738R02012
&EPA
United States       Prevention, Pesticides
Environmental Protection   and Toxic Substances     November 2002
Agency	(7S08C)	
Reregistration
Eligibility Decision for
Endosulfan

-------

-------
                      United States
                      Environmental Protection
                      Agency	
                         Prevention, Pesticides
                         And Toxic Substances
                         (7508C)	
EPA-738-F-02-012
September 2002
3-Em    R.E.D.  FACTS
     Pesticide
  Registration
                       Endosulfan
     All pesticides sold or distributed in the United States must be registered by
EPA, based on scientific studies showing that they can be used without posing
unreasonable risks to people or the environment. Because of advances in
scientific knowledge, the law requires that pesticides which were first registered
before November 1,1984, be reregistered to ensure that they meet today's more
stringent standards.
     In evaluating pesticides for reregistration, EPA obtains and reviews a
complete set of studies from pesticide producers, describing the human health and
environmental effects of each pesticide. To implement provisions of the Food
Quality Protection Act of 19%, EPA considers the special sensitivity of infants
and children to pesticides, as well as aggregate exposure of the public to pesticide
residues from all sources, and the cumulative effects of pesticides and other
compounds with common mechanisms of toxicity. The Agency develops any
mitigation measures or regulatory controls needed to effectively reduce each
pesticide's risks.  EPA then reregisters pesticides that meet the safety standard of
the FQPA and can be used without posing unreasonable risks to human health or
the environment.
     When a pesticide is eligible for reregistration, EPA explains the basis for its
decision in a Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) document This feet sheet
summarizes the information in the RED document for reregistration case 0014,
endosulfan.
    Use Profile
     Endosulfan is a broad spectrum contact insecticide and acaricide registered
for use on a wide variety of vegetables, fruits, cereal grains, and cotton, as well as
ornamental shrubs, trees, vines, and ornamentals for use in commercial
agricultural settings.  Total average annual use of endosulfan is estimated at
approximately 1.38 million pounds of active ingredient (Ibs. ai), according to
Agency and registrant estimates. Crops with the highest average percent drop
treated are: squash (40%), eggplant (41%), cantaloupe (31%), sweet potato
(31%), broccoli (26%), pears (20%), and pumpkins (20%). Crops with the
highest sales in 2001 include: cotton (14.2%), cantaloupe (13.2%), tomatoes
(12.2%), and potatoes (8.15%).
     Endosulfan is formulated as a liquid emulsifiable concentrate ( 9-34% ai)
and wettable powder (1-50% ai). The wettable powder formulation is frequently
packaged in water soluble bags. Endosulfan can be applied by groundboom
sprayer, fixed-wing aircraft, chemigation (potatoes only), airblast sprayer, rights-
of-way sprayer, low pressure handwand sprayer, high pressure handwand
sprayer, backpack sprayer and dip treatment.

-------
 Regulatory
    History
Human Health
 Assessment
      Endosulfan was first registered as a pesticide in the U.S. in 1954 to control
agricultural insect and mite pests on a variety of field, fruit, and vegetable crops.
A Registration Standard dated September 17,1981, and a Guidance Document
dated April 1982 were issued for endosulfan, which required additional generic
and product-specific data for the manufacturing products of the technical
registrants. Since me Guidance Document was issued, there have been seven
DCIs generated: 10/23/85,5/19/86,5/27/86,1/30/87,6/19/87,9/02/92, and
5/10/94 concerning the potential formation of chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and
dibenzofurans in technical endosulfan products. An additional DCI was issued in
October 1994, which primarily concerned residue chemistry data deficiencies.
      Further, in 1991, the technical registrants amended labels to incorporate a
300-foot spray drift buffer for aerial appEcations between treated areas and water
bodies. This setback was adopted in order to address concerns about
contamination of water and risks to aquatic organisms.  In 2000, the technical
registrants amended technical product labels to remove all residential use patterns.
Currently, there are 94 endosulfan products registered.

Toxicttv
      Endosulfan generally has been  shown to have high acute oral and
inhalation toxicity as well as slightly toxic dermal toxicity. It is an irritant to the
eyes and is not a dermal sensitizer.  Endosulfen is neither mutagenic nor
carcinogenic. Endosulfan primarily affects me nervous system. Toxic effects
observed in animals from acute, subchronic, developmental neurotoxicity, and
chronic/carcinogenic toxicity studies found that endosulfan causes neurotoxic
effects, which are believed to result from over-stimulation of the central nervous
system. Further, there is evidence (effects observed in a submitted chronic oral
toxicity study in rats) that endosulfan  acts as an endocrine disrupter. However,
further investigation is necessary to determine the relevance and impact of such
findings on public health.
Dietary Exposure
      EPA has assessed dietary risk by estimating exposure to endosulfan
residues from consumption of food and drinking water that can occur over a
single-day (acute) or longer (chronic). Generally, a dietary (food) risk estimate
that is less man 100% of the acute or chronic Population Adjusted Dose does not
exceed the Agency's risk concern. Acute risk estimates from exposures to food,
associated with the use of endosulfan exceed the Agency's level of concern for
some population subgroups. For example, for exposure resulting from
applications of endosulfan, for the most exposed population subgroup, children 1-
6 years old, the percent acute PAD value is 150% at the 99.9th percentile of
exposure from consumption of food alone. The crops that contributed the most to
the risks of concern are succulent beans and peas. Chronic dietary (food)
exposure estimates are below the Agency's level of concern for all
subpopulations. For the most highly exposed subpopulation, children 1-6 years
old, the percent chronic PAD value is 17% from consumption of food alone.

-------
                             Drinking water exposure to endosulfan can occur through ground and
                       surface water contamination.  EPA used modeled Tier 2 estimates of endosulfan
                       and endosulfan sulfate to estimate risk for acute exposures. Taking into account
                       me supported uses of endosulfan, the Agency concluded that residues of
                       endosulfan in drinking water are of concern. Drinking water estimates for
                       chronic exposures, based on models, from bom ground and surface water are not
                       of concern.

                       Risk from Ail Registered Pesticide Endosulfan Exposures
                             To assess risks from all endosulfan exposures, the Agency combined risk
                       from food and drinking water exposure only.  The technical registrants are not
                       supporting residential or other non-occupational uses of endosulfaa As a result,
                       these use patterns have not been considered for regulatory purposes at this time.
                       The acute estimated drinking water omcentrations for endosul&n are above the
                       acute drinking water level of comparisons (DWLOCs) for infants <1 year and the
                       most sensitive population subgroup,  children 1-6 years old. The chronic
                       estimated drinking water concentrations for the U.S. general population and all
                       population subgroups are below the chronic drinking water levels of comparisons
                       (DWLOCs) for the U.S. general population and all population subgroups and,
                       therefore, are not of concern.

                       Occupational Exposure
                             Occupational handlers can be  exposed to endosulfan through mixing,
                       loading and/or applying a pesticide or re-entering treated sites.  Occupational
                       handlers of endosulfan include individual farmers or growers who mix, load
                       and/or apply pesticides and professional or custom agricultural applicators. The
                       post-application occupational risk assessment considered exposures to workers
                       entering treated sites in agriculture.
                             Risk for all of these potentially exposed populations is measured by a
                       Margin of Exposure (MOE), which determines how close the occupational
                       exposure comes to a NOAEL. Generally, MOEs greater than 100 are not of
                       concern.  Restricted Entry Intervals (REIs) are 24 hours on current endosulfan
                       labels. The Agency has determined that there are potential mixer, loader,
                       applicator as well as post-application exposures to occupational handlers. Based
                       on current use patterns, there are some short-term dermal and inhalation risks of
                       concerns for workers who mix, load  and apply endosulfan to agricultural sites as
                       well as to those workers who re-enter a treated area following application of
                       endosulfan.

Environmental            Ecological risks are also of concern to the Agency. The environmental risk
 Assessment         assessment suggests that exposure to endosulfan could result in both acute and
                       chronic risks of concern for terrestrial and aquatic organisms. Exposure to
                       endosulfan has resulted in both reproductive and development effects in nontarget
                       animals, particularly birds, fish and mammals.

-------
Risk Mitigation            To mitigate human health and ecological risks of concern for
   Measures         endosulfan, the following measures will be implemented:


                      Dietary (Food) Risk
                          Delete use on succulent beans, succulent peas, spinach, and grapes


                      Dietary (Drinking Water) and Ecological Risk


                           Several mitigation measures are needed to reduce the potential for
                      contamination of drinking water.
                          Delete use on pecans;
                          Reduce maximum seasonal application rates from 31bs./ai/A to 2.5
                           Ibs7ai/A for pome fruit, stone fruit, and citrus;
                          Reduce maximum seasonal application rate from 3 IbsVai/A to 2 lbs./ai/A
                           for melons, cucurbits, lettuce, tomatoes, sweet potatoes, cotton (ground),
                           broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, kohlrabi, brussels sprouts, strawberries,
                           filberts, walnuts, almonds, macadamia nuts, peppers, eggplant, potatoes,
                           carrots, dry beans, dry peas, and tobacco;
                          Reduce maximum seasonal application rate from 3 lbs./ai/A to 1.5
                           lbs7ai/A for sweet corn, cotton (aerial) and blueberries;
                          Reduce maximum seasonal application rate from 3 IbsVai/A to 1 Ib./ai/A
                           for celery;
                          Require 100 ft. spray buffer for ground applications between a treated area
                           and water bodies;
                          Require 30 ft. maintained vegetative buffer strip between a treated area and
                           water bodies;
                          Require all products to be Restricted Use;
                          Restrict use on cotton to AZ, CA, NM, OK and TX only; and
                           Restrict use on tobacco to IN, KY, OH, PA, TN and WV only.
                      Occupational Risk
                           Require all wettable powers to be packaged in water soluble bags;
                           Cancel use of wettable powders on tomatoes, sweet corn, sweet potatoes,
                            cotton, small grains, alfalfa (seed), carrots, dry beans, dry peas, pineapples,
                            and tobacco;

-------
                            Cancel aerial application using the wettable powder formulation on pome
                            fruits, stone fruits, citrus, blueberries, strawberries, collard greens (seed),
                            kale (seed), mustard greens (seed), radish (seed), turnip (seed), rutabaga
                            (seed), broccoli, (seed), cauliflower (seed), kohlrabi (seed), cabbage (seed),
                            filberts, walnuts, almonds, and macadamia nuts;
                            Require closed mixing/loading systems for aerial application using the EC
                            formulation on pome fruits, stone fruits, citrus, sweet com, sweet potatoes,
                            cotton, collard greens (seed), kale (seed), mustard greens (seed), radish
                            (seed), turnip (seed), rutabaga (seed), broccoli, (seed), cauliflower (seed),
                            kohlrabi (seed), cabbage (seed), blueberries, small grains, alfalfa (seed),
                            filberts, walnuts, almonds and macadamia nuts;
                            Require closed cabs for airblast applications on pome fruits, stone fruits,
                            citrus, filberts, walnuts, almonds and macadamia nuts;
                            Prohibit use of high pressure handwands with rates greater than 0.005
                            Ibs/ai/gal;
                            Increase REI to 48 hours for all oops except as noted in the following
                            bullets;
                            Increase REI for WP products to 3 days for melons and cucurbits;
                            Increase REI for WP products to 4 days for lettuce, celery, pome fruit,
                            stone fruit, citrus, collard greens, kale, mustard greens, radish, turnip,
                            rutabaga, ornamental trees and shrubs;
                            Increase REI for WP products to 5 days for collard greens (seed), kale
                            (seed), mustard greens (seed), radish (seed), turnip (seed) and rutabaga
                            (seed);
                            Increase REI for WP products to 9 days for blueberries, broccoli,
                            cauliflower, kohlrabi, cabbage, and brussels sprouts;
                            Increase REI for WP products to 12 days for broccoli (seed), cauliflower
                            (seed), kohlrabi (seed), and cabbage (seed);
                            Increase REI for EC products to 3 days for sweet potatoes
                            Increase REI for EC products to 4 days for broccoli, cauliflower, kohlrabi,
                            cabbage, and brussels sprouts;
                            Increase REI for EC products to 6 days for blueberries;
                            Increase REI for EC products to 7 days for broccoli (seed), kohlrabi (seed),
                            and cabbage (seed); and
                            Increase REI for EC products to 17 days for sweet com.
Stakeholder
  Process
     Given the toxichy and persistence of endosulfan and potential risks to
aquatic organisms, the Agency has developed a number of mitigation measures
in order to reduce the risks to aquatic organisms outlined in this document
While the Agency believes that these measures will reduce the potential for
exposures to aquatic organisms and reduce the overall environmental loading of
endosulfan, it also believes that in specific geographic areas where conditions

-------
                       exist that make aquatic organisms especially vulnerable (e.g., shallow, leaky
                       aquifers, highly erodible lands, the presence of espedally sensitive organisms and
                       high use of endosulfan) additional measures may be identified. In order to more
                       fully evaluate the risks in these vulnerable areas; the risk management strategies
                       that may be in place or could potentially be implemented in such areas (e.g., use
                       of retention ponds) to reduce exposure; and the benefits of the use of endosulfan
                       in those areas, the Agency is planning to conduct a stakeholder process to
                       accomplish this objective. Further, the impacts of atmospheric transport may
                       require additional evaluation during this time period.
                       Additional mitigation measures may be needed following the completion of this
                       process.

Additional Data           ERA. is requiring the following additional generic studies for endosulfan to
    Required          confirm its regulatory assessments and conclusions:
                            OPPTS 850.2100: Avian acute oral toxicity of bobwhite quail and mallard
                            ducks
                            OPPTS 850.2200: Avian subchronic oral toxicity of bobwhite quail and
                            mallard ducks
                            OPPTS 850.2300: Avian reproduction study
                            OPPTS 850.1075: Freshwater fish acute toxicity study of bhiegill.sunfish
                            OPPTS 850.1300: Early life stage fish
                            OPPTS 850.1350: Life cycle invertebrate
                            OPPTS 850.1500: Freshwater fish full life cycle using rainbow trout
                            OPPTS 850.1075: Estuarine/marine fish acute toxicity study
                            OPPTS 850.1035: Estuarine/marine invertebrate acute toxicity study of
                             mysid shrimp
                            OPPTS 850.1735: Whole sediment acute toxicity testing using a
                            freshwater invertebrate
                            OPPTS 850.1740: Whole sediment acute toxicity testing using a
                            estuarine/marine invertebrate
                            OPPTS 850.1735S: Whole sediment acute toxicity testing using a
                            freshwater invertebrate
                            OPPTS 850.1740S: Whole sediment acute toxicity testing using an
                            estuarine/marine invertebrate
                             164-2 (Special Study): Vegetative buffer effectiveness study
                            OPPTS 835.7100: Groundwater monitoring study
                            OPPTS 835.7200: Surface drinking water monitoring study
                            OPPTS 870.6200: Subchronic Neurotoxichy - Rat
                            OPPTS 870.6300: Developmental Neurotoxicity Toxicity Study - Rat
                            OPPTS 860.1380: Storage stability (oils seed, non-oily grain and processed
                            commodities)

-------
                          OPPTS 860.1500: Crop field trials for the following raw agricultural
                          commodities: barley hay, and pearled barley, oat forage, hay, and rolled
                          oats; rye forage; wheat forage, and hay
                          OPPTS 860.1500: Crop field trials for tobacco and a pyrolysis
                          OPPTS 860.1520: Magnitude of residue in processed food/feed
                          commodities
                          OPPTS 875.1100: Dermal outdoor exposure for applying dip treatments to
                          trees and roots or whole plants
                          OPPTS 875.1700: Product use information for applying dip treatments to
                          trees and roots or whole plants
Regulatory
Conclusion
 For More
Information
      The Agency is also requiring product-specific data including product
chemistry and acute toxicity studies, revised Confidential Statements of Formula
(CSFs), and revised labeling for reregistration.

      The Agency has assessed all 80 tolerances for endosulfan and can make a
FQPA safety determination based on a review of the dietary (food and drinking
water), ecological and occupational risks associated with the supported uses of
currently registered pesticides containing endosulfan.
      Agricultural uses of endosulfan based on approved labeling pose
occupational risks of concern and ecological risks that constitute unreasonable
adverse effects on the environment However, the Agency believes these risks
can likely be mitigated to levels below concern through changes to pesticide
labeling and formulations. Accordingly, me Agency has determined that
endosulfan is eligible for reregistration provided that: (1) additional required data
will confirm this decision for occupational exposures associated with the
application of dip treatment to roots or whole plants and ecological risks; and (2)
the risk mitigation outlined in the RED are adopted, and label amendments are
made to reflect these measures.  Further, if vulnerable areas in specific
geographic areas are identified as a result of the stakeholder process, additional
ecological risk mitigation measures may be necessary to protect especially
sensitive organisms. The endosulfan RED document includes guidance and time
frames for complying with any label changes for products containing endosulfan.

      EPA is requesting public comments on the Reregistration Eligibility
Decision (RED) document for endosulfan during a 60-day time period, as
announced  in a Notice of Availability published in the Federal Register. To
obtain a copy of the RED document or to submit written comments, please
contact the  Pesticide Docket, Public Information and Records Integrity Branch,
Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide
Programs (OPP), US EPA, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number 703-305-
5805.
      Electronic copies of the RED, this Fact  Sheet, and all supporting
documents  are available on the Internet See hflpVAvww.epa.gov/REDs.

-------
The Agency has also established an official record for this action under docket
control numbers OPP-34242 and eDocket OPP-2002-0262.
      Printed copies of the RED and feet sheet can be obtained from EPA's
National Service Center for Environmental Publications (EPA/NSCEP), PO Box
42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419, telephone 1-800-490-9198; fex 513-489-
8695.
      Following the comment period, the endosulfan RED document also will be
available from the National Technical Information Service (NTTS), 5285 Port
Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, telephone 1-800-553-6847, or 703-605-
6000.
      For more information about EPA's pesticide reregistration program, the
endosulfan RED, or reregistration of individual products containing endosulfan
please contact the Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508C), OPP, US
EPA, Washington, DC 20460, telephone 703-308-8000.
      For information about tie health effects of pesticides, or for assistance in
recognizing and managing pesticide poisoning symptoms, please contact the
National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC). Call toll-free 1-800-858-7378,
from 6:30 am to 4:30 pm Pacific Time, or 9:30 am to 7:30 pm Eastern Standard
Time, seven days a week. Their internet address is http://npic.orstedu.

-------
                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                    WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                                                                     OFFICE OF
                                                              PREVENTION, PESTICIDES
                                                              AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:   Errata Sheet for Changes to the Endosulfan Reregistration Eligibility Decision.
FROM:   Debral
         Director
         Special Review and Reregistration Divsion

TO:      Public Docket for Endosulfan
1) Guideline 875.1300 (Inhalation Exposure) was added to the RED on Pg. 86.

2) Guideline 860.1520: The commodities barley and oats were added for clarity to this guideline
requirement on Pg. 86.

3) Correction was made on page 85 under the section entitled: "Within eight months from the
receipt of the PDCI:
         a) Two copies of the confidential statement of formula (EPA Form 570-4) - the
number 8_ was added to the EPA form number.

4) Corrections to Appendix 8 include: Guideline 875.1300 which was added as a data gap.

5) The previous contact for endosulfan, Stacey Milan, has been replaced by Craig Doty, the
current Chemical Review Manager.

-------

-------
                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                                                                                   OFFICE OF
                                                                             PKEVENTION. FESnCtDES
                                                                             AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES
                                        July 3 1,2002
                        (Amended per errata sheet December 19, 2003)
              MAlf .
Dear Registrant:

     This is to inform you that the U.S. Envirormiental Protectkm Agency (hereato refeied to as
EPA or the "Agency") has completed its review of the available data and public comments received
related to me risk assessments fee the chlorinated cyctodiene pestteide endcsulfan. The public
comment period on the preliminary risk assessment phase of the reregistration process commenced on
September 13, 2001 and closed on November 13, 2001. The Agency has revised the human health
and environmental effects risk assessments based on the comments received during the public comment
period and additional data received from the registrant

     Based on its review, the Agency has identified risk mitigation measures that it believes are
necessary to address the human health and ecological risks associated with the current uses of
endosulfan. The Agency believes that these risk mitigation measures will adequately address human
health and ecological risks for endosulfan.  However, further mitigation measures for ecological risk
may be warranted following the completion of the stakeholder process outlined m triis document The
Agency has identified several mitigation measures to address ecological risks. White the Agency
believes that these measures will reduce the potential tor exposures to aquatic organisms and reduce the
overall environmental loading of endosulfan, h also believes that in specific geographical areas where
conditions exist mat make aquatic organisms especially vulnerable additional measures may be
identified Further, die Agency is unable to fully evaluate the ecological risks associated with the
atmospheric transport of endosulfan at this time. In order to more fully evaluate the risks in these
vulnerable areas; the risk management strategies that may be in place or could potentially be
implemented in such areas to reduce exposure; and the benefits of the use of endosulfan in those areas,
the Agency is planning to conduct a public comment and stakeholder process.

     EPA is now publishing its reregistration eligibility, risk management, and tolerance reassessment
decisions for the current uses of endosulfan, and its associated human health risks which address risks
from dietary exposure to food and water and occupational exposures. As mentioned above, the
Agency will conduct a stakeholder process to address environmental risks in especially vulnerable areas
at the completion of which the Agency may identify additional mitigation measures that may be needed.
The enclosed "Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Endosulfan," which was approved on Jury 31,
2002, contains the Agency's decision on the individual chemical endosulfan.

-------
      A Notice of Availability for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for Endosulfim is being
 published in the Federal Register.  To obtain a copy of the RED document, please contact the OPP
 Public Regulatoiy Docket (7502Q, US EPA, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
 Washington, DC 20460, telephone (703) 305-5805. Electronic copies of die RED and all supporting
 documents are available on the Internet See
      www* CDQ* Bov/DGSticffax/Ftrcristftttiofi/stQtus! h tm .
      As part of the Agency's effort to involve the public in the implementation of the Food Quality
Protection Act of 19% (FQPA), the Agency is undertaking a special effort to maintain open public
dockets and to engage the public in the reregistration and tolerance reassessment processes. In
cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Agency held a teleconference on July 29,
2002, during which the results of the human health and environmental effects risk assessments were
presented to interested stakeholders. Information discussed during the call, such as endosulfan usage
and occupational practices, are reflected in this RED. Also, a close-out conference call was conducted
on July 30, 2002 with many of the same participants from the July 29 conference call to discuss the risk
management decisions and resultant changes to the endosulfan labels.

      A risk mitigation proposal for endosulfan was submitted by the Endosulfan Task Force (ETF), the
technical registrant During the public comment period provided for the preliminary risk assessment,
EPA also received comments from the Natural Resources Defense Council, World Wildlife Fund,
Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific, Boulder Regional Group, American Society of
Consulting Arborists, Gaia Foundation, Rural Action Safe Pest Control Program, and private citizens.

      Please note that the endosulfan risk assessment and the attached RED concern only mis particular
pesticide. The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) requires mat, 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 toxichywith other pesticides.  The Agency does not currently have data available to
determine with certainty whether endosulfan or endosulfan sulfate have a common mechanism of
toxicfty with any other substances. For the purposes of this decision, the Agency has assumed mat
there are not any other chemical substances mat share a common mechanism of toxkhy with endosulfan
and has not performed a cumulative risk assessment as part of this reregistration review of endosulfan.
If the  Agency identifies other substances mat share a common mechanism of toxicfty with endosulfan,
then the cumulative risks of these chemicals will  be considered.
     As mentioned above, the Agency has identified risk mitigation measures mat it believes are
necessary to address the human health risks associated with the current uses of endosulfan and
measures to reduce the potential for exposures to aquatic organisms and reduce the overall
environmental loading of endosulfan. Accordingly, the Agency recommends that registrants implement
these risk mitigation measures on an accelerated schedule.  Sections IV and V of this RED describe
labeling amendments for end-use products and data requirements necessary to implement these

-------
mitigation measures. Instructions far registrants for submitting the revised labeling can be found in the
set of instructions for product-specific data that accompanies this RED.

      Should a registrant Ml to implement any of the risk mitigation measures outlined in this document,
the Agency will continue to have concerns about the risks posed by endosulfen.  Where the Agency has
identified any unreasonable adverse effect to human health and the environment, the Agency may at any
time initiate appropriate regulatory action to address this concern.

      There will be a 60-day public comment period for this document, commencing on the day the
Notice of Availability publishes in the Federal Register.  In addition to the public comment period the
Agency will initiate a stakeholder process, which will be initiated in the near future to address potentially
vulnerable areas.

      This document contains a generic and/or a product-specific Data Call-In(s) (DCI) that outline(s)
further data requirements for this chemical. Note that a complete DCI, with all the pertinent
instructions, is being sent to registrants under separate cover. Additionally, for product-specific DCIs,
the first set of required responses is due 90 days from the receipt of the DCI letter.  The second set of
required responses is due eight months from the date of the DCI.

      If you have questions on this document or the proposed label changes, please contact the Special
Review and Reregistration Division representative, Craig Doty at (703) 308-0122. For questions
about product ^registration and/or die Product DCI that accompanies this document, please contact -
Karen Jones at (703) 308-8047.
                                                  Lois A. Rossi, Director
                                                  Special Review and
                                                   Reregistration Division
Attachment

-------

-------
Reregistration Eligibility Decision



               for



           Endosulfan



         Case No. 0014

-------

-------
                           TABLE OF CONTENTS

Endosulfon Team	i

Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations	H

Executive Summary	 v

L    Introduction	1

H.   Chemical Overview	2
     A.   Regulatory History	2
     B.   Chemical Identification	2
     C.   Use Profile	3
     D.   Estimated Usage of Pesticide	6

     Summary of Endosulfon Risk Assessments	8
     A.   Human Health Risk Assessment 	10
          1.    Dietary Risk from Food 	10
               a.   Toxidty	10
               b.   FQPA Safety Factor	11
               c.   Population Adjusted Dose (PAD)	11
               d.   Exposure Assumptions  	12
               e.   Food Risk Characterization	12
          2.    Dietary Risk from Drinking Water	13
               a.   Surface Water	13
               b.   Ground Water	14
               c.   Drinking Water Levels of Comparison (DWLOC) 	15
         3.    Aggregate Risk	16
         4.    Occupational Risk	16
               a.   Toxichy	17
               b.   Occupational Exposure  	18
               c.   Occupational Handler Risk Snmmary 	19
                   (1)  Agricultural Handler Risk	19
                   (2)  Post-Application Occupational Risk	25
                   (3)  Human Health Incident Data	27
     B.  Environmental Risk Assessment	28
         1.    Environmental Fate and Transport	28
         2.    Risk to Birds and Mammals	29
               a.   Toxidty (Hazard) Assessment 	30
         3.    Exposure and Risk	31
         4.    Risk to Aquatic Species 	32
               a.   Toxicity (Hazard) Assessment 	32

-------
               b.   Exposure and Risk     	33
          5.   Probabilistic Assessment	36
          6.   Risks to Endangered Species	36
          7.   Ecological Incident Reports 	37
          8.   Endocrine Disruption	38
          9.   Long Range Transport 	38

IV.   Risk Management and Reregistration Decision	39
     A.   Determination of Reregistration Eligibility	39
     B.   Phase 3 Comments and Responses  	40
     C   Regulatory Position	40
          1.   FQPA Assessment	40
               a.   "Risk Cap" Determination	40
               b.   Tolerance Summary	41
          2.   Endocrine Disrupter Effects	S3
          3.   Labels	54
               a.   Agricultural Use Exposure Reduction Measures 	54
     D.   Regulatory Rationale 	56
          1.   Human Health Risk Mitigation  	56
               a.   Dietary (food)	56
               b.   Drinking Water	58
               c.   Aggregate Risk Mitigation	58
               d.   Occupational Risk Mitigation	59
                    (1)   Agricultural Handler Risk Mitigation	59
          2.   Environmental Risk Mitigation  	84
          3.   Public  Comment and Stakeholder Process to Address Aquatic Risks and
          Long Range Transport 	85
     E.   Other Labeling	86
          1.   Endangered Species Statement	87
          2.   Spray Drift Management  	87

V.   What Registrants Need to Do  	90
     A.   Data Call-In Responses  	90
     B.   Manufacturing Use Products 	.92
          1.   Additional Generic Data Requirements	92
                    1.        Labeling for Manufacturing Use Products	93
          2.        End-Use Products	93
                    1.        Additional Product-Specific Data Requirements	93
                    2.        Labeling for End-Use Products	93
          3.        Existing Stocks	93
          4.        Labeling Changes Summary Table	94

-------
                               ENDOSULFAN TEAM

 Office of Pesticide Programs:

 Health Effects Risfr Assessment
 RulhAlksi
 KenDockter
 Robert Fricke
 Sherrie Kinard
 Diana Locke
 Elizabeth Mendez
 JohnPunzi
 Renee Sandvig

 Enviroon^ttal Fate Risk Assessment
 FaruqueKhan
 Richard Lee
 Jose Melendez
 RodolfoPisigan
 Thomas Steeger
 Nelson Thurman
 Dirk Young

 Us? flnd USSK AiMilysiff
 Jonathan Becker
 Angel Chiri
 ColwellCook
 David Donaldson
 Bill Gross
 Nikhil Mallampalli
 Nicole Mosz
 T. J. Wyatt
 Istanbul Yusuf

 Registration Support
 DanaPilitt
Stacey Milan
MarkHartman
PhilBudig

-------

-------
                    GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

 AE             Acid Equivalent
 ai.              Active Ingredient
 AGDCI          Agricultural Data call-in
 at               Active Ingredient
 aPAD           Acute Population Adjusted Dose
 AR             Anticipated Residue
 ARC            Anticipated Residue Contribution
 BCF            Bioconcentration Factor
 CAS            Chemical Abstracts Service
 CI              Cation
 CNS            Central Nervous System
 cPAD           Chronic Population Adjusted Dose
 CSF             Confidential Statement of Formula
 CFR            Code of Federal Regulations
 CSFT1           USDA Continuing Surveys fin- Food Intake by Individuals
 DO             Data Call-In
 DEEM          Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model
 DFR            Distodgeable Foliar Residue
 DRES           Dietary Risk Evaluation System
 DWEL          Drinking Water Equivalent Level (DWEL) The DWEL represents a medium-specific (i.e., drinking
                 water) lifetime exposure at which adverse, noncarcinogenic health efiFects are not anticipated
 DWLOC Drinking Water Level of Comparison.
 EC              Emulsifiable Concentrate Formulation
 EEC        ,     Estimated Environmental Concentration. The estimated pesticide concentration in an environment,
                 such as a terrestrial ecosystem.
 EP              End-Use Product
 EPA             U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 FAO            Food and Agriculture Organization
 FDA            Food and Drug Administration
 FIFRA          Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
 FFDCA          Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
 FQPA           Food Quality Protection Act
 FOB             Functional Observation Battery
 G               Granular Formulation
 GENEECTier I Surface Water Computer Model
 OLC             Gas Liquid Chromatography
 GLN             Guideline Number
 GM             Geometric Mean
 GRAS           Generally Recognized as Safe as Designated by FDA
 HA              Health Advisory (HA). The HA values are used as informal guidance to municipalities and other
                 organizations when emergency spills or contammation situations occur.
 HAFT           Highest Average Field Trial
 HDT             Highest Dose Tested
 IR               Index Reservoir
 LCjo             Median Lethal Concentration.  A statistically derived concentration of a substance mat can be
                 expected to cause death in 50% of test animals. It is usually expressed as the weight of substance
                 per weight or volume of water, air or feed, e.g, mg/1, mg/kg or ppm.
ID,,,             Median Lethal Dose. A statistically derived single dose that can be expected to cause death in
                                                    m

-------
                 50%ofthe test animals when administered by fee route indicated (oral, dermal, inhalaJion). It is
                 expressed as a weight of substance per unit weight of animal, e.g., mg/kg.
LEL             Lowest Effect Level
LOG             Level of Concern
LOD             Limit of Detection
LOAEL    '      Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level
M ATC          Maximum Acceptable Toxicant Concentration
MCLG           Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) The MCLG is used by the Agency to regulate
                 contaminants in drinking water under the Safe Drinking Water Act
mgrttg/day        Milligram Per Kilogram Per Day
mg/L             Milligrams Per Liter
MOE            Margin of Exposure
MP              Manufacturing-Use Product
MPI             Maximum Permissible Intake
MRID           Master Record Identification (number). EPA's system of recording and tracking studies submitted.
NA              Not Applicable
N/A              Not Applicable
NAWQA         USGS National Water Quality Assessment
NOEC           No Observable Effect Concentration
NOEL           No Observed Effect Level
NOAEL          No Observed Advene Effect Level
NPDES          National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NR              Not Required
OP              Organophosphate
OPP             EPA Office of Pesticide Programs
OPPTS          EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Pa               Pascal, the pressure exerted by a force of one newton acting on an area of one square meter.
PAD             Population Adjusted Dose
PADI            Provisional Acceptable Daily Intake
PAG             Pesticide Assessment Guideline
P AI              Purified Active Ingredient
PAM             Pesticide Analytical Method
PCA             Percent Crop Area
PDP             USDA Pesticide Data Program
PHED           Pesticide Handler's Exposure Data
PHI              Prenarvest Interval
ppb              Parts Per Billion
PPE              Personal Protective Equipment
ppm             Parts Per Million
PRN             Pesticide Registration Notice
PRZM/
EXAMS          Tier n  Surface Water Computer Model
Q,              The Carcinogenic Potential of a Compound, Quantified by the EPA's Cancer Risk Model
RAC             Raw Agriculture Commodity
RBC             Red Blood Cell
RED             Reregistration Eligibility Decision
REI              Restricted Entry Interval
RfD              Reference Dose
RQ              Risk Quotient
RS               Registration Standard
RUP            Restricted Use Pesticide

-------
SAP            Science Advisory Panel
SCI-GROW       Tier I Ground Water Computer Model
SF               Safety Factor
SLC             Single Layer Clothing
SLN             Special Local Need  (Registrations Under Section 24(c) of FIFRA)
TC              Toxic ConcenteBtion. The concentration at which a substance produces a toxic efiect
TD              Toxic Dose. The dose at which a substance produces a toxic effect
TEP             Typical End-Use Product
TGAI            Technical Grade Active Ingredient
TLC             Thin Layer Cnromatography
TMRC           Theoretical Maximum Residue Contribution
torr              A unit of pressure needed to support a column of mercury 1mm high under standard conditions.
TRR             Total Radioactive Residue
UF              Uncertainty Factor
ug/g             Micrograms Per Gram
ug/L             Micrograms Per Liter
USDA           United States Department of Agriculture
SGS             United States Geological Survey
UV              Ultraviolet
WHO            World Health Organization
WP              Wettable Powder
WPS             Worker Protection Standard

-------
Executive Summary

        EPA has completed its review of public comments concerning the preliminary risk assessments
and is issuing its risk management decision for endosulfan. The revised risk assessments are based on
review of the required target data base supporting the use patterns of cuirentry registered products and
additional information received  The Agency invited stakeholders to provide proposals, ideas or
suggestions on appropriate mitigation measures before the Agency issued its risk mitigation decision
concerning endosulfan. After considering the risks identified in the revised risk assessment, mitigation
measures proposed by the Endosulfan Task Force, which consists of the technical registrants of
endosulfan, and comments and mitigation suggestions from other interested parties, the Agency
developed its risk management decision for uses of endosulfan mat pose risks of concern. This decision
is discussed fully in this document

        Endosulfan, a dioxathiepin (broadly classified as an organochlorine), is a broad spectrum
contact  insecticide and acaricide that is used on a wide variety of vegetables, fruits, cereals, and cotton,
as well as ornamental shrubs, tees, vines, and ornamental herbaceous plants in commercial agricultural
settings. Technical grade endosulfan is composed of two stereochemical isomers: a-endosulfan and p-
endosulfan, in concentrations of approximately 70% and 30%, respectively. Endosulfan was first
registered in 19S4 to control a broad spectrum of agricultural insect and mite pests on various crops.
Use data from 1987 to 1997 indicate an average domestic use of approximately 1.38 million pounds of
active ingredient per year.

        The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) 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 with other pesticides.  The Agency does not currently have data available to
determine with certainty whether endosulfan or endosulfan sulfate have a common mechanism of
toxichy  with any omer substances. For the purposes of this decision, the Agency has assumed that
there are not any other chemical substances that share a common mechanism of toxicity with endosulfan
and has  not performed a cumulative risk assessment as part of this reregistration review of endosulfan.
If the Agency identifies other substances that share a common mechanism of toxicity with endosulfan,
men the cumulative risks of these chemicals will be considered once the final framework the Agency will
use for evaluating cumulative risks is available.

Overall
       The Agency's human health risk and ecological risk assessments for endosulfan indicate risks of
concern.  Acute dietary (food) risk exceeds the Agency's level of concern (>100% aPAD) at the
99.9th exposure percentile for children 1-6 years of age (150% aPAD). Significant contributors to
acute exposure have been identified as succulent beans and succulent peas. The dietary (food)
assessment also concludes that for all commodities, the chronic risk estimates are below the Agency's

                                             vi

-------
 level of concern (<100% cPAD) for the U.S. population (<1% of the cPAD) and all population
 subgroi^wim the nigh^ exposed population subgroup, children 1-6 years of age occupying 17% of
 thecPAD.

        Dietary (drinking water) ride for acute exposures, based on models, from both ground and
 surfece water are of concern. Drinking wata estiinates for dironic exposures, based on models, from
 bom ground and surfece water are not of concern.  Further, mere are some concerns for workers who
 mix, load and apply endosulfan to agricultural sites as well as to those workers who re-enter a treated
 area following application of endosulfen.

        For ecological effects, the Agency has conducted a screening level assessment for terrestrial
 impacts and a refined exposure assessment for aquatic impacts of endosulfan use.  These assessments
 indicate mat endosulfan is likely to result ki acute and chronic risk to both terrestrial and aquatic
       To mitigate riste of concern posed by the uses of endo
 mitigation proposal submitted by the technical registrants, as weU as comments and mitigatkin ideas
 from omer interested parties, and has decided on a number of label amendments to address the dietary
 (food and drinking water), worker and ecological concerns. Results of the risk assessments, and the
 necessary label amendments to mitigate those risks, are presented in mis RED.

 Dietary Rigfc

       Acute risk estimates for food and drinking water exceed the Agency's level of concern;
 therefore, mitigation measures are warranted at this time for dietary exposure to endosuh%n. To
 mitigate the risks from acute food exposure, the following crop uses will be canceled: succulent beans,
 succulent peas, grapes, and spinach.

       Several mitigation measures are needed to reduce the potential for the contamination of drinking
 water. These include a 100-foot setback for ground applications between treated areas and water
 bodies, a 30-foot vegetative buffer between treated areas and water bodies, reductions in maximum
 application rates, reductions in maximum seasonal application rates and reductions in the maximum
 number of applications allowed per use season. These measures, together with conservative
 assumptions used in the modeled estimates of drinking water exposure, lead the Agency to believe mat
 risk from drinking water will not exceed its level of concern. Drinking water monitoring data will be
 required to confirm mis conclusion.

 Occupational Risk

       Occupational exposure to endosulfan is of concern to the Agency, and ft has been determined
that a number of measures are necessary to mitigate these risks. For the agricultural uses of

                                            vii

-------
endosulfan, several mixer/loader/applicator risk scenarios currently exceed the Agency's level of
concern. To mitigate these risks several steps are needed including placing all wetiable powder (WP)
products in water soluble bags, the deletion of some uses from WP products, deletion of aerial
application of WP products for some crops, requiring closed mixing/loading systems for aerial
applications of the emulsifiabte concentrate (EC) formulation for some uses, requiring closed cabs for all
airblast applications except for ornamental trees/shrubs and reductions in application rates.

       The risks to workers reentering treated  fields are of concern for several crops. These risks can
be mitigated provided the restricted entry intervals recommended in mis document are established.

Ecological Risk

       Ecological risks are also of concern to the Agency. The environmental risk assessment
suggests mat exposure to endosulfan could result in both acute and chronic risks of concern for
terrestrial and aquatic organisms. To reduce these risks, several mitigation measures are needed.
These measures include a 100-foot setback for ground applications between treated areas and water
bodies, a 30-foot vegetative buffer between treated areas and water bodies, reductions in single
maximum application .rates, reductions in maximum seasonal application rates, reductions in maximum
numbers of applications allowed in a single growing season and deletion of use on pecans.

Stflkejlplder Process to Address Aquatic Risks  and Long RariSS Ttonsp01*

       Given the toxichy and persistence of endosulfan and potential risks to aquatic organisms, the
Agency has developed a number of mitigation measures in order to reduce the risks to aquatic
organisms outlined in this document While the Agency believes that these measures will reduce the
potential for exposures to aquatic organisms and reduce the overall environmental loading of
endosulfan, it also believes mat in specific geographic areas where conditions exist mat make aquatic
organisms especially vulnerable (e.g., shallow, leaky aquifers, highly credible lands, the presence of
especially sensitive organisms and high use of endosulfan) additional measures may be identified. In
order to more fully evaluate me risks in these vulnerable areas; the risk management strategies that may
be in place or could potentially be implemented in such areas (e.g., use of retention ponds) to reduce
exposure; and the benefits of the use of endosulfan  in those areas, the Agency is planning to conduct a
public comment and stakeholder process to accomplish mis objective. Further, the impacts of
atmospheric transport may require additional evaluation during this time period. Additional mitigation
measures may be needed following the completion of mis process.
       Endosulfan is a semivolatile and persistent cyclodiene pesticide that can migrate over a long
distance through various environmental media such as air, water, and sediment Once endosulfan is
applied to crops, it can either persist in soil as a sorbed phase or be removed through several physical,
chemical, and biological processes. Recent studies suggest that secondary emissions of residual

                                             viii

-------
endosulfan continue to recycle in the global system while they slowly migrated and are redeposited via
wet deposition in the Northern Hemisphere. The occurrence of endosulfan in remote regions like the
Great Lakes, the Arctic, and mountainous areas is well documented. Endosulfan can also enter the an-
as adsorbed phase onto suspended paniculate matter, but this process does not appear to be a major
contributor to long range transport like volatilization.

       The presence of endosulfan in the remote areas like Arctic and the Great Lakes requires further
understanding of the transport mechanisms  from the atmosphere. The potential impact of atmospheric
deposition of endosulfan into surface water and its potential effect on water quality and aquatic
organisms in the non-use areas is not well documented. Despite the progress made in recent years in
estimating the persistence and long-ranged transport of chemicals using models, a validated global
model has not been published because of uncertainties involved in the source inventories, chemical fate
data, degradative pathways and exposure analyses. Future work will be aimed at developing a
comprehensive screening tool that can be used reliably in risk assessments for regulatory purposes.
Part of the stakeholder process will include an evaluation of to what extent data related to long range
transport may be necessary.

-------

-------
 I.     Introduction

       The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) was amended in 1988 to
 accelerate the reregistration of products with active ingredients registered prior to November 1,1984.
 The amended Act calls for the development and submission of data to support the reregistration of an
 active ingredient, as well as a review of all submitted data by me U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 (referred to as EPA or "the Agency")- Reregistration involves a thorough review of the current
 scientific database underlying a pesticide's registration. The purpose of the Agency's review is to
 reassess the potential hazards arising from the currently registered uses of the pesticide, to determine
 the need for additional data on health, and environmental effects and to determine whether the pesticide
 meets the "no unreasonable adverse effects" criteria of FIFRA.

       On August 3,19%, the Food Quality Protection Act of 19% (FQPA) was signed into law.
 This Act amends FIFRA to require tolerance reassessment of all existing tolerances. The Agency has
 decided mat, for those chemicals that have tolerances and are undergoing reregistration, the tolerance
 reassessment will be initiated through mis reregistration process. It also requires that by 2006, EPA
 must review all tolerances in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of the FQPA, which
 was August 3,19%.

       FQPA also amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to require a safety
 finding in tolerance reassessment based on factors including an assessment of cumulative effects of
 chemicals with a common mechanism of toxicity. Endosulfan belongs to a group of pesticides called
 organochlorines. Although chemical class is not necessarily equivalent to a common mechanism of
 action, in some cases, chemicals within the same class have been shown to share a common mechanism
 of action and are being considered together for purposes of a cumulative assessment (e.g.,  the
 organophosphates). Specifically, endosulfan belongs to the chlorinated cyclodiene (organochlorine)
 class of insecticide/acaricide. The Agency does not currently have data available to determine with
 certainty whether endosulfan or endosulfan sulfate have a ccinmon medunism of toxicity with any other
 substances. For the purposes of mis decision, the Agency has assumed that there are not any other
 chemical substances that share a common mechanism of toxicity wim endosulfan ami not performed a
 cumulative risk assessment as part of this reregistration review of endosulfan. If the Agency identifies
 other substances that share a common mechanism of toxicity wim endosulfan, then the cumulative risks
 of these chemicals will be considered  once the final framework the Agency will use for evaluating
 cumulative risks is available.

       The implementation of FQPA has required the Agency to revisit some of its existing policies
relating to the determination and regulation of dietary risk and has also raised a number of new issues
for which policies need to be created. These  issues were refined and developed through collaboration
between the Agency and the Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee (TRAC), which was
composed of representatives from industry, environmental groups and other interested parties.

-------
       This document summarizes the Agency's revised human health and ecological risk assessments,
its progress toward tolerance reassessment and the reregistration eligibility decision for endosulfan. This
document consists of six sections.  Section I contains the regulatory framework for
reregistration/tolerance reassessment  Section n provides a profile of the use and usage of the
chemical. Section in gives an overview of the revised human health and environmental effects risk
assessments resulting from public comments and other information. Section IV presents the Agency's
decision on reregistration eligibility and risk management decisions. Section V summarizes the label
changes necessary to implement the risk mitigation measures outlined in Section IV.  Section VI
provides information on how to access related documents.  Finally, the Appendices list Data Call-In
(DCI) information. The noised risk assessments and related addenda are not included in this
document but are available on the Agency's web page kttp://www.cpa.fav/pesAt*des/cndosu\fan. aid
in the public docket

D.     Chemical Overview

       A.     Regulatory History

       Endosulfan is a broad spectrum insecticide and acarickle first registered for use in the United
States in 1954 to control agricultural insect and mite pests on a variety of field, fruit, and vegetable
crops.  A Registration Standard dated September 17,1981, and a Guidance Document dated April
1982 were issued for endosulfan, which required additional generic and product-specific data for the
manufacturing products of the technical registrants. In addition, Data-Call-ins (DCIs) were issued in
June 1987 and September 1992 concerning the potential formation of chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
and dibenzofurans in technical endosulfan products. Since the Guidance Document was published in
April 1992, there have been a total of seven DCIs issued (10/23/85,05/19/86,05/27/86,01/30/87,
06/19/87,09/02/92, and 05/10/94). Another DCI was issued in October 1994, which primarily
concerned data residue chemistry deficiencies.

       In 1991, the technical registrants amended labels to incorporate a 300-foot spray drift buffer
for aerial applications between treated areas and water bodies.  This setback was adopted in order to
address concerns about contamination of water and risks to aquatic organisms.  In 2000, the technical
registrants amended technical product labels to remove all residential use patterns. Further, the
registrants have agreed to restrict the annual maximum use rate for all uses to 31bs. active ingredient per
acre.

       B.     Chemical Identification

       Endnstilfeir
       MiuvmtuM"-

-------
           Common name:
Endosulfim
          Chemical name:


          Chemical family:

          Case number:

          CAS registry number:

          OFF chemical code:

          Empirical formula:

          Molecular weight:

          Trade and other names:

          Bask manufacturers:
6,7,8,9,10,10-hexachloro-l,5,5a,6,9,9a-hexahydro-
6,9-methano-2,4,3-benzodioxathiepin-3-oxide

Organochlorine

0014

115-29-7

079401
406.95 daltons

Thiodari*

Bayer CropScience, Makhteshim-Agan of North
America, FMC Corporation, Gowan, Platte Chemical,
and Drexel Company.
       Endosulfim is often referred to generically as a "cyclodiene-type" insecticide, but it contains
only one double bond. Technical endosulfim (70% a- and 30% p-endosulfim) is a light to dark brown
crystalline solid The melting point of the a-isomer ranges from 108-110 C and the melting point of
the p-isomer is 208-210 C. The melting point of technical endosulfan ranges from 70 to 100 C. The
vapor pressure of oc-endosulfan is 3.0 x 10"6 mm Hg, p-endosulfan 72 x 10"7 mm Hg, and technical
endosulfan 1 x 10~5 mm Hg at 25 C. Technical endosulfan has a water solubility mat varies from
insoluble to -033 mg/L at 25 C, but has appreciable lipophilichy (log P^, 4.445 to 5.689).

       C.    Use Profile
       The following information is based on the currently registered uses of endosulfan:

-------
Type of Pesticide:   Insecticide/Acaricide
Summary of Use Sites:

Food Crops: barley, beans (dry and succulent), blueberries, broccoli, brussels sprouts,
cabbage, carrots, cauliflower, celery, collards, kale, corn (fresh only), cucumbers,
eggplants, grapes, peppers, oats, lettuce, melons, mustard greens, pineapples, rye,
potatoes, pumpkins, spinach, squash, sweet potatoes, strawberries, tomato, turnip,
apples, apricots, almonds, cherries, filberts, macadamia nuts, nectarines, peaches,
pecans, pears, plums, prunes, walnuts, and wheat

Other Agricultural Sites: Alfalfa (seed only), radish (seed only), cotton, rutabaga (seed
only), clover (seed only), kohlrabi (seed only), and tobacco.

Residential: None

Public Health None

Other Nonfood: Christmas tree plantations, woody plants, peaches (root dip only),
cherry and plum roots and crowns, whole strawberry plants, shade trees, citrus (non-
bearing), tobacco, nursery stock, ornamental plants and shrubs.

Target Pests:

Agricultural:  Meadow spittlebug, Army cutworm, Aphids, Bean teafsketetonizer,
Cowpea curculio, Cucumber beetle, Flea beetle, Green stink bug, Leafhoppers,
Mexican bean beetles, Cabbage looper, Cabbage worm, Cabbage aphid, Cucumber
beetles, Whftefly, Cutworms, Diamondback moth, Com earworm, Boll weevil,
Bolhvorm, Lygus bugs, Thrips, Mekmworm, Piddeworm, Rindworm, Squash beetle,
Squash bug,  Blister beetle, Potato beetle, Rose chafer, Pepper maggot, Cinch bug,
Crown mite, June bug, Harlequin bug, Grape phylloxera, and Grape teafhopper.

Orchards: Aphids (including Apple aphids, Black cherry aphid, Black peach aphid,
Green peach aphid, Rosy apple aphids, Black pecan aphid, Filbert aphid,  Rusty plum
aphids, Wooly apple aphids), Apple rust mites, Green fruftworm, Tarnished plant bug,
Tentiform  leafhiiners, Whitefly leaf hoppers, Peachtree borer, Peach twig  borer, Plum
rust mite, Bud moth, Bud mites, Twig mites, Filbert leafroller, Filbert bud  mite, Pecan
nut casebearer, and Spittlebug.

Ornamental  Trees and Shrubs: Leather leaf fern borer, Aphids, Cyclamen mite, Rose

-------
 chafer, Whitefly, Dogwood borer, Lilac borer, Colley spruce gall adelgid, Douglas fir
 needle midge, Walnut aphid, and Stink bug.

 Formulation Types Registered: Endosulfan is formulated for occupational use as a
 technical grade manufacturing product (95 percent active ingredient [ai]), emulsifiable
 concentrate (EC) (9 percent to 34 percent active ingredient), and a wettable powder
 (WP) (1 percent to 50 percent active ingredient).  The wettable powder is frequently
 packaged in water soluble bags.

 Methods and Rates of Application:

 Equipment - Endosulfan can be applied by groundboom sprayer, fixed-wing aircraft,
 chemigation (potatoes only), airblast sprayer, rights-of-way sprayer, low pressure
 handwand sprayer, high pressure handwand sprayer, backpack sprayer and dip
 treatment

 Rates of Application- The crop groupings with their corresponding maximum label
 application rates are as follows (bom formulations unless noted, EC = emulsifiable
 concentrate, WP = wettable powder formulations):

 Agricultural crops (vegetables and field crops): alfalfa (seed only, 1 Ib ai/A EC);
 barley, rye, oats and wheat (0.75 Ib ai/A); beans and tomatoes (1 Ib ai/A); clover (0.5
 Ibs ai/A EC); blueberries (1.5 Ib ai/A); broccoli, cabbage, collard, lettuce,  melons, and
 mustard greens (1 Ib ai/A or 2 Ib ai/A for seed); brussels sprouts, carrots, cauliflower,
 celery, cucumbers, eggplants, peas, peppers, potatoes, pumpkins,  spinach, and squash
 (1 Ib ai/A); cotton and com (fresh only) (1.5 Ib ai/A); grapes (1.5 Ib ai/A or 0.005 Ib
 ai/gallon); kale (0.75 Ib ai/A or 2 Ib ai/A for seed); kohlrabi, radish, turnip and rutabaga
 (2 Ib ai/A seed only); strawberries, pineapples and sweet potato (2 Ib ai/A); and
 tobacco (1.5 Ib ai/A WP, 1 Ib ai/A EC).

 Fruit and nut trees (orchard crops): apples (2.5 Ib ai/A or  0.005 Ib ai/gal);
 apricots, peach, and nectarines (3 Ib ai/A or 0.0025 Ib ai/gal);  almonds, cherries,
 pears, plums, and prunes (2.5 Ib ai/A or 0.04 Ib ai/gallon); filberts (hazelnuts 21b ai/A or
 0.005 Ib ai/gallon); macadamia nuts (3.0 Ib ai/A or 0.01 Ib ai/gallon); pecans (3 Ibs ai/A
 or 0.0075 Ib ai/gallon); walnuts (2 Ib ai/A or 0.02 Ib ai/gallon WP, 2.5 Ib ai/A or 0.04
 Ib ai/gallon EC). A currently registered label (EPA reg # 34704-516) contains a higher
 application rate (7.5 Ib ai/A) for pecans and macadamia nuts man is listed above.  At
this time only the 3.0 Ib ai/A rate for pecans and macadamia nuts is being supported
and this assessment therefore only assesses these crops for a 3.0 ft)  ai/A maximum
application rate.

-------
              Ornamental Threes and Shrubs: shade trees, citrus (non-bearing and nursery stock),
              shrubs, nursery stock, Christmas tree plantations, and woody plants (1 Ib ai/A or 0.01
              Ib ai/galkm).

              Root dip: cherry, peaches, and plum roots and crowns (0.05 Ib ai/gallon) and whole
              strawberry plants (0.01 Ib ai/gallon EC).

              Bark Treatment: apricot, cherry, grapes, nectarines, peach, plums and prunes (see
              above far application rates, applied with high pressure handwands and rights-of-way
              sprayers).

              Use Classification:   General use

       D.     Estimated Usage of Pesticide

       This section summarizes the best estimates available for many of the pesticide uses of
endosulfen, based on available pesticide survey usage data for the years 1990 through 1999. A full
listing of all uses of endosulfen, with the corresponding use and usage data for each site, has been
completed and is in the "Quantitative Use Assessment" document dated September 10,2000, which is
available in the public docket and on die Agency's website: http://wvnv.epa.gov/pesticldes/endosu{fan.
The data, reported on an aggregate and she (crop) basis, reflect annual fluctuations in use patterns as
well as the variability in using data from various information sources. Total average annual use of
endosulfen is estimated at approximately 138 million pounds of active ingredient (Ibs ai), according to
Agency and registrant estimates.

       This long-term average is not necessarily consistent with some recent trends. Data from USDA
(Agricultural Chemical Usage, Field Crop Summary, 1999,2000,2001; Agricultural Chemical
Usage, Fruit and Nut Summary, 1999; Agricultural Chemical Usage, Vegetable Summary, 2000)
and other EPA sources appear to indicate declining use of endosulfen in U.S. agriculture. This decline
is driven mainly by replacement of endosulfen by other insecticides for use on small grains and
soybeans. Usage on fruit and nut crops may also be decreasing, although the decline is not as clear and
may be sensitive to  yearly fluctuation in pest problems.  Usage on vegetable crops appears steady and
may be increasing.  Within these broad categories, there may be significant shifts in use patterns in
response to the dynamics of the agricultural system (e.g., changes in crop area), pest populations (e.g.,
pest outbreaks) and changes in pesticide availability (e.g., new pesticides registered and restrictions on
old pesticides).
Crop
UB.AJ. AppHwMwgbtd
AvE-taWOpwnidi)1
PcrccBt Crap Tmted
(Weifhted AvB.)
Perceat Crop Treated
(Likely M)
Food Commodities

-------
Cwp
A1&1& (seed) (nonfood)
Almonds
Apples
Apricots/Nectarines
Barley
Beans, Dry
Beans, Lima
Beans, Snap Fresh
Beans, Snap Processed
Blueberries
Broccoli
Brussels Sprouts
Cabbage, Fresh and
Processed


Carrots
Cauliflower
Celery
Cherries, Sweet and Tart
Citrus - Grapefruit
Citrus -Oranges
Citrus - Other2
Collards
Com, Sweet
Cucumbers, fresh and
processed
Eggplant
jrapes
Hazelnuts (Filberts)
Lettuce
MacadamiaNuts
Melons, Honeydew
riustard Greens
Oats/Rye
Peas, Dry
eas, Green
Pears
'ecans
Lb.AJ. Applied (wghtd .
AV* I. 000 pound*)1
10
<1
110
2

-------
^ln^
(wafBted Avg,;
12%
7%
2%
3%
10%
31%
20%
4%
4%
14%
40%
6%
<1%
0%
12%
Pcite&t Crop Treated
' (Lltoly M) ^
17%
17%
6%
7%
16%
46%
30%
6%
11%
21%
84%
11%
5%
1%
17%
Non-Food Sites
Cotton
Tobacco
286
63
2%
8%
4%
12%
Ornamentals
Horticultural Nurseries Stock
50
Not Available
Not Available
        Usage data primarily covers 1990 to 1999. Calculations of the above numbers are displayed as rounded.
        Calculations of the above numbers may not appear to agree because they are displayed as rounded:
        to the nearest 1000 for acres treated or Ib. a.i.
Agricultural (Crop) Sites: USDA Agricultural Chemical Usage Reports, NCFAP, and various proprietary data sources, including
Doane, Maritz, Mike Buckley.
Pineapple estimates from Calvin Oda, Pineapple Growers Assoc. of Hawaii, 4/21/99, memo to Nako;
Macadamia not MtimatM from Mm "v*lmfg*'i, H" MrHami Milf Aggng ^ 4/71 /OO p>-rartil fmnnnimy^n wMi M.lrf.
USDA, Biological and Economic Assessment of Pest Management in the United States Greenhouse and Nursery Industry,
NAPIAP Report, l-CA-96;
1993 Certified/Commercial Pesticide Applicator Survey; Kline; SRI.
        Summary of Endosulfan Risk Assessments
            purpose of this summary is to assist die reader in better understanding the conclusions
reached in the assessments by identifying the key features and findings of the risk assessments
conducted for endosulfan. Following is a list of EPA's revised human health and ecological risk
assessments and supporting information that was used to formulate the findings and conclusions for the
pesticide endosulfan. The listed documents may also be found on the Agency's web page at
www.epa.fov/pesticides/ and in the public docket
                                                  8

-------
 Human Health Risks

        Assessment of the Dietary Cancer Risk of Hexachlorobenzene and Pentachlorobenzene
       as impurities in Chlorothalonil, PCNB, Picloram, and several other pesticides, February
       26,1998.
        Product Chemistry Chapter for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision, December 18,1998.
        Review ofEndosulfan Incident Reports, January 18,2000.
        Re-Evaluation of Toxicology Endpoint Selection for Dermal and Inhalation Risk
       Assessments and 3X Safety Factor for Bioaccumulation, February 7,2002.
        Revised Residue Chemistry Chapter For The Endosulfan Reregistration Eligibility
       Decision (RED) Document, February 14,2002.
        Report of the FQPA Safety Factor Committee, February 14,2002.
        Third Revision of Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment and
       Recommendations for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document, February 26,
       2002.
        Anticipated Residues and Revised Chronic Dietary Exposure Analyses, February 28,
       2002.
        New FQPA and PDF Data, Anticipated Residues, and Revised Acute and Chronic
       Dietary Exposure Analyses, April 22,2002.
        Supporting documentation for findings of FQPA Safety Committee on February 11,
       2002, May 9,2002.
        Reevaluation of the HED Risk Assessment for the Endosulfan Reregistration Eligibility
       Decision (RED) Document, May 30,2002.
        New FQPA, PDF, and Processing Data, Anticipated Residues, and Revised Acute and
       Chronic Dietary Exposure Analyses, July 19, 2002

 Environmental Fate and Ecological Effects

        Final EFED Risk Assessment for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision on Endosulfan,
       February 26,2002.
       Endosulfan and Endosulfan Sulfate: Drinking Water EECs in Surface Water for Use in
       the Human Health Risk Assessment, July 3,2002.

       A.    Human Health Risk Assessment

       EPA issued its preliminary ride assessments for endosulfan on January 31,2001 (Phase 3 of the
TRAC process).  In response to comments and studies submitted during Phase 3, the risk assessments
were updated and refined. Major revisions to the human health risk assessment are listed below:

       Adjusted dietary risk estimates to reflect FQPA Safety Factor of 10X.

-------
        Use of new toxicological oidpoints fw domal ride assessmoit  These data affect the lowest
       observed adverse effect level, and no observed adverse effect level used in the dermal risk
       assessments.

        2000 PDF data was incorporated in the dietary assessment

        Processing factors for pear juice, pineapple juice, raisins, and canned fruits and vegetables
       were incorporated in the dietary assessment

        Recalculated Tier H drinking water EECs incorporating the Index Reservoir and Percent
       Cropped Area.

        Incorporated updated % crop treated values.
              1.     Dietary Risk from Food

                     a.     Toxiriry

       The Agency has reviewed all toxichy studies submitted and has determined mat the toxicity
database is sufficiently complete except for the data identified in Section V, and that it supports a
reregistration eligibility determination far all currently registered uses.  Further details on the toxicity of
endosulfan can be found in the document "Endosulfan: Reevaluation of the HED Risk Assessment for
the Endosulfan Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Dociiment," dated M^ 30,2002, and related
documents. A brief overview of the studies and safety factors used for the dietary (food) risk
assessment is outlined in Table 2 in this document

                     b.     FQPA Safety Factor

       The FQPA Safety Factor of 10X was retained for endosulfan. A weightof-the-evidence
approach indicated mat-there were no reliable data available to address concerns or uncertainties raised
by the following matters: 1) evidence for increased susceptibility of young rats, (2) additional evidence
for endocrine disruption, 3) uncertainty regarding the neuroendocrine effects in the young, and 4) the
need for a developmental neurotoxicity study (DNT).  The-FQPA safety factor (lOx) is applicable for
all populations when assessing acute and chronic dietary exposure.  There are no longer any residential
uses for mis chemical, so the FQPA Safety factor does not apply to the short-term or intermediate-term
exposure scenarios. More information concerning the FQPA Safety Factor can be found in the
document" Endosulfan: Report of the FQPA Safety Factor Committee" dated February 13,2002, and
related documents.
                                             10

-------
        Although developmental toxichy was only seen at or above parentally toxic doses, there were
 treatment-related clinical signs of neurotoxicity following oral exposures in the rat, rabbit, and dog, and
 via the dermal route in rats. The acute neurotoxicity study was reviewed and found to be
 acceptable/guideline. The subchronic neurotoxicity study has not been received by the Agency and
 remains a data gap. The Agency re-reviewed the hazard and exposure data for endosulfan and
 concluded that a DNT study in rats should be requested for endosulfim due to concern for 1) fetal
 effects reported in the open literature; 2) the severity of effects seen in female offspring of the F0
 generation (increased pituitary) and F,b generation (increased uterine weights) at the high-dose when
 compared to the toxichy observed in parental animals at mis dose m the twc^enentikn reproduction
 study in rats; and 3) because the subchronic neurotoxicity study will only address the neuropathotogical
 concerns resulting from exposure to endosulfan in adults. A developmental neurotoxicity study will
 provide the critical data needed to determine the potential toxic effects of endosulfan on the developing
 fetal nervous system.

        Under the conditions of the available Agency guideline studies, there is no evidence of
 enhanced susceptibility of the offspring to exposure to endosulfan.  However, a recent review by the
 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [Toxicological Profile for Endosulfan  (Update).
 ATSDR. September 2000] reported the results of non-guideline studies which demonstrated that young
 rats may be more susceptible man older rats upon exposure to endosulfan. Studies conducted by Sinha
 etal. (1995 & 1997) and Zaidie/ al. (1985) illustrate effects to the offspring at dces tower than those
 showing effects in adults.  Sinha etal.(l995& 1997), treated boththree week and three month old rats
 orally. Decreased intratesticular spermatid count and increased percentage of abnormal sperm were
 seen in three week old rats at doses tower than those eliciting similar effects in three month old rats.
 Zaidi (198S) dosed neonatal rat pups for 25 days intraperitoneally and found increased serotonin
 binding to the frontal  cortical membranes of the brain and increased aggressive behavior. Adults
 exposed in a similar manner did not display these effects.

       There is evidence for endocrine disruption both in studies submitted to the Agency and those
 published in the open literature. In an National Cancer Institute (NCI) chronic toxkhy/carcinogenicity
 study in rats, endosulfan induced tesucular atrophy and parathyroid hyperplasia.  In the multi-generation
 reproduction study, increased pituitary and uterine weights were seen. Endosulfan is considered to be a
 potential endocrine disrupter. Substances mat act as endocrine disrupters may perturb the endocrine
 system in a variety of ways including, but not limited to, interfering with the synthesis, secretion, or
 transport of hormones in the organism. The endocrine system integrates a variety of CNS-pftuitary-
 target organ pathways that not only affect reproductive or sexually regulated parameters but also
 regulate a wide array of bodily functions and homeostasis.

                     c.      Population Adjusted Dose (PAD)

       The PAD is a term that characterizes the dietary (food) risk of a chemical and reflects the
Reference Dose (RfD), either acute or chronic, that has been adjusted to account for the FQPA safety

                                             11

-------
factor (i.e.,RfD/FQPA safety factor).  The RD is calculated by taking the no observed adverse
effect level (NOAEL) from an appropriate study and dividing it by an uncertainty fector (i.e.,
NOAEL/UF). A risk estimate that is less than 100% of the acute or chronic PAD does not exceed the
Agency's risk concern. In the case of endosulfan, the FQPA safety factor is 10x;-therefore, the acute
or chronic PADs are equivalent to the acute and chronic RfDs divided by 10, respectively. The aPAD
for endosulfan is 0.0015 mg/kg/day. The cPAD for endosulfan is 0.0006 mg/kg/day. The basis for the
aPAD and the cPAD are summarized in Table 2 below.
Table 2.
Summary of the Toricological Endpoints for Endosulfkn
Expowre
SccBario
Acute Dietary
Chronic Dietary
Do
(mg/kg/d.,)
NOAEL =1.5
UF=100
FQPASF=10
NOAEL = 0.6
UF-100
FQPA SF- 10
IMpfet
Oral LOAEL = 3 mg/kg/day, based on
increased incidence of convulsions seen
in female rats within 8 hours after
dosing.
Study
Acute neurotoxicity study in
rats
Acute Rfl) - 0.015 mg/kg/day
PAD- 0.0015 nc/kg/day
LOAEL - 2.9 mg/kg/day based on
reduced body weight gain, enlarged
kidneys, increased incidences of marked
progressive glomerulonephiDsis; &
blood vessel aneurysms in male rats.
Combined chronic
toxichy/carcinogenicity
study in rats
Cbrenk RID - 0.006 nig/kg/day
cPAD - 0.0006 mg/kg/day
                     d.     Exposure Assumptions

       The Agency conducts dietary (food) risk assessments using the dietary exposure evaluation
model (DEEM), which incorporates consumption data generated in USDA's continuing survey of
food intakes by individuals, 1989-1992.  For the assessment of dietary (food) exposure to residues of
endosulfan, monitoring data generated through the USDA Pesticide Data Program (PDF) and through
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Surveillance Monitoring Program were used for most crops.
Anticipated residue values from crop residue field trial studies, and percent .crop-treated data were
used for cotton, macadamia nuts, filberts, pecans, and walnuts.

       The Agency has developed procedures for handling FDA surveillance monitoring data in
dietary exposure analyses in order to generate nxjre refined pn*abuMstic dietaiy exrx)sin estirriates. In
the FDA data, if there are significant differences between domestic and import samples, either in terms
of likelihood of detected residues or residue levels themselves, then ft would be most desirable to
"weight" the FDA data such mat ft better reflects the proportionate "mix" between domestic and foreign
produce which the U.S. population consumes. Additional estimates of the percent of commodity
imported as well as imported %CT are also incorporated. The crops for which these procedures were
incorporated are dried beans, blueberries, cauliflower, fresh sweet corn, melons (except cantaloupe),
fresh succulent peas, hot peppers,  plums, and summer squash.
                                            12

-------
       For acute probabilistic dietary risk assessments, the entire distribution of single-day food
 consumption events is combined with a distribution of residues to obtain a distribution of exposure in
 mg/kg/day. Chronic dietary (food) risk assessments use the three-day average of consumption for each
 subpopulation combined with residues in commodities to determine average exposure in mg/kg/day.
                     e.
              Food Risk Characterization
       Generally, a dietary (food) risk estimate mat is less man 100% of the acute or chronic
Population Adjusted Dose does not exceed the Agency's risk concern. Acute risk estimates from
exposures to food, associated with the use of endosulfan exceed the Agency's level of concern
for some population subgroups. For example, for exposure resulting from applications of endosulfan,
for the most exposed population subgroup, children 1-6 years old, me percent acute PAD value is
150% at the 99.9th percentile of exposure from consumption of food alone. The crops mat contributed
the most to me risks of concern are succulent beans and succulent peas.  The results of the acute
dietary (food) assessment are summarized in the Table 3.
Table3.
Snmmar
of Acute Dietary (food) Risk Assessment

Population Subgroup
U.S. General Population
All Infsnts
Children 1-6
Children 7-12
*BID
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
Food Exposure
0.0012
0.0014
0.0022
0.0014
/.aPAD
80%
94%
150%
95%
       Chronic dietary (food) exposure estimates are below the Agency's level of concern for all
subpopulations. For the most highly exposed subpopulation, children 1-6 years old, the percent
chronic PAD value is 17% from consumption of food alone.

              2.     Dietary Risk from Drinking Water

       Dietary (drinking water) exposure to pesticides can occur through ground water and surface
water contamination. EPA considers bom acute (one day) and chronic (lifetime) drinking water risks
and uses either modeling or actual monitoring data, if available, to estimate those risks. Modeling is
considered to be an unrefined assessment Limited water monitoring data exist for endosulfan;
therefore, modeling was used to estimate drinking water risks from these sources.

       The GENEEC and PRZM-EXAMS models were used to estimate surface water
concentrations, and SCI-GROW was used to estimate groundwater concentrations. All of these are
considered to be screening models, with the PRZM-EXAMS model being somewhat more refined than
the other two.

                    a.      Surface Water
                                           13

-------
       The Tier n PRZM-EXAMS screening model is used to estimate upper-bound environmental
concentrations (EECs) in drinking water derived from surface water. This model, in general, is based
on more refined, less conservative assumptions than the Tier IGENEEC screening model.  The Agency
also used the recently implemented index Reservoir (IR) and Percent Crop Area (PCA) modifications
to me Tier H PRZM-EXAMS i>fcl to calculate upj)er^^
endosulfan sulfate, in drinking water derived from surface water. Applying the IR and PC A
modifications, acute modeled EECs for endosulfan in surface water range from 4.49 ppb to 23.86 ppb
depending on the crop she. Chronic modeled EECs for endosulfan in surface water range from 0.53
ppb to 1.5 ppb, depending on the crop she.

       Monitoring data for endosulfan and endosulfan  sulfate in surface water are available but not of
sufficient quality to be used in a quantitative risk assessment A review of the STORET database for et-
and p-endosulfan, unspecified endosulfan residues, and  endosulfan sulfate showed numerous
detections. The STORET data are not reliable enough  to enable an accurate quantitative assessment of
the endosulfan distribution throughout the U.S, but it does give some insight into where endosulfan is
being found. The mean concentration found in mis data is 0.17 ppb, with a standard deviation of 0.98
ppb. The 90th percentile value (one hi ten year value) was 031 ppb and the median value was 0.03
ppb. However, as mentioned above, there are limitations to this data which make h unuseable for
quantitative risk assessment As such, the data do not necessarily i^present the mc^ \oilnerabte sites or
sampling at peak exposure times and little is known about actual sample conditions. In addition, the
limits of detection vary widely depending on the purpose of the monitoring and the availability of
analytical methods and equipment so that reported non-detections do not necessarily mean that
endosulfan was not present where a non-detect was reported.

       The National Sediment Quality Survey (U.S. EPA,  1997) reported detections of endosulfan
residues in stream sediments in 30 out of 76 watersheds tested for endosulfan. The watersheds are
located in  12 states, ranging from Rhode Island to California and from Mississippi to Michigan. As with
the STORET data, one of the sources of data used in the survey, mis summary provides more of a
qualitative evaluation of the extent to which endosulfan may be found hi the environment rather man a
quantitative assessment of endosulfan occurrence.  The  U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)  hi its National
Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program is not currently analyzing for endosulfan.

                     b.     Ground Water

       The Tier I screening model, SCI-GROW, was used  to estimate drinking water concentrations
derived from groundwater. The acute and chronic EEC for  endosulfan in groundwater is 0.012 ppb.
This includes potential residues of endosulfan sulfate hi addition to endosulfan. The Agency believes
that the potential for endosulfan to reach ground water is limited to acidic to neutral soils and aquifers
where preferential flow may be a prevalent pathway to ground water or where the ground water is
shallow and is overlain by highly permeable soils. Available evidence suggests that the transformation

                                            14

-------
{TOducts-endoajlfesulfeteandendosulfendiol-niaybepersistait Endosulfan sulfate is similar in
mobility to the parent endosulfan.

       Hie Pesticides in Ground Water Database (PGWDB) reports detections of endosulfen, ranging
from trace to s20 ppb, in 1.3% of 2410 discrete samples (32 wells). Detections were reported in
California, Maine, and Virginia All sampling was conducted on or before Ac year 1989. The
abbreviated nature of the PGWDB does not capture important factors such as depth of the water table,
soil permeability, proximity of crops to wells, usage (application) of the chemical in the years prior to
sanding, suitability of the anafytk^m                                     Endosulfan sulfate
was detected in 03% of the samples (6 out of 1,969), with detections ranging from < 0.005 to 1.4
ppb. The detections were reported in Indiana and New York. Sampling occurred at or prior to 1990.
                     c.      Drinking Water Levels of Comparison (DWLOQ

       To determine the maximum allowable contribution from water containing pesticide residues
permitted in the diet, the Agency first looks at how much of the overall allowable risk is contributed by
food (and if appropriate, residential uses) then determines a "drinking water level of
comparison"(DWLOC) to determine whether modeled or monitoring levels exceed this level. The
Agency uses the DWLOC as a surrogate to capture risk associated with exposure from pesticides in
drinking water. The DWLOC is the maximum concntratkm in drinldng water which, when omsidered
together wfrh dietary (food) exposure, does not exceed a level of concern.

       The results of me Agency's drinking water analysis are summarized here. Details of this
analysis, which used screening models, are found in the documents "Endosulfan: Reevahiation of the
HED Risk Assessment for me Endosulfan Reregistration EJigfciliry Decisicn (RED) Document5'dated
May 30,2002 and "a-and p-Endosulfan and Endosulfan Sulfate: Drinking Water EECs in Surface
Water for Use in the Human Health Risk Assessment" dated Jury 3,2002.

       Since acute risk exposures to endosulfan in food alone pose a potential risk of concern for
children 1-6 years of age additional exposures from water would increase the concern and therefore the
DWLOC for mis population is zero. These drinking water risk estimates are summarized below in
Table 4.
Table 4.
Endosulfan Drinking Water Levels of Comparison for Acute Dietary Exposure


Population
Subgroup

U.S. Population


Acute PAD

-------
Females (13-50 yre)
Infants 
-------
exposure climates. Therefore, mere is no additional room in the "risk cap" fat exposure via drinking
water (DWLOC = 0).

       Chronic Aggregate Risk Assessment: In the case of the food component of the chronic
aggregate risk assessment, risks are well below the Agency's level of concern. No more man 17% of
the chronic PAD is consumed for children 1-6. Further, potential drinking water risks from exposure to
drinking water sources do not exceed the chronic D WLOCs and, therefore, do not exceed the
Agency's level of concern.

              4.     Occupational Risk

       Occupational handlers can be exposed to endosulfen through mixing, loading and/or allying a
pesticide or re-entering treated sites. Occupational handlers of endosulfan include individual fanners or
growers who mix, load and/or apply pesticides and professional OT custom agricultural applk&tors. The
post-application occupational risk assessment considered exposures to workers entering treated sites in
agriculture. Risk lor all of these potentially exposed populations is measured by a Margin of E)qx)sure
(MOE), which determines how close the occupational exposure comes to a NOAEL. Generally,
MOEs greater man 100 are not of concern. Restricted Entry Intervals (REIs) are 24 hours on current
endosulfan labels. The Agency has determined that there are potential mixer, loader, applicator as well
as post-application exposures to occupational handlers.

                    a.     Toxicity

       The toxicity of endosulfan is integral to assessing me occupational risk. The Agency has
conducted short term dermal and inhalation exposure assessments for the occupational handler. In
addition, the Agency has conducted short term and intermediate term postapplication dermal exposure
assessments for occupational uses.

       All risk calculations are based on the most current toxicity information available for endosulfan,
including a 21-day dermal toxicity study in rats for short-term and intermediate-term (post-application
only) exposure durations. An uncertainty factor (UF) of 100 was applied to the risk assessment lOx to
account for interspecies extrapolation and lOx to account for intraspecies variability. The toxicobgical
endpoints and other factors used in the occupational risk assessments for endosulfan are listed below.

Table 6.      Summary of Toxicotogkal Endpoints and Otter Factors Used in the Human
              Occupational Risk Assessment for Endosnlfan
Rout* /Duration
Short- and Intennediate-
term Dermal (one day to
one month; one month to
several months )
NOAEL

-------
Short- and Intennediate-
term Inhalation
(one day to one month; one
month to several months )
0.2
Decreased body-weight gain
and decreased leukocyte
counts in mates and increased
VCttODlDC VdtUCS m ICOttBCS 8t
0.40mg/kg/day(LOAEL)
21-day inhalation
study in rats.
Interspecies: IQx
Intraspecies: lOx
       Endosulfen is highly toxic following acute oral exposure ami moderately toxfc following acute
inhalation exposure. In rats, oral median lethal doses (LDX values) are 82 mg/kg (mates) and30mg/kg
(females). Median lethal concentratiotts (LCW values) in rats foUovving acute inhalation esqxKure range
from 0.16 to 0.5 mg/L.  Endosulfan is considerably less lethal, however, following acute dermal
exposure (LDjo is 2.0 g/kg).

Endosulfen is an eye irritant in rabbits (Toxichy Category I) but is not a dermal irritant or sensitizer.
RefertoTabteTbetowforasurnnjaiyoftheacutetoxicityofendosulfen.

Table 7.      Summary of Results from Acute Toridty Studies of Technical Endosnlfen
GBMeKne *
number :
870.1100
870.1200
870.1300
870.2400
870.2500
870.2600
>* ->'-i> . 'f?
Study Typ , %
Acute Oral
Acute Dennal
Aciitf Inhfllfltjon
Primary Eye Irritation
Primary Skin Irritation
Dermal Sensitization
MWD
41183502
41183503
41183504
41183505
41183506
41183507
\7 ' Refute ^ ' * --^ ;
LDM~82 mg/kg in cT
LDM-30 mgAcgin?
LDM = 2000mg*g
LCM = 0.16-0 Jmg/L
Eye irritant
(Residual opacity at day 13)
Non-irritant
Not a dermal sensitizer
1*0*
- .CMlpHy ,
I
m
n
i
IV
NA
                     b.      Occupational Exposure

       Three chemical-specific dislodgeable foliar residue studies that were submitted to the Agency
by the technical registrant were used to evaluate post-application exposures. Chemical-specific
exposure data for handlers were not available for endosulfen, so risks to pesticide handlers were
assessed using data from the Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database (PHED). In addition, standard
assumptions about average body weight, work day, area treated dairy and volume of pesticide handled
were used to calculate risk estimates. The quality of the data and exposure factors represent the best
sources of data currently available to the Agency for completing these kinds of assessments.  The
exposure factors (e.g., body weight, amount treated per day, protection factors, etc.) are all standard
values that have been used by the Agency over several years, and the PHED unit exposure values are
the best available estimates of exposure. The quality of the data used for each scenario assessed is
discussed in the Human Health Assessment document for endosulfan, which is available in the public
docket and on the Agency's web page:
       Calculations were completed for a range of maximum application rates for specific crops
available from endosulfan labels.  These rates were assessed in order to bracket risk levels associated
                                            18

-------
with the various use patterns. Anticipated use patterm and appUcatkm metiKxls, ninge of applkation
rates and daily amount treated were derived from current labeling. On the majority of endosulfan
produc* labels, the number of maximum alk>^^
season or year, and does not exceeds. The Agency uses acres treated per day values that are thought
to represent an eight hour workday for a particular Qpe of appUc^tion equipment or specific crop.

       Occupational handler exposure assessments are conducted by the Agency using different levels
of personal protection. The Agency typfcafly evaluates iiUexpcisureswim baseline protect and then
adds additional protective measures using a tiered approach to obtain an appropriate MOE (he.,
increasing levels of protection). Theknvestcombinatkmofpeisc^protecti^
baseline PPE. tfiequiid(i^MOi3sarele^
applied. If MOEs are sdU less than 100, engineering contrcds are applied In some cases, EPA will
coixiuct an assessment using PPE OT engineering conto^                       The levels of
protection mat formed me basis for calculations of exposure from ertcksuHan include:

*      Baseline:              Long-sleeved shirt and long pants, shoes and socks.
      Minimum PPE: Baseline + chemical-resistant gloves and a dustAnist respirator.
      Maximum PPE:        Coveralls over long-sleeved shirt and long pants, chemical resistant
                            gloves, chemical footwear plus socks, chemical resistant headgear for
                            overhead exposures, and an ov respirator.

      Engineering controls: Engineering controls such as a dosed cab tractor for application
       scenarios, or a closed mixing/loading system such as a closed mechanical transrer system for
       liquids or water soluble packaging for wetteble powders. Some engineering controls are not
       applicable for certain scenarios (e^, for handheld apphVation methods there are no engineering
       controls that fower me exposures).

                    c.      Occupational Handler Risk Summary

       Inhalation and dermal exposure to endosulfan can result from occupational use. The Agency
assessed dermal and inhalation risks (MOEs) for each crop curoentty registered for endosulfan. Dermal
and inhalation MOEs were not aggregated but were assessed separately because the end effects seen
at the LOAEL were different ft is Agency policy not to aggregate me risks (inhalation phis dermal) if
the toxicological effects are not the same. Handler exposures to endosulfan are expected to be short-
term only (1-30 days) because of the types of crops on which endosulfim is used. For endosulfan,
occupational MOEs greater than 100 are not of risk concern to the Agency.

                            (1)    Agricultural Handler Risk

       EPA has determined mat mere are potential exposures to mixers, loaders, applicators, and
otherhandfcrs during usual use-patterns associated with endosulfen.  The scenario numbers below

                                           19

-------
correspond to the scenario numbers detailed and discussed in Appendix A of the Occupational and
Residential Exposure Chapter of theHED risk assessment dated May 30,2002. Based on the use
patterns, 21 major occupational exposure scenarios were identified for endosulfan:

       (la) mixing/loading liquid formulations for aerial application;
       (Ib) mixing/loading liquid formulation for chemigation;
       (Ic) mixing/loading liquid formulations for groundboom application; .
        (Id) mixing/loading liquid formulations for airblast application;
       (le) mixing/loading liquid formulations for rights-of-way sprays;
       (If) mixing/loading liquid formulations for plant and root dip;
        (2a) mixing/loading wettable powders for aerial application;
       (2b) mixing/loading wettable powders for groundboom application;
        (2c) mixing/loading wettable powders for airblast application;
        (2d) mixing/loading wettable powders for rights-of-way spray application;
       (2e) mixing/loading wettable powders for plant and root dip;
        (3) applying sprays with aerial equipment;
       (4) applying sprays with a groundboom sprayer;
       (5) applying sprays with an airblast sprayer,
       (6) applying sprays with a rights-of-way sprayer;
        (7) applying dip treatment to roots, or whole plants;
       (8) mixing/loading/applying liquids with a tow pressure hand wand;
        (9) mixing/loading/applying wettable powders with a low pressure handwand;
       (10) rnixing/toading/apptymg liquids whh a high pressure handwand;
       (11) mixing/loading/applying liquids with backpack sprayer; and
       (12) flagging aerial spray applications.

        There were three scenarios that were not evaluated due to a lack of data available to conduct
an assessment These scenarios are mixing/loading/applying wettable powders whh backpack sprayer,
mixing/loading/applying wettable powders with a high pressure hand wand and application of liquids or
wettable powders as a root dip/crown dip.

        PPE requirements on current endosulfen labels range from no PPE listed to long sleeved shirt
and long pants, waterproof gloves, shoes, socks, chemical resistant headgear, respirator with either an
organic vapor removing cartridge with a prefilter or canister approved for pesticides. Mixers and
loaders must also wear a chemical resistant apron.
       As summarized in Table 8, occupational risks are of concern (i.e., MOEs < 100) for many
scenarios, even when maximum PPE are utilized. Handler risks are also of concern for some scenarios
whh engineering controls.  Engineering controls are considered to be the maximum feasible mitigation.
Twelve scenario/application rate combinations have risks that exceed the Agency's level of concern
based on application rates supported by the technical registrants.  These mainly involve mixing/loading
liquids for aerial applications, mixing/loading wettable powders for aerial  applications, groundboom

                                             20

-------
applications and airblast applications, application using aerial equipment, application using airblast
equipment, application using rights-of-way sprayers and mixing/loading/applying using a high-pressure
handwand.
                                               21

-------
Table 8.  Summary of Occupational Handler Risks to Endosnlfan
Exposure Scenario
(Scenario*) .
Crop Type/Use
-, JtajMt
* __U__i__ n^
f\ppncMKHi Kates
'. 6MA1K'>'
toes Treated
Amount
Handled/ >.
. ttfr*
U^i*&l
IfiffllilfBBilF
JMtfi
- i*ofi 7,
tWJVttl^itij^*.
inmiauo&
. MOE-
WBnimumPPe
Denr*l
 m^'^
Inhalation
*.*&;
MtxHnnmPPI?
rtMi
ucnnu
--lf ;
:T|j|j||>' ;'.
 fttntmfatrtf'm^tifm F*jctlmld*i
rJigiiirciiiig t-omroB
Derma!
.M^fr
Inhalation
M0&--
IWuwrfrirfltfet-i?'' IUJJ-JU '' " ' ' "l!'Y* ' ' ""'' '
Fixing/Loading
Liquid Formulations
for Aerial
Application (la)
Fixing/Loading
Liquid Formulation
Tor Chemigation (Ib)
Fixing/Loading
Liquid Formulations
For Groundboom
Application (Ic)
Fixing/Loading
Liquid Formulations
for Airblast
Application (Id)
Mixing/Loading
Liquids for Rights-
Df-way Spray
Application (le)
Mixing/Loading
Liquids for Plant and
Root Dip (If)
clover
pineapple
pecans
si nail ft^ins
cotton
potatoes (Idaho)
clover
pineapple
small grains
cotton
Ornamental
Trees/Shrubs
Hazelnuts
pecans
grapes
cherry
cherry, peach and
plums
0.5
2.0
3.0
0.75
1.5
1.0
0.5
2.0
0.75
1.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
0.005
0.04
0.05
350
1,200
350
80
200
10
40
100 Gallons
100 Gallons
2
0.41
0.28
0.32
0.16
0.83
7
2
2
1
29
4
2
58
7
58
67
17
11
13
7
33
290
73
78
39
1,200
150
97
2,300
290
2,300
210
52
35
41
20
100
910
230
240
120
3,700
460
300
7,300
910
7^00
330
83
56
65
32
170
-
360
390
190
-
-
490
-
-
-
-
71
47
55
27
-
-
-


-
-
-
-
-
-
-
170
110
130
65
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
140
93
110
54
-
-
-

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
94
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
                                                       22

-------
Exposure Scenario
(Scenario*)
Fixing/Loading
Wettabie Powders for
Aerial Application
(2a)
Fixing/Loading
Wettabie Powders for
jTOundboom
Application (2b)
^fixing/Loading
Wettabie Powders for
\irblast Application
(2c)
Mixing/Loading
Wettabie Powders for
lights-of-way Spray
Treatment (2d)
Fixing/Loading
Wettabie Powders for
lants and Root Dip
(2e)
Crop Type/Use*
beans
sweet potato
peach
small grains
cotton
beans
sweet potato
ffnifui prfl^nfl
cotton
Ornamental Trees/
Shrubs
hazelnuts
peaches
grapes
walnut
cherry, peach, and
 plum
Range of
&*Ar
1.0
2.0
3.0
0.75
1.5
1.0
2.0
0.75
1.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
0.005
0.02
0.05
tores Treated
Amount
Handled/
Day*
350
1,200
80
200
10
40
1,000 Gallons
100 Gallons
Baseline1
Dermal
*$&: .
0.65
0.32
0.22
0.25
0.13
3
1.4
1.5
0.76
23
3
2
45
11
45
Inhalation
MB?
0.93
0.47
0.31
0.36
0.18
4
2
2
1
33
4
3
65
16
65
Minitiitiin ypH?
Dermal 
HOB!.. ,
14
7
5
6
3
62
31
33
16
490
62
41
990
250
990
Ubal.mii
^-HOB--,
5
2
2
2
1
20
10
11
5
160
20
14
330
81
330
Maximum PP1*
Dermal
:;i*i-
18
9
6
7 '
4
81
40
43
22
-
81
54
-
-
-
Inhalation
MOE- .
10
5
3
4
2
41
20
22
11
-
41
27
-
160
-
TTii -ttt*n M ii ii tf"V(ri-fWtT
U^pnCCralg MpHftJlSr
Dermal
i*b&. 
240
120
82
95
48
1,100
540
570
290
-
1,100
710
-
-
-
Inhalation
170
83
56
65
32
730
360
390
190
-
730
490
-
-
-
AppBcator Exposures
Applying Spray with
Aerial Equipment (3)
clover
pineapple
pecans
small grains
0.5
2.0
3.0
0.75
350
1,200
SeeEng. Controls
960
240
160
190
1,200
290
200
230
23

-------
Exposure Scenario
(Scenario*)

Applying Sprays
with a Groundboom
Sprayer (4)
Applying Sprays
with an Airblast
Sprayer (5)
Applying Sprays
witn a Kignts-oi-way
Sprayer (6)
Applying Dip
Treatment to Roots,
or Whole Plants (7)
Crop Type/Us*
cotton
clover
pineapple
small grains
cotton
ornamental trees
hazelnuts
pecans
grapes
cherries
cherry, peach,
plum roots
Range of
Application Rates
(Ibai/A)>
1.5
0.5
2.0
0.75
1.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
0.005
0.04
0.05
Acres Treated
Amount
Handled/
Day

80
200
10
40
1,000 Gallons
100 gallons
Baseline*
Dermal
MOB1
IJU._t_*S__
infmifHitiit
MO*
Minimum PPB ,
Bemud
MOP
t~i.-t_ti_-.
iniuuafjon
MOE-
Maximum PPP
Dermal
iioa*
Wiatatkm
MOE-

1,500
380
400
200
230
29
19
130
16
No Data
470
120
130
63
310
39
26
720
90
No Data
-
-
-
-
-
48
32
-
54
ND
-
-
-
310
-.
190
130
-
450
ND
-
-
-
-
-
48
32
-
72
ND
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ND
Pngi'ftti ing Onnxtto'

Domal
MOB*
93
-
-
-
-
-
550
370
NF
NF
ND
Mbcef/LoaderfAppBcatorExpotitre
Vfixing/Loading/App
lying Liquid
Formulations with a
Low Pressure
Handwand(8)
Vfixing/Loading/App
lying Wettabte
Powders with a Low
Pressure Handwand
(9)
Mixing/Loading/ App
lying Liquid with a
High Pressure
Handwand (10)
tobacco (drench)
tomato greenhouse
cherries
tomato/ tobacco
walnut
tobacco (drench)
tomato greenhouse
cherries
0.005
0.01
0.04
0.005
0.02
0.005
0.01
0.04
40 Gallons
40 Gallons
1,000 Gallons
42
21
5
140
36
48
24
6
2,300
1,200
290
64
16
23
12
3
9,800
4,900
1,200
-
120
67
34
9
-
-
-
320
80
120
. 58
15
-
-
-
-
-
110
S3
13
 -

-

160
-
120
29
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
Inhalation
MOB-
110
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NF
NF
ND

NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
24

-------
Exposure Scenario
(Scenario*)
Vlixing/Loadmg/App
lying Liquid with
Backpack Sprayer
(11)
Crop Type/Use
tobacco (drench)
tomato greenhouse
cherries
Range of
\pplicationRato
nbai/Af
0.005
0.01
0.04

Flagging Aerial
Spray Applications
(12)
clover
pineapple
pecans
0.5
2.0
3.0
tares Treated
Amount
Ittllwew
Day*
40 Gallons
Byline1
Dermal
MQi1
1,700
840
210
Finger to
350
440
110
73
' Ta.tiaiintii.ai
innBiUuOD
MOB-
2,300
1,200
290
Minimum PP&
^ Dermal 
MOP
-
-
-
jl&~:^.^ ...>.t.
saatra
230
57
38
-
-
67
ta.lLai'lilt.im '
littmiinion
:j*<^r
-
-
-

-
290
190
MaxmromPPP
!S:'
-
-
-
,-/; '
-
-
80
TUtnWty*ti-.ai
iniiiiution
laop-
-
-
-

-
.
-
Engineer^ Controb'
fi^i^ii
Dermal
NF
NF
NF
Inhalation
t**
NF
NF
NF
"' -
-
-
3,600
-
-
-
Footnotes:
a        Crops named are index crops which are chosen to represent all other crops at or near that application rate ror that use. See the application rates listing in the use summary
         section of this document for further information on application rates used in this assessment
b        Application Rates are based on the maximum applicatkm rates listed on the endosulfan labels.
c        Daily amount treated are based on Science Advisory Council for Exposure Policy #9.1.
d        Short- term Dermal MOE = Short- term NOAEL ( mg/kg/dayX Daily Dermal Dose (mg/kg/day).
e        Short-term MOE = Short- term NOAEL (mg/kg/day)/Daily Inhalation Dose (mg/kg/day).
f        Baseline clothing: long pants, long sleeved shirt, shoes, socks. Chemical resistant gloves are included for mixing/loading/applying liquids with a backpack sprayer and
         writable powders with a low pressure handwand (scenarios 9 and 11).
g        Minimum PPE clothing: Baseline clothing plus dust/mist respirator, and chemical resistant gloves.
h        Maximum PPE doming: Baseline doming plus organic vapor respirator, double layer of domes, and chemical resistant gloves.
i        Engineering controb: Enclosed mixing/loading, closed cab, truck or cockpit Baseline level clothing. Chemical resistant gloves for airblast sprayer application and
         mixing/loading liquid formulation (scenarios 1 and 5).
         Scenario's calculated MOE exceeds the target MOE at the previous level of mitigation. (MOE > 100)
         NF = Not feasible for mis scenario (no available engineering controls). ND = No data.
         Bolded MOE values show a risk of concern at the highest possible level of mitigation for the corresponding scenario.
                                                                              25

-------
                            (2)    Post-Application Occupational Risk

       The Agency also assessed post-application risks to workers who may be exposed to
endosulfan when they enter previously treated fields, because their skin may contact treated surfaces.
Exposures are directly related to the kind of tasks performed. EPA examines the amount of pesticide
residue workers may be exposed to as the result of performing these tasks. The Agency evaluates this
information to determine the number of days following application that must elapse before the pesticide
residues dissipate to a level where worker MOEs equal or exceed 100 while wearing baseline attire.
Baseline attire is defined as long-sleeved shirt, long pants, coveralls, shoes and socks. Based on the
results of the post-application worker assessment, the Agency establishes REIs before workers may
enter treated areas. At present, endosulfan labels generally have REIs of 24 hours.

       The Agency completed a post-application exposure assessment for endosulfan for a number of
scenarios as outlined in Table 9 below. The dermal NOAEL of 12 tag/kg/day based on a 21-day
dermal toxicfty study in rats (Table 6) was used to assess potential dermal exposure to workers re-
entering treated fields.  The post-application assessment is also based on 8 hours of daily exposure and
the default transfer coefficients (Tcs) shown in Table 9. Also, three chemical-specific DFR studies
were conducted for endosulfan which were used to determine the values used in conducting the post-
application risk assessment

       For post-application risks to endosulfan, an MOE of 100 or greater is not of concern to the
Agency. Table 9 summarizes the occupational post-application risk assessment following foliar
applications of endosulfan. In summary, REIs as high as 30 days are necessary to achieve an MOE
greater than or equal to 100 (e.g. foliar application of the WP on grapes). In general, post-application
risks were higher for the wettable powder formulation versus the emulsifiable concentrate.
                                            26

-------
Table 9.      Summary of Post-application Exposure
Crop"
Table Grapes / Raisins
Juke Grapes
Grapes, Table and Juice
Apple, Apricot, Cherry, Nectarines, Peach,
Pear, Plum, Prune, Christmas Trees,
Ornamental Trees /Shrubs including
Evergreen Trees and Non-bearing Citrus
Trees.
Apple, Apricot, Cherry, Nectarines, Peach,
Pear, Plum, Prune, Ornamental Trees /
Shrubs including Evergreen Trees, Non-
bearing Citrus Trees, and Christmas Trees.
Macadamia nuts, Pistachio Nuts, Pecans,
Hazelnut, Almonds
and Walnut
Blueberries, Kohlrabi, Broccoli, and
Cabbage.
Kohlrabi, Broccoli, and Cabbage.
Blueberries
Brussels Sprouts and Cauliflower
Corn
Cucumber, Melons, Pumpkin, Squash,
Beans, Peas, Celery, Lettuce, Spinach, and
Carrots.
Alfalfa, Barley , Clover, Oats, Rye, Wheat,
White Potatoes, Cucumber, Melon,
Pumpkin, Squash, Bean, Peas, Celery,
Lettuce, and Spinach.
Carrots
'epper, Eggplant, and Tomato
Tt ^rl.nalM. 	 t  < 	 *
Maximum .Laoei
Application Rate
(Bwai/acwf '
WP*
1.5
1.5
1.5
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
1.5
1
1
1
1
.-v
1.5
1.5
1.5
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1.5
1
1
1
1
Trans ier
Coeffici
eat*
(onVhr)
10,000
5,000
1,000
3,000
1,000
2,500
500
5,000
4,000
1,000
5,000
4,000
17,000
1,000
2,500
1,500
300
1,000
Activity1
Cane turning and tying,
and KuuimK
Tying, training, hand
priming, and thinning
Scouting and irrigating
Thinning, staking,
topping, training, hand
harvest, hand pruning
and seed cone
harvesting
Scouting and irrigating
Hand harvesting,
pnmttigj and thinning
Scouting and irrigating
Hand harvesting,

Scouting and irrigating
Scouting and irrigating
Topping, irrigating,
hand harvesting, and
tying.
Scouting and irrigating
Detassling
Scouting and irrigating
Hand harvesting,
turning, and leaf pulling
Scouting and irrigating
Scouting and irrigating
Hand harvesting,
staking, tying, pruning,
Day after
Application
WhenMOE
wpt
30
20
0
5
0
0
0
14
12
3
9
7
21
1
4
0
0
0
se*
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
7
0
4
2
17
0
0
0
0
0
                                       27

-------
Crop*

Pineapple
Strawbeny
Cotton, Collard Greens, Kale, Mustard
Greens, Sweet Potato, Radish, Rutabaga,
and Turnip.
Cotton, Collard Greens, Kale, Mustard
Greens and Sweet Potato.
Radish, Rutabaga, and Turnip.
Tobacco
Application Rate
(Ibsai/acre/
W*

2
2
2
2
2
1.5
 = ie: '

2
2
2
2
2
1
Transfer
Coeffici
''mt* .
tr . : afc*.^
-(flBSr/Bf)
700
1000
500
1,500
400
2500
1,500
300
2,000
1,300
.-Afflttvitjr
Scouting and irrigating
Hand harvesting
Scouting and irrigating
Hand harvesting,
patching, pruning, and
trauunft.
Scouting and irrigating
Hand harvesting,
pruning, and thinning.
Scouting and irrigating
SCOUttDff 82)u UnffBtiOZ
Hand harvesting,
pruning, striping,
thinning, topping, and
hand weeding
Scouting and irrigating
Day after
Application
WhenMOE
*100
m*
0
3
0
5
0
9
5
0
5
2
m?
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
Footnotes;
Day 0 = day of application after sprays have dried (12 hours).
a      Crops were grouped according to similar application rates, transfer coefficients, and surrogate DFR data sources.
b      WP=wettaWe powder formulation
c      EC = emulsifiaHe concentrate formulation
d      maxinum application rates as stated on current endosulfan labels.
e      Transfer Coefficients from Science Advisory Council on Exposure Policy 3.1"
f      Activities are from  Science Advisory Council on Exposure Policy 3.1."Eachactivity many not occur for every crop
       listed in group.
g      Day after application when the calculated MOE is greater than the target MOE of 100.

                              (3)    Human Health Incident Data

       Hie Agency has reviewed the Incident Data System (IDS), the Poison Control Center, the
California Department of Food and Agriculture (Department of Pesticide Regulation), and the National
Pesticide Telecommunications Network (NPTN) databases for reported incident information for
endosulfan. A number of accidental human poisonings from exposure to endosulfan in occupational
settings have been reported. The data from these sources often lacked  specific information on the
extent of exposure and the circumstances of exposure.  Collectively, however, the incidence information
indicate definite poisoning risks from misuse of r^xxhK^ that contain endosiih^ or from ncrt wearing
personal protective  equipment
                                               28

-------
        Several incidents of acute accidental human exposure to endosulfan have been reported.  The
clinical signs and symptoms observed in humans following acute accidental exposure to endosulfan are
similar to those observed m acute tenacity studies in animals. In humans, acute toxicity caused by
endosulfan is characterized by nervousness, agitation, tremors, convulsions, and death. In one incident,
a 70 year old woman died about three hours after she swallowed "drops" of an endosulfan formulation.
Prior to death the woman experienced vomiting, diarrhea, agitation, tonoclonic convulsions, dyspnea,
cyanosis, and loss of consciousness.  In one incident, nine workers experienced at least one convulsion
after bagging a 50% wettable powder formulation of endosulfan. Five of me men were said to be
wearing a respirator and protective clothing at the time of exposure. Prodromal symptoms included
malaise, vomiting, dizziness and confusion. Further, California data show a consistent risk of skin rash
or irritation among field workers who come into substantial contact with endosulfan-treated foliage.

        B.    Environmental Ride Assessment

        A summary of the Agency's environmental risk assessment is presented below. For detailed
discussions of all aspects of the environmental risk assessment, see Final EFED Risk Assessment for
the Registration Eligibility Decision on Endosulfan, February 26,2002, available in the public
docket and on the intemet at http://www.epa.gov/Desticides/ reregistajtion/endflsuifafr  Major revisions
to the ecological risk assessment are listed below:

       Some risk estimates were recalculated to reflect supported application rates.

       Some RQs were recalculated to include endosulfan sulfate exposure.

              1.      Environmental Fate and Transport

        Technical grade endosulfan is a mixture of two biologically-active isomers, the alpha (a) and
beta (P) isomers, which differ in physico-chemical and fate properties. Endosulfan is a persistent,
semivolatile compound that has been detected in nearly all environmental compartments, including water
and in areas where it is not used (e.g., the Arctic and national parks).  The end-use product is a mixture
of two endosulfan isomers, typically 70% a-endosulfan and 30% P-endosulfan.  The p-isomer is
generally more persistent and the a-isomer is more volatile.  For bom isomers, hydrolysis at pH values
greater than 7 is an important degradation route; however, at pH values below 7, both isomers are
rather persistent At a pH of 7, a-endosulfan and p-endosulfan hydrolyze with half-lives of 11 and 19
days, respectively, and at a pH of 9, the isomers have half-lives of 4 to 6 hours. Under acidic
conditions, both isomers are stable to hydrolysis, and microbial degradation in soils becomes the
predominant route of degradation. Half-lives in acidic to neutral soils range from one to two months for
a-endosulfan and from three to nine months for p-endosulfan under aerobic conditions. Dissipation
rates observed in the field studies, which capture a combination of degradation, transport, and uptake,
suggest that endosulfan will persist in the surface soil for weeks to months after application (similar
order of magnitude to rates observed in the soil metabolism studies).

                                             29

-------
       The major transformation products found in the fide studies are endosulfan diol (hydrolysis) and
           sulfete (soil metabolism). Both the diol and sulfate transformation products have structures
similar to the parent compound and are also of toxicological concern. Available data suggest that
endosulfan sulfate will be more persistent than the parent The estimated half-lives forme combined
toxic residues (endosulfan plus endosulfan sulfate) ranged from roughly 9 months to 6 years.

       Laboratory studies indicate that a- and p-endosulfan have a high affinity for sorption onto soils.
The average organic carbon partition coefficients (K^) were 10,600 and 13,600 mL/g, for the a- and
p-endosulfan isomers, respectively. These isomers are not expected to be highly mobile in the soil
environments; therefore, they should not be frequently detected in ground water, however, due to their
persistence, vulnerable pqiiifers heknv acidic anik could he pmn? tn cnnfamnHtfioo, Moreover,
horizontal transport is possible via erosion or dissolution in runoff events. Endosulfan can also
contaminate surface waters through spray drift. Its high affinity to sorb to soil indicates mat endosulfan
is likely to be associated predominantly with the sediment phase in runoff Endosulfan reaching the
water column, through spray drift or runoff, will have a propensity to sob to benthte sediment, and this
sediment may eventually become a source of endosulfan redistnl>ution into the overh/ing waters.
Endosulfan may move beyond its use area through atmospheric transport (via volatilization and/or
transport in dust particles).

       Based on environmental fate laboratory studies, terrestrial field dissipation studies, available
models, monitoring studies, and published literature, it can be concluded mat endosulfan is a very
persistent chemical which may stay in the environment for lengthy periods of time, particularly in acid
media. Endosulfan may be transported via dissolution in water/via runoff, adsorption to soil
particles/via erosion, vaporization and/or adsorption to dust particles/transport in the air.  White
atmospheric transport has been documented for endosulfan, the available data is not sufficient to
evaluate its potential impacts on non-target organisms. The United data available show measured
concentrations significantly tower than those used in the Agency's risk assessment but exposures to
more sensitive species are possible.

       Endosulfan has a relatively high potential to bioaccumulate in fish with octanol-water partition
coefficients (K^) of 55,500 for a endosulfan and 61,400 for p endosulfan. Studies suggest that
endosulfan bioconcentration factors in fish ranged from 2400X to 11,OOOX for combined isomers in
whole fish and endosulfan depurated after 24 hours. Rates of depuration in field conditions will depend
on the levels of endosulfan in the water column and the length of time those levels are maintained.
Studies have revealed tissue residues are composed of both parent and the endosulfan sulfate
degradate.

              2.     Risk to Birds and Mammals
                                             30

-------
       Ibe Agency's ecological risk assessment compares touchy endpoints from ecological studies
to estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) based on environmental fide characteristics and
pesticide use data. To evaluate the potential risk to nontarget organisms from the use of endosulfan
products, the Agency calculates a Risk Quotient (R(&whk*istheratk>oftheEECtothetoxichy
endpoint values, such as the median lethal dose (LD^) or the median lethal concentration (LCjo).
These RQ values are then compared to the Agency's levels of concern (LOCs) which indicates
whether a chemical, when used as directed, has the potential to cause adverse effects on nontarget
organisms. In general, the higher the RQ the greater the concern. When the RQ exceeds the LOG for
a particular category (e.g. endangered species), the Agency presumes a risk of concern to that
category. The LOCs and the corresponding risk presumptions are presented in Table 10. In addition,
the Agency has conducted a more refined, probabilistic assessment ftx-aquatic organisms.

Table 10.     LOCs and Associated Risk Presumptions
nr. V' ' -2" ' -" "**^i^|^^pp^prtwwu
Mammals and Birds
The acute RQ > LOG of 0.5,
The acute RQ >LOC of 0.2,
The acute RQ > LOG of 0.1,
The chronic RQ> LOC of 1
Acute ride
Risk that may be mitigated through restricted use
Acute effects may occur in Endangered species
Chronic risk and Chronic effects may occur in Endangered
species
Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates
The acute RQ > LOC of 0.5
The acute RQ > LOC of 0.1
The acute RQ >LOC of 0.05
The chronic RQ> LOC of 1
Acute risk
Risk that may be mitigated through restricted use
Acute effects may occur in Endangered species
Chrome risk and Chronic effects may occur in Endangered
species
                     a.      Toxicity (Hazard) Assessment

       Endosulfan is classified as highly toxic to birds and mammals on an acute exposure basis and
moderately toxic to birds on a subacute dietary basis.  Chronic toxichy data on birds and mammals
revealed that reproduction and growth were the most sensitive endpoints.  For birds, at 60 ppm there
were significant reductions in the number of eggs laid, number of eggs hatched, adult body weight and
feed consumption. In rats, there was an increase in cumulative pup loss and a reduction in litter size at
100 ppm; parental systemic toxichy was based on decreased body weight and offspring toxichy was
based on increased pituitary and uterine weights.

       The acute and chronic toxichy endpoints for endosulfan are presented in Table 11. Information
in the literature has indicated that in birds, endosulfan may impair the development of the genital tract
                                           31

-------
In mammals, reduced hormone levels, testicular atrophy and reduced sperm production were
observed.  These data suggest that endosulfan may affect endocrine-mediated pathways.
Table 11.     Summary of Acute and Chronic Toridty Data for Terrestrial Organisms

. Species

Northern bobwhite quail
(Colimu virginiamts)
Mallard duck (Anasplatyrhynchas)
Honey bee (Apis melifmu)
Laboratory rat (Kama norvegicta)

W*
(ppm)
-
28
4.5
10
Aa
Acute Oral
Toxicky
-
highly toxic
-
highly toxic
UeToxicity
S^layLC,
{ppnJ
805
1053

-

tvij i^rt^^yfc*-^  -
SuDoCUie LaBUSy '
-*& --4
moderately toxic
sliriifly toxic

-
M ,--'* ;Chl
fcnM&OK'
.*f4' -
60/120
30/60

15/75
onfcToxicity

AncctAu Endpouus
reproduction
reproduction and growth

growth
              3.     Exposure and Risk

       The Agency's ecological risk assessment for terrestrial wildlife considers exposure to
endosulfan from the ingesnon of residues on food.  Terrestrial estimated environmental concentrations
(EECs)  were derived for major crops using labeled application rates and intervals between
applications. Uncertainties in the terrestrial EECs are primarily associated with a lack of data on
interception and subsequent dissipation from foliar surfaces. Exposure estimates for terrestrial animals
represent parent endosulfan only and do not take into account residues from the more persistent and
assumed to be equally toxic endosulfan sulfate.

       Acute high risk, restricted use and endangered species LOCs are exceeded for birds (RQ
range: 0.02 - 0.53) and mammals (RQ range: 0.05 - 40) at current application rates for the major crops
modeled. Chronic LOCs for birds were exceeded (RQ range: 0.03 - 2.7) following bom single and
multiple applications on all food items except seeds. Chronic LOCs for mammals were exceeded (RQ
range: 03 - 5.4) following multiple applications on all food hems. Tables 12-14 summarize the risk
quotients for terrestrial wildlife.

Table 12.     Avian Acute and Chronic Risk Quotients
Uie/App.
Method
Rate(Uai/A)xNo.
Apps. (Interval,
days)
Food Items
Max. EEC
(mtfkg)
Avg.EC
(mgfcg)
Acute RQ
Chronic
RQ
Single Application
                                           32

-------
Use/App.
Mcfliod
tobacco, tomatoes,
potatoes, lettuce
(aerialX cantaloupe
(ground)
^f**p*0i
-v 4$$ i- '
llb7A(l)
." Food Items
Short grass
Tall grass
Broadleaf plants/Insects
Seeds
Max. EEC

-------
                 ) Application Rate
                  fmplicaiiona)
   RQ
Short Grass
  RQ
Tall Grass
               RQ
 apples (air blast), grapes (aerial), pecans (air
 blast) Ulbs.aJ7A(2)	
   5.4
   2.3
2.6
0.3
              4.     Risk to Aquatic Species

                     a.      Tenacity (Hazard) Assessment

       Endosulfan is very highly toxic to freshwater and estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates. Table
15 summarizes the most sensitive endpoints used in the hazard assessment of aquatic animals. Acute
aquatic toxicity estimates ranged from 0.1 to 166 ppb for endosulfan. Estuarine/marine organisms
generally were more sensitive to the effects of endosulfan than their freshwater rounterparts. No
chrome tenacity data were available for the most sensitive freshwater species (rainbow trout and scuds)
thus acute to chronic ratio (0.1) was used to predict NOEC values for these species. On species where
chronic toxicity data were available, the most sensitive endpoints were reduced growth and survival.
Information from the open literature has indicated that amphibians exposed to endosulfan exhibited
impaired development of tadpoles into adults. In fish, endosulfan treatment has resulted in the reduction
of cortisol secretion by head kidney cells. These data suggest that endosulfan may affect endocrine-
mediated pathways.

       Available acute toxicfty data include an ECX of 0.58 mg/L for endosulfan diol on Daphnia
magna, indicating that mis intermediate degradate is highly toxic to freshwater invertebrates.  Acute
toxicfty testing of endosulfan sulfate (fish LC50 = 2.2 ppb; daphnid EC50 = 580 ppb) indicates the
toxicfty of the persistent degradate is comparable to mat of technical grade parent

Table IS. Summary of Acute and Chronic Aquatic Toxicity Estimates
Species
Rainbow trout Oncorhychus mykiss
Bluegill sunfish Lepomis macrochirus
Fathead minnows Pimeptiales
promelas
Scud Gammuna lacustru
Water flea Daphnia magna
Striped bass Mornone saxatillis
Eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica
Grass shrimp
Acute Toxicity
96-hr LC
<*)
0.8
1.7
1.5

-
0.1
0.45
1.3
484? EC*,
(*)
-
-
-
6
166
-
-
-
Acute Toxicity
very hi^ily toxic
very highly toxic
very highly toxic
very highly toxic
very highly toxic
very highly toxic
very highly toxic
very highly toxic
Chronic Toxicity
!*QEC/JU>EC
(n*)
NOEC = 0.1*
-
NOEC = 0.2
LOEC=0.4
NOEC = 0.07
NOEC = 2
LOEC<7
0.01*
0.05*
-
Affected
Endpoints
-
-
Reduced
growth and
survival
~
reduced
survival
-
-
-
                                             34

-------
 chronic value predicted using acute to chronic ratio of 0.1 estimated from fathead minnow data (acute = 1.5 ppb; chronic = 0.2
ppb)

                      b.     Exposure and Risk

       To assess potential risk to aquatic animals, the Agency uses a computer model to generate
EECs of endosulfan in surface water. However, unlike the drinking water assessment described in the
human health risk assessment section of this document, the ecological water resource assessment does
not include the index reservoir and percent crop area factor. These refinements are solely used to
assess pesticide exposure to humans from drinking water sources since they are used to predict the
levels of endosulfan in a drinking water reservoir from use of endosulfan throughout a watershed rather
man predicting the potential exposure to non-target organisms at the field level. Hence, the EECs used
to assess exposure to aquatic animals are not the same as the EEC values used to assess human dietary
exposure from drinking water sources.

       Peak EECs were compared to acute toxicity endpoints to derive acute risk quotients and 21-
day EECs were compared to chronic toxicity endpoints (NOAEC) to derive chronic risk quotients for
freshwater and estuarine/rnarine organisms. Exposure estimates for aquatic animals represent parent
endosulfan and residues from the more persistent and equally toxic endosulfan sutfate.

       At the current maximum application rates used on the major crops where endosulfan is
employed, coupled with a 300-ft spray drift buffer, acute high risk, restricted use and endangered
species levels of concern are exceeded for bom freshwater and estuarine/marine organisms. Acute RQ
values ranged from 1.04 to 34.8 for freshwater fish and from 0.15 to 5 for freshwater invertebrates.
Estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates were roughly an order of magnitude more sensitive to the effects
of endosulfan, with acute RQ values ranging from  8.7 to 289 for fish and 1.9 to 642 for invertebrates.
Chronic RQ values ranged from 1.5 to 64 for freshwater fish and from 3.6 to 1353 for freshwater
invertebrates. Chronic RQ values for estuarine ranged from 16 to 704 for fish and 1 to 39.5 for
invertebrates.

       The following tables summarize the RQs for aquatic organisms using maximum labeled rates
and accounting for the 300-foot spray drift buffer.  Some sections of the tables do not contain entries
either because chronic exposures are not compared against acute toxicity, acute exposures are not
compared against chronic toxicity, 21-day exposure are not compared against 56-day toxicity value or
56-day exposure not compared against 21-day toxicity value.

Table 16.     Acute and Chronic Risk Quotients for Freshwater Fish and Invertebrates
                                             35

-------
Crop Application
JM*ftjpi)K
Apples
1.5(2)
Cotton
1.5(2)
Lettuce
1.0(3)
Pecan
1.5(2)
Potato
1.0(3)
Tobacco
1.0(3)
Tomato
1.0(3)
_,--;e _J
"VV ' tef
2lday Avenge -:
5fr
0.87
0.25
0.16
11.67
4.9
3.89
4.64
1.41
0.79
19.39
6
3.86
6.07
2.14
1.53
9.72
2.8
1.72
28.9
9.47
7.04
Acute Risk Quotients
Fresh water Fish
LCJB-0.83ppb
1.04
14.1
5.6
23.4
7.3
11.7
34.8
Freshwater
Invertebrate
tc^-s^spb
0.15
2
0.8
3.4
1.1
1.7
5
Owonic Risk Quotients
Fresh water Fish
NQK>0.li

1.5
35.4
12
35.1
13.9
15.6
64
Freshwater
Invertebrate ' ,
NOBe^O-O?
(ppb)
3.6
70
20.1
85.7
30.6
40
135.3
Table 17.    Acute and Chronic Risk Quotients for Estuarine/marine Fish and Invertebrates
Crep
Application
lUtt^ofapp.)
Apples
1.5(2)
Cotton
1.5 (2)
m&
pMk
21-day Average
' <*W 
0.87
0.25
0.16
11.67
4.9
3.89
AorteRbk Quotient!
EstaariM/mari
e Flali
IA.-MH*
(EECA.CM)
8.7
116.7
ErtBarine/mari
ne Invertebrate
LC-e,45
(PPb)
(EEOLCg.)
1.9
25.9
Chronic Rkk Quottents
EstHarine/mari
MftFtftt
NOEC-t.dl
(PPb)
(EEONOEC) ^
16
389
Estuarinetaiari
BC Invertebrate
NOEC-O.Z4
fl$

-------

^r; '
Application
Rate (i of apps)
' - -^



Lettuce
1.0(1)
Pecan
1.5(2)

Potato
1.0(3)

Tobacco
1.0(3)

Tomato
1.0(3)

EECt


***
21-
-------
       This assessment compared a range of EEC values (single annual 96-hour maximum
concentrations) from models to a range of UCX values for several aquatic species. This analysis
provides a first step into probabilistically modeling of overaU aquatic eflects and provides insights on the
range of endosulfan's ecological effects.  The assessment estimates mat, for the lowest exposure uses
(e.g., apples), the use of endosulfan at typical application rates has a 10% probability of detrimentally
affecting (LCjo values being exceeded by modeled EECs) 10% of the aquatic species in a given year.
For higher exposure uses (e.g., tomatoes) the use of endosul&n at typical application rates in a given
year resulted in a 90% probability that 60% of the aquatic species will be detrimentally affected,  a 50%
probability that 75% of the species will be detrimentally affected, and a 10% probability that 90% of
the species will be detrimentally affected.

              6.     Risks to Endangered Species

       Endangered species LOCs are exceeded for acute and chronic risks to all taxa fo
endangered/threatened animals - birds, mammals, fi^ aquatic mvertebrates, amphioiaris, reptiles and
terrestrial for all currently registered uses of endosulfan.

       In 1989 the U.S.  Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) issued a biological opinion on endosulfan
in response to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's request for consultation. In issuing its
opinion the USFWS considered the following factors: (1) potential for exposure of the listed species to
the pesticide; (2) information on the chemical toxicity relative to estimated environmental
concentrations; (3) potential for secondary impacts; and (4) special concerns not specifically addressed
in the preceding factors or unique to the situation being evaluated. Given the evaluation criteria, a total
of 130 species (6 amphibians, 77 fish, 32 mussels, 6 crustaceans, 4 miscellaneous aquatic invertebrates,
and 5 bird species) were considered potentially affected by the use of endosulfan.  Of those organisms
potentially affected, the USFWS listed 41 aquatic species as jeopardized, of which the majority (54%)
were endangered/threatened species of freshwater mussels. Two terrestrial (avian) species were also
classified as being in jeopardy. The remaining potentially affected organisms were listed either as having
no potential for exposure or as not being in jeopardy.

       The Agency's current assessment of ecological risks uses both more refined methods to define
ecological risks of pesticides and new data, such as mat for spray drift. Therefore, the Reasonable and
Prudent Alternatives and  Reasonable and Prudent Measures in the Biological Opinion may need to be
reassessed and modified  based on these new approaches.

       The Agency is currently engaged in a Proactive Conservation Review with FWS and the
National Marine Fisheries Service under section 7(aXl) of the Endangered Species Act The objective
of mis review is to clarify and develop consistent processes for endangered species risk assessments
and consultations. Subsequent to the completion of this process, the Agency will reassess the potential
effects of endosulfan use  to federally listed threatened and endangered species. At that time the
Agency will also consider any regulatory changes recommended in the RED mat are being

                                            38

-------
 implemented Until such time as this analysis is completed, the overall environmental effects mitigation
 strategy articulated in this document and any County Specific Pamphlets which address endosulfan, will
 serve as interim protection measures to reduce the likelihood that endangered and threatened species
 may be exposed to endosulfan at levels of concern.

              7.      Ecological Incident Reports

       A review of the Ecological Incident Information System revealed that since 1971 a total of 91
 incidents have been associated with the use of endosulfan. The majority of incidents occurred in
 California, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Louisiana. The overwhelming majority (96%) of the
 incidents were associated with the aquatic environment 82% affected fish white 7% affected aquatic
 macroinvertebrates. The database indicates that 34% of the endosulfan incidents were a result of either
 accidental or intentional misuse of the pesticide, 29% resulted from the labeled use of endosulfan and
 the rest were unspecified.  Approximately 32% of the irjckieifc were direct^
 However, weather conditions were not specified in the majority of cases, so the contribution of runoff
 may be underestimated by the reported results.

       According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency's fish-kill database endosumm
 was responsible for more fish kills in U.S. estuaries and coastal rivers between 1980 and 1989 than all
 currently used pesticides at that time.  The report noted that endosulfan was one of the most often found
 of the inventoried pesticides in aquatic biota and in one case affected estuarine biomass.

       In 1991, as mentioned earlier, a 300-foot spray drift  buffer was put in place on endosulfan
 labels to address contamination of water bodies. Since this restriction was implemented in 1991 a total
 of 33 aquatic incidents have been reported, 20  of which were not attributed to misuse. In terms Of
 these 20 incidents, 7 have been classified as highly probable, 11 have been classified as probable and 3
 have been classified as possible.  Thus, despite use restrictions to limit degradation of the aquatic
 environment, endosulfan has continued to access the aquatic environment and result in nontarget
 mortality.

              8.     Endocrine Disruption

       Exposure to endosulfan has resulted in both reproductive and developmental effects in
nontarget animals. Endosulfan exposure resulted in impaired development in amphibians, reduced
cortisol secretion in fish, impaired development of the genital tract in birds and reduced hormone levels
and sperm production and produced testicular atrophy in mammals. Additionally, endosulfan has been
demonstrated to bind to the human estrogen receptor and exhibit significant estrogenic activity.
Whether the toxichy endpoints are a result of endocrine disruption is not known. However, h is  clear
that organisms treated with endosulfan did exhibit some toxic effects that have historically been
associated with endocrine disrupting chemicals, e.g., developmental and reproductive effects.
                                            39

-------
              9.     Long Range Transport

       Endosulfan is a semivolatile and persistent cyclodiene pesticide that can migrate over a long
distance through various environmental media such as air, water, and sediment Once endosulfen is
applied to crops, it can either persist in soil as a sorbed phase or be removed through several physical,
chemical, and biological processes. Recent studies suggest that secondary emissions of residual
endosulfen continue to recycle in the global system white they slowly migrated and were redeposited via
wet deposition in the Northern Hemisphere. The occurrence of endosulfen in remote regions like the
Great Lakes, the Arctic, and mountainous areas is well documented. Endosulfen can also enter the an-
as adsorbed phase onto suspended particulate matter, but this process does not appear to be a major
contributor long range transport like volatilization.

       The presence of endosulfen in the remote areas like Arctic and the Great Lakes requires further
understanding of the transport mechanisms from the atmosphere. The potential impact of atmospheric
deposition of endosulfen into surface water and its potential effect on water quality and aquatic
organisms in the non-use areas is not well documented. Despite the progress made in recent years in
estimating the persistence and long-ranged transport of chemicals using models, a validated global
model has not been published because of uncertainties involved in the source inventories, chemical fate
data, degradative pathways and exposure analyses.  Future work will be aimed at developing a
comprehensive screening tool that can be used reliably in risk assessments for regulatory purposes.
                                            40

-------
IV.     Risk Management and Reregistration Decision

       A.    Determination of Reregistration Eligibility

       Section 4{g)(2XA) of FIFRA calls for the Agency to determine, after submission of relevant
data concerning an active ingredient, whether products containing the active ingredient are eligible for
reregistration. Hie Agency has previously identified and required the submission of me generic (Le., an
active ingredient specific) data required to support reregistration of products containing endosulfan
active ingredients.

       The Agency has completed its assessment of the dietary (food and drinking water), ecological
and occupational risks associated with the use of currently registered pesticides containing the active
ingredient endosulfan. Based on a review of these data and public comments on the Agency's
assessments for the active ingredient endosulfan, EPA has surBcient im^)rnuitk)n on the hirnian health
and ecological effects of endosulfan to make decisions as part of the tolerance reassessment process
under FFDCA and reregistration under FIFRA, as amended by FQPA. The Agency has reassessed
all 80 tolerances for endosulfan and can make a FQPA safety determination as detailed below. The
Agency has determined that agricultural use of endosulfan, based on the currently approved labeling,
pose occupational and ecological risks mat constitute unreasonable adverse effects on the environment
However, the Agency believes that these risks can likely be acceptably mitigated through routine
changes to pesticide labeling and formulations. Accordingly, the Agency has determined that
endosulfan is eligible for reregistration provided mat (i) additional data mat the Agency intends to
require confirm this decision for occupational exposures associated with the application of dip treatment
to roots or whole plants and ecological risks; and 00 the risk mitigation measures outlined in mis
document are adopted, and label amendments are made to reflect these measures. Label changes are
described in Section V of this document  Appendix A summarizes the uses of endosulfan that would be
eligible for reregistration. Appendix B identifies the generic data requirements that the Agency
reviewed as part of its determination of reregistration eligibility of endosulfan, and lists the submitted
studies that the Agency found acceptable.  The additional data that the Agency intends to require are
described in Section V.  Further mitigation measures and additional data requirements, however, may
be warranted following the completion of the stakeholder process outlined in this document

       Based on its evaluation of endosulfan, the Agency has determined that endosulfan products,
unless labeled and used as specified in this document, would present risks inconsistent with FIFRA.
Accordingly, should a registrant fail to implement any of the risk mitigation measures identified in this
document, the Agency may take regulatory action to address the risk concerns from use of endosulfan.
       B.     Phase 3 Comments and Responses

                                            41

-------
       When making its reregistration decision, fee Agency took aito account all comments received
 during Phases 3, 4 and 5 of fee Public Participation Process. These comments in their entirety are
 available in the docket Comments, which addressed human health and ecological concerns, were
 received from the technical registrants, represented by the Endosulfan Task Force(ETF), environmental
 and advocacy groups such as the Natural Resources Defense OnmcU (NRDQ, the Fannworker
 Justice Fund, Inc., the Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) and their affiliate, the
 Pesticide Action Network Asia and Pacific (PANAP), Respiratory and Enviramental Disabilities
 Association of Hawaii, the Rural Action Safe Pest Control Program (RASPOX the Worid WMlife
 Federation, and private citizens.  Agency responses to comments are available on the Agency's web
 pa&B*
       Comment Period on this RED

       The Agency is providing a 60-day comment period on this RED. While all comments are
welcome, those with specific data or information bearing on the risk and benefit assessments are most
useful. For example, toe Agency is aware that cotton stakeholders are gathering data on the number of
acres treated per day by air in AZ and CA which may be used to characterize handler risks in those
areas and may impact the maximum application rate allowed for mat crop. The Agency has also
recently received comments related to tobacco which will be considered during the comment period.

       C     Regulatory Position

              1.      FQPA Assessment

                     a.     "Risk Cup" Determination

       As part of the FQPA tolerance reassessment process, EPA assessed the risks associated with
this pesticide.  EPA has determined mat risk from exposure to endosulfan exceeds its own "risk cup"
for pesticidal uses of endosulfan registered by EPA. However, if the use of endosulfan on succulent
beans, succulent peas, grapes, pecans and spinach are deleted and the mitigation measures in this
document to prevent contamination of surface waters are implemented, the Agency believes that
endosulfan will "fit" within its risk cup. Therefore, the Agency has concluded that the tolerances for
endosulfan meet the FQPA safety standards, provided the risk mitigation measures outlined in mis
document are adopted. In reaching this determination, EPA has considered the available information
on the special sensitivity of infants and children, as well as the acute and chronic food exposure. An
aggregate assessment was conducted for exposures resulting from food and drinking water for
pesticidal uses of endosulfan registered by EPA under FIFRA. Results of this aggregate assessment
indicate mat the human health risks from these combined exposures are considered to be over
acceptable levels, but that the combined risks from all exposures to endosulfan do "fit" within the
individual risk cup provided the risk mitigation contained in this decision document are fully
implemented.

                                           42

-------
                     b.     Tolerance Summary

       Tolerances for residues of endosulfan in/cm plant and animal commodities are established under
40 CFR 180.182. Tolerances for residues of endosulfan in processed commodities are established
under 40 CFR 1852600. Endosulfan tolerances are currently expressed in terms of the total residues
of endosulfan (6Jf8,940,10^exachlo-l,5,5a,6,9,9a4iexahydro^,9-methano-2,4,3-
benzodioxathiepin-3-oxide) and its metabolite, endosulfan sulfate (6,7,8,9,10,1 O^iexachbro-
l,5,5a,6,9,9a^exahydro^,9-meftano-2,4,3-benzodioxathiepin-3,3-dioxide). The current endosulfan
tolerance expression does not specify the two stereo isomers of the parent compound.

       The Agency has determined that tolerances for crop and livestock commodities shoukl continue
to be expressed as residues of the parent (a and P isomers) and the sulfate metabolite. However, the
Agency recommends mat the tolerance expression be revised in order to specify the a and P isomers
of the parent

       The Agency has recently updated the list of raw agricultural and processed commodities and
feedstuSs derived from crops (Table 1, OPPTS GLN 860.1000). As a result of changes to Table 1,
endosulfan tolerances for certain commodities which have been removed from Table 1 need to be
revoked, and some commodity definitions must be corrected. In addition, tolerances for commodities
for which there are currently no registered uses of endosulfan need to be revoked.  A summary of
endosulfan tolerance reassessments is presented in Table 18.

Tolerances Listed Under 40 CFR 180.182:

       Pending label revisions for some crops, sufficient field trial data have been submitted (or were
translated when appropriate) to reassess the established tolerances for the following plant commodities,
as defined:  almonds; almonds, hulls; apples; apricots; beans; blueberries; broccoli; Brussels sprouts;
cabbage; carrots; cauliflower, celery; cherries; collards; com, sweet (K+CWHR); cottonseed; cotton
gin byproducts; cucumbers; eggplant; filberts; grapes; kale; lettuce; macadamia nuts; melons; mustard
greens; nectarines; peaches; pears; peas, pistachios, succulent; pecans; peppers; pineapples; plums;
potatoes; prunes; pumpkins; spinach; squash, summer; squash, winter; strawberries; sweet potatoes;
tomatoes; turnips; and walnuts. Additional data is needed for the uses of endosulfan on wheat, oats,
rye, and barley.

       The available residue data suggest mat the established tolerance levels for the following plant
commodities should be decreased from 2.0 to 1.0 ppm:  apples; cucumbers; eggplant; melons;
pineapples; pumpkins; squash, summer, squash, winter, and tomatoes. The Agency proposes a crop
group tolerance for Cucurbit Vegetables Group (Crop Group 9) since adequate data are available for
cucumbers, melons, and squash which are the representative commodities of this crop group.
                                           43

-------
       The available residue data suggest mat the established tolerance levels for the following
commodities should be increased:  broccoli (fiom 2.0 to 3.0 ppm); cabbage (fiom 2.0 to 4.0 ppm);
celery (fiom 2.0 to 8.0 ppm); lettuce, head (from 2.0 to 11.0 ppm); and lettuce, leaf (from 2.0 to 6.0
ppm); Bhiebeny (from 0.1 to 03 ppm); bariey grain (from 0.1 to 03 ppm); and bariey straw (from 0.2
to 0.4); lye grain (from 0.1 to 03); and rye straw (from 02 to 03 ppm); oats grain (from (0.1 to 03);
and oats straw (from 02 to 0.4 ppm); and oats grain (from 0.1 to 0.3); and wheat straw (from 02 to
0.4 ppm).

       The expected dietaiy burdens of endosulfan to beef and dairy cattle were re-calculated
following tolerance reassessment of livestock feed items. Livestock feeding studies reflecting fee re-
calculated dietaiy burden are available. Following evaluation of feeding data, the Agency concluded:
(I) the tolerance for miflc fat (=N in whole milk) at 0.5 ppm should be increased to 2.0 ppm; (ii) the
tolerances for meat byproducts of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep at 02 ppm should be replaced
with separate tolerances for meat byproducts (except liver) at 1.0 ppm and liver at 5.0 ppm; and (iii)
the tolerance for fat should be increased from 02 to 13 ppm.

       The available poultry feeding data suggest that it is not possible to establish with certainty
whether finite residues of endosulfan wfll be incurred, but there is no reasonable expectation of finite
residues (Category 3 of 40 CFR 180.6).  Therefore, tolerances are not required for eggs and poultry
tissues.

Tolerance  to be Proposed Under 40 CFR 180.182;

       Tolerances for the combined residues of endosulfan (a and p isomers) and its metabolite
endosulfan sulfate in/on: pearied barley, barley hay, flour, and bran; oats forage, hay, flour and rolled
oats; rye forage, flour and bran; wheat forage, hay, and aspirated grain fractions must be proposed
once adequate field residue data, reflecting the maximum registered use patterns, have been submitted
and evaluated.

       The apple processing study indicates that the combined residues of endosulian (a and (3
isomers) and endosulfan sulfate concentrated in dried and wet apple pomace (17x and 6x,
respectively); no concentration of endosulian residues was observed in apple juice. A tolerance for
dried apple  pomace is not required as it is no longer considered a major livestock feed item and its
entry has been deleted from Table  1. A tolerance for apple juice is also not warranted. However,
based on the highest average field trial combined residues in/on the RAC and a concentration factor of
ox, the maximum expected endosulfan residues in wet apple pomace is 4.62 ppm. Therefore, a
tolerance for the combined endosulfan residues in wet apple pomace must be proposed at 5.0 ppm.

       The pineapple processing study indicates that the combined residues of endosulfan (a and P
isomers) and endosulfan sulfate concentrated up to 7x in peel and 4 Ix in bran processed from whole
pineapples bearing detectable endosulfan residues; no concentration of endosulfan residues was

                                           44

-------
observed in pineapple pulp and juke. According to OPPTS Table 1, residue data are only required for
process residue and juice. Pineapple process residue (also known as wet bran) is a waste byproduct
from the fresh-cut product line that includes pineapple tops (minus crown), bottoms, peels, any
trimmings with peel cut up, and the pulp (left after squeezing for juice). Based on a HAFT combined
endosulfan residues of 0.44 ppm in/on the RAC and a concentration factor of 41x, the maximum
expected total endosulfan residues in pineapple process residue is 18.04 ppm.  Therefore, a tolerance
for me combined endosulfan residues in pineapple process residue must be proposed at 20 ppm.  A
tolerance for pineapple juice is not warranted.

       The available tomato processing data indicate mat endosulfan residues of concern marginally
concentrate (12x) in tomato paste processed from treated tomatoes. The concentration of residues in
tomato paste is not significant enough to warrant a tolerance for mis commodity. A tolerance for
tomato puree is also not warranted.  Processing data for oats, barley, wheat, and rye are required.

Tolerance Uffrfd Vfffer 40 CTR 185.2600:

       Adequate data are available to reassess the established tolerance for dried tea leaves.  The
established tolerance for dried tea (reflecting less than 0.1  ppm residues in beverage tea) listed under
40 CFR 1852600 should be moved to 40 CFR 180.182 because the enacted FQPA stipulates mat
tolerances for pesticide residues in all types of food (raw or processed) be set under the same
provisions of the law.

Pending Tolerance Petition:

       Hoechst Celanese Corporation proposed the establishment of tolerances for residues of
endosulfan and endosulfan sulfate in dried hops and spent hops  imported from Germany, each at 10
ppm. The Agency recommends in favor of the proposed tolerances subject to the registrant limiting the
number of applications to three.
                                           45

-------
Table 18.    Tolerance Reassessment Summary for Endosnlfan
Commodity


Alfalfa, fresh
Alfalfa, hay
Almond
Almond, hulls


Apple
Apricot
Artichoke,
globe

Barley, grain
Barley, straw
Estabfehe
4
Tnkranm
(PPn)

0.3
1.0
0.2 (N)'
1.0


2.0
2.0
2.0

0.1 (N)
0.2 (N)
Rcuscned
; Tokrmnce
(ppm)

Revoke
Revoke
0.3
1.0


1.0
2.0
Revoke

0.3
0.4
: ' 'i^nUOaA'A^  . t' '*  : . '\S-- . , . ' -*
if**-,-* r,.m..,..,.,nt n.A_Mi  '  " "  

Tolerance Listed Under 40 CFR 189.182 (a) (1)

No longer a registered use.
The available data indicate that residues of endosulfan or endosulfan sulfate were nondetectable in/on almond
kernels harvested 39 or 58 days following the last of multiple applications of a representative WP formulation
at exaggerated (2.4x) seasonal rate ; the reported limits of detection were 0.2 and 0.1 ppm respectively. A
preharvest interval for almonds has presently not been established. [Almond, nutmeat]
Following applications of a representative WP formulation reflecting the maximum registered use pattern, the
/uwnkSttjul MuljwiilfM MouliiM* mtnm olmjMul Itiillc raniuul AWMVI A 1^ ftn t\ TT MMn tAlwmfanjl Inillrl

Data reflecting the maximum registered use pattern are unavailable. However, data reflecting applications at
to >0.47 ppm using the EC formulation, and from 0.69 to 0.84 ppm using the WP formulation. The reassessed
tolerance is in harmony with the proposed Codex MRL (Step 5/8) of 1.0 ppm fin1 pome fruits. [Apple]
The available data for peaches may be translated to apricots. [Apricot]
No longer a registered use.

barley grain ranged from <0.15 to O.30 ppm..
Following applications reflecting the maximum registered use pattern, the combined endosulfan residues in/on
barley straw ranged from <0.15 to 0.3S ppm.
                                                      46

-------
Commodity
Bean
ieets, sugar,
without tops
Blueberry
Broccoli
Brussels sprouts
Cabbage
Carrots
Establlshe
d
Tolerance
(ppm)
2.0
0.1 (N)
0.1 (N)
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.2
Reusesied
Tofem.ee

2.0 (Bean, dry
and succulent)
Revoke
0.3
3.0
2.0
4.0
0.2
Comment*
[Correct CommoSt, DefWHoi,}
"' '-'-1 :'':-,'
r-    * .- ..- -. - < .- - . ..  -j J
hollowing applications ol a representative WP or cC tomiulauon reflecting the maximum registered use
pattern, the combined endosulfan residues were below 2.0 ppm in/on lima beans, snap beans, red kidney
beans, string beans, and sutler red beans. The reassessed tolerance only applies to bans, dry since the
succulent bean use is being deleted. [Bean, succulent seed]
No longer a registered use. [Beet, sugar, root]

residues (O.I ppm) of endosulran or endosulfin sultate were detected in/on btueberries . [Blueberry]
Following applications reflecting the maximum registered use pattern, the combined endosnUan residues in/on
broccoli ranged from 0.16 to 2.41 ppm using me EC formulation, and from 0.26 to 1.92 ppm using the WP
formulation. The registrants may elect to retain the current tolerance level by amending the registered
broccoli use pattern and by submitting additional residue data in support of any label amendments.
Data reflecting the maximum registered use pattern are unavailable. However, data reflecting applications of a
endosulfan in/on Brussels sprouts were below 2.0 ppm .
Following applications of a representative EC formulation reflecting the maximum registered use pattern, the
combined endosulfan residues were 3.1 ppm in/on cabbage with wrapper leaves and nondetectable (<0.02
ppm) in/on cabbage without wrapper leaves . The reassessed tolerance is based on data from cabbage with
wrapper leaves.

combined endosulfan residues in/on carrots were generally below 0.2 ppm . [Carrot]
47

-------
Commodity

Cattle, fat




Cattle, meat
by products
Cattle, meat

Cauliflower .

Celery

Cherry
Establitbe
A
Tolerance
(mm)
0.2




0.2
0.2

2.0

2.0

2.0
ReMeued
Tolerance .
(mm) :

13




Cattle, mbyp =
1.0
Cattle, liver =
5.0
2.0

2.0

8.0

Cherry, sweet =
2.0
Cherry, sour =
2.0
Comments
tir* u ' mr ** ~~ 	 >**-- ii^i*Mj&k*tt
|MWf BCF vtfllWPHNU^f JOTyHtoiiwKI
,'  "' ,' '-.-..- ' "' 	 IIS ',., ':~' '   ",.-
The highest residues obtained in milk and tissue samples collected from the highest feeding level of the
combined residues of endosulfan (a and p isomers) and endosulfan sulfate in animal commodities are as
follows :
Fat of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep 13.0 ppm
Meat byproducts (except liver) of cattle, goats, hogs, and horses 	 .' 	 1 .0 ppm
Liver of cattle, goats, hogs, and horses 	 5.0 ppm
Meat of cattle, goats, hogs, and horses 	 20 ppm
Milk, fat 	 2.0 ppm

[Cattle, meal byproducts (except liver)]
[Cattle, liver]


exaggerated use patterns, the combined endosulfan residues in/on cauliflower were below 0.78 ppm. Due to
the limited number of data points reflecting treatments at Ix, the cauliflower tolerance is reassessed at 2.0 ppm

powder (WP) formulations at the respective maximum registered seasonal rates for celery.
The combined residues in/on treated uutiiuiuicd celery samples ranged from 0.99 to 4.50 ppm following
application of the EC formulation, and from 1.18 to 7.0 ppm following application of the WP formulation.
Following applications reflecting the maximum registered use pattern, the combined endosulfan residues in/on
sweet cherries ranged from <0.17 to 1.46 ppm using the EC formulation, and from <0.15 to 0.33 ppm using
the WP formulation. The combined endosulfan residues in/on soar cherries ranged from <0.15 to 1.35 ppm
using the EC formulation, and from <0. 15 to 0. 19 ppm using the WP formulation.
[Cherry, sweet] and [Cherry, sow]
48

-------
Commodity
Collards
Com, sweet
(K+CWHR)
Cottonseed
Cotton gin
byproducts
Cucumber
Eggplant
Filbert
Establish*
d
ir^t _ _
X9MBOUMPB
teW
2.0
0.2
1.0

2.0
2.0
0.2 (N)
Reassessed
, ^* ^^^^ ^ -fc
tolerance
(ppM)
2.0
0.20
1.0
30
Reassign
1.0
0.20


The available data reflecting the maximum registered use pattern for collards are very limited. Following
application of a lejuemiit^ttve EC fornnilrtion ft 0,75 ti<* mpKinrnm registered fCPKa rates, the combined
submitted for spinach, sugar beet tops, kale, or mustard greens may additionally be used to estimate
endosulfan residues in/on collards.

patterns for which adequate data are available.
Following applications of a representative EC formulation reflecting the maximum registered use pattern, the
combined endosulfan residues in/on cottonseed were below 1.0 ppm. [Cotton, mdelinted seed]

The combined residues of endosulfan (a andf) isomers) and endosulfan sulfate ranged fiom 8.27 to 27.5 ppm
in/on cotton gin byproducts harvested 13-14 days following a treatment schedule (after bolls open) similar to
the one described above for cottonseed. No cotton gin byproducts data reflecting treatments made to cotton
plants until bolls open have been submitted; however, because residues are expected to be lower fiom this use
pattern, the Agency will not require additional cotton gin byproducts data for reregistration.
Tolerance should be revoked with the concomitant establishment of a tolerance for Cucurbit Vegetables (Crop
Group 9). Following applications reflecting the maximum registered use pattern, the combined endosulfan
residues in/on cucumbers ranged from 0.26 to 0.66 ppm using the EC formulation, and from <0.16 to 0.40 ppm
using the WP formulation. Adequate data are now available for cucumber, melon, and squash which are the

The available data for tomato may be translated to eggplant
The available data indicate that residues of endosulfan or endosulfan sulfate were nondetectable in/on filbert
nuts harvested 76-88 days following the last of multiple applications of representative WP formulations at
1.3-1.6x the maximum registered seasonal rate. The method's limit of detection was not specified. [Filberft
49

-------
Commodity
Goat, fat




Goat, meat
byproduct
Goat, meat
Grape
Hog,fct
Hog, meat
byproduct
Hog, meat
Horse, fat
Horse meat
byproduct
Horse, meat
Kale
Esteblishe
d
Totenitee
few)
0.2




0.2
0.2
2.0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
2.0
ReMseised
Tolerance
(Pi)
13




Goats, mbyp =
1.0
Goats, liver =
5.0
2.0
Revoke
13
Hog, mbyp =
1.0
Hog, liver = 5.0
2.0
13
Horses, mbyp *
1.0
Horses, liver =
5.0
2.0
2.0
, Commenti - .../.; "'
j 	 -'   :-SS''- H..ft-irt ...1 "
lunreai-oiionouHf tHjuuna*\
The highest residues obtained in milk and tissue samples collected from the highest feeding level of the
combined residues of endosulfan (a andp isomers) and endosulfan sulfate in animal commodities are as
follows :
Fat of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep 13.0 ppm
Meat byproducts (except liver) of cattte, goats, hogs, and horses 	 .1.0 ppm
Liver of cattle, goats, hogs, and hones 	 5.0 ppm
Meat of cattle, goats, hogs, and horses 	 	 	 2.0 ppm
Milk, fat 	 2.0 pom

[Goat, meat byproducts (except liver)}
[Goat, liver]

Use being deleted as part of dietary risk mitigation.

[Hog, meat byproducts (except liver)}
[Hog, liver}


[Horse, meat byproducts (except liver)}
[Hone, liver}

Following applications of a representative EC formulation reflecting the maximum registered use pattern, the
combined endosulfan residues in/on kale were 1.214-1.295 ppm .
50

-------
Commodity
Lettuce
Nut,
Macedonia
Melon
Milk, fat (=N in
whole milk)
Mustard greens
Mustard seed
Nectarine
Oat, grain
Oat, straw
Peach
Eittb&be
d
Teleruee
fo)
2.0
0.2 (N)
2.0
0.5
2.0
0.2 (N)
2.0
0.1 (N)
0.2 (N)
2.0
RcMMMCd
Tefemee
(pp)
Lettuce, head =
11
Lettuce, leaf =
6.0
0.20
Revoke
2.0
2.0
Revoke
2.0
0.3
0.4
2.0
CaaiaeMli
ff^iG*&+t*t* J^yb^^^lM^It^ijik.. jH^j^A^jy^^^k
Following applications reflecting the maximum registered use pattern, the combined endosuUan residues in/on
head kttawe (with wrapper leaves) ranged from O.18 to 4.28 ppm using the EC formulation, and from 021 to
10.11 ppm using the WP formulation. The combined endosulfim residues in/on leaf fcttaee ranged from
<0. 15 to 4.49 ppm using the EC formulation, and from 0.17 to 5.72 ppm using the WP formulation. In lieu of
proposing higher tolerances, the registrants may elect to retain the current tolerance level by amending the
registered lettuce use pattern and bv submitting additional residue data in support of any label amendments.
[Lettuce, head] and [Lettuce, leaf]
r
detectable residues of endosulfim or endosulfim sulfate were detected in/on macadamia nuts. The analytical
method's limit of detection was not specified. [Macadamia mA]
Tolerance should be revoked with me concomitant establishment of a tolerance for Cucurbit Vegetables (Crop
Group 9). Following applications reflecting the maximum registered use pattern, the combined endosulfim
residues in/on cantaloupes ranged from <0.15 to 0.50 ppm using the EC formulation, and from 0.22 to 0.76
ppm using the WP formulation. [Melon subgroup (crop subgroup 9AJ
[Milk]
The available data reflecting the established 2 1-day PHI for mustard greens are very limited . The data
submitted for spinach, collards, kale, or turnip greens may be used to estimate endosulfim residues in/on
mustard greens.
No longer a registered use.
The available data for peaches may be translated to nectarines. [Nectarine]
Following applications reflecting the maximum registered use pattern, the combined endosulfim residues in/on
oat grain ranged from <0.15 to <0.30 ppm..
Following applications reflecting the maximum registered use pattern, the combined endosulfitn residues in/on
oat straw ranged from <0.15 to <0.32 ppm..
Following applications of a representative WP formulation approximating the maximum registered use pattern,
the combined endosulfim residues in/on peaches were below 2.0 ppm .
51

-------
Commodity

Pear
tea, succulent
Pecans
Pepper

Pineapple


Potato

Prunes
Pumpkin
Rape seed
Raspberry
Rye, grain
Rye, straw
Safflower, seed
Ertablishe

Toteraace
(PP)

2.0
2.0
0.2 (N)
2.0

2.0
*> (\

0.2 (N)

i.V
2.0
0.2
0.1
0.1 (N)
0.2 (N)
0.2 (N)
RcasMncd
Tolerance
(ppm)

2.0
Revoke
Revoke
2.0

1.0
t l\

0.2

z.u
Reassign
Revoke
Revoke
0.3
0.3
Revoke
Comment* ' "
i1 J%ta^^^ j?^^^^^j&jj&fr ' Jhl-'-i JJfojjjffijbiit
< ' ' !'J C..--.-"-"-..'' ':~ i^i11' ' V'f , ~ ',:''
Following applications of a representative WP formulation pfi" imnting the maximum registered use pattern,
the combined endosulfan residues in/on pears were 0.95-1.00 ppm. Due to the limited number of data points
reflecting treatments at Ix, the pear tolerance is reassessed at 2.0 ppm .
Use being deleted as part of dietary risk mitigation.
Use is being deleted.
Following applications of a representative WP or EC formulations approximating the maximum registered use

Following applications reflecting the maximum registered use pattern, the combined endosulfen residues
in/on pineapples ranged from >0.08 to 0.50 ppm. [Pinecpple]
Data reflecting the maximum registered use pattern are unavailable. However, data reflecting applications of a
residues in/on French prunes were below 2.0 ppm. [Phun]
Following applications reflecting the maximum registered use pattern, the combined endosulfan residues in/on
potatoes were mostly nondetectable . The analytical method's limh of detection was not specified. [Potato]
Data reflecting the maximum registered use pattern are unavailable. However, data reflecting applications of a
lepreseuuuvt wr ot EL. lunkkuiouuu m an exaggerated M&tudiu iic inutomc umi UK comDinea enaosuiian
residues in/on French prunes were below 2.0 ppm. [Prune]
Tolerance should be revoked with the concomitant establishment of a tolerance for Cucurbit Vegetables (Crop
Group 9). The available data for cucumber, melon, and summer squash may be translated to pumpkin and
winter squash. [Pumpkin]
No longer a registered use.
No longer a registered use.
Following applications reflecting the maximum registered use pattern, the combined endosulfan residues in/on
rye grain ranged from <0.15 to <0.30 ppm.
Following applications reflecting the maximum registered use pattern, the combined endosulfan residues in/on
rye straw ranged from <0. 15 to <0.30 ppm..
No longer a registered use.
52

-------
Commodity
Sheep, fat
Sheep, meat
byproduct
Sheep, meat
Spinach
Squash, summer
Squash, winter
Strawberry
Sugarcane
Sunflower, seed
Sweet potato
Tomato
Establish*
d
Tolerance
(PPn.)
0.2
0.2
0.2
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.5
2.0
0.2
2.0
Reassessed
Tolerance
(PP"0
13
Sheep, tnbyp =
1.0
Sheep, liver =
5.0
2.0
Revoke
Reassign
Reassign
2.0
Revoke
Revoke
0.15
1.0
Comment* ^ '
\Comxt Caiienod&f Dtfliil&oit]

[Sheep, meat byproducts (except liver)]
[Sheep, liver]

Use being deleted as part of dietary risk mitigation.
Tolerance should be revoked with the concomitant establishment of a tolerance for Cucurbit Vegetables (Crop
Group 9). Following applications reflecting the maximum registered use pattern, the combined endosulfan
residues in/on summer squash ranged from <0.15 to 0.23 ppm using the EC formulation, and from <0.15 to
0.25 ppm using the WP formulation.

tolerance suouiu oe revoKcu wim me concomitant esiaoiismnent 01 a tolerance lor uucurcit vegetaoies (Lrop
Group 9). The available data for cucumber, melon, and summer squash may be translated to pumpkin and
winter squash.
-- "t  I  .t 11 TVJ O^j- f . F

icpieseiuaive uc luruiimuou at u. j j-u.o /x ine maximmn scasoiuu rare nHucaie mai me comuinea resiaues
of endosulfan hi/on strawberries without caps were below 0.60 ppm . By extrapolation to the maximum use
rate, the Science Chapter to the Endosulfan Registration Standard concluded mat residues are not likely to
exceed the established tolerance. [Strawberry]
No longer a registered use.
No longer a registered use.
The available data indicate mat endosulfim residues of concern were each O.05 ppm (nondetectable) in/on
sweet potatoes following treatments at the maximum registered use pattern. [Sweet potato]
Following applications reflecting the maximum registered use pattern, the combined endosulfim residues in/on
tomatoes ranged from <0. 15 to 0.91 ppm using the EC formulation, and from 0. 15 to 0.97 ppm using the WP
fonnulation. [Tomato]
53

-------
' i "''
Furnip, greens

Walnut
Watercress
Wheat, grain
Wheat, straw


i
wet
Com, sweet,
forage
Com, sweet,
stover
Cotton, gin
Byproducts
Cucurbit
Vegetables
[Crop Group 9)
Pineapple,
process residue
Turnip, root
Vegetables
Cucurbit, Group

Dried tea
1 ' " *
i-.**
O
2.0

0.2 (N)
2.0
0.1 (N)
0.2 (N)



None
None
None
None
None
None
None
TJnm>


24
(reflecting
<0.1 ppm
residues in
beverage
tea)
'if ' 
45
2.0

0.2
Revoke
0.30
0.40



5.0
12
14
30
1.0
18
0.2
1 0


24
(reflecting < 0.1
ppm residues in
beverage tea)
I J
Data reflecting the maximum registered use pattern are unavailable. The data submitte
kale, or mustard greens may be used to estimate residues in/on turnip greens. [Turnip,

harvested 36-39 days following the last of multiple applications of a representative W!
exaggerated (2.7-33x) seasonal rate; the limits of detection were not reported [Walnut
No longer a registered use.
Following applications reflecting me maximum registered use pattern, the combined en
wheat grain ranged from O.15 to <030 ppm.
Following applications reflecting the maximum registered use pattern, the combined en
wheat straw ranged from <0. 15 to <0.38 ppm.
Tolerance To Be Proposed Vnder 40 CFR 180.182

fectoroffo.
The submitted data for sweet com forage and stover indicate mat the combined residue
isomers) and endosulfan sulfate were 4.2-12.0 ppm in/on sweet com forage (n=6 samp
0.76-13.92 ppm in/on sweet com stover (n=6 samples) harvested 1 1-45 days followin;
applications, with a 6- to 7-day retreatment interval of a representative 3 Ib/gal EC fon
ai/A/application (Ix the proposed maximum single and seasonal application rates) usin

Adequate data are available for representative commodities.
The recommended tolerance is based on a HAFT combined endosulfim residue of 0.44
factor of 41x.
The recommended tolerance is based on translation of data from carrot and potato.


Tolerance Listed Under 40 CFR 180.182 (a) (2)
This tolerance has been moved from 40 CFR 1852600.
54

-------
Codex
       The Codex Alimentarius Commission has established several maximum residue limits (MRLs)
for residues of endosulfen in/on various plant and animal commodities. The Codex MRLs are
expressed in ternis of the sum of a- and p-endosulfan and endosulfen sulfete (fet soluble).  When the
U.S. tolerance expression is revised to specify the a and (3 isomers of the parent, Codex MRLs and
U.S. tolerances will be harmonized. A numerical comparison of the Codex MRLs and me
corresponding reassessed U.S. tolerances is presented in Table 19.

Table 9 indicates that U.S. tolerances and the Codex MRLs for endosulfen are compatible for carrot,
cottonseed, fiuits, meat, pome fruits (apples), potato, spinach, and sweet potato. For the remainder of
commodities listed in Table 19, the U.S. tolerances and the Codex MRLs are incompatible because of
differences in registrations or good agricultural practices.
Table 19.    Codex MRLs and Applicable U.S. Tolerances for Endosulfan
Codex
Commodity, As Defined
Alfelfo forage (green)
Broccoli
Cabbages, Head
Cabbages, Savoy
Carrot
Cauliflower
Celery
Chart
Cherries
Chicory leaves
Clover
Common bean (pods
and/or immature seeds)
Cottonseed
Cotton seed oil, crude
indive
MRL

-------
CHkHt/,. ;
Commodity, At Defined
Fruits
Garden peas (young
pods)
Kate
Lettuce, Head
Lettuce, Leaf
Meat
Milks
Onion, Bulb
'hnns (including
>runes)
Pome fruits
Potato
Rice
Spinach
Sugar beet
Sugar beet leaves or
tops
Sweet potato
Tea, Green, Black
Trefoil
MRL

-------
there were scientific bases far including, as part of the program, the androgen and thyroid hormone
systems, in addition to the estrogen hormone system. EPA also adopted EDSTAC's recommendation
that the Program include evaluations of potential effects in wildlife. For pesticide chemicals, EPA will
use HFRA and, to the extent that effects in wildlife may help determine whether a substance may have
an effect in humans, FFDCA authority to require the wildlife evaluations. As the science develops and
resources allow, screening of additional hormone systems may be added to the Endocrine Disrupter
Screening Program (EDSP).

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

              3.     Labels

       The following risk mitigation measures are necessary to mitigate the risks identified in the
endosulfan risk assessment as a result of dietary exposure from food,  to workers who handle
endosulfan and workers re-entering fields treated with endosulfan, and for ecological risks to non-target
organisms. A number of label amendments, in addition to the existing label requirements, are
necessary in order to reflect this mitigation

                     a.     Agricultural Use Exposure Reduction Measures

       For agricultural use, the following measures are required, in addition to the existing labeling
requirements to address dietary (food), drinking water, occupational handler and ecological risks of
concern. See Table 20 for additional information by crop.

Dietary (food)

      Delete use on succulent beans, succulent peas, spinach, and grapes.

Dietary (drinking water) and Ecological

      Delete use on pecans
      Reduce maximum seasonal application rate from 3 Ibs7ai/A to 2.5 IbsVai/A for pome fruit,
       stone fruit and citrus.
      Reduce maximum seasonal application rate from 3 IbsVai/A to 2 Ibs./ai/A for melons, cucurbits,
       lettuce, tomatoes, sweet potatoes, cotton (ground), broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, kohlrabi,
       brussels sprouts, strawberries, filberts, walnuts, almonds, macadamia nuts, peppers, eggplant,
       potatoes, carrots, dry beans, dry peas, and tobacco.
      Reduce maximum seasonal application rate from 3 lbs7ai/A to 1.5 lbs7ai/A for sweet corn,
       cotton (aerial) and blueberries.

                                            57

-------
       Reduce maximum seasonal application rate from 3 fosJai/A to 1 lb./ai/A for celery.
       Require 100 ft spray bufier for ground applica&jns between a treated aira and water bodies.
       Require 30 ft. maintained vegetative buffer strip between a treated area and water bodies.
       Require aU products to be Restricted Use
       Restrict use on cotton to AZ,CA,NM, OK and TX only.
       Restrict use on tobacco to IN, KY, OH, PA, TN and WV only.
Qcci irrational
       Require all wettable powers to be packaged in water sohibiebags.
       Cancel use of wettable powders on tomatoes, sweet com, sweet potatoes, cotton, small grains,
       alfelfe (seed), carrots, dry beans, dry peas, pineapples, and tooacco.
       Cancel aerial application using Ihe wettable powder fbnnulation on pome fruits, stone fruits,
       citrus, blueberries, strawberries, collard greens (seed), kale (seed), mustard greens (seed),
       radish (seed), turnip (seed), rutabaga (seed), broccoli, (seedX cauliflower (seed), kohlrabi
       (seed), cabbage (seed), filberts, walnuts, almonds, and nmcarianria nuts.
       Require closed mixing/loading systems for aerial applk^tkn using Ifae EC formulation on pome
       fruits, stone fruits, citnis, sweet com, sweet potatoes, cotton, collard greens (seed), kale (seed),
       mustard greens (seed), radish (seed), turnip (seed), rutabaga (seed), broccoli, (seed),
       cauliflower (seed), kohlrabi (seed), cabbage (seed), blueberries, small grains,  alfalfa (seed),
       filberts, walnuts, almonds and macadamia nuts.
       Require closed cabs for airblast applications on pome fruhs, stone fruits, citrus, filberts, walnuts,
       almonds and macadamia nuts.
       Prohibit use of high pressure handwands with rates greater than 0.005 Ibs/ai/gal.
       increase REI to 48 hours for all crops except as noted in the following bullets.'
       Increase REI for WP products to 3 days for melons and cucurbits.
       Increase REI for WP products to 4 days for lettuce, celery, pome fruit, stone  fruit, citrus,
       collard greens, kale, mustard greens, radish, turnip, rutabaga, ornamental trees and shrubs.
       Increase REI for WP products to 5 days for collard greens (seed), kale (seed), mustard greens
       (seed), radish (seed), turnip (seed) and rutabaga (seed).
       Increase REI for WP products to 9 days for blueberries, bnxxoli, cauliftower, kohlrabi,
       cabbage, and brussels sprouts.
       Increase REI for WP products to 12 days for broccoli (seed), cauliflower (seed), kohlrabi
       (seed), and cabbage (seed).
       Increase REI for EC products to 3 days for sweet potatoes
       Increase REI for EC products to 4 days for broccoli, cauliflower, kohlrabi, cabbage, and
       brussels sprouts.
       Increase REI for EC products to 6 days for blueberries.
                                            58

-------
       Ino-easeREI for EC products to 7 days for bnxxxrii (seed), kohlrabi (seed), and cabbage
        (seed).
       Increase REI for EC products to 17 days for sweet corn.

Occupatjflnfl] and Ecological

       Reduce maximum application rate to 25 lbs7ai/A for pome fruit, stone fruit, citrus, ornamental
        trees and shrubs.
       Reduce maximum application rate to 1.5 Ibs/a/A for blueberries and cotton (ground).
       Reduce maximum application rate to 1.0 Ib/ai/A for broccoli (not far seed), kohlrabi (not for
        seed), cabbage (not for seed), cauliflower (not for seed) and strawberries.
       Reduce maximum application rate to 0.75Ibs/ai/A for cotton (aerial) and kale.
       Reduce maximum application rate to 0.005 lbs./ai/gal for all tree bark treatments.

        D.     Regulatory Rationale

        The following is a summary of the rationale and mitigation measures for managing risks
associated with the current use of endosulfen. Specific label language is set forth in the summary table
in Section V.

               1.     Human Health Risk Mitigation

                     a.     Dietary (food)

        The following discussion addresses risk mitigation measures pertaining to dietary exposure to
residues of endosulfen in food.

       Acute (Food)

        Acute dietary risk from food exceeded the Agency's level of concern for the most highly
exposed population subgroup, children 1-6 years old. The risk assessment yielded a percent acute
PAD value of 150% for children 1-6 years old.  To mitigate the acute dietary risk (food), the registrants
have agreed to delete the following uses: succulent beans, succulent peas, spinach and grapes. Based
on this mitigation, the acute risk from food exposure fells below the Agency's level of concern with the
% aPAD occupied for children 1-6 years old being 80%. Therefore, removal of these uses will fully
address  acute dietary risk from food.

       Chronic (Food)

       The chronic dietary risk for endosulfen does not exceed the Agency's level of concern (i.e., is
less than 100% of the cPAD) for all sub-populations, including the most highly exposed subgroup,

                                            59

-------
children (1-6 years), whose dietary exposure occupies 17% of the cPAD. No mitigation measures are
necessary at mis time to address chronic dietary risk from food

                    b.     Drinking Water

       Surface water drinking water estimated concentrations were derived from the PRZM-EXAMS
model with the Standard Index Reservoir and percent crop area (PCA). Ground water estimated
concentrations were derived from the SCI-GROW Model. These are screening level models designed
to provide high-end estimates of potential pesticide exposure. Such predictions provide a screen to
eliminate those chemicals mat are not likely to cause concerns in drinking water.  Estimated
concentrations exceeding the drinking water level of concern pWIXX^ in drinking water risk
assessments using the screening model estimates do not necessarily mean a risk of concern actually
exists, but may indicate the need for better data (e.g., monitoring studies specific to use patterns and
drinking water sources) on which to confirm decisions.

       Based on model predictions using currently registered uses, the drinking water EECs for
endosulfan and hs degradate, endosulfim sulfate, in surface water range from 4.49 ppb (cotton
scenario) to 23.86 ppb (apple scenario) for acute exposure, and from 0.53 ppb (cotton scenario) to
1.5 ppb (apple scenario) for chronic exposure. The acute and chronic EEC for endosulfan in
groundwater is 0.012 ppb.

       The chronic dietary risks from drinking water exposure from ground water and surface water
sources do not exceed the Agency's level of concern.  The acute dietary risks from drinking water
exposure from surface water and ground water sources are above the Agency's level of concern for
most subpopulations. The mitigation measures taken to address food risks result in higher DWLOCs
and, therefore, more room in the risk cup for water exposures. For the most highly exposed
subpopulations the acute DWLOCs following mitigation are 3 ppb for children 1-6 and 23 ppb for all
infants. When these mitigation measures to reduce the dietary risks from food are considered, the acute
dietary risks from drinking water exposure from ground water sources do not exceed the Agency's
level of concern. This leaves only acute risks from surface water sources remaining above the
Agency's level of concern.  The Agency expects that actual exposure from drinking water is unlikely to
be as high as the levels used in the development of the surface waler estimates based on the rationale
discussed below. Therefore, given the anticipated impacts on water resources from implementing the
risk reduction measures contained in mis document and the characterization of the Agency's water
modeling presented below, the Agency believes that the risks from drinking water are not of concern.

       The drinking water risk assessments are based on screening level models that are conservative
in their estimates of drinking water exposure. Actual exposure is expected to be tower than the EEC's
reported in the RED. One reason for this is that the percent cropped area (PCA) assumption for
apples used in the model is 0.87, the default assumption.  This means the model assumes that 87% of a
watershed is planted with apples and that 100% of this crop is treated with endosulfan, which may be

                                           60

-------
 unlikely to occur especially considering that the PCA calculated for major crops like com and cotton
 using data submitted to the Agency are 0.46 and 020 respectively. To add further perspective, the
 EEC derived from mis screening-level model for cotton where a crop-specific PCA has been
 developed is 4.49 ppb. This is significantly lower than the apple scenario where the default PCA was
 used and results in risk estimates being below the Agency's level of concern for most subpopulations
 and nearly so for the most highly exposed subpopulations once food mitigation is considered. Cotton is
 also the crop where the most endosulfan is used.

        The risk reduction measures contained in mis RED, including the deletion of the succulent bean,
 succulent pea, grape, pecan and spinach uses, reductions in maximum application rates, reductions in
 maximum seasonal application rates, reductions in the maximum number of applications allowed per
 season, implementation of the 100 ft. setback for ground applications and the implementation of a 30
 foot vegetative buffer strip are expected to reduce the amount of endosulfan available to reach surface
 waters. Buffer strips are expected to be more effective m mitigating acute risk scenarios in the case of
 endosulfan.  This supports the Agency's belief mat drinking water risks will be reduced to a level at
 which the risk cup is not exceeded.

        For endosulfan, the Agency is also requiring confirmatory surface water monitoring data to
 evaluate actual acute concentrations of endosulfan in surface water sources of drinking water. This
 monitoring data is to be generated from a multi-year  sampling program involving community water
 systems from surface water sources in multiple locations in different regions of the country to represent
 different use sites, crops, soil types, and rainfall regimes.  Water samples are to be analyzed to
 determine the concentrations of parent endosulfan and each of the environmental degradates of
 lexicological concern. Also, prior to initiating this sampling program, the registrant is required to submit
 a study protocol to the Agency to ensure that the sampling locations and procedures are adequate to
 confirm the drinking water risk management
 conclusions.

                     c.      Aggregate Risk Mitigation

       The Agency's aggregate risk assessment for endosulfan is based on exposure estimates for
 food and uses a screening-level assessment of modeled estimates for drinking water exposure. Dietary
 (food) risk estimates are based on a refined assessment that incorporates percent crop treated data,
 monitoring data, and processing data.

       Acute Exposure

       The acute aggregate risk assessment for endosulfan combines exposure from food and drinking
water sources only. Acute dietary (food)  risk estimates are below 100% of the aPAD for the US
population and all population subgroups when the use deletions mentioned earlier that are needed to
mitigate dietary risks are considered. When this mitigation is considered, all infants are the most highly

                                            61

-------
exposed population subgroup and have an acute drinking water level of comparison (DWLOQ of 23
ppb. Based on screening-level model predictions of the remaining supported uses, the acute (peak)
drinking water estimated concentration in surface water is 23.9 ppb which is of risk concern to the
Agency. The screening-level model predictions of acute concentrations in ground water is 0.0012 ppb,
which is less than the DWLOC and not of risk concern to the Agency.

       However, given the anticipated impacts on water resources from implementing the risk
reduction measures contained in this document and the characterization of the Agency's water modeling
presented above, the Agency believes that actual acute concentrations of endosulfan in surface water
are less than the DVVLOC and are not of concern. To confirm this, surface water monitoring data is
required.
       Chronic Exposure

       The chronic aggregate risk assessment for endosulfan combines exposure from food and
drinking water sources only. Chronic dietary (food) risk estimates are well below 100% of the cPAD
for the US population and all population subgroups. Children 1-6 years old are the most highly exposed
population subgroup aixl have in a chronic DWLOC of 5 ppb. Based on screening-level model
predictions of the current uses of endosulfan the average (chronic) estimated concentration in surface
water is 1.5 ppb, which is not of risk concern to the Agency.

                     d.     Occupational Risk Mitigation

                            (1)     Agricultural Handler Risk Mitigation

       It is the Agency's policy to mitigate occupational risks to the greatest extent necessary and
feasible with personal protective equipment and engineering controls. In managing these risks, EPA
must take into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the pesticide's
use. A wide range of factors are considered in making risk management decisions for worker risks.
These factors include, in addition to the calculated MOEs, incident data, the nature and severity of
adverse effects, uncertainties in the risk assessment, the cost, availability and relative risk of alternatives,
importance of the chemical in integrated pest management (IPM) programs, and other similar factors.

Handlers

       As summarized in Table 8, occupational risks are of concern (i.e., MOEs < 100) for many
scenarios, even when maximum PPE (Le, double layer clothing, gloves, and a respirator) are utilized.
                                            62

-------
Handles- risks are also of concern for some scenarios with engineering ccmtrols (closed mixing/loading,
enclosed cabs). Engineering controls are considered to be the maximum feasible mitigation.

        EPA has determined that handler risks from exposure to endosulfan m the scenarios listed
below would be adequately mitigated, when other mitigatkm such as rate reducticwis are considered,
through use of the Mowing PPE: long-sleeved shirt and long pants, shoes, socks, chemical-resistant
gloves and an organic vapor respirator.

       Mhring/lfMfHng liquids for rhemigarirm
        Mixmg/toadinglkpkbfegroundboomapplkation.
       Mfadr^/toadinglkjuklsfeairblast applications.
        Mixing/loading liquids for rights-of-way sprayers.
       Mixing/loading liquids for plant and root dq*.
        Applying sprays with groundboom equipment
       Mixing/loading/applying with a tow pressure handwand.
        Nffadng/toading/apprying with a backpack sprayer.

        EPA has determined that worker risks from exposure to endosuUan in the scenarios listed
below would be adequately mitigated, when other mitigation such as rate reductions are considered,
through use of the following PPE: coveralls worn over long-sleeved shirt and long pants, chemkal-
resistent footwear, chemical-resistant gloves, chemical-resistent apron (for mixing and loading) and a
organic vapor respirator.

       Mixing/loading/applying with a high pressure handwand.
       Flagging aerial spray applications.
       Mixing/loading liquid for aerial application for crops with maxirnum application rates of less than
        1.5 Ibs/ai/A except for cotton, atfalfa (seed) and small grains.

        Hie mitigation measures needed to address handler risks which are of concern at or above the
maximum PPE scenario are outlined, by crop, in Table 20 below. These steps include placing all
wettable powder products in water soluble bags, the deletion of some uses from WP products,
deletion of aerial application of WP products for crops with maximum application rates greater man or
equal to 1.5 Ibs/ai/A and for cotton, alfalia (seed) and small grains, requiring closed mixing/loading
systems for aerial applications of the EC formulation for some uses, requiring closed cabs for all airblast
applications except for ornamental trees/shrubs, requiring enclosed cockpits for all aerial applications
and rate reductions. Scenarios w/ engineering controls for mixing/loading liquids and applying with
airblast equipment include the need for baseline clothing plus chemical resistant gloves and a chemical-
resistent apron (when mixing and loading).  Since all wettable powder products will be packaged in
water soluble bags, mixing/loading scenarios for mis formulation will also include baseline clothing,
chemical resistant gloves and a chemical-resistent apron.
                                             63

-------
       As mentioned earlier mere were three scenarios mat were not evaluated due to a lack of data
available to conduct an assessment For the mixing/loading/applying wettable powders with backpack
sprayer and mixing/loading/applying wettabk powders with a high pressure hand wand scenarios, the
mitigation to place all wettable powders in water soluble bags will effectively preclude the use of WPs
for these equipment types. Therefore, no additional information is required for these scenarios.

Post-Application

       EPA completes exposure assessments on postapplication workers tor various crops and
activities at intervals following the application until risk falls below a target level. For endosulfan, the
target level for risk concerns is an MOE of 100.

       In order to determine the REI for a crop, EPA calculates the number of days mat must elapse
after pesticide application until residues dissipate and risk to a worker falls below the target MOE (100
for endosulfan). Occupational risks are regulated under the FXFRA section 3(cX5) standard of no
unreasonable adverse effects which means that both risks and benefits must be considered in making a
risk management decision. This standard may be met at a level below the target MOE when mere are
benefits associated with a specific activity.  As the worker exposure database has improved, risk
assessments are now conducted for a variety of post application activities based on the level of
exposure for each worker activity.  For a specific crop/pesticide combination, the duration required to
achieve the target MOE can vary depending cm the activity assessed.

       In general, EPA prefers to set a single REI for all activities related to a crop or crop group
without additional activity-based labeling. This approach is favored because handlers and workers are
more tikeh/ to understand and comply with simpler labels. Also, permitting entry for some activities
during the REI could cause confusion and compromise the effectiveness of the Worker Protection
Standard (WPS). However, when the consideration of risks and benefits indicate mat a single REI is
unworkable, EPA may consider either setting an REI with early entry exceptions for one or more
critical tasks or establishing an entry prohibition for a specific task after the REI has expired. For
endosulfan, no critical activities have been identified to warrant the use ofan activity-based exception or
prohibition. However, during the 60-day comment period for this RED, EPA will accept further
comments from growers regarding needs for additional REI exceptions for specific activities, and will
consider such exceptions where needed if mere are adequate MOEs and/or benefits associated with
such activities.

       to weighing worker risks and benefits, the Agency considered trie timing of field activities that
are critical to crop production.  For many of the endosulfan uses discussed below, scouting and
irrigation are critical activities in crop production, and these activities routinely need to be performed
soon after  application. In evaluating the restricted entry intervals, the Agency considered the exceptions
to the WPS that could inform the decision.  EPA's proposed REIs take into account the flexibility
already provided by these exceptions. Scouting is a handler activity under the WPS, so anyone

                                            64

-------
performing mis activity may legally enter the treated field during the REI provided they use the personal
protective equipment (FPE) specified on the label.  In addition, if the scout is a certified crop advisor as
defined in the WPS (40 CFR 170204(b)), the individual can determine the appropriate PPE  to be
used. For many of these crops, irrigation equipment is not routinely moved by hand, instead, the
primary activity involves entering the field to turn the watering equipment on and off  This activity is
allowed during the REI if it meets the requirements of the no contact exception to WPS (40 CFR
170.112(b)).  Should irrigation equipment need unexpected repairs during the REI, WPS allows
workers to enter a treated field for up to one hour provided early entry PPE is used (40 CFR
170.112(c)).

       Based on the Worker Protection Standard, CFR 156208 (c) 2, if a pesticide triggers a
Toxicity Category I determination for Primary Eye Irritation, an REI of 48 houre is required for all
products. Since endosulfan meets this criteria, a minimum REI of 48 hours is needed for all endosulfan
uses.
Table 20.      Summary of Mitigation Measures for Occupational and Ecological Risk
   Cwp*
        Risks of Concern
                      Mitigation
Melons
(1 Ib/ai/A)

Cucumber
(1 Ih/ai/A)

Squash
(1 Ib/ai/A)
Mixing/Loading WP for aerial
application
Mixing/Loading WP for ground
application

High exposure activities for WP
[hand harvesting, pruning, thinning
etc.):
MOE = 64 at current REI Of 24
lours
MOE = 100 at 4 days
MOE = 86 at 3 days

Risks to non-target aquatic
organisms for WP and EC
                                           Require all wettable powers to be packaged in water soluble
3 -day REI for WP (high exposure hand harvesting, pruning,
thinning etc.: MOE = 86)

Reduce maximum seasonal application rate from 3 IbsVai/A to 2
Reduce mnvinnmn number of applications from 6 per season to 4
per season (except CA where wiH remain at 3 per season)

100 ft. spray buffer for ground applications between a treated
area and water bodies

30 ft. maintained vegetative buffer strip between a treated area
and water bodies
                                              65

-------
Rationale for Worker Risk Mitigation:
For melons, handler risks are not of concern at the 1 to. rate provided engineering consols are employed; that is,
water soluble bags for wettabte powder formulations.

Due to die need to re-enter fields often due to frequent harvesting an REI of greater than 3 days is not considered
to be feasible. Eiuiosu&n is an important resistance management^
pest management programs in some areas especially considering its relatively tow impacts on bees. Therefore, the
REI is considered acceptable.

Rationale for Ecological Risk Mitigation:
Overall environmental loading and, therefore, exposure to non-target organisms will be reduced by reducing the
maximum ftmnmrf nrtg hy 33% and reducing the maximum number of applications per season to four (3 in (!A). The
vegetative buffer is designed to reduce flic potential for endosulfan to contaminate water through runoff from
treated fields. The 100 ft. spray buffer will also reduce the potential for contamination through spray drift during
ground apphcattons.
Lettuce
(1 IbVai/A)
                                                  Require an wettabk powden to be packaged in water soluble
Mixing/Loading WP for aerial
application
Mixing/Loading WP for ground
application

High exposure activities for WP
[hand harvesting, pruning, thinning
etc.):
MOE - 64 at current REI of 24
hours
MOE -100 at 4 days

Risks to non-target aquatic
organisms for WP and EC
4-day REI for WP (high exposure hand harvesting, pruning,
thinning etc.: MOE > 100)

Reduce maximum seasonal application rate from 3 lbs./ai/A to 2
tt*7ai/A

Reduce maximum number of applications from 3 per season to 2
per season (except CA where win remain at 2 per season)

100 ft spray buffer for ground applications between a treated
area and water bodies

30 ft maintained vegetative buffer strip between a treated area
and water bodies
Rationale for Worker Risk Mitigation:
For lettuce, handler risks are not of concern at the 1 fc. rate provided engineering consols are employed; that is,
water soluble bags for wenable powder formulations.

For lettuce, post-application risks are not of concern at me 1 Ib. rate provided mat the REI for the WP formulation is
4 days.

Rationale for Ecological Risk Mitigation:
Overall environmental loading and, therefore, exposure to non-target organisms will be reduced by reducing the
maximum seasonal rate by 33% and reducing die maximum number of applications per season to two. The
vegetative buffer is designed to reduce Ihe potential for endosulfan to contaminate water through runoff from
treated fields. The 100 ft. spray buffer will also reduce die potential for contamination through spray drift during
ground applications.	
                                                      66

-------
                                                                           Mitigation
              Mixing/Loading WP for aerial
              application
              Mixing/Loading WP far ground
              application
Celery
   lbyai/A)
High exposure activities for WP
(hand harvesting, pruning
etc.):
MOE = 64 at current REI of 24
hours
MOE - 100 at 4 days

Risks to non-target aquatic
organisms for WP and EC	
                                    Require all wettable powdeis to be packaged in water soluble
                                    bags

                                    4-day REI for WP (high exposure hand harvesting, pruning,
                                    thinning etc.: MOE > 100)

                                    Reduce maximum seasonal application rate from 3 lbs7ai/A to 1
                                                  100 ft spray buffer for ground applications between a treated
                                                  area and water bodies

                                                  30 ft maintained vegetative buffer strip between a treated area
                                                  and water bodies
Rationale for Worker Rbfc Mitigation:
For celery, handler risks are not of concern at die 1 ft. rate provided engineering controls are employed; mat is,
water soluble bags for wettable powder formulations.

For celery, post-application risks are not of concern at the 1 Ib. rate provided that the REI for the WP formulation is
4 days.

Rationale for Ecological Risk Mitigation:
Overall environmental loading and, therefore, exposure to non-target organisms will be reduced by reducing the
maximum seasonal rate by 66%. The vegetative buffer is designed to reduce the potential for endosulfan to
contaminate water through runoff from treated fields. The 100 ft spray buffer will also reduce the potential for
contamination through spray drift during ground applications.
Apples
(3.0 Ibs/ai/A)

Peats
(3.0 Ibs/ai/A)
Mixing/Loading Liquid for aerial
application
Mixing/Loading WP for aerial
application
Mixing/Loading WP for airotast
application
Application w/ airblast application

High exposure activities for WP
[hand harvesting, pruning, thinning
etc.):
MOE = 68 at current REI of 24
lours
MOE =100 at 5 days

Risks to non-target aquatic
organisms for WP and EC
                                   Reduce maximum application rate to 2.51bsVai/A

                                   Require all wettable powdeis to be packaged in water soluble
                                   bags

                                   Cancel aerial application using the WP formulation

                                   Require closed mixing/loading systems for aerial application
                                   using the EC formulation

                                   Require closed cabs for airblast applications

                                   4-day REI for WP (high exposure hand harvesting, pruning,
                                   thinning etc: MOE > 100 at 2.5 rate)

                                   Reduce maximum seasonal application rate from 3 IbsVai/A to
                                   2.5 IbsJai/A

                                   100 ft spray buffer for ground applications between a treated
                                   area and water bodies

                                   30 ft maintained vegetative buffer strip between a treated area
                                   and water bodies
                                                      67

-------
                       Rhks of Coiucra
                                                              Mitigation
Rationale for Worker Risk Mitigation:
For apples and pears, handler risks are not of concern at die 2.5 b. rate provided that aerial application using WP
products is canceled and engineering controls are employed; that is, water soluble bags for writable powder
formulations, closed mixing/loading systems are used for aerial applications of EC products and closed cabs are
used for airblast applications (designed to provide dermal protection).

For apples and pears, post-application risks are not of concern at the 2.5 Ib. rate provided that the REI for the WP
formulation is 4 days.

Rationale for Ecological Risk Mitigation:
Overall environmental loading and, therefore, exposure to non-target organisms will be reduced by reducing the
maximum Mammal rate md the maximum single ppKction rate ty 17% The vegetative buffer is designed to
reduce the potential for endosulfim to contaminate water through runoff from treated fields. The 100 ft. spray buffer
will also reduce the potential for contamination through spray drift during ground applications.
Apricots
(3.0Ibs7ai/A)

Peaches
(3.01bs7ai/A)

Nectarines
(3.0Ibs7ai/A)

Plums/Prune
s
(3.0 Ib&/ai/A)

Cherries
(3.0 IbsVai/A)

^on-Bearing
Citrus
(3.0 IbsVai/A)
Mixing/Loading Liquid for aerial
application
Mixing/Loading WP for aerial
application
Mixing/Loading WP for airblast
application
Application w/ airblast application

High exposure activities for WP
(hand harvesting, pruning, thinning
etc.):
MOE = 68 at current REI of 24
trours
MOE =100 at 5 days

Risks to non-target aquatic
organisms for WP and EC
Reduce maximum application rate to 2Jlbs7ai/A

Requite all wettabte powders to be packaged in water soluble
bags

Cancel aerial application using tile WP formulation

Require closed mixing/loading systems for aerial application
using the EC formulation

Require closed cabs for airblast applications

4-day REI for WP (high exposure hand harvesting, pruning,
thinning etc.: MOE > 100 at 2.5 rate)

Reduce maximum seasonal application rate from 3 IbsAi/A to
100 ft. spray buffer for ground applications between a treated
area and water bodies

30 ft. maintained vegetative buffer strip between a treated area
and water bodies
                                                       68

-------
    Crop*     I         RJstoefCmceni          I                 ,         Mitigation
Rationale for Worker Risk Mitigation:
For peaches, apricots, nectarines, phnns, prunes, cherries and non-bearing citrus, handler risks are not of concern at
ate 25 Ib. rate provided lhat aerial application using WP product: is canceled and engbcering contols are
employed; out is, water soluble bags for wettabfe powder formulations, ckwed mixing/loading systems are used for
aerial applications of EC products and closed cabs are used tot airblast applications (designed to provide dermal
jrotection).

For peaches, apricots, nectarines, plums, prunes, cherries and non-bearing citrus, post-application risks are not of
concern at the 2.5 Ib. rate provided that the REI for the WP formulation is 4 days.

Rationale for Ecological Risk Mitigation:
Overall environmental loading and, therefore, exposure to non-target organisms will be reduced by reducmg the
               Irate and the maximum single application rate by 17% The vegetative buffer is designed to
reduce fee potential fig endosolfan to contaminate water toough runoff from treated fields. The 100 ft spray buffer
will also reduce the potential for contamination through spray drift during ground applications.
                                                      69

-------
                       RiiksfCom*r
                                                             Mitigation
Bark
Treatments
(0.4
Ibs/ai/gal)

Greenhouse
Uses
(0.1
Ibs/ai/gal)
Application with Rights-of-Way
sprayer
Mixing/Loading/Applying with a
high pressure handwand
Reduce maximum application rate to 0.005 Ibs7ai/gal for high
pressure handwand and Rights-of-Way sprayers.
Rationale for Worker Risk Mitigation:
For baric treatment and greenhouse uses, handler risks are not of concern at the 0.005 fc/ai/gaL rate.
Tomatoes
(1 lbyai/A)
Mixing/Loading WP for aerial
application
Mixing/Loading WP for ground
application
              Risks to non-target aquatic
              organisms for WP and EC
                                                 Cancel WP use

                                                 Reduce maximum seasonal application rate from 3 IbsVai/A to 2
Reduce maximum number of applications from 6 per season to 4
per season

100 ft. spray buffer for ground applications between a treated
area and water bodies

30 ft. maintained vegetative buffer strip between a treated area
and water bodies
                                                      70

-------
    Crap*
          Risks of Coscern
                          Mitigation
Rationale for Worker Risk Mitigation:
For tomatoes, handler risks are not of concern at the 1 Ib. rate provided that the wettable powder formulation is
canceled.

Rationale for Ecological Risk Mitigation:
Overall environmental loading and, therefore, exposure to non-target organisms will be reduced by reducing die
maximum seasonal rate by 33% "d reducing tflC mmmum fiumher of applications per season to (par. The
vegetative buffer is designed to reduce (he potential (or endosulfan to contaminate water through runoff from
treated fields. The 100 ft. spray buffer will also reduce the potential for contamination through spray drift during
ground applications.         	  	
Sweet Com
(1.S Ibs/ai/A)
Mixing/Loading Liquid for aerial
application
Mixing/Loading WP for aerial
application
Mixing/Loading WP for ground
application

High exposure activities for WP
(hand harvesting):
MOE - 10 at current REI of 24
lours
MOE =100 at 21 days

High exposure activities for EC
[hand harvesting ):
MOE = 22 at current REI of 24
lours
MOE = 100 at 17days

Usks to non-target aquatic
organisms for WP and EC
Cancel WP Use

Require closed mixing/loading systems for aerial application
using the EC formulation

17 day REI for EC (hand harvesting: MOE > 100)

Reduce maximum seasonal application rate from 3 IbsVai/A to
1.5 lbs7ai/A

Reduce maximum number of applications from 3 per season to 1
per season

100 ft. spray buffer for ground applications between a treated
area and water bodies

30 ft. maintained vegetative buffer strip between a treated area
and water bodies
                                                      71

-------
    Crop*              Riik.ofCo.ctni                             .;      Mitigation
Rationale for Worker Risk Mitigation:
For sweet com, handler risks are not of concern at the 1.5 Ib. rate provided that Ibe wettable powder formulation is
canceled and provided engineering controls are employed; mat is closed mixing/loading systems are used for aerial
applications of EC products.

For sweet com, post-application risks are not of concern at the 1.5 Ib. rate provided the WP formulations are
canceled and fiat the REI for me EC formulation is 17 days.

Rationale for Ecological Risk Mitigation:
Overall environmental loading and, therefore, exposure to non-target organisms will be reduced by reducing the
maximum seasonal rate by 50% and reducing the maximum number of applications per season to one. The
vegetative buffer is designed to reduce the potential for endosulfan to contaminate water through runoff from
treated fields. The 100 ft. spray buffer will also reduce the potential for contamination through spray drift during
ground applications.
                                                      72

-------
    Crap*
                          Mitigation
Sweet
Potatoes
(2.01bs/ai/A)
Mixing/Loading Liquid for aerial
application
Mixing/Loading WP for aerial
application
Mixing/Loading WP for ground
application

High exposure activities for WP
(hand harvesting, pruning, thinning
etc.):
MOE - 32 at current REI of 24
tours
MOE -100 at 9 days

Medium exposure activities for WP
(scouting and irrigating):
MOE - 54 at current REI of 24
tours
MOE -100 at 5 days

High exposure activities for EC
[hand harvesting, pruning, thinning
etc.):
MOE = 75 at current REI of 24
tours
MOE-100at3days

Risks to non-target aquatic
organisms for WP and EC
                                                  Cancel WP Use

                                                  Require closed mixing/loading systems for aerial application
                                                  using the EC formulation

                                                  3 day REI for EC (high exposure activities: MOE > 100)
                                                  Redu
                     IB! application rate from 3 IbsJai/A to 2
IbsJai/A
                                                  Redu
                  unber of applications from 3 per season to 2
                                                  per season

                                                  100 ft. spray buffer for ground applications between a treated
                                                  area and water bodies

                                                  30 ft. maintained vegetative buffer strip between a treated area
                                                  and water bodies
Rationale for Worker Risk Mitigation:
 For sweet potatoes, handler risks are not of concern at the 2.0 Ib. rate provided mat the wettable powder
formulation is canceled and provided engineering controls are employed; that is closed mixing/loading systems are
used for aerial applications of EC products.

For sweet potatoes, post-application risks are not of concern at the 2.0 Ib. rate provided the WP formulations are
canceled and fiat the REI forme EC formulation is 3 days.

Rationale for Ecological Risk Mitigation:
Overall environmental loading and, therefore, exposure to non-target organisms will be reduced by reducing the
maximum seasonal rate by 33% and reducing the maximum number of applications per season to two. The
vegetative buffer is designed to reduce toe potential for endosulfan to contaminate water through runoff from
treated fields.  The 100 ft spray buffer will also reduce the potential for contamination through spray drift during
ground applications.
                                                      73

-------
    en**
Collaid
Greens (for
seed)
(2.0tos/ai/A)

Kate
(for seed)
(2.0 tos/ai/A)

[Mustard
Qroeus
(for seed)
(2.0Ibs/ai/A)

Radish
(for seed)
(2.0 tos/ai/A)

Turnip
(for seed)
(2.0 Iba/ai/A)
Mixing/Loading Liquid far aerial
application
Mixing/Loading WP for aerial
(for seed)
(2.0 Ibs/ai/A)
application
Mixing/Loading WP for ground
application

High exposure activities for WP
(hand harvesting, pruning, thinning
etc.):
MOE = 32 at current REI of 24
hours
MOE -100 at 9 days

Medium exposure activities for WP
(scouting and irrigating):
MOE - 54 at current REI of 24
hours
MOE -100 at 5 days

High exposure activities for EC
(hand harvesting, prunmg, thinning
etc.):
MOE = 75 at current REI of 24
hours
MOE=100at3days

Risks to non-target aquatic
organisms for WP and EC
Require all wettable powders to be packaged in water soluble
bags

Require closed mixing/loading systems for aerial application
using the EC formulation

Cancel aerial application using the WP fonnulation

5-day REI for WP (scouting and irrigating: MOE > 100)

100 ft spray buffer for ground applications between a treated
area and water bodies

30 ft. maintained vegetative buffer strip between a treated area
and water bodies
Rationale for Worker Risk Mitigation:
For collard greens, kale, mustard greens, radish, rutabaga and turnip (all for seed) handler risks are not of concern at
the 2.0 Ib. rate provided engineering controls are employed; that is, water soluble bags for wettable powder
formulations, closed mixing/loading systems are used for aerial applications of EC products, and aerial application
using WP products are canceled.

For collard greens, kale, mustard greens, radish, rutabaga and turnip (all for seedX post-application risks are not of
concern at the 2.0 Ib. rate provided that the REI for the WP formulation is 5 days. Endosulfan is generally applied to
these seed crops at bloom/post bloom. Intensive hand activities such as thinning are expected to have occuned
srior to the time of application and, therefore, high exposure activities are not expected to be relevant for these
crops.

Rationale for Ecological Risk Mitigation:
The vegetative buffer is designed to reduce the potential for endosulfan to contaminate water through runoff from
treated fields. The 100 ft spray buffer will also reduce the potential for contamination through spray drift during
ground applications.	^^^
                                                      74

-------
    0***
Collaid
Greens
(1.0 Ibs/ai/A)

Kale
(1.0 Ibs/ai/A)

Mustard
Greens
(l.Olbs/ai/A)

Radish
(1.0 Ibs/ai/A)

Turnip
(1.0 Ibs/ai/A)
(1.0 Ibs/ai/A)
         HMiefCimeera
Mixing/Loading WP for aerial
application
Mixing/Loading WP for ground
application

High exposure activities for WP
(hand harvesting, pruning, dunning
etc.):
MOB - 64 at current REI of 24
hours
MOE- 100 at 4 days

Risks to non-target aquatic
organisms for WP and EC
                          Mitigation
Reduce maximum application rate for kale to 0.75 Ibs/ai/A

Require all wettable powdeis to be packaged fa water soluble
bags

4-day REI for WP (hand harvesting, pruning, thinning: MOE >
100)

100 ft. spray buffer for ground applications between a treated
area and water bodies

30 ft maintained vegetative buffer strip between a treated area
and water bodies
Rationale for Worker Risk Mitigation:
For coUard greens, mustard greens, radish, rutabaga and turnip, handler risks are not of concern at the 1.0 Ib. rate
and kale at the 0.75 Ib. rate provided engneering consols are employed; that is, water soluble bags for wettable
powder formulations.

For collard greens, kale, mustard greens, radish, rutabaga and turnip, post-application risks are not of concern at the
1.0 Ib. rate provided mat the REI for the WP formulation is 4 days.

Rationale for Ecological Risk Mitigation:
The vegetative buffer is designed to reduce the potential for endosulfan to contaminate water through nmoff from
treated fields. The 100 ft spray buffer will also reduce the potential for contamination through spray drift during
ground applications.
                                                      75

-------
    Crop*
                         Mitigation
Broccoli
(for seed)
(2.01bs/ai/A)

Cabbage
(for seed)
(2.0 Ibs/ai/A)

Kohlrabi
(for seed)
(2.0 Ibs/ai/A)
              Mixing/Loading Liquid for aerial
              application
              Mixing/Loading WP for aerial
              application
Mixing/Loading WP for ground
application

High exposure activities for WP
(hand harvesting, pruning, thinning
etc.):
MOE = 16 at current REI of 24
hours
MOE -100 at 14 days

Medium exposure activities for WP
MOE - 20 at current REI of 24
hours
MOE =100 at 12 days

High exposure activities for EC
(hand harvesting, pruning, thinning
etc.):
MOE = 38 at current REI of 24
hours
MOE = 100 at 9days

Medium exposure activities for EC
(scouting and litigating):
MOE = 47 at current REI of 24
hours
MOE =100 at 7 days

Risks to non-target aquatic
organisms for WP and EC	
                                                 Require all wettable powdes to be packaged n water soluble
Require dosed mixing/loading systems for aerial application
using me EC formulation

Cancel aerial application using the WP formulation

12-day REI for WP (scouting and irrigating: MOE > 100)

7-day REI for EC (scouting and irrigating: MOE > 100)

100 ft. spray buffer for ground applications between a treated
area and water bodies

30 ft. maintained vegetative buffer strip between a treated area
and water bodies
                                                      76

-------
Rationale for Worker Risk Mitigation:
For broccoli, cabbage and kohlrabi (all for seed) handler risks are not of concern at the 2.0 Ib. rate provided that
aerial application using WP products are canceled and engineering confab are employed; that is, water soluble
bags for wettable powder formulations, closed mixing/loading systems are used for aerial applications of EC
products, and aerial application using WP products are canceled.

For broccoli, cabbage and kohhibi (all for seed), post-application risks are not of concern at the 2.0 Ib. rate provided
that^RHforowWPfonnuUional2daysandfor^ECfonnulationsis7days. Endosulfim is generally
applied to these seed crops at bloom/post bloom.  Intensive hand activities such as dunning are expected to have
occurred priorto the tone of application and, therefore, high exposure activities are not expected to be relevant for
these crops.

Rationale for Ecological Risk Mitigation:
Tim iMgntatM hnflfcr ic AttqynrA tn mAma th p^tmrial fnr mHr.ilfim tn mntammatf nmter thmtigh ninr.fTfcr.tn
treated fields. The 100 ft spray buffer will also reduce the potential for contamination through spray drift during
{round applications.
                                                      77

-------
                       Rkk of Coacern
Broccoli
(21bs/ai/A)
Sprouts
(llbs/ai/A)

Cauliflower
(1 Ibs/ai/A)

Cabbage
(2 Ibs/ai/A)

Kohlrabi
(2 Ibs/ai/A)
Mixing/Loading Liquid for aerial
application
Mixing/Loading WP for aerial
application
Mixing/Loading WP for ground
application

High exposure activities for WP
(hand harvesting, pruning, thinning
etc.):
MOE = 32 at current REI of 24
hours
MOE - 100 at 9 days (1 Ib. rate)

Medium exposure activities for WP
(scouting and irrigating):
MOE = 40 at current REI of 24
hours
MOE = 100 at 7 days (1 Ib. rate)

High exposure activities for EC
(hand harvesting, pruning, thinning
etc.):
MOE = 76 at current REI of 24
hours
MOE = 100 at 4 days (1 Ib. rate)

Medium exposure activities for EC
(scouting and irrigating):
MOE = 94 at current REI of 24
hours
MOE = 100 at 2 days (1 Ib. rate)

Risks to non-target aquatic
organisms for WP and EC _
                                                  Reduce maximum application rate for broccoli, cabbage and
                                                  kohlrabi to llbs/ai/A

                                                  Require all wettable powdeis to be packaged in water soluble
9-day REI for WP (hand harvesting, pruning, tinning etc: MOE
>100)

4-day REI for EC (hand harvesting, pruning, thinning etc: MOE
>100)

Reduce maximum seasonal application rate from 3 IbsJai/A to 2
IbsVai/A

Reduce maximum number of applications from 4 per season to 2
per season (CA remains at 2)

100 ft.  spray buffer for ground applications between a treated
area and water bodies

30 ft. maintained vegetative buffer strip between a treated area
and water bodies
Rationale for Worker Risk Mitigation:
For broccoli, brussels sprout, cauliflower, cabbage andkohlrabi, handler risks are not of concern at the 1.0 Ib. rate
Movkted engineering controls are employed; tiat is water soluble bags for wettable powder formulations.

For broccoli brussels sprout, cauliflower, cabbage and kohlrabi, post-application risks are not of concern at the 1.0
Ib. rate provided that the REI for the WP formulation is 9 days and for the EC formulation is 4 days.

Rationale for Ecological Risk Mitigation:
Overall environmental loading and, therefore, exposure to non-target organisms will be reduced by reducing the
maximum application rate by 50% for broccoli, cabbage and kohlrabi, the maximum seasonal rate by 33% for each
commodity and reducing the maximum number of applications per season to two. The vegetative buffer is designed
to reduce the potential for endosulfan to contaminate water through runoff from treated fields. The 100 ft. spray
buffer will also reduce the potential for contamination through spray drift during ground applications.	
                                                      78

-------
Cotton
(21bs/ai/A)
    Crop*
         RIskiofCoMcni
Mixing/Loading Liquid for aerial
application
Mixing/Loading WP for aerial
application
Application with aerial equipment
High exposure activities for WP
[hand harvesting, pruning, thinning
etc.):
MOE = 16 at current REI of 24
lours
MOE =100 at 14 days

Medium exposure activities for WP
(scouting and irrigating):
MOE - 20 at current REI of 24
hours
MOE -100 at 12 days

High exposure activities for EC
[hand harvesting, pruning, thinning
etc.):
MOE = 38 at current REI of 24
lours
MOE =100 at 9 days

Risks to non-target aquatic
organisms for WP and EC
  	     Mitigation	*

Cancel WP use

Reduce rate for ground application to 1.5 Ibs/a/A

Reduce rate for aerial application to 0.75 Ibs/ai/A

Require closed mixing/loading systems for aerial application
using die EC formulation
Reduce maximum seasonal application rate from 3 IbsVai/A to 2
Ib&MA (ground)

Reduce maximum seasonal application rate from 3 IbsVai/A to
UibsVai/A (aerial)

Reduce maximum number of applications from 6 per season to 2
per season

Restrict use on cotton to the following states: AZ. CA, MM,
OK,andTX.

100 ft. spray buffer for ground applications between a treated
area and water bodies

30 ft. maintained vegetative buffer strip between a treated area
and water bodies
Rationale for Worker Risk Mitigation:
For cotton, handler risks are not of concern at the 15 Ib. rate (ground) and the 0.75 Ib. rate (aerial) provided
engineering controls are employed; that is closed mixing/loading systems are used for aerial applications of EC
products.

Post harvest risks are not of concern provided mat labels state that only mechanical harvesting is allowed and hand
iminmgffin|iimg is prohibited.

Rationale for Ecological Risk Mitigation:
Overall environmental loading and, therefore, exposure to non-target organisms will be reduced by reducing the
maximum application rate by 25% for ground appEcations and 63% for aerial applications, the maximum seasonal
rate by 33% (ground) and 50% (aerial), and reducing the maximum number of applications per season to two. The
vegetative buffer is designed to reduce me potential for endosulfan to contaminate water through runoff from
treated fields. The 100 ft. spray buffer will also reduce the potential for contamination through spray drift during
ground applications.

By restricting the use on cotton to AZ, CA, NM, OK and TX exposures to aquatic organisms are expected to be
reduced. These restrictions remove use in areas of the country where water resources are more abundant and
mtentially vulnerable.
                                                       79

-------
    Cwp*
Blueberries
(21bs/ai/A)
Muting/Loading Liquid for aerial
application
Mixing/Loading WP for aerial
application
Mixing/Loading WP for ground
application

High exposure activities for WP
[hqnd han/cfl>J"B, pnmmg, thinning
etc.):
MOE = 16 at current REI of 24
hours
MOE =100 at 14 days

Medium exposure activities for WP
(scouting and irrigating):
MOE - 81 at current REI of 24
hours
MOE -100 at 3 days

High exposure activities for EC
(hand harvesting, pruning, thinning
etc.):
MOE = 38 at current REI of 24
hours
MOE =100 at 9 days

Risks to non-target aquatic
organisms for WP and EC
Reduce the maximum application rate to 15 Ibs/ai/A

Require all wettabte powders to be packaged in water soluble
bags

Require dosed mixing/loading systems for aerial application
using the EC formulation

Cancel aerial application using the WP formulation

9 day REI for WP (high exposure activities, hand harvesting,
pruning, (binning etc.: MOE > 100)

6 day REI for EC (high exposure activities, hand harvesting,
pruning, thinning etc.: MOE > 100)

Reduce maximum seasonal application rate from 3 lbs7ai/A to
1.51bs7ai/A

100 ft. spray buffer for ground applications between a treated
area and water bodies

30 ft. maintained vegetative buffer strip between a treated area
and water bodies
Rationale for Worker Risk Mitigation:
For blueberry, handler risks are not of concern at the 1.51>. rate provided that aerial application using WP products
is cancefed and engineering controls are employed; that is, water soluble bags for wettable powder formulations,
closed mixing/loading systems are used for aerial applications of EC products and aerial application using WP
products are canceled.

For blueberry, post-application risks are not of concern at the 1.5 Ib. rate provided that the REI for the WP
formulation is 9 days and the REI fa-the EC formulation is 6 days. Since this use is primarily a post-harvest use
increasing the REI is not expected to have an tnpacton use.

Rationale for Ecological Risk Mitigation:
Overall environmental loading and, therefore, exposure to non-target organisms will be reduced by reducing the
   xmi"m application rate by 25% and reducing 
-------
                        Risks ef Camera
Strawberry
(2.0tes/ai/A)
Mixing/Loading Liquid for aerial
application
Mixing/Loading WP for aerial
application
Mixing/Loading WP far ground
application

High exposure activities for WP
(h>md fHBVc^Jngj pinning, thinning
etc.):
MOB = 54 at current REI of 24
hours
MOE = 100 at 5 days

Risks to non-target aquatic
organisms for WP and EC
Reduce fee maximum application rate to 1 Ibs/ai/A

Require all wettable powdeis to be packaged h water soluble
bags

Require dosed mixing/loading systems for aerial application
using the EC formulation

Cancel aerial application using the WP formulation

5 day REI for WP (high exposure activities, hand harvesting,
pruning, dunning etc.: MOE > 100)

Reduce maximum seasonal application rate from 3 Ibsj'ai/A to 2
VosJa/A.

Reduce maximum number of applications from 3 per season to 2
per season

100 ft spray buffer for ground applications between a treated
area and water bodies

30 ft. maintained vegetative buffer strip between a treated area
and water bodies
Rationale for Worker Risk Mitigation:
For strawberry, handler risks are not of concern at the 1 Ib. rate provided mat aerial application using WP products
is canceled and engiieering controls are employed; that is, water soluble bags for wettable powder formulations,
closed mixing/loading systems are used for aerial applications of EC products and aerial application using WP
products are canceled.

For strawberry, post-application risks are not of concern at the 1 Ib. rate provided the REI for the WP formulation is
5 days.

Rationale for Ecological Risk Mitigation:
Overall environmental loading and, therefore, exposure to non-target organisms will be reduced by reducing the
maximum application rate by 50%, reducing the maximum seasonal rate by 33% and reducing me maximum number
of applications per season to two. The vegetative buffer is designed to reduce the potential for endosuUan to
contaminate water through runoff from treated fields.  The 100 ft. spray buffer will also reduce the potential for
contamination through spray drift during ground applications.
Alfalfa (seed)
(1 Ib/ai/A)
Mixing/Loading Liquid for aerial
application
Mixing/Loading WP for aerial
application
Application with aerial equipment

Risks to non-target aquatic
organisms for WP and EC
Cancel WP Use

Reduced application rate to llb/ai/A

Require closed mixing/loading systems for aerial application

100 ft spray buffer for ground applications between a treated
area and water bodies

30 ft maintained vegetative buffer strip between a treated area
and water bodies
                                                       81

-------
                        Rfeks of Concern
Rationale In- Worker Risk Mitigation:
For alfalfa (seed), handler risks are of concern at the 1.0 Ib. rate even provided that wettabte powder formulations
are canceled sad provided engineering controls are employed; mat is closed mixing/toading systems are used for
aerial applications of EC products (MOE = 82).

fa California, the seed alfalfa acreage has decreased significantly to approximately 20,000 to 35,000 acres
Endosulfan use in seed alfalfa is part of an integrated management approach mat also benefits cotton producers.
The use of endosulfan, when combined witii a pyrethroid, is important in the control of ygiu bugs. Since seed
alfalfa is harvested earlier man cotton, mere is potential for Lygiu bugs to migrate into cotton fields later in me
season. Use of suMethal doses of pyrefcroid atone could result in resistance and the tower endosulfan rate may be
insufficiem to guarantee gocri coverage, especiaUyimderh^                        Resistance, which has
been observed in other crops, hinders control with another pyrethroid appUcatton, the usual method of treatment,
and would require use of potentially harsher alternatives.  Relatively few other alternatives are avaflable to alfalfa
growers.  (Tonroared to mose that are registered, mdiiding trie orgaiwplio^
eruiosiilfan is less toxic to honey bees, which are crucial to the polination of the alfU       Lygus bugs can also
migrate to other crops, inchiding dry beans. The Agency considers this use to be beneficial to both seed alfalfa
and cotton growers in California, and minimizes resistance issues mat would arise from sole reliance on pyKthroids.
In Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Nevada, the Agency beEeves mat it is unlikely that 1200 acres would be treated
in a given day. For instance, in eastern Oregon and southwest Idaho, seed alfalfa fields are usually about 5 to 20
acres in size, while the average farm size in Oregon was 114 acres in 1997. The spotted alfalfa aphid is the main pest
treated. Endosulfan appications are generally needed only once per season when there is an outbreak, which may
not occur simultaneously on all fields. Endosulfan is used at a range of rates, with lower rates being used at night
during bloom to protect bees and at higher rates if the outbreak occurs later in the season. There are concerns mat
using lower rates of endosulfan for the spotted alfalfa aphid would not result in adequate control and would lead to
resistance problems in the future.  Given relatively few registered alternatives on alfalfa for seed, mis is a plausible
scenario.

Given (he benefits and the characterization of likely acres treated per day presented above, the Agency believes no
further mitigation is necessary at this time for alfalfa (seed).	
Rationale for Ecological Risk Mitigation:
Overall environmental loading and, therefore, exposure to non-target organisms will be reduced by reducing the
maximum application rate by 25%. The vegetative buffer is designed to reduce the potential for endosulfan to
contaminate water through runoff from treated fields. The 100 ft spray buffer will also reduce the potential for
contamination through spray drift during ground applications.
Small Grains
;o.75
Ibs/ai/A)
Mixing/Loading Liquid for aerial
application
Mixing/Loading WP for aerial
application
Application with aerial equipment

Risks to non-target aquatic
organisms for WP and EC
Cancel WP Use

Require closed mixing/loading systems for aerial application
using the EC formulation

Reduce maximum number of applications from 2 per season to 1
per season

100 ft spray buffer for ground applications between a treated
area and water bodies

30 ft maintained vegetative buffer strip between a treated area
and water bodies
                                                       82

-------
    Crop*
                                                             Mitigation
 Rationale for Worker Rbk Mitigation:
 For small grams, handler risks are not of concern at the 0.75 fc. rate provkied mat wettable powder formulations are
 canceled and provided engineering controls are employed; mat closed mixing/loading systems are used for aerial
 applications of EC products..

 Rationale for Ecological Risk Mitigation:
 Overall environmental loading and, therefore, exposure to non-target organisms will be reduced by reducing the
 maxknum number of applications rate by 50% The vegetative buffer is designed to reduce (he potential for
 endosulian to contaminate water through runoff from treated fields. The 100 ft. spray buffer will also reduce the
                    irfion through spray drift during ground applications.
Filberts
(21bs/ai/A)

Walnuts
(21bs/ai/A)

Almonds
(21bs/ai/A)

Vfacadamia
Nuts
(21bs/ai/A)
Mixing/Loading Liquid for aerial
application
Mixing/Loading WP for aerial
application
Mixing/Loading WP for airblast
application
Application w/ airblast application

Risks to non-target aquatic
organisms for WP and EC
                                                  Require all wettable powdets to be packaged h water soluble
Cancel aerial application using the WP formulation

Require dosed mixing/loading systems for aerial application
using the EC formulation

Require closed cabs for airblast applications

Reduce maximum seasonal application rate from 3 IbsVai/A to 2
Ibs^ai/A

Reduce maximum number of applications from 2 per season to 1
jer season

100 ft. spray buffer for ground applications between a treated
area and water bodies

30 ft. maintained vegetative buffer strip between a treated area
and water bodies
Rationale for Worker Risk Mitigation:
 For filberts and walnuts, handler risks are not of concern at the 2 Ib. rate provided engineering controls are
employed; that is, water soluble bags for wettable powder formulations, closed mixing/loading systems are used for
aerial applications of EC products, aerial application using WP products are canceled and closed cabs are used for
airblast applications (designed to provide dermal protection).

Rationale for Ecological Risk Mitigation:
Overall envkonmental loading and, therefore, exposure to non-target organisms will be reduced by reducing the
maximum seasonal rate by 33% and me mmimmn number of applications to one. The vegetative buffer is designed
to reduce the potential for endosuUan to contaminate water through runoff from treated fields. The 100 ft spray
buffer will also reduce the potential for contamination through spray drift during ground applications.
                                                      83

-------
    Crop*
                                                             MiUjatton
Peppers
(1 Ibs/ai/A)

Eggplant
(1 Ibs/ai/A)
Mixing/Loading WPfiw aerial
application
Mixing/Loading WP for airblast
application

Risks to non-target aquatic
organisms for WP and EC
 Require all wettabte powdeis to be packaged fa water soluble
bigs

Reduce maximum seasonal application rate from 3 IbsJea/A. to 2
100 ft spray buffer for ground applications between a treated
area and water bodies

30 ft. maintained vegetative buffer strip between a treated area
and water bodies
Rationale for Worker Risk Mitigation:
For eggplant and peppers, handler risks are not of concern at the lib. rate provided engineering controls are
employed; mat is, water soluble bags for wettabte powder formulations.

Rationale for Ecotogknl Risk Mitigation:
Overall environmental loading and, therefore, exposure to non-target organisms will be reduced by reducing the
maximum seasonal rate by 33%. The vegetative buffer is designed to reduce the potential for endosulfan to
contaminate water throughrunoff from treated fields. The 100 ft, spray buffer will also reduce the potential for
contamination through spray drift during ground applications.	
Potatoes
(1 Ibs/ai/A)
Mixing/Loading WP for aerial
application
Mixing/Loading WP for airblast
application

Risks to non-target aquatic
organisms for WP and EC
Require all wettabfe powdeis to be packaged fa water soluble
bags

Reduce maximum seasonal application rate from 3 IbsJai/A to 2
IbsVai/A

Reduce maximum number of applications from 6 per season to 4
per season

100 ft spray buffer for ground applications between a treated
area and water bodies

30 ft. maintained vegetative buffer strip between a treated area
and water bodies
Rationale for Worker Risk Mitig*tkm:
For potatoes, handler risks are not of concern at the 1 to. rate provided engineering controls are employed; that is,
water soluble bags for wettable powder formulations.

Rationale for Ecological Risk Mitigation:
Overall environmental loading and, therefore, exposure to non-target organisms will be reduced by reducing the
maximum seasonal rate by 33% and the maximum number of applications to 4. The vegetative buffer is designed to
reduce the potential for endosulfan to contaminate water fhrough runoff from treated fields. The 100 ft. spray buffer
will also reduce the potential for contamination through spray drift during ground applications.
                                                      84

-------
                                                                            Mitigation
               Mixing/Loading WP far aerial
               application
               Mixing/Loading WP for ground
               application
Carrots
(1 Ibs/ai/A)
High exposure activities for WP
(hand harvesting, pruning, thinning
etc.):
MOE - 54 at current REI of 24
hours
MOE -100 at 5 days

Risks to non-target aquatic
organisms for WP and EC
Cancel WP use

Reduce maximum seasonal application rate from 3 IbsVai/A to 2
ttxt/ai/A

100 ft spray buffer for ground applications between a treated
area and water bodies

30 ft. maintained vegetative buffer strip between a treated area
and water bodies
Rationale far Worker Risk Mitigation:
For carrots, handler risks are not of concern at the 1 Ib. rate provided that fee wettable powder use is canceled.

For carrots, post-application risks are not of concern at toe 1 to. rate provided me WP formulations are canceled.

Rationale for Ecological Risk Mitigation:
Overall envnonmcntal loading and, therefore, exposure to non-target organisms will be reduced by reducing the
maximum seasonal rate by 33%. The vegetative buffer is designed to reduce the potential for endosulfan to
contaminate water through runoff from treated fields.  The 100 ft. spray buffer will also reduce the potential for
contamination through spray drift during ground applications.
Dry Beans
(1 Ibs/ai/A)

Dry Peas
 llbs/ai/A)
Mixing/Loading WP for aerial
application
Mixing/Loading WP for ground
application

High exposure activities for WP
(hand harvesting, pruning, thinning
etc.):
MOE = 65 at current REI of 24
hours
MOE =100 at 4 days

Risks to non-target aquatic
organisms for WP and EC
Cancel WP use

Reduce maximum seasonal application rate from 3 IbsVai/A to 2
IbsVai/A

Reduce maximum number of applications from 3 per season to 2
per season

100 ft. spray buffer for ground applications between a treated
area and water bodies

30 ft. maintained vegetative buffer strip between a treated area
and water bodies
                                                      85

-------
Rationale for Worker Risk Mitigation:
For dry beans and dry peas, handler risks are not of concern at the 1 Ib. rate provided that the wettable powder use
is canceled.

For dry beans and dry peas, post-application risks are not of concern at the 1 Ib. rate provided the WP formulations
are canceled.

Rationale far Ecological Risk Mitigation:
Overall environmental loading and, therefore, exposure to non-target oiganisms will be reduced by reducing the
 laxunum seasonal rate by 33% and (he maximum number of applications to two. The vegetative buffer is designed
to reduce me potential fOTendculfan to cmtaminate watering                          The 100 ft. spray
buffer will alao reduce the potential for contammationmnMghipraydrffi curing ground appUcatois.
Tobacco
(1 Ib/ai/A)
Mixing/Loading WP for aerial
application
Mixing/Loading WP for ground
application

High exposure activities for WP
(hand harvesting, pruning, thinning
etc.):
MOE = 54 at current REI of 24
hours
MOE -100 at 4 days

Medium exposure activities for WP
[scouting and ntigirinig):
MOE = 83 at current REI of 24
tours
MOE = 100 at 2 days

Risks to non-target aquatic
organisms for WP and EC
Cancel WP use

Reduce maximum seasonal application rate from 3 IbsVai/A to 2
IbsJai/A

Reduce maximum number of applications from 6 per season to 2
per season

Restrict use on tobacco to the following states: IN, KY, OH, PA,
TNandWV.

100 ft. spray buffer for ground applications between a treated
area and water bodies

30 ft. maintained vegetative buffer strip between a treated area
and water bodies
Rationale for Worker Risk Mitigation:
For tobacco, handler risks are not of concern at the 1 Ib. rate provided that (he wettable powder use is canceled

For tobacco, post-application risks are not of concern at the 1 Ib. rate provided the WP formulations are canceled.

Rationale for Ecological Risk Mitigation:
Overall environmental loading and, therefore, exposure to non-target organisms will be reduced by reducing the
maximum seasonal rate by 33% and the maximum number of applications to two. The vegetative buffer is designed
to reduce the potential for endosul&n to contaminate water through runoff from treated fields. The 100 ft. spray
juffer will also reduce the potential for contamination through spray drift during ground applications.

By restricting the use on tobacco to IN, KY, OH, PA, TN and WV exposures to aquatic organisms are expected to
>e reduced.  These restrictions remove use in areas of the country where water resources are more abundant and
xttentially vulnerable.	
                                                     86

-------
 Pineapple
 (21bs/ai/A)
     Crop*
         RtriuofConctra     ..
Mixing/Loading WP for aerial
application
Mixing/Loading WP for ground
application

ffigh exposure activities for WP
(hand harvesting, pruning, thinning
etc.):
MOE - 81 at current REI of 24
hours
MOE -100 at 3 days

Risks to non-target aquatic
organisms for WP and EC	
                          Mitigation
Cancel WP use

100 ft. spray buffer for ground applications between a treated
area and water bodies

30 & maintained vegetative buffer strip between a treated area
and water bodies
 Ratkmak for Worker Risk Mitigation:
 For pineapple, handler risks are not of concern at the 2 Ib. rate provided that the wettable powder use is canceled.

 For pineapple, post-application risks are not of concern at the 2 Ib. rate provided the WP formulations are canceled.

 Rationale for Ecological Rkk Mitigation:
 rhe vegetative buffer is designed to reduce the potential for endosulfian to contaminate water through runoff from
 treated fields. The 100 ft. spray buffer will also reduce the potential for contamination through spray drift during
 ground applications.
 Ornamental
 Trees/Shrubs
 (3 Ibs/ai/A)
High exposure activities for WP
(hand harvesting, pruning, thinning
etc.):
MOE = 68 at current REI of 24
lours
MOE - 100 at 5 days

Risks to non-target aquatic
organisms for WP and EC
Require, all wettable powdra to be packaged in water soluble
bags

Reduce maximum application rate to 2.5 Ibs/ai/A

4-day REI (high exposure hand harvesting, pruning, thinning
etc.: MOE > 100)

100 ft. spray buffer for ground applications between a treated
area and water bodies

30 ft. maintained vegetative buffer strip between a treated area
and water bodies
 Rationale for Worker Risk Mitigation:
 'or ornamental trees and shrubs, post-application risks are not of concern at the 2.5 Ib. rate provided that the REI
 or the WP formulation is 4 days.

 Rationale for Ecological Risk Mitigation:
 Overall environmental loading and, therefore, exposure to non-target organisms will be reduced by reducing the.
 maximum single application rate by 17% The vegetative buffer is designed to reduce fee potential for endosuttan
 to contaminate water through runoff from treated fields. The 100 ft. spray buffer will also reduce the potential for
 contamination through spray drift during ground applications.
* Rates in parentheses are the rates used in the risk assessment Unless otherwise noted, these correspond to the maximum
application rate to be allowed on labels.
                                                      87

-------
              2.     Environmental Risk Mitigation

       The Agency has ecological risk concerns regarding the acute and chronic risks to terrestrial
birds and mammals, freshwater fish, freshwater invertebrates, estuarine/marine fish and estuarine/marine
invertebrates. The ecological risk assessments exhibit RQ values which exceed the various target levels
of concern (LOCs). As outlined in Section ffl above, risks are much higher, as evidenced by higher
RQ values, for aquatic organisms, and especially for estuarine/marine organisms.

Birds and Mammals

       The Agency's assessment suggests the potential for the liquid formulation to cause acute and
chronic effects to birds and mammals for broadcast applications. The avian acute RQs range from 0.02
to 0.53. The avian chronic RQs range from 0.03 to 2.7. For the same use patterns, mammalian acute
RQs range from 0.06 to 40 while mammalian chronic RQs range from 03 to 5.4. The highest avian
and mammalian RQs result from twol.5 Ib ai/A ground or aerial applications to several crops. Most
use patterns are of concern to the Agency for acute and chronic effects to birds and mammals.

       Because of the toxichy of endosulfan, to help protect terrestrial birds and mammals, it is very
important to minimize their potential exposure. To minimize risk to birds and mammals, several
mitigation measures are needed as outlined in Table 20 above. These measures include reductions in
single maximum application rates, reductions in maximum seasonal application rates, reductions in
maximum numbers of applications allowed in a single growing season and the deletion of use on pecans,
succulent beans, succulent peas, grapes and spinach.

Aquatic Organisms

        At the current maximum application rates used on the major crops where endosulfan is
employed, coupled with a 300-ft spray drift buffer, acute high risk, restricted use and endangered
species levels of concern are exceeded for both freshwater and estuarine/marine organisms. Acute RQ
values ranged from 1.04 to 34.8 for freshwater fish and from 0.15 to 5 for freshwater invertebrates.
Estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates were roughly an order of magnitude more sensitive to the effects
of endosulfan, with acute RQ values ranging from 8.7 to 289 for fish and 1.9 to 642 for  invertebrates.
Chronic RQ values ranged from 1.5 to 64 for freshwater fish and from 3.6 to 1353 for freshwater
invertebrates. Chronic RQ values for estuarine/marine fish ranged from 16 to 704 and 1 to 39.5 for
estuarine/marine invertebrates. The highest aquatic RQs result from three 1.0 Ib ai/A applications to
tomatoes.  All use patterns are of concern to the Agency for acute and chronic effects to aquatic
organisms.

       Because of the toxichy of endosulfan, to help protect aquatic organisms, ft is very important to
minimize their potential exposure to endosulfan products that have been applied. To reduce risk to
aquatic organisms, several  mitigation measures are needed as outlined in Table 20 above. These

                                           88

-------
 measures include deletion of use on pecans, succulent beans, succulent peas, grapes and spinach,
 reductions in single maximum application rates, maximum seasonal application rates and maximum
 numbers of applications allowed in a single growing season.  They also include implementing a 100 foot
 setback from water bodies for ground applications and a 30 foot maintained vegetative buffer between
 treated fields and water bodies.

              3.     PnbBc Comment and Stakeholder Process to Address Aquatic Risks and
              Long Range Transport

        Given the toxitity and persistence of endosulfan and potential risks to aquatic organisms, the
 Agency has developed a number of mitigation measures to reduce the risks to aquatic organisms
 outlined in this document White the Agency believes that these measures will reduce me potential for
 exposures to aquatic organisms and reduce the overall environmental loading of endosulfan, it also
 believes that in specific geographical areas where conditions exist that rnake aquatic organisms
 especially vulnerable (e.g. shallow, leaky aquifers, highly credible lands, the presence of especially
 sensitive organisms and high use of endosulfan) additional measures may be identified. In order to more
 fully evaluate the risks in these vulnerable areas; the risk management strategies that may be in place or
 could potentially be implemented in such areas (e.g. use of retention ponds) to reduce exposure; and
 the benefits of the use of endosulfan in those areas, the Agency is planning to conduct a public comment
 and stakeholder process.

        During the public comment period, commencing with the publishing of a Federal Register
 Notice, comments and suggestions will be collected and reviewed concerning risks to aquatic
 organisms in vulnerable areas, risk management strategies for addressing those risks and the benefits of
 use of endosulfan in vulnerable areas. Further, a stakeholder meeting(s) will be held within 3 months for
 the issuance of this RED at a locations) to be determined. For this meetings) to be most efficient and
 successful, all interested parties and viewpoints will be welcomed and considered.

       Endosulfan is a semivolatile  and persistent cyclodiene pesticide that can migrate over a long
 distance through various environmental media such as air, water, and sediment Once endosulfan is
 applied to crops,  it can either persist in soil as a sorbed phase or be removed through several physical,
 chemical, and biological processes. Recent studies suggest that secondary emissions of residual
 endosulfan continue to recycle in the global system while they slowly migrated and are redeposhed via
 wet deposition in the Northern Hemisphere. The occurrence of endosulfan in remote regions like the
 Great Lakes, the Arctic, and mountainous areas is well documented. Endosulfan can also enter the air
 as adsorbed  phase onto suspended paniculate matter, but this process does not appear to be a major
 contributor long range transport like volatilization.

       The presence of endosulfan in the remote areas like the Arctic and the Great Lakes requires
further understanding of the transport mechanisms from the atmosphere. The potential impact of
atmospheric deposition of endosulfan into surface water and its potential effect on water quality and

                                             89

-------
aquatic organisms in the non-use areas is not well documented. Despite the progress made in recent
years in estimating the persistence and long-ranged transport of chemicals using models, a validated
global model has not been published because of uncertainties involved in the source inventories,
chemical fide data, degradative pathways and exposure analyses. Future work will be aimed at
developing a comprehensive screening tool mat can be used reliably in risk assessments for regulatory
purposes. Part of the stakeholder process will include an evaluation of to what extent data related to
long range transport may be necessary.

       E.     Other Labeling

       Other use and safety information needs to be placed on the labeling of all end-use products
containing endosulfan. For me specific labeling statements, refer to Section V of mis document
              1.     Endangered Species Statement

       The Agency has developed the Endangered Species Protection Program to identify pesticides
whose use may cause adverse impacts on endangered and threatened species, and to implement
mitigation measures that address these impacts. The Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies
to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize listed species or adversely modify designated
critical habitat To analyze the potential of registered pesticide uses to affect any particular species,
EPA puts basic toxicfty and exposure data developed for REDs into context for individual listed species
and their locations by evaluating important ecological parameters, pesticide use information, the
geographic relationship between specific pesticide uses and species locations, and biological
requirements and behavioral aspects of the particular species.  This analysis will take into consideration
any regulatory changes recommended in mis RED that are being implemented at mis time.

       The Agency will begin an endangered species effects determination process for all uses of
endosulfan mat remain registered following completion of the RED. Through mis effects determination
the Agency will develop use limitations and/or consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the
National Marine Fisheries Service where appropriate.

       The Endangered Species Protection Program as described in a Federal Register notice (54 FR
27984-28008, Jury 3,1989) is currently being implemented on an interim basis. As part of the interim
program, the Agency has developed County Specific Pamphlets mat articulate many of the specific
measures outlined in the Biological Opinions issued to date. The Pamphlets are available for voluntary
use by pesticide applicators on EPA's website at http://www.epa.tov/espp. A final Endangered
Species Protection Program, which may be altered from the interim program, will soon be proposed for
public comment in the Federal Register.
                                             90

-------
              2.     Spray Drift Management

       The Agency has been waking with the Spray Drift Task Force, EPA Regional Offices, State
Lead Agencies for pesticide regulation, and other patties to develop the best spray drift management
practices.  The Agency has completed its evaluation of the new database submitted by the Spray Drift
Task Force and is developing policy on how to appropriately apply the data and the AgDRFT
computer model to its risk assessments for pesticides applied by air, orchard airblast, or ground
hydraulic spray. After die policy is in place, the Agency may impose further refinements in spray drift
management practices to reduce off-target drift and risks associated with aerial application or other
application methods associated with drift, where appropriate.

       Based on these analyses, the Agency is in the process of developing more appropriate label
statements for spray, and dust drift control to ensure that public health, and the environment are
protected from unreasonable adverse effects. In August 2001, EPA published draft guidance for label
statements in a pesticide registration (PR) notice (''Draft PR Notice 2001-X" http://www.epa.gov/
PR_Notices/#2001). k Federal Register notice was published on August 22,2001
(http://www.epa.goy/fecbgstr) announcing the availability of mis draft guidance for a 90-day public
comment period.  After review of me comments, the Agency will publish final guidance in a PR notice
for registrants to use when labeling their products.

       In the interim, registrants may choose to use the proposed statements. Registrants should read
and refer to the draft PR notice to obtain a full understanding of the proposed guidance and its intended
applicability, exemptions  for certain products, and the Agency's willingness to consider other versions
of the statements.

       Registrants may elect to adopt the appropriate sections of the proposed language below, or a
version that is equally protective, for their end-use product labeling for the purpose of complying with
the deadlines for label submission outlined in this document The proposed label language is as follows:

       For products applied outdoors as  liquids:

       "Do hot allow spray to drift from  the application site and contact people, structures
       people occupy at any time and the associated property, parks and recreation areas, nontarget
       crops, aquatic and wetland areas,  woodlands, pastures, rangelands, or animals."

       'Tor ground boom applications, apply with nozzle height no more than 4 feet above the ground
       or crop canopy, and when wind speed is 10 mph or less at the application site as measured by
       an anemometer. Use	(registrant to fill in blank with spray quality, e.g. fine or medium)
       or coarser spray according to ASAE 572 definition for standard nozzles or VMD for spinning
       atomizer nozzles."
                                            91

-------
 "For aerial applications, the boom width must not exceed 75% of the wingspan or 90% of the
 rotary blade. Use upwind swath displacement, and apply only when wind speed is 3 -10 mph
 as measured by an anemometer.  Use	(registrant to fill in blank with spray quality, e.g.
 fine or medium) or coarser spray according to ASAE 572 definition for standard nozzles or
 VMDfor spinning atomizer nozzles.  If application includes a no-spray zone, do not release
 spray at a height greater than 10 feet above the ground or the crop canopy."

 For overhead chemigarif*E

 "Apply only when wind speed is 10 mph or less."

 On all product labels:

 "The applicator also must use all other measures necessary to control drift."
 'Tor ground rig applications, apply product no more than 4 feet above the ground
 or the crop canopy, and only when wind speed is  10 mph or less at the application
 site as measured by an anemometer."

 "For aerial applications, use upwind swam displacement, and apply only when wind speed is 3
 -10 mph as measured by an anemometer. If application includes a no-spray zone, do not
 release dust at a height greater man 10 feet above the ground or the crop canopy."

 Or

 "The applicator also must use all other measures necessary to control drift."

 For hand-applied products to be applied 93 sprays:

 "Do not allow spray or dust to drift from the application site, and contact people, structures
 people occupy at any time, and the associated property, parks and recreation areas, nontarget
 crops, aquatic and wetland areas, woodlands, pastures, rangelands, or animals.  Apply only
 when wind speed is not more than 10 mph. For sprays, apply largest size droplets possible."

 Alternatively, registrants may elect to use the following language, which is the current Agency
policy on drift labeling:

For products that are applied outdoors in liquid sprays (except mosquito adulticidesY.
regardless of application method, the following must be added to the labels:

"Do not allow this product to drift."
                                     92

-------
       Hie Agency recognizes mat the above option does not address omer application types.
Registrants may therefore wish to adapt some variation of the old, and proposed new language for their
particular products, depending on their application methods.
                                           93

-------
V.    What Registrants Need to Do

       Tbc Agency has determined that agricultural use of endosulfim, based on tiie currently
approved labeling, pose occupational and ecological risks that constitute unreasonable adverse effects
on the environment However, the Agency believes that these risks can likely be acceptably mitigated
through routine changes to pesticide labeling and formulations. Accordingly, the Agency has
determined that endosulfan is eligible for reregistration provided that (i) additional d^ that tteAgen^
intends to require confirm mis decision for occupational exposures associated with the application of
dip treatment to roots or whole plants and ecological risks; and fu^ the risk rnWgation measures outlined
in this document are adopted, and label amendments are made to reflect these measures. To implement
me risk mitigation measures, the registrants must arnend meir product labeling to incorrjctfate the label
statements set forth in the Label Summary Tabte in Section E below. The additional data requirements
that the Agency intends to obtain will include, among other things, subniisskm of me following:

       A.     Data Call-In Responses

       POT ept^osjulfen technical grade active ing|Bdient products, registrants need
to submit the following hems.

              Within 90 days from receipt of the generic data call-in (DCI):

              (1)    completed response forms to the generic DCI (Le., DCI response form and
              requirements status and registrant's response form); and

              (2)    submit any time extension and/or waiver requests with a full written
                    justification.

             Within die time limit specified in die generic DCI:

             (1)    cite any existing generic data which address data requirements or submit
                    new generic data responding to the DCI.

       Please contact Craig Doty at (703)308-0122 with questions regarding generic reregistration
and/ortheDCL All materials submitted in response to the generic DCI should be addressed:

By IJS majl:                                     By express or courier service:
Document Processing Desk (DCI/SRRD)            Document Processing Desk (DC1/SRRD)
Craig Doty                                     Craig Doty
US EPA (7508C)                               Office of Pesticide Programs (7508C)
1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW                     Room 266A, Crystal Mall 2
Washington, DC  20460                          1921 Jefferson Davis Highway
                                               Arlington, VA 22202

                                           94

-------
       B.     For pnxfaflrtfl 
-------
       B.     Manufacturing Use Products

              1.     Additional Generic Data Requirements

       The generic database supporting the reregistration of endosulfan forme above uses has been
reviewed and determined to be substantially complete with the exception of the following studies. The
following data requirements are necessary to confirm the reregistration eligibility decision documented in
this RED.

     s on epdpsun
1. OPPTS 8502100: Avian acute oral toxieity of bobwhite quail and mallard duck.
2. OPPTS 8502200: A viansubchronic oral toxieity of bobwhite quail and mallard duck.
3. OPPTS 8502300: Avian reproduction study of bobwhite quail and mallard duck
4. OPPTS 850.1075: Freshwater fish acute toxicity study of bluegill sunfish.
5. OPPTS 850.1500: Freshwater fish mil life cycle using rainbow trout
6. OPPTS 850.1075: EstuarineAnarine fish acute toxicity study.
7. OPPTS 850.1035: Estuarine/tnarine invertebrate acute toxicity study of mysid shrimp
8. OPPTS 850.1300: Early life stage fish
9. OPPTS 850.1350: Life cycle invertebrate

Other Studies

1.  OPPTS 850.1735: Whole sediment acute toxicity testing using a freshwater invertebrate.
2.  OPPTS 850.1740: Whole sediment acute toxicity testing using a estuarine/marine invertebrate.
3.  OPPTS 850.1735S: Whole sediment chronic toxicity testing using a freshwater invertebrate.
4.  OPPTS 850.1 740S: Whole sediment chronic toxicity testing using an estuarine/marine
invertebrate.
5.  164 -2 (Special Study): Vegetative buffer effectiveness study
6.  OPPTS 835.7100: Groundwater monitoring study
7.  OPPTS 835.7200:  Surface drinking water monitoring study
8.  OPPTS 870.6200: Subchronic Neurotoxichy - Rat
9.  OPPTS 870.6300: Developmental Neurotoxichy Toxicity Study - Rat
10. OPPTS 860.1380: Storage stability (oils seed, non-oily grain and processed commodities)
1 1 . OPPTS 860. 1900: Field rotational crop study
12. OPPTS 860.1500: Crop field trials for the foUowing nw agricuftuial commodities: barley hay, and
pearled barley; oat forage, hay, and rolled oats; rye forage; wheat forage, and hay.
13. OPPTS 860.1500: Crop field trials for tobacco and a pyrolysis.
14. OPPTS 860.1520: Magnitude of residue in processed food/feed commodities -barley and oats.

                                          96

-------
 IS. OPPTS 875.1100:  Dermal outdoor exposure for applying dip treatments to trees and roots or
 whole plants.
 16. OPPTS 875.1300: Inhalation Exposure-outdoor
 17. OPPTS 875.1700: Product use information far applying dp treatments to trees and roots or whole
 plants.
 18. OPPTS 830.7050: UV/Visibte Absorption

              2.     Labeling for Manufacturing Use Products

       To remain in compliance with FEFRA, manufacturing use product (MUP) labeling should be
 revised to comply with all current EPA regulations, PR Notices and applicable policies. The MP
 labeling should bear the labeling contained in Table 21 at the end of this section.

       C     End-Use Products

              1.     Additional Product-Specific Data Requirements

       Section 4{gX2XB) of FIFRA calls for the Agency to obtain any needed product-specific data
 regarding the pesticide after a determination of eligibility has been made.  Registrants must review
 previous data submissions to ensure that they meet current EPA acceptance criteria and if not, commit
 to conduct new studies.  If a registrant believes lhat previously submitted data meet current testing
 standards, then the study MRID numbers should be ched according to the instructions in the
 Requirement Status and Registrants Response Form provided for each product  A product-specific
 data call-in, outlining specific data requirements, accompanies this RED.

              2.     Labeling for End-Use Products

       Labeling changes are necessary to implement the mitigation measures outlined in Section IV
 above. Specific language to incorporate these changes is specified in the Table 21 at the end of this
 section.

              3.     Existing Stocks

       The Agency has determined that registrant may distribute and sell endosulfan products bearing
old labels/labeling for 9 months from the date of issuance of mis RED.  Persons other than the
registrant may distribute or sell such products for 18 months from the date of the issuance of this RED.
Registrants and persons other than the registrant remain obligated to meet pre-existing label
requirements and existing stocks requirements applicable to products they sell or distribute.
                                            97

-------
       D.     Labeling Changes Summary Table

       hi order to mitigate the risks identified in this document, amend all product labels to incorporate
the risk mitigation measures outlined in Section IV. The following table describes how language on the
labels should be amended.
                                           98

-------
Table 21.    Summary of Labeling Changes for Endosulfan
Description
Lafcefae
Pbccnwit OB Label
Manufacturing-Use Products
rormulation instructions
equired for all MUP labels.
One of these statements may be
idded to a label to allow
eformulation of the product for
i specific use or all additional
ises supported by a formulator
>r user group.
environmental Hazards
Statements Required by the
IED and Agency Label
'olicies
'Only for formulation into an baectfcUe for the following use(s)" [fill blank only wtrt those uses that are being
supported by MP registrant].
This product may be used to formulate products for specific use(s) not listed on the MP label if the formulator, user
;roup, or grower has complied with U.S. EPA submission requirements regarding support of such use(s)."
This product may be used to formulate products for any additional use(s) not listed on the MP label if the
ise(s)."
'Environmental Hazards"
'Do not discharge effluent containing this product into lakes, streams, ponds, estuaries, oceans, or other waters unless
n accordance with the requirements of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NDPES) permit and the
>ermiUing authority has been notified in writing prior to discharge. Do not discharge effluent containing this product
o sewer systems without previously notifying tiw local sewage treatment plant authority. For guidance contact your
Water Board or Regional Office of the EPA."
This product is extremely toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates and toxic to birds and mammals. Do not apply
lirectly to water, or to areas where surface water is present, or to intertidal areas below the mean high water mark.
Drift and runoff may be hazardous to aquatic organisms in water adjacent to treated areas. See Spray drift
nanngement instructions under "Directions for use. Do not contaminate water when disposing of equipment wh
waters or rinsate."
Directions for Use
Directions for Use
Precautionary Statements
Ewf-t&e Products InteruMfor Occupational Us*
                                                             99

-------
          Description
Handler PPE Guidelines (all
brmulations)
  	LabcBag	
Mote the following information when preparing labeling for all end use products:

"or sole-active-ingredient end-use products that contain Endosulfan, the product label must be revised to adopt the
landler personal protective equipment (PPEVengineering control requirements set forth in this section. Any
xmflicting PPE requirements on the current label must be removed.

'or maltiple-active-ingredient end-use products mat contain Endosulfan, the handler PPE/engmeering control
requirements set forth in this section must be compared with the requirements on the current label, and the more
irotective language must be retained. For guidance on which requirements are considered to be more protective, see
 R Notice 93-7.

PPE that will be established on the basis of Acute Toxicity testing on end-use products undergoing product
^registration must be compared with the active ingredient PPE specified below by the RED. The more protective
>PE must be placed in me product labeling.  For guidance on which PPE is considered more protective, see PR
Notice 93-7.
    Placement on Label
Handler PPE Statements
RUP Statement
Required for All Formulations
'RESTRICTED USE PESTICIDE"

'Due to acute toxicity to humans, aquatic organisms, and avian species."

'For retail sate to and use only by certified applicators or persons under their direct supervision, and only for those
ises covered by the certified applicator's certification."
                                                                                     100

-------
          Description
                                                      Labeling
PPE Established by the RED for
iquid formulations.
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)"

Some materials that are chemical-resistant to mis product are (registrant inserts correct chemical-resistant
nateriaJ).  "If you want more options, follow the instructions for category" [registrant inserts A,B,C,D,E,F.G,or H]
on an EPA chemical-resistance category selection chart"

All handlers except those using engineering controls must wean
 Respirator with
  - an organic-vapor removing cartridge with a prefilter approved for pesticides (MSHA/NIOSH           approval
lumber prefix TC-23C), or
  - a canister approved for pesticides (MSHA/NIOSH approval number prefix TC-14G), or
  - a NIOSH approved respirator with an (OV) cartridge or a canister with any N,R,P or HE filter.

N ADDITION:

rfixers and loaders supporting aerial applications who are not using engineering controls
see engineering requirements belowX handlers supporting or using high pressure handwand equipment and flaggers
mist wean

 Coveralls over long-sleeved shirt and long pants
 Chemical resistant footwear plus socks
 Chemical resistant gloves (except when flagging)
 Chemical resistant head gear when exposed overhead
 Chemical resistant apron when mixing and loading
                                 Vll other mixers, loaders applicators and handlers must wear:
 'recautionary Statements:
 mtncdtateiy
olkming/below Hazards
to Humans and Domestic
Animals
                                  Socks and shoes;
                                  Chemical resistant gloves except, for applicators using enclosed cabs or cockpits,
                                  Chemical resistant apron when mixing and loading, applying dips cleaning up spUls or cleaning/repairing
                                 squipment.
                                 > A respirator of me type specified above for all handlers except for those using engineering controls."
                                                                                       101

-------
          Description
                                                                                                                        Placement ra Label
PE Established by the RED for
Wettable Powder Formulation
wettable powder formulations
iced to be marketed in water
wluble packaging.)
                                Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)"

                                Some materials that are chemical-resistant to this product are" (registrant inserts comet chemical-resistant
                                naterial).  "If you want more options, follow the instructions for category [registrant inserts A,B,C,D,E,F,G,or H] on
                                in EPA chemical-resistance category selection chart"
'All handlers except for those using engineering controls must wear:
 Respirator with
  - an organic-vapor removing cartridge with a prefilter approved for pesticides (MSHA/NIOSH
lumber prefix TC-23C), or
  - a canister approved for pesticides (MSHA/NIOSH approval number prefix TC-14G), or
  - a NIOSH approved respirator with an (OV) cartridge or  a canister with any N,R,P or HE filter.

n addition:

"Handlers supporting or using high pressure handwand equipment and flaggers must wear:

 Coveralls over long-sleeved shirt and long pants
 Chemical resistant footwear phis socks
 Chemical resistant gloves (except when flagging)
 Chemical resistant bead gear when exposed overhead
 Chemical resistant apron when mixing and loading

\llomer mixers, loaders applicators and handlers must wear:

 Long-sleeved shirt and long pants;
' Socks and shoes;
 Chemical resistant gloves except, for applicators using enclosed cabs or cockpits,
 Chemical resistant apron when mixing and loading, applying dtps cleaning up spills or cleaning/repairing
squipment
 A respirator of the type specified above for all handlers except for those using engineering controls.
                                                                                                                                approval
Precautionary Statements:
Immediately
following/below Hazards
D Humans and Domestic
Animals
                                                                                      102

-------
Description
User Safety Requirements
Labeling
'Follow manufacturer's instructions for cleaning/maintaining PPE. If no such instructions for washables exist, use
letergent and hot water. Keep and wash PPE separately from other laundry."
'Discard clothing and other absorbent materials that have been drenched or heavily contaminated with this product's
soncentrate. Do not reuse them."
riatenieateB Label
^cautionary Statements:
Immediately following the
PPE requirements
103

-------
         Description
Lafcdtag
                                                                                                                                  M Libel
engineering Controls
or Liquid Formulations
'Engineering Controls"

'Mixers and loaders supporting aerial applications at the rate of more than 1.5 Ibs/ai per acre or supporting
ipplications to alfalfa, cotton, barley, rye oats and wheat and most use a closed system mat meets the requirements
isted in the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) for agricultural pesticides [40 CFR 170.240(4X4)] for dermal and
nhalation protection, and must:
         - wear long-sleeved shirt, long pants, shoes, socks, chemical resistant gloves and chemical apron,
          wear long-sleeved shirt, long pants, shoes, socks,, and
          be provided and have immediately available for use in an emergency, such as a broken package, spill, or
         equipment  breakdown coveralls, chemical resistant footwear and the type of respirator specified in the PPE."

'Applicators using airblast equipment on all crops except ornamental trees and shrubs must use an enclosed cab mat
neets the definition in the Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides [40 CFR 170.240(dX5)] for dermal
irotection.  In addition, such applicators must:
          wear the personal protective equipment required in the PPE section of this labeling,
          either wear the type of respirator specified in the PPE section of this labeling or use an enclosed cab mat
         is declared in writing by the manufacturer or by a government agency to provide at least as much respiratory
         protection as the type of respirator specified in the PPE section of this labeling,
          be provided and must have immediately available for use in an emergency when they must exit the cab in
         the treated  area: coveralls, chemical-resistant footwear, chemical-resistant headgear, if overhead exposure,
         and, if using an enclosed cab mat provides respiratory protection, a respirator of the type specified in the
         PPE section of mis labeling,
         - take off any PPE that was worn in the treated area before reentering the cab, and
         - store all such PPE in a chemical-resistant container, such as a plastic bag, to prevent contamination of the
         inside of the cab."

'Pilots must use an enclosed cockpit in a manner that meets the requirements listed in the Worker Protection
Standard (WPS) for agricultural pesticides [40 CFR 170.240(dX6)];"

'When handlers use closed systems and enclosed cabs, in a manner that meets the requirements listed in the Worker
totection Standard (WPS) for agricultural pesticides (40 CFR 170.240(dX4-6), the handler PPE requirements may be
educed or modified as specified in the WPS."
                                                               Precautionary Statements:
                                                               Immediately following the
                                                               User Safety Requirements
                                                                                     104

-------
          Description
Engineering Controls
for Wettable Powder
formulations
                                                     Labeling
Placement on Libel
                                'Engineering Controls"
Water-soluble packets when used correctly qualify as a closed mixing/loading system under the Worker Protection
Standard for Agricultural Pesticides [40 CFR 170.240(dX4)]. Mixers and loaders using water-soluble packets must:
- wear long-sleeved shirt, long pants, shoes, socks, chemical resistant gloves and chemical apron,, and
- be provided and must have immediately  available for use in an emergency, such as a broken package, spill, or
jquipment breakdown coveralls, and the type of respirator specified in the PPE"

'Applicators using airblast equipment on all crops except ornamental trees and shrubs must use an enclosed cab mat
iteets the definition in the Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides [40 CFR 170.240(dX5)] for dermal
protection. In addition, such applicators must:
          wear long-sleeved shirt, long pants, shoes, socks,
          either wear the type of respirator specified in the PPE section of mis labeling or use an enclosed cab mat
         is declared in writing by the manufacturer or by a government agency to provide at least as much respiratory
         protection as the type of respirator specified in the PPE section of mis labeling,
         - be provided and must have immediately available for use in an emergency when they must exit the cab in
         the treated area: coveralls, chemical-resistant footwear, chemical-resistant headgear, if overhead exposure,
         and, if using an enclosed cab that provides respiratory protection, a respirator of the type specified in the
         PPE section of this labeling,
          take off any PPE mat was worn in the treated area before reentering the cab, and
          store all such PPE in a chemical-resistant container, such as a plastic bag, to prevent contamination of the
         inside of (he cab."

'Pilots must use an enclosed cockpit in a manner that meets the requirements Usted in the Worker Protection
Standard (WPS) for agricultural pesticides  [40 CFR 170.240^X6)];"

"When handlers use enclosed cabs, in a manner that meets the requirements Usted in the Worker Protection Standard
WPS) for agricultural pesticides (40 CFR  170.240(dX4-6), the handler PPE requirements may be reduced or modified
is specified in the WPS."                                                                           	
                                                                                      105

-------
          Description
                                                     LbcHog
    Placement 
-------
          Description
Restricted Entry Intervals (REI)
for EC Formulations.
    	__	Labeling
I crops except for the crops listed below have an REI of 48 hours.
                                  i following crop Has JHI REI of 3 davs: sweet potato.
                                 ic following crops grown for seed have an REI of 3 davs: collard greens, kale, mustard greens, radish, rutabaga, and
                                  nip.
                                "he following crops NOT grown for seed have an REI of 4 davs: kohlrabi, broccoli and cabbage.
                                he following cmpfl a|yo haye, an REI of 4 davs: brussels sprouts and cauliflower.
                                he following crnns have an REI of 6 davs: blueberries.
                                  i following crops grown for seed have an REI of 7 davs: kohlrabi, broccoli and cabbage
                                  i following crops have an RF.I of 17 davs: sweet/fresh corn
Placement en Label
                                                                                                                Directions for Use next to
                                                                                                                the application instructions
                                                                                                                breach crop
                                                                                     107

-------
estricted Entry Intervals (REI)
or wettable powder
brmulations.
         Description
                                Ul crops except for the crops listed below have an REI of 48 hours.
                                he following crop* |ve mi ff,\ flf 3 days: encumbers, melons, pumpkins, and squash.
                                "he following crops have an REI of 4 davs: celery, lettuce, appk, apricot, cherry, nectarines, peach, pear, phun, and
                                rune, Christmas trees, ornamental trees and shrubs, and non-bearing citrus trees.

                                "he following crops NOT grown for seed have an REI of 4 davs: collard greens, kale, mustard greens, radish,
titabaga, and turnip.
 he following crops grown for seed have an REI of 5 davs: collard greens, kale, mustard gr
                                urnip.
                                 he following cmps have an RJfl of ? jflYBi brussels sprouts, cauliflower
                                                                                                                     dish, rutabaga, and
                                Fhe following crops NOT grown for seed have an REI of 9 davs: kohlrabL broccolL cabbage.
                                 Tie following crops fig sepj J1BYC HI REI fff 12 dflYSI kohlrabi, broccoli, cabbage.
                                                                                                                       PicentiteBL*bel
Directions for Use next to
he application instructions
For each crop
iarly Entry PPE
 PPE required for early entry to treated areas mat is permitted under the Worker Protection Standard and mat
nvolves contact with anything mat has been treated, such as plants, soil, or water, is:

 coveralls,
 chemical-resistant gloves made of any waterproof material,
 shoes plus socks,
 protective eyewear"                                              	
Directions for Use in the
Agricultural Use
Requirements Box.
Double Notification
'Notify workers of the application by warning them orally and by posting waming signs at entrances to treated area."
Directions for Use in the
Agricultural Use
Requirements Box.
                                                                                     108

-------
Description
Application Restrictions
Labeling
'Do not apply this product in a way that will contact workers or other persons, either directly or through drift. Only
notected handlen may be in the area during application."
Placement an Label
Place in the Directions for
Use
109

-------
          Description
                                                    Labeling
    Pbceme.to-L.bd
Other Risk Mitigation
                                ledneed Application Rates (maxinwm .i. per acre or per gallon per application)
                                rec bark application: 0.005 Ib/ai gatkm
                                        rial applications), alfalfa gipwn for-seed. rod kale: 0.75 Ib ai/acre
                                Iroccoli. kohlrabi cabbage and cauliflower not grown not for seed:  1.0 Ib ai/acre
                                itrawberries: 1.0 Ib ai/acre
                                -otton (ground applications) and blueberries: 1.5 Ib ai/acre
                                /iacadamia nuts: 2.0 Ibs ai/acre
                                'ome fruit stone fruit nonbearing chros. pecans and ornamental trees and shrubs: 2 J ai/acre
                                lednce Seasonal Application Rate (maximum amount a.L/acre that can be applied in a single season)
                                'elerv: Reduce to 1.0 Ibs ai/acre per season
                                iweet/fresh com, cotton (aerial applfentjffn) and blueberries: Reduce to 1.5 Ibs ai/acre per season
                                if elons cucumbers, souash. pumpkins lettuce, tomatoes, sweet potato cotton (Kround applications), broccoli.
                                 nliflnwer- cabbage, kohlrabi Brussels gprouta. strawberries, filberts, walnuts, almond^
                cattpts. dried beans, dried peas Btid tobaccoi Reduce to 2.0 Ibs ai/acre per season.
     fruit, stone fruiL nonbcai'iiig citrus and pecans: Reduce to 2.5 Ibs ai/acre per season.
                                lednce Nnmber of Applications/Season (max. # of applications that can be made in one season)
                                       ' filberts, macadamia nuts, walnuts- sweet com, barley, oats, wfaeijfl, fflyj rve: Reduce to 1 application per
                                ieason.
Imccnli hrmsels ^nrouts. cauliflower
                                                                          cotton, drv deans, drv neas kohlrabL lettuce, strawberrv sweet
                                iQtatoes. tobacco: Reduce to 2 applications per season.
                                (felons, cucumfor, squash and pymplnnn- Reduce to 4 applications per season except for CA where the maximum
                                lumber of applications per season is 3.
                                               i; Reduce to 4 applications per season.
Directions for Use under
application instructions
and/or restrictions
                                                                                    110

-------
          Dcocription
                                                                                                                      PUctment onL.be!
Other Risk Mitigation
'continued)
                                Site/Crop Deletions (remove the following rites or crops from the label)
                                111 fonnulations:
                                3rapes (all types)
                                Spinach
                                Succulent Beans
                                Succulent Peas
                                'ecans
Vettable Powders:
Mfalfa (grown for seed only) Pineapple
Blueberries                Strawberries
Carrots                   Small Grains (barley, oats, rye, and wheat)
Cotton                   Sweet Corn
)ry Beans                Sweet Potatoes
Dry Peas                  Tobacco
                         Tomato
Application Equipment/Method Deletions:
Revise applications instructions for the below crops to remove and prohibit aerial applications:
                                                        Directions for Use under
                                                        application instructions
                                                        and/or restrictions
                                Avertable powder formulations onlv:
                                Apricots
                                'caches
                                Nectarines
                                'him/Prune
                                Cherries
                                ^on-bearing Citrus
                        Radish (grown for seed only)
                        Turnip (grown for seed only)
                        Rutabaga (grown for seed only)
                        Broccoli (grown for seed only)
                        Cabbage (grown for seed only)
                        Kohlrabi (grown for seed only)
 Almonds
 MacadamiaNuts
 Filberts
Walnuts
Kale (grown for seed only)
Collard Greens (grown for seed only)
                                vlustard Greens (grown for seed only)
                                For all formulations, prohibit use of high pressure hand wand on all sites except to bark treatment or tobacco drench.
                                                                                     Ill

-------
          Description
Spray Drift Labeling
                                 Do not allow spray to drift from the application site and contact people, structures people occupy at any tune and
                                 lie associated property, parks and recreation areas, non-target crops, aquatic and wetland areas, woodlands, pastures,
                                          Of flDUlHUS*
'A 30 ft. vegetative buffer strip must be maintained between all areas treated with this product and rivers, natural
xmds, lakes, streams, reservoirs, marshes, estuaries and commercial fish ponds."

'For ground boom applications, do not apply within 100 feet of rivers, natural ponds, lakes, streams, reservoirs,
narshes, estuaries and commercial fish ponds. Apply with nozzle height no more than 4 feet above the ground or
xop canopy and when wind speed is 10 mph or less at the application site as measured by an anemometer.  Use
registrant to fill in blank with spray quality, e.g. fine or medium) or coarser spray according to ASAE 572 definition
for standard nozzles or VMD for spinning atomizer nozzles."

'For orchard/vineyard airblast applications, do not apply within 100 feet of rivers, natural ponds, lakes, streams,
reservoirs, marshes, estuaries and commercial fish ponds. Direct spray above trees/vines and turn off outward
jointing nozzles at row ends and outer rows.  Apply only when wind speed is 3 -10 mph at the application site as
measured by an anemometer outside of the orchard/vineyard on the upwind side."

'For aerial applications, do not apply within 300 feet of rivers, natural ponds, lakes, streams, reservoirs, marshes,
estuaries and commercial fish ponds. The boom width must not exceed 75% of the wingspan or 90S of the rotary
>lade. Use upwind swath displacement and apply only when wind speed is 3 - 10 mph as measured by an
incmometer. Use _ (registrant to fill in blank with spray quality, e.g. fine or medium) or coarser spray according
o ASAE 572 definition for standard nozzles or VMD for spinning atomizer nozzles. If application includes a no-
spray zone, do not release spray at a height greater than 10 feet above the ground or the crop canopy."


Tor overhead chemigation, do not apply within 100 feet of rivers, natural ponds, lakes, streams, reservoirs, marshes,
;stuaries and commercial fish ponds. Apply only when wind speed is 10 mph or less."

'The applicator also must use all other measures necessary to control drift."
Directions for Use under
General application
instructions and/or
restrictions
                                                                                       112

-------
VL   APPENDICES
       113

-------
114

-------
Appendix A.  Endosulfan Table of Use Patterns Reflecting Label Changes Based on Mitigation Measures
Site
Application Type
Application Timing
Application Equipment

fBPAMeg.No.11
Maximum Single
Application Rate
%t.Lt*..it  ii y '
Number ot
Applications Per
Season
Maximum
Seasonal Rate

Interval (Days)
TheniTectinnsflndl.iinilBtHm'l1

Alfalfa (grown for seed)
Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial
31b/galEC
[CA860035]
31b/galEC
[NV860005]
31b/galEC
[WA880012]
l.Olb/A
l.Olb/A
0.5 Ib/A
2
2
2
l.Olb/A
(NS)
NS
21
(NS)
21
Require closed mixing/loading systems for aerial
application. Reduce application rate to IWai/A. WP
formulation canceled Use limited to C A. Applications ma;
be made in a minimum of 1 0 gal/A by ground or 5 gal/A by
air. The feeding or grazing of treated foliage, crop residues,
or seed millings and the use of treated seed for livestock
food or feed are prohibited
Use limited to NV. Applications may be made in a
minimum of 10 gal/A by ground or 2 gal/A by air. The
feeding or grazing of treated foliage, crop residues, or seed
millings and the use of treated seed for livestock food or
feed are prohibited
Use limited to WA. Applications may be made in a
minimum of 25 gal/A by ground or 10 gal/A by air. The
feeding or grazing of treated foliage, crop residues, or seed
screening is prohibited
Almond
Delayed dormant or foliar
(during popcorn, pink, or petal
fall)
Ground or aerial
2Ib/galEC
[279-2659]
2.0 Ib/A
1
2.01b/A
NS
Require all wettable powder formulations to be packaged in
water soluble bags. Cancel aerial application using the WP
formulation. Require closed mixing/toadmg systems for
aerial application using the EC formulation. Require closed
cabs for airblast applications. Reduce application rate from
3Ibs7ai/A to 21bs7ai/A. Reduce maximum number of
applications per season from 2 to 1. Application may be
made in a minimum of 200 gal of water/A (dilute) or 40 gal
of water/A (concentrate). The grazing of livestock on
orchard crops or grasses in treated areas is prohibited* .
Treated hulls may be fed to livestock and dairy animals.
                                                           115

-------
Application Timing
Application Equipment
 Formulation
Apple
Delayed dormant and/or foliar
(during pink and/or petal fall)
Ground or aerial
Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial
50% WP
[279-1380]
[279-3129]
[45639-194]
[66222-2] '
21b/galEC
[279-2659]
[279-2822]
31b/galEC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]
50% WP
[45639-198]
31b/galEC
[45639-197]
3lb/galEC
[WA880012]
Application Rate
Number of
Season

0.5Ib/100galor
2.51b/A
0.51b/100galor
151b/A
0 Jib/100 gal or
2.51b/A
0.5 Ib/A
3
(2 per fruiting
period)
3
(2 per fruiting
period)
2
2

Seasonal Rate

2.5 Ib/A
2.5 Ib/A
2.5 Ib/A
2.5ib/A
Preharvest
Interval (Days)

21
30
30
21


Reduce maximum application rate to 2,5lbsJaVA. Require
all wtttoblc powder formulations to be packaged in water
soluble bags. Cancel aerial applications using WP
formulation. Reqiiire closed mixing/loading systems for
aerial applications using the EC fbrmulation. Require closed
cabs for airblast applications. A second application may be
apples to livestock, the feeding of cull fruits to animals, or
allowing livestock. u graze m ueuieu orcnaras is
prohibited.
Use limited to C A. Reduce maximum application rate to
2.5Ibs7ai/A. Require all wettabte powder formulations to be
packaged in water soluble bags. Cancel aerial applications
nwiftj* Yl/i> IVuVMMlM3kM llMi Uf AMMtn*En*L ! - -  *
using Wr loniHuauon. ror KC tonnulanon require closed
closed cabs for airblast applications. The feeding of pomace
owl ireuco apples to uvescocK, loe fWffiHg 01 cuu iniits to
wtfASi*S*mji *
{nOulOiaXl.*
Use limited to WA. Reduce maximum a^lk^ion rate to
P or EC formulation require cbsed mixing/kMiding systems
fnr Mirlfll unnlimtintH Pfvniitv rlnm*/l rah* fnr aWtilnvf
gal/A by ground or 10 gal/A by air. The feeding or grazing
or trcffied touage, crop restoiKS, or seed screening is
116

-------
sit*. /;
Application Type
Application Tinning
Applicatian Equipment

Foliar treatment
Aerial

Apricot





Bark treatment
Postharvest
Ground





 .
ForrnuiatkHi -
[EPA Reg. No.]'
"V ' '''

50% WP
[WA780033]


50% WP
[279-1380]
[279-3129]
tAtftn IA.JI
[45639-194]
2Ib/galEC
[279-2659]
[279-2822]

^ 1tk/Ml u/^
3 iD/galEC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]

 Maxannm Single ,.
;;,* . *%.

1.5 Ib/A






0.75 lb/100 gal
(Pacific Northwest)
2.5 lb/100 gal
(Southeastern states)
.



mjr.,*iiM*iaB*
Maxsnum
,'/v--teisai--:v

NS







2






Maximum
Seasonal Rate
(ai)


Z5Ib/A







2.5 Jb/A





^"V>;-.
Preharyest
-^.;;%i?!/>^

NS







21





."'.. ' ' ./*^;13!E '>:,; >
v,..,;. , UseDimatHraaiidLiinaations1 ' .-^,
: ' '~^*r-:?::"%^w,- .,- -l^-Jl ;'',-,:..," V ^
Use limited to WA. Reduce maximum appUcation rate to
2.51bs7ai/A. Require all wettable powder formulations to be
packaged in water soluble bags. Cancel aerial applications
using WP Applications may be made in a minimum of 3 gal
of water/A usmg aerial equipment




Reduce maximum application rate to 2.5lbsj'ai/A. Require
all wettable powder formulations to be packaged in water
soluble bags. Cancel aerial applications using WP
formulation. Require closed mixing/loading systems for
aerial applications using the EC formulation. Require closet
cabs for airblast applications.
The feeding of cull fruits to animals or allowing livestock to
graze in treated orchards is prohibited.*



117

-------
Site
Application Type
Application Timing
Application Equipment












Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial





Formulation
[EPA Reg. No.]'



50% WP

[66222-2]
1. J

50% WP
[279-3129]
[45639-194]
[45639-198]
[66222-22]
2Ib/galEC
[279-2659]

31b/galEC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]
[45639-197]
Maxiinuin Single
AppUcation Rate
(ai)

0.75 lb/100 gal
(West coast)



2.5 lb/100 gal
(Southeastern states)





0.5 lb/100 gal
2.5 Ib/A





Maximum
Number of
Applications Per
ffmmftnm.
oCaaCm



2








2





Maximum
Seasonal Rate
(at)




2.51b/A








2.5 Ib/A





Preharvest 
Interval (Days)




21








30





Use Directions and Limitations1











Reduce maximum application rate to 2.5Ibs7ai/A. Require
closed mixing/loading systems for aerial applications using
the EC formulation. Require closed cabs for airblast
applications. The feeding of cull fruits to animals or
allowing livestock to graze hi treated orchards is prohibited
* Use of the 50% WP (EPA Reg. No. 45639-198) and the 3
Ib/gal EC (EPA Reg. No. 45639-197) formulations is
limited to CA.



118

-------
Site
Application Type
Application Timing
Application Equipment
.. 7*!r . . " * * r * ^^^^^^

Formulation
[EPA Reg. No.]'
,


Maximum Single
Application Rate

I 1

, -...
Jfndbeftf
Applications Per
Season


Maximum
Seasonal Rate




D^h. ' "
FteWBVCW
Interval (Days)

!,   .  "\

"": ;?"'-, ^ '"':/ f -
, : ;. "' 'V ;SJ ' i ';-: ;"*> ^ ''; V:-
""",* ': .1. "^ > ' ,-
11 \ ? i ' ' n^a^i"x , - ,^<:^'' A" ' " '
Barley









Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial












50% WP
[279-1380]
[279-3129]
fjic^in m4i
[45639-194]
[66222-22]
2 Ib/gal EC
[279-2659
[279-2822]
3 Ib/gal EC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]
50% WP
fOTft 1OOA1
[279-1380]
[279-3129]
[66222-22]

3 Ib/gal EC
[279-2924]
f Jf^')f\ f (11
[45639-169]
[45639-197]






0.5 Ib/A










0.75 Ib/A











2










2











l.Olb/A










l.Olb/A











NS










NS







Require all wettable powder formulations to be packaged in
water soluble bags. Applications may be made in a
minimum of 10 gal of water/A using ground equipment
For control of army cutworm, aerial applications may be
made in a minimum of 2 gal of crop oil, diesel oil, or
water/A. Use limited to IL, IN, MI, and OH for control of
cereal leaf beetle, aerial applications may be made in a
minimum of 1 gal of water/A. The feeding of treated forage
to livestock and application after heads begin to form are
prohibited. *



Require all wettable powder formulations to be packaged in
water soluble bags.
Require closed mixing/loading systems for aerial
applications of the EC formulation. Require closed cabs for
airblast applications. Applications may be made in a
minimum of 10 gal/A by ground or 1 gal/A by air. The
feeding of treated forage to livestock and application after
heads begin to form are prohibited.* Use of the 3 Ib/gal EC
(EPA Reg. No. 45639-197) formulation is limited to CA.

Bean, succulent
119

-------
Site
Application Type
Application Timrag
Application E
-------
site
Application Type
Application Timing
Application Equipment





Postharvest treatment
Ground or aerial







1%iw4ll1.btf**Mrt
ronnuiatton
[EPA Reg. No.]'

50% WP
[279-3129]
[45639-194]
tfff\*\f\ ***>i
[66222-22]

21b/galEC
[279-2659]
[279-2822]


31b/galEC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]
' fc*^"<  '- ' OSlLaii^
nUEUHlUUl Single
Application Rate
/_i*\
(ai)






1.5 Ib/A






Maximum
Number of
Applications Per
Season






2







Seasonal Rate







1.5 Ib/A







PrcharYest
Interval (Days)
,o






NS






 ''' -&" ;'.,-
'* , ,  Use Directions and LirnitBlkMis * , /,
:x''-.-^-;' -4fci '-'-..


Reduce maximum seasonal application rate from 31bs7ai/A
to 1 .5 lbs7ai/A. Require all wettable powder formulations t<
be packaged in water soluble bags. Require closed
mixing/loading systems for aerial applications using the EC
formulation. Cancel aerial application using me WP
fonnulatioa Applications may be made after harvest in 3
Ibs./ai/300galofwaterwitha6-to8-week pretreatment
interval. Application after buds are well formed is
prohibited.*



Broccoli



Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial




50% WP
[45639-194]
[66222-22]



31b/galEC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]




l.Olb/A








2








2.01b/A








7





Require all wettable powders to be packaged in water
soluble bags. Reduce maximum seasonal application rate
from 31bs7ai/A to 2.0 IbsJai/A. Reduce maximum number
of applications from 4 per season to 2 per season.
Applications may be made in a minimum of 10 gal/A by
ground or 1-3 gal/A by air.


Broccoli, continued
121

-------
SUe
Application Type
Application Timing
Application Equipment





Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial




Formulation
(EPA Reg. No.]'
"C

50% WP

[279-3129]

50% WP
[45639-198]

31b/galEC
[45639-197]


Ik^ttfittftlifffi fSjftlflf
Application Rate
(al)



1.0 Ib/A




l.Olb/A

Maximum
Number of
Applications Per
Season



3




2


Maximum
Seasonal Rate
1



2.0 Ib/A




2.0 Ib/A

, . .
Preharvest
Interval (Days)




7




7


Use Directions and Limitations3 
.--.
Require all wettable powders to be packaged in water
soluble bags. Reduce maximum seasonal application rate
from 3Ibs7ai/A to 2.0 IbsVai/A. Reduce maximum number
of applications from 4 per season to 2 per season. For use
on broccoli, including Chinese broccoli. Applications may
be made in a minimum of 10 gal/A by ground or 1 gal/A by
air.
Use limited to CA. Require all wettable powders to be
packaged in water soluble bags. Number of applications pei
season remains at 2. Applications may be made hi a
minimum of 10 gal/A by ground or 1 gal/A by air.
Brussels sprouts





Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial





50% WP
[45639-194]
[66222-22]

21b/galEC

[279-2659]
[279-2735]
[279-2822]
3Ib/galEC
P79-2924]
[45639-169]





1.0 Ib/A











2











2.0 Ib/A











14









Require all wettable powders to be packaged in water
soluble bags. Reduce maximum application rate from
31bs7ai/A to 2.0 IbsVai/A. Reduce maximum number of
applications from 4 per season to 2 per season. Application
may be made in a minimum of 10-25 gal/A by ground or 1-
3 gal/A by air.



122

-------
Site
Application Type
Application Timing
Application Equipment








Formulation
[EPA Reg. No.]1




50% WP

[279-3129]


Maximum Single
Application Rate
fai)
W




1.0 Ib/A



Number of
Applications Per
is
 . season




2



lAujwli'tJ IMA
Seasonal Rate





2.0 Ib/A



Preharvcst %
Interval (Days)
',4 '




14



Use Diiectkmsimd Limitations1
4> ,',,. ..?,.,,;,. ...... o - . ',>'
Require all wettable powders to be packaged in water
soluble bags. Reduce maximum application rate from
31bs7ai/A to 2.0 Ibs7ai/A. Reduce maximum number of

applications per season from 4 per season to 2 per season.
Applications may be made in a minimum of 10 gal/A by
ground or 1 gal/A by air.
Brussels sprouts, continued

Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial


50% WP
[45639-198]
3lb/galEC
[45639-197]

l.Olb/A



2



2.0 Ib/A



14



Use limited to CA. Require all wettable powders to be
packaged in water soluble bags. Number of applications pet
season remains at 2. Applications may be made in a
minimum of 10 gal/ A by ground or 1 gal/A by air.

Cabbage




Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial





50% WP
[45639-194]
[66222-22]

21b/galEC
[279-2659]
[279-2735]
[279-2822]
31b/galEC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]




LOlb/A









4









2.01b/A









7








Require all wettable powders to be packaged in water
soluble bags. Reduce maximum application rate from
31bs7ai/A to 2.0 IbsJai/A. Reduce maximum number of
applications from 4 per season to 2 per season. Application
may be made in a minimum of 10-25 gal/A by ground or 1-
3 gal/A by air.



123

-------
Site
Application Type
Application Timing
Application Equipment

t*. 	 f_l* _LT
rOTmniauon
[EPA Reg. No.]'
50% WP
[279-3129]
50% WP
[45639-198]
31b/galEC
[45639-197]
31b/galEC
[279-3222]
Nlaxiinuni jjtfa^ic
Application Rate
W
l.Olb/A
l.Olb/A
0.75 Ib/A
Maximum
Number of
Applications Per
Season
3
2
3
Maximum
Seasonal Rate
W
2.0 Ib/A
2.0 Ib/A
2.0
Preharvest
Interval (Days)
7
7
14
Use Directions and Limitations3
-" '   -;   " ''""' .
For use on cabbage, including Chinese cabbage or Napa.
Applications may be made in a minimum of 10 gal/A by
ground or 1 gal/A by air.
Require all wettable powders to be packaged in water
soluble bags. Reduce mmcimiim seasonal application rate
from 31bs7ai/A to 2.0 lbs7ai/A. Reduce maximum number
of applications from 4 per season to 2 per season.
Applications may be made in a minimum of 10-25 gal/A by
ground or 1-3 gal/A by air.
Applications may be made in a minimum of 10 gal/A by
ground or 1 gal/A by air.
Cabbage (grown for seed)
Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial
31b/galEC
[WA760012]
50% WP
[WA780029]
31b/galEC
[OR770043]
[WA770016]
2.0 Ib/A
2.01b/A
2
2
NS
NS
NS
NS
Require all wettable powder formulations to be packaged in
water soluble bags. Require closed mixing/loading systems
for aerial applications using the EC formulation. Cancel
aerial application using the WP formulation. Use limited to
WA. Applications may be made in a minimum of 20 gal/A
by ground or 5 gal/A by air. The grazing of livestock in
treated areas and the use of treated crop or crop residue or
screening for food or feed are prohibited.*
Require all wettable powder formulations to be packaged in
water soluble bags. Require closed mixing/loading systems
for aerial applications using me EC formulation. Cancel
aerial application using the WP formulation. Use limited to
OR and WA on cabbage including Chinese cabbage.
Applications may be made in a minimum of 20 gal/ A by
ground or 5 gal/A by air. Use of treated crops or crop
residue or sweepings for food or feed and the grazing of
livestock on treated areas are prohibited.*
Carrot
124

-------
Site
Application Type
Application Timing
Application Equipment




Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial




Formulation
50% WP
[279-3129]
[45639-194]
[45639-198]
[66222-22]
2Ib/galEC
[279-2659]
[279-2735]
[279-2822]
31b/gaIEC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]
[45639-197]
Maximum Single
Application Rate




l.Olb/A




Number of
A j*Af ti**i*l$ja<'""^'~ *
Applications rer
Season




1




Maximum
Seasonal Rate




2.0 Ib/A




Preharvest
Interval (Days)




7




Use Directions nd Limitations :





Cancel WP use. Reduce maximum seasonal application talc
from 31bs7ai/A to 2 lbs7ai/A. Applications may be made hi
a minimum of 10-25 gal/A by ground or 1 gal/A by air.
Use of tops for food or feed is prohibited* Use of the 50%
WP (EPA Reg. No. 45639-198) and the 3 Ib/gal EC (EPA
Reg. No. 45639-197) formulations is limited to CA.




Carrot, continued
Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial
3Ib/galEC
[279-2149]
l.Olb/A
1
2.01WA
15
Applications may be made in a minimum of 10 gal/A by
ground or 1 gal/A by air. Use of tops for food or feed is
prohibited*
125

-------
Site
Application Type
Application Timing
Application Equipment
Formulation
[EPA Reg. No.]'
Application Rate
Maximum
Number of
Applications Per
Season 
Seasonal Rate
Il_^u.._
rrenarvesi
Interval (Days)
Use fKrerttaiK nnd I hnitHttanft *
""- ' ' > , - , - - , ' *
,','- - ">-.' ' - ', -/- ; ' - - - s- ,'
Cauliflower




Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial

50% WP
[45639-194]
[66222-22]
21b/galEC
[279-2659]
[279-2735]
[279-2822]
3Ib/galEC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]
50% WP
[279-3129]
31b/galEC
[279-2149]
50% WP
[45639-198]
31b/galEC
[45639-197]



1.0 Ib/A

l.Olb/A
0.75 Ib/A

l.Olb/A



4

3
2

2



2.0 Ib/A

2.01b/A
2.0 Ib/A

2.01b/A



14

14
14

14



See "Brussels sprouts".

See "Brussels sprouts".
See "Brussels sprouts".

See "Brussels sprouts".
Celery
126

-------
Site
Application Type
Application Timing
Application Equipment









Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial











Formulation
pPARg.No.]'

50% WP
[279-3129]
[45639-194]
[45639-198]
[66222-22]

3 Ib/gal EC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]
[45639-197]
50% WP
[279-3129]

[45639-194]
[45639-198]
[66222-22]

3 Ib/gal EC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]
[45639-197]

Maximum Single
Application Rate





1.0 Ib/A










l.Olb/A





___ .
Number of
Applications Per
Season




1










2






Maximum
Seasonal Rate
faili
\mf




l.Olb/A










1.0 Ib/A






Preharvcst
Interval (Days)





4










7






Use Directions and Limitations '



Require all wettable powders to be packaged in water
soluble bags. Reduce maximum seasonal application rate
from 31bs7ai/A to llbs./ai/A. Application may be made in a
minimum of 10 gal/A by ground or 1 gal/A by air. Use of
the 50% WP (EPA Reg. No. 45639-198) and the 3 Ib/gal
EC (EPA Reg. No. 45639-197) formulations is limited to
CA.





Require all wettable powders to be packaged in water
soluble bags. Reduce maximum seasonal application rate
from 31bs7ai/A to IftWai/A. Application may be made in a
minimum of 10 gal/A by ground or 1 gal/A by air. Use of
the 50% WP (EPA Reg. No. 45639-198) and the 3 Ib/gal
EC (EPA Reg. No. 45639-197) formulations is limited to
CA.



Cherry
127

-------
Site
Application Type
Application Timing
Application Equipment
Bark treatment
Ground
Bark treatment
Postharvest
Ground

Formulation
PM*1J-
50% WP
[279-3129]
31b/galEC
[279-2924]
50% WP
[45639-194]
[66222-22]
Maximum Single
AimlimfctWin State

0.75 lb/100 gal
0.75 lb/100 gal
Maximiim
Number of
Applications Per
Season
2
2
Mm


.0005
IbsVai/gal
2.5 Ib/A

Preharvest
Interval (Days)
21
21
..' .<"!' ' ' 
U% DinvftirmB anH I tmitnftntM 2

Reduce maximum application rate to 0.005 IbsJai/gal for
high pressure handwands ami rights-of-way sprayer. The
feeding of cull fruits to animals or allowing livestock to
graze hi treated orchards is prohibited*
Require all wettable powders to be packaged in water
soluble bags. Reduce maximum seasonal application rate
from 31bs7ai/A to 21bs./ai/A. Cancel aerial application using
WP formulation..
Cherry, continued

Bark treatment
Postharvest
Ground




Delayed dormant (popcorn or
prepink stage)
Ground or aerial





3 Ib/calET
7 iiMfycu L.AS
fJiff9f\ 1 f\1
[45639-169]

50% WP
[279-3129]
[45639-194]
[45639-198]
[66222-22]

3Ib/galEC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]
[45639-197]


0.75 lb/100 gal





0.5 lb/100 gal
2.5 Ib/A






2





2







2.5 Ib/A





2.5 Ib/A







21





21





Require closed mixing/loading systems for aerial application
suing the EC formulation. Require closed cabs for airblast
applications. The feeding of cull fruits to animals or
allowing livestock to graze in treated orchards is
prohibited.*

Use limited to Pacific Northwest Require all wettable
powders to be packaged hi water soluble bags. Reduce
maximum seasonal application rate from 31bs7ai/A to
21bs7ai/A. Cancel aerial application using WP formulation.
The feeding of cull fruits to animals or allowing livestock to
graze in treated orchards is prohibited.* Use of the 50%
WP (EPA Reg. No. 45639-198) and the 3 Ib/gal EC (EPA
Reg. No. 45639-197) formulations is limited to CA.


128

-------
Site
Application Type
Application Timing
Application Equipment




Delayed dormant
Ground or aerial






Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial


Formulation
(EM 9* If*.]'

50% WP

[279-3129]
[45639-194]

[66222-22]

31h/galEC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]
50% WP

[279-3129]
[45639-194]
[45639-198]
[66222-22]
Maximum Single
Application Rote
t*\
(at)





l.Olb/lOOgal






O.Slb/lOOgal


Maximum
Number of
Applications Per
Season





2






2


Maximum
Seasonal Rate
fafi "" "
Wl





3.0 Ib/A






3.0 Ib/A


Prcharvcst
Interval (Days)






21






21


Use Directions and Limitations *

Use limited to ML Require all wettable powders to be
nartaop^i in u/at^> cnhtMr IUMK RM|IW tnmrimtim owwml
|nHingcu m wam jKHiwre in^gs. mmtnv uiaAiuiuiu scnamuti
application rate from 31bsJai/A to 21bs7ai/A. Cancel aerial
application using WP formulation.

Require closed mixing/loading systems for aerial application
suing the EC formulation. Require closed cabs for airblast
applications. The feeding of cull fruits to animals or
allowing livestock to graze in treated orchards is
prohibited.*

Require all wettable powders to be packaged in water
soluble bags. Reduce maximum seasonal application rate
from 3lbs7ai/A to 2lbs./ai/A. Cancel aerial application using
WP formulation..

Cherry (continued)


Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial



31b/galEC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]
[45639-197]



2.5 Ib/A




2




3.0 Ib/A




21


Require closed mixing/loading systems for aerial application
suing the EC formulation. Require closed cabs for airblast
applications The feeding of cull fruits to animals or allowing
livestock to graze in treated orchards is prohibited. * Use oi
the 50% WP (EPA Reg. No. 45639-198) and the 3 Ib/gal
EC (EPA Reg. No. 45639-197) formulations is limited to
CA.
129

-------
Site
Application Type
Application Timing
Jt m^jtiy jll j S JUM ^?JM'ilt !! 'ill
s\ppucanon equipment





Nursery stock dip





[EPA Reg. No.]'
50% WP
[279-3129]
[45639-194]
[45639-198]
[66222-22]
2Ib/galEC
[279-2659]
[279-2822]
3Ib/galEC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]
[45639-197]
Maximum Single
Application Rate
, (4





21b/40gal




Number of
Applications Per
Season





NS




Maximum
Seasonal Rate





NS




Prebarvest
Interval (Days)





Not applicable
(NA)




Use Directions and Lirnftaikkis1  ,-' 




Immerse trees so mat the roots and crowns are covered well
above the grafting bud scar, plant immediately or dry before
returning to storage. Use of the 50% WP (EPA Reg. No.
45639-198) and the 3 Ib/gal EC (EPA Reg. No. 45639-197)
formulations is limited to CA.




Citrus (nonbearing trees and nursery stock)

Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial

50% WP
[279-3129]
[45639-194]
[45639-198]
[66222-22]
21b/galEC
[279-2659]
[279-2822]

0.25 lb/100
2.5 Ib/A


2


2.5 Ib/A


NS


Require all wettable powders to be packaged in water
soluble bags. Reduce maximum seasonal application rate
from 31bs7ai/A to 21bs./ai/A. Cancel aerial application using
WP formulatioa Require closed mixing/loading systems for
aerial application suing the EC formulation. Application to
bearing trees or trees that will bear fruit within 12 months is
prohibited. Use of the 50% WP (EPA Reg. No. 45639-
198) formulation is limited to CA.

Citrus (nonbearing trees and nursery stock), continued
130

-------
Site
Application Type
Application Timing
Application Equipment
Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial
Formulation

31b/galEC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]
[45639-197]
Maximum Single
Application Rate

0.5 lb/100
2.5 Ib/A
Maximum
Number of
Applications Per
Season-".
2
Seasonal Rite

2.5 Ib/A
. Preharvest
Interval (Days)

NS
Use Directions and Limitations1

Application to bearing trees or trees that will bear fruit
within 12 months is prohibited. Use of the 3 Ib/gal EC
(EPA Reg. No. 45639-197) formulation is limited to CA.
Collards




Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial





50% WP
[279-3129]
[45639-194]
[66222-22]
21b/galEC
[279-2659]
[279-2735]
[279-2822]
31b/galEC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]
50% WP
[45639-198]
31b/gaJEC
[45639-197]




1.0 Ib/A




0.75 Ib/A





1




1





1.0 Ib/A




0.75 Ib/A





21




21





Require all wettable powders to be packaged in water
soluble bags. Application may be made in a minimum of 10-
25 gal/A by ground or 1 gal/A by air.




Use limited to CA. Require all wettable powders to be
packaged in water soluble bags. Application may be made in
a minimum of 1 0 gal/A by ground or 1 gal/A by air.

Collards (grown for seed)
131

-------
Site
Application Type
Application Timing
Application Equipment
Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial
Formulation
[EPA Reg. No,]'
50% WP
[WA780029]
31b/galEC
[OR770043]
[WA770016]
Maximum Single
Application Rate
W
2.01b/A
Maximum
Number of
Applications Per
Season
2
Maximum
Seasonal Rate

NS
Preharvest
Interval (Days)
* ' " "' ^"('
NS
USB Directions and Limitations * , .
Require all wettabk powders to be packaged in water
aerial applications using the EC formulation. Cancel aerial
application using the WP formulation.
Corn, sweet




Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial




50% WP

[279-3129]
[45639-194]
[66222-22]
31b/galEC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]
[45639-197]




1.51b/A








1








1.5lb/A








1




Cancel WP use. Reduce maximum seasonal application rate
from 31bs7ai/A to 1.5lbs7ai/A. Require closed
mixing/loading systems for aerial application using the EC
formulation. Use limited to fresh vegetable; application to
sweet corn to be processed is prohibited.* Applications
may be made in a minimum of 1 0 gal/A by ground or 1 -5
gal/A by air with a 5-day pretr eatment interval Thefeedinj
of treated forage or ensilage to livestock or the grazing of
livestock in treated fields is prohibited* Use of the 3 Ib/gal
EC (EPA Reg. No. 45639-197) is limited to CA.
Cotton
132

-------
Site
Application Type
Application Timing
Application Equipment








Foliar treatment (until bolls
open)
Ground or aerial







Formulation
fl3AReg.No.]'

50% WP

[279-3129]
[45639-194]

[66222-22]
21b/galEC
[279-2659]
[279-2822]
3lb/galEC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]
[45639-197]

31b/galEC
[279-2149]
[279-3222

Maximum Singk
Application Rate
fm\
IBlJ






151b/A








1.5 Ib/A


Maximsni
Number of
Applications Per
Season






2








2


Maximum
Seasonal Rate
fai)





1.5 Ib/A
(aerial)


2.01b/A
(ground)



1.5.0 Ib/A
(aerial)

2.0 lb/ A
(ground)
Preharvest
Interval (Days)







NS








NS


Use Directions and Limitations1

Cancel WP use. Reduce rate for ground application to 1.5
lbs./ai/A. Reduce rate for aerial application to 0.75 IbsVai/A
Require closed mixing/loading systems for aerial application

application rate from 31bs7ai/A to 21bs7ai/A (ground) and
reduce maximum seasonal application rate from 3 lbs./ai/A tc
1 .5 lbs7ai/A (aerial). Reduce maximum number of
applications per season from 6 to 2. Restrict use on cotton
the following states: AZ, CA, NM, OK, and TX.
Applications may be made hi a minimum of 10 gal/A by
ground or 1 gal/A by air. The grazing of dairy or meat
animals in treated fields and application after bolls open are
prohibited.* Use of the 3 Ib/gal EC (EPA Reg. No. 45639-
197) is limited to CA.

Applications may be made m a minimum of 10 gal/A by
ground or 1 gal/A by air. The grazing of dairy or meat
animals hi treated fields and application after bolls open are
prohibited.*

Cotton (continued)

Foliar treatment (after bolls
open)
Ground or aerial


21b/galEC
[AZ930014]
[AZ930016]


0.75 Ib/A


NS

1.5.0 Ib/A
(aerial)
2.01b/A
(ground)

14


Use limited to AZ. Applications may be made in a
minimum of 10 gal/A using ground or aerial equipment

Cucumber
133

-------
sib
Application Type
Application Timing
Application Equipment



Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial


Formulation
JEPAR*t.N0.]>
50% WP
[279-3129]
[45639-194]
[66222-22]
21b/galEC
[279-2659]
31b/galEC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]
50% WP
[45639-198]
31b/galEC
[45639-197]
Maximum Single
Application Rate
' " W



1.0 Ib/A



l.Olb/A
KiaxJfnUilA
Number of
Applications Per
Season



4



3
.  jjl*.^. 'f -iflm '
Maxnnuro
Seasonal Rate
fall



2.0 Ib/A



2.01WA
Preharvest
Interval (Days)



2



2
1 Use DirectJons and Limitations1




Require all wettable powders be packaged in water soluble
bags. Reduce maximum number of applications per season
from 6 to 4. Reduce maximum seasonal application rate
from 31bs./ai/A to 2 IbsVai/A. Applications may be made in
a minimum of 10 gal/A by ground or 1 gal/A by air.



Use limited to CA. Require all wettable powders be
packaged in water soluble bags. Reduce maximum seasonal
application rate from 31bs./ai/A to 2 Ibs./ai/A. Maintain
maximum number of applications per season at 3.
Applications may be made in a minimum of 10 gal/A by
ground or 1 gal/A by air.
Eggplant
134

-------
Site
Application Type
Application Timing
Application Equipment




Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial





Eggplant, continued


Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial



Formulation '
PtA8*g,!!J

50% WP
[279-3129]
[45639-194]
[66222-22]
|WV**<. 4.A.J

21b/galEC
[279-2659]
31b/galEC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]

31b/galEC
VACf}(\ t A*T1
[45639-197]
50% WP

[45639-198]
l-I ' i--lmal8I feflLJlfjl- '
Maximum angle
Application Rate
~  fai)
 ^v




1.0 Ib/A








0.5 Ib/A


0.5 Ib/A

 Maximum
Number of
Applications Per
Season




2








2


1

-.,, :-,,, .
Seasonal Rate
(ai)





2.0 Ib/A








2.0lb/A


2.01b/A


Prenarvcst
Interval (Days)
.. * :'-*;'i




t
A







1


1


UseDirectkmsamlLiinitatioM1




Require all wettable powders be packaged in water soluble
bags. Reduce maximum seasonal application rate from
31bs7ai/A to 21bs./ai/A. Applications may be made in a
minimum of 10 gal/A by ground or 1 gal/A by air.





Use limited to CA. Require all wettable powders be
packaged in water soluble bags. Applications may be made
in a minimum of 10 gal/A by ground or 1 gal/A by air.
Use limited to C A. Require all wettable powders be
packaged in water soluble bags Applications may be made
in a minimum of 10 gal/A by ground or 1 gal/A by air.
Filbert




Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial





f/\l}/ nrn
50% WP
[279-1380]
[279-3129]
[45639-194]
[45639-198]
[66222-22]





0.5 lb/100 gal


2.0 Ib/A







i
1








201H/A
^U llMf\








i
1




Require all wettable powders to be packaged in water
soluble bags. Cancel aerial application using the WP
formulation. Require closed mixing/loading systems for
aerial application using the EC formulation. Require closed
cabs for airblast application. Reduce maximum seasonal
application rate from 2 per season to 1. Reduce maximum
seasonal application rate from 31bs7ai/A to 2 IbsVai/A. The
grazing of livestock on orchard crops or grasses in treated
areas is prohibited. * Use of the 50% WP (EPA Reg. No.
45639-198) formulation is limited to CA.
135

-------
Site
Application Type
Application Timing
Application Equipment

Formulation
[EPA Reg. No.]'
50% WP
[OR780020]

Annticattnn Rate
"0i&'
0.51b/100gal
(300 gal/A; dilute)
1.5 Ib/A
(25 gal/ A; concentrate)
P^BXilTlflffl
Number of
A^^i:_.un_. n-.
Applications rcr
Season
NS
Maximum
Seasonal Rale
m ':''
NS
Prenarvest
JIBMffiiffV^B |iMHjjjji
NS
IheDtreciiniUiahdl itnitarinrM*  

Use limited to OR. Application may be made in a minimum
of 300 gal of water/A (dilute) or in 25 gal of water/ A
(concentrate). The grazing of livestock in treated groves is
prohibited.* No PHI has been established.
Grape



Foliar treatment
Ground (preferred)




Foliar treatment
Ground
50% WP
[279-3129]
[45639-194]
[45639-198]
[66222-22]
31b/galEC
P79-2924]
[45639-169]
[45639-197]
3lb/galEC
[CA760115]



Not Applicable




Not Applicable



Not Applicable




Not Applicable



Not Applicable




Not Applicable



Not Applicable




Not Applicable



Endosulfan use on grapes canceled




Endosulfan use on grapes canceled
136

-------
Site -
Application Type
Application Timing
Formulation
~j
Number of
Applications Per
Season
Seasonal Rate
"N S ^
JS^
Kale
Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial
50% WP
[279-3129]
[45639-194]
[45639-198]
[66222-22]
2Ib/galEC
0.75 Ib/A
1
0.75 ft/A
21
Use Direction* aitd Limitations1 ''"'.'


Reduce maximum application rate to 0.75 lbs7ai/A. Require
all wettable powder formulations to be packaged in water
sohibtebags. Applications may be made in a minimum of 1C
gal/A by ground or 1 gal/A by air. Use of the 50% WP
(EPA Reg. No. 45639-198) and the 3 Ib/gal EC (EPA Reg.
No. 45639-197) formulations is limited to CA.
Kale (grown for iced)
Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial
50%WP
[WA780029]
3Ib/galEC
[OR770043]
[WA770016]
2.0 Ib/A
2
NS
NS
Require all wettable powder formulations to be packaged hi
water soluble bags. Require closed mixing/loading systems
for aerial application using EC formulatioa Cancel aerial
application using the WP formulation.
Kohlrabi (grown for seed)
Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial
50% WP
[WA780029]
31b/galEC
[OR770043]
[WA770016]
2.0 Ib/A
2
NS
NS
Require all wettabte powder formulations to be packaged in
w&ttt &jlitbte bags. Require closed mixing/loading systems
for aerial nrmlimtinn minor RP fimmntatian. Cancel aerial
application using the WP formulation.
Lettuce, bead
137

-------
Sift
Application Type
Application Timing
Application Equipment




Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial





Lettuce, leaf




Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial







[EPA Reg. No.]'

50% WP
[279-3129]

[45639-194]
[45639-198]
[66222-22]
3 Ib/gal EC

[279-2924]
[45639-169]
[45639-197]
' ' fr *,..,-, C&tMtM
Maximum Single
Application Rate
ftrfv
W





l.OIb/A






50% WP
[279-3129]

[45639-194]
[45639-198]
[66222-22]

3 Ib/gal EC

[279-2924]
[45639-169]
[45639-197]





l.Olb/A






Maxknum
Number of
Applications Per
Season




2












2






4 tmtitt^i. Mtmm
Maximum
Seasonal Rate
M)
v**/





2.0 to/A






Preharvest
Interval (Days)






14











2.01WA











14







Use Directions and Limitations'



Require all wettabte powder formulations to be packaged in
water soluble b&cs. Reduce maximum seasonal application
rate from 3fiWai/A to 2 IbsVai/A. Reduce number of
applications per season from 3 to 2. Applications may be
made in a minimum of 10 gal/A by ground or 1 gal/A by air.
The feeding of crop refuse to livestock is prohibited. *
Remove wrapper leaves at harvest* Use of the 50% WP
(EPA Reg. No. 45639-198) and the 3 Ib/gal EC (EPA Reg.
No. 45639-197) formulations is limited to CA.




Require all wettabte powder formulations to be packaged in
water soluble bags. Reduce maximum seasonal application
rate from 31bs7ai/A to 2 IbsVai/A. Number of applications
per season will remain at 2 in CA. Applications may be
made in a minimum of 10 gal/A by ground or 1 gal/A by air.
The feeding of crop refuse to livestock is prohibited. Use o
the 50% WP (EPA Reg. No. 45639-198) and the 3 Ib/gal
EC (EPA Reg. No. 45639-197) formulations is limited to
CA.


138

-------
Site
Application Type
Application Timing
Application Equipment

Macadamia nut
Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial
Foliar treatment
Ground

Formulation
[EPA Reg. No.]'


21b/galEC
[279-2659}
[279-2822]
50% WP
[HI880008]
frjJVmlii-iikJnrt -*&******.
IVIiUill'ttHIl ?H|lXf Wft
w


l.Olh/lOOgal
l.Olb/lOOgal
Maximum
Number of
Applications Per
Season


2
2

Seasonal Rate
 'fco


2.0 Ib/A
2.0 Ib/A
 *'
Preharvest
Interval (Days)


1
2

U Directions aiidLrmrtations1 ' 


Require all wettable powders to be packaged in water
soluble bags. Cancel aerial application using the WP
formulation. Require closed mixing/loading systems for
aerial application using the EC formulation. Require closed
cabs for airblast application. Reduce maximum seasonal
application rate from 2 per season to 1. Reduce maximum
seasonal application rate from 3lbs./ai/A to 2 IbsJai/A. The
grazing of livestock on orchard crops or grasses in treated
areas is prohibited.
Use limited to HI. The grazing of livestock on orchard
crops or grasses in treated areas.* Application by aircraft is
prohibited.
139

-------
Site
Application Type
Application Timing
Application Equipment
PotmuiSukiit
[EPA Reg. No.]'
n&xmnnn SIti|pc
Application Rate
(aft
MMXBHUIll
Number of
Applications Per
Season
Maximum
Seasonal Rate
W
Preharvest
Interval (Days)
Use Directions and Limitations'*
Melons



Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial

50% WP
[279-3129]
[45639-194]
[66222-22]
2lb/galEC
[279-2659]
31b/galEC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]
50% WP
[45639-198]
31b/galEC
[45639-197]


l.Olb/A

l.Olb/A



4

3



2.0Ib/A

2.0 to/A



2

2



Require all wettable powders to be packaged in water
soluble bags. Reduce maximum seasonal application rate
from 31bs7ai/A to 2 IbsJai/A. Reduce maximum number of
applications per season from 6 to 4 (except in CA where tin
application per season will remain at 3.

Require all wettable powders to be packaged in water
soluble bags. Reduce maximum seasonal application rate
from 31bs7ai/A to 2 lbs./ai/A. Reduce maximum number of
applications per season from 6 to 4 (except in CA where th<
application per season will remain at 3.
Mustard greens

Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial
50% WP
[279-3129]
[45639-194]
[66222-22]

0.75 tb/A

1

0.75 Ib/A

21

Reduce maximum application rate to 0.75 Ibs7ai/ A Require
all wettable powder formulations to be packaged in water
soluble bags Application may be made in a minimum of 10
gal/A by ground or 1 gal/A by air.
140

-------
Site
Application Type
Application Timing
Application Equipment
Formulation
fEPAReg.No.]'
Maxiuiuu Single
ApplkationRate
(**>
MBxiisilim
Number of
Applications Per
Season
m m f in.?..*,. Hi.,
Maximum
Seasonal Rate
t0
t>Miij**iii .hilt
Prenarvest
Interval (Days)
$ /"''''-
T tmiMi T\iaii*'irU- -irt j>*jjj f iriitSiiktili^fci 4s '--

Mustard greens (continued)
Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial
50% WP
[45639-198]
31b/galEC
[45639-197]

50% WP
[WA780029]
31b/galEC
[OR770043]
0.75 Ib/A

0.75 Ib/A
1

1
0.75 Ib/A

0.75 Ih/A
21

NS
Reduce maximum application rate to 0.75 IbsJai/A Require
all wettable powder formulations to be packaged in water
soluble bags. Application may be made in a minimum of 10
gal/A by ground or 1 gal/A by air. Use of the 50% WP
(EPA Reg. No. 45639-198) and the 3 Ib/gal EC (EPA Reg.
No. 45639-197) formulations is limited to CA,

Reduce maximum application rate to 0.75 IbsVai/A. Require
all wettable powder formulations to be packaged in water
soluble bags.
141

-------
Site
Application Type
Application Timing
Application Equipment

Formulation
[EPA Reg. No.]'


Maximum Single
Application Rate
fan
\WJ
MffxiirtutTt
Number of
Applications Per
Season

Maximum
Seasonal Rate
(ai)


Preharvcst
Interval (Days)


Use Directiora and Limitations2

Nectarine





Bark treatment
Postharvest

Ground






50% WP
[279-3129]
[45639-194]

21b/galEC
[279-2659]
[279-2822]
3n/w.i 13/^
Itvgal EC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]

50% WP
[279-1380]




0.75 lb/100 gal
(Pacific Northwest)

2.5 lb/100 gal
(Southeastern states)





0.75 lb/100 gal
(West coast)






2







2






2.5 Ib/A







2.5 Ib/A






21







21




Reduce maximum application rate to 2.5Ibs7ai/A. Require
all wettable powder formulations to be packaged in water
soluble bags. Cancel aerial applications using WP
formulation. Require closed mixing/loading systems for
aerial applications using the EC formulation. Require closed
cabs for airblast applications.




Reduce maximum application rate to 2.51bs7ai/A. Require
all wettable powder formulations to be packaged in water
soluble bags. Cancel aerial applications using WP
formulation. Require closed mixing/loading systems for
aerial applications using the EC formulation. Require closed
cabs for airblast applications.
142

-------
Site
Application Type
Application Timing
Application Equipment
Formulation
PPARt,Ne.J'
Maximum Single
Application Rate
(*>
Maximum
Number of
Applications Per
Season
Maximum
Seasonal Rate
W
TCtsiififVGSt
Interval (Days)
U Directions and Limitations1
Nectarine (Continued)




Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial




50% WP
[279-3129]
[45639-194]
[45639-198]
[66222-22]
21b/galEC
[279-2659]
[279-2822]
31b/galEC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]
[45639-197]




O.Slb/lOOgal
2.5 Ih/A








2








2.5 Ib/A








30








Reduce maximum application rate to 2.51bs7ai/A. Require
all wettable powder formulations to be packaged in water
soluble bags. Cancel aerial applications using WP
formulation. Require closed mixing/loading systems far
aerial applications using the EC formulation. Require closet
cabs for airblast applications.




Oats


Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial


50% WP
[279-3129]
[45639-194]
[66222-22]
21h/galEC
[279-2659]
[279-2822]


0.5 Ib ai/A




1




l.Olb/A




NS




Cancel WP use. Require closed mixing/loading systems for
aerial application using EC formulation. Reduce maximum
number of applications from 2 per season to 1 .


143

-------
Site
Application Type
Application Timing
Application Equipment
Formulation
[EPA Reg. No.]1

Maximum Single
Application Rate
(ai)
Maximum
Number of
Applications Per
Season
^ * . . ..* .'.,.. ,
Maximum
Seasonal Rate
\
Preharvest
Interval (Days)
' *\%*
Use Directions and Limitations'
.
Oats (continued)


Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial



50% WP
[279-3129]
[66222-22]
31b/galEC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]
[45639-197]



0.75 Ib/A






1






l.Olb/A






NS



-

Cancel WP use. Require closed mixing/loading systems for
aerial application using EC fbrmulation. Reduce maximum
number of applications from 2 per season to 1 .



Peach



Bark treatment
Postharvest
Ground



50% WP
[279-3129]
[45639-194]
21b/galEC
[279-2659]
[279-2822]
3Ib/galEC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]


0.75 lb/100 gal
(Pacific Northwest)
2.5 lb/100 gal
(Southeastern states)






2






2.51b/A






21





Reduce maximum application rate to 2.51bs7ai/A. Require
all wettable powder formulations to be packaged in water
soluble bags. Cancel aerial applications using WP
formulation. Require closed mixing/loading systems for
aerial applications using the EC formulation. Require closed
cabs for airblast applications.



144

-------
Site
Application Type
Application Timing
Application Equipment

Formulation
[EPA Reg. No.]'
50% WP
[279-1380]
[66222-22]
^Jfiu-iuiin-LnmLL C&IUB.IA.
MwBQB^WH wtJtiBK
Application Rate
{)
0.75 lb/100 gal
(West coast)
2.5 lb/100 gal
(Southeastern states)
jMiro|Jflllwft ^
Number of
Applications Per
Season
2
Maximum
Seasonal Rate
W
2.5 Ib/A
inniii..ia.iiii.
rrenarvcsi
Interval rt)ays)
21
Use Directions and Limitations * '
' - ~ ' -^' "~>. ,;',
Reduce maximum application rate to 2.51bs./ai/A. Require
all wettable powder formulations to be packaged in water
soluble bags. Cancel aerial applications using WP
formulation. Require closed mixing/loading systems fin-
aerial applications using the EC formulation. Require closet
cabs for airblast applications.
Peach (continued)



Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial


*
50% WP
[279-3129]
[45639-194]
[45639-198]
[66222-22]
21b/galEC
[279-2659]
[279-2822]
Sib/gal EC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]
[45639-197]



0.5 lb/100 gal
2.5 Ib/A






2






2.51b/A






30






Reduce maximum application rate to 2.5lbs7ai/A. Require
all wettable powder formulations to be packaged in water
soluble bags. Cancel aerial applications using WP
formulation. Require closed mixing/loading systems fin-
aerial applications using the EC formulation. Require closet
cabs for airblast applications.



145

-------
Site
Application Type
Application Timing
Application Equipment






Nursery stock dip






Formulation
[EPA Reg. No.]1
50% WP
[27-3129]
[45639-194]
[45639-198]
[66222-22]

21b/galEC
[279-2659]
[279-2822]
31b/galEC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]
[45639-197]
Maximum Single
Application Rate






0.005 IbsJai/ gal






Maximum
Number of
Applications Per
Season






NS






Maximum
Seasonal Rate






NS






Preharvest
Interval (Days)






NA






UseDitectionsandLimitatioiw5  . '





Reduce maximum application rate to 0.005 Ibs lbs.ai/A from
0.4 Ibs/ai/gal for high pressure handwand and rights-of way
sprayers.





Pear
146

-------
Site
Application Type
Application Timing
Application Equipment





Delayed dormant and foliar
(during white bud or petal fall)
Ground or aerial










Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial







Formulation
[EPA Reg. No. J1


50% WP
[279-3129]
[45639-194]
[66222-22]
21b/galEC
[279-2659]
[279-2822]

3ib/galEC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]
50% WP
[279-3129]
[45639-194]
[45639-198]
[66222-22]

21b/galEC
[279-2659]

31b/galEC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]
[45639-197]

Maximum Single
Application Rate
/ttft
W





0.51b/100gal
2.5 Ib/A











2.5 Ib/A






..
Number of
Applications Per
Season





2











2







Maximum
Seasonal Rate
fat)
V*i





2.5 Ib/A











2.5 Ib/A







, Preharvest
nterval (Days)






7











7







Use Directions and Limitations1

-,-


Reduce maximum application rate to 2.51bs7ai/A. Require
all wettable powder formulations to be packaged in water
soluble bags. Cancel aerial applications using WP
formulation. Require closed mixing/loading systems for
aerial applications using the EC formulation. Require closet
cabs for airblast applications. The feeding of cull fruits to
animals or allowing livestock to graze in treated orchards is
prohibited.*




Reduce maximum application rate to 2.5Ibs7ai/A. Require
all wettable powder formulations to be packaged in water
soluble bags. Cancel aerial applications using WP
formulation. Require closed mixing/loading systems for
aerial applications using the EC formulation. Application
may be made in a minimum of 10-20 gal of water/A by air,
in 40 gal (semi-concentrate), or in 300 gal (dilute). The
feeding of cull fruits to animals or allowing livestock to
graze in treated orchards is prohibited. * Use of the 50%
WP (EPA Reg. No. 45639-198) and the 3 Ib/gal EC (EPA
Reg. No. 45639-197) formulations is limited to CA.


147

-------
Site
A t*t)f ii*ttttiiit Tirtwfe
/\p|JIi*UJnHi *j"|/v
Application Timing
Application Equipment


Pear (continued)





Soil treatment
Prebloom
Ground







- ... .
jrQHliliiRiiOl.1
IJSI^A JKiPg* vw*j
' '<
21b/galEC
[279-2822]


50% WP
[279-3129]
[45639-194]
[45639-198]
[66222-22]

21b/galEC
[279-2659]
[279-2822]

3Ib/galEC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]
[45639-197]

Maximum Single
Application Rate
* "JfJ*,**^"*** TJI1>.TT
.>. -;./^.,f
0.75 lb/100 gal
[300 gal of finished
spray/A]






0.5 lb/100 gal
[200-400 gal of
finished spray/A]






Maximum

NUiltllCI Of
Applications Per
->;* - '
2








2







Maximum
Seasonal Rate

' , ;.'"'""
2.51b/A








2.5 Ib/A







Pn.imitrr.et
fTMWfvtH ,
Interval (Days)
"". ''. "iS
7








7






-, ' ' -,  '":/:i'~ ']
 ~.,\<  .   : . ><>, , ' ''
:,,''' '  Use biicctkms and Limitations1 ^ 

!-\ ;:'i<^; ;..,, , / :"r;'-',/;Ssi.L' '. :
The feeding of cull fruits to annuals or allowing livestock to
graze in treated orchards is prohibited.*




Reduce maximum application rate to 2.5Ibs7ai/A. Require
all wettable powder formulations to be packaged in water
soluble bags. Cancel aerial applications using WP
formulation. Require closed mixing/loading systems for
aerial applications using the EC formulation. Applications
may be made to tin orchard floor. The feeding of cull fruits
to animals or allowing livestock to graze in treated orchards
is prohibited. * Use of the 50% WP (EPA Reg. No. 45639-
198) and the 3 Ib/gal EC (EPA Reg. No. 45639-197)
formulations is limited to CA.



148

-------
Site
Application Type
Application Timing
Application Equipment






Postharvest or dormant
Ground or aerial







Formulation
[EPARfig.No.]'
50% WP
[279-3129]
[45639-194]
[45639-198]
TSff\f\i* *1>1
[66222-22]

21b/galEC
[279-2659]
[279-2822]


3Ib/galEC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]
[45639-197]
Application Rate
(frf)







O.Slb/lOOgal







Maximum
Number of
Applications Per
Season







2







Maximum
Seasonal Rate
(w)







2.5 Ib/A







Preharvest
Interval (Days)







7







Use Directions and Limitations2



Reduce maximum application rate to 2.5Ibs7ai/A. Require
all wettable powder formulations to be packaged in water
soluble bags. Cancel aerial applications using WP
formulation. Require closed mixing/loading systems for
aerial applications using the EC formulation. The feeding of
cull fruits to animals or allowing livestock to graze in treatec
orchards is prohibited.* Use of the 50% WP (EPA Reg.
No. 45639-198) and the 3 Ib/gal EC (EPA Reg. No. 45639-
197) formulations is limited to CA.




Peas, succulent, Dry Peas
149

-------
Site
Application Type
Application Timing
Application Equipment



Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial



Foriuiilatioiti
[EPA Reg. No.]1
50% WP
[279-3129]
[45639-194]
[45639-198]
[66222-22]
21b/galEC
[279-2659]
[279-2822]
31b/galEC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]
[45639-197]
21b/galEC
[279-2659]
[279-2822]
Maximum Single
Application Rate



Succulent Green Peas
Canceled
Dry Peas
l.Olb/A



l.Olb/A
Number of
Applications Per
" Season


Succulent Green
Peas Canceled
Dry Peas



2
Maximum
Seasonal Rate


Succulent
Green Peas
Canceled
Dry Peas
2.0 Ib/A



2.0Ib/A
Preharvest
Interval (Days)


Succulent
Green Peas
Canceled
Dry Peas
3



1
Use Directions and Limitations1



See "Bean, succulent and dry".



Use limited to the Northwest (EPA Reg. No. 279-2659).
Use limited on peas to be harvested by combine only.
Applications may be made in a minimum of 10 gal/A by
ground or 1 gal/A by air. The feeding of treated vines or
threshing to livestock or allowing livestock to graze in
treated fields is prohibited. *
Dry Peas
Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial

3Jb/galEC
[279-2924]

l.Olb/A

2 per fruiting
period

2.01b/A

5

Use limited on peas to be harvested by combine only.
Applications may be made in a minimum of 10 gal/A by
ground or 1 gal/A by air. The feeding of treated vines or
threshing to livestock or allowing livestock to graze in
treated fields is prohibited.*
150

-------
SHe
Application Type
Application Timing
Application Equipment

Pecan





Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial





Pepper

Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial

Formulation
pBPAReg.No.11
31b/galEC
[WI920007]

50% WP
[279-3129]
[45639-194]
[45639-198]
[66222-22]
21b/galEC
[279-2659]
[279-2822]
31b/galEC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]
[45639-197]
Maximum Single
Application Rate
l.Olb/A
Maximum
Number of
Applications Per
Season
2 per fruiting
period
Maximum
Seasonal Rate
2.01b/A

Interval (Days)
NS






Canceled






50% WP
[279-3129]
[45639-194]
[45639-198]
[66222-22]

1.0 Ib/A






Canceled










Canceled










Canceled







2


2.0 Ib/A


4

Use Directions and Limitations 
Use limited to WI on peas to be harvested by combine only.
Applications may be made in a minimum of 10 gal/A by
ground or 2 gal/A by air. The grazing of treated fields or the
feeding of treated forage or threshing to livestock is
prohibited.*






Endosulfan use on pecans is canceled







Require all wettable powders to be packaged in water
soluble bags. Reduce maximum seasonal application rate
from 31bs7ai/A to 21bs7ai/A.

151

-------
Site
Application Type
Application Timing
Application Equipment
Formulation
[EPARi$.N(kj
Maximum Single
Application Rate
<*>
Maximum
Number of
Applications Per
Season
^JUlAjJIIMILllllWt
ivaxinii]iii
Seasonal Rate
(at)
Preharvest
Interval (Days)
1/tMS ilHftNisticMisf afiflr iJifiitliuijtits  ^ ' ;"":"" '
'''^"'"'"V' ,. "-;ji
Pepper (continued)



Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial




50% WP
[279-3129]
[45639-194]
[45639-198]
[66222-22]
21b/galEC
[279-2659]
31b/galEC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]
[45639-197]



1.0 Ib/A







2







2.01b/A







4







Require all wettable powder formulations to be packaged in
water soluble bags. Reduce maximum seasonal application
rate from 31bs7ai/A to 2Ibs7ai/A Applications may be made
in a minimum of 10 gal/A by ground or 1 gal/A by air. Use
of the 50% WP (EPA Reg. No. 45639-198) and the 3 Ib/ga)
EC (EPA Reg. No. 45639-197) formulations is limited to
CA.




Pineapple
152

-------
Site
Application Type
Application Timing




Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial






Formulation
[EPA Reg. No.]1
50% WP
[279-3129]
[66222-22]

2 lb/gal EC
[279-2659]
[279-2822]

3 lb/gal EC
[279-2924]
[45639-197]

* f j,-,'t.,j|,,j, pi-* i
Maxtmutn Single
Application Rate




2.01b/A





iLjfjXU ilLlLL-iaL
Maximum
Number of
Applications Per
Season




2






Maximum
Seasonal Rate
W




3.01b/A






Preharvest
Interval (Days)




7






Use Direction* and Limitations *


Cancel use of WP formulation. Applications may be made
in a minimum of 10 gal/A by ground or 1 gal/A by air with
a 7- to 10-day pretreatment interval. The reeding of treatet
forage or pineapple byproducts to livestock is prohibited*
Use of the 3 lb/gal EC (EPA Reg. No. 45639-197) is limited
toCA.



Plum





Delayed dormant (during pre-
pink stage)
Ground or aerial






50% WP
[279-3129]
[45639-194]
[45639-198]
[66222-22]
2 lb/gal EC
[279-2659]
[279-2822]

3 lb/gal EC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]
[45639-197]





0.51b/100gal
2.5 Ib/A











2











2.5 Ib/A











7








Reduce maximum application rate to 2.51bs7ai/A. Require
all wettable powder formulations to be packaged in water
soluble bags. Cancel aerial applications using WP
formulation. Require closed mixing/loading systems for
aerial applications using me EC formulation. Require closet
cabs for airblast applications. Use limited to the Pacific
Northwest The grazing of livestock on treated orchard
crops or grasses in treated areas is prohibited* Use of the
50% WP (EPA Reg. No. 45639-198) and the 3 lb/gal EC
(EPA Reg. No. 45639-197) formulations is limited to CA



153

-------
Site
Annlicatinn Tvne
Application Timing
Application Equipment





Prebloom or foliar (petal fall)
Ground or aerial







Plum (continued)
Foliar treatment

Ground or aerial

Fnrmulafum
[EPA Reg. No.]'

50% WP
[279-3129]
[45639-194]
[45639-198]
[66222-22]
21b/galEC
[279-2659]
[279-2822]

31b/galEC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]
[45639-197]

50% WP
[45639-194]
[45639-198]
* jfcAj*LVa %. 0ikdi*.
MOKinufin single
ApplicahonRate
(at)
V**' .





0.51b/100gal
2.5 Ib/A







0.75 lb/100 gal

2.5 Ib/A
Maximum

Applications Per
Season





2









2


Maximum .
Seasonal Rate






2.5 Ib/A









2.5 Ib/A


tiiiii ' ii ':
rrenarvest
Interval (Days)






7









7

,' -".!.'"
.  -V' '  '' ^;S>f$. ''; ' 
Use Directions awIIJmitations* --
;-,  <  ,' : ''*''' <-.t.


Reduce maximum application rate to 2.51bs7ai/A. Require
all wettable powder formulations to be packaged in water
soluble bags. Cancel aerial applications using WP
formulation. Require closed mixing/loading systems for
aerial applications using the EC formulation. Require closed
cabs for airblast applications The grazing of livestock on
treated orchard crops or grasses in treated areas is
prohibited* Use of the 50% WP (EPA Reg. No. 45639-
198) and the 3 Ib/gal EC (EPA Reg. No. 45639-197)
formulations is limited to CA.




The grazing of livestock on treated orchard crops or grasses
in treated areas is prohibited* Use of the 50% WP (EPA
Reg. No. 45639-198) formulation is limited to CA.
154

-------
Site
Application Type
Application Timing
Application Equipment




Bark treatment
Postharvest
Ground





Bark treatment
Ground


Formulation
{EPA Reg. No.) '

50% WP
[279-3129]
[45639-194]
[45639-198]

21b/galEC
[279-2659]
[279-2822]
3Ib/galEC
[45639-169]
[45639-197]
50% WP
[66222-22]

31b/galEC
[279-2924]
Maximum Single
Application Rate
f *\
W




0.75 lb/100 gal
2.5 Ib/A





0.75 lb/100 gal

2.5 Ib/A

Maximum
Number of
Applications Per
Season





2









Maximum
Seasonal Rate
(w)





0.005 Ibs/ai/gal






0.005 Ibs/ai/gal


Preharvest
Interval (Days)






7









Use Directions and Limitations'




Reduce maximum application rate to 0.005 IbsVai/gal for
high pressure handwand and rights-of-way sprayer

scenarios, i ne grazing 01 nvestocK on treatea orcnara crops
or grasses in treated areas is prohibited.* Use of the 50%
WP (EPA Reg. No. 45639-198) and the 3 Ib/gal EC (EPA
Reg. No. 45639-197) formulations is limited to CA.




Reduce maximum application rate to 0.005 IbsVai/gal for
high pressure handwand and rights-of-way sprayer
scenarios. The grazing of livestock on treated orchard crops
or grasses in treated areas is prohibited.*

Plum (continued)
155

-------
Site
    Application Type
    Application Timing
[EPA Reg, No.]'
                     Maximum!
                     Application Rate
                  Maximum
                  Number of
               Applications Per
            Maximum
           Seasonal Rate
                        Interval (Days)
                                  Use Directions and
    Nursery stock dip
    50% WP

   [279-3129]
  [45639-194]
  [45639-198]
   [66222-22]

   21b/galEC
   [279-2659]
   [279-2822]

   3Ib/galEC
   [279-2924]
  [45639-169]
  [45639-197]
21b/40gal
NS
NS
NA
Reduce maximum application rate of 0.005 IbsVai/A fro
high pressure handwand and rights-of-way sprayer
                                                                                                                     scenarios.
Potato
    Foliar treatment
    Ground or aerial
    50% WP

   [279-3129]
  [45639-194]
  [45639-198]
   [66222-22]

   3Ib/galEC
   [279-2924]
  [45639-169]
  [45639-197]
 l.Olb/A
             2.01b/A
                       Require all wettable powder formulations to be packaged in
                       water soluble bags. Reduce maximum seasonal application
                       rate from 31bs7ai/A to 21bs7ai/A. Reduce maximum number
                       of applications per season from 6 to 4. Applications may be
                       made in a minimum of 10 gal/A by ground or 1 gal/A by air.
                       Use of the 50% WP (EPA Reg. No. 45639-198) and the 3
                       Ib/gal EC (EPA Reg. No. 45639-197) formulations is
                       limited to CA.
                                                                                  156

-------
Site
Application Type
Application Tuning
Application Equipment
Chemiganon
Sprinkler irrigation
Formulation
31b/galEC
[WA900023]
Maximum Single
Application Rate
1.0 Ib/A
Maximum
Number of
Apptications Per
Season
NS
Maximum
Seasonal Rate
2.0 Ib/A
Preharvest
Interval (Days)
1
Use Directions and Limitations *
Use limited to WA.
Prune





Delayed dormant (during pre-
pink stage)
Ground or aerial





50% WP
[279-3129]
[45639-194]
[45639-198]
[66222-22]
21b/galEC
[279-2659]
[279-2822]
3Ib/galEC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]
[45639-197]





0.5ib/100gal
2.5 Ib/A










2










2.5 Ib/A










7










Sec "Phrni".





157

-------
Site
Application Type
Application Toning
Application Equipment





Prebloom or foliar (petal fall)
Ground or aerial





Formulation
[EPARcg.No.r
50% WP
[279-3129]
[45639-194]
[45639-198]
[66222-22]
21b/galEC
[279-2659]
[279-2822]
31b/galEC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]
[45639-197]
Maximum Single
Application Rate





0.51b/100gal
2.5 Ib/A





Number of
Applications Per
Season





2





InAXlSHtifH
Seasonal Rate
(**>





2.5 Ib/A





Preharvest
Interval (Days)





7





Use Directions and Limitations *.





Sec "Plum".





Prune (continued)
158

-------
Site
Application Type
Application Timing
Application Equipment




Baric treatment
Postharvest
Ground





Bark treatment
Ground

Formulation
pPAReg.NoJl
50% WP
[279-3129]
[45639-194]
[45639-198]
21b/galEC
[279-2659]
[279-2822]
31b/galEC
[45639-169]
[45639-197]
50% WP
[66222-22]
31b/galEC
[279-2924]
ljfjriiS.jlam <*rtl
ImHXUlHttll SnugK
Application Rate
(ai)




0.75 lb/100 gal
2.5 Ib/A





0.75 lb/100 gal
2.5 Ib/A

Maximum
Number of
Applications Per
Season




2





2

Maximum
Seasonal Rate
()




0.005
IbsVai/gal





0.005
IbsJai/gal

jPCll8rVCSt
Interval (Days)




7





7

Use Directions and Limitations *




Reduce maximum seasonal application rate to o.ooS
lbs./ai/gal for high pressure handwand and rights-of-way
sprayer scenarios.





Reduce maximum seasonal application rate to o.ooJ
IbsVai/gal for high pressure handwand and rights-of-way
sprayer scenarios.

Radish (grown for seed)

Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial

50% WP
[WA780029]
31b/galEC
[OR770043]
[WA770016]

2.01b/A


2


NS


NS


Require all wettable powder formulations to be packaged in
water soluble bags. Require closed mixing/loading systems
for aerial application using the EC formulation. Cancel aeria
application using the WP formulation.

Rutabaga (grown for seed)
159

-------
Site
Application Type
Application Timing
Application Equipment

Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial

Formulation
PAtoi.No.p
50% WP
[WA780029]
31b/galEC
[OR770043]
[WA770016]
Maximum Single
Application Rate
W

2.0 Ib/A

Maximum
Number of
Applications Per
Season

2

Maximum
Seasonal Rate
(a)

NS

Preharvest
Interval (Days)

NS

Use Directions and Limitations3

Require all wettablc powder formulations to be packaged in
water soluble bags. Require closed mixing/loading systems
for aerial application using the EC formulation. Cancel aerial
application using the WP formulation.

Rye



Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial



50% WP
[279-3129]
[45639-194]
[66222-22]
21b/galEC
[279-2659]
[279-2822]
31h/galEC
[279-2924]



0.75 Ib/A






1






l.Olb/A






NS






Cancel WP use. Require closed mixing/loading systems for
aerial application using EC formulation. Reduce maximum
number of applications from 2 per season to 1.



160

-------
Sit*
    Application Type
    Application Timing
    Application Equipment
  Formulation
{EPA Reg. No.]1
Application Rate
   Number of
Applications Per
  Maximum
Seasonal Rate
                                                 Interval
                       0s* Directions and Limitations *
                                     50% WP

                                    [279-3129]
                                    [66222-22]

                                    31b/galEC
                                    [279-2924]
                                    [45639-169]
                                    [45639-197]
                        0.75 Ib/A
                                      1.0 Ib/A
                                   NS
                            Cancel WP use. Require closed mixing/loading systems for
                            aerial application using EC fonnulatkm. Reduce maximum
                            number of applications from 2 per season to 1.
Spinach
    Foliar treatment
    Ground or aerial
    50% WP

   [279-3129]
  [45639-194]
   [66222-22]

   21b/galEC
   [279-2659]
   [279-2735]
   [279-2822]

   31b/galEC
   [279-2924]
  [45639-169]
    Canceled
    Canceled
  Canceled
Canceled
Endosulfan use on spinach is canceled
                                                                                   161

-------
Site
Application Type
Application Timing





Formulation
[EPA Reg. Na]'
50% WP
[45639-198]
31b/galEC
[45639-197]
Maximum Single
Application Rate ~
 ''


Canceled

Maximum
Number of
Applications Per


Canceled

Maximian
Seasonal Rate
w


Canceled

Preharvest
Interval (Days)


Canceled

Use Directions and Limitations *


Endosulran use on spinach is canceled

Squash, summer and winter



Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial


50% WP
[279-3129]
[45639-194]
[66222-22]
21b/galEC
[279-2659]
31b/galEC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]
50% WP
[45639-198]
31b/galEC
[45639-197]



1.0 Ib/A



l.Olb/A



4



4



2.01b/A



2.0 Ib/A



2



2



Require all wettable powder formulations to be packaged in
water soluble bags. Reduce the maximum seasonal
application rate from 31bs./ai/A to 21bs7ai/A. Reduce
maximum number of implications per season from fi to 4.




Require all wettable powder formulations to be packaged in
water soluble bags. Reduce the maximum seasonal
application rate from 31bs7ai/A to 21bs7ai/A. Reduce
maximum number of applications per season from 6 to 4.
Strawberry
162

-------
Site
Application Type
Application Timing
o|SpllCwIOtt ISiHilJMJMStti











Folijir trc&ttncnt

Ground or aerial





Dip treatment



7 n^jtiBi^JujtiEW^
hormulanon s


,''', :.,,-, ,,.',, , -jj, . , '*'* ' - ;
_ . . .... ........ n ...
Reduce immiminn application rate to I iDjai/A. Require all
wettable powder formulations to be packaged in water
soluble bags. Require closed mixing/loading systems for
aerial application using EC formulation. Cancel aerial
application suing WP formulation. Reduce maximum
seasonal application rate from 3lbs7ai/A to 21bs7ai/A.
Reduce maximum number of applications from 3 per season
to 2 per season. Applications may be made hi a minimum oi
10 gal/A by ground or 1 gal/A by air. Do not reappry
within 15 days or more man twice during a 35 day period
when fruit is present Use of the 50% WP (EPA Reg. No.
45639-198) and the 3 lb/gal EC (EPA Reg. No. 45639-197)
formulations is limited to CA.

Applications may be made in 400 gal. Do not apply at
intervals less than 35 days when fruit is present Use of the
50% WP (EPA Reg. No. 45639-198) and the 3 lb/gal EC
(EPA Reg. No. 45639-197) formulations is limited to CA.
Use limited to Northwest Immerse bundles of plants; drain
and allow plants to dry before setting them out in the field.
Use of the 50% WP (EPA Reg. No. 45639-198) and the 3
lb/gal EC (EPA Reg. No. 45639-197) formulations is
limited to CA.

Sweet potato
163

-------
Site
Application Type
Application Timing
Application Equipment








Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial










Formulation
iEPAReg.No.j

50% WP
[279-3129]
[45639-194]
[66222-22]

31b/galEC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]
50% WP

[45639-198]


3 Ib/galEC
[45639-197]
50% WP
[MS810036]

3 Ib/galEC
[MS810035]
Maximum Single
Application Rate
(ai)
W



l.Olb/A







l.Olb/A





0.5 Ib/A


Maximum
Number of
Applications Pa-
Season



32







2





NS


Maximum
Seasonal Rate
(ai)




1.0 Ib/A







1.0'lb/A





NS


Preharvest
Interval (Days)




1







1





NS


Use Directions and Limitations1


Cancel WP use. Require closed mixing/loading systems for
aerial application using the EC formulation. Reduce
maximum seasonal applications rate from 31bs7ai/A to
21bs7ai/A Reduce maximum number of applications per
season from 3 to 2. The feeding of cull potatoes to livestock
or the grazing of livestock in treated fields is prohibited*





Use limited to CA. The feeding of cull potatoes to livestock
or the grazing of livestock in treated fields is prohibited.*




Use limited to MS. The feeding of treated potatoes to
livestock is prohibited. *


Sweet potato (continued)
164

-------
Site
Application Type
Application Timing
Application Equipment


Soil band or broadcast
Ground or aerial


Soil treatment
Ground or aerial
Formulation
nEPAReg.No.1'
50% WP

[279-3129]
[66222-22]
31b/galEC
[279-2924]
[45636-169]
50% WP
[MS8100036]
31b/galEC
[MS810035]
rVNBfXtUHPB SUffiiC
Application Rate
()

2.01b/A
(broadcast)
0.67-0.75 Ib/A based
on a 16 inch band with
a 48 inch row spacing

2.01b/A
1.5 Ib/A
Maximum
Number of
Applications Per
Season


2


NS
NS
Maximum
Seasonal Rate
(
-------
Site
Application Type
Application Timing
Application Equipment



Drench treatment
Plant bed
Ground




Foliar treatment
Field
Ground



,; Formulation
[EPA Reg. No.]'
50% WP
[279-3129]
[45639-194]
[66222-22]
21b/galEC
[279-2659]
[279-2822]
31b/galEC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]
50% WP
[279-3129]
[45639-194]
[66222-22]
21b/galEC
[279-2659]
[279-2822]
31b/galEC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]
Maximum Stogie
Application Rate



0.25 lb/100 gal
[1 gal of finished
spray/sq. yd]




l.Olb/A
1.5 lb/100 gal

l.Olb/A

0.5 lb/100 gal
Maxonum
Number of
Applications Per
Season



2




2


2

Seasonal Rate



2.01b/A




2.01b/A


l.Olb/A


Interval (Days)



5




5


5

Use Directions and Limitations1



Cancel WP use. Reduce maximum seasonal application rate
from 3Ibs7ai/A to 2 IbsVai/A. Reduce maximum number of
applications per season from 6 to 2. Restrict use on tobacco
to the following states: IN, KY, OH, PA, and WV.




Cancel WP use. Reduce maximum seasonal application rate
from 31bs7ai/A to 2 IbsVai/A. Reduce maximum number of
applications per season from 6 to 2. Restrict use on tobacco
to the following states: IN, KY, OH, PA, and WV.




Tomato (field)
166

-------
Site
Application Type
Application Timing
Application Equipment



Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial




Formulation
{EPA Reg. Na]'
50% WP
[279-3129]
[45639-194]
[45639-198]
[66222-22]
2Ib/galEC
[279-2659]
31b/galEC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]
[45639-197]
MKirnuniSmelc
Application Rate



l.Olb/A
0.51b/100-200gal




Maxknum
Number of
Applications Per
Season



2




Maximum
Seasonal Rate



lOlb/A




Interval (Days)



2




" '   " - Pri- : :%,
', ". '



Cancel WP use. Reduce maximum seasonal application rate
from 3 lbs7ai/A to 2 lbs7ai/A Reduce maximum number of
applications per season from 6 to 4. Applications may be
made in a minimum of 10 gal/A by ground or 1 gal/ A by air.
Use of the 50% WP (EPA Reg. No. 45639-198) and the 3
Ib/gal EC (EPA Reg. No. 45639-197) formulations is
limited to CA




Tomato (greenhouse)
167

-------
Site
Application Type
Application Timing
Application Equipment




Foliar treatment
Ground




Formulation
[EPA Reg. No.]'
50% WP
[279-3129]
[45639-194]
[45639-198]
[66222-22]
21b/galEC
[279-2659]
[279-2735]
[279-2822]
SlrVgalEC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]
[45639-197]
1 JMM2M*M C&k*4
Maximum atngic
Application Rate
(ai)




l.Olb/A
0.51b/100-200gal




Maximum
Number of
Applications Per
|*:,ri-ni-i
aeason




4




Maxinwan
Seasonal Rate
(i)




0.005 Ibs/ai/gal




Preharvest
Interval (Days)




2




Use Directions and Limitations1
*/... .




Reduce maximum application rate to 0.005 IbsVai/gal for
high pressure handwand and rights-of-way sprayers.
Applications may be made in a minimum of 10-25 gal/A by
ground. Use of the 50% WP (EPA Reg. No. 45639-198)
and the 3 Ib/gal EC (EPA Reg. No. 45639-197)
formulations is limited to CA.




Turnip
Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial
21b/galEC
[279-2659]
[279-2822]
0.75 Ib/A
1
0.75 Ib/A
21
Reduce maximum application rate to 0.75 Ibs/ai/A. Require
all wettable powders to be packaged in water soluble bags.
Applications may be made in a minimum of 10 gal/ A by
ground or 1 gal/A by air. Application to turnips grown for
roots is prohibited.*
Turnip (grown for seed)
168

-------
Site
Application Type
Application Timing
Application Equipment


Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial



Formulation
PAReg.NoJ

50% WP
[WA780029]

31b/galEC
[OR770043]
[WA770016]

ftnffiKiMiVitm sBttuG-
Application Rate
(*)


2.0 Ib/A



 ,
Number of
Applications Per
Season


2




Maximum
Seasonal Rate
(ai)
v*v


NS




Preharvest
Interval (Days)



NS




Use Directions and Limitations'


Require all wettable powder formulations to be packaged in
water soluble bags. Require closed mixing/loading systems
for aerial application using the EC formulation. Cancel aerial
application using the WP formulation.

Walnut






Foliar treatment
Ground or aerial






50% WP
[279-3129]
[45639-194]
[45639-198]
[66222-221
LW*.*.*. *<*.j
21b/galEC
[279-2659] .
[279-2822]


31b/galEC
[279-2924]
[45639-169]




2.0 Ib/A







2.0 Ib/A





2







2





2.0 Ib/A







2.0 Ib/A





.NS







NS


Require all wettable powders to be packaged in water
soluble bags. Cancel aerial application using the WP
formulation. Require closed mixing/loading systems for
aerial application using the EC formulation. Require closed
cabs for airblast application. Reduce maximum seasonal
application rate from 2 per season to 1. Reduce maximum
seasonal application rate from 31bs7ai/A to 2 IbsVai/A
Applications may be made in a minimum of 10 gal/A by
ground or 1 gal/A by air. The grazing of livestock on
orchard crops or grasses in treated areas and application
after husk split are prohibited.* Use of the 50% WP (EPA
Reg. No. 45639-198) formulation is limited to CA.


169

-------
Appendix B.  TABLE OF GENERIC DATA REQUIREMENTS AND STUDIES USED TO
             MAKE THE REREGISTRATION DECISION

GUIDE TO APPENDIX B

   Appendix B contains listing of data requirements which support the reregistiation for active
ingredients within case #0014 (endosulfan) covered by this RED.  It contains generic data requirements
that apply to endosulfan in all products, including data requirements for which a "typical formulation" is
the test substance.

   The data table is organized in the following formats:

   1.   Data Requirement (Column 1). The data requirements are listed in the order in which they
       appear in 40 CFR part 158. The reference numbers accompanying each test refer to the test
       protocols set in the Pesticide Assessment Guidance, which are available from the National
       technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161 (703) 487-4650.

   2.   Use Pattern (Column 2). This column indicates the use patterns for which the data
       requirements apply. The following letter designations are used for the given use patterns.

                          A     Terrestrial food
                          B.     Terrestrial feed
                          C.     Terrestrial non-food
                          D.     Aquatic food
                          E.     Aquatic non-food outdoor
                          F.     Aquatic non-food industrial
                          G.     Aquatic non-food residential
                          H.     Greenhouse food
                          I.     Greenhouse non-food
                          J.     Forestry
                          K.     Residential
                          L.     Indoor food
                          M.     Indoor non-food
                          N.     Indoor medical
                          O.     Indoor residential
                                         170

-------
3.  Bibliographic Citation (Column 3). If the Agency has acceptable data in its files, this column list
    the identify number of each study. This normally is the Master Record
    Identification (MERD) number, but may be a "GS" number if no MRED number has been
    assigned Refer to the Bibliography appendix for a complete citation of the study.
                                        171

-------
AoDendix B.

;
-------
Annendix B.

u. ' '*
:;-,* <
GuldeliBe
Matter
830.6316
830.6316
830.7100
830.6319
830.6320
830.7050
fe '<** 
Guideline
Number
63-16
63-17
63-18
63-19
63-20
None
Data Supporting Guideline Requirements for the
Reregistration of Endosulfan
  KftpirtBMi i
Explodabilitv
Storage Stability
Viscosity
Miscibility
Corrosion
Characteristics
UV/Visible Absorption
* ;;
l-mi ;
A3.CJI
AJ.C.H
AB.C.H
AJ9.C.H
A3.C.H

Bibliogrtphk Cltatlon(i) - 1
00128650
00128650
00128650
00128650
00128650
Not Applicable
ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS
850.2100
850.2100
850.2200
850.2200
850.2200
850.2400
850.2300
850.2300
850.2300
71-1 A
None
71-2A
None
71-2B
71-3
71-4A
71-4B
71-4 (A)
Avian Acute Oral
Toxicity (Quail or
Duck)
Avian Acute Oral
Toxicity of Bobwhite
Quail and Mallard Duck
(Endosul&n Sulftte)
Avian Dietary Toxicity
-Ouail
Avian Subchronic Oral
Toxicity of Bobwhite
Quail and Mallard Duck
(Endosulfan Sulfete)
Avian Dietary Toxicity
-Duck
Wild Mammal Toxicity
Avian Reproduction -
Quail
Avian Reproduction -
Duck
Avian Reproduction -
Quail
(Endosulfan Sulfate)
A.B.C
A3,C
A.B.C
A3,C
A.B.C
A,B,C
A.B.C
A,B,C
A3,C
137189, 00136998, 00137189
DATA GAP
22923
DATA GAP
22923
00038307, 00148264
40261303
40261302, 40335001, 40335002, 146843
DATA GAP
173

-------
Anoendix B.

H*w *-
Guideline
Number
850.2300
850.1075
850.1075
850.1075
850.1010
NONE
850.1075
850.1025
850.1035
850.1300
850.1350
850.1035
850.1500
850.1500
-> W
... ^r^ M
^iHr'l
71-4 (B)
72-1A
None
72-1C
72-2A
72-3A
None
72-3B
72-3C
72-4A
72-4B
None
72-5
None
Data Supporting Guideline Requirements for the
Reregistration of Endosulfan
' V- -.' L;*';;I '"
I'f^i^
Avian Reproduction -
Duck
(Endosulfan Sulfate)
Fish Toxicity Bluegffl
Freshwater Fish Acute
Toxicity Btuegffl
Sunfish (Endosulfan
Sulfste)
Fish Toxicity Rainbow
Trout
Invertebrate Toxicity
Estuarine/Marine
Toxicity - Fish
Estuarine /Marine Fish
Acute Toxicity Study
(Endosulfan Sulfate)
Estuarine/Marine
Toxicitv - Mollusk
Estuarine/Marine
Toxicitv - Shrimp
Fish- Early Life Stage
Estuarine/Marine
Invertebrate Life Cycle
Estuarine/Marine
Invertebrate Acute
Toxicity Study of
Mysid Shrimp
(Endosulfan Sulfate)
Life Cycle Fish
Freshwater Fish Full
Life Cycle Using
Rainbow Trout
(Endosulfan Sulfate)
OM
H^^MM-
"XmwIV
A&C
A3.C
A3.C
A3.C
A.B.C
A.B.C
A3.C
A3,C
A.B.C
A^,C
A.B.C
A.B.C
A,B,C
A3.C


DATA GAP
38806,40094602,
DATA GAP
40098001, 00136998
5008271, 40098001, 40094602
40228401
DATA GAP
40228401, 128688
40228401, 128688
DATA GAP
DATA GAP
DATA GAP
DATA GAP
DATA GAP
174

-------
Annendix B.

- HMr,.jj
Guideline
Nattbcr
850.1735
850.1740
850..1735S
850.1740S
Special
Study
Special
Study
164-2SS
835.7100
835.7200
850.4230
850.4400
r w -.
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
123-1
123-2
Data Supporting Guideline Requirements for the
Reregistration of Endosnlfan
Rtquirewent k
Whole Sediment Acute
Toxicity Testing Using
Freshwater Invertebrate
Whofe Sediment Acute
Toxicity Testing Using
Estuarine/Marine
Invertebrate
Whofe Sediment
Chronic Toxicity
Testing Using
Freshwater Invertebrate
Whole Sediment
Chronic Toxicity
Testing Using
Estuarine/Marine
Invertebrate
Tissue Residue
Toxicity Study in Fish
Tissue Residue
Toxicity Study in
Amphibians
Vegetative Buffer
Effectiveness Study
Groundwater
Monitoring
Surfacewater
Monitoring
Non-target Terrestrial
Plant Phytotoxiciry
Aquatic Plant Growth
v^*^^ ix
*j*^g^^^ V
W^HwWl '
A3.C
A3.C
A3.C
A.B.C
A.B.C
A.B.C
A.B.C
A,B,C
A.B.C
A3,C
A.B.C

^^^
DATA GAP
DATA GAP
DATA GAP
DATA GAP
RESERVE
RESERVE
DATA GAP
DATA GAP
DATA GAP
Not Applicable
Not applicable
OCCUPATIONAL/RESIDUE EXPOSURE
875.2100
132-l(a)
Foliar Residue
nissinntinn
A3.C
44403102
175

-------
Annendix B.

Mew
Guideline
Number
875.2200
875.2400
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
875.1100
875.1300
875.1700
- '& -i
Galdeli.e
^^^ L '/;&3%\
' WBfflDer
132-1B
133-3
133-4
201-1
202-1
231
232
85-3
None
None
None
Data Supporting Guideline Requirements for the
Reregistration of Endosulfan
" l/' ^-"'tr{ ^ ,:'-,' -
R)Bireiaeat  *
Soil Residue
Dissipation
Dermal Passive
Dosunet
Inhalation Passive
Dosimct
Droplet Size Spectrum
Drift Field Evaluation
Estimation of Dermal
Exposure
Estimation of Inhalation
Exposure
Dermal Absorption
Dermal Outdoor
Exposure For Applying
Dip Treatments to
Trees, Roots, and
Whole Plants
Inhalation Exposure -
Outdoor
Product Use
Information for
Applying Dip
Treatments to Trees,
Roots, and Whole
Plants
Vm
V*tam '
A3.C
A3.C

AS.C
A3.C
A,B,C
A3.C
A.B.C
A3,C
A3,C
A3,C
:W^P^il*!taAMW. -i/ff^.^ ' '
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
WAIVED
Not Applicable
Not applicable
41715201,44939101
41715201
40223601, 41048503, 41048504
DATA GAP
DATA GAP
DATA GAP
TOXICOLOGY
870.1100
870.1100
870.1200
81-1
81-1
81-2
Acute Oral Toxicity-
Rat
Acute Oral Toxicity-
Rat
Acute Dermal Toxicity-
Rabbit/Rat
A,B,C,H
A,B,C,H
A,B,C,H
00038307,41183502
00038307,41183502
41183503
176

-------
Appendix B.

m*,* ,.
Guideline
Nnmber
870.1300
870.2400
870.2500
870.2600
870.6100
870.6200
870.6200
870.6300
870.3100
870.3150
870.3200
NONE
NONE
NONE
870.4100
870.4100
870.4200
870.4200
 OM
GBidcUne
Number
81-3
81-4
81-5
81-6
81-7
81-8
82-7
83-6
82-1A
82-1B
82-2
82-4
82-5A
82-5B
83-1A
83-1B
83-2A
83-2B
Data Supporting Guideline Requirements for the
Reregistration of Endosulfan
.- Requirement
Acute Inhalation
Toxicity-Rat
Primary Eye Irritation-
Rabbit
Primary Skin Irritation
Dermal Sensitization
Acute Delayed
Neurotoxicity - Hen
Acute Neurotoxicity
Screen
Subchronic
Neurotoixichy - Rat
Developmental
Neurotoxicity Study -
Rat
90-Day Feeding -
Rodent
90-Day Feeding - Non-
rodent
21-Day Dermal -
Rabbit/Rat
90 Day Inhalation-Rat
90 Day Neurotox -Hen
90DayNeurotox-
Mammal
Chronic Feeding
Toxicity- Rodent
Chronic Feeding
Toxicity  Non-
Rodent
Oncogenicity - Rat
Oncoecnicitv - Mouse
V' *'
i*y<|; ;
*lg"l?lf '
A,B,C,H
A3.C.H
A.B.CJI
A3.C.H
A3.C.H
A.B.C.H
A,B,C,H
A,B,C,H
A3.C.H
A,B,C,H
A.B.C.H
A,B,C,H


A.B.C.H
A,B,C,H
A.B.C.H
A.B.C.H
BibliogrplilcCitatioii(i) ' .;
41183504
255157,41183505
00038309. 00128649, 41 183506
00136994,41183507
00147181, 44403101, 44560701, 44560702
44403101
DATA GAP
DATA GAP
00257932, 00257727, 00147299, 40767601, 41775501
00147182, 40648801
00146841, 00147744, 41048505, 41048506
00147183. 41667501, 41667502. 41667503
RESERVED
RESERVED
41099502
41099501
41099501. 41099502
40792401
177

-------
Annendix B.

New '
Guideline
Number
870.3700
870.3700
870.3800
870.4300
870.5140
870.5375

870.7485
^4"-r,:
83-3A
83-3B
83-4
83-5
84-2A
84-2B
84-4
85-1
Data Supporting Guideline Requirements for the
Reregistration of Endosulfan
Rtqulrcm.iit
Developmental
Toxicitv-Rat
Developmental
Toxicitv - Rabbit
2-Generation
Reproduction - Rat
Combined Chronic
Toxicity/
CarcinoRcnicitv
Gene Mutation (Ames
Test)
Structural
Chromosomal
Aberration
Other Genotoxic
Effects
General Metabolism
-W,  ^
ftrttesi
A,B,C,H
A,B,C,H
A3AH
A3.C.H
A,B,C,H
A3.C.H
A3.C.H
A,B,C,H
BlbltegTPhlcCIUtlOB(8) ; '^%rV "'
-, - '- * -> 5 
43129101
00094837
00256126, 00256127, 00257727, 00148264
41099502
00147199, 00148266
00147197, 00148265
00147198
00004257
ENVIRONMENTAL FATE
835.2120
835.2240
835.2410
835.2370
835.4100
835.4200
835.1240
NONE
161-1
161-2
161-3
161-4
162-1
162-2
163-1
163-2
Hydrolysis
Photodegradation -
Water
Photodeeradation - Soil
Photodegradation - Air
Aerobic Soil
Metabolism
Anaerobic Soil
Metabolism
Leaching/Adsorption/D
esorption
Volatilitv-Lab
A.C.H
A,C,H
A.C.H
A.C.H
A.C.H
A.C.H
A.C.H
A.C.H
00150714, 00142649, 00128661, 00128557,
00128659, 41412901
00253395, 41415701, 41490101
00128660. 00142640, 00150714, 41430701
WAIVED
00148993, 41412902, 43812801
00136884, 41412903, 41412904
00137002, 00137162, 00137446, 41412905, 44346901
00252043. 40060601
178

-------
Aonendix B.

?Llfwr j
 Number '
835.6100
860.1850
860.1900
NONE
i'-w* _ ,.
 Nnaber
164-1
165-1
165-2
165-4
Data Supporting Guideline Requirements for the
Reregistration of Endosulfan
.  , RftqnireauBt
Terrestrial Field
Dissipation
Confined Rotational
Crop
Field Rotational Crop
Bioaccumulation in Fish
;,*;. -;,
\rattoni "vs
A.C.H
A.C.H
A.C.H
A.C.H
Bibliographic Citation(s)
00137003, 00137161, 41309701, 41309702,
41468601, 43069701
44393001
DATA GAP
41421503
RESIDUE CHEMISTRY
NONE
860.1300
860.1300
860.1340
860.1340
860.1360
860.1380
860.1380
171-2
171-4A
171-4B
171-4C
171-4D
171-4M
171-4E
171-4E
Chemical Identity
Nature of Residue -
Plants
Nature of Residue -
Livestock
Residue Analytical
Method -plants
Residue Analytical
Method-Animal
Multiresidue Methods
Storage Stability
Storage Stability

A3
A3
A3
A3
A3
A3
A3
Not Applicable
00003600, 00003642, 00003654, 05002565,
05003004, 05003085, 05003336, 05003801,
05004385, 05004620, 05018169, 44082701,
44082702, 44099101
00003742, 00003743, 00003838, 00003840,
05003222, 05003877, 44082703, 44099101,
440099102, 44427601
00003588, 00003612, 00003795, 00003959,
05003395, GS014024, 00146842, 00157147,
00157148, 44346902
00003703, 00003840, 44427601
44427601
44396301, 44599600, 44599601, 44637800
DATA GAP - oils seed, non-oily grain and processed
commodities
179

-------
AoDendix B.

 New
Guideline
Number
860.1480
860.1500
860.1500
860.1500

860.1500
JO*I'; ,4
171-4J
171-4K
171-4K
171-4K
Data Supporting Guideline Requirements for the
Reregistration of Endosulfan
 ; RequireoMBt
Meat, Milk, Poultry,
Pg8
Milk and die Fat, Meat,
and Meat Byproducts
of Cattle, Goats, Hogs,
Horses and Steep
Eggs and the Fat, Meat,
and Meat Byproducts
of Poultry
Crop Field Trials
(Carrot)
Crop Field Trials
(Potato)
Crop Field Trials
(Sweet Potato)
' DM "
PMfcn * !
A3
A.B
A.B
A3
Bibliographic Ctatton(s) v . . , '  /
, ! ?' *>',
44843702
00003742, 00003743, 00003838, 05003222,
05003877,05013696
00003840. 44843702
00003796
00003709
00003642, 00003669, 44346912
Leaves of Root and Tuber Vegetables Group
171-4K
Turnip, Tops
A3
000037%
Leafy Vegetables (except Brassica) Vegetables Group
860.1500
860.1500
860.1500
171-4K
171-4K
171-4K

860.1500
860.1500
171-4K
171-4K
Crop Field Trials
(Celery)
Crop Field Trials
(Lettuce, Leaf)
Crop Field Trials
(Spinach)
Brassica
Crop Field Trials
(Broccoli)
Crop Field Trials
(Brussels Sprouts)
A3
A3
A3
00003796, 44346906, 44701201
00003722, 00003790, 44346904, 44701202
00003796
Cole) Vegetables Group
A3
A3
00003796,44346908
000037%
180

-------
Appendix B.       Data Supporting Guideline Requirements for the
                   Reregistration of Endosulfan
           Old
          Number
                                    lite
 860.1500
171-4K
Crop Field Trials
(Cabbaee)
00003790
                                     181

-------
Am>endix B.

' ^^-'4
Guideline
Number
860.1500
860.1500
860.1500
860.1500
860.1500
 >*&
",'JHBirtwsr ;
171-4K
171-4K
171-4K
171-4K
171-4K
Data Supporting Guideline Requirements for the
Reregistration of Endosulfan
***~
Crop Held Trials
(Cauliflower)
Crop Field Trials
(Collards)
Crop Field Trials
(Collards, Grown for
Seed)
Crop Field Trials (Kale)
Crop Field Trials
(Mustard Greens)
M
"VM^MH
jnmc*H
A3
A,B
A,B
A3
A3
Bibliographic Cltrioo
-------
Appendix B.

Hew
Guideline
NHBiber
860.1500
860.1500
860.1500
860.1500
860.1500
860.1500
.I@M::/',
Guideline
Number
171-4K
171-4K
171-4K
171-4K
171-4K
171-4K
Data Supporting Guideline Requirements for the
Reregistration of Endosulfan
;; RwjuireBieBt
Crop Field Trials
(Melons, Cantaloupe)
Crop Field Trials
(Melons, Musk)
Crop Field Trials
(Melons, Water)
Crop Field Trials
(Pumpkin)
Crop Field Trials
(Squash, Summer)
Crop Field Trials
(Squash, Winter)
UM
Prtttn . ~ ^
A3
A3
A3
A3
A3
A3
Bibliographic CHatioa(i) ,, , , .
00146842, 44346903
00146842, 44346903
00146842, 44346903
00146842, 44346909, 44346903, 44346907
00146842, 44346907
00146842, 44346907
Pome Fruits Group
860.1500
860.1500
171-4K
171-4K
Crop Field Trials
(Apple)
Crop Field Trials (Pear)
A3
A3
00003787
00003862
Stone Fruits Group
860.1500
860.1500
860.1500
171-4K
171-4K
171-4K
Crop Field Trials
(Cherry)
Crop Field Trials
(Peach)
Crop Field Trials
(Plume, Fresh Prune)
A3
A3
A3
00003782, 44346910, 4434691 1
00003784, 00003789
00003786, 00003791
Berries Group
860.1500
171-4K
Crop Field Trials
(Blueberry)
A3 I 00003587, 00003843
Tree Nuts Group
860.1500
171-4K
Crop Field Trials
(Almond, Nutmeat and
Hulls)
A3
00003713, 00004254
183

-------
Aonendix B.

New
Guideline
, Nnabtr
860.1500
860.1500
860.1500
860.1500
Old
, Gaideitec
Number
171-4K
171-4K
171-4K
171-4K
Data Supporting Guideline Requirements for the
Reregistration of Endosulfan
: Requirement /
V;
Crop Field Trials
(Filbert)
Crop Field Trials
(Macadamia Nut)
Crop Field Trials
(Pecan)
Crop Field Trials
(Walnut)
v* , i
;M" *
A3
A3
A3
A3
Bibliographic Citation(i)
 "* ' "' '. v
00004254
00004254
00004254
00004254
Cereal Grains Group
860.1500
860.1500
860.1500
860.1500
860.1500
. 171-4K
171-4K
171-4K
171-4K
171-4K
Crop Field Trials
(Barley, Grain)
Crop Field Trials
(Corn, Sweet, K +
CWHR)
Crop Field Trials (Oats,
Grain)
Crop Field Trials (Rye,
Grain)
Crop Field Trials
(Wheat, Grain and
Aspirated Grain
Fractions)
A3
A3
A3
A3
A3
00003710
00003634, 00003760, 44457001
00003710
00003710
00003710
Forage. Fodder, and Straw of Cereal Grains Group
860.1500
860.1500
860.1500
860.1500
171-4K
171-4K
171-4K
171-4K
Crop Field Trials
Barley, Hay and Straw
Crop Field Trials
(Com, Sweet, Forage
and Stover)
Crop Field Trials (Oats,
Forage, Hay and Straw)
Crop Field Trials (Rye,
Forapc and Straw)
A3
A3
A3
A3
00003710, DATA GAP
44457001
00003710, DATA GAP
00003710, DATA GAP
184

-------
Appendix B.

New
Guideline
Nnmtier
860.1500

860.1500
.
Guideline
Number
171-4K

171-4K
Data Supporting Guideline Requirements for the
Reregistration of Endosulfan
' HftfmirftBifiiit
iJWMP^W W-iWHlHWWlt
Crop Field Trials
(Wheat, Forage, Hay,
and Straw)
Non-Grass Animal Feeds
Crop Field Trials
(Alfalfa, Forage and
Hav)
Vie s
Mom
A,B
A,. ... ' ':

00003710, 44762901, DATA GAP
(Forage, Fodder, Straw, and Hay) Group
A3
00003834, 00003835, 00003836, 00003841,
00004258, 00157148
Miscellaneous Commodities
860.1500
860.1500
860.1500
860.1500
860.1500
860.1500
171-4K
171-4K
171-4K
171-4K
171-4K
171-4K
Crop Field Trials
(Cotton, Seed and Gin
Byproducts)
Crop Field Trials
(Grape)
Crop Field Trials
(Pineapple)
Crop Field Trials
(Rape, Seed and Forage)
Crop Field Trials
(Strawberry)
Crop Field Trials
(Tobacco)
A3
A3
A3
A3
A3
A3
00003725, 00003777, 44854101, 44854102, 44854103
00003788
00003797, 00003798, 00003799
00003724
00003785
05003004, 05003801, DATA GAP
Processed Food/Feed
860.1520
860.1520
860.1520
860.1520
860.1520
171-4L
171-4L
171-4L
171-4L
171-4L
Processed Food
(Apple)
Processed Food
(Barley)
Processed Food
(Cotton Seed)
Processed Food
(Grapes)
Processed Food (Oats)
A3
A3
A3
A3
A3
00156259, 44933001
DATA GAP
00003726
00156259,44346915
DATA GAP
185

-------
Annendix B.

**4Hll(ll^ w :
Gulden DC
HNMitr '-
860.1520
860.1520
860.1520
860.1520
860.1520

860.1850
860.1900
Number
171-4L
171-4L
171-4L
171-4L
171-4L

NONE
NONE
Data Supporting Guideline Requirements for the
Reregistration of Endosulfan
I -' !, - ' I s - "
4K ~
Processed Food
(Pineapple)
Processed Food
(Potato)
Processed Food (Rye)
Processed Food
(Tomato)
Processed Food
(Wheat)

Confined Rotational
Crops
Field Rotational Croos
tm ' . v\
'yxt*~4^^^' ' ''4
-pHHUPt '&
A3
A3
A3
A.B
A3
OTHER
A3,C
A.BC
1 ~ ,, f'i   '- - '
Blbtiogrphle Ctotiond) .- ' '
fJf -*' ' - fr
00146997, 00156259, 00157147
44346913
DATA GAP
00146842, 44346914
44762901

44933001
44972301
       ir r.  Technical Support Documents
   Additional documentation in support of this RED is maintained in the OPP Public Regulatory
Docket, located in Room 1 19, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202-
4501. It is open Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays, from 8:30 AM to 4 PM.

   The docket initially contained preliminary human health & ecological effects risk assessments and
related documents as of 09/13/2001. The public comment period closed sixty (60) days later on
1 1/13/2001. The EPA then considered comments, reevaluated the retention of the FQPA lOx Safety
Factor and revised the occupational risk assessment The Agency also reevaluated the toxicologies!
endpoint selection for dermal and inhalation risk assessments and the 3x safety factor for
bioaccumulation. Tiie foUowing documents were added to the docket and posted to the webpage on
3/15/2002. All documents, in hard copy form, may be viewedin the OPP docket room or
                                          186

-------
 downloaded/viewed via the Agency's website at
 http://www.epa.%ov/pesticides/rereyistration/endosulfan/.  These documents include:

 Health Effects Risk Assessment Documents:

 1. Re-Evaluation of Toxicology Endpoint Selection for Dermal and Inhalation Risk Assessments and
   3X Safety Factor for Bioaccumulation, February 7,2002.
 2. Revised Residue Chemistry Chapter For The Endosulfan Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED)
   Document, February 14,2002.
 3. Report of the FQPA Safety Factor Committee, February 14,2002.
 4. ThirdRevision of Occupational and Residentid Exposiire Assessment and Recommendations for
   the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document, February 26,2002.
 5. Anticipated Residues and Revised Chronic Dietary Exposure Analyses, February 28,2002.
 6. New FQPA and PDF Data, Anticipated Residues, and Revised Acute and Chronic Dietary
   Exposure Analyses, April 22,2002.
 7. Response to Registrant Comments on the Data Supporting the FQPA Safety Factor Rationale for
   Endosulfan

 Health Effects Risk Assessment Documents Added to the Endosulfan Docket on 09/30/2002:

 8. Response to Comments. Response to comments on EPA's Human Health Risk Assessment of
   Endosulfan dated 01/31/2001.
 9. Endosulfan. Agency Response to the 60-Day Response by the Endosulfan Task Force to the
   Revised Residue Chemistry Chapter dated January 31,2002.
 10.Revised Residue Chemistry Chapter for the Endosulfan Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED)
   Document, 2/14/2002.
 11 .Supporting documentation for findings of FQPA Safety Committee on February 11,2002, May 9,
   2002
 12.Endosulfan. Review of Endosulfan Task Force Response to the Health Effects Division February
   28,2002 Dietary Exposure Assessment dated, 6/14/2002
 13 .New FQPA, PDF, and Processing Data, Anticipated Residues, and Revised Acute and Chronic
   Dietary Exposure Analyses, July 19,2002
 14.Response to Registrant Comments on the Data Supporting the FQPA lOx Safety
       Factor Rationale for Endosulfan, August 12,2002.

Environmental Fate and Ecological Effects

                                           187

-------
 IS.    Final EFEDRisk Assessment for the Roiegistran'on EUgfoility Decisw^
       26,2002.
 16.    Endosulfan and Endosulfan Sulfate: Drinking Water EECs in Surface Water for Use in the
       Human Health Risk Assessment, July 3,2002.
 17.    EFED Response to the ETF "60-Day Response by the Endosulfan Task Force to the
       Environmental Fate and Effects Drafted Risk Assessment for the Reregistration Eligibility
       Decision on Endosulfan (EFED Memorandum dated July 12,2001)"
 18.    EFED Response to Comments by fte World Wildlife Federation on me Environmental Fate
       and Ecological Risk assessment for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision on Endosulfan
 19.    Jbifr'ED Response to Comments by the National Resource Defense Council Environmental Fate
       and Ecological Risk assessment for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision on Endosulfan

Biological and Economic Analysis of Endosulfan Benefits Assessments

20.    Benefits Assessment for Endosulfan Use in Sweet Potato, 4/15/2002
21.    Biological And Economic analysis of Endosulfan on Pears: Impacts from Changes in the Re-
       entry Interval, 4/18/2002
22.    Benefits Assessment for Endosulfan Use on Broccoli: Impacts from Changes in the Re-entry
       Interval, 4/18/2002
23.    Biological and Economic Analysis of Endosulfan on Peaches: Impacts from Changes in me Re-
       entry Interval, 4/24/2002
24.    Biological and Economic Analysis of Endosulfan on Grapes: Impacts from Changes in the Re-
       entry Interval, 5/30/2002
25.    Biological and Economic Analysis of Endosulfan on Blueberries: Impacts from Changes in the
       Re-entry Interval, 5/23/2002
26.    Biological and Economic Analysis of Endosulfan on Fresh Sweet Corn: Impacts from Changes
       in the Re-entry Interval, 6727/2002
27.    Biological and Economic Analysis of Endosulfan Benefits on Selected Crops: Impacts of
       Cancellation, 7/12/2002
28.    Assessment of Endosulfan Use in Seed Alfalfa:  Application Rate Reduction to Reduce Risks to
       Mixers/Loaders, 7/26/2002
29.    Biological and Economic Analysis of Endosulfan on Cabbage: Impacts from Changes in the Re-
       entry Interval, 8/8/2002
                                           188

-------
189

-------
Appendix D. CITATIONS CONSIDERED TO BE PART OF THE DATA BASE
             SUPPORTING THE REREGISTRATION DECISION (BIBLIOGRAPHY)
GUIDE TO APPENDIX D

1.     CONTENTS OF BIBLIOGRAPHY. This bibliography contains citations of all studies
       considered relevant by EPA in arriving at the positions and conclusions stated elsewhere in the
       Reregistration Eligibility Document Primary sources for studies in Ihis bibliography have been
       the body of data submitted to EPA and its predecessor agencies in support of past regulatory
       decisions.  Selections from other sources including the published literature, in those instances
       where they have been considered, are included.

2.     UNITS OF ENTRY. TteimtofentrymmisbibUogi^yis
-------
a      Author.  Whenever the author could confidently be identified, Ihe Agency has chosen to
       show a personal author. When no individual was identified, the Agency has shown an
       identifiable laboratory or testing fecility as the author. When no author or laboratory
       could be identified, the Agency has shown the first submitter as the author.

b.     Document date. Ihe date of the study is taken directly from the document  When the
       date is followed by a question mark, the bibliographer has deduced the date from the
       evidence contained in the document When the date appears as (1999), the Agency
       was unable to determine or estimate the date of the document

c.      Title, hi some cases, it has been necessary for the Agency bibliographers to create or
       enhance a document title.  Any such editorial insertions are contained between square
       brackets.

d.     Trailing parentheses.  For studies submitted to the Agency in the past, the trailing
       parentheses include (in addition to any self-explanatory text) the following elements
       describing the earliest known submission:

       (1)    Submission date.  The date of the earliest known submission appears
             immediately following the word "received."

       (2)    Administrative number. The next element immediately following the word
             "under" is the registration number, experimental use permit number, petition
             number, or other administrative number associated with the earliest known
             submission.

       (3)    Submitter. The third element is the submitter. When authorship is defaulted to
             the submitter, this element is omitted

       (4)    Volume Identification (Accession Numbers).  The final element in the trailing
             parentheses identifies the EPA accession number of the volume in which the
             original submission of the study appears. The six-digit accession number
             follows the symbol "CDL," which stands for "Company Data Library." This
             accession number is in turn followed by an alphabetic suffix which shows the
             relative position of the study within the volume.
                                    191

-------
192

-------
ENDOSULFAN BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
00003585    Oregon State University-Corvallis, Cooperative Extension Service (1963) Control of
             sugar beet insect pests. Page 133,~In~Oregon Insect Control Handbook.  Corvallis:
             O.S.U. (Also-Inr^unpublished submission received Aug 31, 1964 under 279-1 182;
             submission Philadelphia, Pa; CDL:008878-A)

00003586    Brogdon, J.E.; Marvel, M.E. (1959) Commercial Vegetable Insect and Disease
             Control Guide. Gainesville, Fla: Agricultural Extension Service. (Circular 193;
             also~In~unpublished submission received Sep 25, 1959 under 279-1 182; submitted by
             FMC Corp., Philadelphia, Pa; CDL:224560-A)
00003587    Shutdeworth,J.M. (1971) Determination of Endosiil^
             Endosulfen Sulfate Residues in or on Blueberries. Method M-2908 dated Aug 17,
             1971. (Unpublished study received Aug 27, 1971 under 1F1034; submitted by FMC
             Corp., Philadelphia, Pa; CDL:093343-A)

00003588    FMC Corporation (1969) Analytical Method and Residues: [Endosulfan].
             (Unpublished study received Sep 3, 1970 under 1F1034; CDL:093343-D)

00003592    Shuttleworth, J.M. (1970) Development of an Analytical Method for
             Determining Endosulfen and Endosulfen Sulfate Residues in or on
             Small Grains. Method M-2653 dated May 5, 1970.  (Unpublished
             study received Aug 18, 1970 under 1F1028; submitted by FMC
             Corp., Philadelphia, Pa; CDL:093338-C)

00003600    FMC Corporation (1958) Petition for me Establishment of a Tolerance for Thiodan on
             Strawberry and Peach-Including a Description of the Analytical Methods Used.
             (Unpublished study including supplement, received Feb 9, 1960 under PP0237; CDL:
             090265-A)
                                        193

-------
00003634    Stanovick, R.P. (1967) Determination of Thiodan I, II and Sulfate Residues in or on
             Sweet Com (Husk, Cob and Kernels): M-2129. Includes undated method,
             (Unpublished study received Jun 14,1967 under 279-1182; submitted by FMC Corp.,
             Philadelphia, Pa; CDL:008892-A)

00003642    FMC Corporation (1964) Thiodan: Analytical Method and Residue Data in or on
             Sweet Potatoes.  Includes method dated Feb 14,1964. (Unpublished study received
             Feb 18,1964 under unknown admin, no.; CDL:119693-A)

00003654    Ware, G.W.; Myser, W.C.; Treece, R.E.; Carey, W.E.; Terranova, A.C.  (1961) Final
             Report The Determination of 14C-tagged Thiodan Residues on Alfalfa: State Special
             Project #112. (Unpublished study received Jun 6,1962 under PP0373; prepared in
             cooperation with Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, submitted by FMC Corp.,
             Philadelphia, Pa.; CDL:090402-D)

00003703    FMC Corporation (1970) Thiodan: Analytical Method for Milk and Tissues:
             Supplemental Information to Niagara Report M-1656.  (Unpublished study received
             Aug 24,1967 under 8F0632; CDL:092926-D)

00003709    FMC Corporation (1969) (Foliar Application of Endosulfan on Potatoes).
             (Unpublished study received May 30,1970 under OF0925; CDL:091579-B)

00003710    FMC Corporation (1970) Results of Tests of the Amount of Residues Remaining and
             Description of Analytical Method: (Endosulfan). (Unpublished study received Sep 6,
             1971 under 1F1028; CDL:091905-B)

00003713    FMC Corporation (1971) Results of Tests of the Amount of Residues Remaining and
             Description of Analytical Method: (Endosulfan). (Unpublished study received Nov 17,
             1972 under 3F1314; CDL: 092246-C)

00003721    Hinstridge, P.A. (1968) Project No. and Title: 015-Thiodan and
             Thiodan Sulphate Residues in Refined Soybean Oil: R-1086. In-
             cludes method dated Jan 29,1968. (Unpublished study received
             Jan 17,1969 under 8F0723; submitted by FMC Corp., Philadelphia,
             Pa.; CDL:091250-S)
                                         194

-------
00003722    Hinstridge, PA. (1966) Project No. and Title: 015-Thiodan and Thiodan Sulphate
             Residues on Leaf Lettuce: R-993.  Includes method dated Aug 9,1966. (Unpublished
             study received Jan 17,1969 under 8F0723; submitted by FMC Corp., Philadelphia,
             Pa,; CDL:091250-T)

00003723    IR-4 Project at Rutgers, the State University (1977) Summary:
             Crop-Dosages-Applications-IntervalResidue--Recovery: (Endo-
             sulfan and Paramion on Mustard Seed and Rape Seed)  Summary of
             study 092201-B. Includes undated method. (Unpublished study
             received Aug 11,1972 under 3E1300; CDL:092201-A)

00003724    Winterlin,W.( 1968) Residues Found on Mustard and Rape Seed.  Includes undated
             method. (Unpublished study received Aug 11,1972 under 3E1300; prepared by Univ.
             of California-Davis, Dept of Environmental Toxicology, submitted by Interregional
             Research Project No. 4, New Brunswick, N.J.; CDL:092201-B)

00003725    FMC Corporation (1966) [Residue Data of Endosulfan on Cotton]. (Unpublished
             study received Jun 8,1970 under OF0929; CDL:091584-B)

00003726    FMC Corporation (1969) Endosulian Cotton: Processing Studies. (Unpublished study
             received Jun 8,1970 under OF0929; prepared in cooperation with Texas A & M
             Univ., Cottonseed Products Laboratory, CDL:091584-D)

00003727    FMC Corporation (1967) [Residues of Endosulian on Safflower Seed]. Includes
             undated method. (Unpublished study received Jun 8,1970 under OF0929;
             CDL:091584-E)

00003728    Shuttleworth, J.M. (1971) Determination of Endosulfan and Endosulfan Sulfate
             Residues in Sugar Beet Roots and Sugar Beet Pulp: M-2866. Includes undated
             method. (Unpublished study including letter dated Sep 10,1971 from PJ. Boughton to
             William H. Morgan, received Jul 2,1971 under 1F1058; submitted by FMC Corp.,
             Philadelphia, Pa; CDL:093371-E)

00003741    Baran, J. (1967) Report to Niagara Chemical  Division, FMC Corpora-
             tion: Two-Year Chronic Oral Toxicity of Thiodan Technical-Bea-
             gle Dogs: JBT No. C3758. (Unpublished study including letter
             dated Dec 5,1967 from J.C. Calandra to John F. McCarthy, re-
                                         195

-------
             ceived Dec 7,1967 under 7F0632; prepared by Industrial Bio-Test
             Laboratories, Inc., submitted by FMC Corp., Philadelphia, Pa.;
             CDL:091100-A)

00003742    Maier-Bode,R (1966) Summary of the Results of Residue Tests after Feeding
             SKtosdtom German;
             unpublished study received Dec 7,1967 under 7F0632; prepared by
             Pharmakologisches Institut der Rheinischen Friedrich Wilhelms-Umversitat Bonn,
             Germany, submitted by FMC Corp., Philadelphia, Pa; CDL.-091100-B)

00003743    Gorbach, S (1965) Investigations on Thiodan in the Metabolism of Milk Sheep.
             Includes undated method. (Unpublished study including report, received Dec 7,1967
             under 7F0632; prepared by Farbwerke Hoechst AG, Germany, submitted by FMC
             Corp., Philaphia, Pa; CDL:091100-C)

00003744    Gorbach, S. (1973) Extraction of Endosulfen from Tea-Leaves. Includes method
             dated Nov 4,1973. (Unpublished study received on unknown date under 2H2667;
             prepared by Farbwerke Hoechst AG, Germany, submitted by American Hoechst
             Corp., North Hollywood, Calif.; CDL225765-A)

00003760    Hinstridge, P.A.  (1968) Project No. and Title: 015-Endosulfan and Endosulfen
             Sulphate (Residues on Sweet Com): R-l 111. (Unpublished study received Oct 17,
             1969 under 9F0845; prepared in cooperation with Washington State Univ., Irrigated
             Agriculture Research and Extension Center, submitted by FMC Corp., Philadelphia,
             Pa; CDL:091461-B)
00003777    Stanovick, RJ>. (1964) Determination of Thiodan Residues on or in Cottonseed:
             M-1339.  Includes method dated Apr 3,1964. (Unpublished study received Apr 9,
             1964 under unknown admin, no.; submitted by FMC Corp., Philadelphia, Pa;
             CDL:119688-A)

00003778    Food Machinery and Chemical Corporation (1958) Analytical Method for
             Determination of Thiodan Residues by Sulfur Dioxide Evolution. Method dated Mar
             11,1958. (Unpublished study received Nov 25,1958 under unknown admin, no.;
             CDL:119664-A)
                                         196

-------
 00003782     Stanovick, R.P. (1963) Determination of Thiodan Sulfate and Diol Residues on
              Strawberries, Sweet Cherries and Tart Cherries Using the MCGC Analytical
              Procedure: M-1246.  (Unpublished study received Oct 8,1968 under unknown admin.
              no.; submitted by FMC Corp., Philadelphia, Pa.; CDL:11%21-B)

 00003783     Stanovick, RJ>. (1964) Determination of Thiodan I, n and Sulfate Residues on or in
              Apples, Peaches, Pears, Cabbage and Tomatoes: M-1300. Includes method dated
              March 19,1964. (Unpublished study received Oct 8,1968 under unknown admin.
              no.; submitted by FMC Corp., Philadelphia, Pa.; CDL:119621-C)

 00003784     Stanovick, R.P. (1965) Determination of Thiodan I, n and Sulfate Residues in or on
              Peaches: M-1692. Includes method dated Dec 13,1965. (Unpublished study
              received Oct 8,1968 under unknown admin, no.; submitted by FMC Corp.,
              Philadelphia, Pa.; CDL: 119621-D)

 00003785     Hinstridge, PA. (1963) Project No. and Title: 15-Thiodan and Thiodan Sulphate
              (Residues on Strawberries): R-666. (Unpublished study received Oct 8,1968 under
              unknown admin, no.; submitted by FMC  Corp., Philadelphia, Pa; CDL:119621-E)

 00003786     Hinstridge, PA. (1963) Project No. and Title: 15-Thiodan and Thiodan Sulphate
              (Residues on Fresh and Dry French Prunes): R-673.  (Unpublished study received Oct
              8,1968 under unknown admin, no.; submitted by FMC Corp., Philadelphia, Pa; CDL:
              119621-F)

 00003787     Hinstridge, PA (1963) Project No. and Title: 15-Thiodan and Thiodan Sulfate
              Residues on Apples: R-677. (Unpublished study received Oct 8,1968 under unknown
              admin, no.; submitted by FMC Corp., Philadelphia, Pa; CDL:119621-G)

 00003788     Hinstridge, PA (1963) Project No. and Title: 15-Thiodan and Thiodan Sulfate
              Residues on Grapes: R-678. (Unpublished study received Oct 8,1968 under
              unknown admin, no.; submitted by FMC  Corp., Philadelphia, Pa; CDL:119621-H)
00003789     Hinstridge, PA. (1963) Project No. and Title:  15-Thiodan  and Thiodan Sulfate
              Residues on Peaches: R-689. (Unpublished study received Oct 8,1968 under
              unknown admin, no.; submitted by FMC  Corp., Philadelphia, Pa; CDL: 119621-1)

00003790     Hinstridge, PA (1963) Project No. and Title:  15-Thiodan  and Thiodan Sulfate
              Residues on Cabbage and Lettuce: R-698. (Unpublished study received Oct 8,1968
                                          197

-------
             under unknown admin, no.; submitted by FMC Corp., Philadelphia, Pa;
             CDL:119621-J)

00003791    Hinstridge, PA (1964) Project No. and Title: 15-Tbiodan (Residues on Fresh French
             Prunes): R-783. (Unpublished study received Oct 8,1968 under unknown admin, no.;
             submitted by FMC Corp., Philadelphia, Pa; CDL:119621-K)

00003795    CassU, C.C.; Drummond, P.E. (1%5) A plant surface oxidation product of Endosulfan.
             Journal of Economic Entomology 58(2): 356-357. (Also~In~unpublished submission
             received Apr 4,1966 under 7F0526; submitted by FMC Corp., Philadelphia, Pa;
             CDL: 090630-A)

00003796    FMC Corporation (1965) Results of Tests of the Amount of Residues Remaining and
             Description of Analytical Method: [Thiodan].  (pp. 4-213 only; unpublished study
             received Apr 4,1966 under 7F0526; CDL:090630-B)

00003797    Hinstridge, PA. (1966) Project No. and Title: 015-Thiodan and Thiodan Sulphate
             Residues on Fresh and Canned Pineapple: R-941. Includes undated method.
             (Unpublished study received Apr 4,1966 under 7F0526; submitted by FMC Corp.,
             Philadelphia, Pa; CDL:090630-C)

00003798    Thornburg,W. (1966) Thiodan Residues on Treated Fresh Pineapple.  Includes
             method dated Feb 3,1966. (Unpublished study received Apr 4,1966 under 7F0526;
             prepared by California Packing Corp., submitted by FMC Corp., Philadelphia, Pa;
             CDL:090630-D)

00003799    Thomburg, W. (1966) Thiodan Residues on Treated Canned Pineapple. (Unpublished
             study received Apr 4,1966 under 7F0526; prepared by California Packing Corp.,
             submitted by FMC Corp., Philadelphia, Pa; CDL:090630-E)

00003823    MaWiteshimBeer-Sheva Chemical Works, Limited  (1969) Analytical
             Method: Thionex: Technical Material and Formulations:
             DS 15.35.10. (Unpublished study received Jun 19,1972 under
             11678-5; CDL:011014-C)

00003824    Makhteshim Chemical Works, Limited (1%9) Analytical Method:
             Thionex: Residue Analysis: DS 15.35.11. (Unpublished study re-
                                         198

-------
              ceived Jun 19,1972 under 11678-5; CDL:011014-D)

00003825     Makhteshim Beer-Sheva Chemical Works, Limited (1969) Thionex: In-
              secticide: Biological Data. (Unpublished study received Jun 19,
              1972 under 11678-5; CDL:011014-E)

00003833     Howitt, AJ. (1969) Control of Pear Psylla on Pears: Michigan--l%9
              (4 Tests).  (Unpublished study received Apr 13,1970 under 279-
              1182; prepared by Michigan State Univ., Dept of Entomology,
              submitted by FMC Corp., Philadelphia, Pa; CDL:002302-E)

00003834     Hinstridge, PA (1964) Project No. and Title:  15-Thiodan Technical, Thiodan n and
              Thiodan Sulfete Residues on Alfelfk R-721. (Unpublished study received Jul 14,1967
              under 8F0632; submitted by FMC Corp., Philadelphia, Pa.; CDL:091099-C)

00003835     Hinstridge, PA (1965) Project No. and Tide:  15-Thiodan and Thiodan Sulfate
              (Residues on Alfelfe): R-859. (Unpublished study received Jul 14,1967 under
              8F0632; submitted by FMC Corp., Philadelphia, Pa.; CDL:091099-D)

00003836     Stanovick, R.P. (1964) Determination ofThiodan I, D and Sulfate Residues on or in
              Alfalfe (Supplement to Report M-1403): M-1448.    (Unpublished study received Jul
              14,1967 under 8F0632; submitted by FMC Corp., Philadelphia, Pa.;
              CDL:091099-F)

00003837     Palazzolo, RJ. (1966) Report to FMC Corporation, Niagara Chemical
              Division: Milk and Meat Residue Study: Thiodan and Thiodan Sul-
              fete: Cows: WCRF Number 133. (Unpublished study received Jul
              14,1967 under 8F0632; prepared by Industrial Bio-Test Labora-
              tories, Inc., submitted by FMC Corp., Philadelphia, Pa.; CDL:
              091099-H)

00003838     Stanovidc, RJ?. (1965) Determination ofThiodan I, H and Sulfate Residues in Milk and
              Cow Tissues: M-1656. Includes method dated Oct 28,1965.  (Unpublished study
              received Jul 14,1967 under 8F0632; submitted by FMC Corp., Philadelphia, Pa;
              CDL:091099-I)
                                          199

-------
00003840     Stanovick, RP. (1967) Determination of Thiodan I, H and Sulfete Residues in Eggs
              and Chicken Tissues: M-2142. Includes method dated May 1,1967.  (Unpublished
              study received Jul 14,1967 under 8F0632; submitted by FMC Corp., Philadelphia,
              Pa.; CDL: 091099-L)

00003841     Ware, G.W. (1967) Studies of Pesticide Residues on Alfalfa Using
              CA14=-Labeled Endosul&n, Wooster, Ohio: Ohio Agricultural Research and
              Development Center. (Research circular 151; also In unpublished submission received
              Jul 14,1967 under 8F0632; submitted by FMC Corp., Philadelphia, Pa.;
              CDL:091099-N)

00003843     FMC Corporation (1971) Recovery of Endosulfen I, H and Endosulfen Sulfete from
              Blueberries: M-2908. (Unpublished study received Sep 17,1971 under 1F1034;
              CDL:091919-B)

00003853     Lienk, S.E. (1964) Thiodan: Pear-Pear Psylla: M-1840. (Unpub-
              lished study received Jul 18,1972 under 279-1182; prepared in
              cooperation with Cornell Univ., New York State Agricultural
              Experiment Station, submitted by FMC Corp., Philadelphia, Pa;
              CDL:002304-F)

00003854     Howitt,A.J. (1969) Thiodan: Pear-Pear Psylla: MC-364. (Unpub-
              lished study received Jul 18,1972 under 279-1182; prepared hi
              cooperation with Michigan State Univ., Dept of Entomology, sub-
              mitted by FMC Corp., Philadelphia, Pa.; CDL:002304-G)

00003859     Madsen,H.F. (1959) Thiodan: Pear-Pear Psylla: M-784. (Unpub-
              lished study received Jul 18,1972 under 279-1182; prepared hi
              cooperation with Univ. of California, submitted by FMC Corp.,
              Philadelphia, Pa.; CDL:002304-Q)

00003860     Shuttle-worth, J.M. (1970) Determination of Endosulfan and Endosul-
              fan Sulfate Residues in or on Pears: M-2627. Includes method
              dated Jun 16,1970.  (Unpublished study received Jul 18,1972
             under 279-1182; submitted by FMC Corp., Philadelphia, Pa.;
              CDL:002304-S)
                                         200

-------
 00003861     Shuttleworth, J.M. (1971) Determination of Endosulfen I, Endosul-
              fan n and Endosulfan Sulfate Residues in or on Pears: M-2879.
              Includes method dated May 27,1971.  (Unpublished study received
              Jul 18,1972 under 279-1182; submitted by FMC Corp., Philadel-
              phia, Pa,; CDL:002304-T)

 00003862     Hinstridge, PA. (1971) Project No. and Title: 015-Thiodan (Residues in or on Pears):
              R-l 184.  Includes undated method. (Unpublished study received Jul 18,1972 under
              279-1182; submitted by FMC Corp., Philadelphia, Pa,; CDL:002304-U)

 00003864     Hinstridge, PA (1966) Project No. and Title: 015-Thiodan and Thiodan Sulphate
              Residues on Peppers:  R-1001. (Unpublished study received Oct 17,1966 under
              279-1405; submitted by FMC Corp., Philadelphia, Pa,;  CDL:002394-A)

 00003872     FMC Corporation (1960) Potatoes. (Unpublished study received
              Mar 1,1961 under 279-1380; CDL:002350-C)

 00003876     Madsen,H.F.; Bailey, J.B. (1958) Apple. (Unpublished study re-
              ceived Dec 26,1961 under 279-1380; prepared by Univ. of Cali-
              fornia-Berkeley, submitted by FMC Corp., Philadelphia, Pa.;
              CDL:002351-C)

 00003885     Rathbone, K.M. (1966) Thiodan Tests on Grape Leaf Folder.  (Unpub-
              lished study received Feb 6,1967 under 279-2548; submitted by
              FMC Corp., Philadelphia, Pa,; CDL:002461-B)

 00003898     Food Machinery and Chemical Corporation (1958) Summary of Pea In-
              sect Control with Niagara Thiodan Formulations. (Unpublished
              study received Sep 22,1958 under 279-1182; prepared hi coopera-
              tion with Univ. of Wisconsin; CDL:002283-A)

00003900     Jones, S.C. (1961) Western Cooperative Spray Project, January,
              1961. (Unpublished study including letter dated Feb 10,1961
              from S.C. Jones to Roger G. Scott, received Apr 22,1963 under
              100-460; prepared by Oregon State College, Experiment Station,
                                         201

-------
              Dept of Entomology, submitted by Geigy Agricultural Chemicals,
              Greensboro, N.C.; CDL:000353-B)

00003906     FMC Corporation (1956) [Thiodan Field Performance Data:  Alfalfa,
              Pears and Potatoes].  (Unpublished study received Jan 24,1957
              under 279-1182; CDL:002279-A)
00003907    FMC Corporation (1963) [nriodan Field Performance Data: Wheat,
             Barley and Southern Field Peas]. (Unpublished study received
             Oct 9,1964 under 279-1182; CDL:008880-A)

00003908    FMC Corporation (1964) Ethion: Control of Apple and Pear Rust
             Mites. (Unpublished study received Dec 28,1964 under 279-1401;
             CDL:002382-A)

00003910    FMC Corporation (19M) Endosulfan (Thiodan): Blueberry Bud Mite
             Control. (Unpublished study received Aug 25,1964 under 279-
             1182; prepared in cooperation with N J. Blueberry Research
             Laboratory; CDL:008877-A)

00003916    Randolph, N.M. (1959) Progress Report 2083: Evaluation of Insecti-
             cides for the Control of the Sorghum Webworm and the Corn Ear-
             worm on Grain Sorghum. (Unpublished study received Aug 21,1959
             under unknown admin, no.; prepared by Texas A & M Univ., Agri-
             cultural Experiment Station, Dept of Entomology, submitted by
             Union Carbide Corp., Agricultural Products, Washington, D.C.;
             CDL:110532-F)
00003917    FMC Corporation (1965) Endosulfan and Endosulfan Sulfate Residues on Field Peas
             (Shelled Peas .and Pods): Study I. (Unpublished study received Jul 1,1969 under
             279-2659; CDL:002462-A)

00003918    FMC Corporation (1960) Pecan: M-832. (Unpublished study received
             Apr 24,1961 under 279-1182; prepared in cooperation with Texas

                                         202

-------
              A & M Univ. and U.S. Agricultural Research Service, Pecan Lab-
              oratory; CDL:002291-A)

00003919     FMC Corporation (1961) Pecans. (Unpublished study received Mar 26,
              1962 under 279-1380; prepared in cooperation with U.S. Agricul-
              tural Research Service, Pecan Laboratory, and Oklahoma State
              Univ. of Agriculture and Applied Science and Texas A & M Univ.;
              CDL:002353-A)

00003920     FMC Corporation (1965) Strawberry. (Unpublished study received Jan
              10,1966 under 279-1182; prepared in cooperation with Michigan
              State Univ. and New York State Agricultural Experiment Station;
              CDL:008885-A)

00003924     FMC Corporation (1969) Cabbage. (Unpublished study received Jan
              24,1969 under 279-1380; prepared in cooperation with Everglades
              Experiment Station; CDL:002374-A)

00003938     Schread, J.C. (1966) Pests of Ornamentals: Reports on Control Ex-
              periments: The Black Vire Weevil Rev. New Haven: Univ. of
              Connecticut (pp. 7-8 only; Agricultural Experiment Station,
              Circular 211; also~Ir*Hmpublished submission received Apr 7,
              1966 under 279-1380; submitted by FMC Corp., Philadelphia, Pa.;
              CDL:002366-A)
00003947    FMC Corporation (1965) Potato. (Unpublished study received Jan 27,
             1967 under 279-2032; CDL:028276-B)

00003948    Moore, D.H. (1966) Project Number and Title: 060 Polyram-Aerial
             Application of Polyram to Potatoes: M-2023. (Unpublished study
             received Jan 27,1967 under 279-2032; submitted by FMC Corp.,
             Philadelphia, Pa.; CDL:028276-C)
                                         203

-------
00003949    FMC Corporation (1965) Endosul&n and Endosul&n Sul&te Residues on Field Peas
             (Shelled Peas and Pods). (Unpublished study received Jul 1,1969 under 279-1182;
             CDL:022704-A)

00003950    Ruppel, R.F. (1964) Oats.  (Unpublished study received Oct 25,1965
             under 279-1182; prepared by Michigan State Univ., Dept of
             Entomology, submitted by FMC Corp., Philadelphia, Pa; CDL:
             008884-B)

00003952    FMC Corporation (1960) Thiodan Recovery Data. (Unpublished study
             received Aug 24,1960 under 279-1381; CDL:101258-A)

00003956    Stauffer Chemical Company (1958) [Trials of Various Pesticides for
             Control of Peach Twig Borer Larvae: California, 1958.] (Unpub-
             lished study received Feb 12,1965 under 476-1088; CDL:221340-A)

00003959    FMC Corporation (19??) Results of Tests of the Amount of Residues Remaining and
             Description of Analytical Methods: (Thiodan).  (Unpublished study received Jun 21,
             1966 under 7F0526; CDL:  095429-A)

00003960    FMC Corporation (1977) Name, Chemical Identity and Composition of
             Pesticide Chemical: (Thiodan). (Unpublished study received
             Jun 21,1966 under 7F0526; CDL:095429-C)

00004254    FMC Corporation (1967) Results of Tests of the Amount of Residues Remaining and
             Description of Analytical Method: (Endosul&n]. (Unpublished study received May 29,
             1970 under OF0922; CDL:  091576-A)

00004255    FMC Corporation (1977) Practicable Methods of Removing Residues
             That Exceed Proposed Tolerance: [Thiodan]. (Unpublished study
             received Dec 16,1959 under PP0237; CDL:092514-D)

00004256    U.S. National Cancer Institute (1978) Bioassay of Endosul&n for
             Possible Carcinogeniciry. By Division of Cancer Cause and Pre-
             vention, Carcinogenesis Testing Program.  Bethesda, Md.: U.S.
                                         204

-------
              DepL of Health, Education, and Welfare.  (DREW publication no.
              (NIH) 78-1312; also~In~iinpublished submission received Jul 26,
              1978 under 4E1430; submitted by American Hoechst Corp., Somer-
              viUe, N J.; CDL:097264-A)

00004257     Deema, P.; Thompson, E.; Ware, G.W. (1966) Metabolism, storage, and
              excretion of C14-Endosulfen in the mouse. Journal of Economic
              Entomology 59(3):546-550.  (Also in unpublished submission re-
              ceived Jul 14,1967 under 8F0632; submitted by FMC Corp., Phila-
              delphia, Pa.; CDL:091099-A)

00004258     Stanovick, RJ>. (1964) Determination of Thiodan I, H and Sulfate Residues on or in
              Alfelfa, Red Clover and Bird's-Foot Trefoil: M-1403. Includes undated method.
              (Unpublished study received Jul 14,1967 under 8F0632; submitted by FMC Corp.,
              Philadelphia, Pa.; CDL:091099-E)

00022923     HffletaL 71975

00038306     Buccafusco, RJ. (1976) Acute Toxicity of Endosuhan Technico to
              BluegQl (|i~Lepomis macrochirus~u). (Unpublished study received
              Jul 28,1980 under 2749-487; prepared by EG&G, Bionomics, sub-
              mitted by Aceto Chemical Co., Inc., Flushing, N.Y.; CDL:
              243084-A)

00038307     Reno, F.E. (1975) Final Report Acute Oral Toxicity Study in Rats: Project No.
              915-108. (Unpublished study received Jul 28,1980  under 2749-487; prepared by
              Hazleton Laboratories America, Inc., submitted by Aceto Chemical Co., Inc., Flushing,
              N.Y.jCDL: 243082-A)

00038308     Reno, FE. (1976) Final Report: Acute Dermal Toxicity Study in
              Rabbits: Project No. 915-109.  (Unpublished study received Jul
              28,1980 under 2749-487; prepared by Hazleton Laboratories Amer-
              ica, Inc., submitted by Aceto Chemical Co., Inc.,  Flushing,
             N.Y.; CDL:243082-B)
                                         205

-------
00038309    Reno, FE. (1975) Final Report: Primary Skin Irritation Study in Rabbits: Project No.
             915-111.  (Unpublished study received Jul 28,1980 under 2749-487; prepared by
             Hazleton Laboratories America, Inc., submitted by Aceto Chemical Co., Inc., Flushing,
             N.Y.; CDL: 243082-C)

00094837    MacKenzie, JLM.; Felton, S.M.; Dickie, S.M.; et al. (1981) Teratology Study with
             FMC 5462 in Rabbits: Raltech Study No. 80070; FMC Study # A79-370

 00128645    Crown, S.; Nyska, A. (1982) Thionex 50WP: Acute Oral Toxicity in
             the Rat: LSRI Report No. MAK/024/TNX 50WP. Final rept (Unpub-
             lished study received May 31,1983 under 11678-42; prepared by
             Life Science Research Israel Ltd., submitted by Makhteshim Beer-
             Sheva Chemical Works Ltd., New York, NY; CDL:250399-A)

00128646    Crown, S.; Hovevey-Sion, D.; Nyska, A. (1982) Thionex 50 WP: Acute
             Dermal Toxicity in Rabbits: LSRI Report No. MAK/025/TNX 50 WP.
             Final rept (Unpublished study received May 31,1983 under
             11678-42; prepared by Life Science Research Israel Ltd., submit-
             ted by Makhteshim Beer-Sheva Chemical Works Ltd, New York, NY;
             CDL:250399-B)

00128647    Buch, S.; Gardner, J.; Bannerman, M.; et al. (1983) Thionex 50 WP:
             Acute Inhalation Toxicity in me Rat: LSR Report No. 83/MAK048/
             037.  (Unpublished study received May 31,1983 under 11678-42;
             prepared by Life Science Research, Eng., submitted by Makhteshim
             Beer-Sheva Chemical Works Ltd., New York, NY; CDL:250399-C)
00128648     Crown, S.; Nissimov, S. (1982) Thionex 50 WP: Primary Eye Irrita-
             tion Study in the Rabbit LSRI Report No. MAK/027/TNX/50WP. Fi-
             nal rept (Unpublished study received May 31,1983 under 11678-
             42; prepared by Life Science Research Israel Ltd., submitted by
             Makhteshim Beer-Sheva Chemical Works Ltd, New York, NY; CDL:
             250399-D)
                                        206

-------
00128649     Crown, S.; Hamami, S. (1982) Thionex 50 WP: Primary Dermal Irritation Study in
              Rabbits: LSRI Report No. MAK/026/INX 50 WP. Final report. (Unpublished study
              received May 31,1983 under 11678-42; prepared by Life Science Research Israel
              Ltd., submitted by Makhteshim Beer-Sheva Chemical Works Ltd., New York, NY;
              CDL:  250399-E)

00128650     Makhteshim Beer-Sheva Chemical Works Ltd. (1983) Thionex 35 EC: End
              Use Product [Chemistry Data]. (Compilation; unpublished study
              received May 31,1983 under 11678-25; CDL:250400-A)

00128655     Kintner, D.; Forbis, A. (1983) Acute Toxicity of Thionex 3 EC to Rainbow Trout...:
              Static Bioassay Report #29975. (Unpublished study received May 31,1983 under
              11678-25; prepared by Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc., submitted by
              Makhteshim Beer-Sheva Chemical Works, Ltd., New York, NY; CDL:250401-A)

00128656     Kintner, D.; Forbis, A. (1983) Acute Toxicity of Thionex 3 EC to
              Bluegill Sunfish...: Static Bioassay Report #29974. (Unpub-
              lished study received May 31,1983 under 11678-25; prepared by
              Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc., submitted by Makh-
              teshim Beer-Sheva Chemical Works, Ltd., New York, NY; CDL:
              250401-B)

00128657     American Hoechst Corp. (1982) [Chemistry of Thiodan]. (Compilation; unpublished
              study received May 31,1983 under 8340-13; CDL:250395-A)

00128658     Energy Resources Co., Inc. (1983) Acute Toxicity of Endosulfan to Embryos of the
              Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virginica) and the Fiddler Crab (Uca pugnax).  Final rept
              (Unpublished study received May 31,1983 under 8340-13; submitted by American
              Hoechst Corp., Somerville, NJ; CDL:250395-B)

00128659     Gorlitz, G.; Klockner, C. (1982) Hydrolysis of Hoe 02671 (Endosulfen): Bericht Nr.
              (B) 90/82;  A25677.  (Translation of document no. A 24433; unpublished study
              received May 31,1983 under 8340-13; prepared by Hoechst AG, W. Ger., submitted
              by American Hoechst Corp., Somerville, NJ; CDL:250395-C)
00128660    Gildemeister, H.; Jordan, H. (1983) Photolytic Degradation of the Insecticide
             Endosulfan on Soil Covered Thin Layer Plates under Simulated Sunlight Bericht Nr.

                                         207

-------
             (B)46/83; A25805. (Unpublished study received May 31,1983 under 8340-13;
             prepared by Hoechst, AG, W. Ger., submitted by American Hoechst Corp.,
             Somerville, NJ; CDL250395-D)
00128661    Makhteshim Beer-Sheva Chemical Works, Ltd. (19??) Endosul&n Technical.
             (Compilation; unpublished study received May 31,1983 under 11678-5;
             CDL:250396-A)

00128662    Makhteshim Beer-Sheva Oiemical Works, Ltd. (1983) [Chemistry of
             Thionex (Endosul&n) Technical]. (Compilation; unpublished
             study received May 31,1983 under 11678-5; CDL250397-A)

00128663    Makhteshim Beer-Sheva Chemical Works, Ltd. (1983) Endosulfen Regis-
             tration Standard-End Use Product-Thionex (Endosul&n) 50 W.
             (Compilation; unpublished study received May 31,1983 under
             11678-42; CDL:250398-A)

00128688    Boeri, R. H. And T. J. Ward. 1983.  Acute toxicity of Endosulfen to embryos of the
             eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginicd) and the fiddler crab (Uca pugnax). Energy
             Resources Co., Inc. Cambridge, MA (Access Number 128688)

00128846    FMC Corp. (1983) [Chemistry: Thiodan 50 WP Code 190].  (Compila-
             tion; unpublished study received Jun 1,1983 under 279-1380;
             CDL:250423-A)

00128847    DeProspo, J.; Freeman, C.; Barbera, J.; et al. (1983) Acute Oral
             Toxicity of Thiodan 50 WP in Rats: Study No. A82-793.  (Un-
             published study received Jun 1,1983 under 279-1380; submitted
             by FMC Corp., Philadelphia, PA; CDL:250424-A)

00128848    DeProspo, J.; Freeman, C.; Barbera, J.; et al. (1983) Acute Dermal
             Toxicity Screen in Rabbits Using Thiodan 50 WP: Study No. A82-
             794. (Unpublished study received Jun 1,1983 under 279-1380;
             submitted by FMC Corp., Philadelphia, PA; CDL250242-B)
                                        208

-------
 00128849     Maedgen, J.; Carmelongo, B.; Sabol, R.; et al. (1983) Rat Acute
              Inhalation Toxicity: Project No. 2879-83; FMC Study No. A82-
              797. (Unpublished study received Jun 1,1983 under 279-1380;
              prepared by Stillmeadow, Inc., submitted by FMC Corp., Phila-
              delphia, PA; CDL:250424-C)

 00128850     DeProspo, J.; Norvell, M.; Freeman, C; et al. (1983) Primary Eye
              Irritation Study in Rabbits Using Thiodan 50 WP: Study No.
              A82-796.  (Unpublished study received Jun 1,1983 under 279-
              1380; submitted by FMC Corp., Philadelphia, PA; CDL:250424-D)

 00128851     DeProspo, J.; Norvell, M.; Freeman, C.; et al. (1983) Primary Skin
              Irritation Study in Rabbits Using Thiodan 50 WP: Study No. A82-
              795. (Unpublished study received Jun 1,1983 under 279-1380;
              submitted by FMC Corp., Philadelphia, PA; CDL:250424-E)

 00129215     Velsicol Chemical Corp. (1977) [Chemistry: Endosulfan]. (Compilation; unpublished
              study received Jul 14,1983 under 876-201; CDL: 250726-A)

 00129216     Velsicol Chemical Corp. (1977) Product Chemistry Infonnation: Tio-
              vel 50 WP Insecticide]. (Compilation; unpublished study re-
              ceived Jul 14,1983 under 876-202; CDL:250727-A)

 00129217     Bier, C.; Guitar, D.; Procter, B. (1981) Acute Dermal Toxicity
              in Albino Rabbits Administered Test Article Tiovel 50 WP: Proj-
              ect No. 12884. (Unpublished study received Jul 14,1983 under
              876-202; prepared by Bio-Research Laboratories Ltd., submitted
              by Velsicol Chemical Corp., Chicago, IL; CDL:250727-E)

00129673     US EPA (1981) Administrative Record of the Registration Standard
              for HexacUorohexahydromeoiano-2,4,3-benzodioxamiepin 3-Oxide
              (Endosulfen)

00133027    DeProspo, J.; Freeman, C. (1983) Acute Oral Toxicity Study of
                                         209

-------
             Thiodan3EC in Rats: FMC Reference A83-1046. (Unpublished study
             received Dec 20,1983 under 279-2924; submitted by FMC Corp.,
             Philadelphia, PA; CDL:252013-A)

00134388    FMC Corp. (1973) Studies of the Impact of Endosulfen on the Envi-
             ronment (Compilation; unpublished study received Nov 1,1973
             under unknown admin, no.; CDL: 120346-A)

00134389    FMCCoip.(1973)[EnviKmmentalC3iemistiyofEndosulM^ (Compi-
             lation; unpublished study received Nov 1,1973 under unknown ad-
             min, no.; CDL:120346-B)

00134390    Schumachar, G.; Klein, W.; Korte, F. (1971) Photochemische reak-
             tionen des endosulfans in losung. Tetrahedron Letters (24):
             2229-2232. (Also In unpublished submission received Nov 1,1973
             under unknown admin, no.; submitted by FMC Corp., Philadelphia,
             PA; CDL:120346-E)

00134391    Archer, T. (1973) Endosulfan residues on alfalfa hay exposed to
             drying by sunlight, ultraviolet light and air. Pestic. Sci. 4:
             59-68. (Also In unpublished submission received Nov 1,1973 un-
             der unknown admin, no.; submitted by FMC Corp., Philadelphia,
             PA; CDL:120346-G)

00134392    Wendler, S.; Hamish, W.; Krog, N. (1972) In vitro Bioassay Report-
             Fungicide Laboratory: [Thiodan Insecticide]: Project No. 016.
             (Unpublished study received Nov 1,1973 under unknown admin.
             no.; submitted by FMC Corp., Philadelphia, PA; CDL:120346-H)

00134393    Oeser, H.; Gorbach, S.; Knau W. (1971) Endosulfime and the envi-
             ronment Pages 17-22, In [Source unknown]. (May; also In un-
             published submission received Nov 1,1973 under unknown admin.
             no.; submitted by FMC Corp., Philadelphia, PA; CDL:120346-I)
                                         210

-------
00134394     Knauf, W.; Schulze, E. (1973) New Findings on the Toxicity of Endo-
              sulfen and Its Metabolites to Aquatic Organians.  (Unpublished
              study received Nov 1,1973 under unknown admin, no.; prepared by
              Faibweike Hoechst AG, W. Ger., submitted by FMC Corp., Philadel-
              phia, PA; CDL:120346-J)
00134395     Greve, P. (1970) The Persistence of Endosulfan in Surfece Water.  A
              translation of. DePersistentie van EndV>sulia^
              ter. (Presented at the 22nd International Symposium of Phyto-
              pharmacy and Phytoiatrics; May 5,1970, Ghent, Belg.; unpub-
              lished study received Nov 1,1973 under unknown admin, no.; sub-
              mitted by FMC Corp., Philadelphia, PA; CDL:120346-L)

00134396     Eichelberger, J.; Lichtenberg, J. (1971) Persistence of pesticides
              in river water. Environmental Science & Technology 5(6):541-
              544. (Also In unpublished submission received Nov 1,1973 under
              unknown admin.no.; submitted by FMC Corp., Philadelphia, PA;
              CDL:120346-M)

00136994     Jung; Weigand (1983) Hoe 002671-Active Ingredient Technical (Code: Hoe 002671
              01ZD97 0003): Test for Sensitizing Properties in Female Piibright-White Guinea Pigs
              According to the Method of Buehler Report No. 83.0339. (Translation; unpublished
              study received Dec 27,1983 under 8340-13; prepared by Hoechst AG, West
              Germany, submitted by American Hoechst Corp., Somervflle, NJ; CDL: 252043-A)

00136995     Huntingdon Research Centre (1983) Endosulfan-Toxicity to Rats in Dietary
              Administration over 13 Weeks.  (Protocol; unpublished study received Dec 27,1983
              under 8340-13; submitted by American Hoechst Corp., Somerville, NJ;
              CDL:252043-C)

00136996     Huntingdon Research Centre (1983) Endosulfan-Toxicity to Mice in Dietary
              Administration over 13 Weeks.  (Protocol; unpublished study received Dec 27,1983
              under 8340-13; submitted by American Hoechst Corp., Somerville, NJ;
              CDL:252043-D)

00136997     Roberts, N.; Phillips, C. (1983) The Acute Oral Toxicity (LD50) of
              Endosulfen-Technical (Code: HOE 002671 OIZD97 0003) to the Bobwhite Quail:
                                         211

-------
             HST 224/83566. (Unpublished study received Dec 27,1983 under 8340-13;
             prepared by Huntingdon Researh Centre, Eng., submitted by American Hoeschst
             Corp., Somerville, NJ;CDL: 252043-E)

00136998    Roberts, N; Phillips, C. (1983) The Acute Oral Toxichy (LD50) of
             Endosulfen-Technical (Code: HOE 002671 OIZD97 0003) to the Mallard Duck:
             HST 226/83493. (Unpublished study received Dec 27,1983 under 8340-13;
             prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre, Eng., submitted by American Hoeschst
             Corp., SomervUle, NJ; CDL: 252043-F)

00136999    Fischer, R. (1983) The Effect of Hoe 002671 OI ZD96 0002 (Endosulfen, Active
             Ingredient 95.9%) on Salmo gairdneri (Rainbow Trout) in a Static Test OEK83/019E;
             Document #A26006. (Unpublished study received Dec 27,1983 under 8340-13;
             prepared by Hoechst AG, West Germany, submitted by American Hoeschst Corp.,
             Somerville, NJ; CDL252043-G)
00137000    Huntingdon Research Centre (1983) To Study the Effect of Endosulfan on Avian
             Reproduction in the Bobwbite Quail. (Protocol; unpublished study received Dec 27,
             1983 under 8340-13; submitted by American Hoechst Corp., Somerville, NJ;
             CDL:252043-H)

00137001    Huntingdon Research Centre (1983) To Study the Effect of Endosulfen on Avian
             Reproduction in me Mallard Duck.  (Protocol; unpublished study received Dec 27,
             1983 under 8340-13; submitted by American Hoechst Corp., Somerville, NJ;
             CDL:252043-I)

00137002    Gildemeister, H.; Remmert, U. (1983) Leaching Study of the Insecticide Hoe 002671
             and Its Degradates: Bericht Number (B) 135/83; A27287. (Unpublished study
             received Dec 27,1983 under 8340-13; prepared by Hoechst AG, W. Ger., submitted
             by American Hoechst Corp., Somerville, NJ; CDL:252043-J)

00137003    Gildemeister, H. (1983) Terrestrial Field Dissipation Studies with the Insecticide
             Endosulfen: Bericht Number (B) 124/83; A27207.  (Unpublished study received Dec
             27,1983 under 8340-13; prepared by Hoechst AG, W. Ger., submitted by American
             Hoechst Corp., Somerville, NJ; CDL252043-L)
                                        212

-------
 00137161     Gildemeister, H. (1983) Terrestrial Field Dissipation Studies with the Insecticide
              Endosulfen: Bericht Nr. (B) 124/83; A27207. (Unpublished study received Jan 12,
              1984 under 11678-5; prepared by Hoechst AG, W. Ger., submitted by Makhtesbim
              Beer Sheva Chemical Works, Ltd., New York, NY; CDL:252184-A)

 00137162     Gildemeister, H.; Remmert, U. (1983) Leaching Study of the Insecticide Hoe 002671
              and Its Degradates: Bericht Nr. (B) 135/83; A27287.  (Unpublished study received
              Jan 12,1984 under 11678-5; prepared by Hoechst AG, W. Ger., submitted by
              Makhteshim Beer Sheva Chemical Works, Ltd., New York, NY; CDL:252185-A)

 00137189     Roberts, N.; Phillips, C (1983) The Acute Oral Toxicity (LD50) of Endosulfen
              Technical (Code: Hoe 002671 OIZD97 0003) to the Bobwbite Quail: HST
              224/83566; A27035. (Unpublished study received Jan 16,1984 under 11678-5;
              prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre, Eng., submitted by Makhteshim Beer Sheva
              Chemical Works, Ltd., New York, NY; CDL:252229-A)

 00137446     Gorlitz, G.; Klockner, C. (1982) Hoe 002671, Adsorption/Desorption in the
              Soil/Water System: Bericht Number (B)  125/82; A27021. (Translation; unpublished
              study received DEc 27,1983 under 8340-13; prepared by Hoechst AG, W. Ger.,
              submitted by American Hoechst Corp., Somervffle, NJ; CDL:252043-K)

 00138256     Interregional Research Project No. 4 (1976) Results of Tests Concerning the Amount
              of Residues of Endosulfen and Its Metabolite, Endosulfen Sulfate Remaining in or on
              Raspberries, Including a Description of the Analytical Method Used. (Compilation;
              unpublished study received Mar 23,1977 under 7E1940; CDL:072500-A)
00139081    Hooker Chemical & Plastics Corp. (1976) [Chemistry of Endosulfen].
             (Compilation; unpublished study received Mar 6,1984 under 935-
             26; CDL:252567-A)

00139644    FMC Corp. (1964) Thiodan: Residue Data on Sugarcane: Ref. M-1264.
             (Unpublished study received Mar 6,1964 under 279-4; CDL:
             109896-A)
GS014024    Gunther, FA etal. (1951) Sulfur Dioxide Evolution Method Analytical Chemistry,
             23:1835
                                         213

-------
00142640    Dorr, V. (1984) Letter sent to G. LaRocca dated May 25,1984: Tbiodan Technical
             (Endosulfen) EPA Registration Number 8340-13 partial response to EPA letter of
             January 9,1984.  8 p.

00142649    Bearden, C. (1967) Field Test Concerning the Effects of "Dibrom 14 Concentrate"
             (Naled) on Estuarine Animals. Contribution No. 45. Wadmalow Island, SC: Bears
             Bluff Laboratories.  13 p.

00142768    Buch, S. (1983) Thionex 35 EC: Acute Inhalation Toxicity in the
             Rat LSR Kept No: 83/MAK049/036. Unpublished study prepared by
             Life Science Research.  73 p.

00142769    Buch, S. (1983) Thionex 50 WP: Acute Inhalation Toxicity in the
             Rat LSR Kept No: 83/MAK048/037. Unpublished study prepared by
             Life Science Research.  79 p.

00142850    Collins, W. (1983) Letter sent to J.Alden dated June 3,1983:  pRaw
             data from range finding study wtthmiodansprayo. Prepared by
             Sprmgbom Institute for Bioresearch, Inc. 10 p.

00145668    Barnard, A.; Jones, D.; Powell, L.; et al. (1985) 13 Week Toxicity Study In Rats
             Followed by a 4-Week Withdrawal Period: Endosulfan, Includes Histopathological
             Review. Final Report: Report No. HST 230/84176. Unpublished study prepared by
             Huntingdon Research Centre PIC. 508 p.

00146841    Ebert (1985) Endosulfan-Active Ingredient Technical: Testing for Subchronic Dermal
             Toxicity (21 Applications over 30 Days) in Wistar Rats: Report No. 84.0223.
             Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst AG. 455 p.

00146842    American Hoechst Corp. (1985) Reregistration for Tolerances of Endosulfan Residues
             in Tomatoes and Cucurbits: ^Analytical Methods and Residue Datao. Unpublished
             compilation.  453 p.
00146843    Roberts, N.; Phillips, C.; Dawe, L; et al. (1985) The Effects of Dietary Inclusion of
             Endosulfan-Technical on Reproduction in the Mallard Duck. HRC Report No. HST
             228b/841012. Unpublished study prepared by Huntington Research Centre pic. 211
             P-

                                          214

-------
00146844     Gildemeister,H. (1985) Anaerobic SoU Metabolism StiKiy with the Insecticic^
              Endosulfan: Hoe 002671-14-C: Report No. (B)91/85. Unpublished study prepared
              by Hoechst AG. 24 p.

00146997     Hinstridge, P. (1968) Thiodan and TWodan Sulphate (Residues on Fresh Pineapple and
              Pineapple Bran): Project No. 15;R-1097. Unpublished study prepared by FMC
              Corp. 13 p.

00147180     Carmines, E. (1985) Evaluation of the Toxicity Data on Endosulfen:
              1984: Summary. Unpublished study prepared by American Hoechst
              Corp. 10 p.

00147181     Roberts, N.; Phillips, C; Gopinath, C. (1983) Acute Delayed Neurotoxicity Study with
              Endosulfan-Technical in the Domestic Hen:  Report No. HST 225/83888.
              Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre pic. 46 p.

00147182     Barnard, A,; Atkinson, J.; Heywood, R.;  et al. (1984) Endosulfan-Active Ingredient
              Technical: 13-Weeks Toxicity Study in Mice: Final Report: Report No. HST
              229/831052. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre pic. 379 p.

00147183     Hollander, Weigand; Kramer (1984) Endosulfan-Active Ingredient Technical: Testing
              for Subchronic Inhalation Toxicity-21 Exposures in 29 Daysin SPF Rats: Report
              No. 84.0539. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst AG.  559 p.

00147196     Edwards, J.; Hughes, E.; Almond, R. (1982) Preliminary Investigation of Endosulfan on
              Reproduction of the Rat: Report No. HST 203/82253. Unpublished study prepared by
              Huntingdon Research Centre.  76 p.

00147197     Jung, Weigand, Kramer (1983) Hoe 002671-Active Ingredient Technical:
              Micronucleus Test in Mate and Female NMRI Mice Following Oral Administration:
              Report No. 83.0458. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst AG. 13 p.

00147198     Milone, M. (1984) Study of the Mutagenic Activity of the Compound
              Endosulfan-Technical with Sacchromyces cerevisiae: Gene Conversion-DNA Repair
              Test: Experiment No. M 707. Unpublished study prepared by Istituto Di Ricerche
              Biomediche "Antoine Marxer" S.pA. 19 p.
                                          215

-------
00147199    Milone, M (1984) Study of the Mutagenic Activity "in vitro" of the Compound
             Endosulfen-Technical With Schiznsacchromyces pombe: Experiment No. M 708.
             Unpublished study prepared by Istituto Di Ricerche Biomediche " Antoine Marxer"
             S.p.A. 17 p.

00147299    Leist; Kramer (1985) 30-Day Feeding Study in Aduh Male WistarRats:
             Endosulfan-Active Ingredient Technical: Study No. 84. 0585: Report No. A30776.
             Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst AG. 249 p.

00147744    Ebert (1985) Endosulfen-Active Ingredient Technical: Testing for Subchronic Dermal
             Toxicity (21 Applications over 30 Days) in Wistar-Rats: Report No. 84.0321.
             Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst AG. 558 p.
00148264    Edwards, J.; Reid, Y.; Offer, J.; et al. (1984) Effect of Endosulfen-Technical on
             Reproductive Function of Multiple Generations of the Rat: Report No. HST
             204/83768. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre pic. 422 p.

00148265    Cifone, M (1984) Evaluation of Hoe 002671 -Substance Technical in the Rat Primary
             Hepatocyte Unscheduled DNA Synthesis Assay: Final Report: Project No. 20991.
             Unpublished study prepared by Litton Bionetics, Inc. 15 p.

00148266    Cifone, M (1984) Mutagenicity Evaluation of Hoe 002671-Substance Technical in
             the Mouse Lymphoma Forward Mutation Assay: Final Report: Project No. 20989.
             Unpublished study prepared by Litton Bionetics, Inc. 19 p.

00148833    Turner, W.; Khalife, S.; Casida, J. (1975) Toxaphene toxicant A.
             Mixture of 2r2,5-endo,6-exo,8,8,9,10-octachlorobornane and
             2,2,5-endo,6-exo,8,9,9,10-octacUorobornane. J. Agric. Food
             Chem. 23(5):991-994.

00148992    Roberts, N.; Phillips, C.; Almond, R.; et al. (1984) The Effects of Dietary Inclusion of
             Endosulfan-Technical (Code: Hoe 002671 OIZD97 0003) on Reproduction in the
             Bobwhite Quail: HRC Report No. HST 227/84362.  Unpublished study prepared by
             Huntingdon Research Centre pic. 285 p.
                                          216

-------
00148993     Gildemeister, H.; Jordan, H. (1984) Aerobic Soil Metabolism Study of the Insecticide
              Hoe 002671 (Endosulfan): Project No. OE-134/04.02: Report No. (B)176/84.
              Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst AG. 24 p.

00150714     Dorr, V. (1985) Letter sent to G. LaRocca, dated Jaa 9,1985: Thiodan Technical
              (Endosulian). Prepared by American Hoechst Corp. 2 p.

00151253     Todd, F.; Reed, C. (1%9) Pollen gathering of honey bees reduced by
              pesticide sprays.  Journal of Economic Entomology 62(4):865-867.

00151254     Miles, J.; Sans, W.; WresseU, H.; et al. (1964) Growth-dUution
              as a factor in the decline of pesticide residues on alialfa-
              grass forage.  Canadian Journal of Plant Science 44(1):37-41.

00151761     Lightowler, J. (1984) Thionex 35 : Acute Oral Toxicity Study in Rate: LSR Report No
              78/MAK2/432.  Unpublished study prepared by Life Science Research. 14 p.

00151762     Lightowier, J.; Gardner, J. (1984) Thionex 35 : Acute Percutaneous Toxicity in Rate:
              LSR Report No. 78/MAK3/437. Unpublished report prepared by Life Sciences
              Research. 14 p.

00151763     Crown, S. (1982) Thionex 35EC Primary Eye Irritation Study in the Rabbit LSRI
              Report No. MAK/030/TNX 35EC. Unpublished report prepared by Life Research
              Israel Ltd. 20 p.
00151764    Crown, S.; Nissimov, S. (1982) Thionex 35 EC Primary Dermal Irritation Study in
             Rabbits: LSRI Report No. MAK/029/TNX 35 EC. Unpublished report prepared by
             Life Science Research Israel Ltd. 12 p.

00156259    FMC Corp. Agricultural Chemical Group (1984) Thiodan Insetricide: Endosulian
             Reregistration Residue Chemistry: Apple Pomace, Artichokes, Celery, Cherries, Grape
             and Raisin Waste, Lettuce, Pineapple Bran. Unpublished compilation. 213 p.

00157147    Rohrbach, K.; Namba, R.; Hylin, J.; et al. (1985) Analysis of Processed Pineapple
             Products for Residues of Endosulian: Project No. G237. Unpublished study prepared
                                          217

-------
             by University of Hawaii, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources,
             Department of Agricultural Biochemistry. 38 p.

00157148    Rose, S.;Grigor, A. (1986) Analysis of Thiodan(Endosulfan) in Alfelfa Seeds and
             Screenings: Study No. 85057. Unpublished study prepared by Tegeris Laboratories,
             Inc.  25 p.

00157522    Rc)senfeld, G. (1985) Primaiy Dermal Irritation Study in Rabbits:
             Test Article: Endosulfen 3 EC.: Study #1235E. Unpublished
             study prepared by Cosmopolitan Safety Evaluation, Inc.  16 p.

00157608    Schulz, M. (1985) Acute Dermal Toxichy Study in Rabbits of Endo-
             sulfen 50 WP: Project No. LAN-AT-008. Unpublished study pre-
             pared by Intox Laboaratories. 54 p.

00157609    Schulz, M (1985) Guinea Pig Maximization Test Using Endosulfan
             50 WP: Project No. LAN-AT-009. Unpublished study prepared by
             Intox Laboratories. 16 p.

00157610    Schulz, M. (1985) Acute Oral Toxichy Study in Rats of Endosulfen
             50 WP: Project No. LAN-AT-010. Unpublished study prepared by
             Intox Laboratories. 143 p.

00157612    Frith, C. (1985) Primary Dermal Irritation Study of Endosulfen
             50 WP: Project No. LAN-AT-004. Unpublished study prepared by
             Intox Laboratories. 16 p.

00157696    Rosenfeld, G. (1985) Primary Eye Irritation Study in Rabbits:
             Endosulfan 3 E.C.: Study #1235D. Unpublished study prepared by
             Cosmopolitan Safety Evaluation, Inc.  24 p.

00160095    Tucker, D., comp. (1986) Product Chemistry: SA-50 Brand Thiodan 4
             Dust Unpublished compilation. 45 p.
00160325    Brandt, J. (1982) The residual toxicity of field-weathered insecti-
                                         218

-------
              tide residues on citrus leaves during spring to a parasite of
              red scale. Citrus Subtrop. Frt. Jour. 587:16-19,21.
00160333     Koshy, G.jDas, N.; Nair, M. (1972) Deterioration of insecticides on
              glass and on leaf surface.  Agr. Res. J. Kerala 10(2): 128-132.

00163127     American HoechstCorp. (1986) Endosulfan- Estimation of the Expected
              Environmental Concentration (EEC)...- [Residues in Plants].  Unpublished compilation.
              522 p.

00163839     Bucn, S.; Gardner, J. (1983) Thionex 35 EC: Acute Inhalation Toxicity in the Rat LSR
              Report No. 83/MAK049/036: Schedule No. MAK/031. Unpublished study prepared
              by Life Science Research.  79 p.

00165055     Roberts, N. (1983) Protocol from Huntingdon Research Centre: Acute Delayed
              Neurotoxicity of Endosulfan to the Domestic Hen*. Unpublished study prepared by
              Huntingdon Research Centre.  10 p.

05000837     Johansen, C.A. (1972) Toxicity of field-weathered insecticide
              residues to  four kinds of bees. Environmental Entomology
              l(3):393-394.

05001663     Benson, W.R. (1969) The chemistry of pesticides. Annals of the
              New York Academy of Sciences 160(l):7-29.

05001721     Siek, TJ.; Osiewicz, R.J.; Bath, RJ. (1976) Identification of
              drugs and other toxic compounds from their ultraviolet spectra_
              Part ffl: ultraviolet absorption properties of 22 structural
              groups. Journal of Forensic Sciences 21(3):525-551.

05002183     Boyd, EM.; Dobos, I.; Krijnen, C.J. (1970) Endosulfan toxichy
              and dietary protein. Archives of Environmental Health
                                          219

-------
05002565     Beard, J.E.; Ware, G.W. (1969) Fate of endosulfen on plants and glass. Journal of
              Agricultural and Food Chemistry 17(2):216-220.

05002841     Archer, T.E.; Nazer, I.K.; Crosby, D.G. (1972) Photodecomposition
              of endosulfen and related products in thin films by ultraviolet
              light irradiation. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
              20(5):954-956.

05003004     Chopra, N.M; Mahfouz, AM. (1977) Metabolism of endosulfen I, endosul&n n, and
              endosul&n sulfate in tobacco leaf. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
              25(l):32-36.

05003007     Martens, R. (1976) Degradation of [8,9-14C]endosulfan by soil
              microorganisms.  Applied and Environmental Microbiology
              31(6):853-858.
05003085     Kavadia, V.S.; Noor, A.; Kathpal, T.S. (1978) Movement and residues of endosulfen
              in maize plants. Indian Journal of Agricultural Science 48(3): 176-178.

05003103     Amminikutty, OK.; Rege, MS. (1977) Effects of acute and chronic
              exposure to pesticides, Tbiodan E_C_ 35 and Agallol 3' on the
              liver of widow tetra-Xjvrnnocorymbus ternetzi~(Boulenger).
              Indian Journal of Experimental Biology 15(3): 197-200.

05003222     Gorbach, S.G.; Christ, O.E.; Kellner, HM.; Kloss, G.; Boemer, E. (1968)
              Metabolism of Endosul&n in Milk Sheep. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry
              16(6):950-953.

05003336     Stewart, D.K.R.; Cairns, K.G. (1974) Endosulfen persistence in soil and uptake by
              potato tubers. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 22(6):984-986.
                                          220

-------
 05003395    Brake, J.; Mills, PA. (1963) Microcoulometric gas chromatographic detennination of
              Thiodan and Tedion in green vegetables. Journal of the Association of Official
              Agricultural Chemists 46(2): 177-1 82.

 05003801    Chorii^NM.;Mahfouz, AM (1977) Further mvesti
              endosulfan I, endosulfan n and endosulfan sulfate in tobacco leaf. Beitraegezur
              Tabakforschung 9(3):176-179.

 05003875    Gentile, A.G.; Gallagher, KJ.; Santner, Z. (1971) Effect of some
              formulated insecticides on pollen germination in tomato and
              petunia. Journal of Economic Entomology 64(4):916-919.

 05003877    Frank, R.; Smith, E.H.; Braun, H.E.; Holdrinet, M; McWade, J.W. (1975)
              Organochlorine insecticides and industrial pollutants in the milk supply of the southern
              region of Ontario, Canada.  Journal of Milk and Food Technology 38(2):65-72.

 05004385    Terranova, A.C.; Ware, G.W. (1963) Studies of endosulfen in bean plants by paper
              and gas chromatography. Journal of Economic Entomology 56(5):596-599.

 05004388    Rosen, D.(l%7) Effect of commercial pesticides on the fecundity
              and survival of~Aphytis holoxanthusHHymenoptera: Aphelinidae).
              Israel Journal of Agricultural Research 17(l):47-52.
05004620     Harrison, RB.; Holmes, D.C.; Roburn, J.; Tattan, J.O. (1967) The fete of some
              organochlorine pesticides on leaves. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture
 05008271    Macek, KJ.; Lindberg, M.A.; Sauter, S.; Buxton, K.S.; Costa, P.A.
              (1976) Toxicity of Four Pesticides to Water Fleas and Fathead
              Minnows. Duhrth, Minn.:  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
              Environmental Research Laboratory. (EPA report no.
              EPA-600/3-76-099; available fiom: NTIS, Springfield, VA; PB-262
              912).

05018169     Terranova, A.C. (1962) Translocation and metabolism studies of Thiodan in bean
              plants by paper chromatography. Pages 33-34,~In~Proceeedings of the North Central
                                          221

-------
              Branch of the Entomological Society of America Vol. XVII. Wooster, Ohio:
              Entomological Society of American, North Central Branch.

40024400     FMC Corp. (1986) Effects on Pesticide Handlers of Exposure to
              Thicdan 3 EC Endosulfen Sprays. Compilation of 1 study.

40060601     Saxena, A. (1986) Laboratory Volatility Study of Endosulfan: Final Report Laboratory
              Project No. 6015-291. Unpublished study prepared by Hazleton Laboratories
              America,  Inc.  80 p.

40094602     Johnson&Finley /1980

40098001     Mayer, F. L., and M. R, Ellersieck. 1986. Manual of acute toxicity: interpretation and
              data base  for 410 chemicals and 66 species of freshwater animals. U.S. Department of
              the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Resource Publication 160.
40112501     Terrel, Y. (1986) (Thiogard Flowable)~Acute Inhalation Toxicology
              (LC-50 Rat): Project ID: 86-545. Unpublished study prepared by
              American Standards Biosciences Corp.  37 p.

40223601     Craine, E. (1986) A Dermal Absorption Study in Rats with pCarbon 1 o Endosulfen:
              (Alternative Version of Study Report MRID No.: 40040701): Laboratory Project ID
              No. WIL-39028. Unpublished study prepared by WIL Laboratories, Inc.  90 p.

40228401     Mayer, F. L., and M. R. Ellersieck.  1986.  Manual of acute toxicity: interpretation and
              data base for 410 chemicals and 66 species of freshwater animals. U.S. Department of
              the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Resource Publication 160.

40261300     American Hoechst Corp. (1987) Submission of Toxicology Data in
              Support of the Reregjstration Process of Endosulfan.

40261301     Graney,R. (1987) Avian Risk Assessment of Endosulfan.  Unpublish-
              ed study prepared by Hoechst-Roussel Agri-Vet Co. 9 p.
                                          222

-------
40261302     Beavers, J.; Frank, P.; Jaber, M. (1987) Endosulfen Technical Substance (Code: HOE
              002671 OIZD95 0005): A One-generation Reproduction Study with the Mallard
              (Anas platyrhynchos): Lab Project No.  125-137. Unpublished study prepared by
              Wildlife International Ltd.  146 p.

40261303     Beavers, J.; Frank, P.; Jaber, M. (1987) Endosulfen Technical Substance (Code: HOE
              002671 OI ZD95 0005): A One-generation Reproduction Study with the Bobwhite
              (Colinus virginianus): Lab Project No. 125-134. Unpublished study prepared by
              Wildlife International Ltd  144 p.

40303900     American Hoechst Corp. (1987) Submission of DislodgeableFohar
              Residue Study in Response to Special Data Call-in Notice for
              ThiodanTech,

40303901     Baugher, D. (1987) Dislodgeable Foliar Residues and Surrogate-based Exposure
              Estimates for Workers Reentering Tree Fruits and Tomatoes Treated with Thiodan 50
              WP Insecticide (Endosulfen): Lab. Proj.ID No. END-87065. Unpublished
              cornpilation prepared by American Hoechst Corp. 94 p.

40335000     Hoechst Celanese Corp. (1987) Submission of Data in Support of the
              Reregistration Process of Endosulfen: Toxicology Data.
40476500     FMC Corp. (1987) Submission of Data in Response to EPA Data Call In
              Notice for Endosulfan: Product Chemistry Data.

40476501     Shutdeworth, J. (1987) Response to EPA Data Call In Notice for
              Product Chemistry Data Relating to Potential Formation of Halo-
              genated Dibenzo-p-Dioxin or Dibenzofuran Contaminants in Certain
              Active Ingredients: Endosulfen. Unpublished compilation prepar-
              ed by FMC Corp. 20 p.

40476502     Shuttleworm, J. (1987) Response to EPA Data Call In Notice for Product Chemistry
              Data Relating to Potential Formation of Halogenated Dibenzo-p-Dioxin or
              Dibenzofuran Contaminants in Certain Active Ingredients: Endosulfen. Unpublished
              compilation prepared by FMC Corp.  18 p.
                                         223

-------
40476503     Shutfleworth, J. (1987) Response to EPA Data Call In Notice for Product Chemistry
              Data Relating to Potential Formation of Halogenated Dibenzo-p-Dioxin or
              Dihenflpfliran fnnteniinants ip f!ertaiT? Activp Tngnaflgrrty FjldoSHUaiL  Unpublished
              compilation prepared by FMC Corp.  18 p.
40476504     Shuraeworm, J. (1987) Response to EPA Data Call In Notice for Product Chemistry
              Data Relating to Potential Formation of Halogenated Dibenzo-p-Dioxin or
              Dibenzofuran Contaminated in Certain Active Ingredients: Endosulfan. Unpublished
              study prepared by FMC Corp. 20 p.

40476505     Shuttleworth, J. (1987) Response to EPA Data Call In Notice for Product Chemistry
              Data Relating to Potential Formation of Halogenated Dibenzo-p-Dioxin or
              Dibenzofuran Contaminants in Certain Active Ingredients: Endosulfan. Unpublished
              compilation prepared by FMC Corp. 22 p.

40496200     Makhteshim Chemical Works Ltd. (1987) Submission of Chemistry Data
              in Response to Data Call-in Relating to Potential Formation of
              Halogenated Dibenzo-p-dioxin in Thionex (Endosulfan).

40496201     Makhteshim Chemical Works Ltd. (1987) Ihionex (EndosuUan) - Pro-
              duct Chemistry Data: R-4773. Unpublished study prepared by the
              Registration Dept 9 p.

40496300     Makhteshim Chemical Works Ltd. (1988) Submission of Chemistry Data
              in Response to Data Call-in Relating to Potential Formation of
              Contaminants in Thionex 35WP (Endosulfan).  9 p.

40496301     Makhteshim Chemical Works Ltd. (1987) Thionex (Endosulfan) - Pro-
              duct Chemistry Data: R-4773. Unpublished study prepared by the
              Registration Dept 9 p.

40496400     Makhteshim Chemical Works Ltd. (1988) Submission of Chemistry Data
              in Support of Thionex (Endosulfan).
                                          224

-------
 40496401     Registration Dept Makhteshim Chemical Works Ltd. (1987) Thionex
              (Endosulfan}-Product Chemistry Data: Laboratory Project ID: R-
              4773. Unpublished study. 9 p.

 40496500     Makhteshim Chemical Works Ltd. (1988) Submission of Chemistry Data
              in Support of Thionex (Endosulfan).

 40496501     Registration Dept Makhteshim Chemical Works Ltd. (1987) Thionex
              (Endosulfan)-Product Chemistry Data: Laboratory Project ID: R-
              4773. Unpublished study. 9 p.

 40496600     Makhteshim Chemical Works Ltd (1988) Submission of Chemistry Data
              in Support of Thionex (Endosulfan).

 40496601     Registration Dept Makhteshim Chemical Works Ltd. (1987) Thionex
              (Endosulfan)-Product Chemistry Data: Laboratory Project ID: R-
              4773. Unpublished study. 37 p.

 40573800     Hoechst Celanese Corp. (1988) Submission of a 30-day Feeding Study
              in Rats in Response to EPA's Reviews of the Subchronic Oral
              Toxicity Study on Endosulfan.

 40573801     Carmines, E.; O'Grodnick, J. (1988) Summary of the Subchronic
              Toxicity of Endosulfan. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst
              Celanese  Corp. 6 p.

 40583000     Sureco, Inc. (1988) Submission of Data To Support the Registration
              of Thiograd Flowable: Toxicology Data.

 40623100     Uniroyal Chemical Co. (1988) Submission of Chemistry Data in Sup-
              port of Diclofop-methyl and Endosulfan.
40623101    Dehmer, Kaiser (1987) Endosulfan Technical: Description of Beginnmg Materials and
             Manufacturing Process: Laboratory Project No. 87/2: A 36864. Unpublished
             compilation prepared by Hoechst Ag. 18 p.

                                          225

-------
40623102     Sarafin, R. (1987) HOE 002671 (Endosulfan): Discussion of the Formation of
              Impurities in the Technical Grade Substance: Laboratory Project No. (B) 179/87: A
              36812. Unpublished compilation prepared by Hoechst Ag.  18 p.

40623103     Goerlitz, G. (1987) HOE 002671 (Endosulfan): Analysis for Polychlorinated
              Dibenzodioxins (PCDD) and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans (PCDF): Laboratory
              Project No. (B) 189/87: A 36893.  Unpublished compilation prepared by Hoechst Ag.
              13 p.

40648800     Hoechst Celanese Corp. (1988) Submission of Data To Support the
              Registration of Thiodan Technical: Toxicology Data.
40767600     Hoechst Celanese Corp. (1988) Submission of Data To Support Regi-
              stration of Endosulfan: Toxicology Data.

40767601     Leist, K.; Mayer, D. (1984) Endosulfan-Active Ingredient Technical (...): 30-Day
           ,   Feeding Study in Adult Male Wistar Rats: Project No. 84.0585. Unpublished study
              prepared by Hoechst Ag.  321 p.
40792401     Donaubaurer, R (1988) Endosulfan - Substance Technical: Carcinogenicity Study in
              Mice 24 Month Feeding Study: Project ID. A38008. Unpublished study prepared by
              Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft. 3988 p.

40975801     Fischer, R. (1989) Assessment of the Fate and Effects of Endosulfan
              on Aquatic Ecosystems Adjacent to Agricultural Fields Planted in
              Tomatoes: Progress Report No. 5. Unpublished study prepared by
              Battelle, Columbus Laboratories. 19 p.

41025100     Hoechst Celanese Corporation (1989) Submission of Petition for
              Import Tolerance on Dried Hops and Spent Hops for the Chemical,
              Endosulfan.
                                          226

-------
41025101     Krebs, B.; Idstein, H. (1989) HOE 002671 (Endosulfan): Determination of alpha-,
              beta-Endosulfen and Endosulfensulfete in Green Hops and Dried Hops: Laboratory
              Project ID No. LEA/R88/090. Unpublished study prepared by Technische Universitat
              Munchen. 235 p.

41025102     Krebs, B.; Idstein, H. (1989) Thiodan-35 Wettable Powder...Determination of
              Residues of alpha-, beta-Endolsulfen and Endosulfensulfete in Treated Dried Hops and
              Its Processed Fractions from the Processing of Hops into Beer Laboratory Project ID
              No. LEA/R88/089. Unpublished study prepared by Technische Universitat Munchen.
              106 p.

41048500     Hoechst Celanese Corp. (1989) Submission of Toxicity Data to
              Support the F.n
-------
41048506     Ebert, E. (1987) Endosulfen-Water-dispersible Powder (50%) (Code: HOE 002671
              OIWP50 A501): Subchronic Dermal Toxicity (21 Treatments in 30 Days) in the
              Wistar Rat Laboratory Project ED No. 87.0664. Unpublished study prepared by
              HoechstAG. 704 p.

41099500     Hoechst Celanese Corp. (1989) Submission of Toxicity Data in Suppo-
              rt of Reregistration of Endosulfan.

41099501     Brunk, R. (1989) Endosulfen-Substance Technical: Testing for Toxicity by Repeated
              Oral Administration (1-Year Feeding Study) to Beagle Dogs: Project ID 87.0643.
              Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst AktiengesellschafL 813 p.

41099502     Ruckman, S.; Waterson, L.; Crook, D.; et al. (1989) Endosulfan-Substance
              Technical: Combined Chronic Toxicity/Carcinogenicity Study: 104-Week Feeding in
              Rats: Project ID HST 289/881076. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon
              Research Centre Ltd. 1601 p.

41164100     Hoechst Celanese (1989) Submission of lexicological Data to Support
              the Continued Registration of Endosulfen.

41164101     Comaby, B.; Maciorowski, A.; Griffith, M; et al. (1989) Assess-
              ment of the Fate and Effects of Endosulfen on Aquatic Ecosystems
              Adjacent to Agricultural Fields Planted with Tomatoes: Labora-
              tory Project ID N0954-5700. Unpublished study prepared by
              Battelle in cooperation with Hickey's Agri-Services Laboratory,
              Inc.  2260 p.

41183400     Micro Flo Co. (1989) Submission of Product Chemistry and Toxicity
              Data in Support of Registration of Endosulfan 3 EC.

41183401     Tucker, D. (1986) Product Chemistry for Endosulfan SEC: Project ID
              51036/END3EC. Unpublished study prepared by Chempax. 60 p.
41183402    Rosenfeld, G. (1985) Acute Oral Toxicity Study in Rats: Test Artic-
             le: Endosulfen 3 E.C.: C.S.E. Project #S8687-7: Study No. 1235A.
             Unpublished study prepared by Cosmopolitan Safety Evaluation,

                                          228

-------
              Inc. 45 p.
41183403     Rosenfeld, G. (1985) Acute Dermal Toxicfty in Rabbits: Test Article
              Endosulfan 3 E.C.: C.S.E. Project No. S8687-7: Study No. 1235B.
              Unpublished study prepared by Cosmopolitan Safety Evaluation, Inc. 35 p.

41183404     Rosenfeld, G. (1985) Acute Inhalation Toxicity Study in Rats: Test
              Article: Endosulfan 3 E.C.: Study No. 1235C. Unpublished study
              prepared by Cosmopolitan Safety Evaluation, Inc.  45 p.

41183405     Rosenfeld, G. (1985) Primary Eye Irritation Study in Rabbits: Test
              Article: Endosulfan 3 E.C.: C.S.E. Project No. S8687-7: Study
              No. 1235D. Unpublished study prepared by  Cosmopolitan Safety
              Evaluation, Inc. 26 p.

41183406     Rosenfeld, G. (1985) Primary Dermal Irritation Study in Rabbits:
              Test Article: Endosulfan 3 E.C.: C.S.E. No. S8687-7: Study No.
              1235E. Unpuclished study prepared by Cosmopolitan Safety Evalu-
              ation, Inc.  17 p.

41183407     Rosenfeld, G. (1989) Guinea Pig Serialization Study (Buehler): Test
              Article: Endosulfan 3 E.C.: Study No. 1235F. Unpublished study
              prepared by Cosmopolitan Safety Evaluation, Inc.  18 p.

41183500     Micro Flo Co. (1989) Submission of Data To Support Registration of
              Endosulfan 50WP 51036: Toxicology Studies.

41183501     Tucker, D. (1987) Product Chemistry For Endosulfan 50WP 51036:
              Project ID: MICEND50WP. Unpublished study prepared by Chem Pax.
              66 p.
                                          229

-------
41183502    Schulz, M. (1985) Report Acute Oral Toxicity Study in Rats of Endosulfen
             50WP-INTOX Sample No. 494: Protocol No. LAN-AT-010. Unpublished study
             prepared by Intox Laboratories. 146 p.

41183503    Schulz, M. (1985) Report Acute Dermal Toxicity Study in Rabbits of Endosulfen 50
             WP Intox Sample No. 494; Protocol No. LAN-AT-008.  Unpublished study prepared
             by Intox Laboratories. 57 p.

41183504    Rosenfeld, G. (1985) Acute Inhalation Toxicity Study in Rats: Test Article: Endosulfen
             50 W.P.: Study No. 1237C. Unpublished study prepared by Cosmopolitan Safety
             Evlauation(C.S.E.),Inc. 75 p.

41183505    Frith, C. (1985) Report Primary Eye Irritation Study of Endosulfen 50 WP: Intox
             Sample No. 494: Project No. LAN-AT-003. Unpublished study prepared by Intox
             Laboratories.  19 p.

41183506    Frith, C. (1985) Report: Primary Dermal Irritation Study of Endosulfen 50WP Intox
             Sample No. 494: Project No. LAN-AT-004. Unpublished study prepared by Intox
             Laboratories.  18 p.
41183507    Schulz, M. (1985) Report Guinea Pig Maximization Test Using Endosulfen 50 WP
             Intox Sample No. 494: Protocol No. LAN-AT-009. Unpublished study prepared by
             Intox Laboratories. 18 p.

41309700    Hoechst Celanese Corp. (1989) Submission of Residue Data in Support
             ofEndosulfea

41309701    Mester, T. (1989) Endosulfen Terrestrial/Runoff Study on Cotton in South Carolina:
             Project ID 1641-87-65-03-11B-01.  Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst AG. in
             Association with Landis Associates.  876 p.

41309702    Hacker, L. (1989) Endosulfen (Thiodan 3 EC): Field Dissipation Study of Terrestrial
             Uses on Tomatoes in Georgia/U.S.A: Lab Project Number 1641/87/65/03/08D/03 :
             CRO41/87.  Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst AG in Association with Landis
             Associates, Inc. 553 p.
                                        230

-------
41311500     Hoechst Celanese Corp. (1989) Submission of Response to Toxicologi-
              cal Review of Tolerance on Hops in Support of Petition for Endo-
              sulfan. Transmittalof 1 study.

41311501     Langer, K.; Leist, K. (1989) Petitioners Responses to EPA's
              Toxicology Branch Review Dated June 29,1989 in Support of the
              Petition (No. 9H5579) for an Import Tolerence for Endosulfan
              on Dried Hops (10 ppm) and Spent Hops (10 ppm).  Unpublished
              study prepared by Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft, Phanna Forschung.
              38 p.

41339100     Chas H. Lilly Co. (1989) Submission of Data To Support Registration
              of Endosulfen: Toxicology Studies.

41339101     Robbins, G. (1989) Acute Oral Toxicity Study in Rats: SA-50 Brand
              Tbiodan.75 Insect Spray: Lab Project No. A2039. Unpublished
              study prepared by Cosmopolitan Safely Evaluation, Inc. 26 p.

41339102     Robbins, G. (1989) Acute Dermal Toxicity in Rabbits: SA-50 Brand
              Tbiodan .75 Insect Spray:  Lab Project Number: B2039.
              UnpubUshed study prepared by Cosmopolitan Safety Evaluation,
              Inc. 36 p.

41339103     Robbins, G. (1989) Primary Eye Irritation Study in Rabbits: SA-50
              Brand Tbiodan .75 Insect Spray: Lab Project Number D2039.
              Unpublished study prepared by Cosmopolitan Safety Evaluation,
              Inc.  25 p.
41339104     Robbins, G.( 1989) Primary Dermal Irritation Study in Rabbits:
              SA-50 Brand Tbiodan .75 Insect Spray:  Lab Project Number:
              E2039.  UnpubUshed study prepared by Cosmopolitan Safety
              Evaluation, Inc.  14 p.
                                          231

-------
41353600     Southern Agricultural Insecticides, Inc. (1990) Submission of
              lexicological Data to Support the Registration of SA-SO Brand
              Thiodan .75 Insect Spray.

41353601     Robbins, G. (1989) Acute Oral Toxicity Study in Rats: Lab Project
              I.D.:A2039. Unpublished study prepared by Cosmopolitan Safety
              Evaluation, Inc.  26 p.

41353602     Rabbins, G. (1989) Acute Dermal Toxicity in Rabbits: SA-50 Brand
              Thiodan .75 Insect Spray: Lab Project Number 82039.  Unpub-
              lished study prepared by Cosmopolitan Safety Evaluation, Inc.
              36 p,

41353603     Holbert, M. (1989) Acute Inhalation Toxicity Study-Rats...for the
              End Use Product SA-50 Brand Thiodan .75 Insect Spray: Lab
              Project Number: 6510-89. Unpublished study prepared by
              Stillmeadow, Inc., Biological Testing Laboratory. 44 p.

41353604     Robbins, G. (1989) Primary Eye Irritation Study in Rabbits: SA-50
              Brand Thiodan .75 Insect Spray: Lab Project Number D2039.
              Unpublished study prepared by Cosmopolitan Safety Evaluation,
              Inc.  25 p.

41353605     Robbins, G. (1989) Primary Dermal Irritation Study in Rabbits: Lab
              Project Number E2039. Unpublished study prepared by Cosmopoli-
              tan Safety Evaluation, Inc. 14 p.

41353606     Tucker, D. (1989) Product Chemistry According to the Pesticide
              Assessment..for the End Use Product SA-50 Brand .75 Thiodan
              Insecticide Spray: Lab Project ID.: SA-TH-EU-2. Unpublished
              study prepared by Chempax. 24 p.

41400500     FMC Corp. (1990) Submission of Toxicity Data in Support of Thiodan
              2 C.O. EC Insecticide.
                                         232

-------
41400501     Freeman, C. (1989) Thiodan 2 C.CXEC: Acute Oral Toxicity in Rats:
              Lab Project Number A89-2939.  Unpublished study prepared by FMC
              Toxicology Laboratory. 35 p.

41400502     Freeman, C. (1989) Thiodan 2 C.O. EC: Acute Dermal Toxicity Study
              in Rabbits: Lab Project Number: A89-2940. Unpublished study
              prepared by FMC Toxicology Laboratory. 32 p.

41400503     Mount, E. (1990) Thiodan 2 CO. EC: Acute Inhalation Toxicity Study
              in Rats: Lab Project Number: A89-2941. Unpublished study pre-
              pared by FMC Toxicology Laboratory. 72 p.

41400504     Freeman, C. (1989) Thiodan 2 C.O. EC: Primary Eye Irritation Study
              in Rabbits: Lab Project Number. A89-2942. Unpublished study
              prepared by FMC Toxicology Laboratory. 15 p.

41400505  ,   Freenian,C.(1989)TModan2C.O.EC:PrirnarySldnIrritati(mStudy
              in Rabbits: Lab Project Number A89-2943. Unpublished study
              prepared by FMC Toxicology Laboratory. 21 p.

41400506     Freeman, C. (1989) Thiodan 2 C.O. EC: Skin Sensitization Study in
              Guinea Pigs: Lab Project Number A89-2944. Unpublished study
              prepared by FMC Toxicology Laboratory. 21 p.

41412900     Hoechst Celanese Corp. (1990) Submission of Metabolism Data for
              Endosulfan Reregistration.

41412901     Goerlite, G.; Rutz, U. (1988) Endosulfen Abiotic Hydrolysis of the Two Isomers HOE
              052618 (Alpha-Endosulfen), HOE 052619 (Beta-Endosulfan) as a Function of pH:
              Lab Project Number:CPO 14/88. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst
              Aktiengesellschaft Analytisches L^boratorium. 59 p.

41412902     Stumpf, K.; Gildemeister, H.; Dambach, P.; et al. (1988) HOE 002671-14-C Aerobic
             Metabolism of Endosulfen in Soil and the Influence of Increased Microbial Biomass at
                                         233

-------
             28 [Degrees]: Project Nos. A 39429; CB017/86. Unpublished study prepared by
             Hoechst AktierigesellschaftAnalytischesLaboratorium. 49 p.

41412903    Gildemeister, H. (1985) HOE 002671-14-C Anaerobic Soil Metabolism Study with
             the Insecticide Endosulfan: Project Nos. (B) 91/85; A 30759. Unpublished study
             prepared by Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft Analytisches Laboratorium. 27 p.

41412904    Gildemeister, H. (1988) HOE 002671-14C Anaerobic Metabolism of En-
             dosuhan in a Sandy Loam and a Silt Loam Soil: Project Nos.
             OI-134/04/03 B; A 37589. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst
             Aktiengesellschaft Analytisches Laboratorium & Radiocbemisches
             Laboratorium. 44 p.

41412905    Goeriitz, G.; Eyrich, U. (1988) Endosuhan (HOE 002671) Adsorption/Desorption in
             the System Soil/Water for the Metabolites HOE 051327 (Endosulfan-sulfate) and
             HOE 051329 (Endosulfan-diol): Project Nos. CP068/87 H; A 39353.  Unpublished
             study prepared by Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft Analytisches Laboratorium. 49 p.

41412906    Goerlitz, G. (1988) Endosuhan (HOE 002671) Adsorption/Desorption in Ihe System
             Soil/Water for HOE 052618 (Alpha-Endosulfan), HOE 052619 (Beta-Endosulfan):
             Project Nos. A37591; CP068/871. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst
             Aktiengesellschaft Analytisches Laboratorium.  76 p.

41415701    Stumpf, K. (1987) HOE 002671-tfCarbon 14|: Photodegradation of
             alpha-Endosulfan (HOE 052618) and beta-Endosulfan (HOE 052619) in Water: Lab
             Project ID No. CB074/87: Hoechst AG Project ID A 37588. Unpublished prepared
             by Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft, Analytisches Laboratorium. 40 p.

41421500    Hoechst Celanese (1990) Submission of Product Chemistry Data in
             Support of Reregistration of Endosuhan.

41421501    Sarafin, R. (1982) HOE 002671 (Endosulfan), HOE 052618 (Alpha-Endosultan) and
             HOE 052619 (Beta~Endosulian)~Vapor Pressures: Lab Project Number: S 82/320:
             S 82/321: S 82/322. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft. 20
             P-
                                         234

-------
 41421502     Asshauer, J. (1979) HOE 052618 and HOE 052619 (Alpha-and Beta Endosulfim):
              Solubility in Water Lab Project Number: B 154/87: A 36704. Unpublished study
              prepared by Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft 13 p.

 41421503     Asshauer, J.; Sarafin, R. (1979) HOE 052618 and HOE 052619 (Alpha &
              Beta-Endosulfan): Partition Coefficient Octanol/Water: Lab Project Number B
              124/87: A 36576. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft. 21 p.

 41430700     FMCCorp. (1990) Submission of Data To Support Registration of
              Endosidfan: Soil Photolysis Study. Transmittal of 1 study.

 41430701     Ruzo, L.; McGovem, P.; Shepler, K. (1988) Soil Surface Photolysis of [carbon
              14]Endosulfen in Natural Sunlight Lab Project No: FMC/323E1388/E1:125W-1:
              125W.  Unpublished study prepared by Pharmacology and Toxicology Research
              Laboratory. 87 p.

 41468600     Hoechst Celanese (1990) Submission of field dissipation/runoff
              data in support of the rercgistration of Endosulfan.

 41468601     Mester, T. (1990) Endosulfan (LX165-03): Terrestrial Runoff Study on Cotton In
              California with Furrow Irrigation: Final Report: Project Nos: R328703; CR040/87.
              Unpublished study prepared by by Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft and Landis International.
              693 p.

 41490101     Knowler, E. (1990) Silver Impregnated Activated Carbon blended with Granular
              Activated Carbon: Product Chemistry Data: 0Kelco Bacteriostatic Water Treatment
              Unit Whole-house Model KAH-1500|.  Unpublished study prepared by Kelco Water
              Engineering, Inc. in cooperation with Calgon Carbon Corp. 10 p.

 41537200     Makhteshim-Agan (America) Inc. (1990) Submission of Chemistry Data
              in Support of Endosulfan Registration.

 41537201     Makhteshim Chemical Works Ltd. (1990) Discussion on the Potential for Halogenated
              Dibenzo-p-Dioxin/Dibenzofuran Formation in Endosulfan. Unpublished study,  lip.
41567800    FMC Corp. (1990) Submission of Data To Support Amendment to Regi-
             stration Application for Thiodan 2 C.O. EC: Toxicology Study.

                                         235

-------
41567801 Freeman, C. (1989) Tbiodan 2 C. O. EC: Skin Sensitization Study in
              Guinea Pigs: Lab Project Number A89-2944. Unpublished study
              prepared by FMC Corp. 18 p.

41648100     Clarke Mosquito Control Products Co., Inc. (1990) Submission of
              Product Chemistry Data to Support the Registration of Clout

41648101     Sawyer, R. (1989) Product Chemistry: ULV Mosquito Master 4+12: Lab
              Project Number CLOUT. Unpublished study prepared by Riverdale
              Chemical Company. 6 p.

41667500     Hoechst Celanese Corp. (1990) Submission of supplementary toxicity
              data to support the reregistration of Endosulfan.

41667501     Hack, R.; Leist, K. (1990) Endosulfan-Active Ingredient Technical: Testing for
              Subchronic Inhalation Toxicity...in Wistar Rats (Translation): Supplement to MRID
              00147183. Lab Project Number A 44124; 90.1047. Unpublished study prepared by
              Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft 6 p.

41667502     Hack, R.; Leist, K. (1990) Endosulfan-Active Ingredient Technical, Repeated Dose
              Inhalation Toxicity... in Wistar Rats; Preliminary Study (Range Finding) to Report No.
              84.0539: Supplement to MRID 00147183: Lab Project Number: A 44125:90.1057.
              Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft. 29 p.

41667503     Leist, K. (1990) Registrant's Response to EPA's Toxicology Branch Review of
              Endosulfan.. .Regarding the Testing for Subchronic Inhalation Toxicity in Rats
              (Commentary to MRIDS 00147183 and 00147196): Lab Project Number 90.1057;
              90.1047. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst Celanese Corp. 10 p.

41715200     Hoechst Celanese Corp. (1990) Submission of Revised Mixer/Loader/
              Applicator Study to Support Registration of Endosulfan.

41715201     Baugher, D. (19901) Exposure of Mixer/Loader/Applicators to Thiodan 3 EC
              Insecticide Applied to Fruit Trees by Airblast Equipment in California, 1987 Original
                                          236

-------
41775500
Issue: Lab Project Number 24587. Unpublished study prepared by Orius Associates
Inc., and EN-CAS Analytical Laboratories. 59 p.

Hoechst Celanese Corp. (1991) Submission of Supplemental Data To
Support Registration of Endosulfan: Toxicology Study.
41775501     Langer, K. (1991) Supplement To: 30-Day Feeding Study in Adult Male Wistar Rats:
              Lab Project Number 91/0078. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst
              AktiengesellschafL 5 p.

41799300     Hoechst Celanese (1991) Submission of Toxicological Summary and
              Risk Assessment data in support of Endosulfan in response to
              EPA's evaluation of the existing data base dated Nov. 20,1990.

41799301     Katz, A.; Hawk, F.; Leist, K-H (1991) Toxicology Summary and Risk
              Assessment The Regjstratnts Response to EPA's Evaluation of the
              Existing Data Base dated Nov. 20,1990. Unpublished study pre-
              pared by Hoechst Celanese Corp. 32 p.

41912200     Hoechst Celanese Corp. (1991) Submission of Dietary Exposure
              Analysis Data To Support Reregistration of Endosulfan.

41912201     Tomerlin, J. (1991) Anticipated Residues and Chronic Dietary Exposure Analysis for
              Endosulfan Under a Revised Product Label: Lab Project Number. HR ENDO6791.
              Unpublished study prepared by Technical Assessment Systems, me. 195 p.

41931200     Hoechst Celanese (1991) Submission of Data to Support the Reregis-
              tration Process of Endosulfan: Residual Data

41931201     Tomerlin, R (1991) Anticipated Residues and Chronic Dietary Exposure Analysis for
              Endosulfan Under a Revised Product Label: Lab Project Number: HRENDO6791.
              Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst-Celanese Corp.  195 p.

42237900     Georgia Dept, of Agriculture (1992) Submission of Investigative
              Reports in Response to Section 6(aX2) FIFRA Requirements for
                                          237

-------
             fee Use and Misuse of the Following Pesticides [Prep, Folex,
             Cythion, Bravo,..., Methyl Parathion and Gutfaion].

42237901    Georgia Dept, of Agricuhure (1992) Investigative Reports of
             Fish Kills and Bee Kills Allegedly Caused by the Use/Misuse of
             Various Agricultural Pesticides.  Unpublished study. 496 p.

42298600    FMC Corp. (1992) Submission of Section 6(aX2) Data To Support
             FIFRA Requirements for DBCP, EDB, Dragnet, Killmaster, Golden
             Leaf Tobacco Spray and Furadan Adverse Effects/Incident Reports.

42298601    Steinberg, J. (1992) Letter Sent to Office of Pesticide
             Programs dated April 27,1992: [Pending claims and lawsuits
             involving DBCP, EDB, Dragnet, Killmaster, Golden Leaf Tobacco
             Spray and Furadan]. Prepared by FMC Corp. 3 p.

42302600    FMC Corp. (1992) Submission of data under FIFRA 6(aX2) status
             concerning incident reports involving various formulated
             products.

42302601    Lauber, J. (1992) Letter Sent to Frank Davido, OPP from J.
             Lauber dated March 13,1992: Summary of telephone calls
             (incident reports) received by FMC concerning various products.
             Prepared by FMC Corp.  4 p.

42302900    FMC Corp. (1992) Submission of data under FIFRA 6(aX2) status
             involving incidents with various formulated products (summaries)

42302901    Lauber, J. (1992) Letter Sent to Frank Davido, OPP from J. J.
             Lauber dated March 3,1992 containing summaries of incident
             reports (via telephone calls) involving several formulated
             products.  14 p.
                                         238

-------
 42586600    Drexel Chemical Co. (1992) Submission of product chemistry data
              (commentary and original data) to support the registration of
              HCB and PCS and Drexel Endosulfan Technical.

 42586601     Haefele, L. (1992) Comments on the Improbability of
              Contamination of Drexel Endosulfan with Hexachlorobenzene and
              Pentachlorobenzene and with Halogenated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and
              Dibenzofurans. UnpubUshed study prepared by Drexel Chemical
              Co. 7p.

 42586700     Drexel Chemical Co. (1992) Submittal of Product Chemistry Data in
              response to the Data Call-in far Endosulfan.

 42586701     Haefele, L. (1992) Comments on the Improbability of Contamination of Drexel
              Endosulfan with Hexachlorobenzene and Pentachlorobenzene and with Halogenated
              Dibenzo-p-dioxins and Dibenzofurans.  UnpubUshed study prepared by Drexel
              Chemical Co. 7 p.

 42919100     Makhteshim Chemical Works, Ltd (1993) Submission of Product
              Chemistry in Support of Endosulfan Data Call-in.

 42919101     Makhteshim Chemical Works, Ltd. (1993) Endosulfan Product Oiemistry, Pesticide
              Assessment Guideline Series 61: Lab Project Number: R-7420. UnpubUshed study
              prepared by Makhteshim Chemical Works, Ltd.  103 p.

 42919102     Ehmarm, J. (1993) Hexachlorobenzene and Pentachlorobenzene Quantisation in
              Technical Endosulfan: Lab Project Number: 92MAK01. UnpubUshed study
              prepared by Institut Fresenius. 108 p.

 42932000     Hoechst Celanese Corp. (1993) Submission of Product Chemistry
              Data in Response to DCI Notice of September 2,1992 for
              Endosulfan.

42932001     Hommel, K. (1992) Endosulfan (HOE 002671): Determination in the Technical Grade
              Active Ingredient and Formulations by Gas Chromatography, Using Internal Standard
                                          239

-------
             CaUbration-Analytical Method: Lab Project Number: A 49026: AL 005/84-1.
             Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst AktiengesellschafL lip.

42932002    Gubert, M.; Hommel, K.; Weller, O. (1993) Determination of Secondary Components
             in HOE 002671 (Endosulfen)-Analytical Method: Lab Project Number A 51151: AL
             008/92-1. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft 12 p.

42932003    Gubert, M; Hommel, K.; Weller, W. (1993) Determination of Toluene in Endosulfen
             (HOE 002671) Using Gas Chromatography with an Internal Standard Analytical
             Method: Lab Project Number: A 51150: AL 009/92-0.  Unpublished study prepared
             by Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft.  lip.
42932004    Weller, O.; Gubert, M.; Gubert, G. (1993) Validation of the Analytical Methods
             AL008/92-1 and AL009/92-0 fat the Determination of Organic Impurities and Toluene
             in Technical Endosulfen (HOE 002671): Lab Project Number: A 51217: CP93/041.
             Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft 114 p.

42932005    Weller, O.; Weller, W. (1993) HOE 002671 (Endosulfen): Discussion of the
             Formation of Impurities in the Technical Grade Substance: Lab Project Number: A
             51137:OE93/057. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft. 17 p.

42932006    Weller, O.; Gubert, M.; Gubert, C. (1993) Endosulfen (HOE 002671): Analysis of
             Seven Typical Production Batches: Lab Project Number A 51214: CP93/045.
             Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst AktiengesellschafL 100 p.

42932007    Ehmarm, J. (1993) Hexacbiorobenzene and Pentachlorobenzene Quantitation in
             Technical Endosulfan: Lab Project Number A 51194:92 HOE 01. Unpublished study
             prepared by Institut Fresenius Ingelneim.  104 p.

42957000    Hoechst Celanese Corp. (1993) Submitted of Product Chemistry Data
             in Support of FIFRA 6(aX2) for Endosulfen.

42957400    Makhteshim-Agan of North America (1993) Submission of Product
             Chemistry Data in Support of FIFRA 6(aX2) for Endosulfen.
                                         240

-------
43069701     Czarnedd, J.; Mayasicb, J. (1992) Terrestrial Field Dissipation of Endosulfan Applied
              to Cropped and Bareground Plots in California: Lab Project Number: 90-0100:
              90-0101: R289011. Unpublished study prepared by Bio/dynamics, Inc. 176 p.

43129100     Hoechst Celanese Corp. (1993) Submittal of Toxicity data in
              Support of Registration of Endosulfan.

43129101     Albrecht, M.; Baeder, C. (1993) Endosulfan (HOE 002671 Substance Technical)
              (Code: HOE 002671 00 ZD98 0005) Testing for Embryotoxicity in the Wistar Rat
              After Oral Administration:  Lab Project Numben RR0663:92.0695.  Unpublished
              study prepared by Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft. 239 p.

43244900     Drexel Chemical Co. (1994) Submission of product chemistry data
              in response to Special DCI for HCB/PCB in Endosulfan.

43244901     Claussen, F. (1994) Analysis of Endosulfan for Hexachlorobenzene and
              Pentachlorobenzene: Lab Project Number: 130S07. Unpublished study prepared by
              EPL Bio-Analytical Services,  Inc. 58 p.

43268100     Drexel Chemical Co. (1994) Submittal of Product Chemistry Data in
              Support of Data Call-in of Drexel Endosulfan Technical
              Insecticide.

43268101     Handy, R. (1994) Product Identity and Composition Drexel Endosulfan Technical
              Insecticide. Unpublished study prepared by Drexel Chemical Co.  13 p.

43268102     Handy, R. (1994) Analysis and Certification of Product
              Ingredients Drexel Endosulfan Technical Insecticide.
              Unpublished study prepared by Drexel Chemical Co. 65 p.

43335500     DuPont Ag Products (1994) Submission of Toxicity Data in Support
              of FIFRA 6(aX2) for Oxamyl  (Vydate L Insecticide).
43335501    Tillman, P. (1994) Letter sent to Wah Mitchell (DuPont Ag
             Products) dated July 11,1994: Toxicity of oxamyl and other
             cotton insecticides to beneficial insects. Prepared by USDA,
                                          241

-------
               Southern Insect Management Lab. 2 p.

43617800     Ciba-Geigy Corp. (1995) Submission of Residues in the Environment
               and Hazard to Aquatic Organisms Data in Support of FIFRA 6(aX2)
               for Diazinon.

43617801     Ross, L. (1991) Preliminary Results of the San Joaquin River
               Study: March and April, 1991: (Diazinon, Ethyl Paratbion,
               Carbaryl, Dimethoate, and Carbofuran...). Unpublished study
               prepared by State of California, Dept of Pesticide Regulation.
               17 p.

43617802     Ross, L. (1992) Preliminary Results of the San Joaquin River
               Study: Summer 1991: (Diazinon, Ethyl Paratbion, Carbaryl,
               Dimethoate, and Carbofuran...). Unpublished study prepared by
               State of California, Dept of Pesticide Regulation. 15 p.

43617803     Ross, L. (1992) Preliminary Results of me San Joaquin River
               Study: Winter 1991-2: (Diazinon, Ethyl Parathion, Carbaryl,
               Dimethoate, and Carbofuran...). Unpublished study prepared by
               State of California, Dept of Pesticide Regulation. 17 p.

43617804     Ross, L. (1993) Preliminary Results of the San Joaquin River
               Study: Spring 1992: (Diazinon, Ethyl Parathion, Carbaryl,
               Dimethoate, and Carbofuran...). Unpublished study prepared by
               State of California, Dept of Pesticide Regulation. 14 p.

43617805     Ross, L. (1993) Preliminary Results of the San Joaquin River
               Study: Summer 1992: (Diazinon, Ethyl Parathion, Carbaryl,
               Dimethoate, and Carbofuran...). Unpublished study prepared by
               State of California, Dept of Pesticide Regulation. 15 p.

43617806     Ross, L. (1993) Preliminary Results of the San Joaquin River
               Study: Winter 1992-3:  (Diazinon, Ethyl Parathion, Carbaryl,
                                            242

-------
              Dimethoate, and Carbofuran...). Unpublished study prepared by
              State of California, DepL of Pesticide Regulation.  16 p.
43617808     Nordmark, C. (1994) Four River Monitoring Protocol: Revised:
              (Includes "Preliminary Results oflhe Four River Study,
              Sacramento River, Winter/Spring 1993-1994"). Unpublished study
              prepared by California Department of Pesticide Regulation. 13 p.

43675000     Fermenta Animal Health Co. (1995) Submission of product
              chemistry data in support of the registration of Endalfly
              Insecticide Cattle Ear Tag.

43675001     Shoup,R. (1995) Identity of Ingredients, Manufacturing Process
              and Discussion of Formation of Impurities: Technical
              Endosulfan. Unpublished study prepared by Fermenta Animal
              Health Co. 12 p.

43675002     Shoup, R. (1995) Certification of Limits and Analytical Method:
              Technical Endosul&a Unpublished study prepared by Fermenta
              Animal Health Co.  14 p.

43675003     Shoup, R. (1995) Physical and Chemical Properties: Technical
              Endosulfan. Unpublished study prepared by Fermenta Animal
              Health Co. 4 p.

43812800     AgrEvo USA Co. (1995) Submission of Environmental Fate Data in
              Support of the Registration Standard for Endosulfan.
43812801    Stumpf, K.; Dambach, P.; Lenz, O. (1995) Metabolism of (Carbon 14>Labeled
             Endosulfan in Five Soils Under Aerobic Conditions: Code: Hoe 002671, Hoe 052618,
             Hoe 052619: Lab Project Number: CB88/037: A53618: RR06/A914A. Unpublished
             study prepared by Hoechst Sobering AgrEvo GmbH. 85 p.

                                          243

-------
43842000     FMC Corp. (1995) Submission of Residue and Exposure: Reentry
              Protection Data in Support of the Registration Standard for
              Carbofuran.

43842001     Carlson, D. (1995) Soil Residue Dissipation, Dermal Passive
              Dosimetry Exposure and Inhalation Passive Dosimetry
              ExposurePotatoes: Justification for Waiver of Carbofuran Data
              Call-In. Unpublished study prepared by FMC Corp.  71 p.

43938400     Plant Products Corp. (1996) Submission of Exposure: Reentry
              Protection Data in Support of the Registration Standard for
              Sulfotepp.

43938401     O'Connell, L.; Fong, H.; Cooper, C.; et al. (1987) A Study to
              Establish Degradation Profiles for Six Pesticides (Triforine,
              Endosulfan, Chlorothalonil, Sulfotep, Dodemorph Acetate, and
              Daminozide) Used on Qmamental Foliage in San Diego County
              California During Fall 1986: Lab Project Number HS-1400.
              Unpublished study prepared by California Dept of Food and
              Agriculture. 19 p.
43960300     AgrEvo USA Co. (1996) Submission of Residue Data in Support of
              Import Tolerance Petition for Endosulfen in/on Coffee.

43960301     Gomez, C. (1996) Magnitude of the Residue of Endosulfan in
              Coffee Raw Agricultural Commodities and Processed Fractions:
              Study Summary Report: Lab Project Number: AA930040: A55741.
              Unpublished study prepared by American Agricultural Services,
              Inc. (AASI); EN-CAS Analytical Laboratories; and William J.
              Englar & Associates, Inc.  12 p.

43960302     Gomez, C. (1996) Magnitude of the Residue of Endosulfan in
              Coffee Raw Agricultural Commodities and Processed Fractions:
              Final Study Report: Lab Project Number: AA930040: A 55745.
              Unpublished study prepared by American Agricultural Services,
                                          244

-------
              Inc. (AASI); EN-CAS Analytical Laboratories; and William J.
              Englar & Associates, Inc. 590 p.

43961100     U.S. EPA (1996) Submission of Toxicity Data on 17 Pesticides.

43961101     McCann, J.; Teeters, W.; Urban, D. et al. (1981) A short-term
              dietary toxicity test on small mammals, p. 132-142 of the
              Second Conference of Avian and Mammalian Wildlife Toxicology,
              Lamb, D.; Kenaga, . Eds.; Published in American Society for
              Testing and Materials, ASTM STP 757; 1981.

43972500     EJ. du Pont de Nemours and Co. (1996) Submission of Residue
              Monitoring Data in Support of FIFRA 6(aX2) for Many Pesticides
              in Fresh Produce.

43972501     California Environmental Protection Agency (1995) Residues in
              Fresh Produce-1993. Unpublished study.  59 p.

44018900     Drexel Chemical Co. (1996) Submission of Product Chemistry Data
              in Support of the Application for Registration of Drexel
              EndosuhanSEC.

44018901     Handy, R. (1996) Product Identity and Composition: Drexel
              Endosulfan3EC: Lab Project Number ANS96-0001. Unpublished
              study prepared by Drexel Chemical Co.  44 p.

44018902     Handy, R. (1996) Analysis and Certification of Product
              Ingredients: Drexel Endosul&n 3 EC: Lab Project Number
              AN96-0001.  Unpublished study prepared by Drexel Chemical Co.
              10 p.

44018903     Handy, R.; West, M (1996) Physical and Chemical
              Characteristics of Drexel Endosulfan 3EC: Lab Project Number
              DREX0295. Unpublished study prepared by Drexel Chemical Co.
                                         245

-------
             7 p.
44082700    AgrEvo USA Co. (1996) Submission of Fate in Plants and
             Livestock Data in Support of the Endosulfen Registration
             Standard.

44082701    Schwab, W. (1995) Endosulfen (Code: Hoe 002671 00 ZE97 0005): Metabolism in
             Apples (Malus Syrvestris var. Doxnestitia) Following Single Treatment of a Young Tree
             with (carbon 14>Labelled Test Substance: Lab Project Number CM93/040: A
             53662. Unpublished study prepared by Hoxhst Sobering AgrEvo GmbH. 53 p.

44082702    Rupprecht, J.; Smith, S. (1996) Metabolism of (rarbon4)~ErjdosidM in Lettuce: Lab
             Project Number: 502BJ: A 55811. Unpublished study prepared by AgrEvo US A Co.
             76 p.

44082703    Leah, J.; Reynolds, C. (1996) Endosulfen: Distribution, Elimination and 1he Nature of
             the Metabolite Residues in the Milk and Edible Tissues of a Lactating Cow. Lab
             Project Number: A 57041: TOXy94306: TOX/94308A, Unpublished study prepared
             by AgrEvo UK Ltd. 134 p.

44099100    AgrEvo USA Co. (1996) Submission of Metabolism and Residue Data in
             Support of the Endosulfen Registration Standard.

44099101    Buerkle, W. (1995) Endosulfen (Code: Hoe 002671 00 ZE97 0005): Metabolism in
             Cucumber (Cucumis sativus) Following Three Treatments with the (carbon
             14)-Labeled Test Substance at 7-Day Intervals and a Nominal Rate of 530 g ad. /ha
             Each: Lab Project Number CM93/039: A 56011: RR06/A013.  Unpublished study
             prepared by Hoechst Schering AgrEvo GmbH.  81 p.

44099102    Reynolds, C. (1996) Endosulfen: Distribution, Elimination, and me Nature of fte
             Metabolite Residues in the Eggs and Edible Tissues of the Laying Hen: Lab Project
             Number: TOX/94306: A 56354: TOX/95/142-2.  Unpublished study prepared by
             AgrEvo UK Ltd. 104 p.

44111800    E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. (1996) Submission of Residues in
             the Environment Data in Support of FIFRA 6(aX2) for Numerous
             Pesticides.
                                         246

-------
 44111801     Johnson, W.; Kroll, R.; Pait, A.; et al. (1996) Data Base of
              the Occurrence and Distribution of Pesticides in Chesapeake
              Bay. Unpublished study retrieved from Internet at
              http://www.agmc.org/cbp/.  171 p.

 44220400     Riverside/Terra Corp. (1997) Submission of Toxicity Data in Support
              of the Registration far Thirethrin.

 44220401     Wnorowski, G. (1997) Acute Oral Toxicity Defined LD50 (Rats):
              Thirethrin: Lab Project Number 4908: P320. Unpublished study
              prepared by Product Safety Labs. 27 p.
44220403     Wnorowski, G. (1997) Acute Inhalation Toxicity Test (Rats):
              Thirethrin: Lab Project Number 4913: P330. Ur^ublished study
              prepared by Product Safety Labs. 36 p.

44220404     Wnorowski, G. (1997) Primary Eye Irritation (Rabbits):
              Thirethrin: Lab Project Number: 4910: P324. Unpublished study
              prepared by Product Safety Labs. 21 p.

44220405     Wnorowski, G. (1997) Primary Skin Irritation (Rabbits):
              Thirethrin: Lab Project Number: 4911: P326. Unpublished study
              prepared by Product Safety Labs. 16 p.

44220406     Wnorowski, G. (1997) Dermal Sensitization Test-Buehler Method
              (Guinea Pigs): Thirethrin: Lab Project Number: 4912: P328.
              Unpublished study prepared by Product Safety Labs. 23 p.

44259701     Brennan, J. (1997) Product Oiemistry for Thirethrin.
              Unpublished study prepared by Terra International, Inc. 6 p.

44346900     Endosulfen Task Force (1997) Submission of Residue and
                                          247

-------
             Environmental Fate Data in Support of the Reregistration of
             Endosulfan.

44346901    Singer, S.; Chen, W. (1997) (Carbon-14) Endosulfan Sulfate and Diol; Two Soil
             Degradates of Endosulfan: Adsorption/Desorption in Four Soil Types: Lab Project
             Number: 506BJ: A919/U022: ENDOSULFAN/A55833. Unpublished study
             prepared by AgrEvo USA Co. 68 p.

44346902    Huf K.; Winkter, D. (1997) Validation of the Analytical Method for the Determination
             of Endosulfan (alpha, beta and Sulfete) in/on Raw Agrioiltui^ QmraMdities (RAC)
             and Processed Commodities (PC): Final Report- Lab Project Number: 95-0043:
             BJ-95R-13: A57704. Unpublished study prepared by EN-CAS Analytical Labs.  208
             P-

44346903    Brady, S. (1997) Magnitude of Endosulfan Residues in or on Cantaloupes Resulting
             from Three Applications of Phaser EC or Phaser WP Insecticide, USA, 1995: Lab
             Project Number: BJ-95R-05:ENDOSULFAN/A55818: BJ-95R-05-JRS-01.
             Unpublished study prepared by AgrEvo USA Co. 90 p.

44346904    Brady, S. (1997) Magnitude of Endosulfan Residues in or on Head and Leaf Lettuce
             Resulting from Three Applications of Phaser Insecticide, USA, 1995: Lab Project
             Number: ENDOSULFAN/A55802: BJ-95R-02:CA-011. Unpublished study
             prepared by AgrEvo USA Co. 190 p.

44346905    Brady, S. (1997) Magnitude of Endosulfan Residues in or on Tomatoes Resulting from
             Three Applications of Phaser EC or Phaser WP Insecticide, USA, 1995: Lab Project
             Number ENDOSULFAN/A55822: BJ-95R-06: CA-014. Unpublished study
             prepared by AgrEvo USA Co. 138 p.
44346906    Brady, S. (1997) Magnitude of Endosulfan Residues in or on Celery Resulting from a
             Single Application of Phaser EC or Phaser WP Insecticide, USA, 1995: Lab Project
             Number: U022/R141C: ENDOSULFAN/A55830: BJ-95R-04. Unpublished study
             prepared by AgrEvo USA Co. 115 p.

44346907    Brady, S. (1997) Magnitude of Endosulfan Residues in or on Summer Squash Resulting
             from Three Applications of Phaser Insecticide, USA, 1995: Lab Project Number:
                                        248

-------
             R142B/U022: ENDOSULFAN/A57714: R01-01. Unpublished study prepared by
             AgrEvoUSACo. 88 p.

44346908    Brady, S. (1997) Magnitude of Endosulfan Residues in or on Broccoli Resulting from
             Three Applications of Phaser EC or Phaser WP Insecticide, USA, 1995: Lab Project
             Number BJ-95R-03: BJ95R03: ENDOSULFAN/A55827. Unpublished study
             prepared by AgrEvo USA Co.  107 p.

44346909    Brady, S. (1997) Magnitude of Endosulfan Residues in or on Cucumbers Resulting
             from Three Applications of Phaser Insecticide: Lab Project Number: BJ-96R-01:
             BJ96R01:R02-01. Unpublished study prepared by AgrEvo USA Co.  115 p.

44346910    Brady, S. (1997) Magnitude of Endosulfan Residues in or on Sweet Cherries Resulting
             from One Application of Phaser Insecticide, USA, 1996: Lab Project Number:
             BJ-96R-03: BJ96R03: R05-01. Unpublished study prepared by AgrEvo USA Co.
             102 p.

44346911    Brady, S. (1997) Magnitude of Endosulfan Residues in or on Sour Cherries Resulting
             from One Application of Phaser Insecticide, USA, 1996: Lab Project Number:
             BJ-96R-04: BJ96R04: R01-01. Unpublished study prepared by AgrEvo USA Co.
             106 p.

44346912    Brady, S. (1997) Magnitude of Endosulfan Residues in or on Sweet Potatoes Resulting
             from Two to Three Applications of Phaser Insecticide: Lab Project Number: BJ96R05:
             BJ-96R-05:  ENDOSULFAN/A57719. Unpublished study prepared by AgrEvo
             USA Co. 128 p.

44346913    Brady, S. (1997) Magnitude of Endosulfan Residues in or on Potatoes and Processed
             Potato Commodities Resulting from Three Applications of Phaser EC Insecticide at an
             Exagerrated Rate, USA, 1995: Lab Project Number: R1612B/U022: BJ95R08:
             ENDOSULFAN/A57705.  Unpublished study prepared by AgrEvo USA Co.  70 p.

44346914    Brady, S. (1997) Magnitude of Endosulfan Residues in or on Tomatoes and Processed
             Tomato Commodities Resulting from Three Applications of Phaser EC Insecticide at an
             Exagerrated Rate, USA, 1995: Lab Project Number:  ENDOSULFAN/A57707:
             BJ-95R-09: BJ95R09. Unpublished study prepared by AgrEvo USA Co. 73 p.
                                        249

-------
44346915     Brady, S. (1997) Magnitude of Endosulfan Residues in or on Grapes and Processed
              Grapes Commodities Resulting from Two Applications of Phaser EC Insecticide: Lab
              Project Number BJ-95R-07: BJ95R07:  ENDOSULFAN/A55834. Unpublished
              study prepared by AgrEvo USA Co. 54 p.

44371700     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1997) Submission of
              Toxicity Data far Organophosphorus Insecticide (Methyl
              Parathion...).

44371715     Rastogi,A.;Kulsrfleslha,S.(1990)Errectofsublemal
              doses of three pesticides on the ovary of a carp minnow rasbora
              daniconius. Bull Environ. Contam. ToxicoL 45:742-747.

44393000     The Endosulfan Task Force. (1997) Submission of Environmental
              Fate Data in Support of the Reregistration of Endosulfan.

44393001     Meyer, B.; Tull, P. (1997) Uptake of (carbon 14>Endosulfan Residues in Soil by
              Rotational Crops Under Confined Conditions:  Lab Project Number: 503BJ:
              BJ95E503.  Unpublished study prepared by AgrEvo USA Co. 111 p.

44396300     Endosulfan Task Force (1997) Submission of Residue Data in Support
              of the Reregistration of Endosulfan. Transmittal of 1 Study.

44396301     Winkler, D. (1997) Freezer Storage Stability of Endosulfan (Alpha, Beta and Sulphate)
              on Crop Raw Agricultural Commodities and Processed Commodities: Final Report:
              Lab Project Number:  95-0072: BJ-95R-11: A57831. Unpublished study prepared
              by EN-CAS Analytical Labs. 424 p.

44403100     Endosulfan Task Force (1997) Submission of Toxicity and Exposure
              Data in Support of the Reregistration of Endosulfan.

44403101     Bury, D. (1997) Endosulfan:  Substance, Technical; (Code: HOE 002671 00 ZD99
              0008): Neurotoxicologjcal Screening in the Male and Female Wistar Rat Acute Oral
              Toxicity: Lab Project Number: 96.0373:97.0149: A59088.  Unpublished study
              prepared by Hoechst Marion Roussel. 563 p.
                                          250

-------
44403102     Singer, S. (1997) Dissipation of Foliar Dislodgeable Residues of Endosulfan Following
              Application of Phaser EC and Phaser WP to Melons, Peaches and Grapes, USA,
              1995: Lab Project Number: BJ-95R-01: BJ95R001: ENDOSULFAN/A57710.
              Unpublished study by AgrEvo USA Co. 242 p.

44427600     AgrEvo USA Co. (1997) Submission of Residue Data in Support of the
              Reregistration of Endosulfan.
44427601     Huff, D.; Winkler, D. (1997) Validation of the Analytical Method for the Determination
              of Endosul&n (alpha, beta and Sulfate) in Animal Tissues, Egg (White and Yolk) and
              Dairy Matrices Based Upon FDA Pesticide Analytical Manual, Volume 1
              Multi-Residue Methodology: Lab Project Number: 95-0061:   BJ-95R-14: A57847.
              Unpublished study prepared by EN-CAS Analytical Labs. 346 p.
44442700    Drexel Chemical Co. (1997) Submission of Toxicology Data in Support
             of the Registration of Drexel Endosulfan SEC. Transmittal of 6
             Studies.

44442701    Seshaiah, A. (1997) Acute Oral Toxicity Study in Rat:
             Endosulfan 33.7% EC: Lab Project Number: 1027/JRF/TOX/97:
             AOR/ENS/44:1027. Unpublished study prepared by Jai Research
             Foundation. 23 p.

44442702    Bakili, R. (1997) Acute Dermal Toxicity (Study) to Rabbit
             Endosulfan 33.7% EC: Lab Project Number: 10267JRF/TOX/97:
             ADRAB/ENS/44:1026.  Unpublished study prepared by Jai Research
             Foundation. 28 p.

44442703    Seshaiah, A. (1997) Acute Inhalation Toxicity (LC 50) Study in
             Rat: Endosulfan 33.7% EC: Lab Project Number: 1031/JRF/TOX/97:
             AIR/ENS/44:1031. Unpublished study prepared by Jai Research
             Foundation. 42 p.
                                         251

-------
44442704     Bakili, R. (1997) Primaiy Eye Irritation (Rabbit): Endosulfen
              33.7% EC: Lab Project Number: 1028/JRF/TOX/97: AEI/ENS/44:
              1028. Unpublished study prepared by Jai Research Foundation.
              25 p.

44442705     Bakili, R. (1997) Primary Dermal Irritation (Rabbit):
              Endosulfan 33.7% EC: Lab Project Number 1029/JRF/TOXy97:
              ADI/ENS/44:1029.  Unpublished study prepared by Jai Research
              Foundation. 19 p.

44442706     Sundar, S. (1997) Dermal Sensitization Study-Guinea Pig
              Maximisation Test Endosulfen 33.7% EC: Lab Project Number:
              1030/JRF/TOX/97: GPS/ENS 44:1030. Unpublished study prepared
              by Jai Research Foundation. 32 p.

44457000     Interregional Research Project No.4 (1997) Submission of Residue
              Data in Support of the Reregistration of Endosulfan.

44457001     Samoil, K. (1997) Magnitude of Residue: Endosulfen on Sweet Com: Lab Project
              Number 06074. Unpublished study prepared by Univ. of California, Univ. of Florida
              and Agric. Consulting, Inc. 596 p.

44560700     AgrEvo USA Company (1998) Submission of Toxicity Data in
              Support of the Reregistration of Endosulian.

44560701     Bury, D. (1995) Carbaryl: Neurotoxicological Screening in Rats Positive Study
              Control: Lab Project Number 94.0005. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst
              Aktiengesellschaft 24 p.
44560702    Bury, D. (1995) Acrylamide: Neurotoxicological Screening in Rats Positive Control
             Study: Lab Project Number: 94.0004. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst
             Aktiengesellschaft 144 p.
                                          252

-------
44599600     Endosulfan Task Force(1998) Submission of Residue Chemistry Data in Support of the
              Reregistration of Endosulfan. Transmittal of 1 Study.

44599601     Winkler, D. (1998) Freezer storage Stability of Endosulfan (alpha, beta, and Sulfete)
              on Animal Tissue and Dairy Matrices: Lab Project Number: 96-0046: BJ-96R-06:
              A67512. Unpublished study prepared by EN-CAS Analytical Laboratories. 237 p.
              {OPPTS 830.1380}

44617400     FMC Corporation (1998) Submission of Residue Chemistry Data in
              Support of the Reregistration of Endosulfan Containing Product
              Thiodan 3 EC Insecticide.

44617401     Jackson, M. (1997) Determine the Magnitude of Residues of
              Thiodan 3EC in Pineapple: Lab Project Number: PGAAH950001:
              THD9501:THD9502.  Unpublished study prepared by Hawaii
              Agriculture Research Center. 125 p.

44617402     Jackson, M.( 1997) Determine the Magnitude of Residues of
              Thiodan 3EC in Pineapple Processing Fractions: Lab Project
              Number: PGAH950001P: THD9507P: THD9508P.  Unpublished study
              prepared by Hawaii Agriculture Research Center. 80 p.

44637800     AgrEvo USA Company (1998) Submission of Residue Chemistry Data in Support of
              Reregistration of Endosulfan.

44637801     Winkler, D. (1998) Freezer Storage Stability of Endosulian
              (Alpha, Beta and Sulfate) on Crop Raw Agriculture Commodities
              and Processed Commodities Amendment No. 1 to Final Report: Lab
              Project Number: 95-0072: BJ-95R-11. Unpublished study prepared
              by EN-CAS Analytical Laboratories. 84 p.

44701200     Endosulfan Task Force (1998) Submission of Residue Chemistry Data
              in Support of the Reregistration of me Endosulfan Containing
              Product Phaser Insecticide.
                                         253

-------
44701201    Brady, S. (1998) Magnitude of Endosulfim Residues in or on Celery Resulting fiom a
             Single Application of Phaser Insecticide, USA, 1997: Lab Project Number
             BJ-97R-02: C000900:  XEN98-20. Unpublished study prepared by AgrEvo USA
             Company. 64 p.

44701202    Brady, S. (1998) Magnitude of Endosulfim Residues in or on Leaf Lettuce Resulting
             fiom Two Applications of Phaser Insecticide, USA, 1997: Lab Project Number:
             XEN98-19:97-277M:  R10-01. Unpublished study prepared by AgrEvo USA
             Company. 81 p.
44746400    Drexel Chemical Company (1999) Submission of Product Oiemistry
             Data in Support of the Registration of Endosulfen 3 EC.

44746401    Handy, R.; West, M.; Kovacs, M (1997) Physical and Chemical
             Characteristics of Drexel Endosulfen SEC: Lab Project Number
             DREX0295. Unpublished study prepared by Drexel Chemical
             Company. 9 p.

44762901    Brady, S. (1999) Magnitude of Endosulfan Residues in or on Wheat Grain and
             Processed Commodities Resulting fiom Two Applications of Phaser Insecticide at an
             Exaggerated Rate USA, 1998: Lab Project Number: BJ98R001: C000915: R02-01.
             Unpublished study prepared by AgrEvo USA Company. 91 p.

44843700    Endosulfen Task Force (1999) Submission of Residue Chemistry Data
             in Support of the Reregistration of Endosulfen.

44843701    Gaston, C. (1999) Endosulfim: Chronic Dietary Exposure
             Assessment: Lab Project Number: ENDOSULFAN-99-CA02: C002871.
             Unpublished study prepared by Novigen Sciences, Inc.  72 p.

44843702    Peatman, M.; Reynolds, C.; Bright, J. et al. (1999) Residues of Alpha-endosuhan,
             Beta-endosulfem and Endosulfan Sulfate in Milk amd Edible Cattle Tissues Following
             28 Days  Feeding to Lactating Cows Endosulfen Technical Product: Lab Project
             Number: 205/05/001: C003624: RESID/99/B. Unpublished study    prepared by
             AgrEvo UK Limited. 173 p. {OPPTS 860.1480}
                                        254

-------
44854100     FMC Corporation (1999) Submission of Residue Chemistry Data in
              Support of the Registration of Thiodan EC Insecticide.

44854101     Brooks, M (1996) Magnitude of the Residue of Endosulfen and Endosulfen Sulfete
              in/on Cotton Treated with Thiodan 3 EC: Lab Project Number: 323COT95R2:
              P-3147. Unpublished study prepared by EPL Bio-Analytical Services. 92 p.

44854102     McChesney,M. (1997) Magnitude of the Residue of Endosulfen and Endosulfen
              Sulfete in/on Cotton Treated with Thiodan 3 EC: Lab Project Number: 323COT96R2:
              RAN-0298. Unpublished study prepared by FMC Corporation. 92 p. {OPPTS
              860.1500}

44854103     Kuan, R. (1997) Magnitude of the Residue of Endosulfen and Endosulfen Sulfete in/on
              Processed Parts of Cottonseed from Cotton Treated with Thiodan 3 EC: Lab Project
              Number:  323COT96R3: RAN-0300. Unpublished study prepared by FMC
              Corporation. 103 p.

44863700     AgrEvo USA Company (1999) Submission of Toxicity Data in Support of
              the Reregistration of Endosulfen.

44863701     Noctor, J. (1995) (Carbon-14>Endosulfen: Rates of Penetration
              Through Human and Rat Skin Determined Using an in Vitro System:
              Final Report: Lab Project Number 169/54-1011: A54103: P7353D.
              Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft
              116 p.

44903600     Endosulfen Task Force (1999) Submission of Environmental Fate Data
              in Support of die Reregistration of Endosulfen.
44903601    Fischer, R.; Chen, W.; Coody, P. (1999) Endosulfen: Evaluation
             of the Runoff Potential: Lab Project Number: BJ94R002: A67519:
             BJ98W510.  Unpublished study prepared by AgrEvo USA Company.
             649 p.

44917800    Endosulfen Task Force (1999) Submission of Environmental Fate Data
             in Support of the Reregistration of Endosulfen.
                                        255

-------
44917801     Gildemister, H. (1985) Hoe 002671 -(carbon 14) (Endosulfan):
              Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism Study with the Insecticide
              Endosulfan: Lab Project Number (B) 106/85: A31182.  Unpublished
              study prepared by Hoechst Analytisches Laboratorium. 35 p.

44917802     Stumpf, K. (1990) Endosulfan: Summary Comments Regarding me
              Bioavailability in Water/Sediment Systems and Potential
              Degradability in Water: Lab Project Number A44231: A45100:
              A31128. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst Schering AgrEvo
              GmbH. 20 p.

44933000     AgrEvo USA Company (1999) Submission of Risk Assessment,
              Exposure and Residue Chemistry Data in Support of the
              Reregistration of Endosulfan.

44933001     Gaston, C. (1999) Endosulfan: Tier 3 Acute Monte Carlo Dietary Exposure
              Assessment Using Refined Assumptions of Anticipated Residues  in Foods: Lab Project
              Number: B002436. Unpublished study prepared by Novigen Sciences, Inc. 331 p.

44933002     Krebs, B.; Hum, G.; Junker, H. et al. (1996) Endosulfan:
              Residue Trials in Apples to Establish a Maximum Residue Level
              Determination of Active Substance and me Metabolite Decline
              Following Two Applications in Apples and Processing to Apple
              Puree and Apple Juice; and the Resulting Residue Data Summary
              Report for Pome Fruit: Lab Project Number C003264: A57131:
              A55874. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst Schering AgrEvo
              GmbH. 185 p.
44939100    AgrEvo USA Company (1999) Submission of Risk Assessment,
             Exposure and Toxicity Data in Support of the Reregistration of
             Endosulfan.
                                          256

-------
44939101    White, K. (1999) Assessment of Human Exposure from the Application of Endosulfen:
             Lab Project Number: C002873: A54103:169/54-1011. Unpioblished study prepared
             by Jellinek, Schwartz and Connolly, Inc.  85 p.

44939102    Bremmer,J.;Leist,K. (1998) Endosulfen: Evaluation of
             Possible Endocrine Effects in Mammalian Species: Lab Project
             Number TOX98/046: C001570.  Unpublished study prepared by
             Hoechst Sobering AgrEvo GmbH. 17 p.

44953100    AgrEvo USA Company (1999) Submission of Risk Assessment,
             Exposure and Toxicity Data in Support of the Reregistration of
             Endosulfen.

44953101    Ramanarayanan, T.; Allen, R. (1999) Endosulfen (AE F002671):
             Selection of Her n Surface Water Exposure Assessment
             Scenarios Using a Geographical Information System and Natural
             Resources Databases: Lab Project Number: 512BJ: B002202:
             BJ99E512. Unpublished study prepared by AgrEvo USA Company.
             61 p.

44953102    Ramanarayanan, T.; Allen, R. (1999) Endosulfen (AE F002671):
             Tier n Exposure Assessment; Sensitivity Analysis for PRZM (Ver
             3.12), EXAMS (Ver 2.97.5) and AgDrift (Ver 1.02): Lab Project
             Number: 513BJ:B002224:BJ99E513. Unpublished study prepared
             by AgrEvo USA Company. 54 p.

44953103    Ramanarayanan, T.; Fischer, R.; Allen, R. (1999) Endosulfen (AE
             F002671): Tier n Surface Water Exposure Assessment and
             Comparison to Aquatic Toxicity End-Points: Lab Project Number
             BJ99E514: B002255: WEI622.06-B. Unpublished study prepared by
             AgrEvo USA Company. 282 p.
44953104    Fischer, R.; Heusel, R.; Knauf, W. et al. (1995) Endosulfen
             (Hoe 002671)~Tier 2 Summary for EC Directive (91/414/EEC)
             Registration Requirements: Section 8, Exotoxicological Studies

                                        257

-------
44953105
on the Active Substance (20/4/94). April 25,1995. Hoechst
Sobering AgrEvo GmbH: Lab Project Number. Unpublished study
prepared by Hoechst Sobering AgrEvo GmbH. 67 p.

Allen, R (1999) Endosulfen: Calculation of Dietary Exposure
via Drinking Water and Comparison to Drinking Water Level of
Concern (DWLOC): Lab Project Number: BJ99E515: B002594.
Unpublished study prepared by AgrEvo USA Company.  10 p.
44972300    Endosulfen Task Force (1999) Submission of Environmental Fate Data
             in Support of the Reregistration of Endosulfen Containing
             Product Phaser Insecticide.

44972301    Brady, S. (1999) Magnitude of Endosulfen Residues in or on
             Rotational Crops from Two Applications of Phaser Insecticide
             USA, 1998: Lab Project Number: BJ98R002: B002616: AE F002671.
             Unpublished study prepared by AgrEvo USA Co. 225 p. {OPPTS
             860.1900}
                                        258

-------
259

-------
Appendix E.  GENERIC DATA CALL-IN

      Note that a complete Data Call-In (DCI), with all pertinent instructions, will be sent to
registrants under separate cover.
                                        260

-------
                                              United States Environmental Protection
                                                 Agency  Washington, D.C. 20460

                                REQUIREMENTS STATUS AND REGISTRANT'S RESPONSE
                                                                                                                OMB Approval 2070-0107
                                                                                                                OMB Approval 2070-0057
INSTRUCTIONS: Please type or print in ink. Please read carefully the attached instructions and supply the information requested on this form.
Use additional sheet(s) if necessary.
1. Company Name and Address

    SAMPLE COMPANY

    NO STREET ADDRESS

    NO CITY, XX  00000
                               2. Case # and Name

                                 0014  Endosulfan
                                 Chemical # and Name
                                 Endosulfan
                                                       079401
                  3. Date and Type of DCI and Number

                     DD-MMM-YYYY
                     GENERIC

                     ID#  GDCI-079401-NNNNN
4. Guideline
Requirement
Number
 5. Study Title
                                                        Progress
                                                         Reports
                                                                   6. Use
                                                                   Pattern
                      7. Test
                      Substance
8. Time
Frame
(Months)
9. Registrant
Response
                       Aoollc
875.1100


875.1300





835.7100




835.7200





860.1380


860.1500


860.1500


860.1500
                                         (D
Dermal exposure-outdoor

Inhalation exposure-outdoor

Environmental Fate Data Requirements (Conventional
Chemical)
Ground water monitoring
                                         (2)
Ground Water Monitoring Test Guidelines

Surface Drinking Water Monitoring Study          (3)
Residue Chemistry Data Requirements for Food Uses
[Conventional Chemical!
Storage stability data                         (4)


Crop field trials(BARLEY, HAY)                 (5,6,7,8)

Crop fieWtrials(BARLEY, PEARLED BARLEY)     (9,10,11)


Crop field trials(OAT, FORAGE)                (12,13,14)
A, B. C, H

A,B,C,H




A, B, C, H




A,B,C,H




A,B,C,H

A, B, C, H

A,B,C,H

A, B, C, H
                                                                                        TEP

                                                                                        TEP

                                                                                        TEP
12

12




12




22




24

24

24

24
 10. Certification  I certify that the statements made on this form and aH attachments are true, accurate, and complete.  I acknowledge that any
 knowingly false or misleading statement may be punishable by fine, Imprisonment or both under applicable law

 Signature and Title of Company's Authorized Representative	
                                                                                          11. Date
 12. Name of Company
                                                                                          13. Phone Number

-------
DRAFT COPY
Page 2 of 5
United States Environmental Protection
Agency Washington, D.C. 20460
REQUIREMENTS STATUS AND REGISTRANT'S RESPONSE
OMB Approval 2070-0107
OMB Approval 2070-0057

INSTRUCTIONS: Please type or print in ink. Please read carefully the attached instructions and supply the information requested on this form.
Use additional sheet(s) If necessary.
1. Company Name and Address
SAMPLE COMPANY
NO STREET ADDRESS
NO CITY, XX 00000
4. Guideline
Requirement
Number
860.1500
860.1500
860.1500
860.1500
860.1500
860.1500
880,1520
860.1520
860.1520
860.1520
860.1520
860.1520
5. Study Title
2. Case f and Name 3. Date and Type of DCI and Number
0014 Endosurfan DD-MMM-YYYY
Chemical # and Name 079401 GENERIC
Endosulfan ,D# QDCI-079401-NNNNN

Crop field trials
TEP
ra-
FEP
TEP
TEP
TEP
FEP
TSP
TEP
8. Time
Frame
(Months)
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
9. Registrant
Response









-

-------
United States Environmental Protection
Agency Washington, D.C. 20460
REQUIREMENTS STATUS AND REGISTRANT'S RESPONSE
OMB Approval 2070-0107
OMB Approval 2070-0057

INSTRUCTIONS: Please type or print in ink. Please read carefully the attached instructions and supply the information requested on this form.
Use additional shoet(s) If necessary.
1. Company Name and Address 2. Case* and Name 3. Date and Type of DCI and Number
SAMPLE COMPANY 0014 Endosulfan DD-MMM-YYYY
NO STREET ADDRESS Chemical # and Name 079401 GENERIC
NO CITY, XX 00000 Endosulfan ,D# QDCI-079401-NNNNN
4. Guideline
Requirement
Number
860.1520
860.1900
850.1035
850.1075
850.1300
850.1350
850.1500
850.2100
850.2200
850.2300
850.1735
5. Study Title
Pmrnimfl rnnrl/frmilfrtYT FIDIIRl f41 At\
Field accumulation in rotational crops
Terrestrial and Aouatfo Nontaroet Oraantans Data
ReatriraitiwtefCofiventlonaJCtMfnIcan
Mysid acute toxicity test
Fish acute toxicfty test freshwater ami marine
DaphnkJ chronic toxicity test
MysW chronic toxicity test
Fish life cycle toxicity (45)
Avian acute oral toxicity test
Avian dietary toxicity test
Avian reproduction test
Whole sediment: acute freshwater invertebrates (46)
p
R
O
T
O
C
L









Progress
Reports
1









2









3









6. Use
Pattern
A,B,C,H
A, B, C, H
A, B, C. H
A, B, C, H
A, B. C, H
A.B,C,H
A, B. C. H
A, B, C, H
A. B, C, H
A, B, C, H
A, B, C, H
Initial to indicate certification as to information on this page
(full text of certification is on page one).
7. Test
Substance
TEP






;
TGAI
8. Time
Frame
(Months)
U:
12
12
12
12

12
14
24
2*;
24
9. Registrant
Response









Date

-------
DRAFT COPY
Page 4 of 5
United States Environmental Protection
Agency Washington, D.C. 20460
REQUIREMENTS STATUS AND REGISTRANT'S RESPONSE
OMB Approval 2070-0107
OMB Approval 2070-0057

INSTRUCTIONS: Please type or print in ink. Please read carefully the attached instructions and supply the information requested on this form.
Use additional sheet(s) if necessary.
1 . Company Name and Address 2. Case # and Name 3. Date and Type of DCI and Number
SAMPLE COMPANY 0014 Endosulfan DD-MMM-YYYY
NO STREET ADDRESS Chemical # and Name 079401 GENERIC
NO CITY, XX 00000 Endosulfan ,D# QDCI-079401-NNNNN
4. Guideline
Requirement
Number
850.1740
870.6300
164-2-SS
8501 735S
8501740S
870.6200
875,1700


5. Study Title
Whole sediment acute marine invertebrates (47)
Toxlcoloov Data Reauirements (Conventional Chemical)
Developmental neurotaxfcity study
VtemtnthjB Buffer mkutHiMnM* 
-------
United States Environmental Protection
Agency Washington, D.C. 20460
REQUIREMENTS STATUS AND REGISTRANT'S RESPONSE
OMB Approval 2070-0107
OMB Approval 2070-0057
INSTRUCTIONS: Please type or print in ink. Please read carefully the attached instructions and supply the information requested on this form.
Use additional sheet(s) if necessary.
1. Company Name and Address 2. Case* and Name
SAMPLE COMPANY 0014 EndosuKan
NO STREET ADDRESS Chemical # and Name 079401
NO CITY, XX 00000 Endosulfan
4. Guideline
Requirement
Number

5. Study Title
90-Day Neurotoxkaty Study in Mammate (55)
p
R
0
T
O
C
L

Progress
Reports
1

2

3

6. Use
Pattern
3. Date and Type of DCI and Number
DD-MMM-YYYY
GENERIC
ID* GDCI-079401-NNNNN

A, B, C. H
Initial to indicate certification as to information on this page
(full text of certification is on page one).
7. Test
Substance

8. Time
Frame
(Months)
4
9. Registrant
Response

Date

-------
  DRAFT COPY	Page 1 of4
                                                              United States Environmental Protection
                                                                 Agency Washington, D.C. 20460
                                       FOOTNOTES AND KEY DEFINITIONS FOR GUIDELINE REQUIREMENTS
                                                          Case # and Name:   0014 Endosulfan
                                                          DCI Number:  GDCI-079401-NNNNN
Key:  TEP = Typical End Use Product [TEP]; TGAI = Technical Grade Active Ingredient [TGAI]
 Use Categories Key:
A-    Terrestrial food crop           H-    Greenhouse food crop
B -    Terrestrial feed crop
C -    Terrestrial nonfood crop
Footnotes: [The following notes are referenced In column two (5. Study File) of the REQUIREMENTS STATUS AND REGISTRANTS RESPONSE form.]
1           These studies are required because data gaps exist for the following dermal outdoor exposure scenarios: (1) applying dip treatments to trees and roots or whole plants, and (2) no exposure
            data exists for mixing/loading/applying liquids with a high pressure handwand or a backpack sprayer. These two scenarios are expected to have risks of concern since similar scenarios
            (mixing/loading wettable powders and mixing/loading/applying liquids with a high pressure hand wand) assessed in the occupational exposure risk chapter.
2           Special Study: ground water monitoring in specific areas where endosuHan is used during the growing season to obtain a more accurate picture as to how endosutfan moves. Prior to the
            Initiation of a ground water study, a geographical informationsystem will be created, which will include crops on whtehendosuNan is used, as well as areas of historical endosutfan use, and
            drinking water resources.  A protocol must be submitted and approvefd before the study begins.
3           This drinking water monitoring for surface water sources is required to address potential risks of concern for endosutfan and its degradatos in surface water. Surface water monitoring must
            include the endosutfan parent and its degradates.
4           This study is required for oils seed, non-oily grain and processed commodities.

5           Required for residential outdoor use on food crops if home gardens  are to be treated or the home garden use is different from the agricultural use pattern on which the tolerance is established.

6           A residue method, storage stability data, and crop field trials are required for the nonfood crop tobacco (green, freshly harvested). Depending on the level of residues found on the green
            tobacco, additional data may be required on cured/dried tobacco and pyrolysis products (guideline 860.1000).
7           Studies using single serving samples of a raw agricultural commodity may be needed for acutely toxic pesticides and/or their metabolites. These residue studies must be conducted using a
            statistical design accepted by the Agency.
8           Required for indoor uses which are direct  postharvest treatments of raw agricultural commodities (e.g., fungiddal waxes  or stored grain fumigants).

g           Required for residential outdoor use on food crops if home gardens  are to be treated or the home garden use is different from the agricultural use pattern on which the tolerance is established.

10          Studies using single serving samples of a raw agricultural commodity may be needed for acutely toxic pesticides and/or their metabolites. These residue studies must be conducted using a
            statistical design accepted by the Agency.
11          Required for indoor uses which are direct  postharvest treatments of raw agricultural commodities (e.g., fungiddal waxes  or stored grain fumigants).

12          Required for residential outdoor use on food crops If home gardens  are to be treated or the home garden use Is different from the agricultural use pattern on which the tolerance is established.

13       .   Studies using single serving samples of a raw agricultural commodity may be needed for acutely toxic pesticides and/or their metabolites. These residue studies must be conducted using a'
            statistical design accepted by the Agency.
14          Required for indoor uses which are direct  postharvest treatments of raw agricultural commodities (e.g., fungiddal waxes  or stored grain fumigants).

-------
                                                               United States Environmental Protection
                                                                  Agency  Washington, D.C. 20460

                                        FOOTNOTES AND KEY DEFINITIONS FOR GUIDELINE REQUIREMENTS

                                                           Case # and Name:  0014 Endosulfan
                                                           DCI Number:   GDCI-079401-NNNNN
Key:  TEP - Typical End Use Product [TEP]; TGAI = Technical Grade Active Ingredient fJGAI]
Footnotes: [Th following notes are referenced In column two (6. Study File) of the REQUIREMENTS STATUS AND REGISTRANTS RESPONSE form.]
15          Required for residential outdoor use on food crops if home gardens are to be treated or the home garden use is different from the agricultural use pattern on which the tolerance is established.

16          Studies using single serving samples of a raw agricultural commodity may be needed for acutely toxic pesticides and/or their metabolites. These residue studies must be conducted using a
            statistical design accepted by the Agency.

17          Required for indoor uses which are direct postharvest treatments of raw agricultural commodities (e.g., fungitidal waxes or stored grain fumigants).

1 s          Required for residential outdoor use on food crops if home gardens are to be treated or the home garden use is different from the agricultural use pattern on which the tolerance is established.

1 9          Studies using single serving samples of a raw agricultural commodity may be needed for acutely toxic pesticides and/or their metabolites. These residue studies must be conducted using a
            statistical design accepted by the Agency.

20          Required for indoor uses which are direct postharvest treatments of raw agricultural commodities (e.g., fungiddal waxes or stored grain fumigants).

21          Required for residential outdoor use on food crops if home gardens are to be treated or the home garden use is different from the agricultural use pattern on which the tolerance Is established.

22          Studies using single serving samples of a raw agricultural commodity may be needed for acutely toxic pesticides and/or their metabolites. These residue studies must be conducted using a
            statistical design accepted by the Agency.

23          Required for indoor uses which are direct postharvest treatments of raw agricultural commodities (e.g., fungteidal waxes or stored grain fumigants).

24          A residue method, storage stability data, and crop field trials are required for the nonfood crop tobacco (green, freshly harvested). Depending on the level of residues found on the green
            tobacco, additional data may be required on cured/dried tobacco and pyrolysis products (guideline 860.1000).

25          Required for residential outdoor use on food crops if home gardens are to be treated or the home garden use is different from the agricultural use pattern on which the tolerance is established.

26          Studies using single serving samples of a raw agricultural commodity may be needed for acutely toxic pesticides and/or their metabolites. These residue studies  must be conducted using a
            statistical design accepted by the Agency.

27          Required for indoor uses which are direct postharvest treatments of raw agricultural commodities (e.g., fungiddal waxes or stored grain fumigants).

28          Required for residential outdoor use on food crops if home gardens are to be treated or the home garden use is different from the agricultural use pattern on which the tolerance is established.

29          Studies using single serving samples of a raw agricultural commodity may be needed for acutely toxic pesticides and/or their metabolites. These residue studies  must be conducted using a
            statistical design accepted by the Agency.

-------
  DRAFT  COPY                                                  	   	         	Page3of4
                                                               United States Environmental Protection
                                                                  Agency  Washington, D.C. 20460
                                        FOOTNOTES AND KEY DEFINITIONS FOR GUIDELINE REQUIREMENTS
                                                           Case # and Name:   0014  Endosulfan
                                                           DCI Number:   GDCI-079401-NNNNN
Key:  TEP = Typical End Use Product [TEP]; TGAI = Technical Grade Active Ingredient [TGAI]
Footnotes: [The following notes are referenced In column two (5. Study File) of the REQUIREMENTS STATUS AND REGISTRANTS RESPONSE form.]
30          Required for indoor uses which are direct postharvest treatments of raw agricultural commodities (e.g., fungicidal waxes or stored grain fumigants).
31          Required if indoor use could result in pesticide residues in or on food or feed.

32          Data on the nature and level of residues in processed food/feed are required if residues could potentially concentrate on processing thus requiring the establishment of a separate tolerance
            higher than that of the raw agricultural commodity. Studies, however, may be waived if it can be demonstrated that residues do not concentrate on processing.
33          Required if indoor use could result in pesticide residues in or on food or feed.

34          Data on the nature and level of residues in processed food/feed are required if residues could potentially concentrate on processing thus requiring the establishment of a separate tolerance
            higher than that of the raw agricultural commodity. Studies, however, may be waived if it can be demonstrated that residues do not concentrate on processing.
35          Required if indoor use could result in pesticide residues in or on food or feed.
36          Data on the nature and level of residues in processed food/feed are required if residues could potentially concentrate on processing thus requiring the establishment of a separate tolerance
            higher than that of the raw agricultural commodity. Studies, however, may be waived if it can be demonstrated that residues do not concentrate on processing.
37          Required if indoor use could result in pesticide residues in or on food or feed.

38          Data on the nature and level of residues in processed food/feed are required if residues could potentially concentrate on processing thus requiring the establishment of a separate tolerance
            higher than that of the raw agricultural commodity. Studies, however, may be waived if it can be demonstrated that residues do not concentrate on processing.
39          Required if indoor use could result in pesticide residues in or on food or feed.

40          Data on the nature and level of residues in processed food/feed are required if residues could potentially concentrate on processing thus requiring the establishment of a separate tolerance
            higher than that of the raw agricultural commodity. Studies, however, may be waived if it can be demonstrated that residues do not concentrate on processing.
41          Required if indoor use could result in pesticide residues in or on food or feed.

42          Data on the nature and level of residues in processed food/feed are required if residues could potentially concentrate on processing thus requiring the establishment of a separate tolerance
            higher than that of the raw agricultural commodity. Studies, however, may be waived if it can be demonstrated that residues do not concentrate on processing.
43          Required if indoor use could result in pesticide residues in or on food or feed.

44          Data on the nature and level of residues in processed food/feed are required if residues could potentially concentrate on processing thus requiring the establishment of a separate tolerance
            hinhfirthan that nf ttw ma anriniHural cnmmcuH'rtw Ch,Hla k.. ~ u~..._i..j au.	i j	-_m...	.->					--

-------
                                                               United States Environmental Protection
                                                                  Agency Washington, D.C.  20460

                                       FOOTNOTES AND KEY DEFINITIONS FOR GUIDELINE REQUIREMENTS

                                                          Case # and Name:   0014 Endosulfan
                                                          DCI Number:  GDCI-079401-NNNNN
Key:  TEP = Typical End Use Product [TEP]; TOAI = Technical Grade Active Ingredient rjGAIJ
Footnotes: [The following notes are referenced In column two (5. Study File) of the REQUIREMENTS STATUS AND REGISTRANTS RESPONSE form.]
45          OPPTS guideline number 850.1500 (formerly 72-5). Both isomers of endosulfan (alpha and beta) as well as endosulfan surfate are toxic.  The Agency has no specific toxicity data with which to
            elevate the toxicity of endosulfan sutfate and requests that the fish life cycle study be submitted.
46          Testing  is required if the soil partition coefficient (Kd) is equal to or greater than 50 and the pesticide is persistent (e.g., half-life in sediment is equal to or less than 10 days) hi either the
            aerobic  soil or aquatic metabolism studies.  Registrants should consult with the Agency on appropriate test protocols.

47          Testing  is required if the soil partition coefficient (Kd) is equal to or greater than 50 and the pesticide is persistent (e.g., half-life in sediment is equal to or less than 10 days) in either the
            aerobic  soil or aquatic metabolism studies.  Registrants should consult with the Agency on appropriate test protocols.

48          This vegetative buffer study with grass is required and has been demonstrated as an eflective buffer strtoplarrt to fHtorout runoff water an^                       This study will
            demonstrate the efficacy of the vegetative buffer system in reducing endosulfan loads from agricultural fields to offsHe and adjacent water bodies.

49          This study is needed to determine the toxicity and btoaccumulation potential of endosulfan In freshwater invertebrates in the freshwater sediment environment.

50          This special study, whole sediment chronic toxicity using an estuarine/marine invertebrate, is  needed to determine the toxicity and btoaccumulation potential of endosulfan in estuarine or
            marine sediments and the impact on marine invertebrates.

51          Product use information for applying dip treatments to trees and roots or whole plants is required.

52          This study is being held in reserve pending the review of other ecological data.

53          This study will be held in reserve pending review of other ecological data.

54          This study is held in reserve pending the review of other data.

55          This study is held in reserve pending review of additional data.

-------
Appendix F.   PRODUCT SPECIFIC DATA CALL-IN

       Note Ifaat a complete Data Call-In (DCI), with all pertinent instructions, will be sent to
registrants under separate cover.
                                       270

-------
                                             United States Environmental Protection
                                                Agency Washington, D.C.  20460

                                REQUIREMENTS STATUS AND REGISTRANT'S RESPONSE
                                                                                                               OMB Approval 2070-0107
                                                                                                               OMB Approval 2070-0057
INSTRUCTIONS: Please type or print in ink. Please read carefully the attached instructions and supply the information requested on this form.
Use additional sheet(s) if necessary.
1.  Company Name and Address

    SAMPLE COMPANY
    NO STREET ADDRESS
    NO CITY, XX  00000
                               2. Case*and Name

                                 0014 Endosulfan



                                 EPA Reg. No. NNNNNN-NNNNN
                                           3.  Date and Type of DCI and Number

                                              DD-MMM-YYYY
                                              PRODUCT SPECIFIC
                                              ID#  PDCI-079401-NNNN
4.  Guideline
Requirement
Number
 5. Study Title
                                                        Progress
                                                        Reports
                         6. Use
                         Pattern
                      7. Test
                      Substance
                              8. Time
                              Frame
                              (Months)
                                    9. Registrant
                                    Response
                       Product Chemistry Data ReoulrertHmta rCcnventlonal
830.1550


830.1600


830.1620


830.1650


830.1670


830.1700


830.1750


830.1800


830.6302


830.6303


830.6304
Chemical!
Product Identity and composition
(1)
Description of materials used to produce the product (2)
Description of production process

Description of formulation process

Discussion of formation of impurities

PreHminary analysis

Certified limits

Enforcement analytical method

Color

Physical state

Odor
(3)


(4)


(5)


(6,7,8)


(9 .10)


(11)


(12)


(13)

(14)
A. B, C. D, E. F,
J, K. L. M. N. 0
A,B,C,D,E,F,
J,K,L,M,N,O
A, B. C, D, E, F,
J, K, L. M, N, 0
A,B,C,D,E,F,
J, K. L, M, N, O
A. B. C, D, E, F,
J, K. L, M, N, O
A,B,C,0,E,F,
J,K,L,M,N,0
A, B. C. D, E. F,
J. K, L, M, N, 0
A,B,C,0,E,F,
J. K, L, M, N, O
A. B, C, D, E, F,
J. K, L. M. N, 0
A,e,C,D,E,F,
J,K,I_M,N,0
A, B. C, D, E, F,
J. K, L, M. N, 0
G, H, I,

G,H,I

G, H. I,

G.HA

G, H, I,

G.H.I,

G. H. I,

GiHl,

G, H, I.

G.H.I,

G. H, I,
EP; MP; TGAI

EP;MP;TGAI

TGAI

MP.EP

EP; MP; TGAI

TGAI

TGAI/MP/EP

EP;MP;TGAI

EP; MP; TGAI

EP;MP;TGAI

EP; MP; TGAI
 10. Certification  I certify that the statements made on this form and all attachments are true, accurate, and complete. I acknowledge that any
 knowingly false or misleading statement may be punishable by fine, imprisonment or both under applicable law

 Signature and Title of Company's Authorized Representative	
                                                                                         11.  Date
 12. Name of Company
                                                                                         13.  Phone Number

-------
DRAFT  COPY
Page 2 of 3
United States Environmental Protection
Agency Washington, D.C. 20460
REQUIREMENTS STATUS AND REGISTRANT'S RESPONSE
OMB Approval 2070-0107
OMB Approval 2070-0057
INSTRUCTIONS: Please type or print in ink. Please read carefully the attached instructions and supply the information requested on this form.
Use additional sheet(s) if necessary.
1 . Company Name and Address
SAMPLE COMPANY
NO STREET ADDRESS
NO CITY, XX 00000
4. Guideline
Requirement
Number
830.6314
830.6315
830.6316
830.6317
830.6319
830.6320
830.6321
830.7000
830.7050
830.7100
830.7300
5. Study Title '
2. Case # and Name 3. Date and Type of DCI and Number
0014 Endosulfan DD-MMM-YYYY
PRODUCT SPECIFIC
ID# PDCI-079401-NNNN
EPA Reg. No. NNNNNN-NNNNN

Oxidizing or reducing action (15)
Flammability (16)
Explodability (17)
Storage stability of product (1 8)
Miscibility (19)
Corrosion characteristics (20)
Dielectric breakdown voltage (21 )
pH of water solutions or suspensions (22 ,23)
UV/Visible absorption
Viscosity (24)
Density/relative density (25 ,26)
Toxicology Data Requirements (Conventional Chemical)

p
R
O
T
0
C
L

Progress
Reports
1

2

3

6. Use
Pattern
A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I,
J, K, L, M, N, O
A, B, C. D, E, F, G, H, I,
J, K, L, M, N, 0
A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I,
J, K, L, M, N, O
A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I,
J, K, L, M, N, O
A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I,
J, K, L, M, N, O
A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I,
J, K, L, M, N, O
A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I,
J, K, L, M, N, O
A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I,
J, K, L, M, N, 0
A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I,
J, K, L, M, N, 0
A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I,
J, K, L, M, N, O
A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, 1,
J, K, L, M, N, 0
Initial to indicate certification as to information on this naae
7. Test
Substance
MP, EP
MP, EP
MP, EP
MP, EP 
MP.EP
MP.EP
MP, EP
EP; MP; TGAI
TGAI/PAI
MP.EP
EP; MP; TGAI
8. Time
Frame
(Months)
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9. Registrant
Response

- 

-------
United States Environmental Protection
Agency Washington, D.C. 20460
REQUIREMENTS STATUS AND REGISTRANT'S RESPONSE
OMB Approval 2070-0107
OMB Approval 2070-0057

INSTRUCTIONS: Please type or print hi ink. Please read carefully the attached instructions and supply the information requested on this form.
Use additional sheet(s) if necessary.
1. Company Name and Address 2. Case* and Name 3. Date and Type of DCI and Number
SAMPLE COMPANY 0014 Endosulfan DD-MMM-YYYY
NO STREET ADDRESS PRODUCT SPECIFIC
NO CITY, XX 00000 ID* PDCI-079401-NNNN
EPAReg.No.NNNNNN-NNNNN ruw-ufmui NNIMIM
4. Guideline
Requirement
Number
870.1100
870.1200
870.1300
870.2400
870.2500
870.2600
5. Study Title
Acute Oral Taxtefty (27)
Acute dermal toxidty (28 ,29)
Acute inhalation toxidty (30)
Acute eye irritation (31)
Acute dermal irritation (32,33)
Skin sensttization (34 ,35)
P
R
O
T
0
C
L





Progress
Reports
1





2





3





6. Use
Pattern
A,8,C,D,E,F,G.H,I,
J,K,t,M,N,0
A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, 1.
J. K, L, M, N, O
A,B,C,D,E,F,6,H,I<
A. B. C. D. E, F, G. H. 1,
J. K. L, M, N. 0
A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,1,
J,K,L,M,N,0
A, B. C. D, E, F, G, H. 1.
J. K, L, M, N, O
Initial to indicate certification as to information on this page
(full text of certification is on page one).
7. Test
Substance
B;MP;TGAI
EP; MP; TGAI
EP;MP;TGAI
EP;MP;TGAI
EP;MP;TGA1
EP; MP; TGAI
8. Time
Frame
(Months)
8
8
B
B
B
B
9. Registrant
Response





Date

-------
  DRAFT  COPY                                                      	         	   	Page 1 of3
                                                                United States Environmental Protection
                                                                   Agency  Washington, D.C.  20460

                                        FOOTNOTES AND KEY DEFINITIONS FOR GUIDELINE REQUIREMENTS

                                                           Case # and Name:  0014 Endosulfan
                                                           DCI Number:  PDCI-079401-NNNN
Key:  EP; MP; TGAI = End Use Product; Manufacturing Use Product; Technical Grade Active Ingredient; MP, EP = Manufacturing Use Product. End Use Product; TGAI  Technical Grade Active
      Ingredient [TGAI]; TGAI/MP/EP = Manufacturing-Use Product, Pure Active Ingredient and Technical Grade Active Ingredient; TGAVPAI  Technical Grade Active Ingredient. Pure Active Ingredient
 Use Categories Key:
A-    Terrestrial food crop            D-    Aquatic food crop              G-    Aquatic non-food residential     J-    Forestry use                  M-    Indoor nonfood use
B-    Terrestrial feed crop            E-    Aquatic nonfood outdoor use     H-    Greenhouse food crop         K-    Residential                   N-    Indoor medical use
C-    Terrestrial nonfood crop        F-    Aquatic nonfood industrial use   I-     Greenhouse nonfood crop      L-    Indoor food use               O-    Residential Indoor use

Footnotes: [The following notes are referenced In column two (5. Study File) of the REQUIREMENTS STATUS AND REGISTRANTS RESPONSE form.]
1           Data must be provided in accordance with the "Product Composition' Sectk>n.(158.155)

2           Data must be provided in accordance with the "Description of Materials used to Produce the Product" Sectton.(158.160)

3           Data must be provided in accordance with the "Description of Production Process" Sectton.(158.162)

4           Data must be provided in accordance with the "Description of Formulation Process" Section.(158.165)

5           Data must be provided in accordance with the "Description of Formation of Impurities" Sectk>n(158.167)

6           Data must be provided in accordance with the "Preliminary Analysis" Sectk>n.(158.170)

7           Required for TGAIs and products produced by an integrated system.

8           If the TGAI cannot be isolated, data are required on the practical equivalent of the TGAI (i.e., if the active ingredient is either an add, base or ionic form, and ft is formulated into salts or esters,
            the concentration of the active ingredient in these products must be expressed in add equivalent or active equivalent).

9           Data must be provided in accordance with the "Certified Limits" Sectton(158.175)

10          If the TGAI cannot be isolated, data are required on the practical equivalent of the TGAI (i.e., if the active ingredient is either an add, base or tonic form, and it is formulated into salts or esters,
            the concentration of the active ingredient In these products must be expressed in acid equivalent or active equivalent).

11          Data must be provided in accordance with the "Enforcement Analytical Method" Section.(158.180)

12          If the TGAI cannot be isolated, data are required on the practical equivalent of the TGAI (i.e., if the active ingredient Is either an add, base or ionic form, and it is formulated into salts or esters,
            the concentration of the active ingredient in these products must be expressed in add equivalent or active equivalent).

13          If the TGAI cannot be isolated, data are required on the practical equivalent of the TGAI (i.e., if the active ingredient is either an add, base or ionic form, and it is formulated Into salts or esters,
            the concentration of the active ingredient in these products must be expressed hi add equivalent or active equivalent).

14          If the TGAI cannot be Isolated, data are required on the practical equivalent of the TGAI (i.e., if the active Ingredient is either an add, base or tonic form, and it is formulated into salts or esters,
            the concentration of the active ingredient in these products must be expressed in add equivalent or active equivalent).

15          Required if the product contains an oxidizing or reducing agent

-------
                                                              United States Environmental Protection
                                                                 Agency  Washington, D.C.  20460
                                       FOOTNOTES AND KEY DEFINITIONS FOR GUIDELINE REQUIREMENTS
                                                          Case # and Name:  0014  Endosulfan
                                                          DCI Number:  PDCI-079401-NNNN
Key:  EP; MP; TGAI = End Use Product; Manufacturing Use Product; Technical Grade Active Ingredient; MP, EP = Manufacturing Use Product, End Use Product; TGAI = Technical Grade Active
      Ingredient [TGAI]; TGAI/MP/EP = Manufacturing-Use Product, Pure Active Ingredient and Technical Grade Active Ingredient; TGAI/PAI - Technical Grade Active Ingredient, Pure Active Ingredient
Footnotes: [The following notes are referenced In column two (5. Study File) of the REQUIREMENTS STATUS AND REGISTRANTS RESPONSE form.]
16          Required when the product contains combustible liquids.
17          Required when the product is potentially explosive.

            Product Specific Data Call-ins issued under the Reregistratton Eligibility Decision (REDyinterim Rereglstration EHgbiflty Decision (IRED) Documents.*
19          Required if the product is an emulsffiabto liquid and is to be diluted with petroleum solvents.
20          Please see attached "Additional Information and Requirements Pertaining to Storage Stability (OPPTS 830.6317) and Corrosion Characteristics (OPPTS 830.6320) Data Requirements of the
            Product Specific Data Call-ins issued under the Reregistratton Eligibility Decision (REDyinterim Reregistratton Eligibility Decision (IRED) Documents.*
21          Required if the end-use product is a liquid and is to be used around electrical equipment.
22          If the TGAI cannot be isolated, data are required on the practical equivalent of the TGAI (i.e., if the active ingredient is either an add. base or ionic form, and it is formulated into salts or esters,
            the concentration of the active ingredient in these products must be expressed in add equivalent or active equivalent).
23          Required if the product is dispersible with water.
24          Required if the product is a liquid.
25          If the TGAI cannot be isolated, data are required on the practical equivalent of the TGAI (i.e., If the active Ingredient is either an add, base or tonic form, and it Is formulated bito sails or esters,
            the concentration of the active ingredient In these products must be expressed in add equivalent or active equivalent).
26          True density or specific density are required for all test substances.  Data on bulk density is required for MPs that are solid at room temperature.

27          Not required if test material Is a gas or a highly volatile liquid.
28          Not required if test material is a gas or a highly volatile liquid.
29          Not required if test material is corrosive to skin or has a pH of less than 2 or greater than 11.5.
30          Required if the product consists of, or under conditions of use win result in, a respirable material (e.g., gas, vapor, aerosol, or particulate).

-------
  DRAFT COPY	Page3of3
                                                         United Stales Environmental Protection
                                                           Agency  Washington, D.C. 20460
                                   FOOTNOTES AND KEY DEFINITIONS FOR GUIDELINE REQUIREMENTS
                                                     Case # and Name:   0014  Endosutfan
                                                     DCI Number:  PDCI-079401-NNNN
Key:   EP; MP; TGAI = End Use Product; Manufacturing Use Product; Technical Grade Active Ingredient; MP, EP = Manufacturing Use Product. End Use Product; TGAI = Technical Grade Active
      Ingredient [TGAI]; TGAI/MP/EP = Manufacturing-Use Product, Pure Active Ingredient and Technical Grade Active Ingredient; TGAI/PAI - Technical Grade Active Ingredient, Pure Active Ingredient
Footnotes: fjhe following notes are referenced In column two (S. Study File) of the REQUIREMENTS STATUS AND REGISTRANTS RESPONSE form.]
31         Not required if test material is corrosive to skin or has a pH of less than 2 or greater than 11.5.

32         Not required if test material is a gas or a highly volatile liquid.

33         Not required if test material is corrosive to skin or has a pH of less than 2 or greater than 11.5.

34         Not required if test material is corrosive to skin or has a pH of less than 2 or greater than 11.5.

35         Required if repeated dermal exposure is likely to occur under conditions of use.

-------
 Appendix G.  EPA'S BATCHING OF ENDOSULFAN PRODUCTS FOR MEETING
               ACUTE TOXICTTY DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR REREGISTRATION

        In an effort to reduce the time, resources and number of animals needed to fulfill the acute
 toxicity data requirements for reregistration of products containing ENDOSULFAN as the active
 ingredient, the Agency has batched products which can be considered similar for purposes of acute
 toxicity. Factors considered in the sorting process include each product's active and inert ingredients
 (identity, percent composition and biological activity), type of formulation (e.g., emulsifiable
 concentrate, aerosol, wettable powder, granular, etc.), and labeling (e.g., signal word, use classification,
 precautionary labeling, etc.).  Note that the Agency is not describing batched products as "substantially
 similar" since some products within a batch may not be oinsidfiied chemically similar or have identical
 use patterns.

       Using available information, batching has been accomplished by the process described in the
 preceding paragraph. Notwith-standing the batching process, the Agency reserves me right to require,
 at any time, acute toxicity data for an individual product should me need arise.

       Registrants of products within a batch may choose to cooperatively generate, submit or cite a
 single battery of six acute toxicological studies to represent all the products within mat batch. It is the
 registrants' option to participate in the process with all other registrants, only some of the other
 registrants, or only their own products within a batch, or to generate all the required acute toxicological
 studies for each of their own products. If a registrant chooses to generate the data for a batch, he/she
 must use one of the products within the batch as the test material. If a registrant chooses to rely upon
 previously submitted acute toxicity data, he/she may do so provided that the data base is complete and
 valid by todays standards (see acceptance criteria attached), the formulation tested is considered by
 EPA to be similar for acute toxicity, and the formulation has not been significantly altered since
 submission and acceptance of the acute toxicity data. Regardless of whether new data is generated or
 existing data is referenced, registrants must clearly identify the test material by EPA Registration
 Number. If more than one confidential statement of formula (CSF) exists for a product, the registrant
 must rodfartg the formulation actually tested by identifying the corresponding CSF.
       In deciding how to meet the product specific data requirements, registrants must follow the
directions given in the Data Call-In Notice and its attachments appended to the RED. The DCI Notice
contains two response forms which are to be completed and submitted to the Agency within 90 days of
receipt The first form, "Data Call-In Response," asks whether me registrant wiU meet the data
requirements for each product The second form, "Requirements Status and Registrant's Response,"
lists the product specific data required for each product, including the standard six acute toxicity tests.
A registrant who wishes to participate in a batch must decide whether he/she will provide the data or

                                            277

-------
depend on someone else to do so.  If a registrant supplies the data to support a batch of products,
he/she must select one of the Mowing options: Developing Data (Option 1), Submitting an Existing
Study (Option 4), Upgrading an Existing Study (Option 5) or CMig an Existing Stady (Option 6). If a
registrant depends on another's data, he/she must choose among: Cost Sharing (Option 2), Offers to
Cost Share (Option 3) or Citing an Existing Study (Option 6). If a registrant does not want to
participate in a batch, the choices are Options 1, 4,5 or 6. However, a registrant should know that
choosing not to participate in a batch does not preclude other registrants in the batch fiom citing his/her
studies and offering to cost share (Option 3) those studies.

       Forty-two products were found which contain Endosulian as the active ingredient  These
products have been placed into eight batches in accordance with the active and inert ingredients and
type of formulation.

Batching Instructions:

Batch 6: EPA Reg. No. 7401-317 may cite data from EPA Reg. No. 70-126 or EPA Reg. No. 3342-
94.
Batch 7: EPA Reg. No. 7401-316 cite data from EPA Reg. No. 16-133.
Batch 1

EPAiig,No.
264-637
279-2306
10163-223
11678-05
19713-319
34704-799
Percent Active ingredient

96.0%
95.0%
95.0%
95.0%
94.0%
95.0%
Bateb;2

EPAReg.No.
264-656
267-659
279-1380
279-3129
* A^MM-{.

50.0%
50.0%
50.4%
50.0%
                                           278

-------

10163-98
10163-130
51036-91
51036-209
66222-02
50.0%
50.0%
50.8%
50.0%
51.3%
Batch 3

p7-:; ;IIKAiieg.No. "
264-638
264-658
5905-418
10163-110
11678-25
19713-399
34704-21
34704-516
V~~t A*ti.1lt

34.4%
34.4%
33.3%
34.0%
35.6%
34.3%
33.3%
34.0%
Batch 4

HA!teg.N0.
279-2924
51036-92
Percent Active Ingredient
34.0%
34.0%

Batch 5

SPA Reg. No.
70-142
19713-99
Percent Active Ingredient
24.0%
24.6%

Batch 6

EPA Reg. No,
70-126
Percent Active Ingredient

4.0%
279

-------

Batch?

3342-94
7401-317
EPA Reg, No,
16-133
7401-316
4.0%
4.0%
Percent Active Ineredietit
**-WW!ill,,*MrtICim(jITOilK3II!
3.0%
2.0%
xr^ 'Dn<.l.
NOHSICA

















WS-A" "D^r, Xf*
Hr A Kg. NO.

16-141
279-3222


802-516
1327-35
1386-338
3342-102
5481-278
5481-296
5481-316


9779-330


' W .-' , .. ',- m ,
- Percent  Active Ingredient

9.0%
Endosulfan 	 31.25%
Methyl Parathion 	 20.88%

9.2%
15.0%
23.8%
10.2%
26.0%
24.0%
Endosulfan 	 1,5%
Sevin 	 1.5%

Endosulfan 	 22.50%
Pyrethrins 	 4.75%
Piuerovl Butoxide 	 0.45%
280

-------
Appendix H.  List of Registrants Sent this Data Call-in Notice
                                        281

-------
United States Environmental Protection
Agency Washington, D.C. 20460
LIST OF ALL REGISTRANTS SENT THIS DATA CALL-IN NOTICE

Co. Nr.
16
70
264
279
802
1327
1386
1812
3342
5481
5905
7401
9779
10163
11678
19713
34704
51036
66222
Case* and Name: 0014,Endosulfan
Company Name Agent For
DRAGON CHEMICAL
CORPORATION
VALUE GARDENS SUPPLY, LLC
BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP
FMC CORP AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTS GROUP
CENTRAL GARDEN & PET D/B/A
LILLY MILLER BRANDS/EXCEL
GARDEN
FULLER SYSTEM, INC.
UNIVERSAL COOPERATIVES INC
GRIFFIN L.L.C. DUPONT CROP PROTECTION
CAPE FEAR CHEMICALS INC
AMVAC CHEMICAL CORP
HELENA CHEMICAL CO
VOLUNTARY PURCHASING BRAZOS ASSOCIATES, INC.
GROUP INC
AGRILIANCE, LLC
GOWAN CO
MAKHTESHIM CHEMICAL WORKS
LTD
DREXEL CHEMICAL CO
LOVELAND PRODUCTS, INC.
MICRO-FLO COMPANY LLC
MAKHTESHIM-AGAN OF NORTH

Address
71 CAROLYN BLVD
PO Box 585
2 T.W. ALEXANDER DRIVE
1735 MARKET ST
PO Box 2289 16201 SE 98TH AVENUE
PO Box 3053
1300 CORPORATE CENTER CURVE
PO Box 30 1090 ELKTON ROAD
PO Box 695
4695 MACARTHUR COURT, SUITE 1250
225 SCHILLING BOULEVARD, SUITE 300
1806 AUBURN DRIVE
PO Box 64089
PO Box 5569
551 FIFTH AVE SUITE 1 1 00
PO Box 13327 1700 CHANNEL AVENUE
PO Box 1 286 7251 W 4TH ST
530 OAK COURT DRIVE
551 FIFTH AVENUE - STE 1 100

City & State
FARMINGDALE
ST. JOSEPH
RESEARCH
TRIANGLE PARK
PHILADELPHIA
CLACKAMAS
WOBURN
EAGAN
NEWARK
ELIZABETH TOWN
NEWPORT BEACH
COLLIERVILLE
CARROLLTON
ST PAUL
YUMA
NEW YORK
MEMPHIS
GREELEY
MEMPHIS
NEW YORK

ZJp
NY 11735
MO 64502
NC 27709
PA 19103
OR 97015
MA 01888
MN 55121
DE 197140030
NC 28337
CA 926601706
TN 38017
TX 750071451
MN 551640089
AZ 853665569
NY 10176
TN 381130327
CO 806321286
TN 38117
NY 10176
AMERICA INC

-------
Appendix I.  LIST OF AVAILABLE RELATED DOCUMENTS AND
             ELECTRONICALLY AVAILABLE FORMS


Pesticide Registration Forms are available at the following EPA internet site:


             http://www.epa.gov/oppidQ01/fbiTns/.


Pesticide Registration Fonns (These forms ate in PDF fonnat and require the Acrobat reader)


Instructions

       1.     Printout and complete the forms. (Note: Form numbers that are bolded can be filled
             out on your computer then printed.)


       2.     The completed fbrm(s) should be submitted in hardcopym accord with the existing
             policy.

       3.     Mail the forms, along with any additional documents necessary to comply with EPA
             regulations covering your request, to the address bekw for the Documrat Processing
             Desk.

             DO NOT fax or e-mail any form containing "Confidential Business Information' or
             'Sensitive Information.1

             If you have any problems accessing these forms, please contact Nicole Williams at
             (703) 308-5551 or by e-mail at williams.nicole@epaniail.epa.gov.
The following Agency Pesticide Registration Forms are currently available via the internet
at the following locations:
8570-1
8570-4
8570-5
8570-17
Application for Pesticide
ivcgirtu

i rmfuvrmm acuciuent or rormuia
Notice of Supplemental Registration
of Distribution of a Registered
Pesticide Product
Application for an Experimental
Use Permit
http://www.epa.gov/or^Jrd001/ftmris/8570-1 .pdfn

http://www.epa.gov/opprdOO l/fbrms/8570-4.pdf.

http://www.qja.gov/oprHd001/forrns/8570-5.pdf.

http^/www.epa.gov/oppn!001/forms/8570-17.pdf

                                          283

-------
8570-25

OC*7A OT
8570-27
8570-28

8570-30

8570-32


8570-34

8570-35
8570-36

8570-37

Application for/Notification of
State Registration of a Pesticide To
Meet a Special Local Need

(nTHUuiiOrs i Jifin incion ftuUvnidii
Certification of Compliance with
Data Gap Procedures
Pesticide Registration Maintenance
Fee Filing
Certification of AUfiuipt to tenter
into an Agreement with other
Registrants for Development of
Data
Certification with Respect to
Citations of Data (in PR Notice
98-5)
Data Matrix (in PR Notice 98-5)
Summary of the Physical/Chemical
Properties (in PR Notice 98-1)
Self-Certification Statement for the
Physical/Chemical Properties (in
PR Notice 98-1)
http://www.epa.gov/opprd001 /fornfl!/}J570-25 pdf

Ui*_. //_,,.___. ._ ,,./.- wlAAl /Pr^. ,1 i fff T1/\ *>T MJJ/?
liUpy/www.erja.sov/oppW.lJlJl/TttnTts/Bj /u-^ / ptll
http://www.epa.^v/orfl^rd001/forrns/8570-28.pdf.

http://www.epa.gov/oppitl001/forms/8570-30.pdf.

ht^://www.epa,gov/opprd001/forms/^570-3^,p^f,


http://www.epa.gov/opppmsdl/PR Notices/pr98-5.
pdl
httpV/www.epa.gov/opppmsdl/PR_Notices/pr98-5 .
pdf.
http://www.epa.gov/opppmsdl/PR Notices/pr98-l.
pdi
http://www.epa.gov/opppmsd I/PR Notices/pr98- 1 .
pdfL
Pesticide Registration Kit
www.eDa.eov/Desticides/reeistratioiikit/.
Dear Registrant

       For your convenience, we have assembled an online registration kit which contains the following
pertinent forms and information needed to register a pesticide product with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP):

       1.      The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food,
              Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDC A) as Amended by the Food Quality Protection Act
              (FQPA)ofl996.
                                          284

-------
2.     Pesticide Registration (PR) Notices

       a.      83-3 Label Improvement Program-Storage and Disposal Statements
       b.      84-1 Clarification of Label Improvement Program
       c.      86-5 Standard Format for Data Submitted un^r FIFRA
       d.      87-1 Label Improvement Program for Pesticides Applied through Irrigation
              Systems (Chemigation)
       e.      87-6 Inert Ingredients in Pesticide Products Policy Statement
             90-1 Inert Ingredients in Pesticide Products; Revised Policy Statement
       g.      95-2 Notifications, Non-notifications, and Minor Formulation Amendments
       h      98-1 Self Certification of Product Chemistry Data with Attachments (This
              document is in PDF format and requires the Acrobat reader.)

Other PR Notices can be found at http://www.epa.gov/opppmsdl/PR Notices.

3.     Pesticide Product Registration Application Forms (These forms are in PDF format and
       will require the Acrobat reader.)

       a.      EPA Form No. 8570-1, Application for Pesticide Registration/Amendment
       b.      EPA Form No. 8570-4, Confidential Statement of Formula
       c.      EPA Form No. 8570-27, Formulator's Exemption Statement
       d.      EPA Form No. 8570-34, Certification with Respect to Citations of Data
       e.      EPA Form No. 8570-35, Data Matrix

4.     General Pesticide Information (Some of these forms are in PDF format and will require
       the Acrobat reader.)

       a.     Registration Division Personnel Contact List
       B.     Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) Contacts
       C.     Antimicrobials Division Organizational Structure/Contact List
       d.     53 F.R. 15952, Pesticide Registration Procedures; Pesticide Data
             Requirements (PDF format)
       e.     40 CFR Part 156, Luting Requirements for Pesticides and Devices (PDF
             format)
       f..     40 CFR Part 158, Data Requirements for Registration (PDF format)
       g..     50 FJR. 48833, Disclosure of Reviews of Pesticide Data (November 27,
             1985)
                                   285

-------
       Before submitting your application for registration, you may wish to consult some
       additional sources of information.  These include:

1.     The Office of Pesticide Programs'Web Site

2.     The booklet "General Information on Applying for Registration of Pesticides in the
       United States", PB92-221811, available through the National Technical Information
       Service (NITS) at me following address:

                    National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
                    5285 Port Royal Road
                    Springfield, VA 22161

       The telephone number for NTIS is (703) 605-6000. Please note that EPA is currently
       in the process of updating mis booklet to reflect me changes in me registration program
       resulting from the passage of me FQPA and the  reorganization of the Office of
       Pesticide Programs. We anticipate that mis publication will become available during the
       Fall of 1998.

3.     The National Pesticide Information Retrieval System (NPIRS) of Purdue University's
       Center for Environmental and Regulatory Infonnation Systems. This service does
       charge a fee for subscriptions and custom searches. You can contact NPIRS by
       telephone at (765) 494-6614 or through their Web site.

4.     The National Pesticide Telecommunications Network (NPTN) can provide information
       on active ingredients, uses, toxicology, and chemistry of pesticides. You can contact
       NPTN by telephone at (800) 858-7378 or through their Web site:
       ace.orsLedu/info/nptn.

       The Agency will return a notice of receipt of an application for registration or amended
       registration, experimental use permit, or amendment to a petition if the applicant or
                                   286

-------
             petitioner encloses with his submisdon a stanq>ed, self-^ktre^ed po^card. The
             postcard must contain the following entries to be completed by OPP:
                          EPA identifying number
                                                         fl]^k?ant
             acknowledgment of receipt to the specific applicatkm submitted. EPA will stamp the
             date of receipt and provide the EPA identifying FUeSynibol or petition number for the
             new submisskja The identifying number shouM be used whene^wvou contact the
             Agency concerning an application for registiatic^ experimental use pennit, or tolerance
             To assist us in ensuring frtft all 4ata you nave submitted for the etenflffil are properly
             coded and assigned to your company, please include a h^ of aU synonyms, common
             and trade names, company experimental codes, and other names which identify the
             chemical (including "bund" codes used when a sanq)le was submitted for testing by
             commercial or academic facilities). Please provide a CAS number if one has been
             assigned.

                                Documents Associated with this RED
             The following documents are part of the Admiiu^rativeRemi for this RED oocument
and may be included in the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs Public Docket Copies of these
documents are not available electronically, but may be obtamed by contacting the person listed on the
respective Chemical Status Sheet

a     Health and Environmental Effects Science Chapters.
b.     DetaUedUbel Usage Iriformatioa System (LUIS) Report.
                                         287

-------

-------

-------

-------