revocation 

date 

Bermudagrass, 

forage ............ 11 12/31/09 

Bermudagrass, 

hay ................ 40 12/31/09 

Cattle, fat .......... 0.04 12/31/09 

Cattle, meat ...... 0.02 12/31/09 

Cattle, meat byproducts ........ 0.50 12/31/09 

Goat, fat ............ 0.04 12/31/09 

Goat, meat ........ 0.02 12/31/09 

Goat, meat byproducts ........ 0.50 12/31/09 

Horse, fat .......... 0.04 12/31/09 

Horse, meat ...... 0.02 12/31/09 

Horse, meat byproducts ........ 0.50 12/31/09 

Milk ................... 0.02 12/31/09 

Sheep, fat ......... 0.04 12/31/09 

Sheep, meat ..... 0.02 12/31/09 

Sheep, meat byproducts ........ 0.50 12/31/09 

* * * * * 

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

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Addition of White Abalone 

and the United States Distinct 

Vertebrate Population Segment of the 

Smalltooth Sawfish to the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service), are adding two marine 

taxa to the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife (List) in accordance 

with the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.) (Act). These two taxa are the white 

abalone (Haliotis sorenseni) and the 

United States Distinct Vertebrate 

Population Segment (DPS) of the 

smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata). 

These amendments are based on 

previously published determinations by 

the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 

Department of Commerce, which has 

jurisdiction for these species. 

DATES: Effective date: This rule is 

effective November 16, 2005. 

Applicability dates: The white 

abalone listing is applicable as of June 

28, 2001. The United States DPS of the