U">(r:rlm ST A T ES EN VIRONMENTAL PROT ECT IOi\1**1\(:I:~NCY** W ASHINGTON**C~04fi0**

O fTJC!. '

. 01' CHEMICAL SAFET Y**~ND** POl LU'rtON PREVENTION



### PC Code: 129016 DP Barcode: 411277 

### MEMORANDUM September 19,2013



### Sub,ject: · Preliminary Ecological Risk Assessment for the Registration Review of



### To:

.From:

Reviewed By:

Through: Flumctsulam

Katherine St. Clair. Chemical Review Manager Kevin Costello, Branch Chief Risk Management and Implem en tation Branch 2 Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P)

Nicholas Ma st rota, Ph.D

. , Senior Scientist James K. Wolf

, Ph.D., Environmental Scientist Environmental**~isk** 

### Branch Ill Environmental Fate and Effects Divi sion (7507P)

Rosanna Louie-Juzwiak, Risk Assessment Process Leade James 1-Ietrick, Ph.D., Senior Advisor E nvironmental Risk Branch 

### 1li Environmental Fate and Ef fe cts Division (750 7P )

# l?an~ Spatz,

# Bra~ch**Chief~** .......

# ~**nv1ronmental** Rtsk Branch

## ~~~ Environmental Fate and Effec ts Division (7507 P )

This memorandum transmits the Environmental Fate and Effects Division's preliminary ecological risk assessment for the registration revi e w of flumetsulam (PC Code 1290 16)

, a sulfonanalide and triazolopyrimidine class h erbi cide registered Jor use to control broadleaf weeds on corn and soybean. This risk assessment provides the Division's assessment of the environmental fate, terrestrial and aquatic exposure, and ecological risks associated with all registered uses of t1umetsulam. It also provides an assessment of the potential tor use of flumetsulam to cause adverse eftects to threatened and endangered species.

"1 11 e results of this preliminary risk assessment indicate that use of flumetsulam on corn and

s oy bean poses a risk to all types of nontarget terrestrial and aquatic plants. Use of :flumetsulam potentially could result in direct adverse eff e cts to listed species of terrestrial and aquatic plants. Due to the low acute and chronic toxicity to animals, use offlumetsulam is expected to pose



### ' 1

### 2 minimal direct risk to all terrestrial and aqua tic animals, including birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, mollusks, and arthropods.

Flumetsulam is moderately persistent in terrestrial environments. Based upon its K oc 

### (and K d 

### ), flumetsulam is mobile. It is also persistent in aquatic environments. Flumetsulam degradation products are all considered minor degradates at less than 10 percent of applied, and are not believed to contribute significantly to the ecological risks.

The table below summarizes the risk of potential direct effects due to the use of flumetsulam.

### 3 Listed Plant Taxon Potential Direct Effects

Terrestrial and semiaquatic plants – monocots and dicots RQs exceeded the LOC for all expo sure scenarios. Using TerrPlant to depict exposure for dry and semi-aquatic terrestrial habitats, RQs were estimated for exposure (including runoff and spray drift) to nontarget plants adjacent to the s ite of application. Dicots were the more sensitive species; for uses on soybean, RQs for listed nontarget plants range from 1.1 – 815.3, and RQs are 5.7 – 839.6 for uses on corn. For additional details, refer to Table 27.

For exposure from drift alone, an analysis was conducted to estimate the distance (using AgDrift) from the site of application needed in order to be below the LOC. Below is a subset of the analysis (monocots are the more sensitive species) that illustrates the influence on the distance needed to be below the LOC when co nsidering coarser drople t sizes, or the boom height for a ground application. For additional details, refer to Table 28. Crop, Timing, Application Rate (lb a.i./A) Application Method Droplet Size Distance from Field ( feet) Corn, postemergence 0.058 Aerial Coarse – very coarse >1,000 Medium - coarse >1,000 Corn, postemergence 0.060 Ground, low boom Fine – medium 381 Ground, high boom Fine – medium 541 Corn, preemergence 0.069 Aerial Coarse – very coarse >1,000 Medium – coarse >1,000 Corn, preemergence 0.069 Ground, low boom Fine – medium 446 Ground, high boom Fine – medium 636 Soybean, postemergence 0.006 Aerial Coarse – very coarse 194 Medium – coarse 289 Soybean, postemergence 0.015 Ground, low boom Fine – medium 66 Ground, high boom Fine – medium 118 Soybean, preemergence 0.067 Ground, low boom Fine – medium 433 Ground, high boom Fine – medium 600 Soybean, preemergence Aerial Coarse – very coarse >1,000 Medium – coarse >1,000 Aquatic plants RQs exceed the LOC for all exposure scen arios; for the most sensitive species ( i.e. , algae), RQs range from 2.94 – 35.3.

Listed Animal Taxon Potential Direct Effects

Acute Notes Chronic Notes
Terrestrial invertebrates No effect ND 1 1 ND signifies that no data were available to assess the risk. Mammals No effect No effect
Birds No effect No effect Reptiles No effect No effect Amphibians No eff ect No effect
Freshwater fish No effect No effect Freshwater invertebrates No effect No effect

Mollusks No effect ND 1

Estuarine/marine fish No effect No effect Estuarine/marine invertebrates No effect No effect

### 4 Based on this preliminary assessment, there are potential risks to list ed and non-listed plants (terrestrial and aquatic) from exposure to flumet sulam use on corn and soybean. Risk is posed to all types of nontarget plants, in cluding monocots, dicots, aquatic vascular plants, and aquatic nonvascular plants. Use of flumetsulam is not exp ected to cause direct adverse effects to any listed species of animal, but ma y cause indirect effects to listed animals through impacts on vegetation and plant food sources. Because of the potential to harm plants, the use of flumetsulam also may result in modification of primary constituent elements of designated critical habitats for listed species, where such designations have been made. However, at this current stage of the Registration Review process, it is premature to make effects determinations for listed species until further re finements are conducted. In order to make effects determinations for individual species, useful refinements may include analyses of 1) more detailed, speciesspecific ecological and biological data; 2) more detailed and accurate information on flumetsulam use patterns; and 3) sub-county level spatial proximity data fo r the co-occurrence of potential effects areas and listed species and any designated critical habitat. Examples of such refinements are described below.

EFED is currently developing tools that are expe cted to further refine the assessment and are designed to support effects determinations for individual federally list ed species and their designated critical habitats (whe re applicable). Scientific info rmation obtained from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and other reliable sources is being co llated by EFED to address all currently listed species. The information will be stored in an Office of Pesticide Programs Pesticide Registration Information SysteM (PRISM) knowledgebase. The listed species knowledgebase will consist of an information repository that houses biological and behavioral info rmation relevant to individual species ( e.g. , habitat, diet, and life history, including specific temporal and spatial associations) and a document repository that contains supporting documents ( e.g ., USFWS recovery plans) and electronic information ( e.g ., GIS data files).

Refinements may also include more detailed analyses of the registered uses and their use patterns that result in LOC exceedances for federally list ed species in the screening-level assessment. The analyses may include more information on where, when, and how flumetsulam is used on corn and soybean crops. Actual usage data (when available) and national la nd-cover datasets that indicate potential use sites ( e.g ., national land cover dataset (N LCD), crop data layer (CDL)) may be used to support a more refined analysis of where flumetsulam is reasonably expected to be used. Similarly, refinements for the timing of applications and how flumetsulam is used may be based on the analysis of additional usage data , beyond what were available at the time of the screening-level assessment, a nd a more in-depth explora tion of agronomic practices.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, along with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS ), and the National Mari ne Fisheries Service (NMFS), have announced the availability of a report developed by the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council (NRC) out lining recommendations on specific scientific and technical issues related to the developmen t of endangered and threatened species risk assessments for pesticides that are compliant with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Roden ticide Act (FIFRA). The EPA, USDA, FWS and NMFS asked the NRC to consider a range of scientific and technical issues including:

### 5 • identifying best available scientific data and information;

• considering sub-lethal, indire ct and cumulative effects;

• assessing the effects of chemical mixtures and inert ingredients;

• analyzing the effects of pesticid e use through the us e of models;

• incorporating uncertainties in to the evaluations; and

• using geospatial information and datasets that can be employed by the agencies in the course of these assessments.

After reviewing the NRC’s recommendations on th ese scientific and tech nical issues, the EPA and its federal partners will determine how th ese recommendations can be implemented and incorporated into the scientific approaches for developing listed species ri sk assessments. It is anticipated that any draft guida nce and/or science policies de veloped by EPA and its federal partners as a result of the NRC’s recommendations would be released for public comment prior to implementation.

The refinements based on individu al species data; additional, de tailed usage information, when available; and further recommendations from th e NRC report are expected to help to more accurately identify potential area s of effect and to better inform effects and habitat determinations for listed species and any desi gnated critical habita ts. For example, if flumetsulam is used when a particular species of concern is not present ( e.g ., it is migratory) or is not co-located in space, then risk of potential di rect effects to the specie s may often be precluded. If LOCs are still exceeded for aquatic and terres trial plants after conducti ng the refined analyses, further analyses of the potential spatial and te mporal co-occurrence of lis ted species of concern (and any designated critical habita t) may be conducted. The extent of possible refinement in the analyses of spatial/temporal co-occurrence will largely depend on the scale and quality of the available sub-county level use site ( e.g ., National Land Cover Dataset, Cropland Data Layer) and species location data

.

### 6 

# Preliminary Ecological Risk Assessment for the Registration Review of Flumetsulam

(CAS Reg. No. 98967-40-9; USEPA PC Code: 129016)

Prepared by: Nicholas Mastrota, Ph.D., Wildlife Biologist James K. Wolf, Ph.D., Environmental Scientist



### Reviewed by: James Hetrick, Ph.D., Senior Advisor Rosanna Louie-Juzwiak, Risk Assessment Process Leader



### Approved by: Dana Spatz, Branch Chief

Environmental Risk Branch III Environmental Fate and Effects Division Office of Pesticide Programs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

September 2013 

### Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

### 7 

## Table of Contents

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 8 A. Purpose of Assessment ........................................................................................... 8 B. Nature of the Stressor .............................................................................................. 8 C. Summary of Effects and Risk Conclusions ............................................................ 8 II. PROBLEM FORMULATION ......................................................................................... 10 A. Pesticide Type, Class, and Mode of Action .......................................................... 10 B. Pesticide Use and Usage ....................................................................................... 10 1. Pesticide Use ............................................................................................. 10 2. Pesticide Usage ......................................................................................... 15 C. Previous Ecological Risk Assessments and Evaluations ...................................... 15 D. Assessment Endpoints .......................................................................................... 16 E. Analysis Plan and Conceptual Models ................................................................. 20 1. Measures to Evaluate Risk Hypotheses .................................................... 20 2. Conceptual Model ..................................................................................... 20 3. Risk Hypothesis ........................................................................................ 22 III. ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................... . 24 A. Measures of Exposure ........................................................................................... 24 1. Environmental Fate and Mode ling Input Parameters ............................... 24 Terrestrial Modeling and Input Parameters ......................................................... 30 B. Ecological Effects Characterization ...................................................................... 31 1. Aquatic Animals ....................................................................................... 31 2. Aquatic Plants ........................................................................................... 32 3. Terrestrial Animals ................................................................................... 33 4. Terrestrial Plants ....................................................................................... 35 IV. RISK ESTIMATION ........................................................................................................ 37 A. Exposure Estimates for Non-target Aquatic Animals and Plants ......................... 37 B. Non-target Terrestrial Animals ............................................................................. 40 C. Non-target Terrestrial Plants ................................................................................. 43 D. Review of Incident Data ....................................................................................... 47 E. Probit Slope Response Analysis of LOC Values and Acute RQ Values .............. 49 V. RISK DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................... 49 A. Risk Characterization ............................................................................................ 49 1. Risk to Aquatic and Terrestrial Animals .................................................. 49 2. Risk to Aquatic and Terrestrial Plants ...................................................... 50 B. Assumptions and Limitations ............................................................................... 50 1. Endocrine Disruption ................................................................................ 50 2. Uncertainties Related to Data Limitations ................................................ 51 3. Other Uncertainties in Risk Conclusions .................................................. 52 VI. RISK CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................... 53 VII. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 55 APPENDIX A. ................................................................................................................... ........... 58 APPENDIX B .................................................................................................................... ........... 65 APPENDIX C .................................................................................................................... ........... 74 APPENDIX D .................................................................................................................... ........... 81 APPENDIX E: ................................................................................................................... ........... 85

### 8 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A. Purpose of Assessment

The purpose of this assessment is to evaluate the potential risks of current registered uses of the herbicide flumetsulam to non-target organism s, including federally listed endangered and threatened (listed) species. Th is risk assessment incorporates the available exposure and effects data and most current modeli ng and risk methodologies.

B. Nature of the Stressor

Flumetsulam is an herbicide registered for use to control of broadleaf w eeds in corn and soybean fields. It is in the triazolpyrimidine and the sulf onanalide chemical classes. By mode of action, it is classified as an acetolactat e synthase (ALS) inhibitor, ma king it similar to sulfonylurea and imidazolinone herbicides. Flumetsulam is similar to other ALS inhibiting pest icides in that it has low toxicity to vertebrate and invertebrate anim al life, but very potent toxicity to plants.

Flumetsulam is expected to be mobile in the environment based upon the Koc (5 to 74 mL/g oc 

### ). Because of the moderate persiste nce in terrestrial environments (average half-life 51 days; range 13 to 130 days) and persistence in aquatic e nvironments (>180 days) of flumetsulam, degradation products of flumetsula m are not expected to form in significant amounts and are not believed to contribute significantly to the ecol ogical risks posed by flumetsulam. Therefore, only the parent compound was considered as an ecological stressor in this assessment.

C. Summary of Effects and Risk Conclusions

The results of this preliminary risk assessment indi cate that the registered uses of flumetsulam on corn and soybeans have the potenti al for direct adverse effects to listed and non-lis ted species of aquatic and terrestrial plants (Table 1). The hi gh persistence and high mo bility of flumetsulam exacerbates the risk to nontarget plants. Risks to all terrestrial and aquatic animals from direct effects is expected to be minimal. There is a potential for indirect effects to terrestrial and aquatic animals due to reduction in plan t food and alteration of vegetation.

The available acute toxicity data on flumetsulam indicate that it is practically nontoxic to birds, mammals, terrestrial arthropods, fr eshwater invertebrates, and es tuarine/marine invertebrates on an acute basis. On a chronic basis, adverse effe cts to these animal taxa have only been observed at high doses that exceed environm entally relevant levels. In cont rast, plant toxicity data show that flumetsulam is very highly toxic to terrest rial plants, aquatic plan ts, and aquatic algae. Growth inhibition of 25% has been shown to occur at exposure levels as low as 0.00019 lb a.i./A, with no-observed-adverse-effect leve ls (NOAEL) as low as 0.0000093 lb a.i./A. For aquatic plants, 50% growth inhibi tion has been shown to occur at concentrations as low as 3.2 μg a.i./L, with no-observed-adverse-effect concen trations (NOAEC) as low as 0.36 μg a.i./L.

### 9 Table 1. Listed Species Risks Associated with Pote ntial Direct Effects Due to the Applications of Flumetsulam.

Listed Plant Taxon Potential Direct Effects

Terrestrial and semiaquatic plants – monocots and dicots RQs exceeded the LOC for all expo sure scenarios. Using TerrPlant to depict exposure for dry and semi-aquatic terrestrial habitats, RQs were estimated for exposure (including runoff and spray drift) to nontarget plants adjacent to the s ite of application. Dicots were the more sensitive species; for uses on soybean, RQs for listed nontarget plants range from 1.1 – 815.3, and RQs are 5.7 – 839.6 for uses on corn. For additional details, refer to Table 27.

For exposure from drift alone, an analysis was conducted to estimate the distance (using AgDrift) from the site of application needed in order to be below the LOC. Below is a subset of the analysis (monocots are the more sensitive species) that illustrates the influence on the distance needed to be below the LOC when co nsidering coarser drople t sizes, or the boom height for a ground application. For additional details, refer to Table 28. Crop, Timing, Application Rate (lb a.i./A) Application Method Droplet Size Distance from Field ( feet) Corn, postemergence 0.058 Aerial Coarse – very coarse >1,000 Medium - coarse >1,000 Corn, postemergence 0.060 Ground, low boom Fine – medium 381 Ground, high boom Fine – medium 541 Corn, preemergence 0.069 Aerial Coarse – very coarse >1,000 Medium – coarse >1,000 Corn, preemergence 0.069 Ground, low boom Fine – medium 446 Ground, high boom Fine – medium 636 Soybean, postemergence 0.006 Aerial Coarse – very coarse 194 Medium – coarse 289 Soybean, postemergence 0.015 Ground, low boom Fine – medium 66 Ground, high boom Fine – medium 118 Soybean, preemergence 0.067 Ground, low boom Fine – medium 433 Ground, high boom Fine – medium 600 Soybean, preemergence Aerial Coarse – very coarse >1,000 Medium – coarse >1,000 Aquatic plants RQs exceed the LOC for all exposure scen arios; for the most sensitive species ( i.e. , algae), RQs range from 2.94 – 35.3.

Listed Animal Taxon Potential Direct Effects

Acute Notes Chronic Notes
Terrestrial invertebrates No effect ND 1 1 ND signifies that no data were available to assess the risk. Mammals No effect No effect
Birds No effect No effect Reptiles No effect No effect Amphibians No eff ect No effect
Freshwater fish No effect No effect Freshwater invertebrates No effect No effect

Mollusks No effect ND 1

Estuarine/marine fish No effect No effect Estuarine/marine invertebrates No effect No effect

### 10 II. PROBLEM FORMULATION

A. Pesticide Type, Class, and Mode of Action

Flumetsulam (N-(2,6-difluorophenyl)-5-methyl(1,2 ,4)triazolo(1,5-a)pyrimidine-2-sulfonamide; CAS Registry Number 98967-40-9) is the primar y chemical stressor considered in this assessment. Flumetsulam belongs to both the tr iazolpyrimidine and the sulfonanalide chemical classes. The structure of flumetsulam is shown in Figure 1. Degradati on products are discussed in more detail in Section III A.1.

Figure 1. Chemical Structure of Flumetsulam

The herbicidal mode of action of flumetsulam is inhibition of acetolactate synthase (ALS), which is a similar mode of action to sulfonylurea a nd imidazolinone herbicides. As with other ALS inhibitors, flumetsulam is toxic to plants at very low levels, but generally has very little toxicity to animals. Triazolpyrimidine herbicides also generally have environmental fate properties similar to sulfonylurea herb icides (USEPA, 1994).

B. Pesticide Use and Usage

1. Pesticide Use

In the United States, flumetsulam is registered for use to control broadleaf weeds in corn and soybean fields. Currently, this risk assessment focuses on exposures and potential effects from exposure to flumetsulam as the sole stressor. It is an active ingredient in 10 products registered in the United States (Table 2).

### 11 Table 2. Pesticide Products Registered in the United States that Contain Flumetsulam

EPA Reg. No. Product Name Formulation 1 Registered Crops Other AIs in Product Restrictions

352-593 Accent Gold WDG Corn Clopyralid, Nicosulfuron, and

Rimsulfuron Make only 1 application per

season.

352-612 Dupont Access Gold WDG WDG Corn Clopyralid, Nicosulfuron, and

Rimsulfuron Do not apply more than 0.07 lb flumetsulam per acre per
crop year.

62719-224 Broadstrike WDG Corn and Soybean (None) Do not exceed 1 application
per year. Do not aerially apply.

62719-253 Hornet WDG Corn Clopyralid Do not apply more than 0.07 lb flumetsulam per acre per
crop year. "Do not apply aerially unless permitted by EPA approved supplemental labeling"

62719-277 Python WDG WDG Corn and Soybean (none) Do not apply more than 0.07 lb flumetsulam per acre per
crop year. Do not apply aerially in NY.

62719-278 NAF-280 WDG Corn Clopyralid Do not exceed 1 application
per year. Do not aerially apply.

62719-279 NAF-281 WDG Corn Clopyralid Do not exceed 1 application
per year. Do not aerially apply.

62719-299 Frontrow WDG Soybean Cloransulam-methyl (co-packed) Do not apply more than 0.07 lb flumetsulam per acre per
crop year. Do not apply more than 0.012 lb/A flumetsulam per crop growing season. Do not apply aerially in NY.

62719-315 Hornet WDG WDG Corn Clopyralid potassium salt Do not apply more than 0.07 lb flumetsulam per crop year. "Do not apply aerially unless permitted by EPA approved supplemental labeling"

62719-570 Surestart EC Corn Acetochlor and Clopyralid Do not apply more than 0.0525 lb/A of flumetsulam per growing season. Do not apply aerially

1 EC: emulsifiable concentrate, WDG: wa ter dispersible granular (=dry flowable).


### Products containing flumetsulam are formulated as water-dispersible granules or as an emulsifiable concentrate. They are all applied as sprays to soil (which may or may not be incorporated) and/or emerged fiel d corn, silage corn, and/or so ybean fields crops. Products may be applied to fields pre-plant incorporated, pre-plant surface, or pre-emergence treatment. Products containing flumetsulam are often formul ated together with ot her herbicidal active ingredients (Table 2).

Some products may also be sprayed onto dry bul k fertilizer, and the herbicide-impregnated fertilizer is then appl ied onto fields. Some produc t labels allow only one applications per year or

### 12 per crop season, whereas other product labels do not restrict the number of applications, but restrict the total amount of flumetsulam applied per year to 0.07 lb a.i./A. Broadstrike, NAS-280, NAS-281, and Surestart products pr ohibit aerial applications, wher eas the other products do not. All products containing flumetsulam pr ohibit chemigation application.13Table 3. Application Information forRegistered Use Sites of FlumetsulamSiteDescriptionApplicationTimingProducts1Max Rateper App.(lb/A)Max Rateper Year(lb/A)Max. No.Apps.Ground/AerialApplicationMethodsRestrictionsCorn (Field) Preplant orPreemergence352-59362719-22462719-27762719-27862719-27962719-31562719-570(Accent Gold,Broadstrike, Hornet,NAF, Python WDG,SureStart)0.0693 0.07 1 or NSGround oraerialBroadcast soil orfoliar sprayNo aerialapplication inNYPostemergence62719-253, 62719-315(Hornet, HornetWDG)0.0578 0.07 NSGround oraerialBroadcast soil orfoliar sprayAerialapplicationrequiresapprovedsupplementallabel.352-593, 352-612(Accent Gold,Dupont AccentGold WDG)0.035 0.035 NSGround orAerialBroadcast soil orfoliar sprayAerialapplicationallowed in CO,IA, KS, MN,NE. OK, SD,and TX only.62719-22462719-570Broadstrike,SureStart0.06 0.07 1 GroundBroadcast soil orfoliar sprayApply usinggroundequipment onlyPreplant,Preemergence, orPost Emergence62719-27862719-27962719-570(NAF-280, NAF281, SureStart)0.0556 0.0695 1/Yr or NS GroundImpregnated drybulk fertilizer62719-277(Python)0.065 0.065 NS GroundImpregnated drybulk fertilizerCorn (Silage) Preplant,Preemergence, orPost Emergence62719-570(SureStart)0.03 0.0525 NS GroundBroadcast soil orfoliar spray62719-570(SureStart)0.045 0.0525 NS GroundImpregnated drybulk fertilizer14Soybean Preplant orPreemergence62719-24462719-27762719-299(Broadstrike,Frontrow, PythonWDG)0.0674 0.07 or NS 1/Yr or NSGround orAerialBroadcast soil orfoliar sprayNo aerialapplication inNYPostemergence62719-299(Frontrow)0.006 0.012 2Ground orAerialBroadcast soil orfoliar sprayMinimum 14-day intervalbetweenapplications62719-224(Broadstrike)0.015 0.015 1 GroundBroadcast soil orfoliar sprayApply usinggroundequipment onlyPreplant,Preemergence, orPost Emergence62719-277(Python WDG)0.065 0.065 NS GroundImpregnated drybulk fertilizer1The maximum use rate on some product labels may be lower thanthe rate listed in this table, which shows only the maximum application rate for this use.

### 15 2. Pesticide Usage

EPA’s Biological and Economic An alysis Division (BEAD) provi ded an analysis of nationallevel usage information using state-level usage da ta obtained from various public and proprietary sources. Table 4 provides 2007 estimates of the usage of flumetsulam on various crops. The largest usage of flumetsulam is on corn, with 200,000 lbs applied in the United States annually. Approximately 10% of cropland planted in corn in the United States were treated with flumetsulam. Usage on soybean was also sizable, with 20,000 lbs applied annually. The survey identified small amount of reported usage on non-re gistered crops (celery, sunflower, sweet corn, and fallow land).

Table 4. Screening Level Estimates of Agri cultural Uses of Flumetsulam (November 19, 2007) 1,2

Crop Lbs. A.I. Percent Crop Treated Average Maximum Corn 200,000 10 10 Soybean 20,000 <1 <2.5 Celery <500 <1 <2.5 Fallow, Summer <500 <1 <2.5
Sunflower <500 <1 <2.5
Sweet Corn <500 <1 <2.5

1 

### All numbers rounded. <500 Less than 500 pounds of active ingredient <2.5 Less than 2.5 percent of crop treated

<1 Less than 1 percent of crop treated

+ Crops not known to be listed on active end use product registrations or as Section 18 emergency exemptions when this report was run

2 

### SLUA data sources include: USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agricult ure's National Agricultural Statistics Service) Private Pesticide Market Research California DPR (Department of Pesticide Regulation)



### C. Previous Ecological Risk A ssessments and Evaluations

The most recent ecological risk assessment conducted for flumetsulam was for proposed new uses of flumetsulam on dry beans (USEPA, 2006), which are not listed on currently registered labels. Although the use is not currently register ed, the assessment used the same maximum use rate as for other registered crops and contai ned a more recent consid eration of available environmental fate and effects data. This asse ssment assessed the risks associated with use on dry beans using application methods and rates simila r to what is currently registered for corn and soybean (single preplant or pr e-emergent application at a ma ximum rate of 0.07 lb a.i./A); however, it did not assess aerial applications. Th e assessment concluded that the proposed use would expose nontarget terrestrial plants via spra y drift and runoff, and this exposure would pose

### 16 risk to nontarget terrestrial plants that exceed th e EPA’s level of concern (LOC). Risk to aquatic plants was predicted to exceed the LOC onl y for nonvascular aquatic plant; however, no nonvascular aquatic plants are cu rrently listed as threatened or endangered. The assessment concluded that direct acute and ch ronic risks to all terrestrial and aquatic animals were below the EPA’s level of concern.

EFED conducted a full risk assessment for uses on corn and soybean in 1992 (USEPA, 1992). Application methods and maximum application rates were similar to what they are today except that only ground applications were assessed. The risk assessmen t concluded that these uses would pose risk to aquatic plants. Risk to terrest rial plants was not asse ssed because terrestrial plant toxicity data were not avai lable at the time. However, risk to terrestrial plants was assumed because of the similarity of this herbicide w ith sulfonylurea herbicides and the known risk to plants, and incident data. Because of the m obility of this compound and its potential to contaminate ground water, concern was also expressed for potential adverse effects to crops irrigated with contaminated ground water. Risk for all terrestria l and aquatic animal taxa was concluded to be below the EPA’s LOC.

In 1993, EFED conducted a risk assessment for the a ddition of aerial applica tions of flumetsulam to corn and soybean (USEPA, 1993). This assessment concluded that, as with ground applications, aerial applications of flumetsulam posed a risk both terrestri al and aquatic plants due to exposure from runoff and spray drift.

In 1993, the EFED made a “may affect” determina tion for potential adverse effects from use of flumetsulam on corn and soybean (USEPA, 1993a) . The assessment concluded that registered use on these crops may adversely affect thre atened and endangered terrestrial plants.

In 1994, the EFED completed a qualitative assessme nt of sulfonylurea (SU) herbicides and other low-dose herbicides which are ALS inhibitors ( i.e. , imidazolinones and tria zolopyrimidines). The assessment reviewed the history of concern, da ting from 1981, for the potential damage that offsite-movement of these herbicides can cause to nontarget plants. Th e assessment discussed evidence that SU herbicides can move long distan ces from the treatment site via spray drift and contaminated soil particles blown and redeposited by the wind. The assessment reviews evidence linking the movement of SU herbicides to damage of cherry and apricot trees as far as up to 2 to 3 miles from treated sites. Eviden ce show that exposure of SU herbic ides at small fractions of the application rate may curtail frui t production by cherry trees. The report notes that the currently required phytotoxicity studies do not evaluate the potential for these herbicides to impact the reproduction ( i.e. , flower, fruit, and seed production) of plants. Also, incidents with the SU herbicide Oust® (active ingredient sulfometuron) show the potentia l for SU herbicides to travel on wind-blown soil particles and adversely affect crops downwi nd of treated use sites.

D. Assessment Endpoints

Table 5 gives a summary of acute and chronic toxicity endpoints for various taxonomic groups of animals and plants. Acute toxicity data on flumetsulam indicate that it is practically nontoxic to birds, mammals, bees, freshwater invertebrates, and estuarine/marine invertebrates on an acute toxicity basis. No treatment-rela ted mortality was observed in any of these studies at any of the

### 17 test levels. Chronic toxicity studies also indi cate relatively low toxicity on with chronic exposure. The northern bobwhite was the most se nsitive avian species, w ith adverse effects on reproduction observed at 600 mg a. i./kg-diet (NOAEC establishe d at 600 mg a.i./kg-diet). Chronic toxicity in mammals was similar, with adverse developmental effects observed at 500 mg a.i./kg-diet (NOAEC establis hed at 1000 mg a.i./kg-diet). Li mited chronic toxicity testing with aquatic animals also showed relatively low le vels of chronic toxicity. In a lifecycle study with the water flea, adverse effects on growth were observed at 200 mg a.i./L (NOAEC 111 mg a.i./L). No chronic effects were observed in an early life-stage study with the fathead minnow any test concentrations (NOAEC 197 mg a.i./L).

In contrast, flumetsulam is highly toxic to aquati c and terrestrial plants. In seedling emergence and vegetative vigor tests, 25% inhibition of growth has been shown to occur in sensitive terrestrial plants at exposure levels of 0.0002 to 0.002 lb a.i./A. NOAECs are as low as 0.000070 lb a.i./A. In aquatic plant tests, both algae and aquatic vascular plants have been shown to be sensitive to flumetsulam. Fifty percent inhibition of growth in green algae is predicted at a concentration of 3.21 μg a.i./L, and 50% inhibition of growth of duckweed is predicted at 3.1 μg a.i./L. The NOAEC was 0.36 μg a.i./L for algae and 1.4 μg a.i./L for duckweed.

More information on results of ecotoxicity stud ies with flumetsulam ar e provided in Section III.C. of this document.

### 18 Table 5. Summary of the Most Sensitive Measures of Flumetsulam to Nontarget Organisms
Study Most Sensitive Test Species MRID Classification Measured Effects

Acute Avian Oral Northern Bobwhite ( Colinus virginianus ) 41263218 Acceptable LD 50 > 2250 mg a.i./kg-bw

Acute Avian Dietary Northern Bobwhite ( Colinus virginianus ) and Mallard Duck ( Anas platyrhynchos ) 41263219 41263220 Acceptable LC 50 > 5620 mg a.i./kg-diet

Avian Reproduction Northern Bobwhite ( Colinus virginianus ) 41931741 Acceptable NOAEC: 300 mg a.i./kg-diet LOAEC: 600 mg a.i./kg-diet (based on reduced survival of embryos and hatchlings)

Mallard ( Anas platyrhynchos ) 41931742 Acceptable NOAEC: 600 mg a.i./kg-dietLOAEC: >600 mg a.i./kgdiet

Acute Rat Oral Laboratory rat ( Rattus norvegicus ) 41263207 Acceptable LD 50 > 5000 mg a.i./kg-bw

Rat Reproduction and Development Female laboratory rat ( Rattus norvegicus ) 41263213 41615302 Acceptable NOAEL = 500 mg a.i./kgdietLOAEL = 1000 mg a.i./kgdiet (based on increased cecal weights)
Laboratory rat ( Rattus norvegicus ) 41931710 42474001 Acceptable, Minimum NOAEC: 1000 mg/kg diet LOAEC: >1000 mg/kg diet (no adverse effects observed) Honey Bee Acute Contact Honey Bee ( Apis mellifera ) 41263228 Acceptable LD 50 > 100 μg a.i./bee (contact)

Freshwater Fish Acute Toxicity Bluegill Sunfish ( Lepomis macrochirus ) Rainbow Trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) 41263221 41263223 Acceptable LC 50 > 300 mg a.i./L

Freshwater Fish Early-Life Stage Fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas ) 42465101 Acceptable NOAEC = 197 mg a.i./L LOAEC > 197 mg a.i./L
Estuarine/Marine Fish Acute Toxicity Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia) 41263225 Acceptable LC 50 > 380 mg a.i./L

Estuarine/Marine Fish Chronic No data available

Freshwater Invertebrate Acute Toxicity Water flea ( Daphnia magna ) 41263224 Acceptable EC 50 = 254 mg a.i./L

FreshwaterInvertebrate LifeCycle Water flea ( Daphnia magna ) 42465102 Acceptable NOAEC = 111 mg a.i./L LOAEC = 200 mg a.i./L (based on)

Estuarine/Marine Acute Mollusk (Shell deposition) Eastern oyster ( Crassostrea virginica ) 41263227 Acceptable EC 50 > 108 mg a.i./L

### 19 Study Most Sensitive Test Species MRID Classification Measured Effects

Saltwater Acute Crustacean Grass Shrimp ( Palaemonetes vulgaris ) 41263226 Acceptable LC 50 > 349 mg a.i./L

Estuarine/Marine Invertebrate Chronic No data available

Terrestrial Plants (Seedling Emergence) Rapeseed (dicot) Sorghum (monocot) 43485801 Supplemental Most Sensitive Dicot 1 : Rapeseed IC 05 = 0.0000452 lb a.i./A IC 25 = 0.000188 lb a.i./A (based on reduced shoot weight) Most Sensitive Monocot : Sorghum IC 05 = 0.000568 lb a.i./A IC 25 = 0.00170 lb a.i./A (based on reduced shoot weight)

Terrestrial Plants (Vegetative Vigor) Radish (dicot) Onion (monocot) 42573901 Supplemental, except invalid for rapeseed Most Sensitive Dicot 1 : Radish NOAEL = 0.00028 lb a.i./A IC 25 = 0.00027 lb a.i./A (based on reduced shoot weight) Most Sensitive Monocot : Onion NOAEL = 0.000093 lb a.i./A IC 25 = 0.00058 lb a.i./A (based on reduced shoot weight)
Aquatic Plants NonVascular 2 Green Algae ( Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata ) 41931743 Acceptable IC 50 = 3.2 μg a.i./L NOAEC = 0.36 μg a.i./L (based on 5-day cell density)

Aquatic Plant Vascular Duckweed ( Lemna gibba ) 42473104 Acceptable IC 50 = 3.1 μg a.i./L NOAEC = 1.4 μg a.i./L (based on 14-day mean fond count)



### Open Literature

Additional toxicity data were located in the open literature us ing the ECOTOXicology database. A listing of the open literature st udies which were considered in this assessment is provided in Appendix B.

The only study from the open literature that yielded a lower toxicity value than did the comparable toxicity studies submitted by the pest icide registrant was a phytotoxicity study with the wild radish ( Raphanus raphanistrum ) (Madafiglio et al. , 2000). This study determined effect dose at 50% inhibition (ED 50 

### ) values for effects of flumetsulam to this plant species at various temperatures. The results for the test conducted at 20oC was slightly mo re sensitive than the result obtained for the most sensitive species in the vegetative vigor study. However, as the

### 20 study authors noted, there is great uncertainty with this ED 50 

### estimate because the value was extrapolated well beyond the range of the tested doses. Because of the uncertainty in this result, it was not used in the quantitative risk assessment for terrestrial plants.

E. Analysis Plan and Conceptual Models

1. Measures to Evaluate Risk Hypotheses

In the case of flumetsulam, measures of expos ure are based on terrestr ial and aquatic exposure models that estimate environmental concentra tions of flumetsulam using maximum labeled application rates. The T-REX model (version 1.5.2, 6/6/2013) was used to produce terrestrial EECs on wildlife food items. The PRZM and EXAMS models (see Section III A. 1) are used to produce aquatic EECs. The TerrPlant and AgDRIF T models are used to estimate exposure to nontarget plants. For more information on EPA’s models, visit http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/models_db.htm

.

Measures of effect are obtained from a suite of studies conducted with a limited number of surrogate species. The lowest t oxicity endpoints for the most sens itive surrogate test species are used to estimate treatment-related effects on growth, reproduction and/or survival.

2. Conceptual Model

The potential exposure pathways and effects of flumetsulam are depicted for aquatic environments in Figure 2 and for terrestrial environments in Figure 3. Solid lines indicate significant routes of exposure, whereas dashed lin es denote exposure routes not assessed due to the likelihood of low potential e xposure. Likely signi ficant exposure pathways to both aquatic and terrestrial organisms include direct appl ication, spray drift, runoff, and leaching to groundwater. Nontarget plants are expected to be exposed to fl umetsulam from direct foliar exposure, from spray drift, and from uptake of fl umetsulam from the roots, and in the case of aquatic plants, from absorption from the ambient water. Terrestrial animals are expected to be exposed primarily from consumption of contamin ated plants and animals that were directly sprayed, drinking of contaminated water, a nd dermal contact to contaminated soil and vegetation. Aquatic animals are expected to be exposed primarily from exposure to contaminated water. Because of the low potential to accumulate in animal tissue, secondary exposure to aquatic and terrestrial animals is expected to be minimal. Because of flumetsulam’s high solubility and low binding potential, expos ure to bound residues in soil and sediment is expected to be minimal. Finally, due to the low volatility and low Henry’s Law Constant of flumetsulam, exposure from inhalation is not expected to be significant.

### Stressor

Source

Exposure Media

Receptors Uptake/gills

or integument 

# l

quatic animals nvertebrates ertebrates



### Attribute Change ndividual organism educed survival educed growth educed reproduction ,_ ......... -
.. -
..... -
.. .. - Wetldry deposition

......... .. ... _;

Food cha i n Reduction in algae and

vascular plants Reduction 

### in prey Modification of PCEs

related 

### to prey availability Riparian plants terrestrial exposure pathways see**F~ure** 

### 3

itat int egr i ty eduction in primary produ · · educed 

### cover mmuoity change edification of PCEs related 

### to habitat



### Figure 2. Conceptual model depicting stressors, exposure pathw!lys, and potential effects to aquatic animals and p l ants from the use of flumetsulam.

21

### Stressor

Source Flutnetsulam Appl ic ation**~ ~**  

### Exposure Media 

### & Receptors**~** 

# l

Attribute Change Terrestr i al plants grasses/forbs, fruit, seeds (trees, shrubs) -Root uptake/contact 

## l

l

............. . .......................... Wet/dry deposition._;

L-----....----_...-- -.-. lngestion

ndivfdual organisms educed survival educed growth educed reproduction Food chain Reduction in prey and food Modification of PCEs

related to prey availability abitat integrity eduction in primary productivity educed cover ommunity change edification of PCEs related to hab itat



### Figure 3. Conceptual model depicting stressors , exposure pathways, and potential effects to terrestrial animals and plants from the use o f flumetsulam.



### 3

. Risk Hypothesis

A risk hypothesis describes the predicted relationship among the stre ssor , exposure, and
assessment endpoint response along 

### with the rationale for their selection. For flumetsulam, the followin g ecological risk hypothes is is being employed for thi s national-level ecological ri sk
assessment:



### Flumetsulam, when used in accordanc e with current labels, may result in contamination of ecosystems and adverse effects upon the survival

, growth, and reproduction ofnontarget terrestrial and aquatic organisms. including organisms that are federally-listed as threatened and endangered species

.

22

### 23 This risk assessment focuses on exposures and potential effects from exposure to flumetsulam as the sole stressor. Currently, there are ongoing ef forts between EPA, FWS, and NMFS, who are working together to develop methods to a ssess possible effects of mixture components quantitatively, or qualitatively, if data are available to speak to the potential modification of toxicity of the active ingredient(s), or the sens itivity of the receptor organism. A risk hypothesis describes the predicted relati onship among the stressor, exposure, and assessment endpoint response along with the rationale for their selection. For flum etsulam, the following ecological risk hypothesis is being employed for this national-level ecological risk assessment:

Flumetsulam, when used in accordance with current labels, may result in contamination of ecosystems and adverse effects upon the survival, growth, a nd reproduction of nontarget terrestrial and aquatic organisms, including organisms that are federally-listed as threatened and endangered species.

### 24 III. ANALYSIS

A. Measures of Exposure

1. Environmental Fate and Modeling Input Parameters

Physical/Chemical and Environmental Fate Properties

The physical/chemical properties and environmental fate properties of flumetsulam are listed in Table 6.

Table 6. Physical/chemical Properties and Envi ronmental Fate Properties of Flumetsulam.

PARAMETER VALUE(S) SOURCE (Study Acceptability Classification) a COMMENTS

Molecular Structure

Chemical Name (common) Flumetsulam

CAS Number 98967-40-9

Name CAS: N-(2,6-difluorophenylsulphamoyl)-5-methyl(1,2,4)- Triazolo(1,5-a)pyrimidine

IUPAC: 2 ′ ,6 ′ -difluoro-5-methyl[1,2,4]triazolo[1,5- a ]pyrimidine-2- sulfonanilide
Chemical Class Triazolopyrimidine herbicide Sulfonanilide herbicide http://www.alanwo od.net/pestici des/flumetsulam.html

Molecular Formula C 12 H 9 F 2 N 5 O 2 S -

Molecular Weight 325.3 41931731 b

Solubility in water (25 o C) 5650 mg/L @ pH 7.0 (25 ° C) 42512501 b , 41931731 b

Vapor Pressure (25 o C) 2.8 x 10 -15 mmHg (25 ° C) 41931731 b Extrapolated by registrant from 100°C
Henry’s Law Constant (25 o C) 6.14e -15 atm-m 3 /mol @25 ° C Calculated Not volatile

Hydrolysis Half-life @ pH7 (25 o C) Stable 41263229 (a)

### 25 PARAMETER VALUE(S) SOURCE (Study Acceptability Classification) a COMMENTS

Aqueous Photolysis Half-life (pH 4) Stable 41931726, 41931727 (a)

Aerobic Soil Metabolism Halflife (ASM) (T 1/2 ) 23, 60, 93, 102 days [ range 13 to 130 days; mean = 51.0 days] 41263230 (a), 41931731, 41931732, 41290403 T 1/2 23, 60, 93, 102 days; mean = 69,5 days ( MRID 41263230 ).

Anaerobic Aquatic Soil Metabolism 183 days 41931733 (a)

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half-life (days) 1762 [ 14 C-pyrimidine ring] days 1319 [ 14 C-analine ring] days 43592203 (a)

Soil Partition Coefficient (K d ) (mL/g) 0.95, 0.46, 0.05, 0.09, 0.19, 0.19, 0.56, 0.91, 0.52, 0.15, 0.73, 0.47, 0.19, 0.48, 1.05, 0.19, 0.22, 0.14, 0.51, 0.79, 0.89, 1.00,0.50 41263231, 41290403, 41931734 (a) Aged leaching 42512501(s) Very mobile

Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient (K oc ) (mL/g oc ) 42, 24, 21, 5, 31, 18, 32, 71, 13, 47, 24, 10, 21, 74, 13, 10, 17, 10, 38, 39, 24, 15 41263231, 41290403, 41931734 (a) Aged leaching 42512501 (s)
Log Octanol/water partition coefficient (K ow )(25 ◦ C) Log K ow = 0.21 @ pH 7 42512501

Terrestrial Field Dissipation Half-life 1.5 to 3 months 41931735 (a)

Bioconcentration Factor (BCF) in fish No data - BCF study not triggered because K ow is <<< 1000

pK a (acid dissociation constant) 4.6 41931731 b

a Study classification (a) = acceptabl e study ; (s) = supplemental study



### The average aerobic soil metabolism (ASM) half- life for the four soils in the submitted study (MRID 41263230) was 69.5 days with soil pH values ranging from 5.9 to 7.1 and OC content ranging from 0.6 to 4.2%. The major route of di ssipation for flumetsulam is believed to be metabolism in aerobic soils, where metabolism half- lives ranged from 13 days in sandy loam to 130 days in loam soil. Metabolites were less than 10% of applied radioactivity and were not identified.

Terrestrial field dissipation (TFD) studies we re conducted at four lo cations: Midland, MI, Geneseo, IL, Wayside, MS, and Burdette, MS, in the US soybean/corn growing areas during 1987 and 1988 (MRID 41931735). Based on these studies, minimal leaching (<5 ppb of total applied to 18” layer) of flumetsulam was noted, despite ample rainfall during the first growing season. In well-drained low orga nic matter soil with ra infall shortly after application, some movement into the deep layer so il profile was seen (<10 ppb in the 12-18” layer afte r 2 weeks).

The low mobility of flumetsulam in the field compared to the laboratory adsorption/desorption studies could be explained by the fact that these laboratory studies only take into account surface adsorption as one of the soil retention processes. Other processes such as entrapment in humus

### 26 or clay interlayers, or covale nt bonding to humus may retain la rge quantities of a chemical, but were not included in th e determination of K oc 

### values in the adsorption/desorption studies. This is more evident in the aged leaching study during which flumetsulam is in contact with the soil long enough to undergo other soil processes in addition to soil surface adsorption. The K d-ads 

### values in these studies are much higher, rangi ng from 0.9 for sandy loam soil to 1.1 ml/g for silt loam. The soil retention of flumetsu lam (MRID 41931734), as indicated by the adsorption/desorption studies, does not seem to be strongly dependent on any of the major properties of the tested soils, as would be expected from a chemical with a pK a 

### value of 4.6. The measured K d 

### s tended to be greater (avera ge 0.69 mL/g) at pH values ≤ 7.1 then at pH values ≥ 7.4 (0.23 mL/g). Sorption was also weakly correla ted with soil organic carbon content (p=0.055). The K d 

### values range from 0.05 to 1.05 mL/g and K oc 

### values range from 5 to 74 mL/g oc 

### which categorizes flumetsulam as mobile to highly mobile 1 

### . The low vapor pressure and Henry’s Law constant of flumetsulam suggest that it will not volatilize appreciably from soil or surface water.

While flumetsulam is more soluble in neutral waters than in acidic water, it is very resistant to abiotic reactions (stable to hydrolysis, as well as photolysis in water and on soil). Flumetsulam degrades to CO 2 

### with no significant accumulation of interm ediate degradates, except for reduced flumetsulam hydrate [N-(2,6 difluorophenyl)- 4,5,6,7-tetrahydro-5-hyd roxy-5-methyl-(1,2,4)- triazolo(1,5-a)pyrimidine-2-sulfonamide], formed in the anaerobic aquatic study. Oxidation will cause a transformation back to flumetsulam. Fl umetsulam hydrate accounted for 52% of the total applied radiation at day 360, and degraded with a half life of about 180 days. However, this degradate was found to accumulate less (max of <8% of total applied radiation) and degrade more quickly (t 1⁄2 

### about 2 days) in a weakly anaerobic test system that became progressively more anaerobic with time. Flumetsulam degraded more slowly in aerobic aquatic systems compared to anaerobic aquatic conditions. No degradation products were iden tified. Calculated pseudo-first order half-lives were 1762 and 1319 days for the 14 

### C-pyrimidine and 14 

### C-analine labels, respectively.

Since flumetsulam does not rapidly metabolize wh en in contact with soils and does not bind strongly to soil surfaces, there is a potential for runoff from applic ation sites to adjacent surface waters. Persistence in water indicates that fl umetsulam may persist long enough to present some concern to surface water and ground water resources. Volatilization is not expected to be a major route of dissipation from either water or soil for flumetsulam.

Aquatic Modeling Input Parameters

Potential aquatic exposures were estimated using the Pesticide Root Zone Model (version 3.12.3, 6/2006) and Exposure Analysis Mode ling System (version 2.98.04.06, 4/2005) (PRZM/EXAMS), linked with the pe5.pl input shell (11/2006). PRZM simulates fate and transport of pesticides on the agricultural field and EXAMS simulates the fate and resulting daily concentrations of pesticides that reach an ad jacent water body through runoff, erosion, and spray drift. Simulations are based on crop-specific sc enarios developed to represent environmental conditions at sites at high runo ff-vulnerability for pesticide tran sport to surface waters from a particular crop. Exposure is estimated using a standard pond scenario based on a10-ha field bordering a 1-ha water body, 2-m deep (20,000 m 3 

### ) with no outlet. Using appropriate scenarios

1 EFED Standardized So il Mobility Classification Guidance; April 21, 2006

### 27 linked with local meteorological data, the model is run for 30 years with the reported EECs representing the values that are expected once ev ery ten years, based on the thirty years of daily values generated during the simulation. Additi onal information about model assumptions and uncertainties, input guidance, and scenario meta data are available at the EPA’s water modeling website, http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/ . The input parameters used in this aquatic modeling assessment are selected from the environmental fate data submitted by the registrant generally in accordance with wa ter model parameter guidance (T able 6). Three application methods were considered: preemergence spra y (Chemical Application Method (CAM) = 1), postemergence (CAM=2), and impregnated fert ilizer (CAM = 1). Pesticide application management inputs for PRZM are summarized in Table 7 and spray drift parameters. Ground (G) or aerial (A) spray methods were assu med for both the preemergence and postemergence applications.

Table 7. PRZM/EXAMS Input Parameters for Flumetsulam

Model Parameter Value Reference (MRIDs) Molecular Weight (g/mole) 325.3 41931734 Henry’s Law Constant (atm-m 3 /mol) 2.8 x 10 -15 Calculated Vapor Pressure (torr) 2.8 x 10 -15 (25°C) 41931735 Solubility (mg/L) 5650 @ pH7 (25°C) 41931734 Aqueous Photolysis Half-life [t 1⁄2 ](days) a stable 41931726, 41931727

Hydrolysis [t 1⁄2 ] @ pH 7 (days) stable 41263229

Aerobic Soil Half-life [t 1⁄2 ] (days) 98.9 T 1/2 :23, 60, 93, 102 days ( MRID 41263230 ).

Aerobic Aquatic Half-life [t 1⁄2 ] (days) Mean = 1540 90% upper bound = 2222.3 43592203 `

Anaerobic Aquatic Half-life [t 1⁄2 ](days) 549 (3 x 183 days) 41931733 [t 1⁄2 =183 days highly anaerobic conditions] Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient (K oc ) (mL/g oc ) 27.23 41263231, 41290403, 41931734 [Average K oc , n =22 see Table 6 Input Parameter Value and Unit Chemical Application Method (CAM) Aerial and Ground Applications CAM = 1 soil applied/broadcast CAM = 2 linear foliar based on crop canopy Application Efficiency Aerial Applications = 0.95 Ground Applications = 0.99 Impregnated Fertilizer = 1.00 Spray Drift Fraction [for Ecological Risk Assessment] Aerial Applications = 0.05 Ground Applications = 0.01 Impregnated Fertilizer = 0.0 

### Some uncertainties exist in c hoosing input parameters. The ae robic soil metabolism half-life value used was the 90 percent upper bound estimate d of the mean (98.9 days), the 90 percent upper bound estimate of all soils is 59.4 day). A variation from st andard input guidance is that the numeric average for the aerobic aquatic half -life (1540 days) was used for modeling in place of the 90 percent upper bound of th e mean (2222 days), because considerable uncertainty exists for estimating half-lives which are 3 to 4 times longer than th e study duration. However, aerobic

### 28 aquatic metabolism half-life values this long we re observed to have little influence on the PRZM/EXAMS estimated flumetsulam concentrations.

Monitoring Data

The registrant previously submitted a small s cale prospective groundwater monitoring studies were conducted in corn and soybean growi ng areas in Indiana (MRID 44451301) and North Carolina (MRID 44451302). The study sites would be considered as hydrol ogically vulnerable due to the depth to the water table and soil/vadose zone material. Both studies were conducted at sites where water table depths of ranged betw een 10 and 17 feet below ground surface (bgs) at the Indiana (1436 day study) site and 8 to 18 feet bgs at the North Caro lina (1420 day study) site. Average water depths for the two studies were approximately 13 feet below land surface. Irrigation was applied during the studies. Soil and vadose zone te xtures tended to range from sandy loam to sand. Soil was sampled and analyz ed as were water samples collected from suction lysimeters (within treated area) and groundwater monitoring we lls (up-gradient and down-gradient wells outside treated area). Soil samples are limited for assessing the mobility of flumetsulam in soil due to relatively high detection limits and sampling increments. At the Indiana site, trace levels of fl umetsulam were detected in soil pore water. Three of the four down-gradient monitoring wells had detections of <0.05 to 0.10 μg/L (18 to 47 months after treatment (MAT)). At the NC site, flumetsula m moved to the 3-foot depth along with the bromide tracer. Maximum concentrations were dete cted at 6-, 9-, and 12-ft soil water depth were about 0.26 ppb (3-MAT), 0.28 ppb (3-MAT), and 0.13 ppb (4-MAT), respectively. Flumetsulam was less than the LOD (<0.025 ppb) in soil water sa mples collected from below 3-ft by 17-MAT. Flumetsulam was detected in groundwater at th e NC site on 0-DAT (maximum concentration 0.114 μg/L) in two wells. No other detections were noted.

Other Monitoring Studies

Surface and ground water data from available pes ticide monitoring program s were reviewed to provide additional context concerning the potenti al presence of flumetsulam in ambient water resources. These water monitoring programs do not target sample collection to peak use locations or application times fo r particular pesticides, nor do th ey target sample collection to high precipitation events ( i.e.
, high-runoff events) or areas hi ghly vulnerable to groundwater contamination. Additionally, the sampling fre quency in these monitoring programs was not designed to capture peak concentrations. Ther efore, the monitoring data reported by these programs may not represent the highest concentr ations in ambient su rface water, and are considered qualitative information for the purposes of this ecol ogical risk assessment

. The groundwater monitoring studies also were not selected based upon flumetsulam use.

U.S. Geological Survey surface water monitori ng data are available for flumetsulam (see http://co.water.usgs.gov/midconherb/html/sulfonylurea.html ). In 1998, 214 water samples were collected during post-application runoff events at 76 surface-water and 25 ground-water sites. Flumetsulam was detected in 65% of the stream samples, making it the second most frequently detected pesticide (out of a total of 16 ). Flumetsulam (method reporting limit MRL = 0.010 μg/L) was also detected in 57% of the reservoir samples and in 12% of well-water samples (3 out of 25). All flumetsulam detections were below 1 μg/L. It should be noted that is no indication that these monitoring data were intended for the high use area of this herbicide or that the

### 29 sampling scheme was designed to capture the p eak run off concentration during the high use periods. Therefore, the data are presented here for informational purposes only, and were not used quantitatively in the assessment.

USGS-EPA Pilot Reservoir Monitoring Program

– A pilot reservoir monitoring project was initiated by the USEPA’s Office of Pesticide Prog rams, Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED/OPP), USEPA’s Office of Ground Wate r and Drinking Water (OGWDW/OW), and USGS National Water Quality Assessment (USGS/ NAWQA) to assess pesticide concentrations in raw and finished drinking water (Blomquist et al. 2001 2 

### ). Reservoirs were sampled because they are important sources of drinking water a nd because they store runoff water and pesticide loadings within their watersheds.

In this study, twelve water-s upply reservoirs and Community Water Systems (CWS) were selected based on vulnerability for pesticide cont amination. Small watersheds with high pesticide use and high runoff potential were given the high est priority in the selection process. Other factors considered were repres entation across pesticide use areas, integration with ongoing monitoring efforts, and feasibility of monitoring. These sites were not specifically targeted to flumetsulam use areas. Flumetsulam was detected in about 3 percent of the raw-intake water samples with a maximum concentration of 0.09 μg/L (Table 8).

Table 8. Flumetsulam detections in USGS EPA Pilot Reservoir Monitoring Program.

Water Source # Detections/#Samples Detection Frequency (%) Maximum Concentration (μg/L)
Raw Water-Intake 9/312 2.9 0.088 Finished Water-Tap 4/225 1.8 0.087



### California Surface Water Monitoring Program Data - There were no flumetsulam detections (with LOD of 0.011 to 0.0866 μg/L) in the Cali fornia surface water monitoring program’s database for the period October 2001 to July 2010(current to April 2013). California Surface Water Monitoring Program data are available at http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/surfwtr/surfdata.htm

.

Groundwater - There were no detections (with LOD 0.05 μg/L) of flumetsulam in 745 well sampled (36 counties) in California (CDPR, 2013).

USGS National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program Data – Flumetsulam is included as an analyte in the USGS NAWQA monitoring program (Table 9). NAWQA program data are available at http://infotrek.er.usgs.go v/apex/f?p=NAWQA:HOME:0 . Maximum detection in surface water was 1.1 μg/L and in groundwater 0.051 μg/L with a MDL of 0.011 to 0.0866 μg/L.

Table 9. Summary Groundwater and Surface Wate r Monitoring Data for Flumetsulam in the NAWQA database groundwater and surface water.

2 Blomquist, J.D., J.M. Deni s, J.L. Cowles, J.A. Hetrick, R. D. Jones, N.B. Birchfield. 2001. Pe sticides in Selected Water-Supply

Reservoirs and Finished Drinking Water, 1999-2000; Summary of Results from a Pilot Monitoring Program. Open-File Report 01-456. U.S. Geological Survey. Baltimore, MD.

### 30 Water Type Number of Samples Number of Detections Range of Detections (μg/L) Groundwater 2246 17 0.0031 to 0.0509 Surface Water 2769 62 0.0034 to 1.0828



### USDA Pesticide Data Program (PDP) Data - The PDP drinking water monitoring project provides non-targeted pesticide occurrence data in raw, finished (treated/tap), and groundwater for selected community water systems in the United States. The flumetsulam water monitoring data from 2003 to 2011 PDP are summarized in Tabl e 10. Detections tended to be in the part per trillion (ppt or ng/L) or low ppb (μg/L) levels. PD P data are available at http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/pdp

.

Table 10. Flumetsulam detections in the USDA PDP Database.
Water Source Year # of samples # Samples with detects % of sample with detect Range of Values detected

(ppt) Range of LOD b (ppt) Drinking water 2003 321 9 2.8 6.0-200 Finished 2004 233 - - - 6.0-196 Unfinished 2004 233 1 0.4 24 ^ 6.0-196 Drinking water 2005 662 - - 10 ^ Finished 2005 230 4 1.7 10 ^ 6-129 Unfinished 2005 231 7 3.0 10 ^ 6-129 Finished 2006 365 - - - 6-129 Unfinished 2006 367 - - - 6-129 Finished 2007 368 - - - 6.0-128 Unfinished 2007 362 - - - 6.0-128 Groundwater 2010 14 - - - 6.0 ^ Finished 2010 284 1 0.4 33 ^ 6.0-20 Unfinished 2010 282 1 0.4 33 ^ 6.0-20 Groundwater residence 2011 232 1 0.4 15.5 ^ 8.6-20 Groundwater school/daycare 2011 372 - - - 8.6-20 Finished 2011 118 2 1.7 23-25 6.0 ^ Unfinished 2011 120 2 1.7 10 ^ 6.0 ^

^ 1 distinct detected concentration or LOD was reported for the pair. b LOD limit of detection



### Terrestrial Modeling an d Input Parameters

Terrestrial exposure estimates for avian and mamma lian risk assessments were derived using the T-REX model (version 1.5.2, 6/6/2013) . To provide a conservative sc reen of risk to terrestrial animals, all runs of T-REX were done for a sing le application at the maximum annual rate of 0.07 lb a.i./A, the highest application rate permitted for any use of flumetsulam. Spray applications with aerial equipment were assume d. Applications of flumetsulam via impregnation of dry bulk fertilizer were modeled as a granul ar application, and risk was assessed using the LD 50 

### -per-square-foot index. Because data were not available to estimate the foliar dissipation rate of flumetsulam on plants, a nd because environmental fate data indicate that flumetsulam is moderately persistent to persistent in the enviro nment, the default value of 35 days was used as the foliar half-life. As only one application was modeled, the peak EEC which is used to calculate acute and chro nic risk quotients occurs immediatel y after application. Therefore, the selection of the foliar half-lif e has no effect on the calculated terrestrial EECs or RQs.

### 31 Exposure estimates for terrestrial plants were derived using the TerrPlant model (version 1.2.2, 12/26/2006). For use on corn and soybean, separate model runs were conducted for aerial and ground applications, for pre-emergence and post-em ergence applications, and for application as impregnated fertilizer. Because of the high solu bility of flumetsulam (and the associated high mobility), the runoff fraction was set at 0.05.

Table 11. Input Parameters for T-REX M odeling for All Uses of Flumetsulam

Input Parameters Value Source Single Application Rate (lb a.i./A) All Uses: 0.07 Product labels

Foliar Half-life 35 days Default value 1 Number of Applications (Interval between Applications, days) All Uses: 1 Product labels

Avian Oral LD 50 2,250 mg/kg-bw (bobwhite) MRID 41263218 Avian Dietary LC 50 5620 mg/kg-bw (bobwhite and mallard) MRID 41263219 and 41263220
Avian NOAEC 300 mg/kg-diet (bobwhite) MRID 41931741
Mammal LD 50 5000 mg/kg-bw (rat) MRID 41263207
Mammal NOAEC 1000 mg/kg-diet (rat) MRID 41263213 and 41615302

1 The foliar half-life did not influence the prediction of the terrestrial EECs for flumetsulam because only one application of flumetsulam is allowed per season, and thus the peak concentration occurs immediately after this single application before any dissipation occurs.



### B. Ecological Effects Characterization

1. Aquatic Animals

The available acute toxicity da ta on flumetsulam are provided in Table 12. Based on these data, flumetsulam is classified as practically nontoxic to all fish aquatic i nvertebrates on an acute toxicity basis.

Table 12. Acute Toxicity of Flumetsulam to Aquatic Animals
Taxonomic Group, Study Type Surrogate Species Toxicity Toxicity Classifica tion MRID Acceptability Classification

Fish Freshwater fish, Acute Rainbow Trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) 96-hr LC 50 >300 mg a.i./L Practically nontoxic 41263221 Acceptable Bluegill Sunfish ( Lepomis macrochirus ) 96-hr LC 50 >300 mg a.i./L Practically nontoxic 41263222 Acceptable

Fathead Minnow ( Pimephales promelas ) 96-hr LC 50 >293 mg a.i./L Practically nontoxic 41263223 Acceptable
Saltwater, Acute Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia) 96-hr LC 50 >380 mg a.i./L Practically nontoxic 41263225 Acceptable
Aquatic Invertebrates Freshwater Invertebrates, Acute Water flea ( Daphnia magna ) 48-hr EC 50 = 254 mg ai/L Practically nontoxic 41263224 Acceptable

Saltwater Acute Grass Shrimp LC 50 > 349 mg a.i./L Practi cally 41263226 Acceptable

### 32 Taxonomic Group, Study Type Surrogate Species Toxicity Toxicity Classifica tion MRID Acceptability Classification Crustacean ( Palaemonetes vulgaris ) nontoxic

Saltwater Acute Mollusk (Shell deposition) Eastern oyster ( Crassostrea virginica ) EC 50 > 108 mg a.i./L Practically nontoxic 41263227 Acceptable



### Two chronic aquatic toxicity test s are available for flumetsulam, a fish early life-stage study with a freshwater fish and a life-cycle study with a waterflea (Table 13). These studies indicate that aquatic animals can tolerate high concentrations of flumetsulam (above those which are environmentally relevant for the re gistered herbicidal uses), with little or no toxic effects on growth or reproduction.

Table 13. Chronic Toxicity of Flumetsulam to Aquatic Animals Taxonomic Group, Study Type Surrogate Species Toxicity Citation MRID Acceptability Classification Fish
Freshwater Fish, Early Life-Stage Fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas ) NOAEC: 197 mg ai/L LOAEC: >197 mg ai/L (No toxic effects observed) MRID 42465101 Acceptable

Freshwater Invertebrates

Freshwater Invertebrates,

Life-Cycle Water flea ( Daphnia magna ) NOAEC: 111 mg ai/L LOAEC: 200 mg ai/L (Based on 17% reduction of body weight) MRID 42465102 Acceptable



### 2. Aquatic Plants

Data on the toxicity of flumetsulam on aqua tic plants are available for green algae, cyanobacterium ( i.e. , bluegreen algae), freshwater and salt water diatoms, and a duckweed (Table 14). The green alga Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata and the duckweed Lemna gibba were the most sensitive species tested, both with IC 50 

### values slightly greater than 3 μg a.i./L. Cyanobacteria was somewhat less sensitive (IC 50 

### 160 μg/L) to flumetsulam, while diatoms were much less sensitive (IC 50 

### 42-54 mg/L).

Studies conducted in China for the purpose of sc reening large number of pe sticides for toxicity to algae provided additional data on the toxicity of flumetsulam to various species of green algae (Ma and Liang, 2001; Ma et. al. , 2002; Ma et. al. , 2004 ; Ma et. al. , 2006). All of these papers published results from screening tests involving numerous herbic ides. Very little information was given on individual tests. For example, the test concentrations used in the tests with flumetsulam were not given. The studies used sp ectrophotometry (optical density at 680 nm) to estimate cell density. The accuracy of this method was not verified. Cell growth was measured after 4 days of exposure, whereas the OCSPP guide lines specify at least 5 days of exposure. Finally, the studies used an unappr oved method for estimation of IC 50 

### values (linear regression of percentages of inhibition ag ainst the natural log of concen trations). Because of these

### 33 deficiencies, the EPA has low confidence in these reported IC 50 

### values, which were considerably higher than the IC 50 

### obtained from an OCSPP guidelin e study with green algae (MRID 41931743). The EPA has classified these papers as “qualitative,” signif ying that the results should not be used for quantitative risk assessments.

Table 14. Acute Toxicity Values of Flumetsulam to Aquatic Plants
Taxonomic Group, Study Type Surrogate Species Toxicity Citation MRID Acceptability Classification

Algae, Growth and Reproduction Green algae ( Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata ) 5-d IC 50 = 3.21 μg a.i./L NOAEC = 0.36 μg a.i./L (based on 5-day cell density) MRID 4193174 3 Acceptable

Freshwater diatom ( Navicula pelliculosa ) 5-d IC 50 = 41.6 mg a.i./L NOAEC = 21.8 mg a.i./L (based on 5-day cell density) MRID 4247310 3 Acceptable

Saltwater diatom ( Skelatonema costatum ) 5-d IC 50 = 54.7 mg a.i./L NOAEC = 29.5 mg a.i./L (based on 5-day cell density) MRID 4247310 2 Acceptable

Cyanobacteria,

Growth and Reproduction Bluegreen Algae ( Anabaena flos-aquae ) 5-d IC 50 = 160 μg a.i./L LOAEC = 120 μg a.i./L NOAEC = 120 μg a.i./L MRID 4247310 1 Acceptable

Vascular Aquatic Plants Duckweed ( Lemna gibba ) 14-d IC 50 = 3.1μg/L NOAEC: 1.4 μg/L LOAEC: 3.9 μg/L MRID 4247310 4 Acceptable



### 3. Terrestrial Animals

Table 15 presents the acute toxicity data that the Agency used to assess the risk of flumetsulam to terrestrial animals and plants. These studies indicate that flumetsulam has low acute toxicity to all taxa of terrestrial animals. Acute oral and subacute dietary st udies with the northern bobwhite and mallard all classify flumetsulam as practically nontoxic to birds. Birds act as surrogates for reptiles and terr estrial-phase amphibians when data on those species are not available. Acute toxicity studies with the rat also classify flum etsulam as practically nontoxic to mammals. Studies on dermal and inhalation toxic ity in mammals found no mo rtality at the doses tested, indicating low acute toxicity through thes e exposure routes. Fina lly, an acute contact study with the honey bee classifies flumet sulam as practically nontoxic to bees.

Table 15. Acute Toxicity of Flum etsulam to Terrestrial Species
Taxonomic

Group, Study Type Surrogate Species Toxicity (expressed as AI) Citation MRID Acceptability Classification

Birds 1

Birds 1 , Acute Oral Bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus ) LD 50 > 2250 mg a.i./kg-bw MRID 4126318 Acceptable

### 34 Taxonomic

Group, Study Type Surrogate Species Toxicity (expressed as AI) Citation MRID Acceptability Classification

Birds 1 , Subacute Dietary Bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus ) LC 50 > 5620 mg/kg-diet MRID 41263220 Acceptable

Mallard ( Anas platyrhynchos ) LC 50 > 5620 mg/kg-diet MRID 41263219 Acceptable

Mammals Mammals, Acute Oral Laboratory rat ( Rattus norvegicus ) LD 50 > 5000 mg a.i./kg-bw MRID 4126320 7 Acceptable
Mammals, Acute Inhalation (4-hr exposure) Female laboratory rat ( Rattus norvegicus ) LC 50 > 0.6 mg a.i./L MRID 41556502 Acceptable (Minimal)
Mammals, Acute Dermal New Zealand Rabbit LC 50 > 2000 mg a.i./kg-bw MRID 4126320 8 Acceptable

Beneficial Insects
Bee, acute contact Honey bee ( Apis mellifera ) LD 50 > 100 μg a.i./bee MRID 4126322 8 Acceptable 1. Birds represent surrogates for te rrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles.


### Table 16 provides results of chronic toxicity tests conducted with birds and mammals. The northern bobwhite was the most sensitive avian test species. A dietary concentration of 600 mg a.i./kg significantly reduced the survival of em bryos and hatchlings, establishing the NOAEC at 300 mg a.i./L. For mammals, dietary concentrati ons up to 1000 mg a.i./kg diet resulted in no frank effects that are clearly re lated to reproduction or survival. The NOAEC for frank effects is thus ≥ 1000 mg a.i./kg diet. If all sublethal e ffects were considered, the mammalian NOAEC would be 500 mg a.i./kg diet, based on an incr ease of cecal weights at 1000 mg a.i./kg diet.

Table 16. Chronic Toxicity of Flumetsulam to Terrestrial Animals
Taxonomic

Group, Study Type Surrogate Species Toxicity (expressed as AI) Citation MRID Acceptability Classification

Birds 1

, Reproduction Northern bobwhite ( Colinus virginianus ) NOAEC: 300 mg a.i./kg-diet LOAEC: 600 mg a.i./kg-diet (based on reduced survival of

embryos and hatchlings) MRID 41931741 Acceptable

Mallard ( Anas platyrhynchos ) NOAEC: 600 mg a.i./kg-dietLOAEC: >600 mg a.i./kgdiet MRID 41931742 Acceptable

Mammals, 2-

Generation Reproduction Laboratory rat ( Rattus norvegicus ) NOAEC: 1000 mg/kg diet LOAEC: >1000 mg/kg diet (no adverse effects observed) MRID 41931710 + 42474001 Acceptable, Minimum

Mammal, Developmental Female laboratory rat ( Rattus norvegicus ) Frank effects: NOAEC: 1000 mg/kg diet LOAEC: >1000 mg/kg diet (no adverse effects observed)

Other effects: NOAEC: 500 mg/kg diet LOAEC: 1000 mg/kg diet (increased cecal weights) MRID 41263213 + 41615302 Acceptable, Minimum

1. Birds represent surrogates for terr estrial-phase amphibians and reptiles.

### 35 Taxonomic

Group, Study Type Surrogate Species Toxicity (expressed as AI) Citation MRID Acceptability Classification



### 4. Terrestrial Plants

Results of Tier II terrestrial plant toxicity tests with flumet sulam are summarized in Table 17. Flumetsulam is highly toxic to te rrestrial plants. Phytotoxicity was observed to both monocot and dicot plants at low exposure leve ls in both the seedling emergence and the vegetative vigor tests. The most sensitive toxicity measure in a monocot plant was the reduction of shoot weight in onion in a vegetative vigor test (NOAEL = 0.000093 lb a.i./A, IC 25 

### = 0.00058 lb a.i./A, MRID 42573901). The most sensitive toxicity measure in a dicot plant was the reduction of shoot weight in rapeseed in a seedling emergence test (IC 05 

### = 0.00019 lb a.i./A, IC 25 

### = 0.000045 lb a.i./A, MRID 43485801).

Table 17. Toxicity of Flumetsulam to Terrestrial Plants
Taxonomic

Group, Study Type Surrogate Species Toxicity (expressed as AI) Citation MRID Acceptability Classification

Terrestrial Plants (Seedling Emergence) Monocots (Corn) NOAEL = 0.0225 lb a.i./A LOAEL = 0.0674 lb a.i./A IC 25 > 0.00197 lb a.i./A (Based on reduced plant weight) 42573901 Supplemental, except Invalid for rapeseed

Dicots (Cucumber) NOAEL = 0.0075 lb a.i./A LOAEL = 0.0225 lb a.i./A IC 25 = 0.00135 lb a.i./A (based on reduced plant height) 42573901 Supplemental, except Invalid for rapeseed

Terrestrial Plants (Seedling Emergence Datafrom a NonGuideline Study) Monocots (Sorghum) IC 25 : 0.00170 lb a.i./A IC 05 : 0.000568 lb a.i./A 1 (based on reduced shoot weight) 43485801 Supplemental 2

Dicots (Rapeseed) IC 25 : 0.000188 lb a.i./A IC 05 : 0.0000452 lb a.i./A 1 (based on reduced plant weight) 43485801 Supplemental 2

Terrestrial Plants (Vegetative Vigor) Monocots (Onion) NOAEL = 0.000093 lb a.i./A LOAEL = 0.00028 lb a.i./A EC 25 = 0.00058 lb a.i./A (based on reduced shoot weight 42573901 Supplemental, except invalid for rapeseed 3

Dicots (Radish) NOAEL = 0.00028 lb a.i./A LOAEL = 0.00083 lb a.i./A EC 25 = 0.00027 lb a.i./A (based on reduced shoot weight) 42573901 Supplemental, except invalid for rapeseed 3

1 . The IC 05 is reported in place of the NOAEL because the study report did report the data for this endpoint in manner that permitted calculation of the NOAEL.

### 36 2. The study was classified as supplemental because the study report did not provide replicate-level means for measurements of shoot weight and shoot length, and therefore the NOAEL and LOAEL could not be determined for these endpoints.
3. The data for rapeseed were invalid because the se eds were treated with th ree different fungicides.



### Results of phytotoxicity tests with flumetsulam re ported in the open literatu re were reviewed to determine if any published result showed greater toxicity ( i.e. , lower IC x 

### values) than those obtained from the studies submitted by the pesticide registrant. The only published study reporting greater phytotoxicity was a study on the effects of temperature on the phytotoxic response of wild radish ( Raphanus raphanistrum ) to flumetsulam Madafiglio et al ., 2000). The study design was generally similar to the vegetative vigor study (Guideline No. 850.4250). Young (two-leaf stage) wild radi sh plants were treated with foliar sprays of flumetsulam (Broadstrike® Herbicide) at vari ous application rates, allowed to grow for 13-16 days (until they reached the six-leaf stage, and then harvested. The biomass of the plants were measured and expressed as a percentage of the mean bioma ss of control plants. To test the effects of temperature, tests were conducted at different ambient temperatures ranging from 1 to 20 oC. The study found that toxicity of flum etsulam increased as the temp erature increased. Reported IC 50 

### values ranged from 0.0174 lb a. i./A at 1 oC to 0.000178 lb a. i./A at 20 oC. The reported IC 50 

### at 20 oC (0.000178 lb a.i./A) was lower than the lowest IC 25 

### value reported in the registrant-submitted vegetative vigor study (0.00027 lb a.i./A for radish), indicating that this speci es might be slightly more sensitive. However, the study authors note that in the test at 20 oC, all of the doses caused greater than 50% reduction in bi omass, and consequently the dos es were poorly distributed along the dose curve for estimating the IC 50 

### . Because of this, the estimated IC 50 

### value for the 20 oC is considered uncertain, and therefore will not be used as the phytotoxicity endpoint in the terrestrial plant RQ calculations, despite being slightly lower than the lowest reported IC 25 

### values. The reported IC 50 

### values for tests at other temperat ures were all greater than 0.001 lb a.i./A and were greater th an the vegetative vigor IC 25 

### value for radish from the registrantsubmitted study.

### 37 IV. RISK ESTIMATION

A. Exposure Estimates for Non-target Aquatic Animals and Plants

The PRZM and EXAMS models were used to de rive estimated environm ental concentrations (EECs) for exposure to aquatic organisms for use of flumetsulam on co rn and soybean with various application scenarios. Preemergence appli cation dates were selected to be prior to the plant emergence (scenario dependent) and postemergence date wa s 30 days after the preemergence application date. The application rates, reapplication intervals, and date of first application are also given. St andard EFED PRZM scenarios 3 

### for Kansas corn (KS corn), Mississippi corn (MS corn), California corn (C A corn) and soybeans (MS soybean) were used as these were the scenarios [except for CA corn] re sulted in the highest concentrations in surface runoff; these EECs are presented in Table 18. RQs were then calcu lated by dividing the appropriate EEC by the appropriate acute or chronic assessment endpoints for various taxa of aquatic organisms (Table 5). Peak EECs were us ed to calculate acute RQs, whereas 60-day and 21-day average EECs were used to calculate chr onic RQs for fish and aq uatic invertebrates, respectively.

Table 18. Tier II Surface Water Estimated Environmental Concentrations (EECs) for Registered Uses of Flumetsulam

Crop/Application Scenario Application Rate (lb a.i./A) Model Scenario ( Application Date: mn-day) Peak μ g/L (ppb) 21-day μ g/L (ppb) 60-day μ g/L (ppb)

Corn
Corn, preplant or preemergence, one spray aerial application 0.07 KS-Corn (5-1) 12.72 12.66 12.57

Corn, preplant or preemergence, one ground spray application 0.07 KS-Corn (5-1) 11.65 11.61 11.52

Corn, postemergence, one aerial spray application 0.06 KS-Corn (6-1) 9.84 9.80 9.76

Corn, postemergence, one ground spray application 0.06 KS-Corn (6-1) 8.80 8.76 8.69

Corn, application in impregnated dry bulk fertilizer 0.065 KS-Corn (6-1) 10.67 10.63 10.55

Corn, preplant or preemergence, one spray aerial application 0.07 MS-Corn (3-28) 10.95 10.92 10.84

Corn, preplant or preemergence, one ground spray application 0.07 MS-Corn (3-28) 10.13 10.09 10.03

Corn, postemergence, one aerial spray application 0.06 MS-Corn (4-28) 6.67 6.65 6.61

Corn, postemergence, one ground spray application 0.06 MS-Corn (4-28) 5.73 5.72 5.70

Corn, application in impregnated dry bulk fertilizer 0.065 MS-Corn (3-28) 9.29 9.26 9.20

Corn, preplant or preemergence, one spray aerial application 0.07 CA-Corn (3-31) 4.48 4.47 4.44

3 http://www.epa.gov/oppe fed1/models/water/

### 38 Crop/Application Scenario Application Rate (lb a.i./A) Model Scenario ( Application Date: mn-day) Peak μ g/L (ppb) 21-day μ g/L (ppb) 60-day μ g/L (ppb)

Soybean Soybean, preplant or preemergence, one aerial spray application 0.07 MS Soybean (3-31) 5.89 5.86 5.82

Soybean, preplant or preemergence, one ground spray application 0.07 MS Soybean (3-31) 4.80 4.78 4.74

Soybean, postemergence, two aerial spray applications, 14 days between applications 0.006 (x2) MS Soybean (5-10) 0.917 0.91 0.91

Soybean, postemergence, one ground spray application 0.015 MS Soybean (5-10) 1.06 1.06 1.05

Soybean, one ground application in impregnated dry bulk fertilizer 0.065 MS Soybean (3-31) 4.24 4.22 4.19



### Risk to fish and aquatic invert ebrates was assessed using the cons ervative assumption of a single application at the maximum annual application rate (0.07 lb a.i./A), applied as an aerial spray. All acute RQs for both corn and soybean were less than 0.01 (Table 19), and thus were below the LOCs for both listed species (0.05 ) and for nonlisted spec ies (0.5). Chronic toxicity data were available for freshwater fish and a freshwater in vertebrate, but not for sa ltwater species. Chronic RQs for freshwater species were again less than 0.01, and thus below the LOC for chronic risk to listed and nonlisted aquatic species (1). Acute toxicity data indicates that saltwater species are no more sensitive to flumetsulam than freshwater sp ecies. Therefore, the conclusion of low chronic risk to freshwater species is expected to be true for saltwater species as well.

In conclusion, the risk assessment concludes th at use of flumetsulam on corn and soybean does not pose acute or chronic risk to fish and aquatic invertebrates, and is not expected to cause direct adverse effects to threatened or endangered species of aquatic animals.

Table 19. Acute and Chronic RQs for Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates
Crop Application Scenario Taxa RQ Acute Chronic 1 Corn One aerial application at 0.07 lb a.i./A Freshwater fish <0.01 <0.01
Saltwater fish <0.01 ND
Freshwater Invertebrate <0.01 <0.01

Saltwater Crustacean <0.01 ND

Saltwater Mollusk <0.01 ND Soybean One aerial application at 0.07 lb a.i./A Freshwater fish <0.01 <0.01
Saltwater fish <0.01 ND
Freshwater Invertebrate <0.01 <0.01

Saltwater Crustacean <0.01 ND

Saltwater Mollusk <0.01 ND 1 ND denotes that no data was available to assess chronic risk to these taxa.

### 39 Flumetsulam is much more toxic to aquatic plan ts than aquatic animals, and therefore the RQs were greater for aquatic plants. RQ s for risk to vascular aquatic plants and algae are presented in Table 20. For corn, RQs for nonlisted plants ra nged from 2.75 to 4.10, and RQs for listed aquatic plants ranged from 6.29 to 35.3. RQs for corn ex ceeded the EPA’s LOC for both listed and nonlisted aquatic plants regardless of the app lication method and timing. For soybean, RQs for nonlisted plants ranged from 0.29 to 1.90, and RQs for listed aquatic plants ranged from 0.66 to 16.4. RQs for soybeans exceeded the EPA’s LOC for nonlisted aquatic plants for preplant/preemergence applications and for applications as impregnated fertilizers, but not for postemergence applications, for which the applicatio n rate is much lower. All RQs for soybean exceeded the LOC for risk to list ed species of aquatic plants ex cept for the vascular plant RQs for post-emergence applications. Whether applic ations were applied aerially or with ground equipment had little effect on the RQs.

In conclusion, this analysis indi cates that all uses of flumetsulam pose a risk to nonlisted species of vascular plants with the exception of post-em ergence applications to soybean. All applications except postemergence applications to soybean also potentially may harm threatened and endangered species of aquatic plants. Postemerge nce applications to s oybean are predicted to potentially harm threatened or endangered specie s of algae, although currently no algal species is listed as such.

Table 20. RQs for Aquatic Plants and Algae

Crop Application Scenario Taxa RQ 1 Nonlisted

Species Listed Species Corn Pre-emergence, one aerial application at 0.07 lb a.i./A Vascular plants 4.10 9.09 Algae 3.98 35.3 Pre-emergence, one ground application at 0.07 lb a.i./A Vascular plants 3.76 8.32 Algae 3.64 32.4 Postemergence, one aerial application at 0.06 lb a.i./A Vascular plants 3.17 7.03 Algae 3.08 27.3 Postemergence, one ground application at 0.06 lb a.i./A Vascular plants 2.84 6.29 Algae 2.75 24.4 One ground application as impregnated fertilizer at 0.065 lb a.i./A Vascular plants 3.44 7.82

Algae 3.33 29.6 Soybean Pre-emergence, one aerial application at 0.07 lb a.i./A Vascular plants 1.90 4.21 Algae 1.84 16.4 Pre-emergence, one ground application at 0.07 lb a.i./A Vascular plants 1.55 3.43 Algae 1.50 13.3 Postemergence, two aerial application at 0.006 lb a.i./A each, 14 days between applications Vascular plants 0.30 0.66

Algae 0.29 2.55

Postemergence, one ground application at 0.015 lb a.i./A Vascular plants 0.34 0.76 Algae 0.33 2.94

### 40 Crop Application Scenario Taxa RQ 1 Nonlisted

Species Listed Species One ground application as impregnated fertilizer at 0.065 lb a.i./A Vascular plants 1.37 3.03

Algae 1.33 11.8 1 RQs which exceed the EPA’s level of concern for risk to nontarget aquatic plants are shown in bold type.



### B. Non-target Terrestrial Animals

Terrestrial EECs for dietary-base d calculations are given in Ta ble 21, and terrestrial EECs for dose-based calculations are given in Table 22. These EECs, which are for use on both corn and soybean, are based on a single application of flumet sulam at the maximum rate of 0.07 lb a.i./A. Complete output from the T-Rex M odel is provided in Appendix D.

Table 21. Dietary-Based Flumetsulam EEC Values for Use on Corn and Soybean Dietary Item Dietary-Based EEC (mg/kg) Short Grass 16.8 Tall Grass 7.70 Broadleaf Plants 9.45 Fruits, Pods, and Seeds 1.05 Arthropods 6.58

Table 22. Avian and Mammalian Dose-Based Flumetsulam Upper Bound EEC Values

Application Rate (crop) Size Class (g) Avian Dose-Based EECs (mg/kg-bw) Dietary Item

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits & Pods Arthropods Seeds

Avian One application @ 0.07 lb a.i./A (corn and soybean) 20 19.1 8.77 10.8 1.20 7.49 0.27
100 10.9 5.00 6.14 0.68 4.27 0.15
1000 4.88 2.24 2.75 0.31 1.91 0.07
Mammalian One application @ 0.07 lb a.i./A (corn and soybean) 15 16.0 7.34 9.01 1.00 6.27 0.22
35 11.1 5.07 6.23 0.69 4.34 0.15
1000 2.57 1.18 1.44 0.16 1.01 0.04



### RQs are calculated by dividing the terrestrial EECs by the appropriate acute or chronic toxicity endpoint. Since no mortality was observed at any dose level in acute avia n toxicity studies, the highest test level was used as the estimate of the LD 50 

### and LC 50 

### for the calculations of acute RQs. This makes the RQs conservative, but they are appropriate for use as a screen of potential acute risk. Table 23 provides acute and chronic risk quotients (RQs) for birds based on dietary toxicity studies, and Table 24 pr ovides additional acute RQs base d on single-dose oral toxicity

### 41 studies. For use of flumetsulam on corn and so ybean, none of the acute RQs were greater than 0.01. Thus, the analysis shows that acute RQs are below the LOC for risk to birds (0.5) and for possible adverse effects to listed species of bi rds (0.1). Chronic RQs, which are based on the definitive NOAEC for the bobwhite qua il (300 mg a.i./kg-diet), were no greater than 0.06. Thus, chronic RQs were all less than the LOC for chroni c risk to listed and nonlisted birds (1.0). As birds serve as surrogates for rept iles and terrestrial-phase amphibi ans, the EPA assumes risk to be below the LOC for these taxa as well.

Table 23. Acute and Chronic Dietary-Based RQs for Birds

Application Rate (crop) Exposure Avian Dose-Based RQs Dietary Item

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits, Pods, &

Seeds Arthropods

One application @ 0.07 lb a.i./A (corn and soybean) Acute <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.0 1 <0.01

Chronic 0.06 0.03 0.03 <0.01 0.02



### Table 24. Acute Dose-Based RQs for Birds

Application Rate (crop) Size Class (g) Avian Dose-Based RQs Dietary Item

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits & Pods Seeds Arthropods One application @ 0.07 lb a.i./A (corn and soybean) 20 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01
100 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
1000 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01



### As with avian acute toxicity tests, no mortalit y was observed in the acu te toxicity study for mammals, and thus acute RQs were calculated the using the highest test level as the estimate of the mammalian LD 50 

### , making the acute RQs conservative. Table 25 provides acute and chronic risk quotients (RQs) for birds based on dietary to xicity studies, and Ta ble 26 provides additional acute RQs based on single-dose oral toxicity studies. As for bi rds, none of the mammalian acute RQs for use on corn and soybean were greater th an 0.01. Thus, the analysis shows that acute RQs are below the LOC for risk to mammals ( 0.5) and for possible adverse effects to listed species of mammals (0.1). The highest chroni c RQ was 0.15. Thus, chronic RQs were all less than the LOC for chronic risk to listed and nonlisted mammals.

Table 25. Acute and Chronic Di etary-Based RQs for Mammals

Application Rate (crop) Exposure Mammalian Dietary-Based RQs Dietary Item

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits, Pods, &

Seeds Arthropods

One application @ 0.07 lb a.i./A (corn and soybean) Acute N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Chronic 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01

### 42 Table 26. Acute and Chronic Dose-Based RQs for Mammals

Application Rate (crop) Size Class (g) Mammalian Dose-Based RQs Dietary Item

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits & Pods Seeds Arthropods

Acute One application @ 0.076 lb a.i./A (corn and soybean) 20 <0.01 <0.01 <0.0 1 <0.01 <0.01 0.01
100 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
1000 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Chronic One application @ 0.07 lb a.i./A (corn and soybean) 15 0.15 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.06 <0.01
35 0.12 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.05 <0.01
1000 0.07 0.03 0.04 <0.01 0.03 <0.01



### To assess risk to terrestrial animals from expos ure to fertilizer granules which are impregnated with flumetsulam, the LD 50 

### -per-square-foot risk index was utilized. As no mortality was observed in the acute toxicity study for birds and mammals, the highest test dose of the avian and mammalian LD 50 

### studies were used to calculate cons ervative RQs. The maximum single application rate of 0.07 lb a.i./A was used for corn and soybeans. RQs for birds are also used to assess risk to terrestrial-phased am phibians. Results of this anal ysis are shown in Table 27. For birds, the LD 50 

### -per-square-foot index was no greater th an 0.02 for all size classes. For mammals, the LD 50 

### -per-square-foot index was less than 0.01 for all size classes. For both birds and mammals, all of these acute RQ s were less than the LOC for this index (1.0). Therefore, the use of fertilizer impregnated with flumetsulam is expected to pose minimal risk to both listed and nonlisted species of birds, mammals, rept iles, and terrestrial-phased amphibians.

Table 27. LD 50 

### -per-Square-Foot Risk Quotients for Bi rds and Mammals for Use of Granular Fertilizer Impregnated with Flumetsulam
Application Rate (crop) Taxa Size Class (g) RQ (LD50 per Sq. Foot) One application @ 0.07 lb a.i./A (corn and soybean) Birds 20 <0.02
100 <0.01
1000 <0.01 Mammals 15 <0.01
35 <0.01
1000 <0.01



### An acute contact test with adult honey bees determined the LD 50 

### to be >100 mg a.i./L. Based on the maximum seasonal use rate of 0.07 lb ai/A , the maximum EEC for arthropods is 6.58 mg a.i./kg-BW (Table 21). Since the acute contact LC 50 

### is more than 15 times the acute contact LD 50 

### for the honeybee, use of flumetsulam is not expected to cause any mortality to bees. The mode of action of flumetsulam (ALS inhibition) is specific to plants and therefore is not expected to cause significant sublethal or chronic eff ects to bees or other arthropods.

### 43 C. Non-target Terrestrial Plants

Flumetsulam is highly toxic to terrestrial plants. The TerrPlant model (v. 1.2.2) was used to calculate RQs for nontarget terrestrial plants in upland and wetland areas. Terrestrial Plant RQs for use of flumetsulam on corn a nd soybean are given in Table 28.

Table 28. RQs for Risk to Nontarget Terrestrial Plants from Use of Flumetsulam on Corn and Soybean

Crop/Scenario Application Rate (lb a.i./A) Plant Type Exposure Type RQ 1

Nonlisted

Species Listed Species

Corn Corn, preplant or
preemergence, one spray aerial application 0.069

Monocot Upland 4.1 12.2

Wetland 22.3 66.8 Spray Drift Only 6.0 37.1

Dicot Upland 36.7 152.7

Wetland 201.9 839.6 Spray Drift Only 18.4 76.3 Corn, preplant or
preemergence, one ground spray application 0.069

Monocot Upland 2.4 7.3

Wetland 20.7 62.0 Spray Drift Only 1.2 7.4

Dicot Upland 22.0 91.6

Wetland 187.2 778.5 Spray Drift Only 3.67 15.3 Corn, postemergence, one aerial spray application 0.058

Monocot Upland 3.4 10.2

Wetland 18.8 56.1 Spray Drift Only 5.0 31.2

Dicot Upland 30.9 128.3

Wetland 169.7 705.8 Spray Drift Only 15.4 64.2 Corn, postemergence, one ground spray application 0.06

Monocot Upland 2.1 6.3

Wetland 18.0 53.9 Spray Drift Only 1.0 6.5

Dicot Upland 19.2 79.7

Wetland 162.8 677.0 Spray Drift Only 3.2 13.3 Corn, one ground application in 0.065 Monocot Upland 1.9 5.7

Wetland 19.1 57.2

### 44 Crop/Scenario Application Rate (lb a.i./A) Plant Type Exposure Type RQ 1

Nonlisted

Species Listed Species
impregnated dry bulk fertilizer Spray Drift Only -- --

Dicot Upland 17.3 71.9

Wetland 172.9 719.0 Spray Drift Only -- -- Soybean Soybean, preplant or
preemergence, one aerial spray application 0.067

Monocot Upland 3.9 11.8

Wetland 21.7 64.9 Spray Drift Only 5.8 36.0

Dicot Upland 35.6 148.2

Wetland 196.0 815.3 Spray Drift Only 17.8 74.1 Soybean, preplant or
preemergence, one ground spray application 0.067

Monocot Upland 2.4 7.1

Wetland 20.1 60.1 Spray Drift Only 1.2 7.2

Dicot Upland 21.4 88.9

Wetland 181.8 756.0 Spray Drift Only 3.6 14.8 Soybean, postemergence, one aerial spray application 0.006

Monocot Upland 0.4 1.1

Wetland 1.9 5.8 Spray Drift Only 0.5 3.2

Dicot Upland 3.2 13.3

Wetland 17.6 73.0 Spray Drift Only 1.6 6.6 Soybean, postemergence, one ground spray application 0.015

Monocot Upland 0.5 1.6

Wetland 4.5 13.5 Spray Drift Only 0.3 1.6

Dicot Upland 4.8 19.9

Wetland 40.7 169.3 Spray Drift Only 0.8 3.3 Soybean, one ground application in impregnated dry bulk fertilizer 0.065

Monocot Upland 1.9 5.7

Wetland 19.1 57.2 Spray Drift Only -- --

Dicot Upland 17.3 71.9

Wetland 172.9 719.0

### 45 Crop/Scenario Application Rate (lb a.i./A) Plant Type Exposure Type RQ 1

Nonlisted

Species Listed Species

Spray Drift Only -- -- 1 RQs which exceed the EPA’s level of c oncern for risk to nontarget terrestr ial plants are shown in bold type.



### For use on corn, all RQs for all types of appli cation of flumetsulam (preplant, postemergence, and impregnated fertilizer) exceed the LOC for risk to nontarget terrestrial plants. RQs exceed the LOC for both listed and nonlisted plants gr owing in both upland and wetland habitats. RQs exceed the LOC for both monocot and dicot plants, but are higher for dicot plants. RQs exceed the LOC for exposure from spray drift alone; ho wever, the highest RQs are for exposure to wetland plants, for which residues from runoff ar e expected to have the greatest impact. RQs were highest for aerial applications, with RQs as high as 202 for nonlisted plants and 840 for listed plants. RQs were only slightly lower for ground applications, with RQs as high as 187 for nonlisted plants and 779 for listed plants.

RQs for use on soybean were similar to those fo r corn, with the exception that RQs were lower for post-emergence applications on soybean. For preplant/pre-emergence applications, all RQs exceed the LOC for nontarget terrestrial plan ts. RQs exceed the LOC for both listed and nonlisted plants growing in both upland and wetl and habitats, and for both monocot and dicot plants. RQs exceed the LOC for exposure from sp ray drift alone; however , the highest RQs are for exposure to wetland plants. RQs for aerial app lications are as high as 196 for nonlisted plants and 815 for listed plants. RQs were only slightly lower for ground applications, with RQs as high as 182 for nonlisted plants and 756 for listed plants. For post-emergence applications on soybean, RQs were somewhat lower because of the lower application ra tes; however, RQs are still exceed the LOC. Nonlisted RQs were be low the LOC only for spray drift exposure from post-emergence ground spray applications, and for monocot plants growing in upland habitats exposed from post-emergence ground spray applications.

To further analyze the risk of flumetsulam use to nontarget plants, the AgDrift model was used to predict spray drift deposition, a nd to determine the distance from the edge of the treated site where the risk from spray drift alone is equal the EPA’s LOC for listed and nonlisted plants. This was done by predicting the distance where the spray drift equals th e vegetative vigor EC 25 

### for evaluating risk to nonlisted plants, and by predicti ng the distance where the spray drift equals the vegetative vigor NOAEL for evaluating risk to li sted plants. Beyond these distances, the risk from spray drift alone is not expected to exceed the LOC. It is important to realize, though, that risk from runoff is not considered in this anal ysis. In this analysis, the model was run with different assumptions of spray drif t droplet distributions to show the effect of droplet size. For ground applications, the model was also run for applications with low and high boom height. For preplant/pre-emergent applications, low boom applications are likely typical, whereas for postemergence applications, e ither low or high boom app lications may be common.

Results from this analysis are given in Table 29. Both droplet size and bo om height significantly affect the predicted distances of the extent of ri sk from the edge of the field. Distances were generally long for aerial applica tions (>500ft), except for posteme rgence application to soybean. For ground applications, distances for protecting the most sensitive nonlisted plants ranged from

### 46 98 to 502 ft for corn, and from 20 to 492 ft for soybean. Distances for protection of the most sensitive listed plants ranged from 95 to >1000 ft for corn, and from 20 to 492 ft for soybean. Distances were longer for finer droplet sizes, and longer for use of a high boom versus a low boom.

Table 29. Distance from Edge of Field of Risk to Listed Terrestrial Plants, Based on AgDrift Prediction of Spray Drift

Crop/Scenario Application Rate (lb a.i./A) Plant Type Critical Spray Drift Fraction Distance from Edge of Field Where RQ=LOC (feet)
NonListed Listed Non-Listed 1 Listed 1

Corn
Corn, preplant or
preemergence, one spray aerial application 0.069 Monocot 0.0084 0.0013 F-M: >1000 M-C: 512 C-VC: 315 F-M: >1000 M-C: >1000 C-VC: >1000

Dicot 0.0039 0.0041 F-M: >1000 M-C: >1000 C-VC: 702 F-M: >1000 M-C: >1000 C-VC: 659 Corn, preplant or
preemergence, one ground spray application 0.069 Monocot 0.0084 0.0013 VF-F/Low: 115 VF-F/High: 276

F-M/Low: 43 F-M/High: 79 VF-F/Low: 751 VF-F/High: >1000

F-M/Low: 446 F-M/High: 636

Dicot 0.0039 0.0041 VF-F/Low: 269 VF-F/High: 502

F-M/Low: 121 F-M/High: 207 VF-F/Low: 269 VF-F/High: 502 F-M/Low: 112 F-M/High: 194 Corn, postemergence, one aerial spray application 0.058 Monocot 0.01 0.0016 F-M: >1000 M-C: 423 C-VC: 272 F-M: >1000 M-C: >1000 C-VC: >1000

Dicot 0.047 0.0048 F-M: >1000 M-C: >1000 C-VC: 571 F-M: >1000 M-C: >1000 C-VC: 551 Corn, postemergence, one ground spray application 0.060 Monocot 0.0097 0.0016 VF-F/Low: 98 VF-F/High: 243

F-M/Low: 36 F-M/High: 66 VF-F/Low: 663 VF-F/High: 942

F-M/Low: 381 F-M/High: 541

Dicot 0.0045 0.0047 VF-F/Low: 233 VF-F/High: 453

F-M/Low: 98 F-M/High: 174 VF-F/Low: 223 VF-F/High: 440

F-M/Low: 95 F-M/High: 167

Soybean
Soybean, preplant or
preemergence, one aerial spray application 0.067 Monocot 0.0087 0.0014 F-M: >1000 M-C:492 C-VC: 305 F-M: >1000 M-C: >1000 C-VC: >1000

Dicot 0.0040 0.0042 F-M: >1000 M-C: >1000 C-VC: 676 F-M: >1000 M-C: >1000

C-VC:604

### 47 Crop/Scenario Application Rate (lb a.i./A) Plant Type Critical Spray Drift Fraction Distance from Edge of Field Where RQ=LOC (feet)
NonListed Listed Non-Listed 1 Listed 1

Soybean, preplant or
preemergence, one ground spray application 0.067 Monocot 0.0087 0.0014 VF-F/Low: 111 VF-F/High: 269

F-M/Low: 43 F-M/High: 78 VF-F/Low: 732 VF-F/High: >1000

F-M/Low: 433 F-M/High: 600

Dicot 0.0040 0.0042 VF-F/Low: 259 VF-F/High: 492

F-M/Low: 115 F-M/High: 200 VF-F/Low: 249 VF-F/High: 479

F-M/Low: 111 F-M/High: 190 Soybean, postemergence, one aerial spray application 0.006 Monocot 0.097 0.016 F-M: 102 M-C: 66 C-VC: 39 F-M: 626 M-C: 289 C-VC: 194

Dicot 0.045 0.047 F-M: 203 M-C: 121 C-VC: 82 F-M: 197 M-C: 118 C-VC: 82 Soybean, postemergence, one ground spray application
0.015 Monocot 0.039 0.0062 VF-F/Low: 23 VF-F/High: 66

F-M/Low: 10 F-M/High: 13 VF-F/Low: 164 VF-F/High: 354

F-M/Low: 66 F-M/High: 118

Dicot 0.018 0.019 VF-F/Low: 49 VF-F/High: 138

F-M/Low: 20 F-M/High: 33 VF-F/Low: 49 VF-F/High: 135

F-M/Low: 16 F-M/High: 30

1 Codes for droplet size: VF = very fine, F = fine, M = medium, C = coarse,, VC = very coarse; Low = low boom height; High = high boom height.



### In conclusion, uses of flumetsulam on corn and soybean are predicted to pose risk to nontarget terrestrial plants, regardless of the application method and timing. All uses on corn and soybean potentially may result in harm to threatened and endangered species of terre strial plants. The risk analyses indicate that risk to te rrestrial plants is greater from aerial applications than for ground applications, and greater for preplant/pre-eme rgence applications than for postemergence application.

D. Review of Incident Data

The Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS , version 2.1), the Avian Incident Monitoring System (AIMS) 4 

### , and the Incident Data System (IDS) were queried on July 8, 2012 for ecological incidents linked to e xposure to flumetsulam. EIIS contained 368 ecological incidents associated with exposure to flumetsulam. All of the incidents involved mortality or damage to plants. Species affected include corn, soybean, al falfa, cotton, clover. The vast majority of the incidents were cases in which growers complained to the manufacturer that an application of an herbicide to a field of corn or soybean to suppr ess weeds resulted in dama ge to the crop itself.

4 http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/toxins/aims/aims/login.cfm?CFID=113048231&CFTOKEN=9243482

### 48 These incidents indicate that herb icide products containing flumetsu lam that are applied directly to corn or soybean, according to label directi ons may, under certain conditions, cause damage or stunting of the corn or soybean crop. These in cidents, however, do not provide information on the risk flumetsulam can pose to plants off the tr eated field, which is the primary concern in the ecological risk assessment. Therefore, the remai nder of this discussion on ecological incidents will focus on cases where the application of fl umetsulam allegedly exposed and caused damage to plants other than the crop that was treated.

EIIS contains 15 incidents in which drift and/or runoff of an herbicide containing flumetsulam allegedly caused damage to nearby crops. In 1998, 12 incidents were re ported in Indiana in which soybean plants were alleged damaged by eith er spray drift or runoff of an application of Hornet® (active ingredients flumetsulam and clopyr alid) to a nearby corn field (incident package I007702, incidents -001 through -009 , -011, -013, and -014). In 1999, damage was reported to three fields of soybean in Minnesota after Horn et® was applied to a nearby corn field (incident package I009512, incidents -014 th rough -016). Winds were blowing at 15 to 27 mph, and spray drift was the suspected route of exposure. These three incidents were classified as “accidental misuse” since the applications were made when the wind speed exceeded 15 mph. Another incident involved several trees (species not id entified) which were observed having spotted and speckled leaves following a ground application of Broadstrike + Dual (active ingredients flumetsulam and metolachlor) to a site approxi mately 10 yards away (I0 09573-004). The use site was not identified. The certainty of all of these incidents were classified as “possible” since evidence was lacking to confirm which active ingr edient, or combination of active ingredients, caused the damage. While the simultaneous exposur e to multiple herbicid e active ingredients prevents drawing definite conclusions on the cause of these incidents, they are consistent with the findings of the quantitative risk assessment in indicating that residues of flumetsulam may move off treated fields via sp ray drift and runoff, and the resulting exposure may result in damage nontarget plants.

EIIS contains 20 additional incidents in whic h a crop was believed to have been harmed by carryover of residues of an herbicide containi ng flumetsulam which was applied to the field during a previous growing season. Herbicide products associated wi th these incidents included Hornet®, HornetWDG®, and Broadstrike®. Of the 20 incidents, 14 involved observed injury to soybean planted on land on which flumetsulam was applied during a previous growing season. Three of the other carryover incidents involve d injury to corn. Th e remaining 3 carryover incidents involved injury to cott on, clover, and sorghum. These inci dents confirm that residues of flumetsulam are persistent in soil and may remain toxic to plants for several months after it is applied.

In addition to the incidents in EIIS, a query of the Incident Data System (IDS) identified 224 incidents reported in aggregated incident reports which were linked to a pesticide product containing flumetsulam. The dates of these in cidents span from January 1998 through December 2012. All but two of the incidents (222 incidents) were minor plant incidents. While details of these incidents are not available, they are likely si milar to the plant incidents in EIIS in that most are likely cases of crop damage caused by direct treatment of a flumetsulam-containing herbicide to corn or soybean, whereas a sma ller proportion are likely the result of spray drift and/or runoff. Two aggregated incident reports involved advers e effects to fish or wildlife. Considering the

### 49 very low acute toxicity of flumetsulam to fish and wildlife, the cause of these incidents was likely not related to flumetsulam use. Flumet sulam might have been associated with these incidents because of coincidental use in the ar ea prior to the incident. No “other nontarget” incidents were reported, which w ould include adverse effects to bees and other invertebrates.

The Avian Incident Monitoring System (AIMS) 5 

### was queried on July 8, 2012 for avian incident linked to exposure to flumetsulam. The AIMS da tabase contained no avia n incidents associated with flumetsulam. Also, no fish or wildlife inci dents in EIIS have been linked to use of flumetsulam. The lack of reported fish wildlif e mortality incidents is consistent with the conclusion of the risk assessment that use of flumetsu lam poses little risk of acute toxicity to fish and wildlife.

A detailed listing of individual incidents associated with flumet sulam spray drift, runoff, and carryover exposure is provided in Appendix E.

E. Probit Slope Response Analysis of LOC Values and Acute RQ Values

The chance of individual effects was evaluated using the IECv1.1.xls spreadsheet. The highest acute toxicity RQ for freshwat er crustacean was 0.00011 for aeria l pre-emergent application on corn. Based on this RQ, the chance of mortality of an individual fres hwater crustacean is calculated to be approximately 1 in 4.2 x 10 8 

### . The chance of mortality to individual effects for birds, mammals, fish, and saltwater invertebrate s could not be calculated because acute toxicity tests did not yield LD 50 

### or LC 50 

### values for these taxa. However, since no mortality was observed in the acute toxicity studies wh en tested at a limit dose or co ncentration, and th e RQs for these taxa are known to be less than 0.01, the chance of mortality to an individual of any of these taxa is extremely small.

V. RISK DESCRIPTION

A. Risk Characterization

1. Risk to Aquatic and Terrestrial Animals

The mode of action of flumetsulam (inhibition of acetolactase synthase) is highly specific to plants and microorganisms. As with other ALS-inhibiting herbic ides (such as those in the sulfonylurea class), flumetsulam has low acute an d chronic toxicity to vertebrate wildlife, terrestrial arthropods, fish, and aquatic inverteb rates. When combined with the low use rate (maximum seasonal rate is 0.07 lb a.i. /A), the risk of dir ect toxicity to these animals is very low. The conclusion of the risk assessment is that cu rrent uses of flumetsulam on corn and soybean pose low risk to all aquatic and terrestrial animals, and are not expected to cause significant direct effects to listed species of animals. However, because of th e toxicity to plants (see below), indirect adverse effects to aquati c and terrestrial animals are possibl e as the result of the potential damage to vegetation and aquatic plant life. Toxi city to plants may redu ce the supply of plant food, which is the basis of the eco logical food web in both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. In

5 http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/toxins/aims/aims/login.cfm?CFID=113048231&CFTOKEN=9243482

### 50 addition, the toxicity to plants may alter plant co mmunities, especially thos e near treated fields, which may result in ecological harm to some animal species.

2. Risk to Aquatic and Terrestrial Plants

Despite the relatively low use rates of this herbicide, the very high phytotoxicity of flumetsulam results in the conclusion that all uses pose risk to aquatic plants and nontarget terrestrial plants. The risk assessment indicates that most uses of flumetsulam exceed the EPA’s level of concern for both aqua tic and terrestrial plants. Predicted risks for postemergence use on soybean are lower than for other uses because the sensitivity of soybean to flumetsulam greatly limits the ra te that can be applied to emerged plants without damaging the crop.

Flumetsulam is moderately persistent in the terrestrial environment but persistent in the aquatic environment. Thus, while flumetsula m is typically applie d only once per year, residues in soil and water may remain at phytot oxic levels for a long period of time. In addition, flumetsulam has little binding potential to organic material in the soil, and thus is prone to movement in runoff. Both of these factors increase the potential for residues to be transported from the use site into terr estrial and aquatic ha bitats where nontarget plants can be exposed. The persistence of fl umetsulam in soil and water also means that contamination of soil and water may conti nue for a long time, resulting in extended durations of exposure. This is confirmed by the numerous reported incidents of crop damage which have been attributed to carryov er of flumetsulam, that is, damage from exposure to residues which remain in the soil from application duri ng a previous growing

season.
Incident data also support the potential for fl umetsulam residues to move off-site and to harm nontarget plants. In fifteen incidents, use of a product containing flumetsulam on corn resulted in damage to nearby crops. Ma ny of the incidents attr ibuted the off-site movement of residues to spray drift, while a few attributed it to runoff. Unfortunately all of these incidents involved products whic h contain multiple active ingredients, and therefore the crop damage cannot be attributed with certain ty to any particular active ingredient. They are neverthele ss consistent with the conclu sion that flumetsulam poses a risk to nontarget terrestrial plants.

Because of its high mobility and persistence in soil, flumetsulam is very prone to off-site movement via runoff, which may result in cont amination of nearby terrestrial and aquatic habitats. This prominent route of exposure would exist regardless of whether flumetsulam is applied aerially or with ground equipment. This is reflected in the fact that aquatic EECs for ground applications were only sligh tly lower than comparable EECs for aerial applications (Table 18).

B. Assumptions and Limitations

1. Endocrine Disruption

### 51 As required by FIFRA and the Federal Food, Dr ug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), EPA reviews numerous studies to assess pot ential adverse outcomes from exposure to chemicals. Collectively, these studies include acute, subchr onic and chronic toxicity , including assessments of carcinogenicity, neurotoxicity, de velopmental, reproductive, and general or systemic toxicity. These studies include endpoints which may be su sceptible to endocrine influence, including effects on endocrine target or gan histopathology, organ weights, estrus cyclicity, sexual maturation, fertility, pregnancy rates, reproductiv e loss, and sex ratios in offspring. For ecological hazard assessments, EP A evaluates acute tests and chr onic studies that assess growth, developmental and reproductive effects in di fferent taxonomic groups. As part of the Preliminary Problem Formulation for Regi stration Review (DP Barcode D349617), EPA reviewed these data and select ed the most sensitive endpoints for relevant risk assessment scenarios from the existing hazard database. However, as required by FFDCA section 408(p), flumetsulam is subject to the endocrine screening part of th e Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP).

EPA has developed the EDSP to determine whet her certain substances (including pesticide active and other ingredients) may have an effect in humans or wildlife similar to an effect produced by a “naturally occurring estrogen, or ot her such endocrine effects as the Administrator may designate.” The EDSP employs a two-tiered approach to making th e statutorily required determinations. Tier 1 consists of a battery of 11 screening assays to identify the potential of a chemical substance to interact with the estrog en, androgen, or thyroid (E, A, or T) hormonal systems. Chemicals that go through Tier 1 scr eening and are found to have the potential to interact with E, A, or T hormonal systems will pr oceed to the next stage of the EDSP where EPA will determine which, if any, of the Tier 2 tests are necessary based on the available data. Tier 2 testing is designed to identify a ny adverse endocrine-related effects caused by the substance, and establish a dose-response relationship between the dose and the E, A, or T effect.

Under FFDCA section 408(p), the Agency must screen all pesticide chemicals. Between October 2009 and February 2010, EPA issued test orders/data call-ins for the first group of 67 chemicals, which contains 58 pest icide active ingredients and 9 inert ingredients. Flumetsulam is not among the group of 58 pesticide active ingred ients on the initial list to be screened under the EDSP. Accordingly, as part of registrati on review, EPA will issue future EDSP orders/data call-ins, requiring the submission of EDSP scr eening assays for flumetsulam. For further information on the status of the EDSP, the polic ies and procedures, the list of 67 chemicals, future lists, the test guidelines and the Tier 1 screening battery, pl ease visit our website: http://www.epa.gov/endo/ ).

2. Uncertainties Related to Data Limitations

All of the available terrestrial pl ant toxicity data have been cla ssified as supplemental because of study deficiencies. The first phytotoxicit y study submitted (MRID 42573901), which included both seedling emergence and vegeta tive vigor testing, was classi fied as supplemental for all species except rapeseed because a negative control was not included in the study. The lack of a negative control prevented evaluation for possible solvent effects on the re sponse of the plants. The study did include a solvent control which wa s used for determination of the NOAEC and LOAEC. While the lack of a nega tive control decreases the certainty of the results of this study,

### 52 any solvent effect would likely be additive to the effect of the treatment, and likely would make the IC 25 

### estimates lower than the actual values. Theref ore, the results from this study likely either are accurate (if there was no signi ficant solvent effect) or conservative (if there was a significant solvent effect).

The results for rapeseed were classified as inva lid because the seeds had been treated with three fungicides. Exposure to these three fungicides may have confounded the results of this study. A nonguideline study that was submitted provided supplemental data for seedling emergence effects on rapeseed, but no data are availabl e on the vegetative vigor effects on rapeseed.

The nonguideline phytotoxicity study, which was submitted to partially fulfill guideline requirements for the conditional registration of Broadstrike Herbicide (MRID 43485801), was classified as “acceptable” when it was originally reviewed in 1992. However, reevaluation of this study revealed that it did not re port data in adequate detail to obtain NOAEL and LOAEL values. The study report did not include re plicate means for plant weight and plant height, and therefore statistical analysis could not be performed on these endpoints to determine the NOAEL and LOAEL. An IC 05 

### value calculated from this study was th erefore used in lieu of the NOAEL. The NOAEL is normally used in the denominator of the RQ for risk to listed species of terrestrial plants. While the use of the EC 05 

### value instead of the NOA EL adds uncertainty, the EC 05 

### is likely to be lower than the NOAEL, and therefore th e RQs for listed terrestrial plants are likely to be conservative.

3. Other Uncertainties in Risk Conclusions

a) The risk assessment included RQs for aerial applications to corn and soybean with preplant/pre-emergence applications. Some labels of products designed only for postemergence use, such as those of Broa dstrike® and Surestart®, prohibit aerial applications. The labels of two products, Dupont Access Gold® and Python®, permit aerial applications and may be applied either pre- or post-emergence, but onl y provide instructions for aerial applications at the post-emergence stage. While the instructions suggest that the registrants’ intent is for only post-emergence applications to be applied aerially, the labels do not specifically prohibit aerial applications at the preplant/pre-emergence stage. This is significant because the maximum application ra te is greater for preplant/pre-emergence applications than for postemergence applications . If these two labels were to specifically prohibit aerial applica tions at the preplant/pre-emergence stage, then the RQs provided for aerial applications at this stage would no longer be rele vant. However, since RQs for ground applications were nearly as hi gh as those for aerial applications , this change would not affect the risk conclusions.

b) The risk conclusion of risk to aquatic terrestr ial plants has not been confirmed by incidents with high certainty. The many reported incidents of flumetsulam resulting in damage to corn and soybean crops do not provide information on the potential of this herbicide to harm plants off the treatment site. While there are several incidents of damage to plants outside the treatment area, which have been attributed to spray drift and/ or runoff of herbicide products containing flumetsulam, all of the incidents involved products contai ning other herbicidal

### 53 active ingredients in addition to flumetsulam. Since the plants were exposed to multiple herbicidal active ingredients, they do not provide strong evid ence to confirm the risk of flumetsulam to nontarget plants. In addition, no inci dent of damage to aquatic plants has been reported, although damage to aquatic plants are rarely reported.

VI. RISK CONCLUSIONS

Conclusions of the poten tial of use of flumetsulam to cause direct and indirect effects to federally listed threatened and endangered specie s of various taxa are summarized in Table 30. Use of flumetsulam may cause direct adverse eff ects to listed species of aquatic and terrestrial plants. Use of flumetsulam is not expected to caus e direct effects to any listed species of animal, but toxicity to plants may result in indi rect ecological effect to listed animals.

Table 30. Non-listed and Listed Species Risks A ssociated with Potentia l Direct or Indirect Effects Due to the Appli cations of Flumetsulam

LISTED TAXON DIRECT EFFECTS INDIRECT EFFECTS 1 Non-listed Listed Terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants
– monocots Yes Yes Yes Terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants – dicots Yes Yes Yes

Birds No No Yes

Terrestrial phase amphibians No No Yes

Reptiles No No Yes

Mammals No No Yes

Terrestrial Invertebrates No No Yes

Aquatic plants – vascular plants Yes Yes Yes

Aquatic plants – algae Yes Yes 2 Yes

Freshwater fish No No Yes

Aquatic phase amphibians No No Yes

Freshwater crustaceans No No Yes

Mollusks 3 No No Yes

Marine/estuarine fish 3 No No Yes

Marine/estuarine crustaceans 3 No No Yes

1 Indirect effects may include general habitat modification, host plant loss, and food supply disruption.
2 No species of algae is currently listed as threatened or endangered.

### 54 3 Quantitative data are not available for saltwater invertebrate s, therefore RQs were not calculated. Risk conclusions were based on risk quotients calculated for freshwater invertebrates.

### 55 VII. REFERENCES

CDPR. 2013. Sampling for Pesticide Residues in California Well Water. 2012 Update. California Environmental Protection Agency, Depart ment of Pesticide Regulation. 262 pp. Sacramento, CA.

Cobb, G.P., E.H. Hol, P.W. Allen, J.A Gagne, R.J. Kendall. 1995. Uptake, metabolism, and toxicity of terbufos in the earthworm ( Lumbricus terrestris ) exposed to COUNTER-15G in artificial soils. Environ. T oxicol. Chem. 14(2):279-285.

Mackay, D. and S. Paterson. 1981. Calculatin g fugacity. Environ. Sci. Technol. 15: 1006- 1014.

Ma, J., F. Lin, S. Wang, and L. Xu, 2004. Acute toxici ty assessment of 20 herbicides to the green alga Scenedesmus quadricauda (Turp.) Breb. Bull. Envi ron. Toxicol. 72(6):1164-1171

Ma, J., L. Xu, S. Wang, R. Zheng, S. Huang, and Y. Huang, 2002. Toxicity of 40 herbicides to the green alga Chlorella vulgaris . Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 51(2):128-132.

Ma, J. and W. Liang, 2001. Acute toxicity of 12 herbicides to the green algae Chlorella pyrenoidosa and Scenedesmus obliquus . Bull. Environ. Toxicol. 67(3):347-351

Madafiglio, G.P., R.W. Medd, P.S. Cornish, an d R. Van de Ven, 2000. Temperature-mediated responses of flumetsulam and metosulam on Raphanus raphanistrum . Weed Res. 40(4): 387-395.
USEPA, 1990. National Survey of Pesticides in Drinking Water Wells. Report Number: USEPA 570/9-90-015, USEPA Office of Water, Washington, DC.

USEPA, 1992. Pesticides in Ground Water Data Base. Report Numbe r(s): PB-89-164230/XAB; EPA-540/9-89/036, Environmental Protection Ag ency, Washington, DC (USA). Office of Pesticide Programs

USEPA, 1992. Flumetsulam Herbicide: New Chemical Science Chapter. DP Codes D181973, D181964, D182891, and D181979. Memorandum from the Environmental Fate and Effects Division to the Regi stration Division of the Offi ce of Pesticide Programs. December 16, 1992.

USEPA, 1993a. Update Ground Applied EEC, Aerial EEC and Response to DowElanco Rebuttal of Flumetsulam Science Chapter. DP Code D189826. Memorandum from the Environmental Fate and Effects Division to the Registration Divisi on of the Office of Pesticide Programs. June 21, 1993.

USEPA, 1993a. Flumetsulam: “May Effect” for E ndangered Species and the Value of Requiring Additional Information. Memorandum from the Environmental Fate and Effects Division to the Direct or of the Office of Pesticid e Programs. October 14, 1993.

### 56 USEPA, 1993b. Recommendations for Eliminating Effect s to Endangered Plant Species from Flumetsulam. Memorandum from the Environmental Fate and Effects Division to the Director of the Office of Pes ticide Programs. October 14, 1993.

USEPA, 1994. Qualitative Assessment of Sulfonylurea Herbicides and Other ALS Inhibitors. Memorandum from the Ecological Effects Branch to the Science Analysis and Coordination Division, E nvironmental Fate and E ffects Division. March 24, 1994.

USEPA, 2004. Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessm ent Process in the Office of Pesticide Programs . United States Environmental Protec tion Agency (USEPA). Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Office of Pesticide Programs. Available at http://www.epa.gov/espp/consultation/ecorisk-overview.pdf

USEPA, 2006. New Use Registration Ecological Risk Assessment for Flumetsulam and Its EndUse Product, Python® WDG. DP Code D325397. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Office of Pesticide Programs

U.S. EPA. 2008. User’s Guide: T-REX Version 1.4.1 (Terrestrial Residue Exposure model). United States Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Fate and Effects Division. http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/terrestrial/index.htm#trex

USEPA, 2008. EFED Problem Formulation for Fl umetsulam Registration Review

. Memorandum from the Environmental Fate and Effects Division to the Registration Division, Office of Pesticid e Programs, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. D349617, June 3, 2008.

U.S. EPA, 2009. Guidance for Selecting Input Pa rameters in Modeling th e Environmental Fate and Transport of Pesticides. October 22, 2009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmenta l Fate and Effects Division. Arlington, VA http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/w ater/input_parameter_guidance.htm

U.S. EPA, 2012. Baris, R., Barre tt, M., Bohaty, R.F.H., Echeverr ia, M, Villanueva, P., Wolf, J., and Young, D. 2012. Guidance for Using PRZM-GW in Drinking Water Exposure Assessment. October 15, 2012. U.S. Envir onmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Arlington, VA. http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water /przm_gw/wqtt_przm_gw_guidance.htm

U.S. EPA, 2012. Marietta Echeverria, M., J ones, R.D., Peck, C., Ru hman, M., Shelby, A., Thawley, S., and Thurman, N. Development and Use of Percent Cropped Area and Percent Turf Area Adjustment Factors in Drinking Water Exposure Assessments: 2012 Update. March 16, 2012. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate a nd Effects Division. Arlington, VA http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models /water/pca_adjustment_dwa.html

### 57 U.S. EPA, Shanaman, L. and M. Frankenbe rry. Memorandum: Flumetsulam Registration Review: Ecological Risk Assessment Probl em Formulation. DB Barcode D349617, June 3, 2008.

### 58 APPENDIX A.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ECOTOXICITY STUDIES 850.2100 Avian Single Dose Oral Toxicity
MRID Citation 41263218 Grimes, J.; Jaber, M. (1989) XRD-498 Herbicide: An Acute Oral Toxicity study with the Bobwhite: Final Rept : Project ID 103-289. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 18 p.

850.2200 Avian Dietary Toxicity
MRID Citation 41263219 Grimes, J.; Jaber, M. (1988) XRD-498 Herbicide: A Dietary LC50 Study with the Mallard: Project ID 103-288. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 18 p. 41263220 Grimes, J.; Jaber, M. (1988) XRD-498 Herbicide: A Dietary LC50 Study with the Bobwhite: Project No. 103-287. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 18 p.

850.2300 Avian Reproduction
MRID Citation
41931741 Beavers, J.; Corbitt, A.; Jaber, M. (1989) XRD-498 Herbicide, (...) : A Onegeneration Reproduction Study with the Bobwhite ( Colinus virginianus ): Lab Project Number: 103-297. Unpublishe d study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 117 p.
41931742 Beavers, J.; Corbitt, A.; Jaber, M. (1989) XRD-498 Herbicide, (...) : A One generation Reproduction St udy with the Mallard ( Anas platyrhynchos ): Lab Project Number: 103/298. Unpublis hed study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 117 p.

850.1075 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Fish
MRID Citation 41263221 Dill, D.; Bartlett, E.; Lehr, K. (1988) XRD-498 Herbicide: Evaluation of the Toxicity to the rainbow Trout, salmo gairdneri Richardson: Project ID ESDR-0238-5651-4. Unpublished study pre pa red by The Dow Chemical Co. 15 p. 41263222 Dill, D.; Bartlett, E.; Lehr, K. (1988) XRD-498 Herbicide: Evaluation of the Toxicity To the Bluegill, Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque: Project ID ESDR-0238-5651-1. Unpublished study prepar ed by The dow Chemical Co. 15

### 59 p. 41263223 Dill, D.; Bartlett, E.; Lehr, K. (1988) XRD-498 Herbicide: Evaluation of the Toxicity to the Fathead Minnow, Pimephales promelas Rafinesque: Project ID ES-DR-0238-5651-2. Unpublished study prepared by The Dow Chemical Co. 15 p.

850.1010 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates
MRID Citation 41263224 Dill, D.; Milazzo, D.; Lehr, K. (1988) XRD-498 Herbicide: Evaluation of the toxicity to Daphnia magna Straus: Project ID ES-DR- 0238-5651-3. Unpublished study prepared by The Dow Chemical Co. 17 p.

850.1025/850.1045/850.1075 Acute Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Organisms
MRID Citation 41263225 Manning, C. (1988) XRD-498 Herbicide: Acute Toxicity to Atlantic Silversides ( Menidia menidia ) Under Flow-Through C onditions: Project No. 89309.0300.2130. Unpublished study prepared by Hunter/ESE, Inc. 32 p. 41263226 Manning, C. (1988) XRD-498 Herbicide: Acute Toxicity to Grass Shrimp ( Palaemonetes vulgaris ) Under Flow-through Conditions: Report No. ES2034. Unpublished study prepared by Hunter/ESE. 32 p. 41263227 Manning, C. (1988) XRD-498 Herbicide: Acute Effect to New Shell Growth of the Eastern Oyster ( Crassostrea virginica ) Under Flow-through Conditions: Report No. ES-2033. Unpublished study prepared by Hunter/ESE. 32 p.

850.1400 Fish Early Life Stage/A quatic Invertebrate Life Cycle Study
MRID Citation 42465101 Weinberg, J.; Gorzinski, S.; Rick, D.; et al. (1992) Evaluation of the Toxicity of DE-498 Herbicide to Early Life Stages of the Fathead Minnow, Pimephales promelas Rafinesque: Lab Project Number: DECO-ES-DR0238-5651-23: DECO-ES-2475. Unpublished study prepared by The Dow Chemical Co. 39 p.
42465102 Milazzo, D.; Servinski, M.; Rick, D.; et al. (1992) DE-498 Herbicide: Daphnia magna Straus Life-cycle (21-day Renewal) Toxicity Test: Lab Project Number: DECO-ES- DR-0238-5651-24: DECO-ES-2509. Unpublished study prepared by The Dow Chemical Co. 32 p.

850.4225/850.4250 Seedling Emergence and Vegetative Vigor
MRID Citation

### 60 42573901 Feutz, E. (1992) Evaluating the Effects of DE-498 on the Germination, Emergence, and Vegetative Vigor of Non-target Terrestrial Plants: Lab Project Number: 40291. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 178 p. 42573901 Feutz, E. (1992) Evaluating the Effects of DE-498 on the Germination, Emergence, and Vegetative Vigor of Non-target Terrestrial Plants: Lab Project Number: 40291. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 178 p. 43485801 Jachetta, J.; Ray, S.; Geselius, T. et al. (1994) Flumetsulam Non-Guideline Seedling Emergence Study: in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Conditional Registration of Broadstrik e Herbicide: Lab Project Number: GH/C/3413. Unpublished study prepared by Weed Management DowElanco. 336 p.

850.4400/850.5400 Aquatic Plant Growth
MRID Citation 41931743 Hughes, J. (1991) The Toxicity of DE-498 Herbicide to Selenastrum capricornutum : Lab Project Number: B460-11-1: ES-DR-0238-5651- 17. Unpublished study prepared by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 33 p. 42473101 Hughes, J.; Alexander, M. (1992) Th e Toxicity of DE -498 Herbicide to Anabaena flos-aquae : Lab Project Number: B460-13-1: ES-DR-0238-5651- 19. Unpublished study prepared by Malcolm Pirnie Inc. 35 p. 42473102 Hughes, J.; Alexander, M. (1992) Th e Toxicity of DE -498 Herbicide to Navicula pelliculosa : Lab Project Number: B460-13-2: ES-DR-0238-5651- 20. Unpublished study prepared by Malcolm Pirnie Inc. 33 p. 42473103 Hughes, J.; Alexander, M. (1992) Th e Toxicity of DE -498 Herbicide to Skeletonema costatum : Lab Project Number: B460-13-3: ES-DR-0238- 5651-21. Unpublished study prepared by Malcolm Pirnie Inc. 35 p. 42473104 Hughes, J.; Alexander, M. (1992) Th e Toxicity of DE -498 Herbicide to Lemna gibba G3: Lab Project Number: B460-13-4: ES-DR-0238-5651-22. Unpublished study prepared by Malcolm Pirnie Inc. 34 p. 44528301 Kirk, H.; Hugo, J.; McFadden, L. (1998) Phytotoxicologi cal Evaluation of DE-498 Exposed Freshwater Green Alga, Selenastrum capricornutum Printz: Lab Project Number: 971190. Unpublished study prepared by The Dow Chemical Co. 47 p. 47954505 Ma, J.; Lin, F.; Wang, S.; et al. ( 2004) Acute Toxicity Assessment of 20 Herbicides to the Green Alga Scenedesmus quadricauda (Turp.) Breb. Bulletin of Environmental Contam ination and Toxicology 72: 1164-1171 47954504 Ma, J.; Xu, L.; Wang, S.; et al. (2001 ) Toxicity of 40 Herbicides to the

### 61 Green Alga Chlorella vulgaris . Exotoxicology and Environmental Safety 51:128-132.

850.3020 Honey Bee Acute Contact
MRID Citation 41263228 Hoxter, K.; Jaber, M. (1988) XRD-498 Herbicide: An Acute Toxicity Study with the Honey Bee: Pr oject ID 103-290A. 15 p.

ENVIRONENTAL FATE STUDIES 835.2120 Hydrolysis
MRID Citation 41263229 Lehmann, R.; Miller, J. (1988) Aqueous Hydrolysis of XRD-498: Project ID GH-C 2092. Unpublished study prepared by Dow Chemical Co. 24 p. 835.2240 Photodegradation-water
MRID Citation
41931726 Wolt, J.; Woodburn, K.; Chari, S.; et al. (1991) Sunlight Photodegradation of ?carbon 14-Pyrimidine|XRD-498 in a Buffered Aqueous Solution at pH 5 and 7: Lab Project Number: 210W-1. Un- published study prepared by Pharmacology and Toxicology Research Lab-West. 110 p.
41931727 Wolt, J.; Woodburn, K.; Chari, S.; et al. (1991) Sunlight Photodegradation of ?carbon 14-Aniline|XRD-498 in a Buffered Aqueous Solution pH 5 and 7: Lab Project Number: 211W/1: 211W: PROTOCOL No. 3. Unpublished study prepared by Pharmacology and Toxicology Research Lab. 109 p. 835.2410 Photodegradation-soil
MRID Citation 41931728 Wolt, J.; Shepler, K.; Matthew, M. ; et al. (1991) Photodegradation of ?carbon 14-Aniline|XRD-498 on Soil by Natural Sunlight: Lab Project Number: GH/C 2452: PROTOCOL/NO. 89088: 208W. Unpublished study prepared by Pharmacology and T oxicology Research Lab. 84 p. 41931729 Wolt, J.; Shepler, K.; Chari, S.; et al. (1991) Photodegradation of ?carbon 14-Aniline|XRD-498 on Soil by Natural Sunlight: Lab Project Number: 209W: Protocol No. 89089. Unpublished study pre- pared by Pharmacology and Toxicology Research Lab. 82 p. 41931730 Wolt, J.; Shepler, K.; Yung, V. (1991) Photodegradation of carbon 14- Aniline|XRD-498 on Viable Soil by Natu ral Sunlight: Lab Project Number: 258W-1: 258W: PROTOCOL No. 90096. Unpublished study prepared by Pharmacology and Toxicology Research Lab. 86 p.
835.4100 Aerobic soil metabolism

### 62 MRID Citation 41263230 Laskowski, D.; Lehmann, R.; Goodwin, P.; et al. (1989) Aerobic Soil Degradation of XRD-498: Projec t ID GH-C 2160. Unpublished study prepared by Dow Chemical Co. 70 p.
41290403 Lehmann, R.; Laskowski, D.; Miller, J.; et al. (1989) Effect of Soil Properties on the Degradation and Sorption of XRD-498: Lab Project Number: GH/C/2243. Unpublished study pr epared by DowChemical U.S.A. 64 p.
41931731 Lehmann, R.; Holbrook, D.; Altscheffe l, S.; et al. (1991) Aerobic Soil Metabolism of Aniline-Labeled DE-498 in Hoytville Soil: Lab Project Number: 89002. Unpublished study prep ared by Dow-Elanco. 41 p. 41931732 Havens, P. ; Miller, J. (1991) Th e Aerobic Metabolism of ?carbon 14 - Aniline|-DE-498 in Two Soils: Lab Project Number: ENV91006.00. Unpublished study prepared by Dow Elanco. 50 p. 835.4400 Anaerobic aquatic metabolism
MRID Citation 41931733 Wolt, J.; Schwake, J.; Batzer, F.; et al. (1991) Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism of XRD-498 N-(2,6-di fluorophenyl)-5-methyl-(1,2,4) triazolo(1,5-a) pyrimid ine-2-sulfonamide|: Lab Project Number: PROTOCOL No. 89080. Unpublished study prepared by DowElanco. 13 p. 835.4300 Aerobic aquatic metabolism
MRID Citation 43592203 Esser, T.; Shepler, K.; Ruzo, L.; et al. (1993) Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism of (carbon 14) DE-498 in Canadian Pond Water and Sediment: Results through One-Year: Lab Project Number: 368W-2: 368W: 92005.02. Unpublished study prepared by PTRL-West, Inc. 112 p. 835.1230/835.1240 Leaching and adsorption/desorption
MRID Citation
41263231 Goodwin, P.; Lehmann, R.; Miller, J. (1989) Soil Adsorption/Desorption of Carbon 14-XRD-498: Project ID GH- C 2159. Unpublished study prepared by Dow Chemical Co. 58 p.

41290403 repeated in soil metabolism Lehmann, R.; Laskowski, D.; Miller, J.; et al. (1989) Effect of Soil Properties on the Degradation and Sorption of XRD-498: Lab Project Number: GH/C/2243. Unpublished study prep ared by Doe Chemical U.S.A. 64 p.
41931734 Fontaine, D.; Lehmann, R.; Miller, J. (1991) The Soil Adsorption of a Weakly Acidic Organic Compound XRD-498: Lab Project Number: 87062/01: 87062. Unpublished study prepared by DowElanco. 24 p.

### 63 42512501 Wolt, J. (1992) Aged Leaching of carbon 14 DE-498 in a Canadian Field Soil: Lab Project Number: 367W-1: 367W. Unpublished study prepared by PTRL-West, Inc. 60 p.43592202 Wolt, J.; Shepler, K.; Estigoy, L. (1993) Aged Leaching of (carbon 14)-DE498 in Two Field Soils: Lab Proj ect Number: 384W- 1: 384W: ENV92058. Unpublished study prepared by PTRL-West, Inc. 73 p. 835.6100 Terrestrial field dissipation
MRID Citation
41931735 Lehmann, R.; Balcer, J.; Duebelbeis, D. ; et al. (1991) Terrestrial Field Dissipation of DE-498: Lab Project Number: ENV87034/AN: ENV88075/AN. Unpublished study prepared by DowElanco. 106 p. 41931736 Lehmann, R.; Stanley, D. (1991) Stability of DE-498 in Soil During Two Years of Frozen Storage: Lab Project Number: 87062/02. Un- published study prepared by DowElanco. 21 p. 41931737 Fontaine, D. (1991) A Computer Mode ling Assessment of the Mobility of DE-498 in Three Major Soybean Growi ng Regions of the United States: Lab Project Number: GH/C 2547. Unpublished study pre- pared by DowElanco. 72 p. 41952107 Olberding, E.; Foster, D.; Harnick, B. ; et al. (1991) Determination of Residues of DE-498 in Soil by Capillary Gas Chromatography/ Mass Spectrometry: Lab Project Number : ACR 91.3. Unpublished study prepared by DowElanco. 22 p. 41952108 Duelbelbeis, D. (1991) Validation of Method ACR 91.3: Determination of Residues of DE-498 in Soil by Capillary Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry: Lab Project Number: MV000035. Unpublished study prepared by A&L Great La kes Labs, Inc. 17 p.
43592205 Roberts, D.; Buttler, I.; Foster, D.; et al. (1995) Terrestrial Field Dissipation of Flumetsulam in Minnesota and Mississippi: Lab Project Number: ENV91037. Unpublished study prepared by DowElanco's North American Environmental Chemistry Lab. 156 p.
43592206 Buttler, I.; Roberts, D.; Foster, D.; et al. (1993) Terrestrial Field Dissipation of DE-498 in Eastern Canada: Lab Project Number: ENV91038. Unpublished study prepared by DowElanco's North American Environmental Chemistry Lab. and DowElanco Canada. 144 p. 835.7100 Ground water monitoring Small-scale prospective studies
MRID Citation
44451301 Roberts, D.; Buttler, I.; McGibbon, A. et al. (1997) A Small-Scale Prospective Ground Water Monitoring Study of Flumetsulam in Indiana:

### 64 Lab Project Number: ENV91077.06: 802.02: 95-360. Unpublished study prepared by DowElanco. 609 p.
44451302 Roberts, D.; Buttler, I.; McGibbon, A. et al. (1997) A Small-Scale Prospective Ground Water Monitoring Study of Flumetsulam in North Carolina: Lab Project Number: ENV91077.07: ENV91077: 802.02. Unpublished study prepared by DowElanco. 453 p.
42906501 Butler, I.; Foster, D.; Schwake, J.; et al. (1993) A Small-Scale Prospective Ground-Water Monitoring Study of Flum etsulam in Indiana--An Interim Report for the First 24 Months: Lab Project Number: ENV91077. Unpublished study prepared by DowElanc o, North American Environmental Chemistry Lab. 462 p.
42906502 Butler, I.; Foster, D.; Schwake, J.; et al. (1993) A Small-Scale Prospective Ground-Water Monitoring Study of Fl umetsulam in North Carolina--An Interim Report for the First 24 Months: Lab Project Number: ENV91077.01. Unpublished study prepared by DowElanc o, North American Environmental Chemistry Lab. 432 p.
43407001 McGibbon, A.; Roberts, D.; Foster, D. (1994) A Small-Scale Prospective Ground-Water Monitoring Study of Fl umetsulam in North Carolina; Additional Data through 38 Months Af ter Treatment (MAT): Lab Project Number: ENV91077.05. Unpublished study prepared by DowElanco. 12 p.
43407002 McGibbon, A.; Roberts, D.; Foster, D. (1994) A Small-Scale Prospective Ground-Water Monitoring Study of Flumet sulam in Indiana-Additional Data through 38 Months After Treatment (MAT): Lab Project Number: ENV91077.04. Unpublished study prepared by DowElanco. 12 p.

Runoff studies 44427801 Peacock, A.; Foster, D. (1997) Runoff Losses of Flumetsulam from a Fresh Seedbed under Conditions of Heavy Rainfall: Lab Project Number: GH-C 4508: 1099: ENV97079. Unpublished study prepared by Global Environmental Chemistry Laboratory. 265 p.

Monitoring studies 45431901 Battaglin, W.; Furlong, E.; Burkhardt, M. (2001) Concentration of Selected Sulfonylurea, Sulfonamide, and Imidazoli none Herbicides, Ot her Pesticides, and Nutrients in 71 Streams, 5 Rese rvoir Outflows, and 25 Wells in the Midwestern United States, 1998. Water Resources Investigation Report 00- 4225. Prepared by U.S. Geological Survey. 7 p.

### 65 APPENDIX B

PRZM/EXAMS Aquatic EECs Output File

stored as KScornAL.out Chemical: Flumetsulam PRZM environment: KSCornStd.txt modified Monday, 25 August 2008 at 15:45:08 EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:08 Metfile: w13996.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:52 Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 2.311 2.307 2.298 2.269 2.246 1.435 1962 2.318 2.316 2.308 2.287 2.271 2.168 1963 4.258 4.255 4.243 4.206 4.168 3.386 1964 4.022 4.019 4.009 3.988 3.972 3.853 1965 4.005 4.002 3.989 3.957 3.935 3.804 1966 3.868 3.865 3.857 3.848 3.832 3.722 1967 5.507 5.502 5.48 5.446 5.408 4.695 1968 5.64 5.636 5.623 5.588 5.551 5.286 1969 7.295 7.288 7.269 7.221 7.169 6.355 1970 6.979 6.974 6.954 6.906 6.869 6.679 1971 7.194 7.189 7.174 7.116 7.066 6.712 1972 9.031 9.023 8.994 8.927 8.865 7.921 1973 9.986 9.978 9.953 9.892 9.824 9.111 1974 9.537 9.531 9.502 9.435 9.376 9.141 1975 8.961 8.955 8.931 8.898 8.855 8.671 1976 8.917 8.911 8.896 8.844 8.786 8.451 1977 11.01 11 10.97 10.88 10.79 9.696 1978 10.82 10.82 10.79 10.72 10.65 10.24 1979 11.04 11.03 11 10.92 10.85 10.34 1980 10.38 10.37 10.35 10.27 10.22 9.982 1981 10.4 10.4 10.38 10.31 10.24 9.803 1982 12.65 12.64 12.6 12.51 12.43 11.23 1983 12.9 12.89 12.86 12.8 12.72 12.07 1984 12.02 12.02 11.98 11.9 11.86 11.63 1985 12.57 12.56 12.53 12.45 12.38 11.73 1986 13.03 13.02 12.99 12.89 12.79 12.13 1987 12.73 12.72 12.67 12.58 12.49 12.06 1988 11.97 11.96 11.93 11.88 11.81 11.53 1989 12.07 12.06 12.04 11.95 11.88 11.38 1990 11.75 11.74 11.72 11.63 11.55 11.2

Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.032258064516129 13.03 13.02 12.99 12.89 12.79 12.13 0.0645161290322581 12.9 12.89 12.86 12.8 12.72 12.07 0.0967741935483871 12.73 12.72 12.67 12.58 12.49 12.06 0.129032258064516 12.65 12.64 12.6 12.51 12.43 11.73 0.161290322580645 12.57 12.56 12.53 12.45 12.38 11.63 0.193548387096774 12.07 12.06 12.04 11.95 11.88 11.53 0.225806451612903 12.02 12.02 11.98 11.9 11.86 11.38 0.258064516129032 11.97 11.96 11.93 11.88 11.81 11.23 0.290322580645161 11.75 11.74 11.72 11.63 11.55 11.2 0.32258064516129 11.04 11.03 11 10.92 10.85 10.34 0.354838709677419 11.01 11 10.97 10.88 10.79 10.24 0.387096774193548 10.82 10.82 10.79 10.72 10.65 9.982 0.419354838709677 10.4 10.4 10.38 10.31 10.24 9.803 0.451612903225806 10.38 10.37 10.35 10.27 10.22 9.696 0.483870967741936 9.986 9.978 9.953 9.892 9.824 9.141 0.516129032258065 9.537 9.531 9.502 9.435 9.376 9.111 0.548387096774194 9.031 9.023 8.994 8.927 8.865 8.671 0.580645161290323 8.961 8.955 8.931 8.898 8.855 8.451 0.612903225806452 8.917 8.911 8.896 8.844 8.786 7.921 0.645161290322581 7.295 7.288 7.269 7.221 7.169 6.712 0.67741935483871 7.194 7.189 7.174 7.116 7.066 6.679 0.709677419354839 6.979 6.974 6.954 6.906 6.869 6.355 0.741935483870968 5.64 5.636 5.623 5.588 5.551 5.286 0.774193548387097 5.507 5.502 5.48 5.446 5.408 4.695 0.806451612903226 4.258 4.255 4.243 4.206 4.168 3.853 0.838709677419355 4.022 4.019 4.009 3.988 3.972 3.804 0.870967741935484 4.005 4.002 3.989 3.957 3.935 3.722 0.903225806451613 3.868 3.865 3.857 3.848 3.832 3.386 0.935483870967742 2.318 2.316 2.308 2.287 2.271 2.168 0.967741935483871 2.311 2.307 2.298 2.269 2.246 1.435

### 66 0.1 12.722 12.712 12.663 12.573 12.484 12.027 Average of yearly averages: 8.2137

Inputs generated by pe5.pl - Novemeber 2006

Data used for this run: Output File: KScornAL Metfile: w13996.dvf PRZM scenario: KSCornStd.txt EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv Chemical Name: Flumetsulam Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 325.3 g/mol Henry's Law Const. henry atm-m^3/mol Vapor Pressure vapr 0.8e-15 torr Solubility sol 5650 mg/L Kd Kd mg/L Koc Koc 27.3 mg/L Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 1540 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 549 days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 98.9 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life Method: CAM 1 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI cm Application Rate: TAPP 0.078 kg/ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.05 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 01-05 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)

stored as KScornGL.out Chemical: Flumetsulam PRZM environment: KSCornStd.txt modified Monday, 25 August 2008 at 15:45:08 EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:08 Metfile: w13996.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:52 Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 2.245 2.241 2.232 2.205 2.182 1.393 1962 2.113 2.111 2.104 2.086 2.071 2.018 1963 4.003 4 3.987 3.953 3.918 3.162 1964 3.646 3.643 3.636 3.612 3.604 3.537 1965 3.522 3.519 3.507 3.48 3.456 3.379 1966 3.284 3.281 3.279 3.273 3.267 3.198 1967 4.892 4.887 4.867 4.838 4.805 4.122 1968 4.943 4.94 4.929 4.899 4.867 4.653 1969 6.59 6.583 6.567 6.524 6.477 5.691 1970 6.193 6.188 6.171 6.128 6.093 5.963 1971 6.356 6.352 6.339 6.288 6.244 5.938 1972 8.214 8.207 8.18 8.12 8.063 7.143 1973 9.153 9.146 9.124 9.07 9.008 8.33 1974 8.645 8.639 8.614 8.552 8.495 8.317 1975 8.037 8.035 8.029 8.014 8.002 7.785 1976 7.919 7.914 7.901 7.854 7.803 7.52 1977 10.06 10.05 10.02 9.942 9.863 8.787 1978 9.839 9.832 9.805 9.747 9.684 9.322 1979 10.03 10.02 9.993 9.922 9.857 9.398 1980 9.332 9.324 9.303 9.239 9.225 9.004 1981 9.341 9.335 9.317 9.254 9.189 8.802 1982 11.65 11.64 11.61 11.52 11.44 10.26 1983 11.89 11.88 11.85 11.79 11.72 11.12 1984 10.97 10.96 10.93 10.89 10.87 10.64 1985 11.52 11.51 11.47 11.41 11.34 10.74 1986 11.98 11.97 11.94 11.84 11.75 11.14 1987 11.65 11.64 11.6 11.51 11.43 11.06 1988 10.86 10.85 10.82 10.77 10.72 10.5 1989 10.94 10.94 10.92 10.85 10.78 10.32 1990 10.6 10.59 10.57 10.49 10.42 10.12

Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.032258064516129 11.98 11.97 11.94 11.84 11.75 11.14

### 67 0.0645161290322581 11.89 11.88 11.85 11.79 11.72 11.12 0.0967741935483871 11.65 11.64 11.61 11.52 11.44 11.06 0.129032258064516 11.65 11.64 11.6 11.51 11.43 10.74 0.161290322580645 11.52 11.51 11.47 11.41 11.34 10.64 0.193548387096774 10.97 10.96 10.93 10.89 10.87 10.5 0.225806451612903 10.94 10.94 10.92 10.85 10.78 10.32 0.258064516129032 10.86 10.85 10.82 10.77 10.72 10.26 0.290322580645161 10.6 10.59 10.57 10.49 10.42 10.12 0.32258064516129 10.06 10.05 10.02 9.942 9.863 9.398 0.354838709677419 10.03 10.02 9.993 9.922 9.857 9.322 0.387096774193548 9.839 9.832 9.805 9.747 9.684 9.004 0.419354838709677 9.341 9.335 9.317 9.254 9.225 8.802 0.451612903225806 9.332 9.324 9.303 9.239 9.189 8.787 0.483870967741936 9.153 9.146 9.124 9.07 9.008 8.33 0.516129032258065 8.645 8.639 8.614 8.552 8.495 8.317 0.548387096774194 8.214 8.207 8.18 8.12 8.063 7.785 0.580645161290323 8.037 8.035 8.029 8.014 8.002 7.52 0.612903225806452 7.919 7.914 7.901 7.854 7.803 7.143 0.645161290322581 6.59 6.583 6.567 6.524 6.477 5.963 0.67741935483871 6.356 6.352 6.339 6.288 6.244 5.938 0.709677419354839 6.193 6.188 6.171 6.128 6.093 5.691 0.741935483870968 4.943 4.94 4.929 4.899 4.867 4.653 0.774193548387097 4.892 4.887 4.867 4.838 4.805 4.122 0.806451612903226 4.003 4 3.987 3.953 3.918 3.537 0.838709677419355 3.646 3.643 3.636 3.612 3.604 3.379 0.870967741935484 3.522 3.519 3.507 3.48 3.456 3.198 0.903225806451613 3.284 3.281 3.279 3.273 3.267 3.162 0.935483870967742 2.245 2.241 2.232 2.205 2.182 2.018 0.967741935483871 2.113 2.111 2.104 2.086 2.071 1.393

0.1 11.65 11.64 11.609 11.519 11.439 11.028 Average of yearly averages: 7.4454

Inputs generated by pe5.pl - Novemeber 2006

Data used for this run: Output File: KScornGL Metfile: w13996.dvf PRZM scenario: KSCornStd.txt EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv Chemical Name: Flumetsulam Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 325.3 g/mol Henry's Law Const. henry atm-m^3/mol Vapor Pressure vapr 0.8e-15 torr Solubility sol 5650 mg/L Kd Kd mg/L Koc Koc 27.3 mg/L Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 1540 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 549 days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 98.9 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life Method: CAM 1 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI cm Application Rate: TAPP 0.078 kg/ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 01-05 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)

stored as MScornAL.out Chemical: Flumetsulam PRZM environment: MScornSTD.txt modified Tueday, 29 May 2007 at 13:57:40 EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:08 Metfile: w03940.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:14 Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 3.765 3.759 3.737 3.688 3.653 2.655 1962 4.19 4.187 4.174 4.143 4.112 3.766 1963 3.969 3.966 3.954 3.923 3.901 3.742 1964 6.423 6.415 6.391 6.323 6.268 5.353 1965 8.857 8.849 8.813 8.732 8.666 7.652

### 68 1966 7.964 7.96 7.939 7.922 7.886 7.645 1967 7.776 7.769 7.748 7.703 7.664 7.365 1968 8.865 8.859 8.829 8.754 8.695 8.023 1969 8.181 8.176 8.158 8.105 8.069 7.784 1970 7.515 7.509 7.489 7.457 7.416 7.165 1971 7.622 7.617 7.596 7.544 7.514 7.102 1972 8.409 8.403 8.383 8.325 8.27 7.644 1973 7.808 7.804 7.79 7.745 7.703 7.398 1974 7.692 7.687 7.667 7.606 7.554 7.191 1975 7.35 7.346 7.328 7.285 7.245 6.947 1976 8.912 8.904 8.87 8.8 8.742 7.949 1977 8.671 8.665 8.643 8.578 8.518 8.103 1978 8.087 8.082 8.067 8.014 7.962 7.66 1979 8.963 8.958 8.932 8.877 8.821 8.167 1980 11.38 11.37 11.33 11.25 11.19 10.03 1981 10.97 10.96 10.94 10.86 10.79 10.26 1982 10 9.996 9.969 9.922 9.875 9.544 1983 11.23 11.22 11.19 11.1 11.03 10.17 1984 10.75 10.75 10.73 10.67 10.6 10.14 1985 10.3 10.29 10.26 10.2 10.14 9.701 1986 9.337 9.331 9.309 9.273 9.231 8.918 1987 8.6 8.595 8.575 8.527 8.475 8.173 1988 9.511 9.503 9.47 9.4 9.337 8.626 1989 10.04 10.04 10.01 9.945 9.888 9.234 1990 9.087 9.083 9.063 9.014 8.989 8.676

Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.032258064516129 11.38 11.37 11.33 11.25 11.19 10.26 0.0645161290322581 11.23 11.22 11.19 11.1 11.03 10.17 0.0967741935483871 10.97 10.96 10.94 10.86 10.79 10.14 0.129032258064516 10.75 10.75 10.73 10.67 10.6 10.03 0.161290322580645 10.3 10.29 10.26 10.2 10.14 9.701 0.193548387096774 10.04 10.04 10.01 9.945 9.888 9.544 0.225806451612903 10 9.996 9.969 9.922 9.875 9.234 0.258064516129032 9.511 9.503 9.47 9.4 9.337 8.918 0.290322580645161 9.337 9.331 9.309 9.273 9.231 8.676 0.32258064516129 9.087 9.083 9.063 9.014 8.989 8.626 0.354838709677419 8.963 8.958 8.932 8.877 8.821 8.173 0.387096774193548 8.912 8.904 8.87 8.8 8.742 8.167 0.419354838709677 8.865 8.859 8.829 8.754 8.695 8.103 0.451612903225806 8.857 8.849 8.813 8.732 8.666 8.023 0.483870967741936 8.671 8.665 8.643 8.578 8.518 7.949 0.516129032258065 8.6 8.595 8.575 8.527 8.475 7.784 0.548387096774194 8.409 8.403 8.383 8.325 8.27 7.66 0.580645161290323 8.181 8.176 8.158 8.105 8.069 7.652 0.612903225806452 8.087 8.082 8.067 8.014 7.962 7.645 0.645161290322581 7.964 7.96 7.939 7.922 7.886 7.644 0.67741935483871 7.808 7.804 7.79 7.745 7.703 7.398 0.709677419354839 7.776 7.769 7.748 7.703 7.664 7.365 0.741935483870968 7.692 7.687 7.667 7.606 7.554 7.191 0.774193548387097 7.622 7.617 7.596 7.544 7.514 7.165 0.806451612903226 7.515 7.509 7.489 7.457 7.416 7.102 0.838709677419355 7.35 7.346 7.328 7.285 7.245 6.947 0.870967741935484 6.423 6.415 6.391 6.323 6.268 5.353 0.903225806451613 4.19 4.187 4.174 4.143 4.112 3.766 0.935483870967742 3.969 3.966 3.954 3.923 3.901 3.742 0.967741935483871 3.765 3.759 3.737 3.688 3.653 2.655

0.1 10.948 10.939 10.919 10.841 10.771 10.129 Average of yearly averages: 7.75943333333333

Inputs generated by pe5.pl - Novemeber 2006

Data used for this run: Output File: MScornAL Metfile: w03940.dvf PRZM scenario: MScornSTD.txt EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv Chemical Name: Flumetsulam Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 325.3 g/mol Henry's Law Const. henry atm-m^3/mol Vapor Pressure vapr 0.8e-15 torr Solubility sol 5650 mg/L Kd Kd mg/L Koc Koc 27.3 mg/L Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 1540 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 549 days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 98.9 days Halfife

### 69 Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life Method: CAM 1 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI cm Application Rate: TAPP 0.078 kg/ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.05 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 28-03 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)

stored as MScornGL.out Chemical: Flumetsulam PRZM environment: MScornSTD.txt modified Tueday, 29 May 2007 at 13:57:40 EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:08 Metfile: w03940.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:14 Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 3.759 3.753 3.732 3.683 3.648 2.652 1962 4.065 4.062 4.049 4.02 3.991 3.676 1963 3.715 3.712 3.702 3.674 3.649 3.534 1964 6.162 6.154 6.131 6.065 6.012 5.11 1965 8.601 8.593 8.558 8.479 8.415 7.413 1966 7.642 7.64 7.631 7.611 7.594 7.32 1967 7.318 7.313 7.293 7.246 7.211 6.95 1968 8.369 8.364 8.335 8.264 8.207 7.566 1969 7.598 7.593 7.576 7.526 7.494 7.259 1970 6.866 6.864 6.856 6.838 6.822 6.564 1971 6.922 6.918 6.899 6.847 6.82 6.455 1972 7.696 7.69 7.674 7.622 7.572 6.987 1973 7.046 7.043 7.027 6.989 6.949 6.7 1974 6.9 6.895 6.878 6.823 6.777 6.457 1975 6.509 6.505 6.489 6.449 6.415 6.171 1976 8.104 8.097 8.065 8.001 7.948 7.187 1977 7.824 7.818 7.798 7.74 7.685 7.324 1978 7.204 7.2 7.185 7.14 7.092 6.845 1979 8.1 8.095 8.071 8.019 7.969 7.354 1980 10.59 10.58 10.55 10.47 10.41 9.281 1981 10.16 10.15 10.12 10.05 9.99 9.507 1982 9.148 9.143 9.118 9.071 9.039 8.756 1983 10.41 10.4 10.37 10.29 10.22 9.399 1984 9.9 9.893 9.874 9.821 9.762 9.35 1985 9.413 9.407 9.381 9.327 9.271 8.885 1986 8.469 8.467 8.456 8.429 8.406 8.065 1987 7.635 7.631 7.613 7.571 7.54 7.286 1988 8.578 8.571 8.541 8.476 8.419 7.751 1989 9.133 9.129 9.101 9.042 8.991 8.381 1990 8.237 8.234 8.221 8.19 8.165 7.795

Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.032258064516129 10.59 10.58 10.55 10.47 10.41 9.507 0.0645161290322581 10.41 10.4 10.37 10.29 10.22 9.399 0.0967741935483871 10.16 10.15 10.12 10.05 9.99 9.35 0.129032258064516 9.9 9.893 9.874 9.821 9.762 9.281 0.161290322580645 9.413 9.407 9.381 9.327 9.271 8.885 0.193548387096774 9.148 9.143 9.118 9.071 9.039 8.756 0.225806451612903 9.133 9.129 9.101 9.042 8.991 8.381 0.258064516129032 8.601 8.593 8.558 8.479 8.419 8.065 0.290322580645161 8.578 8.571 8.541 8.476 8.415 7.795 0.32258064516129 8.469 8.467 8.456 8.429 8.406 7.751 0.354838709677419 8.369 8.364 8.335 8.264 8.207 7.566 0.387096774193548 8.237 8.234 8.221 8.19 8.165 7.413 0.419354838709677 8.104 8.097 8.071 8.019 7.969 7.354 0.451612903225806 8.1 8.095 8.065 8.001 7.948 7.324 0.483870967741936 7.824 7.818 7.798 7.74 7.685 7.32 0.516129032258065 7.696 7.69 7.674 7.622 7.594 7.286 0.548387096774194 7.642 7.64 7.631 7.611 7.572 7.259 0.580645161290323 7.635 7.631 7.613 7.571 7.54 7.187 0.612903225806452 7.598 7.593 7.576 7.526 7.494 6.987 0.645161290322581 7.318 7.313 7.293 7.246 7.211 6.95 0.67741935483871 7.204 7.2 7.185 7.14 7.092 6.845 0.709677419354839 7.046 7.043 7.027 6.989 6.949 6.7 0.741935483870968 6.922 6.918 6.899 6.847 6.822 6.564 0.774193548387097 6.9 6.895 6.878 6.838 6.82 6.457

### 70 0.806451612903226 6.866 6.864 6.856 6.823 6.777 6.455 0.838709677419355 6.509 6.505 6.489 6.449 6.415 6.171 0.870967741935484 6.162 6.154 6.131 6.065 6.012 5.11 0.903225806451613 4.065 4.062 4.049 4.02 3.991 3.676 0.935483870967742 3.759 3.753 3.732 3.683 3.649 3.534 0.967741935483871 3.715 3.712 3.702 3.674 3.648 2.652

0.1 10.134 10.1243 10.0954 10.0271 9.9672 9.3431 Average of yearly averages: 7.13266666666666

Inputs generated by pe5.pl - Novemeber 2006

Data used for this run: Output File: MScornGL Metfile: w03940.dvf PRZM scenario: MScornSTD.txt EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv Chemical Name: Flumetsulam Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 325.3 g/mol Henry's Law Const. henry atm-m^3/mol Vapor Pressure vapr 0.8e-15 torr Solubility sol 5650 mg/L Kd Kd mg/L Koc Koc 27.3 mg/L Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 1540 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 549 days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 98.9 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life Method: CAM 1 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI cm Application Rate: TAPP 0.078 kg/ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 28-03 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) stored as MSsoybeenAL.out Chemical: Flumetsulam PRZM environment: MSsoybeanSTD.txt modified Tueday, 29 May 2007 at 13:58:06 EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:08 Metfile: w03940.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:14 Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 0.3364 0.3358 0.3335 0.3308 0.328 0.2337 1962 1.369 1.368 1.36 1.341 1.329 1.021 1963 1.46 1.458 1.454 1.442 1.431 1.328 1964 3.392 3.387 3.374 3.334 3.303 2.668 1965 3.213 3.211 3.2 3.174 3.155 3.015 1966 3.12 3.118 3.109 3.085 3.07 2.942 1967 3.48 3.477 3.465 3.435 3.419 3.177 1968 4.429 4.426 4.408 4.368 4.336 3.902 1969 4.263 4.26 4.247 4.216 4.187 4.003 1970 4.034 4.031 4.02 3.995 3.973 3.813 1971 4.239 4.236 4.225 4.191 4.161 3.899 1972 3.941 3.939 3.934 3.917 3.894 3.744 1973 3.919 3.917 3.905 3.88 3.855 3.653 1974 4.774 4.77 4.757 4.714 4.679 4.22 1975 4.612 4.609 4.602 4.568 4.537 4.338 1976 4.293 4.29 4.287 4.276 4.26 4.114 1977 4.637 4.633 4.617 4.582 4.548 4.239 1978 4.539 4.535 4.524 4.494 4.463 4.237 1979 5.133 5.13 5.114 5.082 5.049 4.652 1980 5.708 5.705 5.687 5.638 5.594 5.144 1981 5.361 5.357 5.342 5.303 5.269 5.046 1982 5.051 5.047 5.032 4.99 4.968 4.775 1983 6.107 6.103 6.085 6.035 5.993 5.436 1984 6.229 6.224 6.212 6.179 6.14 5.777 1985 5.808 5.804 5.788 5.752 5.719 5.509 1986 5.372 5.369 5.355 5.328 5.298 5.105 1987 5.006 5.003 4.994 4.968 4.939 4.75 1988 5.897 5.892 5.871 5.825 5.783 5.27 1989 5.68 5.679 5.664 5.632 5.597 5.339

### 71 1990 5.281 5.277 5.262 5.249 5.223 5.035

Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.032258064516129 6.229 6.224 6.212 6.179 6.14 5.777 0.0645161290322581 6.107 6.103 6.085 6.035 5.993 5.509 0.0967741935483871 5.897 5.892 5.871 5.825 5.783 5.436 0.129032258064516 5.808 5.804 5.788 5.752 5.719 5.339 0.161290322580645 5.708 5.705 5.687 5.638 5.597 5.27 0.193548387096774 5.68 5.679 5.664 5.632 5.594 5.144 0.225806451612903 5.372 5.369 5.355 5.328 5.298 5.105 0.258064516129032 5.361 5.357 5.342 5.303 5.269 5.046 0.290322580645161 5.281 5.277 5.262 5.249 5.223 5.035 0.32258064516129 5.133 5.13 5.114 5.082 5.049 4.775 0.354838709677419 5.051 5.047 5.032 4.99 4.968 4.75 0.387096774193548 5.006 5.003 4.994 4.968 4.939 4.652 0.419354838709677 4.774 4.77 4.757 4.714 4.679 4.338 0.451612903225806 4.637 4.633 4.617 4.582 4.548 4.239 0.483870967741936 4.612 4.609 4.602 4.568 4.537 4.237 0.516129032258065 4.539 4.535 4.524 4.494 4.463 4.22 0.548387096774194 4.429 4.426 4.408 4.368 4.336 4.114 0.580645161290323 4.293 4.29 4.287 4.276 4.26 4.003 0.612903225806452 4.263 4.26 4.247 4.216 4.187 3.902 0.645161290322581 4.239 4.236 4.225 4.191 4.161 3.899 0.67741935483871 4.034 4.031 4.02 3.995 3.973 3.813 0.709677419354839 3.941 3.939 3.934 3.917 3.894 3.744 0.741935483870968 3.919 3.917 3.905 3.88 3.855 3.653 0.774193548387097 3.48 3.477 3.465 3.435 3.419 3.177 0.806451612903226 3.392 3.387 3.374 3.334 3.303 3.015 0.838709677419355 3.213 3.211 3.2 3.174 3.155 2.942 0.870967741935484 3.12 3.118 3.109 3.085 3.07 2.668 0.903225806451613 1.46 1.458 1.454 1.442 1.431 1.328 0.935483870967742 1.369 1.368 1.36 1.341 1.329 1.021 0.967741935483871 0.3364 0.3358 0.3335 0.3308 0.328 0.2337

0.1 5.8881 5.8832 5.8627 5.8177 5.7766 5.4263 Average of yearly averages: 4.01282333333333

Inputs generated by pe5.pl - Novemeber 2006

Data used for this run: Output File: MSsoybeenAL Metfile: w03940.dvf PRZM scenario: MSsoybeanSTD.txt EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv Chemical Name: Flumetsulam Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 325.3 g/mol Henry's Law Const. henry atm-m^3/mol Vapor Pressure vapr 0.8e-15 torr Solubility sol 5650 mg/L Kd Kd mg/L Koc Koc 27.3 mg/L Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 1540 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 549 days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 98.9 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life Method: CAM 1 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI cm Application Rate: TAPP 0.078 kg/ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.05 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 31-03 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)

stored as MSsoybeanGL.out Chemical: Flumetsulam PRZM environment: MSsoybeanSTD.txt modified Tueday, 29 May 2007 at 13:58:06 EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:08 Metfile: w03940.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:14 Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

### 72 1961 0.1881 0.1878 0.1866 0.1858 0.1844 0.1298 1962 1.125 1.124 1.117 1.101 1.09 0.8171 1963 1.1 1.099 1.096 1.088 1.081 1.02 1964 3.003 2.999 2.988 2.951 2.922 2.314 1965 2.723 2.721 2.713 2.691 2.673 2.583 1966 2.542 2.54 2.533 2.514 2.497 2.421 1967 2.842 2.839 2.829 2.805 2.787 2.587 1968 3.746 3.744 3.728 3.693 3.665 3.273 1969 3.515 3.512 3.502 3.477 3.453 3.32 1970 3.222 3.22 3.212 3.189 3.174 3.072 1971 3.397 3.395 3.386 3.359 3.334 3.119 1972 3.057 3.056 3.051 3.04 3.031 2.923 1973 2.993 2.991 2.983 2.961 2.943 2.798 1974 3.859 3.855 3.845 3.81 3.78 3.362 1975 3.657 3.655 3.648 3.622 3.598 3.454 1976 3.307 3.306 3.302 3.291 3.281 3.193 1977 3.619 3.616 3.604 3.575 3.548 3.298 1978 3.506 3.504 3.493 3.471 3.448 3.279 1979 4.108 4.105 4.091 4.064 4.038 3.691 1980 4.683 4.68 4.665 4.624 4.587 4.187 1981 4.311 4.308 4.295 4.265 4.238 4.078 1982 3.988 3.985 3.973 3.94 3.917 3.787 1983 5.072 5.068 5.053 5.01 4.974 4.463 1984 5.184 5.18 5.171 5.143 5.112 4.805 1985 4.736 4.733 4.721 4.692 4.666 4.519 1986 4.279 4.276 4.265 4.252 4.24 4.092 1987 3.889 3.887 3.882 3.864 3.844 3.72 1988 4.811 4.807 4.789 4.751 4.716 4.255 1989 4.588 4.587 4.575 4.551 4.524 4.323 1990 4.172 4.169 4.157 4.14 4.127 4.001

Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.032258064516129 5.184 5.18 5.171 5.143 5.112 4.805 0.0645161290322581 5.072 5.068 5.053 5.01 4.974 4.519 0.0967741935483871 4.811 4.807 4.789 4.751 4.716 4.463 0.129032258064516 4.736 4.733 4.721 4.692 4.666 4.323 0.161290322580645 4.683 4.68 4.665 4.624 4.587 4.255 0.193548387096774 4.588 4.587 4.575 4.551 4.524 4.187 0.225806451612903 4.311 4.308 4.295 4.265 4.24 4.092 0.258064516129032 4.279 4.276 4.265 4.252 4.238 4.078 0.290322580645161 4.172 4.169 4.157 4.14 4.127 4.001 0.32258064516129 4.108 4.105 4.091 4.064 4.038 3.787 0.354838709677419 3.988 3.985 3.973 3.94 3.917 3.72 0.387096774193548 3.889 3.887 3.882 3.864 3.844 3.691 0.419354838709677 3.859 3.855 3.845 3.81 3.78 3.454 0.451612903225806 3.746 3.744 3.728 3.693 3.665 3.362 0.483870967741936 3.657 3.655 3.648 3.622 3.598 3.32 0.516129032258065 3.619 3.616 3.604 3.575 3.548 3.298 0.548387096774194 3.515 3.512 3.502 3.477 3.453 3.279 0.580645161290323 3.506 3.504 3.493 3.471 3.448 3.273 0.612903225806452 3.397 3.395 3.386 3.359 3.334 3.193 0.645161290322581 3.307 3.306 3.302 3.291 3.281 3.119 0.67741935483871 3.222 3.22 3.212 3.189 3.174 3.072 0.709677419354839 3.057 3.056 3.051 3.04 3.031 2.923 0.741935483870968 3.003 2.999 2.988 2.961 2.943 2.798 0.774193548387097 2.993 2.991 2.983 2.951 2.922 2.587 0.806451612903226 2.842 2.839 2.829 2.805 2.787 2.583 0.838709677419355 2.723 2.721 2.713 2.691 2.673 2.421 0.870967741935484 2.542 2.54 2.533 2.514 2.497 2.314 0.903225806451613 1.125 1.124 1.117 1.101 1.09 1.02 0.935483870967742 1.1 1.099 1.096 1.088 1.081 0.8171 0.967741935483871 0.1881 0.1878 0.1866 0.1858 0.1844 0.1298

0.1 4.8035 4.7996 4.7822 4.7451 4.711 4.449 Average of yearly averages: 3.22946333333333

Inputs generated by pe5.pl - Novemeber 2006

Data used for this run: Output File: MSsoybeanGL Metfile: w03940.dvf PRZM scenario: MSsoybeanSTD.txt EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv Chemical Name: Flumetsulam Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 325.3 g/mol Henry's Law Const. henry atm-m^3/mol Vapor Pressure vapr 0.8e-15 torr Solubility sol 5650 mg/L Kd Kd mg/L

### 73 Koc Koc 27.3 mg/L Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 1540 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 549 days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 98.9 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life Method: CAM 1 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI cm Application Rate: TAPP 0.078 kg/ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 31-03 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)

### 74 APPENDIX C

Output from T-Rex and TerrPlant Model Runs for Flumetsulam



### T-Rex Run for Spray Applications



## Upper Bound Kenaga Residues For RQ Calculation

Chemical Name: Flumetsulam

Use 1
Formulation All products Application Rate 0.07 lbs a.i./acre
Half-life 35 days Application Interval 0 days Maximum # Apps./Year 1 Length of Simulation 1 year Variable application rates? no



## Endpoints

Avian Bobwhite quail LD50 (mg/kg-bw) 2250.00

Bobwhite quail LC50 (mg/kg-diet) 5620.00 Bobwhite quail NOAEL(mg/kg-bw) 0.00

Bobwhite quail NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) 300.00



## Mammals LD50 (mg/kg-bw) 5000.00 LC50 (mg/kg-diet) 0.00 NOAEL (mg/kg-bw) 50.00 NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) 1000.00



## Dietary-based EECs (ppm) Kenaga Values Short Grass 16.80 Tall Grass 7.70 Broadleaf plants 9.45 Fruits/pods/seeds 1.05 Arthropods 6.58

### 75 

## Avian Results

Avian Body Ingestion (Fdry) Ingestion (Fwet) % body wgt FI Class Weight (g) (g bw/day) (g/day) consumed (kg-diet/day) Small 20 5 23 114 2.28E-02

Mid 100 13 65 65 6.49E-02 Large 1000 58 291 29 2.91E-01 20 5 5 25 5.06E-03 Granivores 100 13 14 14 1.44E-02 1000 58 65 6 6.46E-02

Avian Body Adjusted LD50 Weight (g) (mg/kg-bw) 20 1620.97 100 2063.57 1000 2914.87



## Dose-based EECs (mg/kg-bw) Avian Classes and Body Weights (grams) small mid large

20 100 1000 Short Grass 19.13 10.91 4.88 Tall Grass 8.77 5.00 2.24 Broadleaf plants 10.76 6.14 2.75 Fruits/pods 1.20 0.68 0.31 Arthropods 7.49 4.27 1.91 Seeds 0.27 0.15 0.07



## Dose-based RQs (Dose-based EEC/adjusted LD50) 

### Avian Acute RQs Size Class (grams)

20 100 1000

Short Grass 0.01 0.01 0.00 Tall Grass 0.01 0.00 0.00 Broadleaf plants 0.01 0.00 0.00 Fruits/pods 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arthropods 0.00 0.00 0.00 Seeds 0.00 0.00 0.00

### 76 

## Dietary-based RQs (Dietary-based EEC/LC50 or NOAEC) 

### RQs

Acute Chronic
Short Grass 0.00 0.06 Tall Grass 0.00 0.03 Broadleaf plants 0.00 0.03 Fruits/pods/seeds 0.00 0.00 Arthropods 0.00 0.02



## Mammalian Results

Mammalian Body Ingestion (Fdry) Ingestion (Fwet) % body wgt FI Class Weight (g bwt/day) (g/day) consumed (kg-diet/day) 15 3 14 95 1.43E-02 Herbivores/ 35 5 23 66 2.31E-02 insectivores 1000 31 153 15 1.53E-01 15 3 3 21 3.18E-03 Grainvores 35 5 5 15 5.13E-03 1000 31 34 3 3.40E-02

Mammalian Body Adjusted Adjusted Class Weight LD50 NOAEL 15 10989.15 109.89 Herbivores/ 35 8891.40 88.91 insectivores 1000 3845.80 38.46 15 10989.15 109.89 Granivores 35 8891.40 88.91 1000 3845.80 38.46



## Dose-Based EECs (mg/kg-bw) Mammalian Classes and Body weight (grams)

15 35 1000
Short Grass 16.02 11.07 2.57 Tall Grass 7.34 5.07 1.18 Broadleaf plants 9.01 6.23 1.44 Fruits/pods 1.00 0.69 0.16 Arthropods 6.27 4.34 1.01 Seeds 0.22 0.15 0.04



## Dose-based RQs (Dose-based Small mammal Medium mammal Large mammal
15 grams 35 grams 1000 grams

Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronic

### 77 EEC/LD50 or NOAEL)
Short Grass 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.07 Tall Grass 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.03 Broadleaf plants 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.04 Fruits/pods 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 Arthropods 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.03 Seeds 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00



## Dietary-based RQs (Dietary-based EEC/LC50 or NOAEC) Mammal RQs

Acute Chronic
Short Grass #DIV/0! 0.02 Tall Grass #DIV/0! 0.01 Broadleaf plants #DIV/0! 0.01 Fruits/pods/seeds #DIV/0! 0.00 Arthropods #DIV/0! 0.01

### 78 T-Rex Run for Products Impregnated in Fertilizer (LD 50 

### /Sq. ft. Calculations)

Chemical: Flumetsulam

LD50 ft-2

INPUTS Do not overwrite these numbers. Application Rate: 0.07 lbs / acre % A.I.: 100.00% Avian LD50 (20g): 1620.97 mg/kg bw (100g) 2063.57 (1000g) 2914.87 Mammalian LD50 (15g): 10989.15 mg/kg bw (35g) 8891.40 (1000g) 3845.80 Row Spacing: 0 inches Bandwidth: 0 inches Unincorporation: 100%



### Row/Band/In-furrow applications

Granular N/A
Intermediate Calculations Intermediate Calculations # rows acre-1: N/A mg a.i./1000 ft row: N/A row length (ft): N/A bandwidth: N/A lb ai/1000 ft row: N/A mg a.i./ft2: N/A

bandwidth (ft): N/A exposed mg a.i./ft2: N/A mg ai/ft2: N/A exposed mg ai/ft2: N/A



### LD50 ft-2 N/A wgt class (grams) wgt class (grams) Avian 20 N/A Avian 20 N/A 100 N/A 100 N/A 1000 N/A 1000 N/A Mammal 15 N/A Mammal 15 N/A 35 N/A 35 N/A 1000 N/A 1000 N/A

### 79 Broadcast applications

Granular

Intermediate Calculations
mg ai/ft2: 0.73



### LD50 ft-2 wgt class (grams) Avian 20 0.02 100 0.00 1000 0.00 Mammal 15 0.00 35 0.00 1000 0.00

Formulas used in the calculations are in the User’s Guide.

### 80 TerrPlant

TerrPlant v. 1.2.2 Green values signify user inputs (Tables 1, 2 and 4). Input and output guidance is in popups indicated by red arrows.

Table 1. Chemical Identity.
Chemical Name Flumestulam PC code 129016 Use Corn, pre-emergent Application Method Aerial

Application Form Spray Solubility in Water (ppm) 5300

Table 2. Input parameters used to derive EECs. Input Parameter Symbol Value Units Application Rate A 0.069 lb/A

Incorporation I 1 none Runoff Fraction R 0.05 none

Drift Fraction D 0.05 none

Table 3. EECs for Flumestulam. Units in lb/A. Description Equation EEC Runoff to dry areas (A/I)*R 0.00345 Runoff to semi-aquatic areas (A/I)*R*10 0.0345 Spray drift A*D 0.00345 Total for dry areas ((A/I)*R)+(A*D) 0.0069 Total for semi-aquatic areas ((A/I)*R*10)+(A*D) 0.03795

Table 4. Plant survival and growth data used for RQ derivation. Units are in lb/A. Seedling Emergence Vegetative Vigor Plant type EC 25 NOAEC EC 25 NOAEC

Monocot 0.0017 0.000568 0.00058 0.000093

Dicot 0.000188 0.0000452 0.00027 0.00028

Table 5. RQ values for plants in dry and semi-aq uatic areas exposed to Flumestulam through runoff and/or spray drift.* Plant Type Listed Status Dry Semi-Aquatic Spray Drift

Monocot non-listed 4.06 22.32 5.95 Monocot listed 12.15 66.81 37.10

Dicot non-listed 36.70 201.86 18.35 Dicot listed 152.65 839.60 76.33 *If RQ > 1.0, the LOC is exceeded, resulti ng in potential for risk to that plant group.81APPENDIX DEcological Incident Reports for FlumetsulamTable D1. Ecological Incidents Associated with Exposure to Flumetsulam Via Drift, Runoff, and CarryoverUse SiteIncident IDDateStateMagnitudeSpeciesAffectedRoute ofExposureProductCertaintyAgricultural AreaI007887-001 6/2/1997 MS All except 50 acres Sorghum Carryover Broadstrike SF ProbableI009512-012 5/15/1999 MN AllCORN Carryover Hornet PossibleI010927-027 5/20/2000 GA AllCotton Carryover Broadstrike + Trefla ProbableI013636-054 5/20/2002 IA 15 acres Soybean Carryover Hornet WDG PossibleI014702-045 5/2/2003 WI 76 acres Soybean Carryover Hornet ProbableAlfalfa.I009512-005 6/23/1999 WI 20 acres Alfalfa Carryover Hornet PossibleCloverI014702-038 4/11/2003 MN 18 acres clover Carryover Hornet ProbableCornI007755-009 5/2/1998 MN 33 acres Soybean Carryover Hornet PossibleI007702-013 7/19/1998 IL 18 rows Soybean Drift Hornet PossibleI007702-014 7/20/1998 IL Unknown Soybean Drift Hornet PossibleI007702-008 8/4/1998 IL All10 acres Soybean Runoff Hornet PossibleI007702-007 8/4/1998 IL All 10 acres Soybean Drift HornetPossibleI007702-006 8/5/1998 IL All 25 acres Soybean Drift HornetPossibleI007702-004 8/9/1998 IN 50 acres out of 100 Soybean Drift HornetPossibleI007702-002 8/9/1998 IN All 100 acres Soybean Drift HornetPossibleI007702-003 8/9/1998 IN All 40 acres Soybean Drift HornetPossibleI007702-001 8/9/1998 IN 100 acres out of 100 Soybean Drift HornetPossibleI007702-005 8/9/1998 IN 30 acres out of 60 Soybean Drift HornetPossibleI007702-009 8/10/1998 IN All 60 acres Soybean Drift HornetPossibleI007702-011 8/12/1998 IL All 80 acres Soybean Drift HornetPossibleI009512-016 6/13/1999 MN 600 acres Soybean Drift Hornet Possible82I009512-015 8/11/1999 MN 216 acres Soybean Drift Hornet PossibleI009512-014 8/11/1999 MN 214 acres Soybean Drift Hornet PossibleI013550-003 5/22/2002 IL 862 plants and treesUnknownplantDrift, spray Hornet PossibleI014702-026 5/10/2003 NE 39 acres Soybean Carryover Hornet ProbableI014702-027 5/10/2003 NE 39 acres Soybean Carryover Hornet ProbableI014702-024 5/13/2003 NE 35.85 acres Soybean Carryover Hornet ProbableI014702-025 5/13/2003 NE 35.35 acres Soybean Carryover Hornet ProbableCorn, fieldI012366-072 5/2/2000 WI 60 acres Soybean Carryover Hornet ProbableI012366-067 5/10/2000 KS 126 acres Soybean Carryover Hornet ProbableI013636-062 5/2/2002 NE 39 acres Soybean Carryover Hornet WDGHighlyprobableI013636-059 5/14/2002 NE 120 acres Soybean Carryover Hornet WDG PossibleI013636-058 5/15/2002 MN 260 out of 302 acres Soybean Carryover Hornet WDG PossibleI013636-068 5/15/2002 MN Soybean Carryover Hornet WDG PossibleI013636-024 5/20/2002 NE 155 acres Corn, field Carryover Hornet WDG PossibleNot ReportedI009573-004 5/18/1999 OH UnknownUnknowntreeDrift Broadstrike + Dual ProbableI013554-024 7/1/2002 NE 188 acresSoybean CarryoverAccent PossibleSoybeanI009969-008 5/1/1999 IA All Corn Carryover Broadstrike ProbableI015748-042 5/10/2003 WI 607 acres Soybean Carryover Hornet ProbableTable D2. Minor Ecological Incidents Reported to the EPA in Aggregated IncidentReports, as Identifiedby the Incident Data System(IDS).Incident #Product NameReg#MultipleAIsFrom DateTo DateWB1PB1ONT1TotalCount007754 - 00001 SCORPION III062719-00264 Yes 5/11/1998 6/22/1998 0 1 0 1007754 - 00003 HORNET062719-00253 Yes4/28/1998 6/10/1998 0 1 0 1007927 - 00003 HORNET062719-00253 Yes1/1/1998 9/30/1998 0 2 0 2007927 - 00006 BROADSTRIKE + TREFLAN062719-00222 Yes1/1/1998 9/30/1998 0 1 0 1007927 - 00024 SCORPION III062719-00264 Yes1/1/1998 9/30/1998 0 1 0 183007927 - 00025 PYTHON062719-00277 No1/1/1998 9/30/1998 0 1 0 1008010 - 00001 HORNET062719-00253 Yes10/1/1998 10/31/1998 0 2 0 2008078 - 00005 HORNET HERBICIDE062719-00253 Yes11/1/1998 11/30/1998 0 4 0 4008189 - 00002 BROADSTRIKE + TREFLAN062719-00222 Yes12/1/1998 12/31/1998 0 1 0 1008339 - 00001 HORNET062719-00253 Yes12/1/1998 12/31/1998 0 1 0 1008525 - 00014 HORNET HERBICIDE062719-00253 Yes1/1/1999 3/31/1999 0 1 0 1008868 - 00038 BROADSTRIKE + DUAL062719-00239 Yes4/1/1999 6/30/1999 0 1 0 1009125 - 00002 DUPONT ACCENT GOLDHERBICIDE000352-00593 Yes4/1/1999 6/30/1999 0 1 0 1009519 - 00002 HORNET HERBICIDE062719-00253 Yes5/1/1999 10/31/1999 0 14 0 14009519 - 00005 PYTHON HERBICIDE062719-00277 No5/1/1999 10/31/1999 0 3 0 3009969 - 00010 PYTHON WDG062719-00277 No 11/1/1999 11/30/1999 0 1 0 1010746 - 00029 HORNET HERBICIDE062719-00253 Yes7/1/2000 9/30/2000 1 0 0 1010927 - 00059 HORNET HERBICIDE062719-00253 Yes11/1/1999 10/31/2000 0 39 0 39010927 - 00061 PYTHON WDG062719-00277 No11/1/1999 10/31/2000 0 6 0 6012235 - 00001 DUPONT ACCENT GOLDHERBICIDE000352-00593 Yes7/1/2001 9/30/2001 0 1 0 1012350 - 00005 HORNET WDG062719-00315 Yes11/1/2000 10/31/2001 0 8 0 8012350 - 00006 HORNET062719-00253 Yes11/1/2000 10/31/2001 0 6 0 6012350 - 00007 PYTHON WDG062719-00277 No11/1/2000 10/31/2001 0 6 0 6012519 - 00017 HORNET WDG062719-00315 Yes10/1/2001 12/31/2001 0 1 0 1012730 - 00018 HORNET HERBICIDE062719-00253 Yes1/1/2002 3/31/2002 0 1 0 1013550 - 00008 HORNET WDG062719-00315 Yes6/1/2002 8/31/2002 0 1 0 1013615 - 00005 HORNET WDG062719-00315 Yes11/1/2001 10/31/2002 0 42 0 42013615 - 00006 HORNET HERBICIDE062719-00253 Yes11/1/2001 10/31/2002 0 2 0 2013615 - 00008 PYTHON HERBICIDE062719-00277 No11/1/2001 10/31/2002 0 3 0 3013676 - 00011 HORNET WDG062719-00315 Yes10/1/2002 12/31/2002 0 1 0 1014959 - 00021 PYTHON WDG062719-00277 No1/1/2004 3/31/2004 0 1 0 1015214 - 00027 HORNET*062719-00253 Yes4/1/2004 6/30/2004 1 0 0 1015747 - 00004 HORNET HERBICIDE062719-00253 Yes12/1/2003 11/30/2004 0 2 0 2015747 - 00005 HORNET WDG HERBICIDE062719-00315 Yes12/1/2003 11/30/2004 0 22 0 22015747 - 00010 PYTHON WDG062719-00277 No12/1/2003 11/30/2004 0 1 0 1016962 - 00054 HORNET HERBICIDE062719-00253 Yes12/1/2004 11/30/2005 0 1 0 1016962 - 00055 HORNET WDG HERBICIDE062719-00315 Yes12/1/2004 11/30/2005 0 26 0 26016962 - 00060 PYTHON WDG062719-00277 No12/1/2004 11/30/2005 0 3 0 3024333 - 00020 HORNET WDG HERBICIDE062719-00315 Yes12/1/2010 11/30/2011 0 1 0 184024333 - 00037 SURESTART HERBICIDE062719-00570 Yes12/1/2010 11/30/2011 0 7 0 7024791 - 00014 SURESTART HERBICIDE062719-00570 Yes12/1/2011 11/30/2012 0 4 0 4024986 - 00024 SURESTART HERBICIDE062719-00570 Yes10/1/2012 12/31/2012 0 1 0 1TOTAL2 222 0 2241 WB denotes minor fish and wildlife incidents, PB denotes minor plant incidents, and ONT denotes minor “other nontarget incidents,” which includes bee kills.

### 85 APPENDIX E:

ECOTOX Run

Open literature studies were identified us ing EPA’s ECOTOXicology database (ECOTOX) (USEPA, 2007 c ), which employs a literature search engine for locating chemical toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants, and wildlife.

Papers that were Accepted for ECOTOX

The following paper provided a lower toxicity endpoint for the effects of flumetsulam on the vegetative of terrestrial plants than ones yielded in phytotoxicity studies submitted by the registrant of flumetsulam in support of pes ticide registration. The paper reported several IC 50 

### values for the phytotoxicity of flumetsulam to wild radish ( Raphanus raphinstrum ) grown in temperatures between 1 and 20 oC. Only the IC 50 

### for 20 oC (0.000178 lb a.i./A) was lower than the value reported in the vegetative vigor study reported by the registrant (0.00027 lb a.i./A for radish). However, the study authors note that in the test at 20 oC, all of the doses caused greater than 50% reduction in biomass, and consequen tly the doses were poorly distributed along the dose curve for estimating the IC 50 

### . Because of this, the estimated IC 50 

### value for the 20 oC is considered uncertain and was not used as in the quantitative risk assessment for terrestrial plants.

Madafiglio, G. P.; Medd, R. W.; Cornish, P. S., and Van de Ven, R. Temperature-Mediated Responses of Flumetsulam and Metosulam on Raphanus raphanistrum. GRO. madafig@netwit.net.au//G.P. Madafiglio, PO Box E158, Orange, NSW 2800, Australia//ISSN: 0043-1737////: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2000; 40, (4): 387-395.



### The following papers were not used in the quant itative risk assessment for flumetsulam because they did not yield a toxicity endpoint which was lower than the comparable endpoint obtained from a toxicity study submitted by the registrant.

1. Boutsalis, P. and Powles, S. B. Resistan ce of Dicot Weeds to Acetolactate Synthase (ALS)- Inhibiting Herbicides in Australia. GRO,MOR. Waite Agricultural Research Institute,University Adelaide,Australia//: SOIL,ENV; 1995; 35, (3): 149-155. EcoReference No.: 159110

2. Ceballos, R.; Palma, G.; Brevis, H.; Ortega, F., and Quiroz, A. Effect of Five Postemergence Herbicides on Red Clover Shoot and Root Growth in Greenhouse Studies. GRO,PHY. Departamento de Ciencias Quimicas,Universidad de La Frontera,Temuco,Chile//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2004; 85, (3): 153-160. EcoReference No.: 158809

3. Cox, K. G. and Harrington, K. C. Selective Herbicide Strategies for Use in Australian Desmanthus Seed Crops. GRO,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2005; 39, (3): 171-181. EcoReference No.: 157094

### 86 4. Foes, M. J.; Liu, L.; Tranel, P. J.; Wax, L. M., and Stoller, E. W. A Biotype of Common Waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) Resistant to Triazine and ALS Herbicides. BCM,PHY. estoller@uiuc.edu//E.W. Stoller, USDA/ARS , Crop Protection Research Unit, 1102 South Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801////: SOIL,ENV; 1998; 46, (5): 514-520. EcoReference No.: 66147

5. Fronning, B. E. and Kegode, G. O. Biennial Wormwood (Artemisia biennis) Early-Season Control with Herbicides. POP. Department of Plant Sciences,North Dakota State University,Fargo,ND,USA//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2004; 18, (3): 611-618. EcoReference No.: 158820

6. Grichar, W. J. and Ocumpaugh, W. R. Res ponse of Three Annual Medic Species to Postemergence Herbicides. GRO,POPSOIL,ENV; 2009; 23, (3): 412-415. EcoReference No.: 156904

7. Harrington, K. C.; Southward, R. C.; Kitchen, K. L., and He, X. Z. Investigation of Herbicides Tolerated by Stevia rebaudiana Crops. GR O,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 2011; 39, (1): 21-33. EcoReference No.: 157121

8. Kwon, C. S. and Penner, D. Response of a Ch lorsulfuron-Resistant Biotype of Kochia scoparia to ALS Inhibiting Herbicides and Piperonyl But oxide. GRO,PHYSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1995; 43, (4): 561-565. EcoReference No.: 101453

9. Lusk, C. S.; Bourdot, G. W.; Harrington, K. C., and Hurrell, G. A. Pasture Tolerance and Efficacy of Three Herbicides Used Against Giant Buttercup (R anunculus acris subsp. acris L.). GRO,POP. AgResearch, Lincoln, Private Bag 4749, Christc hurch 8140, New Zealand,//: SOIL,ENV; 2011; 64, 86-92. EcoReference No.: 158824

10. Ma, J.; Wang, S.; Wang, P.; Ma, L.; Chen, X., and Xu, R. Toxicity Assessment of 40 Herbicides to the Green Alga Raphidocelis subcapitata. POPAQUA; 2006; 63, (3): 456-462. EcoReference No.: 83543

11. McDonald, I. D. A Whole-Plant Bioassay Sy stem for the Detection of Residues of ALS/AHAS Inhibiting Herbicides in Soils a nd Determination of Safe Planti ng Intervals for Sensitive Crops. GROSOIL,ENV; 2009: 202 p. (UMI # NR55937).

12. Song, H. Y.; Cho, S. J.; Lim, H. K.; Park, N. J., and Hwang, I. T. Transformation A Mutant Monochoria vaginalis Acetolactate Synthase (ALS) Ge ne Renders Arabidopsis thaliana Resistant to ALS Inhibitors. GRO. http://www.sciencedir ect.com/science/article/pii/S0048357510000374//: SOIL,ENV; 2010; 97, (3): 223-228. EcoReference No.: 158840

13. Stork, P. and Hannah, M. C. A Bioassay Me thod for Formulation Testing and Residue Studies of Sulfonylurea and Sulfonanylide Herbicides. GRO. Joint Cent. Crop Improvement, Private Bag 260, Horsham, VIC, Australia.//: SOIL,ENV; 1996; 36, (3): 271-281. EcoReference No.: 159111

14. Wallace, R. W. and Hodges, J. C. Weed Cont rol Potential and Crop Safety of Selected Herbicides in Field-Grown Cannas. PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2007; 17, (1): 102-106.

### 87 EcoReference No.: 157231



### Target Papers

The following papers were identified as providing toxi city information to target species, in this case weed species. These herbicide efficacy studi es did not provide toxicity endpoints which were useful for quantitative ri sk assessment of flumetsulam.

1. Arregui, M. C.; Sanchez, D., and Scotta, R. W eed Control in Established Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) with Postemergence Herbicides. PHY,POPSO IL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2001; 15, (3): 424-428. EcoReference No.: 67066

2. Ashigh, J. Resistance to Acetohydroxyacid Synthase-Inhibiting Herbicides in Populations of Eastern Black Nightshade (Solanum ptycanthum Dun.) from Ontario. GROSOIL,ENV; 2007: 213 p. (UMI # NR24556 ). EcoReference No.: 159068

3. Ashigh, J.; Rajcan, I., and Tardif, F. J. Ge netics of Resistance to Acetohydroxyacid Synthase Inhibitors in Populations of Eastern Black Night shade (Solanum ptychanthum) from Ontario. SOIL; 2008; 56, (2): 210-215.

4. Ashigh, J. and Tardif, F. J. An Ala205val Substitution in Acetohydroxyacid Synthase of Eastern Black Nightshade (Solanum ptychanthum) Reduc es Sensitivity to Herbicides and Feedback Inhibition. SOIL; 2007; 55, (6): 558-565.

5. Ashigh, J. and Tardif, F. J. ALS-Inhibitor Resistance in Populations of Eastern Black Nightshade (Solanum ptycanthum) from Ontario. GRO,MORSOIL,ENV; 2006; 2, (20): 308-314. EcoReference No.: 152023

6. Camargo, Edinalvo Rabaioli and Senseman, Sc ott A. Plant-Soil Interactions, Weed Control, and Rice Tolerance as Affected by Saflufenacil. 2012: (UMI # 3532153 ).

7. Chen, Yang; Hu, Jiye; Yang, Tao, and Chen, Yang. Dissipation and Residues of Flumetsulam in Wheat and Soil. 2012 Jun; 88, (6): 897-901.

8. Chomas, A. J. and Kells, J. J. Triazine -Resistant Common Lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) Control in Corn with Preemergence Herbic ides. POP. Department of Crop and Soil Sciences,Michigan State University,East Lans ing,MI////: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2004; 18, (3): 551-554. EcoReference No.: 120681

9. Christoffers, M. J.; Nandula, V. K.; Howatt, K. A., and Wehking, T. R. Target-Site Resistance to Acetolactate Synthase Inhibitors in Wi ld Mustard (Sinapis arvensis). BCM,GRO,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2005; 54, (2): 191-197. EcoReference No.: 120667

10. Drew, E. A.; Gupta, V. V. S. R., and Roget, D. K. Are Legumes Doing Their Job? The Effect of Herbicides on N2 Fixation in Southern Australian Agricultural Systems. BCM,PHY,POP. PMB2,CSIRO Land and Water,Glen Osmond,Au stralia//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2005; 41, 269- 270.

### 88 EcoReference No.: 158811

11. Ferguson, Gabrielle Mary and Tardif, F. Als-Inhibitor Resistance in Populations of Amaranthus Powellii S. Wats. And Amaranthus Retroflexus L. 2000: (UMI # MQ51062 ).

12. Florence, Darlene Christina and McCoy, Ed ward L. Agronomic Land Management Effects on Soil Fertility and Grain Crop Productivity in Wester n Kenya and Ohio. 2012: (UMI # 3528037 ).

13. Hare, M. D.; Rolston, M. P.; Foote, A. G.; Ar chie, W. J., and Hagerty, G. Herbicide Tolerance of Grasslands Puna Chicory. GRO,PHY,POPSO IL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1993; 46, 282-287. EcoReference No.: 77601

14. Kramer, C. Control of Volunteer Adzuki Bean (Vigna angularis (Willd.) Ohwi & Ohashi) in Corn (Zea mays) and Soybean (Glycine max). POP,REPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2010: 93 p. (UMI# MR64658). EcoReference No.: 153786

15. Krausz, R. F.; Young, B. G., and Matthews, J. L. Winter Annual Weed Control with Fall-Applied Corn (Zea mays) Herbicides. POP. Department of Plant, Soil, and General Agriculture,Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL////: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2003; 17, (3): 516-520. EcoReference No.: 120487

16. Liphadzi, K. B. Weed Competitiveness and So il Health Response to Weed Management Practices. GRO,MOR,POPSOIL,ENV; 2004: 163 p. (UMI # 3132174) (PUBL IN PART AS 96934,159175). EcoReference No.: 159176

17. Liphadzi, K. B. and Dille, J. A. Annua l Weed Competitiveness as A ffected by Preemergence Herbicide in Corn. GRO,POP,REPSOIL,ENV; 2005; 54, (1): 156-165. EcoReference No.: 159175

18. O'Sullivan, J.; Thomas, R. J., and Bouw, W. J. Yield and Injury Effects on Vegetable Crops Planted in Flumetsulam-Treated Soil. PHY. J. O'Sullivan, Horticultural Res. Inst. of Ontario, Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, P.O. Box 587, Simcoe, Ont. N3Y 4N5, Canada////: SOIL,ENV; 1999; 79, (3): 417-420. EcoReference No.: 64216

19. Rahman, a; James, T K; Trolove, M R, and Ra hman, A. Chemical Control Options for the Dicamba Resistant Biotype of Fathen (Chenopodium Album). 2008; 61, 287-291.

20. Rundle, M. F.; Walters, S. A., and Young, B. G. Efficacy of Postemergence Corn and Soybean Herbicides on Volunteer Horseradish (Armoracia rusticana). GRO,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2007; 21, (2): 501-505. EcoReference No.: 158837

21. Sibony, M. and Rubin, B. Molecular Basi s for Multiple Resistance to Acetolactate SynthaseInhibiting Herbicides and Atrazine in Amaranthus blitoides (Prostrate Pigweed). CEL,GRO,MORSOIL,ENV; 2003; 216, (6): 1022-1027. EcoReference No.: 154020

22. Sikkema, P. H.; Robinson, D. E.; Nurse, R. E., and Soltani, N. Pre-Emergence Herbicides for Potential Use in Pinto and Small Red Mexi can Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) Production.

### 89 GRO,PHYSOIL,ENV; 2008; 27, (1): 124-129. EcoReference No.: 117892

23. Skibo, Andrew Z. and Isaacs, Mark. The Ev aluation of Selected 'post'-Applied Herbicides for Control of Japanese Knotweed (Polygonum Cuspidatum Syn. Fallopia Japonica Syn. Reynoutria Japonica) and a Survey and Characterization of This Invasive Species in Delaware. 2007: (UMI # 3337390 ).

24. Soltani, N.; Nurse, R. E.; Robinson, D. E., and Sikkema, P. H. Response of pinto and small red Mexican beans ( Phaseolus vulgaris L.) to preplant-incorporated herbicides. 2008; 8, (1): 25-30.

25. Soltani, Nader; Nurse, Robert E; Robinson, Darren E; Sikkema, Peter H, and Soltani, Nader. Response of Pinto and Small Red Mexican Beans ( Phaseolus Vulgaris L.) To PreplantIncorporated Herbicides. 2008 Mar; 8, (1): 25-30.

26. Stewart, C. L.; Nurse, R. E.; Gillard, C., and Sikkema, P. H. Tolerance of Adzuki Bean to PreplantIncorporated, Pre-Emergence, and Post-Eme rgence Herbicides in Ontario, Canada. GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2010; 10, (1): 40-47. EcoReference No.: 153992

27. Wheeler, Melissa Ann Monique. Impact of Mutations in Acetolactate Synthase on Resistance of Redroot Pigweed (Amaranthus Retroflexus L.) A nd Green Pigweed (Amaranthus Powellii S. Wats) to Flucarbazone and Pyrithiobac. 2005: (UMI # MR01876 ).

28. Wright, Terry Ray. Development and Char acterization of Imidazolinone-Resistant Sugarbeet Somatic Cell Selections. 1997: (UMI # 9734207 ).

29. Yerka, Melinda K. and Stoltenberg, David E. Gatti Natala de Leon. Glyphosate Tolerance and Gene Flow in Common Lambsquarters (Chenopodium Album L.). 2011: (UMI # 3501346 ).

30. Zollinger, R. Surestart Registered on Field Corn. 2007 May 31, issue 4.



### Papers Not Acceptable for Qu antitative Risk Assessment

The following papers did not meet the minimum acceptability criteria for use by the EFED in risk assessment, and therefore, we re not used in the quantitative ri sk assessment of flumetsulam.

1. Ashigh, J.; Corbett, C. A. L.; Smith, P. J.; Laplante, J., and Tardif, F. J. Characterization and Diagnostic Tests of Resistance to Acetohydroxy acid Synthase Inhibitors Due to an Asp376Glu Substitution in Amaranthus powellii. BCM ,GROSOIL,ENV; 2009; 95, (1): 38-46. EcoReference No.: 120682

2. Askew, S. D.; Wilcut, J. W., and Langston, V. B. Weed Management in Soybean (Glycine max) with Preplant-Incorporated Herbicides and Cl oransulam-Methyl. PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1999; 13, (2): 276-282. EcoReference No.: 152022

3. Baghestani, M. A.; Zand, E.; Soufizadeh, S.; Bagherani, N., and Deihimfard, R. Weed Control and Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Yield Under Appli cation of 2,4-D plus Carfentrazone-Ethyl and

### 90 Florasulam plus Flumetsulam: Evaluation of the Efficacy. GROSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2007; 26, (12): 1759-1764. EcoReference No.: 151894

4. Black, I. D.; Mayfield, A., and Matic, R. Ch emical Control of Bedstraw (Galium tricornutum Dandy) and Bifora (Bifora testiculata L.) in Wheat , Barley and Field Peas. POP. South Australian Res. Development Inst., GPO Box 1671, Adelaide, SA 5001, AUL////: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1994; 9, (1): 24-27. EcoReference No.: 158796

5. Boutsalis, P.; Karotam, J., and Powles, S. B. Molecular Basis of Resistance to Acetolactate Synthase-Inhibiting Herbicides in Sisymbrium or ientale and Brassica tournefortii. BCM,GRO,MOR. peter.boutsalis@cp.novartis.com//P. Boutsalis, N ovartis Crop Protection, CH-4332 Stein, Switzerland//: SOIL,ENV; 1999; 55, (5): 507-516. EcoReference No.: 63409

6. Chen, C. N.; Chen, Q.; Liu, Y. C.; Zhu, X. L.; Niu, C. W.; Xi, Z., and Yang, G. F. Syntheses and Herbicidal Activity of New Triazolopyrimid ine-2-Sulfonamides as Acetohydroxyacid Synthase Inhibitor. GRO. Key Laboratory of Pesticide & Chem ical Biology, Ministry of Education, College of Chemistry, Central China Normal University, Wuhan 430079, PR China. //: SOIL,ENV; 2010; 18, (14): 4897-4904. EcoReference No.: 158975

7. Davis, V. M. Distribution, Biology, and Management of Glyphosate-Resistant Horseweed in NoTill Crop Production. GRO,POPSOIL,ENV,MI XTURE; 2009: 252 p. (UMI # 3378726). EcoReference No.: 159087

8. Dillehay, B. L. Incorporating Glyphosate-R esistant Alfalfa Into Field Crop Integrated Pest Management Programs of Pennsylvania. POPSOIL ,ENV,MIXTURE; 2007: 153 p. (UMI # 3284919). EcoReference No.: 159096

9. Dorigo, R. The Selectivity of Flumetsula m to Chickpeas, Lentils and Vetch var. Popany. PHY,POP. Dow AgroSciences Australia Ltd., PO Box 720, Clare, SA 5453, Australia////: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1999: 306-308. EcoReference No.: 158792

10. Ferguson, G. M.; Hamill, A. S., and Tardif, F. J. ALS Inhibitor Resistance in Populations of Powell amaranth and Redroot Pigweed. GRO. De partment of Plant Agriculture,University of Guelph,Guelph,ON,Can////: SOIL,ENV; 2001; 49, (4): 448-453. EcoReference No.: 120397

11. Flint, S. G. Weed Species Shifts in Roundup Ready and Conventional Herbicide Programs. POPSOIL,ENV; 2002: 74 p. (UMI # 1411417). EcoReference No.: 159133

12. Flint, S. G.; Shaw, D. R.; Kelley, F. S., and Holloway, J. C. Effect of Herbicide Systems on Weed Shifts in Soybean and Cotton. GRO,POP. Depart ment of Plant and Soil Sciences,Mississippi State University,MS,USA//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2005; 19, (2): 266-273. EcoReference No.: 158818

13. Frans, R.; McClelland, M.; Smith, C., and Jo rdan, D. Herbicide Trials on Field Crops, 1992.

### 91 PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1993; 427, 63 p. EcoReference No.: 73962

14. Franssen, A. S. and Kells, J. J. Common Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) Control with Postemergence Herbicides in No-Tillage Glufos inate-Resistant Corn. POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2007; 21, (1): 14-17. EcoReference No.: 155681

15. Gaeddert, J. W.; Peterson, D. E., and Hora k, M. J. Control and Cross-Resistance of an Acetolactate Synthase Inhibitor-Resistant Palmer Am aranth (Amaranthus palmeri) Biotype. POP. Prof. M.J. Horak, Department of Agronomy, Ka nsas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, United States//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1997; 11, (1): 132-137. EcoReference No.: 64431

16. Gerwick, B. C.; Cseke, C. T.; Deboer, G.; Kleschick, W. A., and Schmitzer, P. R. Translation of In Vitro Activity to In Vivo Activity: Lessons from the Triazolopyrimidine Sulfonanilides. ACC,GRO. Dow Elanco,Indianapolis,IN,USA //: SOIL,ENV; 1996; 44, (3): 757-762. EcoReference No.: 158821

17. Grichar, W. J. Control of Smellmelon (Cucumis melo) in Soybean with Herbicides. POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2007; 21, (3): 777-779. EcoReference No.: 157081

18. Hanson, B. D.; Park, K. W.; Mallory-Smith, C. A., and Thill, D. C. Resistance of Camelina microcarpa to Acetolactate Synthase Inhibiting Herb icides. GRO. Department of Plant, Soil, and Entomological Sciences,University of Idaho, Moscow,ID////: SOIL,ENV; 2004; 44, (3): 187-194. EcoReference No.: 120720

19. Hwang, I. T. ; Lee, K. H.; Park, S. H.; Lee, B. H.; Hong, K. S.; Han, S. S., and Cho, K. Y. Resistance to Acetolactate Synthase Inhibitors in a Biotype of Monochoria vaginalis Discovered in Korea. POP. I.T.Hwang, Korea Res.Inst. of Chem.Technol., P.O. Box 107, Yusong, Taejon, 305-600, Korea////: SOIL,ENV; 2001; 71, (2): 69-76. EcoReference No.: 66557

20. Ivany, J. A. Comparison of Weed Control Strategies in Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] in Atlantic Ca nada. POP. ivanyj@agr.gc.ca//J.A. Ivany, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Crops and Livestock Rese arch Centre, 440 University Avenue, Charlottetown, PEI. C1A 4N6, Canada////: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2004; 84, (4): 1199-1204. EcoReference No.: 98642

21. James, T. K. and Rahman, A. Adjuvants Effect on Flumetsulam Efficacy and Rainfastness on Three Pasture Weeds. GRO. AgResearch,Ruakur a Agricultural Research Centre,Hamilton,N. Z//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1996; 193, 273-278. EcoReference No.: 159009

22. Jennings, K. M.; York, A. C.; Batts, R. B., and Culpepper, A. S. Sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) and Entireleaf Morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea var. integriuscula) Management in Soybean (Glycine max) with Flumetsulam. POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1997; 11, (2): 227-234. EcoReference No.: 73938

23. Johnson III, W. C. and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. Phytotoxicity of Flumetsulam on Peanut (Arachis

### 92 hypogaea). GRO,PHY,POP. USDA-ARS and Agric. Res. Stat.,Univ. Georgia,Tifton,GA,USA//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1996; 10, (3): 481-487. EcoReference No.: 158822

24. Kleschick, W. A.; Costales, M. J.; Gerwick, B. C.; Holtwick, J. B.; Meikle, R. W.; Monte, W. T.; Pearson, N. R.; Snider, S. W.; Subramanian, M. V.; Vanheertum, J. C., and Vinogradoff, A. P. 1,2,4- Triazolo(1,5-a)Pyrimidine-2-Sulfonanilide Herbicides . Influence of Alkyl, Haloalkyl, and Halogen Heterocyclic Substitution on In Vitro and In Vivo Biological Activity. GROSOIL,ENV; 1992: 10-17. EcoReference No.: 109553

25. Kleschick, W. A.; Gerwick, B. C.; Carson, C. M.; Monte, W. T., and Snider, S. W. DE-498, a New Acetolactate Synthase Inhibiting Herbicide with Multicrop Selectivity. POPSOIL,ORAL,TOP; 1992; 40, 1083-1085. EcoReference No.: 101706

26. Kwon, C. S. Influence of Antidotes, MFO Inhibitors, Insecticides, and Corn Hybrids on ALSInhibiting Herbicide Activity. GRO,PHYSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1993: 183 p. (UMI#9418019) (Publ in Part as 73949, 75594, 75595, 101453). EcoReference No.: 157922

27. Kwon, C. S.; Kells, J. J., and Penner, D. Combined Effects of Acetolactate Synthase-Inhibiting Herbicides with Terbufos and Piperonyl Butoxide on Corn (Zea mays) and Soybean (Glycine max). GRO,PHYSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1995; 9 , (4): 696-702. EcoReference No.: 75595

28. Langton, S. J. Field Corn Tolerance to Acetolactate Synthase Inhibiting Herbicides and Weed Control in Sethoxydim Resistant Field Corn. ACC,GRO,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1997: 209 p. EcoReference No.: 99110

29. Ma, J.; Xu, L., and Wang, S. A Quick, Si mple, and Accurate Method of Screening Herbicide Activity Using Green Algae Cell Suspension Cultu res. GROAQUA; 2002; 50, (5): 555-559. EcoReference No.: 158793

30. Marinangeli, P.; Castro, R. L.; Facchinetti, C.; Reinoso, L.; Irigoyen, J., and Curvetto, N. Evaluation of Herbicides for Chemical Weed Control in Lily Bulb Production. GROSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2010; 24, (4): 483-488. EcoReference No.: 153931

31. McDowell, R. W.; Condron, L. M.; Main, B. E., and Dastgheib, F. Dissipation of Imazapyr, Flumetsulam and Thifensulfuron in Soil. GRO. Dep. Geography, Univ. Cambridge, Downing Place, Cambridge CB2 3EN, UK////: SOIL,ENV; 1997; 37, (6): 381-389. EcoReference No.: 120347

32. Nice, G. R. W.; Buehring, N. W., and Shaw, D. R. Sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) Response to Shading, Soybean (Glycine max) Row Spacing, and Population in Three Management Systems. POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2001; 15, (1): 155-162. EcoReference No.: 158825

33. Norsworthy, J. K. Soil-Applied Herbicide Use in Wide- and Narrow-Row Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean (Glycine max). GRO,PHY. J.K. Norswort hy, Department of Entomology, Soils, Plant Sci., Clemson Univ., C., Clemson, SC//: SOIL,ENV, MIXTURE; 2004; 23, (12): 1237-1244.

### 93 EcoReference No.: 115268

34. Novosel, K. M. Efficacy of Annual Grass Contro l by Metolachlor as Influe nced by Flumetsulam, Halosulfuron and Chlorimuron-Ethyl. GRO,PO PSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1997: 94 p. (UMI # 9734163 ). EcoReference No.: 159097

35. Reddy, K. N.; Bryson, C. T., and Burke, I. C. Ragweed Parthenium (Parthenium hysterophorus) Control with Preemergence and Postemergence Herb icides. POPSOIL,ENV; 2007; 21, (4): 982-986. EcoReference No.: 154039

36. Ritter, R. L. and Menbere, H. Preemergen ce and Postemergence Control of Triazine-Resistant Common Lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) in No-Till Corn (Zea mays). PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2001; 15, (4): 879-884. EcoReference No.: 120488

37. Saayman-Du Toit, A. E. J. Phytotoxicity Resulting from a Combination of a Pre-Emergence Herbicide and a Pesticide Seed Dressing in Maize (Z ea mays L.). GRO,REP. A.E.J.Saayman-Du Toit, ARC - Grain Crops Institute, Private Bag X1251, Potchefstroom, 2520, South Africa//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2002; 19, (3): 156-158. EcoReference No.: 68409

38. Schultz, M. E. Scorpion III: A Broad-Sp ectrum Postemergence Herbicide for Broadleaf Weed Control in Corn. PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1997; 52, (2): 26-33. EcoReference No.: 73118

39. Seymour, R. C.; Campbell, J. B., and Wright, R. J. Effect of Sulfonylurea Herbicides on Field Corn Following an Application of Granular Insecticide at Planting, 1995. BCM,GRO,PHYSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1997; 22, 226-(29F). EcoReference No.: 74042

40. Shaw, D. R.; Bennett, A. C., and Grant, D. L. Weed Control in Soybean (Glycine max) with Flumetsulam, Cloransulam, and Diclosulam. PO P. dshaw@weedscience.msstate.edu//D.R. Shaw, Mississippi State University, Dept. of Plant and Soil Sciences, Box 9555, Mississippi State, MS 39762, United States//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1999; 13, (4): 791-798. EcoReference No.: 64298

41. Shaw, D. R. and Murphy, G. P. Field Persiste nce of Bioavailable Flumetsulam. GRO. Dep. Plant Soil Sciences,Mississippi State Univ.,Mississippi State,MS,USA//: SOIL,ENV; 1997; 45, (4): 568- 572. EcoReference No.: 158838

42. Sprague, C. L.; Penner, D., and Kells, J. J. Enhancing the Margin of Selectivity of RPA 201772 in Zea mays with Antidotes. PHYSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1999; 47, 492-497. EcoReference No.: 63459

43. Stachler, J. M. and Kells, J. J. Wild Ca rrot (Daucus carota) Control in No-Tillage Cropping Systems. GRO,MOR,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1997; 11, (3): 444-452. EcoReference No.: 117333

44. Talbert, R. E.; Schmidt, L. A.; Lovelace, M. L., and Scherder, E. F. Field Evaluation of

### 94 Herbicides on Small Fruit, Vegetable, and Orna mental Crops, 1999. POPSOIL,ENV; 2000: 1-22. EcoReference No.: 153250

45. Talbert, R. E.; Tierney, M. J.; Burgos, N. R. ; Strebe, T. A., and Kitt, M. J. Field Evaluation of Herbicides on Small Fruit, Vegetable and Orname ntal Crops, 1994. PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1995; 447, 53 p. EcoReference No.: 73916

46. Tharp, B. E. and Kells, J. J. Residual Herbicides Used in Combination with Glyphosate and Glufosinate in Corn (Zea mays). GRO,POP. Golden Harvest Seeds, Cordova, IL 61242//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2002; 16, (2): 274-281. EcoReference No.: 155516

47. VanGessel, M. J. Control of Perennial Weed Species as Seedlings with Soil-Applied Herbicides. MOR,POP. M.J. Vangessel, Research and Education Center, University of Delaware, Georgetown, DE 19947, United States//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1999; 13, (2): 425-428. EcoReference No.: 62724

48. VanGessel, M. J.; Monks, D. W., and Johnson, Q. R. Herbicides for Potential Use in Lima Bean (Phaseolus lunatus) Production. PHY,POPSO IL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2000; 14, 279-286. EcoReference No.: 59708

49. Webster, E. P. and Masson, J. A. Acetolac tate Synthase-Inhibiting Herbicides on ImidazolinoneTolerant Rice. GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2001; 49, 652-657. EcoReference No.: 63724