### - 1 of 79 - OFFICE OF **CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION**  **UNITED ST AT**  **ES ENVIRONMENT AL**  **PROTECTION A GENCY** 

**WA SHINGTON D.C., 20460** 



### PC Code: **1 28722**  **DP Barcode: D**  **396740 MEMORANDUM**  **April 1**  **7 ,**  **201 2**  **SUBJECT:** Registration Review: Preliminary Problem Formulation for Environmental Fate, Ecological Risk, Endangered Species, and Drinking Water Exposure Assessments for Prallethrin **TO:** Wilhelmena Livingston , Chemical Review Manager

Eric Olson , Risk Manager Risk Management and Implementation Branch IV Pesticide Re - evaluation Division (7508P) **FROM:** Robin Sternberg , Ph.D., Wildlife Biologist

He Zhong , Ph.D., Biologist Environmental Risk Branch I Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) **REV IE**  **WED BY:**  Stephen Wente , Ph.D., Biologist

Edward Odenkirchen, Ph.D. , Senior Eco Scientist Environmental Risk Branch I Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) **APPROVED BY:**  Nancy

Andrews , Ph.D., Branch Chief Sujatha Sankula, Ph.D., Lead Biologist Environmental Risk Branch I Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) The Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) has completed the preliminary problem formulation (attached) for the environmental fate, ecological risk, endangered species, and drinking water exposure assessments to be conducted as part of the Registration Review of the sy nthetic py rethroid prallethrin ( (S) - 2 - methyl - 4 - oxo - 3 - (2 - prop ynyl ) cyclopent - 2 - enyl (1RS) - cis, trans - 2,2 - dimethyl - 3 - (2 - methylprop - 1 - enyl ) cyclopropanecarbox yl ate ; CAS no. 23031 - 36 - 9; PC Code 128722 ). Functioning as the first stage of the risk assessment process for Registration Review, this problem formulation provides an overview of what is currently known about the

### - 2 of 79 -

environmental fate and ecological effects associated with prallethrin and its degradates. It also describes the preliminary ecological risk hy pothesis and anal ys is plan for evaluating and characterizing risk to non - target species in support of the registration review of prallethrin . This document also recommends studies that should be included in a generic data call - in (DCI) to address uncertainties surrounding the environmental fate and potential ecological effects of prallethrin .

### - 3 of 79 -



# Problem Formulation for the Environmental Fate, Ecological Risk, **Endangered Species, and Drinking Water Exposure Assessments in Support of the Registration Review of**  **Prallethrin**

(S) - 2 - me thyl - 4 - oxo - 3 - (2 -propynyl) cyclopent - 2 - enyl (1RS) - cis, trans - 2, 2 - dimethyl - 3 - (2 - me thylprop - 1 - enyl) cyclopropanecarboxylate

CAS Registry Number: 23031 - 36 - 9 PC Code: 1 28722

**Prepared by:** Robin Sternberg , Ph.D., Wildlife Biologist He Zhong , Ph.D., Biologist **U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide**  **Programs Environmental Fate and Effects Division**  **Environmental Risk Branch I**  **1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Mail Code 7507P**  **Washington, DC 20460 Reviewed by:**  

### Stephen Wente, Ph.D., Biologist Edward Odenkirchen, Ph.D. , Senior Eco Scientist William Eckel, Ph.D., Senior Science Advisor Amanda Solliday , Biologist **April 1**  **7 , 201**  **2**

### - 4 of 79 - **Table of Contents** 1. Purpose ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 6 2. Nature of Regulatory

Action ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 6 3. Conclusions from Previous Assessments ................................ ................................ ................... 7 3.1 Ecological Risk Assessments ................................ ................................ ............................... 7 3.2 Drinking Water Exposure Assessments ................................ ................................ ............... 8 4. Stressor Source and Distribution ................................ ................................ ............................... 9 4.1 Mechanism of Action ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 9 4.2 Overview of Pesticide Use and Usage ................................ ................................ ................. 9 4.2.1 L abeled Uses ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 9 4.2.2 Prallethrin Use with Sy nergists ................................ ................................ .................... 10 4.2.3 Environmental Mixtures ................................ ................................ .............................. 11 4.2.4 Usage ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 11 4.3 Environmental F ate and Transport ................................ ................................ ..................... 12 4.3.1 Photodegradation ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 12 4.3.2 Aerobic Degradation ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 12 4.3.3 Anaerobic Degradation ................................ ................................ ................................ 13 4.3.4 Adsorption/Desorption and Leaching ................................ ................................ .......... 13 4.3.5 Terrestrial and Aquatic Field Dissipation ................................ ................................ .... 13 4.3.6 Bioconcentration in Fish ................................ ................................ .............................. 14 4. 4 Degradates of Concern ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 17 4.5 Water Quality ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 17 5. Receptors ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 18 5.1 Effects to Aquatic Organisms ................................ ................................ ............................ 19 5.2 Effects to Terrestrial Organisms ................................ ................................ ........................ 22 5.3 Incident Databases Review ................................ ................................ ................................ 25 5.4 Ecosy stems Potentially at Risk ................................ ................................ .......................... 25 6. Assessment Endpoints ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 26 7. Conceptual Model ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 27 7.1 Risk Hy

pothesis ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 27 7.2 Conceptual Diagrams ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 27 7.2.1 Drinking Water Exposure ................................ ................................ ............................ 29 7.2.2 Inhalation Exposure ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 29 8. Analy sis Plan ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 30 8.1 Stressors of Concern ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 30 8.2 Measures of Exposure ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 31 8.2.1 Spray

Drift ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 31 8.2.2 Aquatic Exposure ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 31 8.2.3 Terrestrial Exposure ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 33 8.3 Measures of Effect ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 34 8.4 Integration of Exposure and Effects ................................ ................................ .................. 35 8.5 Deterministic and Probabilistic Assessment Methods ................................ ....................... 35 8.6 Endangered Species Assessments ................................ ................................ ...................... 35 8.7 Drinking Water Assessment ................................ ................................ .............................. 36 8.8 Endocrine Disruptor Screening ................................ ................................ .......................... 36

### - 5 of 79 -

9. Preliminary

I dentification of Data Gaps ................................ ................................ .................. 37 9.1 Environmental Fate Data ................................ ................................ ............................... 37 9.2 Ecological Effects Data ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 39 10. References ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 45 Appendix A ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 52 Appendix B ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 54 Appendix C ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 63 Appendix D ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 71 Appendix E ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 74 Appendix F ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 76

### - 6 of 79 -

**1. Purpose**  The purpose of this problem formulation is to provide an understanding of the environmental fate and ecological effects of prallethrin for registered use s . Prallethrin ( (S) - 2 - methyl - 4 - oxo - 3 - (2 - propy nyl) cyclopent - 2 - enyl (1RS) - cis, trans - 2,2 - dimethyl - 3 - (2 - methylprop - 1 - enyl ) cyclopropanecarboxylate ; CAS no. 23031 - 36 - 9; PC Code 128722 ) is a sy nthetic py rethroid that modulates voltage - sensitive sodium channels causing disr uption of nerve impulses in target insects 

### . It is a broad spectrum, non - sy stemic insecticide used to control adult nuisance insects ( e.g. , mosquitoes , midges, gnats, black flies, etc.) . Formulations of p rall ethrin often contain additional active ingredient s including one or two sy nergist s . Mosquito control application s include aerial and ground ultra low volume (ULV) application s in residential, commercial, and recreational areas. Other applications include space and crack - and - crevice treatment f or structure protection in a variety of commercial, industrial, residential, and institutional sites ; foliar and fogger treatment on non - food plants ; and direct application to cats, dogs , and horses. There are no registered crop uses of prallethrin , and this may potentially

reduce the environmental loading . This document provides a plan for anal yz ing data relevant to prallethrin and for conducting environmental fate, ecological risk, endangered species, and drinking water exposure assessments for its registered use s . Additionally , this problem formulation identifies data gaps, uncertainties, and assumptions that will be used to address those uncertainties relative to characterizing the potential ecological risk associated with the registered use s of prallethrin . **2. Nature of Regulatory Action** Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), all pesticides distributed or sold in the United States generally must be registered by

the Environmental Protection Agency (Agency). In determining whether a pesticide can be registered in the U.S., the Agency evaluates its safety

to non - target species based on a wide range of environmental and health effects studies. In 1996, FIFRA was amended b y the Food Quality Protection Act, and the Agency was mandated to implement a new program for the periodic review of pesticides, i.e ., Registration Review (http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/). The Registration Review program is intended to ensure that, as the ability to assess risk evolves and as policies and practices change, all registered pesticides continue to meet the statutory standard of no unreasonable adverse effects to human health and the environment. Changes in science, public policy , and pesticide use practices will occur over time. Through the Registration Review program, the Agency

periodically

reevaluates pesticides to make sure that as change occurs, products in the marketplace can be used safel y. As part of the implementation of the Registration Review program pursuant to Section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the Agency is beginning its evaluation of prallethrin to determine whether it continue s to meet the FIFRA standard for registration. This problem formulation for the environmental fate, ecological risk, endangered species, and drinking water assessment chapter in support of the registration review of prallethrin will be posted in the initial docket which wil l initiate the public phase of the review process.

### - 7 of 79 -

**3. Conclusions from Previous Assessments**  **3. 1 Ecological Risk Assessments**  Prallethrin was first registered in the United States in 19 94 for indoor use to control adult nuisance insects . Since then, EFED has conducted several ecological risk assessments for prallethrin (see **Appendix A**). A 1997 assessment to evaluate prallethrin use at 0.00025 to 0.002 lb a.i./A to control adult nuisance insects in domestic outdoor and forestry sites concluded that the use s posed minimal risk to terrestrial organisms from acute and chronic exposure and minimal risk to aquatic organisms from acute exposure ; the lack of fish early- life stage and aquatic invertebrate life cycle tests created uncertainty regarding risk to aquatic organisms from chronic exposure (D219740, D217877). In 1999, a Section 3 assessment for the use of prallethrin in food - handling establishments for all commodities concluded that the use pos e d little or no risks to listed and non - liste d terrestrial and aquatic organisms (D259553, D239124). The most recent prallethrin assessments were conducted from 2003 to 2005 and evaluated a prallethrin ty

pical end - use product (TEP), MULTICIDE Fogging Concentrate 2798 (Reg No. 1021 - 1795), for use in outdoor residential and recreational areas to control adult nuisance insects (D257595, D291569, D239293, D301123, D312733). Collectively , these assessments made the following final risk conclusions regarding MULTICIDE Fogging Concentrate 2798 as applied 26 times (with 7 - day

intervals) at a rate of 0.0008 lb a.i./A:  Use is not likely

to pose risk to birds or mammals (including listed species) from acute or chronic exposure.  Given the high toxicity of prallethrin to honey

bees and prallethrin’s proposed use to control adult insects, there is a potential for adverse effects to listed species of flying insects ( e.g. , butterflies).  Risk to non - target aquatic and terrestrial plants as a result of use could not be evaluated due to lack of submitted studies.  Given its aquatic half - life , prallethrin i s likel y to occur in the water column and sediment .  Use is not likely

to pose risk to freshwater or estuarine/marine organisms (including sediment - dwelling organisms) from acute exposure regardless of depth of water body. Risk to terrestrial and aquatic ecos ys tem s will be reevaluated based on the availability of new data and refined models. The following outstanding data requirements were identified in the 2003 - 2005 assessment s :  850.1035/ 72 - 3( c ) : Acute Estuarine/Marine Shrimp Toxicity with TEP MULTI CIDE Fogging Concentrate 2798 (Reg No. 1021 - 1795);  850.1735: Whole Sediment: Acute Freshwater Invertebrates with technical grade active ingredient with technical grade active ingredient (TGAI);  850.30 30/141 - 2: Honey bee Toxicity

of Residues on Foliage with TEP MULTICIDE Fogging Concentrate 2798 (Reg No. 1021 - 1795);  850.4100/ 122 - 1(a): Seedling Emergence , Tier I with TEP MULTI CIDE Fogging Concentrate 2798 (Reg No. 1021 - 1795)  850.4150/122 - 1(b): Vegetative Vigor , Tier I with TEP MULTI CIDE Fogging Concentrate 2798 (Reg No. 1021 - 1795) ; and

### - 8 of 79 -

 122 - 2 : Aquatic Plant Growth, Tier I with TEP MULTICIDE Fogging Concentrate 2798 (Reg No. 1021 - 1795). These studies have since been submitted by the registrant , evaluated by EFED , and classified as acceptable (MRIDs 47431601, 47762401, 48055901, 47431602, 47431603, and 48055902, respectivel y). The 2003 - 2005 assessment s identified the following studies as data uncertainties but did not request them at that time:  850.1010/ 72 - 2(b): Acute Toxicity Freshwater Invertebrate with TEP MULTI CIDE Fogging Concentrate 2798 (Reg No. 1021 - 1795);  850.1075/ 7 2 - 1(b): (Acute ) Freshwater Fish Toxicity (Bluegill) with TEP MULTI CIDE Fogging Concentrate 2798 (Reg No. 1021 - 1795);  850.1075/ 72 - 1( c ) or: Acute Freshwater Fish Toxicity (Rainbow Trout) with TEP MULTI CIDE Fogging Concentrate 2798 (Reg No. 1021 - 1795);  850.1075/ 72 - 3( a): Acute Estuarine/Marine Fish Toxicity with TEP MULTICIDE Fogging Concentrate 2798 (Reg No. 1021 - 1795); and  850.1075/ 72 - 3(b ): Acute Estuarine/Marine Mollusk Toxicity with TEP MULTICIDE Fogging Concentrate 2798 (Reg No. 1021 - 1795). The 2003 - 2005 assessment s identified the following studies as data uncertainties that should be required if new uses are added for prallethrin :  850.1350/ 72 - 4(b): Estu arine/Marine Invertebrate Life Cycle with TGAI ;  850.1500/72 - 5: Fish Life Cycle (Freshwater & Saltwater) with TGAI; and  850.1740: Whole Sediment: Acute Marine Invertebrates with TGAI pending test results using the amphipod Hyallella az teca . Finally , the 2003 - 2005 assessment s waived all testing with the major degradates of prallethrin , ketolone, PGL S, and keto - PGL S . EFED determined that these degradates are the outcome of cleavage of the ester linkage of the parent. This breaking of the basic py rethroid frame or backbone may

result in lost activity and thus decreased toxicity when compared with the parent . **3. 2 Drinking Water Exposure Assessments**  The drinking water assessment (DWA) for MULTICIDE ® 

### Fogging Concentrate 2798 (Reg No. 1021 - 1795) was completed in June 2003 (DP 274758) to estimate prallethrin environmental concentrations. Tier I FIRST 1.0 and SCIGROW 2.2 models were used to estimate prallethrin concentrations in surface water and groundwater, respectivel y (USEPA, 2003). The results of this DWA are summarized in **Table 3**  **- 1**  .

### - 9 of 79 -

**Table 3**  **- 1. Estimation of Prallethrin Concentrations in Surface Water and Groundwater**  **Using FIRST 1.0 and SCIGROW 2.2, Respectively, for a June 2003 DWA**  **Product Application Rate**  **(lb a.i./A) Acute (peak) Surface** 

**Water Concentration (ppt)**  **Annual Average**

**Surface Water Concentration**  **(ppt) Ground Water** 

**Concentration (ppt)**  MULTICIDE ® 0.0008 236 15.0 0.41 RESPONDÉ ® 0.002 591 37.5 1.04 ppt = parts per trillion 

### These values generally

represent upperbound estimates of the concentrations that might be found in surface water and groundwater as a result of prallethrin outdoor usage at the maximum application rate. Both models provide estimates suitabl e for screening purposes. The drinking water exposure may be reassessed if it is deemed necessary . **4 . Stressor Source and Distribution**  **4 .1**  **Mechanism of Action** Prallethrin is a member of a class of pesticides known as sy nthetic py rethroids . Py

rethroi ds are sy nthetic chemicals that were originally developed as modifications of the natural py rethrum structure to produce compounds that had an increased photo - stability while retaining insecticidal activity and low acute mammalian toxicity . Prallethrin ha s been assigned to the Mode of Action Group 3 (subgroup 3A) by the Insecticide Resistance Action Committee (IRAC) (http://www.irac - online.org/teams/mode - of - action/) wh ich is comprised of technical personnel from various large agrochemical and public health companies (USEPA, 2011 ) . Insecticides in this group modulat e sodium channel s and thus caus e disruption of nerve impulses in the target insects. All py

rethroids "initially

stimulate the nerve to produce repetitive discharges and subsequently

cause paraly sis" (Narahashi, 1976). Like other compounds derived from the chemical structure of p yr ethrum, py rethroids are most toxic to the target pest on contact and have a quick "knockdown" effec t that is characterized by quick intoxication and initial paraly sis resulting from nerve stimulation (Doull, 1976). **4 .2**  **Overview of Pesticide Use and Usage 4**  **.2.1 Labeled Uses** Prallethrin is used to control adult nuisance insects ( e.g. , mosquitoes , midges, gnats, black flies, etc .) and is not registered for crop uses according to a recent report by the B iological and E conomic Anal ys is D ivision (BEAD) of the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) (US EPA , 2011). N on - crop use sites include farm buildings , factories, food handling, storage areas, grain elevators, tobacco warehouses and canneries, domestic dwellings, commercial/institutional/ industrial areas, hospitals, manufacturing plants, office buildings, etc . (USEPA, 2011) . In 2005, prallethrin was registered for use in mosquito adulticid e programs involving outdoor residential

### - 10 of 79 -

and recreation areas, and in vegetation surrounding parks, woodlands, swamps, marshes, overgrown areas and golf courses. Seventy- six (76) labels are currentl y registered fo r use in the United States: fourteen (14) technical or formulation intermediate products and sixty- two (62) formulated end - use products (see **Appendix B** ). Prallethrin is often available in a mixture containing other p yrethroids ( e.g. , cyfluthrin, cy

permethrin, cy

phenothrin, d - phenothrin, esfenvalerate, lambda - cy halothrin, permethrin, phenothrin, pyrethrins) and with or without a sy nergist including piperonylbutoxide (PBO) and/or MGK 264. Prallethrin may be formulated as a liquid (may be pressurized), emul sifiable concentrate, ready- to - use solution, soluble concentrate, and pressurized gas. M ethod s of application include aerosol can (with or without injection tube); fumigation; cloth, glove, or sponge; sprayer (hand - held, mechanical, pressure, trigger); sp ace and/or surface treatment/spray ; crack and crevice and/or spot treatment; injection treatment (including trees and mounds); package applicator; and ultra low volume (ULV) aerosol or fog generator (non thermal, cold fog) that may be aircraft - (fixed - wing or helicopter) or truck - mounted. For example, Duet ® 

### and MULTICIDE ® 

### Fogging Concentrate 2798 are formulated products for aerial and ground ULV application over the residential and recreation areas. The maximum labeled application rates b y use site and formulation are provided in **Appendix C** . Additional l abel information including specific maximum application rate per application and per year, maximum number of applications per ye ar, and defined appli cation intervals w ould reduce uncertainties in the risk assessment.

**4 .2.2**  **Prallethrin Use with Synergists** PBO and MGK 264 are synergists commonly used in formulations with prallethrin. PBO acts as a potentiator in both mammals and insects because the pyrethroid is not metabolized and excreted as quickl y in its presence (Barile, 2004; Hodgson & Smart, 2001). Amweg & Weston (2007) and Weston & Lydy (2010) showed increasing toxicity when exposing aquatic invertebrates to mixtures of py rethroids and PBO. Amweg et al. (2006) and Weston et al. (2006) also reported the potential for sy nergism in the environment. In general, active ingredients and sy nergists have differing fate properties and therefore would be expected to occur in the environment at different times and at different concentrations than present in the end - use product. MGK- 264, another potentiator/s y nergist used with py

rethroids, has similar effects as those observed for piperonyl butoxide (Hodgson & Smart , 2001). Prallethrin may be co formulated with either or both PBO and MGK- 264 in numerous products (see **Appendix B** ). Currently , data on the degree to which the toxicity of py rethroid active ingredients is enhanced by varying concentrations of PBO and MGK- 264 are needed to address the ecological risk of py rethroid products when co - applied with PBO or MGK- 264. The data need is discussed in the EFED Registration Review Problem Formulation for Piperonyl Butoxide , dated December 13, 2010 (USEPA, 2010, D378420). The PBO Problem Formulation is available in the PBO registration review docket at www.regulations.gov (EPA - HQ - OPP - 2010 - 0498). Based on data for the acute toxicity

of py rethrin and PBO to target insect species, the degree of toxicity enhancement increases at higher PBO:p yr ethrin ratios (or absolute concentrations) , and this

### - 11 of 79 -

toxicity enhancement is greater than simple additive toxicity (Stewart, 1998). The Agency is currentl y evaluating a proposed study protocol that will quantify the enhancement of acute toxicity of active ingredients used with PBO to the freshwater amphipod, Hyalella azteca , by simultaneous exposure to PBO at varying PBO: ac tive ingredient ratios. This comprehensive testing strategy , when augmented with similar acute toxicity data for freshwater fish and other selected pesticide active ingredients, should facilitate bridging of the s ynergist toxicity enhancement to other co - formulated or co - applied pesticide/sy nergist active ingredients that are not tested at varying s ynergist:active ingredient ratios. With respect to evaluating ecological risks from co - applied prallethrin and sy nergists , the Agency

is requesting acute toxic ity studies of prallethrin TEPs that are co - formulated with PBO and MGK- 264 at the highest sy nergist:active ingredient ratio. These TEPs should correspond to those formulated products that are labeled for outdoor uses and would be conducted with a freshwater fish and a freshwater invertebrate. Additional discussion of the need for combined prallethrin :synergist toxicity data is provided in **Section 7. 9**  (Preliminary Data Gaps). **4 .2.3 Environmental Mixtures**  Toxicity data on environmental mixtures of prallethrin and other pesticides may be presented, if available, as part of the ecological risk assessment. The toxic effect of prallethrin, in combination with other pesticides used in the environment, is likely to be a function of many factors including but not necessaril y limited to:  the exposed species,  co - contaminants in the mixture,  the ratio of prallethrin and co - contaminant concentrations,  differences in the pattern and duration of exposure among contaminants, and  the differential effects of other phy sical/chemical characteristics of the receiving waters ( e.g. , organic matter present in sediment and suspended water). Quantitatively

predicting the combined/cumulative effects of all these variables on mixture toxicity to any given taxa with confidence is beyond the capabilities of the available data and methodologies. However, the implications of the data gap for pesticide mixture effects on the confidence of risk assessment conclusions will be addressed in the uncertainty analy sis. EFED will co nsider open literature, current models, and other lines - of - evidence ( e.g. , monitoring data), as available, to address the potential for cumulative effects of p rallethrin in the risk description of the ecological assessment.

**4 .2.4 Usage**  There is limited in formation available for prallethrin usage. BEAD reported that Kline & Co. prepared a special study in 2006 for EPA which estimated non - agricultural usage of prallethrin for households to be approximately 28,000 lbs and suggested the study probably underestimates non - agricultural usage since it did not include any non - household sites such as food handling esta blishments and warehouses (US EPA , 2011). There is no prallethrin usage information for mosquito and other public health pest control. Previou s risk assessment s w ere based on the labeled uses at the time the assessments were conducted. Obtaining additional information will improve future EFED risk assessment for the se uncertainties. We concur with BEAD ’s anal ys is

### - 12 of 79 -

th at the following data defici encies should be considered as part of the registration review of prallethrin:

 Usage data (pounds a.i. applied, application methods frequentl y used, and area treated) for indoor /outdoor consumer use, use in food handling establishments/food processing establishment, and use in and around commercial and institutional facilities.  Usage data (pounds a.i. applied, application methods frequentl y used, and area treated) for structural treatment at agricultural and commodity- processing facilities.  GI S - mapping data (e.g., fre quency of application, pounds a.i. applied) on use of prallethrin as a mosquito adulticide. **4 .3**  **Environmental Fate and Transport** The s tructure of prallethrin has a phenylring and a cycloprop ylring . Prallethrin (also known as ETOC) consists mainly

of [1 R , trans ; S

] and [1 R , cis ; S

] isomers in a ratio of approximately 4:1 (http://www.who.int/whopes/quality /en/prallethrin_spec_eval_Nov_2004.pdf ). Prallethrin dissipation appears to be dependent on photodegradation in aqueous environment s , hydrol ys is, microbially

mediated degradation, and soil binding. Data show that ETOC has low solubility and appears to be stable at pH ’s 5 and 7. However, at an elevated pH of 9, it hydrol yz es with a calculated half

- life of 4.9 day s with two isomeric bi cyclic ketones (1A+2A, totaling 82.2

– 93.7%) and PGLS (totaling 4.3 - 14%) as the major degradates (MRID 42838602). A diagram of prallethrin degradation or metabolic pathway i s provided in **Appendix G** . In aqueous environment s , the compound break s at the ester bond to yield d - t - CRA (MRID s 44861001, 44366601) and PGL S (MRID s 44861002, 44366602). PGL S can undergo hydration and subsequent keto - enol tautomerism, resulting in ketolone (MRID 43797601) . Itcan also undergo double bond rearrangement, resulting in PGL - allene, or hydrox yl ation at C - 1, resulting in PGL OH (MRID s 44366601, 44366602) . Finall y, PGLS can undergo oxidation of the alcohol group to yield keto - PGLS , then keto - ketolon e , and ultimately these degradates yield C O 2 

### (MRID 43797601) . **4 .3.1 Photodegradation**  Photodegradation is the primary route of prallethrin transformation with a pseudo first - order half - life of 0.57 day s (13.6 hrs) in the aqueous environment (MRID 43797601). The major degradates are ketolon e , 37.3 % , and PGL S, 26.0% , in 8 days and keto - PGLS, 16.5% , in 1 day of irradiation. In a sandy

loam soil environment, the half - lives of prallethrin photodegradation were 24.8 and 26.9 day s respectively with CO 2 

### , chry santhemic acid , and PGLS as the major degradat es , but the percentages of formation were unclear from the studies (MRID s 43797602, 43797603). **4 .3.2 Aerobic Degradation**  The observed half

- life of prallethrin in aerobic soil was approximately 3 day s with CO 2 

### as a major degradate, totaling 42.8

– 44.4% at 112 days post - treatment (MRID 42838601). The a erobic aquatic metabolism studies (MRID s 44860101, 44861002) were considered

### - 13 of 79 -

supplemental. The s ys tems may be partl y aerobic and partl y anaerobic because they were flooded prior to application of the test m aterial, which may have caused anaerobic conditions. The registrant show ed that dissolved oxygen was measured in the water phase (resulting in 40 - 73% relative dissolved oxygen, providing an indirect measure of the aerobicity of the water phase; however, the aerobicity of the sediment is uncertain). For studies conducted in darkness at 25°C for up to 91 day s, prallethrin degraded with calculated half - lives of 16 and 17 day s for the 14 

### C radiolabeled at cyclopropyl and cyclopentenyl positions, respectively. In the cycloprop yl label study , two major degradates , d - t - CRA and t - COOH - CA , reached a maximum of 42.3% at 14 day s and 31.1% at 60 day s post - treatment, respectivel y. In the cyclopentenyl label study, the major degradate PGL S reached a maximum of 24.2% at 7 day s post - treatment. Nonextractable 14 

### C residues reached a maximum of 52.3% at 60 day s, and 46.5% at 91 days post - treatment. CO 2 

### production reached a maximum 23.3% at 91 days post - tr eatment (MRIDs 44861001, 44861002). **4 .3.3 Anaerobic**  **D egradation**  No study was found for anaerobic soil metabolism. Two anaerobic aquatic metabolism studies (MRID s 44366601, 44366602) were considered as supplemental. They partially satisfy the data requirement although a large portion of the radioactivity was not extract ed or identified , which may create uncertainties for the risk assessment . However, EFED has determined that the deficiency

will not affect the prallethrin half - life in anaerobic aquatic conditions . The studies were conducted in a water- sediment s ys tem (w ater pH 7.0, sediment texture: loam, pH 4.6, organic matter 6.02%, temperature 25 oC) for up to 181 day s. The first order half - lives of prallethrin in the entire system were 33 and 35 days in two separate studies using [acid 14 

### C] - d trans - E TOC and [alc 14 

### C] - d - trans - E TOC . The only major degradate in the first study was d - t CRA which reached a maximum of 55.2% at 57 day s , and the total unidentified radioactivity reached a maximum of13.3 %. In the second study, four transformation products were identified w ith a maximum of 14.6% PGL - OH and k etolone at 59 day s, 20.7% PGL S at 59 day s, 10% PGL - allene at 181 days and 4.7% Keto - PGLS at 1 81 day s (MRIDs 44366601, 44366602).

**4 .3.4 Adsorption/** **D esorption and**  **L eaching**  The submitted adsorption/desorption and leachin g study (MRID 42810801) was unacceptable because the test soils were autoclaved before use, thus possibly altering the phy sical and chemical properties of the soils. The data cited in **Table 4 -**  **1** are for reference onl y. The registrant must demonstrate that autoclaving the soil did not influence the results of this study, and that the observed results are an accurate representation of prallethrin adsorption / desorption from soil or submit a new study . The Agency has a limited knowledge of how prallethrin b ehaves in the environment once applied b y aerial ULV spray for mosquito control. Depending on the mobility

of the compound and soil characteristics in the environment, prallethrin may or may not be transported to surface water and/or ground water bodies u sed by organisms in the environment and/or b y humans for drinking water .

**4 .3.5 Terrestrial and Aquatic Field Dissipation** 

### No terrestrial and aquatic field dissipation

is not registered for agricultural use, data on terrestrial and aquatic field dissipation will be waived at this time .

**4 .3.6 Bioconcentration in Fish**  Fish bioaccumulation was studied of [Alc 14 

### C] - d - trans - ETOC (parent prallethrin) radioactivity

in the fish were 1.3 - to 1070 ppb , and the bioconcentration factors (B maximum B C Fs in non - edible tissue were at 2210 tissues were ETOC - Alc (96.3 ppb) and its glucuronide conjugate (1,070 ppb) conjugate o f ETOC - Acid (787 ppb) at day 28 of exposure. Registrant - submitted data defining the physical, chemical, fate and transport characteristics associated with prallethrin are summarized in **Table 4**  **- 1**  **. Physical, Chemical**  **, Major Degradate**  **s .**  **Param eter**  **Prallethrin** Chemical Chemical Family Em pirical Formula SMILES IUPAC

CAS Number Structure **Selected Physical/Che mical Param** **eters** Molecular mass Boiling point Solubility (25°C) Vapor pressure (23.1°C) Henry’s law constant (20°C, pH 7)



### - 14 of 79 - No terrestrial and aquatic field dissipation studies are available for prallethrin . Since prallethrin ural use, data on terrestrial and aquatic field dissipation will be **.3.6 Bioconcentration in Fish** Fish bioaccumulation was studied by exposing bluegill sunfish to 0.937 ppb water concentration (parent prallethrin) (MRIDs 42810802, 43758001). The half

- 2.5 days. The 14 

### C concentrations in whole fish ranged from and the bioconcentration factors (B C Fs) ranged from 787 to 1160 whereas the

edible tissue were at 2210 - 3130 . The major metabolites Alc (96.3 ppb) and its glucuronide conjugate (1,070 ppb) as well as a Acid (787 ppb) at day

28 of exposure. submitted data defining the physical, chemical, fate and transport characteristics associated with prallethrin are summarized in **Table 4**  **- 1**  .

**, and Environmental Fate Properties of**  **P rallethrin** 

**Value Reference**  **Comments** Prallethrin / ETOC MRID 41321801 Product Chemistry Synthetic pyrethroid MRID 41321800 Product Chemistry C 19 H 24 O 3 MRID 41321801 Product Chemistry O=C2C(=C(C)C(OC(=O)C1 C(C=C(C)C)C1(C)C)C2)CC

#C EPI V4.10 (S) - 2 - methyl - 4 - oxo - 3 - (2 - propynyl) cyclopent - 2 - enyl (1RS) - cis, trans - 2,2 - dimethyl - 3 - (2 - methylprop 1 - enyl) cyclopropanecarboxylate MRID 41321801 Product Chemistry

23031 - 36 - 9 MRID 41321801 Product Chemistry

MRID 41321801 Product Chemistry **Selected Physical/Che mical Param** **eters** 300.4 MRID 41321801 Product Chemistry 313.5 oC MRID 41321803 Product Chemistry 8.03 ppm MRID 41321803 Product Chemistry <1.0x10 - 7 mm Hg MRID 41321803 Product Chemistry 4.92x10 - 9 atm·m3 /mol Calculated (VP/760)/(SOL/MWT) (per EFED Guidance ver 2.1, Oct 22, 2009) 

### Since prallethrin ural use, data on terrestrial and aquatic field dissipation will be by exposing bluegill sunfish to 0.937 ppb water concentration 43758001). The half

- lives of ranged from 708 whereas the The major metabolites in non - edible

as well as a taurine submitted data defining the physical, chemical, fate and transport characteristics **rallethrin and Its**  **Comments** Product Chemistry Product Chemistry Product Chemistry Product Chemistry

Product Chemistry Product Chemistry

Product Chemistry Product Chemistry Product Chemistry Product Chemistry (VP/760)/(SOL/MWT) (per EFED Guidance ver 2.1, Oct 22, 2009)

### - 15 of 79 -

**Param eter**  **Value Reference**  **Comments** Octanol - water partition coefficient (KOW) (25°C) 4.49 MRID 41321803 Product Chemistry Organic carbon partition coefficient (median Koc) 2004 * MRID 42810801 *T he study was unacceptabl e because the test soils were autoclaved before use. ( Dat a gap ) Bioconcentration factor (BCF) 1160 MRID 43758001 Based on total 14 C bioconcentration in whole fish at 7 days **Persistence** Hydroly sis pH 5 pH 7 pH 9 stable

stable 4.9 days MRID 42838602 Aqueous Photolysis (t 1⁄2 ) 0.57 days MRID 43797601 Soil Photolysis (t 1⁄2 ) 29 days MRID 43797602 MRID 43797603 Upperbound value

calculated based on 24.8 and 26.9 days (n=2), as per EFED guidance Aerobic Soil Metabolism (t 1⁄2 ) 9 days MRID 42838601 Upperbound value, calculated based on 3x 3 days (n=1), as per EFED guidance Anaerobic Soil Metabolism N/A N/A ( Data gap ) Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism (t 1⁄2 ) 37 days MRID 44366601 MRID 44366602 Upperbound value,

calculated based on 33 and 35 days (n=2), as per EFED guidance Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism 18 days MRID 44861001 MRID 44861002 Upperbound value,

calculated based on 16 and 17 days (n=2), as per EFED guidance Bioaccumulation in Fish (Depuration half - life) 1.3

– 2.5 days MRID 42810802 MRID 43758001 **Mobility** Soil/Water partition coefficient ( The l owest on non - sand Kd) 51.51* MRID 42810801 *T he study was unacceptabl e because the test soils were autoclaved before use. (Data gap) **Field Dissipation** Terrestrial Field Dissipation (t 1⁄2 ) N/A N/A ( Data gap ) **PGLS (Major degradate)** Chemical PGLS MRID 42838602 MRID 43797601 MRID 44366602 MRID 44861002 Em pirical Formula C 9 H 10 O 2 EPI V4.10**Param eter** 

SMILES Structure

**Selected Physical/Che mical Param** **eters** Molecular mass Boiling point Solubility (25°C) Vapor pressure (30°C) Henry’s law constant (20°C, pH 7) Octanol - water partition coefficient (KOW) (25°C) Organic carbon partition coefficient (median Koc) BCF Water Half

- Life Soil Half - Life **d -**  **t -**  **CRA (M**  **ajor degradate)** Chemical Em pirical Formula SMILES Structure

**Selected Physical/Che mical Param** **eters** Molecular mass Boiling point Solubility (25°C) Vapor pressure (30°C) Henry’s law constant (20°C, pH 7) Octanol - water partition coefficient (KOW) (25°C) Organic carbon partition coefficient (median Koc) BCF Water Half

- Life Soil Half - Life



### - 16 of 79 - **Value Reference**  **Comments** C1(=C(C(C[C@@H]1O)=O )CC#C)C. EPI V4.10 MRID 42838602 MRID 43797601 MRID 44366602 MRID 44861002 **Selected Physical/Che mical Param** **eters** 150.18 EPI V4.10 275.57 oC EPI V4.10 9.63e+004 ppm EPI V4.10 2.51x10 - 4 mm Hg EPI V4.10 5.15x10 - 10 atm·m3 /mol EPI V4.10 0.48 EPI V4.10 9.435 ml/g EPI V4.10 3.162 L/Kg EPI V4.10 BCFBAF v3.01 15 days EPI V4.10 Level III 30 days EPI V4.10 Level III Fugacity Model d - t - CRA MRID 44366601

MRID 44861001 C 10 H 16 O 2 EPI V4.10 O=C(O)C1C(C)(C)C1C=C( C)C EPI V4.10 MRID 44366601 MRID 44861001 **Selected Physical/Che mical Param** **eters** 164.24 EPI V4.10 264 oC EPI V4.10 164 ppm EPI V4.10 5.87 x10 - 3 mm Hg EPI V4.10 2.42x10 - 6 atm·m3 /mol EPI V4.10 3.49 EPI V4.10 59.47 ml/g EPI V4.10 3.162 L/Kg EPI V4.10 BCFBAF v3.01 15 days EPI V4.10 Level III 30 days EPI V4.10 Level III Fugacity Model **Comments**

BCFBAF v3.01 Level III Fugacity Model Level III Fugacity Model

BCFBAF v3.01 Level III Fugacity Model Level III Fugacity Model

### - 17 of 79 -

**4 .4**  **Degradates of Concern** Two prallethrin degradates, PGL S and d - t - CRA, are formed as the result of cleavage of the ester linkage of the prallethrin structure through hydrol ysis. The d - t - CRA will yield CO2 and polar products. The PGL S (14 - 26%) is predicted to have higher water solubility (9.63e+004 ppm), higher mobility

(Koc: 9.435 ml/g) , and a longer half - li fe than its parent based on structure estimation (E PISuite v.4.10 ; **Appendix D** ). In addition, PGL S is a precursor for other metabolites and con

jugates (**Appendix G**) . However, PGL S is expected to lose its activity as a sodium channel inhibitor and is probabl y less toxic than the parent. Therefore, no addi tional data on PGL S will be requested at this time. Should the registrant wish to add new uses of this chemical, the data requirement may be reassessed. **4 .5**  **Water Quality** Prallethrin is not identified as a cause of impairment for any water bodies und er section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act 1 

### . In addition, no Total Maximum Daily L oad (TMDL) has been developed for prallethrin 2 

### , and there are no aquatic life criteria for prallethrin 3 

### . More information on impaired water bodies and TMDLcan be found at http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/ . No monitoring data are available for prallethrin. Neither the USGS’s National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program nor the California Department of Pesticide Regulation ’s monitoring programs included prallethrin as an analy te. During the risk assessment process, the following databases and sources will be searched for current moni toring information on prallethrin :

 

### The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) STORET Database (http://www.epa.gov/storet/dbtop.html )  

### The United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Water- Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program Data Warehouse (http://infotrek.er.usgs.gov/traverse/f?p=NAWQA:HOME:1405517206944567 )  

### The USGS National Stream Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN) program (http://water.usgs.gov/nasqan/)  

### Sampling for Pesticides Residues in Calif ornia Well Water Cumulative Report; EEH03 - 08; December 2003 (http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/ehapreps/eh0308.pdf)

1 b ased on information provided at http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/attains_nation_cy.cause_detail_303d?p_cause_group_id=885 , accessed January 24 , 201 2 2 based on information provided at http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/attains_nation.tmdl_pollutant_detail?p_po llutant_group_id=885&p_pollutant_ group_name=PESTICIDES , accessed January 2 4 , 201 2 3 based on information provided at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/aqlife/index.cfm , accessed 24, 2012

### - 18 of 79 -

 

### California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) Surface Water Database (http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/surfwtr/surfdata.htm) The Agency

invites submission of water quality data for this pesticide. To the extent possible, data should conform to the quality standards in Appendix A of the OPP Standard Operating Procedure: Inclusion of Impaired Water Body and Other Water Quality Data in OPP’s Registration Review Risk Assessment and Management Process (see: http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/cb/ ppdc/2006/november06/session1 - sop.pdf ) to ensure they

can be used quantitatively

or qualitatively

in pesticide risk assessments. **5 . Receptors**  The receptor is the biological entity that is exposed to the stressor (EPA, 1998). Due to the outdoor uses of prallethrin, the ty pes of receptors that may be exposed include both aquatic and terrestrial receptors, such as birds, reptiles, mammals, amphibians, freshwater and estuarine/marine fish, non - target terrestrial and aquatic inverteb rates , and terrestrial an d aquatic plants , etc . Spray

drift and runoff exposures are expected for both ground and aerial applications of prallethrin . Consistent with the process described in the Overview Document (USEPA, 2004), the risk assessment for prallethrin relies on a surrogate species approach. Toxicological data generated from surrogate test species, which are intended to be representative of broad taxonomic groups, are used to extrapolate the potential effects on a variety of species (receptors) included under these tax onomic groupings. Acute and chronic toxicity data from studies submitted by pesticide registrants along with the available open literature are used to evaluate the potential direct and indirect effects of prallethrin to aquatic and terrestrial receptors. This includes toxicity on the technical grade active ingredient, degradates, and when available, formulated products ( e.g. , “Six - Pack” studies). The open literature studies are identified through EPA’s ECOTOXicology (ECOTOX) database which employ s a literature search engine for locating chemical toxicity data for aquatic life , terrestrial plants, and wildlife (USEPA, 2007 b ) . The evaluation of both sources of data will provide insight into the direct and indire ct effects of prallethrin on biotic communities from loss of species that are sensitive to the chemical and from changes in structure and functional characteristics of the affected communities. Data from an ECOTOX database for prallethrin will be evaluated for possible quantitati ve and/or qualitative inclusion in the risk assessment in support of Registration Review. At that time, endpoints more sensitive than those available from guideline studies will be reviewed from the open literature studies. A brief summary

of the aquatic and terrestrial toxicity data available for prallethrin is provided in **Sections 5**  **.1** and **5 .2**  , respectivel y. In addition, ecological incidents associated with prallethrin use and a description of ecosy stems potentiall y at risk are summarized in **Sections 5**  **. 3**  and **5 .4**  , respectivel y. Acute toxicity

to aquatic animals ( i.e. , fish and aquatic invertebrates), terrestrial vertebrates ( i.e. , birds and mammals), and terrestrial invertebrates ( i.e. , honey bees) is categorized using the sy stem shown in **Table 5**  **- 1**  (USEPA, 2004). Toxicity categories for plants have not been defined.

### - 19 of 79 -

**Table 5**  **- 1. Categories of Acute Toxicity for Aquatic and Terrestrial Animals** 

**Aquatic Vertebrates & Invertebrates**  **Terrestrial Vertebrates**  **Terrestrial Invertebrates**  **Toxicity Category LC**  **50 (ppm)**  **Oral LD 50**  **(m g/kg)**  **Dietary LC 50** 

**(ppm) LD**  **50**

**(μg a.i./bee)** < 0.1 < 10 < 50 Very highly toxic > 0.1 - 1 10 - 50 50 - 500 < 2 Highly toxic > 1 - 10 51 - 500 501 - 1000 2 - 10.99 Moderately toxic > 10 - 100 501 - 2000 1001 - 5000 Slightly toxic > 100 > 2000 > 5000 ≥ 11 Practically non - toxic 

### 5 **.1 Effects to Aquatic Organisms**  A summary

of aquatic toxicity

data for prallethrin from registrant - submitted studies is provided in **Table 5**  **- 2**  (animals) and **Table 5**  **- 3**  (plants). There are no toxicity data for the two major degradates of prallethrin, PGL S and d - t - CRA. Two acute studies with freshwat er fish have been submitted: one with bluegill sunfish (MRID 41321808 ) and one with rainbow trout (MRID 41321809 ) . Both studies indicate that prallethrin is very highl y toxic to freshwater fish. A single fish toxicity study with an estuarine/marine species has been submitted (MRID 44729602 ) ; this acute toxicity study indicates that prallethrin is also very

highl y toxic to sheepshead minnow . The only submitted chronic toxicity study with a fish species, an early- life stage study with rainbow trout (MRID 44729604), yi elded a NOEC of 3.0 μg a.i./L which was the highest treatment level in the study ; a LOEC could not be determined using the selected treatment concentrations . For aquatic invertebrates, five acute toxicity studies have been submitted: one with daphnids (MRID 41321810 ) , on e with Eastern o ys ter (MRID 44729601 ) , two with my sid shrimp (MRID s 44729603 and 48055901 ) , and one with an amphipod in sediment (MRID 47762401) . The latt er sediment toxicity

study with Hyalella azteca has been classified as supplemental due to uncertainty regarding the accuracy of the LC 50 

### values given potential interference from the solvent. Collectively , the four former studies indicate that prallethrin is highly toxic to very highl y toxic to aquatic invertebrates. It should be noted that o ne of the studies with my sid shrimp was conduct ed with TGAI (MRID 44729603) whereas the other (MRID 48055901) was conducted with the TEP MULTI CIDE Fogging Concentrate 2798 (Reg No. 1021 - 1795) which also contains two other active ingredient s , the s ynthetic py rethroid d - phenothrin (PC Code 069005) and th e sy

nergist PBO (PC Code 067501) . Results of the study with the TEP indicate that MULTI CIDE Fogging Concentrate 2798 is three orders of magnitude more toxic than prallethrin TGAI ( 96 - hr LC 50 

### = 3.9 μg a.i./L with TGAI; L C 50 

### = 0.0079 μg a.i./Lwith TEP). The only submitted chronic toxicity study with an aquatic invertebrate species , a life cycle test with daphnids (MRID 44729605), yielded a 21 - day NOEC of 0.65 μg a.i./L based on number of offspring per female. A single aquatic plant toxicity study (MRID 48055902 ) has been submitted: a Tier II test with an aquatic vascular plant using the TEP MULTI CIDE Fogging Concentrate 2798 (Reg No. 1021 -

### - 20 of 79 -

1795) . This study

yielded no effects on duckweed up to 1.324 μg a.i./L prallethrin. No data are available for non - v ascular aquatic plants. **Table 5**  **- 2**  **. Summary of the Endpoints from Submitted Aquatic Animal Toxicity Studies for Prallethrin**  **Study Type &**  **TGAI (%)**  **/TEP Species**  **Toxicity Value & Toxicity Classification**  **MRID & Classification**  **Freshwater Fish** Ac ute TGAI 92.9% Bluegill sunfish

( Lepomis macrochirus ) Mean - measured concentrations 96 - hr LC 50 = 22 μg a.i./L 96 - hr NOEC = 8.6 μg a.i./L (based on mortality) Very highly toxic 41321808 Acceptable Ac ute TGAI 92.6% Rainbow trout

( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) Mean - measured concentrations 96 - hr LC 50 = 12 μg a.i./L 96 - hr NOEC = 4.3 μg a.i./L (based on mortality) Very highly toxic 41321809 Acceptable Early - life stage TGAI 94.2% Rainbow trout

( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) Mean - measured concentrations 90 - day NOEC = 3.0 μg a.i./L 90 - day LOEC > 3.0 μg a.i./L (no effects) 44729604 Acceptable **Estuarine/Marine Fish**

Ac ute TGAI 94.2% Sheepshead minnow

( Cyprinodon variegates ) Mean - measured concentrations 96 - hr LC 50 = 26 μg a.i./L 95% C.I.: 23 - 31 μg a.i./L 96 - hr NOEC = 11 μg a.i./L 96 - hr LOEC = 16 μg a.i./L (based on lethargy and erratic swimming behavior) Very highly toxic 44729602 Acceptable

**Freshwater Invertebrates** Ac ute TGAI 92.9% Water flea

( Daphnia magna ) Mean - measured conentrations 48 - hr EC 50 = 6.2 μg a.i./L 48 - hr NOEC = 4.6 μg a.i./L (based on mortality) Very highly toxic 41321810 Acceptable Life cycle TGAI 94.2% Water flea

( Daphnia magna ) 21 - day NOEC = 0.65 μg a.i./L 21 - day LOEC = 1.3 μg a.i./L 21 - day MATC = 0.93 μg a.i./L (based on number of offspring per female) 44729605 Acceptable Ac ute: whole sediment TGAI 97.4% radio ch emical purity 93.4% non radioactive purity Amphipod

(Hyalella azteca ) Mean - measured bulk sediment concentrations 10 - day LC 50 = 14.9 mg TRR/kg - dw 10 - day NOEC = 5.9 mg TRR/kg - dw 10 - day LOAEC = 12 mg TRR/kg - dw (based on mortality) Organic carbon - normalized mean - measured sediment concentrations 10 - day LC 50 = 339 mg TRR/kg - dw 10 - day NOEC = 134.09 mg TRR/kg - dw 10 - day LOAEC = 272.7 mg TRR/kg - dw (based on mortality) Mean - measured pore water concentrations 47762401 Supplemental

### - 21 of 79 -

**Study Type &**  **TGAI (%)**  **/TEP Species**  **Toxicity Value & Toxicity Classification**  **MRID & Classification**  10 - day LC 50 = 0.55 mg TRR/L 10 - day NOEC = 0.25 mg TRR/L 10 - day LOAEC = 0.44 mg TRR/L (based on mortality) Mean - measured overlying water concentrations 10 - day LC 50 = 0.018 mg TRR/L 10 - day NOEC = 0.0082 mg TRR/L 10 - day LOAEC = 0.014 mg TRR/L (based on mo rtality) **Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates** Ac ute TGAI 94.2% Eastern oyster

( Crassostrea virginica ) Mean - measured concentrations 96 - hr EC 50 = 0.64 mg a.i./L 95% C.I.: 0.58 - 0.69 mg a.i./L Probit slope : 10.5±1.39 96 - hr NOEC = 0.41 mg a.i./L 96 - hr LOEC = 0.57 mg a.i./L (based on shell deposition) Highly toxic 44729601 Acceptable

Ac ute TGAI 94.2% My sid shrimp

( Mysidopsis bahia ) Mean - measured concentrations 96 - hr LC 50 = 3.9 μg a.i./L 95% C.I.: 3.4 - 4.3 μg a.i./L 96 - hr NOEC = 2.1 μg a.i./L (based on mortality) 96 - hr LOEC = 3.1 μg a.i./L (based on lethargy and erratic swimming) Very highly toxic 44729603 Acceptable

Ac ute TEP* My sid shrimp

( Americamysis bahia ) Mean - measured concentrations 96 - hr LC 50 = 0.0079 μg a.i./L 95% C.I.: 0.0017 - 0.14 μg a.i./L 96 - hr NOEC = 0.002 μg a.i./L Probit Slope: N/A 48055901 Acceptable TGAI = technical grade active ingredient; TEP = typical end -use product; TRR = total radioactive residue ; N/A = not applicable ; dw

= dry weight *conducted with MULTICIDE Fogging Concentrate 2798 (Reg No. 1021 - 1795 ), a typical end - use product containing 0.995% prallethrin, 4.98% d -phenothrin (PC Code 069005 ), and 4.97% piperonyl butoxide (PC Code 067501 ) 

### Table 5 **- 3**  **. Summary of the Endpoints from Su bmitted Aquatic Plant Toxicity Studies for**  **Prallethrin Study Type &**  **TGAI (%)**  **/TEP Species**  **Toxicity Value** ***** **MRID & Classification**  Tier II , Aquatic plant growth TEP* Duckweed

( Lemna gibba ) Measured ( TWA) Concentrations 7 - day EC 50 > 1.324 μ g a.i./L 7 - day EC 05 > 1.324 μ g a.i./L 7 - day NOEC ≥ 1.324 μ g a.i./L 48055902 Acceptable TGAI = technical grade active ingredient; TEP = typical end -use product; TWA = time - w eighted average *conducted with MULTICIDE Fogging Concentrate 2798 (Reg No. 1021 - 1795 ), a typical end - use product containing 0.995% prallethrin, 4.98% d -phenothrin (PC Code 069005 ), and 4.97% piperonyl butoxide (PC Code 067501 )

### - 22 of 79 -

**5 .2**  **Effects to Terrestrial Organisms Table**  **s 5**  **- 4**  and **5 -**  **5** summarize the terrestrial toxicity data for animals and plants, respectivel y, for prallethrin based on an evaluation of submitted studies. There are no toxicity data for the two major degradates of prallethrin, PGL S and d - t - CRA. No data are available for a passerine species. S ingle oral dos e , dietary , and reproductive toxicity studies have been submitted for bobwhite quail (MRIDs 41321805, 41321806, 43773403) and mallard ducks (MRID s 41321804 , 41321807, 43797604 ). The single oral dose study with mallard ducks (MRID 41321804) has been classi fied as supplemental because three birds in the highest dosage group regurgitated their doses . The results of the acute and subacute tests indicate that prallethrin is slightly toxi c and practically non - toxic to birds via acute oral and dietary exposure s , respectively . The avian reproductive toxicity studies yielded NOECs of 360 and 120 mg a.i./kg - diet for bobwhite quail and mallard ducks , respectivel y . An acute oral toxicity

study with rats (MRID 42030903 ) yi elded a toxicity classification of moderatel y toxic . A two - generation reproductive study yi elded a NOEL of 600 mg a.i./kg - diet and a LOEL of 3000 mg a.i./kg - diet (MRID 42077006 ) . An acute contact toxicity study with honey

bees yielded a toxicity

classification of highly

toxic (MRID 41321823 ) . In addition, two alfalfa foliage residue studies with honey bees have been submitted: one with TGAI (MRID 41321823) and one with the TEP MULTI CIDE Fogging Concentrate 2798 (Reg No. 1021 - 1795). Both studies showed no effects at the tested concentration ( i.e. , 0.005 lb a.i./A TGAI and 0.0008 lb a.i./A TEP ) . Two Tier I terrestrial plant toxicity studies ( i.e. , seedling emergence and vegetative vigor) with the TEP MULTI CIDE Fogging Concentrate 2798 (Reg No. 1021 - 1795) have been submitted for four monocots and six dicots (MRIDs 47431602, 47431603 ) . Both studies tested the maximum rate for a single application for MULTICIDE Fogging Concentrate 2798 . In the tier I vegetative vigor study (MRID 47431603) , there were no significant effects . Therefore, the most sen sitive species of monocots and dicots could not be determined. Inthe Tier I seedling emergence study (MRID 47437602), an inhibition of greater than 25% was observed for sugarbeet emergence (32.4%). In the same study , the mean of the treated group w as si gnificantl y less than that of the control group for the following species and endpoints: tomato emergence; wheat dry weight; and soy bean dry weight. Therefore, a definitive NOEC c ould not be determined for these species.

### - 23 of 79 -

**Table 5**  **- 4**  **. Summary of the Endpoints from Submitted Terrestrial Animal Toxicity Studies for**  **Prallethrin Study Type &**  **TGAI (%)**  **/TEP Species**  **Toxicity Value &**  **Toxicity Classification MRID &**  **Classification Birds** 

Single dose oral TGAI 92.6% Bobwhite quail

( Colinus virginianus ) Nominal concentrations

14 - day LD 50 = 1171 mg a.i. /kg -bw 95% C.I.: 835 - 1835 mg a.i. /kg -bw Probit slope = 3.7 (based on mortality) 14 - day NOEC = 125 mg a.i./kg -bw (based on signs of toxicity including lethargy, reduced reaction to sound and mov ement, ruffled appearance, wing droop, depression, loss of coordination, lower limb weakness, fasciculation, tremors, convulsions, panting, loss of righting reflex, and prostrate posture) Slightly toxic 41321805 Acceptable

Single dose oral TGAI 92.9% Mallard duck

( Anas platyrhynchos ) Nominal concentrations

14 - day LD 50 > 1 000 mg a.i. /kg -bw 14 - day NOEC = 250 mg a.i./kg -bw (based on signs of toxicity including lethargy, reduced reaction to sound and movement, loss of coordination, lower limb weakness, fasciculation, tremors, convulsions, pantin g, loss of righting reflex, prostrate posture , and dorsal head curl ) Slightly toxic 41321804 Supplemental

Dietary TGAI 92.9% Bobwhite quail

( Colinus virginianus ) Nominal concentrations

8 - day LC 50 > 5620 mg a.i./kg - diet 8 - day NOEC = 3160 mg a.i./kg - diet (based on reductions in feed consumption and body weight gain) Practically non - toxic 41321806 Acceptable Dietary TGAI 92.9% Mallard duck

( Anas platyrhynchos ) Nominal concentrations

8 - day LC 50 > 5620 mg a.i./kg - diet 8 - day NOEC = 1780 mg a.i./kg - diet (based on reductions in body weight and feed consumption) Practically non - toxic 41321807 Acceptable Reproduction TGAI 92.9% Bobwhite quail

( Colinus virginianus ) Nominal concentrations

10 week NOEL = 360 mg a.i./kg - diet 10 - we ek LOEL = 600 mg a.i./kg - diet (based on reduction in percentage of live 3 - week embryos) 43773403 Acceptable Reproduction TGAI 92.9% Mallard duck

( Anas platyrhynchos ) Nominal concentrations

21 - we ek NOEC = 120 mg a.i./kg - diet 21 - we ek LOEC = 360 mg a.i./kg - diet (based on eggs laid, eggs set, viable embryos, live 3 - week embryos, 14 - day survivor weight) 43797604

Acceptable **Mam mals**  Ac ute oral TGAI 92.0% Rat

(Rattus norvegicus ) Nominal concentrations

14 - day LD 50 (M) = 640 mg a.i. /kg 14 - day LD 50 (F) = 460 mg a.i. /kg Moderately toxic 42030903 Guideline

### - 24 of 79 -

**Study Type & TGAI**  **(%) /TEP**  **Species Toxicity Value**  **& Toxicity Classification**  **MRID & Classification**  Two generation reproduction TGAI 92.9 - 93.6% Rat

(Rattus norvegicus ) Nominal concentrations

Parental NOEL = 600 mg a.i./kg - diet Parental LOEL = 3000 mg a.i./kg - diet (based on decreased body weight) Reproductive NOEL = 600 mg a.i./kg - diet Reproductive LOEL = 3000 mg a.i./kg - diet (based on decreased pup weight) 42077006 Minimum **Invertebrates** Ac ute contact TGAI 92.9% Honeybee

( Apis mellifera ) Nominal concentrations

48 - hr LD 50 = 0.028 μg a.i./bee 95% C.I.: 0.025 - 0.033 Probit slope = 4.8 (95% C.I.: 3.7 - 5.9) 48 - hr NOED = 0.0125 μg a.i./bee (based on mortality) Highly toxic 41321823 Acceptable Foliage residue (alfalfa) Form ulation 2.45% Honeybee

( Apis mellifera ) Nominal concentrations

24 - hr NOEC = 0.005 lb a.i./A (no effects) 43749301 Acceptable Foliage residue (alfalfa) TEP* Honeyb ee

( Apis mellifera L. ) Nominal concentrations

24 - hr NOEC ≥ 0.0008 lb a.i./A (no effects) 47431601 Acceptable TGAI = technical grade active ingredient; TEP = typical end -use product *conducted with MULTICIDE Fogging Concentrate 2798 (Reg No. 1021 - 1795), a typical end - use product containing 1% prallethrin, 5% d -phenothrin (PC Code 069005), and 5% piperonyl butoxide (PC Code 067501) 

### Table **5 -**  **5 .**  **Summary of the Endpoints from Submitted Terrestrial Plant Toxicity Studies for**  **Prallethrin Study Type &**  **TGAI (%)/TEP Species**  **Toxicity Value (N**  **om inal)**  **MRID & Classification** 

Seedling emergence Tier 1 TEP* Monocots

Onion ( Allium cepa ) Ryegrass (

Lolium perenne ) Wheat ( Triticum aestivum ) Corn (Zea mays ) Dicots Sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris ) Cabbage (Brassica oleracea ) Soy bean (G lycine max) Lettuce ( Lactuca sativa ) Tomato ( Lycopersicon esculentum ) Radish (Raphanus sativus ) Monocots Most sensitive mo nocot: Wheat Most sensitive parameter: Dry weight 21 - day EC 25 /IC 25 > 0.0008 lb a.i./A 21 - day EC 05 /IC 05 < 0.0008 lb a.i./A 21 - day NOEC < 0.0008 lb a.i./A Dicots Most sensitive dicots: Sugarbeet, tomato, soybean Most sensitive parameters: Emergence and dry weight 21 - day EC 25 /IC 25 < 0.0008 lb a.i./A 21 - day EC 05 /IC 05 < 0.0008 lb a.i./A 21 - day NOEC < 0.0008 lb a.i./A 47431602 Acceptable

### - 25 of 79 -

**Study Type & TGAI (%)/TEP**  **Species Toxicity Value**  **(N om** **inal) MRID &**  **Classification**

Vegetative vigor Tier 1 TEP* Monocots

Onion ( Allium cepa ) Ryegrass (

Lolium perenne ) Wheat ( Triticum aestivum ) Corn (Zea mays )

Dicots Sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris ) Cabbage (Brassica oleracea ) Soy bean (G lycine max) Lettuce ( Lactuca sativa ) Tomato ( Lycopersicon esculentum ) Radish (Raphanus sativus ) Monocots Most sensitive monocot: Could not be determined at tested concentration Most sensitive parameter: Could not be determined at tested concentration 21 - day EC 25 /IC 25 > 0.0008 lb a.i./A 21 - day EC 05 /IC 05 < 0.0008 lb a.i./A 21 - day NOEC ≥ 0.0008 lb a.i./A Dicots Most sensitive dicot: Could not be determined at tested concentration Most sensitive parameter: Could not be determined at tested concentration 21 - day EC 25 /IC 25 > 0.0008 lb a.i./A 21 - day EC 05 /IC 05 < 0.0008 lb a.i./A 21 - day NOEC ≥ 0.0008 lb a.i./A 47431603 Acceptable

TGAI = technical grade active ingredient; TEP = typical end -use product *conducted with MULTICIDE Fogging Concentrate 2798 (Reg No. 1021 - 1795), a typical end - use product containing 1% prallethrin, 5% d -phenothrin (PC Code 069005), and 5% piperonyl butoxide (PC Code 067501) 

### 5 **.3 Incident Databases Review**  P reliminary

review s of the Ecological Information Sy stem (EIIS, version 2.1 .1 ), which is maintained by

the Agency ’s Office of Pesticide P r ograms, and the Avian Monitoring In formation Sy stem (AIMS), which is maintained by th e American Bird Conservatory , on January 5, 2012 did not yield any reported ecological incidents associated with the use of prallethrin . In addition to the incidents recorded in EIIS and AIMS , additional incidents are reported to the Agency in aggregate d form . Pesticide registrants report certain ty pes of incidents to the Agency as aggregate counts of incidents occurring per product per quarter. Ecological incidents reported in aggregate reports include those categorized as ‘minor fish and wildlife’ (W - B), ‘minor plant’ (P - B), and ‘other non - target’ (ONT) incidents. ‘Other non - target’ incidents include reports of adverse effects to insects and other terrestrial invert ebrates. For prallethrin , registrants have reported one min or plant incident (P - B) as of January 5 , 2012 . The total number of actual incidents associated with the use of prallethrin may be higher than what is reported to the Agency . Incidents may go unreported since effects may not be immediately

apparent and/or readil y attributed to the use of a chemical. As such, the absence of incident reports cannot be construed as the absence of incidents. **5 .4**  **Ecosystems Potentially at Risk**

### - 26 of 79 -

Prallethrin may

be applied to a variety of terrestrial environment s for adult mosquito control. In addition, it may

be used on numerous non - agricultural, residential , and commercial sites. Therefore, the ecos ys tems at risk are often extensive in scope, and it may not be possible to identify specific ecos ys tems during the development of a nation - wide ecolog ical risk assessment. However, in general terms, terrestrial ecos ys tems potentially at risk from prallethrin exposure could include the treated area and adjacent areas that may receive drift or runoff from outdoor spray , especially during aerial ULV application s for mosquito control . Are as adjacent to the treated area could include cultivated fields, fencerows and hedgerows , meadows, fallow fields or grasslands, woodlands, riparian habitats , ecological preserves , and national wildlife refuges . Prallethrin residue s may

deposit into various water bodies resulting in possible exposure to aquatic species . Aquatic ecos ys tems potentially at risk include water bodies adjacent to or downstream from the treated area and could include impounded bodies such as marshes, wetland s , ponds, lakes , and reservoirs, or flowing waterway s such as streams or rivers. For uses in coastal areas, aquatic habitat s could also consist of marine ec osy stems, including estuaries. **6 .**  **Assessment Endpoints** Assessment endpoints are defined as “explicit expressions of the actual environmental value that is to be protected.” Defining an assessment endpoint involve s two steps: 1) identifying the valued attributes of the environment that are considered to be at risk; and 2) operationall y defining the assessment endpoint in terms of an ecological entity ( i.e. , a community

of fish and aquatic invertebrates) and its attributes ( i.e. , survival and reproduction). Therefore, selection of the assessment endpoints is ba sed on valued entities ( i.e. , ecological receptors), the ecos ys tems potentially

at risk, the migration pathway s of pesticides, and the routes by which ecological receptors are exposed to pesticide - related contamination. The selection of clearl y defined as sessment endpoints is important because they provide direc tion and boundaries in the risk assessment for addressing risk management issues of concern. Changes to assessment endpoints are typicall y estimated from the available toxicity studies wh ich are us ed as the measures of effects to characterize potential ecological risks associated with exposure to pesticides, such as prallethrin . To estimate exposure concentrations, the ecological risk assessment considers applications at the maximum application rate . The most sensitive toxicity endpoints are used from surrogate test species to estimate treatment - related direct effects on acute mortality and chronic reproductive, growth , and survival assessment endpoints. Toxicity tests are intended to determine ef fects of pesticide exposure on birds, mammals, fish, terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates, and plants. These tests include s hort - term acute, sub - acute, and reproduction studies and are typicall y arranged in a hierarchical o r tiered s ys tem that progresses from basic laboratory tests to applied field studies. The toxicity studies are used to evaluate the potential of a pesticide to cause adverse effects, to determine wheth er further testing is required, and to determine the n eed for precautionary

label statements to minimize the potential adverse effects to non - target animals and plants. An open literature search will be conducted to determine any relevant endpoints. The search will focus on survival, growth and reproductive effects for aqu atic and terrestrial effects of

### - 27 of 79 -

prallethrin . More sensitive endpoints from acceptable open literature stu dies will be included in the ecological risk assessment. **7 . Conceptual Model**  The conceptual model for prallethrin provides a written description and visual representation of the predicted relationships between prallethrin , potential routes of exposure, and the predicted effects for the assessment endpoint. A conceptual model consists of two major components: risk hy pothesis and a conceptual diagram (USEPA, 1998). **7 .1**  **Risk Hypothesis** A risk hy pothesis describes the predicted relationship among the stressor, exposure, and assessment endpoint response along with the rationale for their selection. For prallethrin , the following ecological risk hy pothesis is being employed for this ecological risk assessment: Based on the application methods, the assumed fate and transport, and the assumed sensitivity of non - target aquatic and terrestrial species, prallethrin has the p otential to reduce survival, reproduction, and/or growth in non - target terrestrial and aquatic organisms when used in accordance with the current labels. These non - target organisms include Federally- listed threatened and endangered species as well as non - listed species. **7 .2**  **Conceptual Diagram s**  The conceptual site model is a generic graphic depiction of the risk hy pothesis . It assumes that the non - agricultural uses of prallethrin are capable of affecting aquatic and terrestrial animals provided environmental concentrations are sufficiently elevated as a result of proposed label uses. The environmental fate properties of prallethrin indicate that runoff, spray drift and direct spray represent potential transport mechanisms to aquatic and terrestrial habitats where non target organisms may

be either directly

or indirectly

exposed. These transport mechanisms ( i.e ., sources) are depicted in the conceptual diagrams below ( **Figure 7**  **- 1**  and **F igure**  **7 -**  **2** ) along with a broad range of biological receptors of concern and the potential attribute changes ( i.e. , effects such as reduced survival, growth and reproduction) in the receptors due to exposure to prallethrin . F or prallethrin to pose an ecological risk, it must reach ecological receptors in biologicall y significant concentrations. An exposure pathway is the means by

which prallethrin moves in the environment from a source to an ecological receptor. For an ecolo gical exposure pathway to be complete, it must have a source, a release mechanism, an environmental transport medium, a point of exposure for ecological receptors, and a feasible route of exposure. In addition, the potential mechanisms of degradation/ tran sformation ( i.e. , which degradation/ transformation products may

form in the environment, in which media, and how much) must be understood, especiall y if the metabolites/transformation products are of greater toxicological concern than the parent compound. Therefore, the assessment of ecological exposure pathway s includes an examination of the source and potential migration pathway s for constituents and the determination of potential exposure routes.

### - 28 of 79 -

**F igure**  **7 -**  **1. Conceptual Model for Effects of**  **Pra llethrin**  **on Aquatic Organisms. Dotted**  **Lines indicate Exposure Pathways that Have a Low Like l** **ihood of Contributing to Ecological Risk**  ** R oute of exposure in cl ude s o nl y in ges tio n o f fi sh and aquat ic i nver te brate s 

### Stresso **r Sour** **ce**

**Recep tors** 

**Attrib ute**  **Ch ange**  Pral le th rin a ppl ie d to u se si te

Spray dr ift

**Aquat ic**  **a ni**  **mal s**  In ver te brates Ve rte brates ****** **Pi sci**  **vo ro**  **us mammals**  **and bi**  **rd s**  **In di**  **vid ual**  **o rg**  **ani sm**  **s** Reduce d su rv iva l Reduce d grow th Reduce d re pro du ctio n **Food chai**  **n** Reduct ion i n al gae and vascul ar p la nts Reduct ion i n prey Modi fi catio n of PCEs re la te d to p re y avai la bi lity **Habi ta**  **t in**  **te gr**  **ity** Reduct ion i n pr ima ry p ro duct iv ity Reduce d c ov er Commun ityc hang e Modif ic atio n ofP CEs re la te d to habi ta t Sur fa cew ater

/ Sedi men t Runof

f

**Aquat ic**  **A ni**  **mal s**  In ver te brate s Ve rte brates 

### Expo **su re**  **Media** Uptake/gi lls

or i ntegumen t In gest io n In gest io n At mosph er ic tra nspor t Wet /d ry d eposi tion Soi l Leachi ng to

Gro undwate r

Uptake/gi lls or i ntegumen t **Aquat ic**  **P la**  **nt s** 

Non -vas cu lar Va scu la r Uptake/ce ll, ro ots, l eaves **Ripar ia**  **n pl**  **ant s**  te rre st ria l exposu re pat hways see Fi gure 6 - 2

### - 29 of 79 -

**F igure**  **7 -**  **2. Conceptual Model for Effects**  **Prallethrin on Terrestrial Organisms**  . **Dotted Lines indicate Exposure**  **Pa thways that Have a Low Like**  **l ihood of Contributing to**  **Ecological Risk**

**7 .2.1**  **Drinking W**  **ater E**  **xposure** The Screening Imbibition Program (SIP v.1.0, released June 15, 2010) is used to calculate an upper bound estimate of drinking water exposure alone using the solubility of prallethrin (8.03 mg/L at 25°C; MRID 41321803 ), the most sensitive acute (LD 50 

### = 1171 mg a.i./kg - bw; MRID 41321805) and chronic (NOEL = 360 mg a.i./kg - diet; MRIDs 43773403, 43797604) avian toxicity endpoints and the most sensitive acute (LD 50 

### = 460 mg a.i./kg; MRID 42030903) and chronic (NOEL = 600 mg a.i./kg; MRID 42077006) mammalian toxicity endpoints. **Appendix E**  provides a description of the model and assumptions in deriving an upper bound exposure estimate. Drinking water exposure alone was determined not to be a potential concern for birds and mammals on both acute and chronic bases (see **Appendix E** for model results). Detailed information about the SIP v.1.0, as well as the tool, can be found on the EPA’s website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/models_pg.htm#terrestrial .

**7 .2.2**  **Inhalation E**  **xposure** STIR v.1.0, Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk , is used to provide an upper bound estimate of exposure of birds and mammals to pesticides through inhalation of spray drift or vapor. The 

### Stressor **Sour ce** 

**Attri bute**  **Ch an**  **ge** Pral leth rin a ppl ie d to u se si te

Di re ct appl ication Spray dr ift

**Te rre**  **st ria**  **l ve**  **rte br**  **at es**  **Te rre**  **st ria**  **l in**  **ve rts** 

**In di**  **vid ual**  **o rg**  **ani sms**  Reduce d su rv iva l Reduce d grow th Reduce d re pro du ctio n **Food chai**  **n** Reduct io n in prey and food Modi fi catio n of PCEs re la te d to p re y avai la bi lity **Habi ta**  **t in**  **te gr**  **ity** Reduct ion i n pr imar

y product iv ity Reduce d c ov er Commun ity c hang e Modif ica tio n of PCEs re la te d to h abi ta t **Te rre**  **st rial**  **pl ant** **s** grasses/fo rbs , frui t, seeds (tre es, s hrubs) Runof f

**Te rre**  **str ia**  **l Ve**  **rte br**  **at es**  

### Exp **osure Me**  **dia & Recep**  **tors** Soi l

In gest io n In gest io n In gest io n Der mal u ptake/ In ges tion At mosph er ic tra nspor t

Root u ptake/co nta ct

Wet /d ry d eposi tion

In gest io n Leachi ng to

Gro undwater Irrig at io n water

### - 30 of 79 -

upper bound exposure estimate requires a number of input parameters including the vapor pressure and molecular weight for the vapor- phase pesticide; additionally it requires the application rate and method of application ( i.e. , ground or aerial) for spray drift. The toxicity aspect of the tool requires an avian acute oral LD 50 

### value (LD 50 

### LD 50 

### = 1171 mg a.i./kg - bw; MRID 41321805), the chemical specific avian allometric scaling factor to adjust toxicity based on body weight for the chemical (default = 1.15), the weight of the tested bird (default = 0.178 kg for bobwhite quail), a rat acute oral LD 50 

### value (LD 50 

### = 460 mg a.i./kg; MRID 42030903), a rat acut e inhalation L C 50 

### value (LC 50 

### = 0.288 mg/L; MRID 42030904), the duration of the rat inhalation study

(assumed to be 4 hours), and the weight of the tested rat (default = 0.35 kg). This tool was designed for use in the Problem Formulation phase of the ecol ogical risk assessment process to quantitatively evaluate the need for further anal ys is of inhalation as a potential pathway

of concern for birds and mammals. If further analy sis of the inhalation exposure pathway

is recommended, additional data will be requested to address uncertainty related to this route of exposure. Results from the model indicate that exposure of birds and mammals to prallethrin through inhalation of spray drift or vapor is not likely significant regardless of use application method (ground or air spray) (see **Appendix F** for model results). Detailed information about the STIR v.1.0, as well as the tool, can be found on the EPA’s website (http://www.epa. gov/pesticides/science/models_pg.htm#terrestrial ). **8 . Analysis Plan**  T o address the risk hy

pothesis, the potential for adverse effects on the environment will be estimated. Usage , environmental fate, and ecological effects of prallethrin will be characterized and integrated to assess the risks. Risk quotients (RQ) will be derived for prallethrin by dividing EEC s by the most sensitive endpoint from the relevant, available toxicity data for prallethrin . A s outlined in the Overview Document (USEPA , 2004), the likelihood of effects to individual organisms from particular uses of a chemical is estimated using the probit dose - response slope and either the level of concern (discussed below) or the actual calculated risk quotient value. This analy sis plan will be revisited and may be revised depending upon a full review of the data available in the open literature and the information submitted by the public in response to the opening of the Registration Review docket. **8 .1**  **Stressors of Concern** The focus of this assessment is on the parent material, prallethrin. However, the Agency will review open literature to identify degradate(s) of potential toxicological concern and use of p rallethrin with sy

nergists and other pesticides . Data sources that will be used in the future assessment include: 1) registrant submissions in support of registration review; 2) publicly available l iterature on ecological effects; 3) monitoring data for freshwater streams, lakes, reservoirs, and estuarine areas; and 4) incident reports of adverse effects on aquatic and terrestrial organisms associated with the use of prallethrin . Prallethrin may

be applied in formulated mixtures with other p esticides and sy nergists approved for registered uses ( see **Appendix B** ) . Toxicity data for TEP s , if available, may be presented as

### - 31 of 79 -

part of the ecological risk assessment , and the data may be used qualitatively

or quantitatively

in accordance with the Agency ’s Overview Document and the Services’ Evaluation Memorandum (USEPA, 200 4; USFWS/NMFS /NOAA , 2004). Sy nergistic data for PBO and MGK 264, if available, may

also be incorporated into the future assessment. The options for doing so include, but are not limited to:  applying a toxicity

enhancement factor (TEF) to the prallethrin toxicity endpoint;  applying a TEF that is specific to the ratio of PBO/MGK 264 and prallethrin that corresponds to the EEC for prallethrin;  applying a ratio - specific TEF for each dail y prallethrin concentration; and  modeling the enhanced toxicity by the sy nergist ( s ) and co - formulate active ingredient(s). A discussion of the implications of the available pesticide mixture effects data on the confidence of risk assessment conclusions will be addressed in the risk description of the final ecological assess ment. **8 .2**  **Measures of Exposure** In order to estimate risks of prallethrin exposures in aquatic and terrestrial environments, all exposure modeling and resulting risk conclusions will be made based on maximum application rate, number of applications, and minimum application intervals for the currently registered use as discussed in **Section 3.2** . Measures of exposure are based on aquatic and terrestrial models that estimate environmental concentrations of prallethrin using the maximum labeled application rat e and application methods that have the greatest potential for off - site transport of the chemical. **8.2.1 Spray Drift** The AgDRIFT spray

drift model (v2.01; May , 2001) or AgDISP model will be used to assess exposures of organisms to prallethrin residue deposited on aquatic and terrestrial habitats by spray drift. Both models also function as tools for evaluating the potential buffer zones to protect sensitive aquatic and terrestrial habitats from undesired spray drift exposures. For aerial and ground ULV application of formulated prallethrin to control adult mosquitoes, a list of parameters such as, droplet size, spray volume, vortex decay

rate, wind speed and directions will be input into the model for the spray drift and deposit predication . Descriptio ns of the above model can be obtained from http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/models_pg.htm#atmospheric .

**8 .2.**  **2 Aquatic Exposure**  For the aquatic assessment, estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) of prallethrin will be modeled by the Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM , v3.12.2, May 2005 ) coupled with the EXposure Analy sis Model Sy stem (EXAMS , v2.98.4.6, April 2005 ) . Both are Tier 2 screening simulation models coupled with the input shell PE5.pl (August, 2007) to generate dail y exposures and 1 - in - 10 - ye ar EECs of prallethrin (and residues of concern) that may occur in surface water bodies adjacent to application sites receiving prallethrin through runoff and spray drift. PRZM simulates pesticide application, movement and transformation on an agricultural

### - 32 of 79 -

field and the resultant pesticide loadings to a receiving water body via runoff, erosion, and spray drift. EXAMS simulates the fate of the pesticide and resulting concentrations in the water body. The standard watershed geometry used for ecological pesticide assessments assumes application to a 10 - hectare agricultural field that drains into an adjacent 1 - hectare water body that is 2 meters deep (20,000 m 3 

### volume) with no outlet. The PE5 model can also be used for the pesticide concentration estimation at different water depth ( e.g. , 1 m, 0.3 m and 0.1 m) as the A gency deem s it is necessary . The composite model PRZM/EXAMS is used to estimate screening - level exposure of aquatic organisms to prallethrin. The measure of exposure for aquatic species is the 1 - in - 10 - year peak or rolling mean concentration. The 1 - in - 10 - ye ar peak is used for estimating acute exposures of direct effects to aquatic organisms. The 1 - in - 10 - ye ar 60 - day mean is used for assessing the effects to fish and aquatic - phase amphibians from chronic exposure. The 1 - in - 10 - ye ar 21 - day

mean is used for assessing the effects on aquatic invertebrates from chronic exposure. At the present time, the use of the impervious scenario (a PRZM modeling scenario) will be considered as the most suita ble available modeling approach for impervious runoff. The PRZM impervious scenario may be used in the T ier 2 - coupled aquatic models PRZM/EXAMS along with residential or other suitable scenario s such as rights - of - way (ROW) to obtain EECs. The conceptual model for the residential scenario integrates simultaneous modeling of the individual use scenario with an impervious scenario. This approach assumes that no watershed is completely

covered by

either the 1⁄4 acre lot (the basis for the residential scenario) or undeveloped land (the basis for the ROW scenario) for residential and ROW use patterns; therefore, differential amounts of runoff will occur within the watershed. The impervious scenario was developed to represent the paved areas within a watershed no t including roads, parking lots, sidewalks, and buildings outside the 1⁄4 acre lot (the 1⁄4 acre lot scenario accounts for impervious surfaces such as buildings within the represented area). By modeling a separate scenario for impervious surfaces, it is also possible to estimate that amount of exposure that could occur when the pesticide is oversprayed onto this surface. Using two scenarios in tandem requires post - processing of the modeled output to derive a weighted EEC that represents the contribution of bo th the pervious ( i.e. , residential and ROW scenarios) and the impervious surfaces. A Microsoft Excel spreadsheet has been developed that allows for the weighting and aggregation of exposure from both scenarios. The daily time series from each model run sh ould be copied from the times series file (NAME_TS.out) generated from the PRZM graphical user interface (PE5.pl) into the spreadsheet provided. The time series data are then weighted based on percentage of impervious surface, the percentage of the pervious surface treated, and an adjusted time series is created. Rolling averages for the relevant durations of exposure ( e.g. , 21 - day and 60 - day

averages) are calculated, and the relevant one - in - ten year return EEC is generated from these distributions. For the purposes of risk assessment , it will be assumed that 1% of the application rate could reach the impervious surfaces surrounding each residential lot. This amount of overspray is not based on empirical data (no publi sh ed studies on this occurrence hav e been found in the open literature) . H owever, the assumption is consistent with the standard assumption of 1% spray drift with ground applications in ecological risk assessments. Ingeneral, incorporation of impervious surfaces into the exposure assessment results in increasing runoff volume in the watershed, which tends to reduce overall pesticide exposure assuming 1% overspray to the

### - 33 of 79 -

impervious surface. Alternative assumptions for percent impervious surfaces, percenta ge of use site treated, and percentage of overspray may be considered in order to characterize the assumptions of the ecological risks assessment in the context of the individual exposure assessment and risk conclusions. For example, previously tested ass umptions used in the endangered species assessments may be considered for characterization ( i.e. , 10% and 30% impervious surfaces,10% lot treated, and 0% and 10% overspray) unless other relevant values can be determined ( i.e. , modeling may be completed for the impervious surface with 0% and 10% overspray

to provide lower and upper bound values). The results of these alternate modeling exercises may

be discussed in the assessment. Given the aquatic toxicity of prallethrin and its likelihood to occur in sediment, the Agency may also evaluate the potential toxicological exposures resulting from benthic/sediment conc entrations (EECs). Pore water concentrations are commonl y used to predict toxi city of non ionic substances in sediments and characterize exposure to organisms that spend time in or near sediments (Di Toro et al. , 1991; US EPA , 2002). PRZM/ EXAMS estimates 1 - in - 10 - ye ar peak and 21 - day

mean EECs for pore water. To estimate exposure related to releases of prallethrin from domestic wastewater treatment plants, the Agency

will rely on the Office of Pollution Prev ention and Toxics (OPPT) model, Exposure and Fate Assessment Screening Tool (EFAST, vers ion 2.0, or EFAST2, 2007). From this model, the Agency

will use the “Down - the - Drain” module, wh ich is desi gned for releases to domestic wastewater treatment. Itis suitable for all the s ources of p rallethrin that could potentially occur through a “down - the - drain” scenario. The model provides screening - level estimate concentrations of chemicals in surface wat er that may result from household uses and the disposal of consumer products into wastewater using a few simple input parameters (production volume and fraction of the chemical removed during wastewater treatment).

**8 .2.**  **3 Terrestrial Exposure**  The model use d to produce terrestrial EECs on food items is T - REX. Exposure estimates for terrestrial animals assumed to be in the target area or in an area exposed to spray drift are derived using the T - REX model (version 1. 5 , 3 /22 /20 12 ). This model incorporates the Kenaga nomograph, as modified by Fletcher et al. (1994), which is based on a large set of actual field residue data. The upper limit values from the nomograph represent the 95 th 

### percentile of residue values from actual field measurements (Hoerger and Kenaga , 1972). The Fletcher et al. (1994) modifications to the Kenaga nomograph are based on measured field residues from 249 published research papers, including information on 118 species of plants, 121 pesticides, and 17 chemical classes. For input into T - REX, the default foliar dissipation half - life of 35 day s will be used if there is insufficient foliar dissipation rate data on prallethrin . EECs for terrestrial plants inhabiting dry and wetland areas will be are derived using TerrPlant (version 1 .2.2, 12/26/2006) using relevant reviewed registrant - submitted environmental fate data . This model uses estimates of pesticides in runoff and in spray drift to calculate EECs. EECs are based upon solubility , application rate , and minimum incorporation depth.

### - 34 of 79 -

Prallethrin appears to have the potential to bioconcentrate in aquatic organisms . The maximum bioconcentration factor was 1160 x for whole fish in 7 day s and 3130x for non - edible tissue in 14 day s. A depuration study showed half

- lives of 1.3 - 2.5 days ( MRID s 4 2810812 , 4 3758001 ). The potential for bioaccumulation may be assessed using the results from bioaccumulation in fish studies as well as the KABAM model (KOW 

### - based) Aquatic BioAccumulation Model, version 1.0, 2009), adjusting for biotransformation rates. KABAM is used to estimate potential bioaccumulation of hydrophobic organic pesticides in freshwater aquatic ecosy stems and risks to mammals and birds consuming aquatic organisms that have bioaccumulated these pestici des. Monitoring data and biotransformation rates in terrestrial species may also be evaluated to assess the potential for bioaccumulation in terrestrial food webs. **8 .3**  **Measures of Effect** Ecological effects data are used as measures of direct and indire ct effects to biological receptors. As discussed previousl y, data are obtained from registrant - submitted studies or from literature studies identified by

ECOTOX. The ECOTOX database provides more ecological effects data in an attempt to bridge existing data gaps. ECOTOX is a source for locating single chemical toxicity data and potential chemical mixture toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants, and wildlife. ECOTOX was created and is maintained by the USEPA, Office of Research and Development , and the National Health and Environmental Effects Research L aboratory's Mid Continent Ecology

Division. Information on the potential effects of prallethrin on non - target animals is also collected from the Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS; USEPA, 2007 a). The E IIS is a database containing adverse effect (ty pically mortality) reports on non - target organisms where such effects have been associated w ith the use of pesticides. In cidents reported in the aggregate incident reports and the Avian Incident Monitoring S ys tem (A IMS) will also be searched . AIMS is a database administered by the American Bird Conservancy with partial funding from EPA . It contains publicly

available data on reported avian incidents involving pesticides (http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy /pesticides/aims/aims/index.cfm). Where available, sub - lethal effects observed in both registrant - submitted and open literature studies will be evaluated qualitatively . Such effects may include behavioral changes ( e.g. , lethargy and changes in coloration). Quantitative assessments of risks, th ough, are limited to those endpoints that can be directl y linked to the Agency ’s assessment endpoints of impaired survival, growth and reproduction. The assessment of risk for direct effects to non - target organisms makes the assumption that toxicity of pr allethrin to birds is similar to terrestrial - phase amphibians and reptiles. The same assumption is made for fish and aquatic - phase amphibians. The acute measures of effect used for animals in this assessment are lethal dose (LD), lethal concentration (LC ) or effective concentration (EC), such as: LD 50 

### , L C 50 

### , and EC 50 

### . The LD 50 

### is the amount of a material, given all at once, that is estimated to cause the death of 50% of the test organisms. The LC 50 

### is the concentration of a chemical that is estimated to kill 50% of the test organisms. The EC 50 

### is the concentration of a chemical that is estimated to produce a specific effect in 50% of the test organisms. Endpoints for chronic measures of exposure f or listed and non - listed animals are the

### - 35 of 79 -

NOAEL and NOEC. NOAEL stands for “No Observed - Adverse - Effect - Level” and refers to the highest tested dose of a substance that has been reported to have no harmful (adverse) effects on test organisms. The NOEC is the No - Observed - Effects - Concentration. For non - listed plants, only acute exposures are assessed ( i.e. , EC 25 

### for terrestrial plants and EC 50 

### for aquatic plants); for listed plants either the NOEC or EC 05 

### is used. **8 .4**  **Integration of Exposure and Effects** Ri sk characterization is the integration of exposure and ecological effect characterizations to determine the potential ecological risk from the use of prallethrin and the likelihood of direct and indirect effects to non - target organisms in aquatic and terre strial habitats. The exposure and effects data are integrated in order to evaluate potential adverse ecological effects on non - target species. For the prallethrin risk assessment , the risk quotient (RQ) method will be used to compare estimated exposure an d measured toxicity values. Acute and chronic EECs will be divided by

acute and chronic toxicity values. The resulting RQs will then be compared to the Agency ’s Levels of Concern (LOC) (USEPA , 2004). These criteria are used to indicate when prallethrin ’ s use, as directed on the labels, has the potential to cause adverse direct or indirect effects to non - target organisms. In addition, incident data from EII S, aggregate incident reports, and AIMS will be considered as part of the risk characterization. **8 .**  **5 Deterministic and Probabilistic Assessment Methods**  The quantitative assessment of risk will primarily depend on the deterministic point estimate based approach described in the risk assessment. Depending on the risk manager’s need for additional infor

mation regarding risk, an effort will be made to further qualitatively describe risk using probabilistic tools that the Agency has developed. These tools have been reviewed b y FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panels (http://www.epa.gov/scipol y/ sap/index.htm) and have been deemed as appropriate means of refining assessments where deterministic approaches have identified risks. **8 .6**  **Endangered Species Assessments** Consistent with the Agency ’s responsibility under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Agency will evaluate risks to Federally- listed threatened and/or endangered (listed) species from registered uses of prallethrin . This assessment will be conducted in accordance with the Overview Document (USEPA, 2004), provisions of the ESA, and the Services’ Endangered Species Consultation Handbook (USFWS/NMFS, 1998). The assessment of effects associated with the registration of prallethrin is based on an action area . The action area is considered to be the area directly or indirectl y affected b y the federal action, as indicated b y the exceedance of Agency Levels of Concern (LOCs) used to evaluate direct or indirect effects. The Agency ’s approach to defining the action area under the provisions of the Overview Document (USEPA, 2004) considers the results of the risk assessment process to establish boundaries for that action area with the understanding that exposures below the Agency ’s defined LOCs constitute a no - eff ect threshold. For the purposes of this assessment, attention will be focused on the footprint of the action ( i.e ., the area where prallethrin application

### - 36 of 79 -

occurs), plus all areas where offsite transport ( i.e ., spray drift, runoff, etc .) may

result in potential exposure that exceeds the Agency ’s LOCs. Specific measure s of ecological effect that define the action area for listed species include any direct and indirect effects and/or potential modification of its critical habitat, including reduction in surv ival, growth, and reproduction as well as the full suite of sub - lethal effects available in the effects literature. Therefore, the action area extends to a point where environmental exposures are below any measured lethal or sub - lethal effect threshold fo r any biological entity at the whole organism, organ, tissue, and cellular level of organization. In situations where it is not possible to determine the threshold for an observed effect, the action area will be assumed to encompass the entire United States. **8.7 Drinking Water Assessment**  A drinking water exposure assessment (DWA) may be conducted using up - to - date models and data during the risk assessment phase. The drinking water assessment will incorporate model estimates of prallethrin in surface and ground waters. Prallethrin concentrations in surface waters will be estimated using Tier II PRZM/EXAMS (see description in **Section 7.2** ). There is no national default PCA for mosquito control applications. Ground water estimates of prallethrin concentrations will be established using SCI - GROW (v.2.3, July

2003, http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/) (or PRZM - GW if it is available by the time the ris k assessment is carried out) . This is a regression model by fitting a linear model to ground water concentration with the Relative Index of Leaching Potential (RILP) as the independent variable. The model is used as a screening tool for ground water. Th e RILP is function of aerobic soil metabolism and the soil - water partition coefficient. The output of SCI GROW represents the concentrations that might be expected in shallow unconfined aquifers under sandy soils. The DWA will also include available surfac e and ground water monitoring data, with consideration of changes in use patterns since mitigations have been imposed. Ground water concentrations will be taken from 90 - day average high concentrations from perspective ground water studies. States and mos quito control communities are encouraged to submit the monitoring data for the water quality risk assessment. **8.8 Endocrine Disruptor Screening**  As required b y FIFRA and FFDCA, EPA reviews numerous studies to assess potential adverse outcomes from exposure to chemicals. Collectively, these studies include acute, subchronic and chronic toxicity, including assessments of carcinogenicity , neurotoxicity, developmental, reproductive, and general or sy stemic toxicity . These studies include endpoints which may be susceptible to endocrine influence, including effects on endocrine target organ histopathology , organ weights, estrus cyclicity , sexual maturation, fertility , pregnancy rates, reproductive loss, and sex ratios in offspring. For ecological hazard assessments, EPA evaluates acute tests and chronic studies that assess growth, developmental and reproductive effects in different taxonomic groups. As part of the most recent registration decision , EPA reviewed these data and selected the most sensitive endpoint s for relevant risk assessment scenarios from the existing hazard database. However, as required b y FFDCA section 408(p), prallethrin is subject to the endocrine screening part of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP).

### - 37 of 79 -

EPA has developed the EDSP to determine whether certain substances (including pesticide active and other ingredients) may have an effect in humans or wildlife similar to an effect produced b y a “naturally occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the Administrator may designate.” The EDSP employs a two - tiered approach to making the statutorily required determinations. Tier 1 consists of a battery of 11 screening assay s to identify the potential of a chemical substance to interact with the estrogen, androgen, or thyroid (E, A, or T) hormonal sy stems. Chemicals that go through Tier 1 screening and are found to have the potential to interact with E, A, or T hormonal sy stems will proceed 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 any 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 pesticide active ingredients and 9 in ert ingredients. Prallethrin is not among the group of 58 pesticide active ingredients on the initial list to be screened under the EDSP. Accordingly , as part of registration review, EPA will issue future EDSP orders/data call ins, requiring the submissi on of EDSP screening assay s for prallethrin . For further information on the status of the EDSP, the policies and procedures, the list of 67 chemicals, future lists, the test guidelines and the Tier 1 screening battery , please visit our website: http://www.epa.gov/endo/ . **9. Preliminary Identification of Data Gaps**  The following two sections, **9 .1**  and **9 .2**  identify the remaining fate and effect studies needed to complete an environmental fate and ecological risk assessment in support of the registration review of the labeled uses of prallethrin. Draft Data Call - In(DCI) table s for requested data are provided in **Appendix G**  . Inaddition to providing the guideline number and study title, the DCI table s provide a rationale for requiring the data, an explanation of how the data will be used, and a brief description of the how the data could impact the Agency ’s future decision - making. **9. 1**  **Environmental Fate Data**  **Table 9**  **- 1**  identifies environmental fate s tudies for prallethrin by MRID that offer data for each guideline requirement, as well as study classifications and data deficienc ies ( i.e. , whether there is a data gap ). Since prallethrin is not registered for agricultural use, no additional data on terrestrial and aquatic field dissipation will be requested at this time. Data will be waived for the major degradates because the y are the result of the cleavage of the ester linkage of the parent. This breaking of the basic py rethroid frame or backbone may result in lost activity

and thus decreased toxicity

when compared with the parent. Should the registrant wish to add new uses of this chemical or other new evid ence of toxicological issues is raised for the degradates , the data requirement s may

be reassessed. The following data are needed to correct data deficiencies for the ecological exposure assessment:

### - 38 of 79 -

 **Guideline 835.4200 –**  **Anaerobic Soil Metabolism:** No stu dy for anaerobic soil metabolism has been found for prallethrin. The registrant is required to perform an anaerobic soil metabolism study in three different soils to fulfill current OPPTS guidelines 835.4200 and to address the data deficiency for anaerobic soil metabolism. The studies will provide half - lives in different soil sy stems, resulting in more knowledge and certainty

related to the behavior and persistence of prallethrin in anaerobic soils.

 **Guideline Number 835.1230 –**  **A dsorption/Desorption (Batch**  **Equilibrium) :**  One available study was performed in the test soils that were autoclaved before use, thus possibly altering the physical and chemical properties of the soils, the registrant must demonstrate that autoclaving the soil did not influence the results of this study , and that the observed results are an accurate representation of prallethrin adsorption/desorption from soil or submit a new study . The registrant is required to perform an adsorption/desorption study according to current OPPTS guidelines 835.1230. The studies will obtain a sorption value which can be used to predict partitioning under a variety of environmental conditions. The data at concentrations resulting from labeled application rates will facilitate a better understanding of pral lethrin mobility in the environment. **Table 9**  **- 1. Environmental Fate Data Requirement Table for Prallethrin.**  **Guideline Description**  **MRID/ Accession**  **Classification Data**  **Gap? Comments**  835.2120 Hydroly sis 42838602 Acceptable No 835.2240 Aqueous photolysis 43797601 Acceptable No 835.2410 Soil photolysis 43797602 and 43797603 Acceptable No 835.4100 Aerobic soil metabolism 42838601 Acceptable No 835.4200 Anaerobic soil

metabolism - - Yes Data are needed for sediment - water systems, one each at a neutral and an acidic pH. 835.4300 Aerobic aquatic

metabolism 44861001 and 44861002 Supplemental

and Supplemental No 835.4400 Anaerobic aquatic

metabolism 44366601 and 44366602 Supplemental

and Supplemental No

835.1230 Adsorption/ desorption

and leaching 42810801 Unacceptable Yes Because the test soils were autoclaved before use, thus possibly altering the physical and chemical properties of the soils, the registrant must demonstrate that autoclaving the soil did not influence the results of this study, and that the observed result s are an accurate representation of prallethrin adsorption/desorption from soil.

### - 39 of 79 -

**Guideline Description**  **MRID/ Accession**  **Classification Data**  **Gap? Comments** 

835.6100 Terrestrial field

dissipation -- -- -- Data are not required at this time. Freezer storage stability Analytical method

– soil Analytical method

– water Analytical method - sediment 850.1730 Fish bioconcentration 42810802 and 43758001 Acceptable No 

### 9 **.2 Ecological**  **Effects Data Table**  **s 9**  **- 2,**  **9 -**  **3,** and **9 -**  **4** identify ecological effects studies by MRID for aquatic animals, terrestrial animals, and plants (terrestrial and aquatic), respectivel y, that offer data for each guideline requirement, as well as study classifications and whether or not further data are needed in order to support risk assessment ( i.e. , whether there is a data gap). Data on the major degradates of prallethrin will be waived at this time because the Agency considers the degradates to be the outcome of cleavage of the ester linkage of the p arent. This breaking of the basic py rethroid frame or backbone may result in lost activity

and thus decreased toxicity when compared with the parent. Should the registrant wish to add new uses of this chemical, the data requirement may

be reassessed. Submission of data to eliminate data gaps would reduce uncertainties in the ecological effects assessment. Data gaps were assigned either a low or high potential to add value to an ecological effects assessment. While still considered data gaps according to 40 CFR Part 158, low potential studies are unlikel y to change risk determinations because alternate methods and weight of evidence may

possibly be used in the absence of data. High potential studies would enable the Agency to better characterize potenti al risks by eliminating uncertainties for both non - listed and listed species that cannot be accounted for using alternate methods or weights of evidence. Data from the following guideline studies are considered to have **high potential** to add value to the ecological risk assessment for prallethrin:

 **Guideline 850.4225 –**  **Seedling emergence, Tier II (TEP):** In the Tier I seedling emergence study with M ULTI CIDE Fogging Concentrate 2798 (Reg No. 1021 - 1795), an inhibition of greater than 25% was observed for sugarbeet emergence (32.4%). Therefore, a Tier II seedling emergence test with sugarbeets is requested . In the same study , the mean of the treated group was significantly less than the mean of the contro l group for the following species and endpoints: tomato emergence; wheat dry weight; and soy bean dry weight. Therefore, a NOEC could be determined for these species, and Tier II seedling emergence tests are recommended for tomato, wheat, and so ybean to re duce uncertainty in determining risk to endangered plants.

### - 40 of 79 -

 **Guideline Number: 850.1020 –**  **Gammarid Acute Toxicity (TEP):**  Acute toxicity data of prallethrin TEPs with the sy nergists PBO and MGK- 264 are requested for freshwater invertebrates because there are registered outdoor uses of prallethrin that may result in significant exposure to water bodies . Products with these sy nergists are likely

to cause increased toxicity

to non - target aquatic species. This is supported by an acute toxicity study with the most sensitive aquatic species, the my sid shrimp, and the TEP MULTI CIDE Fogging Concentrate 2798 (Reg No. 1021 - 1795) which contains d phenothrin and PBO. Results indicate that the MULTI CIDE Fogging Concentrate 2798 is three orders of magnitude more toxic than TGAI prallethrin ( 96 - hr LC 50 

### = 22 μg a.i./L with TGAI ; L C 50 

### = 0.0079 μg a.i./L with TEP ; see **Section 4.1** ). Since available information indicates that greater toxicity enhancement can occur at higher sy nergist - to active ingredient ratio s, selection of the TEPs for testing should include those TEPs with the highest s ynergist - to - a ctive ingredient ratio and are registered for outdoor uses. The recommended freshwater invertebrate test species is the amphipod, Hyalella azteca . H. azteca i s recommended over other standard test species ( e.g. , Daphnia magna ) due to its much greater sensitivity to py rethroids compared to D. magna . Hyalella is also a recommended test species for sediment toxicity testing which enables toxicity extrapolations to be made among water column and benthic exposures within the same species. The 850.1020 test guideline for Gammarid amphipods is recommended with appropriate modifications to address specific testing needs of H. azteca . The registrant should submit a test protocol prior to conducting these TEP studies that documents the rationale for the TEP selection and details of the testing procedure for H. azteca . The Agency

notes that the ratios of s ynergist (PBO or MGK- 264) to prallethrin expected in the aquatic environment may be much greater than those used in the formulated products, due in part to the different fate properties of the s ynergists and prallethrin. As available data suggest greater toxicity enhancement can occur at higher s ynergist - to active ingredient ratios, it is possible that greater toxicity enhancement may

occur in the natural environment compared to that measured for formulated products . T o address this concern, the Agency

will attempt to bridge results from ongoing “comprehensive” sy nergist testing at varying s ynergist - to - active ingredient ratios to address varying ratios of PBO/MGK- 264 to prallethrin that are expected to occur in aquatic ecos ystems. However, should the available data be insufficient to enable scientifically defensible bridging to be conducted at the time of the forthcoming prallethrin ecological risk assessment, the Agency

may apply a “conservative” toxicity enhancement factor to address the uncertainty regarding differences in synergist - to - prallethrin ratios in the aquatic environment v ersus those tested using formulated products. The registrant may wish to submit additional data on prallethrin/s ynergist toxicity at varying ratios that would be expected to occur in the aquatic environment to address this potential uncertainty.  **Guideline Number: 850.1075 –**  **A cute Freshwater Fish Toxicity (TEP)**  **:** Acute toxicity data of prallethrin TEPs with the sy nergists PBO and MGK- 264 are requested for freshwater invertebrates because there are registered outdoor uses of prallethrin that may result in significant exposure to water bodies. Products with these sy nergists are likel y to

### - 41 of 79 -

cause increased toxicity

to non - target aquatic speci es as demonstrated b y the my sid acute toxicity study with the TEP MULTI CIDE Fogging Concentrate 2798 (Reg No. 1021 - 1795) . Since available information indicates that greater toxicity enhancement can occur at higher s ynergist - to - active ingredient ratios, se lection of the TEPs for testing should include those with the highest s ynergist - to - active ingredient ratio and are registered for outdoor uses. The registrant should submit a test protocol prior to conducting these TEP studies that documents the rationale for the TEP selection. The Agency notes that the ratios of sy

nergist (PBO or MGK- 264) to prallethrin in the aquatic environment that may be much greater than those used in the formulated products, due in part to the different fate properties of the s yn ergists and prallethrin. As available data suggest greater toxicity enhancement can occur at higher s yn ergist - to - active ingredient ratios, it is possible that greater toxicity

enhancement may

occur in the natural environment compared to that measured for fo rmulated products. T o address this concern, the Agency will attempt to bridge results from ongoing “comprehensive” s yn ergist testing at varying sy nergist - to active ingredient ratios to address varying ratios of PBO/MGK- 264 to prallethrin that are expected to occur in aquatic ecos ys tems. However, should the available data be insufficient to enable scientifically defensible bridging to be conducted at the time of the forthcoming prallethrin ecological risk assessment, the Agency may appl y a “conservative” toxicity

enhancement factor to address the uncertainty regarding differences in s ynergist - to - prallethrin ratios in the aquatic environment vs. those tested using formulated products. The registrant may wish to submit additional data on prallethrin/sy

nergis t toxicity

at varying ratios that would be expected in the aquatic environment to address this potential uncertainty .  **Guideline 850.1350 –**  **Aquatic invertebrate life cycle (saltwater):** Aquatic invertebrate life cycle toxicity

data have not been submitted f o r an estuarine/marine species creating uncertainty for estimating risk to these organisms from chronic exposure to prallethrin. In addition, acute toxicity data show that the mys id shrimp is the most sensitive aquatic animal . Inthe absence of this data, approaches that may be used to estimate toxicity to estuarine/marine invertebrates from chronic exposure to prallethrin include us ing estuarine/marine invertebrate toxicity data for other py

rethroids to extrapolate from existin g acute toxicity

data for estuarine/marine invertebrates and/or applying an acute to chronic ratio (ACR) for freshwater invertebrates to existing acute toxicity data for estuarine/marine invertebrates .  **Guideline 850.5400 –**  **Aquatic plant growth (algal):** Algal toxicity data have not been submitted creating uncertainty for estimating risk to algal species from exposure to prallethrin . In the absence of this data, algal and aquatic vascular plant toxicity data for other py rethroids may

be used to extrapolate from the available toxicity data for aquatic vascular plants to aquatic non - vascular species. Data from the following guideline studies are considered to have **low potential** to add value to the ecological risk assessment for prallethrin:

 **Guideline 850. 2100**  **– Avian oral toxicity (passerine species):**  Acute avian oral toxicity data are required for either one waterfowl or one upland game species and one passerine

### - 42 of 79 -

species under the 40 CFR Part 158 (CFR 40 2008) data requirements for conventional pesticides. Data have not been submitted for a passerine species. The most recent Agency ecological risk assessment to address the risk of prallethrin use to birds found that no acute or chronic LOCs for birds were exceeded ( D23929, D291569, D257565). Estimating EECs in T - REX using conservative estimates for number of applications ( i.e. , 142 ) and application interval ( i.e. , 1 day) for a ty pical outdoor individual application rate of prallethrin ( i.e. , 0.0014 lb a.i./A ; 142*0.0014 lb a.i./A = ~0.2 lb a.i./A [maximum application rate/ye ar]) indicates that p asserines would have to be at least 5 times more sensitive to prallethrin t o alter risk conclusions, and this would only be for acute exposures of small birds consuming short grass exclusively . For all other feeding guilds, passerines would have to be 10 to 100 times more sensitive to alter risk conclusions. In the absence of this data, acute passerine oral toxicity data from other p yr ethroids may be used to extrapolate the toxicity of prallethrin to passerine spe cies.

 **Guideline 850.1400 –**  **Fi sh early** **- life stage (saltwater):**  F ish earl y- life stage toxicity data have not been submitted for an estuarine/marine species. In the absence of this data, an acute to chronic ratio (ACR) for freshwater fish may be applied to existing acute data for estuarine/marine fish to estimate toxicity to estuarine/marine fish from chronic exposure to prallethrin.

 **Guideline 850.1500 –**  **Fi sh life cycle (freshwater and saltwater):**  Fish life cycle toxicity data have not been submitted for a freshwater species or estuarine/marine species. In the absence of this data, data from the acceptable fish earl y- life stage toxicity study (MRID 44729604 ) may

be used to characterize risk to fish from chronic exposure to prallethrin . **Table 9**  **- 2**  **. Available Ecological Effects Data for Aquatic Animals Exposed to Prallethrin**  **and Remaining Data Gaps. Guideline**  **Description MRID/ Accession**  **Classification Data**  **Gap? Comments**  850.1010 Ac ute toxicity

freshwater invertebrates 41321810 (TGAI)

-- (TEP) Acceptable

-- No

Yes Data are requested for a TEP with prallethrin and synergist, using Hyalella azteca as the test species. 850.1025 850.1055 Ac ute toxicity

estuarine/marine mollusk 44729601 (TGAI) Acceptable No 850.1035 850.1045 Ac ute toxicity

estuarine/marine invertebrate 44729603 (TGAI) 48055901 (TEP) Acceptable

Acceptable No 850.1075 Ac ute freshwater fish

toxicity (cold water species) 41321809 (TGAI)

-- (TEP) Acceptable

-- No

Yes Data are requested for a TEP with prallethrin and synergist .

### - 43 of 79 -

**Guideline Description**  **MRID/ Accession Classification**  **Data Gap?**  **Comments** Ac ute freshwater fish toxicity (warm w ater species) 41321808 (TGAI)

-- (TEP) Acceptable

-- No

Yes 850.1075 Ac ute toxicity

estuarine/marine fish 44729602 (TGAI) Acceptable No 850.1300 Aquatic invertebrate

life cycle (freshwater) 44729605 (TGAI) Acceptable No

850.1350 Aquatic invertebrate

life cycle (saltwater) -- -- Yes Aquatic invertebrate life cycle toxicity data for an estuarine/marine species are required under 40 CFR Part 158 if the product is expected to enter the environment in significant concentrations because of its expected use or mo bility patterns. Theref ore, this is identified as a data gap. 850.1400 Fish early - life stage

(freshwater) 44729604 (TGAI) Acceptable No

850.1400 Fish early - life stage

(saltwater) -- -- Yes Fish life cycle toxicity data for an estuarine/marine species are required under 40 CFR Part 158 if the product is expected to enter the environment in significant concentrations because of its expected use or mobility patterns. Therefore, this is identified as a data gap.

850.1500 Fish life cycle

(freshwater) -- -- Yes Fish life cycle toxicity data for a freshwater species are required under 40 CFR Part 158 if the product is expected to be transported to water from the intended use site. Therefore, this is identified as a data gap.

### - 44 of 79 -

**Guideline Description**  **MRID/ Accession Classification**  **Data Gap?**  **Comments**

Fish life cycle (saltwater) -- -- Yes Fish life cycle toxicity data for an estuarine/marine species are required under 40 CFR Part 158 if the product is expected to enter the environment in significant concentrations because of its expected use or mobility patterns. Therefore, this is identified as a d ata gap.

850.1735 850.1740 Whole sediment:

acute invertebrates (freshwater and marine) 47762401 (TGAI) Supplemental No For MRID 47762401, there is uncertainty regarding the accuracy of the LC 50 values given potential interference from the solvent. Repeating this study has a low

potential to add value to the ecological risk assessment. 

### Table **9 -**  **3 . Available Ecological Effects Data for Terrestrial Animals Exposed to**  **Prallethrin and Remaining Data Gaps.**  **Guideline Description**  **MRID/ Accession**  **Classification Data**  **Gap? Comments** 

850.2100 Avian oral toxicity

(upland game or waterfowl species) 41321804 (TGAI) 41321805 (TGAI) Supplemental

Acceptable No Avian oral toxicity (passerine species) 

### -- -- Yes Avian acute oral toxicity data are not available for passerines. These data are required under the ne w 40 CFR Part 158. Therefore, this is identified as a data gap. 850.2200 Avian dietary toxicity

(upland game species) 41321806 (TGAI) Acceptable No Avian dietary toxicity (waterfowl species) 41321807 (TGAI) Acceptable No 850.2300 Avian reproduction

(upland game species) 43773403 (TGAI) Acceptable No Avian reproduction (waterfowl species) 43797604 (TGAI) Acceptable No 850.3020 Honeybee acute contact

toxicity 41321823 (TGAI) Acceptable No 850.3030 Honeybee toxicity of

residues on foliage 43749301 (Form) 47431601 (TEP) Acceptable

Acceptable No

### - 45 of 79 -

Form = formulation 

### T **able 9**  **- 4**  **. Available Ecological Effects Data for Plants Exposed to Prallethrin**  **and Remaining Data Gaps.**  **Guideline Description**  **MRID Classification**  **Data Gap?**  **Comments** 850.4100 Tier I

Seedling emergence (terrestrial plants) 47431602 (TEP) Acceptable No In the Tier I seedling emergence study, an inhibition of greater than 25% was observed for sugarbeet emergence (32.4%). Therefore, a Tier II seedling emergence test with sugarbeets is necessary. In the same study, the mean of the treated group was signif

icantly less than the mean of the control group for the following species and endpoints: tomato emergence; wheat dry weight; and soybean dry weight. Therefore, a NOEC could be determined for these species, and Tier II seedling emergence tests are recommended for tomato, wheat, and soybean to reduce uncertainty in determining risk to endangered plants. 850.4225 Tier II

Seedling emergence (terrestrial plants) -- -- Yes

850.4150 Tier I

Vegetative vigor (terrestrial plants) 47431603 (TEP) Acceptable No 850.4400 Tier II

Aquatic plant growth (aquatic vascular plant toxicity) 48055902 (TEP) Acceptable No

850.5400 Tier I

Aquatic plant growth (algal toxicity) -- -- Yes Toxicity data for algal species are required under 40 CFR Part 158 . Therefore, this is identified as a data gap. 

### 10 **. References** Addy- Orduna, L.M., M - E. Zaccagnini, S.B. Canavelli, and P. Mineau. 2001. Formulated beta cyfluthrin shows wide divergence in toxicity among bird species. Journal of Toxicology 2011, Article ID 803451: 10 pages. Amweg, E.L., D.P. Weston, C.S. Johnson, J. You , and M.L . Lydy . 2006. Effect of Piperonyl Butoxide on Permethrin Toxicity in the Amphipod Hyalella azteca . Environ. Tox. Chem. 25 (7): 1817 - 1825.

### - 46 of 79 -

Amweg, E.L. and D.P. Weston. 2007. Whole - Sediment Toxicity I dentification Evaluation Tools for Py

rethroid Insecticides: I. Piperonyl Butoxide Addition. Environ. Toxicol. & Chem., Vol. 26, No. 11, pp. 2389

–2396, 2007. Barile, F.A. 2004. Clinical Toxicology: Principles and Mechanisms . Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Di Toro, DM, CS Zarba, DJ Hansen, WJ Berry , RC Swartz, CE Cowan, SP Pavlou, HE Allen, 85 NA Thomas and PR Paquin. 1991. Technical basis for establishing sediment quality criteria for nonio nic organic chemicals using equilibrium partitioning. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 10:1541 - 1583. Doull, J. 1976. The Treatment of Insecticide Poisoning. Ch. 16 in: C.F. Wilkinson (ed.), Insecticide Biochemistry and Physiology . 753 pp. Plenum Press, New York . Fletcher, J.S., J.E. Nellessen, and T.G. Pfleeger. 1994. Literature review and evaluation of the EPA food - chain (Kenaga) nomogram, an instrument for estimating pesticide residues on plants. Environ. Tox. Chem. 13:1383 - 1391. Hodgson, E., & Smart, R. C. (Eds.). 2001. Introduction to Biochemical Toxicology (Third ed.). New York: Wiley- Interscience. Hoerger, F. and E. E. Kenaga. 1972. Pesticide Residues on Plants: Correlation of Representative Data as a Basis for Estimation of their Magnitude in the Environment. In F. Coulston and F. Korte, eds., Environmental Quality and Safety: Chemistry, Toxicology, and Technology, Georg Thieme Publ., Stuttgart, West Germany , pp. 9 - 28. Narahashi, T. 1976. Effects of Insecticides on Nervous Conduction and Synaptic Transmission. Ch. 9 in: C.F. Wilkinson (ed.), Insecticide Biochemistry and Physiology . 753 pp. Plenum Press, New York. Stewart, D. 1998. The Evaluation of Sy nergistic Action in the Laboratory and Field. p. 173 - 198 In: Piperonyl Butoxide: the Insecticide Synergist. Academic Press. USEPA. 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. Risk Asses sment Forum, Offic e of Research and Development, Washington, D.C. EPA/630/R - 95/002F. April 1998. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay .cfm?deid=30759 USEPA 2003, Tier I Estimated Environmental Concentrations of Prallethrin in Drinking Waters, Proposed New Uses in Outdoor Residential and Recreational Areas (PC Code 128722; DP Barcode D274758) Trade Names: Fogging Concentration 2798 RESPONDÉ ® 

### Insecticide . USEPA. 2004. Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of Pesticide Programs. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington D . C. January 23, 2004.

### - 47 of 79 -

USEPA. 2007 a . Ecological Incident Information Sy stem. http://www.epa.gov/espp/consultation/ecorisk- overview.pdf USEPA. 2007 b . ECOTOXicology Database. Office of Researc h and Development National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory ’s (NHEERL’s) Mid - Continent Ecology Division (MED). http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/ USEPA . 2011 . BEAD Chemical Profile for Registration Review: Prallethrin (PC # 128722). Environmental Protection Agency , Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Biological and Economic Analy sis Division. December 28, 2011. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998. Endangered Species Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Final Draft. March 1998. USFWS/NMFS/

NOAA. 2004. 50 CFR Part 402. Joint Counterpart Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Regulations; Final Rule. Federal Register Volume 69. Number 20.Pages 47731 - 47762. August 5, 2004. Weston, D.P. Amweg, E.L., Mekebri, A., Ogle, R.S. and M.J. Lydy. 2006 . Aquatic effects of aerial spraying for mosquito control over an urban area. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40(18): 5817 - 22. West on, D.P. and M.J. Lydy. 2010. Urban and Agricultural Sources of P yrethroid Insecticides to the Sacramento - San Joaquin De lta of California. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010 **,** 44, 1833

– 1840.

### - 48 of 79 -

**SUBMITTED ENVIRONMENTAL FATE STUDIES:** 02048544 Fate One - liner Report 42810801 Archer, G. (1991) Adsorption and Desorption of Etoc to Soils: L ab Project

Number: 90 - 0403: FFM - 11 - 0007: 3742 - 90 - 0403 - EF - 001. Unpublished study prepared b y Ricerca, Inc. 160 p. 42810802 Ohshima, M.; Yoshida, S. (1991) Uptake, Depuration and Bioconcentration of

(Alc - (carbon 14)) - d - trans - Etoc b y Bluegill Sunfish (Lepomis Macrochirus): Lab Project Number: ACC91002: FFM - 10 - 0006: ACC91002 - A. Unpublished study prepared b y Environmental Health S cience Lab. 78 p. 42838601 Korsch, B. (1991) An Aerobic Soil Metabolism Study with Etoc: Lab Project Number: 90 - 0404: FFM - 11 - 0008: 3741 - 90 - 0404 - EF - 001. Unpublished study prepared b y Ricerca, Inc. 309 p. 42838602 Kieatiwong, S.; Shepler, K.; Ruzo, L . (1 991) Hydroly sis of (Alc - (carbon 14)) - d trans - Etoc at pH 5, 7 and 9: L ab Project Number: 262W: FFM - 11 - 0005. Unpublished study

prepared by

Pharmacology

and Toxicology

Research Lab -- West. 82 p. 43797601 Kieatiwong, S.; Shepler, K.; Ruzo, L . (1995) Sunlight Photodegradation of (Alc Carbon 14) - d - trans - Etoc in a Buffered Aqueous Solution at pH 5: Amended Report: L ab Project Number: 263W - 1: 263W. Unpublished study prepared by PTRL - West Inc. and Sumitomo Chemi cal Co., Ltd. 113 p. 43797602 Kieatiwong, S.; Shepler, K.; Ruzo, L . (1995) Sunlight Photodegradation of (Acid Carbon 14) - d - trans - Etoc in/on Soil by Natural Sunlight: Amended Report: Lab Project Number: 273W - 1: 273W. Unpublished study prepared by

PTRL - Wes t,Inc. and Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd. 107 p. 43797603 Kieatiwong, S.; Shepler, K.; Ruzo, L . (1995) Sunlight Photodegradation of (Alc Carbon 14) - d - trans - Etoc in/on Soil by Natural Sunlight: Amended Report: Lab Project Number: 272W - 1: 272W. Unpublished study prepared b y PTRL - West, Inc. and Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd. 113 p. 43758001 Ohshima, M.; Mikami, N. (1993) Characterization of (Carbon 14) Residues in

Bluegill Sunfish Treated with (Alc - (Carbon 14)) - d - trans - Etoc: Lab Project Number: ACC91002: ACC9100 2 - B: FFM - 30 - 0012. Unpublished study prepared by Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd. 102 p. 44366601 Archer, G. (1996) An Anaerobic Aquatic Soil Metabolism Study with (Acid carbon 14) - Etoc: Lab Project Number: FFM - 0013: 3838 - 91 - 0423 - EF - 001: 3838. Unpublished study prepared b y Ricerca, Inc. 125 p. 44366602 Archer, G. (1996) An Anaerobic Aquatic Soil Metabolism Study with ?ALC carbon - 14| - Etoc: Lab Project Number: 3838: 3838 - 91 - 0318 - EF - 001: FFM - 0014. Unpublished study

prepared by

Ricerca, Inc. 142 p. 44861002 Kaman, R. (1999) Aerobic Aquatic Soil Metabolism of (Cyclopentenyl - 2 - (carbon -

### - 49 of 79 - 14)) - d - trans - Prallethrin: Lab Project Number: 7433 - 98 - 0012 - EF - 001: 7433 - 98 - 0012 - EF - 000: 7433 - 98 - 0012 - EF - 000 - 001. Unpublished study prepared by

Ricerca, In c. 133 p. 46433101 Habi g, C. (2004) AgDrift and PRZM - EXAMS Modeling of Low Alititude

Applications of Prallethrin For Adult Mosquito Control. Project Number: 7/000/C0T0/11/04/001. Unpublished study prepared by

registrant. 11 p. **SUBMITTED EFFECTS STUDIES:** 41321804 Grimes, J.; J aber, M. (1989) S - 4068SF: An Acute Oral Toxicity Study with the Mallard: (ETOC): Study

ID No. 720001; Project No. 166 - 127; Report FFW - 91 - 0007. Unpublished study

prepared by

Wildlife International Ltd. 19 p. 41321805 Grimes, J.; Jaber, M. (1989) S - 4068SF: An Acute Oral Toxicity Study with the Bobwhite: (ETOC): Final Report: L ab Project No. 166 - 126; Report FFW - 91 - 0006; Study ID No. 710001. Unpublished study prepared by

Wildlife International Ltd. 20 p. 41321806 Grimes , J.; Jaber, M. (1989) S - 4068SF: A Dietary L C50 Study with the Bobwhite: (ETOC): Lab Project Number 166 - 124; Report FFW - 91 - 0008; Study ID No. 730001. Unpublished study

prepared by

Wildlife International Ltd. in cooperation with En Cas Analy

tical Laboratori es. 28 p. 41321807 Grimes, J.; Jaber, M. (1989) S - 4068SF: A Dietary L C50 Study with the Mallard: (ETOC): Study

ID No. 740001; Report FFW - 91 - 0009; Project No. 166 - 125. Unpublished study

prepared by

Wildlife International Ltd. in cooperation with En Cas An aly

tical Laboratories. 27 p. 41321808 Bowman, J. (1989) Acute Flow - through Toxicity of ETOC (Prallethrin) to Bluegill ( Lepomis macrochirus ): Final Report: Study ID Nos. 37777; 037777; Report No. FFW - 91 - 0003. Unpublished study prepared by

Analy tical Bio - c hemistry Laboratories, Inc. 176 p. 41321809 Bowman, J. (1989) Acute Flow - through Toxicity of ETOC to Rainbow Trout (Salmo gairdneri): Final Report: Study ID Nos. 37778; 037778; Report No. FFW - 91 - 0004. Unpublished study

prepared by

Anal ytical Bio - chemistry Laboratories, Inc., Aquatic Toxicology

Div. 183 p. 41321810 Burgess, D. (1989) Acute Flow - through Toxicity of ETOC to Daphnia magna: Final Report: Study

ID Nos. 37779; 037779; Report No. FFW - 91 - 0010. Unpublished study prepared b y Anal ytical Bio - chemistry L aboratories, Inc. 169 p. 41321828 Hoxter, K.; Thompson, M.; Jaber, M. (1989) S - 4068SF: (ETOC): An Acute Contact

Toxicity Study with the Honey

Bee: Lab Project Number 166 - 130; Ref. No. FFW 91 - 0012. Unpublished study pre - pared b y Wildlife International Ltd. 18 p. 43749301 Harnish, W. (1995) Final Report for the Evaluation of Toxicity of Residues of LX119 - 04 (ETOC) on Alfalfa to Honey Bees ( Apis mellifera ): Lab Project Number: 01921F004: FFW - 51 - 0023. Unpublished study prepared b y Landis International, Inc.

### - 50 of 79 - 23 p. 43773403 Beavers, J.; Sipler, O.; Marselas, G.; et al. (1994) ETOC: A Reproduction Study with the Bobwhite: Lab Project Number: 166 - 148: FFW - 41 - 0019. Unpublished study prepared b y Wildlife International Ltd. 166 p. 43797604 Beavers, J.; Sipler, O.; Marselas, G. et al. (1994) ETOC: A Reproduction Study with the Mallard: Lab Project Number: 166 - 149: FFW - 41 - 0020. Unpublished study prepared b y Wildl ife International, Ltd. 161 p. 44729601 Dionne, E. (1998) ETOC -- Acute Toxicity to Eastern Oyster ( Crassostrea virginica ) Under Flow - Through Conditions: Final Report: Lab Project Number: FFW - 0028: 98 - 7 - 7386: 13048.1097.6149.504. Unpublished study prepared by

Springborn Laboratories, Inc. 78 p. 44729602 Dionne, E. (1998) ETOC -- Acute Toxicity to Sheepshead Minnow ( Cyprinodon variegatus ) Under Flow - Through Conditions: Final Report: Lab Project Number: FFW - 0027: 98 - 5 - 7337: 13048.1097.6147.505. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. 76 p. 44729603 Dionne, E. (1998) ETOC -- Acute Toxicity to M ys ids (

Mysidopsis bahia ) Under Flow - Through Conditions: Final Report: Lab Project Number: FFW - 0025: 98 - 3 - 7288: 13048.1097.6148.515. Unpublished study prepared by

Springborn Laboratories, Inc. 77 p. 44729604 Sousa, J. (1998) ETOC -- Earl y Li fe - Stage Toxicity Test with Rainbow Tro ut ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 98 - 4 - 7295: 13048.1097.6150.121: FFW - 0026. Unpublished study prepared by

Springborn Laboratories, Inc. 101 p. 44729605 Putt, A. (1998) ETOC -- The Chronic Toxicity to Daphnia magna Under Flow Through Conditions: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 98 - 2 - 7236: 13048.1097.6151.130: FF - 0024. Unpublished study prepared by

Springborn Laboratories, Inc. 99 p. 47431601 Sindermann, A .; Porch, J.; Krueger, H. (2008) Multicide Fogging Concentrate 2798:

A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee: Final Report. Project Number: 163/123, 163/080107/BFR/SUB16. Unpublished study prepared by

Wildlife International Ltd. 37 p. 47431602 Porch, J.; Krueger, H. (2008) Multicide Fogging Concentrate 2798: A Toxicity Test to Determine the Effects of the Test Substance on Seedling Emergence of Ten Species of Plants: Final Report. Project Number: 163/124. Unpublished study prepared b y Wildlife International Ltd. 58 p. 47431603 Porch, J.; Krueger, H. (2008) Multicide Fogging Concentrate 2798: A Toxicity Test to Determine the Effects of the Test Substance on Vegetative Vigor of Ten Species of Plants: Final Report. Project Number: 163/125. Unpubli shed study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 79 p. 47762401 Putt, A. (2007) ETOC - Toxicity to Freshwater Amphipods ( Hyalella azteca ) During

### - 51 of 79 - a 10 - Day Sediment Exposure. Project Number: 13048/6522, FFW/0029. Unpublished study

prepared by

Springborn S mithers Laboratories. 94 p. 48055901 Gallagher, S.; Krueger, H. (2009) Multicide 2798: A 96 - Hour Flow - Through Acute

Toxicity Test with the Saltwater M ys id ( Americamysis bahia ): Final Report. Project Number: 163A/101. Unpublished study prepared by

Wildlife International, Ltd. 141 p. 48055902 Porch, J.; Cartee, T.; Krueger, H. (2009) Multicide 2798: A 7 - Day Static - Renewal Toxicity Test with Duckweed (

Lemna gibba G3): Draft Report. Project Number: 163A/102, 090326. Unpublished study prepared by

Wildlife International, Ltd. 147 p.

### - 52 of 79 - **Appendix A Previous Actions and Assessed Uses for Prallethrin**  **Use Application Rate**  **(lb a.i./A) Number of** 

**Applications (Application**  **Interval in Days) Action** 

**DP Barcode Date**  **Risk Conclusions Single**  **Seasonal/**

**Annual** Outdoor residential and recreational areas for the control of adult nuisance insects ( e.g. , mosquitoes, midges, gnats, black flies, etc.) 0.0008* NS NS (7) Registration

(Reassessment) D312733 5/26/05  Use is not likely to pose risk to freshwater or

estuarine/marine organisms (including sediment dwelling organisms) from acute exposure regardless of depth of water body. 0.0008* NS NS Registration (Reassessment) D301123 6/10/04  Use is not likely to pose risk to freshwater or

estuarine/marine organisms from acute exposure regardless of depth of water body. 0.0008* 0.002** NS

NS NS

NS Registration

D239293 D291569 D257565 10/29/03 DWA D274758 6/30/03  Use over shallow bodies of water (< 1.0 ft) does not pose risk to freshwater fish and invertebrates from acute or chronic exposures or risk to estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates from acute exposure.  Use over water bodies > 1.0 ft in depth (e.g., ponds, lakes, estuaries) poses risk to endangered freshwater invertebrates and risk to estuarine/marine invertebrates (including listed species) from acute exposure.  Use is not likely to pose risk to birds or mammals (including lis ted species) from acute or chronic exposure.  Risk to listed species of flying insects (e.g., butterflies) cannot be ruled out.  Risk to non - target aquatic and terrestrial plants as a result of use could not be evaluated due to lack of submitted studies. Food - handling establishments with all commodities as indoor crack, crevice, and fogger insecticide NS NS NS Section 3 New use D259553 D239124 11/15/99  Use should pose little or no risks to endangered and non endangered terrestrial and aquatic organisms.

### - 53 of 79 -

**Use Application Rate**  **(lb a.i./A) Number of** 

**Applications (Application**  **Interval in Days) Action** 

**DP Barcode Date**  **Risk Conclusions Single**  **Seasonal/**

**Annual** Domestic outdoor/forestry adulticide to control mo squitoes and other biting and non -biting insects 0.00025 to 0.002** NS NS Section 3 New use D219740 EUP D217877 2/4/97  Use poses minimal risk to terrestrial organisms from

acute and chronic exposure and mi nimal risk to aquatic organisms from acute exposure.  Uncertainty exists for assessing risk to aquatic organisms from chronic exposure due to the lack of fish early- life stage and aquatic invertebrate life cycle tests. Mosquito adulticide in a field situation 0.00025 to 0.002** NS NS EUP D217878 D218995 11/4/96  Use poses relatively low incremental risk to the

environment due to the low amount of chemical being used as well as the environmental fate characteristics of low persistency and mobility. NS = not specified; DWA = drinking water assessment; EUP = experimental use permit * MULTICIDE ® Fogging Concentration 2798 (Reg No. 1021 - 1795 ) ** RESPONDÉ ® Insecticide

### - 54 of 79 - **Appendix B**  **Summar y**  **of Prallethrin**  **Products Currently Registered in the United States Product Nam**  **e EPA Reg.** 

**No. %** 

**a.i. Use Group**  **Form ulation**  **Me thod of Application**  **& Application**  **Equipment Use**  **Restrictions Other Active Ingredient (% a.i.)**  Ortho Roach, Ant and Spider Killer 239 - 2679 0.03 Indoor residential Outdoor residential Pressurized

liquid Crack and crevice and/or spot

treatment ; o utdoor general surface treatment Aerosol can MGK - 264 (0.287) Esfenvalerate (0.05) Home Defense Max Perimeter Insect Killer Aerosol (1) 239 - 2695 0.03 Indoor residential Outdoor residential Pressurized

liquid Crack and crevice and/or spot

treatment Aerosol can Bifenthrin (0.05)

Farnam X - 5368 - 99 270 - 325 0.27 Indoor non - food Terrestrial non - food Em ulsifiable concentrate Animal treatment (sponge, spray)

Sponge , p ressure sprayer PBO (1) Farnam X - 5306 - 98 270 - 326 0.33 Indoor non - food Terrestrial non - food Em ulsifiable concentrate Animal treatment (spray) ; space spray

Cloth, sponge, hand - held sprayer, mechanical sprayer 2,5 - Py ridinedicarboxylic acid, dipropyl ester (2.5) MGK 264 (3.1) PBO (1.85) Permethrin (1) Farnam X - 5369 - 99 270 - 327 0.13 Indoor non - food Terrestrial non - food Ready - to - use

solution Animal treatment (rub - on)

Package applicator, Butoxypolypropylene glycol (20) 2,5 - Py ridinedicarboxylic acid, dipropyl ester (1) PBO (0.5) Farnum X - 5303 - 98 270 - 328 0.13 Indoor non - food Terrestrial non - food Ready - to - use

solution Animal treatment (spray)

Cloth, sponge , ready - to - u se spray container Butoxypolypropylene glycol (5) 2,5 - Py ridinedicarboxylic acid, dipropyl ester (1) MGK 264 (2) PBO (1.85) Permethrin (0.2) Farnam X - 5294 - 98 270 - 329 0.033 Indoor food Indoor non - food Terrestrial non - food Ready - to - use

solution Animal treatment (spray) ; indoor

general surface treatment ; space spray Trigger spray bottle, cloth, glove, sponge, sprayer, fog generator PBO (0.5) Permethrin (1)

### - 55 of 79 - **Product Nam e**  **EPA Reg.**

**No. %** 

**a.i. Use Group**  **Form ulation**  **Me thod of Application**  **& Application**  **Equipment Use**  **Restrictions Other Active Ingredient (% a.i.)**  F8028 - 2 Aerosol 279 - 3365 0.03 Forestry Indoor food Indoor medical Indoor non - food Indoor residential Outdoor residential Terrestrial non - food Pressurized

liquid Crack and crevice and/or spot

treatment ; injection treatment ; v oid treatment Aerosol can (with injection tube) Bifenthrin (0.05)

Country Vet Roach Embargo with Growth Inhibitor 279 - 3390 0.04 Indoor non - food Indoor residential Pressurized

liquid Aerosol, fog or fumigation application

Aerosol can Esfenvalerate (0.1) Py riproxyfen (0.6) ETOC Flying and Crawling Insect Killer (F9146 - 1) 279 - 3428 0.2 Indoor food Indoor medical Indoor non - food Indoor residential Pressurized

liquid Crack and crevice treatment ; i njection

treatment Aerosol can (with injection tube) MGK 264 (1) PBO (0.6) Whitmire TC 161 Injection System 499 - 443 0.03 Forestry Indoor food Indoor medical Indoor non - food Indoor residential Outdoor residential Terrestrial non - food Pressurized

liquid Bore - hole treatment ; c rack and crevice

and/or spot treatment ; mound injection ; spray ; v oid treatment Aerosol can with injection tube Cyfluthrin (0.1)

Whitmire Micro gen TC200 Injection System 499 - 471 0.03 Forestry Indoor food Indoor medical Indoor non - food Indoor residential Outdoor residential Terrestrial non - food Pressurized

liquid Crack and crevice and/or spot

treatment ; injection treatment ; tree injection treatment ; v oid treatment Aerosol can with injection tube lam bda - Cyhalothrin (0.05)

TC - 303 499 - 540 0.05 Indoor medical Indoor non - food Indoor residential Pressurized

liquid Animal bedding/litter treatment ; spray

Aerosol can Dinotefuran (0.25) Py riproxyfen (0.1) TC - 323 499 - 550 0.1 Indoor non - food Terrestrial non - food Indoor residential Outdoor residential Pressurized

liquid Spray

Aerosol can TC - 312 499 - 559 0.25 No t specified in LUIS report Ready - to - use

solution Not specified in LUIS report Py rethrins (0.25) PBO (4)

### - 56 of 79 - **Product Nam e**  **EPA Reg.**

**No. %** 

**a.i. Use Group**  **Form ulation**  **Me thod of Application**  **& Application**  **Equipment Use**  **Restrictions Other Active Ingredient (% a.i.)**  Evercide Residual Ant and Roach Spray 2543 1021 - 1601 0.03 Indoor non - food Indoor residential Indoor food Outdoor residential Terrestrial non - food Pressurized

liquid Crack and crevice and/or spot

treatment ; o utdoor general surface spray Aerosol can MGK 264 (0.25) Esfenvalerate (0.05) MULTICIDE ETOC 90% Concentrate 1021 - 1621 90 N/A N/A N/A Technical chemical MULTICIDE Concentrate 2593 1021 - 1632 0.72 N/A N/A N/A Technical chemical ( Formulation intermediate ) MGK 264 (27.36)

PBO (17.15) Phenothrin (3.43) MULTICIDE Pressurized Spray 2594 1021 - 1633 0.03 Indoor residential Indoor food Pressurized

liquid Crack and crevice treatment ; d irected

spray Aerosol can MGK 264 (0.957) PBO (0.6) Phenothrin (0.12) Evercide Concentrate 2625 1021 - 1655 2 N/A N/A N/A Technical chemical ( Formulation intermediate ) Esfenvalerate (5) Evercide Nylar Total Release Aerosol 2644 1021 - 1656 0.04 Indoor food Indoor medical Indoor non - food Indoor residential Terrestrial non - food Pressurized

liquid Fog

Aerosol can Py riproxyfen (0.6) Esfenvalerate (0.1) MULTICIDE Intermediate 2738 1021 - 1682 1 N/A N/A N/A Technical chemical ( Formulation intermediate ) MGK 264 (13.34)

Cy phenothrin (13.34) MULTICIDE Intermediate 2737 1021 - 1683 1 N/A N/A N/A Technical chemical ( Formulation intermediate ) MGK 264 (13.34)

Cy phenothrin (8.34) MULTICIDE Total Release Aerosol 27371 1021 - 1684 0.03 Indoor food Indoor non - food Indoor residential Pressurized

liquid Fog

Fogger , aerosol can MGK 264 (0.4) Cy phenothrin (0.25) MULTICIDE Total Release Aerosol 27381 1021 - 1686 0.03 Indoor food Indoor non - food Indoor residential Pressurized

liquid Fog

Fogger , aerosol can MGK 264 (0.4) Cy phenothrin (0.4)

### - 57 of 79 - **Product Nam e**  **EPA Reg.**

**No. %** 

**a.i. Use Group**  **Form ulation**  **Me thod of Application**  **& Application**  **Equipment Use**  **Restrictions Other Active Ingredient (% a.i.)**  Evercide Concentrate 2595 1021 - 1690 1.5 N/A N/A N/A (Technical chemical) Form ulation intermediate MGK 264 (11.97)

Esfenvalerate (2.5) Evercide Crawling Insect Killer 2548 1021 - 1691 0.03 Indoor residential Outdoor residential Pressurized

liquid Crack and crevice and/or spot

treatment Aerosol can MGK 264 (0.3) Esfenvalerate (0.05) Evercide Intermediate 1021 - 1692 1.2 N/A N/A N/A Technical chemical ( Formulation intermediate ) MGK 264 (12)

Esfenvalerate (2) MULTICIDE Intermediate 2747 1021 - 1709 6.67 N/A N/A N/A Technical chemical ( Formulation intermediate ) MGK 264 (33.4)

PBO (20) MULTICIDE Flying Insect Killer 27471 1021 - 1710 0.2 Indoor food Indoor medical Indoor non - food Terrestrial non - food Pressurized

liquid Crack and crevice treatment; indoor

general surface treatment; space spray; spray; void treatment Aerosol can MGK 264 (1) PBO (0.6) ETOC Fogging Concentrate 2764 1021 - 1718 2 Indoor food Indoor medical Indoor non - food Indoor residential Liquid Contact and/or surface treatment; crack and crevice and/or spot treatment; indoor general surface treatment; space and contact spray Sprayer, mechanical sprayer, aerosol generator, mechanical fogger , ultra low volume MULTICIDE Multi -purpose Spray 27373 1021 - 1765 0.03 Indoor non - food Indoor residential Pressurized

liquid Space spray; spot treatment

Aerosol can; mechanical generator MGK 264 (0.4) Cy phenothrin (0.25) MULTICIDE Wasp & Hornet Spray 27301 1021 - 1768 0.1 Indoor non - food Indoor residential Outdoor residential Terrestrial non - food Pressurized

liquid Spot treatment

Aerosol can MGK 264 (0.5) MULTICIDE Intermediate 2730 1021 - 1769 5 N/A N/A N/A Technical chemical ( Formulation intermediate ) MGK 264 (25)

### - 58 of 79 - **Product Nam e**  **EPA Reg.**

**No. %** 

**a.i. Use Group**  **Form ulation**  **Me thod of Application**  **& Application**  **Equipment Use**  **Restrictions Other Active Ingredient (% a.i.)**  Evercide O.B. RTU 28101 1021 - 1787 0.03 Indoor food Indoor medical Indoor non - food Outdoor residential Ready - to - use

solution Crack and crevice and/or spot

treatment; outdoor general surface spray; space and contact spray Trigger spray bottle Esfenvalerate (0.05)

Evercide Concentrate 2810 1021 - 1788 1.5 N/A N/A N/A Technical chemical ( Formulation intermediate ) Esfenvalerate (2.5) Evercide Concentrate 2801 1021 - 1789 5 N/A N/A N/A Technical chemical ( Formulation intermediate ) MGK 264 (23.93)

Permethrin (10) MULTICIDE Fogging Concentrate 2798 DUET Duel action Adulticide 1021 - 1795 1 Aquatic non - food Aquatic non - food industrial Outdoor residential Terrestrial non - food Em ulsifiable concentrate Ultra low volume Aircraft, truck- mo unted ultra low volume (nonthermal, cold fog), ultra low volume backpack (nonthermal) PBO (5) Phenothrin (5)

MULTICIDE Fogging Concentrate 2611 MUP 1021 - 1811 2 N/A N/A N/A Technical chemical ( Formulation intermediate ) MGK 264 (6.67)

PBO (4) MULTICIDE Fogging Concentrate 2651 1021 - 1812 2 Indoor food Indoor medical Indoor non - food Indoor residential Liquid Contact and/or surface treatment; crack and crevice and/or spot treatment; indoor general surface treatment; space and contact spray Sprayer , mechanical sprayer , aerosol generator, mechanical fogger, ultra low volume PBO (4) MGK 264 (6.67)

MULTICIDE Crawling Insect Killer 28651 1021 - 1855 0.011 Indoor residential Pressurized liquid Directed spray; indoor general surface

treatment Aerosol can Py rethrins (0.011) Cy permethrin (0.03) MGK - 2927 1021 - 1875 0.67 N/A N/A N/A Technical chemical MGK 264 (3)

PBO (2)

### - 59 of 79 - **Product Nam e**  **EPA Reg.**

**No. %** 

**a.i. Use Group**  **Form ulation**  **Me thod of Application**  **& Application**  **Equipment Use**  **Restrictions Other Active Ingredient (% a.i.)**  MGK 29461 1021 - 2559 0.011 Indoor residential Pressurized liquid Directed spray; surface treatment

Aerosol can Alkyl* dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride *(50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16) (0.008) 1 - Decanaminium, N - decyl -N,N dimethyl - , chloride (0.003) 1 - Octanaminium, N,N - dimethyl N - octyl - , chloride (0.003) 1 - Decanaminium, N,N - dimethyl N - octyl - , chloride (0.006) Py rethrins (0.011) C ypermethrin (0.03) MULTICIDE Fogging Concentrate 2922 1021 - 2562 1 Aquatic non - food Aquatic non - food industrial Outdoor residential Terrestrial non - food Em ulsifiable conc entrate Ultra low volume Fixed - wing aircraft, helicopter , truck mo unted ultra low volume (nonthermal, cold fog), ultra low volume portable backpack (nonthermal) Phenothrin (5) PBO (5)

MGK Formula 2964 1021 - 2574 1.6 Not specified in LUIS report Micro encapsulated Not specified in LUIS report Esvenvalerate (6.4) PBO (8) Speer Total Release Aerosol III with Nlar 2724 - 664 0.04 Indoor medical Indoor non - food Indoor residential Pressurized

liquid Aerosol, fog or fumigation application

Aerosol can Esfenvalerate (0.1) Py riproxyfen (0.6) Etofenprox IGR Home and Carpet Spray 1(2) 2724 - 701 0.3 Indoor residential Pressurized liquid Spray

Aerosol can MGK 264 (0.5) Ethofenprox (1) Py riproxyfen (0.02) Etofenprox IGR Home & Carpet Spray II 2724 - 702 0.3 Indoor residential Pressurized liquid Spray

Aerosol can Py riproxyfen (0.02) MGK 264 (0.3) Ethofenprox (0.5) Linalool Mousse 2724 - 776 0.1 Indoor residential Pressurized liquid Animal treatment

Product container MGK 264 (0.5) Linolool (1) Py riproxyfen (0.07) RF2104 Carpet Spray M 2724 - 809 0.3 Indoor non - food Indoor residential Pressurized

liquid Crack and crevice treatment; spray

Aerosol can MGK 264 (0.5) Ethofenprox (0.5) S - methoprene (0.045) RWH 33 4822 - 553 0.02 Terrestrial non - food Pressurized liquid Directed spray

Aerosol can Cy permethrin (0.05)

### - 60 of 79 - **Product Nam e**  **EPA Reg.**

**No. %** 

**a.i. Use Group**  **Form ulation**  **Me thod of Application**  **& Application**  **Equipment Use**  **Restrictions Other Active Ingredient (% a.i.)**  H6A - US 4822 - 569 0.1 Indoor non - food Indoor residential Outdoor residential Terrestrial non - food Soluble

concentrate Crack and crevice treatment; directed

spray; space and contact spray Aerosol can Phenothrin (0.125) KJM Y&D 4822 - 573 0.04 Outdoor residential Terrestrial non - food Pressurized

liquid Spray

Aerosol can Cyfluthrin (0.03) KJM 4822 - 574 0.04 Outdoor residential Terrestrial non - food Ready - to - use

solution Spray

Aerosol can Cyfluthrin (0.03) RWH 34 4822 - 581 0.02 Outdoor residential Terrestrial non - food Pressurized

liquid Spray

Aerosol can Cyfluthrin (0.05) Black Jack Roach & Ant Killer VI 8848 - 86 0.03 Indoor non - food Indoor residential Outdoor residential Terrestrial non - food Pressurized

liquid Crack and crevice and/or spot

treatment Aerosol can Esfenvalerate (0.05) MGK 264 (0.25) Chemisco Aerosol Insecticide EL - A 9688 - 187 0.025 Indoor residential Outdoor residential Pressurized

liquid Crack and crevice and/or spot

treatment; wood surface treatment Aerosol can Lambda - Cyhalothrin (0.01) Chemisco Wasp & Hornet Killer LE 9688 - 190 0.025 Outdoor residential Terrestrial non - food Pressurized

liquid Spray

Aerosol can Lambda - Cyhalothrin (0.01) Chemisco Aerosol Insecticide AKR 9688 - 253 0.025 Indoor residential Outdoor residential Pressurized

liquid Spot treatment; spray

Aerosol can Lambda - Cyhalothrin (0.03) Chemisco Aerosol Insecticide GE 9688 - 269 0.025 Indoor residential Outdoor residential Pressurized

liquid Crack and crevice and/or spot

treatment ; wood surface treatment Aerosol can gamma - Cyhalothrin (0.005) Chemisco Aerosol Insecticide FAF 9688 - 282 0.025 Outdoor residential Pressurized liquid Mound treatment

Aerosol can with injection tube Lambda - Cyhalothrin (0.01) Chemisco Aerosol LEG 9688 - 288 0.025 Indoor residential Pressurized liquid Crack and crevice and/or spot

treatment Aerosol can o - Phenylphenol (NO INERT USE) (0.1) Lambda - Cyhalothrin (0.01) ETOC Technical Grade 10308 - 12 93 N/A N/A N/A Technical chemical

### - 61 of 79 - **Product Nam e**  **EPA Reg.**

**No. %** 

**a.i. Use Group**  **Form ulation**  **Me thod of Application**  **& Application**  **Equipment Use**  **Restrictions Other Active Ingredient (% a.i.)**  Misty Flying Insect Killer 10807 - 429 0.2 Indoor food Indoor medical Indoor non - food Indoor residential Terrestrial non - food Pressurized

liquid Crack and crevice treatment; indoor

general surface treatment; space spray; spray; void treatment Aerosol can MGK 264 (1) PBO (0.6) Country Vet Fogger with IGR 10807 - 470 0.04 Indoor medical Indoor non - food Indoor residential Presuurized

liquid Aerosol, fog or fumigation

application. Aerosol can Py riproxyfen (0.6) Esfenvalerate (0.1) Rainbow ETOC 0.2% Wasp & Hornet Spray 13283 - 30 0.2 Indoor medical Indoor non - food Indoor residential Outdoor residential Terrestrial non - food Pressurized

liquid Spray

Aerosol can Rainbow ETOC(R) 0.122% Wasp & Hornet Spray 13283 - 31 0.122 Indoor non - food Indoor residential Outdoor residential Terrestrial non - food Pressurized

liquid Spray

Aerosol can Rainbow ETOC(R) 0.135% Wasp & Hornet Spray 13283 - 32 0.135 Indoor medical Indoor non - food Indoor residential Outdoor residential Terrestrial non - food Pressurized

liquid Spray

Aerosol can Rainbow ETOC(R) 0.15% Wasp & Hornet Spray 13283 - 33 0.15 Indoor medical Indoor non - food Indoor residential Outdoor residential Terrestrial non - food Pressurized

liquid Spray

Aerosol can Rainbow ETOC(R) 0.167% Wasp & Hornet Spray 13283 - 34 0.167 Indoor medical Indoor non - food Indoor residential Outdoor residential Terrestrial non - food Pressurized

liquid Spray

Aerosol can Rainbow ETOC(R) 0.186% Wasp & Hornet Spray 13283 - 35 0.186 Indoor medical Indoor non - food Indoor residential Outdoor residential Terrestrial non - food Pressurized

liquid Spray

Aerosol can

### - 62 of 79 - **Product Nam e**  **EPA Reg.**

**No. %** 

**a.i. Use Group**  **Form ulation**  **Me thod of Application**  **& Application**  **Equipment Use**  **Restrictions Other Active Ingredient (% a.i.)**  CS 101 Roach & Ant Spray 44446 - 65 0.03 Indoor non - food Indoor residential Outdoor residential Pressurized

liquid Crack and crevice and/or spot

treatment; o utdoor general surface spray Aerosol can MGK 264 0.25 Esfenvalerate (0.05) CTX/Cyber Blast 45382 - 93 0.03 Indoor non - food Indoor residential Outdoor residential Pressurized

liquid Crack and crevice and/or spot

treatment Aerosol can MGK 264 (0.25) Esfenvalerate (0.05) Bengal Roach & Flea Fogger 68543 - 9 0.1 Indoor food Indoor medical Indoor non - food Indoor residential Pressurized

liquid Aerosol application

Aerosol can Permethrin (3) Bengal Roach & Ant Spray IV 68543 - 17 0.03 Indoor residential Outdoor residential Pressurized

liquid Crack and crevice and/or spot

treatment; outdoor general surface spray Aerosol can MGK 264 (0.3) Esfenvalerate (0.05) Bengal Yard & Patio Spray 68543 - 25 0.05 Outdoor residential Terrestrial non - food Pressurized

gas Outdoor general surface spray; space

spray Aerosol can Permethrin (2) a.i. = active ingredient; LUIS = Label Use Information System; N/A = not applicable; NS = not specified ; PBO = piperonyl butoxide

### - 63 of 79 - **Appendix C Maximum Labeled Application Rates by Use Site and Formulation for Prallethrin**  **Use Site Food**  **/ Non**  **- food**  **Form ulation**  **Maximum Application Rate/Application**  **Max im**  **um Number of**  **Applications/ Year**  **Maximum**

**Application Rate/**  **Year Minim** **um**

**Retreatm ent**  **Interval Minim** **um**

**Reentry Interval**  Agricultural/farm premises N Pressurized liquid NDC NS Agricultural/farm structures/buildings and equipment F Liquid - ready to use 0.0856 lb a.i./A NS 30 d NS NDC NS Pressurized liquid NDC NS N Pressurized liquid NDC NS Animal feedlots N Em ulsifiable concentrate 0.0 014 lb a.i./A NS 0.2 lb a.i./A 24 hr , 7 d NS Ani mal housing premises (indoor) N Pressurized liquid NDC NS Animal housing premises (outdoor) N Pressurized liquid NDC NS Animal kennels/sleeping quarters (commercial) N Liquid 0.00000106 lb a.i./cu ft NS 4 d NS 0.2 lb a.i./A NS 4 d NS NDC NS Liquid - ready

to use 0.0856 lb a.i./A NS 30 d NS NDC NS Pressurized liquid 0.0 0000003 lb a.i./cu ft NS 0.0 001 lb a.i./can NS 0.0 013 lb a.i./A NS NDC NS 0, 90 d 2 hr Automobiles, taxis, limousines, recreational vehicles, & tires N Liquid 0.00000106 lb a.i./cu ft NS 4 d NS 0.2 lb a.i./A NS 4 d NS NDC NS Liquid - ready

to use 0.0856 lb a.i./A NS 30 d NS NDC NS Pressurized liquid NDC NS Barns/barnyards/auction barns F Em ulsifiable concentrate 0.0 0000001 lb a.i./cu ft NS Liquid - ready

to use 0.0 0000004 lb a.i./cu ft NS

0.0 15 lb a.i./A NS Pressurized liquid 0.0 0000003 lb a.i./cu ft NS NDC NS N Pressurized gas 0.0 0000001 lb a.i./cu ft NS NDC NS Pressurized liquid NDC NS Bathroom premises/hard surfaces N Liquid - ready to use 0.0856 lb a.i./A NS 30 d NS NDC NS

### - 64 of 79 -

**Use Site Food**  **/ Non**  **- food**  **Form ulation**  **Maximum Application Rate/Application**  **Max im**  **um Number of**  **Applications/ Year**  **Maximum**

**Application Rate/**  **Year Minim** **um**

**Retreatm ent**  **Interval Minim** **um**

**Reentry Interval**  Pressurized liquid NDC NS Beverage processing plant premises (nonfood contact) N Liquid 0.00000106 lb a.i./cu ft NS 4 d NS 0.2 lb a.i./A NS 4 d NS NDC NS Commercial shipping containers feed/food - empty F Liquid 0.00000106 lb a.i./cu ft NS 4 d NS 0.2 lb a.i./A NS 4 d NS NDC NS

Commercial storages/warehouses premises F Liquid - ready to use 0.0856 lb a.i./A NS 30 d NS NDC NS

N Liquid 0.00000106 lb a.i./cu ft NS 4 d NS 0.2 lb a.i./A NS 4 d NS NDC NS Liquid - ready

to use 0.0856 lb a.i./A NS 30 d NS NDC NS Pressurized liquid 0.0 0000003 lb a.i./cu ft NS 0.0 001 lb a.i./can NS NDC NS 0, 90 d 2 hr Commercial transportation facilities feed/food - empty F Liquid - ready to use 0.0856 lb a.i./A NS 30 d NS NDC NS Commercial transportation facilities nonfeed/nonfood N Liquid 0.00000106 lb a.i./cu ft NS 4 d NS 0.2 lb a.i./A NS 4 d NS NDC NS Liquid - ready

to use 0.0856 lb a.i./A NS 30 d NS NDC NS Pressurized liquid 0.00000003 lb a.i./cu ft NS NS 2 hr NDC NS 0, 90 d 2 hr

Commercial/institutional/industrial premises/equipment (indoor) F Liquid - ready to use 0.0856 lb a.i./A NS 30 d NS NDC NS Pressurized liquid NDC NS 10 d NS

N Liquid 0.00000106 lb a.i./cu ft NS 4 d NS 0.2 lb a.i./A NS 4 d NS NDC NS Liquid - ready

to use 0.0856 lb a.i./A NS 30 d NS NDC NS Pressurized liquid 0.00000003 lb a.i./cu ft NS 2 hr 0.0 001 lb a.i./can NS 0.0 013 lb a.i./A NS

### - 65 of 79 -

**Use Site Food**  **/ Non**  **- food**  **Form ulation**  **Maximum Application Rate/Application**  **Max im**  **um Number of**  **Applications/ Year**  **Maximum**

**Application Rate/**  **Year Minim** **um**

**Retreatm ent**  **Interval Minim** **um**

**Reentry Interval**  NDC NS 0, 10, 90 d 2 hr Commercial/institutional/industrial premises/equipment (outdoor) N Pressurized liquid NDC NS Com post/compost piles N Pressurized liquid NDC NS Dairies/cheese processing plant premises (nonfood contact) N Pressurized liquid NDC NS Dairy farm milk handling facilities/equipment F Pressurized liquid NDC NS Dairy farm milk storage room s/houses/sheds N Pressurized liquid NDC NS Dairy farm milking stalls/parlors N Pressurized liquid NDC NS Dogs/canines (adults/puppies) N Pressurized liquid NDC NS 30 d NS Eating establishments F Liquid 0.00000106 lb a.i./cu ft NS 4 d NS 0.2 lb a.i./A NS 4 d NS NDC NS Liquid - ready

to use 0.0856 lb a.i./A NS 30 d NS NDC NS Pressurized liquid NDC NS 21 d NS N Pressurized liquid 0.00000003 lb a.i./cu ft NS NS 2 hr 0.0 001 lb a.i./can NS NDC NS NS 2 hr Eating establishments food handling areas (nonfood contact) N Pressurized liquid NDC NS 10 d NS NDC NS 10 d NS 0.00000003 lb a.i./cu ft NS NS 2 hr 0.0 001 lb a.i./can NS NDC NS 0, 90 d 2 hr Egg handling rooms (commercial) F Pressurized liquid NDC NS 10 d NS N Liquid 0.00000106 lb a.i./cu ft NS 4 d NS 0.2 lb a.i./A NS 4 d NS NDC NS Pressurized liquid NDC NS 10 d NS Egg packing plants (commercial) F Pressurized liquid NDC NS 10 d NS N Liquid 0.00000106 lb a.i./cu ft NS 4 d NS 0.2 lb a.i./A NS 4 d NS NDC NS Pressurized liquid NDC NS 10 d NS Feed mills/feed processing plants F Liquid 0.00000106 lb a.i./cu ft NS 4 d NS 0.2 lb a.i./A NS 4 d NS

### - 66 of 79 -

**Use Site Food**  **/ Non**  **- food**  **Form ulation**  **Maximum Application Rate/Application**  **Max im**  **um Number of**  **Applications/ Year**  **Maximum**

**Application Rate/**  **Year Minim** **um**

**Retreatm ent**  **Interval Minim** **um**

**Reentry Interval**  NDC NS Pressurized liquid NDC NS 10 d NS N Pressurized liquid NDC NS 10 d NS Fencerows/hedgerows N Pressurized liquid NDC NS Food processing plant non - food handling areas N Pressurized liquid 0.00000003 lb a.i./cu ft NS NS NS 2 hr 0.0 001 lb a.i./can NS NDC NS Food processing plant premises (nonfood contact) F Liquid - ready to use 0.0856 lb a.i./A NS 30 d NS NDC NS Pressurized liquid NDC NS 0, 10, 90 d 2 hr N Liquid - ready

to use 0.0856 lb a.i./A NS 30 d NS NDC NS Pressurized liquid 0.00000003 lb a.i./cu ft NS NS 2 hr 0.0 001 lb a.i./can NS NDC NS 10, 21 d 2 hr Food stores/markets/supermarkets premises F Liquid - ready to use 0.0856 lb a.i./A NS 30 d NS NDC NS Pressurized liquid NDC NS 0, 10, 90 d 2 hr

N Liquid 0.00000106 lb a.i./cu ft NS 4 d NS 0.2 lb a.i./A NS 4 d NS NDC NS Liquid - ready

to use 0.0856 lb a.i./A NS 30 d NS NDC NS Pressurized liquid 0.00000003 lb a.i./cu ft NS 2 hr NDC NS 10, 21 d 2 hr Food/grocery/marketing/storage/distri bution facility premise N Liquid 0.00000106 lb a.i./cu ft NS 4 d NS 0.2 lb a.i./A NS 4 d NS NDC NS Pressurized liquid NDC NS Forest trees (all or unspecified) N Pressurized liquid NDC NS Golf course turf N Em ulsifiable concentrate 0.0 014 lb a.i./A NS 0.2 lb a.i./A 24 hr , 7 d NS Grain/cereal/flour (bagged/temporary storage) F Liquid 0.00000002 lb a.i./cu ft NS 4 d NS Grain/cereal/flour bins - empty F Pressurized liquid NDC NS N Pressurized liquid NDC NS

### - 67 of 79 -

**Use Site Food**  **/ Non**  **- food**  **Form ulation**  **Maximum Application Rate/Application**  **Max im**  **um Number of**  **Applications/ Year**  **Maximum**

**Application Rate/**  **Year Minim** **um**

**Retreatm ent**  **Interval Minim** **um**

**Reentry Interval**  Grain/cereal/flour elevators - em pty F Liquid 0.00000106 lb a.i./cu ft NS 4 d NS

Liquid 0.2 lb a.i./A NS 4 d NS Liquid NDC NS Pressurized liquid NDC NS N Pressurized liquid NDC NS Grain/cereal/flour storage areas - empty F Pressurized liquid NDC NS Horses (show/race/special/ponies) N Em ulsifiable concentrate 0.0 012 lb a.i./Animal 1/yr NS 3 d NS NDC 1/yr NS Liquid - ready

to use 0.0001 lb a.i./Animal 1/yr NS NDC 1/yr NS Hospitals/medical institutions premises (human/veterinary) N Liquid 0.00000106 lb a.i./cu ft NS 4 d NS 0.2 lb a.i./A NS 4 d NS NDC NS Liquid - ready

to use 0.0856 lb a.i./A NS 30 d NS NDC NS Pressurized liquid 0.00000003 lb a.i./cu ft NS NS 2 hr 0.0 013 lb a.i./A NS NDC NS 0 d, 90 d 2 hr Household trash compactor/food disposals N Liquid 0.0 0000007 lb a.i./cu ft NS 0.2 lb a.i./A NS 4 d NS NDC NS Household/domestic dwellings N Pressurized liquid 0.0 0000003 lb a.i./cu ft NS NDC NS 12 mon NS NDC NS 90 d 2 hr Household/domestic dwellings contents N Pressurized liquid 0.0 013 lb a.i./A NS NDC 6/yr NS 12 mon , 14 d NS NDC NS 0 d NS Household/domestic dwellings indoor food handling areas F Pressurized liquid NDC NS 10 d NS Household/domestic dwellings indoor nonfood handling areas N Pressurized liquid 0.0 0000003 lb a.i./cu ft NS NDC NS Household/domestic dw ellings indoor premises N Liquid 0.0 0000007 lb a.i./cu ft NS 0.2 lb a.i./A NS 4 d NS NDC NS Liquid - ready

to use 0.0856 lb a.i./A NS 30 d NS NDC NS Pressurized liquid 0.00000003 lb a.i./cu ft NS 2 hr

### - 68 of 79 -

**Use Site Food**  **/ Non**  **- food**  **Form ulation**  **Maximum Application Rate/Application**  **Max im**  **um Number of**  **Applications/ Year**  **Maximum**

**Application Rate/**  **Year Minim** **um**

**Retreatm ent**  **Interval Minim** **um**

**Reentry Interval**  0.0 001 lb a.i./can NS 0.0 013 lb a.i./A NS NDC 6/yr NS 12 mon , 14 d NS NDC NS 0, 90 d 2 hr Household/domestic dwellings outdoor premises N Em ulsifiable concentrate 0.0 014 lb a.i./A NS 0.2 lb a.i./A 24 hr , 7 d NS Liquid - ready

to use NDC NS 14 d NS Pressurized gas 0.0 0000001 lb a.i./cu ft NS NDC NS Pressurized liquid 0.0002 lb a.i./can NS 21 d NS 0.0 34 lb a.i./A NS NDC NS 0 d NS NDC NS NS 6 mon NS Intermittently flooded areas/water N Em ulsifiable concentrate 0.0 014 lb a.i./A NS 0.2 lb a.i./A 24 hr NS Meat processing plant premises (nonfood contact) F Pressurized liquid NDC NS N Liquid 0.00000106 lb a.i./cu ft NS 4 d NS 0.2 lb a.i./A NS 4 d NS NDC NS Pressurized liquid NDC NS 21 d NS Morgues/mortuaries/autopsy/embalmi ng room premises N Liquid 0.00000106 lb a.i./cu ft NS 4 d NS 0.2 lb a.i./A NS 4 d NS NDC NS Liquid - ready

to use 0.0856 lb a.i./A NS 30 d NS NDC NS Pressurized liquid NDC NS Mushroom houses - empty premises/equipment N Liquid 0.00000106 lb a.i./cu ft NS 4 d NS 0.2 lb a.i./A NS 4 d NS NDC NS Nonagricultural outdoor buildings/structures N Pressurized liquid NDC NS Nonagricultural rights - ofway/fencerows/hedgerows N Pressurized liquid NDC NS Nonagricultural uncultivated areas/soils N Pressurized liquid NDC NS Nonfeed/nonfood containers - em pty N Pressurized liquid NDC NS Ornamental and/or shade trees N Pressurized liquid NDC NS Paths/patios N Pressurized gas 0.0 0000001 lb a.i./cu ft NS

### - 69 of 79 -

**Use Site Food**  **/ Non**  **- food**  **Form ulation**  **Maximum Application Rate/Application**  **Max im**  **um Number of**  **Applications/ Year**  **Maximum**

**Application Rate/**  **Year Minim** **um**

**Retreatm ent**  **Interval Minim** **um**

**Reentry Interval**  NDC NS Pressurized liquid 0.0001 lb a.i./can NS 21 d NS 0.0 34 lb a.i./A NS NDC NS 0 d NS NDC NS 6 mon NS Pet living/sleeping quarters N Liquid - ready to use 0.0856 lb a.i./A NS 30 d NS NDC NS Pressurized liquid 0.00000003 lb a.i./cu ft NS NS 2 hr 0.0 001 lb a.i./can NS NDC 6/yr NS 14 d NS NDC NS 0, 90 d 2 hr Poultry processing plant premises (nonfood contact) N Liquid 0.00000106 lb a.i./cu ft NS 4 d NS 0.2 lb a.i./A NS 4 d NS NDC NS Processing/handling equipment F Liquid 0.00000106 lb a.i./cu ft NS 4 d NS 0.2 lb a.i./A NS 4 d NS NDC NS Recreational areas N Em ulsifiable concentrate 0.0 014 lb a.i./A NS 0.2 lb a.i./A 24 hr , 7 d NS Pressurized liquid 0.0 34 lb a.i./A NS NDC NS 0, 90 d 2 hr

Refuse/solid waste containers (garbage cans) N Liquid 0.0 0000007 lb a.i./cu ft NS 0. 2 lb a.i./A NS 4 d NS NDC NS Liquid - ready

to use 0.0856 lb a.i./A NS 30 d NS NDC NS Pressurized gas 0.0 0000001 lb a.i./cu ft NS NDC NS Pressurized liquid 0.0 001 lb a.i./can NS NDC NS 0 d NS NDC NS 12 mon NS Refuse/solid waste sites (indoor) N Liquid 0.0 0000007 lb a.i./cu ft NS 0.2 lb a.i./A NS 4 d NS NDC NS Pressurized liquid NDC NS Seed houses/stores/storage areas/warehouses N Pressurized liquid NDC NS Sewage catch basins N Em ulsifiable concentrate 0.0 007 lb a.i./A NS .094lb / a 7 d NS

### - 70 of 79 -

**Use Site Food**  **/ Non**  **- food**  **Form ulation**  **Maximum Application Rate/Application**  **Max im**  **um Number of**  **Applications/ Year**  **Maximum**

**Application Rate/**  **Year Minim** **um**

**Retreatm ent**  **Interval Minim** **um**

**Reentry Interval**  Sewage disposal areas N Pressurized liquid NDC NS Sewage systems N Em ulsifiable concentrate 0.0 014 lb a.i./A NS 0.2 lb a.i./A 24 hr NS Ships and boats N Liquid 0.00000106 lb a.i./cu ft NS 4 d NS 0.2 lb a.i./A NS 4 d NS NDC NS Pressurized liquid 0.00000003 lb a.i./cu ft NS NS 2 hr NDC NS 90 d 2 hr Specialized animals N Liquid - ready to use 0.0856 lb a.i./A NS 30 d NS NDC NS Storage areas - empty F Liquid 0.00000106 lb a.i./cu ft NS 4 d NS 0.2 lb a.i./A NS 4 d NS NDC NS Pressurized liquid NDC NS Storage areas - full F Pressurized liquid NDC NS Swamps/marshes/wetlands/stagnant water N Em ulsifiable concentrate 0.0 014 lb a.i./A NS 0.2 lb a.i./A 24 hr , 7 d NS Swine feedlots N Em ulsifiable concentrate 0.0 014 lb a.i./A NS 0.2 lb a.i./A 24 hr , 7 d NS Urban areas N Em ulsifiable concentrate 0.0 014 lb a.i./A NS 0.2 lb a.i./A 24 hr , 7 d NS Uti lities N Liquid 0.00000106 lb a.i./cu ft NS 4 d NS 0.2 lb a.i./A NS 4 d NS NDC NS Pressurized liquid NDC NS Utility poles / right - of

- way N Pressurized liquid NDC NS Wide area/general outdoor treatment (public health use) N Em ulsifiable concentrate 0.0 014 lb a.i./A NS 0.2 lb a.i./A 24 hr NS Pressurized liquid 0.0002 lb a.i./can NS 21 d NS Wood protection treatment to buildings/products indoor N Pressurized liquid NDC NS 0 d NS NDC NS Wood protection treatment to buildings/products outdoor N Pressurized liquid NDC NS 0 d NS NDC NS Zoos N Em ulsifiable concentrate 0.0 014 lb a.i./A NS 0.2 lb a.i./A 24 hr , 7 d NS Pressuriz ed liquid 0.00000003 lb a.i./cu ft NS NS 2 hr NDC NS 90 d 2 hr a.i. = active ingredient; NDC = no dosage conversion; NS = not specified;

### - 71 of 79 - **Appendix D**  **EPI Summary (v4.10) for PGLS, a Prallethrin Degradate** CAS Number: (null) SMILES : O=C1C(CC#C)=C(C)C(O)C1 CHEM : PGLS MOL FOR: C9 H10 O2 MOL WT : 150.18

------------------------------ EPI SUMMARY (v4.10) -------------------------- Phy sical Property Inputs: Log Kow (octanol - water): ------ Boiling Point (deg C) : ------ Melting Point (deg C) : ------ Vapor Pressure (mm Hg) : ------ Water Solubility (mg/L): ------ Henry LC (atm - m3/mole) : ------ Log Octanol - Water Partition Coef (SRC): Log Kow (KOWWIN v1.68 estimate) = 0.48 Boiling Pt, Melting Pt, Vapor Pressure Estimations (MPBPVP v1.43): Boiling Pt (deg C): 275.57 (Adapted Stein & Brow n method) Melting Pt (deg C): 68.12 (Mean or Weighted MP) VP(mm Hg,25 deg C): 0.000251 (Modified Grain method) VP (Pa, 25 deg C) : 0.0335 (Modified Grain method) Subcooled liquid VP: 0.000638 mm Hg (25 deg C, Mod - Grain method)

: 0.0851 Pa (25 deg C, Mod - Grain method) Water Solubility Estimate from Log Kow (WSKOW v1.42): Water Solubility at 25 d eg C (mg/L): 9.625e+004 log Kow used: 0.48 (estimated) no - melting pt equation used Water Sol Estimate from Fragments: Wat Sol (v1.01 est) = 13326 mg/L ECOSAR Class Program (ECOSAR v1.00): Class(es) found: Vinyl/Allyl Ketones Vinyl/Allyl Alcohols a - ,b - Ketone alcohol Henrys Law Constant (25 deg C) [HENRYWIN v3.20]: Bond Method : 3.54E - 010 atm - m3 /mole (3.58E - 005 Pa - m3 /mole) Group Method: Incomplete For Henry LC Comparison Purposes: User - Entered Henry LC: not entered Henrys LC [via VP/WSol estimate using User - Entered or Estimated values]: HLC: 5.153E - 010 atm- m3/mole (5.221E - 005 Pa - m3 /mole) VP: 0.000251 mm Hg (source: MPBPVP) WS: 9.63E+004 mg/L (source: WSKOWWIN) Log Octanol - Air Partition Coefficient (25 deg C) [KOAWIN v1.10]: Log Kow used: 0.48 (KowWin est)

### - 72 of 79 -

Log Kaw used: - 7.839 (HenryWin est) Log Koa (KOAWIN v1.10 estimate): 8.319 Log Koa (experimental database): None Probability of Rapid Biodegradation (BIOWIN v4.10): Biowin1 (Linear Model) : 0.8416 Biowin2 (Non - Linear Model) : 0.8236 Expert Survey Biodegradation Results: Biowin3 (Ultimate Survey Model): 3.0048 (we eks ) Biowin4 (Primary Survey Model) : 3.7383 (days - weeks ) MITI Biodegradation Probability: Biowin5 (MITI Linear Model) : 0.6262 Biowin6 (MITI Non - Linear Model): 0.6419 Anaerobic Biodegradation Probability: Biowin7 (Anaerobi c Linear Model): 0.4428 Ready Biodegradability Prediction: YES Hydrocarbon Biodegradation (BioHCwin v1.01): Structure incompatible with current estimation method! Sorption to aerosols (25 Dec C)[AEROWIN v1.00]: Vapor pressure (liquid/subcooled): 0.0851 Pa (0.000638 mm Hg) Log Koa (Koawin est ): 8.319 Kp (particle/gas partition coef. (m3/ug)): Mackay model : 3.53E - 005 Octanol/air (Koa) model: 5.12E - 005 Fraction sorbed to airborne particulates (phi): Junge - Pankow

model : 0.00127 Mackay model : 0.00281 Octanol/air (Koa) model: 0.00408 Atmospheric Oxidation (25 deg C) [AopWin v1.92]: Hydroxyl Radicals Reacti on: OVERALL OH Rate Constant = 124.7093 E - 12 cm3/molecule - sec Half - Life = 0.086 Days (12 - hr day; 1.5E6 OH/cm3) Half - Life = 1.029 Hrs Ozone Reaction: OVERALL Ozone Rate Constant = 48.062370 E - 17 cm3/molecule - sec H alf - Life = 0.024 Days (at 7E11 mol/cm3) Half - Life = 34.335 Min Fraction sorbed to airborne particulates (phi): 0.00204 (Junge - Pankow, Mackay avg) 0.00408 (Koa method) Note: the sorbed fraction may be resistant to atmospheri c oxidation Soil Adsorption Coefficient (KOCWIN v2.00): Koc : 10 L/kg (MCI method) Log Koc: 1.000 (MCI method) Koc : 9.435 L/kg (Kow method) Log Koc: 0.975 (Kow method) Aqueous Base/Acid - Catalyzed Hydrolysis (25 deg C) [HYDROWIN v2.00]: Rate constants can NOT be estimated for this structure! Bioaccumulation Estimates (BCFBAF v3.01): Log BCF from regression -based method = 0.500 (BCF = 3.162 L/kg wet - wt)

### - 73 of 79 -

Log B iotransformation Half - life (HL) = - 1.6396 days (HL = 0.02293 days) Log BCF Arnot - Gobas method (upper trophic) = 0.019 (BCF = 1.044) Log BAF Arnot - Gobas method (upper trophic) = 0.019 (BAF = 1.044) log Kow used: 0.48 (estimated) Volatilizati on from Water: Henry LC: 3.54E - 010 atm - m3 /mole (estimated by Bond SAR Method) Half - Life from Model River: 2.027E+006 hours (8.445E+004 days) Half - Life from Model Lake : 2.211E+007 hours (9.213E+005 days) Removal In Wastewater Treatme nt: Total removal: 1.86 percent Total biodegradation: 0.09 percent Total sludge adsorption: 1.77 percent Total to Air: 0.00 percent (using 10000 hr Bio P,A,S) Level III Fugacity Model: Mass Amount Half

- Life Emissions (percent) (hr) (kg/hr) Air 0.00665 0.448 1000 Water 31.6 360 1000 Soil 68.3 720 1000 Sediment 0.0711 3.24e+003 0 **Persistence Time: 593 hr**

### - 74 of 79 - **A ppendix**  **E SIP v.1.0 Description, Assumptions, Inputs and Outputs**  SIP v.1.0 provides an upper bound estimate of exp osure of birds and mammals to pesticides through drinking water alone. This model is intended for use in problem formulation to determine whether or not drinking water exposure alone is a potential pathway of concern. This does not aggregate drinking water exposure with other exposure routes (i.e., diet, inhalation, dermal). Assumptions: SIP employs the following conservative assumptions to derive upper bound exposure estimates: 1) The chemical concentration in drinking water is at the solubility limit in water (at 25 o C). 2) The assessed animals obtain 100% of their daily water needs through drinking water. 3) The daily water need is equivalent to the daily water flux rate as calculated by Nagy and Peterson (1988). 4) The body weight of the assessed bird is equivalent to the smallest generic bird modeled in T REX (i.e., 20 g). This assumption results in the highest ratio of exposure to toxicity for the 3 assessed avian body weights of T - REX (i.e., 20, 100, 1000 g). 5) The body weight of the assessed mammal is e quivalent to the largest generic mammal modeled in T - REX (i.e., 1000 g). This results in the highest ratio of exposure to toxicity for the 3 assessed mammalian body weights of T - REX (i.e., 15, 35, 1000 g). **Table 1. Inputs Parameter**  **Value** Chemical nam e prallethrin Solubility (in water at 25 o C; mg/L) 8.03 Mammalian LD 50 (mg/kg - bw) 460 Mammalian test species laboratory rat Bod y weight (g) of "other" mammalian species Mammalian NOAEL (mg/kg - bw) 600 Mammalian test species laboratory rat Bod y weight (g) of "other" mammalian species Avian LD 50 (mg/kg - bw) 1171 Avian test species northern bobwhite quail Bod y weight (g) of "other" avian species Mineau scaling factor 1.15 Mallard NOEC (mg/kg - diet) 360 Bobwhite quail NOEC (mg/kg - diet) 360 NOEC (mg/kg - diet) for other bird species Bod y weight (g) of other avian species NOEC (mg/kg - diet) for 2nd other bird species Bod y weight (g) of 2nd other avian species

### - 75 of 79 -

**Table 2. Ma**  **mmalian Results Parameter**  **Acute Chronic**  Upper bound exposure (mg/kg - bw) 1.3812 1.3812 Adjusted toxicity value (mg/kg - bw) 353.8139 461.4963 Ratio of exposure to toxicity 0.0039 0.0030 Conclusion* **Drinking water exposure alone is NOT a potential**  **concern for mammals Drinking water exposure**  **alone is NOT a potential concern for mammals**  **Table 3. A**

**vian Results Parameter**  **Acute Chronic**  Upper bound exposure (mg/kg - bw) 6.5043 6.5043 Adjusted toxicity value (mg/kg - bw) 843.6230 17.8605 Ratio of exposure to acute toxicity 0.0077 0.3642 Conclusion* **Drinking water exposure alone is NOT a potential**  **concern for birds Drinking water exposure**  **alone is NOT a potential concern for birds**  *Conclusion is for drinking water exposure alone. This does not combine all routes of exposure. Therefore, when aggregated with other routes ( i.e ., diet, inhalation, dermal), pesticide exposure through drinking water may contribute to a total exposure that has potential for effects to non - target animals.

### - 76 of 79 - **A ppendix**  **F STIR v.1.0 Outputs** 

### - 77 of 79 -

U se: outdoor at 0.034 lb a.i./A Spray typ e: ground 

# Input **Ap plication and Chemical Information**  Enter Chemical Name prallethrin Enter Chemical Use insecticide Is the Application a Spray? (enter y or n) y If Spray W hat T yp e (enter ground or air) ground Enter Chemical Molecular W eight (g/m ole) 300.4 Enter Chemical Vapor Pressure (mmHg) 1.00E - 07 Enter Application Rate (lb a.i./acre) 0.034 **Toxicity Properties Bird**  Enter Lowest Bird Oral LD 50 (m g/kg bw) 1171 Enter Mineau Scaling Factor 1.15 Enter Tested Bird We ight (kg) 0.178 **Mammal** Enter Lowest Rat Oral LD 50 (m g/kg bw) 460 Enter Lowest Rat Inhalation LC 50 (mg/L) 0.288 Duration of Rat Inhalation Study (hrs) 4 Enter Rat W eight (kg) 0.35 

# Output **Results A**

**vian (0.020 kg )** Maximum Vapor Concentration in Air at Saturation (m g/m 3 ) 1.62E - 03 Maximum 1 - hour Vapor Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 2.03E - 04 Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 4.09E+00 Ratio of Vapor Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 4.97E - 05 **Exposure not Likely Significant** Maximum Post - treatment Spray Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 3.59E - 03 Ratio of Droplet Inhalation Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 8.79E - 04 **Exposure not Likely Significant**  

### Results Mammalian (0.015 kg ) Maximum Vapor Concentration in Air at Saturation (m g/m 3 ) 1.62E - 03 Maximum 1 - hour Vapor Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 2.55E - 04 Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 1.71E+01 Ratio of Vapor Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 1.49E - 05 **Exposure not Likely Significant** Maximum Post - treatment Spray Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 4.52E - 03 Ratio of Droplet Inhalation Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 2.63E - 04 **Exposure not Likely Significant**

### - 78 of 79 -

Use: outdoor at 0.034 lb a.i./A Spray typ e: aerial 

# Input **Ap plication and Chemical Information**  Enter Chemical Name prallethrin Enter Chemical Use insecticide Is the Application a Spray? (enter y or n) y If Spray W hat T yp e (enter ground or air) air Enter Chemical Molecular W eight (g/m ole) 300.4 Enter Chemical Vapor Pressure (mmHg) 1.00E - 07 Enter Application Rate (lb a.i./acre) 0.034 **Toxicity Properties Bird**  Enter Lowest Bird Oral LD 50 (m g/kg bw) 1171 Enter Mineau Scaling Factor 1.15 Enter Tested Bird We ight (kg) 0.178 **Mammal** Enter Lowest Rat Oral LD 50 (m g/kg bw) 460 Enter Lowest Rat Inhalation LC 50 (mg/L) 0.288 Duration of Rat Inhalation Study (hrs) 4 Enter Rat W eight (kg) 0.35 

# Output **Results A**

**vian (0.020 kg )** Maximum Vapor Concentration in Air at Saturation (m g/m 3 ) 1.62E - 03 Maximum 1 - hour Vapor Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 2.03E - 04 Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 4.09E+00 Ratio of Vapor Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 4.97E - 05 **Exposure not Likely Significant** Maximum Post - treatment Spray Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 3.27E - 03 Ratio of Droplet Inhalation Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 7.99E - 04 **Exposure not Likely Significant** 

### Results Mammalian (0.015 kg ) Maximum Vapor Concentration in Air at Saturation (m g/m 3 ) 1.62E - 03 Maximum 1 - hour Vapor Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 2.55E - 04 Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 1.71E+01 Ratio of Vapor Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 1.49E - 05 **Exposure not Likely Significant** Maximum Post - treatment Spray Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 4.11E - 03 Ratio of Droplet Inhalation Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 2.39E - 04 **Exposure not Likely Significant**

### - 79 of 79 - **Appendix G**  **Prallethrin Metabolic Pathway**