###  2

 Risk quotients exceed levels of concern for vascular aquatic plan ts (RQ = 1.03 using GENEEC2 EECs and EC 05 

### , the endpoint used to determine potential effects to non-target, listed plants from exposures) for the proposed uses on leafy vegetables (Gro up 4), brassica (cole) leaf y vegetables (Group 5), cucurbit vegetables, fruiting vegetables, strawber ries, tree nuts, and wheat. However, based on the analysis for the proposed new us es of flutriafol with PRZM/E XAMS outputs, no RQ exceedances were observed for the listed or non-listed aquatic plant or animal LOC for any of the proposed uses.
The acute endangered species le vel of concern for mammals (R Q: 0.10-0.22) and birds (RQ: 0.10- 0.26), as well as the chr onic level of concern (mammal RQs: 1.07-1.89; bird RQs: 1.05-2.30) is exceeded for most of the proposed uses (except cotton T-band/in-furrow application at planting).
Risks to non-listed terrestrial plants from the pro posed uses that have a maximum single application rate of 0.114 lb a.i./A are not expected. However, because the proposed cotton use ( i.e.  ̧ T-band/in furrow at planting) has a single maximum application rate (0.26 lb a.i./A) th at exceeds 0.12 lb a.i./A (the maximum application rate used in the terrestrial plant studies), the potential risks to terrestrial plants from the proposed cotton use is unclear, even with the addition of a single plant Tier II study. Additionally, the risks to listed plan ts from all of the proposed uses cannot be excluded with the data currently available.

Use Pattern Summary

TOPGUARD ® 

### fungicide is formulated as a suspensi on concentrate containing 11.8 % of the active ingredient (a.i.) flutriafol (1.04 lb a.i./gallon of product). Flutriafol ® 

### 250 g/L is formulated as a suspension concentrate containing 22 .7% flutriafol (2.08 lb a.i. per gallon of product) and Flutriafol ® 

### 500 g/L is formulated as suspension concentrate c ontaining 42.0% flutriafol ( 4.16 lb a.i. per gallon of product).
The proposed methods of application are broadc ast foliar by ground and air spray methods for all the proposed uses except for cott on, where it is proposed that on e T-band (soil applied) will be followed by a maximum of 2 foliar applications for cotton. Flutriafol may not be applied by chemigation. Where rates are given per season, it is assumed that there is only 1 season per year.

###  3

 Table 1. Summary of Proposed New Uses

Formulation

(Method of Application) Crop Maximum Single Application Rate lb a.i./A (fl oz/A) Number of Applications (Minimum Reapplication Interval) Maximum Yearly Use Rate lb a.i./A per period (fl oz a.i./A per period)

Broadcast

Foliar Spray Leafy Vegetables (except Brassica Vegetables) 0.114 (7) 4 (7-day) 0.456 (28 per year) b

(AS&GS) Leafy Vegetables Brassica (cole and celery) 0.114 (7) 4 (7- day) 0.456 (28 per year) b

Almonds, Pecans, tree nuts 0.114 (14) 4 (7-day) 0.456 (56 per year) a 0.456 (56 per season) d Almond & Walnuts 0.114 ( 7) 4 (7-day) 0.456 (28 per year) b 0.456 (28 per season) e,f Strawberry 0.114 ( 7) 4 (7-day) 0.456 (28 per season) b 0.456 (28 per season) e,f Fruiting Vegetables 0.114 (14) 4 (7-day) 0.456 (56 per year) a 0.456 (56 per season) d Cucurbit Vegetables 0.114 (14) 4 (7-day) 0.456 (56 per year) a 0.456 (56 per season) d Peanuts 0.114 (14) 4 (14-day) 0.456 (56 per year) a 0.456 (56 per season) d Tomatoes 0.114 ( 7) 4 ( 7-day) 0.456 (28 per season) b 0.456 (28 per season) e,f Wheat (spring-winter) 0.114 (14) 2 (7-day) 0.228 (28 per year) a 0.228 (28 per season) d Grain Sorghum 0.114 (14) 2 (7- day) 0.228 (28 per season) a Soil Applied

Broadcast

Foliar Spray Cotton (T-Band) 0.260 ( 8) 1 at plant 0.260 ( 8/season) c Cotton (Foliar) 0.114 (14) 2 Foliar (7-day) 0.228 (28/year) a,b

Total Cotton [T-Band +

Cotton Foliar] 0.26 ( 8) 0.228 (2 x 7) Combined 0.488 lb a.i./A/year a,b,c



### Although, three different product form ulations are proposed which c ontain different amounts (lb per gallon) of active ingredient ( 11.8, 22.8, and 42.0% a.i.), the maxi mum single application rates are the same for all three formulations when applied as a foliar spray (0.114 lb a.i./A). A higher single application rate is proposed for the soil applied (T-B and) use for cotton (0.26 lb a.i./A). For the foliar uses, up to four 0.114 lb a.i./A applications per y ear (0.456 lb a.i. /A/year) may be applied (except grain sorghum where only 2 are prop osed). For cotton, it is proposed that one 0.26 lb a.i./A T-Band application may be followed by a maximum of 2 fo liar applications (0.114 lb a.i./A) for a yearly maximum of 0.488 lb a.i./A/year.

###  4

 Table 2. Maximum Flutriafol Applic ation Rates for Proposed New Uses.

Crop or Crop Group Maximum Single Application Rate (lb a.i./A) Number of Applications (Minimum Reapplication Interval) Maximum Yearly Use Rate (lb a.i./A/year)
All uses except Grain Sorghum and Cotton 0.114 4 (7-day) 0.456 Grain sorghum 0.114 2 (7-day) 0.228 Cotton T-Band Appl. 0.260 (T-band, at plant) 0.26 Foliar 0.114 2 (Foliar, 7-day) 0.228
Combined for Cotton 0.228 0.260 2 (Foliar, 7-day) 1 (T-Band Appl) 0.448



### I. STRESSOR SOURCE AND ENVI ROMENTAL FATE SUMMARY

Flutriafol is a triazole derivative used as a syst emic conazole fungicide ( Figure 1 ). Flutriafol belongs to a group of demethylation inhibitors (DMI fungicid es). The mode of action for flutriafol is as a sterol biosynthesis inhibitor that inhibits microsomal sterol deme thylation in membranes, known as SBIs (Sterol Biosynthesis Inhibitors). The chemical structures of flutriaf ol, 1,2,4-triazole, and the triazole conjugates are shown in Figure 1. These degradates (1,2,4-Triazole (1,2,4-T) and triazole conjugates triazole analine (TA) and triazole ace tic acid (TAA)) are common degradates of conazole pesticides.

a) Flutriafol

1,2,4-Triazole (1,2,4-T; free triazole) Triazole Alanine (TA) Triazole Acetic Acid (TAA)

Figure 1. Chemical structures for Flutriafol and 1,2,4-triazole, triazole alanine, and triazole acetic acid 

### N
N N C H 2 

### O H

F F

NH

N N N N N

N H 2 O O H

N N

N O

OH

###  5

 Flutriafol is expected to be pers istent in soil and moderately mob ile in the environment, with its major routes of dissipation through biotic degrada tion in aquatic environments, runoff and leaching through soil ( Table 3 ). Flutriafol is expected to dissipate slow ly with an estimated half-life of several years in the terrestrial environmen t and therefore repeated applications may lead to accumulation of flutriafol residues in soil. Flutri afol is expected to reach surf ace water through runoff and leaching, and groundwater by leaching.
Hydrolysis and aqueous photolysis are very slow. Flutriafol degr aded more rapidly under aerobic aquatic environments, with a half-l ife value of approximately 6 week s in an aerobic water/sediment test system. No major degradation products ( i.e. , > 10% of applied radioac tivity) were identified in any water or soil studies. Two minor degradation products were identified in the photolysis on soil study [1H-1,2,4-Triazole and 2,4’-Difluorobenz ophenone] and three minor [1H-1,2,4-Triazole; Triazole-1-acetic acid; 1,2,4-Triazole-1-alanine] degradation products were id entified in the anaerobic aquatic metabolism study.
Freundlich soil:water partitioning co efficients for flutriafol ranged from 2.0 to 13.6 mL/g. Organic carbon partitioning coefficients ranged from 140 to 498 mL/g oc 

### . These data suggest flutriafol is moderately mobile in terrestrial and aquatic environments. Bioaccumulation is not expected due to the low octanol-water partitioning coefficient (log K ow 

### value of 2.3). Field dissipation studies show flutriafol is persistent and mobile. Additionally, ther e was accumulation of flutriafol in soil in longterm field dissipation studies.
As indicated by the adsorption/desorption coefficien ts, flutriafol is mode rately mobile in the laboratory tested soils ( Table 3 ). This moderate potential for mobility, combined with the persistence demonstrated in laboratory metabolism half-lives greater than one year, indicate that under some environmental conditions, flutriafol does possess the potential to reach groundwater. Limited monitoring data supports the potential for fl utriafol to leach to gr ound water. Flutriafol was detected (0.0051 μg/L) in ground water in a study conducted in Ireland 1 

### . Seven flutriafol detections (detection limit = 0.021 μg/L) were reported in thr ee public wells in the United Kingdom, during a three year period (June 2000 to February 2003) 2



### . Additionally, six terrestrial field dissipation studies with applicati ons made over several consecutive years, most with applications over multiple years, indicate that flutriafol residues will remain undegraded, allowing residues to carry-over from year to year under ac tual use conditions.
With respect to degradation products, in a soil ph otolysis study, the maximu m triazole and triazoleacetic acid was 4.1 % and 3.6% AR at day 7, respec tively. In the anaerobic aquatic metabolism study the maximum % (as applied radioactivity) was 0.1 (at 58 days), 0.3 (at 181 days) and 0.5 %

1 Regional Groundwater Monitoring Network, 2005. Northe rn Ireland. Environmental & Heritage Service.

http://www.doeni.gov.uk/niea/groundwater_2005_report.pdf
2 Stuart et al. 2006. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com /doi/10.1111/j.1745-6592.2006.00113.x/pdf

###  6

 (at 90 days) for triazole, triazole-acetic acid, and triazole-alanine, respectively. A summary of selected physical, chemical, and environmental fa te properties of flutriafol is presented in Table 3

.
Table 3. Summary of physical/chemical and environmen tal fate and transport properties of flutriafol.

Parameter Value(s) (units) Source (MRID)

Chemical Name α -(2-Fluorophenyl)- α -(4-fluorophenyl)-1H-1,2,4-triazole-1-ethanol 47129901
Molecular Weight 301.3 amu 47129901
Solubility (20 ° C) 130 mg/L or ppm 47129901
Vapor Pressure (20 ° C) Vapor Pressure (25 o C) 4 x 10 -7 Pa;3.00 x 10 -9 torr (or mmHg) 2.7 x 10 -6 Pa; 2.03 x 10 -8 mmHg 47129901 EPI Suite 1
Henry’s Law constant 9.2 x 10 -12 atm m 3 /mol calculated
pKa (20 ° C) 2.3 47129901

Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient (log K OW , @ pH 7) 2.29 47129901

Hydrolysis Half-life (pH 5, 7) stable 47090416 Aqueous Photolysis Half-life stable 47090417
Soil Photolysis Half-life stable 47090420 47418401

Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half-life t 1/2 = 697, 120, 161, 257, 84, 98, 315, 3466, 347, and 239 weeks 47090421 47090422 47090423 Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism t 1/2 = 6,932, 840, 1127, 1799, 588, 686, 2205 days 47090424 Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism t 1/2 = 42.6 and 36.3 days 47090419
Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient (K OC ) 498, 205, 379, 230, 340, 428, 140 mL/g OC 47090425 47090426 47090427

Soil Partition Coefficient (K d ) 3.7, 13.6, 10.6, 6.5, 2.0 mL/g 47090425 47090426 47090427

Terrestrial Field Dissipation Half-life t 1/2 = 1155 days 3466 days 2310 days 1155, 866, 770, 866, 1155, 1386 days 47115502 47090431

1 EPI Suite was used to calculate vapor pressure at 25 o C for use in STIR; calculation is based on modified grain method. The following SMILES code was used as an input: C1=CC=C(C(=C1)C(CN2C=NC=N2)(C3=CC=C(C=C3)F)O)F

###  7

 II. ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE AND EFFECTS SUMMARY

EPA utilizes various models 3 

### in order to estimate exposures, and potential risk, to nontarget organisms. To estimate the potential estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) for aquatic environments, EPA uses PRZM/EXAMS to estimate potential concentrati ons that may occur in water bodies adjacent to application sites. For terrestrial exposures, T- REX and TerrPlant are the models used to calculate EECs fo r concentrations that nontarget organisms may be exposed to.

a. Aquatic Exposure
The 1-in-10 year predicted peak, 21-day, and 60-day concentrations are used to estimate acute and chronic exposures to aquatic organisms inhabiting shallow-water aquatic communities that receive runoff during rainfall events and/or drift of the active ingredient fr om adjacent use sites. Model input parameters are selected based on laboratory fate data in accordance with EFED’s input parameter guidance 4 

### . The environmental fate properties and other values, used for input into the PRZM/EXAMS models, are summarized in Table 4 (representative output is given in APPENDIX A-1 ). Eleven standard scenarios were selected to represent the sites for the proposed crop or crop groups where the runoff and EECs would be expected to be the highest. Refer to Table 5 for a summary of the PRZM/EXAMS EECs based on the application rates for the proposed new uses. Since the application rates were the same for all the proposed uses, except cotton and grain sorghum, the difference in EECs primarily reflect variability between sites (scenari os) and not the crops. Currently PE5, the program used to link the PRZM and EXAMS mode ls, can only simulate a single application method at a time ( i.e ., foliar and ground). Therefore, for cotton the EECs were simulated separately ( i.e ., for the T-Band and 2 foliar ap plications) and then added together. The default spray drift factors from the update d guidance (2013) were used in this assessment.

Table 4

. PRZM-EXAMS Environmental Fate and Ot her Select Input Parameter Values for Flutriafol 1



### . Parameter (units) Value Source (MRID) Comment Application Rate (lb a.i./acre per application) 0.26
0.114 Maximum Label Rate for cotton T-Band Maximum foliar Rate for all other uses Minimum Reapplication Interval (days) 7 - Label

Soil Partition Coefficient ( K OC mL/g OC ) 322 47090425
47090426
47090427 Represents the mean of seven values ranging from 140 to 498 mL/g for the parent compound 1

.

3 http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/models_pg.htm
4 http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models /water/input_guida nce2_28_02.htm

###  8

 Parameter (units) Value Source (MRID) Comment

Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half-life (days) 7,202 47090421
47090422
47090423 90% Upper bound on mean of 10 aerobic soil metabolism half-lives 1

.

Vapor Pressure (25 o C) (mmHg) 3.0 x 10 -9 47129901 EPI Suite 1 -

Henry’s Law constant (atm m 3 /mol) 9.2 x 10 -12 - Calculated

Solubility in Water @ 20 O C (mg/L or ppm) 130 47129901 -

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism Halflife (days) 49.2 47090419 Represents the 90 th percentile of the upper confidence bound on the mean of nine half-life values (39.5). Hydrolysis Half-life @ pH 7 0 47090416 Stable Aquatic Photolysis Half-life @ pH 7 0 47287601
47090417 -

Pesticide Management and Spray Drift Inputs Spray Drift Fraction: Air spray- Ground Spray- T-Band 0.125
0.027
0.60 - EFED Guidance 2 Default (air spray) Default (low boom) Recommended by PRZM Manual Application Efficiency: Air spray-Ground Spray0.95
0.99 - EFED Model Input Guidance 1

Depth of Incorporation:
CAM 3 = 2 (foliar) CAM= 7 (T-band) 4 cm
2 cm - Defaults in recommended by the PRZM Manual for specified CAM

1 Parameters are selected as per Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Transport of Pesticides; Version 2.1, October 22, 2009, except for aerobic soil metabolism (see comment above).
2 Guidance on Modeling Offsite Deposition of Pesticides Via Spray Drift for Ecological and Drinking Water Assessments. Dated December 19, 2013.
3 CAM = Chemical Application Method is a PRZM input.

###  9

 Table 5. Surface Water EECs for the Maximum Propo sed New Uses of Flutriafol with the PRZMEXAMS models (with PE5).

Crop or Crop Group [Scenario] First Application (mn-day0 Maximum Single Application Rate (lb a.i./A); MRI* Peak 21- day 60-day Annual Mean (μg/L) Almond/ Pecan/Tree nuts (CA Almond] 07-05 4 apps @ 0.114; 7d 3.76 3.31 2.84 1.55 Cucurbits [FL Cucumber] 10-25 14.11 12.77 10.73 2.51 Strawberry [FL Strawberry] 12-05 8.79 7.75 6.76 1.88 Tomato [FL Tomato] 03-05 11.89 10.19 7.93 1.91 Pecan & Tree nuts [GA Pecan] 06-05 8.79 7.30 6.34 1.44 Peanut [NC Peanut] 08-05 9.57 8.22 6.86 2.70 Stone Fruit [MI Cherry] 06-05 6.95 6.11 5.08 2.33 Brassica (Cole crops) [FL Cabbage] 01-05 9.86 8.74 7.34 2.07

Wheat & Triticale [ND Wheat] 06-05 8.83 7.87 6.74 3.55 Grain sorghum [KS Sorghum] 07-05 2 apps @ 0.114; 7d 4.70 3.97 3.21 1.42
Cotton T-Band: 04-23. 1 app @ 0.260; - 3.96 3.44 2.67 0.55 [MS Cotton] Foliar: 07-05 2 apps @ 0.114; 7d 5.04 4.56 3.61 1.08

Combined for Cotton 0.488 9.00 8.00 6.28 1.63 *MRI: Minimum Reapplication Interval The values in bold yielded the highest EECs and ar e used in RQ calculation.



### b. Terrestrial Exposure
Exposure estimates for terrestrial anim als assumed to be in the target area or in an area exposed to spray drift are derived using the T-REX model (version 1.5.2, 6/6/2013). This model incorporates the Kenaga nomograph, as modified by Fletcher et al. (1994), which is based on a large set of actual field residue data. The upper limit valu es from the nomograph represent the 95 th 

### percentile of residue values from actual field measurements (Hoerg er and Kenaga 1972). The dietary-based EECs on a variety of food items from the use of flutriafol on leafy vegetables (Group 4), brassica (cole) leafy vegetables (Group 5), cucurbit vegetables, fruiti ng vegetables, strawberries, tree nuts, wheat, grain sorghum and cotton as modeled by T-REX, are provided in Table 6 and Table 7 (see APPENDIX B for further details). T-REX estimates exposures based on residues found on potential food items and does not estimate exposures via ingestion of plan t materials in which systemic pesticides (such as flutriafol) are incorporated.

###  10

 Table 6

. T-REX-Calculated Dietary EECs (mg/kg-d iet) (Upper-Bound Kenaga Values) for the Proposed Flutriafol Broadcast Foliar Spray Uses on Leafy Vegetables (Group 4), Brassica (cole) Leafy Vegetables (Group 5), Cucurbit Vegetables, Fruiti ng Vegetables, Strawberries, Tree Nuts, Wheat, Grain Sorghum and Cotton.



### To account for the ground spray T-band and in furrow applications, the LD 50 

### per square foot analysis was conducted for cotton applications at plantin g. Unlike the spray drift exposure analysis, which accounts for dietary exposure only, the LD 50 

### per square foot analysis accounts for all exposure pathways. The percent incorporated default assump tion for T-banded and in-f urrow applications is that 99% of applied pesticide will be incorporated in the soil. According to the label, the T-band method is to be applied in a conc entrated 3-4 inch wide band; a 3 inch band width was used in TREX modeling. The label also indicates a range of row spacing, from 30-40 inches; a 40 inch row spacing was used in T-REX modeling.

Table 7. T-REX Inputs Specific for the T-band and In-furrow Applications and Calculated LD 50 

### /ft 2 

### Values for the Proposed Flutriafol Use on Cotton (at planting)

INPUTS
Application Rate: 0.114 lbs / acre
% A.I.: 100.00% Avian LD50 (20g): 388.79 mg/kg bw (100g) 494.95 (1000g) 699.13 Mammalian LD50 (15g): 393.41 mg/kg bw (35g) 318.31 (1000g) 137.68 Row Spacing: 40 inches
Bandwidth: 3 inches Unincorporated: 1% 

### Food Type Dietary EEC (mg/kg-diet) a 

### Dietary EEC (mg/kg-diet) b 

### Short Grass 89.96 51.18 Tall Grass 41.23 23.46 Broadleaf plants 50.60 28.79 Fruits/pods/seeds 5.62 3.20 Arthropods 35.24 20.04

a 

### leafy vegetables (Group 4), brassica (cole) leafy vegetables (Group 5), cucurbit vegetables, fruiting vegetables, strawberries, tree nuts, wheat
b 

### grain sorghum and cotton (foliar application only)

Intermediate Calculations (Liquid Application)
# rows acre-1: 62.61 row length (ft): 208.71
lb ai/1000 ft row: 0.01 bandwidth (ft): 0.25 mg ai/ft2: 15.83 exposed mg ai/ft2: 0.16

###  11

 c. Effects Data
Toxicity data for freshwater fish and invertebrate s, mammals, and terrestrial and aquatic plants with technical grade and the formulated product, Flutriaf ol 125 g/L SC, are availabl e. Chronic data with the technical grade active ingredient (TGAI) for estuarine/marine animals are not available and the toxicity to estuarine/marine invertebrates is es timated by an acute-to-chronic ratio approach.
A comparison of the available formulated product (TOPGUARD ® 

### fungicide) and technical grade toxicity data ( i.e., aquatic plants: MRID 47090330, 47090331, 470903 32, 47090333, 47090334) shows the formulated product, when results are e xpressed in terms of the active ingredient, is approximately 30 to 50-fold more toxic than techni cal grade flutriafol in an aquatic environment. Formulation blank data suggest the greater toxicity of the formulated product relative to the technical grade is not due to synergistic effects of the comb ination of the active ingredient and inerts, but is due to the toxicity of one or more of the inert ingr edients. Note that most of the studies are based on the TGAI. Table 8 is a summary of the endpoints from the submitted terrestrial a nd aquatic toxicity studies for flutriafol.

###  12

 Table 8. Summary of the Most Sensitive Endpoints from Submitted Terrestrial and Aquatic Toxicity Studies for Flutriafol.

Taxa Represented TGAI or EUP 1 Species Toxicity Value MRID # Classification Comment

Birds, Reptiles, and Terrestrial-phase Amphibians

TGAI Red-legged Partridge (430g) ( Alectoris rufa ) LD 50 = 616 mg a.i./kg-bw 47090351 Acceptable --

Mallard duck ( Anas platyrhynchos ) LC 50 = 4062 mg a.i./kg-diet (Acute) 47090320 Acceptable --

NOAEC = 39.2 mg a.i./kg-diet (Chronic) 47090322 Acceptable LOAEC = 97.5 mg a.i./kgdiet based on reduced 14- day survivors and number of hatchlings

Mammals

TGAI Laboratory mouse ( Mus musculus ) (20 g) LD 50 = 179 mg a.i./kg-bw (Acute) 47090335 Acceptable Based on the LD 50 for females

Laboratory rat ( Rattus norvegicus ) NOAEL = 240 mg a.i./kg-diet NOAEC = 20.6 mg/kg-bw/day (males) (Chronic) 47090351 Acceptable LOAEC = 1,000 mg a.i./kg-diet; based on decreased live birth and litter size

Terrestrial Invertebrates

TGAI Honey bees ( Apis mellifera ) LD 50 >50 μg a.i./bee (contact) 47090326 Acceptable Acute contact study; no treatment-related mortality or sublethal effects were noted LD 50 >2 μg a.i./bee (oral) 47090326 Supplemental Non-guideline study

Terrestrial plants

EUP Monocots and Dicots (Seedling Emergence) Tier I EC 25 > 0.12 lb a.i./acre

NOAEC < 0.12 lb a.i./acre 47090328 Acceptable 11.9% flutriafol , tested at the maximum application rate of 0.12 lb a.i./A

Monocots and Dicots (Vegetative Vigor) Tier I EC 25 > 0.12 lb a.i./acre

NOAEC < 0.12 lb a.i./acre 47090329 Acceptable 11.9% flutriafol , tested at the maximum application rate of 0.12 lb a.i./A

Ryegrass (Vegetative Vigor) Tier II EC 25 >0.26 lb a.i./A

NOAEC= 0.26 lb a.i./A 47689801 Acceptable 11.9% flutriafol , tested at the maximum application rate of 0.26 lb a.i./A

No phytotoxic endpoints; no sensitive endpoints Freshwater fish and Aquatic-phase Amphibians Bluegill sunfish ( Lepomis macrochirus ) LC 50 = 33 mg a.i./L (Acute) 47090310 Acceptable --

###  13

 Taxa Represented TGAI or EUP 1 Species Toxicity Value MRID # Classification Comment

TGAI Fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas ) NOAEC = 4.8 mg a.i./L (Chronic) 47090317 Acceptable LOAEC = 9.5 mg a.i./L; based on reduced larval survival

Freshwater invertebrates

TGAI Water flea ( Daphnia magna ) EC 50 = 67.1 mg a.i./L (Acute) 47090304 Acceptable --

NOAEC = 0.31 mg a.i./L (Chronic) 47090313 Acceptable LOAEC = 0.55 mg a.i./L based on reduced length and number of offspring per adult

Estuarine/Marine fish

TGAI Sheepshead minnow ( Cyprinodon variegates ) LC 50 > 72.2 mg a.i./L 47090308 Acceptable There were no mortalities at concentration ≤ 52 mg a.i./L; mortality was 45% at 72 mg a.i./L; lethargy, surfacing, loss of equilibrium and erratic swimming were noted at concentrations ≥ 22.2 mg a.i./L No chronic data available N/A N/A --
Mollusk

TGAI Eastern oyster ( Crassostrea virginica ) EC 50 = 25 mg a.i./L 47090306 Acceptable Sh ell deposition study

Estuarine/Marine invertebrate

TGAI Mysid ( Americamysis bahia ) LC 50 = 34.9 mg a.i./L (Acute) 47090307 Acceptable --

NOAEC = 0.16 mg a.i./L (Chronic) N/A N/A Based on an ACR 2 using data from freshwater invertebrates

Aquatic vascular plants

EUP Duckweed ( Lemna gibba ) EC 50 = 0.78 mg a.i./L (6.6 mg form./L)

EC 05 = 0.018 mg a.i./L (0.15 mg form./L) 47090330 Supplemental Endpoints are based on reduced biomass; the study was conducted using a formulated product and data were not available to establish a dose-response curve for the formulation inerts

Aquatic nonvascular plants

EUP Marine diatom ( Skeletonema
costatum ) EC 50 = 0.46 mg a.i./L (3.9 mg form./L)

EC 05 = 0.30 mg a.i./L 47090331 Supplemental Endpoints are based on reduced biomass; the study was conducted using a formulated product and data were not available to establish a dose-response curve for the formulation inerts

1 TGAI – Technical grade active i ngredient; EUP – End-use Product
2 Acute-to-chronic ratio (ACR); ACR for the freshwater invertebrate Daphnia magna = 216.5 [67.1 mg a.i./L(EC 50 value)/0.31 mg a.i./L (NOAEC value) = 216.5]; based on this ratio and the acute endpoint for mysids (LC 50 = 34.9 mg a.i./L), the estuarine/marine chronic endpoint is NOAEC = 0.16 mg a.i./L (34.9/X = 216.5).

###  14

 d. Incidents
The ecological incident information system (EIIS ) is an OPP database that houses ecological incidents that have been reported to the Agency. When available, E IIS includes date and location of an incident, type and magnitude of effects observe d in various species, use(s) of pesticides known or suspected of contributing to th e incident, and results of any chem ical residue analysis or other analyses conducted during incident investigation. EIIS incidents are categorized according to the certainty that the incident resulted from pesticid e exposure. The Avian Monitoring System (AIMS) is a database administered by the American Bird Conservancy that contains publicly available data on reported avian incidents involving pesticides. Many of the incidents listed in this database are also in the EIIS. No flutriafol incidents were lo cated through either the EIIS or the AIMS database (searched: March 12, 2014).

In addition to the incidents recorded in EIIS and AIMS, the Agency maintains a database (IDS) which stores counts of minor incidents that pestic ide registrants record in quarterly aggregated incident reports. Ecological incidents recorded in these aggregated reports include those categorized as ‘minor fish and wildlife’ (W-B), ‘minor plan t’ (P-B), and ‘other non-target’ (ONT) incidents. ‘Other non-target’ incidents incl ude reports of adverse effects to insects and other terrestrial invertebrates. No incidents were reported in th e IDS for flutriafol (database searched: March 13, 2014).

e. Risk Description

1. Aquatic Organisms
Based on the analysis for the proposed new uses of flutriafol with PRZM/EXAMS outputs, no RQ exceeds the listed or non-listed aquatic plant or animal LOC for any of the proposed uses. PRZM/EXAMS runs were triggered when the vascul ar aquatic plant RQ i ndicated exceedances for the listed species LOC for all proposed uses exce pt grain sorghum and cotton using GENEEC2 runs (see APPENDIX A-2 ). The leafy vegetables (Group 4), brassi ca (cole) leafy vegetables (Group 5), cucurbit vegetables, fruiting vegetables, strawb erries, tree nuts, and wheat uses account for the highest applied rate among the new uses. See Table 9 for the summary of endpoints and RQs for each aquatic taxa that was evaluated for these uses.

###  15

 Table 9

. Summary of Endpoints and RQs Using PRZM/EXAMS derived EECs for Aquatic Organisms and the Use of Flutriafol on All Prop osed Uses Except Grain Sorghum and Cotton (4 applications at 0.114 lb ai./acre).

Taxon Acute/Chronic Endpoint (μg a.i./L) EEC 1 (μg a.i./L) RQ

Freshwater Fish Acute LC 50 = 33,000 14.11 (peak) <0.01 Chronic NOAEC = 4,800 10.73 (60-day) <0.01

Estuarine/Marine Fish Acute LC 50 > 72,200 2 14.11 (peak) <0.01 Chronic No data available N/A N/A

Freshwater Invertebrate Acute EC 50 = 67,100 14.11 (peak) <0.01 Chronic NOAEC = 310 12.77 (21-day) 0.04

Estuarine/Marine Invertebrate Acute (mollusk) EC 50 = 2,500 14.11 (peak) 0.01 Acute (mysid) EC 50 = 34,900 14.11 (peak) <0.01 Chronic NOAEC = 160 12.77 (21-day) 0.08
Aquatic Vascular Plants 3 Non-listed species EC 50 = 780 14.11 (peak) 0.02
Listed species EC 05 = 18 14.11 (peak) 0.78 4 Aquatic Non-vascular Plants 3 Non-listed species EC 50 = 460 14.11 (peak) 0.03 Listed species EC 05 = 300 14.11 (peak) 0.05

1 The highest EECs from Table 5 were used to calculate the RQs.
2 Because there was no mortality or sublet hal effects at the highest treatment leve ls tested in the acute freshwater fish studies submitted, standard definitive RQ values for acut e exposure are not calculated. In order to gain a better understanding of how the EECs for the maximum proposed flutriafol application rate for cotton relate to the toxicity data currently available for estuarine/mari ne fish, we used the conservative assump tion that the highest values tested in the studies represent endpoints ( i.e ., acute: LC 50 = 72,200 μg a.i./L).
3 These RQs are based on data from a formulated product (no TGAI data are currently available for aquatic plants).
4 No RQ exceeds listed plant LOC ( i.e. , when EEC/EC 05 exceeds 1). The GENEEC2 estimat es yielded an RQ of 1.03 (see APPENDIX A-2 ).



### 2. Terrestrial Organisms
The potential routes of exposure for terrestrial plants and animals include deposition from foliar broadcast spray applicati ons (including T-band and in-furrow), runoff/leaching from treated areas, spray drift, and wind erosion of soil particles resultin g in residues on non-targ et species as well as residues on food items for non-target species. As part of the terrest rial assessment, EFED used the model T-REX (ver. 1.5.2.) and TerrPlant (ver. 1.2.2) to estimate exposur e concentrations of flutriafol to non-target terrestrial animals and plants, respectively. Refer to Table 10 for a summary of the terrestrial RQ estimates (see APPENDIX B for further details).

Birds . Based on the proposed uses, the acute level of concern for listed species was exceeded for small birds (dose-based EEC) that eat short gras s (all proposed foliar spray uses: RQs of 0.15 and 0.26 for grain sorghum & cotton uses and all other uses, respectively). LOC exceedances were also

###  16

 observed for small birds (dose-based EEC) consumi ng tall grass (RQ: 0.12), br oadleaf plants (0.15), or arthropods (0.10) and medium-sized birds (dos e-based EEC) consuming short grass (RQ: 0.12) for most uses (except grain sorghum and cotton). None of the acute RQs exceed the dietary-based EECs for birds of all sizes. For chronic exposures, the LOC was exceeded fo r birds that eat short grass (all proposed foliar spray uses: RQs of 1.31 and 2.30 for grain sorghum & cotton uses and all other uses, respectively) as well as birds that c onsume tall grass and broadleaf plants (RQs of 1.05 and 1.29, respectively, for most uses (except gr ain sorghum and cotton). LOC exceedances for Tband/in-furrow applications to cotton (at planting) were not observed using the LD 50 

### per square foot analysis ( APPENDIX B ).

Mammals . The acute LOC for listed species was exc eeded for small and medium-sized mammals (dose-based EEC) that consume short grasses (a ll proposed foliar spray uses: RQs of 0.11-0.12 and 0.19-0.22 for grain sorghum & cotton uses and all ot her uses, respectively). LOC exceedances were also observed for small mammals (dose-based EEC) consuming tall grass (RQ: 0.10), broadleaf plants (0.12), medium-sized birds (dose-based EEC) consuming broadleaf plants (RQ: 0.10), and large-sized birds consuming short grass (RQ: 0.10) for most uses (e xcept grain sorghum and cotton). Chronic dietary-based RQs for mammals range fr om 0.01 to 0.37 across all the proposed uses. The chronic dose-based RQ exceeded the chronic LOC fo r small-sized mammals that eat short grass (all proposed foliar spray uses: RQs of 1.08 and 1.89 for grain sorghum & cotton uses and all other uses, respectively). LOC exceedances were also observe d for small mammals consuming broadleaf plants (RQ: 1.07) and medium-sized mammals consuming short grass (RQ: 1.62) for most uses (except grain sorghum and cotton). LOC exceedances for T-band/in-furrow applic ations to cotton (at planting) were not observed using the LD 50 

### per square foot analysis ( APPENDIX B ).

Plants . TerrPlant is the model used to assess potential exposures to te rrestrial plants, which is based on a single application at the maxi mum single application rate. The av ailable Tier I te rrestrial plant studies only tested concentrations as high as 0.12 lb a.i./acre. The EC 25 

### values in these studies exceeded the highest concentration tested ( i.e. , EC 25 

### >0.12 lb a.i./acre); howe ver, there were effects noted in both the vegetative vigor and seedling emergence studies resulting in NOAECs <0.12 lb a.i./acre. For example, in the vegetative vi gor study (MRID 47090329), sta tistically significant effects (plant dry weight) were seen with ryegra ss and sugar beet. The most sensitive monocot, based on a 17.1% inhibition in dry weight relative to the negative contro l, was ryegrass with NOAEC value of <0.12 lb a.i./A. The most sensitive dicot, based on a 15.1% inhibition in dry weight relative to the negative control, was suga r beet with NOAEC value of <0.12 lb a.i./A. In the seedling emergence study (MRID 27090328), there were statis tically significant differences from control. Therefore, risks to non-listed terrestrial plants from the propos ed uses that have a maximum single application rate of 0.114 lb a.i./A are not expected. However, because the proposed cotton use ( i.e.  ̧ T-band/in furrow at planting) has a single maxi mum application rate (0.26 lb a. i./A) that exceeds 0.12 lb a.i./A, the potential risks to terrestrial plants from the proposed cotton use are based on a Tier II vegetative vigor study on the monocot, ryegrass (MRID 4 7689801). Although the Tier II study showed no phytotoxic effects in ryegrass, there is no additional Tier II testing available on flutriafol (neither more species nor seedling emergence testing). As a result, risks to listed plants from all of the proposed uses cannot be precluded w ith the data currently available.

###  17

 Table 10. Summary of Endpoints and RQs for Terre strial Organisms and the Broadcast Foliar Spray Uses of Flutriafol on Leafy Vegetables (Group 4), Bra ssica (cole) Leafy Vegetables (Group 5), Cucurbit Vegetables, Fruiting Vegetables, Strawberries, Tree Nuts, Wheat, Grain Sorghum and Cotton.

Taxon Acute/ Chronic Endpoint (not adjusted to size class) RQ a RQ b Exposure Model Used

Birds Acute LD 50 = 616 mg a.i./kg-bw <0.01 - 0.26 <0.01 – 0.15

T-REX Chronic NOAEC = 39.2 mg a.i./kg-diet 0.14 – 2.30 0.08 – 1.31

Mammals Acute LD 50 = 179 mg a.i./kg-bw <0.01 - 0.22 <0.01 – 0.12

Chronic NOAEL = 240 mg a.i./kg-diet NOAEC = 20.6 mg a.i./kg-bw 0.02 – 0.37 0.01 – 1.89 0.01 – 0.21 0.01 – 1.08 RQ c RQ d Terrestrial Monocots (Ryegrass) Listed NOAEC = 0.26 lb ai/A (based on Tier II Veg. Vigor study) <0.1 <0.1 TERRPLANT Terrestrial Monocots (Ryegrass) Non-listed NOAEC > 0.26 lb ai/A (based on Tier II Veg. Vigor study) <0.1 <0.1

a 

### 4 applications @ 0.114 lb a.i./A (7 day interval): leafy vegetables (Group 4), brassica (cole) leafy vegetables (Group 5), cucurbit vegetables, fruiting vegetables, strawberries, tree nuts, wheat
b 

### 2 applications @ 0.114 lb a.i./A (7 day interval ): grain sorghum and cotton (foliar application only)

c 

### single application @ 0.114 lb a.i. /A & aerial spray: all uses except fo r cotton T-band/in-furrow (at planting)
d 

### single application @ 0.26 lb a.i./A & liquid application by ground: cotton T-band/in-furrow (at planting)


### Honeybees

A hazard assessment indicates that flutriafol is practically non- toxic to honey bees on an acute contact toxicity basis ( i.e. , LD 50 

### > 50 μg a.i./bee; MRID 47090326).

Inhalation Exposure Inhalation exposure is calculated using STIR (version 1.0). STIR relies on th e application rate, application method, defined droplet spectra (if applicable), molecula r weight, vapor pressure and the temperature associated with the vapor pressure of a specific chemical to obtain an estimate of the droplet and vapor concentration in the air. These concentrations are compared with an estimated inhalation LD 50 

### of a specific chemical as a ratio that is then compared with a threshold of 0.1. Based on the results of the STIR model, inhalation exposure alone was not determined to be a potential pathway of concern for either avian or mammalian taxa on an acute basis ( APPENDIX D ).

###  18

 Additional Citations
EPA. 1999. Jones, R.D., J. Breithaupt, J. Carleton, L. Libelo, J. Lin, R. Matzner, and R. Parker. Guidance for Use of the Index Reservoir in Dr inking Water Exposure Assessments. Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. E nvironmental Protection Agency, Washington. D.C.
EPA, 2012. Wolf, J.K. Section 18 Drinking Water Exposure and Ecological Risk Assessments for the Control of Cotton R oot Rot in Texas Using Flutriafol (TOPGUARD TM 

### , EPA Reg. No. 67760- 75). (DP 397805 January 20, 2012). Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Prot ection Agency, Washington. D.C.
EPA, 2011. Wolf, J.K. Tier 1 Drinking Wa ter Assessment Proposed New Uses (R190) for Flutriafol for the establishment of tolerances for residue in fiel d and popcorn, grapes, peanuts, pome fruit (Crop Group 11), stone fruit (Crop Group 12), sugar beets, and wheat (DP 383005 April 27, 2011). Environmental Fate and Effects Division, O ffice of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington. D.C.

EPA, 2011. Wolf, J.K. Revise d (Tier 2) Ground Water Concentr ations for the Drinking Water Assessment Conducted for the Proposed New Uses (R 190) for Flutriafol for the establishment of tolerances for residue in field an d popcorn, grapes, peanuts, pome fruit (Crop Group 11), stone fruit (Crop Group 12), sugar beets, and wheat (D P 390213 May 31, 2011). Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pe sticide Programs, U.S. Envi ronmental Protection Agency, Washington. D.C.
EPA, 2011. Panger, M., Wolf, J.K. Ecological Ri sk Assessment for the Proposed New Uses of Flutriafol on Field and Pop Corn, Grapes, Peanut s, Pome Fruit (Crop Gro up 11), Stone Fruit (Crop Group 12), Sugar Beets, and Wheat (D 383191, D 382957, June 7, 2011). Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pe sticide Programs, U.S. Envi ronmental Protection Agency, Washington. D.C.
Texas Department of Agriculture, 2011. Kostr oun, D. Application for an Emergency Specific Exemption for flutriafol for the control of cotton root rot caused by the fungus Phymatotrichum omnivorum in cotton fields in Texas. November 14, 2011. Austin, Texas.

###  19

 APPENDIX A-1. PRZM/EXAMS Output for Fl utriafol for Proposed New Uses

**Four foliar applications@ 0.114 lb a.i./A**

stored as FLcucumber.out Chemical: Flutriafol PRZM environment: FLcucumberSTD.txt modified Wedday, 13 June 2007 at 12:19:24 EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Wedday, 15 November 2006 at 13:47:26 Metfile: w12844.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 10:04:30 Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 3.373 3.259 2.896 2.45 1.738 0.4286 1962 3.275 3.202 2.546 2.339 1.709 1.178 1963 7.437 5.189 4.14 3.632 2.579 1.565 1964 13.44 13.15 11.75 8.256 5.806 3.391 1965 8.559 8.283 7.462 6.68 5.374 3.34 1966 8.766 8.564 8.054 6.912 6.21 3.057 1967 3.3 3.202 2.884 2.609 2.453 1.502 1968 3.665 3.56 3.283 2.804 2.019 1.246 1969 7.25 7.072 6.502 5.694 4.182 2.706 1970 6.398 6.276 5.834 5.238 4.813 2.405 1971 8.883 8.583 8.145 6.622 4.62 2.028 1972 13.16 12.72 11.56 8.714 6.001 2.919 1973 6.785 6.631 6.28 5.513 4.938 2.515 1974 7.534 7.284 6.465 4.913 3.677 2.325 1975 4.794 4.669 4.205 3.426 3.001 1.784 1976 5.716 5.542 5.181 4.654 3.296 1.962 1977 10.06 9.828 8.848 6.318 4.42 2.593 1978 11.83 11.43 10.67 8.784 6.124 3.364 1979 7.635 7.513 6.951 5.946 5.336 2.781 1980 4.861 4.759 4.317 3.628 2.853 1.833 1981 9.101 8.689 8.313 6.8 4.69 2.126 1982 17.63 17.01 15.81 12.67 8.79 4.55 1983 9.163 9.073 8.675 7.608 6.846 3.765 1984 25.51 24.7 21.85 14.44 9.876 3.927 1985 14.18 13.91 12.88 10.95 9.742 4.496 1986 10.69 10.44 9.466 7.732 6.795 3.582 1987 9.892 9.563 8.931 7.644 5.293 2.767 1988 5.679 5.608 5.286 4.524 4.059 2.272 1989 4.749 4.634 3.091 2.522 1.957 1.302 1990 4.259 4.134 3.841 3.128 2.832 1.52

Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.032258064516129 25.51 24.7 21.85 14.44 9.876 4.55 0.0645161290322581 17.63 17.01 15.81 12.67 9.742 4.496 0.0967741935483871 14.18 13.91 12.88 10.95 8.79 3.927 0.129032258064516 13.44 13.15 11.75 8.784 6.846 3.765 0.161290322580645 13.16 12.72 11.56 8.714 6.795 3.582 0.193548387096774 11.83 11.43 10.67 8.256 6.21 3.391 0.225806451612903 10.69 10.44 9.466 7.732 6.124 3.364 0.258064516129032 10.06 9.828 8.931 7.644 6.001 3.34 0.290322580645161 9.892 9.563 8.848 7.608 5.806 3.057 0.32258064516129 9.163 9.073 8.675 6.912 5.374 2.919 0.354838709677419 9.101 8.689 8.313 6.8 5.336 2.781 0.387096774193548 8.883 8.583 8.145 6.68 5.293 2.767

###  20

 0.419354838709677 8.766 8.564 8.054 6.622 4.938 2.706 0.451612903225806 8.559 8.283 7.462 6.318 4.813 2.593 0.483870967741936 7.635 7.513 6.951 5.946 4.69 2.515 0.516129032258065 7.534 7.284 6.502 5.694 4.62 2.405 0.548387096774194 7.437 7.072 6.465 5.513 4.42 2.325 0.580645161290323 7.25 6.631 6.28 5.238 4.182 2.272 0.612903225806452 6.785 6.276 5.834 4.913 4.059 2.126 0.645161290322581 6.398 5.608 5.286 4.654 3.677 2.028 0.67741935483871 5.716 5.542 5.181 4.524 3.296 1.962 0.709677419354839 5.679 5.189 4.317 3.632 3.001 1.833 0.741935483870968 4.861 4.759 4.205 3.628 2.853 1.784 0.774193548387097 4.794 4.669 4.14 3.426 2.832 1.565 0.806451612903226 4.749 4.634 3.841 3.128 2.579 1.52 0.838709677419355 4.259 4.134 3.283 2.804 2.453 1.502 0.870967741935484 3.665 3.56 3.091 2.609 2.019 1.302 0.903225806451613 3.373 3.259 2.896 2.522 1.957 1.246 0.935483870967742 3.3 3.202 2.884 2.45 1.738 1.178 0.967741935483871 3.275 3.202 2.546 2.339 1.709 0.4286

0.1 14.106 13.834 12.767 10.7334 8.5956 3.9108 Average of yearly averages: 2.50765333333333

Inputs generated by pe5.pl - Novemeber 2006

Data used for this run: Output File: FLcucumber Metfile: w12844.dvf PRZM scenario: FLcucumberSTD.txt EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv Chemical Name: Flutriafol Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 301.3 g/mol Henry's Law Const. henry 9,2e-12 atm-m^3/mol Vapor Pressure vapr 2.7e-6 torr Solubility sol 130 mg/L Kd Kd mg/L Koc Koc 322 mg/L Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 49.2 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 3247 days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 7202 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 4 cm Application Rate: TAPP 0.128 kg/ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.125 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 25-10 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm Interval 1 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. app. rate 1 apprate 0.128 kg/ha Interval 2 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. app. rate 2 apprate 0.128 kg/ha Interval 3 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. app. rate 3 apprate 0.128 kg/ha Record 17: FILTRA IPSCND 1 UPTKF Record 18: PLVKRT PLDKRT

###  21

 FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run)

**Grain Sorghum Two foliar applications@ 0.114 lb a.i./A** 

stored as kssorghum2.out Chemical: Flutriafol PRZM environment: KSsorghumSTD.txt modified Tueday, 29 May 2007 at 13:55:46 EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Wedday, 15 November 2006 at 13:47:26 Metfile: w13996.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 10:04:44 Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 3.217 3.099 2.805 2.327 2.067 0.7968 1962 2.929 2.831 2.524 2.297 2.205 1.336 1963 4.493 4.313 3.668 2.761 2.35 1.389 1964 3.629 3.522 3.156 2.73 2.498 1.485 1965 2.416 2.345 2.065 1.853 1.801 1.486 1966 1.909 1.831 1.552 1.458 1.37 1.002 1967 2.429 2.35 2.094 1.804 1.725 1.18 1968 5.36 5.196 4.878 4.065 3.599 1.9 1969 2.403 2.32 2.098 1.863 1.814 1.444 1970 2.33 2.291 2.107 1.863 1.742 1.182 1971 2.093 2.027 1.914 1.748 1.475 1.224 1972 2.534 2.455 2.279 1.97 1.843 1.346 1973 7.211 6.937 5.988 4.715 4.186 2.057 1974 2.879 2.77 2.425 2.272 2.177 1.833 1975 2.097 2.026 1.764 1.481 1.457 1.297 1976 2.41 2.344 2.071 1.63 1.426 1.1 1977 3.284 3.184 2.874 2.699 2.476 1.374 1978 3.044 2.942 2.609 2.303 2.286 1.648 1979 2.875 2.776 2.591 2.25 2.12 1.592 1980 3.785 3.634 3.117 2.515 2.443 1.644 1981 4.718 4.541 4.001 3.237 2.893 1.942 1982 2.912 2.821 2.543 2.288 2.149 1.573 1983 2.057 1.979 1.819 1.706 1.563 1.245 1984 2.088 2.017 1.757 1.429 1.387 1.224 1985 3.959 3.862 3.481 2.862 2.592 1.48 1986 3.039 2.956 2.644 2.289 2.162 1.497 1987 2.421 2.333 2.013 1.793 1.674 1.207 1988 1.959 1.891 1.643 1.366 1.224 0.8814 1989 3.862 3.732 3.353 2.974 2.764 1.441 1990 3.58 3.452 3.249 2.939 2.622 1.686

Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.032258064516129 7.211 6.937 5.988 4.715 4.186 2.057 0.0645161290322581 5.36 5.196 4.878 4.065 3.599 1.942 0.0967741935483871 4.718 4.541 4.001 3.237 2.893 1.9 0.129032258064516 4.493 4.313 3.668 2.974 2.764 1.833 0.161290322580645 3.959 3.862 3.481 2.939 2.622 1.686

###  22

 0.193548387096774 3.862 3.732 3.353 2.862 2.592 1.648 0.225806451612903 3.785 3.634 3.249 2.761 2.498 1.644 0.258064516129032 3.629 3.522 3.156 2.73 2.476 1.592 0.290322580645161 3.58 3.452 3.117 2.699 2.443 1.573 0.32258064516129 3.284 3.184 2.874 2.515 2.35 1.497 0.354838709677419 3.217 3.099 2.805 2.327 2.286 1.486 0.387096774193548 3.044 2.956 2.644 2.303 2.205 1.485 0.419354838709677 3.039 2.942 2.609 2.297 2.177 1.48 0.451612903225806 2.929 2.831 2.591 2.289 2.162 1.444 0.483870967741936 2.912 2.821 2.543 2.288 2.149 1.441 0.516129032258065 2.879 2.776 2.524 2.272 2.12 1.389 0.548387096774194 2.875 2.77 2.425 2.25 2.067 1.374 0.580645161290323 2.534 2.455 2.279 1.97 1.843 1.346 0.612903225806452 2.429 2.35 2.107 1.863 1.814 1.336 0.645161290322581 2.421 2.345 2.098 1.863 1.801 1.297 0.67741935483871 2.416 2.344 2.094 1.853 1.742 1.245 0.709677419354839 2.41 2.333 2.071 1.804 1.725 1.224 0.741935483870968 2.403 2.32 2.065 1.793 1.674 1.224 0.774193548387097 2.33 2.291 2.013 1.748 1.563 1.207 0.806451612903226 2.097 2.027 1.914 1.706 1.475 1.182 0.838709677419355 2.093 2.026 1.819 1.63 1.457 1.18 0.870967741935484 2.088 2.017 1.764 1.481 1.426 1.1 0.903225806451613 2.057 1.979 1.757 1.458 1.387 1.002 0.935483870967742 1.959 1.891 1.643 1.429 1.37 0.8814 0.967741935483871 1.909 1.831 1.552 1.366 1.224 0.7968

0.1 4.6955 4.5182 3.9677 3.2107 2.8801 1.8933 Average of yearly averages: 1.41640666666667

Inputs generated by pe5.pl - Novemeber 2006

Data used for this run: Output File: kssorghum2 Metfile: w13996.dvf PRZM scenario: KSsorghumSTD.txt EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv Chemical Name: Flutriafol Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 301.3 g/mol Henry's Law Const. henry 9,2e-12 atm-m^3/mol Vapor Pressure vapr 2.7e-6 torr Solubility sol 130 mg/L Kd Kd mg/L Koc Koc 322 mg/L Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 49.2 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 3247 days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 7202 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 4 cm Application Rate: TAPP 0.128 kg/ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.125 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 05-07 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm Interval 1 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. app. rate 1 apprate 0.128 kg/ha Record 17: FILTRA IPSCND 1

###  23

 UPTKF Record 18: PLVKRT PLDKRT FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run)

**Cotton One T-Band Application @ 0.26 lb a.i./A** 

stored as MScottonTB.out Chemical: Flutriafol PRZM environment: MScottonSTD.txt modified Tueday, 29 May 2007 at 13:57:52 EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Wedday, 15 November 2006 at 13:47:26 Metfile: w03940.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 10:05:46 Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 0 0 0 0 0 0 1962 0 0 0 0 0 0 1963 1.493 1.434 1.223 0.9585 0.8231 0.349 1964 3.873 3.757 3.276 2.525 2.12 0.8494 1965 0.4 0.3984 0.3916 0.3749 0.3612 0.2295 1966 2.455 2.404 2.187 1.745 1.548 0.6301 1967 4.005 3.902 3.595 2.957 2.522 1.07 1968 2.157 2.111 1.934 1.651 1.404 0.6979 1969 0.3392 0.3283 0.3085 0.2941 0.2826 0.2199 1970 0.9592 0.9273 0.8106 0.6876 0.5891 0.2563 1971 3.146 3.055 2.758 2.249 1.906 0.7338 1972 1.742 1.713 1.63 1.319 1.112 0.5051 1973 1.358 1.316 1.186 0.9778 0.8376 0.3712 1974 1.067 1.03 0.8936 0.6687 0.5658 0.2815 1975 2.734 2.644 2.383 1.905 1.594 0.632 1976 2.406 2.338 2.18 1.813 1.545 0.6895 1977 0.9266 0.8939 0.7875 0.6773 0.6381 0.3842 1978 1.939 1.877 1.793 1.408 1.176 0.5008 1979 3.042 2.951 2.743 2.353 2.056 0.8773 1980 3.971 3.845 3.592 3.122 2.624 1.073 1981 1.766 1.713 1.616 1.26 1.049 0.5337 1982 1.907 1.836 1.593 1.226 1.115 0.56 1983 4.026 3.915 3.461 2.683 2.228 0.9013 1984 1.899 1.841 1.662 1.382 1.184 0.5914 1985 0.8224 0.8038 0.7195 0.5822 0.531 0.2947 1986 2.026 1.955 1.732 1.317 1.101 0.4355 1987 1.007 0.9736 0.8723 0.7623 0.6898 0.3405 1988 2.875 2.797 2.484 1.916 1.616 0.7253 1989 3.334 3.233 2.968 2.538 2.154 0.9251 1990 3.13 3.034 2.719 2.266 1.941 0.849

###  24

 Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.032258064516129 4.026 3.915 3.595 3.122 2.624 1.073 0.0645161290322581 4.005 3.902 3.592 2.957 2.522 1.07 0.0967741935483871 3.971 3.845 3.461 2.683 2.228 0.9251 0.129032258064516 3.873 3.757 3.276 2.538 2.154 0.9013 0.161290322580645 3.334 3.233 2.968 2.525 2.12 0.8773 0.193548387096774 3.146 3.055 2.758 2.353 2.056 0.8494 0.225806451612903 3.13 3.034 2.743 2.266 1.941 0.849 0.258064516129032 3.042 2.951 2.719 2.249 1.906 0.7338 0.290322580645161 2.875 2.797 2.484 1.916 1.616 0.7253 0.32258064516129 2.734 2.644 2.383 1.905 1.594 0.6979 0.354838709677419 2.455 2.404 2.187 1.813 1.548 0.6895 0.387096774193548 2.406 2.338 2.18 1.745 1.545 0.632 0.419354838709677 2.157 2.111 1.934 1.651 1.404 0.6301 0.451612903225806 2.026 1.955 1.793 1.408 1.184 0.5914 0.483870967741936 1.939 1.877 1.732 1.382 1.176 0.56 0.516129032258065 1.907 1.841 1.662 1.319 1.115 0.5337 0.548387096774194 1.899 1.836 1.63 1.317 1.112 0.5051 0.580645161290323 1.766 1.713 1.616 1.26 1.101 0.5008 0.612903225806452 1.742 1.713 1.593 1.226 1.049 0.4355 0.645161290322581 1.493 1.434 1.223 0.9778 0.8376 0.3842 0.67741935483871 1.358 1.316 1.186 0.9585 0.8231 0.3712 0.709677419354839 1.067 1.03 0.8936 0.7623 0.6898 0.349 0.741935483870968 1.007 0.9736 0.8723 0.6876 0.6381 0.3405 0.774193548387097 0.9592 0.9273 0.8106 0.6773 0.5891 0.2947 0.806451612903226 0.9266 0.8939 0.7875 0.6687 0.5658 0.2815 0.838709677419355 0.8224 0.8038 0.7195 0.5822 0.531 0.2563 0.870967741935484 0.4 0.3984 0.3916 0.3749 0.3612 0.2295 0.903225806451613 0.3392 0.3283 0.3085 0.2941 0.2826 0.2199 0.935483870967742 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.967741935483871 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.1 3.9612 3.8362 3.4425 2.6685 2.2206 0.92272 Average of yearly averages: 0.550233333333333

Inputs generated by pe5.pl - Novemeber 2006

Data used for this run: Output File: MScottonTB Metfile: w03940.dvf PRZM scenario: MScottonSTD.txt EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv Chemical Name: Flutriafol Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 301.3 g/mol Henry's Law Const. henry 9,2e-12 atm-m^3/mol Vapor Pressure vapr 2.7e-6 torr Solubility sol 130 mg/L

###  25

 Kd Kd mg/L Koc Koc 322 mg/L Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 49.2 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 3247 days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 7202 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life Method: CAM 7 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 2 cm Application Rate: TAPP 0.291 kg/ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.6 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 23-04 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm Record 17: FILTRA IPSCND 1 UPTKF Record 18: PLVKRT PLDKRT FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run)



### APPENDIX A-2. GENEEC2 Inputs/Outputs and Resulting RQs
The predicted peak, 21-day, and 60-day concentrati ons are used to estimate acute and chronic exposures to aquatic organisms inhabiting shallo w-water aquatic communities that receive runoff during rainfall events and/or drif t of the active ingredient from adjacent use sites. Model input parameters are selected based on laboratory fate data in accordance with EFED’s input parameter guidance 5 

### . The environmental fate properties, used for input into the GENEEC model, are summarized in Table 1A-2 (and model outputs section below). Flutri afol is assumed to be stable to aerobic soil metabolism for modeli ng aquatic exposure, because the aerobic soil metabolism halflives were greater than 1 year. Refer to Table 2A-2 for a summary of the GENEEC 2 EECs based on the application rates for the new proposed uses.

Table 1A-2

. GENEEC2 (Version 2) Environmental Fate and Other Select Input Parameter Values for Flutriafol 1



### . Parameter (units) Value Source (MRID) Comment Crop Application Rate (1 application @ lb a.i./acre) 0.26 Max Label Rate for Cotton T-Band Application

5 http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models /water/input_guida nce2_28_02.htm

###  26

 Parameter (units) Value Source (MRID) Comment

Soil Partition Coefficient ( K OC mL/g OC ) 322 47090425
47090426
47090427 Represents the mean of seven values ranging from 140 to 498 mL/g for the parent compound.

Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half-life 0 47090421
47090422
47090423 Model insensitive to half-life values > 1 year. All half-lives greater than 1 year.

Wetted in? No Proposed label Not specified Spray Drift: Ground Spray Low Boom Ground Sprayer Fine Spray (Default) B
A
A Option in GENEEC2 Option in GENEEC2 Option in GENEEC2 Method of Application T-Band Depth of Incorporation 1.5 inches Option in GENEEC2

Solubility in Water @ 20 O C (mg/L or ppm) 130 47129901

-

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism Halflife (days) 49.2 47090419 Represents the 90 th percentile of the upperconfidence bound on the mean of nine halflife values (39.5). Hydrolysis Half-life @ pH 7 0 47090416 Stable Aquatic Photolysis Half-life @ pH 7 0 47287601
47090417 -

1 Parameters are selected as per Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Transport of Pesticides; Version 2.1, October 22, 2009, except for aerobic soil metabolism (see comment above).



### Table 2A-2. Surface Water EECs for the Maximum Proposed New Uses of Flutriafol with the GENEEC2 model

Crop or Crop Group Maximum Single Application Rate (lb a.i./A); MRI* Peak 21-day 60-day Annual Mean (μg/L) All uses except Grain Sorghum and Cotton 4 apps @ 0.114; 7d 18.62 17.08 14.51 12.89 Grain sorghum 2 apps @ 0.114; 7d 9.39 8.61 7.32 6.50
Cotton T-Band Appl. 1 app @ 0.260; at plant 6.60 6.05 5.13 4.56 Foliar 2 apps @ 0.114; 7d 9.39 8.61 7.32 6.50

Combined for Cotton 0.488 15.99 14.66 12.45 11.06 *MRI: Minimum Reapplication Interval



### GENEEC 2 Output for Flutri afol for Proposed New Uses

**All Proposed Uses Except for Grain Sorghum and Cotton**

###  27

 **Four foliar applications@ 0.114 lb a.i./A**

RUN No. 1 FOR flutriafol ON leafy veg * INPUT VALUES *

-------------------------------------------------------------------- RATE (#/AC) No.APPS & SOIL SOLUBIL APPL TYPE NO-SPRAY INCORP ONE(MULT) INTERVAL Koc (PPM ) (%DRIFT) (FT) (IN)

-------------------------------------------------------------------- .114( .456) 4 7 322.0 130.0 AERL_B( 13.0) .0 .0

FIELD AND STANDARD POND HALFLIFE VALUES (DAYS)

-------------------------------------------------------------------- METABOLIC DAYS UNTIL HYDROLYSIS PHOTOLYSIS METABOLIC COMBINED (FIELD) RAIN/RUNOFF (POND) (POND-EFF) (POND) (POND)

-------------------------------------------------------------------- .00 2 N/A .00- .00 49.20 49.20

GENERIC EECs (IN MICROGRAMS/LITER (PPB)) Version 2.0 Aug 1, 2001

-------------------------------------------------------------------- PEAK MAX 4 DAY MAX 21 DAY MAX 60 DAY MAX 90 DAY GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC

-------------------------------------------------------------------- **18.62 18.39 17.08 14.51 12.89**

**[Grain Sorghum and Foliar Applications to cotton) Two foliar applications@ 0.114 lb a.i./A** 

RUN No. 2 FOR flutriafol ON grain sorg * INPUT VALUES *

-------------------------------------------------------------------- RATE (#/AC) No.APPS & SOIL SOLUBIL APPL TYPE NO-SPRAY INCORP ONE(MULT) INTERVAL Koc (PPM ) (%DRIFT) (FT) (IN)

-------------------------------------------------------------------- .114( .228) 2 7 322.0 130.0 AERL_B( 13.0) .0 .0

FIELD AND STANDARD POND HALFLIFE VALUES (DAYS)

-------------------------------------------------------------------- METABOLIC DAYS UNTIL HYDROLYSIS PHOTOLYSIS METABOLIC COMBINED (FIELD) RAIN/RUNOFF (POND) (POND-EFF) (POND) (POND)

-------------------------------------------------------------------- .00 2 N/A .00- .00 49.20 49.20

GENERIC EECs (IN MICROGRAMS/LITER (PPB)) Version 2.0 Aug 1, 2001

-------------------------------------------------------------------- PEAK MAX 4 DAY MAX 21 DAY MAX 60 DAY MAX 90 DAY GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC

-------------------------------------------------------------------- 9.39 9.28 8.61 7.32 6.50

**Cotton One T-Band Application @ 0.26 lb a.i./A** 

RUN No. 3 FOR flutriafol ON cotton t-b * INPUT VALUES *

-------------------------------------------------------------------- RATE (#/AC) No.APPS & SOIL SOLUBIL APPL TYPE NO-SPRAY INCORP ONE(MULT) INTERVAL Koc (PPM ) (%DRIFT) (FT) (IN)

###  28

 -------------------------------------------------------------------- .260( .260) 1 1 322.0 130.0 GRLOFI( 2.9) .0 1.5

FIELD AND STANDARD POND HALFLIFE VALUES (DAYS)

-------------------------------------------------------------------- METABOLIC DAYS UNTIL HYDROLYSIS PHOTOLYSIS METABOLIC COMBINED (FIELD) RAIN/RUNOFF (POND) (POND-EFF) (POND) (POND)

-------------------------------------------------------------------- .00 2 N/A .00- .00 49.20 49.20

GENERIC EECs (IN MICROGRAMS/LITER (PPB)) Version 2.0 Aug 1, 2001

-------------------------------------------------------------------- PEAK MAX 4 DAY MAX 21 DAY MAX 60 DAY MAX 90 DAY GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC

-------------------------------------------------------------------- 6.60 6.51 6.05 5.13 4.56



### Aquatic Organism RQs Based on GENEEC2
Based on the GENEEC2 analysis for the proposed new uses of flutriafol, the vascular aquatic plant RQ exceeds the listed species LOC for all propos ed uses except grain sorghum and cotton. As a result, the PRZM/EXAMS output is provided as a refinement to the GENEEC2 results (see APPENDIX A-1 ). The leafy vegetables (Group 4), bras sica (cole) leafy ve getables (Group 5), cucurbit vegetables, fruiting vegetables, strawber ries, tree nuts, and wheat uses account for the highest applied rate among the new uses. See Table 3A-2 for the summary of endpoints and RQs for each aquatic taxa that wa s evaluated for these uses.

Table 3A-2

. Summary of Endpoints and RQs Using GENEEC2 for Aquatic Organisms and the Use of Flutriafol on All Proposed Uses Except Grain So rghum and Cotton (4 applications at 0.114 lb ai./acre).

Taxon Acute/Chronic Endpoint (μg a.i./L) EEC (μg a.i./L) RQ

Freshwater Fish Acute LC 50 = 33,000 18.62 (peak) <0.01 Chronic NOAEC = 4,800 14.51 (60-day) <0.01

Estuarine/Marine Fish Acute LC 50 > 72,200 1 18.62 (peak) <0.01 Chronic No data available N/A N/A

Freshwater Invertebrate Acute EC 50 = 67,100 18.62 (peak) <0.01 Chronic NOAEC = 310 17.08 (21-day) 0.06

Estuarine/Marine Invertebrate Acute (mollusk) EC 50 = 2,500 18.62 (peak) 0.01 Acute (mysid) EC 50 = 34,900 18.62 (peak) <0.01 Chronic NOAEC = 160 17.08 (21-day) 0.11 Aquatic Vascular Plants 2 Non-listed species EC 50 = 780 18.62 (peak) 0.02

###  29

 Taxon Acute/Chronic Endpoint (μg a.i./L) EEC (μg a.i./L) RQ
Listed species EC 05 = 18 18.62 (peak) 1.03 Aquatic Non-vascular Plants 2 Non-listed species EC 50 = 460 18.62 (peak) 0.04 Listed species EC 05 = 300 18.62 (peak) 0.06

1 Because there was no mortality or sublet hal effects at the highest treatment leve ls tested in the acute freshwater fish studies submitted, standard definitive RQ values for acut e exposure are not calculated. In order to gain a better understanding of how the EECs for the maximum proposed flutriafol application rate for cotton relate to the toxicity data currently available for estuarine/mari ne fish, we used the conservative assump tion that the highest values tested in the studies represent endpoints ( i.e ., acute: LC 50 = 72,200 μg a.i./L).
2 These RQs are based on data from a formulated product (no TGAI data are currently available for aquatic plants). *Value in bold exceeds listed plant LOC ( i.e. , when EEC/EC 05 exceeds 1).

###  30

 APPENDIX B . T-REX Outputs for the Propo sed Uses of Flutriafol

Part 1. On Leafy Vegetables (Group 4), Brassica (c ole) Leafy Vegetables (Group 5), Cucurbit Vegetables, Fruiting Vegetables, St rawberries, Tree Nuts, and Wheat
Upper Bound Kenaga (Dietary Results)

Table B1. Upper Bound Kenaga, Acute Avian Dose-Based Risk Quotients

Size Class (grams) Adjuste d LD50 EECs and RQs

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/Pods/Seed

s Arthropods Granivore

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ

20 388.79 102.5 0.26 46.9 0.12 57.6 0.15 6.40 0.02 40.13 0.10 1.42 <0.01

100 494.95 58.43 0.12 26.8 0.05 32.9 0.07 3.65 0. 01 22.88 0.05 0.81 <0.01

1000 699.13 26.16 0.04 11.9 0.02 14.7 0.02 1. 63 0.00 10.25 0.01 0.36 <0.01

Table B2. Upper Bound Kenaga, Subacute Avian Dietary Based Risk Quotients

LC50 EECs and RQs

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/Pods/Seeds Arthropods

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ
4062 89.96 0.02 41.2 0.01 50.6 0. 01 5.62 0.00 35.24 0.01

Size class not used for dietary risk quotients
Table B3. Upper Bound Kenaga, Chronic Avian Dietary Based Risk Quotients

NOAEC (ppm) EECs and RQs

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/Pods/Seeds Arthropods

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ

39 89.96 2.30 41.23 1.05 50.60 1.29 5.62 0.14 35.24 0.90
Size class not used for dietary risk quotients

###  31

 Table B4. Upper Bound Kenaga, Acute Mammalian Dose-Based Risk Quotients

Size Class (grams) Adjusted LD50 EECs and RQs

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/Pods/See ds Arthropods Granivore

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ

15 393.41 85.7 7 0.22 39.31 0.10 48.25 0.12 5.36 0.01 33.594 8 0.09 1.19 <0.01

35 318.31 59.2 8 0.19 27.17 0.09 33.35 0.10 3.71 0.01 23.218 5 0.07 0.82 <0.01

1000 137.68 13.7 4 0.10 6.30 0.05 7.73 0.06 0.86 0.01 5.3832 9 0.04 0.19 <0.01

Table B5. Upper Bound Kenaga, Chronic Ma mmalian Dietary Based Risk Quotients

NOAEC (ppm) EECs and RQs
Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/Pods/Seeds Arthropods

EEC RQ EE C RQ EE C RQ EEC RQ EE C RQ
240 89.96 0.37 41.2 0.17 50.6 0. 21 5.62 0.02 35.2 0.15 Size class not used for dietary risk quotients

Table B6. Upper Bound Kenaga, Chronic Mammalian Dose-Based Risk Quotients

Size Class (grams) Adjust ed NOAE L EECs and RQs

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/Pods/Seeds Arthropods Granivore

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ
15 45.28 85.77 1.89 39.31 0.87 48.25 1.07 5.36 0.12 33.59 0.74 1.19 0.03

35 36.63 59.28 1.62 27.17 0.74 33.35 0.91 3.71 0.10 23.22 0.63 0.82 0.02

1000 15.84 13.74 0.87 6.30 0.40 7.73 0.49 0.86 0.05 5.38 0.34 0.19 0.01

###  32

 Part 2. On Grain Sorghum and on Cotton (i.e., for cotton foliar applic ations done beyond the planting stage; these estimates do not account for T-ba nd or in-furrow applic ations at planting)
Upper Bound Kenaga (Dietary Results)

Table B7. Upper Bound Kenaga, Acute Avian Dose-Based Risk Quotients

Size Class (grams) Adjusted LD50 EECs and RQs

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/Pods/Seed

s Arthropods Granivore

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ

20 388.79 58.29 0.15 26.7 0.07 32.8 0.08 3.64 0. 01 22.83 0.06 0.81 <0.01

100 494.95 33.24 0.07 15.2 0.03 18.7 0.04 2. 08 0.00 13.02 0.03 0.46 <0.01

1000 699.13 14.88 0.02 6.82 0.01 8.37 0.01 0.93 0.00 5.83 0.01 0.21 <0.01

Table B8. Upper Bound Kenaga, Subacute Avian Dietary Based Risk Quotients

LC50 EECs and RQs

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/Pods/Seeds Arthropods

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ
4062 51.18 0.01 23.46 0.01 28.79 0.01 3.20 <0.01 20.04 <0.01

Size class not used for dietary risk quotients

Table B9. Upper Bound Kenaga, Chronic Avian Dietary Based Risk Quotients

NOAEC (ppm) EECs and RQs

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/Pods/Seeds Arthropods

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ

39 51.18 1.31 23.46 0.60 28.79 0.73 3.20 0.08 20.04 0.51
Size class not used for dietary risk quotients

###  33

 Table B10. Upper Bound Kenaga, Acute Ma mmalian Dose-Based Risk Quotients

Size Class (grams) Adjusted LD50 EECs and RQs

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/Pods/See ds Arthropods Granivore

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ
15 393.41 48.79 0.12 22.36 0.06 27.45 0.07 3.05 0.01 19.1112 0.05 0.678 <0.01
35 318.31 33.72 0.11 15.46 0.05 18.97 0.06 2.11 0.01 13.2084 0.04 0.468 <0.01
1000 137.68 7.82 0.06 3.58 0.03 4.40 0.03 0.49 0.00 3.06241 0.02 0.109 <0.01

Table B11. Upper Bound Kenaga, Chronic Mammalian Dietary Based Risk Quotients

NOAEC (ppm) EECs and RQs
Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/Pods/Seeds Arthropods

EEC RQ EE C RQ EE C RQ EEC RQ EE C RQ
240 51.18 0.21 23.5 0.10 28.8 0.12 3.20 0.01 20 0.08 Size class not used for dietary risk quotients

Table B12. Upper Bound Kenaga, Chronic Mammalian Dose-Based Risk Quotients

Size Class (grams) Adjust ed NOAE L EECs and RQs

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/Pods/Seeds Arthropods Granivore

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ
15 45.28 48.79 1.08 22.36 0.49 27.45 0.61 3.05 0.07 19.11 0.42 0.68 0.01
35 36.63 33.72 0.92 15.46 0.42 18.97 0.52 2.11 0.06 13.21 0.36 0.47 0.01
1000 15.84 7.82 0.49 3.58 0.23 4.40 0.28 0.49 0.03 3.06 0.19 0.11 0.01



### Part 3. On Cotton At Planting: T-band and In-Furrow Application.

Table B13 . LD 50 per square foot analysis (T-REX v. 1.5.2) LD50 ft-2 wgt class (grams) Avian 20 0.02 100 0.00 1000 0.00 Mammal 15 0.03 35 0.01 1000 0.00

###  34

 APPENDIX C. Inputs and Outputs of TerrPlant v. 1.2.2 for Most Proposed Uses (Except the Cotton T-band/In-furrow at planting use)

Table C1. Chemical Identity.
Chemical Name Flutriafol PC code 128940 Use Most uses (except Cotton T-band/in-furrow at planting) Application Method Ground spray Application Form Liquid Solubility in Water (ppm) 130

Table C2. Input parameters used to derive EECs. Input Parameter Symbol Value Units Application Rate A 0.114 y Incorporation I 1 none Runoff Fraction R 0.05 none Drift Fraction D 0.05 none

Table C3. EECs for Flutriafol. Units in y. Description Equation EEC Runoff to dry areas (A/I)*R 0.0057 Runoff to semi-aquatic areas (A/I)*R*10 0.057 Spray drift A*D 0.0057 Total for dry areas ((A/I)*R)+(A*D) 0.0114 Total for semi-aquatic areas ((A/I)*R*10)+(A*D) 0.0627

Table C4. Plant survival and growth data used for RQ derivation. Units are in y. Seedling Emergence Vegetative Vigor Plant type EC25 NOAEC EC25 NOAEC
Monocot 0.26 0.26 Dicot

Table C5. RQ values for plants in dry and semi-aquatic areas exposed to Flutriafol through runoff and/or spray drift.* Plant Type Listed Status Dry Semi-Aquatic Spray Drift
Monocot non-listed #DIV/0! #DIV/0! <0.1 Monocot listed #DIV/0! #DIV/0! <0.1 Dicot non-listed #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Dicot listed #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! *If RQ > 1.0, the LOC is exceeded, resultin g in potential for risk to that plant group.

###  35

 APPENDIX D. Inputs and Outputs of STIR (version 1.0)
The Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk (STIR v. 1.0, November 19, 2010) was used to calculate an upper bound estimate of exposure using flut riafol’s vapor pressure (2.03 x 10 -8 

### mmHg) and molecular weight (301.3 g/mol) for vapor phase e xposure as well as the maximum application rate and method of application for spray drift. STIR incorporates result s from several to xicity studies including acute oral (LD 50 

### 179 mg a.i./kg-bw; MRID 47090335) and inhalation (LC 50 

### >2.02 mg/L; MRID 47090006) rat toxicity endpoints obtained from the “six-pack” of core studies, which are a series of six guideline studies th at are submitted to the Regist ration Division of the Office of Pesticide Programs for technical and formulated pr oducts as well as the most sensitive acute oral avian toxicity endpoint (LD 50 

### 616 mg a.i./kg-bw; MRID 47090351). Based on the results of the STIR model, inhalation exposure al one was not determined to be a potential pathway of concern for either avian or mammalian taxa on an acute basis (see results below).
Input Application and Chemical Information Enter Chemical Name Flutriafol Enter Chemical Use Cotton Is the Application a Sp ray? (enter y or n) y If Spray What Type (enter ground or air) ground Enter Chemical Molecular Weight (g/mole) 301.3 Enter Chemical Vapor Pressure (mmHg) 2.03E-08 Enter Application Rate (lb a.i./acre) 0.26 Toxicity Properties Bird Enter Lowest Bird Oral LD 50 

### (mg/kg bw) 616 Enter Mineau Scaling Factor 1.15 Enter Tested Bird Weight (kg) 0.43 Mammal Enter Lowest Rat Oral LD 50 

### (mg/kg bw) 179 Enter Lowest Rat Inhalation LC 50 

### (mg/L) 2.02 Duration of Rat Inhalation Study (hrs) 4 Enter Rat Weight (kg) 0.35 Output Results Avian (0.020 kg ) Maximum Vapor Concentration in Air at Saturation (mg/m 3 

### ) 3.29E-04 Maximum 1-hour Vapor Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 4.14E-05 Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 

### 3.40E+01 Ratio of Vapor Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 

### 1.22E-06 Exposure not Likely Significant Maximum Post-treatment Spray Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 2.75E-02

###  36

 Ratio of Droplet Inhalation Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 

### 8.09E-04 Exposure not Likely Significant Results Mammalian (0.015 kg ) Maximum Vapor Concentration in Air at Saturation (mg/m 3 

### ) 3.29E-04 Maximum 1-hour Vapor Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 5.20E-05 Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 

### 1.20E+02 Ratio of Vapor Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 

### 4.32E-07 Exposure not Likely Significant Maximum Post-treatment Spray Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 3.45E-02 Ratio of Droplet Inhalation Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 

### 2.87E-04 Exposure not Likely Significant