UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION



### PC Code: 129081 DP Barcode: D409753 MEMORANDUM June 11,2014

Subject: Preliminary Ecological Risk Assessment for the Registration Review of Sulfentrazone and Proposed New Uses on Apples

To: Christina Scheltema, Chemical Review Manager Patricia Parrott, Branch Chief

From:

Reviewed By:

Through: Risk Management and Implementation Branch 3 Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P)

Laura Nallen, Biologist, Minor Use Team Barbara Madden, Minor Use Team Leader Risk Integration Minor Use, and Emergency Response Branc Registration Division (7505C)

Geoffrey Sinclair, Ph.D., Biologist Michael Barrett, Chemist Environmental Risk Branch V Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

Keith Sappington,

# ~.S .. , Senior Science

# Adviso;re~- L /

# ~¥L/ Environmental Risk Branch V

# ~~ 7 ///


### EnvironmentaLFate and Effects Division (7507P

.**~~II** 

# j 

# /f'-

Mah Shamim, Ph.D., Branch Chief 

# /JIJ1p_L

# 12A~ Environmental Risk Branch V //

## /Y~v-=-=.__ Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

This memorandum transmits the Environmental Fate and Effects Division's (EFED) preliminary ecological risk assessment for the registration review of sulfentrazone (PC Code 129081 ), a systemic selective herbicide that interferes with chlorophyll and heme

. biosynthesis. The compound is registered for use to control broadleaf weeds, grasses and sedges. Registered uses assessed in this document include ground and aerial application on crop groups such as turf, fruits, vegetables, grains, peanuts, com and many other field crops in addition to non-agricultural

areas with maximum annual rates ranging from 0.125 to 0.375lb a.i. 

### /A. In addition to the currently registered uses, this risk assessment also includes an analysis of the proposed new use

on apples. This risk assessment provides EFED's assessment of the environmental fate,

### 2 terrestrial and aquatic exposure, and ecological risks associated with all registered uses of sulfentrazone and proposed uses of sulfentrazone on apples. It also provides an assessment of the potential for use of sulfentrazone to cause advers e effects to federally th reatened and endangered species (hereafter referred to as “listed” species).

Sulfentrazone can persist for several months or longer in terrestrial environments. Based upon its organic carbon partit ion coefficient and its desorption constant (K oc 

### and K d 

### , respectively), sulfentrazone is expected to be very highly mobile in most soils and is not expected to bind to aquatic sediments. Therefore, the chemical is expected to move to su rface water via runoff and into ground water via leaching.

The results of this preliminary risk assessmen t indicate that use of sulfentrazone in ground applications (on crop groups such as turf, fruits , vegetables, grains, peanuts, corn and many other field crops in addition to non-ag ricultural area with maximum annual rates ranging from 0.125 to 0.375lb a.i. /A) poses potential risk to nontarget terrestri al and aquatic plants . Aerial use of sulfentrazone at the given proposed uses poses potential risks (f or applications to soybeans, sugarcane, railroads, highways, roadsides, and pipelines) to nontarget terrestrial and aquatic plants. Use of sulfentrazone coul d potentially result in direct adve rse effects to listed species of terrestrial and aquatic plants.

Due to the low acute and chronic toxicity to anim als, use of sulfentrazon e is expected to pose minimal direct risk to terrestrial and aquatic animals, including insects, mammals, aquatic-phase amphibians, fish, mollusks, and arthropods. Ho wever, use of sulfen trazone poses potential chronic risk to birds feeding on s hort grass, tall grass, broad le af plants, and arthropods but not fruits/pods/seeds. Since birds are surrogates fo r reptiles and terrestri al-phase amphibians, potential chronic risk is assumed for these taxa as well. Sulfentrazone also poses a potential chronic risk to estuarine/marine invertebrates.

As a light dependent peroxidizing herbicide (LDPH) chemical, an uncertainty factor was applied to chronic fish toxicity endpoint to account for po tential enhanced toxicity of LDPH chemicals to animals under ultra violet radiation ( i.e ., natural sunlight) per EF ED policy. There was no change in risk conclusions to fish as a result of the use of this factor. This fact or is not being applied at this time to aquatic invertebrates due to lack of data, so while there is still uncertainty for these taxa, the likelihood of adverse effect s on taxa such as mo llusks and freshwater arthropods from exposure to sulfentrazone is presumed to be low.

Sulfentrazone degradation products are all considered minor (le ss than 10 percent of applied product), and are not believed to contribute significantly to the ecological risks.

The risks associated with potential direct eff ects due to applications of sulfentrazone are presented below. The distance from edge of field of risk to non-target terre strial plants is based on AgDrift prediction of spray drift.

### 3 Listed and Non-listed Plant Taxon Potential Direct Effects

Terrestrial and semiaquatic plants – monocots and dicots RQs exceeded the LOC for all exposure sc enarios. Using TerrPlant to depict exposure for dry and semi-aquatic terrestrial habitats, RQs were estimated for exposure (including runoff and spray drift) to non-target plants adjacent to the site of application. Dicots were the mo re sensitive species; for application rates of 0.19 lb ai/A, RQs for non-target plants range from 1 – 17, and RQs ranged from 2 to 32 for application rates of 0.375 lb ai / A. For aerial applications RQs ranged from 6 to 43 for listed species.

For exposure from drift alone, an analys is was conducted to estimate the distance (using AgDrift) from the site of application needed in order to be below the LOC. Below is a subset of the analysis (dicots are the more sensitive species) that illustrates the influence on the distance needed to be below the LOC when considering coarser dr oplet sizes, or the boom height for a ground application.

Application Rate
(lb a.i./A)

Crop, Timing, Application Rate (lb a.i./A) Application Method Droplet Size Distance from Field ( feet)

Terrestrial and semiaquatic plants dicots Many Uses 0.375 Aerial Coarse – very coarse >1,000 Medium - coarse >1,000

Fine – medium >1,000

Very fine - Fine >1,000 Many Uses Ground, low boom Very fine - Fine 847 0.375 Ground, high boom Fine – medium >1,000

Terrestrial and semiaquatic plants monocots Many Uses 0.375 Aerial Coarse – very coarse 141

Medium - coarse 210

Fine – medium 620
Very fine - Fine >1,000 Many Uses Ground, low boom Very fine - Fine 56 0.375 Ground, high boom Fine – medium 154

Aquatic plants RQs in clear waters range from 0.6 to 1 and only exceed the LOC for risk to listed non-vascular plant species. RQs in shaded or turbid waters range up to 1.8 and exceed the LOC of 1.0 for both vascular and non-vascular taxa.

### 4 Listed and Non-listed Animal Taxon Potential Direct Effects

Acute Notes Chronic Notes

Terrestrial invertebrates No effect ND 1 1 ND signifies that no data were available to assess the risk.

2 Terrestrial-phase reptiles and amphibians based on chronic risks to birds. Mammals No effect No effect

Birds No effect Yes

Reptiles No effect Yes 2

Amphibians No effect Yes 2

Freshwater fish No effect No effect

Freshwater invertebrates No effect No effect

Mollusks No effect ND 1

Estuarine/marine fish No effect No effect

Estuarine/marine invertebrates No effect Yes



### Because of the potential for adverse effects to plants, the use of sulfentrazone also may result in modification of primary constituent elements of designated critical habi tats for listed species, where such designations have been made.

Additional Considerations for Listed Species

The EPA along with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Se rvice (USFWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively, the Services), a nd the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), released a summary of their implem entation plan for assessing risks of pesticides to listed species ahead of the stakeholder workshop held on N ovember 15, 2013. This plan was developed in response to the National Academy of Sciences ’ (NAS) recommendations, including a common approach to risk assessment as a way of addre ssing scientific differenc es between EPA and the Services. During the workshop, the agencies rece ived feedback from th e public on the interim scientific approaches that were developed as part of the in itial implementation of the NAS recommendations. These approaches will be jointly implemented and vetted as part of a phased, iterative process. Once fully vetted, EPA will further refine the listed species effects determination portion of th is risk assessment.

To make effects determinations for individual listed species, us eful refinements may include, but are not necessarily limited to, an alyses of: 1) more detailed, species-specific ecological and biological data; 2) more detailed and accurate in formation on sulfentrazone use patterns; and 3) sub-county level spatial proximity data for the co -occurrence of potential effects areas and listed species and any designated critical habitat. Examples of such refinements are described below.

### 5 EFED is currently developing tools that are expe cted to further refine the assessment and are designed to support effects determinations for individual listed species and their designated critical habitats (where applicable). Scientific information obtained from the Services, and from other reliable sources is being collated by EFED to address all currently listed species. This information is being stored in an Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Pesticide Registration Information SysteM (PRISM) listed species kno wledgebase. The listed species knowledgebase consists of an information repository that houses biological and behavioral information relevant to individual species ( e.g. , habitat, diet, and life history, incl uding specific temporal and spatial associations) and a document repository that contains supporting documents ( e.g ., USFWS recovery plans) and el ectronic information ( e.g ., Geographic Information System (GIS) data files). For terrestrial taxa , biological information relevant to the assessment ( e.g ., diet and body weight) will be used to parameterize exposure es timates using a method consistent with currently used methods in the T-REX and T-HERPS models.

Refinements will also include more detailed analyses of the registered uses and specific use patterns that result in either “Likely to Advers ely Affect” (LAA) or “Not Likely to Adversely Affect” (NLAA) determinations fo r listed species. The analyses may include more information on where, when, and how sulfentrazone is used on all use sites. Actual usage data (when available) and national land-cover datase ts that indicate potential use sites [ e.g ., National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD), Cropland Data Layer (CDL )] may be used to support a more refined analysis of where sulfentrazone is reasonably expected to be us ed. Similarly, refinements on the timing of applications and a more in-depth exploration of agronomic practices for FPE may be included as part of the refinement.

The refinements based on individu al species data; additional, de tailed usage information, when available; and developments based upon recomme ndations from the NAS report are expected to help EPA more accurately identify potential areas of effect, and to better inform effects and habitat determinations for listed species and any designated critical habitats.

### 6 

# Preliminary Ecological Risk Assessment for the Registration Review of Sulfentrazone

(CAS Reg. No. 122836-35-5; USEPA PC Code: 129081)

Prepared by: Geoffrey Sinclair, Ph.D., Biologist

Michael Barrett, Senior Chemist



### Reviewed by: Keith Sappington, M.S., Senior Science Advisor Mohammed Ruhman, Ph.D., Senior Agronomist



### Approved by: Mah Shamim, Ph.D., Branch Chief

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

June 2014 

### Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

### 7 

## Table of Contents

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 12 A. Purpose of Assessment ......................................................................................... 12 B. Nature of the Stressor ............................................................................................ 12 C. Summary of Effects and Risk Conclusions .......................................................... 12 II. PROBLEM FORMULATION ......................................................................................... 15 A. Pesticide Type, Class, and Mode of Action .......................................................... 15 B. Pesticide Use and Usage ....................................................................................... 15 1. Pesticide Labeled Use ............................................................................... 15 2. Pesticide Usage ......................................................................................... 22 C. Previous Ecological Risk Assessments and Evaluations ...................................... 23 D. Assessment Endpoints .......................................................................................... 24 E. Analysis Plan and Conceptual Models ................................................................. 25 1. Measures to Evaluate Risk Hypotheses .................................................... 25 2. Conceptual Model ..................................................................................... 25 3. Risk Hypothesis ........................................................................................ 27 III. ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................... . 29 A. Measures of Exposure ........................................................................................... 29 1. Environmental Fate and Mode ling Input Parameters ............................... 29 2. Environmental Fate Summary .................................................................. 32 3. Monitoring Data ........................................................................................ 37 B. Exposure Estimates for Non-target Aquatic Animals and Plants ......................... 40 C. Ecological Effects Characterization ...................................................................... 47 1. Aquatic Animals ....................................................................................... 47 2. Aquatic Plants ........................................................................................... 50 3. Terrestrial Animals ................................................................................... 51 4. Terrestrial Plants ....................................................................................... 54 IV. RISK ESTIMATION ........................................................................................................ 55 A. Non-target Terrestrial Animals ............................................................................. 58 B. Non-target Terrestrial Plants ................................................................................. 61 C. Review of Incident Data ....................................................................................... 68 D. Probit Slope Response Analysis of LOC Values and Acute RQ Values .............. 68 V. RISK DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................... 69 A. Risk Characterization ............................................................................................ 69 1. Summary of Risk ...................................................................................... 69 2. Risk to Aquatic and Terrestrial Animals .................................................. 69 3. Risk to Terrestrial and Aquatic Plants ...................................................... 70 4. Risk to Endangered Species ...................................................................... 71 B. Assumptions and Limitations ............................................................................... 72 1. Endocrine Disruption ................................................................................ 72 2. Uncertainties Related to Data Limitations ................................................ 73 3. Routes of Exposure ................................................................................... 74 4. Species sensitivity ..................................................................................... 74 5. Sub-lethal Effects ...................................................................................... 76 6. Other Uncertainties in Risk Conclusions .................................................. 76 VI. RISK CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................... 77

### 8 VII. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 79 VIII. Appendices .................................................................................................................... .... 81 A. Bibliography ......................................................................................................... 81 1. Toxicity Studies ........................................................................................ 81 2. Environmental Fate Studies ...................................................................... 85 B. Pesticide Products Registered in the Unite d States that Contain Sulfentrazone ... 91 C. Chemical Names and Structures ........................................................................... 96 D. ECOSAR Results for Property Predicti on of Sulfentrazone and its Most Prominent Degradates ......................................................................................... 100 1. Parent Sulfentrazone ............................................................................... 100 2. Sulfentrazone 3-carboxylic acid (SCA) .................................................. 102 E. Aquatic Exposure Model Input and Output ........................................................ 105 1. List of Surface Water Standard Scenarios Used ..................................... 105 2. Sample Model Input Files ....................................................................... 106 3. Sample Model Output Files .................................................................... 123 F. Terrestrial Exposure Model Results .................................................................... 126 1. T-Rex Run for Spray Applications ......................................................... 126 2. TerrPlant ................................................................................................. 133 G. Ecological Incident Reports for Sulfentrazone ................................................... 134 H. ECOTOX Database Bibliogra phy for Sulfentrazone .......................................... 135

### 9 Table of Figures

Figure 1. Chemical Structure of Sulfentrazone ...................................................................... 15 Figure 2. Conceptual model depicting stresso rs, exposure pathways, and potential effects to aquatic animals and plants from the use of Sulfentrazone. ................................................ 26 Figure 3. Conceptual model depicting stresso rs, exposure pathways, and potential effects to terrestrial animals and plants from the use of sulfentrazone. ............................................ 27

### 10 Table of Tables

Table 1. Risks Associated with Potential Di rect Effects Due to the Applications of Sulfentrazone. The distance from ed ge of field of Risk to non-target terrestrial plants is based on AgDrift prediction of spray drift. .............................................................................. 13 Table 2. Application Information for Registered Use Sites and the Apples Proposed Use of Sulfentrazone .

............................................................................................................................. 18 Table 3. Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses of Sulfentrazone (February 27, 2013) 1,2



### .............................................................................................................................. ............ 22 Table 4. Physical/chemical Properties and Environmental Fate Properties of Sulfentrazone.

.............................................................................................................................. 29 Table 5. Mobility classification of pest icides according to the McCall system. ..................... 36 Table 6. Description of “95th percentile ” ground-water vulnerability site. .......................... 37 Table 7. Description of “85th percentile ” ground-water vulnerability site. ......................... 37 Table 8. Description of “75th percentile ” ground-water vulnerability site. ......................... 38 Table 9. . Description of “>95th percentile ” ground-water vulnerability site. ..................... 38 Table 10. Maximum observed concentrations of sulfentrazone and its acid degradate in shallow groundwater below or immediately down gradient of treated fields at four sites. .. 39 Table 11

. Tier 2 Surface Water Estimated Environm ental Concentrations (EECs) for Registered Uses of Sulfentrazone. ............................................................................................. 41 Table 12. Tier 2.5 Surface EECs for Sulfentrazone : Effect of Different Assumptions of Light Availability in Farm Pond for a High Exposure Use. ................................................... 45 Table 13. Input Parameters for T-REX Modeling for All Uses of Sulfentrazone ................ 46 Table 14. Dietary-Based Sulfent razone EEC Values for 0.375 lb a.i. lb /A application rate.

............................................................................................................................... ........................ 46 Table 15. Avian and Mammalian Dose-Bas ed Sulfentrazone Upper-Bound EEC Values . 46 Table 16. Acute Toxicity of Sulfentrazone to Aquatic Animals. (Bolded values represent most sensitive value used for estimating RQs.) ........................................................................ 48 Table 17. Chronic Toxicity of Sul fentrazone to Aquatic Animals ......................................... 49 Table 18. Acute Toxicity Values of Sulfentrazone to Aquatic Plants .................................... 51 Table 19. Acute Toxicity of su lfentrazone to Terrestrial Species .......................................... 52 Table 20. Chronic Toxicity of Sul fentrazone to Terrestrial Animals ................................... 54 Table 21. Toxicity of Sulfentrazone to Terres trial Plants. (Bolded values are the most sensitive endpoints used for asse ssing risk to terrestrial plants.) ........................................... 55 Table 22. Acute and Chronic RQs for Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates ............................... 56 Table 23. RQs for Aquatic Plants and Algae ........................................................................... 57 Table 24. Acute and Chronic Dietary-Based RQs for Birds .................................................. 59 Table 25. Acute Dose-Based RQs for Birds ............................................................................. 59 Table 26. Chronic Dietary-Based RQs for Mammals ............................................................. 60 Table 27. Acute and Chronic Dose-Based RQs for Mammals ............................................... 60 Table 28. Dietary and contact RQs for honey bees. ................................................................. 61 Table 29. RQs for Risk to Nontarget Terrestr ial Plants from Use of Sulfentrazone for ground applications. ................................................................................................................... 61 Table 30. RQs for Risk to Nontarget Terrestr ial Plants from Use of Sulfentrazone for aerial applications. ...................................................................................................................... 63

### 11 Table 31. Distance from Edge of Field of Risk to non-target terrestrial Plants, Based on AgDrift Prediction of Spray Drift with a very fine to fine particle size and a high boom dispersal.

.............................................................................................................................. ........ 65 Table 32. Distance from Edge of Field of Ri sk to Listed Terrestrial Plants, Based on AgDrift Prediction of Spray Drift with a fine to medium/coarse particle size and a high boom dispersal. ............................................................................................................................ 6 6 Table 33. Distance from Edge of Field of Risk to non-target terrestrial plants, based on AgDrift Prediction of Spray Drift with aerial application with particle size scenarios of very fine to fine and fine to medium. ......................................................................................... 66 Table 34. Distance from Edge of Field of Ri sk to Listed Terrestrial Plants, Based on AgDrift Prediction of Spray Drift with aerial application with particle size scenarios of medium to coarse and coarse to very coarse. ........................................................................... 67 Table 35. Percentage of EEC or RQ for the Sp ecified Dietary Items and Size Classes as Compared to the EEC or RQ for The Most Sens itive Dietary Items (Short Grass) and Size Class (Small Bird or Small Mammal) ....................................................................................... 75 Table 36. Potential Non-listed and Listed Species Risks Associated with Potential Direct or Indirect Effects Due to the Applications of Sulfentrazone .................................................... 77 Table 37. Structures and properties of sulfentrazone and its degradates. ............................ 96

### 12 

## I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A. Purpose of Assessment

The purpose of this registration review assessment is to evaluate the potential risks of current registered agricultural and non-agricultural us es and a proposed new use on apples of the herbicide sulfentrazone to non- target organisms, including fe derally listed endangered and threatened (listed) species. Th is risk assessment incorporates the available exposure and effects data and the most current mode ling and risk methodologies.



### B. Nature of the Stressor

Sulfentrazone, CAS Name: N-[2,4-dichloro-5-[4- (difluoromethyl) 4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl]phenyl] methanesulfona mide (CAS Number 122836-35-5;PC Code of 129081). Sulfentrazone is a systemic selective herbicide and belongs to the phenyl pyrazole class of chemicals called protox inhibitors. Th e chemical inhibits an enzyme in a plant’s chloroplasts (protoporphyrinogen oxidase) and is characterized as a light -dependent peroxidizing herbicide (LDPH) which acts by blocking heme (in animals) and chlo rophyll (in plants) biosynthesis resulting in an endogenous accumula tion of photo-toxic porphyrins (Birchfield and Casida 1997). The accumulation of porphyrins ( e.g ., porphyria) can lead to toxicosis in the absence of light. Light however can enhance the toxicity as ultra violet light (uV) increases the formation of reactive free radi cals (Matringe et al. 1989). LDPHs may be more toxic when exposed to natural sunlight, such as expos ure conditions in the field (US EPA 2010). Sulfentrazone has an environmental degradate th at might form in major amounts over a period of years but it is not confirmed to be major in most environmental fate studies because of the high persistence of parent: Sulfen trazone 3-carboxylic acid (also known as SCA or FMC 129427) (1- [2,4-Dichloro-5-(N-(methylsulfonyl) amino) phenyl]-4-difluoromet hyl-4,5-dihydro-5-oxo-1H1,2,4-triazole-3-carboxylic acid ). Ho wever, exposure to this degrad ate is not expected to exhibit toxicity in plants or animals similar to that of the parent compound (EcoSar results are in Appendix D.)



### C. Summary of Effects and Risk Conclusions

The results of this preliminary risk assessment i ndicate that the registered uses of sulfentrazone and proposed use on apples have br oad potential for direct advers e effects to listed and non-listed species of aquatic and terrestrial plants ( Table 1 ). The high persistence and high mobility of sulfentrazone exacerbates the risk to non-target plants.

The likelihood of adverse effects to terrestrial anim als from direct exposure is expected to be low ( i.e ., below Agency levels of risk concern) ex cept for chronic risk to estuarine/marine invertebrates and chronic risk to birds (as well as terrestrial- phase amphibians and reptiles for which birds serve as surrogates). There is also a potential for indirect e ffects to terrestrial and aquatic animals due to reduction in primary produc tivity and habitat. Ther e is uncertainty when assessing the potential risk to a quatic animals from direct effect s due to sulfentrazone being an LDPH and the potential of LDPHs to exhibit enha nced toxicity in the presence of ultraviolet

### 13 light. Following EFED guidance for LDPH chemicals, an interim 29X toxicity adjustment factor was applied to chronic toxicity estimates obtained from a fish early life stage study but was not applied to aquatic invertebrates due to lack of available data at this time (U.S. EPA, 2010).

Toxicity data on sulfentrazone indicate that it is practically nontoxic to birds, mammals, and young adult bees on an acute exposure basis. Sulfentr azone is slightly to pr actically non-toxic to freshwater fish with the bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus ) being most sensitive with an LC 50 

### of 93.8 mg a.i. / L. Sulfentrazone is practically non-t oxic to marine fish on an acute exposure basis. Prior to incorporation of the pr eviously mentioned adjustment f actor, the freshwater fish early life stage toxicity test re sulted in reduced survival (NOAEC = 2.95 mg a.i. / L).

Sulfentrazone was slightly toxic to highly toxic to freshwater invertebrate s and estuarine/marine invertebrates on an acute exposure basis with reported LC 50 

### values of 60.4 and 1.0 mg a.i. / L, respectively. The freshwater i nvertebrate life cycle toxicity test resulte d in a NOAEC of 0.2 mg a.i./L based on the number of dead/immobile daphnids.

As expected for an herbicide, sulfentrazone is to xic to terrestrial and aqua tic plants. In seedling emergence and vegetative vigor tests, 25% inhibition (IC 25 

### ) of growth has been shown to occur in sensitive terrestrial plants at exposure levels equivalent to application rates of 0.00052 to 0.023 lb a.i./A with cucumber ( Cucumis sativus ) being the most sensitive and oat ( Avena sativa ) being the least sensitive. NOAEC values are as low as 0.00044 lb a.i./A for the dicotyledenous (dicot) cucumber. In aquatic plant tests, both al gae (non-vascular) and aq uatic vascular plants have been shown to be sensitive to su lfentrazone. Fifty percent inhibition (IC 50 

### ) of growth in nonvascular aquatic plants is predicted at a c oncentration of 0.031 mg a.i./L, and 50% inhibition of growth of the vascular aquatic plant duckweed ( Lemna gibba ) was measured at 0.029 mg a.i./L. The NOAEC was 0.016 mg a.i./L for nonvascul ar plants and 0.019 mg a.i./L for vascular plants.

Risks associated with potential di rect effects due to a pplications of sulfentrazone are summarized in Table 1

.

Table 1. Risks Associated with Potential Di rect Effects Due to the Applications of Sulfentrazone. The distance from ed ge of field of Risk to non-target terrestrial plants is based on AgDrift prediction of spray drift.

Listed and Non-listed Plant Taxon Potential Direct Effects

Terrestrial and semiaquatic plants – monocots and dicots RQs exceeded the LOC for all exposure sc enarios. Using TerrPlant to depict exposure for dry and semi-aquatic terrestrial habitats, RQs were estimated for exposure (including runoff and spray drift) to non-target plants adjacent to the site of application. Dicots were the mo re sensitive species; for application rates of 0.19 lb ai/A, RQs for nontarget plants range from 1 – 17, and RQs ranged from 2 to 32 for application rates of 0.375 lb ai / A. For aerial applications RQs ranged from 6 to 43 for listed species. For additional details, refer to Table 31

.

### 14 For exposure from drift alone, an analys is was conducted to estimate the distance (using AgDrift) from the site of application needed in order to be below the LOC. Below is a subset of the analysis (monocots are the more sensitive species) that illustrates the influence on the distance needed to be below the LOC when considering coarser dr oplet sizes, or the boom height for a ground application. For additional details, refer to Table 32
, Table 33
, Table 34 and, Table 35

. Crop, Timing,

Application Method Droplet Size Distance from Field ( feet) Application Rate (lb a.i./A)

Terrestrial and semiaquatic plants dicots Many Uses 0.375 Aerial Coarse – very coarse >1,000 Medium - coarse >1,000

Fine – medium >1,000

Very fine - Fine >1,000 Many Uses Ground, low boom Very fine - Fine 847 0.375 Ground, high boom Fine – medium >1,000

Terrestrial and semiaquatic plants monocots Many Uses 0.375 Aerial Coarse – very coarse 141

Medium - coarse 210

Fine – medium 620
Very fine - Fine >1,000 Many Uses Ground, low boom Very fine - Fine 56 0.375 Ground, high boom Fine – medium 154

Aquatic plants RQs in clear waters range from 0.6 to 1 and only exceed the LOC for risk to listed non-vascular plant species. RQs in shaded or turbid waters range up to 1.8 and exceed the LOC of 1.0 for both vascular and non-vascular taxa.

Listed and Non-listed Animal Taxon Potential Direct Effects

Acute Notes Chronic Notes

Terrestrial invertebrates No effect ND 1 1 

### ND signifies that no data were available to assess the risk.

2 

### Terrestrialphase amphibians based on chronic risks to birds. Mammals No effect No effect

Birds No effect Yes

Reptiles No effect Yes

Amphibians No effect Yes 2

Freshwater fish No effect No effect

Freshwater invertebrates No effect No effect

### 15 Mollusks No effect ND 1

Estuarine/marine fish No effect No effect

Estuarine/marine invertebrates No effect Yes



## II. PROBLEM FORMULATION

A. Pesticide Type, Class, and Mode of Action

Sulfentrazone is classified as a protoporphyri nogen oxidase inhibitor (“PPO” or “protox” inhibitor) and is a light depende nt peroxidizing herbicide (LDPH) in the phenyl (aryl) pyrazole structural class. Protoporphyri nogen oxidase (protox) is the last common enzyme in the heme and chlorophyll biosynthetic pathways (Matringe, et.al , 1989). In plants, protox inhibition by LPDHs results in rapid accumulation of protoporphyr in IX. In the presen ce of ultraviolet light, protoporphyrin IX causes lipid membrane peroxida tion leading to a rapid loss of turgidity and foliar burns in plants. Protox exis ts in both plants and animals and the enzyme has been shown to be highly sensitive to many LDPHs (Birchfield and Casida, 1997).

Figure 1. Chemical Structure of Sulfentrazone



### B. Pesticide Use and Usage

1. Pesticide Labeled Use

Sulfentrazone is a systemic sel ective herbicide for control of cer tain broadleaf weeds, grasses and sedges. Currently, this ri sk assessment focuses on exposur es and potential effects from exposure to sulfentrazon e as the sole stressor

. As of March 26, 2013, sulfentrazone is an active ingredient in 132 products regist ered in the United States ( Appendix B ). Application rates and specifications by use site are summarized in Table 2.

### 16 Products containing sulfentrazone are formulated as water-dispersible granules, granules, flowable concentrates, or emulsifiable concentrat es. Products may be applied to fields pre-plant incorporated, pre-plant surface, or pre-emergenc e treatments. Products containing sulfentrazone are often formulated together with other herbicidal active ingredients.

Some product labels for some use sites implicitly allow only one or two a pplications (because of the difference or lack of difference between the maximum single or annual application rates) per year or crop season. Annual or seasonal ma ximum rates are consistently specified, and depending on the use site are set at 0.375 lb a.i./A or less ( Table 3 ).

A notable limitation on sites where sulfentrazone can be applied is part of a Groundwater advisory on product labels:

“Do not use on coarse soils classified as sand which have less than 1 % organic matter”

Additionally, on some product labels, for use sites where the maximum single application rate is at its highest level (0.375 lb ai/A), the allowable application rate generally varies by soil texture, topsoil organic matter content and soil pH. An exam ple from the Spartan 4F label is provided in Table 2

.

Table 2 . Example of Sulfentrazone Use Rate Vari ance by Soil Characteristics (from Spartan 4F label).

Definition of coarse, medium, and fine texture soils:

Example use rate tables by soil textur e, organic matter content, and pH.

(Above taken from the sulfentrazone Spartan 4F label; 12 ounces formulated product equates to 0.375 lb sulfentrazone ac tive ingredient per acre.)

### 1718Table 3. Application Information for Registered Use Sites and the Apples Proposed Use of Sulfentrazone.Crop or Non-AgriculturalUse Site1SingleMin, lbai/Aproduct;All sitesRatesvary bysoiltexture /%OrganicMatterMax #Applic.Aerialapplication?Minim.Interval(days)PHI, daysMaxim.single(1st)aplica., lbai/AMaxim.AnnualRate, lbai/ABrassica leafy greens0.070 Yes NS2NS2NS2NS20.2000 0.2200Corn (GMO tolerant to PPOherbicides)0.094 Yes NS2NS2NS2NS20.1875 0.3750Corn (GMO tolerant to PPOherbicides)0.141 Yes NS2NS2NS2NS20.2500 0.3750Cowpeas, succulent (TN)0.070 Yes NS2NS2NS2NS20.1875 0.1875Dry beans & peas (ND SD MTMN WY CO NE KS Wl Ml ORID WA OR)0.070 Yes NS2NS2NS2NS20.2500 0.2500Fallow, Postharv. Burndown0.094 Yes NS2NS2NS2NS20.2500 0.2500Horseradish ((MN ND SD MTCO NE WY ID WA OR Wl Ml)0.070 Yes NS2NS2NS2NS20.2500 0.2500Lima beans succul. (TN)0.070 Yes NS2NS2NS2NS20.1875 0.18751Limitations to crop strains or certain geographical areas (states) are given in parenthesis.2NS: Not specified19Crop or Non-AgriculturalUse Site1SingleMin, lbai/Aproduct;All sitesRatesvary bysoiltexture /%OrganicMatterMax #Applic.Aerialapplication?Minim.Interval(days)PHI, daysMaxim.single(1st)aplica., lbai/AMaxim.AnnualRate, lbai/AMelons0.250 No NS NS NS NS 0.2500 0.2500Peanuts (AL, GA, MS, NC, SC,VA)0.150 No NS NS NS NS 0.2500 0.3000Potatoes0.094 Yes NS Yes NS NS 0.2500 0.2500Rhubarb0.250 No 1.000 NS NA 46 0.2500 0.2500Soybeans0.141 No NS No NS NS 0.2484 0.2500Succulent Peas0.070 Yes NS No NS NS 0.1875 0.1875Sunflower subgroup 20B0.094 Yes NS Yes NS NS 0.2500 0.2500Turnips0.250 No 1.000 NS NA 3 0.2500 0.2500Wheat - spring (ID, OR, WA)0.188 No NS NS NS ca. 120 0.1875 0.1875Apples (proposed use)0.125 No 2*2No 60 14 0.3750 0.3750Asparagus0.141 Yes NS NS NS 14 0.3750 0.3750Berries0.125 No 2 NS 60 3 0.3750 0.3750Brassica head & stem(Broccoli, Cabbage0.070 Yes NS NS NS NS 0.3750 0.37502* =Implied, but not explicitly stated on product labels.20Crop or Non-AgriculturalUse Site1SingleMin, lbai/Aproduct;All sitesRatesvary bysoiltexture /%OrganicMatterMax #Applic.Aerialapplication?Minim.Interval(days)PHI, daysMaxim.single(1st)aplica., lbai/AMaxim.AnnualRate, lbai/ACabbage transplanted (MN NDSD MT CO NE WY ID WA ORWl or Ml)0.070 Yes NS NS NS NS 0.3750 0.3750Citrus0.125 No 2 NS 60 3 0.3750 0.3750Flax (ND SD MT MN WY CONE KS)0.070 Yes NS NS NS NS 0.3750 0.3750Fruiting veg. & Okra (exceptcucurbits)0.070 Yes NS NS NS NS 0.3750 0.3750Grapes0.125 No 2 NS 60 3 0.3750 0.3750Mint0.141 Yes NS NS NS NS 0.3750 0.3750Railroad, Highway, Roadside,Pipeline and Utility Rights-ofWay, Industrial Areas, FenceRows, and Other listed Noncrop Sites0.250 No 1.000 Yes* NA NS 0.3750 0.3750Soybeans0.141 Yes NS Yes NS NS 0.3750 0.3750Strawberry0.070 Yes NS NS NS NS 0.3750 0.3750Sugarcane0.141 Yes NS Yes NS 120 0.3750 0.375021Crop or Non-AgriculturalUse Site1SingleMin, lbai/Aproduct;All sitesRatesvary bysoiltexture /%OrganicMatterMax #Applic.Aerialapplication?Minim.Interval(days)PHI, daysMaxim.single(1st)aplica., lbai/AMaxim.AnnualRate, lbai/ATobacco0.141 Yes NS NS NS NS 0.3750 0.3750Tree nuts0.125 No 2 NS 60 3 0.3750 0.3750Turf: Sod Production, lawns,golf fairways and roughs0.125 No NS NS NS 90 for sod 0.3750 0.375033Implied; some labels need to be clarified regarding the maximum annual rate.

### 22 2. Pesticide Usage

EPA’s Biological and Economic An alysis Division (BEAD) provi ded an analysis of nationallevel usage information using state-level usage da ta obtained from various public and proprietary

sources. Table 4 provides 2013 estimates of the usage of sulfentrazone on various crops. The largest usage of sulfentrazone is on soybeans, with 300,000 lbs applied in the United States annually. Other major uses include sunflowers and tobacco in which 50% and 45% of the treated crop are treated with su lfentrazone. Fifteen of the eigh teen ecological incidents, all involving plants, reported to the EIIS database (Appendix G) were associated with uses on soybeans.

Table 4. Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses of Sulfentrazone (February 27, 2013) 1,2



### Crop Lbs. A.I. Percent Crop Treated Avg. Max.
1 Alfalfa 1,000 <1 <2.5
2 Asparagus 1,000 10 20
3 Cabbage <500 <2.5 5
4 Corn 2,000 <1 <2.5
5 Dry Beans/Peas 30,000 10 20
6 Fallow 3,000 <1 <2.5
7 Peanuts 1,000 <1 <2.5
8 Peas, Green <500 <1 <2.5
9 Potatoes 4,000 <2.5 <2.5
10 Pumpkins+ <500 <2.5 5
11 Rice 4,000 <1 <2.5
12 Soybeans 300,000 5 10
13 Strawberries 1,000 5 10
14 Sugarcane 3,000 <1 <2.5
15 Sunflowers 100,000 50 65
16 Tobacco 30,000 45 60
17 Watermelons <500 <2.5 <2.5
18 Wheat 3,000 <1 <2.5

All numbers are rounded.

<500: indicates less than 500 pounds of active ingredient. <2.5: indicates less than 2.5 percent of crop is treated. <1: indicates less than 1 percent of crop is treated.

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

SLUA data sources include:

### 23 USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service) Private Pesticide Market Research These results reflect amalgamated data developed by the Agency and are releasable to the public.



### According to the Label Use Information System (LUIS) reports, sulfentrazone can be applied under the following use patterns: terrestrial food/ feed/non-food, and reside ntial outdoor. Under the food/feed uses, sulfentrazone can be applie d to asparagus, beans, cabbage, catjang, corn, cowpea, garbanzos, guar, horseradish, lentils, mi nt, peanuts, peas, peppermint, potato, soybeans, spearmint, sugarcane, and sunflower. Under the non-food and non-feed uses, sulfentrazone can be applied to agricultural and nonagricultural rights-of-way/fen ces/hedgerows, agricultural and nonagricultural uncultivated areas , agricultural/farm premises, ai rport/landing fields, commercial storages/warehouses premises, commercial/indust rial lawns, commercial/institutional/industrial premises, golf course turf, household/domestic dwellings outdoor premises, industrial areas, ornamental shade trees/herb aceous plants/lawns/tu rf/ nonflowering plants/ sod farms/woody shrubs/ vines, paths/ patios, private paved roads/ sidewalks, recreation lawns, residential lawns, sewage disposal areas, and tobacco.

Sulfentrazone can be applied by ground equipmen t, and also, for most use sites, by aerial equipment.

Most of the corresponding maxi mum application rates, appli cation intervals, and seasonal application rates for other food/feed uses were not reported. These parameters are necessary for modeling and conservative assumptions were ma de when necessary information could not be obtained.

The highest single application ra te on the non-food/non-feed uses is apparently intended to be 0.375 lb ai/year on lawns, turf, rights-of-way, industrial areas, and other non-crop sites. However, the language on the labels regarding the annual limits is not consistently explicitly stated for all of these uses. A general statement to this effect on the Sulfentrazone 4F ROW and other labels for non-crop would clarify that the 0.375 lb ai/Acre annual li mit on sulfentrazone applications is intended for all use sites. Alt hough sulfentrazone can be applied two times with an application interval of 30 days to residentia l lawns, the maximum yearly rate is not reported. If the labels are not clearly st andardized to limit the annual us e to 0.375 lb ai/Ac for lawns and other sites with vague label language the Agency’s risk assessments will need to be revised to assume that much higher annual rates of a pplication could occur at these sites.

C. 

### Previous Ecological Risk Assessments and Evaluations

The most recent ecological risk assessment was conducted on July 1, 2008 for the uses on Head/Stem Brassica Subgroup 5A, Leafy Green s Subgroup 5B, Melon Subgroup 9A, Fruiting Vegetable Group 8, Okra, Succulent Pea, Stra wberry and Tuberous/Corm Vegetable Subgroup 1C (US EPA 2008, DP 349322). Based on previous asse ssments, sulfentrazone poses little risk to most terrestrial and aquatic animals tested. However, for terrestrial plants adjacent to treatment sites and in semi-aquatic areas, risk quotients (RQs) exceeded LOCs for monocotyledonous (monocots) and di cotyledenous (dicots) plants . Also, since sulfentrazone may exhibit photo- and phyto-toxicity, and RQ s exceeded LOCs, listed and non-listed aquatic

### 24 plant species are potentially at additional ri sk. There is also the potential for indirect effects on non-target animal species due to the e ffects on primary productivity and habitat ( e.g. , depletion of food sources and habitat).

Previously, the most recently updated drinki ng water assessment was in 2012 (DP Barcode D393777 and D393770; dated April 25, 2012). This a ssessment has now been comprehensively updated using newer exposure assessment mode ls for the proposed new use on apples (DP Barcode D415267), this new assessment can be used to support the drinking water exposure assessment for registration review. This assessm ent assumed no use site is intended to have maximum single application or yearly rates above 0.375 lbs ai/A. A revised drinking water assessment will be needed, however, if the annual application rate assumptions are not confirmed by the label clarifications requested for certain uses in the previous section.



### D. Assessment Endpoints

Assessment endpoints represent the ac tual environmental value that is to be protected, defined by an ecological entity (species, community, or othe r entity) and its attri bute or characteristics (USEPA, 1998 a ). For sulfentrazone, the ecological entiti es include the followi ng: birds, reptiles, terrestrial-phase amphibians, mammals, freshwat er fish, freshwater aquatic-phase amphibians and invertebrates, estuarine/mari ne fish and invertebrates, terre strial plants, insects, aquatic plants, and algae. The attributes for each of these entities include growth, reproduction, and survival.

No new sulfentrazone studies have been submitted since the last risk assessment; however, there is new information documenting enhanced toxicity of LDPH chemicals to fish in the presence of ultraviolet light compared to the toxicity obs erved under standard labo ratory lighting (MRIDs 46585104 and 46037001). While these studies were not conducted on sulfentrazone, they provide data for the interim toxicity adjustme nt factor recommended by the Environmental Fate and Effects Division’s (EFED) Aquatic Biology Technical Team for use in the absence of chemical-specific data. Following EFED guidance for LDPH chemicals, an interim 29X toxicity adjustment factor was applied to the fish early life stage toxicity data (U.S. EPA, 2010) in order to calculate an RQ.

More information on results of ecotoxicity studies with sulfentrazone is provided in Section III.C Ecological Effects Characteriz ation of this document.

Open Literature

Additional toxicity data were located in the open literature us ing the ECOTOXicology database. A listing of the open literature st udies which were considered in this assessment is provided in Appendix H: ECOTOX Database Bibliography for Sulfentrazone

.

### 25 

### E. Analysis Plan and Conceptual Models

1. Measures to Evaluate Risk Hypotheses

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

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

2. Conceptual Model

The potential exposure pathways and effects of sulfentrazone are depicted for aquatic environments in Figure 2 and for terrestrial environments in Figure 3 . Solid lines in each of the figures indicate significant rout es of exposure; whereas, dashed lines denote exposure routes not assessed due to the likelihood of low potential ex posure. Likely significant exposure pathways to both aquatic and terrestrial organisms include direct application, spray drift, runoff, and leaching to groundwater. Non-target plants are ex pected to be exposed to sulfentrazone from direct foliar exposure, from spray drift, and from uptake of sulfentrazone from the roots, and in the case of aquatic plants, from absorption from the ambient water. Terrestrial animals are expected to be exposed primar ily from consumption of contaminated plants and animals that were directly sprayed, drinking of contaminated wa ter, and dermal contact to contaminated soil and vegetation. Aquatic animal s are expected to be exposed primarily from exposure to contaminated water. Because of the low potential to accu mulate in animal tissue, secondary exposure to aquatic and terrestrial animals is expected to be minimal. Because of sulfentrazone’s high solubility and low binding potential, expos ure to bound residues in soil and sediment is expected to be minimal. Finally, due to the low volatility and low Henry’s Law Constant of sulfentrazone, exposure from inhalation is not expected to be significant.

### 26 Figure 2. Conceptual model depicting stresso rs, exposure pathways, and potential effects to aquatic animals and plants from the use of Sulfentrazone.

### 27 Figure 3. Conceptual model depicting stresso rs, exposure pathways, and potential effects to terrestrial animals and plants from the use of sulfentrazone.

3. Risk Hypothesis

### 28 A risk hypothesis describes the predicted re lationship among the stre ssor, exposure, and assessment endpoint response along with the rationale for their selection. This risk assessment focuses on exposures and potential effects from e xposure to sulfentrazone as the sole stressor. Currently, there are ongoing efforts between EPA, USFWS, and NMFS, to develop methods to assess possible effects of mixtur e components either quantitativel y or qualitatively, if data are available on the potential modification of toxicity of the active ingredient(s), or the sensitivity of the receptor organism. For sulf entrazone the following ecological risk hypothesis is being employed for this national-lev el ecological risk assessment:

Sulfentrazone, when used in accordance with current labels, may result in contamination of ecosystems and adverse effects upon the survival, growth, a nd reproduction of nontarget terrestrial and aquatic organisms, including listed species.

### 29 

## III. ANALYSIS

A. Measures of Exposure

1. Environmental Fate and Modeling Input Parameters

Physical/Chemical and Environmental Fate Properties

The physical/chemical properties and environmental fate properties of sulfentrazone along with comments on input parameter selection for aquatic exposure modeling are listed in Table 5.

Table 5. Physical/chemical Properties and Environmental Fate Properties of Sulfentrazone.

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

Molecular Structure

Chemical Name (common) Sulfentrazone

CAS Number 122836-35-5

Name IUPAC Name: 2 ′ ,4 ′ -Dichloro-5 ′ -(4-difluoromethyl4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1- yl)methanesulfonanilide CAS Name: N-[2,4-dichloro-5-[4-(difluoromethyl)- 4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1- yl]phenyl]methanesulfonamide

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

Chemical Class

Mode of Action Aryl triazinone.

Protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO) Inhibitor / Inhibits an enzyme of chlorophyll and heme biosynthesis. https://ag.purdue.edu/btny/weeds cience/Documents/47575_FINA L_TakeAction_HerbicideClassC hart.pdf

http://pnwhandbooks.org/weed/a grichemicals/sulfentrazone

http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$de partment/deptdocs.nsf/all/prm64 87

Molecular Formula C 11 H 10 C l2 F 2 N 4 O 3 S -

Molecular Weight 387.2 Tomlin, C.D.S. (ed.). The Pesticide Manual - World Compendium, 11 th ed. (1997)
Solubility in water, ppm (25 o C) 400 @ pH 7.0 Product Chemistry Submissions
Vapor Pressure (25 o C) In mm Hg 9.75x10 -10 Tomlin, C.D.S. (ed.). The Pesticide Manual - World Compendium, 11th ed., British Crop Protection Council, Surrey, England 1997, p. 1126
Henry’s Law Constant, atmcu m/mole (25 o C) 6.37x10 -13 Calculated Not volatile

Hydrolysis Half-life @ pH7 (25 o C) (GL 835. 143 days at pH 5, 207-375 days at pH 7, 348 days at pH 9 ( 25 C) 41928202 (a) No major degradates over the 30-day study.

Aqueous Photolysis Half-life (25 o C) pH 5 = 0.50 days pH 7 and 9 = 0.05 days MRID 43345424, 43588601 (a)

Soil Photolysis Half-life (25 o C) Sand soil = 98 days Sandy loam soil = 161 days 3-hydroxymethyl metabolite reached a maximum of 3.9% of applied after 1 or 2 weeks (sampling continued for 33 days for both test soils.) MRID 43345425 (a) For aquatic exposure modeling, in order to account for reduced exposure to sunlight in turbid waters, the soil photolysis value was used as model input in placeof the aqueous photolysis halflife.

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

Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half-life (ASM) (T 1/2 ) T 1⁄2: 545 days in sandy loam soil 538 days in silty clay loam soil (25 C) The major accumulating degradate was 3-carboxylic acid sulfentrazone, which reached a maximum of 10.8% of the recovered residues at the end of the course of one study. MRIDs 41928203, 42932117 (a) 90% Upper C.I. of mean t 1/2 = 552.3 days (input for PRZMEXAMS) Due to the high persistence of parent in these studies it is not possible to determine the ultimate extent of formation or the decline rates of the degradation products. Initially a 3-hydroxymethyl metabolite is formed which subsequently is further oxidized to a 3-carboxylic acid metabolite.

Anaerobic Soil Metabolism Half-life (days) Stable (but anaerobicity was not sufficiently documented MRID 48958901 Study classifi ed as supplemental but not a required study.

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half-life (days) In a water: loamy sand sediment system = 3,283 MRID 43345426 (a) For aquatic exposure modeling assumes that this input value is a zero rate (per EFED Guidance).

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half-life (days) Study results not accepted at this time. More data are being requested (OCSPP Guideline No.835.4300).

Reported results (not cleared for use in exposure assessment): 679 SFO Pond water:silty clay loam sediment (20oC, sediment pH 6.1; 5.1% OM) 612 SFO Canal water:sandy loam sediment system (20oC, sediment pH 6.0; 2.1% OM) 90% Upper C.I. of mean t 1/2 = 748.6 days (input for PE5) MRID 48958902 (s) With no accepted data at thistime, input (half-life) for PRZMEXAMS is 2x ASM model input or 1,105 days.

Soil Partition Coefficient (K d ) (mL/g) 1. Jackson sandy loam, 3.8% OM, pH 6.9 2. Georgetown silt loam, 5.9% OM, pH 7.1 3. Troy Grove silty clay loam, 3.9% OM, pH 7.0 4. Tavares sand, 0.4% OM, pH 6.0 Respective K f values: 0.55; 0.77; 0.77 and 0.15 Respective n values: 1.01; 1.03; 1.09; 0.98 MRID 41911604 (Batch equilibrium soil Adsorption/Desorption study. (a) See also 43355903 (column leaching study) Freundlich K des values were 1.23-1.44 for the four soils.

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

Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient (K oc ) (mL/g) See K d entry above for soil id. Respective K foc values: 29, 26, 40, 77 MRID 41911604. For PRZM modeling, chose Koc

= 29 (median of the 3 non-sand soil values) for model input. Koc adequately accounts for adsorption.
Log Octanol/water partition coefficient (K ow )(25 ◦ C) Log K ow = 0.99 @ pH 7 K ow = 9.9
Terrestrial Field Dissipation Half-life 4 to 24 months at 4 sites. MRIDs 43651008, 43651009, 43345434. (a) Leaching was further evaluated in four prospective groundwater monitoring studies – discussed in text of this document.

Bioconcentration Factor (BCF) in fish Negligible MRID 43345433 BCF study normally is not triggered when the K ow is <<< 1000
pK a (acid dissociation constant) 6.56 Hatzios KK, ed; Herbicide Handbook of the Weed Science Society of America. 7th ed. Suppl. Champaign, IL: Weed Sci Soc Amer p. 67 (1998)

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



### 2. Environmental Fate Summary

Summary Sulfentrazone is persistent for months to y ears and very highly m obile (McCall system, Table 6 ) under most environmental conditions; however, it is subject to rapid photodegradation when exposed to sunlight. Overall, sulfentrazone ha s a strong potential to l each into groundwater and move offsite to surface water. This chemical has the followi ng characteristics: (1) water solubility sufficient to allow off-site tran sport (400 ppm); (2) susceptible only slowly (extrapolated half-lives 143 - 348 days) to hydrolysis at acidic, neutral, and alkaline pHs; (3) subject to rapid photolysis in water; (4) relati vely stable to photodegradation on soil; (5) very persistent in sandy loam and silty clay-loam soils under aerobic conditions with a half-life of 1.5 years; (6) essentially stable to anaerobic aqua tic metabolism (degradation half-life of several years); (7) it is expected to be very mobile in soil (K ads 

### <1; or K oc 

### = 43), (8) non-volatile from water and wet/dry soils (vapor pressure <10 -9 

### mmHg; Henry's Law constant = 10 -12 

### atm m 3 

### /mol); and (9) is not expected to bioaccumulate in fish (K ow 

### = 9.9).

The major routes of dissipation in the environmen t appear to be direct aqueous photodegradation, runoff, and leaching. Since sulfentrazone is al most stable to hydrolys is and biodegradation, rapid loss in the environment likely only occurs from direct photolysis after sulfentrazone is transported to clear shallow waters. Low soil/wat er partition indicates that most sulfentrazone runoff is via dissolution in runoff water, as oppo sed to adsorption to eroding soil. It also

### 33 indicates that most sulfentrazone will be partitioned in the water column instead of in the suspended and bottom sediments. Detected environmental degradation products include 3- carboxylic acid Sulfentrazone (SCA), 3-Hydrox ymethyl-sulfentrazone (HMS), 3-Desmethyl sulfentrazone (DMS), Methyl tri azole (full chemical names and structures are found in Appendix D: Chemical Names and Structures); onl y SCA has been shown to be major.

Results from each of four field dissipation st udies suggested that sulfentrazone was very persistent (dissipation half-lives ranged from 4 to 24 months). However, there was no substantial downward movement ( i.e ., leaching) confirmed (detection lim it = 1 ppb) at three of the four study sites in Illinois (clay loam), Arkansas (silty clay-loam), and in Iowa (silty clay-loam). Based on the residues detected in the 0-6 inch soil at the above three study sites, half-lives were estimated to be 1-2 years. Results from four th field dissipation study (a loamy sand in North Carolina) suggested much more substantial movement of sulfentrazone, with the compound being detected in the deeper soil zones ( i.e ., 6-12, 12-18, 18-24, 24-30, 30-36, 36-42, 42-48 inches) as well as in the shallo w groundwater. Based on sulfentraz one detected in the entire 48- inch soil column at the North Carolina site, the dissipation half-life was es timated to be 121 days. The relatively short dissipation half -life observed in this site is attributed to leaching. Other studies (prospective groundwater monitoring – di scussed below) do conf irm that significant leaching of sulfentrazone occurs in many soils.

Based on the environmental fate characteristics of sulfentrazone with consideration of the application rates and results of th e field studies, EFED believes that use of sulfentrazone is likely to result in contamination of groundwater and surface water.

Hydrolysis Sulfentrazone was relatively stable to hydrolysis with extrapolated half-lives of 143 days at pH 5, 207-375 days at pH 7, and 348 days at pH 9 in sterile aqueous buffered solutions that were incubated at 25 o 

### C in the dark for 30 days.

Aqueous Photolysis Sulfentrazone photodegraded with half-lives of 12, 1, and 1 hours in sterile, aqueous pH 5, 7, and 9 buffer solutions, respectively, that we re continuously irradiated at ~25 o 

### C for up to 10 days with a uV-filtered xenon arc lamp. The artificial light source had an emission spectrum between 300 and 800 nm, and the intensity ranged from 522-536 watts/m 2 

### . The intensity of artificial light was very close to that of natural sunlight. In co ntrast, sulfentrazone was relatively stable in the dark at all three pH levels fo r the duration of the exposure peri od. In the irradiated solutions, sulfentrazone was rapidly dechlorinated a nd hydroxylated into th e photodegradates 2,4- dihydroxy sulfentrazone and des-dichloromonoh ydroxy sulfentrazone. However, these two degradates were short-lived; th e chemical bond between the phenyl and the triazole rings was subsequently cleaved, resulting me thyl triazole, 1,3- dihydroxybenzene, and a methyl triazole oxidation product.

Soil Photolysis Sulfentrazone degraded very slowly on sand and sandy loam soils that we re irradiated at 14-34

o 

### C for 12 hours/day for 33 days using a xenon ar c lamp. The minor degradate 3-hydroxymethyl

### 34 sulfentrazone (HMS), was identified at 1-3.9% in the irradiated soils. The photolysis on soil halflives were estimated to range from 98 to 161 days.

Aerobic Soil Metabolism Uniformly phenyl ring-labeled [ 14 

### C]sulfentrazone or carbonyl-labeled [5- 14 

### C]sulfentrazone degraded with half-lives of 535-555 days (appr oximately 1.5 years) in sandy loam soil and 534- 541 days (approximately 1.5 years) in silty clay lo am soil that were incuba ted in the dark at 25 o 

### C and 75% of 0.33 bar moisture. Nonvolatile degr adates identified were 3-carboxylic acid sulfentrazone, 5'-desmethylsulfonyl sulfentr azone, 3-hydroxymethyl sulfentrazone, and 3- desmethyl sulfentrazone. The major accumulating degradate was 3-carboxylic acid sulfentrazone (SCA) which reached a maximum of 10.8% of the recovered re sidues at the end of the course of the study. The 5'-desmethylsulf onyl sulfentrazone (DMS) degradate reached a maximum level of 5.9% of the recovered at 90 days. Less than 2% of the recovered was identified as 3-hydroxymethyl sulfentrazone (HMS ) or DMS. Material balance ranged from 93- 107%.

The major metabolic pathway for sulfentrazone in soil under aerobic cond itions is the oxidation of the methyl group on the triazolinone ring of the parent compound to form HMS. The hydroxymethyl group was further oxidized to car boxylic acid, forming SCA. Subsequently, SCA was decarboxylated, resulting in DMS. The minor metabolic pathway is the cleavage of the sulfonamide group on sulfentrazone, form ing 5'-desmethylsulfonyl sulfentrazone.

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism The submitted study (MRID 48958902) is supplemental at this time (possibly upgradeable with more data submitted, if available) and therefore the results are not discussed here. Additional information is being requested that might a llow this study to be upgraded to “acceptable”.

Anaerobic Soil Metabolism The submitted study (MRID 48958901) is classified as supplemental at this time (possibly upgradeable with more data submitted, if availabl e) and therefore the results are not discussed here. Additional information is be ing requested that might allow this study to be upgraded to “acceptable”.

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism In an acceptable study (MRID 43345426) uniformly phenyl ring-labeled [ 14 

### C] sulfentrazone or carbonyl-labeled [5- 14 

### C] sulfentrazone degraded very sl owly (<10% degradation) in flooded loamy sand sediment (1:5, w:v) that was incubated in the dark under a static nitrogen atmosphere at 23-27oC for 12 months. The half-life was estimated to be 3,287 days. One degradate (5'- desmethylsulfonyl sulfentrazone) was identified in both water and sediment samples. The levels of 5'-desmethylsulfonyl sulfentraz one detected in both water and sediment samples were <3% of the applied. Material balances ranged from 96.7-102.1% of the applied throughout the study.

Field Dissipation Four studies (Culligan, J.F. 1994; MRID 43345427, Culligan, F.F. 1995; MRID 43651009, Nagel, W.D. and J.F. Dulligan. 1995; MRID 43651008, and Becker, J.M. 1994; MRID 43345434) were submitted to satisfy th e Field Dissipation data requirement.

### 35 Iowa study - sulfentrazone applied at 0.375 lb ai/A , dissipated with an ob served half-life of approximately 2 years in the 0-to 6-inch depth of a plot of bare ground silty clay-loam soil in Iowa.

In the 0- to 6-inch soil depth, sulfentrazone averaged 94-206 ppb through 29 days post treatment, 78-176 ppb at 57 through 365 days, 104-108 ppb at 455 and 531 days. Trace amounts of sulfentrazone were detected in the 12-18 inch depth soil at 21, 57, 91, 120, and 180 days. For the samples collected at the depth of 30-36 inches , the parent compound was detected only at 180 days. The degradate SCA, which was converted to DMS to facilitate analysis, was detected in all samples collected in the 0-6 inch soil zone (with a range of 4-10 ppb).

Illinois study - sulfentrazone applied at 0.5 lb ai /A, dissipated with an observed half-life of approximately 1 year in the 0- to 6-inch depth of a plot of bare ground clay loam soil in Illinois.

The degradate SCA, which was converted to DMS to facilitate analysis, averaged <11 ppb in soil from the 0- to 6-inch depth and <2 ppb in so il collected from depths below 6 inches at all sampling intervals.

Arkansas study - sulfentrazone applied at 0.375 lb a i/A, dissipated with an observed half-life of approximately 1.5 years in the 0- to 6-inch depth of a plot of bare ground silty clay loam soil in Arkansas.

The degradate SCA, which was converted to DMS to facilitate analysis, was detected in all the 0- 6 inch soil samples collected from days 3 to days 554 with a concentration ranging from 3-13 ppb.

North Carolina study - sulfentrazone applied at 0.5 lb ai/A, dissipate d with an estimated half-life of 121 days in the entire 48-inch soil column of a plot of loam y sand soil in North Carolina. Sulfentrazone was detected in the soil to a depth of 48 inches, with maximum average concentrations of 36.7 ppb in the 6- to 12-inch depth, 10.9 ppb in the 12- to 18-inch depth, 6.6 ppb in the 18- to 24-inch depth, 5.2 ppb in the 24 - to 30-inch depth, 10.8 ppb in the 30- to 36- inch depth, 3 ppb in the 36- to 42-inch dept h, and 1 ppb in the 42-to 48-inch depth.

The degradate SCA, which was converted to DMS to facilitate analysis, averaged <11.5 ppb in soil from the 0- to 6-inch depth and <7.3 ppb in so il collected from depths below 6 inches at all sampling intervals.

### 36 Mobility Based on the McCall classification system ( Table 6 ) sulfentrazone (in batc h equilibrium studies at 0.1, 2, 5, 7, and 10 ppm), was determined to be highly mobile to very highly mobile in sodium azide-sterilized sandy loam, silt loam, silty clay loam, and sand soil:calcium chloride solution slurries (1:5) (Table 6). Freundlich K ads 

### values were 0.2 for the sand soil, 0.6 for the sandy loam soil, 0.8 for the silt loam soil, and 0.8 for the silty clay loam soil; respective K oc 

### values were 77, 29, 26, and 40. The desorption coefficient (K des 

### ) values were 1.23-1.44 for the four soils. Because their exponent values (1/n) were very close to 1 (1.03 for adsorption; 0.93 for desorption=), the adsorption and de sorption isotherms were linear.

Table 6. Mobility classification of pest icides according to the McCall system.

Source: McCall, P. J., Swann, R. L., Laskowski, D. A., U nger, S. M., Vrona, S. A. and Dishburger, H. J. 1980. Estimation of chemical mobility in soil from liquid chromatographic retention times, Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 24, 190–195.



### A soil column leaching study provides evidence th at the degradation produc ts of sulfentrazone are also very highly mobile in soil. Sulfentrazone residues were mobile in columns (12-inch length) of sandy loam soil that were treated with aged (30 days) [ 14 

### C]sulfentrazone residues and leached with approximately 20 inches of a 0.01 M calcium chloride solution. Prior to leaching, the columns had been topped with sandy loam soil that had been treated with phenyl ring- or carbonyl-labeled [ 14 

### C] sulfentrazone and incubated in the da rk at 25 C and 75% of field moisture capacity for 30 days. In the soil columns, 25.8-31. 3% of the radioactivity applied to the column remained in the aged soil layer, 2.5-6.5% was in each 2-inch column segment, and 37.6-44.4% was in the column leachates. Two degradates we re identified in the soil and leachate: HMS and SCA. Both degradation products are very mobile . It appears that HMS is more mobile than SCA. Nearly 72% of the applied material was de tected as HMS in the leachate at the end of the study; whereas, and up to 35% was detected as SCA in the leachate.

Bioconcentration Sulfentrazone residues did not accumulate in the edible tissue (muscle) and accumulated only slightly in the nonedible tissue (viscera and carca ss) of juvenile bluegill sunfish exposed to sulfentrazone at 0.94 mg/L for 28 days under flow-through conditions (MRID 43345433). Average bioconcentration factor s throughout steady state were <1x, 1.8-2.4x, and 1.1-2.0x for edible tissue, nonedible tissue, and whole fish, respectively. The degradate, 3-hydroxymethyl

### 37 sulfentrazone, was identified in the viscera. The octanol/water (K ow) 

### partition coefficient of sulfentrazone is only 9.9, indicating a low potential for bioaccumulation.

3. Monitoring Data

Prospective Small-Scale Groundwater Studies

The registrant has conducted prospective gr ound-water monitoring stud ies at four sites ( Table 7
, Table 8
, Table 9 , and Table 10 ). The first study conducted (the >95 th 

### %ile study) was not completed before it had to be terminated. Three additional studies were required based on the original registration at the time of sulfentrazone for soybeans. Sel ection of the three sites was to approximately represent the 75 th 

### , 85 th 

### , and 95 th 

### percentile vulnerabilit y of ground water in the projected use area using currently available re sources such as soil, hydrology, crop production, and weather data in conjunction with fate and transport models and general pesticide monitoring data. These sites are referred by the shorthand notation of the 75%, 85%, and 95% sites. A short description of the four study sites is provided in the tables below.

Table 7. Description of “95th percentile” ground-water vulnerability site.

Soil Series: Tyner loamy sand. Family: Mixed. Subgroup: Mesic Typic Udipsamments. Characteristics at test site: Surface layer typically 80% sand, 12% silt, and 8% clay with 1.0 to 1.7% o.m. Grades to a sand texture at 1 to 5 feet and below (up to 97% sand). Acidic (pH 4.7 to 7.0), becoming alkaline below 16 or 18 feet. (DP Barcode D255967, no MRID assigned; 5/4/99 report, page 29f.) Location1 Hanna, LaPo rte County, Indiana. Crop Soybeans Pesticide 6/11/99: sulfentrazone @ 0.14 lbs ai/acr e (the target application rate was 0.17 lbs ai/acre). Tracer 6/11/99: 81.7 (1 00.5?) lbs bromide /acre (two di fferent rates given, presumably representing actual confir med and nominal application rates, respectively.) Depth to ground water Average of 18 feet below ground surface.



### Table 8. Description of “85th percentile” ground-water vulnerability site.

Soil Series: Shipshe sandy loam. Family: Loamy-skeletal, mixed. Subgroup: Mesic Typic Argiudoll. Characteristics at test site: Surface layer sandy loam, 60% sand, 23% s ilt, and 17% clay with 3.2 to 4.8% organic matter. Grading to sand below about 3 feet. Acidic (pH 5.6 to 6.9), alkaline below about 3 feet, mean pH above 8 below 4 foot depth. (MRID 447733-01, DP Barcode D254419, page 65). Location Leesburg, Kosciusko County, Indiana.

### 38 Table 8. Description of “85th percentile” ground-water vulnerability site.

Crop Soybeans Pesticide 6/23/98: sulfentrazone @ 0.2 lbs ai/ acre; 6/14/99: sulfentrazone to one-half of field @ 0.2 lbs ai/acre. Tracer 6/23/98: 105 lbs bromide/acre Depth to ground water 27 to 33 feet



### Table 9. Description of “75th percentile” ground-water vulnerability site.

Soil Series: Coupee silt loam. Family: Mixed. Subgroup: Mesic Ultic Hapludulfs. Characteristics at test site: Surface layer (up to about a 2-foot depth) typically loam to clay loam with approximately 25 to 50% sand, 25 to 45% silt, and 10 to 35% clay with, in the upper six inches 3.9 to 4.6% o.m., grading down to around 0.5% o.m. below 2 feet. Grades to a loamy sand texture from 2 to 6 feet and is predominantly sand below 6 feet (up to 97% sand). The soil is generally mildly acidic to occasionally mildly alkaline in the upper two feet (pH 5.1 to 7.5), the pH is variable in the same general range up to about a 14- foot depth, and the remaining part of the vadose zone is alkaline from 14 to 30 feet below ground surface with a me dian pH of about 8.5 at th e lower depths (DP Barcode D279430, MRID 4537 72-01; 3/16/01 report date, r eceived 12/3/01; see page 72f for summary statistics of soil characteristics ) Location 2 miles south of the town of LaPorte, LaPorte County, Indiana. Crop Soybeans

Pesticide 6/20/00: sulfentrazone @ 0.204 lbs ai/ acre (the target application rate was 0.20 lbs ai/acre). Tracer 6/20/00: 102 lbs brom ide/acre (as 152 lbs KBr). Depth to ground water Average of 21 feet below ground surface (original measurement, believed to represent seasonally high levels).



### Table 10. . Description of “>95th percentile ” ground-water vulnerability site.

Soil Series: Tarboro loamy sand. Characteristics at test site: Profile: >90% sand through out the profile. Surf ace O.M. <1.5% and rapidly declining with depth. Location Edgecombe Count y, North Carolina. Crop Soybeans

Pesticide ~5/15/1992: sulfentrazone @ 0.5 lbs ai/acre.

Tracer 5/14/1992: 263 lbs bromide/acre (as 400 lbs KBr).

Depth to ground water From 6 to 10 feet below ground surface.

### 39 Maximum groundwater concentrations observed in each of the four studies are summarized in ( Table 11 ). The four sites were selected by the re gistrant to be representative of >95 th 

### (NC1 site), 95 th 

### (IN1 site), 85 th 

### (IN2 site), and 75 th 

### (IN3 site) percenti le groundwater vulnerability in likely sulfentrazone use areas at the time of the studies. The results indicate that sulfentrazone or the acid degradate SCA may eventually leach to groundw ater at a wide variety of sites where it is used. Whether parent sulfentrazone or SCA ar e the dominant moiety found in groundwater over the long-term will likely depend on the relative resi stance to hydrolysis of sulfentrazone in the vadose zone and in groundwater from site to site. Long-term observed concentrations may be higher than those observed if sulfentrazone continue s to be used at a site over multiple years.

Table 11. Maximum observed concentrations of sulfentrazone and its acid degradate in shallow groundwater below or immediately downgr adient of treated fields at four sites.

Chemical NC1

Site IN1

Site IN2

Site IN3

Site Concentration in ppb (days after initial applic. of obs.)

Sulfentrazone 37.4 (160d) 0.86 (577d) 0.11 (153d) 0.26 (634d)
3-Carboxylic Acid Sulfentrazone 11.4 (160d) 2.50 (455d) <5 (variable) 1.61 (1499d) SITE DESCRIPTIONS: NC1 (>95 th site ) = The test site was located near the town of Tarboro in Edgecombe County, North Carolina, and was located in a setting classified as very high vulnerab ility to groundwater contamination. Soil series = Tarboro sand to loamy sand. Sulfentrazone application rate = 0.50 lb ai/acre. (MRID 43345434 and 43926814). Average depth to groundwater = 9.2 feet.

IN1(95 th site) = The test site was located near the town of Lees burg in Kosciusko County, Indiana, and was located in a setting classified as 85 th percentile in terms of vulnerability to grou ndwater contamination. Soil series = Tyner loamy sand to sandy loam. Sulfentrazone application rate = 0.17 lb ai/acre. Average depth to groundwater = 18.9 feet. (MRID 46816001).

IN2 (85 th site = The test site was located near the town of Hann a in LaPorte County, Indiana, and was located in a setting classified as 95 th percentile in terms of vulnerability to gro undwater contamination. Soil series = Shipshe loamy sand to sandy loam. Sulfentrazone application rate = 0.22 to 0.44 lb ai/acre. Average depth to groundwater = 30 feet. (MRID 47453601).

IN3 (75 th site) = The test site was located near the town of La Porte in LaPorte County, I ndiana, and was located in a setting classified as 75 th percentile in terms of vulnerability to groun dwater contamination. Soil series = Coupee silt loam. Sulfentrazone application rate = 0.22 lb ai/ acre. Average depth to groundwater = 21 feet. (MRID 47453602).

### 40 Other Surface and Ground Water Monitoring Data

Surface and ground water data from other avai lable pesticide monitoring programs were reviewed to provide additional context concerning the potential presence of sulfentrazone in ambient water resources. In most major monito ring programs for pesticides in surface and ground waters sulfentrazone has not been include d in the list of anal ytes. No significant detections were located in any of the following sources:

These water monitoring programs do not target sa mple collection to peak use locations or application times for particular pesticides, nor do they target sample collection to high precipitation events ( i.e.
, high-runoff events) or areas high ly vulnerable to groundwater contamination. Additionally, the sampling fre quency in these monitoring programs was not designed to capture peak concentrations. Ther efore, the monitoring data reported by these programs may not represent the highest concentr ations in ambient su rface water, and are considered qualitative information for the purposes of this ecol ogical risk assessment

. The groundwater monitoring sites also were not selected based upon sulfentrazone use.

U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Assessment program (NAWQA) – data query at: http://cida.usgs.gov/nawqa_queries_public/ No significant occurrence data available for sulfentrazone in groundwat er or surface water. (Only 2 groundwater sample resu lts retrieved, neither had a quan tified detection. Sulfentrazone has only recently been added to the analytical schedule for the USGS multi-residue monitoring used in NAWQA and simila r monitoring programs. )

U.S. Geological Survey surface water mid-continent herbicide monitoring program: http://co.water.usgs.gov/midconherb/html/sulfonylurea.html ). (Sulfentrazone apparently not analyzed for).

USDA Pesticide Data Program (PDP) Data - The PDP drinking water monitoring project provides non-targeted pesticide occurrence data in raw, finished (treated/tap), and groundwater for selected community water systems in the Unite d States. Sulfentrazone has not been reported in surface water or groundwater monitoring data from 2003 to 2012 but it appears to not have been monitored for. PDP data are available at http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/pdp

. CDPR. 2013. Sampling for Pesticide Residues in California Well Water. 2012 Update. California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Pesticide Regulation. 262 pp. Sacramento, CA. Available at: www.cdpr. ca .gov/docs/emon/pubs/ehapreps/eh0801.pdf Sulfentrazone residues were not reporte d in any of the ground water samples.



### B. Exposure Estimates for Non-target Aquatic Animals and Plants

As noted earlier, the PRZM and EXAMS models ar e used to derive EECs for aquatic organisms from the use of sulfentrazone on registered cr ops and for the proposed use on apples based on various application scenarios. All scenarios were run with at leas t two different application date assumptions: pre-emergence application dates were selected to be one day prior to the plant emergence (scenario dependent) and post-emergen ce date was 40 days after the pre-emergence

### 41 application date. Since some labels did not clearly state whether ae rial applications were allowed for most uses these were modeled as aerial applic ations (the labels for the proposed use on apples explicitly prohibit aeria l application so this use was m odeled as a ground application). The application rates, reapplication intervals, a nd date of first application are detailed in Appendix D (Aquatic Exposure Model Input and Output). In general, preferen ce was given to modeling of a single sulfentrazone application at the maximu m permitted rate if that equaled the maximum annual rate.

EECs sorted by the estimated acute exposure are presented in Table 12 and Table 13 . For use sites where application of sulf entrazone might be by aerial or ground equipment, only the aerial application simulation results are presented (res ults for ground applications gave lower EECs). Although these EECs are believed to be adequately conservative overall for the ecological risk assessment, it was observed in the preparation of this assessment that sulfentrazone exposure estimation is particularly sensitive to th e degree that sulfentr azone is subject to photodegradation. The Florida (FL) peppers scenario with the highest EECs using standard model inputs was rerun with the soil photolysis half-life to re present very low exposure of sulfentrazone to sunlight that might occur in highly turbid waters. The rationale for this was based on the fact that the sunli ght exposure opportunity may be mu ch less than assumed with the standard EXAMS model simulati on. Results are presented in Table 12 and Table 13 . Using a longer photolysis half-life has a significant e ffect (increases) the EECs because, whenever a sulfentrazone molecule is exposed to sunlight, it will degrade much more rapidly than it will by any other transformation pathway.

Table 12

. Tier 2 Surface Water Estimated Environm ental Concentrations (EECs) for Registered Uses of Sulfentrazone.

Scenario

State Scenario Crop 4 Repres. Crop for Sulfentrazone App. Date in Days before /after Emergn

. EEC μg/L (sorted by acute EECs)

Peak 4-Day 21 Day 60 Day

FL Pep Peppers 40 17.94 17.56 15.95 13.08

FL Sgc Sugarcane 40 16.89 16.50 14.97 12.38

LA Sgc Sugarcane 40 15.68 15.38 14.30 12.26

MS Cor Corn -1 14.44 14.15 12.97 10.69

LA Sgc Sugarcane -1 13.52 13.23 12.71 10.75

FL Sgc Sugarcane -1 13.22 11.44 10.37 8.59

FL Pep Peppers -1 10.57 10.28 9.49 7.80

FL Cuc Peppers -1 9.27 9.06 8.34 6.81

4 See Appendix E for full crop names for each scenario.

### 42 Scenario

State Scenario Crop 4 Repres. Crop for Sulfentrazone App. Date in Days before /after Emergn

. EEC μg/L (sorted by acute EECs)

Peak 4-Day 21 Day 60 Day

FL Str Strawberries 40 8.10 7.90 7.13 4.53

FL Cuc Peppers 40 7.51 7.37 6.71 3.73

PA Tma Tomatoes 40 7.12 6.98 6.45 5.41

FL Cit Citrus 40 7.00 6.84 6.30 5.16

ME Pot Potatoes 40 6.79 6.67 6.35 5.48

FL Str Strawberries -1 6.77 6.60 5.98 4.80

FL Cit Citrus -1 7.63 6.44 5.85 4.78

FL Tma Tomatoes 40 6.43 6.28 5.77 4.71

MS Cor Corn 40 6.07 5.94 5.58 4.57

PA App Apples 40 5.61 5.51 5.09 4.26

KS2 Srg Sugarcane 40 5.19 5.08 4.68 3.83

NC App Apples 40 5.15 5.05 4.65 3.82

FL Cbb Cabbage, Brassica -1 5.05 4.93 4.46 3.60

IL Cor Corn -1 4.87 4.78 4.46 3.70

PA Cor Corn 40 4.84 4.75 4.39 3.69

MS Syb Soybeans 40 4.65 4.59 4.20 3.42

GA Pcn Tree Nuts 40 4.51 4.41 4.01 3.27

MI Bea Dry, lima beans -1 4.45 4.37 4.10 3.56

ND Cno Sunflower 40 4.44 4.36 4.03 3.36

MS Syb Soybeans -1 4.44 4.33 3.99 3.29

MI Bea Dry, lima beans 40 4.32 4.23 4.01 3.39

OH Cor Corn -1 4.24 4.17 3.91 3.29

GA Pcn Tree Nuts -1 4.22 4.12 3.75 3.03

### 43 Scenario

State Scenario Crop 4 Repres. Crop for Sulfentrazone App. Date in Days before /after Emergn

. EEC μg/L (sorted by acute EECs)

Peak 4-Day 21 Day 60 Day

NC Cor Corn -1 4.15 4.06 3.71 3.06

FL Cbb Cabbage, Brassica 40 4.11 4.02 3.67 2.52

IL Cor Corn 40 3.98 3.90 3.56 2.98

PA Tma Tomatoes -1 3.94 3.88 3.60 2.99

ME Pot Potatoes -1 3.69 3.63 3.44 2.98

CA Tma Tomatoes -1 3.28 3.20 2.88 2.33

NY2 Gra Grapes, Berries 40 3.25 3.20 3.02 2.68

NC Pnt Peanuts -1 3.20 3.16 2.92 2.62

OH Cor Corn 40 3.16 3.13 2.90 2.43

NC Cor Corn 40 3.10 3.03 2.78 2.30

FL Tma Tomatoes -1 3.07 3.00 2.74 2.28

ND Whe Wheat 40 3.02 2.96 2.77 2.35

CA Cit Citrus 40 2.90 2.84 2.60 2.17

CA Wal Tree Nuts -1 2.78 2.74 2.52 2.13

KS2 Srg Sugarcane -1 2.71 2.67 2.44 2.01

NC Tba Tobacco -1 2.69 2.64 2.41 2.00

NY2 Gra Grapes, Berries -1 2.59 2.54 2.39 2.00

NC Pnt Peanuts 40 2.54 2.51 2.33 2.15

OR Xma Fallow 40 2.54 2.50 2.36 2.03

PA Cor Corn -1 2.47 2.43 2.27 1.92

CA Tma Tomatoes 40 2.36 2.31 2.11 1.77

OR Gra Grapes, Berries 40 2.32 2.28 2.13 1.85

ND Cno Sunflower -1 2.18 2.14 2.00 1.70

OR Fil Tree Nuts -1 2.15 2.11 1.96 1.68

### 44 Scenario

State Scenario Crop 4 Repres. Crop for Sulfentrazone App. Date in Days before /after Emergn

. EEC μg/L (sorted by acute EECs)

Peak 4-Day 21 Day 60 Day

NC Tba Tobacco 40 2.14 2.10 1.92 1.60

FL Tur Turf, sod 40 2.03 1.99 1.82 1.46

OR Gra Grapes, Berries -1 2.02 1.98 1.83 1.58

ND Whe Wheat -1 1.91 1.89 1.80 1.57

PA App Apples -1 1.86 1.83 1.69 1.43

NC App Apples -1 1.87 1.83 1.68 1.39

CA Wal Tree Nuts 40 1.77 1.74 1.60 1.32

OR Fil Tree Nuts 40 1.76 1.73 1.61 1.37

CA Gra Grapes, Berries -1 1.74 1.70 1.57 1.32

CA Gra Grapes, Berries 40 1.71 1.68 1.58 1.30

OR Xma Fallow -1 1.68 1.65 1.55 1.36

PA Tur Turf, sod 40 1.64 1.61 1.48 1.25

OR Min Mint -1 1.39 1.36 1.26 1.07

FL Tur Turf, sod -1 1.38 1.35 1.23 1.02

OR App Apples -1 1.19 1.18 1.11 0.97

OR Min Mint 40 1.18 1.16 1.07 0.99

OR App Apples 40 1.17 1.16 1.07 0.89

PA Tur Turf, sod -1 1.17 1.15 1.07 0.94

MI Asp Asparagus -1 1.16 1.14 1.05 0.87

MI Asp Asparagus 40 1.16 1.14 1.04 0.90

CA Cit Citrus -1 1.13 1.11 1.04 0.87

ID Pot Potatoes -1 0.92 0.90 0.83 0.71

ID Pot Potatoes 40 0.92 0.90 0.83 0.71 Bolded crops represent those with the high est use rates (in lbs a.i.) in Table 3.

### 45 Table 13. Tier 2.5 Surface EECs for Sulfentrazone : Effect of Different Assumptions of Light Availability in Farm Pond for a High Exposure Use.

Scenario

State Scenario Crop App. Date Photoly. Input 2 EEC μg/L

Peak 4-Day 21 Day 60 Day

FL 1 Peppers 11-Oct 98 28.44 28.27 27.74 26.30

FL Peppers 31-Oct 98 27.67 27.51 26.88 25.39

FL Peppers 31-Oct 0.5 21.30 20.85 19.09 15.39

FL Peppers 11-Oct 0.5 17.97 17.55 15.96 13.11

FL Peppers 20-Sep 98 16.79 16.71 16.37 15.64

FL Peppers 31-Aug 98 14.46 14.37 14.00 13.25

FL Peppers 20-Sep 0.5 12.95 12.69 11.56 9.42

FL Peppers 31-Aug 0.5 10.55 10.31 9.49 7.79

1 Bold lines indicate EECs used to calculate aquatic RQs.

2 In this run, photolysis input of 98 days was used in stead of the 0.5 days used in modeling EECs, above (in 

### Table 13 to presume exposure to sulfentr azone in turbid waters



### Risk to fish and aquatic invert ebrates was assessed using the cons ervative assumption of a single application at the maximum annual application rate (0.375 lb a.i./A), applied as an aerial spray. EECs were calculated using fast pho tolysis rates (0.5) when waters were exposed to light since sulfentrazone is an LDPH, which may change its toxicity depending on timing and exposure to light.

Terrestrial Modeling a nd Input Parameters . Terrestrial exposure estimates for avian and mammalian risk assessments were derived usi ng the T-REX model (version 1.5.2, 6/6/2013). To provide a conservative screen of risk to terrestrial animals, a ll runs of T-REX were done for a single application at the maximum annual rate of 0.375lb a.i./A, the highe st application rate permitted for any use of sulfentrazone. Sp ray applications with ground equipment were assumed.

Because data were not available to estimate the fo liar dissipation rate of sulfentrazone on plants, and because environmental fate data indicate that sulfentrazone is persistent in the environment, the default value of 35 days was used as the foliar half-life. As only one application was modeled, the peak EEC which is used to calcu late acute and chronic risk quotients occurs immediately after application. Ther efore, the selection of the folia r half-life has no effect on the calculated terrestrial EECs or RQs.

### 46 The TerrPlant (v. 1.2.2; December 26, 2006) model is used to derive EECs relevant to terrestrial and wetland plants for the proposed new uses of sulfentrazone. The model employs the assumption that default fractions of the inte nded application are transported to an adjacent field through runoff and spray drift. Measures of exposure to terrestr ial plants are expressed as a fraction of the mass of the sulfentrazone applied to the treated field.

Input parameters for the T- REX model are presented in Table 14 through Table 16

. Table 14. Input Parameters for T-REX Modeling for All Uses of Sulfentrazone
Input Parameters Value Source Single Application Rate All Uses: 0.375 Product labels (lb a.i./A)

Foliar Half-life 35 days Default value 1

Number of Applications (Interval between Applications, days) All Uses: 1 Product labels

Avian Oral LD 50 2,250 mg/kg-bw (bobwhite) MRID 41911617

Avian Repro NOEAC 10 ppm (bobwhite) MRID43355901

Mammal LD 50 2855 mg/kg-bw (rat) MRID 41911605

Mammal NOAEC 200 mg/kg-diet (rat) MRID 4334508

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



### Terrestrial EECs for dietary-ba sed calculations are given in Table 15 , and terrestrial EECs for dose-based calculations are given in Table 16 . These EECs are based on all uses with a single application of sulfentrazone at the maximum rate of 0.375 lb a.i. /A. Complete output from TRex Model is provided in Appendix F: Terrestrial Exposure Model Results.

Table 15. Dietary-Based Sulfent razone EEC Values for 0.375 lb a.i. lb /A application rate.
Dietary-based EECs (ppm) Kenaga Values Short Grass 90.00 Tall Grass 41.25 Broadleaf plants 50.63 Fruits/pods/seeds 5.63 Arthropods 35.25



### Table 16. Avian and Mammalian Dose-Bas ed Sulfentrazone Upper-Bound EEC Values

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

20 100 1000 Short Grass 102.50 58.45 26.17 Tall Grass 46.98 26.79 11.99 Broadleaf plants 57.66 32.88 14.72 Fruits/pods 6.41 3.65 1.64 Arthropods 40.15 22.89 10.25 Seeds 1.42 0.81 0.36

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

15 35 1000

Short Grass 85.81 59.30 13.75 Tall Grass 39.33 27.18 6.30 Broadleaf plants 48.27 33.36 7.73 Fruits/pods 5.36 3.71 0.86 Arthropods 33.61 23.23 5.39 Seeds 1.19 0.82 0.19



### C. Ecological Effects Characterization

The ecological effects characterization for su lfentrazone is based upon registrant-submitted toxicity data for the technical grade active ingredient (TGAI). Endpoints derived from literature returned from the ECOTOX search were not determin ed to be useful for this risk assessment due to improper study design or endpoints that were derived that were less sensitive that the submitted data to the EPA. The ecotoxicity data for sulfentrazone have been reviewed previously in the Preliminary Problem Form ulation for Registration Review (USEPA 2009). These data are summarized briefly below.

1. Aquatic Animals

There are two acute freshwater fish toxici ty studies available for sulfentrazone ( Table 17 ). In a flow-through study with the rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss , MRID 41911620), the 96- hour LC 50 

### was determined to be >120 mg a.i/L. This study is classified as acceptable. In a second flow-through study conducted with the bluegill sunfish (MRID 41911621), the 96-hour LC 50 

### was determined to be 93.8 mg a.i/L. This study is classified as acceptable. Based on these data sulfentrazone is clas sified as slightly toxic to freshwater fish on an acute exposure basis. Since freshwater fish serve as a surrogate fo r aquatic-phase amphibian s, sulfentrazone is considered slightly toxic on an acute exposure basis to these taxa as well.

There is one acute toxicity test available for the freshwater invertebrate Daphnia magna ( Table 17 ). In a static study (MRID 41911622), the 48-hr EC 50 

### was determined to be 60.4 mg a.i/L. This study was classified as core. Based on the results of this study, sulfentrazone is classified as slightly toxic to freshwater invert ebrates on an acute exposure basis.

### 48 An acute toxicity study with the estuarine/marine silverside ( Menidia beryllina, MRID 43588602) was submitted in support of sulfentrazone ( Table 17 ). There were not any sublethal effects observed during testing. The 96-hr LC 50 

### for this study was determined to be 114 mg a.i/L and this study is classified as acceptable. The re sults of this study indicate that sulfentrazone is practically non-toxic to estuarine/marine fish on an acute exposure basis.

Two acute estuarine/marine invertebrate studies have been submitted in support of sulfentrazone ( Table 17 ). In a 96-hour shell deposition study with the Eastern oyster ( Crassostrea virginica
, MRID 44054901) the EC 50 

### was determined to be >10.5 mg a.i/L. This study is classified as supplemental because a non-definitive endpoint was reached and concentrations were not tested up to the limit dose (100 mg a.i./L).

In another study conducted w ith the saltwater mysid ( Americamysis bahia , MRID 43588603), the LC 50 

### was determined to be 1.0 mg a.i/L. Subletha l effects included lethar gy at 1.2 mg a.i./L; this study is classified as accepta ble. Based on these data, sulfen trazone is classified as highly toxic to estuarine/marine inverteb rates on an acute exposure basis.

There are no sediment toxicity studies available for sulfentr azone; however, the soil partition constant (K d 

### ) is low and the compound is not expected to bind to sediment. Therefore, sediment toxicity studies are not tr iggered for this compound according to the CFR 40 part 158.630 subpart G.

Table 17. Acute Toxicity of Sulfentrazone to Aquatic Animals. (Bolded values represent most sensitive value used for estimating RQs.)

Species Study Type Test Substance

(Purity) LC 50 (mg a.i/L) 1,2,3

(95% CL;

slope) Toxicity Classification (MRID)

Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss 96-hour,flowthrough TGAI (94.3%) > 120 (N/A) Practically non-toxic (419116-20)

Bluegill sunfish ( Lepomis macrochirus ) 96-hr,flowthrough TGAI (94.3%) 93.8 (N/A) Slightly toxic (419116-21)

Water flea 48-hr, static TGAI (94.3%) 60.4 (N/A) Slightly toxic (41911622) ( Daphnia magna )

Silverside ( Menidia beryllina) 96-hour,flowthrough TGAI (94.2%) 114 Practically non-toxic (43588602) (67 – >114; N/A)

### 49 Eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica 96-hour,flowthrough TGAI (92.5%) >10.5 Slightly toxic (44054901)

Saltwater mysid Americamysis bahia 96-hour,flowthrough TGAI (94.2%) 1 (0.8-1.2;N/A) Highly toxic (43588603)



### One chronic toxicity study conducted on freshwat er fish is available for sulfentrazone ( Table 18 ). In an early life stag e study with the rainbow trout (MRID 43588604), statistically significant effects were observed in survival sixty days post hatch and mean length of surviving individuals. There was a 37 % d ecrease at the LOAEC treatment concentration of 5.93 mg a.i./L relative to the control. Additional sub-lethal effects such as lethargy were observed. The NOAEC and LOAEC for this study were determined to be 2.95 and 5.93 mg a.i./L, respectively, based on reductions in larval survival and fish length. This study is classified as acceptable.

Since the submission of this study, EFED has received new information documenting enhanced toxicity of LDPHs to fish in the presence of ultraviolet light compared to the toxicity observed under standard laboratory lighting (MRIDs 46585104 and 46037001). While these studies were not conducted on sulfentrazone, they provide data for the interim toxicity adjustment factor recommended by the EFED Aquatic Biology Techni cal Team (U.S. EPA, 2010) for use in the absence of chemical specific data. Following EF ED guidance for LDPH chemicals, an interim 29X toxicity adjustment factor wa s applied to the fish early life stage study. This factor results in an adjusted NOAEC of 0.2 mg a.i. /L which is used in calculati on of the risk quotients.

In a chronic life cycl e study conducted with D. magna under a flow-through system (MRID 43588605; Table 18 ), sub-lethal signs of toxicity include d pale coloration, small appearance, and lethargy at the 0.85 and 1.7 mg a.i./L. The NOAEC and LOAEC for this study were determined to be 0.2 and 0.51 mg a.i/L based on the number of dead/immobile adult daphnids. This study is classified as acceptable.

There is no chronic test for estuarine fish becau se the chemical characteristics and toxicity of sulfentrazone do not suggest that exposures will si gnificantly impact estuarine fish since the ratio of the EC 50 

### to the EEC is <0.01. There is also no chronic life cycle toxicity test for estuarine/marine invertebrates. By using the acute-to-chroni c ratio (ACR) for daphnids ( i.e
., acute EC 50 

### =60.4 divided by the chronic NOAEC=0.2 yields an ACR= 302) and applying that ACR to the mysid ( i.e ., LC 50 

### =1 divided by the ACR=302), the NOAEC for the mysid shrimp is estimated to be 0.003 mg a.i. /L.

Table 18. Chronic Toxicity of Sul fentrazone to Aquatic Animals

### 50 Species Study Type Test Substance

(Purity) NOAEC; LOAEC (mg a.i/L) 1,2 Endpoints (MRID)

Rainbow

Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss 99-d Early Life Stage TGAI (94.2%) 2.95; 5.93 Number of survivors; fish length

-43588604

Water flea 21-day Life Cycle TGAI (94.2%) 0.2; 0.51 Survival (43588605) ( Daphnia
magna )

Saltwater

mysid

0.003 NOAEC derived from the Daphnid acute-to-chronic ratio (60.4/0.2 = 302) and the mysid acute value 3 Americamysis bahia

1 Bolded values represent the most sensitive toxicity endpoints for freshwater invertebrates exposed to parent sulfentrazone and therefore will be used in risk estimation.

2 Based on mean measured concentrations

3 The acute to chronic ratio (ACR) uses the ratio between the acute and chronic daphnid endpoints to derive the chronic end point for the saltwater mysid. The mysid is 60 times more sensitive than the daphnid based on acute toxicity.



### 2. Aquatic Plants

Four nonvascular aquatic plant toxi city tests and one vascular aqua tic plant test are available for sulfentrazone ( Table 19 ). The first nonvascular plant st udy, conducted with the freshwater green algae , Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata (formerly Selenastrum capricornutum; MRID 43345413), resulted in a 96-hr EC 50 

### of 0.031 mg a.i/L and a NOAE C of 0.016 mg a.i/L based on reduced cell density. This study is classified as acceptable. The second study, conducted with the cyanobacteria Anabaena flos-aquae (MRID 43651006), resulted in an EC 50 

### of 32.8 mg a.i/L based on reduced cell density. The NOAEC was non-definitive, i.e ., <15.9 mg a.i/L. As a result of the non-definitive determination this study is cl assified as supplemental but is still useful for risk assessment purposes. The third st udy, conducted with the marine diatom Skeletonema

costatum (MRID 43651007), resulted in a NOAEC and EC 50 

### of 0.075 and 0.042 mg a.i/L, respectively, based on reduced cell density. This study is classified as acceptable. The fourth study, conducted with th e freshwater diatom Navicula pelliculosa, resulted in a NOEAC and

### 51 EC 50 

### of 0.075 and 0.042 mg a.i/L, respectively, both base d on reduced cell density. This study is classified as acceptable.

The vascular aquatic plant study conducted with duckweed Lemna gibba resulted in a NOAEC and EC 50 

### of 0.018 and 0.0288 mg a.i/L, respectively, both based on reduced frond count. This study is classified as acceptable.

Table 19. Acute Toxicity Values of Sulfentrazone to Aquatic Plants

Species Study Type Test Substance (Purity) NOAEL; EC 50 Effect (MRID) (mg a.i./L)
(95% CL) 1,2 Formerly Selenastrum capricornutum Printz (Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata) 120-hr, static TGAI (94.2%) 0.016 ; 0.031 Cell density (43345413) (0.03-0.033)

Anabaena flos-aquae 120-hr, static TGAI (94.2%) <15.9 ; 32.8 Cell density (43651006) (29.0-36.6)

Skeletonema costatum 120-hr, static TGAI (94.2%) 1.35 ; 1.8 Cell density (43651007) (1.72-2.0)

Navicula pelliculosa 120-hr, static TGAI (94.2%) 0.075; 0.042 Cell density (43651004) (0.038-0.0463)

Lemna gibba 14-Day, static TGAI (94.2%) 0.019; 0.0288 Frond Count (43651005) (.0189-0.0375)

N/A = Not available.

1 Bolded values represent the most sensitive toxicity endpoi nts for nonvascular aquatic plants exposed to parent sulfentrazone and therefore will be used for risk estimation.

2 Based on mean measured concentrations.



### 3. Terrestrial Animals Table 20 presents the acute toxicity da ta used to assess the risk of sulfentrazone to terrestrial animals. The available data indicate that sulfen trazone TGAI is practica lly non-toxic to birds on an acute oral basis, it is practically non-toxic to birds on a subacute dietary exposure basis, and it is practically non-toxic to mammal s on an acute oral exposure basis. Sulfentrazone is also practically non-toxic to young adult honey bees ( Apis mellifera ) on both an acute contact and oral exposure basis. Since birds serve as surroga tes for terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles, sulfentrazone is considered prac tically non-toxic on an acute exposur e basis to these taxa as well

There was one acceptable acute oral study and two s ubacute dietary toxicity studies submitted in support of sulfentrazone. The acute oral toxi city study was conducted with the bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus ; MRID 41911617) and the LD 50 

### was determined to be >2250 mg a.i/kg bw. Based on these data, sulfentrazone is classified as practically non- toxic to birds on an acute oral exposure basis.

### 52 The 8-day subacute dietary study with the bobwhite quail (MRID 41911618) and with mallard ducks ( Anas platyrhynchos, MRID 41911619) both resulted in an LD 50 

### of >5620 mg a.i/kg bw. Based on these data, sulfentrazone is classified as practically non-toxic to birds on a subacute dietary exposure basis.

In an acute oral toxicity study with the laboratory rat ( Rattus norvegicus , MRID 41911605), the LD 50 

### was determined to be 2855 mg a.i/kg bw (for both males and females). This study is classified as acceptable and indicates that sulf entrazone is practically non-toxic to mammals on an acute oral exposure basis.

Two studies that included both acute contact and acute oral exposure on the honey bee were submitted in support of sulfentrazone (MRID 43678166, 44054902, Table 20 ). Other than a single mortality at the 50 μg a.i/bee treatment and there were no other adverse effects observed. In the acute oral exposure portion of the experime nt, there were four mortalities during this study though none appeared to be related to the dose. The 48-hr acute contact LD 50 

### with TGAI was >200 μg a.i/bee for acute contact and >25 μg a. i/bee for acute oral exposure. Based on these data, sulfentrazone is classified as practically non-toxi c to honey bees on both an acute oral and contact exposure basis. The st udies are classified as acceptable. In a second study, a limit acute contact exposure (MRID 44054902) reported that the 48-hr LD 50 

### was >25.1 μg a.i/bee. This study is classified as acceptable and classifies sulfentrazone as practically non-toxic to honey bees.

Table 20. Acute Toxicity of sulf entrazone to T errestrial Species

Species Study Type Test Substance

(Purity) LD 50 (mg/kg bw)

or LC 50 (mg/kg diet); (95% CI; slope) 1,2 Toxicity Classification (MRID)

Bobwhite quail Acute oral toxicity TGAI (94.3%) >2250 mg/kg; N/A; N/A Practically nontoxic

( Colinus virginianus ) (41911617)

Bobwhite quail Subacute dietary toxicity TGAI (94.3%) >5620 ppm; N/A; N/A Practically nontoxic

( Colinus virginianus ) (41911618)

Mallard duck TGAI (94.3%) >5620 ppm; N/A; N/A Practically nontoxic

### 53 ( Anas platyrhynchos ) Subacute dietary toxicity (41911619)

Norway rat ( Rattus norvegicus ) Acute oral toxicity 14-d LD 50 = 2855 mg a.i/kg bw Practically non-toxic

(41911605)

Norway rat ( Rattus norvegicus ) Acute dermal toxicity >2000 mg a.i/kg bw Practically non-toxic

(41911607,42286400)

Honey bee ( Apis mellifera ) Acute
contact toxicity (TGAI 96.2 %) >200 μg a.i./bee Practically non-toxic

(43678166)

Honey bee ( Apis mellifera ) Acute oral toxicity (TGAI 94.2 %) >25.1μg a.i./bee Practically non-toxic

(44054902, 43678166)



### Table 21 provides results of chronic toxicity tests conducted with birds and mammals. There are two acceptable avian reproduction studies submitted in support of sulfentrazone. In one study conducted with the bobwhite quail (MRI D 43355901), the NOAEC and LOAEC were determined to be 10 ppm and 100 ppm, respectivel y, based on reductions in 14-day old survivor weight with an 8% reduction at the LOAEC relative to the control. No reproductive parameters were adversely affected at any test concentra tion. The bobwhite quail study is classified as acceptable given application rates of 0.375 lb a.i. /A and only one application per year/season.

The NOAEC and LOAEC were determined to be 100 ppm and >100 ppm, respectively, based on the avian reproduction study conducted with the mallard duck (MRID 443355902). In this study there were none of the measurement endpoints were adversely affected. Th is study is classified as supplemental since the study did not establish a LOAEC.

In a 2-generation reproduction study with the laboratory rat (MRIDs 43345408) dietary exposure to sulfentrazone resulted in decreased maternal body weight and/or body weight gain during gestation in both generations (P and F 1 

### ) and reduced pre-mating body weight gains in the F 1 

### males. For both generations, the following eff ects were also noted: increased duration of gestation, reduced prenatal viabil ity (fetal and litter), reduced litter size, increas ed number of stillborn pups, reduced pup a nd litter postnatal survival, and decreased pup body weights throughout lactation. Male fert ility was reduced in the F 1 

### generation at 500 and 700 mg/kg diet (ppm). Histopathological evaluation of the reproductive organs of the F 1 

### males revealed degeneration and/or atrophy of the germinal ep ithelium of the testes and oligospermia and intratubular degenerated seminal product in the epididymides.

### 54 The NOAEL for reproductive toxicity is 200 ppm (14 mg/kg/day for males; 16 mg/kg/day for females) and the LOAEL is 500 ppm (33 mg/kg/da y for males; 40 mg/kg/day for females), based upon reduced pre-mating body weight gain in F 1 

### males, decreased F 1 

### male fertility, increased gestation duration, reduced litter size, pre- and postnatal pup and litter survival , and pup weight throughout lactation in both generations of offspr ing. This study was classified as acceptable.

Table 21. Chronic Toxicity of Sulfe ntrazone to Terrestrial Animals

Species Study Type Test Substance

(Purity) NOAEC; LOAEC (mg/kg diet) Endpoints MRID

Northern bobwhite quail Colinus virginianus Chronic reproduction (94.2%) TGAI 10 ppm a.i.; 100 ppm a.i. Female body weight gain 43355901

Mallard duck ( Anas platyrhynchos ) Chronic reproduction (94.2%) TGAI 100 ppm a.i.; >100 ppm a.i. None affected 43355902

Norway rat ( Rattus norvegicus ) Two generation reproductive toxicity NS 1 NOAEC= 200 ppm LOAEL = 400 ppm Reproduction and Growth 43345408

1 NS: Not specified



### 4. Terrestrial Plants

Results of Tier II terrestrial plant toxicity tests with sulfentrazone are summarized in Table 22

. In a Tier 2 vegetative vigor study (MRID 43345412) with sulfentrazone t echnical (94.2%), all crops exhibited significant effects, mainly fo liar desiccation and bur ning, ten days after treatment. The onion was the monocot with the lowest EC 25 

### and NOAEC of 0.012 and 0.006 lb ai /A, respectively, based on decrea sed dry weight. The cucumber was the dicot with the lowest EC 25 

### and NOAEC of 0.00052 and 0.00044 lb ai /A, respec tively, based on decrea sed dry weight.

In a Tier 2 seedling emergence study (MRID 43345411) with sulfentrazone technical (94.2%), the treatment doses were nominal concentr ations of 0, 0.006, 0.019, 0.056, 0.167, 0.5 lb ai / acre. Ten days after treatment, all crops exhibited sign ificant effects, mainly foliar desiccation and burning, ten days after treatment. The oa t was the monocot with the lowest EC 25 

### and NOAEC of 0.023 and 0.019 lb ai /A, respectively, based on d ecreased dry weight. Lettuce was the most sensitive dicot with an EC 25 

### and NOAEC of 0.01 and 0.006 lb ai /A, respectively, based on decreased dry weight.

### 55 Table 22. Toxicity of Sulfentrazone to Terres trial Plants. (Bolded values are the most sensitive endpoints used for assess ing risk to terrestrial plants.)

Crop Type of Study Species EC 25 NOAEL or EC 05

(lbs a.i./A) Endpoint Affected MRID (lbs a.i./A)

Vegetative Vigor (Sulfentrazone 94.2% TGAI)

Monocots Corn 0.18 0.056 Dry weight

43345412 Oat 0.033 0.006 Dry weight

Onion 0.012 0.006 Dry weight Ryegrass 0.045 0.019 Dry weight

Dicots Cabbage 0.011 0.006 Dry weight Lettuce 0.025 0.006 Dry weight Tomato 0.012 0.0013 Dry weight Radish 0.057 0.019 Dry weight Soybean 0.0044 0.0013 Dry weight

Cucumber 0.00052 0.00044 Dry weight Seedling Emergence (Sulfentrazone 94.2% TGAI)

Monocots Corn 0.051 0.167 Dry weight

43345411 Oat 0.023 0.019 Dry weight

Onion 0.028 0.019 Plant height Ryegrass 0.048 0.019 Dry weight

Dicots Cabbage 0.047 0.056 Dry weight

Lettuce 0.011 0.006 Dry weight Tomato 0.013 0.006 Dry weight Radish 0.039 0.019 Dry weight Soybean 0.3 0.056 Dry weight Cucumber 0.036 0.019 Dry weight N/D = not determined, N/A = not applicable



## IV. RISK ESTIMATION

This screening-level assessment of the labeled uses of sulfentrazone relies on the deterministic RQ method to provide a metric of potential risks. The RQ provides a comparison of exposure estimates to toxicity endpoints ( i.e. , the estimated exposure concentratio ns are divided by acute and chronic toxicity values, respectively). The resulting RQ values do not have units and are compared to the

### 56 Agency’s LOCs. The LOCs are used by the Agency to indicate when the use of a pesticide, as directed by the label, has the potential to cause ad verse effects to non-target organisms. For listed species, when RQs exceed the LOCs, there is an additional in-depth listed species evaluation of the potential co-occurrence of listed species a nd areas in which new use crops are grown to characterize risks. In this a ssessment, RQs that exceed the non- listed species LOC also exceed the listed species LOC.

All acute RQs ( Table 23 ) for aquatic animals were below the LOCs for both listed species (LOC=0.05) and for non-listed species (LOC=0.5). Chronic toxicity data were available for freshwater fish and a freshwater invertebrate, but not for saltwater speci es. RQs for freshwater species were below the chronic risk LOC of 1 for listed and non-listed a quatic species. In the absence of chronic toxicity data for the es tuarine invertebrate species, the NOAEC for the saltwater mysid shrimp was derived usi ng the acute to chr onic ratio (ACR of D. magna . By using the ACR, the NOAEC for the mysid shrimp is estimated to be 0.003 mg a.i./L. This results in a RQ of 5.3 in clear waters and exceeds th e chronic risk LOC for both non-listed and listed species.

Since sulfentrazone is an LDPH chemical an adju stment factor of 29 was applied to the chronic fish test by dividing the chronic fish toxicity endpoint by 29 prio r to calculati ng the RQ. The subsequent RQs that incorporated this uncertainty factor remained below the chronic risk LOC for both listed and non-listed species.

Based on the screening-level asse ssment the likelihood that the ex isting uses or the proposed use on of sulfentrazone on apples will result in a dverse effects to fish and freshwater aquatic invertebrates from either acute or chronic e xposure is considered low. Estuarine/marine crustaceans, however, appear to be 60 times more sensitive to sulfentrazone than freshwater invertebrates. This sensitivity is not however observed in th e study with estuarine/marine mollusks demonstrating variable responses among taxa. The enhanced sensitivity of estuarine/marine crustaceans results in the conc lusion that the use of sulfentrazone may pose a chronic risk to saltwate r invertebrates.

Table 23. Acute and Chronic RQs for Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates

Crop Application Scenario Taxa Endpoint (mg) RQ (clear waters)

High Photolysis RQ (turbid waters)

Low photolysis LDPH Adjusted RQ (clear

waters)

Fast Photolysis LDPH Adjusted RQ (turbid waters)

Slow photolysis

Peppers in Florida One aerial application
at 0.375 lb a.i./A Freshwater fish 93.8 <0.01 <0.01

Saltwater fish 114 <0.01 <0.01

Freshwater Invertebrate 60.4 <0.01 <0.01

### 57 Saltwater Crustacean 1 0.02 0.03

Saltwater Mollusk 10.5 <0.01 <0.01

Chronic Freshwater Fish 2.95 <0.01 0.01 0.13 0.26

Chronic Saltwater Fish No data available

Chronic Freshwater Invertebrate 0.2 0.08 0.14

Chronic Saltwater Crustacean* 0.003 5.32 9.25

*exceeds the chronic risk LOC (RQ ≥ 1.0) for listed and non-listed species.



### The RQs for aquatic plants were calculated the same way as those for aquatic animals by using EECs derived from both fast photolysis rates in cl ear waters and slow photol ysis rates in turbid waters. RQs for risk to vascul ar and nonvascular aquatic plants are presented in Table 24. In clear waters, only the nonvascular plant RQ for list ed species exceeded the LO C of 1.0. In turbid waters the RQs for both listed vascular plants (RQ = 1.49) and nonvascular plants (RQ = 1.77) exceeded the LOC. .

In conclusion, this analysis indi cates that existing and proposed uses of sulfentrazone may result in adverse effects on listed species of vasc ular plants and nonvascular plants, although no nonvascular plants are currently listed.

Table 24. RQs for Aquatic Plants and Algae

Crop Application Scenario Taxa Endpoint (mg a.i./L) Fast photolysis (clear water) Peak EEC (mg) Slow photolysis (turbid water) Peak EEC (mg) RQ (clear waters) High Photolysis RQ (turbid waters) Low photolysis

Peppers in Florida One aerial application at 0.375 lb a.i./A NonListed Species (Vascular

plant Endpoint) 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.62 0.99

NonListed Species (Algal Endpoint) 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.6 0.92

### 58 Listed Species (Vascular

plant Endpoint) 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.9 1.5*

Listed Species (Algal Endpoint) 0.02 0.02 0.03 1.1* 1.8*

*Exceeds the LOC (RQ ≥ 1.0) for risk to plants.



### A. Non-target Terrestrial Animals

RQs are calculated by dividing the terrestrial EECs by the appropriate acute or chronic toxicity endpoint. Since no mortality was observed at an y dose level in acute av ian toxicity studies, definitive values of the acute oral LD 50 

### and subacute dietary LC 50 

### were not available ( i.e ., LD 50 

### and LC 50 

### values were greater than the highest test dose). In order to screen for the potential of acute risk to birds, the highest treatment level in each study was us ed as the basis for acute risk estimation This makes the RQs c onservative since the actual LD 50 

### and LC 50 

### values are above the highest tested dose and no mortal ity was observed in either of th e studies. Therefore, these nondefinitive RQ values are expressed as “<” values. Although these non-definitive (“<”) RQ values do not define precise risk estimates they do provide useful information as a screen of potential acute risk ( i.e ., if all the non-defini tive RQ values are below the LOC, then the likelihood of adverse effects from exposure to sulfentrazone is presumed to be low).

Table 25 provides acute and chronic RQ values fo r birds based on dietary toxicity studies incorporating risk predicted in all size classes, and Table 26 provides additional acute RQs based on single-dose oral toxicity stud ies. All avian acute RQ values are <0.06 and are below the acute risk LOC for non-listed (0.5) a nd listed (0.1) birds. Chroni c RQs, which are based on the definitive NOAEC for the bobwhite quail (10 ppm) ranged from 0.56 to 9.0 for upper-bound Kenega values for the highest application rate of 0.375 lbs a.i. /A and 0.19 and 3.0 for the lowest application rate of 0.125 lbs a.i./A

. The RQs derived from upper bound Kenega values from all application rates generated from th e dietary categories of short grass, tall grass, broadleaf plants and arthropods all exceeded the chronic risk LOC of 1. Only the fruits/pods/seeds dietary category did not exceed the LOC for chronic risk. As birds serve as surrogates for reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians, chronic risk for these taxa is assumed as well.

Chronic RQs, represented by mean Kenega values ranged from 0.26 to 3.2 for the highest application rate of 0.375 lbs a.i./A . The only category that did not exceed a LOC of 1.0 at two of the highest applicati on rates (0.375 and 0.3 lbs a.i./A) in either the upper bound Kenega (90 th 

### percentile) or the mean Kenega (50 th 

### percentile) was the Fruits /Pods/Seeds category. RQs derived from the mean Kenega for the next two application rates (0.25 and 0.2 lbs a.i./A) exceeded the chronic LOC of 1.0 in three and two of the dietary categories respectively. The RQs represented by the mean Kenega for the lowe st application rate ( 0.125 lbs a.i./A) ranged from 0.09 to 1.06 with only the short grass category exceeding a LOC of 1.0. Because the mean Kenega is derived from the central tendency of the model with 50% of the predictions being

### 59 higher than the modeled value and 50% of the pred ictions being lower than the predicted value it is not recommended for use in making risk calcula tions because it is not sufficiently conservative to protect species of con cern and is therefore not presented in Table 24.

Table 25. Acute and Chronic Dietary-Based RQs for Birds

Application Rate (lb a.i. / A) Dietary-based RQs (Dietarybased EEC/LC50 or NOAEC) RQs

Acute Chronic

0.375 Short Grass 0.02 9.00*
Tall Grass 0.01 4.13* Broadleaf plants 0.01 5.06* Fruits/pods/seeds 0.00 0.56 Arthropods 0.01 3.53*

0.3 Short Grass 0.01 7.20*
Tall Grass 0.01 3.30* Broadleaf plants 0.01 4.05* Fruits/pods/seeds 0.00 0.45 Arthropods 0.01 2.82*

0.25 Short Grass 0.01 6.00*
Tall Grass 0.00 2.75* Broadleaf plants 0.01 3.38* Fruits/pods/seeds 0.00 0.38 Arthropods 0.00 2.35*

0.2 Short Grass 0.01 4.80*
Tall Grass 0.00 2.20* Broadleaf plants 0.00 2.70* Fruits/pods/seeds 0.00 0.30 Arthropods 0.00 1.88*

0.125 Short Grass 0.01 3.00*
Tall Grass 0.00 1.38* Broadleaf plants 0.00 1.69* Fruits/pods/seeds 0.00 0.19 Arthropods 0.00 1.18* *Exceeds the chronic risk LOC (RQ ≥ 1)



### Table 26. Acute Dose-Based RQs for Birds

Dose-based RQs (Dose-based EEC/adjusted LD 50 ) Avian Acute RQs Size Class (grams)

20 100 1000

Short Grass <0.06 <0.03 <0.01

### 60 Tall Grass <0.03 <0.01 0.00 Broadleaf plants <0.04 <0.02 <0.01 Fruits/pods 0.00 <0.00 0.00 Arthropods <0.02 <0.01 0.00 Seeds 0.00 0.00 0.00



### The acute toxicity endpoint fo r mammals was non-definitive, i.e ., LD 50 

### >2855 mg/kg bw, and sulfentrazone is classified as practically non-t oxic on an acute exposure basis. As described previously for birds, a non-de finitive (“<”) acute RQ was calculated based on the highest dose tested (2855 mg a.i./kg). Table 27 provides chronic risk quotients (RQs) for mammals and Table 28 provides additional acute RQs based on single-dose oral toxi city studies. All of the mammalian acute RQs for uses with applications rates of 0.375 lb ai/A were <0.01. Thus, the analysis shows that acute RQs are below the LO C for risk to non-listed (0.5) and listed (0.1) species of mammals. The highest chronic RQ wa s 0.2 and less than the LOC (1.0) for chronic risk to listed and non-listed mammals.

Table 27. Chronic Dietary-Based RQs for Mammals Dietary-based RQs (Dietary-based EEC/ NOAEC) Mammal RQs

Short Grass 0.02 Tall Grass 0.01 Broadleaf plants 0.01 Fruits/pods/seeds 0 Arthropods 0.01



### Table 28. Acute and Chronic Dose-Based RQs for Mammals

Dose-based RQs (Dose-based EEC/LD 50 or

NOAEL) Small mammal 15
grams Medium mammal 35
grams Large mammal 1000
grams

Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronic
Short Grass <0.01 <0.20 <0.01 <0.17 <0.01 <0.09
Tall Grass <0.01 <0.09 <0 .01 <0.08 0.00 <0.04 Broadleaf plants <0.01 <0.1 1 <0.01 <0.09 0.00 <0.05 Fruits/pods <0.00 <0.01 0.00 <0.01 0.00 <0.01 Arthropods <0.01 <0.08 0.00 <0.07 0.00 <0.04
Seeds <0.00 <0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

### 61 For the initial Tier 1 risk estimation to honey be es, two exposure routes are considered: dietary and contact. Table 29 summarizes the initial residue va lues expressed in units of μ g a.i./bee per 1 lb a.i./A. As discussed below, these values ar e adjusted to account for the application rate of the chemical. For generating RQs, dietary-based e xposure values are compared to oral toxicity data for larvae and adult worker bees while contact exposure values are compared to acute contact toxicity data fo r adult worker bees.

The initial screening-level RQs ex ceed the acute risk LOC of 0.4 fo r adult bees based on oral but not for adult contact exposures ( Table 29 ). These RQs are based on non-definitive endpoints of >25.1 and >200 μg a.i./bee for oral and contact tests, respectiv ely. However, there were no treatment-related mortalities obser ved in either study and based on l ack of apparent toxicity in the oral and contact tests and the non-definitive nature of the RQs (less than values), the likelihood of adverse effects to bees from e xposure to sulfentrazone is considered low. Therefore, additional refinement of the Tier 1 exposure estimates is not warranted.

Table 29. Dietary and contact RQs for honey bees.

Life Stage Exposure Type Dose ( μ g a.i./bee per 1 lb a.i./A) (1) Sulfentrazone Dose for Max Application Rate ( μ g a.i./bee per 0.133 lb a.i./A) Acute RQ (2)(3) Chronic RQ (3)

Adult Diet (nectar + pollen) 32.00 12.00 <0.48 n.a.

Adult Direct contact 2.70 1.01 <0.01 n.a.

( 1) Source: USEPA 2012. Draft Pollinator Risk Assessment Framework (2) Based on a 48-h acute oral LD 50 of >25.1 ug ai/bee (MRID 44054902, 43678166) and acute contact LD 50 of >200 ug ai/bee (MRID 43678166). (3) Bolded value exceeds the acute risk LOC of 0.4



### B. Non-target Terrestrial Plants

Sulfentrazone is toxic to terrestrial plants. Th e TerrPlant model (v. 1.2.2) was used to calculate RQs for nontarget terrestrial plants in three scen arios, spray drift only, runoff and spray drift in upland/dry areas, and runoff and spray drift in wetland/semi-aquatic areas The model AgDrift was used to examine the impacts of spray drif t on both listed and non-li sted species (below). Terrestrial Plant RQs for important uses and a pplication rates of sulf entrazone are given in Table 30 and Table 31 for ground and aerial applications, re spectively using the TerrPlant model.

Table 30. RQs for Risk to Nontarget Terrestr ial Plants from Use of Sulfentrazone for ground applications.

Crop Single Max. Application

Rate (lbs

ai/A) Monocot RQ Values 2

Spray Drift Only Runoff and Runoff and Spray Drift Spray Drift
(Dry Areas) (Semi-Aquatic Areas)

### 62 Nonlisted

Species Listed Species Nonlisted Species Listed Species 1 Nonlisted Species Listed Species 1
Apple, Rhubarb, Turnip roots and tops, Sunflower Crop Subgroup

20B,Spring Wheat,Succulent cowpea, Succulent lima beans, Tree nut Crop Group 14

including, Citrus Crop, Small berry

and fruit CropGroup 13-07,Nongrass animal feed

Crop Group 18,Head/Stem Brassica Subgroup 5A,Leafy Greens Subgroup 5B,Melon Subgroup 9A, Fruiting Vegetable Group 8,Okra,Succulent Pea, Strawberry

and Tuberous /Corm Vegetable

Subgroup 1C,

Sugarcane, Cabbage, Potato, Mint, Horseradish, Turf 0.375 0.31 0.63 0.98 1.2 8.3 10.0

Peanuts 0.3 0.78 0.95 0.25 0.5 6.7 8.1

Sunflower/field corn/dry bean/dry

pea, Peanuts incorporated up to 2-4", Asparagus 0.25 0.21 0.42 0.65 0.79 5.5 6.7

Brassica, Corn, Wheat, Cowpea,

Succulent pea,

Lima bean 0.20 0.17 0.33 0.52 0.63 4.4 5.4

Turf, including Golf Courses 0.125 0.52 1.04 0.54 0.66 3.0 3.6

Crop Single Max. Application

Rate (lbs

ai/A) Dicot RQ Values 2

Spray Drift Only Runoff and Runoff and Spray Drift Spray Drift
(Dry Areas) (Semi-Aquatic Areas)
Nonlisted

Species Listed Species Nonlisted Species Listed Species 1 Nonlisted Species Listed Species 1

### 63 Apple, Rhubarb, Turnip roots and tops, Sunflower Crop Subgroup

20B,Spring Wheat,Succulent cowpea, Succulent lima beans, Tree nut Crop Group 14

including, Citrus Crop, Small berry

and fruit CropGroup 13-07,Nongrass animal feed

Crop Group 18,Head/Stem Brassica Subgroup 5A,Leafy Greens Subgroup 5B,Melon Subgroup 9A, Fruiting Vegetable Group 8,Okra,Succulent Pea, Strawberry

and Tuberous /Corm Vegetable

Subgroup 1C,

Sugarcane, Cabbage, Potato, Mint, Horseradish, Turf 0.375 7.2 8.5 2.1 3.8 17.4 31.9

Peanuts 0.3 5.8 6.8 1.6 3.0 13.9 25.5
Sunflower/field corn/dry bean/dry

pea, Peanuts incorporated up to 2-4", Asparagus, soybeans, potatoes, horseradish, melons, rhubarb, turnips 0.25 4.8 5.7 1.4 2.5 11.6 21.3

Brassica, Corn, Wheat, Cowpea,

Succulent pea,

Lima bean 0.20 3.9 4.6 1.1 2.0 9.3 17.0

Turf, including Golf Courses 0.125 12.0 14.2 1.1 2.1 6.3 11.5

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



### Table 31. RQs for Risk to Nontarget Terrestr ial Plants from Use of Sulfentrazone for aerial applications.

Crop Single Max. Application

Rate (lbs

ai/A) Monocot RQ Values 2

Spray Drift Only Runoff and Runoff and Spray Drift Spray Drift

(Dry Areas) (Semi-Aquatic Areas)

### 64 Nonlisted

Species Listed Species Nonlisted Species Listed Species 1 Nonlisted Species Listed Species 1

Soybeans, Sugarcane, Railroad, Highway, Roadside, Pipelines 0.375 1.6 1.9 1.6 3.3 9.0 11

Crop Single Max. Application

Rate (lbs

ai/A) Dicot RQ Values 2

Spray Drift Only Runoff and Runoff and Spray Drift Spray Drift

(Dry Areas) (Semi-Aquatic Areas)

Nonlisted

Species Listed Species Nonlisted Species Listed Species 1 Nonlisted Species Listed Species 1

Soybeans, Sugarcane, Railroad, Highway, Roadside, Pipelines 0.375 36 43 3.4 6.3 18.8 34



### Monocots had lower RQs than dicots. At th e highest application rate, the monocot RQs exceeded the LOC for only listed species in dr y upland areas and for both non-listed and listed species in semi-aquatic areas. The RQs for the lower application rates did not exceed the LOC for monocots in the spray drift alon e or the combined runoff and spray drift in dry areas scenario. The RQs for monocots in lowland, semi aquatic areas, exceeded the LOC for all the maximum listed application rates for sulfen trazone. The highest RQs for monocots were determined to be 8.3 and 10.0 for non-listed and listed species, respec tively, in semi-aquatic areas. The RQs for dicots, in contrast, exceeded the LOCs at every application rate in every scenario evaluated. Similar to monocots, the highest RQ values for dicots are also expected in semi-aquatic areasexposed to both spray drift and runoff. The highest RQ for dicots was 17.4 and 31.9 for nonlisted and listed species, respectively.

For aerial applications, with different m odel parameters than ground applications ( Table 31 ), the RQs exceeded the LOCs for every scenario for both monocots and dicots. The highest RQs for monocots were in semi-aquatic areas with both spray drift and runoff while for dicots, the highest RQs were from spray drift alone. Th e highest RQs for monocots were 9.0 and 11 for non-listed and listed species, respectively, in se mi-aquatic areas. The highest RQs for dicots were 36 and 43 for non-listed and listed sp ecies, respectively, for spray drift alone.

To further analyze the potential risk from sulf entrazone use to non-targ et plants, the AgDrift model was used to predict spray drift deposition, and to determine the distance from the edge of the treated site where the risk from spray drif t alone is equal the LOC for listed and non-listed plants. This was done by predicting the distance where the spray drift equals the vegetative vigor EC 25 

### for evaluating risk to non-listed plants, and by predicting the distance where the spray drift equals the vegetative vigor NOAEL for evaluating ri sk to listed plants. Beyond these distances,

### 65 the risk from spray drift alone is not expected to exceed the LOC. It is important to recognize, though, that risk from runoff is not considered in this analys is. In this analysis, since sulfentrazone is used in ground applications, the model was run with the de fault assumptions of a very fine to fine spray drift droplet size a nd high boom height. For pre-plant/pre-emergent applications, low boom applications are likely typical; whereas, for post-emergence applications, either low or high boom app lications may be common.

Results from this analysis are given in Table 32
, Table 33
, Table 34 , and Table 35 . For ground applications ( Table 30a ) using a high boom, distances fo r protecting the most sensitive nonlisted plants ranged from 6.56 feet for corn to grea ter than 1000 feet for cu cumber. Distances for protection of the most sensitive listed plants ra nged from 19.7 feet for corn to greater than 1000 ft for cucumber. For ground applications usi ng a low boom, distances for protecting the most sensitive non-listed plants ranged from 3.28 feet for corn to greater than 731 feet for cucumber. Distances for protection of the mo st sensitive listed plants ranged from 6.56 feet for corn to 846 ft for cucumber. For aerial applications ( Tables 28 and 29 ) with very fine to fine particle sizes, 50% of the end points for non-listed species ex ceeded 1000 ft buffer and 70% of the end points for listed species exceeded the 1000 ft buffer. From fine to coarse spray scenarios, only 30% of the endpoints resulted in distan ces that exceeded a 1000 ft buffe r. The endpoint utilizing the most sensitive dicot, i.e ., cucumber, exceeded the 1000 ft buffer in every spray particle size scenario.

Table 32. Distance from Edge of Field of Risk to non-target terrestrial Plants, Based on AgDrift Prediction of Spray Drift with a very fine to fine particle size and a high boom dispersal.

Plant Species Vegetative Vigor Endpoints (lbs a.i. / A) High Boom Low Boom

EC 25 NOAEC Distance in feetfor Nonlisted Species Distance in feet

for Listed Species Distance in feetfor Nonlisted Species Distance in feet

for Listed Species

Monocots Corn 0.18 0.056 6.56 19.68 3.28 6.56

Oat 0.033 0.006 29.53 154.2 13.12 55.77

Onion 3 0.012 0.006 78.74 154.2 29.53 55.77 Ryegrass 0.045 0.019 22.97 52.49 9.84 19.68

Dicots Cabbage 0.011 0.006 85.3 154.2 32.81 55.77

Lettuce 0.025 0.006 39.37 154.2 16.4 55.77

Tomato 0.012 0.0013 78.74 547.89 29.53 305.11

Radish 0.057 0.019 19.68 52.49 6.56 19.68 Soybean 0.0044 0.0013 206.69 547.89 78.74 305.11

Cucumber 3 0.0005 0.00044 Out of
range 2 Out of
range 2 731.62 846.45

1 The endpoints in the vegetative vigor studies were determined to be more sensitive to sulfentrazone than endpoints from the seedling emergence studies.

### 66 2 Out of range denotes distances greater than 1000 feet from the edge of field
3 Bolded values represent the most sensitive endpoints.



### Table 33. Distance from Edge of Field of Ri sk to Listed Terrestrial Plants, Based on AgDrift Prediction of Spray Drift with a fine to medium/coarse particle size and a high boom dispersal.

Plant Species Vegetative Vigor Endpoints (lbs a.i. / A) High Boom Low Boom

EC 25 NOAEC Distance in feetfor Nonlisted Species Distance in feet

for Listed Species Distance in feetfor Nonlisted Species Distance in feet

for Listed Species

Monocots Corn 0.18 0.056 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28

Oat 0.033 0.006 6.56 36.09 3.28 19.68

Onion 1 0.012 0.006 16.4 36.09 9.84 19.68 Ryegrass 0.045 0.019 6.56 9.84 3.28 6.56

Dicots Cabbage 0.011 0.006 19.68 36.09 9.84 19.68

Lettuce 0.025 0.006 9.84 36.09 6.56 19.68

Tomato 0.012 0.0013 16.4 236.22 9.84 141.07

Radish 0.057 0.019 3.28 9.84 3.28 6.56 Soybean 0.0044 0.0013 52.49 236.22 29.53 141.07

Cucumber 1 0.00052 0.00044 600.39 698.81 433.07 518.37

1 Bolded values represent the most sensitive endpoints.



### Table 34. Distance from Edge of Field of Risk to non-target terrestrial plants, based on AgDrift Prediction of Spray Drift with aerial application with particle size scenarios of very fine to fine and fine to medium.

Vegetative Vigor
Endpoints (lbs a.i. / A) Aerial (very fine to fine) Aerial (fine to medium)

Plant Species EC 25 NOAEC Distance in feet

for Nonlisted

Species Distance in feet

for Listed Species Distance in feet

for Nonlisted

Species Distance in feet

for Listed Species

Monocots Corn 0.18 0.056 3.28 187.01 3.28 65.62

Oat 0.033 0.006 357.61 Out of
range 111.55 620.07

Onion 3 0.012 0.006 Out of
range 2 Out of
range 2 295.27 620.07

Ryegrass 0.045 0.019 242.78 731.62 78.74 183.72

### 67 Dicots Cabbage 0.011 0.006 Out of
range 2 Out of
range 2 318.24 620.07

Lettuce 0.025 0.006 505.24 Out of
range 2 144.36 620.07

Tomato 0.012 0.0013 Out of
range 2 Out of
range 2 295.27 Out of
range 2

Radish 0.057 0.019 180.44 731.62 62.34 183.72

Soybean 0.0044 0.0013 Out of
range 2 Out of
range 2 990.8 Out of
range 2

Cucumber 3 0.00052 0.00044 Out of
range 2 Out of
range 2 Out of
range 2 Out of
range 2 The endpoints in the vegetative vigor studies were dete rmined to be more sensitive to sulfentrazone than endpoints from the seedling emergence studies.

2 Out of range denotes distances greater th an 1000 feet from the edge of field

3 Bolded values represent the most sensitive endpoints.



### Table 35. Distance from Edge of Field of Risk to Listed Terrestrial Plants, Based on AgDrift Prediction of Spray Drift with aerial application with particle size scenarios of medium to coarse and coarse to very coarse.

Plant Species Vegetative Vigor
Endpoints (lbs a.i. / A) Aerial (medium to coarse) Aerial ( coarse to very coarse)

EC 25 NOAEC Distance in feetfor Nonlisted Species Distance in feet

for Listed Species Distance in feetfor Nonlisted Species Distance in feet

for Listed Species

Monocots Corn 0.18 0.056 0 19.68 0 16.4

Oat 0.033 0.006 36.09 209.97 29.53 141.07

Onion 0.012 0.006 118.11 209.97 82.02 141.07

Ryegrass 0.045 0.019 26.25 78.74 19.68 49.21

Dicots Cabbage 0.011 0.006 127.95 209.97 85.3 141.07

Lettuce 0.025 0.006 65.62 209.97 39.37 141.07

Tomato 0.012 0.0013 118.11 Out of
range 2 82.02 534.77

Radish 0.057 0.019 19.68 78.74 16.4 49.21

Soybean 0.0044 0.0013 265.74 Out of
range 2 180.44 534.77

Cucumber 0.00052 0.00044 Out of
range 2 Out of
range 2 Out of
range Out of
range 2

2 Out of range denotes distances greater th an 1000 feet from the edge of field

### 68 Based on the screening-level assess ment, uses of sulfentrazone are predicted to pose risk to nontarget terrestrial plants, regardless of the a pplication method and timing. All uses with the application rate of 0.375 lb a.i./A potentially may result in harm to listed plants. The analyses indicate that risk to te rrestrial plants is greater for ground hi gh boom and aerial a pplications than ground low boom applications.



### C. Review of Incident Data

The Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS) , which is maintained by the Agency’s Office of Pesticide Programs, was searched in January 2014 to determine if eco logical incidents have been reported for sulfentrazone. A total of 18 incidents, all involving plants, were associated with the use of sulfentr azone. The eighteen incidents of da mage to nearby vegetation involved sulfentrazone use in Minnesota, Iowa, Arkansas, a nd Oregon (the lone indust rial site record). Fifteen of the incidents resulted from uses on soybeans with impacts ranging from damage to 40 acres in Worth, Iowa. to 300 acres in Arkansas . The highest impacts, where uses impacted 500 acres occurred in Grundy, Iowa from a non-speci fied use of sulfentrazone. Many of the incidents attributed the off-site movement of resi dues to spray drift, while a few attributed it to runoff. 88 percent of the incidents resulted fr om registered uses and 100% involved adverse impacts to plants. Only two small incidents (1 acre, and partial loss of 8 acres) resulted from uses that were classified as undetermined.

The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) Avia n Incident Monitoring System (AIMS) was searched in January 2014 and contained no incide nts associated with sulfentrazone (ABC, 2007).

A search of the Incident Database System (IDS) maintained by OPP’s Information Technology and Resource Management Division (ITRMD) conducted on February 20, 2014 yielded 80 incidents for sulfentrazone involving plants, some of which are likely the same as those reported in the EIIS. Because of limitations in the in cident reporting system, the lack of additional incident reports cannot be construed as an accounti ng of all of incidents from the registered use of sulfentrazone.

A detailed listing of individual incidents associated with sulfen trazone spray drift, runoff, and carryover exposure is provided in Appendix D.



### D. Probit Slope Response Analysis of LOC Values and Acute RQ Values

The chance of individual effects was not eval uated using the IECv1.1.xls spreadsheet because acute toxicity tests with anim als did not yield definitive LD 50 

### or LC 50 

### values through probit analysis for birds, mammals, fish, and saltwater invertebrates. However, since the acute RQs for these taxa are known to be less th an 0.01 for birds, mammals, fish, and freshwater invertebrates, and less than 0.02 for saltwater crustaceans, the chan ce of mortality to an individual of any of these taxa is considered low.

### 69 

## V. RISK DESCRIPTION

A. Risk Characterization

Because of its high mobility and persistence in soil, sulfentrazone is prone to off-site movement via runoff, which may result in cont amination of nearby terrestrial and aquatic habitats. This prominent route of expo sure would exist re gardless of whether sulfentrazone is applied aerially or with ground equipment. This is reflected in the fact that aquatic EECs for ground applications we re only slightly lower than comparable EECs for aerial applications.

1. Summary of Risk

Based on this preliminary assessment, there are potential risks to list ed and non-listed plants (terrestrial and aquatic) from exposure to sulf entrazone use in ground a pplications (on Apple, Rhubarb, Turnip roots and tops, Sunflowe r Crop Subgroup 20B,Spring Wheat, Succulent cowpea, Succulent lima beans, Tree nut Crop Gr oup 14 including, Citrus Crop, Small berry and fruit Crop Group 13-07,Non-grass animal f eed Crop Group 18,Head/Stem Brassica Subgroup 5A,Leafy Greens Subgroup 5B,Melon Subgroup 9A, Fruiting Vegetable Group 8,Okra,Succulent Pea, Strawberry and Tuberous /Corm Vegetable Subgroup 1C, Sugarcane, Cabbage, Potato, Mint, Horseradish, Turf at the 0.375 lb a.i. / A a pplication rate, on peanut s at the 0.3 lb a.i./A application, on Sunflower/field corn/dry bean/d ry pea, Peanuts incorporated up to 2-4", Asparagus, soybeans, potatoes, horseradish, me lons, rhubarb, turnips at the 0.25 lb a.i./A application rate, on Brassica at the 0.2 lb a.i./A application rate, and on Corn, Wheat, Cowpea, Succulent pea, Lima bean at 0.19 lb a.i. /A app lication rates) and in ae rial applications (on soybeans, sugarcane, railroads, highways, roadsides, and pipelines.) Risk is posed to all types of nontarget plants, including monocots, dicots, aquatic vascular pl ants, and aquatic nonvascular plants. Use of sulfentrazone is not expected to cause direct advers e effects to any listed species of terrestrial animals, but may cause indir ect effects to listed an imals through impacts on vegetation and plant food sources.

2. Risk to Aquatic and Terrestrial Animals

Sulfentrazone is a light dependent peroxidizi ng herbicide (LDPH). The mode of action of sulfentrazone blocks chlorophyll and heme bios ynthesis and results in endogenous accumulation of photo-toxic porphyrins in plants but may also be toxic to animals. Following EFED guidance for LDPH chemicals, an interim 29X toxicity adju stment factor was applied to the fish early life stage study to account for potential enhanced toxici ty when organism are exposed to light in clear water columns (U.S. EPA, 2010). While the chronic RQs for fish increased as a result of this factor, they did not exceed the established ch ronic risk LOCs for either listed or non-listed species. Aquatic environments near use sites ma y however frequently be sufficiently turbid or shaded so as not to warrant inco rporation of this factor. In th ese turbid environments however, sulfentrazone is expected to be more persiste nt and may accumulate resu lting in higher EECs and exposures of aquatic organisms. While models of these turbid environments result in enhanced exposures as a result of decreased photolysis rates, the EECs still do not result in significant changes in risk estimates as demonstrated by the maximum change in RQ increasing from 0.08

### 70 to 0.14 for chronic toxicity to fr eshwater invertebrates and from 5.3 to 9.2 for chronic toxicity to estuarine/marine crustaceans.

Sulfentrazone has low acute and chronic toxicity to mammals, terrestrial arthropods, fish, and aquatic freshwater invertebrates. Chronic risk was found for birds. There was an 8% reduction in body weight at the highest concentration te sted establishing a LOAEC of 100 ppm. The NOAEC in this study (MRID 43355901) to establish th e chronic risk quotient s that exceeded the LOCs was 10 ppm. The wide spacing of e xperimental doses establ ishing the NOAEC and the LOAEC results in some uncertainty in this risk determination. Additionally, there were not any other statistically significant diffe rences in any of the other endpoi nts. The wide spacing to the experimental doses and lack of additional e ffects during the experime nt suggests that the NOAEC may in fact not be ten times lower than the LOAEC.

Sulfentrazone has a high acute toxicity to estuar ine/marine crustaceans and may result in chronic risk to estuarine invertebrates as indicated by the chronic RQs of 5.3 and 9.2 in clear and turbid environments respectively. Based on the screen ing-level risk assessment the current and proposed uses of sulfentrazone pose low risk to most aquati c animals; however, they may potentially pose chronic risk to both listed a nd non-listed estuarine/marine invertebrates. Sulfentrazone is expected to pose low risk to all terrestrial animals, and is not expected to cause significant direct effects to either non-listed or li sted species of terrestrial animals. This is supported by the lack of incident data involving animals for sulfentrazone.

There is uncertainty regarding the potential for risk to honey b ees given the indeterminate RQ (RQ<0.48) for oral exposure to sulfentrazone because this valu e is based on a non-definitive endpoint (>25.1 μg a.i./bee). Given the lack of t oxic effects observed in both contact and oral toxicity studies, these data suggest that sulfentrazone does not pose a significant risk to honeybees and other terrestrial inve rtebrate taxa. It cannot be a ssumed, however, that lack of toxicity in the honeybee precl udes direct toxicity to all terrestrial inverteb rate taxa. Despite the lack of direct effects to terrest rial and aquatic animals, indirect adverse effects are possible because of sulfentrazone’s toxicity to plants and consequent effects on primary productivity/habitat. Toxicity to plants may reduce the supply of plant food, which is the basis of the ecological food web in both aquatic and terres trial ecosystems. In addition, the toxicity to plants may alter plant communities, especially those near treated fields, which may result in ecological harm to some animal species.

3. Risk to Terrestrial and Aquatic Plants

Despite the relatively low use rates of this herbicide, the phytotoxi city of sulfentrazone results in the conclusion that all uses pose poten tial risk to non-targ et terrestrial plants. The risk assessment indicates that all uses of sulfentrazone exceed the LOCs for nonlisted and listed terrestrial pl ants and listed aquatic plants. While sulfentrazone may only be applied once per year, residues in soil and water may remain at phytotoxic levels for long periods of time. In addition, sulfentraz one has little binding potential to organic material in the soil, and thus is prone to movement in runoff. Both of these factors increase the potential for residue s to be transported from the use site into terrestrial and aquatic habitats where non-target plants can be exposed as well as accumulate in remote

### 71 receiving water bodies that are shaded from li ght (either as turbid water columns or other light blocking entities ( e.g ., trees, emergent plants).

Sulfentrazone also has a high rate of photolys is and degrades rapidly when exposed to light. Receiving water bodies, adjacent to use sites, may be turbid retention ponds or shaded streams, while clearer water bodies fa rther afield may receive sulfentrazone due to its high persistence and mobility in soils. In turbid waters, uses of sulfentrazone may potentially pose risk to listed species of non-vascular and vascular plants (RQ = 1.5 and 1.8). In clear water colu mns with rapid degradation from ph otolysis, there is still risk to listed non-target species (RQ = 1.1).

Incident data also support the potential for su lfentrazone residues to move off-site and to harm non-target plants. All incidents invol ved plants and is consistent with the conclusion that sulfentrazone poses a potenti al risk to non-target terrestrial plants.

4. Risk to Endangered Species

At the current stage of the Registration Review process, it is premature to make effects determinations for listed species until further sc ientific analysis and refinements are conducted, based on recommendations received from the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) National Research Council (NRC) April 2013 report, available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?reco rd_id=18344. The NAS report outlines recommendations on specific scientific and technical issues re lated to the development of pesticide risk assessments that are compliant with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

The EPA along with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Se rvice (USFWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively, the Services), a nd the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), released a summary of their implem entation plan for assessing risks of pesticides to listed species ahead of the stakeholder workshop held on N ovember 15, 2013. This plan was developed in response to the NAS’ recommendations, including a common approach to ri sk assessment as a way of addressing scientific differences betw een EPA and the Services. During the workshop, the agencies received feedback from the public on the interim scientific approaches that were developed as part of the initial implementati on of the NAS recommendations. These approaches will be jointly implemented and vetted as part of a phased iterative process. Once fully vetted, EPA will further refine the listed species effects de termination portion of this risk assessment.

To make effects determinations for individual listed species, us eful refinements may include, but are not limited to, analyses of: 1) more detaile d, species-specific ecological and biological data; 2) more detailed and accurate in formation on sulfentrazone use pa tterns; and 3) sub-county level spatial proximity data for the co -occurrence of potential effects areas and listed species and any designated critical habitat. Examples of such refinements are described below.

EFED is currently developing tools that are expe cted to further refine the assessment and are designed to support effects determinations for individual listed species and their designated critical habitat (where applicable). Scientific information obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) , and other reliable

### 72 sources are being collated by EFED to address a ll currently listed species. The information will be stored in an Office of Pes ticide Programs Pesticide Registration Information SysteM (PRISM) knowledgebase. The listed species knowledgebase w ill consist of an information repository that houses biological and behavioral inform ation relevant to individual species ( e.g. , habitat, diet, and life history, including specifi c temporal and spatial associat ions) and a document repository that contains supporting documents ( e.g ., USFWS recovery plans) a nd electronic information ( e.g ., GIS data files). For terrestria l taxa, biological information relevant to the assessment ( e.g ., diet and body weight) will be used to parameteri ze exposure estimates using a method consistent with currently used methods in the T-REX and T-HERPS models.

Refinements will also include more detailed analyses of the registered uses and specific use patterns that result in either “Likely to Advers ely Affect” (LAA) or “Not Likely to Adversely Affect” (NLAA) determinations for federally li sted species. The analyses may include more information on where, when, and how sulfentrazone is used on all use sites. Actual usage data (when available) and national land-cover datasets that indi cate potential use sites [ e.g ., National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD), Cropland Data Laye r (CDL)] may be used to support a more refined analysis of where sulfentrazone is re asonably expected to be used. Similarly, refinements on the timing of applications and a mo re in-depth exploration of agronomic practices for sulfentrazone may be included as part of th e refinement. Similarly, refinements for the timing of applications and how sulfentraz one is used may be based on the analysis of actual usage data, beyond what were available at the time of the sc reening-level assessment, and a more in-depth exploration of agronomic practices.

The refinements based on individu al species data; additional, detailed usage information, when available; and recommendations from the NRC re port are expected to he lp to more accurately identify potential areas of effect and to better inform effects and habitat determinations for listed species and any designate d critical habitats.



### B. Assumptions and Limitations

1. Endocrine Disruption

As required by FIFRA and FFDCA, EPA reviews num erous studies to asse ss potential adverse outcomes from exposure to chemicals. Collectiv ely, these studies includ e acute, subchronic and chronic toxicity, including asse ssments of carcinogenicity, ne urotoxicity, developmental, reproductive, and general or systemic toxicity. These studies include e ndpoints which may be susceptible to endocrine influe nce, including effects on endocri ne target organ histopathology, organ weights, estrus cyclicity, sexual maturatio n, fertility, pregnancy rates, reproductive loss, and sex ratios in offspring. For ecological hazard assessments, EPA evaluates acute tests and chronic studies that assess gr owth, developmental and reprod uctive effects in different taxonomic groups. As part of its most rece nt registration decisi on for sulfentrazone, EPA reviewed these data and select ed the most sensitive endpoints for relevant risk assessment scenarios from the existing hazard database. However, as required by FFDCA section 408(p), sulfentrazone is subject to the endocrine screening part of th e Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP).

EPA has developed the EDSP to determine whet her certain substances (including pesticide

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

Under FFDCA section 408(p), the Agency must screen all pesticide chemicals. Between October 2009 and February 2010, EPA issued test orders/data call-ins for the first group of 67 chemicals, which contains 58 pest icide active ingredient s and 9 inert ingredients. A second list of chemicals identified for EDSP sc reening was published on June 14, 2013 5 

### and includes some pesticides scheduled for registration review and chemicals found in water

. Neither of these lists should be construed as a list of know n or likely endocri ne disruptors.

For further information on the status of the ED SP, the policies and procedures, the lists of chemicals, future lists, the test guidelines and the Tier 1 screening ba ttery, please visit our website. 6



### 2. Uncertainties Related to Data Limitations

Sulfentrazone is a light-depende nt peroxidizing herbicide (LDPH) . LDPHs are a unique class of chemicals that can be more toxic in the presence of ultraviolet ( uV) light. Several studies have documented enhanced toxicity of LD PHs to fish in the presence of uV light when compared to the toxicity observed under standa rd lighting (U.S. EPA, 2010). Gi ven that aquatic organisms are likely exposed simultaneously to LDPH and uV light in natural settings, concerns have been raised that standard laboratory studies may underestimate the toxici ty of LDPH in the field. In the absence of chemical specific da ta on LDPH toxicity under enhanced uV lighting, an uncertainty factor of 29X (per EFED guidance) was applied to the chro nic fish toxicity study. Additionally since the uncertainty factor is base d on data from other LDPH chemicals, there is uncertainty with the chronic fish (freshwater) toxicity endpoint. Additionally, there is uncertainty as to whether enhanced sensitivity co uld be observed in other taxa such as aquatic invertebrates, birds, mammals, and also plants . While the terrestrial plant studies were conducted in greenhouse settings, the toxicity data may not be conservative because the greenhouse plants did not receive full sunlight.

In addition, chronic toxicity data ar e not available for estuarine/marine fish. In lieu of these data, an ACR comparing freshwater fish to marine estuarine fish would be used. Since the freshwater fish ( i.e ., rainbow trout) had a non-definitive endpoint for the acute study this was not possible. An early life stage study with a freshw ater fish under modified lighting ( i.e ., enhanced uV ) with a

5 See http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0477-0074 for the final second list of

chemicals.

6 http://www.epa.gov/endo/

### 74 low light “reference treatment” and a estu arine/marine fish (sheepshead minnow; Cyprinodon variegatus ) conducted under both standard low li ght designs and modified lighting ( i.e
., enhanced uV ) with a low light “reference treatment” would help to re duce the uncertainty in this assessment by supplying a chronic endpoint for an estuarine/marine fish and also data for a chemical-specific LDPH adjustment factor

Additionally, an ACR was used to estimate chronic NOAEC for the mysid shrimp. The use of an ACR introduces uncertainty as it repres ents an unbounded measure of risk. The ACR compared the acute and chronic toxic ity of the freshwater invertebrate D. magna to that of the mysid shrimp. The large difference (60X) in se nsitivity in acute toxicity of the daphnid and mysid as well as the enhanced sensitivity of the daphnid from chronic exposures resulted in a large ACR factor (302) that imp acted the risk conclusions regard ing potential chronic risk for estuarine/marine invertebrates. Without more da ta on the chronic sensitiv ity of estuarine/marine invertebrates it is difficult to discern the li kelihood and magnitude of adverse effects to estuarine/marine invertebrates fo r the use of sulfentrazone.

Currently, toxicity stud ies on amphibians and reptiles are not required for pesticide registration. The Agency uses fish as surrogates for aquati c-phase amphibians and birds as surrogates for terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles. If ot her species are more or less sensitive to sulfentrazone than the surrogates, risks may be under- or overestimated, respectively. The Agency is not limited to a base set of surroga te toxicity information in establishing risk assessment conclusions though, and also considers toxicity data on non-st andard test species when available. Further research is needed to determine whether, in general, reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians are suitably repres ented by bird species in assessing risks for sulfentrazone and whether fish are an appropr iate surrogate for aquatic-phase amphibians.

3. Routes of Exposure Dietary Exposure

Screening-level risk assessments for spray applic ations of pesticides as sume that 100% of the diet is relegated to single f ood types foraged only from treated fields. These assumptions are likely to be conservative for ma ny species and will tend to overes timate potential risks. The assumption of 100% diet from a treated area may be realistic for acute exposures, but long-term exposures modeled as single food types composed entirely of material from a treated field is uncertain.

Dermal Exposure

The screening assessment does not consider su lfentrazone dermal exposure to birds and mammals. The Agency is actively pursuing mode ling techniques to account for dermal exposure via direct application of spray and by incidental contact with contaminated vegetation, soil and
water.

4. Species sensitivity Although the screening risk asse ssment relies on a sele cted toxicity endpoint from the most sensitive species tested, it does not necessarily mean that the sele cted toxicity endpoints reflect

### 75 sensitivity of the most sensitive species existing in a given environment. The relative position of the most sensitive species tested in the distribu tion of all possible species is a function of the overall variability among species to a partic ular chemical. The relationship between the sensitivity of the most sensitive tested species versus wild species (including listed species) is unknown and a source of significant uncertainty. In a ddition, in the case of listed species, there is uncertainty regarding the relationship of the listed species' sensitivity and the most sensitive species tested.

Organisms consume a variety of dietary items and ma y exist in a variety of sizes at different life stages. For foliar applications of liquid formulations, T-REX estimates exposure for the following dietary items: short grass, tall grass, broadleaf plants/small insects, fruits/pods/seeds/ large insects, and seeds for granivores. Birds (u sed as a surrogate for amphibians and reptiles), and mammals, consume all of these items. The size classes of birds represented in T-REX are the small (20 g), medium (100 g), and large (10 00 g). The size classes for mammals are small (15 g), medium (35 g), and large (1000 g). EECs are calculated for the most sensitive dietary item and size class for birds (surrogate for terrestrial-phase amphibi ans and reptiles) and mammals. Table 36 shows the percentages of the EECs a nd RQs of the various dietary classes for each size class as compared to the most sens itive dietary class (short grass) and size class (small mammal or bird). This information could be used to further char acterize potential risk that is specific to the diet of birds and mamm als. For example, if a mammal only consumes broadleaf plants and small insects and the RQ was 100 for small mammals consuming short grass, the RQ for small mammals that only cons umed broadleaf plants and small insects would be 56 (100 x 0.56).

Table 36. Percentage of EEC or RQ for the Specifi ed Dietary Items and Size Classes as Compared to the EEC or RQ for The Most Sens itive Dietary Items (Short Grass) and Size Class (Small Bird or Small Mammal)

Dietary Items Percentage of EECs or RQs for the Specified Di etary Items and Size Class as compared to the EEC or RQ for Small Birds 1 or Small Mammals Consuming Short Grass

Birds: Dose Based EECs and RQs Small, 20 g Mid, 100 g Large, 1000 g EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ Short Grass 100% 100% 57% 45% 26% 14% Tall Grass 46% 46% 26% 21% 12% 7% Broadleaf plants/small Insects 56% 56% 32% 25% 14% 8%

Fruits/pods/see ds/large insects 6% 6% 4% 3% 2% 1%

Granivores 1% 1% 1% 1% 0.4% 0.2% Mammals: Dose-Based EECs and RQs Small, 15 g Mid, 35 g Large, 1000 g EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ Short Grass 100% 100% 69% 85% 16% 46% Tall Grass 46% 46% 32% 39% 7% 21%

### 76 Dietary Items Percentage of EECs or RQs for the Specified Di etary Items and Size Class as compared to the EEC or RQ for Small Birds 1 or Small Mammals Consuming Short Grass

Broadleaf plants/small Insects 56% 56% 39% 48% 9% 26%

Fruits/pods/see ds/large insects 6% 6% 4% 5% 1% 3%

Granivores 1% 1% 1% 1% 0.2% 0.6% Mammals and Birds: Dietary-based EECs and RQs for all Size Classes 2
Short Grass 100% Tall Grass 46% Broadleaf plants/sm Insects 56%

Fruits/pods/see ds/lg insects 6%

1 The percents of the maximum RQ shown here for birds are based on the Agency’s default avian scaling factor of 1.15.

2 Percentages for dose-based chronic EECs and RQs for mammals are equivalent to the acute dose-based EECs and RQs.



### In the risk assessment, RQs were only calculated for the most sensitive dietary class relevant to the organisms assessed. For most organisms, insu fficient data are availa ble to conclude that birds or mammals may not exclusively feed on a dietary class for at le ast some time period. However, most birds and mammals likely consume a variety of dietary items and thus the RQ may overestimate risk to those organisms. Additionally, some organisms will not feed on all of the dietary classes, e.g ., many amphibians would only cons ume insects and not any plant material.

5. Sub-lethal Effects

When assessing acute risk, the screening risk a ssessment relies on the acute mortality endpoint as well as a suite of sub-lethal res ponses to the pesticide, as dete rmined by the testing of species response to chronic exposure c onditions and subsequent chronic risk assessment. Consideration of additional sub-lethal data is exercised on a case-by-case basis and only after careful consideration of the natu re of the sub-lethal effect measur ed and the extent and quality of available data to support establis hing a plausible relationship betw een the measure of effect (sublethal endpoint) and the assessment endpoints of impaired survival, growth and/or reproduction. However, the full suite of sub-lethal effects from valid open literature studies is considered for the characterization purposes.

To the extent to which sub-lethal effects are not considered in this assessment, the potential direct and indirect effects of sulfentrazone on listed species may be underestimated.

6. Other Uncertainties in Risk Conclusions

a) Sulfentrazone is both persistent and highly mobile , two factors that increase the potential for sulfentrazone to accumulate in receiving wate r bodies in significant quantities that may

### 77 impact plants and animals. Sulfentrazone also has a high rate of photolysis in clear water column. These chemical characteristics require a more detailed characterization of receiving water bodies, specifically the light environments of receiving water bodies, in order to further refine the risk conclusions. Sulfentrazone is expected to be more persistent in lower light environments that are characteri stic of shaded bodies of water or turbid water columns. If turbid or shaded receiving waters, or groundw ater derived irrigation water where residues may have leached, are used for irrigation purposes, sulfentrazone may additionally pose risk to the crops that are being irrigated.

b) In order to make effects determinations fo r individual species, useful refinements may include analyses of 1) more detailed, species-s pecific ecological and bi ological data; 2) more detailed and accurate information on sulfentr azone use patterns; and 3) sub-county level spatial proximity data for the co-occurrence of potential eff ects areas and listed species and any designated critical habitat.



## VI. RISK CONCLUSIONS

Sulfentrazone, when used in accordance with cu rrent labels, may result in contamination of ecosystems and adverse effects upon the survival, growth, and reproduction of non-target terrestrial and aquatic organism s, including listed species.

Conclusions of the potentia l of use of sulfentrazone to cause direct and indirect effects to nonlisted and listed species of va rious taxa are summarized in Table 37 . Use of sulfentrazone may cause direct adverse effects to non -listed and listed species of terrest rial plants and listed species of aquatic vascular and non-vasc ular plants. Use of sulfentraz one may cause direct adverse effects on birds and estuarine on a chronic basis. Because birds are surrogates for terrestrial phase reptiles and amphibians, risk is presumed to these taxa as well on a chronic basis. Sulfentrazone may also cause dir ect effects to estuarine/marine invertebrates on a chronic basis. It is not expected to cause direct effects to ot her listed species of terrestrial or aquatic animals such as mammals and fish, but toxicity to plants may result in indirect ecological effect to listed animals. Use of sulfentrazone does not cause dir ect adverse effects to no n-listed and listed fish species as a result of the 29X correction factor used in the absence of studies conducted under ultraviolet light.

Table 37. Potential Non-listed and Listed Species Risks Associated with Potential Direct or Indirect Effects Due to the App lications of Sulfentrazone

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

Birds 5 Yes Yes Yes

### 78 Taxa DIRECT EFFECTS INDIRECT EFFECTS 1 Non-listed Listed

Terrestrial-phase amphibians 6 Yes Yes Yes

Reptiles 6 Yes Yes Yes

Mammals No No Yes

Terrestrial Invertebrates No No Yes

Aquatic plants – vascular plants No Yes Yes

Aquatic plants – non-vascular No Yes 2 Yes

Freshwater fish No 4 No 4 Yes

Aquatic-phase amphibians 7 No No Yes

Freshwater crustaceans No No Yes

Mollusks No No Yes

Marine/estuarine fish 3 No 4 No 4 Yes

Marine/estuarine crustaceans 3 Yes 4 Yes 4 Yes

1 Indirect effects may include genera l habitat modifica tion, host plant loss, and food supply disruption.

2 No species of nonvascular aquatic plant is cu rrently listed as threatened or endangered.

3 Quantitative data are not available for chronic toxicity in saltw ater invertebrates; Risk conclu sions were based on risk quotie nts calculated using the ACR for freshwater invertebrates.

4 Based on the daphnid ACR of 300

4 Risk was determined after applying the 29X factor for fish that is used in the absence of da ta from experime nts conducted under ultra-violet light per EFEDs LDPH guidance.

5 Risk is based on chronic risk when birds feed upon diets contai ning sulfentrazone. These diet groups include short grass, tall grass, broad leaf plants and arthropods. The category of fruit/pods/seeds did not result in any chronic risk to birds.

6 Birds are surrogates for reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians. Chronic risk associated with birds are thus inferred for t hese groups as well.

7 Fish are surrogates for aquatic-phase amphibians.

### 79 VII. REFERENCES

Birchfield, N.B., Casida, J.E. 1997. Protoporphyrinogen oxid ase of mouse and maize: Target site selectivity and thio l effects on peroxidizing herbicide action. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology . 57: 36-43.

Matringe, M., Camadro, J.M, Labbe, P., Sca lla, R. 1989. Protoporphyrinogen oxidase as a molecular target for diph enyl ether herbicides. Biochem. J. 260: 231-235

Mayer, D. and C. Johansen. 1990. Pollinator Protection: A Bee and Pesticide Handbook. Wicwas Press. Cheshire, Conn. P 161.

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

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

USEPA, 2008. EFED Problem Formulation for Su lfentrazone Registration Review

. Memorandum from the Environmental Fate and Effects Division to the Registration Division, Office of Pesticid e Programs, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. D36522, September, 2009.

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

U.S. EPA, 2010. Interim Guidance on Light-Depe ndant Peroxidizing Herbic ides: Identification, DCI Justification, and Use of a Toxicity Ad justment Factor on Fish Chronic Endpoints. Memorandum from Donald Brady to the E nvironmental Fate and Effects Division. August 20, 2010.

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

U.S. EPA, 2012. Marietta Echeverria, M., J ones, R.D., Peck, C., Ru hman, M., Shelby, A., Thawley, S., and Thurman, N. Development and Use of Percent Cropped Area and Percent Turf Area Adjustment Factors in Drinking Water Exposure Assessments: 2012

### 80 Update. March 16, 2012. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate a nd Effects Division. Arlington, VA http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models /water/pca_adjustment_dwa.html

U.S. EPA, 2012. OPP EFED. White Paper in Support of the Proposed Risk Assessment Process for Bees.

### 81 

## VIII. Appendices

A. Bibliography

1. Toxicity Studies

a) Avian Single Dose Oral Toxicity

MRID (i) Citation Reference

41911617 Campbell, S.; Lynn, S.; Smith, G. (1991) F6285: An Acute Oral Toxicity Study with the Northern Bobw hite: Lab Project Number: A89- 3089: 104-165. Unpublished study prepar ed by Wildlife International Ltd. 20 p.

b) Avian Dietary Toxicity MRID Citation Reference

41911618 Beavers, J.; Grimes, J.; Smith, G. ; et al. (1991) F6285: A Dietary LC50 Study with the Northern Bobwhite : Lab Project Number: A89- 3091: 104-163. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife Inter- national Ltd. 36
p. 41911619 Beavers, J.; Grimes, J.; Smith, G. (1991) F6285: A Dietary LC50 Study with the Mallard: Lab Project Number: 104-164: A89-3092. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 36 p.

c) Avian Reproduction MRID Citation Reference

43355901 Pedersen, C.; DuCharme, D. ( 1994) Toxicity and Reproduction Study with F6285 Technical in Bobwhite Quail: Lab Project Number: 112-005- 07: A93-3820. Unpublished study prepared by Bio-Life Associates, Ltd. 457 p. 43355902 Pedersen, C.; Solatycki, A. (1994) Toxicity and Re production Study with F6285 Technical in Mallard Ducks: Lab Project Number: 112-006-08: A93-3819. Unpublished study prepared by Bio-Life Associates, Ltd. 461
p.
d) Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Fish MRID Citation Reference

41911620 Graves, W. ; Peters, G. (1991) F6285: A 96-Hour Flow-through Acute Toxicity Test with the Rainbow Tr out (Oncorhynchus mykiss): Final

### 82 Report: Lab Project Number: 104A-1 03: A89-3060. Unpub- lished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 45 p. 41911621 Graves, W.; Peters, G. (1991) F 6285: A 96-Hour Flow-through Acute Toxicity Test with the Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 104A-104: A 89-3061. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 47 p.

### 83 e) Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates MRID Citation Reference

41911622 Holmes, C.; Peters, G. (1991) F6285: A 48-Hour Flow-through Acute Toxicity Test with the Cladocer an (Daphnia magna): Lab Project Number: 104A-105A: A89-3059. Unpublis hed study prepared by Wild life International Ltd. 46 p.

f) Acute Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Organisms MRID Citation Reference

43588602 Boeri, R.; Magazu, J.; Ward, T. (1994) F6285 Technical: Acute Toxicity to the Silverside, Menidia beryl lina: Lab Project Number: A94-3973: 495-FM. Unpublished study prepared by T. R. Wilbury Labs, Inc. 27 p. 43588603 Boeri, R.; Magazu, J.; Ward, T. (1994) F6285 Technical: Acute Toxicity to the Mysid, Mysidopsis bahia: Lab Project Number: A94-3972: 494- FM. Unpublished study prepared by T. R. Wilbury Labs, Inc. 27 p. 44054901 Cunningham, F. (1996) Sulfentrazone Technical: Acute Effect on New Shell Growth of the Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virginica): Lab Project Number: A96-4347: J9601008: F211. Unpublished study prepared by Toxikon Environmental Sciences. 43 p.

g) Fish Early Life Stage/Aquatic Invertebrate Life Cycle Study MRID Citation Reference

43588604 Boeri, R.; Magazu, J.; Ward, T. (1994) Early Life-stage Toxicity of F6285 Technical to the Rainbow Trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss: Lab Project Number: A93-3804: 308-FM. Unpublished study prepared by T. R. Wilbury Labs, Inc. 78 p. 43588605 Boeri, R.; Kowalski, P.; Ward, T. (1994) Chronic Toxicity of F6285 Technical to the Daphnid, Daphnia magna: Lab Project Number: A93- 3803: 309-FM. Unpublished study prepared by T. R. Wilbury Labs, Inc. 38 p.

h) Acute oral toxicity in rats MRID Citation Reference

41911605 McCarty, J. (1988) F6285 Technical: Acute Oral Toxicity Study in Rats: Lab Project Number: A88-2587. Unpub lished study prepared by FMC Tox Lab. 35 p. 41911606 McCarty, J. (1988) F6285 Technical: Acute Oral Toxicity Study in Mice: Lab Project Number: A88-2598. Unpub lished study prepared by FMC Tox Lab. 50 p. 41911612 Freeman, C. (1991) F6285--4 Lb. /GAl F: Acute Oral Toxicity Study in Rats: Lab Project Number: A91-338 4. Unpublished study pre- pared by FMC Corp. 22 p.

### 84 42051302 Freeman, C. (1991) Acute Oral T oxicity Study in Rats: F6285 80 WP: Lab Project Number: A91-3462. Unpub lished study prepared by FMC Corp. 27 p. 43233403 Freeman, C. (1994) F6285 75 DF: Ac ute Oral Toxicity Study in Rats: Lab Project Number: A93-3884. Unpub lished study prepared by FMC Corp. 36 p. 43926704 Freeman, C. (1996) Sulfentrazone/M etribuzin Blend 75 DF: Acute Oral Toxicity Study in Rats: Lab Pr oject Number: A95-4274: ATM-0248: P95-0111. Unpublished study prepared by FMC Corp. 114 p. 44116905 Finlay, C. (1996) Acute Oral Toxi city Study with DPX-MP559 in Male and Female Rats: Lab Project Number: HLR 570-96: 10718-001: 570-96. Unpublished study prepared by DuPont Haskell Lab for Toxicology and Industrial Medicine. 45 p. 44463601 Wnorowski, G. (1997) Acute Oral Toxicity Defined LD 50 (in Rats): EH-1349: Lab Project Number: 5491: P320. Unpublished study prepared by Product Safety Labs. 30 p. 45388202 Freeman, C.; Scubelek, S. (2001) Ga untlet 70 DF Acute Oral Toxicity Study in Rats: Lab Project Number: A2000-5316. Unpublished study prepared by FMC Corpor ation. 22 p. {OPPTS 870.1100}

i) Seed Germination/Seedling Emergence and Vegetative Vigor MRID Citation Reference

43345411 Chetram, R. (1994) Tier 2 Seed Germination/Seedling Emergence Nontarget Phytotoxicity Study Us ing F6285 Technical: Lab Project Number: 162E7191E1: PC/0174: BL91/473. Unpublished study prepared by Pan-Agricultural Lab., Inc. 101 p. 43345412 Chetram, R. (1994) Tier 2 Vegeta tive Vigor Nontarget Phytotoxicity Study Using F6285 Technical: Lab Project Number: BL91/474: 162E7291E1: PC/0175. Unpublished study pr epared by Pan-Agricultural Lab., Inc. 118 p. 43783601 Keifer, D. (1995) Supplemental Data Submission in Support of: Tier 2 Seed Germination/Seedling Emergence Nontarget Phytotoxicity Study Using F6285 Technical: Lab Proj ect Number: BL91-473: 162E7191E1: PC-0174. Unpublished study prepared by FMC Corp. 92 p. 43783602 Keifer, D. (1995) Supplemental Data Submission in Support of: Tier 2 Vegetative Vigor Nontar get Phytotoxicity Study Using F6285 Technical: Lab Project Number: BL91-474: 162E7291E1: PC-0175. Unpublished study prepared by FMC Corp. 114 p.

j) Aquatic Plant Growth MRID Citation Reference

43345413 Blasberg, J.; Hicks, S.; Stuerman, L. (1994) Acute Toxicity of F6285 to Selenastrum capricornutum Printz: Amended Final Report: Lab Project

### 85 Number: 40574: A92/3537. Unpublishe d study prepared by ABC Lab., Inc. 228 p. 43651004 Ward, T.; Kowalski, P.; Boeri, R. (1 995) Acute Toxicity of Sulfentrazone Technical to the Freshwater Alga, Navicula pelliculosa: Lab Project Number: A94-4106: 618-FM: P-2912. Unpublished study prepared by T. R. Wilbury Labs, Inc. 26 p. 43651005 Ward, T.; Kowalski, P.; Boeri, R. (1995) Toxicity of Sulfentrazone Technical to the Duckweed, Lemna gibba G3: Amended Report: Lab Project Number: A94-4107: 620-FM. Unpublished study prepared by T. R. Wilbury Labs, Inc. 28 p. 43651006 Ward, T.; Kowalski, P.; Boeri, R. (1 995) Acute Toxicity of Sulfentrazone Technical to the Freshwater Alga , Anabaena flos-aquae: Lab Project Number: A94-4108: 617-FM. Unpublis hed study prepared by T. R. Wilbury Labs, Inc. 27 p. 43651007 Ward, T.; Kowalski, P.; Boeri, R. (1 995) Acute Toxicity of Sulfentrazone Technical to the Marine Alga, Sk eletonema costatum: Lab Project Number: A94-4109: 619-FM. Unpublis hed study prepared by T. R. Wilbury Labs, Inc. 26 p.

k) Honey Bee Acute Contact MRID Citation Reference

44054902 Aufderheide, J.; Kranzfelder, J. (1996) Sulfentrazone Technical: Honey Bee Acute Contact LD50: Lab Pr oject Number: A95-4228: J9507010: F616. Unpublished study prepared by Toxikon Environmental Sciences. 31 p.

2. Environmental Fate Studies

a) Hydrolysis MRID Citation Reference

41928202 Kabler, K.; Williamson, K. (1991) Hydr olysis as a Function of pH at 25 C of 14C-F6285: Lab Project Nu mber: 38404: PC-0151. Unpubli- shed study prepared by Analytical Bio-Ch emistry Laboratories, Inc. 141 p.

b) Photodegradation-water MRID Citation Reference

43345424 Schocken, M. (1994) F6285: Aque ous Photolysis Study Following FIFRA Guideline 161-2 and TSCA Guideline 796.3700 (for Quantum Yield Determination): Final Re port: Lab Project Number: 282/1192/ 6113/720: 93/7/4849: PC/0191. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Lab., Inc. 228 p.

### 86 43588601 Willut, J. (1995) Formation and Decline of Major (carbon 14) Sulfentrazone Photoproducts in Bu ffered Aqueous Solution by Simulated Sunlight: Lab Project Number: 162E1294E1: P-2992. Unpublished study prepared by FMC Corp. 138 p.

c) Photodegradation-soil MRID Citation Reference

43345425 Schocken, M. (1994) F6285: Soil Photolysis Study Following FIFRA Guideline 161-3: Final Report: La b Project Number: 282/1192/6114/721: 94/3/5186: PC/0208. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Lab., Inc. 117 p.

d) Aerobic soil metabolism MRID Citation Reference

41928203 Singer, S.; Schocken, M. (1989) De gradation Studies: Aerobic Soil Metabolism of F6285, a New Herbicid e: Lab Project Number: 162E2- 1RF1. Unpublished study prepared by FMC Corporation. 67 p. 42932117 Curry, S. (1993) Aerobic Soil Metabolism of F6285: Lab Project Number: 162E2191E1. Unpublished study prepared by FMC Corp. 124
p.
e) Anaerobic aquatic metabolism MRID Citation Reference

43345426 Blumhorst, M. (1994) Anaerobic A quatic Metabolism of F6285: Lab Project Number: 141/002: PC/ 0192: 162E2291E1. Unpublished study prepared by EPL Bio-Analyti cal Services, Inc. 221 p.

f) Leach/adsorp/desorption MRID Citation Reference

41911604 Dykes, J. (1990) Soil Adsorptio n/Desorption with ?Carbon 14 F6285|: Final Report: Lab Project Nu mber: 383611: FMC 162E3289E1: FMC Report PC-0138. Unpublished study prep ared by ABC Labs, Inc. 129 p. 43355903 Saxena, A.; Marengo, J.; Zwick, T. (1993) The Leaching Potential of (carbon 14)-F6285 and Degradates in a Sandy Loam Soil: Amended Final Report: Lab Project Nu mber: SC910200: PC-0178: 162E3191E1. Unpublished study prepared by Batte lle Memorial Institute. 113 p.

g) Terrestrial fiel d dissipation MRID Citation Reference

43345427 Culligan, J. (1994) F6285 4F Herbicid e: Terrestrial Field Dissipation: Lab Project Number: P/2906: 162E 4192E1. Unpublished study prepared by FMC Corp. 94 p.

### 87 43345434 Becker, J. (1994) A Combined Soil Dissipation and Small-Scale Prospective Groundwater Monitoring Study with F6285 4F Herbicide: Lab Project Number: P/2891: 162E 6692E1. Unpublished study prepared by FMC Corp. 446 p. 43651008 Nagel, W.; Culligan, J. (1995) Te rrestrial Field Dissipation- -F6285 75DF Herbicide: Lab Project Number: P-2995: 162E4193E1. Unpublished study prepared by FMC Corp. 84 p. 43651009 Culligan, J. (1995) Terrestrial Fi eld Dissipation--F6285 75DF Herbicide: Lab Project Number: P-2983: 162E 4193E2. Unpublished study prepared by FMC Corp. 96 p. 43926814 Becker, J. (1996) A Combined Soil Dissipation and Small-Scale Prospective Groundwater Monitoring Study with F6285 4F Herbicide: (Revised Report): Lab Projec t Number: 162E6692E1: P-2891: FMC9201. Unpublished study prepared by FMC Corp. 477 p.

h) Bioaccumulation in fish MRID Citation Reference

43345433 Dionne, E. (1993) F6285: Bioconcentr ation and Elimination of (Carbon 14) Residues by Bluegill Sunfish (Lep omis macrochirus): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 282/1091/ 6112/140: 92/7/4315: PC/0186. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Lab., Inc. 122 p.

Ground water-small prospective MRID Citation Reference

43926814 Becker, J. (1996) A Combined Soil Dissipation and Small-Scale Prospective Groundwater Monitoring Study with F6285 4F Herbicide: (Revised Report): Lab Projec t Number: 162E6692E1: P-2891: FMC9201. Unpublished study prepared by FMC Corp. 477 p. 44773301 Hiscock, A.; Braun, D.; Culligan, J. (1999) A Small-Scale Prospective Groundwater Monitoring Study for Sulfen trazone in a Setting Classified as 85th Percentile Based on Vulnerability to Groundwater Contamination: Progress Report 1: Lab Project Number: PC-0291-1: 162E6698E2: 98-050. Unpublished study prep ared by Centre Analytical Laboratories, Inc. and Research Options, Inc. 332 p. 44837201 Hiscock, A.; Braun, D.; Culligan, J. (1999) A Small-Scale Prospective Groundwater Monitoring Study for Sulfen trazone in a Setting Classified as 85th Percentile Based on Vulnerability to Groundwater Contamination: Progress Report 2: Lab Project Number: 97-154: 98-050: 162E6698E2. Unpublished study prepared by Stone Environmental, Inc. and Research Options, Inc. 148 p. 44845801 Chen, A.; Schellinger, G. (1999) A Small-Scale Prospective Groundwater Monitoring Study for Sulfen trazone in a Setting Classified as 95th Percentile Based on Vulnerability to Groundwater

### 88 Contamination: Lab Project Nu mber: SEI97-155: 162E6699E1: PC0293. Unpublished study prepared by Stone Environmental, Inc. and Agvise Labs. 126 p. 44978601 Schellinger, G.; Chen, A. ( 1999) A Small-Scale Prospective Groundwater Monitoring Study for Sulfen trazone in a Setting Classified as 95th Percentile Based on Vulnerability to Groundwater Contamination: Progress Report 1: Lab Project Number: 97-155: 99-024: 162E6699E1. Unpublished study prepared by Stone Environmental, Inc. and Research Options, Inc. 225 p. 44978701 Hiscock, A.; Collins, M.; Culligan, J. (1999) A Small-Scale Prospective Groundwater Monitoring Study for Sulfen trazone in a Setting Classified as 85th Percentile Based on Vulnerability to Groundwater Contamination: Progress Report #3: Lab Project Number: 97-154: 98- 050: 162E6698E2. Unpublished study prep ared by Stone Environmental, Inc. and Research Options, Inc. 196 p. 45075801 Schellinger, G.; Chen, A. ( 2000) A Small-Scale Prospective Groundwater Monitoring Study for Sulfen trazone in a Setting Classified as 95th Percentile Based on Vulnerability to Groundwater Contamination: Progress Report 2: Lab Project Number: 162E6699E1: PC-0293-2: 97-155. Unpublished study prepared by Stone Environmental, Inc. and Re search Options, Inc. 133 p. 45179201 Hiscock, A.; Patterson, B.; Culligan, J. (2000) A Small-Scale Prospective Groundwater Monitoring Study for Sulfen trazone in a Setting Classified as 85th Percentile Based in Vulnerab ility to Groundwater Contamination: Lab Project Number: 162E6698E2: PC-0291-4. Unpublished study prepared by Stone Environmental, Inc. and FMC Corporation. 320 p. 45280401 Schellinger, G.; Chen, A. ( 2000) A Small-Scale Prospective Groundwater Monitoring Study for Sulfen trazone in a Setting Classifies as 95th Percentile Based on Vulnerability to Groundwater Contamination: Study Site Monitoring Through 294 Days After Treatment (Analytical Results th rough 276 Days After Treatment): Progress Report 3: Lab Project Number: 162E6699E1: PC-0293-3: 97- 155. Unpublished study prepared by Stone Environmental, Inc., Research Options, Inc. and FMC Corp. 225 p. 45363701 Hiscock, A.; Patterson, B.; Culligan, J. (2001) A Small Scale Prospective Groundwater Monitoring Study for Sulfen trazone in a Setting Classified as 85 Percentile Based on Vulnerabil ity to Groundwater Contamination: Progress Report 5: Sample Collecti on Through 774 Days After the First Treatment and Most Current Analytical Data: Lab Project Number: 162E6698E2: PC-0291-5: 97-154. Unpublished study prepared by Stone Environmental, Inc., Cent re Analytical Labs., Inc. and Research Options, Inc. 320 p. 45377201 Schellinger, G.; Morris, R. (2001) A Small-Scale Prospective Groundwater Monitoring Study for Sulfen trazone in a Setting Classified as 75th Percentile Based on Vulnerability to Groundwater Contamination: Progress Report 1: Lab Project Number: PC-0303-1: 98-

### 89 153: 00-006. Unpublished study prepared by Stone Environmental, Inc., Research Options, Inc. and Agvise Labs. 280 p.

45430901 Schellinger, G.; Chen, A. ( 2001) A Small-Scale Prospective Groundwater Monitoring Study for Sulfen trazone in a Setting Classified as 95th Percentile Based on Vulnerability to Groundwater Contamination: Lab Project Number: 162E6699E1: PC-0293-4: 97-155. Unpublished study prepared by Stone E nvironmental, Inc. and Research Options, Inc. 251 p. 45533901 Schellinger, G.; Morris, R. (2001) A Small-Scale Prospective Grounwater Monitoring Study for Sulfen trazone in a Setting Classified as 75th Percentile Based on Vulnerability to Groundwater Contamination: Progress Report 2: Lab Project Number: 98-153: 00-006: 162E6600E1. Unpublished study prepared by Stone Environmental, Inc. 187 p. 45534001 Hiscock, A.; Patterson, B.; Culligan, J. (2001) A Small-Scale Prospective Groundwater Monitoring Study for Sulfen trazone in a Setting Classified as 85th Percentile Based on Vulnerability to Groundwater Contamination: Progress Report 6: Lab Project Number: 162E6698E2: 98-050: 97-154. Unpublished study prepar ed by Stone Environmental, Inc. 302 p. 45591401 Schellinger, G.; Chen, A. ( 2001) A Small-Scale Prospective Groundwater Monitoring Study for Sulfen trazone in a Setting Classified as 95th Percentile Based on Vulnerability to Groundwater Contamination: Progress Report 5: Lab Project Number: 162E6699E1: PC-0293-5: 97-155. Unpublished study prepared by Stone Environmental, Inc.; Research Opti ons, Inc. and FMC Corporation. 215
p. 46085201 Hiscock, A.; Patterson, B.; Culligan, J. (2003) A Small-Scale Prospective Groundwater Monitoring Study for Sulfen trazone in a Setting Classified as 85th Percentile Based on Vulnerability to Groundwater Contamination: Progress Repor t 7. Project Number: PC/0291/7, 162E6698E2. Unpublished study prepared by : Stone Environmental, Inc. and Research Options, Inc. and Exygen Research. 353 p. 46353701 Hiscock, A.; Patterson, B.; Culligan, J. (2004) A Small Scale Prospective Groundwater Monitoring Study for Sulfen trazone in a Setting Classified as 85th Percentile Based on Vulnerability to Groundwater Contamination: Progress Repor t 8. Project Number: PC/0291/8, 162E6698E2. Unpublished study prepared by FMC Corp. and Stone Environmental, Inc. and Re search Options, Inc. 485 p. 44732701 Dow, K. (1999) Analytical Servi ces Biannual Report of Water Analysis for Sulfentrazone and Sulfentrazone-3-Carboxylic Acid: Revised Report: Lab Project Number: P-3343. Unpublishe d study prepared by Montana State University. 47 p. 46816001 Chen, A. and Hanzas, J. (2006) A Small-Scale Prospective Groundwater Monitoring Study for Sulfentrazone in a Setting Classified as 95th

### 90 Percentile Based on Vulnerability to Groundwater Contamination. Final Report 5: Lab Project Number: 162E6699E1: PC-0293. Unpublished study prepared by Alliance Technologies and Stone Environmental, Inc. 804 p. 47453601 Culligan, J., Hanzas, J. and Patterson, B. (2008) A Small Scale Prospective Groundwater Monitoring Study for Sulfentrazone in a Setting Classified as 85th Percen tile Based on Vulnerability to Groundwater Contamination. Proj ect Number: 97/154, 98/050, 014/007. Unpublished study prepared by MPI Research, FMC Corp. and Stone Environmental, Inc. 1168 p. 47453602 Morris, R. and Hanzas, J. (2008) A Small-Scale Prospective Grounwater Monitoring Study for Sulfentrazone in a Setting Classified as 75th Percentile Based on Vulnerabilit y to Groundwater Contamination. Project Number: 98/153: 00/ 006: 162E6600E1. Unpublished study prepared by Stone Environmental, In c. Research Options, Inc. and FMC Corp., Agricultural Products Group. 654 p.

### 91 

### B. Pesticide Products Registered in the United States that Contain Sulfentrazone

Registration

Number EPA Accepted Date AI % Formulation Type Product Density

2217-823 4/16/2012 0.43 Soluble Concentrate 9.09lb/gal

2217-866 6/21/2010 1.24 Soluble Concentrate 1.175gm/mL

2217-867 12/6/2012 0.67 Soluble Concentrate 1.0915gm/mL

2217-875 11/27/2012 0.18 Soluble Concentrate 1.035gm/mL

2217-876 8/6/2009 0.008 Ready-to-Use Solution 1gm/mL

2217-877 9/2/2008 0.007 Ready-to-Use Solution 1.0004gm/mL

2217-879 1/14/2009 2.04 Formulation Intermediate 1.1508gm/mL

2217-879 1/14/2009 2.04 Formulation Unidentified 1.1508gm/mL

2217-880 2/27/2012 0.15 Soluble Concentrate 1.0284gm/mL

2217-882 5/18/2010 0.034 Granular .74gm/mL

2217-883 1/8/2010 0.034 Granular .74gm/mL

2217-885 9/4/2008 0.42 Soluble Concentrate 1.0432gm/mL

2217-886 8/24/2009 0.69 Soluble Concentrate 1.0705gm/mL

2217-887 12/7/2012 0.015 Ready-to-Use Solution 1.0028gm/mL

2217-888 11/27/2009 1.02 Soluble Concentrate 1.1043gm/mL

2217-890 7/7/2010 0.025 Granular .575gm/mL

2217-895 10/1/2009 2.04 Emulsifiable Concentrate 1.1508gm/mL

2217-897 8/25/2009 0.034 Emulsifiable Concentrate .578gm/mL

2217-914 1/5/2010 0.008 Ready-to-Use Solution 1.0028gm/mL

2217-915 1/29/2010 0.18 Soluble Concentrate 1.0291gm/mL

2217-917 10/2/2008 0.015 Ready-to-Use Solution

2217-918 1/29/2010 0.22 Soluble Concentrate 1.0204gm/mL

2217-920 10/2/2009 0.73 Emulsifiable Concentrate .989gm/cm^3

2217-921 2/21/2013 0.63 Soluble Concentrate 1.1522gm/cm^3

2217-930 12/6/2012 0.69 Emulsifiable Concentrate 1.0943gm/mL

### 92 Registration

Number EPA Accepted Date AI % Formulation Type Product Density

2217-944 2/4/2011 0.65 Emulsifiable Concentrate 1.1086gm/mL

2217-946 1/21/2011 0.69 Emulsifiable Concentrate 1.08563gm/mL

2217-947 3/5/2012 0.7 Emulsifiable Concentrate 1.0432gm/mL

2217-948 6/13/2011 0.7 Emulsifiable Concentrate 1.0365gm/mL

2217-967 6/8/2012 0.034 Granular .851gm/mL

2217-968 6/8/2012 0.025 Granular .872gm/cm^3

279-3146 6/5/1997 39.6 Emulsifiable Concentrate 10lb/gal

279-3148 1/22/1998 75 Water Dispersible Granule

279-3149 9/28/2012 91 Technical Chemical 31lb/ft^3

279-3175 6/6/1997 47 Water Dispersible Granule

279-3179 9/27/2001 46.9 Water Dispersible Granule

279-3189 9/28/2012 75 Water Dispersible Granule

279-3195 3/17/1998 75 Water Dispersible Granule

279-3220 9/28/2012 39.6 Flowable Concentrate 10lb/gal

279-3231 10/12/2000 37.5 Water Soluble Packaging

279-3246 2/6/2013 62.1 Wettable Powder 38.1lb/ft^3

279-3247 4/11/2002 62.1 Wettable Powder

279-3282 11/19/2004 75 Water Dispersible Granule 41lb/ft^3

279-3295 12/6/2012 39.6 Flowable Concentrate 10lb/gal

279-3317 4/24/2009 0.1 Granular 1.5gm/mL

279-3318 4/10/2009 0.3 Granular 1.5gm/mL

279-3319 2/19/2010 0.3 Granular 96.7lb/ft^3

279-3320 2/19/2010 0.19 Granular 96.7lb/ft^3

279-3321 5/21/2009 0.17 Granular 96.7lb/ft^3

279-3322 5/21/2009 0.1 Granular 96.7lb/ft^3

### 93 Registration

Number EPA Accepted Date AI % Formulation Type Product Density

279-3323 2/19/2010 13.6 Flowable Concentrate 9.95lb/gal

279-3324 5/2/2011 21.5 Formulation Intermediate .26gm/mL

279-3325 4/24/2009 0.053 Granular 96.7lb/ft^3

279-3330 1/11/2011 33.33 Soluble Concentrate 10.1lb/gal

279-3334 9/28/2012 5.7 Emulsifiable Concentrate 9.95lb/gal

279-3337 9/28/2012 31.77 Emulsifiable Concentrate 9.99lb/gal

279-3340 2/21/2013 18 Emulsifiable Concentrate 41.32lb/ft^3

279-3350 11/30/2009 18 Water Dispersible Granule 41.32lb/ft^3

279-3351 1/15/2009 33.33 Flowable Concentrate 10.1lb/gal

279-3352 9/3/2008 5.7 Emulsifiable Concentrate 9.95lb/gal

279-3353 1/27/2009 1.4 Ready-to-Use Solution 8.44lb/gal

279-3354 11/15/2011 0.05 Ready-to-Use Solution 8.35lb/gal

279-3355 5/18/2011 18.75 Water Dispersible Granule 35.4lb/ft^3

279-3359 3/9/2012 3.5 Soluble Concentrate 9.97lb/gal

279-3370 9/28/2012 39.6 Emulsifiable Concentrate

279-3371 8/13/2010 0.1 Granular

279-3378 10/9/2009 39.6 Emulsifiable Concentrate 10lb/gal

279-3383 11/5/2009 31.77 Emulsifiable Concentrate 9.9lb/gal

279-3407 12/15/2009 18.75 Water Dispersible Granule

279-3408 10/4/2010 0.125 Granular 96.7lb/ft^3

279-3411 3/29/2012 60 Water Dispersible Granule 38.3lb/ft^3

279-3412 7/10/2012 18 Water Dispersible Granule 41.32lb/ft^3

279-3413 3/4/2013 62.22 Water Dispersible Granule 36lb/ft^3

279-3414 12/22/2011 16.74 Soluble Concentrate 9.85lb/gal

### 94 Registration

Number EPA Accepted Date AI % Formulation Type Product Density

279-3415 9/30/2010 21.46 Formulation Intermediate 15.5lb/ft^3

279-3416 9/30/2010 0.386 Granular 55lb/ft^3

279-3417 12/22/2011 0.129 Granular 55.3lb/ft^3

279-3418 12/22/2011 0.385 Granular 55.3lb/ft^3

279-3420 9/30/2010 0.129 Granular 55lb/ft^3

279-3421 9/30/2010 0.129 Granular

279-3422 9/30/2010 0.129 Granular 55.3lb/ft^3

279-3423 9/30/2010 0.386 Granular 55lb/ft^3

279-3424 9/30/2010 0.386 Granular 55.3lb/ft^3

279-3427 6/10/2011 1.36 Flowable Concentrate 8.68lb/gal

279-3437 11/8/2011 1.4 Ready-to-Use Solution 8.47lb/gal

279-3438 11/30/2011 22 Emulsifiable Concentrate 9.11lb/gal

279-3439 11/30/2011 22 Emulsifiable Concentrate 9.11lb/gal

279-3442 2/26/2013 7.55 Soluble Concentrate 9.24lb/gal

279-3452 11/20/2012 39.6 Flowable Concentrate 10lb/gal

279-9536 6/3/2011 0.073 Granular 55.3lb/ft^3

279-9537 6/3/2011 0.073 Granular 55.3lb/ft^3

279-9539 6/3/2011 0.099 Granular

279-9540 0.099 Granular 55.3lb/ft^3

279-9560 6/14/2012 62.12 Granular 34.93lb/ft^3

279-9561 6/14/2012 62.12 Granular 36.76lb/ft^3

352-589 12/19/2003 46.9 Water Dispersible Granule

352-590 5/21/2002 75 Water Dispersible Granule

352-713 7/15/2010 75 Water Dispersible Granule 41lb/ft^3

352-725 5/7/2009 48 Water Dispersible Granule .7gm/mL

82534-5 12/21/2012 39.6 Emulsifiable Concentrate 10lb/gal

88783-3 2/6/2013 94 Technical Chemical 1.32gm/mL

### 95 Registration

Number EPA Accepted Date AI % Formulation Type Product Density

9688-261 6/22/2011 0.008 Ready-to-Use Solution .996

9688-268 6/17/2011 0.22 Soluble Concentrate 1.0226gm/mL

9688-278 8/24/2010 0.18 Soluble Concentrate 1.0291gm/mL

9688-279 8/24/2010 0.008 Ready-to-Use Solution

9688-280 8/24/2010 0.015 Ready-to-Use Solution 1.0028gm/mL

9688-281 8/24/2010 0.22 Soluble Concentrate 1.0204gm/mL

AR070008 6/19/2007 39.6 Flowable Concentrate 10lb/gal

AR080002 2/4/2008 39.6 Flowable Concentrate 10lb/gal

AR090002 2/23/2009 18 Emulsifiable Concentrate 41.32lb/ft^3

AR100001 3/2/2010 31.77 Emulsifiable Concentrate 9.99lb/gal

AR130003 31.77 Emulsifiable Concentrate 9.99lb/gal

DE100002 31.77 Emulsifiable Concentrate 9.99lb/gal

IA110001 39.6 Flowable Concentrate 10lb/gal

LA120014 39.6 Flowable Concentrate 10lb/gal

LA120015 18 Emulsifiable Concentrate 41.32lb/ft^3

MI110005 39.6 Flowable Concentrate 10lb/gal

MN100003 5/11/2010 31.77 Emulsifiable Concentrate 9.99lb/gal

MO050003 39.6 Flowable Concentrate 10lb/gal

ND100001 4/6/2010 31.77 Emulsifiable Concentrate 9.99lb/gal

ND130003 7.55 Soluble Concentrate 9.24lb/gal

OH110007 39.6 Flowable Concentrate 10lb/gal

OK080003 4/30/2008 39.6 Flowable Concentrate 10lb/gal

OR110009 39.6 Flowable Concentrate 10lb/gal

TN050002 39.6 Flowable Concentrate 10lb/gal

TN070004 9/5/2007 39.6 Flowable Concentrate 10lb/gal

TN080001 1/25/2008 39.6 Flowable Concentrate 10lb/gal

### 96 Registration

Number EPA Accepted Date AI % Formulation Type Product Density

TN090003 2/23/2009 18 Emulsifiable Concentrate 41.32lb/ft^3

TN100001 4/5/2010 31.77 Emulsifiable Concentrate 9.99lb/gal

TX120011 39.6 Flowable Concentrate 10lb/gal

TX120012 18 Emulsifiable Concentrate 41.32lb/ft^3

WA110007 39.6 Flowable Concentrate 10lb/gal

WI110005 39.6 Flowable Concentrate 10lb/gal



### C. Chemical Names and Structures

Table 38. Structures and properties of sulfentrazone and its degradates.



### Sulfentrazone (parent) Common Name: F6285

IUPAC Name: 2 ′ ,4 ′ -Dichloro-5 ′ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihy dro-3-methyl-5-oxo-1H1,2,4-triazol-1-yl)methanesulfonanilide CAS Name: N-[2,4-dichloro-5-[4-(difluoromethy l)-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-1H1,2,4-triazol-1-yl]phenyl]methanesulfonamide

CAS #: 122836-35-5 SMILES: CLc1cc(CL)c(NS(=O)(=O)C)cc1N2N=C(C)N(C(F)F)C2(=O) Molecular Formula: C 11 

### H 10 

### Cl 2 

### F 2 

### N 4 

### O 3 

### S Molecular Weight: 387.1 g/mol Synomyms:

### 97 Sulfentrazone 3-carboxylic acid (SCA) Common Name: FMC 129427

IUPAC Name: 1-(2,4-Dichloro-5-(N-(methylsulfonyl)amino)-pheny]-4-difluoromethyl4,5-dihydro-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-tr iazol-3-carboxylic acid

CAS Name:: N-[2,4-dichloro-5-[4-(difluoromet hyl)-4,5-dihydro-5- oxo-1H-1,2,4-triazol1-yl]phenyl]methanesulfonamido-3-carboxylic acid

CAS #: 134391-01-08

Molecular Formula: C 11 

### H 8 

### Cl 2 

### F 2 

### N 4 

### O 5 

### S Molecular Weight: 417.18 g/mol SMILES: CS(=O)(=O)Nc1cc(c(cc1Cl)Cl) n2c(=O)n(c(n2)C(=O)O)C(F)F Synonyms:

IUPAC Name: CAS Name:

CAS #: SMILES: Molecular Formula: Molecular Weight: Synonyms:

### 98 3-Hydroxymethyl-sulfentrazone (HMS) IUPAC: 1-(2,4-Dichloro-5-(N-(methylsulfonyl )amino)-pheny]-4-difluoromethyl-3- hydroxy-methyl-1H-1,2,4-triazol-5(4H)-one
CAS No.: 134390-99-1

Formula: 

### C 11 

### H 10 

### Cl 2 

### F 2 

### N 4 

### O 4 

### S
MW: 403.19 g/mol
SMILES: 

### CS(=O)(=O)Nc1cc(c(cc1Cl)Cl)n2c(=O)n(c(n2)CO)C(F)F

3-Desmethyl sulfentrazone (DMS) IUPAC: 1-(2,4-Dichloro-5-(N-(methylsulfonyl )amino)-pheny]-4-difluoromethyl-1H1,2,4-triazol-5(4H)-one CAS: N-[2,4-dichloro-5-[4-(difluoromet hyl)-4,5-dihydro-5-oxo-1,2,4-triazol-1- yl]phenyl]methanesulfonamide
CAS No.: 134391-02-09

Formula: 

### C 10 

### H 8 

### Cl 2 

### F 2 

### N 4 

### O 3 

### S
MW: 373.17 g/mol
SMILES: 

### CS(=O)(=O)Nc1cc(c(cc1Cl )Cl)n2c(=O)n(cn2)C(F)F

### 99 Methyl triazole IUPAC: 4-Difluoromethyl-5-methyl- 2,4-dihydro[1,2,4]triazole-3-one

Formula: 

### C 4 

### H 5 

### F 2 

### N 3 

### O
MW: 149.1 g/mol
SMILES: 

### Cc1n[nH]c(=O)n1C(F)F

### 100 

### D. ECOSAR Results for Property Predic tion of Sulfentrazone and its Most Prominent Degradates

ECOlogical Structure-Activity Rela tionship Model (ECOSAR) Results

1. Parent Sulfentrazone

ECOSAR Version 1.10 Results Page

SMILES : CLc1cc(CL)c(NS(=O)(=O) C)cc1N2N=C(C)N(C(F)F)C2(=O) CHEM : Sulfentrazone CAS Num: 122836-35-5 ChemID1: MOL FOR: C11 H10 CL2 F2 N4 O3 S1 MOL WT : 387.19 Log Kow: 2.647 (EPISuite Kowwin v1.68 Estimate) Log Kow: (User Entered) Log Kow: 0.99 (PhysProp DB exp value - for comparison only) Melt Pt: (User Entered for Wat Sol estimate) Melt Pt: 122.00 (deg C, PhysPr op DB exp value for Wat Sol est) Wat Sol: 1669 (mg/L, EPISuite WSKowwin v1.43 Estimate) Wat Sol: (User Entered) Wat Sol: 780 (mg/L, PhysProp DB exp value)

--------------- ------------- ---------- Values used to Generate ECOSAR Profile

--------------- ------------- ---------- Log Kow: 2.647 (EPISuite Kowwin v1.68 Estimate) Wat Sol: 780 (mg/L, PhysProp DB exp value)

------------------ ------------------ ------------ Available Measured Data from ECOSAR Training Set

------------------ ------------------ ------------

No Data Available

--------------- ------------- ---------- ECOSAR v1.1 Class-sp ecific Estimations

--------------- ------------- ---------- Hydrazines Amides Predicted

### 101 ECOSAR Class Organism Duration End Pt mg/L (ppm)

========================= == ================== ======== ======

========== Hydrazines : Fish 96-hr LC50 2.181 Hydrazines : Daphnid 48-hr LC50 8.406 Hydrazines : Green Alg ae 96-hr EC50 0.621 Hydrazines : Fish ChV 0.099 ! Hydrazines : Daphnid ChV 0.504 ! Hydrazines : Green Algae ChV 0.207

Amides : Fish 96-hr LC50 39.862 Amides : Daphnid 48-hr LC50 32.575 Amides : Green Al gae 96-hr EC50 1.441 Amides : Fish ChV 0.100 Amides : Daphnid ChV 2.801 Amides : Green Algae ChV 1.779 Amides : Fish (SW) 96-hr LC50 35.441 Amides : Mysid (SW) 96-hr LC50 2.749

========================= == ================== ======== ======

========== Neutral Organic SAR : Fish 96-hr LC50 83.455 (Baseline Toxicity) : Daphnid 48-hr LC50 49.919 : Green Algae 96-hr EC50 46.471 : Fish ChV 8.753 : Daphnid ChV 5.793 : Green Algae ChV 14.350

Note: * = asterisk designates: Chemical may not be soluble enough to measure this predicted e ffect. If the effect level exceeds the water solubility by 10X, typically no effects at saturation (NES) are reported.

NOTE: ! = exclamation designates: Th e toxicity value was estimated through application of acut e-to-chronic ratios per methods outlined in the ECOSAR Methodology Do cument provided in the ECOSAR Help Menu.

------------------ ------------ Class Specific LogKow Cut-Offs

------------------ ------------ If the log Kow of the chemical is grea ter than the endpoint specific cut-offs presented below, then no effects at sa turation are expected for those endpoints.

Hydrazines:

----------

### 102 Maximum LogKow: 5.0 (LC50) Maximum LogKow: 6.4 (EC50) Maximum LogKow: 8.0 (ChV)

Amides :

------- Maximum LogKow: >8.5 (LC50) Maximum LogKow: >8.0 (EC50,ChV)

Baseline Toxicity SAR Limitations:

------------------ --------------- Maximum LogKow: 5.0 (Fish 96-hr LC50; Daphnid LC50) Maximum LogKow: 6.4 (Green Algae EC50) Maximum LogKow: 8.0 (ChV)

2. Sulfentrazone 3-carboxylic acid (SCA)

ECOSAR Version 1.10 Results Page

SMILES : CS(=O)(=O)Nc1cc(c(cc1CL )CL)N2C(=O)N(C(=N2)C(=O)O)C(F)F CHEM : Sulfentrazone 3-carboxylic acid (SCA) CAS Num: 134391-01-08 ChemID1: MOL FOR: C11 H8 CL2 F2 N4 O5 S1 MOL WT : 417.17 Log Kow: 1.410 (EPISuite Kowwin v1.68 Estimate) Log Kow: (User Entered) Log Kow: (PhysProp DB exp value - for comparison only) Melt Pt: (User Entered for Wat Sol estimate) Melt Pt: (deg C, PhysProp DB exp value for Wat Sol estimate) Wat Sol: 149.6 (mg/L, EPISuite WSKowwin v1.43 Estimate) Wat Sol: (User Entered) Wat Sol: (PhysProp DB exp value)

--------------- ------------- ---------- Values used to Generate ECOSAR Profile

--------------- ------------- ---------- Log Kow: 1.410 (EPISuite Kowwin v1.68 Estimate) Wat Sol: 149.6 (mg/L, EPISuite WSKowwin v1.43 Estimate)

------------------ ------------------ ------------ Available Measured Data from ECOSAR Training Set

------------------ ------------------ ------------

### 103 No Data Available

--------------- ------------- ---------- ECOSAR v1.1 Class-sp ecific Estimations

--------------- ------------- ---------- Hydrazines Amides Predicted ECOSAR Class Organism Duration End Pt mg/L (ppm)

========================= == ================== ======== ======

========== Hydrazines : Fish 96-hr LC50 6.522 Hydrazines : Daphnid 48-hr LC50 34.000 Hydrazines : Green Alg ae 96-hr EC50 1.646 Hydrazines : Fish ChV 0.429 ! Hydrazines : Daphnid ChV 2.590 ! Hydrazines : Green Algae ChV 0.467

Amides : Fish 96-hr LC50 329.141 * Amides : Daphnid 48-hr LC50 475.555 * Amides : Green Al gae 96-hr EC50 9.114 Amides : Fish ChV 0.397 Amides : Daphnid ChV 18.072 Amides : Green Algae ChV 6.675 Amides : Fish (SW) 96-hr LC50 288.993 * Amides : Mysid (SW) 96-hr LC50 15.173

========================= == ================== ======== ======

========== Neutral Organic SAR : Fish 96-hr LC50 1160.420 * (Baseline Toxicity) : Daphnid 48-hr LC50 548.928 * : Green Algae 96-hr EC50 507.389 * : Fish ChV 106.370 : Daphnid ChV 52.293 : Green Algae ChV 86.081

Note: * = asterisk designates: Chemical may not be soluble enough to measure this predicted e ffect. If the effect level exceeds the water solubility by 10X, typically no effects at saturation (NES) are reported.

NOTE: ! = exclamation designates: Th e toxicity value was estimated through application of acut e-to-chronic ratios per methods outlined in the ECOSAR Methodology Do cument provided in the ECOSAR Help Menu.

### 104 ------------------ ------------ Class Specific LogKow Cut-Offs

------------------ ------------ If the log Kow of the chemical is grea ter than the endpoint specific cut-offs presented below, then no effects at sa turation are expected for those endpoints.

Hydrazines:

---------- Maximum LogKow: 5.0 (LC50) Maximum LogKow: 6.4 (EC50) Maximum LogKow: 8.0 (ChV)

Amides :

------- Maximum LogKow: >8.5 (LC50) Maximum LogKow: >8.0 (EC50,ChV)

Baseline Toxicity SAR Limitations:

------------------ --------------- Maximum LogKow: 5.0 (Fish 96-hr LC50; Daphnid LC50) Maximum LogKow: 6.4 (Green Algae EC50) Maximum LogKow: 8.0 (ChV)

### 105 

### E. Aquatic Exposure Model Input and Output

1. List of Surface Water Standard Scenarios Used

Scenario Crop Abbreviation Crop Agronomy Simulated App Apples App Apples App Apples Asp Asparagus
Bea Beans Cbb Cabbage
Cit Citrus
Cit Citrus
Cno Canola
Cor Corn
Cor Corn
Cor Corn
Cor Corn
Cor Corn
Cuc Cucumber
Fil Filberts
Gra Grapes
Gra Grapes
Gra Grass seed
Min Mint
Pcn Pecan Pep Peppers
Pnt Peanut
Pot Potato
Pot Potato Sgc Sugarcane Sgc Sugarcane Srg Sorghum
Str Strawbery Syb Soybean
Tba Tobacco
Tma Tomato
Tma Tomato
Tma Tomato
Tur Turf
Tur Turf

### 106 Wal Almonds / Walnuts
Whe Wheat
Xma Xmas Trees



### 2. Sample Model Input Files

a) PE5 Input File for Tier 2.5 Modeling of Sulfentrazone Fate in Turbid Waters with a High Exposure Scenario (FL Peppers)

Output File: FL-Pep_SlfnAer1pht98 Metfile: w12844.dvf PRZM scenario: FLpeppersSTD.txt EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv Chemical Name: Sulfentrazone Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 387.2 g/mol Henry's Law Const. henry atm-m^3/mol Vapor Pressure vapr 9.75E-10 torr Solubility sol 400 mg/L Kd Kd mg/L Koc Koc 29 mg/L Photolysis half-life kdp 98 days Half-life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 1105 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 0 days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 552.3 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 375 days Half-life Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm Application Rate: TAPP 0.4203 kg/ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.05 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 11-10 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm Record 17: FILTRA IPSCND 1
UPTKF Record 18: PLVKRT
PLDKRT FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run)



### b) Sample PRZM Input File (F L Peppers Scenario, October 31 Annual Sulfentrazone Applica tions, 98-day Photolysis t 1/2 

### input)

FL Bell Peppers (General Vegetable Scenario) "Collier and Hendry Counties; MLRA: 156A; Weather Station West Palm Beach Metfile: W12844.dvf," *** Record 3: 0.78 0 0 32.5 1 1

### 107 *** Record 6 -- ERFLAG 4 *** Record 7: 0.03 0.2 1 10 4 1 356.8 *** Record 8 1 *** Record 9 1 0.15 45 40 3 88 87 91 0 30 *** Record 9a-e 1 27 0109 1609 0110 1610 0111 1611 0112 1612 0101 1601 0102 1602 0103 1603 0104 1604 .422 .547 .636 .683 .715 .743 .768 .793 .813 .830 .846 .859 .870 .878 .881 .881 .011 .011 .011 .011 .011 .011 .011 .011 .011 .011 .011 .011 .011 .011 .011 .011 87 87 87 87 87 87 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 0105 1505 1605 2505 0106 1606 0107 1607 0108 1008 1608 .880 .836 .849 .938 .840 .572 .285 .177 .162 .210 .291 .011 .011 .011 .011 .011 .011 .011 .011 .011 .011 .011 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 *** Record 10 -- NCPDS, the number of cropping periods 30 *** Record 11 010961 151161 011261 1 010962 151162 011262 1 010963 151163 011263 1 010964 151164 011264 1 010965 151165 011265 1 010966 151166 011266 1 010967 151167 011267 1 010968 151168 011268 1 010969 151169 011269 1 010970 151170 011270 1 010971 151171 011271 1 010972 151172 011272 1 010973 151173 011273 1 010974 151174 011274 1 010975 151175 011275 1 010976 151176 011276 1 010977 151177 011277 1 010978 151178 011278 1 010979 151179 011279 1 010980 151180 011280 1 010981 151181 011281 1 010982 151182 011282 1 010983 151183 011283 1 010984 151184 011284 1 010985 151185 011285 1 010986 151186 011286 1 010987 151187 011287 1 010988 151188 011288 1 010989 151189 011289 1 010990 151190 011290 1 *** Record 12 -- PTITLE Sulfentrazone - 1 applications @ 0.4203 kg/ha

### 108 *** Record 13 30 1 0 0 *** Record 15 -- PSTNAM Sulfentrazone *** Record 16 311061 0 2 0.00.4203 .95 .05 311062 0 2 0.00.4203 .95 .05 311063 0 2 0.00.4203 .95 .05 311064 0 2 0.00.4203 .95 .05 311065 0 2 0.00.4203 .95 .05 311066 0 2 0.00.4203 .95 .05 311067 0 2 0.00.4203 .95 .05 311068 0 2 0.00.4203 .95 .05 311069 0 2 0.00.4203 .95 .05 311070 0 2 0.00.4203 .95 .05 311071 0 2 0.00.4203 .95 .05 311072 0 2 0.00.4203 .95 .05 311073 0 2 0.00.4203 .95 .05 311074 0 2 0.00.4203 .95 .05 311075 0 2 0.00.4203 .95 .05 311076 0 2 0.00.4203 .95 .05 311077 0 2 0.00.4203 .95 .05 311078 0 2 0.00.4203 .95 .05 311079 0 2 0.00.4203 .95 .05 311080 0 2 0.00.4203 .95 .05 311081 0 2 0.00.4203 .95 .05 311082 0 2 0.00.4203 .95 .05 311083 0 2 0.00.4203 .95 .05 311084 0 2 0.00.4203 .95 .05 311085 0 2 0.00.4203 .95 .05 311086 0 2 0.00.4203 .95 .05 311087 0 2 0.00.4203 .95 .05 311088 0 2 0.00.4203 .95 .05 311089 0 2 0.00.4203 .95 .05 311090 0 2 0.00.4203 .95 .05 *** Record 17 0 1 0 *** Record 18 0 0 0.5 *** Record 19 -- STITLE Riviera Sand; HYDG: C *** Record 20 100 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 *** Record 26 0 0 0 *** Record 30 4 29 *** Record 33 3 1 10 1.65 0.073 0 0 0 0.0012550.001255 0 0.1 0.073 0.023 1.16 0 2 62 1.65 0.073 0 0 0 0.0012550.001255 0 2 0.073 0.023 1.16 0 3 28 1.7 0.211 0 0 0 0.0012550.001255 0

### 109 4 0.211 0.091 0.174 0 ***Record 40 0 YEAR 10 YEAR 10 YEAR 10 1 1 1 ----- 7 YEAR PRCP TCUM 0 0 RUNF TCUM 0 0 INFL TCUM 1 1 ESLS TCUM 0 0 1.0E3 RFLX TCUM 0 0 1.0E5 EFLX TCUM 0 0 1.0E5 RZFX TCUM 0 0 1.0E5



### c) EXPRESS Project Input File for Modeling of Premergence Applications of Sulfentrazone

Master Project File Created: 2014-02-17 at 17:50:13 Express v. 1.03.02 (2007-07-20) Parent Compound: Sulfentrazone Scenario Group File: 1 SLFNT14.GRP Scenario Type: 3 PRZM Crop Selector: 00000000000001000100110010000001000000010000100011 PRZM Crop Selector: 10000001000110000110000000000011010101000000100000 PRZM Crop Selector: 00010011010100000000000100000100000010001100000000 PRZM Crop Selector: 00101010111000001000000000000000000000000000000000 Chemical Input Data Controls: 1 1 0 1 0 Express Operational Mode: OPP Chemical Name(s): Sulfentrazone | Molecular Weight: 387.2 Plant Uptake Factor: 0.000 Partition Coefficient Method: 1 1 Partition Coefficient Value: 29.00 29.00 Vapor Pressure: 0.9750E-09 Solubility : 400.0 Soil Degradation Half-Life: 552.3 % Degradate formed: 80.00 0.000 0.000 Foliar Half-Life: 0.000 Foliar Washoff Coefficient: 0.5000 Air Diffusion Coefficient: 4300. Enthalpy of Vaporization: 20.00 Application DataSets Number: 39 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 91.00 0

### 110 Days Relative/Absolute : - 1 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 2 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : - 1 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 1.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 6.400 Efficiency % : 99.00 Application Parameters: 1 2 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : - 1 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 1.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 6.400 Efficiency % : 99.00 Application Parameters: 1 2 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : - 1 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 1.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 6.400 Efficiency % : 99.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : - 1 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : - 1 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.2500 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : - 1 Month : 0 CAM : 2

### 111 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : - 1 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.2500 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : - 1 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : - 1 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : - 1 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 46.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : - 1 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.2500 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 46.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : - 1 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.2500 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000

### 112 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 46.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : - 1 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.2500 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 46.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : - 1 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.2500 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 46.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : - 1 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.2500 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : - 1 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : - 1 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : - 1 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0

### 113 Days Relative/Absolute : - 1 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : - 1 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : - 1 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 2 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : - 1 30 Month : 0 0 CAM : 2 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 4.000 Rate : 0.1500 0.1500 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : - 1 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : - 1 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : - 1 Month : 0 CAM : 2

### 114 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.2500 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : - 1 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : - 1 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.2500 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 41.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : - 1 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.2500 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : - 1 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : - 1 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : - 1 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000

### 115 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : - 1 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : - 1 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : - 1 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : - 1 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : - 1 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : - 1 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 56.00 0

### 116 Days Relative/Absolute : - 1 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.1875 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Product chem./hydr. status: 1 1 0 Aerobic Dissipation (days) : 1105. Q10 Base Temperature : 25.00 Q10 Limnetic : 2.000 Anaerobic Dissipation(days): 0.000 Q10 Base temperature: 25.00 Q10 Benthic : 2.000 Photolysis Half-Life (days): 0.5000 Number of Hydrolysis Obs.: 3 Hydrolysis Temperatures: 25.00 Hydrolysis C1: 1.430E+02 3.750E+02 3.480E+02 pH Hydrol. C1: 5.00 7.00 9.00 Melting Point: -99.00



### d) EXPRESS Project Input File for Modeling of Postemergent or Mid-Season Applications of Sulfentrazone

Master Project File Created: 2014-02-17 at 19:13:35 Express v. 1.03.02 (2007-07-20) Parent Compound: Sulfentrazone Scenario Group File: 1 SLFNT14.GRP Scenario Type: 3 PRZM Crop Selector: 00000000000001000100110010000001000000010000100011 PRZM Crop Selector: 10000001000110000110000000000011010101000000100000 PRZM Crop Selector: 00010011010100000000000100000100000010001100000000 PRZM Crop Selector: 00101010111000001000000000000000000000000000000000 Chemical Input Data Controls: 1 1 0 1 0 Express Operational Mode: OPP Chemical Name(s): Sulfentrazone | Molecular Weight: 387.2 Plant Uptake Factor: 0.000 Partition Coefficient Method: 1 1 Partition Coefficient Value: 29.00 29.00 Vapor Pressure: 0.9750E-09 Solubility : 400.0 Soil Degradation Half-Life: 552.3 % Degradate formed: 80.00 0.000 0.000 Foliar Half-Life: 0.000 Foliar Washoff Coefficient: 0.5000 Air Diffusion Coefficient: 4300. Enthalpy of Vaporization: 20.00

### 117 Application DataSets Number: 39 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 91.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : 40 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 2 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : 40 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 1.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 6.400 Efficiency % : 99.00 Application Parameters: 1 2 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : 40 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 1.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 6.400 Efficiency % : 99.00 Application Parameters: 1 2 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : 40 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 1.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 6.400 Efficiency % : 99.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : 40 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : 40 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.2500 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : 40

### 118 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : 40 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.2500 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : 40 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : 40 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : 40 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 46.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : 40 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.2500 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 46.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : 40 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000

### 119 Rate : 0.2500 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 46.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : 40 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.2500 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 46.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : 40 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.2500 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 46.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : 40 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.2500 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : 40 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : 40 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : 40 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00

### 120 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : 40 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : 40 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : 40 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 2 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : 40 70 Month : 0 0 CAM : 2 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 4.000 Rate : 0.1500 0.1500 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : 40 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : 40 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : - 1

### 121 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.2500 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : 40 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : 40 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.2500 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 41.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : 40 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.2500 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : 40 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : 40 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : 40 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000

### 122 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : 40 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : 40 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : 40 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : 40 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : 40 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : 40 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00

### 123 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 56.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : 40 Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.1875 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 Efficiency % : 95.00 Product chem./hydr. status: 1 1 0 Aerobic Dissipation (days) : 1105. Q10 Base Temperature : 25.00 Q10 Limnetic : 2.000 Anaerobic Dissipation(days): 0.000 Q10 Base temperature: 25.00 Q10 Benthic : 2.000 Photolysis Half-Life (days): 0.5000 Number of Hydrolysis Obs.: 3 Hydrolysis Temperatures: 25.00 Hydrolysis C1: 1.430E+02 3.750E+02 3.480E+02 pH Hydrol. C1: 5.00 7.00 9.00 Melting Point: -99.00



### 3. Sample Model Output Files

(PE5 PRZM-EXAMS Shell)

Florida Peppers Scenario – October 11 Applicat ion Date, Slower Photolysis rate for Turbid Waters

stored as FL-Pep_SlfnAer1pht98_11-10.out Chemical: Sulfentrazone PRZM environment: FLpeppersSTD.txt modified Thuday, 24 May 2007 at 09:44:22 EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 24 July 2003 at 09:02:00 Metfile: w12844.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 08:04:30 Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 6.409 6.369 6.294 6.028 5.012 1.236 1962 5.366 5.339 5.227 4.985 4.812 3.92 1963 7.498 7.454 7.275 6.924 6.305 3.696 1964 29.3 29.12 28.59 27.1 24.27 9.367 1965 38.77 38.54 37.61 35.74 32.11 20.87 1966 31.49 31.35 30.73 29.38 28.41 21.69 1967 15.99 15.92 15.62 14.96 14.47 11.22 1968 12.49 12.42 12.15 11.58 10.37 7.506 1969 10.81 10.75 10.54 10.05 9.329 7.996 1970 9.009 8.968 8.798 8.427 8.154 6.324 1971 4.973 4.951 4.858 4.655 4.505 3.725 1972 9.383 9.327 9.099 8.182 6.297 3.555 1973 8.046 8.005 7.836 7.478 7.22 5.631

### 124 1974 5.62 5.588 5.464 5.208 4.763 3.742 1975 4.638 4.615 4.521 4.316 4.168 3.412 1976 12.02 11.95 11.72 11.28 10.16 4.344 1977 9.928 9.881 9.689 9.27 8.959 6.882 1978 5.481 5.457 5.355 5.134 4.971 4.084 1979 5.828 5.794 5.66 5.397 4.916 3.463 1980 4.775 4.753 4.659 4.459 4.313 3.586 1981 4.602 4.578 4.478 4.266 3.96 3.013 1982 6.137 6.102 5.963 5.662 4.76 3.368 1983 5.215 5.19 5.086 4.861 4.699 3.829 1984 4.275 4.252 4.162 4.018 3.611 2.921 1985 4.417 4.4 4.306 4.094 3.733 2.973 1986 4.985 4.964 4.847 4.597 4.171 3.057 1987 20.72 20.59 20.06 19.05 16.9 6.429 1988 16.64 16.55 16.22 15.49 14.97 11.63 1989 15.75 15.66 15.47 14.91 13.69 8.817 1990 13.18 13.11 12.84 12.25 11.82 9.133

Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.032258064516129 38.77 38.54 37.61 35.74 32.11 21.69 0.0645161290322581 31.49 31.35 30.73 29.38 28.41 20.87 0.0967741935483871 29.3 29.12 28.59 27.1 24.27 11.63 0.129032258064516 20.72 20.59 20.06 19.05 16.9 11.22 0.161290322580645 16.64 16.55 16.22 15.49 14.97 9.367 0.193548387096774 15.99 15.92 15.62 14.96 14.47 9.133 0.225806451612903 15.75 15.66 15.47 14.91 13.69 8.817 0.258064516129032 13.18 13.11 12.84 12.25 11.82 7.996 0.290322580645161 12.49 12.42 12.15 11.58 10.37 7.506 0.32258064516129 12.02 11.95 11.72 11.28 10.16 6.882 0.354838709677419 10.81 10.75 10.54 10.05 9.329 6.429 0.387096774193548 9.928 9.881 9.689 9.27 8.959 6.324 0.419354838709677 9.383 9.327 9.099 8.427 8.154 5.631 0.451612903225806 9.009 8.968 8.798 8.182 7.22 4.344 0.483870967741936 8.046 8.005 7.836 7.478 6.305 4.084 0.516129032258065 7.498 7.454 7.275 6.924 6.297 3.92 0.548387096774194 6.409 6.369 6.294 6.028 5.012 3.829 0.580645161290323 6.137 6.102 5.963 5.662 4.971 3.742 0.612903225806452 5.828 5.794 5.66 5.397 4.916 3.725 0.645161290322581 5.62 5.588 5.464 5.208 4.812 3.696 0.67741935483871 5.481 5.457 5.355 5.134 4.763 3.586 0.709677419354839 5.366 5.339 5.227 4.985 4.76 3.555 0.741935483870968 5.215 5.19 5.086 4.861 4.699 3.463 0.774193548387097 4.985 4.964 4.858 4.655 4.505 3.412 0.806451612903226 4.973 4.951 4.847 4.597 4.313 3.368 0.838709677419355 4.775 4.753 4.659 4.459 4.171 3.057 0.870967741935484 4.638 4.615 4.521 4.316 4.168 3.013 0.903225806451613 4.602 4.578 4.478 4.266 3.96 2.973 0.935483870967742 4.417 4.4 4.306 4.094 3.733 2.921 0.967741935483871 4.275 4.252 4.162 4.018 3.611 1.236

0.1 28.442 28.267 27.737 26.295 23.533 11.589 Average of yearly averages: 6.38063333333333

Inputs generated by pe5.pl - Novemeber 2006

Data used for this run:

### 125 Output File: FL-Pep_SlfnAer1pht98_11-10 Metfile: w12844.dvf PRZM scenario: FLpeppersSTD.txt EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv Chemical Name: Sulfentrazone Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 387.2 g/mol Henry's Law Const. henry atm-m^3/mol Vapor Pressure vapr 9.75E-10 torr Solubility sol 400 mg/L Kd Kd mg/L Koc Koc 29 mg/L Photolysis half-life kdp 98 days Half-life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 1105 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 0 days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 552.3 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 375 days Half-life Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm Application Rate: TAPP 0.4203 kg/ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.05 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 11-10 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm Record 17: FILTRA IPSCND 1
UPTKF Record 18: PLVKRT
PLDKRT FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run)

### 126 

### F. Terrestrial Exposure Model Results

Output from T-Rex and TerrPlant Model Runs for Sulfentrazone



### 1. T-Rex Run for Spray Applications



## Upper Bound Kenaga Residues For RQ Calculation

Chemical Name: Sulfentrazone

Use 0
Formulation Sulfentrazone 4F ROW (4lbs ai per gallon suspension) Application Rate 0.375 lbs a.i./acre
Half-life 35 days Application Interval 1 days Maximum # Apps./Year 1 Length of Simulation 1 year Variable application rates? no



## Endpoints



## Avian Bobwhite quail LD50 (mg/kgbw) 2250.00

Mallard duck) LC50 (mg/kgdiet) 0.00 Bobwhite quail NOAEL(mg/kgbw) 0.00

Bobwhite quail NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) 10.00



## Mammals LD50 (mg/kg-bw) 2855.00 LC50 (mg/kg-diet) 0.00 NOAEL (mg/kg-bw) 200.00 NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) 4000.00

## Dietarybased EECs (ppm) Kenaga

Values Short Grass 31.88 Tall Grass 13.50

### 127 Broadleaf plants 16.88 Fruits/pods/seeds 2.63 Arthropods 24.38



### Avian Results

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

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

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



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

20 100 1000 Short Grass 36.30 20.70 9.27 Tall Grass 15.38 8.77 3.93 Broadleaf plants 19.22 10.96 4.91 Fruits/pods 2.99 1.70 0.76 Arthropods 27.76 15.83 7.09 Seeds 0.66 0.38 0.17 

# Dose-based RQs (Dose-based EEC/adjusted LD50) Avian Acute RQs Size Class (grams)

20 100 1000

Short Grass 0.02 0.01 0.00 Tall Grass 0.01 0.00 0.00 Broadleaf plants 0.01 0.01 0.00 Fruits/pods 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arthropods 0.02 0.01 0.00 Seeds 0.00 0.00 0.00 

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

### 128 Acute Chronic
Short Grass #DIV/0! 3.19 Tall Grass #DIV/0! 1.35 Broadleaf plants #DIV/0! 1.69 Fruits/pods/seeds #DIV/0! 0.26 Arthropods #DIV/0! 2.44

### 129 Mammalian Results

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

Mammalian Body Adjusted Adjusted Class Weight LD50 NOAEL 15 6274.81 439.57 Herbivores/ 35 5076.99 355.66 insectivores 1000 2195.95 153.83 15 6274.81 439.57 Grainvores 35 5076.99 355.66 1000 2195.95 153.83



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

15 35 1000
Short Grass 30.39 21.00 4.87 Tall Grass 12.87 8.90 2.06 Broadleaf plants 16.09 11.12 2.58 Fruits/pods 2.50 1.73 0.40 Arthropods 23.24 16.06 3.72 Seeds 0.56 0.38 0.09

# Dosebased RQs (Dose-based EEC/LD50 or NOAEL) Small mammal Medium mammal Large mammal
15 grams 35 grams 1000 Grams

Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronic
Short Grass 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.03 Tall Grass 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 Broadleaf plants 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.02 Fruits/pods 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arthropods 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.02 Seeds 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

### 130

### 131 

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

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



### T-Rex Run for (LD 50 

### /Sq. ft. Calculations)

### 132 Chemical: Sulfentrazone

LD50 ft-2

INPUTS Do not overwrite these numbers. 

### Changes to the inputs must be

Application Rate: 0.375 lbs /

acre 

### made in the "INPUTS" worksheet.
% A.I.: 100.00% Avian LD50 (20g): 1620.97 mg/kg bw (100g) 2063.57 (1000g) 2914.87 Mammalian LD50 (15g): 6274.81 mg/kg bw (35g) 5076.99 (1000g) 2195.95 Row Spacing: 0 inches Bandwidth: 0 inches Unincorporation: 100%



### Row/Band/In-furrow applications

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

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



### LD50 ft-2 N/A wgt class

(grams) wgt class (grams) Avian 20 N/A Avian 20 N/A 100 N/A 100 N/A 1000 N/A 1000 N/A Mammal 15 N/A Mammal 15 N/A 35 N/A 35 N/A 1000 N/A 1000 N/A



### Broadcast applications Liquid

Intermediate Calculations

mg ai/ft2: 3.90



### LD50 ft-2 wgt class (grams) Avian 20 0.12 100 0.02 1000 0.00

### 133 2. TerrPlant

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

Table 1. Chemical Identity.
Chemical Name Sulfentrazone PC code 129081 Use Apple Application Method Spray

Application Form Ground Application Solubility in Water (ppm) 400

Table 2. Input parameters used to derive EECs. Input Parameter Symbol Value Units Application Rate A 0.375 y

Incorporation I 1 none Runoff Fraction R 0.05 none

Drift Fraction D 0.01 none

Table 3. EECs for Sulfentrazone. Units in y. Description Equation EEC Runoff to dry areas (A/I)*R 0.01875 Runoff to semi-aquatic areas (A/I)*R*10 0.1875 Spray drift A*D 0.00375 Total for dry areas ((A/I)*R)+(A*D) 0.0225 Total for semi-aquatic areas ((A/I)*R*10)+(A*D) 0.19125

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

Monocot 0.023 0.019 0.012 0.006

Dicot 0.011 0.006 0.00052 0.00044

Table 5. RQ values for plants in dry and semi-aquatic areas exposed to Sulfentrazone through runoff and/or spray drift.* Mammal 15 0.04 35 0.02 1000 0.00

Formulas used in the calculations are in the User's Guide

### 134 Plant Type Listed Status Dry Semi-Aquatic Spray Drift

Monocot non-listed 0.98 8.32 0.31 Monocot listed 1.18 10.07 0.63

Dicot non-listed 2.05 17.39 7.21 Dicot listed 3.75 31.88 8.52 *If RQ > 1.0, the LOC is exceeded, resulting in potential for risk to that plant group.



### G. Ecological Incident Reports for Sulfentrazone

Ecological Incident Reports for Sulfentrazone



### Table D1. Ecological Incidents Associated with Exposure to Su lfentrazone Via Drift, Runoff, and Carryover

Monday, January 13, 2014

PC_Code INCIDENT_ID* USE SITE START DATE STATE COUNTY YEAR TOTAL MAG CERTAINTY FORMULATION A PPL_METHO D

129081 I013636

‐ 009 Soybean 06

‐ May

‐ 02 MN MOWER 2002 145

acres Possible

129081 I013636

‐ 019 Soybean 02

‐ May

‐ 02 IA BLACK HAWK 2002 47

acres Possible

129081 I013636

‐ 020 Soybean 24

‐ Apr

‐ 02 IA MITCHELL 2002 74

acres Possible

129081 I013636

‐ 021 Soybean 23

‐ Apr

‐ 02 IA BREMER 2002 Possible

129081 I014102

‐ 001 Soybean 15

‐ May

‐ 03 AR Prairie 2003 250

acres Possible Granular

129081 I014103

‐ 001 Soybean 15

‐ May

‐ 03 AR Arkansas 2003 300

acres Possible Granular

129081 I014104

‐ 001 Soybean 01

‐ May

‐ 03 AR Randolph 2003 45

acres Possible Granular

129081 I014106

‐ 001 Soybean 15

‐ May

‐ 03 AR Arkansas 2003 227

acres Possible Granular

129081 I014108

‐ 001 Soybean 01

‐ May

‐ 03 AR Randolph 2003 228

acres Possible Granular

129081 I014702

‐ 008 N/R 12

‐ May

‐ 02 IA Grundy 2002 580

acres Possible N/R N/R

129081 I014702

‐ 010 Soybeans 01

‐ May

‐ 03 IA Worth 2003 108

acres Probable Water soluble packet N/R

129081 I014702

‐ 011 Soybeans 26

‐ Apr

‐ 03 IA Worth 2003 40

acres Probable Water soluble packet N/R

129081 I014702

‐ 012 Soybeans 28

‐ Apr

‐ 03 IA Emmet 2003 150

acres Probable Water soluble packet N/R

129081 I014702

‐ 056 Soybean 05

‐ May

‐ 03 IA Pocahontas 2003 253

acres Possible Emulsifiable conc. Broadcast

129081 I014702

‐ 057 Soybean 05

‐ May

‐ 03 IA Pocahontas 2003 251 Acres Possible Emulsifiable conc. Broadcast

### 135 129081 I015175

‐ 001 Soybean 10

‐ May

‐ 04 AR Ashley 2004 5,000

acres Probable Granular Spray

129081 I016225

‐ 001 N/R 05

‐ Apr

‐ 05 IL Fayette 2005 1 acre Possible Granular Spray

129081 I024871

‐ 003 Industrial site OR Marion 2012 partial loss of 8

ac Possible N/R

*All incidents involved plants



### H. ECOTOX Database Bibliography for Sulfentrazone

ECOTOX Run

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

Papers that were Accepted for ECOTOX

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

Sulfentrazone Refresh Acceptabl e Bibliography November 2013

1. Brandenberger, L. P.; Shrefler, J. W.; Webber III, C. L.; Talbert, R. E.; Payt on, M. E.; Wells, L. K., and McClelland, M. Preemergence Weed Control in Direct-Seeded Watermelon. PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2005; 19, (3): 706-712. Rec #: 10 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (SFZ), NO MIXTURE (BS,CMZ) Notes: EcoReference No.: 151988 Chemical of Concern: BS,CMZ,EFL,NPM,SFZ

2. Brown, D. and Masiunas, J. Evaluation of Herbicides for Pumpkin (Cucurbita spp.). GRO,PHY,POP. Department of Natural Resources and Environmen tal Sciences,University of Illinois,Urbana,IL////: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2002; 16, (2): 282-292. Rec #: 120 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (SFZ), OK (CMZ), WEEDS MANUAL (FMC) Notes: EcoReference No.: 120400 Chemical of Concern: CMZ,DMM,EFL,FMC,IZX,SFZ

3. Daugrois, J. H.; Hoy, J. W., and Griffin, J. L. Protoporphyrinogen Oxidase Inhibitor Herbicide Effects on Pythium Root Rot of Sugarcane, Pythium Species, and the Soil Microbial Community. GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 2005; 95, (3): 220-226. Rec #: 140 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (FMX,SFZ) Notes: EcoReference No.: 107864 Chemical of Concern: AZF,FMX,SFZ

4. Ewell, W. S.; Gorsuch, J. W.; Kr ingle, R. O.; Robillard, K. A., and Spiegel, R. C. Simultaneous Evaluation of the Acute Effects of Chemicals on Seven Aquatic Species. MORAQUA; 1986; 5, (9): 831-840. Rec #: 170 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (CuS,DHB,ETHN,MOL,NFEDTA,NaCN,PCP,TML,ZnS)

### 136 Notes: EcoReference No.: 11951 Chemical of Concern: AN,CoCl,CuS,DHB,ETHN,K2Cr2O7,MOL,NFEDTA,NHSO4,NaCN,NaHCT,PCP,PL,TML,ZnS

5. Figueroa, R.; Doohan, D., and Cardina, J. Efficacy and Selectivity of Promising Herbicides for Common Groundsel Control in Newly Established Stra wberry. GRO,PHY,POPSO IL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2005; 15, (2): 261-266. Rec #: 250 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (FMC,SFZ), OK (MTL,PDM,SZ) Notes: EcoReference No.: 157325 Chemical of Concern: DMM,EFS,FMC,MTL,NPP,PDM,SFZ,SZ,TRB

6. Fronning, B. E. and Kegode, G. O. Biennial Wormwood (Artemisia biennis) Early-Season Control with Herbicides. POP. Department of Plant Scien ces,North Dakota State Un iversity,Far go,ND,USA//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2004; 18, (3): 611-618. Rec #: 270 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (FTS,SFZ), NO MIXTURE (BT) Notes: EcoReference No.: 158820 Chemical of Concern: ACF,BT,FTS,SFZ

7. Gorsuch, J. W.; Kringle, R. O ., and Robillard, K. A. Chemical Effects on the Germination and Early Growth of Terrestrial Plants. GRO, NOCSOIL,ENV; 1990: 49-58. Rec #: 70 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (DHB,NaCN) , OK (CuS,ETHN,MO L,PCP,TML,ZnCl2) Notes: EcoReference No.: 49660 Chemical of Concern: AN,CoCl,CuS,DHB,ETHN,K2Cr2O7,MOL,NHSO4,NaCN,NaHCT,NiCl,PCP,PL,TML,ZnCl2

8. Grey, T. L.; Bridges, D. C., and Brecke, B. J. Response of Seven Peanut (A rachis hypogaea) Cultivars to Sulfentrazone. PHY,POPSOIL,E NV; 2000; 14, 51-56. Rec #: 160 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (SFZ), NO EFFECT (PAQT,PDM,PQT) Notes: EcoReference No.: 59443 Chemical of Concern: EFL,IAZ,PAQT,PDM,PQT,SFZ

9. Isgrigg III, J. Ecological Adaptations of Annual Bluegrass to Plant Growth Regulators and Herbicides. BCM,GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1999: 162 p. (UMI #9960156). Rec #: 100 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (ATZ,DQT,FPD,FRM,GYP,OYZ,PBZ,PDM,PRM,PZM,SFZ,SZ,TXE), NO MIXTURE (Conazoles,NONA,PCZ,PPCP,PPCP2011) Notes: EcoReference No.: 121125

10. Johnson III, W. C. and Mullinix , B. G. Jr. Use of F628 5 for Weed Control in Pe anut: Efficacy and Crop Injury. PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1994; 21, (1): 65-68. Rec #: 200 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (MTL,SFZ), NO EFFECT (PDM), NO MIXTURE (BT,PAQT) Notes: EcoReference No.: 73923 Chemical of Concern: BT,EFL,IZT,MTL,PAQT,PDM,SFZ

11. Krausz, R. F.; Kapusta, G., and Matthews, J. L. Su lfentrazone for Weed Control in Soybean (Glycine max). POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1998; 12, (4): 684-689. Rec #: 190 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (SFZ), NO EFFECT (FNP), NO MIXTURE (FNP), OK (CLNS)

### 137 Notes: EcoReference No.: 63152 Chemical of Concern: CLNS,FNP,FZFP,IMQ,MBZ,SFZ

12. Legleiter, T. R.; Bradley, K. W., and Massey, R. E. Glyphosate-Resistant Waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) Control and Economic Returns with Herbicide Programs in Soybean. POP,REPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2009; 23, (1): 54-61. Rec #: 20 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (ACR,FMX,LCF,SFZ), NO MIXTURE (GYP,MTC) Notes: EcoReference No.: 152916 Chemical of Concern: ACF,ACR,FMX,GYP,LCF,MBZ,MTC,SFZ

13. Lyon, D. J. and Wilson, R. G. Chemical Weed Control in Dryland and Irrigated Chickpea. GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2005; 19, (4): 959-965. Rec #: 30 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (SFZ), OK (PDM) Notes: EcoReference No.: 156872 Chemical of Concern: EFL,IXF,IZT,PDM,PYD,SFZ

14. Martinez, C. O.; Silva, C. M. M. S.; Fay, E. F.; De Maia, A. H. N.; Abakerli, R. B., and Durrant, L. R. Degradation of the Herbicide Sulfentrazone in a Brazilian Typic Hapludox Soil. POPENV; 2008; 40, (4): 879-886. Rec #: 280 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (SFZ) Notes: EcoReference No.: 163252 Chemical of Concern: SFZ

15. Nelson, K. A. Soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr) Growth and Development, White Mold (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) de Bary) Incidence, and Yello w Nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus L.) Control as Affected by Glyphosate and Other Herbicides. BCM,GRO,POP,REPSOIL,ENV,INJECT,MIXTURE; 2000: 279 p. (UMI# 9971967). Rec #: 180 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (CLNS,CRM,GFS,GYPI,SFZ), NO CONC (FMC,FSF,LCF,OXF), NO MIXTURE (BT,CLT,IZP,SXD), NO REVIEW (FMC,FSF,LCF,OXF) Notes: EcoReference No.: 120063

16. Nelson, K. A.; Renner, K. A., and Hammerschmidt, R. Effects of Protoporphyrinogen Oxidase Inhibitors on Soybean (Glycine max L.) Response, Scleroti nia sclerotiorum Disease Development, and Phytoalexin Production by Soybean. BCM,CEL,GRO,POP. Department of Agronomy, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2002; 16, (2): 353-359. Rec #: 110 Notes: EcoReference No.: 120109

17. Padilla, S.; Corum, D.; Padnos, B.; Hunter, D. L. ; Beam, A.; Houck, K. A.; Sipes, N.; Kleinstreuer, N.; Knudsen, T.; Dix, D. J., and Reif, D. M. Zebraf ish Developmental Screening of the ToxCast Phase I Chemical Library. NOC. Padilla.Stephanie@epa. gov//National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27712//: AQUA; 2012; 33, (2): 174-187. Rec #: 260

18. Pandian, V. Evaluation of Nightshade (Solanum spp.) and Groundcherry Species (Physalis spp.) Response to Herbicides. GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 2005: 144 p. (UMI# 1426449). Rec #: 40 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (OXF,SFZ), OK (DCPA,DQTBr,FMX,MB,MTC,PQT)

### 138 Notes: EcoReference No.: 159584 Chemical of Concern: ACFNa,CFE,DCPA,DQTBr,FMX,HFS,IZT,IZX,MB,MBZ,MTC,NPP,OXF,PMSM,PQT,PYD,RIM ,SFS,SFZ

19. Reynolds, T. Comparative Effects of Aromatic Compounds on Inhibition of Lettuce Fruit Germination. REPSOIL,ENV; 1978; 42, 419-427. Rec #: 80 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (BZO,DHB,MCRE,NATL,OCRE,PCRE,SCA), TARGET2012 (NATL) Notes: EcoReference No.: 42996 Chemical of Concern: BZO,DHB ,MCRE,NATL,OCRE,PCRE,PL,SCA,VNL

20. Richardson, R. J. and Zandstra, B. H. Evaluation of Flumioxazin and Other Herbicides for Weed Control in Gladiolus. GRO,PHY,POP,REP. rorichar@yahoo.c om//Department of Horticulture, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824////: SOIL ,ENV,MIXTURE; 2006; 20, (2): 394-398. Rec #: 50 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (PDM,SFZ), NO ENDPOINT (CMZ,IXB,OXF), OK (FMX,LNR,MTC,OYZ,PMT) Notes: EcoReference No.: 156786 Chemical of Concern: CMZ,FMX,HSF,IAZ, IXB,IZX,LNR,MTC,OXF,OYZ,PDM,PMT,RIM,SFZ

21. ---. Weed Control in Christmas Trees with Flumioxazin and Other Residual Herbicides Applied Alone or in Tank Mixtures. GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV, MIXTURE; 2009; 19, (1): 181-186. Rec #: 240 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (IXB,OXF,SFZ), NO MIXTURE (PDM), OK (FMX,SZ) Notes: EcoReference No.: 157027 Chemical of Concern: FMX,HSF,IXB,OXF,PDM,SFZ,SZ

22. Shoup, D. E.; Al-Khatib, K., and Peterson, D. E. Common Waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) Resistance to Protoporphyrinogen Oxidase-Inhibiting Herbicides. GRO,PHYSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2003; 51, (2): 145-150. Rec #: 60 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (SFZ), NO MIXTURE (DZ,MLN), OK (FSF,GYP,LCF,PAQT) Notes: EcoReference No.: 162453 Chemical of Concern: ACF,DZ,F SF,GYP,IZT,LCF,MLN,PAQT,SFZ,THF

23. Talbert, R. E.; Schmidt, L. A.; Lovelace, M. L., an d Scherder, E. F. Field Evalua tion of Herbicides on Small Fruit, Vegetable, and Ornamental Crops, 1999. PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 2000: 1-22. Rec #: 210 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (OXF,SFZ), NO ENDPOINT (GYPI,GYPT), NO MIXTURE (BT,CLNS,CMZ,FMC,FMCP,FSF,FTS,GFSNH,LCF,OYZ,QZFPE,SXD,SZ), OK (DU,LNR,MTC,MTL,PHMD,TFN) Notes: EcoReference No.: 153250 Chemical of Concern: AZF,BT,CFE,CLNS,CMZ,CPR,DEF,DMM,DU,FFC,FMC,FMCP,FSF,FTS,FXPM,GFSNH,GYPI, GYPT,IAZ,IZT,IZX,LCF,LNR,MTC,MTL,OXF ,OYZ,PHMD,PYD,QZFPE,RIM,SFZ,SXD,SZ,TF N,TPZ,TSF

24. Thienpont, B.; Tingaud-Sequeira, A.; Prats, E.; Barata, C.; Babin, P. J., and Raldua, D. Zebrafish Eleutheroembryos Provide a Suitable Vertebrate Model for Screening Chemicals that Impair Thyroid Hormone Synthesis. BCM,CEL,MOR. Drpqam@Cid.csic.es//: AQUA; 2011; 45, (17): 7525-7532 (Author Communication Used). Rec #: 230 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (DHB,ETU,Halides,KI,LNR,MZB,NaBr,NaNO3) Notes: EcoReference No.: 155099

### 139 Chemical of Concern: AMTL,BPA,DDT,DHB,ETU,Halides,KI,LNR,MZB,NaBr,NaNO3,PBDE,PFOA,PFOS,PPCP,PPCP 2011,SMX

25. Thornton, M.; Miller, J.; Hutchinson, P., and Alvarez, J. Response of Potatoes to Soil-Applied Insecticides, Fungicides, and Herbicides. PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 2010; 53, (4): 351-358. Rec #: 220 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED ( ADC,AZX,IMC,NNCT,OML,PRT,SFZ) Notes: EcoReference No.: 154191 Chemical of Concern: ADC,AZX,IMC,NNCT,OML,PRT,SFZ,TMX

26. VanGessel, M. J. Control of Perennial Weed Speci es as Seedlings with Soil-Applied Herbicides. MOR,POP. M.J. Vangessel, Research and Education Center, University of Delaware, Georgetown, DE 19947, United States//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE ; 1999; 13, (2): 425-428. Rec #: 90 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (ATZ,SFZ), NO ENDPOINT (CLNS,CMZ,FTS,LNR,PDM), NO MIXTURE (CRM), OK (MTL) Notes: EcoReference No.: 62724 Chemical of Concern: ATZ,CLNS,CMZ ,CRM,FTS,IMQ,LNR,MBZ,MTL,PDM,SFZ

27. VanGessel, M. J.; Monks, D. W., and Johnson, Q. R. Herbicides for Potential Use in Lima Bean (Phaseolus lunatus) Production. PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2000; 14, 279-286. Rec #: 130 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (BT,CLNS,LCF,SFZ), NO MIXTURE (FTS,MTL) Notes: EcoReference No.: 59708 Chemical of Concern: BT,CLNS,FTS,IZT,IZX,LCF,MTL,SFZ

28. Viator, B. J.; Griffin, J. L., and Ellis, J. M. Re d Morningglory (Ipomoea coccinea) Control with Sulfentrazone and Azafeniden Applied at Layby in Sugarcane (Saccharum spp.). GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2002; 16, 142-148. Rec #: 150 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (ATZ,SFZ), NO EFFECT (24D,24DXY,DMB,PDM,TFN), NO MIXTURE (24D,24DXY,DMB), OK (DU) Notes: EcoReference No.: 62981 Chemical of Concern: 24D,24DXY,ATZ,AZF,DMB,DU,MBZ,PDM,SFZ,TFN,TRB

### 140 Target Papers

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

Sulfentrazone Refresh Target Bibliography November 2013

1. . New herbicide for soybean. 2008 June 19, issue 6. Rec #: 2080 Call Number: TARGET2012 (SFZ) Notes: Chemical of Concern: SFZ Abstract: Keywords: Internet resource 1022986436 2. Ashigh, J. and Hall, J. C. Bases for Interactions between Saflufenacil and Glyphosate in Plants. 2010; 58, 7335-7343. Rec #: 2310 Call Number: TARGET2012 (SFZ) Notes: Chemical of Concern: SFZ Abstract: Number of Volumes: 12 Ashigh, Jamshid Hall, J. Christopher 3. Brosnan, J. T.; Breeden, G. K.; Henry, G. M., an d Walls, F. R. Sulfentrazone and Carfentrazone Accelerate Broadleaf Weed Control with Metsulfuron. 2012; 26, 549-553. Rec #: 2340 Call Number: TARGET2012 (SFZ) Notes: Chemical of Concern: SFZ Abstract: Number of Volumes: 3 Brosnan, James T. Breeden, Gregory K. Henry, Gerald M. Walls, Franklin R. 4. Brosnan, James T.; Armel, Greg ory R.; Klingeman, William E. III; Breede n, Gregory K.; Vargas, Jose J., and Flanagan, Philip C. Selective Star-of-Bethlehem Control with Sulfentrazone and Mixtures of Mesotrione and Topramezone with Bromoxynil and Bentazon in Cool-season Turfgrass. 2010; 20, 315-318. Rec #: 2110 Call Number: TARGET2012 (SFZ)

5. Buckelew, J. K. Orchard Floor Management in Young Peach [Prunus persica (L.) Batsch.]: Effects of Irrigation, Vegetation-Free Width, and Certain PRE Herbicides. GRO,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2009: 117 p. (UMI# 3377542). Rec #: 2650 Call Number: TARGET2012 (FMX,NFZ,OYZ,SFZ), WEEDS (FMX,NFZ,OYZ,SFZ) Notes: EcoReference No.: 121257 Chemical of Concern: FMX,HSF,NFZ,OYZ,RIM,SFZ,TRB 6. Cohen, R.; Eizenberg, H.; Edelstien, M.; Horev, C.; Lande, T.; Porat, A.; Achdari, G., and Hershenhorn, J. Evaluation of Herbicides for Selective Weed Control in Grafted Watermelons. GRO. eizenber@volcani.agri.gov.il//New e Yaar res Ctr, ARO, Dept Weed Res, IL-30095 Ramat Yishay,Israel////: SOIL,ENV; 2008; 36, (1): 66-73. Rec #: 2660 Call Number: TARGET2012 (CMZ,OXF,PDM,SFZ,TFN), WEEDS (CMZ,OXF,PDM,SFZ,TFN) Notes: EcoReference No.: 151483 Chemical of Concern: CMZ,CSF,OXF,PDM,SFZ,TFN 7. Dayan, F. E.; Weete, J. D.; Duke, S. O., and Hanc ock, H. G. Soybean (Glycine max) Cultivar Differences in Response to Sulfentrazone. GRO,REP. J.D. Weete, Dept. of Botany and Microbiology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, United States//: SOIL,ENV; 1997; 45, (5): 634-641. Rec #: 2670 Call Number: TARGET2012 (SFZ)

### 141 Notes: EcoReference No.: 163300 Chemical of Concern: SFZ 8. Elezovic, Igor; Datta, Avishek; Vrbnicanin, Sava; Glamoclija, Djordje; Simic, Milena; Malidza, Goran, and Knezevic, Stevan Z. Yield and yield components of imidazolinone-resistant sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) are influenced by pre-emergence herbicide and time of post-emergence weed removal. 2012 Mar 14-; 128, (0): 137-146. Rec #: 260 Call Number: TARGET2012 (SFZ) Notes: Chemical of Concern: SFZ

9. Etheredge, Luke M.; Griffin, James L., and Boudreaux, Joseph M. Nutsedge (Cyperus Spp.) Control Programs in Sugarcane. 2010; 30, 67-80. Rec #: 2130 Call Number: TARGET2012 (SFZ) Notes: Chemical of Concern: SFZ Abstract: Keywords: Internet resource Includes references 1022998992 10. Frost, P. and Barnes, G. Evaluation of New Herbicides for Management of Black Nightshade (Solanum nigrum) in Processing Tomatoes. POP. Serv e-Ag Research,Devonport, Tasmania,Australia//: SOIL,ENV; 2003; 613, 201-203. Rec #: 2840 Call Number: NO ENDPOINT (OXF), TARGET 2012 (BT,CMZ,FMX,MTC,OXF,PDM,PMT,SFZ), WEEDS (BT,CMZ,FMX,MTC,OXF,PDM,PMT,SFZ) Notes: EcoReference No.: 159710 Chemical of Concern: AZF,BT,CMZ,D MM,FMX,IXF,MTC,OXF,PDM,PMT,RIM,SFZ 11. Gonzini, L. C.; Hart, S. E., and Wax, L. M. He rbicide Combinations for Weed Management in GlyphosateResistant Soybean (Glycine ma x). PHY,POP. hart@aesop.rutgers.edu//S.E. Hart, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, United States//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE ; 1999; 13, (2): 354- 360. Rec #: 2750 Call Number: TARGET2012 (ACR,CL NSM,CRM,GYPI,PDM,SFZ), WEEDS (ACR,CLNSM,CRM,G YPI,PDM,SFZ) Notes: EcoReference No.: 72888 Chemical of Concern: ACR,CL NSM,CRM,GYPI,IZT,MBZ,PDM,SFZ 12. Graber, E. R.; Tsechansky, L.; Gerstl, Z., and Lew, B. High Surface Area Biochar Negatively Impacts Herbicide Efficacy. GROSOIL,EN V; 2012; 353, 95-106. Rec #: 2850 Call Number: WEEDS (MTC,SFZ) Notes: EcoReference No.: 163761 Chemical of Concern: MTC,SFZ 13. Hutchinson, P. J. S. Common Lambsquarters and Hairy Nightshade Control in Potato with Dimethenamid-p Alone and in Tank Mixtures and Comparison of Control by Dimethenamid-p with S-metolachlor and Metolachlor . 2012; 26, 279-283. Rec #: 2430 Call Number: TARGET2012 (SFZ) Notes: Chemical of Concern: SFZ Abstract: Number of Volumes: 2 Hutchinson, Pamela J. S. 14. Jhala, A. J. ; Ramirez, A. H. M., and Singh, M. Rimsulfuron Tank Mixed with Flumioxazin, Pendimethalin, or Oryzalin for Control of Broadleaf Weeds in Citrus. 2012; 22, 638-643. Rec #: 2440 Call Number: TARGET2012 (SFZ) Notes: Chemical of Concern: SFZ Abstract: Number of Volumes: 5 Jhala, Amit J. Ramirez, An aliza H. M. Singh, Megh 15. Li, Z.; Walker, R. H.; Wehtje, G., and Hancock, H. G. Use of Seedling Growth Parameters to Classify

### 142 Soybean (Glycine max) Cultivar Sensitivity to Sulf entrazone. GRO,POPSOIL,ENV; 1999; 13, (3): 530-535. Rec #: 2680 Call Number: TARGET2012 (SFZ) Notes: EcoReference No.: 163303 Chemical of Concern: SFZ 16. ---. Using Electrolyte Leakage to Detect Soyb ean (Glycine max) Cultivars Sensitive to Sulfentrazone. CELSOIL,ENV; 2000; 14, 699-704. Rec #: 2800 Call Number: TARGET2012 (SFZ), WEEDS (SFZ) Notes: EcoReference No.: 59539 Chemical of Concern: SFZ 17. Li, Z.; Wehtje, G. R., and Walker , R. H. Physiological Basis for the Differential Tolerance of Glycine max to Sulfentrazone During Seed Germination. ACC,GROSOIL,ENV; 2000; 48, 281-285. Rec #: 2770 Call Number: TARGET2012 (SFZ) Notes: EcoReference No.: 59538 Chemical of Concern: SFZ 18. Main, C. L.; Mueller, T. C.; Ha yes, R. M.; Wilcut, J. W.; Peeper, T. F.; Talbert, R. E., and Witt, W. W. Sulfentrazone Persistence in Southern Soils: Bioa vailable Concentration and Effect on a Rotational Cotton Crop. GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 2004; 18, 346-352. Rec #: 2690 Call Number: NO EFFECT (G YP), TARGET2012 (GYP,SFZ) Notes: EcoReference No.: 163304 Chemical of Concern: GYP,SFZ 19. McCullough, P. E.; de Barreda, D. G., and Raymer, P. Nicosulfuron Use with Foramsulfuron and Sulfentrazone for Late Summer Goosegrass (Eleusine indica) Control in Bermudagrass and Seashore Paspalum. 2012; 26, 376-381. Rec #: 2520 Call Number: TARGET2012 (SFZ) Notes: Chemical of Concern: SFZ Abstract: Number of Volumes: 2 McCullough, Patrick E. Gomez de Barreda, Diego Raymer, Paul 20. Miller, R. T.; Soltani, N.; Robinson, D. E.; Kraus, T. E., and Sikkema, P. H. Soybean (Glycine max) cultivar tolerance to saflufenacil. 2012; 92, 1319-1328. Rec #: 2540 Call Number: TARGET2012 (SFZ) Notes: Chemical of Concern: SFZ Abstract: Number of Volumes: 7 Miller, Robert T. Soltani, Nader Robinson, Darren E. Kraus, Trevor E. Sikkema, Peter H. Robinson, Darren/A-3959-2013 21. Niekamp, J. W. and Johnson, W. G. Weed Management with Sulfentrazone and Flumioxazin in No-Tillage Soyabean (Glycine max). POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2001; 20, 215-220. Rec #: 2810 Call Number: NO MIXTURE (CRM,PDM), OK (CMZ,FMX), TARGET MANUAL (SFZ) Notes: EcoReference No.: 63898 Chemical of Concern: CMZ,CRM,FMX,PDM,SFZ 22. Niekamp, J. W.; Johnson, W. G., and Smeda, R. J. Broadleaf Weed Control with Sulfentrazone and Flumioxazin in No-Tillage Soybean (Glycine max) . PHY,POP. J.W. Niek amp, Department of Agronomy, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211//: SOIL,ENV,MIX TURE; 1999; 13, (2): 233-238. Rec #: 2730 Call Number: NO EFFECT (ALSV,CLT,GYP,MOIL), NO MIXTURE (ALSV,CLT,CRM,GYP,MOIL), OK (FMX), TARGET MANUAL (SFZ) Notes: EcoReference No.: 72819 Chemical of Concern: ALSV,CLT,CRM,FMX,GYP,IMQ,MBZ,MOIL,NHSO4,SFZ

### 143 23. No-Riang, A. and Bhromsiri, A. Effects of Some Preemergence Herbicides on Nodulation, N2-Fixation, Growth and Yield of Soybean. BCM,GRO,PHY. Department of Soil Science and Conservation, Faculty of Agriculture,Chiang Mai University,Chiang Mai,Thailand//: SOIL,ENV; 2005; 17, 208- 213. Rec #: 2830 Call Number: TARGET2012 (OXF,SFZ) Notes: EcoReference No.: 163616 Chemical of Concern: IZT,OXF,SFZ 24. Ogbuchiekwe, E. J.; McGiffen, M. E. Jr.; Nunez, J., and Fennimore, S. A. Tolerance of Carrot to Low-Rate Preemergent and Postemergent Herbicides. GR O,PHY,POP. milt@ucr.edu//M.E. McGiffen Jr., Dept. of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0124//: SOIL,ENV; 2004; 39, (2): 291-296. Rec #: 2790 Call Number: TARGET2012 (CLNSM,SFZ) Notes: EcoReference No.: 82420 Chemical of Concern: CLNSM,DMM,HSF,IZX,RIM,SFZ 25. Olson, B. L. S.; Zollinger, R. K.; Thompson, C. R.; Peterson, D. E.; Jenks, B.; Moechnig, M., and Stahlman, P. W. Pyroxasulfone with and without Sulfentrazone in Sunflower (Helianthus annuus). 2011; 25, 217-221. Rec #: 2550 Call Number: TARGET2012 (SFZ) Notes: Chemical of Concern: SFZ Abstract: Number of Volumes: 2 Olson, Brian L. S. Zollinger, Richard K. Thompson, Curtis R. Peterson, Dallas E. Jenks, Brian Moechnig, Mike Stahlman, Phillip W. 26. Pekarek, Ryan A.; Garvey, Paul V.; Monks, Da vid W.; Jennings, Katherine M., and Macrae, Andrew W. Sulfentrazone Carryover to Vegetables and Cotton. 2010; 24, 20-24. Rec #: 2220 Call Number: TARGET2012 (SFZ) Notes: Chemical of Concern: SFZ Abstract: Keywords: Internet resource Number of Volumes: 1 Includes references 1022821111 27. Robinson, D. E.; McNaughton, K., and Soltani, N. Weed Management in Transplanted Bell Pepper (Capsicum annuum) with Pretransplant Tank Mi xes of Sulfentrazone, S-metolachlor, and Dimethenamid-p. 2008; 43, 1492-1494. Rec #: 2240 Call Number: TARGET2012 (SFZ)

28. Robinson, D. E. and McNaughton, K. E. Saflufenacil Carryover Injury Varies among Rotational Crops. 2012; 26, 177-182. Rec #: 2600 Call Number: TARGET2012 (SFZ) Notes: Chemical of Concern: SFZ Abstract: Number of Volumes: 2 Robinson, Darren E. McNaughton, Kristen E. Robinson, Darren/A-3959-2013 29. Robinson, Darren E.; McNaughton, Kristen, and Sikkema, Peter H. Tolerance of tomato, pepper and potato to pre-emergence applications of saflufenacil. 2012 Dec; 42, (0): 230-233. Rec #: 120 Call Number: TARGET2012 (SFZ)

30. Swantek, J. M.; Sneller, C. H., and Oliver, L. R. Evaluation of Soybean Injury from Sulfentrazone and Inheritance of Tolerance. GRO,PHY,POP. L.R. Oliver, Department of Agronomy, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72704, United States//: SOIL,ENV; 1998; 46, (2): 271-277. Rec #: 2740 Call Number: NO EFFECT (C LT), TARGET2012 (CLT,SFZ)

### 144 Notes: EcoReference No.: 64494 Chemical of Concern: CLT,SFZ 31. Szmigielski, A. M.; Schoenau, J. J.; Johnson, E. N. ; Holm, F. A.; Sapsford, K. L., and Liu, J. Development of a Laboratory Bioassay and Effect of Soil Proper ties on Sulfentrazone Phytotoxicity in Soil. GROSOIL,ENV; 2009; 23, 486-491. Rec #: 2860 Call Number: TARGET2012 (SFZ) Notes: EcoReference No.: 163251 Chemical of Concern: SFZ 32. ---. Effects of Soil Factors on Phytotoxicity and Dissipation of Sulfentrazone in Canadian Prairie Soils. GROSOIL,ENV; 2012; 43, (6): 896-904. Rec #: 2820 Call Number: TARGET2012 (SFZ) Notes: EcoReference No.: 163250 Chemical of Concern: SFZ 33. Taran, B.; Holm, F., and Banniza, S. Response of chickpea cultivars to pre- an d post-emergence herbicide applications. 2013; 93, 279-286. Rec #: 2640 Call Number: TARGET2012 (SFZ) Notes: Chemical of Concern: SFZ Abstract: Number of Volumes: 2 Taran, B. Holm, F. Banniza, S. 34. Taylor-Lovell, S.; Wax, L. M., and Nelson, R. Phytotoxic Response and Yield of Soybean (Glycine max) Varieties Treated with Sulfentrazone or Flum ioxazin. GRO,PHY,POP,REPSOIL,ENV; 2001; 15, (1): 95-102. Rec #: 2780 Call Number: TARGET2012 (FMX,SFZ) Notes: EcoReference No.: 66974

35. Trezzi, M. M.; Felippi, C. L.; Mattei, D.; Silva, H. L.; Nunes, A. L.; Debastiani, C.; Vidal, R. A., and Marques, A. Multiple Resistance of Acetolactate Synthase and Protoporphyrinogen Oxidase Inhibitors in Euphorbia heterophylla Biotypes. GRO,MOR. Agronomy School of CEFET/PR, Pato Branco, Brazil//: SOIL,ENV; 2005; 40, (1): 101-109. Rec #: 2760 Call Number: WEEDS (CLNS,FMC,FMX,FSF,LCF,MTS,SFZ) Notes: EcoReference No.: 106387

36. Wehtje, G. R.; Walker, R. H.; Grey, T. L., and Hancock, H. G. Response of Purple (Cyperus rotundus) and Yellow Nutsedges (C. esculentus) to Selective Pl acement of Sulfentrazone. ACC,GRO,MOR,REP. G.R. Wehtje, Department of Agronomy and Soils, Alabama Agricultural Experiment Stn., Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849-5412, United States//: SOIL,ENV; 1997; 45, (3): 382-387. Rec #: 2700 Call Number: WEEDS (SFZ) Notes: EcoReference No.: 163306 Chemical of Concern: SFZ

37. Yenish, J. P. and Eaton, N. A. Weed Control in Dry Pea (Pisum sativum) Under Conventional and No-Tillage Systems. PHY,POP. Department of Crop and Soil Sciences,Washington State University, Pullman,WA//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE ; 2002; 16, (1): 88-95. Rec #: 2710 Call Number: TARGET MANUAL (BT,CLNS,FMC,FSF,FTS,SFZ) Notes: EcoReference No.: 159908

38. York, A. C.; Stewart, A. M.; Vidrine, P. R., and Cu lpepper, A. S. Control of Volunteer Glyphosate-Resistant Cotton in Glyphosate-Resistant Soyb ean. POP. Department of Cr op Science,North Carolina State University,Raleigh,NC//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2004; 18, (3): 532-539.

### 145 Rec #: 2720 Call Number: TARGET2012 (C LNS,CRM,FMC,FSF,FTS,SFZ) Notes: EcoReference No.: 159909

39. Zobiole, L. H. S.; Oliveira Jr., R. S.; Kremer, R. J.; Constantin, J.; Yamada, T.; Castro, C.; Oliveira, F. A., and Oliveira Jr., A. Effect of glyphosate on symbio tic N2 fixation and nickel concentration in glyphosateresistant soybeans. 2010 Feb; 44, (2): 176-180. Rec #: 1920



### Papers Not Acceptable for Qu antitative Risk Assessment

There were 267 papers (not include d here) that came up in the ECOT OX search that did not meet the minimum acceptability criteria for use by the EFED in risk assessment, and therefore, were excluded from the bibliography and were not us ed in the quantitativ e risk assessment of Sulfentrazone.