Ja

~~ ED STqT

~

S UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

### WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

## i

~l '~~ PRO~ EGt



### November 3, 2006

Joe Zachmann, Chair SFIREG WQ/PD Working Committee Pesticide Management Plan Coordinator Minnesota Department of Agriculture 625 Robert Street North St. Paul, MN 55155-2538

Dave Fredrickson, Chair SFIREG Director of Investigations & Compliance Bureau of Agrichemical Management Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection P.O. Box 8911 Madison, WI 53708-8911

Dear Mr. Zachmann and Mr. Fredrickson:
Thank you for your letter dated September 1, 2006, from the State FIFRA [ssues Research and Evaluation Group ("SFIREG"), a committee of the American Association of Pesticide Control Officials. We hope you find our response to your letter helpful in advancing our common goal.
In your letter, SFIREG indicates that in the absence of 304(a) ambient water quality criteria, and until such time additional criteria can be developed, FIFRA state lead agencies (SLAs) and state water quality agencies are in need of "benchmark" values for pesticides for 

## monitoring activities and for placing observed pesticide concentrations in a preliminary risk context. SFIREG requests that the U.S. EPA, Office of Water and the Office of Pesticide Programs forward a comprehensive list of all pesticide benchmarks associated with the research and publication of Circular 1291 by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), a report entitled; "Pesticides in the Nation 's Streams and Ground Water, 1992-2001 ", including those for whichthe USGS did not report exceedances. In addition, you request that EPA send to you the HealthBased Screening Levels (HBSLs) that have, or are being, developed for pesticides, and you request that EPA proffer the HBSLs and the pesticide benchmarks used by USGS to the FIFRA State Lead Agencies (SLAs) for appropriate use in determining potential impacts of pesticides on water quality.

Recycled/Recyclable

~ Pdnted on paper thal contains

al least 75% resyded Ober2



### With regard to your request that we send you a comprehensive list of all the pesticide aquatic life benchmarks used by USGS, these values are provided as an Attachment to this letter. EPA worked with USGS to identify aquatic ecotoxicity benchmark values from risk assessments developed by EPA for individual pesticides during the recently completed re-registration program. The methodology used by EPA for pesticide risk assessments is outlined in detail in "Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of Pesticide Programs, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency" (http://www.epa.gov/oppfeadl/endanger/consultation/ecorisk-overview.pdf) . This publication and the ecological risk assessments for specific pesticides provide a useful context for these ecotoxicity benchmarks and the uncertainties associated with specific pesticide benchmarks. In addition, the Office of Water's aquatic life criteria that were also used by USGS are available at http://www.epa .,t!ov/waterscience/criteria/. As suggested in your letter, a State could use a FIFRA benchmark value to help in monitoring activities and for evaluating potential risks of pesticides in the aquatic environment, if an aquatic life criterion is not available
With regard to HBSLs, let us clarify their status. While you are correct that EPA staff did participate in the development of a methodology for calculation of these values (Developnient of Health-Based Scr-eening Levels for Use in State- or Local-Scale Water Quality Assessnzents, 

### USGS Water Resources Investigation Report 03-4054, 2003), EPA has not used this methodology to develop HBSLs for pesticides. Further, USGS Circular 1291 does not contain HBSLs, but instead used EPA derived drinking-water standards and guidelines as human health benchmarks (i.e., the Agency's MCLs, lifetime Health Advisories, and 10 -6 cancer risk concentration) for comparison with monitoring data. Further, the John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment has only used HBSLs in a very restricted manner — applying them to the data in the USGS Circular 1292 (Volatile Or-ganic Compounds in the Nation 's Ground Water and Drinking Water Supply Wells). Finally, the HBSL values developed by USGS can be accessed at the USGS web site http://water.usgs

. ~ 

### ),ov/nawqa/HBSLs. We hope this clarifies any confusion regarding pesticide HBSLs.
We appreciate the SFIREG's interest and collaboration with EPA's Offices of Water and Pesticide Programs. We look forward to a continued partnership in providing tools for SLAs to evaluate and manage the impacts of pesticides on water quality.



## Sincerely,

~ ~ 

### •- Ephraim S. King, Director Office of Science and Technology Office of Water

Attachment 

# L ) Aa~ t~~ Jam J. Jones, Dirtor Office of Pesticide togr s Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances

2

### Attachment

The Aquatic Benchmarks provided in the table below are based on toxicity values derived from data available to EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) supporting registration of the pesticide. These toxicity values have been adjusted by Levels-of-Concern established by OPP for different taxa (as identified in footnotes to the table). The methodology used by OPP for risk assessments is outlined in detail in "Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of Pesticide Programs, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency" (http://www.epa.gov/oppfeadl/endanger/consultation/ecorisk-overview.pdf) . Readers are encouraged to explore more detailed information on specific studies from which these benchmarks were derived, available from the references cited.
A uatic life Benchmarks ( /L) Pesticide Derived from USEPA Reregistration Eligibility Decisions and ecological risk assessments (Office of Pesticide Programs) compound Acute Acute Chronic (synonym) Acute i Chronic

~ Acute

, Chronic 4 nonvascular vascular aquatic USEPA/OPP references fish fish - inve 

### rt ebrates inve 

### rt ebrates lants 5 plants 6 communit ' Amides Alachlor 900 187 1,600 110 1.64 — — USEPA (1998a) Metolachlor 1,950 780 12,550 — — — — USEPA (1995a) Napropamide 3,200 — 7,150 — 3,400 — — USEPA (2005a) Pronamide 36,000 — g 2800 — 760 — — USEPA (1994a) (Propyzamide) Propachlor 85 — 395 — 13.5 — — USEPA (1998b) Pro anil 1 1,150 9.1 600 86.0 16 110 — USEPA 2003a) Carbamates Aldicarb 26 0.46 10 1.0 8 50,000 — — USEPA (2005b) Aldicarb sulfone 21,000 — 140 — — — — USEPA (2005b) Aldicarb 3,570 — 21.5 — — — — USEPA (2005b) sulfoxide Butylate 105 `' 210 5,950 — — — — USEPA (1993) Carbaryl 10 125 ° 210 2.55 1.5 1,100 — — USEPA (2003b, 2004a) Carbofuran 44 5.7 1.115 0.75 — — — USEPA (2005c) EPTC 7,000 — 3,250 — 1,360 5,600 — USEPA (1999a) Methiocarb 218 50 3.5 0.10 — — — USEPA (1994b) Methomyl 265 57 4.4 8 0.4 — — — USEPA (1998c) I Molinate 105 `' 210 170 9 340 220 3,300 — USEPA (2001a) Oxamyl 2,100 770 90 9 180 — — — USEPA (1999b) Pebulate 3,150 — 3,315 — 230 1,800 — USEPA (1999c) Propoxur 1,850 — 5.5 — — — — USEPA (1997a) 

### (Baygon) Thiobencarb 280 — 50 1.0 17 770 — USEPA (1997b)

# I Triallate 

# 1 600 38 45.5 13 120 - - USEPA (2000a)

Chlorobenzoic acid esters Dacthal (DCPA) 

# 1 15,000

- 13,500

- 11,000 11,000

- USEPA 1998d) Chloro henoxy acids 2,4-D 50,500 14,200 12,500 16,400 3,880 299.2

- USEPA (2004b) 2,4-DB " 1,000

- " 7,500

- " 932

- - USEPA (2004c) MCPA " 380 12,000 11 90 " 11,000 " 160 " 20

- USEPA 2004d Dinitroanilines Benfluralin 15.85 1.9 1,090

- 15.5 100

- - USEPA (2004e) Ethalfluralin 16 0.4 30 24 25

- - USEPA (1995b) Oryzalin 1,440 220 700

- 42 15.4

- USEPA (1994c) Pendimethalin 69 6.3 140 14.5 5.4 12.5

- USEPA (1997c) Trifluralin 20.5 1.14 280 2.4 7.52 43.5

- USEPA 1996a) Miscellaneous Bentazon 50,000

- 50,000

- 4,500 5,350

- USEPA (1994d) Norflurazon 4,050 770 8 7,500 1,000 13 86

- USEPA 1996b) Miscellaneous acids Acifluorfen 

# 1 15,500 1,500 14,050

- 265,000 378,000

- USEPA (2000b) Picloram 6,500 550 34,150 11,800 4,900

- - USEPA 1995c Or anochlorines Chlorothalonil 11.5 3 34 39 190

- - USEPA (1999d) Dichlobenil 2,465 13 330 1,850 560 1,000 30

- USEPA (1998e) gamma-HCH 0.85 `' 1.7 0.5 9 1

- - - USEPA (2001b) degradate of Lindane) Triclopyr 14 180 $ ' 14 14 850 14 80,700 14100 14880

- USEPA (1998f) 104,000 Or ano hos hates Azinphos-methyl 0.18 0.36 0.08 0.16

- - - USEPA (2005d) (Guthion) Chlorpyrifos 0.9 0.57 0.05 0.04 140

- - USEPA (2000c, 2002) Diazinon 45 10 0.55 10 .15 0.1 " 0.17 3,700

- - USEPA (2000d, 2004f) Disulfoton 19.5 9 39 1.95 0.037

- - - USEPA (2000e) Ethoprop 150 24 22 0.8 8,400

- - USEPA (1999e) (Ethoprophos) Malathion 2 `' 4 0.25 0.06

- - - USEPA (2000f) Parathion (Ethyl 9 '' 0.19 0.02 0.002

- - - USEPA (1999f) parathion) Parathion-methyl 500 1 ' 80 0.07 0.02 5,300

- - USEPA (2003c) (Methylparathion)

Phorate 0.5 1 0.30 0.21 1,300 

### — — USEPA (1998g, 1999g) Terbufos 0.385 `' 0.77 0.1 0.030 

### — — — USEPA 1999h) Phenols Bromox nil 11.5 9 5.5 2.5 51 219 

### — USEPA (1998h) P rethroids cis-Permethrin 16 0.395 0.30 11, 16 0.0195 10. 16 0.039 

### — — — USEPA (2005e Sulfite esters Pro ar ite 15.5 16 37 9 19.4 75,000 

### — USEPA 2000 Triazines Atrazine 2,650 62 360 62 32 18 17.5 USEPA (2003d, 2003e) Metribuzin 21,000 3,000 2,100 1,290 8.7 130 

### — USEPA (1998i) Simazine 3,200 960 500 9 1,000 36 140 

### — USEPA 2005f, 2005 

### ) Uracils Bromacil 18,000 

### — 60,500 

### — 6.8

-- 

### — USEPA (1996c) Terbacil 23,100 

### — 31,500 

### — 11 140 

### — USEPA 1998' Ureas Diuron 355 26 80 9 160 2.4

-- 

### — USEPA (2003f) Fluometuron 320 

### — 110 

### — 30 220 

### — USEPA (2005h) Linuron 1,500 13 42 60 

### ' 120 67 

### — — USEPA (1995d) Tebuthiuron 53,000 9,300 148,500 21,800 50 135 

### — USEPA 1994e) 1 Benchmark 

### = To icity value x LOC. For acute fish, toxicity value is generally the lowest 96-hour LC 50 in a standardized test (usually with rainbow trout, fathead minnow, or bluegill), and the LOC is 0.5. 2 Benchmark 

### = Toi4 icity value x LOC. For chronic fish, toxicity value is usually the lowest NOEAC from a life-cycle or early life stage test (usually with rainb w trout or fathead minnow), and the LOC is 1. 3 Benchmark 

### = To icity value x LOC. For acute invertebrate, toxicity value is usually the lowest 48- or 96-hour EC 50 or LC 50 in a standardized test (usually with midge, scud, or daphnids), and the LOC is 0.5. 4 Benchmark 

### = To icity value x LOC. For chronic invertebrates, toxicity value is usually the lowest NOAEC from a life-cycle test with invertebrates (usual 

### y with midge, scud, or daphnids), and the LOC is 1. 5 Benchmark 

### = To icity value x LOC. For acute nonvascular plants, toxicity value is usually a short-term (less than 10 days) EC 50 (usually with green algae or diat s), and the LOC is 1. 6 Benchmark 

### = To icity value x LOC. For acute vascular plants, toxicity value is usually a short-term (less than 10 days) EC50 (usually with duckweed) and the OC is 1.

7 Exceedance of thi benchmark concentration, as an average for any 60 day period, could cause community-level effects based on changes in plant community diversit and resulting indirect effects on fish and aquatic invertebrates. 8 Because the unde lying toxicity value is a " greater- than" value (such as >265,000), this benchmark may overestimate toxicity. 9 The chronic benc ark is based on the acute toxicity value (which was lower than the lowest available chronic toxicity value), and therefore may underestimate hronic toxicity.

10 Although the un rlying acute toxicity value is greater than or equal to the chronic toxicity value, the acute benchmark is lower than the chronicbenchmark because acute and chronic toxicity values were multipled by LOC values of 0.5 and 1, respectively.

11 Original toxicity values are in micrograms of acid equivalents per liter. For 2,4-D and 2,4-DB, the toxicity values selected were the lowest available values for the acid or salt forms. For MCPA, acute toxicity values were the lowest for the acid, salt or ester fonns, and chronic toxicity values were the lowest of the acid and salt forms. (Selection was consistent with risk quotients in the cited USEPA references.)

1' This benchmark has greater uncertainty than usual because of inethods used or conditions in the underlying toxicity study.

13 Because the underlying toxicity value is a"less-than" value (such as <1,500), this benchmark may underestimate toxicity. 14 The acute toxicity values were the lowest of the acid, salt or ester forms, and the chronic toxicity values were the lowest of the acid and salt forms of triclopyr. (Selection was consistent with risk quotients in the cited USEPA reference.) 15 During public comment on draft ambient water-quality criteria that are under development by USEPA, public comment noted an atypical distribution of the acute toxicity data for diazinon. If data from the second most sensitive study were used (USEPA, 2000 risk assessment), rather than the most sensitive study, then the benchmark would change from 0.1 to 0.4 μg/L. 16 Toxicity values and benchmarks apply to permethrin. Because NAWQA measures only the cis isomer of permethrin in water, comparison with benchmarks may underestimate potential toxicity. EC 50 = 50 percent effect concentration; LC 50 = 50 percent lethal concentration; LOC = level of concern; NOAEC = no-observed-adverse-effects concentration; μg/L = microgram per liter; —= no benchmark available.]

### 7

References for Aquatic Life Benchmarks USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1998a, Reregistration eligibility decision (RED) alachlor: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA 738-R-98-020 December 1998.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1995a, Reregistration eligibility decision (RED) metolachlor: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA 738-R-95-006 April 1995.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2005a, EFED risk assessment for napropamide reregistration eligibility document, Environmentalfate and effects science chapter for napropamide, Appendix E: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Public Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP2004-0162, Document Number 0011.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1994a, Reregistration eligibility decision for pronamide, list A, case 0082: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1998b, Reregistration eligibility decision (RED) propachlor: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA 738-R-98-015 November 1998.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2003a, Reregistration eligibility decision for propanil (N-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)propanamide), List A, Case 0226: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2005b, Revised EFED risk assessment for the aldicarb reregistration eligibility document May 31, 2005: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Public Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0163, Document Number 0005.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1993, R.E.D. Facts, Reregistration eligibility decision document, butylate, list A, case 0071: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA 738-R-93-014 September 1993.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2003b, Environmental fate and ecological risk assessment for the re-registration of carbaryl: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Public Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0101, Document Number 0005.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2004a, Interim reregistration eligibility decision for carbaryl (revised October 22, 2004), list A, case 0080: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2005c, Reregistration eligibility science chapter for carbofuran, environmental fate and effects chapter, June 3, 2005, Appendix 1, Carbofuran deterministic environmental risk assessment: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Public Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0162, Document Number 0006.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1999a, Reregistration eligibility decision (RED) EPTC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA 738-R-99-006 December 1999.

7

### USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1994b, Reregistration eligibility decision document, methiocarb, list A, case 0577: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1998c, Reregistration eligibility decision (RED) methomyl: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA 738-R-98-021 December 1998.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2001a, Revised EFED reregistration eligibility chapter for molinate, Appendix C, ecological toxicity assessment: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1999b, Oxamyl reregistration eligibility document environmental fate and effects chapter, Appendix D, Details of supporting ecological toxicity studies: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency November 9, 1999.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1999c, Reregistration eligibility decision (RED) pebulate: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA 738-R-99-005 November 1999.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1997a, Reregistration eligibility decision (RED) propoxur: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA 738-R-97-009 August 1997
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1997b, Reregistration eligibility decision (RED) thiobencarb: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA 738-R-97-013 December 1997.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2000a, Reregistration eligibility document for triallate, environmental fate and effects chapter: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1998d, Reregistration eligibility decision (RED) DCPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA 738-R-98-005 November 1998.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2004b, Environmental Fate and Effects Division's risk assessment for the reregistration eligibilitydocument for 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), Appendix C: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Public Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP2004-0167, Document Number 0003.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2004c, Environmental Fate and Effects Division revised risk assessment for 4-(2,4- dichlorophenoxy) butyric acid (2,4-DB) and dimethylamine 4-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy) butyrate (2,4-DB DMAS) reregistration eligibility document July 20, 2004, Appendix C: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Public Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0220, Document Number 0009.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2004d, Environmental Fate and Effects Division's risk assessment for the reregistration eligibility document for 2-methyl-4chlorophenoxyacetic acid (MCPA), Appendix D, Ecological hazard data: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Public Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0156, Document Number 0006.

:

# m

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2004e, Reregistration eligibility decision for benfluralin: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA 738-R-04-012 (July 2004).
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1995b, Reregistration eligibility decision (RED) ethalfluralin: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA 738-R-95-001 March 1995.
USEPA (U.S_ Environmental Protection Agency), 1994c, Reregistration eligibility decision (RED) oryzalin: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA 738-R-94-016 September 1994.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1997c, Reregistration eligibility decision (RED) pendimethalin: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA 738-R-97-007 June 1997.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1996a, Reregistration eligibility decision (RED) trifluralin: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Special Review and Reregistration Division, EPA 738-R-95-040.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1994d, Reregistration eligibility decision (RED) bentazon: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA 738-R-94-029 September 1994.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1996b, Reregistration eligibility decision, norflurazon, list A, case 0229: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2000b, Environmental risk assessment, reregistration of sodium acifluorfen for uses on soybeans, peanuts and rice, Appendix D: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency June 8, 2000.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1995c, Reregistration eligibility decision (RED) picloram: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA 738-R-95-019 August 1995.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1999d, Reregistration eligibility decision (RED) chlorothalonil: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA 738-R-99-004 April 1999.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1998e, Reregistration eligibility decision (RED) dichlobenil: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA 738-R-98-003 October 1998.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2001b, Lindane RED chapter: environmental fate and ecological risk assessment: seed treatment, Appendix I, Ecological effects data revised December 20, 2001: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1998f, Reregistration eligibility decision (RED) triclopyr: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA 738-R-98-011 November 1998.

### 10

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2005d, Azinphos methyl insecticide: ecological risk assessment for the use of azinphos methyl on caneberries, cranberries, peaches, potatoes, and southern pine seeds (group 2 uses): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Public Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0061, Document Number 0027.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2000c, EFED risk assessment for reregistration eligibility science chapter for chlorpyrifos, fate and environmental risk assessment chapter: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency June 2000.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2002, Interim reregistration eligibility decision for chlorpyrifos: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA 738-R-01-007 February 2002.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2000d, Environmental risk assessment for diazinon: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2004f, Interim reregistration eligibility decision diazinon: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA 738-R-04-006 May 2004.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2000e, Second revised environmental fate and effects assessment [disulfoton]: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Fate and Effects Division August 26, 2000.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1999e, Errata sheet for EFED's ethoprop RED chapter dated October 5, 1998, environmental risk assessment for ethoprop: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Fate and Effects Division.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2000f, Malathion reregistration eligibility document, environmental fate and effects chapter, revised November 9, 2000: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1999f, EFED RED chapter for ethy

► 

### parathion (revised September 13, 1999): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2003c, Interim reregistration eligibility decision for methyl parathion: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA 738-R-01-007 February 2002.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1998g, Preliminary environmental fate and effects assessment, EFED science chapter for phorate RED August 7, 1998: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Fate and Effects Division.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1999g, Revised environmental fate and effects assessment, outline of section C, Environmental assessment [phorate] September 14, 1999: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1999h, Revised environmental fate and effects assessment [terbufos], section 4, Ecological toxicity data: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency September 14, 1999: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

10

### USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1998h, Reregistration eligibility decision (RED) bromoxynil: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA 738-R-98-013 December 1998.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2005e, EFED revised risk assessment for the reregistration eligibility decision on permethrin after error corrections comments from the registrant, Phase I, Appendix E: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances July 12, 2005, Public Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0385, Document Number 0014.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2000g, Environmental Fate and Effects Division science chapter for reregistration eligibility decision for propargite, Appendix 2, June 7, 2000: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmentaf Fate and Effects Division.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2003d, Interim reregistration eligibility decision for atrazine, case no. 0062: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, Special Review and Reregistration Division.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2003e, Atrazine MOA Ecological Subgroup—recommendations for aquatic community level of concern (LOC) and method to apply LOC(s) to monitoring data, final report, October 22, 2003: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Public Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0367, Document Number 0007.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1998i, Reregistration eligibility decision (RED) metribuzin: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA 738-R-97-006 (February 1998).
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2005f, Interim reregistration eligibility decision, environmental fate and effects chapter,environmental fate and ecological risk assessment for simazine: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Public Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP2005-0151, Document Number 0006.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2005g, Environmental fate and ecological risk assessment, simazine, Appendix E- submitted ecological effects data: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Public Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0151, Document Number 0011.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1996c, Reregistration eligibility decision (RED) bromacil: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA 738-R-96-013 August 1996.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1998j, Reregistration eligibility decision (RED) terbacil: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA 738-R-97-011 January 1998.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2003f, Reregistration eligibility decision for diuron, list A, case 0046: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Special Review and Reregistration Division.

### 12

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2005h, Environmental fate and effects science chapter, environmental fate and ecological risk assessment for re-registration of fluometuron (PC 035503), February 22, 2005, Appendix E, Ecological effects data: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Public Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0372, Document Number 0009.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1995d, Reregistration eligibility decision (RED) linuron: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA 738-R-95-003 March 1995.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1994e, Reregistration eligibility decision, tebuthiuron, list A, case 0054: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Special Review and Reregistration Division.

12