### Draft for Public Comment March 11, 2016

1 

## Retrospective Analysis & **Guidance for Waiving A** **c u**  **te Dermal**  **Toxicity Tests for Pes** **ticide Formulations**  **1.0 Introduction**  The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authorizes EPA to register pesticides and require supporting studies to meet statutory safety standards as stipulated under 40 Code of Federal Regulation s (CFR) Part 158. There is flexi bility, however, in implementing Part 158. Additional data can be required (§158.75), alternative approaches can be accepted, and studies can be waived (§158.45). The 2007 NAS report on Toxicity Testing in the 21 st 

### Century describes a new vision for toxic ity testing. EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs has developed a Strategic Direction for New Pesticide Testing and Assessment Approaches ( http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide

- science - and - assessing - pesticide risks/strategic

-vision - adopting - 21st - century- science ) wh ich describes OPP’s approach to implementing the NAS vision. One component of OPP’s strategic vision describes the need for improved approaches to more traditional toxicity tests to minimize the number of animals used while expanding the amount of informa tion obtained. OPP’s document on Guiding Principles for Data Requirements notes the importance of only requiring data that inform regulatory decision making and avoid unnecessary use of time and resource s, data generation costs, and animal testing ( http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015

- 04/documents/data

- require -guide - principle.pdf) . Waiving studies, when such data offer little or no additional scientific information or public health protection, is an important component of the guiding principles for data requirements . OPP staff can focus on the information most relevant to a particular assessment and still ensure there is sufficient information for regulatory decisions that are protective of public health and the enviro nment. In 2012, OPP published a “ Guidance for Waiving or Bridging of Mammalian Acute Toxicity Tests for Pesticides and Pesticide Products (Acute Oral, Acute Dermal, Acute Inhalation, Primary Eye, Primary Dermal, and Dermal Sensitization) ” which consolid ated previously existing guidance on waivers for acute toxicity tests. That 2012 guidance document noted that g enerally, waivers are considered when data to support a particular endpoint are not relevant to the chemical . Specifically, data related to der mal acute toxicity for conventional, antimicrobial, and biochemical pesticides may be waived if any of the following criteria are met:

 The test material has been placed in Toxicity Category I for primary dermal irritation. Such products will be placed in dermal Toxicity Category I 1 

### on the basis of potential dermal effects.  The test material is corrosive to skin, or has a pH less than 2 or greater than 11.5. (40 CFR 158.500(e)(3); 40 CFR 158.2050(e)(2); 40 CFR 158. 2083(e)(2); 40 CFR 161.340(b)(2). Such products will be placed in dermal Toxicity C ategory I on the basis of potential dermal effects.  The product design prevents dermal exposure. Products such as childproof insect baits and rodent bait boxes typically meet these criteria.

1 

### Acute toxicity categories are defined in Table 2.

### Draft for Public Comment March 11, 2016

2 

### The current doc ument expands the potential for data waivers for acute dermal studies for formulat ed pesticide products . Several published studies (Creton et al, 2010; Seidle et al. , 2011 ; Moore et al. , 201 3) 2 

### have investigated comparability between oral and dermal acut e hazard classifications to assess whether tests for both routes are needed . Together, these studies suggest that dermal and oral acute studies generally classify chemicals into similar categories , but n one suit the needs of OPP since they did not evaluat e the EPA OPP categorization scheme and primarily evaluated single agents. OPP and the National Toxicology Program (NTP) Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM) have conducted a retrospective analysis of oral a nd dermal acute lethality studies that fit the regulatory context relevant for OPP. This analysis focuses on formulated pesticide product s and considers the EPA pesticide categorization scheme which uses acute study results ( see 40 CFR156.212 and 40CFR156.62 ) . The OPP/ NICEATM analysis is designed to evaluate the relative consistency of the findings of oral and dermal studies (Section 2.0). **The agency has used th** **is analysis**  **to support a draft policy statement**  **in Section 4.0 to waive all acute leth**  **ality dermal studies for**  **formulated pesticide product s**  . Ecological effects assessments often rely on acute studies for the technical active ingredient and are thus needed to ensure the safety to non - human mammals. As such, this document focuses on ly on formulated pesticide product testing . However, m any more acute toxici ty studies are submitted to OPP annually for formulated pesticide product s than are acute studies on active ingredients . Thus, the potential animal and resource savings from waivers is derived more from formulated pesticide product s than single chemical acute toxicity studies. **2.0 Retrospective Analysis**  Th e retrospective analysis conducted by OPP/NICEATM is provided below. **2.1 Dataset for Analysis**  The agency developed a dataset of rat acute oral and acute dermal LD 50 

### studies . The spreadsheet of data used in the analysis is provided in Dermal Data Spreadsheet for 593 Active Pesticide Ingredients.xlxs . Inclusion/exclusion criteria are described below.

**2.1.1. Selection of Studies** Identification of Active Ingredients : The active ingredients include c onventional pesticides, a ntimicrobials, and bio pesticides are included across numerous chemical classes and across Toxicity Categories . F umigants and rodenticides we re excluded because of their physical forms and the types of

2 

### Creton et al. 2010. Acute toxicity testing of chemicals - Opportunities to avoid redundant testing and use alternative approaches. Crit Rev Toxicol 40: 50 - 83. Seidle et al. 2011. Examining the regulatory value of multi route mammalian acute systemic toxicity studies. ALTEX 28:95 - 102. Moore et al. 2013. Can acute dermal systemic toxicity tests be replaced with oral tests? Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 66:30 - 7.

### Draft for Public Comment March 11, 2016

3 

### exposures that would be anticipated for them. There are 316 active ingredients 3 

### in the dataset used in the current analysis (Appendix 1). Identification of Acute Oral & Dermal Studies : S earch es w ere cond ucted from the Office of Pesticide Programs Information Network ( OPPIN ) database in December 2013 -January 2014 which included all available acute studies for formulated pesticide product s available for the active ingredients listed in Appendix 1 . Informat ion collected from OPPIN included: Master Record Identification ( MRID ) n umber, product registration number, Pesticide Chemical ( PC ) code, CAS number, formulation name, formulation type, registration status, species (and sex) , LD 50 

### value, EPA toxicity category, test acceptability, and study type. This search yielded thousands of studies across different taxa and different routes/toxicities . From this initial search, acute oral and dermal studies were identified. To achieve a data set that was broadly representative , but manageable in size, the following considerations were used:

1. **Only rat studies were selected.** To reduce uncertainty associated with comparing results across species, non - rat species were eliminated. 2. **Focus on studi es from last decade.**  With changes to approved inerts and revisions to the acute oral guideline, w hen data on multiple formulation types were available for a particular active ingredient, the study selection focused on newer studies. This was balanced wit h the need to have broad representation of formulation type and Toxicity Category . 3. **Because toxicity (particularly absorption) can be influenced by the nature of the exposure, m**  **ultiple formulation types.** For each active ingredient in the dataset, generally, one oral - dermal study pair was selected for each formulation type available for that active ingredient. 4. **Impregnated materials & microencapsulated formulations were excluded** . These types of products were excluded because they tend to have a unique compos ition which can impact the rate of release from the product. This uniqueness does not lend itself to an analysis intended for groups of products to be used in a generic approach. 5. **Formulation intermediates were excluded.** Since there will be limited/no e xposure to pesticide handlers & applicators to intermediates, these data are not relevant to the analysis. From the identified oral & dermal studies , “paired” studies were selected. ‘P aired’ studies are those which were conducted on the same formulated pesticide product for oral and dermal lethality. This pairing was achieved by matching the registration number and formulated pesticide product name with consideration of PC code and CAS number. D ata evaluation records (DERs) were collected for paired st udies . From these DERs, the LD 50 

### and Toxicity Category were entered into the spreadsheet.

3 

### Note: Some active ingre dients come in multiple forms such as salts or acids; each form is counted as a separate active ingredient for this document.

### Draft for Public Comment March 11, 2016

4 

### 2.1. **2 .**  **Characterization of the Dataset** The dataset of rat acute oral and acute dermal LD 50 

### studies includes 59 3 formulated pesticide product s, representing 31 6 active ingredients; all four Toxicity Categories ; and 13 different formulated pesticide product types (Table 1) . Among the 59 3 formulations, 27 2 of these formulations have a single active ingredient, 185 have two, 78 have three , and 5 8 have four or more. **Table 1. Formulated pesticide product**  **types in the dataset Formulation Type**  **Number** Dust 16 Emulsifiable concentrate 143 Flowable concentrate 64 Granular 45 Pellet/tablet 7 Pressurized dust 1 Pressurized liquid 2 0 Ready to use solution 69 Soluble concentrate 125 Soluble concentrate/solid 8 Water dispersible granule 6 4 Water soluble package 14 Wettable powder 13 Not available (n/a) 4 

### 2.2 **Comparison of T** 

**oxicity C**  **ategory between oral and dermal studies** As shown in the blue boxes in Table 2 below, for 339 of the 593 formulations, the paired oral and dermal studies provide the same Toxicity Category (blue boxes). For 224 formulations, the oral study provides a lower (i.e., more potent) Category than the d ermal study (light orange boxes). For 30 formulations, the dermal study provides a lower (i.e., more potent) Category than the oral study (tan and purple boxes). Two formulations (tan box) have a Toxicity Category II for dermal and Toxicity Category III for oral (i.e., a more potent Category for dermal compared to oral) and 28 formulations in the dataset have a Toxicity Category III for dermal and a Toxicity Category IV for oral (purple box). One of the most important uses of acute study data in the registration process for pesticides is in making personal protective equipment (PPE) decisions (such as a requirement to wear gloves when using the product). Therefore, for the 30 formulated pesticide product s where the dermal study provides a lower Toxicity Category than the oral study, the agency further investigated additional information used for evaluating dermal worker PPE (see Section 2.3) . The Toxicity Categories are also used for hazard labeling, first aid , and precautionary statements ( http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide

- registration/label

review - manual ) .

### Draft for Public Comment March 11, 2016

5 **Table 2. Results of comparison analysis for oral & dermal formulation acute studies**  **Rat Dermal**  **Hazard Category**  **(mg/kg) Rat Oral Hazard Category (mg/kg)** 

**EPA I EPA II**  **EPA III EPA IV**  **≤50 >50**  **– ≤500**  **>500 –**  **≤5000 >5000**  **EPA I** 1 0 0 0 **≤200 EPA II**  0 2 2 0 **>200 –**  **≤2000 EPA III**  0 23 133 2 8 **>2000 –**  **≤5000 EPA IV**  0 28 173 20 3 **>5000 Total**  **1 53**  **308 23**  **1** 

### 2.3 **Detailed Evaluation of Studies with Lower Dermal Category Compared to Oral**  As noted above, for the 30 formulations (purple & tan boxes in Table 2) which showed a lower Toxicity Category from the dermal study compared to the oral, the agency further investigated w hat i nformation was used for determining dermal PPE to determine if the dermal hazard study was critical to decisions on required protective equipment . EPA’s Label Review Manual 4 

### provides information on how acute toxicity information is used in pesticide labeling ; Table 3 was extracted from Chapter 10 ( Worker Protection Labeling ).

4 

### http://www2.epa.gov/sites/producti on/files/documents/label

- review - manual.pdf

### Draft for Public Comment March 11, 2016

6 **Table 3**  **. Toxicity Category**  **by Route**  **of Exposure**  **of End** **- Use**  **Product Route**  **of Exposure**  **I DANGER**  **II**

**WARNING III**  **CAUTION IV** 

**CAUTION** Dermal Toxicity or Skin Irritation Potential 1 Coveralls worn over

long-sleeved shirt and long pants Coveralls worn over short-sleeved shirt and short pants Long-sleeved shirt and long pants Long-sleeved shirt and

long pants Socks Socks Socks Socks Chemical - resistant footwear Chemical - resistant footwear Shoes Shoes Chemical - resistant Gloves2 Chemical - resistant Gloves2 Chemical - resistant Gloves2 No minimum 4 Inhalation Toxicity Respiratory

protection device 3 Respiratory protection device 3 No minimum 4 No minimum 4 Eye Irritation Potential Protective eyewear5 Protective eyewear5 No minimum 4 No minimum 4

1 If dermal toxicity and skin irritation toxicity categories are different, PPE shall be determined by the more severe toxicity category of the two. If dermal toxicity or skin irritation is category I or II, refer to Section 2 below to determine if additional PPE is required beyond that specified in Table 1 2 Refer to Section 3, Table 3 to determine the specific type of chemical - resistant glove. 3 Refer to Section 4 to determine the specific type of respiratory protection. 4 Although no minimum PPE is required for these toxicity categories and routes of exposure, the Agency may require PPE on a product-specific basis. 5 “Protective eyewear” is to be used instead of “goggles” and/or “face shield” and/or “shielded safety glasses” and similar terms to describe eye protection, unless the assessment requires a specific type of eyewear for adequate protection. 

### Two of the 30 formulations are consumer products for which EPA does not require gloves or any other form of protective clothing (e.g., use of a coverall). Three of the remaining 28 formulations ( FINALE --glufosinate ammonium; SCALA-- p yrimethanil ; DREXEL S UFFA- 8 -- sulfur) were tested at a limit dose of 4000 mg/kg in the dermal study with no mortalities. The limit dose to achieve Category IV is 5000 mg/kg. For th ese three formulations, the agency believes that a dermal dose of 4000 mg/kg is close in magnitu de to 5000 mg/kg and believes the dermal Category III is an artifact of dose selection, not due to toxicity from dermal exposure below 500 0 mg/kg . As noted in Table 3 , the dermal irritation study is also used in pesticide labeling. Of the remaining 2 5 formulated pesticide product s , five of the products have a d ermal irritation study which provide s a Toxicity Category equal to or lower than the dermal acute Toxicity Category . For the remaining 20 products, the agency considered the chemical - specific wo rker protection labeling requirements identified in regulatory assessment documents (Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED), Registration Review Documents, etc.) . In the pesticide labeling process , label reviews consider not only the product specific labeling defined in the acute toxicity review, but also the chemical - specific worker protection labeling defined by the RED/registration review document and the most current regulatory risk assessment document. As such, the acute toxicity review is not the only source of information for pesticide labeling . Table 3 provides the framework for defining personal protective equipment for acute dermal toxicity and dermal irritation studies ; h owever, the framework in Table 3 is pre - empted when

### Draft for Public Comment March 11, 2016

7 

### the human health risk assessment identifies potential concern for worker risk that requires more PPE than identified by the acute toxicity review . Information on how pesticide handler 5 

### exposure assessment is conducted to assess worker dermal risk can be found at: http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide

- science - and - assessing - pesticide - risks/occupational

pesticide - handler- exposure - data . T his exposure assessment approach specifically considers exposure s cenarios for specific type(s) of application equipment, formulation type, job function, and level of PPE . Ca lculated exposure values are then compared to toxicology values (e.g., no - observe d adverse effects levels, NOAELs) to ass ess potential worker risk. These toxicity values are derived from acute or repeat dosing studies in laboratory animals evaluating systemic toxicity, not lethality. Thus, these toxicity values are more robust and ap propriate for assessing worker safety than are acute lethality studies . As such, the human health risk assessment provides the agency a means to specifically consider whether or not PPE are required to protect against human health effects. For the remaining 20 pesticide products identified with lower dermal toxicity categories than oral , 11 had active ingredients for which the human health risk assessment indicated PPE was required based on risk concerns . Risk assessments for the active ing redient in five formulations indicated no dermal risk at ‘baseline’ (baseline scenario means that t he analysis is conducted assuming long sleeved shirt, pants and socks and shoes (i.e., without a consideration for use of gloves)) , and risk assessments for the active ingredient in four formulations indicated no dermal hazard based on subchronic dermal toxicity studies — together suggesting that the glove requirement associated with the Toxicity Category III from the acute lethality study over labeled the PPE for these nine . **3.0 Discussion: Implications of Retrospective Analysis on Utility of Acute Dermal**  **Formulated pesticide product**  **Studies** The overall purpose of this analysis is to address the utility of the acute dermal toxicity study for formulation s in pe sticide labelling for end use products as described in 40CFR156.212 6



### . To this end, t his analysis includes a large number of formulations (593) and active ingredients (316) across numerous classes representing conventional pesticides, antimicrobial s , and b iopesticides. For 57 % of the 593 formulations , oral and dermal studies provide the same Toxicity Category . For 38%, the oral study provides a lower (i . e . , more conservative) Category . Thus, for 95% of the formulations in the analysis, the dermal toxici ty study was similar or less sensitive than the oral study. In other words, for 95% of the studies, if the dermal study had not been available and labelling had occurred only from the Toxicity Category for the oral formulation study, the respective labelling would have been equally protective or more protective. For the remaining 5%, a s noted above, the dermal acute toxicity category is not the only source of information for pesticide labelling. Dermal irritation studies are u sed in

5 

### I ndividuals who are involved in, and potentially can experience exposure during, the pesticide application process in agricultural and non - agricultural settings . 6 

### The agency is aware that with respect to pestic ide labelling of end use products based on Toxicity Categories, other aspects such as the signal word (40CFR156.64) and precautionary statements (40CFR156.70) may be affects.

### Draft for Public Comment March 11, 2016

8 

### addition to chemical - specific worker protection labeling defined by the RED/registration review document and the most current regulatory risk assessment, where the risk assessments utilize more robust approaches to worker protection . When all these sources of information are considered together, the dermal acute toxicity study for formulations provides little to no added value in regulatory decision making. **4.0 Waiver Guidance.**  The agency believes this retrospective analysis fully supports a conclusi on that waivers can be granted of acute dermal toxicity studies for formulation s . The agency will be soliciting public comment on this draft policy . Registrants may begin submitting waiver requests through existing processes to respective OPP division.

### Draft for Public Comment March 11, 2016

9 

## Appendix 1 **. List of active ingredients in the retrospective analysis** 

### Draft for Public Comment March 11, 2016

10

1 - Decanaminium, N -decyl - N,N dimethyl - , chloride 1 - M ethylheptyl ester 1,2 Benzisothiazolin 1,2 - Benzisothiazolin - 3 - one 1H - Pyrrole - 3 - carbonitrile,4 - bromo - 2 - (4 - chlorophenyl)- 5 - (trifluoromethyl)- 2 - (Thiocyanomethylthio)benzothiazole 2 - B romo -2 - nitro - 1,3 - propanediol 2 - Bromo -2 - nitropropane- 1,3 -diol 2 - Methyl - 3(2H) - isothiazolone 2 - M ethyl -4 - chlorophenoxyaceticacid 2 - Methyl -4 - isothiazolin - 3 - one 2 - N - Octyl -4 - isothiazolin - 3 - one 2 - Pyridinecarbox

ylicacid 2 - Pyridinesulfonamide 2,4 - D 2,4 - D, dimethylamine salt 2,4 - D ichlorophenoxy 3 - Iodo -2 - propynylButylCarbamate 3 - I odo -2 - propynylester 4,5 - Dichloro- 2 - n -octyl - 3(2H)- isothiazolone 5 - Chloro -2 - methyl - 3(2H) - isothiazolone 5 - C hloro -2 - methyl -4 - isothiazolin 5 - Chloro -2 - methyl -4 - isothiazolin - 3 - one AA10717 Abamectin Acephate Acequinocyl Acetamiprid Acetochlor Aldicarb Alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride Alkyl* dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride *(60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12) Alkyl* dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride *(67%C12, 25%C14, 7%C16, 1%C18) Ametoctradin Amicarbazone Aminochloropryridazinones Aminocyclopyrachlor Aminopyralid Amitraz Amitrole Ammonium bromide Ammonium soaps of fatty acids Atrazine Azoxystrobin Benzeneacetate Bifenazate Bifenthrin Bispyribac-sodium Boscalid Bromadiolone Bromoxynil Bronopol Buprofezin Butoxy polypropylene glycol Captan Carbamic acid Carbamic acid, butyl Carbendazim Carboxin Carfentrazone- ethyl Carobxin Chlorantraniliprole Chlorfenapyr Chlorimuron - ethyl Chlorine dioxide Chlorothalonil Chloroxylenol Chlorpropham Chlorpyrifos Chlorpyrifos- methyl Chlorsulfuron Cinnamaldehyde cis - 9 -tricosene Citric acid Clopyralid Clothianidin Copper Carbonate Copper Pyrithione Cupric oxide Cuprous oxide Cyclanilide Cyfluthrin Cyhalofop - butyl Cymoxanil Cypermethrin Cyproconazole Cyprodinil Cyromazine DDVP Deltamethrin Desmedipham D i - potassium phosphite Dicamba Dicamba, dimethylamine salt D icamba acid Dichlorophenylpryridazinones Didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride Difenconazole Diflubenzuron Dimethenamid Dimethoate Dimethomorph Dimethylamine Dinotefuran Dioctyl dimethyl ammonium chloride Diphacinone Diquat bromide Diquat Dibromide Dithiopyr Diuron Econea Emamectin benzoate Esfenvalerate Ethaneperoxoic acid Ethanol Ethephon Ethofumesate Ethyl alcohol Ethylhexyl ester ETOC Etofenprox Etoxazole Famoxadone Fenhexamid

### Draft for Public Comment March 11, 2016

11

Fenpropathrin Fenpropimorph Fipronil Flazasulfuron Flonicamid Florasulam Fluazifop - p - butyl Flubendiamide Fludioxonil Flufenacet Flumetsulam Flumioxazin Fluopicolide Fluopyram Fluoxastrobin Fluroxypyr Fluroxypyr 1 - methylheptyl ester Fluroxypyr- meptyl acetic acid Flurprimidol Fluthiacet- methyl Flutriafol Fluxapyroxad Folpet Forchlorfenuron Fosthiazate Gamma -cyhalothrin geraniol Glufosinate Glufosinate - ammonium Glutaraldehyde Glycolic acid Glyphosate Glyphosate IPA Halosulfur

on - methyl Hydrogen peroxide Hydroprene Imazalil Imazamox Imazethapyr Imazosulfuron Imidacloprid Imiprothrin Indaziflam Indoxacarb Iodosulfuron - methyl -sodium IPBC Ipconazole Iprodione Isopropanol Isoxaben Isoxaflutole Kresoxim - methyl lambda -cyhalothrin Malathion Maleic hydrazide Mancozeb Mandipropamide MCPA MCPA (and salts and esters) MCPPpacid Mecoprop Mecoprop - p Mecoprop - p acid Mefenoxam Mepiquat chloride Mesosulfuron - methyl Mesotrione Metaflumizone Metalaxyl Metalaxyl - M Metaldehyde Metconazole Methiocarb Methomyl Methoxyfenozide Methylene bis(thiocyanate) Methyleugenol Metiram METRAFENONE Metribuzin Metsulfuron MGK264 Mono - potassium phosphite Myclobutanil N - [[(4,6 - dimethoxy- 2 - pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl] - 3 - (2,2,2 - trifluoroethoxy)- , monosodium salt, monohydrate n -Alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride N -Alkyl dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chlorides N - Cyclopropyl - N - N’ - (1,1 - dimethyethyl)- 6 - (methylthio)- 1,3 ,5 - triazine -2,4 - diamine N - Octyl bicycloheptene dicarboximide Napropamide Nicosulfuron NOIT Nonanoic acid Noviflumuron o - Phenylphenol Octhilinone Octyldecyldimethylammoniumchloride ortho - benzyl - para -chlorophenol Orthosulfamuron Paclobutrazol para -tertiary- amylphenol PBO Pelargonic acid Pendimethalin P enflufen Penoxsulam Pentachloronitrobenzene Penthiopyrad Permethrin Phenmedipham Phosmet Picloram Picoxystrobin Pinoxaden Piperonyl B utoxide Potassium phosphate, monobasic Potassium Salts of Fatty Acids Potassium silicate Prallethrin Prohexadione calcium Promethryn Propiconazole Propoxycarbazone- sodium Propyzamide Prothioconazole

### Draft for Public Comment March 11, 2016

12

Pyraclostrobin Pyraflufen -ethyl Pyrasulfotole Technical Pyrazon Pyrethrins Pyridine Pyrimethanil Pyriproxyfen Pyroxasulfone Pyroxsulam Quinclorac Quinoxyfen Rimsulfuron S - bioallethrin S - Methoprene S - metochlor Saflufenacil Sedaxane Silver Silver nitrate Simazine Sodium bromide Sodium chlorite Sodium dichloro-s -triazinetrione Sodium percarbonate Sodium salt of dicamba Spinetoram Spinosad Spirodiclofen Spirotetramat Stabilene sulfentrazone Sulfosulfuron Sulfur Tau -fluvalinate Tebuconazole Tembotrione Tepraloxydim Terbuthylazine Tetrachlor

oisophthalonitrile Tetrachlorvinphos Tetraconazole Tetrahydro- 3,5 - dimethyl - 1,3,5 - thiadiazine Thiabendazole Thiamethoxam Thidiazuron Thiencarbazone- methyl Thifensulfuron Thifensulfuron - methyl Thiophanate - methyl Thiram Thymeoil Tolfenpyrad Topramezone Tralopyril Triasulfuron Tribenuron M ethyl Trichlorfon Triclopyr Trifloxystrobin Trifluralin Trinexapac- ethyl Triticonazole Zeta - Cypermethrin Zinc pyrithione Zinc 2 - pyridinethiol - 1 - oxide Zoxamide

### Draft for Public Comment March 11, 2016

13